Not Voting Promotes Abortion!

[psteichen]

Yes, political parties have no power in our Government as they are not a recognized force. Anyone that is elected to the Senate or House of Representatives can vote any way he wishes regardless of which party he belongs to.

ByzCath:

Yes they can, but do they? Look at almost any vote and it will run mostly along party lines. Congress members rarely deviate from the party position. Sorry to disappoint you, but party politics plays a big role in the way our nation is governed.

And do you consider Priests for Life a heretical organization? Because they disagree with your assertions. You seem pretty sure of yourself. So one of you is obviously wrong. I think I’ll side with the Priests and Bishops.

 

[psteichen]

Or did you not say in your first post to open this thread, “By the way, if you don’t believe killing an unborn baby is a horrible evil, then you are not Catholic no matter what you like to pretend.”

Yet you seem to be saying that it is ok to vote for people who thinking that this is ok if both candidates support doing just that.

ByzCath:

Yes I did say that, and I strongly believe it. What you don’t seem to understand is that by voting for the candidate that will do the least harm to unborn children, you are saving the lives of children. You are preventing the greater harm that would result from the stronger Pro-Abortion candidate winning the election. This is not evil. Casting a vote with the intention of saving lives is not evil no matter how you look at it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath:

Yes they can, but do they? Look at almost any vote and it will run mostly along party lines. Congress members rarely deviate from the party position. Sorry to disappoint you, but party politics plays a big role in the way our nation is governed.

This is not always true.

Just look back a couple of years ago when the Republicans lost the majority in the Senate because one of their members change party affilations.

And do you consider Priests for Life a heretical organization? Because they disagree with your assertions. You seem pretty sure of yourself. So one of you is obviously wrong. I think I’ll side with the Priests and Bishops.

Please show where Priests for Life say to vote for a pro-death candidate and if they do then I still will not do it as the Catechism spells it out plainly and I will not sell my soul for what some may see as a temporary gain.

I will vote my conscience which has been formed from Catholic Teachings. You can lead others into error but you won’t get my vote.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath:

Yes I did say that, and I strongly believe it. What you don’t seem to understand is that by voting for the candidate that will do the least harm to unborn children, you are saving the lives of children. You are preventing the greater harm that would result from the stronger Pro-Abortion candidate winning the election. This is not evil. Casting a vote with the intention of saving lives is not evil no matter how you look at it.

The least harm to the unborn?

So what killing one unborn is better than killing two?

You still have an innocent human being murdered.

You seem to believe that one life is not worth as much as two whereas I believe that every life is sacred and will not sell out even one life to save another.

You seem to ignore the Catechsim paragraph I posted.

Why don’t you try responding to that and tell me how your idea fits with that.

I disagree that when you vote for a pro-death candidate who says that he is not as pro-death as the other guy is saving lives. It is just not murdering as many innocents as the other guy would let happen.

Your argument is like a guy who takes 10 hostages and kills one of them and then says to the judge that he should not be convicted becuase he saved the lives of 9 people.

 

[psteichen]

Please show where Priests for Life say to vote for a pro-death candidate and if they do then I still will not do it as the Catechism spells it out plainly and I will not sell my soul for what some may see as a temporary gain.

I provided the link in the original post. Please follow it. And of course you wouldn’t vote for a pro-death candidate if you had another option. But when you have two candidates that both hold Pro-Abortion views, you should vote for the candidate that will do the least harm.

 

[psteichen]

The least harm to the unborn?

So what killing one unborn is better than killing two?

You still have an innocent human being murdered.

You seem to believe that one life is not worth as much as two whereas I believe that every life is sacred and will not sell out even one life to save another.

You seem to ignore the Catechsim paragraph I posted.

Why don’t you try responding to that and tell me how your idea fits with that.

I disagree that when you vote for a pro-death candidate who says that he is not as pro-death as the other guy is saving lives. It is just not murdering as many innocents as the other guy would let happen.

Your argument is like a guy who takes 10 hostages and kills one of them and then says to the judge that he should not be convicted becuase he saved the lives of 9 people.

ByzCath:

I can’t possibly answer all your questions in one post, or refute your inaccurate comparisons. I will answer your question about the Catechism.

“One may never do evil so that good may result from it”

Voting in a manner that prevents a strong Pro-Death candidate from winning is not evil. You are doing a good thing, by improving the odds of a Pro-Life law being passed. That law would have less of a chance of passing had the stronger pro-death candidate been elected. You have not killed any babies with your vote, you may have saved some that were going to be killed. You can’t have everything you want all at once. If you wait around to vote for a solidly Pro-Life candidate and none arrive, then the world will pass you by and you will have had no positive effect on it. If you accept that you will never find a perfect candidate, and instead focus on changing the system bit by bit, you will slowly succeed with Gods help, and will save lives that would otherwise have been lost. There is nothing evil about that.

