Voting pro-choice always immoral?

[Traditional_Ang]

This is the situation where porportionalty comesn. The Church teaches you could vote for the canidate who would the least harm on abortion. In my case howver I would refuse to vote for either. Hopefully the Republican party wont force voters like myself out of the party.

Estebob:

I think we first have to look at the choices the two parties present us during the Primaries and ask if we were given a chance to support one or more candidates who support the cause of Life over the cause of Death. I think it’s pretty clear which party gives us that choice, and it’s not the DNP. I think we also need to ask which party has supported the cause of Life and tried to pass legislation supporting the unborn babies’ Right to Life - Same answer.

Then, and only then, we can look at the views of the candidates who win their Parties Primary, & how willing he is to promote, sign and enforce Pro-Life (or Pro-Death) legislation. Because, We aren’t just electing the candidate, we’re electing the party he (or she) belongs to, & the party which wins the Presidential Election usually gains seats in Congress.

If we want Roe v. Wade overturned, we need at least one more “strict constructionist” who reads the Constitution as a “Boilerplate Document”, one who believes it says what its says and doesn’t read “Penumbras” and other inferences into it as the Courts have have in much of the last 40 years, and either a Congress.

To get those results, we can’t let ourselves get discouraged or go looking for a third party, no matter how tempted we are.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

In my opinion, it is definitely immoral to vote for a pro-choice person. In my opinion, abortion should be our #1 concern when voting.

Holly:

I would agree with you in those elections where viable candidates (candidates with a realistic chance of winning those election) are on the ballot. But the following may be what we will be presented with this coming election (in spite of our best efforts).

What do you do if that isn’t the case? What do you do if… One candidate supports NO limits on “A Woman’s Right to Choose” (she opposes spousal and parental notification and any bans on any Abortions) and represents a party which can be said to be “a wholly owned subsidiary of Planned Parenthood”… While, The other Candidate “Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose”, but supports parental and spousal notification and bans on all Late Term Abortions and has repeatedly stated that he won’t veto any Pro-Life legislation passed by Congress and represents a party which has been Pro-Life for longer than the other party has been Pro-Death?

These are the two candidates who have a chance of winning. A vote for a third party candidate (since you’re Pro-Life) will help get the Pro-Death Candidate elected as the vote will come out of the second candidate’s column.

How will you vote? Your sentiment’s a noble one, but I can’t see how it would help here.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[buffalo]

Bishops’ document to offer new guidance on Catholics’ political role

… Although the draft document outlines a wide variety of policy positions taken by the bishops on domestic and international issues, it makes clear that not all issues carry equal importance.

“There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor,” the document says, citing in particular abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, stem-cell research involving the destruction of human embryos and “violations of human dignity such as racism, torture, genocide and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war.”

The bishops warn against “two temptations in public life (that) can distort the church’s defense of human life and dignity.”

“The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity,” they say. “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is … not just one issue among many.”

… “If a Catholic were to vote for a candidate who supports a policy involving intrinsic evil, such as abortion, precisely because of that position, the Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil,”

more…

 

[estesbob]

Estebob:

I think we first have to look at the choices the two parties present us during the Primaries and ask if we were given a chance to support one or more candidates who support the cause of Life over the cause of Death. I think it’s pretty clear which party gives us that choice, and it’s not the DNP. I think we also need to ask which party has supported the cause of Life and tried to pass legislation supporting the unborn babies’ Right to Life - Same answer.

Then, and only then, we can look at the views of the candidates who win their Parties Primary, & how willing he is to promote, sign and enforce Pro-Life (or Pro-Death) legislation. Because, We aren’t just electing the candidate, we’re electing the party he (or she) belongs to, & the party which wins the Presidential Election usually gains seats in Congress.

If we want Roe v. Wade overturned, we need at least one more “strict constructionist” who reads the Constitution as a “Boilerplate Document”, one who believes it says what its says and doesn’t read “Penumbras” and other inferences into it as the Courts have have in much of the last 40 years, and either a Congress.

