Do I Really Have to Account For Anti-Abortion Views That Don't Mean Anything?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThePuppyTurtle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You vote for the democratic party, you support the abortion holocaust. It’s as simple as that.
 
Alright so the major current of these responses seems to be that my despair on this issue is unjustified. So, may I ask for some evidence? As far as I know, all that’s happened are some restrictions in places like Texas that will absolutely inevitably be ruled unconstitutional within the next twenty years or so.

I suppose you could say the same thing about Republicans restricting food stamps or otherwise cutting welfare or hurting the poor, that it’ll be moved past inevitably, but I’m not quite as confident that that’s the case.

Also, I’m American. I’m allowed to not vote. However, it would be dumb of me not to vote unless the candidates are absolutely equal in every way, and I am obligated to perform my civic duty.
 
ThePuppyTurtle said:
Alright, so I’ll be legally obligated to vote soon, so I have to ask, Am I seriously obligated to vote solely on abortion when there is no serious prospect of it going away?

The battle against abortion is lost, and has been for years now. The best we can get by voting republicans into office is fewer abortions, but even that is really a matter of holding back the tides. Eventually secularism will triumph and abortions will be freely available in every hospital. This is absolutely inevitable and cannot possibly be prevented from occurring. The same goes with homosexuality.

Now, given that abortion and homosexuality are (in my view which I don’t want to start a debate about) the only issues which the republican party is generally right about, am I obligated to ignore everything I believe about economics, immigration, science, the environment, and every single other issue I happen to agree with either party on for that one issue of abortion? If there were a serious possibility of abortion being permanently banned, that’d be one thing, but right now, I feel like I’ve been forced by the republican party to act against the poor, minorities, and all of their victims because they’ve decided to pretend they can effect long-term change on those issues.

(And I’m serious about not starting a political debate. You’re not going to get me to agree with the republican party on those issues and please don’t try or bring it up. I know someone will, but please, don’t, okay? I’m asking from within the assumption that the republican party sucks.)
Click to expand...
So you’re basically here to spread happiness and good cheer…
 
You should always vote for the most pro-life candidate. I realize that the Republican Party involves a lot of evil positions in and of itself, and that the Democratic Party is not nearly as infringing on religious rights as most of this thread would imply, but you must vote for the candidate that best represents the dignity of human life. However, if that person is a Democrat (such as in the 2010 LA Senate race), or if the two candidates have essentially the same position (such as the reason NYC mayoral race), you are free to vote Democrat in that case. I do encourage you to vote in the Democratic primary though to help propel the pro-life Democrats to nominations :).
 
VanSensei said:
By being legally obligated to vote, the OP may live in a nation like Australia. In that case, Australian politics tend to be centered around a moderate view and most are pro-choice. I hope you can find a reasonable candidate, OP.
Click to expand...
It always bothers me when those of us who opposes abortion agree with those who support it. Why call the slaughter of an unborn baby, “choice?”
 
Okay, I’m going to swim against the tide here.

My governor is strongly pro-life and against gay marriage. However, our state Supreme Court ruled against his ban on gay marriage, and within the current laws there’s not much he can do to do away with abortion. So, what did Catholics who voted for him get? A governor who made no headway on those issues but slashed taxes for the wealthy and did away with several programs, like those providing food support for the poor and cut funding for education, one of the prime ways that people can rise from poverty.

Our current Pope reminds us of how often Jesus exhorted us to take care of the poor. He specifically mentioned the fallacy of the benefit to the poor of trickle-down economics, which our governor supports.

I have trouble reconciling the lack of progress on the issue of abortion and same-sex marriage with the undeniable damage being done to the poor.
 
Your arguments ‘for’ the poor, being based on fallacies, actually increase poverty.
 
Voting is a private choice that should be influanced only by a well formed conscience. I cant imagine being a “1 issue” voter. As a young person, I recommend talking to your favorite priest about the voting issue. In all likelyhood, you will find that priests are also NOT one issue voters.:rolleyes:
 
Infant homocide makes me a one issue voter. Until we stop slaughtering innocent beings I can consider nothing else.
 
The problem with a block of voters being “one issue” is that politicians will take advantage of the situation and offer just enough lip service to ensure getting that block of votes, knowing that they can forget about those voters on every other issue and cater to a totally different block of voters for everything else. It would be different if there was a guaranteed action resulting from a win, such as a referendum on a law or constitutional amendment. But when you vote for a person, you are taking your chance that the person will do anything effective. How do the odds of that happening figure in your calculations of who to vote for?
 
