Is it possible to vote democrat because you think they would do more against abortion?

[fakename]

Is it possible to vote democrat if you think they would help lower abortions?

I’m wondering since I see a lot of people voting democrat but at the same time some say that such a vote is a mortal sin. But if it were so, I doubt that people would continue something as controllable as voting so…

 

[Corki]

It’s not about voting “democrat” but rather voting for a particular candidate who may be a Democrat. There would be nothing wrong with voting for a pro-life Democrat. The problem is that pro-life Democrats, especially for federal positions are extremely rare which is too bad.

If you vote for a pro-abortion Democrat based on some promise of reducing abortion rates while actually encouraging freer access to abortions you are probably just falling for a line.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

You can vote democrat if the person is pro-life and against euthanasia, gay marriage, and stuff like that. Or if the democrat is the lesser of 2 evils so to speak. But that rarely happens.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Corki is right - party his little to nothing to do with voting guidelines.

There is a general pattern though - pro-life democrats are exceptionally rare. You also run into the issue of other things democrats tend to promote: free contraception, accepting and forcing acceptance of gay lifestyles, and so on.

It is up to you how you vote and who you vote for. If you have good reason to believe that a democrat/republican/independent candidate will hold up morality and true justice in the government - then you may vote for them. However, belittling serious crimes, such as abortion, to see your own agenda promoted, is gravely wrong.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Is it possible to vote democrat if you think they would help lower abortions?

I’m wondering since I see a lot of people voting democrat but at the same time some say that such a vote is a mortal sin. But if it were so, I doubt that people would continue something as controllable as voting so…

That attitude—that voting Democratic is a mortal sin—is pretty standard around this place.

But I certainly see the logic in saying that having more Democrats in office would help lower abortions. Democrats are more likely to create and maintain government programs that maintain some kind of a social safety net that gives women a visible, concretely constructive alternative to abortion. Granted, it’d be better if people would refrain from abortion no matter what the circumstance, and many do; others are going to resort to it no matter what. In between these two types of people are a lot of fence-sitters.

But a better safety net would get many of the fence-sitters to make the right decision. That may not be saying anything really good about the fence-sitters but it would probably save a lot of innocent lives.

This whole concept is predicated, of course, on the supposition that Republicans aren’t really interested in doing anything about the abortion issue, other than using it as an eternal stumbling block to place in front of doing something about things they have no interest in enacting at all—like universal healthcare. Such tends to be my opinion.

 

[Defender1]

Is it possible to vote democrat if you think they would help lower abortions?

I’m wondering since I see a lot of people voting democrat but at the same time some say that such a vote is a mortal sin. But if it were so, I doubt that people would continue something as controllable as voting so…

Liberal democrats stance is pro abortion for the most part, it would be hard to find a democrat not in support of it .

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

But I certainly see the logic in saying that having more Democrats in office would help lower abortions. Democrats are more likely to create and maintain government programs that maintain some kind of a social safety net that gives women a visible, concretely constructive alternative to abortion.

What makes you say that?

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Is it possible to vote democrat if you think they would help lower abortions?

I’m wondering since I see a lot of people voting democrat but at the same time some say that such a vote is a mortal sin. But if it were so, I doubt that people would continue something as controllable as voting so…

The democrat platform is pro-abortion.

I think people will rationalize almost anything. Maybe they think their candidate cannot influence whether or not abortions take place.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

What makes you say that?

Oh, just off the top of my head, GOP suggestions to reduce food stamps, enforce cut/cap/balance at 18% of previous yr’s GDP, cut WIC, cut after-school programs, cut pre-natal care programs (under the cover that some of it’s done by Planned Parenthood), things like that…

 

[fakename]

It’s not about voting “democrat” but rather voting for a particular candidate who may be a Democrat. There would be nothing wrong with voting for a pro-life Democrat. The problem is that pro-life Democrats, especially for federal positions are extremely rare which is too bad.

