No Compromises: Kansas State Bishops Declare Voting for Abortion Candidate is "Evil

[Digitonomy]

If the purpose of casting your vote is to save those millions of lives then casting it for a third party candidate has no effect. Except that of decreasing the chances of candidate b winning and ensuring the culture of death and legalised killing of babies will continue for another generation.

In a close race, perhaps there would be merit to you argument. However, most voters are in states where candidate A or candidate B will win by large margins. It’s ludicrous to suggest a vote for candidate C will “ensure the culture of death and legalized killing of babies will continue for another generation.”

One could counter that by persisting in voting for a major party with policies contrary to Catholic values, a voter sins by slowing or preventing the emergence of a party truer to Catholic teaching.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

So according to the logic here, back in the 1930’s when Hitler was running for office, if he opposed abortion, but his opponent, although pro-live in his personal decisions, took the position that the government needs to stay out of the decision, Catholics would be forced under the threat of mortal sin, to vote for Hitler?

Excuse me, but I think I’ll take the chance on the better overall candidate, over the one who is crazy enough to create a nuclear holocaust.

Jim

That’s a pretty exteme example.

In that case, you don’t vote for either.

 

[snhs]

In a close race, perhaps there would be merit to you argument. However, most voters are in states where candidate A or candidate B will win by large margins. It’s ludicrous to suggest a vote for candidate C will “ensure the culture of death and legalized killing of babies will continue for another generation.”

One could counter that by persisting in voting for a major party with policies contrary to Catholic values, a voter sins by slowing or preventing the emergence of a party truer to Catholic teaching.

The nature of the current election cycle is that it is a close race. And yes on a State level where one of the parties have a genuine strangle hold you may be able to argue that it has little effect one way or another. What it fails to realise however is the nature of what happened in 2001. It may be possible for an effective minority of the population to vote in a President once in a generation but twice within 8 years is pushing it. For some reason I don’t think candidate a will be as gracious about it as the 2001 loser. The other thing is that it produces a weakened Presidency, Bush ‘got lucky’ if you like that the Terrorist attacks and subsequent War on Terror united the country behind his stance. Candidate B couldn’t rely on something like that happening, he would be stuck with a weak Presidency and both Houses of Congress in the hands of A’s Party, which would make it very difficult to pass nominations to change the balance of the Supreme Court. If you truly want to solve the problem of abortion then candidate B needs to be elected with a majority, not just in the Electoral College but in the voting populace as a whole, otherwise his legitimacy suffers and his influence with it.

 

[Digitonomy]

It may be possible for an effective minority of the population to vote in a President once in a generation but twice within 8 years is pushing it. For some reason I don’t think candidate A will be as gracious about it as the 2000 loser.

Three of the last four presidential elections have been won by candidates that got less than 50% of the vote, and Bush in 2004 just barely scraped by with a majority. I would say people are rather used to presidents without a majority of the popular vote.

As for a disputed result like we saw in Florida in 2000, I expect both major candidates to fight tooth and nail. However, I also expect both will be gracious enough to concede when the fight can no longer be won.

 

[snhs]

Three of the last four presidential elections have been won by candidates that got less than 50% of the vote, and Bush in 2004 just barely scraped by with a majority. I would say people are rather used to presidents without a majority of the popular vote.

I was intending to say a plurality rather than a majority, apologies for misphrasing. There was as far as I’m aware the almost unique case for modern times in 2000 where another party had the majority of the vote but lost the election, on previous occasions there was also a minimum of 12 years before a candidate was elected without plurality. Were it to happen again it may pose further questions about the voting system, and as I highlighted earlier would weaken the standing of B should he be elected thereby adversely influencing his ability to pass legislation etc.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Why do people always feel the need to vote for ‘the lesser of two evils’?

Picture this: you have two cups in front of you. One is filled with bleech, and the other is filled with watered down bleech.

Would you want to drink either?

