Not Voting Promotes Abortion!

[Al_Masetti]

Generally speaking, one political party is pro-abortion and the other political party is generally pro-life.

If pro-life folks sit out the election, then the pro-abortion party will win.

What happens is that the pro-life party then LOSES A SEAT.

And if they lose a seat, they may actually lose control of one or both houses of the legislature or Congress.

A very few years ago, an alleged Republican (after receiving a lot of support) switched his party to Independent. As a result control of the Senate switched to the Democrats.

As a result the Democrats gained control of the agenda.

Part of the reason is that some Republicans are RINOs and vote liberal or, in other words, they can’t get elected if they campaign as Democrats, so they campaign as Republicans and vote with the Democrats.

So, yes, not voting promotes abortion.

Sometimes you have a dilemma: to vote for a bad candidate or to vote for the worst candidate.

If you vote the party line (even if you have to hold your nose) then you are promoting the PARTY that generally holds life sacred.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So, yes, not voting promotes abortion.

I disagree with this. Not voting when the only choice is someone who openly supports evil is not promoting that evil. Your vote promotes that eveil.

Sometimes you have a dilemma: to vote for a bad candidate or to vote for the worst candidate.

You cannot chose the lesser of two evils, even Priests for Life acknowledge this.

If you vote the party line (even if you have to hold your nose) then you are promoting the PARTY that generally holds life sacred.

Generally is the key word here. You seem to admit that while the party may claim to be pro-life that not all of its candidates are. Otherwise there would be no such thing as RINOs.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, I think I am done here. I have provided my line of reasoning and given support from actual Church documents that show what the Church actually teaches as well as using what I have been taught at a very orthodox Catholic university.

I have seen nothing that will cause me to change my mind. Seems to be all personal opinions and feel good thoughts. Even the Priests for Life site linked does not show this idea from any Church documents.

I will stand by my conscience as well as the Voters Guide from Catholic Answers.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I disagree with this. Not voting when the only choice is someone who openly supports evil is not promoting that evil. Your vote promotes that eveil.

You cannot chose the lesser of two evils, even Priests for Life acknowledge this.

Generally is the key word here. You seem to admit that while the party may claim to be pro-life that not all of its candidates are. Otherwise there would be no such thing as RINOs.

Not choosing is a choice. The effect of YOUR not choosing is to abdicate the decision to someone who WILL choose. And their choice will further abortion.

If you are a referee, and one of the teams has committed a serious foul, then you as referee do not have the luxury of simply walking away and saying you won’t decide.

The effect of being aloof is that the team with no ethics will committ one foul after another until they destroy the team that does not commit fouls.

YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PICK THE TEAM with ethics. You are instead choosing to allow the unethical team to win by default.

[What you can do is to get involved at the local level so that in the primaries, and in the news media, the lack of ethics gets high lighted and ethical candidates get selected. I know that’s really getting “down and dirty”, but getting up on a high horse results in the bad guys winning by default.]

And apologies for suggesting that the Democratic Party favors abortion or is in some way less ethical than the Republican Party.

Please don’t suspend me for apparently suggesting that.

But on the other hand, the Democratic Party DOES support abortion. And Republican Party does support life.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Not choosing is a choice. The effect of YOUR not choosing is to abdicate the decision to someone who WILL choose. And their choice will further abortion.

If you are a referee, and one of the teams has committed a serious foul, then you as referee do not have the luxury of simply walking away and saying you won’t decide.

The effect of being aloof is that the team with no ethics will committ one foul after another until they destroy the team that does not commit fouls.

YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PICK THE TEAM with ethics. You are instead choosing to allow the unethical team to win.

No, you are wrong. You do not have the opportunity to pick the team as both choices are on the same team.

Anyways, this is mostly a non-issue as there are usually more than just the two main party candidates. There is almost always (actually I have yet to not see one) a pro-life third party candidate on the ballot that one can vote for.

 

[psteichen]

You cannot chose the lesser of two evils, even Priests for Life acknowledge this.

ByzCath:

The fact you don’t seem to understand is that by voting in a way that limits the greater evil, you are actually doing a good.

it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm.

