A Hypothetical Question on Voting

[nsm]

or do you think the Democrats are *really *pro-life, but they only say they are pro-choice to fool the pro-choicers into voting for them to support environmental issues.

Definitely not, I do not think that the majority of the Democrats are secretly pro-life . I suppose my position is unintentionally coming off as paranoid. I am just trying to say that there are people to whom the preservation of life really is a moral imperative. These people fight to save innocent unborn children from a horrendous death, or the elderly or those who can not defend themselves, and these pro-life people would not turn around and wage war after war after war.

Then there are others who may be pro-life for immoral means, e.g. they think that a certain race is in decline directly related to abortion and will be taken over by another “inferior” race or races unless abortion is overturned. Candidates subscribing to this logic (or large numbers of people in a certain party of like mind) would have no problem waging war after war against “inferior” groups of people, no matter how many people died, but at the same time support an end to abortion in their own land.

 

[rlg94086]

Definitely not, I do not think that the majority of the Democrats are secretly pro-life . I suppose my position is unintentionally coming off as paranoid. I am just trying to say that there are people to whom the preservation of life really is a moral imperative. These people fight to save innocent unborn children from a horrendous death, or the elderly or those who can not defend themselves, and these pro-life people would not turn around and wage war after war after war.

Then there are others who may be pro-life for immoral means, e.g. they think that a certain race is in decline directly related to abortion and will be taken over by another “inferior” race or races unless abortion is overturned. Candidates subscribing to this logic (or large numbers of people in a certain party of like mind) would have no problem waging war after war against “inferior” groups of people, no matter how many people died, but at the same time support an end to abortion in their own land.

Who are these people that you are worried about?

Who’s having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Are there politicians out there who “have no problem waging war after war against ‘inferior’ groups of people?” I don’t know of any.

 

[maryj]

I am in the same boat as you, and I also agree with the former military person who said both parties have had ample time to effect the changes we hoped to see. The present administration had six years with a Congress of the same party in power. Yes, the partial-birth abortion ban was passed, but Roe V Wade is still on the books, the number of children living in poverty is on the rise, our civil rights have been eroded and our moral stature in the world, due to torture, secret jails, etc, is in shreds. Believing, as JP the Great did, that life is a seamless garment, and that all stages of it are sacred, I have come to believe that the so-called “pro-life” party is only as pro-life as it takes to get elected.
To take ourselves out of the electoral process because we don’t like either party works against us, because then we have no voice. So here is what I suggest all serious Catholics do: Go to a neutral source for information about both parties and the candidates. By all means look at their stance on abortion, but look at what other issues they stand for as well. Who has benefited the most when each has been in power? ( “By their fruits you will know them.”) Then compare the results of their job performance with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you still aren’t happy with voting for either of the major parties, look for another one that more closely follows your beliefs. Perhaps it will take large numbers of people voting for a “no chance” party to wake the two major ones up.

Finally, pray, pray, pray.

Mary, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us!
Jennifer

Please if you will, 1) definition of “ample time”. I’m assuming you mean 6 years and under.2) where do you think the ban on partial birth abortions would be had the “other party” been elected.
3) More children living in poverty? Do you mean in the last 6-8 years. I’ll assume you have evidence that the current administration is responsible for this.
4) do you have a list of the civil rights, afforded us by our constitution, that have been “eroded”.
5) Our Moral stature? Do you as an American citizen believe that we are an immoral country, or just that people of other countries consider us immoral?

I believe that we as americans live in the greatest, most moral country in the world. We abolished slavery, can’t say that for some other countries who believe us to be so immoral. We fought to bring “life” to other countries who’s leaders thought that it would be great to eliminate a whole race of people. We strive to take care of our poor, our “weaker” citizens, our disabled. But then again I’m looking at a bigger picture than the last 6 years. I’m proud to be an american. I’m even prouder to be a catholic american. I can trust in the fact that if we follow what the church teaches “the gates of hell will not prevail” against us. God Bless america.

 

[vocatio]

I disagree. I think that history has show that certain political parties can have terrible agendas, that appear benign at first. Look at the National Socialist German Workers’ Party in Germany. They were anti semitic from the beginning to be sure, but I don’t think your average run of the mill German had any conception of the Final Solution, when they first came to power. They promised a way out of poverty and a return to “national” values - which just turned out to be smoke screens for death on a large scale.

