Is It a Grave Sin to Vote Democrat?

[farronwolf]

Short answer is no it is not a grave sin to vote democrat or republican.

For all those who say the D platform embraces abortion, and the R platform is pro life, well they are correct to some extent.

How many “R” candidates are truly pro life? Do they believe in the death penalty? If so they are not pro life. Do they support military action which is not necessary? If so they are not pro life. Would they support a family member who decided to have an abortion? If so they are not pro life.

However, no politician can change the Roe v Wade ruling. It is settled law. The only way to change and stop abortions is a Constitutional amendment. No President, Senator, Representative, or Justice is going to change current law. It is up to the American people to do that via amendment. So for that one item to be the deciding factor on who you choose to vote for is pure ignorance and leads to a faulty defense of what one sees as the right thing to do.

I skipped over the President portion of the ballot last election because I found both candidates to be lacking and unworthy of the office. As long as people are willing to accept these types of candidates and blindly vote for a candidate because of party affiliation, you will continue to get what we have in Washington.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Short answer is no it is not a grave sin to vote democrat or republican.

For all those who say the D platform embraces abortion, and the R platform is pro life, well they are correct to some extent.

How many “R” candidates are truly pro life? Do they believe in the death penalty? If so they are not pro life. Do they support military action which is not necessary? If so they are not pro life. Would they support a family member who decided to have an abortion? If so they are not pro life.

However, no politician can change the Roe v Wade ruling. It is settled law. The only way to change and stop abortions is a Constitutional amendment. No President, Senator, Representative, or Justice is going to change current law. It is up to the American people to do that via amendment. So for that one item to be the deciding factor on who you choose to vote for is pure ignorance and leads to a faulty defense of what one sees as the right thing to do.

I skipped over the President portion of the ballot last election because I found both candidates to be lacking and unworthy of the office. As long as people are willing to accept these types of candidates and blindly vote for a candidate because of party affiliation, you will continue to get what we have in Washington.

Oh dear. So many errors. Where to begin?

 

[farronwolf]

Begin where you wish. Just remember to base it on facts.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

1. You stated: “How many “R” candidates are truly pro life? Do they believe in the death penalty? If so they are not pro life. Do they support military action which is not necessary? If so they are not pro life. Would they support a family member who decided to have an abortion? If so they are not pro life.”

This is quite a sticky wicket. I think it is over-reach to say that in general anyone who “believes” in the death penalty is not pro-life. Obviously Pope Francis has been much in the news with his recent thoughts on this topic, and this rather a new idea in the Catholic Church that the death penalty is never acceptable.

The USCCB defines pro-life issues as the following - - I guess it depends whether someone could have a nuanced position on one or two issues, yet overall be considered pro-life (by you, or whoever else might be judging).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/issues.cfm

1. You stated: “However, no politician can change the Roe v Wade ruling. It is settled law. The only way to change and stop abortions is a Constitutional amendment. No President, Senator, Representative, or Justice is going to change current law. It is up to the American people to do that via amendment. So for that one item to be the deciding factor on who you choose to vote for is pure ignorance and leads to a faulty defense of what one sees as the right thing to do.”

A comment:
The truth is that “settled law” is just a euphemism that jurists and legal scholars use to refer to Supreme Court precedent that is indeed binding—but only until a majority of the justices decide that it should be overruled. In the 2003 e-mail, Kavanaugh was largely right to say that the Supreme Court “can always overrule its precedent.” And that’s a good thing. The Supreme Court needs to have the power to overturn flawed constitutional precedent, as this is usually the only way to correct wrong constitutional decisions, short of using the extraordinarily difficult amendment process.

Why "Settled Law" Isn't Really Settled -- and Why That's Often a Good Thing

The Supreme Court needs to have the power to overturn "settled" constitutional decisions in order to prevent the permanent entrenchment of terrible precedents.

reason.com

1. You stated “I skipped over the President portion of the ballot last election because I found both candidates to be lacking and unworthy of the office. As long as people are willing to accept these types of candidates and blindly vote for a candidate because of party affiliation, you will continue to get what we have in Washington.”

So you didn’t accept either candidate in 2016. Do you think that your refusal to vote effected any change? If so, how?

 

[farronwolf]

The death penalty does not fall into “from conception until natural death” in any form.

Has the SCOTUS overturned precedent in the past, absolutely due to bad precedent. If one looks at the 14th amendment and the times that they have overturned prior precedent, if I am not mistaken, all times have favored the individual freedom covered by the 14.

If you can find one that was overturned limiting the freedoms previously granted, ie restricting a previously broad ruling, I would be interested in that.

Based on the reasoning that the SCOTUS will somehow with the right majority overturn current precedent on abortion, one could also hope that they outlaw contraception, certain reproductive assistance, and other issues that violate the Church’s teachings but are commonly accepted by the citizens of this country as being protected by the 14th amendment.

