What if all viable political parties support abortion?

[maggiemay2u]

Just out of curiosity, to whom do you believe you are directing your “statement” ? Your vote will in all probability be relegated to the “Mickey Mouse” candidate bin.

I’m not crazy about the candidates, my guy didn’t make it. The presumptive nominee and I are not close on several issues, the notable exception being abortion.

Life is the starter issue for all the rest. It is guaranteed under the constitution, yet one of the candidates argued against a law in his home state, which mandated medical care to born alive aborted babies.

What are you doing the next four years…? I don’t think I’ll ever sleep again if I vote this year. So I may write in a candidate hoping to make a statement. I don’t think we have a real choice…

 

[rlg94086]

My suggestion is, particularly in Canada (and Ontario, seeing as that’s where you’re from) is The Family Coalition Party. They do not, in any way shape or form, support abortion.

Now it is true that a) They are a fringe party and b) There’s a good bet that they have no chances of winning. Ever.

But it’s the same with the Green Party in Canada. The green party may never win, but they have gained enough mainstream support and have enough followers that the major political parties have had to adjust their policies as not to loose voters.

It’s the same thing with the libeterian party in the USA. Although they’re a fringe party, and may never win, they have enough support in various places that the Republicans need to be careful what they say and do for fear of loosing votes. (most people in the USA that would vote libeterian, would be pulled from the ranks of republicans)

Apply the same stragety in Canada to the Family Coalition Party (and as a disclaimer for fear of this post getting deleted, I’m just suggesting a stragety, I’m not trying to show any kind of support for any political party, we’re trying to end abortion here, that’s the objective), the FCP is staunchly against Abortion. Although it is true they more than likey will never hold a seat in Government, not unlike the Green Party in Canada or the Libeterian Party in the USA, enough support generated may help sway the opinions of the major political parties to support a more pro-life agenda.

Averheyen,

I could be wrong, because I am not a Canadian government expert, but I think a vote for a “third party” in Canada is more fruitful than a vote for a “third party” in the US. Don’t you have a parliamentary system, whereby there are multiple parties and sometimes the PM has to be from a coalition because no party has a clear majority?

In the US, a “third party” vote is only a spoiler and usually has the effect of helping the greater of two evils (from the third party voter’s political perspective).

 

[Verisimilitude]

Please define your terms, hopefully avoiding the use of another blog as reference.

I once gave a list of what neo-conservatives believe and was accused of calling someone a name because they didn’t like the definition that fit their philosophy which basically replaces God with government being the arbitor of our morals and the lesser evil is in lock-step with keeping the federal government going down the path of globalization and socilaist reforms. One candidate wants more of your money to help the world by giving aid to all who ask. While noble it is impractical. The other wants more of your money to help the world by forcing democracy on them so they will become like us; instead of a brutal dictator using arms to get their way they can freely vote them in.

A strict constrcutionist would voice opposition to the Supreme Court making law as it has, and chastise Congress for giving its authority to the Executive branch, and chastise the Presidnet for exercising these illigetimate powers by waging undeclared wars and the excessive use of signing statements. Neither of the evils running want to give up this power so the judges they select will be in line with that neo-conservative liberal philosophy, not the Constitution.

 

[JRKH]

I keep reading that it is evil or wrong to support a political party if they will make no move to abolish abortion. What if all the viable political parties would make no move to do this? I’m in Canada and none of the major parties would even consider changing abortion laws. I imagine the situation is very similar in much of the USA. That means that there really isn’t a pro-life party to support, so shouldn’t people just support a party based on the other issues then write to their representatives letting them know how important the lives of unborn babies are?

Then vote for an un-viable political party,
This is not a lesser of-two-evils issue. If sufficient numbers (say 8 to 10 percent of total votes) were to vote for the “One - Fringe” party because of abortion, you would see the other parties scrambling to refit themselves to draw these voters away from that “fringe” party.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Averheyen,

I could be wrong, because I am not a Canadian government expert, but I think a vote for a “third party” in Canada is more fruitful than a vote for a “third party” in the US. Don’t you have a parliamentary system, whereby there are multiple parties and sometimes the PM has to be from a coalition because no party has a clear majority?

In the US, a “third party” vote is only a spoiler and usually has the effect of helping the greater of two evils (from the third party voter’s political perspective).

