V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Philip P:
Not as long as “good Catholics” keep voting for pro-abortion candidates.
- Status
S
seabird3579
Guest
Philip P:
Let’s say you intend to vote for a candidate that will reduce taxes as opposed to raise taxes. One candidate is for raising taxes to accomplish their social goals, and the other candidate is against raising taxes to promote his financial gains.
For the purposes of this argument, the “reasons” do not matter.
You vote for the candidate who is against raising taxes because you are fairly certain he will Not raise taxes. Then the candidate proceeds to raise taxes.
At that point, do you tell yourself, it’s okay, no one can really say for certain what anyone will do.
Or worse, do you continue with the same candidate or others like him and say, “in time, maybe 10, 20 or 30 years he will lower taxes – when society is ready to accept it.”
Not Likely.
I don’t think so. Let’s take your theory and use a different value.
Let’s say you intend to vote for a candidate that will reduce taxes as opposed to raise taxes. One candidate is for raising taxes to accomplish their social goals, and the other candidate is against raising taxes to promote his financial gains.
For the purposes of this argument, the “reasons” do not matter.
You vote for the candidate who is against raising taxes because you are fairly certain he will Not raise taxes. Then the candidate proceeds to raise taxes.
At that point, do you tell yourself, it’s okay, no one can really say for certain what anyone will do.
Or worse, do you continue with the same candidate or others like him and say, “in time, maybe 10, 20 or 30 years he will lower taxes – when society is ready to accept it.”
Not Likely.
P
Philip_P
Guest
It would be a mistake to view the level of taxation as the end goal, and I would never vote on someone based solely on a claim to raise or lower taxes. Different levels of taxation are appropriate for different situations. If I believed that lower taxes at the time would strengthen the nation, then I would be predisposed toward the “low tax” candidate. If I did not think lowering taxes were the correct solution at that point, then the “low tax” candidate would have little appeal to me. But in either case I would be making a personal judgment on the method, not the end goal. In deciding an appropriate end goal, Catholic morality would be a primary resource.
Similarly with abortion, Catholic morality tells me that an end to abortion is the desired goal. If I do not believe that the candidate who says he/she will make it illegal can actually end abortion, though, why should I, or anyone else, be morally compelled to support that candidate?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Philip P:
So your position is, if we cannot eliminate abortion at a single blow, we have no obligation to work toward reducing or restricting it all?
P
Philip_P
Guest
I think it’s fairly strongly implied in at least some posters’ cases, but fine, do it the other way, too. It would be improper to insist that you must vote for a democrat, or may not vote Republican.
Also, note a number of arguments are being made on the practical consequences of voting for candidate A or B. That’s fine and as it should be. We put forward our choices and give our reasons and, hopefully, the best position wins. This is a very different argument than saying that one absolutely may not or must vote for or against a particular candidate. To argue this is, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, to claim a certainty of knowledge that quite simply does not exist.
P
Philip_P
Guest
vern humphrey:
No Vern. My position is that we have an obligation to pursue what we feel is the best solution. You believe that electing Republicans is the best solution. Fine, vote. Not everyone believes this is a viable solution. You are asking them to violate their conscience to support your personal political preferences.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Philip P:
Philip P:
And that includes supporting pro-abortion parties?
Philip P:
And what are you doing when you vote for avowedly pro-abortion politicians?
P
Philip_P
Guest
vern humphrey:
Not everyone equates not criminalizing abortion to being “pro-abortion”, however. Yet you insist that they adhere to your political preferences, making your own personal judgement the final arbiter. This is not good theology and not good citizenship.
The label “pro-abortion” is your own. Since you believe that not criminalizing abortion equals being pro-abortion, you should not vote for Democrats.
Not everyone equates not criminalizing abortion to being “pro-abortion”, however. Yet you insist that they adhere to your political preferences, making your own personal judgement the final arbiter. This is not good theology and not good citizenship.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Philip P:
And yes, anyone who supports legalized abortion is pro-abortion. To say different is to fly in the face of reason.
Philip P:
Philip P:
Nor should you – until they purge the Party of pro-abortion politicians.
And yes, anyone who supports legalized abortion is pro-abortion. To say different is to fly in the face of reason.
Philip P:
Of course not. They are “Pro-choice” or “defending women’s reproductive rights” or some similar euphemism. But honest people know that’s a sham. Those who take those positions are pro-abortion.
Philip P:
Tell me how it is not good theology? One who formally assists in abortion is committing a sin. Voting for laws to promote or protect abortion is a formal act.
M
mlchance
Guest
Philip P:
You wrote to Vern:
Philip P:
Likewise, the Republican Party platform is anti-abortion. Unfortunately, not all Republicans back their party on this point. Those Republicans who are not anti-abortion do not merit votes at all.
– Mark L. Chance.
Which is precisely my point. One doesn’t vote based on party. One votes based on principles. The reason John Kerry was completely unacceptable as a presidential candidate was not because he was a Democrat. It was because is pro-abortion.
