Follow up question: What voting issue could possibly outweigh the murder of millions of unborn babies?

[JSRG]

Every vote for that 3rd party pro-life group would have too be added together, to follow your logic.

The logic you presented was regarding each person’s individual vote.

Everyone whose logic led them to the 3rd party, led them away from adding to the one major party total that is pro-life.

That seems a major assumption on your part. What about people who were always going to vote third party (due to frustration on the part of the two-party system), and it was just a question of which third party they voted for? What about people who, if not for the ASP, wouldn’t have voted at all. None of them are being led away from “adding to the one major party total that is pro-life.” And, in fact, that’s an incorrect assumption as well. What about the people who would have voted Democrat, “the one major party total that isn’t pro-life”? Charles Camosy, who recently made minor headlines over joining the ASP, was a longtime Democrat supporter before moving to the ASP. Certainly, the ASP has a lot in their platform that would be satisfactory to a Democrat.

Maybe this argument could make sense for something like the Constitution Party, but not the ASP.

 

[PetraG]

The reason I vote against Republicans is because I do not feel that the absolute ban of abortion rights solves the problem.

I don’t think there is a right to an abortion, but realistically roughly 1 in 4 women in the US has had or will have an abortion by the age of 45.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042

Count partners or spouses that consented to or even pressured the women to end the lives of these couples’ children, and that is a lot of voters.

Between 2008 and 2014, the abortion rate declined 25%. That represents a drop from 825,564 to 652,639, or 172,925 persons. Put into perspective: the official number of homocides in 2017 was 17,284.

I don’t think that providing birth control solves a problem rooted in the idea that people are not persons until after they are born. I think that is the problem: that is, that we do not, as a nation, see those who aren’t born as persons. Well, if you don’t believe that the beginning of a pregnancy represents the beginning of a person, of course you believe that the course of that pregnancy is a matter of the rights of the pregnant woman, since during pregnancy you see her as the only person directly affected by her pregnancy.

If we’re going to reduce the number of abortions, hearts have to change. If people do not believe in their hearts and accept in their minds that we become persons at the moment of conception, the problem of abortion is not going away. We have a suicide rate of three times the murder rate, after all, because we believe our lives are our own and that we are the ultimate judges of the value of our lives.

 

[Thom18]

jofa:

As the Church teaches, abortion is Murder. Logically it follows that abortion murders millions of unborn babies.

The reason I vote against Republicans is because I do not feel that the absolute ban of abortion rights solves the problem.
I think the Democratic approach of increasing health care, providing contraception, sex education, social safety nets, adoption and foster care assistance in conjunction with the support of women’s rights in a far more effective approach.

The inflexible approach of banning abortion without the corresponding social safety net infrastructure, to me, is just as irresponsible as promoting it. If you read the history of the issue, you will see that Republicans never cared about abortion - Roe vs Wade was decided by a conservative majority SCOTUS. Republicans just want your votes and they know what hot button to press - they like nothing more than hearing ‘single-issue voter’. It is music to their ears.

Do you really want to solve the abortion problem? Provide free birth control. It is economically neutral. It is no surprise that abortions go down as health care becomes affordable. The greatest drop in abortions was under Obama. You can argue why, but you cannot deny the statistics.

I once made this proposal - which still stands - how about we make a law to ban abortion, but EVERY able-bodies person or couple with an income over $100K MUST adopt at least one child. Let’s have Catholics put their money where their mouth is. If that doesn’t work, let’s raise taxes to fund free education, housing, care and food for these “unwanted” babies.
But in my experience, as soon a money is part of the discussion, Republicans turn around and run.

So you’re holding the abortion issue hostage. Instead of demanding the democrats end their crusade for abortion, you demand that the republicans change their policies in regards to social benefits.

 

[undead_rat]

Thanks for your reply. Here is what the prophet Jeremiah has to say about the coming disaster of global nuclear war:
See! the disaster spreads
from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the earth.
Those slaughtered that day will be scattered across the world from end to end. No dirge will be raised for them; no one will gather them or bury them; they will stay lying on the surface like dung.

