Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

[fix]

But you are the one advocating voting for a candidate who holds a position on abortion the Catholic Church considers intrinsically evil. Why are you so certain that it is other’s views which are a distortion and rationalization, not your own?

He is voting to limit an evil, not to support any intrinsic evil.

 

[frankadams]

He is voting to limit an evil, not to support any intrinsic evil.

A Catholic who votes for the “more” pro-abortion candidate could say that just as readily. This is particularly true when he looks at the abortion-related court decisions and inaction on abortion that the “pro-life” party gave us.

 

[SoCalRC]

It is a do the math thing.

OK, how many abortions has pragmatic voting stopped? We had one party rule, including a GOP appointed majority on the Supreme Court.

If it is a math problem, shouldn’t the number something larger than 0?

 

[SoCalRC]

He is voting to limit an evil, not to support any intrinsic evil.

First, that is irrelevant to my point. If you are choosing “remote” complicency with intrinsic evil over “no” complicency with intrinsic evil, you are probably not in a position to pass moral judgement on others.

But, addressing your point, under what theological argument? “Proportional reasons” presumes all evil choices. There is nothing in the statements from Cardinals, the document from the USCCB or the Doctrinal Note to support the suggestion that ‘viability’ can trump morality. That’s not to say that, again, a Catholic is not trying to apply proportional reasons - but the farther one gets from what the Magisterium actually says, the more prudent one should probably be in judging the choices of others.

 

[dmelosi]

OK, how many abortions has pragmatic voting stopped? We had one party rule, including a GOP appointed majority on the Supreme Court.

If it is a math problem, shouldn’t the number something larger than 0?

Democrat party platform = “D”
“D” = hardly any chance to nominate a pro life candidate.
“PC” = hard line pro choice stance as stated in the party platform

“R” = Republican party platform
“PL” = pro life stance as stated in the party platform

math…

(D x PC) < (R x PL) on likelyhood of nominating pro life judges.

The rest of the math on the number of deaths of the most innocent is history, anyone can look them up and the numbers have been put in here many times.

BUT you knew that.

I have read many of your posts and have been trying to get a read on you.

Are you a hard line democrat that is trying to cloud this issue or do you vote only for a person who is 100% inline with the Catholic teachings?

 

[frankadams]

Democrat party platform = “D”
“D” = hardly any chance to nominate a pro life candidate.
“PC” = hard line pro choice stance as stated in the party platform

“R” = Republican party platform
“PL” = pro life stance as stated in the party platform

math…

(D x PC) < (R x PL) on likelyhood of nominating pro life judges.

The rest of the math on the number of deaths of the most innocent is history, anyone can look them up and the numbers have been put in here many times.

R = 6 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice who decided Roe

R = 8 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices who upheld Roe in 1992

R = controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years

0 = the number of abortion reduced by R since Roe

Millions = the number of abortions that R helped legalize and keep legal

As I noted earlier, with “pro-life” friends like these, who needs enemies?

 

[SoCalRC]

Are you a hard line democrat that is trying to cloud this issue or do you vote only for a person who is 100% inline with the Catholic teachings?

I will not compromise on issues that the Church has specified as non negotiable in voting. Abortion is one of them.

Frank Adams has a different point of view, but his math is still demonstrable historical fact.

 

[dmelosi]

R = 6 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice who decided Roe

R = 8 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices who upheld Roe in 1992

R = controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years

0 = the number of abortion reduced by R since Roe

Millions = the number of abortions that R helped legalize and keep legal

As I noted earlier, with “pro-life” friends like these, who needs enemies?

According to your statement, this means that your friends are the ones that certainly will promote abortion? Is that correct or am I missing something on why you are a hardline democrat?

 

[SoCalRC]

According to your statement, this means that your friends are the ones that certainly will promote abortion? Is that correct or am I missing something on why you are a hardline democrat?

He is pointing out that Republicans have controlled the presidency for 24 of the 30 years that Roe has been in effect.

Also, it was a GOP stacked court that created the Roe decision, a GOP stacked court that upheld it (Casey). It is worth noting that it is a GOP stacked court (5 Catholics no less) that just applied Casey and Roe in Carhart.

My understanding is that he subscribes to your idea of proportionate reasons, that is, accepting some evil positions for pragmatic good results, but asserts that voting GOP has produced no positive results on the question of abortion (the opposite even, since it was a GOP majority court which made the abomination a constitutional right, likewise a GOP majority court that upheld it), but has created other compromises on fundemental moral issues which the Church has, like abortion, called non-negotiable.

