Not Voting Promotes Abortion!

[Traditional_Ang]

In our parish this past Sunday, we received a page in the bulletin about voting. It did not however reflect your viewpoint. In the Austin, TX diocese, the Bishop has recommended following the principles outlined in the USCCB document “Faithful Citizenship” which are as follows. 1. Protecting Human Life. 2. Promoting Family Life. 3. Pursuing Social Justice. 4. Practicing Global Solidarity. In short, it recommends balance. Yes, I am aware abortion is a serious issue. However it is not the only one. Yes, I am familiar with the statistics on it and see them used to compare to other issues as to discredit them. I do believe those other issues can effect more then 4000 people per day as a collective group. For example, under the Pursuing Social Justice, it lists concern for the poor by creating living wage jobs, health care more affordable and accessible, safe and affordable housing and other issues. Do those issues not effect more than 4000 per day? They do. I am not saying abortion isn’t a serious problem nor am I saying it should not be a factor in how we vote. I don’t think it, or any other issue, should be the only one.

Marat:

I don’t know if you’re understanding the Bishop correctly or not. But Pope John Paul II made it very clear in Evanguleum Vitae that protecting life at all stages, from conception to natural death was the duty that came first, and that Abortion is a crime and a sin that were far more grave than the injustice and the rest cited by the Bishop in his document.

Catholic Answers has put out a voters guide which is firmly based on the infallible Teaching of the Church:

"Voters guide for serious Catholics"
caaction.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=95

You wrote of “Balance” - Where’s the balance in slaughtering 47,000,000 babies and then trying to call it anything but mut murder? What good is standing for “Justice” for people who are already dead?

I’ll simply quote President Lincoln and John Brown on a similar outrage, and then ask you if desiring to end this atrocity is really an offense against balance:

*"If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? …

Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bondman’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.”*

President Abraham Lincoln from his remarks during his 2nd Inaugural Speech, March 4, 1865

And then John Brown’s intemporate and Prophetic remarks on the eve of the Civil War:

“I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.”

John Brown from the Gallows at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, December 2, 1859

Abortion is our Slavery, and Rowe v. Wade is our Dred Scott Decision.

I think we need a lot less balance, and that Pope John Paul II knew what he was talking about.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[rr1213]

rr:

When Gov. Casey was running for re-election in 1990, the DNC hadn’t sold itself out to the Abortionists (that was done in 1992 according to the article I linked), and he was running for Governor.

He’s somone who just might stand up against his own party and vote against a fillibuster of a “Well-Qualified” pro-life Judicial Nominee or for the Late Term Abortion Ban in spite of the wishes of the Democratic Party Caucus and the personal and political costs to himself and his family.

The problem is that although the Republican in that particular Senatorial Race against Bob Casey was Pro-Death, the rest of the Party was and is Pro-Life and committed to a Pro-Life legislative agenda and to the approval of judges to the Judiciary who would view Roe v. Wade as “Wrongly Decided”.

OTOH, although Bob Casey is Pro-Life, his election in a close election would put into power a Pro-Death party which is opposed to any limits on a woman’s “right” to murder her child and which believes that NO judges should take the bench who have any misgivings or opposition to Roe v. Wade.

This is one of the hardest parts of voting - what do you do when one candidate is nominally Pro-Life, but the Party is Pro-Death, while the other candidate is Pro-Death but the Party is Pro-Life.

Even if the Pro-Life Candidate will stand up against his or her party leadership, the act of helping a Pro-Death Party get into power and take the Committee Chairs has got to counterbalance any potential good that might have resulted from the election of the Pro-Life Candidate over the Pro-Death Candidate.

I know this definitely doesn’t make it any easier, esp. since Bob Casey was a good and decent man who still is a member of a party that sold itself out to the abortionists.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Yes, I understand the dilemma. Sometimes, though, if the Democratic is strongly pro-life he might be the better choice nonetheless. Especially if the pro-life stance of the Republican party deteriorates further. The times that it would be preferrrable to support a democrat over a republican when voting on the issue of abortion would be pretty rare though.