 

[psteichen]

ByzCath: (continued)
Lying is evil; Stealing is evil; Murder is evil; But voting is just voting. It has no inherent evil qualities. The only thing that could make the act of voting evil would be an evil intent on the part of the voter. Voting in the manner recommended by Priests for Life and thousands of other informed Catholics and Priests and Bishops is not evil because the intent is to save lives and incrementally end abortion as quickly as possible.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Choose the lesser of two evils and, if the race is for the US Senate which has the obligation under our Constitution to confirm nominations to the judiciary, choose the Republican except in those (very few) cases where the Democratic candidate is more pro-life than the Republican. Republican administrations are more likely to appoint judges that oppose unlimited abortion than Democratic administrations. If you can’t bring yourself to vote for either of them, then write in “Mickey Mouse”…a perfectly legitimate and rational vote that shows your disgust at the options offered you, that a cartoon character would be a better choice than either of these two clowns.

rr1213:

Only one exception. because the Democraticic is pro-Death, and even “Pro-Life Democrats” will not vote against their party when it counts, This still places a Pro-Death party in control.

A good question to ask a “Pro-Life Democrat” is, “Will you vote against the wishes of your party leadership on the following issues (See below) when you vote might cost the Democratic Caucus the vote and give the Republican Caucus a victory (to end a filibuster on a Pro-Life Nominee to the Supreme Court or to pass a ban on all Late-Term Abortions) and when it would have a personal political, financial or personal cost?”

Abortion
Stem Cell REsearch
Human Cloning
Same Sex Marriage
Euthanasia

If he or she can’t answer it, he or she is just another Democrat who is using the Pro-Life label to get your vote for the Party of Death which he or she will never challenge when it comes to crunch time.

Anyone who doubts what I’m saying, just ask how many times Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada has voted to end a Filibuster of a Pro-Life Judicial Nominee, or what his voting record and Public Statements have been on the 5 Non-Negotiables since he became Minority Leader.

Bob Casey, the then very popular Governor of Pennsylvania was not allowed to address the 1992 Democratic National Convention in any way, shape, manner or form and was humiliated in the worst way possible by the DNC when the Clinton Campaign and the DNC found that he planned to give a rousing speech in defense of the Right to Life and against the wholesale slaughter of the Innocents and the sale of the Democratic Party to the abortionists!
The Truth About Gov. Bob Casey and The 1992 DNC Convention
themediareport.com/special/casey-1992-dnc.htm

Karl Keatings “Voters guide for serious Catholics” is available here:
caaction.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=95

The PDF is still available. I found the Catholic Answers guide far more useful than the Bishops’ guide which seemed to be deliberately obtuse. I hope it proves useful to you.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[LRThunder]

Voting for pro-life candidates is good, but unless we have pro-life judges, any attempt to overturn abortion will be slapped down by the courts.

It took favorable court rulings for the Civil Rights movement to really get going. The same thing will probably have to happen for the legal status of abortion to end.

 

[rr1213]

rr1213:

Only one exception. because the Democraticic is pro-Death, and even “Pro-Life Democrats” will not vote against their party when it counts, This still places a Pro-Death party in control.

A good question to ask a “Pro-Life Democrat” is, “Will you vote against the wishes of your party leadership on the following issues (See below) when you vote might cost the Democratic Caucus the vote and give the Republican Caucus a victory (to end a filibuster on a Pro-Life Nominee to the Supreme Court or to pass a ban on all Late-Term Abortions) and when it would have a personal political, financial or personal cost?”

Abortion
Stem Cell REsearch
Human Cloning
Same Sex Marriage
Euthanasia

If he or she can’t answer it, he or she is just another Democrat who is using the Pro-Life label to get your vote for the Party of Death which he or she will never challenge when it comes to crunch time.

Anyone who doubts what I’m saying, just ask how many times Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada has voted to end a Filibuster of a Pro-Life Judicial Nominee, or what his voting record and Public Statements have been on the 5 Non-Negotiables since he became Minority Leader.

