Combox for:
The Pathetic "One-Issue Voter" Canard on the Abortion Issue
[1 September 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-canard-
on.html
Some additional comments of mine, replying to someone else:
I guess I'm asking is can we really LEGISLATE morality? Which is what it seems like many American Christians want to do. And I just don't think we CAN do it, nor SHOULD we do it. Rather we need to change people's hearts...rather Christ does, and we should allow the Holy Spirit to work through us....but attempting to legislate morality never works.
The relevant question is, rather: "how can any piece of legislation not be a legislation of morality of one sort or another?" Every law, by nature and definition, declares one thing to be permissible, or in effect, "right" and the contrary to be wrong. We have laws against stealing because it is wrong. The law echoes the previous natural law that is its ultimate cause (this gets into a long discussion of different conceptions of law and legal philosophies, but I'll strongly stand by this).
The question is not "whether" we legislate morality but "which" version of morality we legislate. There is no way out of it. If you want to take all Christian influence out of law and culture and government, then we will not be left with a "neutral" government (as if any moral view is not some position) but with (usually) pagan or humanist or hedonist / libertarian morality.
Abortion, for example, was understood to be wrong by natural law even in pagan societies, such as Greece (at least insofar as reflected in the Hippocratic Oath). One has to go to societies like ancient Carthage, or some cultures in Mexico and South America, with institutional child and adult human sacrifice, to see such a wide-scale recourse to the murder of infants and other human beings, as in our own time.
Your outlook, then, is fundamentally flawed. It neglects the relevant premise, that all legislation and laws reflect and inculcate some sort of moral vision. It's always been that way and always will be. That being the case, to advocate removal of Christian influence is to literally withdraw from Christian duty to society and to leave the field to our enemies (in effect, Satan himself).
Of course we work to change people's hearts, through conversion, prayer, and the work of the Holy Spirit, which we can promote. It doesn't follow, however, that we abandon civic law, as if we were Amish or Jehovah's Witnesses. Just because the Orthodox have a long history of corrupt caesaropapism (that you freely admit, so it's not just me saying this), and because historic Lutheranism and Anglicanism made the state literally "over" the Church, it doesn't follow that there can be no sensible Christian influence in law and society. The Catholic Church has, usually through history, found that proper balance.
I'm just frustrated that anyone who might vote for Obama is automatically seen as some amoral who is not only accused of being pro-abortion, but wants to see the sick, elderly, mentally disabled, and physically handicapped killed as well.
Not at all; not on my part. I look at it not as primarily a moral lapse, but a logical lapse. I've observed, in my long experience debating many issues, that people who reason like this have not properly examined their premises and thought through the logical implications of their positions. It's (in my opinion) a problem of poor thought in this instance, not so much poor morals.
That's why I think that if the false, objectionable premises are properly scrutinized and disposed of, that a person like you can be persuaded, precisely because you appear to be a good person with good motives and not evil ones.
This was the purpose of my examination of the charge of being a "one-issue voter" (which was pretty much a strong premise of your original piece, and often heard from so-called "pro-choice" persons). I did an extensive argument by analogy and reductio ad absurdum, as I love to do, and frequently do, in my apologetics.
In that technique, one is trying to create a tension in a held position by showing that the same reasoning would apply to other analogous or similar positions that the same person would reject, or logically lead to objectionable positions, thus causing the person to reconsider their opinion, that they didn't initially realize entailed such consequences. Then the burden is on the person whose views are being critiqued, to show the logical difference. If they can't, they ought to give up their original premise and the objectionable opinion that flows from it.
Reductio ad absurdum is precisely designed to illustrate, not a moral deficiency, but a logical one. I hope to (throughout all my writing) persuade through reasoning and examination of premises, not by condemning people and their motives. I don't get into that. It's wrong, uncharitable, and rarely accomplishes anything, anyway.
I say this with tears, but I agree with Dave. America as a nation cannot take any moral highground, we as a nation are no different than the Nazi regime (if not worse). I'm in no way saying all Americans are guilty here, just like all Germans were not, but as a nation God is most certainly not pleased.
My fear now is that God is going to do just what He said He would do 3000 years ago, and what He has done throughout history:
+++++++++++++++++++++
Deuteronomy 9: 4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness."
No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you.
5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
6 Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
In this case God is talking to the Mexicans.