To get those results, we can’t let ourselves get discouraged or go looking for a third party, no matter how tempted we are.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

If the Republican Party gets away with turning their back on pro-life advocates abortion will never end in this country. Many are counting on us to meekly support a republican pro-abortion candidate using the rationale you list above. I am the first to acknowledge that what you list above is in line with church teaching. But let me make myself clear(and I suspect millions of those in the pro-life ministry agree with me) if Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate for president I will no longer be a member of that party. I will never vote for someone who supports the killing of our children.

 

[SoCalRC]

What we do know for a fact is that in the only vote thus far concerning abortion Alito and Roberts sided with life.

Only if we define life to be ‘no effect on abortion’ and ‘upholding the legal precedence of abortion’.

Had they not been appointed and a Democrat had filled their postions sucking the brains out of children who were inches from exiting the womb would still be legal.

I’m sorry, you are getting the hype and political objective of the ban confused with reality again. The name of the law is not an accurate description of what it bans, nor the conditions under which it is performed. It was, of course, coined to invoke images like you describe.

The procedure is gruesome and is described in the Supreme Court opinion. However, the legal alternatives, also described by the court, are horrific as well. None are commonly used in a 3rd trimester abortion (which also happens to be banned in 40 states anyway).

The fact that you are celebrating a ban that stops zero abortions, provides no new precedence on the legality of abortion, because it forces the fetus to be ripped limb from limb inside the womb and removed piece by piece instead of killed and removed intact just shows how low American politics has placed the “pro life” bar.

That’s the problem of getting confused putting things like one’s political party ahead of one’s obligations to God.

 

[SoCalRC]

But I have also read that the reason why Alito and Roberts did not join Scalia and Thomas here is that Alito and Roberts did not want to tip their hands on how they would vote on any Roe. v. Wade reversal. Scalia and Thomas however had already tipped hands by voting in Casey.

That seems reasonable to me.

I’m sorry, but what would be the point? For all intents and purposes, they are on the bench for life. The constitution sets it up that was so that they can vote and act with impunity.

What could possible be achieved by acting ‘coy’ and breaking your oath of office in a ruling?

I think that it is move likely a of rationalization. Yes, you gave us every branch of government, yes we just appointed two justices, yes they upheld Roe, but it is all part of a secret plan so just stay with us…

 

[Ender]

I’m sorry, but what would be the point? For all intents and purposes, they are on the bench for life. The constitution sets it up that was so that they can vote and act with impunity.

What could possible be achieved by acting ‘coy’ and breaking your oath of office in a ruling?

There are several reasons for Alito and Roberts not joining Thomas and Scalia in stating that there is no basis for any of the abortion rulings in the Constitution.

First is the matter of their integrity as judges. Their job is to rule on the arguments presented to them and the points of law that are raised, not to offer random opinions on issues that have not yet come before them. In Carhart there was no argument made that Roe and Casey should be overruled therefore it would have been inappropriate for them to comment on that point. Thomas and Scalia had already issued their opinions in prior cases so a reiteration of their position was acceptable. Since Alito and Roberts have never ruled on any case dealing with the Constitutionality of Roe it would be more than a little inappropriate for them to say anything.

Second, suppose they had taken this opportunity to say that Roe should be reversed: wouldn’t that merely confirm everything they were charged with during their confirmation hearings? If they issued an opinion on Roe even before it was challenged by another case they would in effect admit that they were lying before Congress when they refused to answer questions on Roe by saying they didn’t have a legal position and would have to wait for arguments in a specific case.

Third, if they “decided” Roe without waiting for a specific legal test and Roe was ever overturned it would de-legitimize that ruling and the battle in Congress over control of the courts would become even more fierce. If Alito and Roberts ruled on Roe before the question came to them as a Supreme Court case they would have set a precedent that would bring the entire court system into disrepute - they would essentially be admitting that they were acting as individuals enforcing their own personal opinions and not as judges.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If the Republican Party gets away with turning their back on pro-life advocates abortion will never end in this country.

It is certainly true that if the Republican party abandons the pro-life cause the status of abortion will be even more firmly entrenched, perhaps permanently. I understand your position but if you and others like you abandon the party then you leave it to the control of those who are not pro-life. Losing temporary control is one thing but your actions could lead to a permanent loss of control and the very situation you most fear - the permanent entrenchment of Roe.