Bob Casey, the then very popular Governor of Pennsylvania was not allowed to address the 1992 Democratic National Convention in any way, shape, manner or form and was humiliated in the worst way possible by the DNC when the Clinton Campaign and the DNC found that he planned to give a rousing speech in defense of the Right to Life and against the wholesale slaughter of the Innocents and the sale of the Democratic Party to the abortionists!
The Truth About Gov. Bob Casey and The 1992 DNC Convention
themediareport.com/special/casey-1992-dnc.htm

Karl Keatings “Voters guide for serious Catholics” is available here:
caaction.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=95

The PDF is still available. I found the Catholic Answers guide far more useful than the Bishops’ guide which seemed to be deliberately obtuse. I hope it proves useful to you.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Actually, Bob Casey is a good example. If he had been running for US Senate against a moderate to liberal Republican candidate (very possible in Pa. you know), then if abortion is the issue that matters for you I’d think you would vote for Casey. The one time that I voted for a Democrat over a Republican in a national election was a similar case where the Democratic candidate was a pro-life Catholic and the Republic Senator a very liberal Pro-choice incumbent.

 

[rr1213]

One can not compromise with Evil. To do so is evil.

The alternative you are selling is the death of an innocent human being. It doesn’t matter if only one innocent is murdered instead of 100 or even a million. You can not justify this. One murdered innocent is just as bad as a million murdered innocents.

This goes against what the Church teaches. One may not do evil so that a good out come can be reached.

From the Catechism.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

As you can see, we may never do evil even if a good will come from it and it is wrong for us to do something that may cause our brother to stumble which I can see happening when you support a pro-death candidate.

This is just non-sense as political parties really have no power in our Government. If a pro-death candidate is elected from a so-called “Pro-Life” party it in no way helps to strengthen the Pro-Life movement. Really it does the opposite by providing the pro-death camp with another vote and it weakens the, so-called, “Pro-Life” party by making their “Pro-Life” stance a joke and showing those who are in the party that it really does not matter where they stand on this issue.

I’m not Catholic but it seems to me that you are misapplying the CCC here. By voting for a candidate that is less extreme (less evil if you wish) on the issue of abortion, you are not doing evil so good may result. In 99% of the cases, you are presented with only two viable candidates. In most, but not all, of those cases one candidate’s positions regarding abortion will be preferable to the positions of the other candidate. If abortion is the issue on which you decide your vote, you vote for the less objectionable candidate.

Let me ask you this. You are in the US Senate. A Constitutional Amendment is pending that would ban abortions in all instances other than when the life of the mother is literally threatened (physican’s affirmation required), rape, and murder. You are the deciding vote. It will pass or fail on your vote. You, presumably, don’t like the exceptions for rape and incest. What is the ethical action to take? Kill the amendment because it does not satisfy the purity of your conscience and that to support it would be to do evil so that good might result? Or understand that this amendment, albeit imperfect, will save the lifes of millions of the unborn and vote for it? I know what I would do. In a heart beat. What about you?

 

[tequilamac]

Tequilamac:

What a horrible idea. Think your idea through. If all Catholics failed to go to the polls, would the election be called off? No, the election would go on and huge numbers of Pro-Life voters would be removed from the pool. The results? More Pro-Abortion winners than you can shake a stick at. You’d have abortion on demand locked in. And along with that you’d get all the other pet projects that these sort of people support. Gay marriage, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning…the sky would be the limit.

What exactly would be accomplished by your boycott idea? How would this help elect leaders that share even some of your values if you try to get everyone who agrees with you not to vote?

That idea is reactionary and emotional and not based on any good logic or strategy. Ensuring moral decay in our government is not the moral high ground you seem to think it is.

I’m afraid you give us Catholics too much credit. The major religious group that voted Bush a pro lifer into office was the Christian Fundamentalists. Those who bill themselves sola scriptura or fundamentalist or Berean or Zionist or simply Christian make up the largest Christian group in the states today numbering in the millions. The polls from 2004 show that 84% of this group voted for George Bush. It is my personal belief from the exit polls, religious census polls, and others is that we are more likely to elect pro life candidates if Catholics don’t vote then if we do.

 

[rr1213]

I’m afraid you give us Catholics too much credit. The major religious group that voted Bush a pro lifer into office was the Christian Fundamentalists. Those who bill themselves sola scriptura or fundamentalist or Berean or Zionist or simply Christian make up the largest Christian group in the states today numbering in the millions. The polls from 2004 show that 84% of this group voted for George Bush. It is my personal belief from the exit polls, religious census polls, and others is that we are more likely to elect pro life candidates if Catholics don’t vote then if we do.