Not to leave that last post on a depressing note, thanks be to God that we have won the War. We might be losing the battle, but the War is in the bag.
The proof of this is so obvious that the forces of darkness in the media don't want us to see it: PHOTOGRAPHS!
If the average American saw those damnable pictures from hell of aborted children a few weeks old they would be so horrified that abortion would be universally condemned overnight.
And I want to include a VERY POWERFUL statment by Archbishop Chaput of Denver who put a dagger in the "one issue" voting argument:
+++++++++++++
8. So can a Catholic in good conscience support a “pro-choice” candidate? The answer is: I can’t and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics — people whom I admire — who will. I think their reasoning is mistaken. But at the very least they do sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And even more importantly: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up their efforts to end permissive abortion; they keep lobbying their party and their elected representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can support “pro-choice” candidates if they support them despite — not because of — their “pro-choice” views. But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.
9. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.
http://www.archden.org/dcr/news....=454&s=2&
a=9553
+++++++++++++++++++
I want to put this in the face of every pro-abortion candidate Catholic. There is going to be hell to pay, literally, if they are not careful!
Amen, Nick. I couldn't agree more. I think the only feasible reason America has not been incinerated in judgment yet is the good things we still have to offer the world, such as material help, military defense, the pro-life movement itself and (once in a while) the spread of the gospel.
Very True. Thankfully there is a genuine growth of true conservative and Christian values growing in America. The storm of the last few decades is over and we are just now recovering and in fact the Church is coming back stronger than ever.
I really hope my original comments didn't come off as doom and gloom, our Catholic faith still teaches the very important theological virtue of HOPE!!
An interesting juxtaposition to this post is the different manner in which Senator Obama and Gov. Palin view teenage pregnancy in light of breaking developments.
Senator Obama's comments about making sure the abortion option was available for his daughters, " I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
Gov. Palin when her 17 year daughter came to her and her husband with the news that she was pregnant and was going to bear the child: "Bristol came to us with news that we as parents knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned" and that she had their unconditional love and support.
How interesting is it that on one hand we have a candidate who talks about "audacity of hope" yet views children as a form of punishment versus a woman who loves her children so much that she brings a handicapped child and gives her unconditional support and love to her daughter who made a mistake and conceived a child out of wedlock thereby offering them real hope?
God is surely testing the viability of our society with this election.
Eloquently stated as always, Paul.
I've just about tripled the size of the initial post with further exchanges from the CHNI board: added at 4 PM EST 9-2-08.
I've noticed this rather curious game in conservative circles I call Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Neocon. It seems to have parallels to the whole radical traditionalist's more-Catholic-than-the-Pope thing, except it's More-Conservative-than...I dunno...Russel Kirk? Edmund Burke? King Harold? which manifests itself in, "I'm taking my vote and staying home."
To those who cry, "singel issue!" I ask why I am not comforted that Auschwitz pays its employees a living wage and has a comprehensive recycling program? Maybe something to do with those box-cars that roll in day and night.
Graphic abortion pictures are very powerful. Graphic abortion pictures definitely assist our view that the abortion issue is not simply “one issue”. It is an enormous issue. Obama’s views on elective abortion are clearly, clearly on the wrong side of this enormous, enormous issue. I want to encourage people to start there own webpages, etc., that use abortion pictures and videos.
(continued from above)
Below is a pdf link that gives information about why it is absolutely crucial to use graphic abortion images.
http://www.str.org/site/DocServe....pdf?
docID=2431
(above)
There should have been their.
Good link Kyl. I see more flak generated over the image thing. Let me add a link that addresses objections: http://www.prolifeaction.org/tru.../
objections.htm
Scott,
Hopefully more and more people will understand how important images are for both born and unborn women and men.
Good post overall, however I am skeptical of both parties. I am cynical and truthfully I believe the whole thing is rigged, although as a Distributist I'm no libertarian.
I don't believe the government is capable of dismantling the holocaust to Moloch because of the financial interest which has made abortion/contraception/embryonic stem cells a multi million dollar industry, and the Republicans with their free market "heresy" (used in a nonbinding and non-canonical sense) only perpetuate it even as they condemn it by making Government ineffective in stopping it. Then with judges! The partial birth abortion ban in terms of legal precedent only strengthened the chief claim of Roe, which is that women have a constitutional right to murder their baby. I can't believe after 30 years of Republican presidents and congresses there is no pro-life supreme court, except that the Republicans are not pro-life, they just tend to be moderately anti-abortion.
