Are Catholics forced to vote for pro-life candidates who plan to do nothing to stop abortion?

[ProVobis]

Hypothetical or not, just read the platforms and stated positions of the parties or candidates.

Platforms are nice but they are not binding on any one candidate. There are many Republicans and Democrats who will not strictly follow their party platform.

 

[ProVobis]

Nevertheless, if Romney is elected, Paul Ryan will be the vice-President, and he is passionately pro-life. That must count for something.

Interestingly enough, it was Joe Biden who presided over the Anita Hill hearings and was probably the most instrumental on getting the needed Democrat votes to get Clarence Thomas confirmed.

Actions still speak louder than words.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, Democrats have taken positions I cannot support, but I am not blind to the evil on the other side either. Democrats at least have some alignment with Catholic social teaching on things like the dignity of work, creating jobs, right to health care, and offering a supportive hand to those in poverty and need as functions government. They do not denigrate the 47% in favor of the 1%. They are welcoming of minorities and appear less to merely use them

There is something to be said for this. After all, one of the government’s functions is to protect human life. One can’t simply leave a mother and her unborn “on the streets,” because in some cases, the neglect could kill both.

 

[Don_Jackson]

Since nobody else will offer a simple straightforward and truthful answer, I will. The answer to your question is “NO”!

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Mods locking thread in 3…2…1…

 

[JimG]

Platforms are nice but they are not binding on any one candidate. There are many Republicans and Democrats who will not strictly follow their party platform.

And there are some candidates who not only follow the party platform but fervently endorse it, especially in matters of favoring abortion and ‘reproductive rights.’

 

[JRKH]

This is true. The Constitution Party holds views I don’t agree with- they are clearly isolationist, for example, and pro-death penalty- but they (not the Republican Party) are the strongest on pro-life. They are also completely opposed to same sex “marriage” and prominently mention Jesus Christ in their platform statement.

I don’t think there is any party platform out there that is in agreement with Catholic teachings 100%, or even close to that percentage.** However the robotic mind-set that one must vote either Democratic or Republican simply perpetuates the mediocrity in our leadership.**

Amen…

What too few people seem to realize is that when most elections are decided by only a few percentage points these “swing voters” are the ones that each party seeks to court.

If the number of people voting third party is significant (even 2 - 5 percent) the “big boys” will sit up and take notice…“Why did they vote that way?”, they will ask and seek to woo them to their side if possible by adjusting their policies (or maybe just their rhetoric ).

The Classic example of this was when that business man from Texas named “Ross Perot” ran awhile backand pulled something like 18% of the popular vote one year. The next year, the Republicans came out with the "Contract with America.
The only difference between Ross and the perennial third parties is that Ross had the money to spend and so the media could not ignore him - nor could the major parties. He came out talking plain and blunt and caught everyone’s attention.

Unfortunately his reform party didn’t “take” - but the principle remains the same.
Pull enough votes away from the main parties and they will change. Staying home won’t work, and voting "against’ someone is problematic at best.

I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that, in the majority of cases, simply voting for the “lesser of two evils” does not lead us to good…We just remain mired in evil…

Peace
James

 

[ProVobis]

Nevertheless, if Romney is elected, Paul Ryan will be the vice-President, and he is passionately pro-life. That must count for something.

Ryan is also virtually or implicitly advocating setting limits on the deductibility of charitable contributions, especially those of the highest contributors. Romney has proposed the same in his flip-flop talking. How is the elimination of this deductibilty supposed to help charities, the very organizations we rely on to protect and help provide the needed medical needs of the pregnant woman? Doesn’t sound like a very pro-life gesture to me.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that, in the majority of cases, simply voting for the “lesser of two evils” does not lead us to good…We just remain mired in evil…

Peace
James

I strongly agree. Pickuping out the two biggest evils and deciding which of the two we should live with is philosophically and civilly absurd. But that’s the game Democrats and Republicans are playing against us.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that discussions of political parties or candidates are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.