Embryonic research

[RodneyJ]

“It is also intrinsically evil to “manufacture” human embryonic life to then kill that life for spare parts. Particular Candidate (my emphasis) is wrong in his support for deadly research on human embryonic life.”

So, we have 2 runners for the Dems who are pro-choice, and a runner for the Republicans who is not opposed to killing life, seriously who are we to vote for?

Staying home IS NOT an option.

Do we write in a congressman who is all but out of the race on the Red side?

BTW, “a recent survey of 19 states that have held presidential primaries this year, 63% of Catholics identified themselves as Democrats.”

 

[vz71]

So, we have 2 runners for the Dems who are pro-choice, and a runner for the Republicans who is not opposed to killing life, seriously who are we to vote for?

I would suggest a vote for the one that will do the least damage.

Pro-Choice really amounts to anti-life, and we can reasonably assume that they will promote an agenda that is directly harmful to any progress the pro-life movement has made.
‘not opposed to killing life’ is a much less hard line position, and we cannot as easily assume that this person will directly harm progress the pro-life movement has made.

Secondarily, there is the consideration of historically which party has been the least harmful to the pro-life position, and how will the vote effect that party’s capacity to continue to harm (or help) the cause.

Hope this helps.

 

[RodneyJ]

Hope this helps.

It, actually, does not.

We have 3 candidates, who, for no rhyme or reason, are willing to be an accessory to murder.

I suppose a write-in for the congressman might have to do.

 

[RodneyJ]

Anyone else have anything to say that would shed light?

 

[vz71]

I am uncertain how a write in vote could help the situation.

Given the chance of electibility (given the person is not on the ballot), a write-in is essentially wasted.

I suppose it would give the voter a sense of “clear conscience” but what of the advantage it gives to the worse of the 3 evils that are running?

Given that we know one of the three will get elected, isn’t it our duty to do what we can to minimize the damage?

 

[RodneyJ]

I am uncertain how a write in vote could help the situation.

Given the chance of electibility (given the person is not on the ballot), a write-in is essentially wasted.

I suppose it would give the voter a sense of “clear conscience” but what of the advantage it gives to the worse of the 3 evils that are running?

Given that we know one of the three will get elected, isn’t it our duty to do what we can to minimize the damage?

I have been an avid supporter of the African American until I started getting into the Catholic faith. I was already pro-life, but now I am more pro-life than ever. As far as what direction the country should go in, I believe whole-heartedly that no longer he is the one to lead the country, but possibly she. Definitely not the red candidate.

I would consider her the lesser of the 3 evils. I am seriously wanting a good Catholic Church (name removed by moderator)ut, however.

 

[vz71]

As far as the three currently running, there is only one that at the very least professes a pro-life position.
It can be argued that the position is a wishy washy position, perhaps not completely pro-life. But is seperate from the other two in the fact that the other two profess an adamant pro-choice (abortion whenever, wherever, for whatever reason) position.

That is simply a matter of record.

If your conscience leads you to believe otherwise, I am not going to draw into the argument.

 

[hasikelee]

I had my hopes on other candidates, who at least made statements against abortion.

I am tempted to sharpie marker over the ballot with my personal feelings on the “selections” for this election.

 

[Believe_85]

Regardless of what the red candidate personally believes, the red party as a whole will uphold the Pro-life position and that includes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning. Therefore, I’ll vote red.

 

[RodneyJ]

Regardless of what the red candidate personally believes, the red party as a whole will uphold the Pro-life position and that includes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning. Therefore, I’ll vote red.

With a blue majority and an easy influenced red candidate who has shown the huge willingness to compromise with that blue majority, you cannot expect anything to be upheld.

 

[vz71]

With a blue majority and an easy influenced red candidate who has shown the huge willingness to compromise with that blue majority, you cannot expect anything to be upheld.

Fair enough, but on the other side, you have two candidates that are on record as pushing a pro-abortion agenda that have also promised to do what they can to undo the progress made by the pro-life groups.

So on the one hand we have an expectation that may or may not happen…after all, their are other elections happening, and the party in control may not be so in a few months.
And on the other hand we have a certainty of damage to the pro-life cause.

I do not see how this is a hard decision.

If you are on the highway and a wreck occurrs in front of your vehicle, you can continue straight and know you will get smashed up in a crash, or you can steer yourself into the ditch on the side of the road, and may be damaged, may not be damaged, but you can know for certain it will not be the damage that would occurr if you run headlong into the pile up.

Not a difficult decision.

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s definitely not the ideal situation we find ourselves in for this election.

In my mind, a write in vote or a vote for a third party is essentially a wasted vote. Am I happy that that’s the way things are? No, but in our country today, that’s the way it is. Only someone from one of the two major parties has a legitimate chance of winning the presidential election. Thus, in good conscience, I could not vote for anyone but the candidate for one of the two major parties.

Perhaps all the candidates are similar on the one life issue of embryonic stem cell research, but how do they compare on other life issues like abortion? Even if they have the same point of view, what is it likely they will do for good or for ill? All the candidates might seem similiar, but they are not identical. We have to weigh these questions and decide who will do the least damage.

In my mind, one of the crucial things to consider is the Supreme Court nominations. Although, historically speaking, both parties have picked some judges that leave a lot to be desired in the pro-life category, there is a major difference. One party uses “pro-choice” as the first litmus test the potential candidate must pass in order to be considered. The other party does not, even if they do not use pro-life as a litmus test for their candidates.

In other words, with one party, you are guaranteed to get Supreme Court judges that will uphold abortion and Roe v. Wade. With the other party, there is at least a chance that you will get judges in favor of over-turning Roe v. Wade (as we have seen with the last two appointees). For the first time, it seems we are in striking distance of getting Roe v. Wade overturned. But only if the right judge gets put on the bench. That definitely will not happen if one party gets into the White House. This weighs very heavily into my decision. I simply cannot imagine voting for a candidate who I know will only appoint pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.

 

[vz71]

In other words, with one party, you are guaranteed to get Supreme Court judges that will uphold abortion and Roe v. Wade. With the other party, there is at least a chance that you will get judges in favor of over-turning Roe v. Wade (as we have seen with the last two appointees). For the first time, it seems we are in striking distance of getting Roe v. Wade overturned. But only if the right judge gets put on the bench. That definitely will not happen if one party gets into the White House. This weighs very heavily into my decision. I simply cannot imagine voting for a candidate who I know will only appoint pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.

Just to be certain here though.
Overturning Roe will not end abortion. It will simply turn the matter over to the states. I view it as only a step towards outlawing abortion; not the end.

 

[Em_in_FL]

In past elections there has been a 3rd party option who meets this criteria…
Chances are slim that a 3rd party candidate will win, but it beats the “lesser of two evils” decision…

Just because I’m “registered” with on of the major parties doesn’t mean I agree with their particular candidate.

 

[Joe_5859]

Just to be certain here though.
Overturning Roe will not end abortion. It will simply turn the matter over to the states. I view it as only a step towards outlawing abortion; not the end.

Yes, that is correct. Thank you for that clarification. It is just a step, but a very important one, I think. We need a lot more changes of heart if we ever hope to end abortion. In the mean time, we should work to limit it as much as we are able to.

 

[vz71]

In past elections there has been a 3rd party option who meets this criteria…
Chances are slim that a 3rd party candidate will win, but it beats the “lesser of two evils” decision…

Given the acknowledgement that there is a slim chance here.
You are drawing votes away from one of the other candidates.

So you end up supporting one or the other.
The ‘lesser of two evils’ decision is still there.

You haven’t beat the decision at all. Just ignored it.