 

[rr1213]

Anyways, this is mostly a non-issue as there are usually more than just the two main party candidates. There is almost always (actually I have yet to not see one) a pro-life third party candidate on the ballot that one can vote for.

This is not the case in most places in the country. Moreover, an independent or a third-party candidate in national elections has a minimal, if that, chance of winning. How many congressmen are independent or third-party members? Not many. The last third-party candidate to win the presidency was Abraham Lincoln, back when the Republicans were a third-party. On the local level, you will have more of a chance to support independents, “non-partisans” (a misnomer because they almost always are members of the two main parties) or third-parties. Unfortunately, Roe v. Wade nationalized the issue of abortion so that local elections have little or no effect on the outcome.

 

[rr1213]

ByzCath:

The fact you don’t seem to understand is that by voting in a way that limits the greater evil, you are actually doing a good.

This is actually a very good point. So, from this perspective, it is not choosing the “lesser evil” but doing good by limiting a greater evil.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Voting for Republicans gets less abortion.

Voting for Democrats gets more abortion (much more).

Not voting lets the Democrats set the agenda… you get more abortion.

 

[Al_Masetti]

No, you are wrong. You do not have the opportunity to pick the team as both choices are on the same team.

Anyways, this is mostly a non-issue as there are usually more than just the two main party candidates. There is almost always (actually I have yet to not see one) a pro-life third party candidate on the ballot that one can vote for.

Please explain: “You do not have the opportunity to pick the team as both choices are on the same team”. What does this mean?

It is true that you can vote for a third party candidate, but the winner will be one of the two main party candidates.

The Republican Party has consistently voted to reduce abortion, to choose pro-life Supreme Court justices, to limit abortion at every opportunity.

The Democratic Party has consistently voted for abortion on demand, and to prevent any diminution of the availability of abortion.

To fail to vote for the Republican PARTY is to give the victory to the pro-abortion Democratic Party.

I don’t see how abstaining gives individuals any moral superiority.

It’s like being caught in a battle. If the attackers win, you and the others will die. If the defenders win, you and the others will live. If you say, fighting is against my values, then where are you? You won’t surrender; you won’t act as a medic to fix up the wounded defenders. You just sit back and let others defend you.

 

[mary_bobo]

Voting for Republicans gets less abortion.

Voting for Democrats gets more abortion (much more).

Not voting lets the Democrats set the agenda… you get more abortion.

Al, you are always so logical. Do you think maybe those who will not accept the obvious are either, a. Bush haters or b. dyed in the wool Dems? It’s always astounding to me how folks can twist the truth to suit their own agenda.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Al, you are always so logical. Do you think maybe those who will not accept the obvious are either, a. Bush haters or b. dyed in the wool Dems? It’s always astounding to me how folks can twist the truth to suit their own agenda.

Mary, I think that some voters believe there are MORE THAN TWO POSSIBLE OUTCOMES.

1. Republican
2. Democrat
3. Other: send them a message;
4. Other: I can hurt someone and make myself feel more important;

There is some recently discussed German language word, meaning to take pleasure in the pain of others…

A form of envy? … directed at professional politicians??

I did a bunch of very informal polls at the “mini-UN” where I once worked. I asked about strange peasant folklore sayings and attitudes. One of the Russian guys said there was a popular expression when something good happened to someone else: “I hope your cow dies.”

I have seen peoples’ eyes light up with pleasure when they create mischief that hurt other people (even when it came back to bite them in the backside).

And that may be one of the factors working here. They can hurt someone. They are somehow “reluctant” to hurt the “enemy” (the Democrats), but they are comfortable hurting their friends (the Republicans).

There is more to it.

Republicans get a grade of B- for their conservatism.

Democrats get an A+ for their liberalism.

So some folks who want to appear to themselves to be more virtuous vote for the party with the higher letter grade.

 

[rr1213]

…The Republican Party has consistently voted to reduce abortion, to choose pro-life Supreme Court justices, to limit abortion at every opportunity.

The Democratic Party has consistently voted for abortion on demand, and to prevent any diminution of the availability of abortion.

