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

[estesbob]

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.
?

My notion is not mistaken at all. No matter how you want to dress up supporting evil, whether you call it “strategic voting” or “proportionate reasoning” you are never allowed to vote for a pro-abortion canidate unless their oponnent is more pro-abortion than they are.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

My notion is not mistaken at all. No matter how you want to dress up supporting evil, whether you call it “strategic voting” or “proportionate reasoning” you are never allowed to vote for a pro-abortion canidate unless their oponnent is more pro-abortion than they are.

And once again, Bob, you never fail to disappoint, ducking the direct question again. I’ll leave it at that with you. You completely fail to understand my point of using strategy in order to defeat abortion, or are just trying to be exceptionally obtuse.

 

[estesbob]

And once again, Bob, you never fail to disappoint, ducking the direct question again. I’ll leave it at that with you. You completely fail to understand my point of using strategy in order to defeat abortion, or are just trying to be exceptionally obtuse.

I have no idea how telling you unequivocably I would vote for the pro-life canidate is “ducking the question”. You set up these absurd scenarios and then seem to get upset when pople are consistent with their answers no matter how bizzare a scenario you present. “Strategic voting” appears to be still another euphenism for “I vote for pro-abortion candiates.”

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Let me explain it one more time in general terms:

First, I’m talking about a congressional or senatorial candidate, not a presidential candidate. It’s pretty clear that a pro-life presidential candidate is the best choice.

This is the hypothetical situation that I propose: Candidate A is from a party that stands to gain a supermajority if he is elected. His party is very pro-abortion, and if elected, they will surely advance the abortion agenda. He personally is pro-life, and votes his conscience.

Candidate B, from the opposing party, is not clearly pro-life. While he may give lip service to his supposed pro-life stance when it is favorable to gain him votes, he does so. He, however, has voted for some legislation in the past that clearly adds to the abortion problem. Call him either wishy-washy or pro-choice, it doesn’t matter which, I could agree with both or either.

Voting for either one of these candidates can be looked at two ways:

A vote for Candidate A is a vote for pro-life. However, it also may have a secondary effect that increases the number of abortions, as his party will have the power to do so at their will as they have the supermajority. His single vote within his party is ineffective, as he is vastly outnumbered by the pro-choicers.

A vote for Candidate B could be a vote for pro-choice. IF the senario that I would propose were not in place, it would definitely be a pro-choice vote. However, IF the reason for voting for Candidate B was so that Candidate A’s party would not gain the majority i.e. thereby thwarting their party’s efforts to further abortion, it would in effect be a pro-life vote.

Understand?

The party can do more damage to the pro-llife movement than any individual candidate.

Of course, IF one were to vote for Candidate B because of their (sometimes or always) pro-choice stand, and not to thwart the party of Candidate A, that would be morally objectionable.

In other words, a vote for Candidate A because of his pro-life stand and a vote for Candidate B because of his party’s pro-life stand are morally acceptable under a very strict, very unusual, extremely rare situation such as what I described above.

Would this ever happen? Probably not. I’d be very surprised if it ever did. But one is not prevented from trying to determine the reasonable effects of one’s vote down the line. In this scenario,the assumption is that the party is more powerful than the individual, at least as far as the results of that particular election are concerned. You can disagree that such is the case, but the motivation of a voter must be taken into consideration.

If what you and Bob are saying is that one can never vote for a pro-choice candidate precisely to advance abortions, that is a correct interpretation of the Church’s teaching.

Answer this question, if you will (Bob won’t):

If voting for Candidate A, who is pro-life, has the most reasonable outcome to increase the number of abortions vs. voting for Candidate B, who is pro-choice, and in voting for him the net result would be a stability or decrease in the number of abortions, do you feel it is morally objectionable to vote for Candidate B?

If yes, please explain your reasoning.

And please don’t be like Bob and accuse me of twisting the words in order to justify abortion…please. I hope it’s clear that I’m not trying to do that, but attempting to explain how someone in good conscience could vote against a pro-life candidate in order to have a net effect of decreasing abortions.

 

[Newbie2]

I have no idea how telling you unequivocably I would vote for the pro-life canidate is “ducking the question”. You set up these absurd scenarios and then seem to get upset when pople are consistent with their answers no matter how bizzare a scenario you present. “Strategic voting” appears to be still another euphenism for “I vote for pro-abortion candiates.”

I’m not upset with pople. Not even with the pope.

So you still never answered the question. I’ll ask it again, and rephrase it.