I think you are both incorrect, but respect your following your own moral consciences in the matter. However, since your pragmatism is not producing any tangible results, I do respectfully ask, which is more important to you, stopping abortions or electing Republicans?

You have stated you will compromise on the former, but I have seen nothing to indicate that you are willing to compromise on the latter.

 

[dmelosi]

He is pointing out that Republicans have controlled the presidency for 24 of the 30 years that Roe has been in effect.

Also, it was a GOP stacked court that created the Roe decision, a GOP stacked court that upheld it (Casey). It is worth noting that it is a GOP stacked court (5 Catholics no less) that just applied Casey and Roe in Carhart.

My understanding is that he subscribes to your idea of proportionate reasons, that is, accepting some evil positions for pragmatic good results, but asserts that voting GOP has produced no positive results on the question of abortion (the opposite even, since it was a GOP majority court which made the abomination a constitutional right, likewise a GOP majority court that upheld it), but has created other compromises on fundemental moral issues which the Church has, like abortion, called non-negotiable.

I think you are both incorrect, but respect your following your own moral consciences in the matter. However, since your pragmatism is not producing any tangible results, I do respectfully ask, which is more important to you, stopping abortions or electing Republicans?

You have stated you will compromise on the former, but I have seen nothing to indicate that you are willing to compromise on the latter.

Fair enough question…

The Pro-Life issue (abortion) before anyone tries to change what it originally meant…is the most important issue to me. If the single issue of the party platforms on abortion were changed where democrats were pro life and republicans were pro choice…I would be vote democrat.

The acceptance of abortion as simply a choice rather than what it really is…taking of a human life…is eroding the conscience of the republican party…but I feel there is still hope to make that stand with the republican party, but hardly any chance at all with the democratic party.

Vern Humphries said what needs to be done…work in both parties at the grassroots level to change. It seems that the hardline democrats are embarrased to talk about it within their party though. They always change the subject.

 

[SoCalRC]

Vern Humphries said what needs to be done…work in both parties at the grassroots level to change. It seems that the hardline democrats are embarrased to talk about it within their party though. They always change the subject.

Why would either party change? The GOP has already proven that a candidate can not only take an intrinsically evil position on abortion, but even support upholding Roe just one election cycle prior and still reliably get the self described “pro life” vote. This is the case for the GOP for three straight presidential elections now.

If one is content with lip service, and will even brand the party whose nominees to the Supreme Court created the rulings as “pro life”, what incentive is there for change?

Politicians and political parties are organizations of convenience for the pursuit of power. The only leverage voters have are their actual votes. The bar will only be raised to the level required to get them. The rhetoric will be ‘good’ vs. ‘evil’, but the reality is the economics of power brokering.

 

[dmelosi]

Why would either party change? The GOP has already proven that a candidate can not only take an intrinsically evil position on abortion, but even support upholding Roe just one election cycle prior and still reliably get the self described “pro life” vote. This is the case for the GOP for three straight presidential elections now.

If one is content with lip service, and will even brand the party whose nominees to the Supreme Court created the rulings as “pro life”, what incentive is there for change?

Politicians and political parties are organizations of convenience for the pursuit of power. The only leverage voters have are their actual votes. The bar will only be raised to the level required to get them. The rhetoric will be ‘good’ vs. ‘evil’, but the reality is the economics of power brokering.

Because if the erosion continues and allows a Republican nominee to be FOR abortion, (which was close to happening), the reversal is worse and worse.

Which do you think would be more likely…to form a party completely follows the church teaching? Or to work within a party to push that party closer to the church teaching.

The bottom line question is how do we affect the decision makers the most?

It is a black and white issue…democrats openly and proudly promote the murder of the most innocent. Very few so called “Pro-Life” democrats condemn that, they just continue to ignore the fact because murder is not that important to them.

 

[SoCalRC]

Because if the erosion continues and allows a Republican nominee to be FOR abortion, (which was close to happening), the reversal is worse and worse.

But that was the point. In the last 6 presidential elections, only one GOP candidate ran on the actual GOP platform (no legal abortions) - George H. W. Bush. And that was a complete reversal from Bush’s position when he was competing with Ronald Reagan in the GOP primaries two elections prior.

Similiarly, only one of the last six GOP candidates has had a serious anti abortion political track record. Bob Dole had raised abortion as a campaign issue as early as 1974. But Bob Dole sought to soften the GOP platform on abortion to be “more inclussive” when he ran for president.

Look at this year’s GOP field. Open pro-choice, supporting planned parenthood, paid lobbying for abortionists…

How does one stop the “erosion” if one continues to vote for a party with no sincere committment to the cause?

