Never able to vote again?

[Wowbagger]

Agree. You can vote in local elections, for ex. State elections. Abortion is legal by Roe v. Wade, which is national.

Since a great deal of abortion law is dealt with at the state level, from Medicare/Medicaid funding to informed consent, parental consent, and waiting period laws – as well as the fundamental state law regarding the legality of abortion (these laws are currently superseded by Roe, but hopefully won’t be forever) – I believe the Church teaches that it is morally negligent to vote for pro-abortion candidates at the state level as well as at the national level. Only at the local level can one consider ignoring abortion as an voting issue, and then only if there are no local abortion zoning disputes or police-protester First Amendment arguments or other such issues.

As for national elections, you should refrain from voting if your beliefs re abortion trump your beliefs regarding a government’s support of war, attitudes towards social justice, available health care, affordable education for all, and support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If your concern for those unborn outweighs your concern for those who have been already born, then stop voting.

In other words, if you aren’t voting for liberals, stop voting. This strikes me as an extraordinarily self-serving voting principle. Moreover, it is not, as liberals like to cast it, a matter of “concern for the unborn” outweighing “concern for the already-born.” Principled voting on the issue of abortion involves two factors:

(1) Concern for direct, legal murder of absolutely completely innocent people outweighs concern over whether all the other people are receiving everything they deserve out of life. No one would say that education and health care don’t matter, but anyone who says that educating one child justifies the murder of another one is insane.

(2) Concern for 48 million such murders outweighs concern over the combined death tolls of all other issues, which totals somewhere south of 1 million non-murders. (The combined total American death toll from war, lack of health care, insufficient education, warrantless wiretaps, and the Patriot Act does not exceed 5 million, even according to extreme liberal interpretations.)

Thus, by both the nature of legal abortion and its extent, abortion is the dominant issue.

I’ll leave the other counter-arguments to others, with this caveat: your arguments against making abortion illegal run exactly parallel to so-called “prudent” anti-abolitionist arguments over slavery in the pre-Civil War period. Your logic is the same as the pro-slavery camp.

Which isn’t necessarily to say that it’s wrong. In fact, pro-slavery advocates were right about many of the consequences of Emancipation: the abolition of slavery created a massive humanitarian crisis, vast social unrest that lasted for a century, and a great many former slaveowners managed to get an even better deal after Emancipation through the unjust system of “sharecropping.” Emancipation was, in many ways, a catastrophe!

But I think it was probably still the right thing to do, just as abolishing abortion is the right thing to do today. Would you not agree, 1234?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Complain all you want, you just won’t be taken seriously by most reasonable people.

If you want real change, choose a political party and work from the bottom up.

The problem is that the Republican party is a top-down organization. It’s right-wing authoritarian ideology demands absoluete obedience from its incumbents, activists, spokespersons, etc. Minor disagreements are allowed to give the appearance of a big-tent, but it’s always within certain parameters. Ever notice how it’s almost always the exact same wording. Talking points are parroted word-for-word, even here.

 

[Rascalking]

The problem is that the Republican party is a top-down organization. It’s right-wing authoritarian ideology demands absolute obedience from its incumbents, activists, spokespersons, etc. Minor disagreements are allowed to give the appearance of a big-tent, but it’s always within certain parameters. Ever notice how it’s almost always the exact same wording. Talking points are parroted word-for-word, even here.

Um, no.

The Republican party has moderates (Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe), Libertarian-style republicans (Jeff Flake, Ron Paul) Traditional conservatives (Jim Demint) and rebels (Sarah Palin). The democrats have the same styles, modified for ideology, obviously.

There is a HUGE amount of diversity in both parties. “Minor disagreements”? Sorry. “right-wing” authortarian? Some are. Some aren’t.

This is probably a conversation, (and a good one) for another thread.

 

[manualman]

1234,

You read like Ted Kennedy’s talking points. Deaths from illegal abortions back when things were illegal were still deaths. There was no shocking drop in female death rates when Roe was decreed and it really isn’t terribly hard to come up with estimates of the pre-Roe fatality rates from abortion. Even if you presume ALL “septic shock” caused deaths were code words for abortion it was comparatively rare. And by the way, “safe, legal abortion is a myth.” Look up 18-30 year old female cause of death by septic shock rates in 1970 and 2002 and I bet you see not much difference.

