voting

[SoCalRC]

Your opinions are remarkably impervious to the truth. Twice I have responded to this claim by quoting from the ruling itself the remarks of Justice Ginsburg where she explicitly lamented not only the fact that this ruling failed to reaffirm Roe but chips away at it … yet you continue to make the claim that the ruling in Carhart reaffirms Roe. Knowing that your interpretation is wrong how can you continue to make this claim?

OK, let’s take it a step at a time. You are taking the dissenting opinion as “proof” that the ruling undermines Casey.

However, the majority opinion and the concurring opinion both assert that the ban is in perfect accordance with Casey. The principle argument is that the prohibited procedure has no medical necessity over alternative procedures. Since alternatives are available, no woman is robbed of a “right” she has under existing law.

Now, in addition to being insulting, you are talking about “truth”. How, exactly, did you determine that Ginsburg is truthful and that 5 fellow jurists (all Catholic by the way) are not?

That is what you are saying. The dissenting opinion argues that the majority opinion is incorrect. You are aguing that the dissention opinion is proof that the majority is either wrong, or dishonest.

Since you are now arguing that I cannot take the majority, or concurring opinions at face value, you presumably have some basis for elevating Ginsburg to superior moral and legal status over the five justices I am citing. Perhaps if you could explain the basis of her canonization, we could better your concepts of honestly and truthfulness.

 

[rlg94086]

The point is that if you use secular law as a litmus test for faith, at the expense of other non negotiable moral principles, you are, as the Church says, voting incoherently. Further, I believe that it is easy to see why the Church warns that it can be a detriment as well.

Well, then lucky for me and my fellow CAF posters, we don’t “use secular law as a litmus test for faith…” My decision on who to vote for is very coherent. And, the added bonus is that I may actually vote for someone who is elected and can effect change, rather than help elect someone who will make things worse.

SoCalRC:

Look at some of the other post. Politics has contracted the meaning of ‘pro life’ to the point where posters are arguing that a ban that stops zero abortions and is ruled to be in accordance with Casey and Roe is ‘pro life’.

That ban is only one aspect of pro-life politics, and people disagree with your assessment. I realize you are confident that you are right and everyone else is wrong, but I don’t think that is a good basis for generalizations.

 

[Ender]

OK, let’s take it a step at a time. You are taking the dissenting opinion as “proof” that the ruling undermines Casey.

No. I am taking as proof the comment made by the minority that explicitly states that this decision does not reaffirm Roe, Casey, et al. This is in direct contradiction to your claim that the ruling does reaffirm them.

How, exactly, did you determine that Ginsburg is truthful and that 5 fellow jurists (all Catholic by the way) are not?

There no disagreement between what Ginsburg and the minority wrote and what Scalia and Thomas said. Scalia and Thomas reiterated their position that the Roe-Casey rulings have no basis in the constitution; that says nothing whatever about whether Carhart reaffirms or undermines Roe. The four losers, however, did: they said not just that this ruling fails to reaffirm Roe but that it chips away at its protections.

That is what you are saying. The dissenting opinion argues that the majority opinion is incorrect. You are aguing that the dissention opinion is proof that the majority is either wrong, or dishonest.

What is relevant to this discussion is not whether or not the majority ruled correctly, rather the only point at issue is whether the ruling reaffirms Roe - which has been your claim. Given that the minority unhappily pointed out that it does not - and the majority was silent on this point - you have no basis for that claim.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

I realize you are confident that you are right and everyone else is wrong, but I don’t think that is a good basis for generalizations.

I suspect you are projecting. Consider that just a few sentences prior you appeared to be claiming to know the heart, mind, and motivations of large groups of people.

All the pointless slurs, professed victimizaiton, and baseless claims notwithstanding, let’s review the root of this dialog. I provided a document from the Church, you claimed that the document did not put constraints on your ability to apply the principle of “limiting the harm”. I quoted a section that discusses the proper context of “limiting the harm” and also a section addressing a large number of non negotiable moral principles.

If you have a problem with either the idea that we have non negotiable obligations to God or that the Magesterium is in a unique position to define those obligations, your argument is with Rome, not with me.

 

[SoCalRC]

What is relevant to this discussion is not whether or not the majority ruled correctly, rather the only point at issue is whether the ruling reaffirms Roe - which has been your claim. Given that the minority unhappily pointed out that it does not - and the majority was silent on this point - you have no basis for that claim.

