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

[LeafByNiggle]

There aren’t so many other ways to apply it-except by those trying to defend the indefensible

Well, here’s a simple example. I have just come into some money that I was not expecting. It is $20,000. I could give it to the local Catholic crisis pregnancy help center that gives unwed pregnant teens an alternative to abortion. But instead I decide to buy myself a sports car.

Principle: “No issue or combination of issues trumps abortion.”

Issue #1: I want a sports car.
Issue #2: The local Catholic crisis pregnancy help center is in desperate need of funds.

In my mind issue #1 trumps issue #2. But the principle you quoted would seem to say otherwise.

 

[estesbob]

Well, here’s a simple example. I have just come into some money that I was not expecting. It is $20,000. I could give it to the local Catholic crisis pregnancy help center that gives unwed pregnant teens an alternative to abortion. But instead I decide to buy myself a sports car.

Principle: “No issue or combination of issues trumps abortion.”

Issue #1: I want a sports car.
Issue #2: The local Catholic crisis pregnancy help center is in desperate need of funds.

In my mind issue #1 trumps issue #2. But the principle you quoted would seem to say otherwise.

The principle is abortion is an intrinsic evil and can not be supported either derectly or indirectly Silliness about speed limits and sports cars adds nothing to the discussion

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The principle is abortion is an intrinsic evil and can not be supported either derectly or indirectly Silliness about speed limits and sports cars adds nothing to the discussion

Do you or do you not subscribe to the general principle that “no issue or combination of issues trumps abortion”?

 

[Philthy]

What an odd thread. It’s staggering to see some of the denial going on here.
To be clear, the answer to the OP is that yes it is possible, as puzzleannie pointed out, but it is hard to imagine someone arriving at the conclusion that voting democratic would actually reduce the number of abortions. Perhaps one might rationalize that a particular democratic candidate is no more pro-choice, but even that conclusion has problems. Nonetheless there are some here suggesting just that: that an increase in funding to “social programs” will somehow decrease the number of abortions. I can only assume that these proponents are somehow overlooking the fact that organizations such as Planned Parenthood and others are, in fact, “social programs”. The rationale is that the reason young women seek abortions is because they are poor. I don’t buy it. Giving a child up for adoption costs very little. No, unfortunately these young women (and the men who impregnate them) aren’t thinking very hard about the choices they are making. And then, when the predictable consequences of their actions become reality (ie pregnancy), they start making more choices. Their choice is to sacrifice the life of a child they never intended to have and don’t want. And that choice, at best, is made out of perceived fear for their own well-being - a term that has been grossly distorted to encompass virtually every negative emotion or consequence they may face, real or imagined. In short, the child’s right to life is superseded by their own right to pursue happiness.

• Learning from our mistakes requires that we face and deal with the consequences of those mistakes. Having huge social programs in place to help them avoid experiencing the entire spectrum of pain and consequence that should be a natural part of bad choices only increases the likelihood that they will repeat the error.

It’s not really that complicated.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…but it is hard to imagine someone arriving at the conclusion that voting democratic would actually reduce the number of abortions…

It’s not really that complicated.

I agree that the conclusion cited is hard to imagine, and I’m not trying to justify it, but I think it would be helpful to see the question of voting in the larger context of other things that we may do to oppose abortion. Obviously the first thing is “don’t have an abortion yourself”. But beyond that there are many actions or inactions that we can take that bear on the issue of abortion, such as donating to anti-abortion efforts, or buying (or not buying) products from companies that support abortion rights. Of these, the only areas in which I have heard anyone claim there is binding Catholic teaching is these two: 1. Don’t have an abortion yourself and 2. Don’t vote for anyone who does not oppose abortion. On the issue of buying products from companies that support abortion rights, while many have claimed that it is laudable to avoid buying from certain companies, no one has ever claimed it is a mortal sin not to do so. Similarly for financial support. While it is laudable to donate to charities that oppose abortion, the exact amount of such support is left up to the discretion of the individual. So obviously there are some limits to what faithful Catholics are bound to do to oppose abortion. So it is natural to ask what these limits are and why there seems to be no limit to the opposition we are bound to exhibit in the voting booth. What makes voting different from other activities that do have limits on what is required?