You wrote to Vern:
Philip P:
Actually, no, it isn’t his own. The Democratic Party platform can only be accurately characterized as pro-abortion. This certainly doesn’t that all Democrats are pro-abortion. They aren’t. Unfortunately, those Democrats who don’t back their pro-abortion platform are in the minority of that party. These few anti-abortion Democrats merit votes insofar as they are anti-abortion.
Likewise, the Republican Party platform is anti-abortion. Unfortunately, not all Republicans back their party on this point. Those Republicans who are not anti-abortion do not merit votes at all.
– Mark L. Chance.
S
seabird3579
Guest
vern humphrey:
If we used moral relativism to justify not legalizing abortion, we might as well not have any laws – and then just wait until society was ready to behave itself. Afterall, some are not ready to become law abiding citizens, right? :whacky:
Yet, not all those who claim to be pro-life and even run their campaigns as “pro-life” actually bear fruit once elected. Christians should monitor these individuals carefully and hold them accountable. We should not fall into the morally indefensible trap of: “my Party, right or wrong.”
We need to stay alert and make sure that these candidates, once in office, fulfill their promises or suffer the consequences of political oblivion. So many innocent lives are depending on our vigilance.
I definitely agree! Abortion must be made illegal first.
If we used moral relativism to justify not legalizing abortion, we might as well not have any laws – and then just wait until society was ready to behave itself. Afterall, some are not ready to become law abiding citizens, right? :whacky:
Yet, not all those who claim to be pro-life and even run their campaigns as “pro-life” actually bear fruit once elected. Christians should monitor these individuals carefully and hold them accountable. We should not fall into the morally indefensible trap of: “my Party, right or wrong.”
We need to stay alert and make sure that these candidates, once in office, fulfill their promises or suffer the consequences of political oblivion. So many innocent lives are depending on our vigilance.
P
Philip_P
Guest
The last time the Democratic party controlled the government, abortion rates declined (in fact, the sharpest decline in post-Roe America). If the Democratic platform is “pro-abortion,” I must say they are doing a singularly ineffective job of delivering.
Having said that, if you believe the Democratic platform to be pro-abortion, don’t vote for them. I disagree with you, and I’ll debate, present arguments, do my best to convince you otherwise, but in the end it’s my personal judgment against yours. We each must vote our conscience.
And that’s the bottom line, isn’t it? Each person must vote according to the dictates of his or her conscience. Not Philip P’s conscience. Not Mark L’ Chance’s conscience. Not Vern Humphrey’s conscience. Their own conscience.
P
Philip_P
Guest
On a related note to this comment (but not necessarily to this thread), I am pleased to see pro-life democrats gaining new prominence in the party. Tim Kaine, for instance (newly elected VA governor), and Bob Casey (PA 06 candidate).
M
mlchance
Guest
Philip P:
President Clinton rescinded the Mexico City Policy and vetoed the “partial birth” abortion ban. There may have been a slight dip in abortion rates, but our last Democratic president’s official policy was to encourage and protect abortion at home and abroad.
Philip P:
Democratic Party Platform:
– Mark L. Chance.
Post hoc fallacy.
President Clinton rescinded the Mexico City Policy and vetoed the “partial birth” abortion ban. There may have been a slight dip in abortion rates, but our last Democratic president’s official policy was to encourage and protect abortion at home and abroad.
Philip P:
You’re twisting my words against by equivocating between the terms “Democratic platform” and “them.” If a Democrat is anti-abortion, he is worthy of a vote insofar as he is anti-abortion. BTW, if you disagree on that the Democratic Party platform is pro-abortion, you’re quite simply wrong (emphasis added to quote below):
Democratic Party Platform:
Philip P:
Conscience cannot be used as an excuse to support evil.
– Mark L. Chance.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Democratic Party Platform:
We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right.
Where does it say “we want there to be more abortions” there? It doesn’t.
Now, personally, I think the DNC would be wise to drop this plank, but purely from a tactical point. In general, I find their policy proposals to be better than those offered by the GOP, and dropping this plank would help the DNC win more elections. But I don’t think it’s necessary in order to reduce abortions. Abortions can be dramatically decreased even without modifying the legal landscape set up by Roe-Casey. Dramatically reducing abortion is a higher good than giving big, empty speeches about making it illegal. A universal ban is not possible currently, and since every politician knows this, it makes it difficult to take seriously those who say they will pass one.
mark chance:
Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life. CDF Nov 2002:
We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right.
Where does it say “we want there to be more abortions” there? It doesn’t.
Now, personally, I think the DNC would be wise to drop this plank, but purely from a tactical point. In general, I find their policy proposals to be better than those offered by the GOP, and dropping this plank would help the DNC win more elections. But I don’t think it’s necessary in order to reduce abortions. Abortions can be dramatically decreased even without modifying the legal landscape set up by Roe-Casey. Dramatically reducing abortion is a higher good than giving big, empty speeches about making it illegal. A universal ban is not possible currently, and since every politician knows this, it makes it difficult to take seriously those who say they will pass one.
mark chance:
Yet the act of voting is not intrinisically evil. It is the results we are working toward, not the vote itself, that must be morally evaluated. The problem with your position is that it goes from a moral judgment the Church has made on a specific goal (ending abortion) to a prescription of how to get there, something the Church herself points out she cannot do:
Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life. CDF Nov 2002:
M
mlchance
Guest
Philip P:
Philip P:
Philip P:
Finally, your quote from the CDF is disengenously used. The question of abortion’s legality is not “left to the free and responsible judgment of each person,” for no one can responsibly judge that abortion ought to be legal.