But let me make myself clear(and I suspect millions of those in the pro-life ministry agree with me) if Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate for president I will no longer be a member of that party. I will never vote for someone who supports the killing of our children.

Understand that the “party” consists of millions of individuals with both conservative and liberal agendas, with both sides fighting for control; it’s not a handful of people who can decide who will or will not get nominated. If a pro-choice Republican is selected and you (and perhaps millions like you) pick up your marbles and go home you guarantee the election of an aggressively pro-abortion Democrat and give up any hope of getting a fifth strict constructionist judge on the Court.

Answer me this: if you knew for certain that a pro-choice Republican would nominate judges like Alito and Roberts to the court, would you vote for him then?

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Answer me this: if you knew for certain that a pro-choice Republican would nominate judges like Alito and Roberts to the court, would you vote for him then?

Ender

No-a person who beleives it is ok to kill our children is not fit to hold any office. I agree a strong case can be made for holding your nose and voting for the “lesser of two evils” but I would have the bood of my innocents on my hands if I did so. This will not be a matter of me abandoning the Republican party-it will be a matter of them abandoning me.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

Would you vote for a pro-choice candidate who would appoint justices like Alito and Roberts?

No … I would have the blood of my innocents on my hands if I did so.

I don’t think I follow this. The only way to make any significant progress in reducing abortions is to get Roe reversed - which probably will require one more strict constructionist judge - and you will give up that chance because you don’t want to have the blood of innocents on your hands? How do you have blood of the innocent on your hands if you take the only action that could possibly save them? How will you not have it on your hands if you reject the one option that could help them?

Saving the unborn can only come from the reversal of Roe which in turn can only come from the Supreme Court, which probably needs one more “Roblito”. I would think that the single most important issue in the pro-life movement would be the election of a president who can provide that justice.

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

No-a person who beleives it is ok to kill our children is not fit to hold any office. I agree a strong case can be made for holding your nose and voting for the “lesser of two evils” but I would have the bood of my innocents on my hands if I did so. This will not be a matter of me abandoning the Republican party-it will be a matter of them abandoning me.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

I don’t think I follow this. The only way to make any significant progress in reducing abortions is to get Roe reversed … **Saving the unborn can only come from the reversal of Roe **

These are both hasty consclusions and a false either/or.

In addition they presume against reason that 1) the pro-abortion President will nominate SCOTUS judges who will be inclined to overturn Roe. Reason tells me that anyone as devoted to the “right” of women to abort their children as is the frontrunner Republican presidential candidate we’re not naming will seek out justices who share the candidates values and not the opposite. It’s more likely that this person is trying to manipulate my vote rather than not; 2) if by some miracle the Pro-Abort President does nominate devoted ProLife justices what guarantee or reasonable assumption is there that a Democratically controlled Congress, now emboldened by a President who is pro abortion, will approve these nominations; 3) what assurance is there that once on the bench these judges will follow through in a political climate where the only choices Republican or Democrat are amongst proaborts.

On the other hand, I do know that this Republican frontrunner is not only pro abortion, but also pro-gay, pro-war, pro-torture, pro-ESCR. So by voting for him I’m also casting my vote for all these other issues.

So not only do I agree with estesbob that

a person who beleives it is ok to kill our children is not fit to hold any office… have the bood [sic] of my innocents on my hands if I did so

but I feel I would also be culpable for the blood of innocents killed in unjust wars brought on by the person I voted for; for those innocent persons tortured; for the embryos destroyed; and for the destruction of marriage.

This is why I could not cast my vote for such a person as this.

IMHO “The only way” is God’s way. He is the only absolute.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

The frontrunner may also have a different view of “strict-constructionist” than is being presented in this forum. This from this article covering the GOP Debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in May 2007:

"GOP Field United On War, Divided On Social Issues"

The divisions within the party were most evident when the topic of abortion was raised early in the debate. Matthews asked each of the 10 candidates if it would be a good day for America if the Supreme Court overturned Roe.