 

[Hastrman]

Personally I would say it is possible to vote that way for that reason, but it seems about as prudent as gluing large numbers of hummingbirds to your body and hoping they all fly the same direction, rather than walking.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Personally I would say it is possible to vote that way for that reason, but it seems about as prudent as gluing large numbers of hummingbirds to your body and hoping they all fly the same direction, rather than walking.

Oh man!!! The mental image of that was awesome!! hahahahaha! I gotta remember that one.

 

[Listener]

What good is health insurance for those denied the right to life. As a cradle Catholic you should know no issue or combination of issues trumps abortion

I’m afraid I don’t quite understand your comment. My theory is that if a woman has adequate health insurance, that could very well be a factor in her decision AGAINST having an abortion. I’m definitely not saying that health insurance is more important than abortion. Comparing the two is like comparing apples with oranges. I’m saying that adequate health insurance might PREVENT an abortion.

Many people here might not be old enough to remember that back in the 1950’s and early 1960’s the Democratic Party was the party of choice for the majority of Catholics. There was no abortion issue back then. Abortion was simply against the law, and women either had a back-alley abortion or went to Sweden for the operation.

 

[estesbob]

I’m afraid I don’t quite understand your comment. My theory is that if a woman has adequate health insurance, that could very well be a factor in her decision AGAINST having an abortion. I’m definitely not saying that health insurance is more important than abortion. Comparing the two is like comparing apples with oranges. I’m saying that adequate health insurance might PREVENT an abortion.

Many people here might not be old enough to remember that back in the 1950’s and early 1960’s the Democratic Party was the party of choice for the majority of Catholics. There was no abortion issue back then. Abortion was simply against the law, and women either had a back-alley abortion or went to Sweden for the operation.

There is no corealation between the level of social spending and or the availability of Health insurance and the rate of abortion. In fact the only factor shown to affect the level of abortion in all countries is the level of restrictions placed on it. Yes at one time the Democrat patty was the preferred party of Catholics was before the democrat party embraced abortion and homosexuality as fundamental rights

 

[Newbie2]

Their is no such thing as “strategic” voting as far as the Church is concerned. It is a term some Catholics use to try and rationalize supporting pro-abortion canidates. Archbishop Chaput speaks to these types of mental gymnasitcs:

*Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

OK, Bob, you failed to answer this question in another thread, but I’ll give you another chance to respond…however, I predict that you’ll fail to do so again, and thus prove once again that you are simply mistaken on this point:

Hypothetical situation:

Democrats need one more seat to become a supermajority, and they have ramped up their pro-abortion motivation and have the intention to really put through pro-abortion legislation. Your district will decide the balance of power, and it’s a close race between a pro-life Democrat and a (choose either a wishy-washy or pro-choice Republican).

If you vote for the pro-life democrat, they will have the power to advance the abortion agenda. If you vote for the wishy-washy republican, the democratic party will not have that power. All other things being equal in the candidates, you’ve decided that this is the issue on which your vote will hinge.

So, in this unlikely but possible scenario, the fact is that voting for the pro-life democrat will likely do more to advance abortions than voting for the wishy-washy republican.

If you choose to vote for the republican, you are not doing so to forward abortions, but your intention is to twart the democratic agenda. This is what is meant by stregic voting.

Please explain to us, Bob, how voting for the democrat in this scenario, with the intention of opposing the abortion agenda does more to help stop or slow abortions than voting for the republican candidate.

I’m assuming that you will ignore or deflect the question as you have before, but please surprise me and give an explanation.

 

[estesbob]

OK, Bob, you failed to answer this question in another thread, but I’ll give you another chance to respond…however, I predict that you’ll fail to do so again, and thus prove once again that you are simply mistaken on this point:

Hypothetical situation:

Democrats need one more seat to become a supermajority, and they have ramped up their pro-abortion motivation and have the intention to really put through pro-abortion legislation. Your district will decide the balance of power, and it’s a close race between a pro-life Democrat and a (choose either a wishy-washy or pro-choice Republican).

If you vote for the pro-life democrat, they will have the power to advance the abortion agenda. If you vote for the wishy-washy republican, the democratic party will not have that power. All other things being equal in the candidates, you’ve decided that this is the issue on which your vote will hinge.