– Mark L. Chance.
Yes, it does. Right there in the part I emphasized about “regardless of her ability to pay.” The Democratic Party wants the federal government to pay for abortions for people who want them but can’t afford them, both in this country and abroad. If you think that wouldn’t lead to an increase in the numbers of abortions, you’d be well-advised to look at abortion rates pre-Roe and Doe compared to now.
Philip P:
IOW, lie in order to win. That did almost work for Senator Kerry, and Senator Gore gave it the old college try as well.
Philip P:
I never said it was. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate in the absence of genuine proportional reasons (meaning the other candidate would cause more harm than the one who advocates the destruction of the unborn) is, OTOH, evil.
Finally, your quote from the CDF is disengenously used. The question of abortion’s legality is not “left to the free and responsible judgment of each person,” for no one can responsibly judge that abortion ought to be legal.
– Mark L. Chance.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Yes, it does. Right there in the part I emphasized about “regardless of her ability to pay.” The Democratic Party wants the federal government to pay for abortions for people who want them but can’t afford them, both in this country and abroad. If you think that wouldn’t lead to an increase in the numbers of abortions, you’d be well-advised to look at abortion rates pre-Roe and Doe compared to now.
Again, your personal evaluative judgement.
Now you can read into the hearts and souls of candidates? You’re overreaching. On other debates, people have made good arguments against accusing President Bush about lying. I think they make a good case. I think it’s such a good case it should apply as a general rule - avoid calling people liars.
Conflating a stance on the legality of abortion with being “pro” abortion strongly implies that voting can be intrinisically evil. The act of voting is morally neutral; the circumstances and intent determine it’s morality.
Let’s say I vote for presidential candidate A, who does not want to ban abortion, because I believe there should be more abortion, and this candidate is running against someone who has made opposition of abortion a central campaign theme. The act is voting (neutral). The circumstances are that it is a presidential election, and the opponent is explicitly anti-abortion. The intent is to further abortion. We would conclude that I voted immorally.
Let’s take another example. I vote for presidential candidate A, who does not want to ban abortion, but I do not believe there should be more abortion. My intention, is, say, to end an unjust war. The opposing candidate has based her campaign on prosecuting this war, and has given unconvincing lip service to being pro-life. The act is voting (neutral). The circumstances are a residential election, with an opponent who is explicity for an unjust war and who pays only minimal lip service to being pro-life. The intention is to pull the country out of an unjust war. In this example, we would conclude that I voted morally.
Now, how do we know if we are in example 1 or 2? Conscience. The voter must make an evaluative judgment. What are the circumstances? What is my intention? These are questions each voter must ask and answer for themselves.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Philip P:
A person who is pro-legal abortion is pro-abortion.
And none of that “strongly implies that voting can be intrinisically evil.”
Nonsense.
A person who is pro-legal abortion is pro-abortion.
And none of that “strongly implies that voting can be intrinisically evil.”
B
ben_dy
Guest
I don’t believe that either of the major parties - nor most of the major party candidates - do more than pay lip service to pro-life issues. If there were (and, in some states, there are) small party or independent candidates who have made attempts or have intentions of making attempts to reverse the culture of death in American society, I would feel morally obliged to vote for that party or candidate even though the party/candidate may have little chance of winning an election.
As it is, I leave many offices ‘unpunched’ and have not voted a straight party ticket since sometime in the 1960’s. I choose not to vote for even the ‘lesser’ of two evils when I can avoid voting for any evil at all. Some states may not allow this type of ‘discretionary’ voting - but I just could not vote for someone who was pro-death nor someone who I know had no intention of making a strong effort to pass legislation to encourage and even enforce a pro-life society. It seems that we shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to do what is right - but that’s the situation we’re in these days.
P
Philip_P
Guest
vern humphrey:
You keep wanting to collapse a refusal to criminalize an act into promotion of that act. Think about this on other issues besides abortion, however, and it quickly becomes apparent that things aren’t quite so simple.
Granted, this places an additional burden on individual voters. Such is the system of government we have chosen for ourselves, however. Collapsing the moral difficulties of voting as you are trying to do, however, betrays a lack of confidence in the American voter. Personally, I think Americans are up to the challenge. How about you?
Missing mass is a sin. Is someone who does not want to make missing mass a crime therefore pro-missing mass? What about not supporting criminalizing birth control? Adultry? Or here’s a good one - is someone who does not support a legal ban on torture pro-torture?
You keep wanting to collapse a refusal to criminalize an act into promotion of that act. Think about this on other issues besides abortion, however, and it quickly becomes apparent that things aren’t quite so simple.
Granted, this places an additional burden on individual voters. Such is the system of government we have chosen for ourselves, however. Collapsing the moral difficulties of voting as you are trying to do, however, betrays a lack of confidence in the American voter. Personally, I think Americans are up to the challenge. How about you?
- Status