I’m sorry, we seem to be playing a game of Clue with odd rooms and weapons. It seemed you were arguing that the ruling undermines Roe because Ginsburg said so. I asked what seemed to be a reasonable question in reply, why is Ginsburg correct and the majority opinion, which argued that it was following Casey incorrect?

Now you seem to be arguing that Ginsburg’s arguments are simultaneously proof of something, and simultaneously baseless, since the parts of the majority opinion that claim to be applying Casey, etc. are without basis?

Look, there are three basic points of view in the three opinions:

Majority: The ban is legal because there is no medical necessity for the procedure and no woman’s established right to an abortion is being impacted. The opinion walks through supposed “rights” and discusses how they are respected.

Concurring: The majority is correctly applying current law and precedent, however, we want to seperate ourselves from the majority by noting that we do not believe that the precedent itself Constitutional. By the way, we might not have sided with the majority if the Commerce Clause of the Constitution had been raised.

Dissenting: Roe was too vague, Casey was a much better ruling because it set clear guidelines on established rights. The majority claims to be adhering to Casey, but is not because it willfully ignored competent professional authority on the quesiton of medical necessity. This will have a negative impact on the health and rights of some citizens and is a bad precedent in its own right.

I do not see how the last magically erases the claims of the first two. I’ve heard a similiar claim before, that somehow the majority opinion is secretly pro life, but how? In other words, Carhart uses an argument of ‘no abortions stopped’ to uphold the ban, so how on earth can that ruling ever be used to ‘stop abortions’?

 

[Ender]

Look, there are three basic points of view in the three opinions:

I accept your majority and concurring descriptions, but again, they say nothing about the reaffirmation of Casey. Regarding your description of the dissenting opinion you omit the critical statement they made: "And, most troubling, Casey’s principles, confirming the continuing vitality of “the essential holding of Roe,” are merely “assume[d]” for the moment, …rather than “retained” or “reaffirmed,”

I made no argument as to whether or not Carhart properly **applied **Casey, my objection was to your insistence that Carhart **reaffirmed **Casey. These are different points. Scalia stated that Casey was properly applied; the four justices in the minority agreed that Casey was not reaffirmed. The dissenters are clearly correct and, for this argument, it doesn’t matter whether the concurring opinion is correct or not.

The fact that Carhart does not reaffirm Casey will be significant in the future when, in addition to reversing the twisted logic of Roe, the court needs to deal with the concept of Stare Decisis. I suspect that if Roe is ever reversed we will see Carhart cited in defense of that decision. I believe this is why the dissenters wrote: “Today’s decision is alarming.”

Ender

 

[Nino]

This may be addressed somewhere, but I didn’t find it.

What if all the candidates you have available to vote for on the state level are pro-abortion? We are supposed to vote, but how do we determine for whom? I’m tempted to just sit it out.

Yes…the lesser of two evils nonsense just brings us…as it has since FDR .more evil!..I wish the powers that control America had the courage to put a ‘none of the above’ slot under each candidate…from national to local elections. My wife and I did not vote this year locally for all are controlled and only give us more taxes,more rhetoric,less services,…look at the latest outrage…a protestant aging leader just endorsed a mult-maried,pro-abortion person for president…what a travesty…but revealing…no wonder Jesus warned this is the devils world…have a nice day…

 

[Tietjen]

I will gladly take a few mildly pro-death candidates over any active and militant pro-death candidates because while both are bad, one will not push the agenda of death, and if we get enough of those to replace the militant abortionists, then we may also have enough Pro-Life candidates on the other side to do some good and reverse the Death culture.

Sounds logical and I would support this IF I actually believed that as was stated earlier, that it would “chip away” at the pro-death stance in America. History has shown us that tolerating “some” evil does NOT lead to more good. In fact, tolerating “some” evil sets an acceptable standard to be met for future elections. Some abortions (placing restrictions under certain circumstances) cause the children of that generation to become more tolerant to the concept of abortion. Then, when they reach voting age, the standard is further pushed back until you find yourself living in the society that we now live in. The same with homosexuality (as an example). I remember when there were actual laws in the books against this. Then, tolerating a “little evil” (aka – lesser of two evils) under the guise of “political correctness”, we now find states and private industry accepting openly homosexual marriage and benefits that used to be reserved for marriages between men and women.

