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

[vz71]

I often wonder who I would have voted for when the US was divided between those who were for the choice of slavery and those who were opposed to it in all cases. Abortion is the new slavery. Those who truly wish to end abortion need to study how slavery was ended. Slavery was only partially alleviated with the civil war. It took grass roots action by Martin Luther King, the freedom riders and many other people of all races and both parties working together. (Not that it is truly dead even now, but that is another story.)

Exactly.
It is not only important to vote towards ending abortion.
But we must also watch the laws put in place that limit the grass root actions of the public.

Grass roots action is going to be what wins the day.
But our testimony will be injured a great deal if our vote does not match our words.

 

[LittleRose]

If the OP is still reading this thread, here is an explanation of what the most important issues are for voting Catholics, why they are important, and what policies we can debate.

www.politicalresponsibility.com/voterguide.htm

As Pope Francis has demonstrated by annoying pundits on both sides of the aisle, Catholic teaching does not fit neatly into the platforms of either major American party. We need to assess each candidate individually, and not think along party lines. The voters guide I link to here is where we should all start. We can consult our consciences for the rest.

And for the record, ladies and gentlemen, pro-life Democrats do exist, though they are a rare thing. The district I live in héroe in TX used to have one as a state rep, until her career was torpedoed by her own party. She was a Catholic, and voted with Church teaching on the non-negotiables every time.

 

[Nacho45]

The reason why EVERYONE should vote is

Everyone shouldn’t vote, but everyone should be afforded the ability to vote.

people are notoriously incapable of judging how knowledgeable they are.

Someone disengaged, as most people are, are not knowledgeable. The greater concern should be those who think of themselves as knowledgeable and are not.

The only one more incapable of judging a person’s ability to vote than oneself is someone else.

Not at all true, as I have alluded to in the above replies.

Further, the fewer the percentage of people that vote the easier it is for outside groups to buy votes.

One can’t buy votes that don’t exist. I never said a person should never vote. I get the sense you did not read my entire post.

It is far easier to intimidate people to not vote or to motivate people that agree with you to vote than it is to change someone’s mind.

I suppose it depends on what you are attempting to change their thoughts on. If you attempt to change my mind on abortion, you will not intimidate, motivate or change me on my views.

Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” I would venture to say the same is true about mandatory voting.

Mandatory voting?

 

[SuperLuigi]

If a candidate is for abortion, there is no way they can have true concern for the poor, the marginalized, etc. no matter what they say, because to be for abortion is to be on the record stating that some humans are just less human and less worthy of being born than others. I cannot and will not ever support a person that fails to recognize basic notions of equality, no matter what they try to tell me otherwise.

Believe me, they often do no insofar as the results go.

It’s all about feeling good and good intentions.

 

[SuperLuigi]

LeafByNiggle;11494942]How sure do you need to be that everyone has a right to life before you would consider working on the other issues? What if things returned to exactly the way they were in the 1950’s, with most abortions illegal but some illegal abortions still going on. Would you call that “close enough”? Or what if we achieved the situation where abortions were against the law, but the penalties were very small? Or what if the law punished doctors who performed abortions but not women who attempted the same on themselves with more primitive means? My point is, waiting for success on the abortion front before doing anything else when you don’t know what success looks like means you might be waiting for ever.

The first step is to get government subsidization out of the equation. Roe v Wade violates the plenary powers clause of the Constitution because as Jason Lewis says “all the ruling did was make it illegal for the states to decide on abortion”.

Whenever government subsidizes something, you get more of it.

Having an abortion whether illegal or legal is murder, unless it is to defend the mothers life is my understanding.

Simply making abortion illegal is not the endgame; we should still reach out to troubled, pregnant women. There is no reason whatsoever to stop the ministry; if anything it would be more in demand.

And then those other good things would never get done at all.

Big government rarely does good things.

 

[mitchell_s]

stjoseph-marysville.org/faqnonnegotiables.html

Please look at Pope Benedict’s five non negotiables. We are never permitted to vote for a candidate who supports these evils.