I have heard this many times but I disagree. Look at what happened after Ross Perot Scared the pants off of the main parties back in the '80’s. Suddenly there was the “Contract with America” and other high Profile initiatives. The reason most of these died off after awhile is that Perot’s party died off and the “Big Boys” felt safe again.

Look at it this way, in any given election only a certain percentage of the eligable voters will participate. These will be, more or less, evenly divided between the parties. So of the total votes cast, each “Major” can count on say 45% of the vote. That leaves 10% of the voters who really count. Since we see many elections decided by even less than 10% it becomes pretty obvious that the number of votes that “really count” are pretty small. By not giving these votes to the “Lesser of two evils” and instead giving them to parties with plans that we really agree with, we force the Major parties to adjust so they can “Woo” us back.

Mine is a minority view, but so are the parties I generally vote for.
I’m less interested in getting “my man” elected and more interested in getting “My Message” across. Once enough voters go “third Party” it begins to eat into that precious 10% to 15% of swing voters, and that scares teh bejabbers out of the party pollsters.

Peace
James

 

[maggiemay2u]

There are three notable constructionists on the bench. There’s one who can go either way, but primarily follows the constructionist lead, one who is a loose cannon (aka, swing vote) and four, including a couple of moderate compromises that look to Europe for guidance.

Beyond the Supremes, we need constructionists on the appellate and district benches. The life issues extend far beyond abortion to include stem cell, euthanasia, and the right of individual states to define marriage.

That’s why I’ll vote for the guy who promises to appoint them.

I once gave a list of what neo-conservatives believe and was accused of calling someone a name because they didn’t like the definition that fit their philosophy which basically replaces God with government being the arbitor of our morals and the lesser evil is in lock-step with keeping the federal government going down the path of globalization and socilaist reforms. One candidate wants more of your money to help the world by giving aid to all who ask. While noble it is impractical. The other wants more of your money to help the world by forcing democracy on them so they will become like us; instead of a brutal dictator using arms to get their way they can freely vote them in.

A strict constrcutionist would voice opposition to the Supreme Court making law as it has, and chastise Congress for giving its authority to the Executive branch, and chastise the Presidnet for exercising these illigetimate powers by waging undeclared wars and the excessive use of signing statements. Neither of the evils running want to give up this power so the judges they select will be in line with that neo-conservative liberal philosophy, not the Constitution.

 

[rlg94086]

I have heard this many times but I disagree. Look at what happened after Ross Perot Scared the pants off of the main parties back in the '80’s. Suddenly there was the “Contract with America” and other high Profile initiatives. The reason most of these died off after awhile is that Perot’s party died off and the “Big Boys” felt safe again.

Ross Perot is a great example. I voted for him twice and helped elect the candidate who was the most opposed to the ideals I hold.

Anyway, my statement (which I still hold to be correct) was not to derail the thread into a discussion of US politics. I was contrasting with the Canadian system. I am more interested in a response to my questions regarding Canadian politics. Is it more like the UK? If so, a “third party” vote is much more meaningful.

 

[vocatio]

Just out of curiosity, to whom do you believe you are directing your “statement” ? Your vote will in all probability be relegated to the “Mickey Mouse” candidate bin.

I’m not crazy about the candidates, my guy didn’t make it. The presumptive nominee and I are not close on several issues, the notable exception being abortion.

Life is the starter issue for all the rest. It is guaranteed under the constitution, yet one of the candidates argued against a law in his home state, which mandated medical care to born alive aborted babies.

OOPS!!! I edited out the clarifying part of my post. When I start typing I just type too much. I meant to say that I’m thinking about writing in a candidate this year. I did it once. So this go around I may to the same.

What really gets me is all the maneuvering folks are doing trying to get you to vote for their candidate…and they probably could care less about LIFE issues. It’s all about their pocket book. The elite are always trying to manipulate votes from the less fortunate. Nothing new under the son. It’s just that now they’ve found all these newer more modern manipulation tools to propogate their agenda. It seems that giving up votiing rights would save us from all going to hell. This is a lose lose situation. And everyone’s willing to pull the trigger to make you do what they want you to do. There really is not clear answer to this because you can’t depend on the candidate you vote for to follow through with a vote of LIFE…a real vote that isn’t a smoke screen.