Next, when has it ever been that Presidents and Congresspersons set the beat for society to follow. Is it not the people who set the beat (direction)? So, why should truth-believing citizens be the ones who give in on what we know to be murder? Will the pro-death (even one who supports limited abortion) do anything to make it illegal? No, the ONLY way that those we elect to government will ever act in our favor on these issues is if we (the voters) set the beat for their political dance. In a hundred years, where could we find ourselves if we don’t insist that the politicians are the ones to speak for us in these matters? Did anyone 100 years ago believe that abortions would be legal today? That homosexuals would be getting married? etc. etc. The goal needs to be to change the minds of the people and THEN the politicians will change the laws. How can one expect that to happen when we ourselves are compromising what we know is true? God bless.

 

[Tietjen]

Well, then lucky for me and my fellow CAF posters, we don’t “use secular law as a litmus test for faith…” My decision on who to vote for is very coherent. And, the added bonus is that I may actually vote for someone who is elected and can effect change, rather than help elect someone who will make things worse.

Sure, you can be happy to say that you voted for the winner of an election if that is important to you. However, imagine if all Catholics voted this way. It would send a message that Catholics can tolerate SOME murdered babies just so long as we keep the number lower than what it would be if “the other guy” had won.

What if the subject were drugs? What if we had candidates vying to become nominees who supported legalizing drug use in the U.S.? Mr. “M” only supports legalizing marijuana and opposes all other drugs, Mrs. “C” is all for the legalization of cocaine and marijuana but no other drugs. Mr. “T” wants all drugs legalized. Using your theory, we should vote for Mr. “M” and thereby make marijuana legal. Okay, 10 years go by with marijuana being legal. Our younger citizens have grown up with it and so it is no big deal. Well, we still have Mrs. “C” trying to get elected in the next race as well as Mr. “M”… oh, and by the way, since the standard was set with the legalization of a “lesser” drug, there are now even more candidates running who feel the same as Mrs. “C” and Mr. “T”. When has accepting an evil (even a lesser evil) ever led to anything other than continued evil and greater evil. We all have heard that “good” does not come forth from “evil” (no matter the size of the evil).

That ban is only one aspect of pro-life politics, and people disagree with your assessment. I realize you are confident that you are right and everyone else is wrong, but I don’t think that is a good basis for generalizations.

Lucky for us truth isn’t dependant upon a “majority rules” concept. And not “everyone” agrees with you on this issue. God bless.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . History has shown us that tolerating “some” evil does NOT lead to more good. In fact, tolerating “some” evil sets an acceptable standard to be met for future elections. . . .

One may note that Jim Jones’s Kool Aid was 99% cyanide free.

 

[SoCalRC]

I made no argument as to whether or not Carhart properly **applied **Casey, my objection was to your insistence that Carhart **reaffirmed **Casey. These are different points. Scalia stated that Casey was properly applied; the four justices in the minority agreed that Casey was not reaffirmed. The dissenters are clearly correct and, for this argument, it doesn’t matter whether the concurring opinion is correct or not.

I stated that ROE was reaffirmed, because the majority opinion specifically listed rights and tested them. This reaffirms the interpreations of the prior ruling.

The concurring justices specficially distanced themselves from this.

The dissenting justices did not argue that the principles of Casey were judicially weakened, but indirectly weakened. That is, the majority did not really argue that medical necessity should be respected, but that it did not exist in this case. On this, medical groups, and even conservative groups like Focus on the Family, disagreed with the court (Focus on the Family claims that the elevated risk from alternate procedures will, in fact, deter some abortions - this is the only way that they claim that there will be an effect).

I believe this is why the dissenters wrote: “Today’s decision is alarming.”

To them, it is alarming. Remember, the court had just ruled on a near identical state law in 2000 and found that the absense of a medical exception made it unconstitutional. This also appears to be the first time that the court has ignored so many amicus briefs from medical organizations on a decision of medical necessity.