 

[psteichen]

The last few posts seem to imply that Bob Casey is the only Pro-Life choice for Senator in PA. I looked it up and found that Rick Santorum, the incumbent, is also Pro-Life. What a great choice to have. This might be a situation when you can choose based on which party would best support life in the Senate. See the following link for details:

OnTheIssues.Org

This site also has information on all other candidates and issues from every state. Very good. Just remember, the abortion issue is number one, don’t get distracted! If they are Pro-Death it doesn’t matter how friendly they seem to other issues you care about, death of innocent children trumps all other injustices

 

[hasikelee]

BTW, your way of reasoning on this issue would also preclude the use of force or of war in all cases. Christ said to turn the other cheek. War is always a great evil where innocents and non-innocents alike are slaughtered. It is also necessary in some cases to defeat or counter a greater evil. How do you reconcile your position with the Catholic’s Church’s support of neccessary warfare pursuant to the Just War Doctrine? Should the United States abstained from fighting the Second World War? Our involvement condemned millions to death. It also saved countless other millions from genocide, slavery and destruction.

It is a common mistake to overuse that statement “Turn the other cheek”

Christ did indeed say to do that. But then He also displays a fine example of standing up against those who hurt Him.

The defining point is one of humility and mercy.

When you put the statement back into context, the meaning is clear. Christ wants us to dispel any personal revenge, personal hate or grudge against the one who hurt us. Yet he also just as much wants us to hold the other person to true love-tough love.

Turning the other cheek simply means not taking personal pleasure in hurting the other person back. It does not mean we are to be pacifists and avoid things like pressing charges, going to war or voting.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Yes, I understand the dilemma. Sometimes, though, if the Democratic is strongly pro-life he might be the better choice nonetheless. Especially if the pro-life stance of the Republican party deteriorates further. The times that it would be preferrrable to support a democrat over a republican when voting on the issue of abortion would be pretty rare though.

rr:

The problem isn’t “an erosion in the pro-life stance of the Republican Party”, the problems are that, until the legislation they passed during the past few years has hit the Supreme Court and been declared Consititutional, they can’t pass any more unless they just want the laws struck down, and if Pro-Life voters stay home and Democrats take control of Congress, we can forget about any Pro-Life agenda.

Please understand, even though the Republican Party is and has been conflicted between the Pro-Life “Traditional Values” Base and the “Money as God” Financial Wing, the Democratic Party has NO ROOM for a stridently Pro-Life candidate in its leadership council, let alone a Pro-Life Wing in the party. While the RNC may be conflicted about being the Pro-life Party, the DNC has NO conflicts about being the Party of Death.

They just don’t want to be called it.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[rr1213]

rr:

The problem isn’t “an erosion in the pro-life stance of the Republican Party”, the problems are that, until the legislation they passed during the past few years has hit the Supreme Court and been declared Consititutional, they can’t pass any more unless they just want the laws struck down, and if Pro-Life voters stay home and Democrats take control of Congress, we can forget about any Pro-Life agenda.

Please understand, even though the Republican Party is and has been conflicted between the Pro-Life “Traditional Values” Base and the “Money as God” Financial Wing, the Democratic Party has NO ROOM for a stridently Pro-Life candidate in its leadership council, let alone a Pro-Life Wing in the party. While the RNC may be conflicted about being the Pro-life Party, the DNC has NO conflicts about being the Party of Death.

They just don’t want to be called it.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

I basically agree with you. I just leave open the possibility, however remote, that a true believer, hard-as-nails-, pro-life Democrat might be a better bet to advance the pro-life cause than a wishy-washy pro-choice Republican. This is theoretical more than practical because, essentially, few of those sort of Democrats exist. I also understand that the real fight is in the Supreme Court where, btw, there are, what, four or five Catholics? Unfortunately they are not all pro-life.

 

[PLAL]

I think you have to think about a few things to consider when voting…

-Always vote for the 100% Pro-Life Candidate in a election. This is the most important issue and there are no other issues or combination of issues more important than saving the lives of 4,000 innocent defenseless human beings every day.