Apparently YOU didn’t learn much from the Prohibition debacle. Prohibition failed because it attempted to declare something that is morally neutral to be absolutely wrong in all cases. THIS is the cause of its failure. The widespread and lucrative demand for alcohol created a crime syndicate. By contrast, abortion bans enjoyed widespread support among the populace until the courts seized jurisdiction from the legislative branches and declared it a previously unsuspected civil right. Abortion is nothing like alcohol.

Please spare us the tired old canard about “can’t legislate morality.” ALL legislation is about morality - from homicide, to tax policy to unemployment programs. If we cannot legislate morality, then we cannot legislate ANYTHING. That dog don’t hunt.

 

[Sherry_G]

Agree. You can vote in local elections, for ex. State elections. Abortion is legal by Roe v. Wade, which is national.

As for national elections, you should refrain from voting if your beliefs re abortion trump your beliefs regarding a government’s support of war, attitudes towards social justice, available health care, affordable education for all, and support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If your concern for those unborn outweighs your concern for those who have been already born, then stop voting.

People who support reproductive rights feel that criminalizing abortion will merely drive it underground and not decrease its frequency, only its danger. They believe that the most effective ways to eliminate abortion are with sex education and contraception,as well as developing a strong social support system for single mothers, as so many studies have shown, and which is the practice in Europe. People who want to criminalize abortion often oppose sex education, contraception and a strong social network, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Romania criminalized both contraception and abortion. It ended up with orphanages teeming with irreversibly damaged children. Is this what you want?

YOur arguements are old and tired and untrue. Reproductive “rights” end as soon as a new life is created in the womb. You have a right to life, and so should everyone else. Fornication is causing all the problems, let’s face facts. Each human person is created in the image and likeness of God. Respect the personhood of each individual and the problems will be solved. Unbridled passions are a sin. Abortion is murder. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Using other people to satisfy sexual urges is dehumanizing. That is the education that needs to be taught to our young people.

 

[1234]

Since a great deal of abortion law is dealt with at the state level, from Medicare/Medicaid funding to informed consent, parental consent, and waiting period laws – as well as the fundamental state law regarding the legality of abortion (these laws are currently superseded by Roe, but hopefully won’t be forever) – I believe the Church teaches that it is morally negligent to vote for pro-abortion candidates at the state level as well as at the national level. Only at the local level can one consider ignoring abortion as an voting issue, and then only if there are no local abortion zoning disputes or police-protester First Amendment arguments or other such issues.

In other words, if you aren’t voting for liberals, stop voting. This strikes me as an extraordinarily self-serving voting principle. Moreover, it is not, as liberals like to cast it, a matter of “concern for the unborn” outweighing “concern for the already-born.” Principled voting on the issue of abortion involves two factors:

(1) Concern for direct, legal murder of absolutely completely innocent people outweighs concern over whether all the other people are receiving everything they deserve out of life. No one would say that education and health care don’t matter, but anyone who says that educating one child justifies the murder of another one is insane.

(2) Concern for 48 million such murders outweighs concern over the combined death tolls of all other issues, which totals somewhere south of 1 million non-murders. (The combined total American death toll from war, lack of health care, insufficient education, warrantless wiretaps, and the Patriot Act does not exceed 5 million, even according to extreme liberal interpretations.)

Thus, by both the nature of legal abortion and its extent, abortion is the dominant issue.

I’ll leave the other counter-arguments to others, with this caveat: your arguments against making abortion illegal run exactly parallel to so-called “prudent” anti-abolitionist arguments over slavery in the pre-Civil War period. Your logic is the same as the pro-slavery camp.

Which isn’t necessarily to say that it’s wrong. In fact, pro-slavery advocates were right about many of the consequences of Emancipation: the abolition of slavery created a massive humanitarian crisis, vast social unrest that lasted for a century, and a great many former slaveowners managed to get an even better deal after Emancipation through the unjust system of “sharecropping.” Emancipation was, in many ways, a catastrophe!

