Is It a Grave Sin to Vote Democrat?

[vern_humphrey]

What Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) said: If there is no pro-life candidate, you can legitimately vote for the least radical of the pro-death candidates (He did NOT say you can vote for a pro-death candidate if you like his other positionls.)

 

[pnewton]

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.

That is not the correlation that was proposed. Pre-natal care is not the same as welfare. Rather, it would be more accurate to note that both abortion and welfare correlate to poverty, in order to be intellectually honest.

 

[pnewton]

What Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) said: If there is no pro-life candidate, you can legitimately vote for the least radical of the pro-death candidates (He did NOT say you can vote for a pro-death candidate if you like his other positionls.)

While that is true, that does not mean that one must vote for that candidate. It is only a moral option, not the only moral option.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

Or, conversely, if I don’t think that overturning Roe v Wade will solve the problem, then I HAVE to think about providing money for pre-natal care.

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

Right. It will probably take many solutions at once. So why not provide pre-natal care and delivery services?

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.

No, it tells us that lack of care is an inconvenience. Either way, taking away this one worry from everyone is bound to save some lives.

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?

Not an issue. There is adoption. She need not raise the child.

So would more welfare reduce abortions?

Conflating pre-natal care with every other welfare program under the sun does not permit you to apply the correlation you mentioned:

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

Whenever you have a correlation you have to carefully consider what cause-and-effect might explain it. You are apparently trying to imply that if you give poor people welfare then they will more likely choose abortion. But how about this more common sense cause-and-effect: People who get welfare are poor, and therefore more insecure about having children and more likely to want an abortion. If all the people on welfare were suddenly cut off, do you think the women so affected would suddenly start deciding to carry their pregnancies to term? I don’t think so.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) said: If there is no pro-life candidate, you can legitimately vote for the least radical of the pro-death candidates (He did NOT say you can vote for a pro-death candidate if you like his other positionls.)

The fallacy employed here is to assume that anything that is not explicitly permitted must be prohibited.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I did not say that pre-natal care was the same as welfare. I pointed out that some programs meant to solve problems can cause other problems.

Now this is from https://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/poverty-and-abortion-new-analysis.html , a Catholic source. This is a pretty sophisticated statistical analysis, and one conclusion is “The trend is actually very interesting. As the poverty rate was rising sharply from 1979 through 1982, the abortion rate dropped. The same thing happened during the poverty rate rises of 1990-1993 and 2001-2004.”

Clearly any positive correlation between poverty and abortion is VERY weak, if it even exists.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You say, “why not provide pre-natal care and delivery services?”

Why not? But justify it on the NEED for those services, not on the siren song that it will reduce abortions.

You say, “There is adoption. She need not raise the child.” But she could actually get money by putting the child up for adoption. She could find a family (and there are Catholic services that would help help) that would pay her expenses and give her money to live on if she would allow them to adopt the child.

You say, “The evidence is that welfare and abortion rates are positively correlated – as the number of people on welfare goes up, so do abortions.”

But in another post I showed this is not true:

"Now this is from https://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/poverty-and-abortion-new-analysis.html , a Catholic source. This is a pretty sophisticated statistical analysis, and one conclusion is “The trend is actually very interesting. As the poverty rate was rising sharply from 1979 through 1982, the abortion rate dropped. The same thing happened during the poverty rate rises of 1990-1993 and 2001-2004.”

Clearly any positive correlation between poverty and abortion is VERY weak, if it even exists."

 

[pnewton]

Clearly any positive correlation between poverty and abortion is VERY weak, if it even exists.

I note it does not include the Obama administration and the corresponding drop in abortion rates. That is the problem of correlation. Newer data can show it mistaken.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think Benedict would say that voting for a pro-death candidate when there is a pro-life choice IS a moral imperative.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are you taking the position that voting for a pro-death candidate is morally acceptable for any reason other than the fact that he or she is the LEAST pro-death of the choices?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Or newer data can show it even more strongly. The point is, the evidence we have does NOT allow us to say there is a strong correlation between poverty and abortion

 

[pnewton]

I think Benedict would say that voting for a pro-death candidate when there is a pro-life choice IS a moral imperative.

That is a “duh”; a straw man. It has nothing to do with the limitation of the Cardinal’s comment. You did say he made it as cardinal and not pope, didn’t you? You can’s keep switching back and forth, bait and switch.

This is the very type of illogical and unreasoning syllogisms that lead to the rather ludicrous proposition that it voting for a Democrat is a mortal sin. The fact that it can be a mortal sin, does not mean it is, or that it must be.

Or newer data can show it even more strongly. The point is, the evidence we have does NOT allow us to say there is a strong correlation between poverty and abortion

I think the evidence is not very strong either way. In any case, there must be an open-mindedness to social programs as to their unintended negative consequences, something even those (especially those) who believe in social justice should monitor and adapt to.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You say, “why not provide pre-natal care and delivery services?”