-Voting for the Lessor of Two Evils. Consider the candidates stand on the Pro-Life issues. They key question here is to ask yourself “How much Evil can be reduced by voting for the candidate who supports the least amount of Evil?"

If one candidate is 100% Pro-Abortion and the other is 85-95% Pro-Abortion, then I think voting for either of these candidates is a wasted vote.

If one candidate is 100% Pro-Abortion and the other is 25-35% Pro-Abortion (65-75% Pro-Life). then I think it would be a good idea to vote for the “lessor of two evils” in this case.

Keep in mind if we keep voting for the “lessor of two evils” philosophy then our policy’s in America will inherently become more and more evil. We don’t want this to happen.

-Voting for the 100% Pro-Life Candidate who has no chance of winning. I do think this is another good option. This is the option I am taking this year in the vote for IL Governor. In IL, our Democratic Candidate (Rod Blagojevich) is 100% Pro-Abortion. Our Republican Candidate (Judy Baar Topinka) is 90-95% Pro-Abortion. We have a 3rd Candidate who is 100% Pro-Life (Randy Stufflebeam). He is running for office but will not be on the ballot. I will be writing in the 100% Pro-Life third candidate on the ballot who does not have a chance to win.

My strategy here shows both parties I will only support Pro-Life Candidates in the future. If they want my vote in the future, they MUST have Pro-Life Candidates.

-Not Voting At All. This is a bad option**.** If you don’t vote, the parties will never try to get your vote. A better option is to vote and write in the name of a prominent Pro-Lifer in your state.

-Don’t Look at Labels. Forget about if the candidate is Republican, Democrat, Constitution, Green Party or Independent Candidate. Drop the labels and vote for the Pro-Life Candidate period!

-Pray. Do a lot of praying before you vote. Ask for guidance and go to Eucharistic Adoration.

 

[mary_bobo]

I basically agree with you. I just leave open the possibility, however remote, that a true believer, hard-as-nails-, pro-life Democrat might be a better bet to advance the pro-life cause than a wishy-washy pro-choice Republican. This is theoretical more than practical because, essentially, few of those sort of Democrats exist. I also understand that the real fight is in the Supreme Court where, btw, there are, what, four or five Catholics? Unfortunately they are not all pro-life.

You are so right, the fight against abortion will be in the SC. I have no doubt in my mind that if Dems control the Senate, we will never get another pro-life judge on that court and no pro-life judges will be nominated. It in my OPINION that at this time in history, a vote for a Democrat just propagates the pro-abortion agenda. After all, it is in their party platform. Am I happy with everything the GOP has done? Absolutely not. But the alternative or not voting at all and getting the alternative, is abhorrant to me.

 

[Valke2]

…

 

[Ham1]

Let’s please dismiss the idea of NOT voting to send a message. It doesn’t. Write in a candidate if you must but don’t not vote. Look at the Amish. They’ve been NOT voting for years now. How much impact have they had with that tactic?

PLAL, the really sad part of the IL situation is that we could have had a pro-life candidate but the incompetent pro-life organizations in Illinois couldn’t get together and back one candidate, so they split the vote.

 

[psteichen]

-Not Voting At All. This is a bad option**.** If you don’t vote, the parties will never try to get your vote. A better option is to vote and write in the name of a prominent Pro-Lifer in your state.

PLAL:

Of course I agree with your first point, that not voting at all is useless in effecting change. But I strongly disagree with your last point. I know I already stated this in the original post, but nobody will notice if you vote for a Pro-Lifer who has no chance of winning. Your desire to make a point is understandable, but voting for a Pro-Life candidate that has no chance of winning will only help to ensure that the strongest Pro-Death candidate actually wins.

When is the last time you heard any politicians lamenting the votes they lost to Pro-Lifers that wasted their ballot? It won’t even make the local paper in the write-in candidates home town. If you do manage to convince 100,000 people to join you, then you might make a minor point, but it will be forgotten by the time the next election rolls around.