 

[Insight]

Hi,

America On Line is conducting a Straw Pole. Currently the numbers show John McCain at about 75% and Barack Obama at about 25%. This may be the biggest landslide election in the history of the United States:

news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/08/05/aol-straw-poll-aug-4-11

Simply vote for a Candidate and then a graph will display. Every State shows McCain a total win. Place the mouse arrow over a State, and the numbers will display. This is in total contrast to what the media is leading us to believe.

God Bless

 

[mullenpm]

You cannot hide your head in the sand.

Abstaining from voting is not a solution. One no vote is a vote for the opposition, and that opposition could be the abortionist.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

You cannot hide your head in the sand.

Abstaining from voting is not a solution. One no vote is a vote for the opposition, and that opposition could be the abortionist.

No doubt about it. The culture of death needs to be torn down like the Berlin wall was. It has been allowed to exist for far too long and has been allowed to butcher too many innocent lives.

I say vote Pro-Life all the time. We have to defeat the culture of death.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Hi,

America On Line is conducting a Straw Pole. Currently the numbers show John McCain at about 75% and Barack Obama at about 25%. This may be the biggest landslide election in the history of the United States:

news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/08/05/aol-straw-poll-aug-4-11

Simply vote for a Candidate and then a graph will display. Every State shows McCain a total win. Place the mouse arrow over a State, and the numbers will display. This is in total contrast to what the media is leading us to believe.

God Bless

The mainstream media is trying to make this election out to be the Kennedy - Nixon debates all over again. They certainly have their bias.

 

[St_Francis]

Why do people always feel the need to vote for ‘the lesser of two evils’?

Picture this: you have two cups in front of you. One is filled with bleech, and the other is filled with watered down bleech.

Would you want to drink either?

Imagine the US four years from now, first with McCain as president, then with Obama as president.

I have disagreed with everything I have seen connected with McCain, but Obama is worse and will eradicate all the gains made by the pro-life movement over the past 40 years, and then some.

Since I know I’ll be stuck with one or the other, I’ll take the watered-down bleach over the full-strength, thank you very much.

 

[cyberwolf001]

So if I vote for Obama am I going to be excommunicated?

 

[estesbob]

So if I vote for Obama am I going to be excommunicated?

Mentionig his name can get you excommunicated from CAF

 

[estesbob]

Imagine the US four years from now, first with McCain as president, then with Obama as president.

I have disagreed with everything I have seen connected with McCain, but Obama is worse and will eradicate all the gains made by the pro-life movement over the past 40 years, and then some.

Since I know I’ll be stuck with one or the other, I’ll take the watered-down bleach over the full-strength, thank you very much.

We’re not allowed to mention candidates in CAF.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Mentionig his name can get you excommunicated from CAF

True. But I think only an idiot couldn’t figure out who we are talking about in this thread. So let me restate it. If I vote for Candidate B am I going to be excommunicated?

 

[estesbob]

True. But I think only an idiot couldn’t figure out who we are talking about in this thread. So let me restate it. If I vote for Candidate B am I going to be excommunicated?

No. Would you be violating the teachings of the Church? Yes.

 

[rpp]

So according to the logic here, back in the 1930’s when Hitler was running for office, if he opposed abortion, but his opponent, although pro-live in his personal decisions, took the position that the government needs to stay out of the decision, Catholics would be forced under the threat of mortal sin, to vote for Hitler?

Excuse me, but I think I’ll take the chance on the better overall candidate, over the one who is crazy enough to create a nuclear holocaust.

Jim

Straw man argument. Hitler was not opposed to abortion.

 

[rpp]

True. But I think only an idiot couldn’t figure out who we are talking about in this thread. So let me restate it. If I vote for Candidate B am I going to be excommunicated?

No. Would you be violating the teachings of the Church? Yes.

Correct, Bob. Cyberwolf001 would be committing a grave evil in voting for a candidate that supports abortion. If his candidate wins and he is pleased about it, how honest will his contrition be in the confessional?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Maybe we should all join together for prayer and fasting to make sure the pro-abort guy doesn’t win?

 

[mullenpm]

Fasting and prayer to make sure the abortionist does not win is a great idea. Are you starting a list? :newidea: