Archbishop Chaput: Other moral issues not equivalent to abortion

[Colorad007]

Well you know right from the get go that the Democratic party platform pretty much lays waste to the Catholic non negotiables…abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and so-called homosexual “marriage” . And I’m pretty sure the Republican party platform does not include support an organization (PP) that does the kind of things we have seen on the recent videos let alone perform abortions. That should be your starting point.

If only the Republican Party took its platform as seriously as you, Johnny.

 

[Suudy]

It is a distinction with significant difference. Voting for a basically pro choice party simply because it professes to be marginally less pro choice than the other pro choice party is madness. The choice between two pro choice parties isn’t democracy. It is slavery, especially for.the babies who are denied.basic legal protections.

I’ve posted on this before (going back to the 2008 presidential election):

At worst, the GOP will do nothing. At best, they will eliminate abortion.

At best, the Democrats will do nothing. At worst, they will eliminate all limits on abortion and provide government funding for it (see their 2008 platform).

Now, what do you expect of elected officials? Their best or their worst? Which would you rather have do their worst?

 

[Colorad007]

I’ve posted on this before (going back to the 2008 presidential election):

At worst, the GOP will do nothing. At best, they will eliminate abortion.

At best, the Democrats will do nothing. At worst, they will eliminate all limits on abortion and provide government funding for it (see their 2008 platform).

Now, what do you expect of elected officials? Their best or their worst? Which would you rather have do their worst?

I’m very sympathetic to this argument. The problem is that it basically.entrenches abortion by disincentivizing real, meaningful action. If the GOP can avoid a politically dangerous anti-abortion bill and still hang onto pro-life voters because, you know, at least we aren’t as bad as the other guys, then they will do exactly that. Pro-life fealty to the GOP is partly why the pro life movement has made such slow progress. Neither party has an incentive to boldly limit abortion, and so nothing happens. But if there was a real risk that the GOP would lose a significant segment of its electorate, then maybe they would stop taking pro life support for granted and start taking it seriously.

 

[Suudy]

I’m very sympathetic to this argument. The problem is that it basically.entrenches abortion by disincentivizing real, meaningful action. If the GOP can avoid a politically dangerous anti-abortion bill and still hang onto pro-life voters because, you know, at least we aren’t as bad as the other guys, then they will do exactly that. Pro-life fealty to the GOP is partly why the pro life movement has made such slow progress. Neither party has an incentive to boldly limit abortion, and so nothing happens. But if there was a real risk that the GOP would lose a significant segment of its electorate, then maybe they would stop taking pro life support for granted and start taking it seriously.

I disagree, for the following reason. Capitulating to the pro-“choice” cause would do nothing to contribute to the pro-life cause. Indeed, it would be to act directly contrary to it. At a minimum, fighting to maintain the status quo is, indeed, a fight. The problem is that the left wants to do more than just leave it alone. They want to promote it, elevate it, indeed fund it.

I greatly prefer limiting the most abhorrent, absolute evil the US government (both legally and financially) has been involved in, than to hand over the reigns to a rabidly pro-abortion party, even if that means making marginal progress.

 

[pnewton]

I’m very sympathetic to this argument. The problem is that it basically.entrenches abortion by disincentivizing real, meaningful action.

This is a significant argument. Now before someone posts a #1, as if some bumper-sticker mentality is legitimate in discussion, I would note that there is an underlying error. Namely we do not vote for a political party. We vote for candidates that are nominated from a specific party. A party’s platform, orientation, and membership are never constant. They are always in a state of flux.

It is quite reasonable to require more than lip service or a red party card in regards to abortion before we consider voting for someone.

I would note that even the Republican Party is not in line with AB Chaput. Abortion is just one more issue, and not the most important. If it were, then Trump would not be a thing. Abortion would either be illegal, or they would not be electable. Instead of stalemating Congress, then they could compromise and give up everything to gain this one change.

 

[Colorad007]

I disagree, for the following reason. Capitulating to the pro-“choice” cause would do nothing to contribute to the pro-life cause. Indeed, it would be to act directly contrary to it. At a minimum, fighting to maintain the status quo is, indeed, a fight. The problem is that the left wants to do more than just leave it alone. They want to promote it, elevate it, indeed fund it.

I greatly prefer limiting the most abhorrent, absolute evil the US government (both legally and financially) has been involved in, than to hand over the reigns to a rabidly pro-abortion party, even if that means making marginal progress.