If a vote for candidate A, who is pro-life, results in a net increase in the number of abortions and a vote for candidate B, who is not pro-life results in a net decrease in the number of abortions or no change in the number of abortions, and the circumstances are such that this would be a reasonable forseeable outcome given a certain political scenario, please explain how a vote for candidate B is immoral.

If you want it in the form of a question:

If a vote for candidate A, who is pro-life, results in a net increase in the number of abortions and a vote for candidate B, who is not pro-life results in a net decrease in the number of abortions or no change in the number of abortions, and the circumstances are such that this would be a reasonable forseeable outcome given a certain political scenario, how can you say that a vote for candidate B is less moral than candidate A?
I’ve said from the beginning that this would be a very unusual set of circumstances, so yeah, call it absurd, bizarre, if you wish…it’s a hypothetical in order to clarify a point.

And seriously, please stop accusing me of promoting pro-abortion voting. Seriously. Your misstating of my intentions are uncharitable and border on rude. I know you’re being deliberately obtuse.

 

[estesbob]

I’m not upset with pople. Not even with the pope.

So you still never answered the question. I’ll ask it again, and rephrase it.

If a vote for candidate A, who is pro-life, results in a net increase in the number of abortions and a vote for candidate B, who is not pro-life results in a net decrease in the number of abortions or no change in the number of abortions, and the circumstances are such that this would be a reasonable forseeable outcome given a certain political scenario, please explain how a vote for candidate B is immoral.

If you want it in the form of a question:

If a vote for candidate A, who is pro-life, results in a net increase in the number of abortions and a vote for candidate B, who is not pro-life results in a net decrease in the number of abortions or no change in the number of abortions, and the circumstances are such that this would be a reasonable forseeable outcome given a certain political scenario, how can you say that a vote for candidate B is less moral than candidate A?
I’ve said from the beginning that this would be a very unusual set of circumstances, so yeah, call it absurd, bizarre, if you wish…it’s a hypothetical in order to clarify a point.

And seriously, please stop accusing me of promoting pro-abortion voting. Seriously. Your misstating of my intentions are uncharitable and border on rude. I know you’re being deliberately obtuse.

Answered repeatedly. Proposition of even more bizarre and unlikely scenarios is duly noted.

 

[Newbie2]

Answered repeatedly. Proposition of even more bizarre and unlikely scenarios is duly noted.

Bob, it’s the same scenario, I just left out the names of the particular parties.

Clearly, you’re not careful in reading my posts, otherwise that would have been obvious.

Let me ask you a different question (that I’m certain you will refuse to answer). Does an unlikely and/or bizarre set of circumstances automatically negate the proposition?

If so, then that puts an entire new spin on Moral Theology does it not? In fact, I would argue that using the presence or absence of bizarre/rare circumstances as a criteria in which to judge Moral issues is a form of Moral relativism, don’t you think?

On one hand, you say it is an absolute that we cannot vote for anything but a pro-life candidate, and on the other, bemoan the bizarre nature of the scenario which I have proposed. If it is an absolute, why are you concerned with anything beyond that absolute? The more or less bizarre nature of the scenario shouldn’t matter in an absolutist POV.

 

[Andromedus]

Vote for something which isn’t the Democrats or the Republicans!

 

[Newbie2]

Vote for something which isn’t the Democrats or the Republicans!

Is Ralph Nader running next year?

 

[estesbob]

Bob, it’s the same scenario, I just left out the names of the particular parties.

Clearly, you’re not careful in reading my posts, otherwise that would have been obvious.

Let me ask you a different question (that I’m certain you will refuse to answer). Does an unlikely and/or bizarre set of circumstances automatically negate the proposition?

If so, then that puts an entire new spin on Moral Theology does it not? In fact, I would argue that using the presence or absence of bizarre/rare circumstances as a criteria in which to judge Moral issues is a form of Moral relativism, don’t you think?

On one hand, you say it is an absolute that we cannot vote for anything but a pro-life candidate, and on the other, bemoan the bizarre nature of the scenario which I have proposed. If it is an absolute, why are you concerned with anything beyond that absolute? The more or less bizarre nature of the scenario shouldn’t matter in an absolutist POV.

I would vote for the pro-life canidate

 

[StevenFrancis]

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.

It was too late to “edit” this post, so I do want to beat up on myself here a little, (I usually post from the gut, and normally don’t regret doing so, but something here caught my eye). The definitions of “mortal sin” should be gotten from the catechism, scripture, and other Church documents. I should not have presumed to identify anybody’s voting as “mortal sin” or an abomination, because I don’t know the workings of the individual conscience, concupiscence, intent, cooperation etc… I need to start trying to back off of some of those statements. Those are judgement calls for God alone, in His judgement and mercry.

