Voting

[TPJCatholic]

Philip,

I do not agree. In fact, I could not disagree more strongly. Some things are just plain wrong no matter what the outside circumstances are. Slavery is just plain wrong…it makes no difference at all what the other candidates stand for. Catholics should never help make slavery legal. There are absolutes–though the current world seems to have forgotten that.

Example: it is always wrong to murder.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Philip,

I feel that our culture has nearly lost the ability to see the absolutes in life. Granted, most of life is shades of grey…yet there are black and white issues and no matter how many things come at us, those issues are still black and white.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Well then I stand by what I basically said 5 posts ago - it depends on who is running against this candidate. If times have become so bad that a pro-slavery candidate is a serious possibility, then the odds are good that the alternative isn’t all that great either.

Without knowing the full context and choices in your hypothetical election, it’s impossible to make an adequate moral evaluation.

Help me out here – I can’t imagine a scenario where we would have one party advocating the killing of tens of millions of children – and demanding the killing be paid for by the taxpayers – and another candidate or party with a WORSE position.

 

[legeorge]

MikeWM:

I say again, when I vote for a candidate I don’t automatically support every single thing that candidate stands for, no political party will ever offer that.

That may very well be true, but if someone supports a grave moral evil, it would be better not to vote at all, than risk one’s own soul. If candidate X promotes abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage but also supports welfare programs and environmental protection, you can vote for the welfare and and environment, but you are helping promote the other three as well because you helped him get elected knowing full well his stand on those issues and what he would do once elected.

If there were a political party to vote for that would magically eradicate abortion tomorrow, then you may have a point. But there is no such party. And there won’t be - making things illegal doesn’t stop them, it drives them underground. Dealing with the reasons these things happen is the best method of prevention.

But you need to start with the law. If there were no traffic laws, you couldn’t make people stop at the red lights, no matter how beneficial it was. “Well, I was in a hurry” or “I could have lost my job” or any one of a million excuses could be used to go right through. Sure, people don’t always follow those laws. But there are consequences if you break them. Traffic lights save many people from dying in accidents. So they are good. Making abortion illegal would save millions of preborn children from dying. Therefore, it would be good. Not to the exclusion of the other aspects, but being illegal would be necessary, none the less. Then there could be consequences for those breaking the law by providing abortions. And we could funnel the money used to fund abortions (like planned parenthood) into crisis pregnancy centers and adoption programs.

And there most certainly are other issues to consider. The fact that 10 million people die every year from avoidable poverty.

In the U.S.? I never heard that before. Is this true? However, it is still not the direct and intentional killing of a human person. It is a terrible thing, to be sure, but we have so many resources in this country, I can’t imagine that this is the case. However, I could be wrong.

The fact that we take no care of our environment.

Again, this is important, but not a mortal sin.

The fact that we go to war senselessly.

Also not a mortal sin according to the CCC , but important and a terrible thing in and of itself. There is a lot of controversy on this. I will only say that I am against war also. However, abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research are greater evils.

You yourself mentioned the issue of slavery, if a party were to suggest the return of that, but be anti-abortion, what then?

I would not vote for them either.

Again, I ask if a communist or fascist party were to propose outlawing abortion on day 1 of their government, would you vote for them?

Of course not. I would not vote for anyone who promoted grave evil.

I also ask again for how I am reading the documents of the USCCB and the England and Wales Bishops’ Council incorrectly. (I must admit I’m wondering if anyone is going to answer these questions, I’m trying to answer all points yet I’m the one accused of ignoring things. Oh well

Frankly, I am not impressed with either of these documents. I find that American and European bishops are a little too lukewarm on important issues such as these and leave too much unsaid when drafting these documents. It’s like they want to be true to Church teaching, but want to leave wiggle room for all the liberal dissenters. They try to “please all the people all the time”. This is why I go directly to the Vatican and encyclicals written by the Popes. Evangelium Vitae would be a good place to start. It is hard to argue your side after reading that. Now that I have answered your points, will you consider mine?