TK421 said:
You are morally obliged not to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. The only acceptable case for this is if no pro-life candidates are available. You can either vote for a pro-life Republican candidate, or a 3rd party candidate, or you can refrain from voting.
Click to expand...
Does any party, with the potential to propose and see legislation passed, have a policy of removing the legal right to abortion?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The problem with a block of voters being “one issue” is that politicians will take advantage of the situation and offer just enough lip service to ensure getting that block of votes, knowing that they can forget about those voters on every other issue and cater to a totally different block of voters for everything else. It would be different if there was a guaranteed action resulting from a win, such as a referendum on a law or constitutional amendment. But when you vote for a person, you are taking your chance that the person will do anything effective. How do the odds of that happening figure in your calculations of who to vote for?
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Politicians are quite skilled at just this style of deception.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The problem with a block of voters being “one issue” is that politicians will take advantage of the situation and offer just enough lip service to ensure getting that block of votes, knowing that they can forget about those voters on every other issue and cater to a totally different block of voters for everything else. It would be different if there was a guaranteed action resulting from a win, such as a referendum on a law or constitutional amendment. But when you vote for a person, you are taking your chance that the person will do anything effective. How do the odds of that happening figure in your calculations of who to vote for?
Click to expand...
I agree with what you are saying and its more than unfortunate, but for now my priority remains with those who have no voice, no chance at life and no vote.
 
I support pro choice canadits as i dont feel it is just to force my faith on people thru law they can be accountable to God for their actions plus my district is a so Red my vote for liberal canadits goes in the trash pretty much
 
So, if there was a candidate proposing to legalise other crimes contrary to your faith, say legalise murder, or paedophilia, would you vote for them too, to avoid forcing your faith on others?
 
Rau said:
So, if there was a candidate proposing to legalise other crimes contrary to your faith, say legalise murder, or paedophilia, would you vote for them too, to avoid forcing your faith on others?
Click to expand...
I would not take it that far, my votes are made based on issues that effect my personal issues( healthcare, voting rights,) but again i am a liberal in a red district so my vote goes in the trash anyways
 
TStokes said:
I would not take it that far, my votes are made based on issues that effect my personal issues( healthcare, voting rights,) but again i am a liberal in a red district so my vote goes in the trash anyways
Click to expand...
That’s not consistent with what you said before - which was to state a principle - that you don’t want to force your faith on others, therefore you avoid that by voting for candidates that don’t support restrictions on others (and “pro choice” seemed to be the example you were using).

But apparently - this principle only extends to abortion? This must be because you don’t feel strongly about abortion - is that right?

I wonder if you have poorly described your position. Do you really mean:
  1. **I actively support pro-choice candidates **because I think it is wrong to force others according to my faith; OR
  2. I ignore a candidate’s pro-choice or pro-life stance, and vote based on other factors. And it just happens that the candidates I vote for are pro-choice.
Which is it?
 
Rau said:
That’s not consistent with what you said before - which was to state a principle - that you don’t want to force your faith on others, therefore you avoid that by voting for candidates that don’t support restrictions on others (and “pro choice” seemed to be the example you were using).

But apparently - this principle only extends to abortion? This must be because you don’t feel strongly about abortion - is that right?

I wonder if you have poorly described your position. Do you really mean:
  1. **I actively support pro-choice candidates **because I think it is wrong to force others according to my faith; OR
  2. I ignore a candidate’s pro-choice or pro-life stance, and vote based on other factors. And it just happens that the candidates I vote for are pro-choice.
Which is it?
Click to expand...
The second one, i vote based on one’s position on healthcare and voter rights, abortion wise i would not advise a women in my life to get one but i strongly support allowing abortion to rape victims
 
TStokes said:
The second one, i vote based on one’s position on healthcare and voter rights, abortion wise i would not advise a women in my life to get one but i strongly support allowing abortion to rape victims
Click to expand...
OK, so you need to be careful how you express yourself, as that is quite a bit different than your original post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11485257&postcount=35

Rape scenarios are especially dreadful for women. I suppose you know the Catholic position on this - which is that measures to prevent conception are permissible (no different to warding off an attacker), but that if conception has occurred, we now have an innocent child in the equation, and it is not morally acceptable to assault & kill that child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top