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

[StevenFrancis]

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.

I don’t disagree with you. You missed an amendment I posted later:

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.

 

[Hastrman]

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.

It’s a bit like the first rule of gun-safety: never point a gun at anything you aren’t willing to kill.

 

[Listener]

During the last election, I was reading a document written by a group of Catholic Bishops. I think it was from a group of bishops from the Western part of the United States. After stating the usual concept about not voting for a pro-choice candidate BECAUSE he/she is pro-abortion, the bishops encouraged voters to join the party of their choice (I’m sure the Democratic Party was a possibility here). The reasoning was that if enough Catholics joined, there would be a greater number of pro-life people who belonged to the political party, increasing the chance that the whole political party would take a pro-life stand.

I’m sorry I can’t provide the document (it might have been an insert in our Church Bulletin).

Many people here don’t believe any statistics anyway, so it probably doesn’t matter. If they went to the USCCB Web Site and read that 23 per cent of abortions are caused by poverty, I’m sure they wouldn’t believe that either.

 

[davidmlamb]

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.

Voting for a Republican is not going to have much of an affect on lowering or stopping abortion either. Presidents, Senators, and Congressman have no affect on abortions regardless of whether they are pro choice or pro life. Only women can prevent abortions by choosing not to have them. I do not believe Republicans are pro life, I believe they exploit abortion to get elected and what they really care about is transfering the power of government to the corporate world in order to implemennt a Laissez Faire economic system which Pope Pius XI called “unbrideled liberalism.” Democrats do much more to actually support human life and human dignity even with their “pro choice” stance. In the end a woman knows it is wrong to have an abortion and if she has one she alone is culpable and not other people who believe it is okay to have an abortion.

Peace,
David

 

[colmywaykurtz]

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.

There’s evidence from within our own country that the concept of a better social safety net, created by government-based initiatives, does work in reducing abortion. Read what SecularProLife.org says about Minnesota’s (derided often as one of the more liberal states) results from its own interventions and initiatives. blog.secularprolife.org/2011/07/minnesota-abortions-lowest-since-1975.html

I realize these people also support defunding Planned Parenthood and other conservative initiatives, but they are also willing to admit that things like Positive Alternatives can reduce abortion even in the face of continued legal access to it.

 

[St_Francis]

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 problem is that the thought is incorrect. Despite years of claiming that increased social programs, sex ed, and access to birth control would reduce the number of abortions, in the years in which we saw the greatest increases in those things were also the years in which we saw the greatest increases in the number of abortions.

 

[St_Francis]

Overall, what I see on this thread is a tendency to think that poverty causes a lot of abortions and that if we had social programs in place, poor women would not have abortions.

Poverty is not what underlies abortion. What underlies abortion is sexual activity. Women having sex when they are not ready to have babies is the cause of abortions. They have sex, get pregnant, and then have an abortion. This happens to better-off women as well as poor women (and given the age distributions, I would speculate that many of the “poor” women having abortions come from non-poor backgrounds).

The reality is that artificial birth control gives women the false idea that they can have sex without having babies, and when they do so and become pregnant, they know that they can use the back-up of abortion.

When abortion was illegal, few abortions occurred. And fewer women had sex when they were not ready to have a baby. Since abortion was legalized, the rates of abortion have skyrocketed, at the same time that social safety programs were increasing. And atthe same time, the rate of illegitimacy soared as well.

As we remove the pain of the logical consequences of people’s actions, they will engage in those actions at a higher rate.

 

[Carlan]

There’s evidence from within our own country that the concept of a better social safety net, created by government-based initiatives, does work in reducing abortion. Read what SecularProLife.org says about Minnesota’s (derided often as one of the more liberal states) results from its own interventions and initiatives. blog.secularprolife.org/2011/07/minnesota-abortions-lowest-since-1975.html

I realize these people also support defunding Planned Parenthood and other conservative initiatives, but they are also willing to admit that things like Positive Alternatives can reduce abortion even in the face of continued legal access to it.