 

[Listener]

As an outsider (Canadian) looking at your politics, I’m just completely baffled .

Abortion is not the only moral issue to consider. I agree it’s a serious one (and that battle has been lost in Canada).

But what to make of a Republican party that went to war on entirely false grounds (and which also presumably resulted in the death of innocent people including women and children), that supports a system of capital punishment where it’s been proven that wrongfully convicted persons were put to death, and that supports a health care system where millions can’t afford proper health insurance?

Where is the respect for the dignity of human life in that?

I am truly baffled

I think this is why the Holy Father is saying we need to focus on all the ills of the world, not just abortion and homosexuality (funny I don’t hear the same talk from the Right about adultery, premarital sex, fornication and on-demand divorce… or is it because I’m not listening to the right people?)

I don’t think you can categorically say Democrats = bad because they are pro-abortion, and the Republicans = good because they pay lip service to being anti-abortion. I can’t imagine it’s that simple. Politics, like life, is very messy.

Maybe someone can explain US politics to me so I’ll understand but it sure looks odd from up here. I’m not saying our system is any better; plenty of evil combined with stupidity up here too, but it does seem easier to understand.

I totally agree with you, and I live in the USA. I have noticed that if I never voted for a pro-choice candidate, I wouldn’t be voting at all. Where I’m from, even the Republicans always seem to be pro-choice. It does say in the Catholic Catechism that we have a moral obligation to vote.

 

[Judas_The_Rock]

The abortion battle isn’t lost at all, but if the current plan of attack is kept it will be. Conservatives need to take away the women’s rights arguments that is used in favour of abortion, otherwise the battle will be lost. Homosexuality on the other hand is done, that battle is lost and has been lost or a while, either learn from the mistakes or continue to lose.

 

[powerofk]

The abortion battle isn’t lost at all, but if the current plan of attack is kept it will be. Conservatives need to take away the women’s rights arguments that is used in favour of abortion, otherwise the battle will be lost. Homosexuality on the other hand is done, that battle is lost and has been lost or a while, either learn from the mistakes or continue to lose.

Honestly, not only is the abortion battle not lost, it seems to be starting to slowly trend in the pro-life direction. Abortuaries are being closed left and right. The problem is, as I’ve said before, is that actually, most Americans consider themselves “somewhere in the middle” on abortion views. This is why the “War on Women” theme works - most Americans find the idea of late-term abortion to be repugnant, but also believe that women should be able to kill their children in cases of a pre-natal diagnosis.

The line between people who consider themselves “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in this country is actually not as well-defined as we would like. There are many who consider themselves “pro-life” yet believe that abortion should be allowed in cases such as rape, incest, health of the mother, and a pre-natal diagnosis. There are many who consider themselves “pro-choice” yet believe that no abortions should happen after the first trimester, unless the mother’s health is in danger or there is a pre-natal diagnosis.

It’s not that we’re losing. We’re not - currently, we’re in a bit of a stalemate. It’s a long, long battle - one that might not be won in our lifetimes. But we have to keep up the fight - and strike at the actual cause of the problem, not just the symptoms. Regardless, we will eventually win. First of all, it’s God’s will. Second of all, we can change hearts and minds with love. We need to constantly pray, but we must also do what we can to save as many lives as we can through loving, non-judgmental work.

 

[Judas_The_Rock]

Honestly, not only is the abortion battle not lost, it seems to be starting to slowly trend in the pro-life direction. Abortuaries are being closed left and right. The problem is, as I’ve said before, is that actually, most Americans consider themselves “somewhere in the middle” on abortion views. This is why the “War on Women” theme works - most Americans find the idea of late-term abortion to be repugnant, but also believe that women should be able to kill their children in cases of a pre-natal diagnosis.

The line between people who consider themselves “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in this country is actually not as well-defined as we would like. There are many who consider themselves “pro-life” yet believe that abortion should be allowed in cases such as rape, incest, health of the mother, and a pre-natal diagnosis. There are many who consider themselves “pro-choice” yet believe that no abortions should happen after the first trimester, unless the mother’s health is in danger or there is a pre-natal diagnosis.