The most I can say, as an outside oberserver, it sure does have all the appearances of scandal, and sinful nature when a person would vote for somebody because they were for abortion. I can say, with some certaity that it would be immoral, unethical, and an obvious biproduct of the deeply troubling moral relativism which is detroying man’s relationship with God in at least the Americas, and Europe. But I must acknowledge that because of cultural moral relativism in the west, that there may not be as much actual participation in evil, from the standpoint of each individuals conscience as it appears objectively to the orthodox person with our Christian informed and catechized conscience and understanding of dogmatic and firm morality and ethics.

In other words, I am reminding myself to remain calm and display agape in all I do and say. I believe everything I said, but I have to say it better if I don’t want to push otherwise possibly responsive persons away from the orthodox world view.

Peace and blessings,

Steven

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let me explain it one more time in general terms:

First, I’m talking about a congressional or senatorial candidate, not a presidential candidate. It’s pretty clear that a pro-life presidential candidate is the best choice.

This is the hypothetical situation that I propose: Candidate A is from a party that stands to gain a supermajority if he is elected. His party is very pro-abortion, and if elected, they will surely advance the abortion agenda. He personally is pro-life, and votes his conscience.

This is the part that is illogical. If Canidate A votes his conscience and his conscience is pro-life, then the fact that his party gains a supermajority is of no real help to that party or to their pro-abortion agenda. So the election of this candidate does not further the abortion agenda. A supermajority simply means that the party can pass anything they want and avoid a fillibuster provided all the members of that party stick together. It is quite clear from the premise you stated that this will not happen with Candidate A. So they don’t really have an effective supermajority.

A vote for Candidate A is a vote for pro-life. However, it also may have a secondary effect that increases the number of abortions, as his party will have the power to do so at their will as they have the supermajority.

Again only if all the members of that party stick together.

His single vote within his party is ineffective, as he is vastly outnumbered by the pro-choicers.

This contradicts your statement that this candidate was the one candidate that put them over the top and gave them the supermajority. If his party really has that much an edge, then voting for Candidate B would not have helped anyway, so your strategic voting is not very strategtic.

The party can do more damage to the pro-llife movement than any individual candidate.

That is just not believable.

…but the motivation of a voter must be taken into consideration.

That I agree with. In fact, you have incorrectly tied me to Bob’s position merely because I objected to yours. If you look back at my posts in this thread you will see that I have been mostly at odds with what Bob has said and much more in line with what you have said. But I can’t overlook the fact that you are making an exceptionally bad case for the point you are trying to promote

 

[Newbie2]

This is the part that is illogical. If Canidate A votes his conscience and his conscience is pro-life, then the fact that his party gains a supermajority is of no real help to that party or to their pro-abortion agenda. So the election of this candidate does not further the abortion agenda. A supermajority simply means that the party can pass anything they want and avoid a fillibuster provided all the members of that party stick together. It is quite clear from the premise you stated that this will not happen with Candidate A. So they don’t really have an effective supermajority.

Again only if all the members of that party stick together.

This contradicts your statement that this candidate was the one candidate that put them over the top and gave them the supermajority. If his party really has that much an edge, then voting for Candidate B would not have helped anyway, so your strategic voting is not very strategtic.

That is just not believable.

That I agree with. In fact, you have incorrectly tied me to Bob’s position merely because I objected to yours. If you look back at my posts in this thread you will see that I have been mostly at odds with what Bob has said and much more in line with what you have said.

Yeah, I kinda wondered if you’d changed your mind.

But I can’t overlook the fact that you are making an exceptionally bad case for the point you are trying to promote

I can see where you might see that…but…

I’m thinking more of the ability to put members in charge of important committees that can either block or pass on legislation for a vote, not simply the raw number of votes. It is said that committee appointments are where the real power brokering and real decisions are made. And, although I’m not sure on this, but there could be a situation where it only takes a simple majority to pass something, not needing a supermajority once something comes out out of committee and up for a vote.

It then takes a simple majority, as I understand it, to pass such legislation…and it seems to me that there is one party that tends to stick together in supporting abortion more so than the other party who does not seem to stick as much together in opposing it.

In any case, I’m sure that there are insiders in politics who are better able to define a scenario where strategic voting is more plausable than my example. Unlikely, Bizarre, unbelivable, probably so, but possible? Just maybe. And if it’s possible, then we need to be able to deal with it on a moral level.