In short I don't think voting for McCain can possibly change anything. In my opinion it has to be a movement from below, not from above to restore society to sanity. We need to call the common man back from the abortion holocaust first before we try to put men into government to stop it, presuming our government really has any independence left. Yet that also requires taking on the twin false gods of contraception and pornography which cause abortion by their destruction of human dignity. Is that an establishment that McCain and Palin are willing to take on? I would be willing to bet that McCain invests in companies which distribute pornography (though probably unknowingly) and Palin is pro-contraception.
Let's just say I'm not holding my breath for them, and instead I work on the people I come into contact with daily.
Ryan,
I think that is the central question. Not, is abortion evil? It clearly is. The question is what, if anything, will McCain do? Can you see him fighting hard enough to get a prolife justice confirmed by a democratic senate? I can't. To change the country will require a strong leader who is passionately prolife. McCain is neither. He will do one of his famous compromises. I just don't see him going to war over for the prolife cause.
You are right that if Roe v Wade is overturned the real fight begins. We cannot have a pro-life society that is also pro-porn and pro-contraception. That won't be seen until people actually start writing laws and dealing with cases. People will need to get through their minds that they should not have sex unless they are ready to deal with the child that might result. Could modern society really face that? Right now neither party is trying to make that case.
We have to do SOMETHING. So McCain is somewhat risky; sure (though he has a far more solid pro-life record than -- often -- he is given credit for). In any event, he's a helluva lot better than Obama who will definitely appoint rabidly pro-death Justices and do many other things to promote the culture of death (so-called "gay marriage" promotes the sex-with-no-procreation mentality, too, which is tied to abortion). As far as I am concerned, folks who default and say they won't vote Republican in this scenario will bear part of the responsibility for the continued childkilling if Obama gets in there and does untold damage for the pro-life cause (in the legal sense, which is not all of it, I agree).
The whole thing seems blindingly self-evident to me, yet every four years we hear the same rhetoric. Both parties are the same; there is no hope. I feel like screaming. Bush DID do something, and McCain very well might too. At least there is a good chance with him, and none with Obama and none with some third-party clown who won't be elected anyway.
WAKE UP folks. This is not a mere policy preference discussion. It's a matter of life and death. We can't do nothing and give up in despair. The Spanish Catholics fought for 700 years to drive out the Muslims and their heresies from their country. We despair after 35 of legal abortion?
WAKE UP folks. This is not a mere policy preference discussion. It's a matter of life and death. We can't do nothing and give up in despair. The Spanish Catholics fought for 700 years to drive out the Muslims and their heresies from their country. We despair after 35 of legal abortion?
I am not thinking of despair. I do think we won't get close to a pro-life society until both parties are at least somewhat pro-life. Does the abortion issue require that the Republicans get a blank cheque forever even if they don't actually make abortion illegal? To make McCain president no matter how bad he is on other issues? Is even talking about other issues is a sin? Must we accept a one party state? All because he MIGHT do something?
So is the alternative to give up? I don't think so. There is so much more to politics than one vote every 4 years. The key is to make the pro-life case to both parties and demand debate. Abortion seems like the one issue that is almost never debated. A few slogans are trotted out but there is not the point and counterpoint that you see on taxes or foreign policy. Party's are trying to use the emotion of the issue but are not really trying to convince. They assume everyone is already entrenched.
Okay, so folks won't vote for McCain because he's not a canonized saint or President of the American Life League, Obama will get in and do untold damage to the legal pro-life cause, but it won't be the fault of many thousands who think like this and don't see the urgency. Burke's principle of evil prevailing (in this case, in the political realm) because good men do nothing won't apply in this instance.
The whole point of my post on the "one-issue" thing was to answer this objection and to show that it is completely rational to vote on one issue if it is important enough. If childkilling and other issues of outright immorality weren't in play then we could balance the positions of the two parties and make the choice on more wide-ranging issues.
One could do that up till about 1968 or so. The Democratic candidate was not in favor of indisputably immoral practices, as he always is now. But childkilling precludes that because it is so much more important than anything else in play.
No one who disagrees with my reasoning in the post (either here or on the CHNI board) is interested in showing me WHY. Arguments CAN be discussed rationally. Reason CAN be brought to bear. But it rarely is in political discussions anymore. It's just people talking past each other rather than interacting.