If you want to make a point, do it by protesting outside Planned Parenthood, write an opinion piece for your newspaper, or become active in your local party politics. Getting involved in the election before the candidates are picked gives you a chance to influence who gets nominated to run. But once you get to the polling place on election day, there are only two possible winners. Voting for someone else is a waste of time, and will only benefit the more dangerous Pro-Death candidate.

-Voting for the 100% Pro-Life Candidate who has no chance of winning. I do think this is another good option. This is the option I am taking this year in the vote for IL Governor. In IL, our Democratic Candidate (Rod Blagojevich) is 100% Pro-Abortion. Our Republican Candidate (Judy Baar Topinka) is 90-95% Pro-Abortion. We have a 3rd Candidate who is 100% Pro-Life (Randy Stufflebeam). He is running for office but will not be on the ballot. I will be writing in the 100% Pro-Life third candidate on the ballot who does not have a chance to win.

As gut wrenching as it might be, voting for the wishy-washy Pro-Abortion candidate versus the strong Pro-Death advocate is a far better option in your example above. Voting in this way will help to minimize the harm that would be done by the staunch Abortion supporter. Also, considering the wishy-washy Pro-Abortionist belongs to a party that is generally more Pro-Life will limit her ability to act on her Pro-Abortion leanings. Voting for the 3rd party guy? Useless. I’m sure I’d vote for him myself if he had a chance to win, but in the example you site, you will only be causing more harm to the unborn by diverting your vote. And that would be wrong.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

As a Catholic, not only that as a Catholic seminarian, I know that I am not misapplying the CCC here.

For me, ethically and morally I would vote my conscience which would be a no vote. A human being is a human being deserving all respect and rights no matter how they are conceived. Those conceived though rape and incest (I do not know how one can be conceived though murder so I will assume you meant incest there) and I would in no way help to remove those constitutional rights from an individual due to the accident of the method of their conception.

Now if the question was could I vote for a law in this matter then my answer might be different but I could never vote of a constitutional amendment that would strip the rights of a class of human beings.

Could you as a senator cast the deciding vote on a constitutional amendment to reinstate slavery or for mandatory sterialization of the mentally retarded and insane?

David:

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong about what Congress and the States would be doing with passing and Ratifying such an Amendment. They would not be REINSTATING an EVIL. They would be LARGELY ELIMINATING a Grave EVIL - In this instance, our age’s equivalent of SLAVERY and the Murder of the Mentally Ill and the Infirm (the Life devoud of Value - I’ve read the book, too).

With that Vote, you would pave the way for a REDUCTION in the number of Babies SLAUGHTERED from over 1.3 million per year to fewer than a 1,500 annually once the Amendment was Ratified. That’s the equivalent eliminating that EVIL Institution in ALL States and making the Freed Slaves into Citizens, without being able to eliminate “Jim Crow” for 100 years. Anyone who could have accomplished that without the Civil War would have been rightly called a miracle worker!

Or, The people who got this through would be equivalent to anyone who could have mnaged to shut down the Nazi aparatus of Mass-Murder (Death Camps, Forced Labor Camps Einsatzgruppen) except for a couple sections of the Gestapo would have been hailed as a Reformer (along with a Pipe-Dream that never could have existed).

NONE of these could ever have been called Reinstating Slavery or the Slaughter of the Mentally Ill and the Retarded if they had ever happened. On the contrary, these would have been called a ROLLBACK or REDUCTION in these EVILS. In the same way way, the Amendment as described would be a dramatic ROLLBACK in the incredible EVIL of ABORTION.

In this case, this ROLLBACK would be from the deliberate slaughter of over 1.3 million babies in the womb each year by abortionists in this country alone to fewer than 1,500.

According to the clear Teaching of Church, when offered the opportunity to Rollback such an EVIL as Abortion, we have to take it, even if we know the bill isn’t perfect and doesn’t give us, or the infants, everything the moral law requires. Because, in this case, the choice is not between some potential amendment which would ban ALL Abortions and an amendment that would allow the states the exceptions listed in the amendment above. The choice is instead between an amendment that would prohibit virtually all abortions and the present slaughter of infants which includes the murder of babies as they come down the birth canal!