To fail to vote for the Republican PARTY is to give the victory to the pro-abortion Democratic Party.

I’d qualify this at least a little. Both parties are full of politicians who are simply opportunistic and who care more about holding power than doing what is right for the Country. So, there certainly has been times where supposedly pro-life Republicans have hypocritically failed to support the pro-life position. A decent argument can be made that these people are just taking the pro-life vote and have no real desire to work for pro-life causes because that would “rock the boat”. There is a real reason to be cynical here. Nonetheless, as a whole, it is accurate to say that the Republican party is more supportive of pro-life positions than the Democratic party. BTW, it is interesting that Democratics (wrongfully) accuse Republicans to have a “litmus test” on the abortion issue, yet it is abundantly clear that no pro-life Democratic (few that they be) will ever, ever be supported by the national party to any significant political office.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I’d qualify this at least a little. Both parties are full of politicians who are simply opportunistic and who care more about holding power than doing what is right for the Country. So, there certainly has been times where supposedly pro-life Republicans have hypocritically failed to support the pro-life position. A decent argument can be made that these people are just taking the pro-life vote and have no real desire to work for pro-life causes because that would “rock the boat”. There is a real reason to be cynical here. Nonetheless, as a whole, it is accurate to say that the Republican party is more supportive of pro-life positions than the Democratic party. BTW, it is interesting that Democratics (wrongfully) accuse Republicans to have a “litmus test” on the abortion issue, yet it is abundantly clear that no pro-life Democratic (few that they be) will ever, ever be supported by the national party to any significant political office.

It’s fun and interesting to slice and dice the candidates and the two political parties.

Remember that in a recent election, a third candidate, Ross Perot, convinced a large number of voters to vote for him instead of the Republican candidate. As a result of the “protest votes”, essentially all those protest votes resulted in the election of the Democratic Party candidate.

So, those relatively few protest votes ended up … resulted in the worst possible outcome. Those protesters wanted to avoid a “bad” outcome, so their votes resulted in the worst outcome.

I think we need to be a tad more sophisticated in our outlook. Play chess instead of checkers.

Somewhere in the New Testament, there is a quote about being hot or cold, but being luke warm will result in being spat out.

 

[rr1213]

I think we need to be a tad more sophisticated in our outlook. Play chess instead of checkers.

Somewhere in the New Testament, there is a quote about being hot or cold, but being luke warm will result in being spat out.

That’s the words of Christ in Revelation. In the gospels, Christ also said that his followers needed to be innocent as doves yet shrewd as serpents.

 

[Marat]

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]

t;

There is some recently discussed German language word, meaning to take pleasure in the pain of others…

Schadenfreude

 

[tequilamac]

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?

Because as I pointed out before the fundamentalist group or the simply Christian whether it be Berean or whatever vote consistently more often pro life than catholics. Being a catholic is no guarantee that you will vote pro life. Catholics that vote pro choice is a strong strong group and hurt the pro life lobby. Free evangelical, christian zionists, bereans, etc… counted together vote more along straight pro life lines than Catholics. Catholics I have spoken to that voted for Kerry for instance told me their conscience is their qualigier not the catechism. This is something that does not hinder their more fundamental christian counterparts.
In 2004 Bush got something like 83% of the non catholic christian vote while he got only 69% of the Catholic. That should spell out why if Catholics cannot be united on the issue, we’d all be better off if they just did not vote. Because our “conscientous objectors” skew the results.

 

[psteichen]

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 understand your point and that of the Bishop you quoted. There are other important issues. But protecting life is by far the most important issue. I don’t think your Bishop intended to imply “balance” as you understood it. The reason he placed Protecting Human Life as number one was because all other issues are subordinate. The rest are there as additional items to consider, but certainly not to imply they are equal. I think you will find the following quote valuable:

Pope John Paul II, 1988: From Christifideles Laici
“The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination . . . The human being is entitled to such rights in every phase of development, from conception until natural death, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor . . .” [emphasis added]

In short, he says other Social Justice issues are secondary and dependant upon the right to life. Therefor, basing your vote on other Social Justice issues is counter productive.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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.

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