I saw a man on the side of the road with a sign that said “hungry, homeless, diabetic”. So I went down the street, bought a value meal, and brought it back to him. I only helped with one thing on his list. I didn’t give him shelter or medical help. I just gave him one meal. According to your logic, I could have pulled a gun, shot him, and put him out of his misery (murder, you know like abortion and euthanasia) and it would have been an equal act, worthy of equal consideration. This is absurd, of course. Sometimes things are just simply black and white no matter how hard the world tries to make it gray. For me, I would rather not vote at all than let a politician cause me to mortally sin. They are not that important to me.

Mike

 

[Philip_P]

TPJCatholic:

Philip,

I do not agree. In fact, I could not disagree more strongly. Some things are just plain wrong no matter what the outside circumstances are. Slavery is just plain wrong…it makes no difference at all what the other candidates stand for. Catholics should never help make slavery legal. There are absolutes–though the current world seems to have forgotten that.

Example: it is always wrong to murder.

I think your voting philosophy, taken at face value, inevitably means the disenfranchisement of the Catholic electorate. If the criteria is set only to a candidate’s statements/expressed or inferred position on an issue, rather than based on what one believes to be the *results *of a candidate winning election, I doubt any Catholic could ever vote in good conscience.

Let’s go back to 04, it being the most recent example. I did not believe at the time that Bush’s win would significantly reduce abortions or that a Kerry win would increase them (and in fact, given the historical trends since Roe v. Wade, abortion would probably continue to go down). If a candidate is unlikely to have any appreciable effect on the issue, why should their position on it be relevant?

Now you can argue that I was wrong in my assessment. It’s certainly possible; I claim no infallibility. But to argue that I am bound solely by a candidate’s position, and not by my evaluation of what kind of results we can actually expect, seems naive and unwise.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Help me out here – I can’t imagine a scenario where we would have one party advocating the killing of tens of millions of children – and demanding the killing be paid for by the taxpayers – and another candidate or party with a WORSE position.

I think the path the current Republican party has put our nation on is leading toward a major economic and environmental disaster. And I don’t think they’re foreign policy is so hot, either. Unless things change, I think millions of people, including Americans, face a much poorer and less secure world. Meanwhile, I don’t expect much regarding abortion out of the GOP.

Naturally you disagree with this assessment, or you would not have supported Bush. But that’s my point - these are decisions and evaluations each voter must make, and it is this, not a 5-part guide put out by a group of politically conservative Catholics, that ought to be the basis of our voting.

Yes, we must inform our conscience. Yes, our conscience must inform our voting. No, this does not translate neatly into a hard and fast litmus test or free us from applying the full spectrum of Catholic teaching to our voting decisions.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

I think the path the current Republican party has put our nation on is leading toward a major economic and environmental disaster.

Thankfully, reality invalidates your assertion. The economy is booming. The deficit has decreased again this quarter from predictions. The environment is still working as God designed it to work. Things aren’t perfect but the are moving forward in a positive direction.

 

[mlchance]

Philip P:

Let’s go back to 04…

Let’s.
Philip P:

…or that a Kerry win would increase them…

If you think that, you weren’t paying attention. Senator Kerry pledged to undo the Mexico City Policy. In conformance with the whole-heartedly pro-abortion plank of the Democratic Party platform, he promised to work toward full use of federal funds to pay for abortions and to nominate only pro-abortion justices to the judiciary. He also backed full federal involvement in embryonic stem cell research.

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

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Philip_P]

Stickman and mlchance,

Your responses are your opinions, which you are certainly entitled to, but they do not carry any more weight than mine. If your conscience told you not to vote for Kerry, you should not have voted for Kerry.

I disagree with your assessment of a Kerry presidency and your evaluation of the present and probable future state of the nation thanks to Bush. Just as you are bound by your evalution to support Bush, as my evaluation differs so my conscience binds me to oppose him.

As to who is properly evaluating the situation, that is most definitely what discussions such as these are meant to help us discern. Notice, though, that under a “non-negotiable” or other litmus-test approach to candidates, such discussion is impossible. Instead of researching facts, informing ourselves, and put forward our points, a litmus test focuses on ideological, rather than facts or probable results.