Obviously, the biggest single Christian entity in the US is the Catholic Church. Nothing else is even close. (Remember, as Catholics love to point out to us, we Protestants are divided up into 33,000 denominations )

Why would it help pro-life candidates if Catholic’s didn’t vote? Catholics used to be part of the Democratic coalition for the most part…is that your point?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I provided the link in the original post. Please follow it. And of course you wouldn’t vote for a pro-death candidate if you had another option. But when you have two candidates that both hold Pro-Abortion views, you should vote for the candidate that will do the least harm.

Thanks, I didn’t see it but I went there and I must say… very sad. I think I will have to question any support I give to this group after reading this.

They say at the linked site,

But acknowledging this, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm.

Why?

Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.

This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil.

This is moral relativism. They claim you are not choosing the lesser of two evils but that you are choosing to “limit” an evil. Yes, you are choosing to limit the evil by choosing the lesser of two evils. This does not even meet the criteria for double effect.

IMHO they are flat out wrong and I will never support a pro-death candidate and now I will have to question my support of Priests for Life as they seem to be saying that the support of pro-death candidates is acceptable.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath: (continued)
Lying is evil; Stealing is evil; Murder is evil; But voting is just voting. It has no inherent evil qualities. The only thing that could make the act of voting evil would be an evil intent on the part of the voter. Voting in the manner recommended by Priests for Life and thousands of other informed Catholics and Priests and Bishops is not evil because the intent is to save lives and incrementally end abortion as quickly as possible.

Right, voting has no inherent evil qualities, but neither does owning a weapon, use of alcohol, or property ownership but all of them can be abused in such a way to cause evil.

When you vote to support someone who supports a great evil you are providing support for it. Just as much as if you give a man the money to buy the bullets for his gun so that he can kill his neighbor or if you loan your car to a guy so he can go rob a bank. It is support with full knowledge of what they are going to do.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m not Catholic but it seems to me that you are misapplying the CCC here. By voting for a candidate that is less extreme (less evil if you wish) on the issue of abortion, you are not doing evil so good may result. In 99% of the cases, you are presented with only two viable candidates. In most, but not all, of those cases one candidate’s positions regarding abortion will be preferable to the positions of the other candidate. If abortion is the issue on which you decide your vote, you vote for the less objectionable candidate.

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

Let me ask you this. You are in the US Senate. A Constitutional Amendment is pending that would ban abortions in all instances other than when the life of the mother is literally threatened (physican’s affirmation required), rape, and murder. You are the deciding vote. It will pass or fail on your vote. You, presumably, don’t like the exceptions for rape and incest. What is the ethical action to take? Kill the amendment because it does not satisfy the purity of your conscience and that to support it would be to do evil so that good might result? Or understand that this amendment, albeit imperfect, will save the lifes of millions of the unborn and vote for it? I know what I would do. In a heart beat. What about you?

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?

 

[hasikelee]

Great topic!

I know a family who is extremely pro-life and very active. The mother was just awarded for her actions by the Archbishop.

They protest, they counsel, they open their home to pregnant women.

And my friend and her mom will not vote. At all.

The argument appears to be that they will only vote for a 100% prolife, Catholic candidate or bill, amendment, etc.

I can’t believe that they can be so informed on the issue of abortion, yet miss their logical fallacy here in politics.

 

[rr1213]

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.

This is where you are wrong. Today, legally, those conceived through rape or incest have not Constitutional right to live. They, like any other unborn baby, can be aborted essentially at will. A Constitutional Amendment that prohibits abortion at will, but leaves exceptions for babies conceived through rape and incest, would be a monumental step towards life and would save millions. In my hypothetical, you would be condemning millions to death because you cannot conceptualize the difference between supporting evil and accepting a good which is less than perfection. (Yes, if politically feasible, I would like to prohibit abortion in the case of rape and incest as well. Those are innocent children we are discussing).

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.

 

[rr1213]

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?

Of course not. That is not the issue before us. The issue before us is what action can be taken politically to stop the slaugher of innocents. In the political process, you vote for those who support life and vote against those who don’t. When the candidates are morally ambiguous on the issue, or their position is not morally pristine, then you support the best option available. To do otherwise would be imprudent and, arguably, morally indefensible itself.

 

[rr1213]

The argument appears to be that they will only vote for a 100% prolife, Catholic candidate or bill, amendment, etc.

I can’t believe that they can be so informed on the issue of abortion, yet miss their logical fallacy here in politics.

Why should it matter that the candidate be Catholic? There are plenty of fine evangelicals and others who are pro-life also. Does it matter to the unborn if they are saved by a Catholic or an evangelical? I know that I am probably preaching to the choir here, that you see the logical fallacy of your friend, but I had to say it.