But it is still political theatre. Bottom line, two justices declared Roe unconstitutional, 7 wrote that women have a right to an abortion. The victory was a bill that targetted a whopping 2,000 abortions a year, most 2nd trimester and most for medical reasons. By most accounts it will stop 0. According to FOTF, a few woman with, say, twins dying inside them, will avoid the a conventional D&E because of a slightly higher risk of uterine bleeding…

Certainly, it serves political purposes - but for both sides. What concerns me is that while it perpetuates the seeming myth that we just another president away from overturning Roe, there has been huge movement at the state level, and a lot of it does not lean towards life.

 

[Ender]

History has shown us that tolerating “some” evil does NOT lead to more good.

The issue has nothing to do with tolerating evil; it is about doing all we can to limit the evil we cannot eradicate. If two children were in danger and you could save only one would you refuse to do so on the grounds that you won’t cooperate in an evil action that allows a child to die? There is no magical third choice that saves them both; your choice is to save one or let them both die - bad or worse. The choice that might face pro-life voters next year is similar. Because you are unhappy at having to choose something bad will you allow something even worse to happen?

In fact, tolerating “some” evil sets an acceptable standard to be met for future elections.

By your definition those of us who do what we can to minimize the impact of abortion are the ones who tolerate it while those like yourself who walk away from the problem are the ones who don’t tolerate it. It may be a cliche but it is nonetheless true that “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Your proposal to do nothing this next election works to the benefit of the evil you are trying to eliminate.

So, why should truth-believing citizens be the ones who give in on what we know to be murder?

And your conception of not giving in is … giving up?

the ONLY way that those we elect to government will ever act in our favor on these issues is if we (the voters) set the beat for their political dance.

No one will hear your beat if you take your instruments and go home.

Ender

 

[Tietjen]

The issue has nothing to do with tolerating evil; it is about doing all we can to limit the evil we cannot eradicate. If two children were in danger and you could save only one would you refuse to do so on the grounds that you won’t cooperate in an evil action that allows a child to die? There is no magical third choice that saves them both; your choice is to save one or let them both die bad or worse.

This is not the same situation. Why? Because in your situation, you give me two choices, either save one child and let the other drown or walk away and let both children die. My decision would of course be to save the children (I would of course try to save both). If however, one dies while I am attempting to save them, I have NOT compromised on a “lesser-evil” simply because I was unable to save both children. Now with the situation we are discussing here concerning abortion, the “lesser-of-two-evils”, and having only pro-death candidates to vote for presents us with a no win situation. You say that by choosing a “lesser-evil” you can affect good (though admittedly not to an immediate high degree). I simply say that there is no good which has come from evil (regardless of how small the evil may be). Evil produces more evil. In the “drowning children” scenario you gave, there is absolutely no evil in not be able to save both children (not a “lesser-of-two-evils” situation). The only evil would be to walk away. It comes down to this -

1. Voting issue - a smaller evil must be accepted in the HOPE that a greater evil can be avoided. However, no “good” at all is produced when you leave the voting booth, only an evil (though it may be a “lesser” one).
2. Drowning issue - A “good” IS produced even if only one of the children is saved.

The choice that might face pro-life voters next year is similar. Because you are unhappy at having to choose something bad will you allow something even worse to happen?

I simply will not support an intrinsic evil. If I know that a candidate is pro-death, I won’t vote for him/her. What is so difficult to understand? I feel that by voting for a candidate who is pro-death (regardless of the degree of his/her stance); I would be participating in setting an unacceptable standard, which will (in the long run) produce greater and greater unacceptable standards. You’ll have to excuse me if I prefer the road less traveled in this circumstance.

By your definition those of us who do what we can to minimize the impact of abortion are the ones who tolerate it while those like yourself who walk away from the problem are the ones who don’t tolerate it.

Who said that I walk away? You make it sound as though by my refusing to vote for a pro-death candidate I am not supporting pro-life. It is sad that you see this from such a narrow viewpoint. As I said in an earlier post, the ONLY way that politicians will become pro-life is if society by-enlarge becomes pro-life. Politicians (most) play to the crowds… moral and ethical decisions take a back seat to what they believe will get them elected. Therefore, the fight IS NOT in the voting booth since there are obviously less and less pro-life candidates to choose from. Remember when the Reps were the pro-life party (by enlarge)? Well, as anyone can now plainly see, more and more Reps are getting onboard with the culture of death bandwagon. Why? Because if they don’t, they won’t get elected. Therefore, my fight, happens on a daily bases 365 days a year attempting to get society to see the truth! Not simply on Election Day. So, in the future please don’t imply that I am walking away from the problem. You have no idea the hours and the money I spend fighting the fight.