-]Brownback/-] said it would be “a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.” -]Gilmore/-] called Roe “wrongly decided,” while -]Tancredo/-] said it would be “the greatest day in this country’s history.”

When -]Giuliani/-] got his chance to respond, he said, “It would be okay,” but he went on to note that it would also be okay “if a strict-constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision.”

I suspect that this candidate will make it a point, if elected, to seek out strict-constructionist judges who agree with him that Roe v. Wade be viewed as precedent.

p.s. I hope it’s OK to just cross out the candidates names in my quote. I’m a little hazy on the forum rules regarding candidates.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

The only way to make any significant progress in reducing abortions is to get Roe reversed … Saving the unborn can only come from the reversal of Roe

These are both hasty consclusions and a false either/or.

Explain how progress in banning abortions can come before Roe is overturned.

In addition they presume against reason that 1) the pro-abortion President will nominate SCOTUS judges who will be inclined to overturn Roe.

One step at a time. I asked a simple hypothetical question that allows a yes/no answer. The likelihood of it happening in the real world is not relevant to the hypothetical case where I stipulated that it **would **happen.

Now, can you answer the question I asked?

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

I must have missed the ‘hypothetical’ question you asked Mr. Ender. I didn’t see a yes/no. The questions you asked were:

The only way to make any significant progress in reducing abortions is to get Roe reversed - which probably will require one more strict constructionist judge - and you will give up that chance because you don’t want to have the blood of innocents on your hands?

The quote above is more of a statement than a hypothetical and/or ‘yes, no’ question. It’s also a non-sequitor, a false either/or. There are any numbers of ways to make significant progress in reducing abortions. I personally am more in favor of “ending” the practice altogether than in ‘reducing’ the number.

Let’s say we’re talking about slavery. Would it be acceptable to try to only ‘reduce the number’ of persons held in slavery? Leave it up to individual states to decide whether slavery should be legal?

See how far prolifers have already digressed when even their goals have gone from ‘ending’ abortion to the goal of ‘reducing’ abortion. It reminds me of the analogy of boiling a frog by gradually turning up the heat. Well, the heat is nearing the boiling point in this election and we need to jump out of that pot before our cause dies.

IF there were a reversal of Roe, were it to follow your assumptions, it would merely once again give the State’s the right to decide in their constitutions whether to make it legal or not. I know my State, California, will allow it and California is a short plane ride from any states that may ban abortion.

I think we need to get “person” defined in our constitution the way it’s defined by God that includes life from conception to natural death. I think a human embryo should be more protected by our Nation than an American Bald Eagle’s egg is protected, not less. We need a Consitutional ammendment protecting the unborn and recognizing them as ‘persons’ the same way the 13th Ammendment abolished slavery.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

How do you have blood of the innocent on your hands if you take the only action that could possibly save them? How will you not have it on your hands if you reject the one option that could help them?

This is not as you claim “the only action that could possibly save them” and/or “the one option that could help them?” not even close. These claims are distortions of the truth, IMO.

This ‘question’ is also another non-sequitor. It again assumes the ‘only possible action’ to save the innocents, the ‘one option’ is to vote against our conscience, vote against reason, for a candidate who is self-defined as pro-abortion (*I subsitute the more honest word abortion for choice when composing) *simply because he claims he will appoint strict-constructionist judges.

Yet when you actually take a look at what the candidate means by strict-constructionists instead of what one would like us to think it means then it makes it clearer as to his intent and how that fits with his proabortion agenda.

Here’s a transcript of an interview with Larry King that sheds some more light on his defination:

KING: Let’s move to some things domestic. You’ve had some quotes lately that – that seem contradictory. I know you’re pro-choice, you’ve always been pro-choice.

-]GIULIANI/-]: I am.

KING: Yet you’ll say you’ll appoint judges who are strict constructionists. If that’s the case, they’re going to vote to overturn “Roe v. Wade,” which you don’t want.

-]GIULIANI/-]: I don’t know that. You don’t know that.

KING: Well, what is strict constructionist?

-]GIULIANI/-]: Well, OK, there are a lot of ways to explain that. I mean…

KING: Do you still favor ““Roe v. Wade?””