But I think it was probably still the right thing to do, just as abolishing abortion is the right thing to do today. Would you not agree, 1234?

Abolishing slavery was, and is, enforceable–for the most part. People living and working in slave-like conditions are regularly being discovered in the US. So it isn’t completely enforceable.

Abolishing abortion is unenforceable. Period. It is unenforceable as a constitutional amendment, in that it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, that is, 38, which won’t happen. If some states try to pass and enforce anti-abortion legislation, a dozen loopholes will spring up, as I mentioned, including going to the state next door where it’s legal, and where dozens of clinics will spring up on the borders. Plus all the casino-like precedents, availability in adjacent countries, and medical abortion with cheap generic drugs. All unenforceable.

Once again, it’s the means that are disputed. Sex education, contraception and strong social support can effectively fight abortion. Criminalization can’t.

Humanae Vitae was especially sad in that it poured *gasoline *on the fires of abortion.

 

[Tsuwano]

Abolishing slavery was, and is, enforceable–for the most part. People living and working in slave-like conditions are regularly being discovered in the US. So it isn’t completely enforceable.

Abolishing abortion is unenforceable. Period. It is unenforceable as a constitutional amendment, in that it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, that is, 38, which won’t happen. If some states try to pass and enforce anti-abortion legislation, a dozen loopholes will spring up, as I mentioned, including going to the state next door where it’s legal, and where dozens of clinics will spring up on the borders. Plus all the casino-like precedents, availability in adjacent countries, and medical abortion with cheap generic drugs. All unenforceable.

Once again, it’s the means that are disputed. Sex education, contraception and strong social support can effectively fight abortion. Criminalization can’t.

Humanae Vitae was especially sad in that it poured *gasoline *on the fires of abortion.

You seem to be arguing that we shouldn’t have laws against slavery because some people have found ways to go against the law and enslave others anyway. The same could be said of drunk driving, shoplifting, littering and yes, abortion. According to your argument we shouldn’t have laws against anything at all because there is always someone who will break them, but a society which has no law to aid in the governance of relationships between human beings and to protect the weakest among us, runs the risk of existing only according to the law of “might makes right.” Leaving aside the issue of abortion itself, your argument against attempting to make a law banning abortion because ways will be found to get around the law, is not a very bright argument.

 

[excubitor]

ented.

The reason we don’t outlaw cigarettes is that it can’t be enforced. This country learned something through Prohibition. After alcohol was made illegal, its consumption skyrocketed. There were thousands of illegal speakeasies in Manhattan alone and millions throughout the US. At the same time, the US lost its valuable alcohol-related taxes, which were important to a nation impoverished by the Great Depression. Prohibition failed immediately, and the constitutional amendment which enabled it was eventually repealed, the only instance in our country’s history. This country has enough unenforceable laws. One of the main reasons marijuana is being legalized (through making it ‘medicinal’) is to end the farce of trying to enforce its illegality, and to try to undercut the immensely wealthy and powerful marijuana-based drug cartels in Mexico.

As in Prohibition, if abortion were made illegal, hundreds to thousands of clinics would spring up through various loopholes, producing millions of illegal abortions, and making a lot of people rich. Illegal abortion would be far more lucrative, and a lot less safe, than legal abortion.

This is truly a disgraceful post. With this approach we should allow legalised murder because making murder illegal will result in a lucrative black market for hitmen. And yet that is what abortion is. ITS MURDER. The murder of a human life.

I legislators through their laws legalise the murder of the unborn then the blood of the unborn will be upon their head. If they make it illegal and harshly punish those who perform this violation then this great crime will be upon the heads of those who do these deeds.

To like abortion to an alcoholic binge is outrageous. They are not in the same scale. There is nothing intrinsically evil about alcohol or cigarettes. Yet even these need to be controlled for the sake of the population. Children are not allowed to buy them and heavy taxes are placed upon them to curtail consumption. Narcotics on the other hand are absolutely banned as they cause a far more immediate destruction of life. Should we legalise narcotics?