I think the US economy has severe structural weakness which Bush is aggravating. Stickman disagrees. This is something one can research and debate. The CA voting guide, though, shifts the debate from facts (*is *the economy better or worse, let’s find out) to ideology. That is as poor a way of picking a candidate as Louis’ at the top of this thread.

 

[chemcatholic]

MikeWM:

And there most certainly are other issues to consider. The fact that 10 million people die every year from avoidable poverty. The fact that we take no care of our environment. The fact that we go to war senselessly. You yourself mentioned the issue of slavery, if a party were to suggest the return of that, but be anti-abortion, what then?

It seems to me (and I would also hope to others on the board) that preserving life is vastly more important than quality of life, because once you’re dead, your quality of life goes right down the drain. If you’re still alive, steps can be taken to improve quality of life. That being said, issues such as the environment are a quality of life issue, and therefore not as important (but still important) in my mind. So, preserving life: the Iraq war has caused the death of ~26,000 people (iraqbodycount.net/)). In 2002, abortion was responsible for the death of 1.29million babies, or 107,500 babies per month (agi-usa.org/presentations/ab_slides.html)). Between the two, it’s my opinion that abortion is far graver than the war in Iraq based on sheer numbers alone. As far as poverty is concerned, I don’t know where you get your numbers, but according to the census bureau there are annually fewer than 10 million families below the poverty level in the US (census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html)). So unless you meant global poverty, I don’t trust the number you gave. I haven’t yet found any numbers for the poverty mortality rate in the US, but I expect its far lower than the abortion rate.

In essence, based on numbers alone, there is no life issue that comes close to being proportional to abortion.

Peace

 

[Philip_P]

chemcatholic:

It seems to me (and I would also hope to others on the board) that preserving life is vastly more important than quality of life, because once you’re dead, your quality of life goes right down the drain. If you’re still alive, steps can be taken to improve quality of life. That being said, issues such as the environment are a quality of life issue, and therefore not as important (but still important) in my mind. So, preserving life: the Iraq war has caused the death of ~26,000 people (iraqbodycount.net/)). In 2002, abortion was responsible for the death of 1.29million babies, or 107,500 babies per month (agi-usa.org/presentations/ab_slides.html)). Between the two, it’s my opinion that abortion is far graver than the war in Iraq based on sheer numbers alone. As far as poverty is concerned, I don’t know where you get your numbers, but according to the census bureau there are annually fewer than 10 million families below the poverty level in the US (census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html)). So unless you meant global poverty, I don’t trust the number you gave. I haven’t yet found any numbers for the poverty mortality rate in the US, but I expect its far lower than the abortion rate.

In essence, based on numbers alone, there is no life issue that comes close to being proportional to abortion.

Peace

The problem with that argument is that now you have to give a numeric value to how much each life is worth. It turns moral choice into a math problem. Is abortion bad simply because it kills a lot of people? If so, what’s the “magic” number that determines how bad it is? If there were 500,000 a year, is that too many? 100,000? 1,000? Or is it a question of comparison - If abortion rate > Iraqi death rate, abortion is worse?

Furthermore, if you’re really going to make such a comparison, you also have to compare like to like. For instance, about 2,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq, but there are only around 150,000 American soliders there. So of the American soldiers in Iraq, a little over 1% have died. There were about 1.3mm abortions last year, but there are around 300mm Americans, so less than 1% of Americans have died from abortion. Is the war then worse than abortion?

You see the problem with doing morality by math, I hope. A better question is, what kind of society are we if we pursue this course? Abortion is wrong because we as a society are saying that the answer to a crisis pregnancy is to kill the child. The fact that 1.4 mm occur yearly underscores the gravity, but even half a million would be wrong. It’s the same argument with the death penalty - what kind of society are we if we say that killing prisoners is the answer? Or with the environment - what kind of society says that if you are poor and live downwind your family is worth less than if you are rich and live away from pollution?