The other factor, related to believability of the scenario, is the believability of the candidate. We had a “Catholic” governor here in Michigan who ran on her catholicity, “personally pro-life” but at the same time “needing to uphold the laws of the State”. WTH??? BTW, she is a democrat. People voted for her because they chose to believe her pro-life “personal” stance. People voted against her because they chose to believe her pro-choice record.

So somebody made a moral mistake in voting for her, right? In such an instance, you have to evaluate the believability of a candidate’s rhetoric.

All of which muddies the waters of never being able to vote for against a Pro-life or for a pro-life candidate. You cannot always be sure…

 

[Listener]

Getting back to the original question, there seems to be a negative correlation between abortion and poverty. This means that the fewer resources women have, the more abortions they have.

It is also interesting to note that the number of abortions in the United States peaked around 1990, and then they slowly started to decline. Then I read where the number of abortions went up again, starting with the Great Recession.

There is no evidence whatsoever that they go down when a Republican is president and go up when a Democrat is president.

I stand by my position that a woman who has health insurance is less likely to have an abortion than a woman who has none. If she has to pay her own medical expenses and also the child’s medical expenses, she could very well decide that an abortion is cheaper, especially if she is not religious and believes that abortion is okay.

Someone asked me if I would rather have a lot of legal abortions than a few illegal ones. What a ridiculous question! I believe that abortion is immoral, and I would not like to see anyone have an abortion.

I think people have to use their common sense and vote according to their conscience (not according to someone else’s conscience). If that means they vote for a Democrat, so be it!

 

[lisahiku]

I agree we can’t be spoon fed everything . We must listen to our own conscience and look at ALL the issues!

 

[Holly3278]

The day the Democrats do more to end abortion than the Republicans do is the day that cats colonize Mars.

 

[estesbob]

Getting back to the original question, there seems to be a negative correlation between abortion and poverty. This means that the fewer resources women have, the more abortions they have.

There is no corealtion between the amount of social spening , the state of the economy and abortion. Abortions started to decline in the late 80s because of the Advent of CPCs and incresing restrictions put on abortions by Republcian Legislators

The rate of abortions abortions has not increased during the current downturn .

There is no evidence whatsoever that they go down when a Republican is president and go up when a Democrat is president.

Only if you exlcude foreign abortions. Clinton and Obama both rescinded the Mexico City policy that allowed funding for overseas abortion providers.

I stand by my position that a woman who has health insurance is less likely to have an abortion than a woman who has none. If she has to pay her own medical expenses and also the child’s medical expenses, she could very well decide that an abortion is cheaper, especially if she is not religious and believes that abortion is okay.

There is no evidence to support this.

Someone asked me if I would rather have a lot of legal abortions than a few illegal ones. What a ridiculous question! I believe that abortion is immoral, and I would not like to see anyone have an abortion.

If you really believed abortion were immoral you would NEVER vote for those who vowed to keep it legal

I think people have to use their common sense and vote according to their conscience (not according to someone else’s conscience). If that means they vote for a Democrat, so be it!

A Catholic should vote with a conscience formed by the Teachings of the Catholic Church. You continue to offer the usual rationlaiztions of those democrat Catholics desperatly trying to explain their support of this abject evil.

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.

Archbishop Charles Chaput

 

[Brendan]

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. .

The problem is, that concept doesn’t work.

Europe and Canada have such social systems, but still have substantial abortion rates.

Thus the only practical (and just) option for Catholics is to support the prohibition of abortion.

The proposition that you offer would be very much akin to reducing slavery by providing plantation owners with farm machinery. Sure, it might give some reduction to the number of slaves a plantiation owner has, but the fact it, there still would be slaves.

The solution to slavery ( a fundamental denial of human rights) was not to add farm machinery. It was to make slavery illegal and despised as an institution.

Likewise, the solution to abortion is to make it illegal and despised.

 

[estesbob]

I agree we can’t be spoon fed everything . We must listen to our own conscience and look at ALL the issues!

So that is how you distill 2,000 years of teachings by the Church Jesus founded -being “spoon fed” It is true we muct listen to on our conscience-a consceience properly former through the teachings of the Church. If you conscience tells you its ok to support a pro-abortion candiate you can rest assured it was not the Church that helped form your cosncience.

 

[Ridgerunner]

However one votes would not be mortal sin unless someone is voting for candidate X BECAUSE he is pro-abortion.

This is simply not true.

If I drop a hand grenade into a crowd, my subjective intention only being to scare them…to watch them scatter, not to kill any of them, I am no less a murderer if some die, than if i intended to kill in the first place.