Yet abortion is an immediate and direct destruction of life and so must be banned just like murder is banned. If we were to legalise murder then our society would collapse into unrestrained violence. So too the legalisation of abortion will breed a culture of death and a disregard for the sanctity of human life. If we lose this debate then in ten years time we may be making a stand for the rights of people with terminal illnesses. We may find our nation finding reasons to allow other atrocities which today might seem horrific but in twenty years time might become acceptable. It is a slippery slope. We started to slide down it when our society legitimised and allowed birth control in the 30’s . Now we are in free fall and now it is acceptable to use birth control even amongst Catholics, will we as a church be turning a blind eye to abortion in 20 years even as we are today turning a blind eye to birth control.

 

[Wowbagger]

It is unenforceable as a constitutional amendment, in that it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, that is, 38, which won’t happen.

With respect, 1234, you should review several historic, demographic, and semantic points:

(1) The distinction between “unenforceable” and “unobtainable.” A human life amendment appears unlikely to pass at this time (“unobtainable”), but, if passed by the requisite 38 states, it would be at least as easily enforceable, on a national scale, as was Emancipation of the slaves. Effective anti-abortion law is extremely difficult to get passed into law at the moment, because pro-abortion voters remain prevalent and empowered. However, once it gets over the legislative hurdles, national anti-abortion law will be no less effective than our anti-slavery laws. There will, of course, always be illegal abortions, just as there will always be illegal slaves… but that is no argument for keeping them legal.

(2) Both the enforceability and effectiveness of anti-slavery law, 1865 - 1965. Despite passing robust anti-slavery restrictions into state and federal law, not to mention the Constitution itself (via the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments), illegal slavery and slavery-by-any-other-name remained rampant for a century after Emancipation. Meanwhile, states that still wanted slavery found the “dozens of exceptions” you mentioned, and found ways to deprive black people of voting rights, the right to mingle, the right to own property, and much more… effectively getting slavery back through the back door. That began to erode around the turn of the century, and did not come crashing down until the Civil Rights Act of '64. Even today, our nation still suffers from the repercussions of slavery and our inability to stop it even after the Civil War. But Emancipation, although it remained “unenforceable” for five decades and ineffective for a full century was still worth it. Right?

(3) The pessimistic outlook for national anti-slavery law in the antebellum period, 1809 - 1860. In, say, 1820 (the year of the Missouri Compromise), the idea that Congress and 3/4 of the states would ever pass anti-slavery amendments was so far-fetched it was laughable. By 1850, the idea of Abolition wasn’t even on the table at the highest level of interstate negotiations. In 1858, the Supreme Court declared an undiscovered right to slavery in an “emanation” from the Constitution’s property guarantees, and the Court appeared to be on track to declare a universal right to slavery if the Lemmons v. New York case was appealed. In 1861, with the bells of secession tolling across the South, Congress actually did pass a Constitutional Amendment regarding slavery and submitted the Amendment to the states – the problem was that this Amendment, the infamous Corwin Amendment, was actually an Amendment that guaranteed the preservation of slavery, for the rest of time. The picture could not have been darker for Abolitionists, and many wise and learned and prudent men – men such as yourself, 1234, solemnly proclaimed that their goal of abolishing slavery by Constitutional Amendment was totally hopeless and possibly insane. The best the Abolitionists could hope for, they were told, was to contain slavery and perhaps reduce it by social pressures and positive influences. No one could have predicted that, within two years, President Lincoln would have abolished slavery in half the states by proclamation, nor that, less than four years after the passage of the Corwin Amendment, the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, would be ratified. In short, 1234, your pessimism about a pro-life amendment makes perfect sense. The math is starkly against us, public opinion deeply conflicted, and our outlook is frankly hopeless. But unexpected things happen in politics, and you and the folks like you were wrong in 1861. We hope and pray that standing for principles over strictest prudence will have the same payoff in 2014 as it did in 1865.

