So if enough people believe murder is okay, it should be legal?Yeah, that’s essentially my point in a nutshell. A good law is also an effective law. Your brought up laws against murder. If a similar proportion of people believed murder was ok as believed in abortion, though, I think a law against murder would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Does this mean I think murder is ok? No, it means I think a law dealing with it would be ineffective (and this is not such a long shot. Think back of, say, historical examples of honor-based societies, were an insult to you or your family’s honor was sufficient grounds to kill. Was that moral? No. Was it tolerated by society? Yes. We’d of course have to get more specific, and talk about specific societies, to discuss the legal landscape in these situations).
It’s really a matter of priorities for me. If I were a Congressman, no, I would not support keeping abortion legal. If there were a refererndum, again, I would not support keeping abortion legal. I do not agree that it is a fundamental right. There is no natural “right” to an abortion. It is, however, currently a legal right.
So as a voter, the question is, where do I want to focus my energies? What is the likely outcome of making a procedure illegal that a sizeable portion of the population not only believes is acceptable, but maybe even a right? The result, I think, is that many people would simply disobey the law. Then not only do we have a situation where abortion is still ocurring, but where the authority of civil law is being eroded, too. Now I have to spend my energy not only trying to change attitudes on abortion, but defending the legitimacy of an unpopular law as well?
A better approach seems to me to work to create a society where abortion doesn’t happen first, and then make it illegal. To put it another way, I’m not sure I agree that the law is our “first teacher.” While this may be true in the context of canon law, and is true in moral law, in democratic civil law I think it law is the reflection of society’s standards. The fact that abortion is legal reflects the fact that our society accepts abortion. I think it makes more sense to change what society accepts, rather than change the law and hope that this will change society.
I am opposed to the war in Iraq. I think it is killing a lot of innocent people. I think it endangers the security of the United States. I think the man running the war won his position via fraud in 2000. Yet, I pay my taxes. I accept president Bush as the legitimate president. Why? Because I the Supreme Court ruled he won the 2000 election, and he won again in 2004 via the electoral process. I may not like many of the things the government is doing under him, may even believe them to be immoral, but I accept them, because I accept the system.So if enough people believe murder is okay, it should be legal?
And any other crime should be legal if enough people want to commit it?
And that justifies your support for legalized abortion?I am opposed to the war in Iraq. I think it is killing a lot of innocent people…
Lynching was legal for a time. Was lynching wrong? Of course. Was making lynching illegal a good move? Certainly if you were a northern politician trying to make yourself look good to your constituents, but if you wanted to be taken seriously as anti-lynching, I’d expect you to do more than grandstand with an anti-lynching bill.And that justifies your support for legalized abortion?
I ask you again, if most people favored it, would you support legalized lynching? Legalized segregation? Legalized extermination of Jews?
You really jump through hoops to justify your support for “pro-choice,” don’t you?Lynching was legal for a time. Was lynching wrong? Of course. Was making lynching illegal a good move? Certainly if you were a northern politician trying to make yourself look good to your constituents, but if you wanted to be taken seriously as anti-lynching, I’d expect you to do more than grandstand with an anti-lynching bill.
As far as genocide, US policy against Native Americans in some cases would be an example of genocide. If this were the 19th century, which do you think would be more effective - trying to pass a law against genocide, or trying to convince people that massacring Native Americans is immoral? Laws are only effective if people believe in them.
In regards to abortion, I think our resources are better spent convincing people that the unborn are people, and thus constitutionally protected, than in grandstanding on “making abortion illegal.”
We live in a democracy. If you want to change the law, you have to change the people.
Given the chance, I would vote to make abortion illegal. If there is ever a referendum, or I ever find myself in public office, that is how I would vote.And that justifies your support for legalized abortion?
I think I just respect the concept of democracy more than you do.You really jump through hoops to justify your support for “pro-choice,” don’t you?
You have had many chances to help make abortion illegal – most especially in voting for polticial leaders who will appoint judges who will oppose abortion, and others who will support those nominations in the Senate.Given the chance, I would vote to make abortion illegal. If there is ever a referendum, or I ever find myself in public office, that is how I would vote.
What I oppose is the position that says that this is the only way to end abortion, and that the legal status on abortion is the only issue I should consider when voting for a candidate. I am not voting for or against specific bills when I vote as a private citizen.
Murdering the unborn is not democracy. Segregation is not democracy. Lynching is not democracy.I think I just respect the concept of democracy more than you do.
I don’t believe any of those I’ve had a chance to vote for represented a credible promise of making abortion illegal. You may disagree, which is a reason we probably vote differently. But you seem to be arguing that, even if I don’t believe a candidate has a serious chance of reducing abortion, I have a moral duty to vote for him or her. This makes no sense to me. It priviledges rhetoric over substance.You have had many chances to help make abortion illegal – most especially in voting for polticial leaders who will appoint judges who will oppose abortion, and others who will support those nominations in the Senate.
But you seem to find all sorts of reasons not to do it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Phillip, but you are pro-choice, are you not?I don’t believe any of those I’ve had a chance to vote for represented a credible promise of making abortion illegal. You may disagree, which is a reason we probably vote differently. But you seem to be arguing that, even if I don’t believe a candidate has a serious chance of reducing abortion, I have a moral duty to vote for him or her. This makes no sense to me. It priviledges rhetoric over substance.
Abortion was not made legal through the democratic process – it was foisted on this country by a twisted reading of the Constitution. Killing millions of innocent people is never a democratic act – any more than segretation or lynching is democratic.And as for my remark about democracy, what I meant by that is where we locate the source and authority of our civil law. I would be interested in where you locate it, though that is probably another thread topic.