None of this tells you who you *must *vote for, but they are all considerations each voter must make. Again, my beef with litmus-test voting is that it ignores all other issues in favor of a small number of issues. It brings us back to mathematical morality, where you plug in a formula to get an answer. That’s not discernment, that’s math.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

A better question is, what kind of society are we if we pursue this course? Abortion is wrong because we as a society are saying that the answer to a crisis pregnancy is to kill the child. The fact that 1.4 mm occur yearly underscores the gravity, but even half a million would be wrong.

Another equally cogent question is, what sort of a political party would put a plank in its platform not only defending abortion, but demanding all taxpayers pay for it?

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Another equally cogent question is, what sort of a political party would put a plank in its platform not only defending abortion, but demanding all taxpayers pay for it?

Certainly it’s a question worth asking. However, last time we had a Democratic president, the abortion rate went down.

Of course I would be happy to see this removed from the DNC platform. I hope that one day abortion is neither legal nor practiced. However, I continue to believe that it must first be rare before it can be illegal.

There are plenty of things I find abhorrent in the GOP platform and positions. This is not in itself sufficient reason to refuse to even consider a GOP candidate.

 

[MikeWM]

legeorge:

I say again, when I vote for a candidate I don’t automatically support every single thing that candidate stands for, no political party will ever offer that.

That may very well be true, but if someone supports a grave moral evil, it would be better not to vote at all, than risk one’s own soul. If candidate X promotes abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage but also supports welfare programs and environmental protection, you can vote for the welfare and and environment, but you are helping promote the other three as well because you helped him get elected knowing full well his stand on those issues and what he would do once elected.

If there were a political party to vote for that would magically eradicate abortion tomorrow, then you may have a point. But there is no such party. And there won’t be - making things illegal doesn’t stop them, it drives them underground. Dealing with the reasons these things happen is the best method of prevention.

But you need to start with the law. If there were no traffic laws, you couldn’t make people stop at the red lights, no matter how beneficial it was. “Well, I was in a hurry” or “I could have lost my job” or any one of a million excuses could be used to go right through. Sure, people don’t always follow those laws. But there are consequences if you break them. Traffic lights save many people from dying in accidents. So they are good. Making abortion illegal would save millions of preborn children from dying. Therefore, it would be good. Not to the exclusion of the other aspects, but being illegal would be necessary, none the less. Then there could be consequences for those breaking the law by providing abortions. And we could funnel the money used to fund abortions (like planned parenthood) into crisis pregnancy centers and adoption programs.

It is entirely true that abortion should be made illegal, as one of the many steps required to reduce the number of abortions. But I don’t think it does much use to equate legality with morality (I’m not arguing you are, but many people seem to). There are many perfectly legal things that are nevertheless immoral. And some illegal things that have little bearing on morality.

Regrettably, backsteet abortions will still happen.

And to take the case of the US (I am trying to avoid being specific, but it is illustrative here), overturning Roe v. Wade will hardly stop abortion in the United States. Maybe in some states, but people will be able to travel to other states. It is clear in any event it will take a looonnnggg time to make abortion illegal in any part of the United States, short of a federal law and/or constitutional amendment, which no party is advocating. In the meantime there ought to be a massive increase in funding for crisis centres and adoptions, to bring the numers of abortions down as far as possible, but I don’t see that this is occurring.

And there most certainly are other issues to consider. The fact that 10 million people die every year from avoidable poverty.

In the U.S.? I never heard that before. Is this true? However, it is still not the direct and intentional killing of a human person. It is a terrible thing, to be sure, but we have so many resources in this country, I can’t imagine that this is the case. However, I could be wrong.

No, not in the US, that would be alarming indeed. It is a global figure.

The reason I specifically said ‘avoidable’ poverty though is that this is poverty that could easily be allieviated, at least to the extent to these people not dying, by a combination of aid, debt relief and fair trade (the first two to give him a fish to eat today, the latter to give him a source of food for the rest of his life). Now the US is not responsible solely for doing that, but they are a major player.

The fact that we take no care of our environment.

Again, this is important, but not a mortal sin.