[CONTINUED]

 

[Wowbagger]

(3) The reason a human life amendment is unobtainable at this time. There is one single obstacle to the passage of a human life amendment in thirty-eight states. That obstacle is voters who consider themselves anti-abortion but vote for pro-abortion politicians at the federal and state levels. Consider: if 100% of Catholic voters voted for pro-life candidates (rather than the current 47%), that would represent a 24-point swing in every state in the union (derivation: Catholics represent roughly 25% of voters; Catholics who vote for pro-abortion candidates about 12%; dropping 12 points from one column and adding it to another = 24-point swing). If that happened, pro-life candidates would control every state legislature except a handful of deep-blue states in New England, every governor’s office bar none, and 85%+ majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate. Under those conditions, passing a pro-life amendment through Congress and 38 states would be trivial. Heck, we could probably get closer to 45 states on board. And that’s just the potential swing vote from Catholics, a relatively small portion of the population! The bottom line: the only reason a human life amendment is unobtainable is because people who think abortion is murder continue to vote for politicians who perpetuate the murder. In other words: the only reason the amendment is unobtainable is because voters think it is.

(4) The sociological evidence demonstrating that “sex education and contraception” can significantly reduce the abortion rate. Or rather, the lack thereof. In fact, you made a much stronger claim: you claimed that sex ed and contraception could reduce the abortion rate more than criminalization. Not to be rude, but examining the scientific evidence and the history of abortion law in first-world countries (an important caveat) reveals that your claim is not only unfounded, but – unless the research has changed quite a bit since I last checked a couple years ago – actually quite ludicrous.

I appreciate your serious questioning of several different aspects of the anti-abortion legal cause. You began by questioning the wisdom of its priorities and the sincerity of its compassion. You now question the efficacy of its goals. I hope that means you are coming closer to agreeing that our goals are worthy, our methods wise, and our motivations sincere – after which hopefully we can rope you into this fight on our side. We could use your firepower.

 

[1234]

You seem to be arguing that we shouldn’t have laws against slavery because some people have found ways to go against the law and enslave others anyway. The same could be said of drunk driving, shoplifting, littering and yes, abortion. According to your argument we shouldn’t have laws against anything at all because there is always someone who will break them, but a society which has no law to aid in the governance of relationships between human beings and to protect the weakest among us, runs the risk of existing only according to the law of “might makes right.” Leaving aside the issue of abortion itself, your argument against attempting to make a law banning abortion because ways will be found to get around the law, is not a very bright argument.

An unenforceable law is not a very bright law. Prohibition proved that. My aside re slavery, that it was mostly enforceable, was just that–an aside–slavery is now illegal and the law banning slavery is enforceable, for the most part.

Criminalizing abortion will not decrease its incidence. Those opposing abortion should fight to prevent conception in the first place. The so-called “pro-choice” and the “pro-life” disagree mainly about means, not about ends.

 

[1234]

Criminalizing abortion would join a growing list a number of important types of behavior in the US which the law cannot regulate or prevent, including cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, drug use and male homosexual behavior, known to spread HIV and AIDS. States are reluctantly decriminalizing marijauna and enabling IV drug users, through methadone and needle exchange programs, to control the crime and medical problems these addictions create, because they can’t enforce their illegality. It is impossible to regulate promiscuous sexual behavior, other than closing the bathhouses (in San Francisco) and promoting condom use. Adding to the increasing difficulty of criminalizing abortion is the fact that more medical means are becoming available, the most recent through the now 5-day “morning after” pill. Increasingly non-physicians can perform both medical and surgical abortions. Who is going to try to regulate pharmacists, nurses, physician assistants, even EMTs?

Most Americans do not regard an embryo, implanted or unimplanted,as the equivalent of an adult human. Most Americans, also, both on the left as well as the right, wish to restrict the government’s intervention into their lives. Most realize that having given the government permission to do so regarding an issue which they support, such as criminalizing abortion, means that now the government can do so in issues they do not support. The door swings both ways.

 

[Tsuwano]

An unenforceable law is not a very bright law. Prohibition proved that. My aside re slavery, that it was mostly enforceable, was just that–an aside–slavery is now illegal and the law banning slavery is enforceable, for the most part.