I am not trying to push through a pro-abortion agenda, by bringing up nuclear war. Nuclear war is something that can happen and it is worth taking into account. I hate abortion, I want to see it ended. Period. I hate euthanasia, and I think that embryonic stem cell research is so evil it almost seems as if someone writing about an horrific apocalyptic future came up with it. I honestly am just wrestling with the fear of choosing the wrong person, or being locked into choosing the wrong person and then being partially responsible for large scale death anyways.

Why not just write in a vote?..run for office and vote for yourself.

 

[estesbob]

Hi nsm,

It is difficult to give a solid affirmative, because we don’t have such a situation today. Clearly, candidates one and three would be non-starters. Candidate two is definitely problematic! Assuming that in this fictional situation discriminatory practices are allowed/tolerated by law and abortion is also 100% legal, then the candidate would still be the lesser of the three evils you present.

How about this situation . Let’s say that a candidate who opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest runs against a candidate who supports abortion up to the moment the child’s head fully exits the womb , however the pro-life candidate picks a pro-abortion running mate.

I believe that the church doctrine says we can still vote for the pro-life candidate but I have never cast a vote for somebody that supports abortion on demand and I’m not sure I can pull the lever.

 

[nsm]

I believe that we as americans live in the greatest, most moral country in the world.

I agree, America is the greatest country in the world. Its morality is definitely dubious in that I have heard person after person laud our founding fathers as if they were the most moral men ever. They were anything but, some of them - Jefferson and Washington to be specific - we atrocious slave holders. [Jefferson was a rabid racist and never freed his slaves, who were sold off the porch of Monticello at his death to pay his considerable debts. Washington sold a little boy down to slavery in the West Indies where death was pretty much certain, because he did not bring his food fast enough. And those famed wooden teeth - were actually extracted from the mouths of black slaves]

We abolished slavery, can’t say that for some other countries who believe us to be so immoral.

We were one of the last “Western” countries to abolish slavery, and only as a war tactic (one that I am happy for). We ignored what was going on in the Jim Crow South (and some cities in the North) where many African Americans lost their lives to terror - men, women and children (there are even post cards that people gave each other of these atrocities). We legally sanctioned massacre during years of Westward Expansion, so-called Manifest Destiny, in the numerous wars against sovereign Indian Nations, and the laws against the Chinese were horrific, not to mention the internment of Japanese Americans.

I love my country, it is beautiful in so many ways. It was the land where my fathers died, it was the land bought for me by the unpaid sweat of my forefathers and foremothers’ back, but it is not moral. I am trying to persevere to the end so that I can see that beautiful kingdom.

But while I am here on earth I want to cast a ballot that will ensure that I am not leaving a bleak future for generations yet to come.

 

[rlg94086]

How about this situation . Let’s say that a candidate who opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest runs against a candidate who supports abortion up to the moment the child’s head fully exits the womb , however the pro-life candidate picks a pro-abortion running mate.

I believe that the church doctrine says we can still vote for the pro-life candidate but I have never cast a vote for somebody that supports abortion on demand and I’m not sure I can pull the lever.

I’ll consider how to cross that bridge, if/when I come to it.

 

[estesbob]

I’ll consider how to cross that bridge, if/when I come to it.

That’s exactly the attitude I have also! I hope it doesn’t happen.

 

[nsm]

Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

I do know this very sobering and sad statistic. My point is not that a pro-life candidate, who really is just pro-life to forward the propagation of their own race would not save babies of other races within the boarders of their own country. My point is that these peoples motives are not pure, and so they aren’t really committed to preserving life and would have no problem with spreading death, just so long as it is abroad.

 

[rlg94086]

I do know this very sobering and sad statistic. My point is not that a pro-life candidate, who really is just pro-life to forward the propagation of their own race would not save babies of other races within the boarders of their own country. My point is that these peoples motives are not pure, and so they aren’t really committed to preserving life and would have no problem with spreading death, just so long as it is abroad.

Who are “these people” who aren’t really committed to preserving life and support killing “inferior” people abroad??

 

[rlg94086]

That’s exactly the attitude I have also! I hope it doesn’t happen.

We will have to make sure that we not (since it’s against forum rules) have a vigorous discussion about the right course of action, if it does happen.

I am also praying we are not put in that position.

 

[nsm]

Who are “these people” who aren’t really committed to preserving life and support killing “inferior” people abroad??

Because this question is intended to help me understand how to approach casting a ballot in conscience it is an archetype. Nevertheless it is based on the platforms of several current parties in foreign (but western) nations and historical parties that have or have had nationalist, racist motivations for supporting the propagation of their own population numbers, but would have no problem killing others that do not fall under the umbrella of citizen. Abortion was made illegal in the U.S. right after the Civil War (in large part as a result of the agitation of feminists of that era - God Bless those women!!!) , but the U.S. government still signed off on the massacre of Indian tribes in the West - men, women, and children - to make way for settlement because these people did not fall under the category of citizen.