Which do you think would be more likely…to form a party completely follows the church teaching? Or to work within a party to push that party closer to the church teaching.

Well, I could point to the fact that ‘transformation’ of the GOP appears to have been short lived and not very sincere. But more importantly, political parties are not my primary concern. I have more trust in God than in politicians.

The bottom line question is how do we affect the decision makers the most?

I would say, don’t negotiate on non negotiable principles. When we say that ‘some abortion is OK’, we make it an argument about shades of gray, when intrinsic evil is black and white.

It is a black and white issue…

Exactly, once you make it about shades of grey, you cannot say that with moral authority.

 

[dmelosi]

But that was the point. In the last 6 presidential elections, only one GOP candidate ran on the actual GOP platform (no legal abortions) - George H. W. Bush. And that was a complete reversal from Bush’s position when he was competing with Ronald Reagan in the GOP primaries two elections prior.

Similiarly, only one of the last six GOP candidates has had a serious anti abortion political track record. Bob Dole had raised abortion as a campaign issue as early as 1974. But Bob Dole sought to soften the GOP platform on abortion to be “more inclussive” when he ran for president.

Look at this year’s GOP field. Open pro-choice, supporting planned parenthood, paid lobbying for abortionists…

How does one stop the “erosion” if one continues to vote for a party with no sincere committment to the cause?

Well, I could point to the fact that ‘transformation’ of the GOP appears to have been short lived and not very sincere. But more importantly, political parties are not my primary concern. I have more trust in God than in politicians.

I would say, don’t negotiate on non negotiable principles. When we say that ‘some abortion is OK’, we make it an argument about shades of gray, when intrinsic evil is black and white.

Exactly, once you make it about shades of grey, you cannot say that with moral authority.

So how is your voice heard? How will not voting change anything, except by showing no voice…which leads to more erosion.

It really is as simple as let it continue to erode or try to reverse it.

 

[SoCalRC]

So how is your voice heard? How will not voting change anything, except by showing no voice…which leads to more erosion.

It really is as simple as let it continue to erode or try to reverse it.

How are you trying to reverse it? By continuing to reward errosion?

My ‘voice’ in politics is small, I throw what I have in terms of votes and political contributions (I can only give $2300 by law) to candidates who do not take instrinsically evil stands. At the local level, I have backed a winner, but by and large most people put their desire to pragmatically win ahead of moral principle so my candidates fair poorly in larger races. If I am to be heard, I must be joined, so my voice is part of a larger chorus.

But, even if that does not happen, I do not just vote my faith, I try to resist evil in every way I can. Voting is not a substitute for Life in Christ:

“In this context “limiting the harm”], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

[dmelosi]

How are you trying to reverse it? By continuing to reward errosion?

My ‘voice’ in politics is small, I throw what I have in terms of votes and political contributions (I can only give $2300 by law) to candidates who do not take instrinsically evil stands. At the local level, I have backed a winner, but by and large most people put their desire to pragmatically win ahead of moral principle so my candidates fair poorly in larger races. If I am to be heard, I must be joined, so my voice is part of a larger chorus.

But, even if that does not happen, I do not just vote my faith, I try to resist evil in every way I can. Voting is not a substitute for Life in Christ:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

I don’t think you are wrong, I just think results can be obtained more efficiently by working towards reversing the trend.

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t think you are wrong, I just think results can be obtained more efficiently by working towards reversing the trend.

I respect your need to follow the certainty of your moral conscience. But I also would encourage you to try to look as objectively as you can at the trends and results that your strategy has reaped so far.

Peace

 

[mapleoak]

According to your statement, this means that your friends are the ones that certainly will promote abortion? Is that correct or am I missing something on why you are a hardline democrat?

Actually he pointed out that that is who your freinds are.

 

[mapleoak]

Why would either party change? The GOP has already proven that a candidate can not only take an intrinsically evil position on abortion, but even support upholding Roe just one election cycle prior and still reliably get the self described “pro life” vote. This is the case for the GOP for three straight presidential elections now.

One of the biggest hurdles for the G.O.P. to get a true pro-life candidate, is there is no incentive. The party supporters are all too willing to accept whatever candidate comes their way whom claims to be pro-life to appease them and deceive them into supporting him. The candidates know full well they can get away with this.

 

[mapleoak]

So how is your voice heard? How will not voting change anything, except by showing no voice…which leads to more erosion.

Polling of large numbers of absentee votes and analysis by major parties of reasons for why millions of votes were lost to third party votes. Simple. The major parties are certainly not run by stupid people.

It really is as simple as let it continue to erode or try to reverse it.

Compromise ultimately leads to more compromise. Not the other way around.