Why not? But justify it on the NEED for those services, not on the siren song that it will reduce abortions.

The NEED is the fact that it will reduce abortions. We NEED to reduce abortions. That is reason enough.

You say, “There is adoption. She need not raise the child.” But she could actually get money by putting the child up for adoption. She could find a family (and there are Catholic services that would help help) that would pay her expenses and give her money to live on if she would allow them to adopt the child.

All expenses? Guaranteed? Including delivery services, regardless of complications, and regardless of whether the child lives? I don’t think so.

You say, “The evidence is that welfare and abortion rates are positively correlated – as the number of people on welfare goes up, so do abortions.”

No, I think you said that. (But I think I know what you meant to quote.) In any case, it is irrelevant whether general welfare payments encourage abortion, because pre-natal and delivery care for all (not just the poor) is not the same as general welfare payments, which go only to the poor.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think Benedict would say that voting for a pro-death candidate when there is a pro-life choice IS a moral imperative.

Well, if you think he would say it, then show me where he did say it. On the other had, Benedict did say:

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are you taking the position that voting for a pro-death candidate is morally acceptable for any reason other than the fact that he or she is the LEAST pro-death of the choices?

Yes, it can be. When there are proportionate reasons to do so.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think my paraphrase pretty accurately presented Pope Benedict’s position.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You say, “The NEED is the fact that it will reduce abortions. We NEED to reduce abortions. That is reason enough.”

Where IS the fact that it will reduce abortions? What evidence do we have?

You say, “All expenses? Guaranteed? Including delivery services, regardless of complications, and regardless of whether the child lives? I don’t think so.” Here you are setting a MUCH higher standard than you accept for your proposal. That’s not fair.

You say. “In any case, it is irrelevant whether general welfare payments encourage abortion, because pre-natal and delivery care for all (not just the poor) is not the same as general welfare payments, which go only to the poor.”

But you have not shown that pre-natal and delivery care for all will have any effect on abortion at all. I don’t object to providing needed care, but I would justify it with facts, not suppositions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You say, “That is a “duh”; a straw man.” A straw man is when one creates an easy-to-refute argument and attributes it to his opponent. Just what straw man did I attribute to you or anyone else?

You say. “It has nothing to do with the limitation of the Cardinal’s comment. You did say he made it as cardinal and not pope, didn’t you?” How Is it relevant whether he was pope or not when he made the comments?

You say, “You can’s keep switching back and forth, bait and switch.”

Bait and switch is when you attract someone with an enticing offer, and then present something else – it’s usually a merchandising ploy where you advertise a desirable article at a low price, then tell the customer you’re all sold out, and offer a more expensive substitute.

You say, “This is the very type of illogical and unreasoning syllogisms that lead to the rather ludicrous proposition that it voting for a Democrat is a mortal sin. The fact that it can be a mortal sin, does not mean it is, or that it must be.”

Now that IS a straw man. When and where did I say voting for a democrat is a mortal sin?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You say, “The NEED is the fact that it will reduce abortions. We NEED to reduce abortions. That is reason enough.”

Where IS the fact that it will reduce abortions? What evidence do we have?

Common sense based on what women say who have had abortions.

You say, “All expenses? Guaranteed? Including delivery services, regardless of complications, and regardless of whether the child lives? I don’t think so.” Here you are setting a MUCH higher standard than you accept for your proposal. That’s not fair.

No, that was my proposal from the very beginning. All expenses.

You say. “In any case, it is irrelevant whether general welfare payments encourage abortion, because pre-natal and delivery care for all (not just the poor) is not the same as general welfare payments, which go only to the poor.”

But you have not shown that pre-natal and delivery care for all will have any effect on abortion at all.

It just makes sense based what women say who have had abortions.

I think my paraphrase pretty accurately presented Pope Benedict’s position.

I choose not to trust your assessment of your paraphrasing. Why should you have to paraphrase anyway? Why not just quote him?

 

[pnewton]

A straw man is when one creates an easy-to-refute argument

This is the definition I was thinking of, specifcally that, “I think Benedict would say that voting for a pro-death candidate when there is a pro-life choice IS a moral imperative.” I think we can all agree that voting for a pro-death candidate is wrong. But you paraphrase instead of quoting. Why is that? Leaf quoted and I do not think your paraphrase is the least bit accurate. Were you thinking of another quote, and if so, can you provide his words, not yours?

Now that IS a straw man. When and where did I say voting for a democrat is a mortal sin?

I didn’t say that you said it, but the first time it was said was in post 2.

Sure. 10 characters.

And further…

I’ll go one further. The whole concept of liberalism is a sin!

So yes, rolling your eyes at your boss and voting Democrat are mortally sinful.

There was one more post that has been deleted that also said this, so I do not think it qualifies as a straw man. There is also a post that says voting for one Democrat is a support for all Democrats, thus wrong. So there are some rather one-sided opinions here. I do not think anyone though has come out as pro-death.