So, in this unlikely but possible scenario, the fact is that voting for the pro-life democrat will likely do more to advance abortions than voting for the wishy-washy republican.

If you choose to vote for the republican, you are not doing so to forward abortions, but your intention is to twart the democratic agenda. This is what is meant by stregic voting.

Please explain to us, Bob, how voting for the democrat in this scenario, with the intention of opposing the abortion agenda does more to help stop or slow abortions than voting for the republican candidate.

I’m assuming that you will ignore or deflect the question as you have before, but please surprise me and give an explanation.

You cant vote for a pro-abortion canidate where a viable pro-life alternative is available.

 

[Newbie2]

You cant vote for a pro-abortion canidate where a viable pro-life alternative is available.

Ah, Bob, you’ve not failed to disappoint. Ducking the question again.

And you’ve left out the most important part…"You cant vote for a pro-abortion canidate where a viable pro-life alternative is available…if your express, precise intention is to help further abortion by electing that candidate.

Voting for the pro-life democrrat in this situation furthers abortion more than voting for a (non-pro-life, wishy-washy, whatever you wish to call them…RINO? ) Republican candidate. You’re saying this is our duty to vote in such a manner?

Please explain.

Because for the life of me, I don’t understand how voting for the democrat and furthering abortions, in this scenario, is the most moral choice to make.

So, given my (unlikely) scenario, please enlighten us as to how voting for the pro-life democrat will slow or help eliminate abortions. Seriously, I really would like you to explain it to me, because I don’t undestand. Perhaps others would like to see the explantion of your position as well.

Waiting…

 

[estesbob]

Ah, Bob, you’ve not failed to disappoint. Ducking the question again.

And you’ve left out the most important part…"You cant vote for a pro-abortion canidate where a viable pro-life alternative is available…if your express, precise intention is to help further abortion by electing that candidate.

So, given my (unlikely) scenario, please enlighten us as to how voting for the pro-life democrat will slow or help eliminate abortions.

Waiting…

I told you I would vote for the pro-life canidate.I dont see how that can be contrued as ducking your question.

 

[Newbie2]

I told you I would vote for the pro-life canidate.I dont see how that can be contrued as ducking your question.

See post #73…we crossed as I was editing it.

Please answer how it is more moral to give a party power to advance abortions than to vote in a candidate who’s party is against abortions, as per the scenario.

 

[Newbie2]

I told you I would vote for the pro-life canidate.I dont see how that can be contrued as ducking your question.

And as a result, the democrats would have the power and abortions would increase.

Please explain why this is the more moral choice

 

[LeafByNiggle]

See post #73…we crossed as I was editing it.

Please answer how it is more moral to give a party power to advance abortions than to vote in a candidate who’s party is against abortions, as per the scenario.

Your assumption that the count of Democrats or Republicans is more important than how they vote is ill-founded. A pro-life Democrat, even if giving a super majority to that party, does not really count as a Democrat when real political power is called for. If he really is pro-life, then he is going to vote that way regardless of his party label. And if one’s views continue to conflict with those of his nominal party, it is not unheard of that someone would actually change party affiliations. So I would not put too much stock in simple head counts.

 

[Philthy]

I’m afraid I don’t quite understand your comment. My theory is that if a woman has adequate health insurance, that could very well be a factor in her decision AGAINST having an abortion.

“could very well” and “a factor” are so ambiguous and unsubstantiated statistically that your theory is rendered practically meaningless.

I’m saying that adequate health insurance might PREVENT an abortion.

Im saying that the number of abortions that “might” be prevented by “adequate health insurance” is completely outweighed by the number that will be promoted by having adequate “health” insurance; logic and the numbers prove I am correct and that you are mistaken.

There was no abortion issue back then. Abortion was simply against the law, and women either had a back-alley abortion or went to Sweden for the operation.

My position is that this was better because fewer unwanted pregnancies occurred, and fewer abortions were performed per capita. What is your position? More legal abortions are better than fewer illegal ones?

 

[Newbie2]

Your assumption that the count of Democrats or Republicans is more important than how they vote is ill-founded. A pro-life Democrat, even if giving a super majority to that party, does not really count as a Democrat when real political power is called for. If he really is pro-life, then he is going to vote that way regardless of his party label. And if one’s views continue to conflict with those of his nominal party, it is not unheard of that someone would actually change party affiliations. So I would not put too much stock in simple head counts.