I certainly do not see any of that happening, and put it in the wishful thinking pile. The fetus would have to be considered a person by civil law. Are people willing to put women who get an abortion in prison? I doubt that very seriously. Are women who smoke or drink or do other things that jeopardize the life of their unborn child going to be sent to prison?

Yes, these are my opinions, just like the opinions of those who are hoping for the courts to reverse current precedent. Time will tell who is correct, but my money is not with the courts.

As far as not voting for either candidate, did it affect any change, I am not sure, but probably not. But I certainly didn’t have to wonder after I voted if I did the right thing or not.

I question those who continue to support our current President just because he has an R beside his name. My question to those is, if everyone stopped supporting him, would there not be a better candidate step forward which folks wouldn’t have to hold their noses when going to the polls.

Their answers are usually, well no one has stepped up. Well duh. If the incumbent has the support of the majority of the party, no one will. If you take away the support, then certainly someone will.

 

[JSRG]

Has the SCOTUS overturned precedent in the past, absolutely due to bad precedent. If one looks at the 14th amendment and the times that they have overturned prior precedent, if I am not mistaken, all times have favored the individual freedom covered by the 14.

If you can find one that was overturned limiting the freedoms previously granted, ie restricting a previously broad ruling, I would be interested in that.

They absolutely did when they ended the Lochner era, though it wasn’t really one decision so much as a series of decisions that did that. For those unaware, the Lochner era is the term for a time period in which the Supreme Court had a tendency to strike down labor regulation laws on the theory that it violated a “freedom of contract”. So minimum wage laws, laws setting maximum work hours, etc. got continually struck down, in protecting the individual right of to agree to the contracts you want to without the state setting restrictions on them. Interestingly, legal critics of Roe v. Wade frequently compare it to the Lochner era.

In the specific front of abortion, there is Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While declining to overturn Roe v. Wade (sadly, only 4 justices were willing to advocate for that), it did restrict it. Some laws that would have been forbidden under Roe v. Wade are permitted under Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Based on the reasoning that the SCOTUS will somehow with the right majority overturn current precedent on abortion, one could also hope that they outlaw contraception, certain reproductive assistance, and other issues that violate the Church’s teachings but are commonly accepted by the citizens of this country as being protected by the 14th amendment.

Well, of course the Supreme Court wouldn’t outlaw contraception–it’s downright silly to claim the Constitution requires contraception to be illegal. The question is whether it requires them to be legal.

It’s the same thing with abortion. The primary legal argument against Roe v. Wade is that the Constitution doesn’t say anything one way or the other and thus the level of restrictions on abortion should be left to the individual states. As Antonin Scalia wrote: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.”

But legally, the problem with Roe v. Wade doesn’t rest on the morality of abortion, but the fact it was an incorrect decision even if you think abortion is perfectly moral. The pro-choice John Hart Ely, all the way back in the 1970’s, wrote a very harsh critique of the decision in which he declared it to be one of the worst decisions of the last several decades because “it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be”:
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5116&context=fss_papers

A few things in it are outdated but the core points of it stand true today in regards to the massive legal errors that underlie the decision.

 

[farronwolf]

It’s the same thing with abortion. The primary legal argument against Roe v. Wade is that the Constitution doesn’t say anything one way or the other and thus the level of restrictions on abortion should be left to the individual states. As Antonin Scalia wrote: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.”

That right there is your answer to the reason I see fault with single issue “abortion” voters. Even the SCOTUS is not going to ban abortions. Your quote from the conservative side of the bench even said so. Voting with the hopes that a conservative bench will overturn Roe and end abortion is not going to happen, even if the issue is turned back over for each state to decide.

Like I said in my post earlier. No President, Senator, Representative or even Justice is going to ban abortions. Only a Constitutional Amendment will accomplish that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’ll tell what will reduce abortions immediately, and it does not even require overturning Roe v. Wade. Provide tax-supported pre-natal care, delivery services regardless of complications, and recovery to all, rich and poor alike. Go right to the source of abortions - mothers who are seeking them. Take away this one reason for seeking an abortion. It won’t convince all would-be mothers, but it will probably convince a good number of them that having the child is preferable. Then if they don’t want the child after it is born, it can be adopted.

 

[vz71]

Provide tax-supported pre-natal care, delivery services regardless of complications, and recovery to all, rich and poor alike. Go right to the source of abortions - mothers who are seeking them. Take away this one reason for seeking an abortion.

Great idea. Which is likely why many Catholic churches already do this.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Provide tax-supported pre-natal care, delivery services regardless of complications, and recovery to all, rich and poor alike. Go right to the source of abortions - mothers who are seeking them. Take away this one reason for seeking an abortion.

Great idea. Which is likely why many Catholic churches already do this.

Only for the destitute, I believe. When the Church can offer free care to everyone, let me know.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But what evidence is there that lack of money for pre-natal care and delivery services causes abortions?

Not so long ago, there was an article on abortion in the paper, and they featured a woman coming from another state for her 6th abortion!