Our Lady of Akita warns of a disaster of fire that will be even greater than the Flood of Noah’s time.
It is true that a global nuclear war has not taken place, but that does not mean that the threat of this disaster no longer exists. The USA will spend about one trillion dollars in the coming years on nuclear weapons, and the Russians will be sure to match this effort.

I should also point out that the threat of nuclear war between the USA and Russia could easily be eliminated by unilateral nuclear disarmament. That, in my opinion, is the most important issue and one that is being almost completely ignored.

 

[PetraG]

So you’re holding the abortion issue hostage. Instead of demanding the democrats end their crusade for abortion, you demand that the republicans change their policies in regards to social benefits.

I think it is fair to look around the world and across time and ask how many lives are realistically going to be saved in the US if restrictions to access is the only strategy for reducing the number of lives lost to abortion. The evidence is that restricting access alone won’t do the job.

I once made this proposal - which still stands - how about we make a law to ban abortion, but EVERY able-bodies person or couple with an income over $100K MUST adopt at least one child. Let’s have Catholics put their money where their mouth is. If that doesn’t work, let’s raise taxes to fund free education, housing, care and food for these “unwanted” babies.

Expecting society to support parents is one thing. Compelling total strangers into parenthood isn’t a serious proposal.

I should also point out that the threat of nuclear war between the USA and Russia could easily be eliminated by unilateral nuclear disarmament. That, in my opinion, is the most important issue and one that is being almost completely ignored.

I have no idea why you think disarming one country among all the nations who have access to the technology for nuclear weaponry is going to eliminate the chances that the human race will employ nuclear devices. That isn’t even realistic.

 

[undead_rat]

The human race could possibly cease to exist due to the effects of a global nuclear war.

 

[JSRG]

Thanks for your reply. Here is what the prophet Jeremiah has to say about the coming disaster of global nuclear war:
See! the disaster spreads
from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the earth.
Those slaughtered that day will be scattered across the world from end to end. No dirge will be raised for them; no one will gather them or bury them; they will stay lying on the surface like dung.

That’s not about any kind of nuclear war. Jeremiah 25:32-33 (it would have been more convenient had you given the exact chapter/verse) was part of a prophecy meant for the people it was directed towards–i.e. 7th/6th century BC–not anything today.

 

[ricmat]

How do you know that this disaster is nuclear war? And not e.g. an asteroid strike. Or a star in our neighborhood going supernova (Betelgeuse?). Or that it is not the end of everything - God just deciding that enough is enough, time to stop all this sinning…

 

[Emeraldlady]

I have never voted for a perfect candidate, with whom I agree on every issue or aspect of leadership. In every case in which I have voted, it has been when I saw a clear and good possibility of limiting the evil that is growing in the world by voting for one or the other of the major candidates. I see democracy as a chance to try to limit or even reduce the darkness. I think that such discernment is what we are called to do, when voting.

When a possibility exists to limit or reduce evil by voting for one of the two major candidates - but deciding to vote for neither of those, but instead voting for a candidate who in all likelihood can not be elected - that is a wasted vote. It may give a good feeling subjectively for a time - but it does not “move the ball down the field” so to speak.

Then your vote for the GOP for that reason is immediately cancelled out by jan10000’s vote for Dems (in the post following yours) for exactly the same reason. A party that now represents a truly Catholic approach who received both your votes is not going to affect the outcome you desire. What it will do by giving Catholics of both sides the opportunity to say what they really want in a politician, is to cause a major rethink in the parties they left behind.

 

[ricmat]

It looks to me like you think the solution to every problem is for the government to fix it.

Regardless of whether or not abortion is deemed legal by the government, it remains a mortal sin which will send many souls to Hell.

An absolute abortion ban would not halt abortion totally, but it would discourage many women to the point that they might save their babies and their own souls.