 

[maryj]

I agree, America is the greatest country in the world. Its morality is definitely dubious in that I have heard person after person laud our founding fathers as if they were the most moral men ever. They were anything but, some of them - Jefferson and Washington to be specific - we atrocious slave holders. [Jefferson was a rabid racist and never freed his slaves, who were sold off the porch of Monticello at his death to pay his considerable debts. Washington sold a little boy down to slavery in the West Indies where death was pretty much certain, because he did not bring his food fast enough. And those famed wooden teeth - were actually extracted from the mouths of black slaves]

We were one of the last “Western” countries to abolish slavery, and only as a war tactic (one that I am happy for). We ignored what was going on in the Jim Crow South (and some cities in the North) where many African Americans lost their lives to terror - men, women and children (there are even post cards that people gave each other of these atrocities). We legally sanctioned massacre during years of Westward Expansion, so-called Manifest Destiny, in the numerous wars against sovereign Indian Nations, and the laws against the Chinese were horrific, not to mention the internment of Japanese Americans.

I love my country, it is beautiful in so many ways. It was the land where my fathers died, it was the land bought for me by the unpaid sweat of my forefathers and foremothers’ back, but it is not moral. I am trying to persevere to the end so that I can see that beautiful kingdom.

But while I am here on earth I want to cast a ballot that will ensure that I am not leaving a bleak future for generations yet to come.

You might want to get your facts straight. You have undermined your statements in my opinion. For example:enotes.com/history-fact-finder/government-politics/did-george-washington-really-have-wooden-teeth

and…americanrevolution.org/dental.html

It’s amazing how many americans want simple solutions to complex social problems. Thomas Jefferson rabid??
geocities.com/Athens/7842/jeffersonians/jpfor005.htm

 

[nsm]

You might want to get your facts straight. You have undermined your statements in my opinion. For example:enotes.com/history-fact-finder/government-politics/did-george-washington-really-have-wooden-teeth

and…americanrevolution.org/dental.html

Thank you for these links. Actually, some of Washington’s teeth were from “elephant ivory, walrus and hippopotamus tusk”, and some were also human teeth, from slaves (though to his credit he did buy them from these unfree people, although he did not compensate his own slaves for their lives of misery). Here are some links that shows that I did not just pull these “teeth” facts out of the air and show the harsh way that Washington treated his slaves (though, again, to his credit he did free them upon his death - unlike Jefferson).

ucd.ie/amerstud/archives/Morgan.htm
srmason-sj.org/council/journal/feb99/REES.HTM

As far as Jefferson being a racist…I honestly didn’t think that there was any doubt on this one. He says it rather eloquently in his own words in Notes on the State of Virginia, whose full text is on line through google books, just type in “Notes on the State of Virginia” in the google search bar and click on the google books link. Here, also, is a link to an article about Jefferson and race:

common-place.org/vol-01/no-04/garrett/

As I said before, this is my homeland, my wonderful country, but it can not be called the seat of morality. Yet God calls us as Catholic Christians to make moral decisions within it.

 

[snhs]

I believe that we as americans live in the greatest, most moral country in the world. We abolished slavery, can’t say that for some other countries who believe us to be so immoral. We fought to bring “life” to other countries who’s leaders thought that it would be great to eliminate a whole race of people. We strive to take care of our poor, our “weaker” citizens, our disabled. But then again I’m looking at a bigger picture than the last 6 years. I’m proud to be an american. I’m even prouder to be a catholic american. I can trust in the fact that if we follow what the church teaches “the gates of hell will not prevail” against us. God Bless america.

With respect, on the reasons you’ve set out many other countries would have just as good if not a better claim to being the greatest and most moral country in the world.

The U.K., for example, banned slavery long before the U.S. and it was rather more effective at beginning to eliminate it entirely because the Empire was still going strong. Similarly Britain has fought in almost every major conflict and peacekeeping mission of the 20th Century, we were in WWII years before the U.S. started to provide real help, not to mention coming close to bankrupting the country funding the war which eventually freed Europe and North Africa from Hitler. More recently it was Britain who wanted to finish off the Gulf War properly first time round, overruled by America and just look how thats turned out. As for welfare sixty years on you still don’t have a jewel in the crown comparable to the NHS, Britain was one of the first to start building a Welfare State which provided from “cradle to grave”. America has also been the Superpower for a comparatively short time compared to those who would have held the title in the past.