Nor is voting for a politician who is pro-choice as long as it is not for the reason he is pro-choice

The fact that we go to war senselessly.

Also not a mortal sin according to the CCC , but important and a terrible thing in and of itself. There is a lot of controversy on this. I will only say that I am against war also. However, abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research are greater evils.

Per se, yes. But we have to be careful about thinking about what government does and doesn’t do. The US and UK governments have ordered young men to go to war and lay down their lives. They haven’t ordered anyone to go and have an abortion. (surely ordering someone to give up their life for an unjust reason is a mortal sin?)

Bah, my reply is too long. To be continued…

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

You yourself mentioned the issue of slavery, if a party were to suggest the return of that, but be anti-abortion, what then?

I would not vote for them either.

Again, I ask if a communist or fascist party were to propose outlawing abortion on day 1 of their government, would you vote for them?

Of course not. I would not vote for anyone who promoted grave evil.

Indeed so. My point all along; we can get out our Cathechisms and see what it is evil for ourselves to do, but it is less clear when it comes to voting for a person with a whole block of policies, some we disagree with, and some we recognise as plain wrong.

I also ask again for how I am reading the documents of the USCCB and the England and Wales Bishops’ Council incorrectly. (I must admit I’m wondering if anyone is going to answer these questions, I’m trying to answer all points yet I’m the one accused of ignoring things. Oh well

Frankly, I am not impressed with either of these documents. I find that American and European bishops are a little too lukewarm on important issues such as these and leave too much unsaid when drafting these documents. It’s like they want to be true to Church teaching, but want to leave wiggle room for all the liberal dissenters. They try to “please all the people all the time”.

Hmm. In my experience, I have not seen senior members of the Church refuse to be forthright and straightforward. I’m always very very wary of trying to be more Catholic then the Catholic Church.

This is why I go directly to the Vatican and encyclicals written by the Popes. Evangelium Vitae would be a good place to start. It is hard to argue your side after reading that

I have read, understood, and agreed with EV before I started this debate

It says:

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”

But I have never voted for an abortion law. I have voted for someone who unfortunately supports pro-choice laws, and continually lobbied both the candidate and supported the campaigns of organisations like SPUC to try to change the law. It is a reasonably subtle difference, but quite an important one (and I believe it to be what Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to in the quote I posted yesterday).

Now that I have answered your points, will you consider mine?

I saw a man on the side of the road with a sign that said “hungry, homeless, diabetic”. So I went down the street, bought a value meal, and brought it back to him. I only helped with one thing on his list. I didn’t give him shelter or medical help. I just gave him one meal. According to your logic, I could have pulled a gun, shot him, and put him out of his misery (murder, you know like abortion and euthanasia) and it would have been an equal act, worthy of equal consideration. This is absurd, of course. Sometimes things are just simply black and white no matter how hard the world tries to make it gray. For me, I would rather not vote at all than let a politician cause me to mortally sin. They are not that important to me.

I will try, but I’m not sure I see the relevance. You satisfied some of his needs, the best way you could, the same way I vote for a candidate that satisfies my needs in the best way of the candidates on offer. Quite how you got to ‘according to my logic’ you may as well have shot him, is beyond me.

I possibly missed stuff out there, but I was having problems with the quoting. If so, my apologies.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

chemcatholic:

It seems to me (and I would also hope to others on the board) that preserving life is vastly more important than quality of life, because once you’re dead, your quality of life goes right down the drain. If you’re still alive, steps can be taken to improve quality of life. That being said, issues such as the environment are a quality of life issue, and therefore not as important (but still important) in my mind. So, preserving life: the Iraq war has caused the death of ~26,000 people (iraqbodycount.net/)). In 2002, abortion was responsible for the death of 1.29million babies, or 107,500 babies per month (agi-usa.org/presentations/ab_slides.html)). Between the two, it’s my opinion that abortion is far graver than the war in Iraq based on sheer numbers alone. As far as poverty is concerned, I don’t know where you get your numbers, but according to the census bureau there are annually fewer than 10 million families below the poverty level in the US (census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html)). So unless you meant global poverty, I don’t trust the number you gave. I haven’t yet found any numbers for the poverty mortality rate in the US, but I expect its far lower than the abortion rate.