You also seem to want the rest of society (via government edict) to be responsible for the inconvenient consequences of your decisions (babies). I say instead, if you don’t want to have babies, don’t have sex.

If a woman is forced to have sex and gets pregnant, then I’m all for your proposal of government support to find adoptive parents or other methods of support.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It can be a false question because someone can be in the situation of wanting to prevent an evil without thinking that making it a felony is the way to do it.

Having said that, by the numbers abortion is our most serious epidemic.

In 2017, there were 17,284 deaths documented as homicides, 47,173 deaths by suicide. Why do we seem so wound up in murder prevention while we seem less willing to address suicide prevention, when suicide is a far worse problem?

There were 161,364 accidental deaths in 2017. There were 647,547 deaths due to heart disease, which is listed as the leading cause of death.

There were 862,320 documented abortions in 2017. Even though the rate is falling, it is still the actual leading cause of death in the United States by a broad margin.

That may be. But we cannot be sure that voting for this or that candidate will materially affect that number.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Yes I know that many Catholics conscience bound believe that to be a better option. I was only using your post to make the point to fide that he was likely mistaken to think that his vote for the GOP has the power he thinks it does when there is a truly Catholic option in the mix.

 

[PetraG]

I think I said expecting society to support parents is another matter.

You wouldn’t allow infanticide in the case of rape, incest or destitution. In Ancient Rome, a father could decide to leave a child out to die of exposure if he wanted. The difference is when one thinks a person’s life starts—when does the person gain the right to live? It is disingenuous to tell people they are heartless for believing that humans count as humans at a point that is earlier than you do.

 

[PetraG]

Yes you get my point—that is, it is reasonable to vote with an eye to actual lives saved or put into danger depending on who is administering the government.

I really think, however, that encouraging candidates to treat abortion as a human right is going to blind people to the true personhood we all have even before we are born. The prevailing thought we are encouraging does matter.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I refuse to vote Republican just because they are Pro-Life.
There a lot of important issues that they have so answers for, including:

• Improved health care
• The opioid epidemic
• Lack of quality housing, especially for the poor
• Good and affordable health care
• Lowing the price of prescription drugs
• Raising the pay for classroom teachers
• Veteran health care for veterans
• immigration reform
• Lowering taxes for the working class and middle class
• More money for infrastructure repair
• Environmental protection
• Raising the minimum wage to a living wage ($15 per hour)
• Etc.

By the way, during the first two years of the Trump administration, the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. They passed no meaningful legislation having to do with Pro-Choice issues. These folks did manage to give the richest percent of our country a huge tax cut. They can one vote shy of destroying what health care their issue. (God bless the late Senator John McCain for his no vote.)

 

[PetraG]

I think it is totally reasonable to conclude that merely restricting access to abortion is insufficient as the only qualification for public office, just as much as concluding that the intention to expand access to abortion is disqualifying.

 

[mythbuster1]

The duration of the explosion of Betelgeuse would be as bright as the Sun when viewed from Earth, but the explosion itself is only a few seconds long. The afterglow would be visible in the daytime for months, but it shouldn’t have significant impacts on the Earth’s climate.

 

[mythbuster1]

You don’t have to be rich, you just can’t be dependent on public assistance. My grandparents needed $10,000 in savings and a sponsor in the 70’s in order to be admitted. They worked seven days a week for a year while living in a studio to save up the money.

 

[ricmat]

That’s quite a list you have there.

I have the same question for all of the items.

Question: If this item is fixed by the government, how does this affect whether or not you go to Heaven?

Follow up question: If it gets done by the government at the point of a gun, who gets the merit for it?

 

[ricmat]

The duration of the explosion of Betelgeuse would be as bright as the Sun when viewed from Earth, but the explosion itself is only a few seconds long. The afterglow would be visible in the daytime for months, but it shouldn’t have significant impacts on the Earth’s climate.

Actually, the explosion could last years. Supernova events have been suggested as the possible cause of extinction events (on Earth) in the distant past.

But this is off track…