 

[JaMc]

Then vote for an un-viable political party,
This is not a lesser of-two-evils issue. If sufficient numbers (say 8 to 10 percent of total votes) were to vote for the “One - Fringe” party because of abortion, you would see the other parties scrambling to refit themselves to draw these voters away from that “fringe” party.

Peace
James

If the OP is Canadian, he may remember what happened to the old P.C.'s and the Reform Party in '93, and what the Tories had to do get back on their feet (merge with, and adopt many of the policies from, the Reform Party).

I believe the Christian Heritage Party is pro-life - the FCP mentioned in a previous post is their “unofficial” provincial affiliate in Ontario, though the CHP has a more evangelical focus, whereas the FCP is more Catholic leaning (I am originally from Canada and have a degree in Political Science ).

 

[maggiemay2u]

Wow, you’re tough. I might think someone has ulterior motives if they’ve voted pro-abortion and then came out with the old, “I’m only following the will of the people” garbage (doesn’t wash in a 50-50 split country). If someone has always had or over a period of years come to a pro-life place, then I take them at their word.

As for the bad guys who use pro-life as some sort of ruse or entrez for their own agenda. Hmmmmmmm. I don’t know if I can use that for cover on the issue of allowing newborns to die in a bucket, because they didn’t have the grace to stop breathing during the abortion. You speak of the punishment for voting. I cringe at the judgement for failing to do this one, tiny, effortless thing, that might save a child from torture.

Regarding the candidates who have run on a pro-life basis, then reneged. Please post or send me an email as to the names of these nogoodnicks. I’ll be on the phone in a heartbeat.

OOPS!!! I edited out the clarifying part of my post. When I start typing I just type too much. I meant to say that I’m thinking about writing in a candidate this year. I did it once. So this go around I may to the same.

What really gets me is all the maneuvering folks are doing trying to get you to vote for their candidate…and they probably could care less about LIFE issues. It’s all about their pocket book. The elite are always trying to manipulate votes from the less fortunate. Nothing new under the son. It’s just that now they’ve found all these newer more modern manipulation tools to propogate their agenda. It seems that giving up votiing rights would save us from all going to hell. This is a lose lose situation. And everyone’s willing to pull the trigger to make you do what they want you to do. There really is not clear answer to this because you can’t depend on the candidate you vote for to follow through with a vote of LIFE…a real vote that isn’t a smoke screen.

 

[averheyen]

Averheyen,

I could be wrong, because I am not a Canadian government expert, but I think a vote for a “third party” in Canada is more fruitful than a vote for a “third party” in the US. Don’t you have a parliamentary system, whereby there are multiple parties and sometimes the PM has to be from a coalition because no party has a clear majority?

In the US, a “third party” vote is only a spoiler and usually has the effect of helping the greater of two evils (from the third party voter’s political perspective).

Yes! This is exactly what I’m saying. There’s a little bit greater of a need to “pander to the people” in Canada because of the parliamentary system.

There’s advantages and disadvantages to it I guess. The government is more likely to cave on issues as to not tick off voters (i.e. on issues like gay marriage, etc. etc.) Because the last thing you want to be in politically incorrect. Unfourtunately it ends up being grossly relativistic.

But on the other hand, small parties can hold more sway. I.E. The Green Party, who, although they have never won a seat in Government, have a strong following and support, so the other parties have had to adjust their policies as not to loose voters.

This is why I suggest, as a strategy, supporting a fringe party that is staunchly opposed to abortion. It gets the issue out in the open air, and with enough support, some of the other parties will have to bend their policies to win voters favour.

(My Canadian friends will understand what I’m getting at here, not saying they’ll agree with me)

 

[averheyen]

If the OP is Canadian, he may remember what happened to the old P.C.'s and the Reform Party in '93, and what the Tories had to do get back on their feet (merge with, and adopt many of the policies from, the Reform Party).

I believe the Christian Heritage Party is pro-life - the FCP mentioned in a previous post is their “unofficial” provincial affiliate in Ontario, though the CHP has a more evangelical focus, whereas the FCP is more Catholic leaning (I am originally from Canada and have a degree in Political Science ).

Well, we’re a hop, skip and a jump away. So what do we do?

 

[JRKH]

Ross Perot is a great example. I voted for him twice and helped elect the candidate who was the most opposed to the ideals I hold.

