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

[PetraG]

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.

We are in a nation in which it is estimated that roughly 1 in 4 women will undergo an abortion by the age of 45. No, we are not going to legislate a change to that. It has to be a change in attitudes that occurs at a much deeper level.

What we really need, however, is deliberate action so that medical providers can preserve the open recognition that performing an abortion ends a human life. If we have medical providers who have to be anesthetized to that or have to accept being mislead about that in order to be trained, we have a situation that will be extremely hard to reverse. Those who are in the healing arts need to be lead to a correct understanding of abortion and an honest recognition of what it is.

 

[Ender]

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.

Given that four states passed laws promising their electoral votes not to the candidate who wins their state, but to the one who wins the popular vote nationwide, this rationale is now even less reasonable. Every vote counts nationally whether or not it counts locally.

 

[fide]

Oh please stop this. The Church also does not teach that there cannot be a wasted vote! The Church wants to assume that adults capable of voting are also capable of voting in such a way that authentic Christian values are promoted, and where this is not possible, that non-Christian values are restrained as much as possible.

What is happening, however, is that the privilege of voting is being abused through duplicity.

 

[PetraG]

Given that four states passed laws promising their electoral votes not to the candidate who wins their state, but to the one who wins the popular vote nationwide, this rationale is now even less reasonable. Every vote counts nationally whether or not it counts locally.

That is the silliest law that anybody ever passed. All it can ever do is to throw your vote to someone you did not choose. I don’t know who ever thought it was a good idea, but it is ludicrous. It is worse than the Electoral College, and by a long ways.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

I don’t know that governmental policies can do much to change the views people have of the value of human life, except very slowly, and consistently with other things.

It took a long time for an entire political party to dedicate itself to abortion as an absolute, non-negotiable position. It took a long time for a majority of Americans to accept homosexual marriage. It took a long time for people to accept the equality of blacks.

 

[PetraG]

Oh please stop this. The Church also does not teach that there cannot be a wasted vote! The Church wants to assume that adults capable of voting are also capable of voting in such a way that authentic Christian values are promoted, and where this is not possible, that non-Christian values are restrained as much as possible.

What is happening, however, is that the privilege of voting is being abused through duplicity.

No, no, no. You don’t get to just say anything that makes sense to you and then defend it with “well, the Church doesn’t NOT teach that!” Good heavens, where would that end?

I have no idea what you even mean by “the privilege of voting is being abused through duplicity.” You’re saying that telling people that the Church permits voting for an unpopular candidate is duplicity? No, it isn’t. Just stop.

 

[whatistrue]

I hadn’t actually heard that, but in any case four out of 51 jurisdictions is hardly the end of the current system, or even the beginning of the end. And local elections are where the things that matter the most in people’s day to day lives are handled.

 

[PatK63]

@JMMJ
Are there candidates against education? I don’t think so. There is always discussions on how much it should cost and who pays but no politician I know of is against education. Maybe against sex education in the schools but for education at home!

 

[PetraG]

I don’t know that governmental policies can do much to change the views people have of the value of human life, except very slowly, and consistently with other things.

It took a long time for an entire political party to dedicate itself to abortion as an absolute, non-negotiable position. It took a long time for a majority of Americans to accept homosexual marriage. It took a long time for people to accept the equality of blacks.

I’m saying that I think it does matter if we support platforms that aren’t going to be effective when they’re based on an immoral premise. If one candidate is running on abortion being the taking of a life and the other is running on abortion being a legitimate choice, then even if electing one over the other does not change the abortion rate I think it does change the perception in the general public about whether others view abortion as the killing of a human being or not. To support abortion as a legitimate choice is to give people room to rationalize the choice as OK for them. I see that as a serious problem.

The entire GOP has not dedicated itself to abortion as an absolute, non-negotiable position. That is not in stone. The GOP candidate in the governor’s race in Oregon was pro-choice. The GOP does not have that issue locked down into its identity.

 

[JMMJ]

I would like a candidate who gives it top priority. Of course no serious candidate is “anti- public education”, officially.

 

[PatK63]

@JMMJ
That is more important than life. You know slavery was legal at one time but most of the slaves lived. Abortion the babied don’t live!

 

[Ender]

We are in a nation in which it is estimated that roughly 1 in 4 women will undergo an abortion by the age of 45. No, we are not going to legislate a change to that. It has to be a change in attitudes that occurs at a much deeper level.

This is only partially true; some states could - and surely would - pass laws banning abortion. Some states would just as surely do the opposite, but at a minimum it should be recognized that until Roe is reversed this discussion cannot even take place.

It would also force Catholic Democrats to squarely face the issue without the rationale that no one will do anything anyway. If legislation can actually be passed on laws permitting or disallowing abortion then individual legislators will take sides and a clear choice will be possible.

 

[goout]

I’m personally opposed to racial slavery. But if someone wants slaves, that should be their right. It’s not the government’s business to interfere with people’s choices.

 

[Ender]

That is the silliest law that anybody ever passed. All it can ever do is to throw your vote to someone you did not choose. I don’t know who ever thought it was a good idea, but it is ludicrous. It is worse than the Electoral College, and by a long ways.

It is an attempt to get around the electoral college. It needn’t be pointed out that all four states were controlled by Democrats.

I hadn’t actually heard that, but in any case four out of 51 jurisdictions is hardly the end of the current system, or even the beginning of the end. And local elections are where the things that matter the most in people’s day to day lives are handled.

In a close election the electoral votes of four states is quite significant. Look at the Bush-Gore election. Bush won that election with one vote over the minimum needed.

 

[PetraG]

It is an attempt to get around the electoral college. It needn’t be pointed out that all four states were controlled by Democrats.

I understand what they’re trying to achieve. It just seems like a silly way to achieve it. Are they trying to get Democratic voters from red states to vote? Why? It isn’t as if the states who went for this have more blue electoral votes to give away. It is a nonsensical solution.

 

[JMMJ]

That is more important than life. You know slavery was legal at one time but most of the slaves lived. Abortion the babied don’t live!

If you read my earlier post in this thread, you will see I stated I don’t agree with the Church’s teachings on abortion.

I was merely answering the question for OP, as to why a Catholic may vote for a pro-choice candidate.

 

[whatistrue]

Bush won that election with one vote over the minimum needed.

Which again has nothing to do with where the real meat of the issues are - local and state politics.

 

[PatK63]

@JMMJ
That is very interesting! May I ask why? Is the fetus not a human! We get in big problems when we make humans subhuman. That happened with slavery. It is also what Hitler did to the Jews.
Do you know that there is a $500 fine for destroying an Eagles egg?

 

[pnewton]

If you read my earlier post in this thread, you will see I stated I don’t agree with the Church’s teachings on abortion.

The OP explicitely said:

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

It does not really apply to some one who is not Catholic, or who believes like one who is not Catholic. It refers to the USCCB voter’s guide. Abortion is absolute doctrine for a Catholic. So, while your choices may be valid for your conscience and your faith, it really doesn’t directly answer the question of how one can vote based on other voting issues in light of the Catholic faith, not in spite of it.

If you do not believe the Catholic Church has any authority in the matter, it is best to consider that question first, as it is indeed an error in the beginning.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree with you.

I would like to add that the USCCB no longer equates abortion with all other issues, if it ever did. Its latest declaration is that abortion is the primary issue in American politics. The “all issues are equal” position of Bp McElroy and Abp Cupich was rejected.