-]GIULIANI/-]: I am pro-choice, yes. But I – I’m also, as you know – always have been – against abortion, hate abortion, don’t like it, wouldn’t personally advise anyone to have an abortion and – but I believe a woman has a right to choose. And you can’t have criminal penalties and I think that would be wrong.

I would select judges who try to interpret the Constitution rather than invent it, from my views as a lawyer. And I don’t want to sound presumptuous, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I have argued in the Supreme Court and I have argued in many of the circuit courts.

I’ve spent more time in court than I have in politics.

And I just think it’s very, very important that a judge have a judicial philosophy that says I am going to try to figure out what the framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote this or what the people who amended it meant when they put it in, not what I’d like it to mean, not what I feel it means.

I had that view about the criminal law. I thought a lot of the decisions of the Warren court were a mistake.

KING: Would you…

-]GIULIANI/-]: I thought the exclusionary rule was a mistake. I thought, to some extent, “Miranda” was a mistake.

Now, here’s what the court did with those. A lot of people thought that with the – with the Berger…

KING: I know prosecutors who loved “Miranda.” It made cases more solid.

-]GIULIANI/-]: “Miranda’s” OK, but when people – if people, you know, don’t give a “Miranda” warning quickly enough and somebody blurts out a confession, I still want to put that murderer in jail. And when a cop makes a mistake in finding a weapon or finding – and finding drugs, I never liked the idea of giving it back to the criminal.

So here’s what the court did. The two courts that came after – the two conservative courts that came after, Berger and Rehnquist, people thought they were going to overrule “Miranda.” They thought they were going to overrule “Escobedo,” the exclusionary rule.

**They didn’t overrule it. They limited it. **

[my emphasis]

KING: All right. And…

-]GIULIANI/-]: And they limited it to a point where it is now quite rational.

[my emphasis]

KING: Are you pretty sure that no matter what you appointed, “Roe vs. Wade” will remain?

-]GIULIANI/-]: I don’t – nobody knows that.

KING: Would it hurt you if they overturned it and you appointed judges that overturned it?

-]GIULIANI/-]: I don’t think it would hurt me or help me or – it would be a matter of states making decisions or…

KING: You’d be indifferent to it?

-]GIULIANI/-]: I wouldn’t be – I wouldn’t be indifferent to it. It wouldn’t be the litmus test on which I would appoint somebody.

given what the candidate said in the 1st debate about strict-constructionist judges interpreting Roe v. Wade as precedent then it all makes more sense where he’s coming from and what kind of judges he would appoint given the opportunity.

 

[Ender]

I must have missed the ‘hypothetical’ question you asked Mr. Ender. I didn’t see a yes/no. The questions you asked were: …

The question was asked to estesbob: *“if you knew for certain that a pro-choice Republican would nominate judges like Alito and Roberts to the court, would you vote for him then?” *

There are any numbers of ways to make significant progress in reducing abortions. I personally am more in favor of “ending” the practice altogether than in ‘reducing’ the number.

I’m in favor of ending them altogether too. Name one practical action that can accomplish that.

See how far prolifers have already digressed when even their goals have gone from ‘ending’ abortion to the goal of ‘reducing’ abortion.

The ultimate goal has not changed, but it has never been a choice between all or nothing. They will take what they can get and continue to work for more.

If there were a reversal of Roe, were it to follow your assumptions, it would merely once again give the State’s the right to decide in their constitutions whether to make it legal or not. I know my State, California, will allow it and California is a short plane ride from any states that may ban abortion.

True, but having it legal in only some states is better than having it legal everywhere and you can never get to the point of making it illegal anywhere without reversing Roe. This would only be the first step but no progress can be made until it is taken.

We need a Consitutional ammendment protecting the unborn and recognizing them as ‘persons’ the same way the 13th Ammendment abolished slavery.

It’s a wonderful goal but given the reality of the situation it is utterly impossible to achieve. It requires a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress and virtually all Democrat senators would oppose it. Will you sacrifice the little good can be done to cling to a great good that cannot?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Yet when you actually take a look at what the candidate means by strict-constructionists instead of what one would like us to think it means then it makes it clearer as to his intent and how that fits with his proabortion agenda.