Obviously we each have our own bias on patriotism, but turning a thread into a love in for how great America is seems a bit much.

Back on topic. The main concern seems to be a repeat scenario of a party like the Nazis who dress up their real agenda behind enough good policies to form a winning majority. I think for the U.S. it would be just about impossible for such a think to happen, for it to occur the President would have to be able to exert massive control over all branches of government, he’d need a huge majority in both Houses, the support of more than half of the Supreme Court, at least the majority of States and more terms in power than he could currently hold not to mention the backing of the Armed Forces. Part of the problem which allowed Hitler to get in was Hindenberg needing his support, this allowed the Nazis to get into power and claim ‘support’ from the establishment figure of politics at the time. It also came in the wake of a massive defeat, and as we all know America has never lost a war .

If any President did try to get by such policies through executive order they would be repealed or ruled unconstitutional in fairly short order. The nature of a two term Presidency also means he would seldom if ever nominate a majority of the Supreme Court, and even then under scrutiny before Congress they probably wouldn’t be approved once their politics came to light.

 

[mary_bobo]

I disagree. I think that history has show that certain political parties can have terrible agendas, that appear benign at first. Look at the National Socialist German Workers’ Party in Germany. They were anti semitic from the beginning to be sure, but I don’t think your average run of the mill German had any conception of the Final Solution, when they first came to power. They promised a way out of poverty and a return to “national” values - which just turned out to be smoke screens for death on a large scale.

I am not trying to push through a pro-abortion agenda, by bringing up nuclear war. Nuclear war is something that can happen and it is worth taking into account. I hate abortion, I want to see it ended. Period. I hate euthanasia, and I think that embryonic stem cell research is so evil it almost seems as if someone writing about an horrific apocalyptic future came up with it. I honestly am just wrestling with the fear of choosing the wrong person, or being locked into choosing the wrong person and then being partially responsible for large scale death anyways.

I thought we were talking about this country. At least I was in my post. Germany never entered my mind. I don’t vote in Germany.

 

[mary_bobo]

Correct, or if a Constitutional Amendment were to be passed.

I’m always dismayed at statements like “the Republicans had both houses and the presidency for six years, and Roe v Wade is still law,” as it shows a complete ignorance of the situation at hand.

1. Not all Republicans are pro-life, even though it is a much, much higher percentage than the Democrats and it is part of the party platform.
2. As you said, the Supreme Court has to hear a case that would allow for removal of Roe v Wade
3. A Constitutional Amendment would require a super-majority in Congress and the states who are pro-life. We sadly don’t have that right now.

Pouting about the Republicans inability to fix things in a six-year timeframe is fruitless. We need to elect more pro-lifers! Creating and/or voting for a “no chance” party/candidate won’t accomplish that goal.

Those folks who make the statements were are talking about, IMO, are trying to justify their decision to vote for one party or the other no matter which one is more pro-life than the other. Or, perhaps their lack of knowledge as to how government works is severely stinted.

 

[rlg94086]

I thought we were talking about this country. At least I was in my post. Germany never entered my mind. I don’t vote in Germany.

Actually, it was ostensibly a general “hypothetical,” which is probably why it has become an odd commentary on how a vote in the 1800s could have put a meglomaniac in power and George Washington’s teeth.

I’m not clear on how any of that affects today’s voting decisions. I prefer to vote for real candidates based on their actual stances, rather than play the game of hypotheticals.

 

[nsm]

Those folks who make the statements were are talking about, IMO, are trying to justify their decision to vote for one party or the other no matter which one is more pro-life than the other. Or, perhaps their lack of knowledge as to how government works is severely stinted.

People are not that cut and dry. I can only speak for myself, but I am actually trying to cast an informed vote in conscience. I am not trying to “justify my decision to vote for one party or the other not matter which one is more pro-life.” I stand staunchly behind life issues, I just want to make sure that the future that I am leaving those who come after me is a good one, that is all. I have not made a decision that I am trying to justify - I am, in a way, thinking out loud, and struggling to do the right thing with no regrets.

 

[nsm]

Actually, it was ostensibly a general “hypothetical,” which is probably why it has become an odd commentary on how a vote in the 1800s could have put a meglomaniac in power and George Washington’s teeth.

I’m not clear on how any of that affects today’s voting decisions. I prefer to vote for real candidates based on their actual stances, rather than play the game of hypotheticals.

True, but casting a vote in conscience is what I am trying to get at, and Catholic voting principles based on God’s moral law are timeless. Also, discussion of current political races and candidates have been forbidden on these forums.