It may be a cliche but it is nonetheless true that “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Your proposal to do nothing this next election works to the benefit of the evil you are trying to eliminate.

Out of charity, I will simply refer you to what I said above. Do not assume that I am doing “nothing” simply because of what I do or don’t do on Nov 4, 2008. Maybe there is something to be said about the other 364 days a year which lead up to Nov 4th.

And your conception of not giving in is … giving up?
No one will hear your beat if you take your instruments and go home.

Did I say that I have given up or do you always make negative assumptions about people you don’t know? My beat is heard year round, not JUST on Election Day. I will not assume that your beat is heard any less than mine; and if we can get more and more of society to join in the beat YEAR ROUND, guess what? This whole thread would become a mute point! God bless.

 

[bobzills]

We are to vote for the least objectionable/closest to pro-life candidate when both are pro-abortion. The reason being that the least objectionable/closest to pro-life one would be better to have in office than the one that is more committed to the pro-abortion stance. If you don’t vote you will be throwing away your opportunity to make even that much difference.

I disagree. I think it is OK to refuse to vote if there is no candidate who meets your personal criteria that you want a candidate to meet.

 

[Holly3278]

If all the candidates on the state level are pro-abortion, vote for the one who has the least chance of putting pro-abortion legislation into law. Also, try to vote for the one with the most favorable views. It sucks when you have a situation like this but unfortunately, it does happen. You might consider voting for a third party such as the Constitution Party.

 

[katy]

If all the candidates on the state level are pro-abortion, vote for the one who has the least chance of putting pro-abortion legislation into law. Also, try to vote for the one with the most favorable views. It sucks when you have a situation like this but unfortunately, it does happen. You might consider voting for a third party such as the Constitution Party.

Our third party is Libertarian, which is basically pro-abortion as well.

 

[melensdad]

Our third party is Libertarian, which is basically pro-abortion as well.

Many Libertarians are strongly pro-life, including some of the most prominent members of the party. Check the candidate because with the Libertarian party both ends of the spectrum are represented.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Many Libertarians are strongly pro-life, including some of the most prominent members of the party. Check the candidate because with the Libertarian party both ends of the spectrum are represented.

What should one do if a candidate claims to be pro-life, but his party platform is pro-death. I can think of a couple of reasons to reject him:

1. A vote for him not only supports him but promotes his party. If the party wins, they will push a pro-death agenda regardless of how he may vote.
2. He is essentially running under false colors. He proclaims one thing but takes support from those who oppose it. This seems morally questionable.

I think in such a case I go with the “Birds of a feather” regardless of what he professes. He is comfortable in the company he is keeping.

 

[melensdad]

What should one do if a candidate claims to be pro-life, but his party platform is pro-death. I can think of a couple of reasons to reject him:

1. A vote for him not only supports him but promotes his party. If the party wins, they will push a pro-death agenda regardless of how he may vote.
2. He is essentially running under false colors. He proclaims one thing but takes support from those who oppose it. This seems morally questionable.

I think in such a case I go with the “Birds of a feather” regardless of what he professes. He is comfortable in the company he is keeping.

Respectfully there is a strong body of disagreement within the Libertarian party on the issue of abortion. To suggest that the party is a strong advocate of abortion rights is a false suggestion. To suggest that it is pro-life is also not accurate.

There is, however, within the party a huge divide on this issue. Being that is true, it is very likely that they would not be ADVOCATES for abortion rights, nor would they be ADVOCATES of the pro-life movement. It is far more likely that the candidate’s personal positions could be trusted and that party’s position would be suppressed. Dr Ron Paul is a U.S. Representative from Texas, he is a Libertarian and has voted strongly pro-life.

If you look at the party platform of the Democratic Party, they proclaim very proudly to support abortion, cloning, etc. The Libertarians are very different from the Democrats and the Republicans in that they are principled. Not perfect. But at least principled. There are also several high profile Catholic Libertarians who are faithful to the Church teaching.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

a U.S. Representative from Texas, he is a Libertarian and has voted strongly pro-life.

I don’t quite understand how affirming states’ rights to determine the legality of abortion is authentically prolife. To me, that’s like affirming the states rights to determine the legality of owning slaves, only much much worse.