Voting for the "lesser" of two evils

[vern_humphrey]

seabird3579:

The discussion is about how to end abortion in this country. No one has said it is God’s fault. Most reasonable people seem to understand that it is our fault.

Then let us not say things like

Afterall, IF it is God’s will to save the lives of innocent babies, would He not be with the candidate that professed and believed this also?

Conversely, would He not be against those who were not putting innocent lives first?

God will not win elections for us – we must win them with our own efforts.

seabird3579:

Question is: how, as a society, should we go about ending what we have started.

The same way we go about training a horse or a dog – through behavior shaping. We don’t look for God to send us the perfect candidate, we vote for the candidate who is less pro-abortion than his opponent. And, if we have a better choice, we vote for the one who is most pro-life.

We must recognize that one party has a pro-abortion plank. We cannot reward that party – until it removes that plank.

We cannot vote for those Senators who make “respect for Roe vs Wade” a litmus test for judicial nominees.

seabird3579:

My position is that it is theologically sound to vote for the candidate that puts ending abortion as his highest priority. I believe this is God’s will for our nation. Others have expressed the view that voting for a candidate that does good things is good enough (to paraphrase). I simply brought up the fact that it seems the most recent Popes would disagree with the latter. Therefore, the question remains, why are “Catholics” wasting their time voting for any other candidate besides he who is not unabashedly and unapologetically–against abortion.

Because we will never get perfect candidates. We cannot abolish abortion at one stroke. We must teach the political system that being pro-abortion is a losing proposition. And that means we must often vote for the lesser of two evils.

seabird3579:

We can’t even use the excuse of the necessity to vote for the party that has the likelihood of winning. That would be the ends justifying the means. We know that is morally wrong. Therefore, we should vet every candidate and be sure they are pro-life and their record prooves they will work to end abortion.

And if no candidate is perfect? Do we just fold our tents and steal off into the night, abandoning the fight?

 

[bones_IV]

Voting for the lesser of the two evils is not the same as supporting that candidate. Unfortunately, many people get these terms confused. God doesn’t need politics to end abortion. It’s about converting souls, not electing this official or this official. To support the lesser of the two evils is modernism. Being pro-life doesn’t abvocating abortion 10%, nor does it mean advocating abortion 1%. The thing to do is support an organization that is 100% pro-life! If you settle for less than your best that less than your best is just what your going to get.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

We must recognize that one party has a pro-abortion plank. We cannot reward that party – until it removes that plank.

Actually no. One party has a pro-legalized abortion plank. You would collapse this into a pro-abortion plank.

The fallacy in this is that it posits a correlation between the legal status of abortion and it’s occurrence. Empirical evidence does not support this. Abortion is illegal across Latin America, yet the abortion rate there is higher than the US. Abortion is legal in Western Europe, yet the rate there is lower than in the US.

In the end, then, we each make an informed decision and take our best guess. Our values inform the goal we are reaching for. But to claim that you know one party or candidate will produce a certain result is to reach for an infallibility even the pope does not possess.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Actually no. One party has a pro-legalized abortion plank. You would collapse this into a pro-abortion plank.

And you pretend there is a difference?
Philip P:

The fallacy in this is that it posits a correlation between the legal status of abortion and it’s occurrence. Empirical evidence does not support this. Abortion is illegal across Latin America, yet the abortion rate there is higher than the US. Abortion is legal in Western Europe, yet the rate there is lower than in the US.

And making abortion legal in Latin America would reduce the incidence?

Or would making murder legal in the US somehow make us safer?

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

And making abortion legal in Latin America would reduce the incidence?

Abortion already is legal in the US. The correct question is “will making abortion illegal end abortion in the US?” The fact that it has not done so in other countries should give us pause.

It might, but then again in might not. I don’t claim to be able to read the future. Hence I don’t claim to say you must vote for someone, or must not vote for someone else.

 

[buffalo]

Voter’s Guide Video The Catholic Faith in the Voting Booth

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Abortion already is legal in the US. The correct question is “will making abortion illegal end abortion in the US?” The fact that it has not done so in other countries should give us pause.

No. The correct question is, “How can we ever reduce the abortion rate when abortion is legal, and abortion clinics have special legal protection?”