Criminalizing abortion will not decrease its incidence. Those opposing abortion should fight to prevent conception in the first place. The so-called “pro-choice” and the “pro-life” disagree mainly about means, not about ends.

I disagree that a law banning abortion will not decrease it’s prevalence. I also think that the disagreements between those who support the legalization of abortion and those who are pro-life are deeper than what you seem to think. The major disagreement, in my opinion, is about whether a fetus is a human being who deserves the protection of the law. Pro-life people claim that the fetus is a human person and does deserve that protection. This is why abortion is rightfully condemned as murder. Abortion is not merely about ending a pregnancy. It’s about ending a human life.

 

[Wowbagger]

You are making assertions, 1234, without providing evidence. This is because no good evidence exists to support your assertions.

The idea that the prosecution of abortion doctors could not reduce the number of abortions is absurd, and utterly unsupported by statistical evidence from stable first-world countries. Criminalization of homosexual behaviour proved virtually unenforceable because it was a so-called “victimless crime,” which was low-profile, easily and habitually committed, left behind little evidence, and, above all, put all the participants in legal jeopardy, making it highly unlikely that witnesses/participants would ever report it. Illegal abortion, by contrast, would be neither easy nor frequent, requiring personal contacts in the underground abortion industry. It does involve considerable equipment and leaves behind evidence, and (although the primary victim ends up dead), because the mother is so often a “second victim” of abortion (not to mention the child’s father), there would be (and always was) ample opportunity for the killing to be reported to the authorities. Take away abortionists’ medical licenses, throw a few notorious abortionists in jail for a while, and pretty soon abortion is as rare in this country as slavery is today. Abortions have been outlawed with reasonable effectiveness in first-world countries in the past; today such a law would only be more effective.

The idea that pharmaceutical abortions could not be curtailed is considerably crazier. Maybe by removing mifepristone and progestin bombs from the shelves and making it illegal to give out prescriptions for them? Very few doctors or pharmacists are willing to risk losing their medical licenses – much less jail time – for the sake of their beliefs about abortion.

For the record, even if anti-abortion law were largely unenforceable (which it is not), it should be on the books, because it is a grevious, brutal crime with a very clear, very dead victim. We are only able to consider drug legalization and the repeal of Prohibition because substance abuse only directly injures those who abuse. We would never consider legalizing a crime with a clear victim.

Consider, 1234, that (according to RAINN) only 40% of rapes are reported, only 9% of rapes result in a conviction, and only 6% of total rapists ever serve a day in jail. Clearly, the anti-rape laws are unenforceable (not to mention intrusive!). So tell me, 1234: if you had the power to do so, would you legalize rape?

Most realize that having given the government permission to do so regarding an issue which they support, such as criminalizing abortion, means that now the government can do so in issues they do not support. The door swings both ways.

Lastly, this gobbledygook should be addressed. There is no legal, ethical, or logical principle that gets us from “recognition of the humanity of the fetus” and the concomitant “abortion is illegal,” to any of the red herrings the abortion lobby pretends would follow from the illegalization of abortion. “Government control of women’s bodies,” “all contraception outlawed,” “repeal of women’s suffrage,” “Big Brother will wiretap your television” – it’s all total nonsense, based entirely in an ideology that absolutely denies the possibility that the pro-life argument in favor of the humanity of the fetus is anything but a sexist ploy to put women back in the kitchen. It is, in short, not sane.

So, 1234: I call your bluff. Name one issue in which the illegalization of abortion could plausibly lead to new inappropriate government intervention in the lives of its citizenry.

If you want to reduce abortion, you need to do three things, in descending order of importance: (1) affirm the humanity and civil rights of the human person, from conception 'till natural death, in every corner of society, from the education system to public service announcements to newspapers to churches (this prong should be modeled on the anti-racism campaigns of the 1950’s through 1990’s); (2) support the frack out of women in trouble, using the full force of government and private charity to ensure that no woman ever feels that she needs an abortion (of course, since the majority of abortions are abortions-of-convenience, this will only do so much); (3) criminalize abortion, with criminal penalties falling on the abortionists themselves rather than their accomplices/victims, the abortive mothers.