If you vote for a pro-abortion Democrat based on some promise of reducing abortion rates while actually encouraging freer access to abortions you are probably just falling for a line.

So basically, all voting should be given up to “common sense” -we can vote for people who explicitly or implicitly will make rightly-ordered decisions; if I vote for a pro-abort democrat who will, despite his convictions, end up lowering abortions (after all accidents happen; I think Jimmy Carter was pretty much forced to deregulate for instance, even though Reagan got the credit/blame), that’s okay?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Oh, just off the top of my head, GOP suggestions to reduce food stamps, enforce cut/cap/balance at 18% of previous yr’s GDP, cut WIC, cut after-school programs, cut pre-natal care programs (under the cover that some of it’s done by Planned Parenthood), things like that…

But most abortions are done for women who can reasonably afford to raise a child and choose abortion for reasons of personal convenience. I don’t think changing the social safety net situation is going to have much affect on lowering abortion rates.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

But most abortions are done for women who can reasonably afford to raise a child and choose abortion for reasons of personal convenience. I don’t think changing the social safety net situation is going to have much affect on lowering abortion rates.

This.

 

[Listener]

That attitude—that voting Democratic is a mortal sin—is pretty standard around this place.

But I certainly see the logic in saying that having more Democrats in office would help lower abortions. Democrats are more likely to create and maintain government programs that maintain some kind of a social safety net that gives women a visible, concretely constructive alternative to abortion. Granted, it’d be better if people would refrain from abortion no matter what the circumstance, and many do; others are going to resort to it no matter what. In between these two types of people are a lot of fence-sitters.

But a better safety net would get many of the fence-sitters to make the right decision. That may not be saying anything really good about the fence-sitters but it would probably save a lot of innocent lives.

This whole concept is predicated, of course, on the supposition that Republicans aren’t really interested in doing anything about the abortion issue, other than using it as an eternal stumbling block to place in front of doing something about things they have no interest in enacting at all—like universal healthcare. Such tends to be my opinion.

I really agree with this kind of thinking, and it drives me crazy when “pro-life” conservative politicians want to do away with all of the “safety nets,” such as medical insurance. It is like when St. Paul gives the example of telling a starving person to stay warm and well fed, instead of giving him some food to prevent him from starving.

Let’s say you have two pregnant women. One has plenty of money and health insurance for both her and the child. The second woman is destitute and has just lost all of her health insurance because some conservative “pro-life” politician has just done away with Obama Care.

Which woman do you think will have an abortion? I really believe that actions speak louder than words.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Which woman do you think will have an abortion? I really believe that actions speak louder than words.

Actions do speak louder than words - and the reason why most women are having abortions isn’t because they are worried that financially they couldn’t support a child, but because they feel they “aren’t ready” or the boyfriend/husband/family is pressuring her into it.

The toxic attitude of the secular left, which the democrat party often embraces, teaches that birth control is a basic human right, children are burdens and not blessings, overpopulation is a problem, and sex should be had by all unrestricted. It is this Culture of Death (as the pope called it) that creates a would where nearly 1/3rd of all woman obtain an abortion…NOT financial ruin. (statistic from Planned Parenthood’s own website)

Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion-4260.asp

 

[yablabo]

Is it possible to vote democrat if you think they would help lower abortions?

I’m wondering since I see a lot of people voting democrat but at the same time some say that such a vote is a mortal sin. But if it were so, I doubt that people would continue something as controllable as voting so…

Personally, I hold myself not to vote. There is no credible or moral means in the USA of gathering information about the potential candidates in order to form one’s conscience. The media is heavily biased, often prints falsehoods, or plain out does not print what is not favorable to the “party-line” or “agenda.” On top of that, my Archbishop does not tell me how to vote (since he is in a position to know the best candidate), so there’s no help there, either. Knowing that, I do not vote, because I do not want to commit a morally unconscious action on the mere “hope” that someone may possibly do better than another.