 

[Philip_P]

Voter’s Guide Video The Catholic Faith in the Voting Booth

If that voting guide were at all consistent, the logical outcome would be that Catholics could never vote.

 

[jegow]

You may want to check out the voters’ guide that was put together by Catholic Answers. It has some good info.
catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp
Based off of your choices I would choose (A).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

If that voting guide were at all consistent, the logical outcome would be that Catholics could never vote.

Did you hurt yourself when you jumped to that unwarranted conclusion?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[jegow]

seabird3579:

a) to vote for the party that most represents your highest pro-life ideals though their chances to win would be minimal.

What a defeatist way of looking at it.

seabird3579:

b) vote for a party that has more promise of winning but you’re not sure they would really do what they say they will?

Kerry and Edwards didn’t win in '04.Even though we were not sure what they were promising to do it is a good assumption they did not fall into choice (A). So this is not always the case.

 

[mlchance]

Philip P:

Abortion already is legal in the US. The correct question is “will making abortion illegal end abortion in the US?” The fact that it has not done so in other countries should give us pause.

No, it shouldn’t. Laws in and of themselves don’t make evil stop happening. Laws against rape haven’t ended rape. Laws against auto theft haven’t ended auto theft. Et cetera.

Fact: There are thousands of abortions performed every day in the U.S. because those abortions are legal. If abortion were illegal, almost all of them would stop. Yes, a few people would still break the law and kill unborn children, but that is no reason to permit killing unborn children to remain legal.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mlchance]

jegow:

What a defeatist way of looking at it.Kerry and Edwards didn’t win in '04.Even though we were not sure what they were promising to do…

“We were not sure” about what? Senator Kerry was quite clear that, if he had been elected president, he would:

A. Appoint only pro-abortion justices to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court.

B. Permit tax monies to be used to pay for abortions both at home and abroad.

C. Lift the ban on the creation of more embryonic stem cells lines and subsidize research based on the destruction of embryos.

D. Vigorously defend a woman’s “right” to abortion-on-demand, as called for in the Democratic Party platform.

No one could, in good conscience, vote for Senator Kerry.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jegow]

“We were not sure” about what? Senator Kerry was quite clear that, if he had been elected president, he would:

A. Appoint only pro-abortion justices to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court.

B. Permit tax monies to be used to pay for abortions both at home and abroad.

C. Lift the ban on the creation of more embryonic stem cells lines and subsidize research based on the destruction of embryos.

D. Vigorously defend a woman’s “right” to abortion-on-demand, as called for in the Democratic Party platform.

No one could, in good conscience, vote for Senator Kerry.

– Mark L. Chance.

And I agree with that.

I said that “we were not sure”, because he also contradicted himself many times. Sure we had an idea of some things I give you that. Since this thread’s question was based in the light of pro-life and how to vote I assumed that my responce would be read in the same light. I watched many of his debates and he never gave a clear answer to the pro-life question (at least from what I saw). He always danced around the topic. There are even more examples of him contradicting himself on the news just days ago. My point was that he fit into the group (B) as mentioned above and that he did not win.

 

[Philip_P]

mlchance:

No, it shouldn’t. Laws in and of themselves don’t make evil stop happening. Laws against rape haven’t ended rape. Laws against auto theft haven’t ended auto theft. Et cetera.

Fact: There are thousands of abortions performed every day in the U.S. because those abortions are legal. If abortion were illegal, almost all of them would stop. Yes, a few people would still break the law and kill unborn children, but that is no reason to permit killing unborn children to remain legal.

– Mark L. Chance.

And because you believe making abortion illegal would end abortion, you voted for Bush. Fine. I don’t happen to believe that making abortion illegal is very likely currently, nor do I believe that if abortion were made illegal tomorrow it would truly make abortion stop. I think the culture has to agree that abortion is wrong first, and THEN abortion becomes illegal.

But you know what, that’s my personal judgement, just as your judgement is your own. We vote according to what we believe will produce the best outcome, as it should be. For me to have insisted in 2004 that you **may not **vote for Bush, though, or vice versa, would be highly presumptious and improper.

Let’s leave assurances of salvation - political, spiritual, or otherwise - to the Protestants. The rest of us should try to do our best with the grace we are given.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

And because you believe making abortion illegal would end abortion, you voted for Bush.