In that case, voting against the amendment, because it doesn’t give everything that is required by Moral Law, is voting for the continuation of the Slaughter of the Innocents. It’s voting to allow 1.3 million+ Abortions Annually because you’re afraid the law might allow as many as 1,500. The Church’s Teaching is Clear - You must vote to save the lives of the 1.3 million whom the law will save. To do otherwise is the equivalent of voting for the continuation of slavery in all of the states and the sale of slaves in this country packed in slave ships brought from Africa, because the amendment to stop Slavery couldn’t also include proclude decisions such as Plessy v. Fergusen or unjust Legal Systems such as “Jim Crow”.

Again, anyone who could have done this without a Civil War would have been called a Miracle Worker!

I’m sorry, but you’ve got the CCC wrong, and your view of this question is wrongly thought out.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Well, that post sounds pretty unbalanced to me. So you’re halfway there.

Valke:

And How do you think Abortion should be treated?

We’re at 47 million and counting. And, in case you were wondering, Abortion doesn’t just kill the baby, it harms the woman and the Abortionist and most everyone his office.

Someone here thought his Bishop said that Abortion was just one of many factors to be considered, and that a politician’s stand on a woman’s “right” to murder her baby shouldn’t disqualify him from consideraton or cause Catholics to vote for him.

What do you think about that? Do you think that a politician’s stand on a woman’s “right” to murder her baby shouldn’t disqualify him from consideration? that it should just be one of many factors?

Or, Are you willing to consider the Teaching of the Church on this issue?

Rowe v. Wade has directly resulted in the slaughter of 47 million innocent human beings. Can you think of a Legal decision that has had such horrid consequences? Or, Was your one sentence post a snide way of saying that you didn’t believe babies in utero were human beings?

Or, were you questioning my sanity?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[tequilamac]

Valke:

And How do you think Abortion should be treated?

We’re at 47 million and counting. And, in case you were wondering, Abortion doesn’t just kill the baby, it harms the woman and the Abortionist and most everyone his office.

Someone here thought his Bishop said that Abortion was just one of many factors to be considered, and that a politician’s stand on a woman’s “right” to murder her baby shouldn’t disqualify him from consideraton or cause Catholics to vote for him.

What do you think about that? Do you think that a politician’s stand on a woman’s “right” to murder her baby shouldn’t disqualify him from consideration? that it should just be one of many factors?

Or, Are you willing to consider the Teaching of the Church on this issue?

Rowe v. Wade has directly resulted in the slaughter of 47 million innocent human beings. Can you think of a Legal decision that has had such horrid consequences? Or, Was your one sentence post a snide way of saying that you didn’t believe these were human beings?

Or, were you questioning my sanity?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Did I miss something here? I thought it was made clear this year that one could not vote for a pro choice politician without incurring automatic exommunication. Did I receive incorrect info?

 

[Valke2]

Valke:

And How do you think Abortion should be treated?

We’re at 47 million and counting. And, in case you were wondering, Abortion doesn’t just kill the baby, it harms the woman and the Abortionist and most everyone his office.

Someone here thought his Bishop said that Abortion was just one of many factors to be considered, and that a politician’s stand on a woman’s “right” to murder her baby shouldn’t disqualify him from consideraton or cause Catholics to vote for him.

What do you think about that? Do you think that a politician’s stand on a woman’s “right” to murder her baby shouldn’t disqualify him from consideration? that it should just be one of many factors?

Or, Are you willing to consider the Teaching of the Church on this issue?

Rowe v. Wade has directly resulted in the slaughter of 47 million innocent human beings. Can you think of a Legal decision that has had such horrid consequences? Or, Was your one sentence post a snide way of saying that you didn’t believe babies in utero were human beings?

Or, were you questioning my sanity?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

I think that one should one should vote for who they want to vote for. Are you saying people were not getting abortions before Roe v. Wade?