– Nicole

 

[puzzleannie]

Is it possible to vote democrat if you think they would help lower abortions?

sure if you are living in a dream world and have never heard the party leadership or individual candidates express their views and have never examined their voting records. Once you do a reality check, no it would not be possible.

you did not phrase the question in terms of voting for a single pro-life candidate, so I did not answer in that vein. If you know of one I would like to hear about it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Oh, just off the top of my head, GOP suggestions to reduce food stamps, enforce cut/cap/balance at 18% of previous yr’s GDP, cut WIC, cut after-school programs, cut pre-natal care programs (under the cover that some of it’s done by Planned Parenthood), things like that…

The Democrat party platform includes abortion on demand.

I SUPPORT those cuts in government programs. That is not the venue of Caesar, who always uses such money as he wills, regardless of what name he gives it.

Charity is the venue of the Church, and the individual. All else has failure and abuse built right in.

 

[Newbie2]

So basically, all voting should be given up to “common sense” -we can vote for people who explicitly or implicitly will make rightly-ordered decisions; if I vote for a pro-abort democrat who will, despite his convictions, end up lowering abortions (after all accidents happen; I think Jimmy Carter was pretty much forced to deregulate for instance, even though Reagan got the credit/blame), that’s okay?

There was a thread about this recently. It seem to come down to this:

1. A few people were convinced that any vote for any Democrat at any time is a mortal sin, since one of the planks of the D party is abortion on demand.
2. A few smattering of other various opinions.
3. The Church teaching, which says that one cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate precisely so that that candidate could further the abortion agenda.

A correct interpretation of this teaching means that one can vote for a pro-life Democrat candidate and one can vote for a pro-choice candidate for strategic reasons.

One example of strategic voting is if there is a non-commital or Pro-life Democrat running against a Pro-choice or non-commital Republican. IF, under this scenario, the Democrat gets into office, it will tilt the power to the Democratic party and they are free to do whatever they please to increase the number of abortions. If the Republican gets elected, the power is with the Republicans, who as a party will oppose abortions.

In this instance, IF one was voting for a Pro-choice Republican in order to strategically limit or reduce the number of abortions, such would be morally acceptable; one would not be voting for that candidate precisely to increase abortion, rather, the opposite.

There are probably other strategic situations, but the point is one’s intent in the result. Granted, such a situation would be rare, but it illustrates the principle behind voting to end or limit abortions.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

The Democrat party platform includes abortion on demand.

I SUPPORT those cuts in government programs. That is not the venue of Caesar, who always uses such money as he wills, regardless of what name he gives it.

Charity is the venue of the Church, and the individual. All else has failure and abuse built right in.

But that says nothing of the net effect of the totality of their actions.

I DON’T support those cuts.

That’s certainly debatable.

 

[Listener]

Actions do speak louder than words - and the reason why most women are having abortions isn’t because they are worried that financially they couldn’t support a child, but because they feel they “aren’t ready” or the boyfriend/husband/family is pressuring her into it.

The toxic attitude of the secular left, which the democrat party often embraces, teaches that birth control is a basic human right, children are burdens and not blessings, overpopulation is a problem, and sex should be had by all unrestricted. It is this Culture of Death (as the pope called it) that creates a would where nearly 1/3rd of all woman obtain an abortion…NOT financial ruin. (statistic from Planned Parenthood’s own website)

plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion-4260.asp

I agree that women probably have abortions for all kinds of reasons. My opinion is based on some statistics in the USCCB Web Site. Although they give a lot of reasons that women have abortions, 23 per cent of all abortions happen because the woman feels that she is too poor to support the child. This number is based on statistics from 2004. I believe that percent could be cut down some if women and their newborn children were at least assured of decent medical insurance.

I believe that another factor is all of the greed going on in this country. So many people work such long hours for such low wages. Then you have the CEO’s making millions! I think this contributes to some low-paid women feeling desperate enough to have abortions.

We don’t have much control over a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but we can at least make sure that she and the baby will have medical insurance.