No, I’m not. If I personally had a chance to vote on abortion laws, I would vote against keeping it legal.Correct me if I’m wrong, Phillip, but you are pro-choice, are you not?
But it was still decided by the Supereme Court, which has that authority. I think it was decided wrongly, but I cannot claim to believe in the Constitution and say that it was decideded illegitimately.Abortion was not made legal through the democratic process – it was foisted on this country by a twisted reading of the Constitution. Killing millions of innocent people is never a democratic act – any more than segretation or lynching is democratic.
Then why would you vote for politicians whose policy is exactly the opposite?No, I’m not. If I personally had a chance to vote on abortion laws, I would vote against keeping it legal.
How can they be “better” for America if they are willing to support the killling of 3,000 to 4,000 innocent Americans every day – just on the whims of the mothers?However, when it comes to candidates, the candidates who I think are better for America are unfortunately sometimes pro-choice.
So you vote for those who support the killing of 3,000 to 4,000 Americans a day?It’s not their stance on abortion that I’m voting for. If there was an anti-abortion candidate who I thought wasn’t also going to run American into the ground, I would gladly vote for him or her. Unfortunately, that opportunity has not yet presented itself to me.
So you say it is legitimate?But it was still decided by the Supereme Court, which has that authority. I think it was decided wrongly, but I cannot claim to believe in the Constitution and say that it was decideded illegitimately.
Until you overturn Roe vs Wade, you cannot go through what you call the democratic process – because the Court simply strikes down every pro-life law.Also, it is because of the effect Roe v Wad has had on America that I think the ending of abortion needs to go through the democratic rather than the judicial process.
And to get that, you vote for pro-abortion candidates?Making abortion the law of the land deeply polarized the country. Making it illegal by judicial fiat, though, would have the same effect. I fear that a judicial fiat making it illegal, while legitimate (the court does have the authority), would undermine democratic consensus. It would create a large and dedicated pro-choice constituency the mirror of today’s pro-life one (today’s militant pro-choicers have money and inordinate influence, but I do not believe they have the numbers and sincerity of the pro-life community).
I don’t want to fix a mistake by making another. The way forward is not through judicial fiat, but through reaching democratic consensus.
Your understanding is wrong.Vern,
I understand that you believe that the GOP will make abortion illegal, and that this is the surest and best way to end abortion in America. It makes sense that you would therefore vote GOP.
It is an objective fact that one party has a pro-abortion plank.What I don’t understand is why you insist we are all morally requires to share in this belief with you. It is an evaluative judgment, not an objective fact,
It is my position that it is morally wrong to vote for a pro-abortion politician.Is your position that I am nonetheless morally obliged to vote for the GOP?
I am asking this question not as a rhetorical ploy, but as an attempt to better understand your position, so please just answer yes or no. This is not a trick question, I promise.
Try framing this in a positive form (what one ought to do) rather than a negative form, please.Your understanding is wrong.
I believe that to vote for a pro-abortion politician is wrong. I believe that we have a duty to demonstrate that a pro-abortion stance is a losing stance.
I believe that the abortion issue came up in the courts and will remain a court issue – therefore we must have judges who understand that abortion is both wrong and bad law.
It is an objective fact that one party has a pro-abortion plank.
It is my position that it is morally wrong to vote for a pro-abortion politician.
That’s akin to saying God should have made the 10 commandments “positive.”Try framing this in a positive form (what one ought to do) rather than a negative form, please.
Given that I do not believe the GOP can/will make abortion illegal, and that I do not believe making abortion illegal will end abortion, what is my moral duty? In other words, not "who am I required NOT to vote for’ but “who am I required to vote for?” Feel free to use the 04 Presidential vote as a specific example.
I’m afraid it’s simply much easier to frame this particular issue negatively. Magisterial teaching in the last decade or so has placed voting for pro-abortion politicians off the table unless there is a comparable evil at stake. That is an issue that has been specifically addressed. There are many issues where one must seek out the candidate who will best serve the good of society in a moral manner, and on many or even most of those there is no “Catholic” position regarding the best means for achieving the good. So that makes it hard to say “a Catholic must vote for Candidate X.” There are, however, some issues which supply greater clarity, and abortion is an issue which is extremely clear: pro-choice and pro-abortion politicians are not morally acceptable candidates.Try framing this in a positive form (what one ought to do) rather than a negative form, please.
Given that I do not believe the GOP can/will make abortion illegal, and that I do not believe making abortion illegal will end abortion, what is my moral duty? In other words, not "who am I required NOT to vote for’ but “who am I required to vote for?” Feel free to use the 04 Presidential vote as a specific example.
Despite all the attempts to fuzz up the issue, that’s the bottom line: pro-choice and pro-abortion politicians are not morally acceptable candidates.I’m afraid it’s simply much easier to frame this particular issue negatively. Magisterial teaching in the last decade or so has placed voting for pro-abortion politicians off the table unless there is a comparable evil at stake. That is an issue that has been specifically addressed. There are many issues where one must seek out the candidate who will best serve the good of society in a moral manner, and on many or even most of those there is no “Catholic” position regarding the best means for achieving the good. So that makes it hard to say “a Catholic must vote for Candidate X.” There are, however, some issues which supply greater clarity, and abortion is an issue which is extremely clear: pro-choice and pro-abortion politicians are not morally acceptable candidates.
Nonetheless, I do think the issue of voting should be put forward in a postive formulation. I dislike the approach of “avoid the greater evil,” because I think that participating in our system of government is an intrinsic good. I would even go so far as to say that every citizen has a positive duty to vote. Thus, for me the question is “who ought you to vote for” not “who should you not vote for.” As I stated in post 15, my formulation would be “Vote for the candidate you believe will accomplish the most good”I’m afraid it’s simply much easier to frame this particular issue negatively…