Yeah, but that is kind of my point. Of course the GOP will nurture the status quo because pro lifers let them. But I find the status quo to be a morally intolerable place. If a candidate isn’t willing to make real and meaningful changes to the way the laws of the country deal with unborn children then perrhaps we ought to stop pawning our votes away and find someone who will. There are at least some Republicans who will, and I eagerly support them. But there are many who will not, and that weakens the party as a viable.option for pro life voters.

 

[Diamantina]

Thank God, too. The seamless garment, if by that you mean that abortion and, say, immigrant rights form a seamless moral garment of equal import, is truly a heresy. If you have a choice between a candidate who is bad on immigrant rights or the environment, but is good on abortion, then that candidate is objectively better than the pro-choice guy who happens to be fair about immigrants and the environment.

That might make some liberal Catholics scream, but it is the teaching of the Church. Catholics should also support care for the environment or whatever, but there is a clear moral hierarchy that should guide especially our politics.

But I refuse to vote for either candidate you mention! I demand to vote for a candidate who is pro-life and holds leftish positions about immigration and the environment (as well as in other areas). Since such candidates are rarer than hen’s teeth in California, I end up going to the polls and voting a blank ballot (except for ballot initiatives, which do not involve candidates).

 

[estesbob]

But I refuse to vote for either candidate you mention! I demand to vote for a candidate who is pro-life and holds leftish positions about immigration and the environment (as well as in other areas). Since such candidates are rarer than hen’s teeth in California, I end up going to the polls and voting a blank ballot (except for ballot initiatives, which do not involve candidates).

Which in turn empowers the pro-abortion candidate. When life inherence allowed to perfect to be the enemy of the possible received the political playing field those who support abortion. More liberal immigration and/or a cleaner environment is absolutely of no use to those were denied the right to live

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Endangering one’s soul is that person’s problem, first and foremost.

Agreed.

 

[Colorad007]

Which in turn empowers the pro-abortion candidate. When life inherence allowed to perfect to be the enemy of the possible received the political playing field those who support abortion. More liberal immigration and/or a cleaner environment is absolutely of no use to those were denied the right to live

I don’t ask for perfection, Bob. I just ask for candidates who are willing to try to actually do something about the most serious civil rights crisis of our time. Lipservice is not only not enough, but it is actually deeply offensive given the gravity of the crisis.

 

[Path_Finder]

The good Archbishop is correct; we need to support governors that have worked for the cause of life like Governors Walker, Christie, Perry and Jindal, no one can deny these Republicans possibly have even played a part in saving life. That is arguable but it is not arguable that Republicans have done much for Pro-Life especially at the state level, those denying such facts are either ill-informed of the facts or harbor their own prejudices. Just being prejudice is not always bad, we may like one type of music over another but it does need to be pointed out.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t ask for perfection, Bob. I just ask for candidates who are willing to try to actually do something about the most serious civil rights crisis of our time. Lipservice is not only not enough, but it is actually deeply offensive given the gravity of the crisis.

And I don’t know of any candidates who give lip service. I think that is an easy dodge to keep from making the tough decision to vote for someone who you are not in 100% in agreement with. much easier to throw up ones hands, condemn all the viable candidates and throw their vote away. I guarantee that those who support abortion will not be a scrupulous with their votes as many pro-lifers are. that’s why we lose. That’s why abortion is still legal

 

[Path_Finder]

But I refuse to vote for either candidate you mention! I demand to vote for a candidate who is pro-life and holds leftish positions about immigration and the environment (as well as in other areas). Since such candidates are rarer than hen’s teeth in California, I end up going to the polls and voting a blank ballot (except for ballot initiatives, which do not involve candidates).

I want someone who votes for the good of the country. What kind of demographic does California have that the legislature would introduce bills such as about home abortions. As far as I’m concerned a lot of these kinds of things have to do with immigration. A good reason to be aware of whom comes in the country. The list goes on.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t ask for perfection, Bob. I just ask for candidates who are willing to try to actually do something about the most serious civil rights crisis of our time. Lipservice is not only not enough, but it is actually deeply offensive given the gravity of the crisis.

I am reminded of the parable of the two son’s, one of which said he would do an errand, then didn’t, and the other who said he wouldn’t, then did. I pay little attention to what is said, if there is a voting record that can show one’s beliefs.