Children are sent for abortions by teachers and school officials, without the parent’s knowledge – those abortions are surely not due to lack of money for care!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I said this would not address all abortions. But there can be no doubt that it will address many.

 

[TMC]

While declining to overturn Roe v. Wade (sadly, only 4 justices were willing to advocate for that), it did restrict it

Of the dissenters in Casey, only one remains on the Court (Thomas) Thomas is the ONLY current Justice who is on record as supporting overturning Roe. Two other conservatives have had opportunities to say they would overturn Roe (Roberts and Alito), but have not. Two others have not gone on the record as Justices - Gorsuch and Kavenaugh. The chance that all four would vote to overturn Roe is very slim. I think the court is at least two votes away from that, and maybe as many as four.

 

[vz71]

False dichotomy.

No one believes we should not pursue outlawing abortion, but going after the various incentives is a viable second line of attack against this evil.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I really question that. What evidence – hard evidence – is there that women have abortions because they can’t afford pre-natal care or delivery costs?

The overwhelming evidence is that women have abortions for convenience – they just don’t want a child.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I really question that. What evidence – hard evidence – is there that women have abortions because they can’t afford pre-natal care or delivery costs?

Some of they say so in interviews. And why should we require such definitive evidence of how many babies will be saved? We don’t ask for definitive evidence that overturning Roe v. Wade will save many babies, right?

Also there is the matter of what it means to “afford” the medical costs. I’m sure there are women who could afford it, by scrimping and saving elsewhere, but just don’t want to afford it. My proposal would give them free pre-natal and delivery costs too - even if they can afford it. And then there are people who have reason to believe their delivery will be complicated (perhaps through personal experience in a previous pregnancy.) Naturally the prospect of an exceptionally expensive delivery is going to worry some people. It seems reasonable that many babies would be saved if no mother had to worry about these costs.

 

[pnewton]

Oh dear. So many errors. Where to begin?

How about with the one truth.

Short answer is no it is not a grave sin to vote democrat or republican.

 

[pnewton]

The truth is that “settled law” is just a euphemism that jurists and legal scholars use to refer to Supreme Court precedent that is indeed binding—but only until a majority of the justices decide that it should be overruled.

Nonetheless, it remains a principle that with time will not change. Just like the right to bear arms individually, and not just collectively as part of a militia, is established, so can any precedent to become so established as to be virtually (an important qualifier) impossible to change without amending the Constitution.

So the question is, do we refuse to vote for any candidate because they do not oppose no fault divorce, or legalized artificial contraception? Of course not. It is established law. No one doubts if it will be over-turned.

Roe v. Wade however is not so black and white. However, I think it soon will be established to the point as the above examples, or not, soon. We now have a Supreme Court as pro-life as it will ever get. If the majority pro-life judges see the precedent as unchanging, or to the extent that they see it as unchangeable, then it is not reasonable to assume a majority of pro-abortion judges will overturn it.

Then the question will whether we truly want to reduce abortion through other means, or is it to remain a political ploy to “rally the troops.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives. If I don’t think lack of money for pre-natal care will solve the problem, then I automatically HAVE to think overturning Roe v Wade will solve the problem.

In point of fact, we DO know how to reduce abortions – and it’s a complex problem. There are no simplistic answers.

Now you say, " I’m sure there are women who could afford it, by scrimping and saving elsewhere, but just don’t want to afford it." That tells us that the resulting abortion is for convenience, not lack of care.

Ask yourself this, Would a woman who aborts her child because it would be inconvenient to pay for pre-natal care not also abort the child because raising it is even MORE costly than pre-natal care?

So would more welfare reduce abortions? The evidence is that welfare and abortion rates are positively correlated – as the number of people on welfare goes up, so do abortions.

 

[PetraG]

OK, so, if someone had been voting in Oregon in the gubernatorial race between Kate Brown (D) and Knute Buehler (R ) and both those two and every other candidate supported abortion rights, none of the Catholics in Oregon could have morally cast a vote in that election for anybody but a write-in?
(I wrote someone in myself, but that is besides the point…)

Who agrees with that? Who disagrees with that?

That’s the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives. If I don’t think lack of money for pre-natal care will solve the problem, then I automatically HAVE to think overturning Roe v Wade will solve the problem.

In point of fact, we DO know how to reduce abortions – and it’s a complex problem. There are no simplistic answers.

Do tell, by citing the nation that is an example of a high abortion rate being reduced by legislative action. What was the legislative action that made the difference?

I really question that. What evidence – hard evidence – is there that women have abortions because they can’t afford pre-natal care or delivery costs?

The overwhelming evidence is that women have abortions for convenience – they just don’t want a child.

The cost of delivery really isn’t the single most big ticket item when it comes to raising a child.

To say that someone who can barely pay (or can’t pay) for health care and food and shelter for the children she already has is considering an abortion out of “convenience” is a bit cold, to be blunt.