In essence, based on numbers alone, there is no life issue that comes close to being proportional to abortion.

Peace

My figures were for avoidable global poverty, yes, which the US (along with the other major economies) has a significant hand in maintaining (that’s what al that G8 stuff was about a couple of weeks ago).

As has already been pointed out, playing with numbers isn’t very satisfactory. The other related point is that the US government directly orders the American soldiers to go and risk their lives, and directly orders capital punishments. The government doesn’t order anyone to go and have an abortion. (so, is the government 5 times more to blame for a life lost in military duty than a life lost through abortion? 10 times? 20 times? It quickly becomes obvious that numbers games alone are far from helpful).

Indeed, the government should be doing everything to prevent abortions from occurring. Everything means removing the causes women have for choosing abortion, as well as criminalizing it.

Mike

 

[TPJCatholic]

Philip,

In reply to your statement.

We cannot advance the cause of life if we do not demand that life be respected from all politicians. It is quite beside the point whether or not a given person will lower abortions…the point is we must non-stop declare that we will not vote for anyone who is prochoice, only then will the politicians realize that “we the people” are not playing games. Until that happens, babies will still be murdered. Yet, it is our solemn responsibility to act within the sphere of our own lives…we cannot control what other people do…we must choose life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

We cannot advance the cause of life if we do not demand that life be respected from all politicians. It is quite beside the point whether or not a given person will lower abortions…the point is we must non-stop declare that we will not vote for anyone who is prochoice, only then will the politicians realize that “we the people” are not playing games. Until that happens, babies will still be murdered. Yet, it is our solemn responsibility to act within the sphere of our own lives…we cannot control what other people do…we must choose life.

Absolutely – and we must change the orientation of political parties. When a party has a plank not only advancing abortion, but also demanding that we pay for abortions with taxpayer money, then no Catholic can support that party.

If you like the Democrats on other issues – FIX YOUR PARTY!!

Make it plain that until they work AGAINST abortion and gay marriage, they will not get your vote.

 

[Philip_P]

TPJCatholic:

Philip,

In reply to your statement.

We cannot advance the cause of life if we do not demand that life be respected from all politicians. It is quite beside the point whether or not a given person will lower abortions…the point is we must non-stop declare that we will not vote for anyone who is prochoice, only then will the politicians realize that “we the people” are not playing games. Until that happens, babies will still be murdered. Yet, it is our solemn responsibility to act within the sphere of our own lives…we cannot control what other people do…we must choose life.

I don’t think it is beside the point whether or not abortions go lower at all. Looking back at actual results helps us make better predictions of the future, and thus help us make better-educated voting decisions.

As far as declaring that we will not vote for anyone who is pro-choice, I prefer to approach it from promoting policies which are pro-life. Pro-life encompasses more than abortion. Pro-choice refers specifically to abortion, but it is my contention that abortions do not occur in a vacuum and can only be adequately address through the framework of a consistent ethic of life (as articulated by the late Cardinal Bernardin).

Electorally, this means 1) a position on abortion is insufficient to qualify one as pro-life and 2) Catholics must be a sizable part of both RNC and DNC constituencies.

Turning the Church into an exlusive constituency of a single party only serves that party - not the pro-life cause, nor the nation at large. Catholics split their vote in the last election, which is the way it should be. The DNC is aware that they need to work for the Catholic vote, which is as it should be. The RNC believes they just have to say a few words about opposing abortion to get a pass on everything else, which is not as it should be.

 

[mlchance]

Philip P:

Stickman and mlchance,

Your responses are your opinions…

These are not opinions; they are facts:

Senator Kerry pledged to undo the Mexico City Policy. In conformance with the whole-heartedly pro-abortion plank of the Democratic Party platform, he promised to work toward full use of federal funds to pay for abortions and to nominate only pro-abortion justices to the judiciary. He also backed full federal involvement in embryonic stem cell research.

– Mark L. Chance.