I just don’t understand this viewpoint. I know it is more common than mine but it just doesn’t make sense. You vote you conscience and accept the result. I’m sorry that the result was not to your liking, but if you had voted differently it would not, by itself, have changed the winner. So you were probably more effective by showing the strength of Perot’s views and causing changes in the Main parties platforms.

Anyway, my statement (which I still hold to be correct) was not to derail the thread into a discussion of US politics. I was contrasting with the Canadian system. I am more interested in a response to my questions regarding Canadian politics. Is it more like the UK? If so, a “third party” vote is much more meaningful.

Agreed. I hope you get the answer.

Peace
James

 

[rlg94086]

Yes! This is exactly what I’m saying. There’s a little bit greater of a need to “pander to the people” in Canada because of the parliamentary system.

There’s advantages and disadvantages to it I guess. The government is more likely to cave on issues as to not tick off voters (i.e. on issues like gay marriage, etc. etc.) Because the last thing you want to be in politically incorrect. Unfourtunately it ends up being grossly relativistic.

But on the other hand, small parties can hold more sway. I.E. The Green Party, who, although they have never won a seat in Government, have a strong following and support, so the other parties have had to adjust their policies as not to loose voters.

This is why I suggest, as a strategy, supporting a fringe party that is staunchly opposed to abortion. It gets the issue out in the open air, and with enough support, some of the other parties will have to bend their policies to win voters favour.

(My Canadian friends will understand what I’m getting at here, not saying they’ll agree with me)

Thanks! That is what I thought.

JRKH:

I hope you get the answer.

I certainly did.

 

[JaMc]

Averheyen,

I could be wrong, because I am not a Canadian government expert, but I think a vote for a “third party” in Canada is more fruitful than a vote for a “third party” in the US. Don’t you have a parliamentary system, whereby there are multiple parties and sometimes the PM has to be from a coalition because no party has a clear majority?

In the US, a “third party” vote is only a spoiler and usually has the effect of helping the greater of two evils (from the third party voter’s political perspective).

Well, even though Canada has a parliamentary system, it does not have proportional representation, so, in certain ridings, a third party can be the spoiler as well. For example, in the 1996 BC election, even though the BC Liberal (centre right) won the popular vote, the NDP (left-wing) won the majority in the legislature, and, therefore, the election. The BC Reform party was the “spoiler” in many ridings (for example - Kootenay, where I am from originally).

Federally, the parties are a little bit more narrow in ideology than in the U.S. - for example, there are 2 left-leaning parties: Liberal, which is centre-left, and the NDP, which is socialist. In the US, both NDP and Liberal politicians would find a home in the Democratic party. Therefore, in left-leaning urban ridings, the race is usually NDP/Liberal; in populist, working-class areas, it is Conservative/NDP, and other places (suburban areas, east coast) it is Liberal/Conservative. In Quebec, nationalist areas are divided between Bloc Quebequois (separatist and left-wing) and Conservative, federalist areas are split between Liberal and Conservative, while Montreal is simply a Liberal stronghold.

The result of all of this? After the “uniting of the Right” (Conservative/Reform merger) A Conservative minority government with three left-leaning parties that hate each other too much to topple the Conservatives, and nothing meaningful accomplished.

Getting back on topic - my advice to the OP: If your riding has a pro-life Conservative, back him. Otherwise, I strongly suggest the CHP at the federal level or the FCP at the provincial level. If they started pulling substantial minorities of the pro-life vote, the Tories may finally step up and take notice. After all, they do not want to meet the fate of their PC predecessors.

 

[averheyen]

Well, even though Canada has a parliamentary system, it does not have proportional representation, so, in certain ridings, a third party can be the spoiler as well. For example, in the 1996 BC election, even though the BC Liberal (centre right) won the popular vote, the NDP (left-wing) won the majority in the legislature, and, therefore, the election. The BC Reform party was the “spoiler” in many ridings (for example - Kootenay, where I am from originally).

