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

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

As evil as abortion is, it will not result in the demise of the human race.

“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds…”

Thanks for the quote which was made by one of the atomic scientists when he witnessed the testing of the atomic bomb in 1945.

 

[peter26]

I believe the quote is originally from a Hindu religious text, though I don’t know the exact context.

 

[RuthAnne]

I am saying pregnant women and mother should get free health care.

There’s no such thing as free. The government can’t give anything away for “free” without first confiscating it from someone else.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

No it isn’t but I can see how that false argument will be pushed to prevent people making a truly conscience vote. Governments are influenced by degree of the mandate they get in the election. A weak mandate based on the presence of an alternative force that represents the whole of the Catholic approach, would be a most powerful vote regardless of the party not getting up in this election. Votes made on conscience are never a wasted vote and I’d urge people not to buy into that.

I agree with you, and was excited about the American Solidarity Party when I heard about it. However, when I was watching videos of the debates they had to choose a candidate they just didn’t really come across as competent leaders. I’m not sure they could handle being president better than any of us here. In fact, I’d probably rather write in a user from these forums or a Catholic Apologist.

I’ll probably vote for Trump, but I kinda wish Joe Biden would come to his senses. He seems to really care about people and even be sincere in his faith but with a huge lack of understanding and an irrational fear of imposing his beliefs on others.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

True, but our taxes are already going to Planned Parenthood and plenty of other horrible/wasteful organizations. I’d be glad to hear of a new program that gives pregnant women the support they actually need, especially when they don’t have any from their parents. I’d even support “free” daycare so they can still go to college or lessen whatever other fear they may have.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

Abortion affects the would be citizens, the unborn. Your line of reasoning is similar to not considering slavery an important issue because it’s just a personal matter for plantation owners and their “property”.

 

[TMC]

Perhaps you don’t understand how our government actually works. No law banning abortion, or putting significant restrictions on it is possible without either a constitutional amendment or the reversal of Roe v Wade. “Control” of Congress is irrelevant.

No Republican has proposed banning abortion for the same reason no Democrat has proposed banning the ownership of guns. Both are protected by the Constitution.

It is true that a majority of justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans, but that only suggests they would be more likely to reverse Roe than a Democrat appointee, not that they are guaranteed to do so. Still, if Trump gets to nominate one more justice, there is a very good possibility that Roe could actually be reversed. I realize the possibility of overturning that ruling is still an inadequate incentive for many Catholics to support Trump, but it’s something to look forward to nonetheless.

The problem is that I do understand how the government works, and therefore I know that the promises from some in the GOP to end abortion are at best hollow, and more likely disingenuous. Congress is not irrelevant - any real change would likely start in Congress (including any Constitutional change), but there is no real desire to do so. Both parties would rather use abortion to raise money and whip up voters; neither actually wants the issue resolved.

I also disagree with the idea that we are one vote away from overturning Roe. Again, both parties like to say this, but it is not supported by the actual evidence. The only current Justice who has ever voted to overturn Roe is Thomas. Roberts and Alito have had opportunities to go on the record to overturn Roe and have not. Maybe, maybe, they would do so if there are five votes, but I see that as pretty unlikely.

I do agree with your last sentence - many Catholics find that the chance (small in my view) that a Trump appointee will someday succeed is somewhat increasing abortion restrictions (after 30 years of failed promises) is not a sufficient reason to vote for him.

 

[pnewton]

To vote for a 3rd party with zero chance of winning any power in the government is a wasted vote

This is not Church teaching. In fact, weighing the chances of winning is only permitted, not required. If Republicans think they can slap a little abortion rhetoric on someone and think that will get all the pro-life vote, there is no incentive for any moral character in a candidate. Winning or losing one election is not “moving the ball down the field.” It is one election.

If you vote for a candidate, and that candidate does not win by exactly 1 vote, then your vote was effectively wasted.

Even in this case, no one can know who it was wasted for. The person who voted third party might have just as easily decided to reject a nominal pro-life sleazeball Republican. Those who say that a vote for third party is really a vote for (insert name here) suck at math, or are liars.