 

[hasikelee]

I think that one should one should vote for who they want to vote for. Are you saying people were not getting abortions before Roe v. Wade?

Of course we should vote for who we want elected. Isn’t that the entire idea of voting?

And what is the last comment supposed to mean?

 

[psteichen]

Did I miss something here? I thought it was made clear this year that one could not vote for a pro choice politician without incurring automatic exommunication. Did I receive incorrect info?

tequilamac: I wish people would stop throwing out inaccurate information like this without any documentation. Yes, you received incorrect info. If you can find a document from the Magisterium that states what you just said, please post it. I know you won’t, because it doesn’t exist, and would be contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium on this issue. (for those of you who skipped ahead without reading the rest of the thread, the issue in question is whether one should vote for the candidate that will do the least harm to the unborn, even when they are not pro-life. the answer of course is yes, because it helps limit the evil that would result should the stronger pro-death candidate win)

I think that one should one should vote for who they want to vote for. Are you saying people were not getting abortions before Roe v. Wade?

Valke2: Of course people got abortions before Roe v. Wade. Do people smoke crack? That’s still illegal! Some people will always do whatever they want to regardless of whether it is legal or not. Just as some will do whatever they want regardless of how sinful it is. That doesn’t mean we should make it legal! Should we also make murdering 6 year olds legal, just because some people will do it anyway? Perhaps rape shouldn’t be outlawed, because crazy evil guys are going to rape regardless of the consequences? The argument you stated has been used by many in the abortion industry to support their position. They claim that abortions will happen anyway, so we need to make them legal so the women won’t be hurt by bad doctors. That argument is ridiculous. Should we legalize suicide as well, so that people will do it in nice clean doctors offices instead of damaging the sidewalk when they jump? How convenient for all of us if the horrible evils of the world can occur behind closed doors at the clinic where we don’t have to be bothered by it. You obviously didn’t think about that argument before you posted it. Please do so. And if you are any form of Christian or believe in God in any way, please pray about this.

 

[Karin]

Valke2: Of course people got abortions before Roe v. Wade. Do people smoke crack? That’s still illegal! Some people will always do whatever they want to regardless of whether it is legal or not. Just as some will do whatever they want regardless of how sinful it is. That doesn’t mean we should make it legal! Should we also make murdering 6 year olds legal, just because some people will do it anyway? Perhaps rape shouldn’t be outlawed, because crazy evil guys are going to rape regardless of the consequences? The argument you stated has been used by many in the abortion industry to support their position. They claim that abortions will happen anyway, so we need to make them legal so the women won’t be hurt by bad doctors. That argument is ridiculous. Should we legalize suicide as well, so that people will do it in nice clean doctors offices instead of damaging the sidewalk when they jump? How convenient for all of us if the horrible evils of the world can occur behind closed doors at the clinic where we don’t have to be bothered by it. You obviously didn’t think about that argument before you posted it. Please do so. And if you are any form of Christian or believe in God in any way, please pray about this.

I guess you did nto know that Valke2 is Jewish and the Jewish faith believes that are abortions are ok and at times demands that they be preformed.
It would seem that not all faiths think abortion is an evil thing…and I would think hate to see Roe V Wade over turned

 

[hasikelee]

I guess you did nto know that Valke2 is Jewish and the Jewish faith believes that are abortions are ok and at times demands that they be preformed.
It would seem that not all faiths think abortion is an evil thing…and I would think hate to see Roe V Wade over turned

I thought only one segment of the Jewish faith believes this, or rather, allows for it?

Similar to what we would call, “Catholics for choice.” Just a group of people who have decided to change things to fit their own beliefs?

Does anyone else know?

 

[Karin]

I thought only one segment of the Jewish faith believes this, or rather, allows for it?

Similar to what we would call, “Catholics for choice.” Just a group of people who have decided to change things to fit their own beliefs?

Does anyone else know?

jewfaq.org/sex.htm#Abortion
from this link I would think all of Judiasm approves of it…but perhaps Valke2 will enlighten us on this point