Yes for 40yrs we have faced legal access to abortion, We must continue to look for positive alternatives to reduce abortions.

Minnesota abortions lowest since 1975
The state’s 2010 abortion statistics. Abortions dropped 7% from 2009. This is the fourth straight year of decline, and the lowest number of abortions since the mid-1970s!

The decline is unusual, because the state’s population has grown considerably since 1975. In addition, we would expect the number of abortions to increase dramatically during an economic downturn, since most abortions are done for socioeconomic reasons.

Thanks to the efforts of pro-life Minnesotans, this did not happen. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) credits several factors. First among these is the Positive Alternatives program, legislated in 2006, which provides grants to pregnancy support organizations. Positive Alternatives has served over 25,000 women. Other pro-life victories that likely played a role in the decline are the Women’s Right to Know law, which requires abortion centers to tell patients the truth about fetal development, and the requirement of parental notification for minors seeking abortions.

While this news is encouraging, pro-life advocates will not rest until abortions are down to zero:
Peace, Carlan

 

[estesbob]

During the last election, I was reading a document written by a group of Catholic Bishops. I think it was from a group of bishops from the Western part of the United States. After stating the usual concept about not voting for a pro-choice candidate BECAUSE he/she is pro-abortion, the bishops encouraged voters to join the party of their choice (I’m sure the Democratic Party was a possibility here). The reasoning was that if enough Catholics joined, there would be a greater number of pro-life people who belonged to the political party, increasing the chance that the whole political party would take a pro-life stand.

I’m sorry I can’t provide the document (it might have been an insert in our Church Bulletin).

Many people here don’t believe any statistics anyway, so it probably doesn’t matter. If they went to the USCCB Web Site and read that 23 per cent of abortions are caused by poverty, I’m sure they wouldn’t believe that either.

I am not aware of any iform any Church body instructing us to join a Party merely to becuase it would increase the number of pro-life members. Given that 52% of Catholics voted for the most pro-abortion president in history it would appear the opposiote is true-Democrat Catholics are quick to abdnaon their faith when it interferes with their politics.

If you can provide a link saying 23% of abortions are caused by poverty please do so. It may be that 23% of those who have abortions are below the povery level, which would not be surprsing as the abortion industry targets the poor, but the truth is there is no coreoaltion between the amount of social spending and/or the level of poverty and the rate of abortion.

The single biggest determinant on the rate of abortion is the amount of restrictions placed on it.

 

[estesbob]

There’s evidence from within our own country that the concept of a better social safety net, created by government-based initiatives, does work in reducing abortion. Read what SecularProLife.org says about Minnesota’s (derided often as one of the more liberal states) results from its own interventions and initiatives. blog.secularprolife.org/2011/07/minnesota-abortions-lowest-since-1975.html

I realize these people also support defunding Planned Parenthood and other conservative initiatives, but they are also willing to admit that things like Positive Alternatives can reduce abortion even in the face of continued legal access to it.

The overall decline is abortions started with the advebt of the Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the United States. in the early 90s the Democrat congress unsucessfullyu tried to legislate them out of business. No one in the pro-life movement disputes that we must that we must use every alternative available to limit abortions while it remains legal. This does not mean we should lessen our efforts to have it banned .

 

[Hastrman]

The single biggest determinant on the rate of abortion is the amount of restrictions placed on it.

What I always find amusing is that most of the people who argue that abortion being illegal doesn’t reduce the number of abortions, also think gun control will reduce gun violence. Apparently they can conceive of a black market in medicine but not in weapons—and don’t know that, in the US, the regions with the strictest gun control (California, New York City, Washington DC) also have the highest rates of gun and other violence.

Banning abortion will keep lots, and lots, of law-abiding people from procuring them.

 

[estesbob]

Democrats do much more to actually support human life and human dignity even with their “pro choice” stance. In the end a woman knows it is wrong to have an abortion and if she has one she alone is culpable and not other people who believe it is okay to have an abortion.

Peace,
David

To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ‘‘Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ‘‘Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said.

\Archbishop Charles Chaput

 

[lisahiku]

As if John Mccain was so pro life!
And there are other issues when voting for President that must be taken into consideration. Such as ending this war. Soldiers have lives too, not just fetuses.

The abortion law will ONLY be overturned by action taken by the Supreme Court.
Hopefully it will be overturned one day, but I doubt anytime soon.

 

[estesbob]

As if John Mccain was so pro life!
And there are other issues when voting for President that must be taken into consideration. Such as ending this war. Soldiers have lives too, not just fetuses.

The abortion law will ONLY be overturned by action taken by the Supreme Court.
Hopefully it will be overturned one day, but I doubt anytime soon.

While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

***Pope Benedict XVI

---

 

[Ridgerunner]

As if John Mccain was so pro life!
And there are other issues when voting for President that must be taken into consideration. Such as ending this war. Soldiers have lives too, not just fetuses.

The abortion law will ONLY be overturned by action taken by the Supreme Court.
Hopefully it will be overturned one day, but I doubt anytime soon.

Of course, the only possibility whatever of there being enough prolife justices is to get pro-abortion presidents out of office and keep them out, electing prolife presidents and keeping them in.

I didn’t personally like McCain. But if NARAL’s ratings and pronouncements were any guide (and their whole existence depends on it) McCain was the obvious prolife choice as against Obama.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Voting for a Republican is not going to have much of an affect on lowering or stopping abortion either. Presidents, Senators, and Congressman have no affect on abortions regardless of whether they are pro choice or pro life. Only women can prevent abortions by choosing not to have them. I do not believe Republicans are pro life, I believe they exploit abortion to get elected and what they really care about is transfering the power of government to the corporate world in order to implemennt a Laissez Faire economic system which Pope Pius XI called “unbrideled liberalism.” Democrats do much more to actually support human life and human dignity even with their “pro choice” stance. In the end a woman knows it is wrong to have an abortion and if she has one she alone is culpable and not other people who believe it is okay to have an abortion.

Peace,
David

Where in the Republican platform did it ever say “We support a totally laissez-faire economic system”? What Republican says it? What Republican legislative proposal would have enacted it?

On the other hand, support for abortion is in the Democrat platform. Virtually no Democrat votes prolife any significant part of the time. And what programs do you think the Democrats have passed in the last few decades that really do support human life and dignity? Concretely, now. No platitudes.

 

[Brendan]

Voting for a Republican is not going to have much of an affect on lowering or stopping abortion either. Presidents, Senators, and Congressman have no affect on abortions regardless of whether they are pro choice or pro life.

That is not quite true.

A President can appoint, and the Senate can confirm, Judical canidates that will recognize the human rights apply to everyone, even the unborn.

Our goal, then, is to get a majority of Justices on the Supreme Court that recognize that right. Roe v Wade can then be overturned in such a way that respects the Right to Life of the child and restores civil legal protection to them.

 

[lisahiku]

I guess it is best to let people listen to their OWN conscience.
There are always so many varying opinions on here.

 

[Brendan]

I guess it is best to let people listen to their OWN conscience.
There are always so many varying opinions on here.

Would you agree that if a person’s conscience allowed them to own slaves, they should be able to do so and there should be no laws against it?

Under what conditions does one person ‘conscience’ get to override another human’s life. Or perhaps that other human has no rights if the slave owner believes they are simply property (or a ‘blob of tissue’)

 

[Ridgerunner]

I guess it is best to let people listen to their OWN conscience.
There are always so many varying opinions on here.

I guess that’s true, depending on whether one believes any person or entity, like the Church has any authority to teach him anything. If not, then of course, it’s all just “whatever I think.”