These three prongs are the means to end abortion. All three are strongly supported by the pro-life movement. All three are strongly opposed by the pro-choice movement. Why could that possibly be? Because, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the abortion industry does not want to end abortion. Don’t do yourself the disservice of deluding yourself with pro-abortion agitprop. Pay attention to what they are actually saying.

Now, 1234, comes the decisive moment: are you a reasonable, logical person with a scientific mind willing to abandon a hypothesis when the evidence no longer supports it? Or are you an ideologue?

 

[Sherry_G]

Dear Wowbagger:

:clapping::tiphat::bowdown::angel1:

 

[StevenFrancis]

I’m a staunch Democrat who disagrees with almost every aspect of the Republican platform except life issues
…So I guess that means I will abstain from voting forever
…but is there anyone else out there in my boat who has basically stopped voting?

You’ve ended up in a similar pickle than even I found myself in. Just out of curiosity, are you a convert to Catholoicism? (I am). And if so, was it relatively recent? (past 2 - 8 years). (Mine was). Before my conversion calling, I was pretty well planted in the political left camp, though I must admit, I was already getting dissillusioned with Democratic party. So, it’s been interesting watching my overtly liberal ideas disappear a little at a time. Not because of the Republican party, as I’m certainly no more fond of them than I was then, but rather because of the doctrines and principles of this Church which I have fallen so deeply in love with, and the teachings of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour.

What happened was really, a kind of letting go of political parties altogether. I was fortunate, (or unfortunate, depending on how you look at it) to be undergoing much of my initial conversion development during this last presidential election. I began the election cycle rooting for Barak Obama, and by November I had disavowed both the Democrat and Republican parties for different reasons, I had switched to the Republican party in order to be able to cast a vote in the Republican primaries for Ron Paul, then went back the next day and registered as independent where I’ve stayed. I ended up looking for a candidate regardless of party affiliation who espoused the most honest Catholic views and ended up finding a fellow from the Constitution Party named Chuck Baldwin, who I disagreed with on a lot of items, but not nearly as many as I ended up disagreeing on with Obama and McCain.

So in the space of less than a year I made a see change of being a liberal leaning democrat to a ‘Catholic first’, independent without a party. My whole notion of politics has changed. I don’t let it rule my life. I got so caught up in politics that it stole time away from devotion to my Lord, my family, etc…

Anyway, all summed up, I think what really changed were my priorities. I am a Christian first, a father/brother/son/grandfather/uncle/nephew/cousin second (because my Christianity and family will be the same no matter what political ideologies I’m forced to live under), and then finally I’m a citizen of the USA by a lucky accident of birth. I love my country, and am thrilled that we are fortunate enough to be able to at least vote for public offices. There are probably some middle eastern and some African nations where you still can’t. But, at the end of the day, when all’s said and done, I’ve become a lot more interested in what I am personally doing for my neighbor than what caesar is doing for my neighbor.

I think the most important elections are city council, county commissioners, aldermen, school board trustees, sherrif, mayor, treasurer, state senate and legislature. I’m thinking the country needs to be re-built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. Better city councils lead to better mayors, lead to better state legislators, lead to better House of Representatives candidates, leads to better U.S. Senate candidates and better Governors, and better party chairmen, and finally better Presidents. I’ve been looking at this all backwards my whole life.

Christ calls us to be good citizens of the state. ANY state we live in. ANY body we’re subject to.

Christ calls us first to be good Christians. To love the Lord our God will all our minds, with all our hearts, and with all our stength, and our neighbor as ourself.

I found that to sleep better at night, I had to cast votes which conform to my catechized and informed conscience. This led me away from both of the established parties. You may not have the same experience. Many, as you’ve said, seem to just end up just going Republican for expediency, not thinking of the implications of continuing the 2 party drudgery.

When both the Republican and Democrat candidates are lying to you in the next cycle, ask God in prayer to help you discern which is telling the more truthful, and less hypocritical lies. Ask yourself if ANY issue is more important than the protection of life, and the protection of the dignity of human life. Try to see through utopian mind paintings and stirring speeches and find out what kinds of actions the candidate has done. You will know a tree by it’s fruit. The last many batches of trees have had questionable fruit.