There is nothing wrong with the comments made about strict constructionist judges. If by a judge who “thinks like us” you mean one who wants to reverse Roe, then I don’t want that kind either. The last thing I want are more judges who apply their own values to the cases before them; I want judges who will rule on what the laws actually say rather than on what they think the laws should say.

given what the candidate said in the 1st debate about strict-constructionist judges interpreting Roe v. Wade as precedent …

Roe **is **precedent. Stare decisis requires serious consideration in determining whether or not to overturn earlier court decisions. You cannot treat the court like the another branches of government where you get to vote in your supporters. The integrity of our court system requires judges who apply the law as it is and we would damage it even more than the liberals if we were content with partisan hacks who merely decreed rulings that met with our political approval.

…then it all makes more sense where he’s coming from and what kind of judges he would appoint given the opportunity.

You misunderstand what he said. His point is that simply appointing strict constructionist judges does not mean you know how they will vote on Roe. I think Alito and Roberts are excellent justices, the best we could hope for, but there is no guarantee they will override Roe. Appointing justices like them is all we could ask for - and he said he would do just that.

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Quote Ender:
Name one practical action that can accomplish that.

I did:

Quote:
We need a Consitutional ammendment protecting the unborn and recognizing them as ‘persons’ the same way the 13th Ammendment abolished slavery.

It’s a wonderful goal but given the reality of the situation it is utterly impossible to achieve. It requires a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress and virtually all Democrat senators would oppose it. Will you sacrifice the little good can be done to cling to a great good that cannot?

The reality is that for nearly two decades we’ve had a Republican majority in Congress and for the past 8 years of that majority we’ve had a supposedly ProLife Republican President. Yet the most that was done was to narrowly push through a Ban on Partial Birth Abortion. If that’s the most that can be achieved by a majority of Republicans in both houses with a ProLife President, then what’s to make me think that things will be any better with a Democratic majority in the Houses and a choice of ProAbortion Presidents?

Again, I do not think either of the proabortion candidates will work to overturn Roe v. Wade and/or make abortion illegal or reduce the number of abortions. They are both in favor of Federally funding abortions. I think they will continue, each in their own way, to work to establish further a woman’s right to choose.

If I continue to buy into the false notion that a Republican, even if he’s self defined as proabortion is my only hope for a reversal then I am only deluding myself. I have to follow my conscience and not hold my nose while I cast my vote.

I do think all this debate is way too premature since we’re not even in the Primaries yet. I could understand a discussion of voting for the best of the worst when that’s all you have to choose from in a General Election. We still have options to cast our vote in the Primaries for a strong Pro Life candidate (regardless of Party affiliation), why not focus on that?

I read somewhere that this may be an election where a candidate wins with less than 30 something % of the votes. More and more people, on both sides, are dissatisfied and leaning towards a third party.

If Prolifers draw a line in the sand on abortion and refuse to give the Republicans their vote then that will be heard and felt. It will send a message loud and clear that we’re not going to remain in this pot of boiling water. If we vote for them regardless, vote for a proabortion candidate because that’s the best of the worst then we’ve lost the party, probably for a long, long time. It’s like with the TV, if there’s nothing on to watch then turn the thing off and find something better to do rather than flip through the best of the worst. The only way, IMO, to regain the Republican Party as a prolife party is to be as stubbornly adamant about Life as the Democratic Party has been about death.

Perhaps Democrats for Life will join up with Republicans for Life and create a viable third party.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

If by a judge who “thinks like us” you mean one who wants to reverse Roe, then I don’t want that kind either. The last thing I want are more judges who apply their own values to the cases before them; I want judges who will rule on what the laws actually say rather than on what they think the laws should say.

Roe is precedent. Stare decisis requires serious consideration in determining whether or not to overturn earlier court decisions.
Ender

then there is no reason I or any other prolifer should feel compelled to vote for a proabortion candidate based on some scenario of possible judicial nominees and certainly we would not have ‘blood on our hands’ for refusing to do so.