 

[pnewton]

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

The way this question is phrased could support Obama, during whose presidency abortions declined. I think what most people mean when they say abortion is the biggest issue is really the legalization of abortion that is the biggest issue. So, if one could see a reduction of abortion with no change in the law, or a change in the law with no reduction of abortion, which would be preferable? Even if Roe v. Wade was reversed, which I think is a point we have passed, people would still be able to cross state lines for abortions.

For me, I think the legalization issue still is number one, but will not be of any use without more public support. The statement on life making abortion illegal (but maybe not criminal) would help us all to understand the value of life. I also believe outlawing the death penalty would do the same thing. After all, it is not really the law that is the issue. It is the hearts of American that do not have the correct sense of the inherent value of life.

To this end, I would say war, or warlike posturing is an equally problematic pro-life position. The environment, in which the lives of billions are at stake, is also a life issue. Until a party goes beyond pro-abortion, or pro-birth, I have to weigh which is truly the most moral of candidates. The Republican Party has a long way to go, as does the Democratic Party.

 

[PetraG]

As evil as abortion is, it will not result in the demise of the human race.

The thing is, that if someone inexplicably decided to detonate most of the nuclear arsenal all at once, maybe we could wipe out the human race. We don’t know of anybody with access to nuclear weapons who want to detonate so many that even their own country experiences huge die-offs, though. Nuclear weapons are frightful things, the senseless destruction they could do is well worth avoiding, but I really do not think that somebody is going to use them to wipe out every last one of us.

According to the World Health Organization, meanwhile, abortion is ending roughly 125,000 lives every day. That is both in countries that have legalized it, like the US, and countries in which it is never legal under any circumstances, like Chile. That is roughly the equivalent of the Black Death occurring twice a year. That is not a frightful possibility. That is a frightful reality.

In the US, the expectation is that 1 in 4 women will have an abortion in her lifetime. One in four?!?

Worse yet, 1 in 4 mothers in the US are single moms! 1 in 4?!? (Only 7% of fathers are raising their children alone.) I really do not care whether or not they were married when their children were concieved. Do not get me wrong; it would be best if children were raised in a home with their two parents who love each other. I still want to know what kind of help single mothers and even struggling couples are getting to raise their children. Those who say that we cannot expect people to resist the temptation to abortion when parenthood is an enterprise which is penalized more than supported are absolutely correct, I think. People are realistically going to resort to extreme measures to what they consider frightful futures.

This is a frightful statistic, as well: 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/16950

We have the abortion rate we have because people either do not think their unborn children are persons or because they are overwhelmed at the thought of being able to care for them. In other words, most abortions are not due to rape or incest or potential health problems. It has to do with a choice made concerning whether to let the child live or not. Since the rate of infanticide is extremely low, one has to think it has to do with whether or not people see abortion as ending another person’s life or not.

 

[EndTimes]

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.

Exactly - ABORTION - MURDER OF BABES IN THE WOMB …

is far far weightier than “social benefits”

_

 

[fide]

@fide wrote:>

To vote for a 3rd party with zero chance of winning any power in the government is a wasted vote

pnewton wrote:

This is not Church teaching.

I answer: Please show me where this is opposed to Church teaching. It is not. It is a prudential decision concerning a political matter - not one of the Faith nor directly a moral issue - political speculation is a matter in which we are free. The moral issue - the grave matter of direct participation in procured abortion - is another matter, which should close the issue for any faithful Catholic, in my humble opinion.

 

[pnewton]

@fide wrote:>

To vote for a 3rd party with zero chance of winning any power in the government is a wasted vote

I did not say it was opposed to Church teaching. I said it was not Church teaching.

 

[fide]

Exactly. It is a misleading comment.

 

[Matthew25]

How can any Catholic vote for a ProChoice candidate when a ProLife candidate is running?

Here’s a possible reason: there are many “pro-choice” candidates who support policies that make it easier for women to choose life. You can see the statistics where abortion rates have actually declined under “pro-choice” administrations. I am pro-life and this issue guides my voting decisions. Policies speak more that rhetoric. I also support policies that are pro-life for all of life.

There have been several time when Republicans have held the White House, the Senate, and the House and not one piece of legislation has been offered to overturn Roe v Wade. (This includes the first two years of this administration). It takes legislation to make it through the courts to overturn the decision, and yet nothing. At some point you have to ask whether there is true belief in overturning Roe or if they just want the issue to campaign on.