The guy I voted for wasn’t Catholic, but he was pro-life, and MEANT it. And regarding Pubs and Dems, I say, if we always do what we always did, we’ll always get what we always got.

Love God, and without overthinking it, or getting too emotionally caught up in the hoopla, when it comes circus time again, vote the conscience that God gave you. Vote independent if you need to, but vote, so we don’t marginalize our rights. Then…once you’ve voted. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and your neighbor, and keep being a good citizen to whomever ends up with all the new political jobs.

Your tabernacle will still be right there in your parish, and Jesus will be calling you to come spend an hour with him. Your child will still be there needing new shoes and pencils for school. And the face of Jesus will still be crying out from the homeless man who’s asking you for a dollar.

May God bless,

Steven

 

[zenith15]

I as of yet have not seen where the church states that the pro life issue is the most important issue and that no matter how many other good things they may stand for that the Church agrees with, that one issue must determine how we vote, and only that one issue. I read the posts that purported to show evidence of this, and that was not at all what it seemed to be saying to me.

I, for one, refuse to vote for a candidate I feel is evil, selfish, greedy, disagrees with everything I believe in, treats the poor like dirt under their feet, etc simply because they are pro life–or, for that matter, simply because their opponent is pro choice. I have discussed this with the Deacon and my RCIA instructor and they both agreed that God does not command us to vote Republican and that many things must be considered when deciding who to vote for. They also told me that some people will certainly disagree, so I expect to get flack. However, that is how I see it right now.

 

[Sherry_G]

I as of yet have not seen where the church states that the pro life issue is the most important issue and that no matter how many other good things they may stand for that the Church agrees with, that one issue must determine how we vote, and only that one issue. I read the posts that purported to show evidence of this, and that was not at all what it seemed to be saying to me.

I, for one, refuse to vote for a candidate I feel is evil, selfish, greedy, disagrees with everything I believe in, treats the poor like dirt under their feet, etc simply because they are pro life–or, for that matter, simply because their opponent is pro choice. I have discussed this with the Deacon and my RCIA instructor and they both agreed that God does not command us to vote Republican and that many things must be considered when deciding who to vote for. They also told me that some people will certainly disagree, so I expect to get flack. However, that is how I see it right now.

My dear friend, the position on abortion is that it is murder. Look to the 10 commandments and the teachings of Jesus and you will have to see that you cannot in good conscience support anyone who is willing to support the murder of our most helpless brothers and sisters. This is not just a Catholic issue or teaching. It’s a God thing. Greed is not on the par with murder, neither is selfishness. That much should be plain for any person of faith to see and understand. Nothing matters if you are denied the right to existence.

 

[zenith15]

I believe that people who are already here are just as important to God as those who are unborn. People quite naturally have more sympathy for an unborn child than a sinful person on death row–but, does God love that person less? Does God value their life less? I don’t think so–yet I know of many pro life candidates who are rabidly pro death penalty and who have even had almost certainly innocent men put to death despite extremely compelling evidence of complete innocence, for their own political gain. Most pro life candidates are pro life only as far as it concerns the unborn. Once the baby arrives, it’s hands off–they don’t want to help the unwed mothers, or the children. My own state has the highest number of uninsured children in the country, and the lowest income lines in order to qualify for state aid. For example, a family of four must make less than $800 per month to qualify for Medicaid.

Again, I refuse to vote for someone I consider to be slimy, without ethics and morals, and taking up the “pro life” flag only because it’s popular in their district, JUST because they are pro life. The damage such a person may very well do to those already living–up to and including death in many cases–may outweigh the damage done by a pro choice candidate. I could not respect myself as a citizen or a person of faith if I voted for someone with such single mindedness that I ignored all other implications and did not even care if the person were sincere in his or her belief as long as they vote that one way on that one thing.

 

[JimG]

Well, the unborn are also “already here.” The only difference is that they may be executed at will up until their 10th month of life. I will be happy to support an anti-death penalty candidate, as long as he or she opposes the death penalty for innocent children as well as those convicted of a crime.