That’s why I’m saying it’s a very unlikely scenario and as such am, yes, making certain assumptions based on my experience and POV on politics. My point is to demonstrate Bob’s mistaken notion that strategic voting is never allowed.

I’d probably vote for the Republican in this scenario, because I would be convinced that such would be the best anti-abortion vote. Bob would seem to want to vote otherwise. We would each be voting for the same common goal, to vote anti-abortion, but we disagree about the best way that such would be accomplished.

That’s why the Church doesn’t make any blanket statements about, for example, how it is sinful go vote for any member of a specific party. She realizes that politics isn’t as straightforward as it may seem on the surface, and she recongizes that intention is crucial to culpability.

In this circumstance, it would seem that neither Bob nor I would have any culpability in our voting, as each of us would be voting to the same end, no?

 

[StevenFrancis]

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…

However one votes would not be mortal sin unless someone is voting for candidate X BECAUSE he is pro-abortion. That would be an abomination. If your reason to vote for someone was because he was FOR the killing of babies, and that was a personal pet cause of yours that you want to see more available, more government funding etc… Like, I would imagine that the poor lost souls who work in the industry DOING abortions probably vote for this on purpose and with forethought and malice. That would indeed be deadly mortal sin. One would be saying they are pro-murder, eugenics, genocide, etc.

As to voting between Democrats and Republicans, without going the third party route, I can’t think of a Democrat who pro-life since Carter, (who was ineffective in doing anything about it). At least at the President level. There are a few tenuous pro-lifers who affiliate themselves with “Democrats for Life” who run and get elected into some State and local positions. But by and large, the brass and leaders of the Democratic party have stuck by their pro-murder stance at the national level since 1980, and probably before.

I understand that Republicans are no cake walk. Our last one invaded a country for no discernable reason, which is a head scratcher to this day. Lied to us, and may have possibly (in ignorance) allowed his handlers to rig a U.S. Presidential election.

But there is not one single thing, even that guy and his crew did, that comes anywhere close to the genocide being perpetrated by the U.S. Democratic party. There is no reasonable way to vote for any current star in the Democratic party. That doesn’t mean some won’t emerge. It really doesn’t.

In 5 years the answer to this question could be entirely different.

AND - there are pro-death Republicans as well, but I think only 1 is running in this current batch of candidates, and he doesn’t have chance at all of securing the nomination. So you can truly say, at this point that any potential candidate that the Republicans put up will be a better choice for life than Obama, who is the default nominee of the Democrats this time around.

Having said ALL this, you’re still accountable to your God given conscience. Not cultural or generational bias, but individual moral conscience. It is possible. If you REALLY believed that the Democrat was a better choice for life with every fiber of your conscience, (even it it was Obama}, after prayer, debate, and study on the candidates, then I guess you’d be compelled to vote for the Democrat. You’d still be objectively wrong, but not morally wrong if you’re not consciously participating in evil. But only God knows if you’re truly in that state of mind.

God bless us all in the decisions we must make.

And please, we must always pray for the conversion of our leaders, and the ongoing conversion of ourselves, ceaselessly.

Steven

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s why I’m saying it’s a very unlikely scenario and as such am, yes, making certain assumptions based on my experience and POV on politics. My point is to demonstrate Bob’s mistaken notion that strategic voting is never allowed.

I’d probably vote for the Republican in this scenario, because I would be convinced that such would be the best anti-abortion vote. Bob would seem to want to vote otherwise. We would each be voting for the same common goal, to vote anti-abortion, but we disagree about the best way that such would be accomplished.

That’s why the Church doesn’t make any blanket statements about, for example, how it is sinful go vote for any member of a specific party. She realizes that politics isn’t as straightforward as it may seem on the surface, and she recongizes that intention is crucial to culpability.

In this circumstance, it would seem that neither Bob nor I would have any culpability in our voting, as each of us would be voting to the same end, no?

Your example simply does not prove your point. In fact your point is not even very clear. Are you saying that voting for a pro-choice Republican is what you call “strategic voting”? If you want to make the example attractive you have to come up with one that makes sense, and one in which others will say “Yes, I would do that too in those circumstances”. Otherwise you are just arguing semantics.