 

[Ender]

The problem is that I do understand how the government works, and therefore I know that the promises from some in the GOP to end abortion are at best hollow, and more likely disingenuous.

No one has ever made such a promise for the simple reason that all politicians recognize the impossibility of ever legislatively banning it. Legislators have promised to oppose it, but no one has promised to ban it.

Congress is not irrelevant - any real change would likely start in Congress (including any Constitutional change), but there is no real desire to do so.

No constitutional amendment is possible. There are insufficient Republicans in both Congress and individual state legislatures to ever pass one.

Both parties would rather use abortion to raise money and whip up voters; neither actually wants the issue resolved.

Within the limits set by Roe quite a lot has been done. There is an enormous difference in what is allowed in states controlled by Republicans versus those controlled by Democrats, as laws recently passed in NY and VA demonstrate.

The only current Justice who has ever voted to overturn Roe is Thomas. Roberts and Alito have had opportunities to go on the record to overturn Roe and have not.

It is true that only Thomas has taken a position on Roe. It is not true that Roberts and Alito have ruled on the matter. They have not. No case has come before them that challenged the core ruling in Roe or Casey that called for or permitted such a judgment.

many Catholics find that the chance (small in my view) that a Trump appointee will someday succeed is somewhat increasing abortion restrictions (after 30 years of failed promises) is not a sufficient reason to vote for him.

Many Catholics wouldn’t vote for him even if it was a certainty that Roe would be overturned. If that ruling is ever reversed it won’t be because of them but in spite of them.

 

[PetraG]

Exactly. It is a misleading comment.

No, it says what it means: that is, a Catholic doesn’t have to see a vote for an acceptable but unpopular candidate as wasted. The Church doesn’t teach that there is any such thing as a “wasted vote.”

 

[PetraG]

Here’s a possible reason: there are many “pro-choice” candidates who support policies that make it easier for women to choose life. You can see the statistics where abortion rates have actually declined under “pro-choice” administrations. I am pro-life and this issue guides my voting decisions. Policies speak more that rhetoric. I also support policies that are pro-life for all of life.

It is a very difficult situation. Voting for pro-choice candidates entrenches the idea that abortion is a human right. It entrenches the idea that abortion is not the equivalent of infanticide. That’s a serious matter.

Having said that, making abortion illegal doesn’t make abortions stop. It doesn’t even change the attitude that abortion laws are about the value of children rather than about control over women or control over sexuality. If laws are made that only penalize abortion or sexual immorality but policies are not put into place that value human life over, say, opportunities for material gain, then it is fair to wonder if the legal changes are having the intended effect on people’s appreciation of the value of persons compared to personal license or material gain.

In other words, it is very possible for both parties to have platforms that entrench attitudes towards our fellow human beings that are seriously at odds with Gospel.

It is not a given that one major party is good and one is bad. The situation could theoretically be that two different parties could merely have different views on how to achieve the same good ends. Conversely, the situation could be that the two parties are steering the nation to two different bad ends. There are of course many shades in-between. With money being the primary driver of political power, however, I don’t have to wonder which of the open possibilities is the most likely.

 

[whatistrue]

To vote for a 3rd party with zero chance of winning any power in the government is a wasted vote

So no one who lives in Washington DC should ever vote Republican? I don’t believe any vote is wasted except the vote not cast. If no one ever goes against the “big 2”, then they will always rule between them, and enough people voting what they really believe without looking at the odds will break the duopoly in time.

 

[Ender]

There have been several time when Republicans have held the White House, the Senate, and the House and not one piece of legislation has been offered to overturn Roe v Wade. (This includes the first two years of this administration). It takes legislation to make it through the courts to overturn the decision, and yet nothing.

I know I’ve already mentioned this, but it is literally not possible to overturn a right found in the Constitution. If every member of Congress in both parties voted to overturn Roe it would not suffice. Congress can no more vote to rescind Roe than it could vote to rescind freedom of speech. Such an action would be unconstitutional.

At some point you have to ask whether there is true belief in overturning Roe or if they just want the issue to campaign on.

At some point it is necessary to understand what can and what cannot be done. There is no legislative solution to the problem created by Roe.