Federally, the parties are a little bit more narrow in ideology than in the U.S. - for example, there are 2 left-leaning parties: Liberal, which is centre-left, and the NDP, which is socialist. In the US, both NDP and Liberal politicians would find a home in the Democratic party. Therefore, in left-leaning urban ridings, the race is usually NDP/Liberal; in populist, working-class areas, it is Conservative/NDP, and other places (suburban areas, east coast) it is Liberal/Conservative. In Quebec, nationalist areas are divided between Bloc Quebequois (separatist and left-wing) and Conservative, federalist areas are split between Liberal and Conservative, while Montreal is simply a Liberal stronghold.

The result of all of this? After the “uniting of the Right” (Conservative/Reform merger) A Conservative minority government with three left-leaning parties that hate each other too much to topple the Conservatives, and nothing meaningful accomplished.

Getting back on topic - my advice to the OP: If your riding has a pro-life Conservative, back him. Otherwise, I strongly suggest the CHP at the federal level or the FCP at the provincial level. If they started pulling substantial minorities of the pro-life vote, the Tories may finally step up and take notice. After all, they do not want to meet the fate of their PC predecessors.

 

[vocatio]

You speak of the punishment for voting. I cringe at the judgement for failing to do this one, tiny, effortless thing, that might save a child from torture.

That’s very judgemental. I guess you have a direct line with God. The rest of us didn’t get that memo. I guess shame of those people in our past for having voted against their conscience wile they and their families were bing threatened. You seem to have a very dim view of the world and fail to respect where other people find themself mentally in the scheme of things.

Also, show me where a tin, efforless vote saved a child. Last time I checked the now party ruled while Terry Shivo ??Florida woman] was executed for not being perfect.

As far as fishing for personal information. That’s offense on the board and I will report you for it. Intimitation as a method of getting someone to vote for your candidate again?..hmmmn…

 

[averheyen]

That’s very judgemental. I guess you have a direct line with God. The rest of us didn’t get that memo. I guess shame of those people in our past for having voted against their conscience wile they and their families were bing threatened. You seem to have a very dim view of the world and fail to respect where other people find themself mentally in the scheme of things.

Also, show me where a tin, efforless vote saved a child. Last time I checked the now party ruled while Terry Shivo ??Florida woman] was executed for not being perfect.

As far as fishing for personal information. That’s offense on the board and I will report you for it. Intimitation as a method of getting someone to vote for your candidate again?..hmmmn…

Can we cut the bitterness here and stick to the issue at hand?

Please?

 

[vocatio]

Can we cut the bitterness here and stick to the issue at hand?

Please?

Bitterness…only when someone makes extreme comments as to manipulate folks. I made a simple comment discussing voting pro-life. I’m saying that a candidate that believes war, abortion for any reason or specific reasons [like incest and rape] are not pro-life. Therefore, we have to search our conscience to try to figure out what will ultimately help those marginalized people best in this country. First issue is drop the racist stuff. 70% of all African Americans are born out of wedlock. This issue if far more complicated that Pro-Lifers [like myself].

I’m sticking to the issue. It is you that is running a muck. Bitterness…manipulating peoples words on a forum like this is just uncharitable. This is not a black and white issue considering that candidates are not trustworthy… “No new taxes” is just one famous comment that comes to mind. I voted the conservative party for years and still. not results. The real solution is to evangelize…seek true conversion in our own hearts and share our faith spreading the gospel to all people. I would dare not call that bitter. Or do you get butterflies thinking about sharing your faith face to face with those initially unwilling to hear truth? Truth about Jesus…

I keep reading that it is evil or wrong to support a political party if they will make no move to abolish abortion. What if all the viable political parties would make no move to do this? I’m in Canada and none of the major parties would even consider changing abortion laws. I imagine the situation is very similar in much of the USA. That means that there really isn’t a pro-life party to support, so shouldn’t people just support a party based on the other issues then write to their representatives letting them know how important the lives of unborn babies are?

 

[ribozyme]

I’m sticking to the issue. It is you that is running a muck. Bitterness…manipulating peoples words on a forum like this is just uncharitable. This is not a black and white issue considering that candidates are not trustworthy… “No new taxes” is just one famous comment that comes to mind. I voted the conservative party for years and still. not results. The real solution is to evangelize…seek true conversion in our own hearts and share our faith spreading the gospel to all people. I would dare not call that bitter. Or do you get butterflies thinking about sharing your faith face to face with those initially unwilling to hear truth? Truth about Jesus…

Do you really think conservatives care about lowering the taxes of the middle class?