As opposed to believing that making abortion legal, offering special protection to abortion clinics, and making both abortionists and mother who kill their children heroes will somehow reduce the rate of abortion?
Philip P:

Fine. I don’t happen to believe that making abortion illegal is very likely currently,

Because so many people who know better look for spurious excuses to support pro-abortion politicians.
Philip P:

nor do I believe that if abortion were made illegal tomorrow it would truly make abortion stop. I think the culture has to agree that abortion is wrong first, and THEN abortion becomes illegal.

And the first step to getting across the message that the culture disapproves of abortion is to make it illegal.

As long as pro-abortion politicians can win office, we will never change the culture. And as long as Catholics are willing to look the other way and vote for pro-abortion politicians, they will keep getting elected.

 

[Aaron_I]

Philip P:

And because you believe making abortion illegal would end abortion, you voted for Bush. Fine. I don’t happen to believe that making abortion illegal is very likely currently, nor do I believe that if abortion were made illegal tomorrow it would truly make abortion stop. I think the culture has to agree that abortion is wrong first, and THEN abortion becomes illegal.

That is a fine self-fulfilling prophecy: “I don’t think abortion can end now, so I won’t try to end it.”

Think about your last part in the context of history, particularly slavery. To borrow from your quote “I think the culture has to agree that slavery is wrong first, and THEN slavery becomes illegal.” Honestly now, do you really think THAT would have ever happened? There are still VERY racist parts in the South (some schools in Georgia have segregated proms), so should we still be waiting for them to catch up with the rest of the country?

Seriously if every Christian were to stop voting democrat for 1-2 elections, the US would be forced to be prolife because the democrats would have to adopt it. Once abortion (and the other life issues) have been stopped, THEN you may continue to impose socialism on this rest of us

 

[vern_humphrey]

Aaron I.:

That is a fine self-fulfilling prophecy: “I don’t think abortion can end now, so I won’t try to end it.”

Think about your last part in the context of history, particularly slavery. To borrow from your quote “I think the culture has to agree that slavery is wrong first, and THEN slavery becomes illegal.” Honestly now, do you really think THAT would have ever happened? There are still VERY racist parts in the South (some schools in Georgia have segregated proms), so should we still be waiting for them to catch up with the rest of the country?

Seriously if every Christian were to stop voting democrat for 1-2 elections, the US would be forced to be prolife because the democrats would have to adopt it. Once abortion (and the other life issues) have been stopped, THEN you may continue to impose socialism on this rest of us

You summed it up very nicely.

To my friends who consider themselves Democrats, I say, “Clean up your party. Purge it of those who support abortion and gay marriage.”

 

[Philip_P]

Aaron I.:

That is a fine self-fulfilling prophecy: “I don’t think abortion can end now, so I won’t try to end it.”

Think about your last part in the context of history, particularly slavery. To borrow from your quote “I think the culture has to agree that slavery is wrong first, and THEN slavery becomes illegal.” Honestly now, do you really think THAT would have ever happened?

In fact, that’s pretty much what happened with slavery - we as a society reached a tipping point where enough of us agreed that slavery was immoral, and then action was taken to end it. Had we insisited that slavery be illegal in 1789, there likely would have been no Constitution and no United States.

I don’t think we’re at the tipping point for abortion yet. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I admit that. Yet those of you who insist that you must vote Republican seem to think you’re infallible.

Also, note that I didn’t say “I don’t think abortion can end now”, I said I don’t think we can make it illegal. There’s a significant difference.

 

[mlchance]

Philip P:

And because you believe making abortion illegal would end abortion, you voted for Bush.

I never said that making abortion illegal would end abortion, and you haven’t a clue as to who I voted for.

What I said was this: The fact that making abortion illegal won’t end abortion is not an excuse for not making abortion legal. That which is gravely immoral – such as killing unborn children is – ought not be legal.

Anyone who disagrees is wrong, not because they disagree with my opinion, but because they disagree with the Magesterium of God’s own Church.
Philip P:

Yet those of you who insist that you must vote Republican seem to think you’re infallible.

No one in this thread has said anyone must vote Republican. What one must do is not vote for any candidate who supports abortion.

– Mark L. Chance.