It’s not that we’re losing. We’re not - currently, we’re in a bit of a stalemate. It’s a long, long battle - one that might not be won in our lifetimes. But we have to keep up the fight - and strike at the actual cause of the problem, not just the symptoms. Regardless, we will eventually win. First of all, it’s God’s will. Second of all, we can change hearts and minds with love. We need to constantly pray, but we must also do what we can to save as many lives as we can through loving, non-judgmental work.

I’d disagree, sure abortion clinics are going to be closed, almost all of them in red states. However, demographics aren’t favourable to the republicans and they will lose ground on this. Remember Texas one of the most conservative states will be a purple state by 2030 of not sooner (assuming population trends continue).

 

[Rau]

The abortion battle isn’t lost at all, but if the current plan of attack is kept it will be. Conservatives need to take away the women’s rights arguments that is used in favour of abortion, otherwise the battle will be lost. Homosexuality on the other hand is done, that battle is lost and has been lost or a while, either learn from the mistakes or continue to lose.

What are the learnings?

 

[Judas_The_Rock]

What are the learnings?

In the end you can’t win if it turns into a rights battle, quoting religious or holy books never works (nobody cares what misc. old man in chapter x says it’s not relevant), don’t use personal attacks, try to get the actual demographic that is relevant on your side ( in abortion’s case women). Realistically speaking homosexual marriage wasn’t a winnable battle since there really are no good arguments against it.

 

[SMGS127]

In the end you can’t win if it turns into a rights battle, quoting religious or holy books never works (nobody cares what misc. old man in chapter x says it’s not relevant), don’t use personal attacks, try to get the actual demographic that is relevant on your side ( in abortion’s case women). Realistically speaking homosexual marriage wasn’t a winnable battle since there really are no good arguments against it.

Also, be careful who your partners are. A thousand sound pro-life arguments are wiped out in an instant by one crazy Akin. Be quick to denounce the arguments of those who make ridiculous arguments, even if they support the same propositions you do.

 

[Rau]

In the end you can’t win if it turns into a rights battle, quoting religious or holy books never works (nobody cares what misc. old man in chapter x says it’s not relevant), don’t use personal attacks, try to get the actual demographic that is relevant on your side ( in abortion’s case women). Realistically speaking homosexual marriage wasn’t a winnable battle since there really are no good arguments against it.

SSM did turn into a “rights” issue, though personally I think that’s nonsense.

Do you mean it’s a good thing (or at least neutral), or do you mean there are no good arguments that will resonate with the ‘majority’ that you seek to persuade?

 

[Judas_The_Rock]

SSM did turn into a “rights” issue, though personally I think that’s nonsense.

Do you mean it’s a good thing (or at least neutral), or do you mean there are no good arguments that will resonate with the ‘majority’ that you seek to persuade?

Both I’d say, look for a thread about non-religious arguments against Ssm and look at the pseudo intellectual drivel that you find, these arguments aren’t going to convince anyone.

 

[Rau]

Both I’d say, look for a thread about non-religious arguments against Ssm and look at the pseudo intellectual drivel that you find, these arguments aren’t going to convince anyone.

Funny, I find the pro SSM arguments (like “it’s a civil right”) to be drivel! People have forgotten the reason we value and mark (heterosexual) unions, and have begun to think its about “romance and love”. Anyway, that ones been all talked out on another thread…

 

[Petaro]

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.

I must disagree with you. In Australia many politicians are vehemently against abortion. The present Prime Minister and a large number of his inner cabinet are practicing Catholics who personally oppose abortion. The present Attorney General in the NSW State government sat with me on the Right to Life Association executive for many years opposing abortion as practicing lawyers. There is a strong belief in the Australian Catholic church that being for or against abortion does indeed make a politician a good or bad candidate.
Those people that think the battle lost and they can or should ignore the issue in deciding political candidates are misinformed as to their duty to always fight evil even if you are losing. God wants us on His side always. We would be very stupid to think He will lose.