Immensely frustrating . . .
Dave,
“Obama will get in and do untold damage to the legal pro-life cause”
“But childkilling precludes that because it is so much more important than anything else in play.”
Those aforementioned quotes are clear. Never give up, Dave. Try harder and harder each day.
Thanks, Kyl. You're a true pro-life warrior. Pray for my patience. These discussions on abortion and the election almost drive me to drink every four years. It's absolutely exasperating to me that people don't see (I think) these perfectly clear things.
Nothing personal against anyone, as always. It's just the reasoning (or lack thereof) that drives me nuts.
Dave,
“Consider some analogies: how about a candidate who has wonderful opinions on many or all issues except one small detail: he is a member of the Ku Klux Klan?”
Those types of analogies are very powerful, Dave. There are a lot of people out there that agree with that type of argument (good job). In addition, thanks for your support.
I'm going to have to agree with Randy and Ryan.
We should not be driven by fear here to vote McCain because Obama is so evil. And lets not forget Obama's chances are already very good, so we should not kill ourselves with fear if he is elected.
The real change has to come from the grassroots, starting in the Catholic pulpits and Bishops speaking up. I'm not convinced McCain cares at all, he can tell us what we want to hear, but in practice I don't believe he will really push anything. His track record on other issues (especially the so called "bipartisanship" and praise from the democrats) shows he moves with the wind rather than one with firm convictions.
It's bad practice to rely on secular rulers to get God's work done. Our moral responsibility is at the grassroots level.
If Obama wins it will do very harmful things to prolife movement, grassroots. Why do you think Naral, Plan P hood are supporting Obama so much? Foundation to ALL social issue is first found protecting a child in the womb. Everything flows from this one issue. I know McCain want do much for the issue but I know Obama will hurt it more. I think you need to do both,,,""grassroots"" and voteing in principle for a leader that says they are pro life. All my Catholic friends and protestants friends are voteing McCain.
Fear? I'm talking about the lives of preborn children, not fear. I'm talking about the sensible choice, given the choice we have. This reasoning being presented against voting for McCain based on pro-life credentials is absurd and thoroughly fallacious. I've already pretty much shown how and why that is in my initial post that no one has of yet (who disagrees with it) interacted with or demonstrated to be unreasonable.
It's like being by the sea with 10,000 people drowning at once. There are two "rescue people" there. About one it is known that he will do nothing to save anyone. A second person is not totally dependable, but there is considerably more reason to believe he will do something, based on his past record (he has saved people in the past; the other person hasn't).
Now assume for the sake of the analogy that we have the power to prevent either one or both from doing anything, or we can choose one or the other and enable him to act. Which person is rational to choose, out of compassion for the dying? The guy whom we know won't do anything, or the one we have good reason to believe will at least attempt to save some of the people?
I know the scenario is weird and implausible (for lack of a better analogy), but the logic of analogy applies exactly to McCain and Obama. We know that McCain is the better choice, yet all you guys want to do is run him down. You don't seem to care (by this apathy and counsel of despair and cynicism) that one person at least says he will do something about it (and has the pro-life record to back it up) and the other definitely will not.
Again, this is not a routine policy discussion about the price of imported tea from China or tax policy or educational reform. Children are being slaughtered every day. Where is the outrage and alarm? Why the lack of urgency to do something, anything?
To me it is even sadder to see pro-lifers argue this way than to see an outright pro-abort with his diabolical logic. And that is because it is this sort of apathy and unreason that brought us abortion in the first place: the Catholic Church and Christians en masse were very weak in 1972-1973. We allowed the holocaust to begin and we allow it to continue by our apathy and despair and cynicism.
If we would simply have children at the rate we used to, raise them as good Catholics or other types of Christians, vote for pro-lifers and not vote for childkilling advocates, this thing would be over in less than a generation.
We wouldn't have to change the hearts of those who are neck-deep in blood and see nothing wrong with it. We would simply raise children who valued life and would win by sheer force of numbers, by the destiny of demographics. There'd be far more of us than them. That's how we change hearts, by procreating hearts and raising disciples.
We need to look at ourselves, and why we allow this to continue. Voting for Obama and not voting for McCain (or neither) in this instance is one way we support childkilling, by choosing to do nothing or the wrong thing when we have a clear choice to accomplish something by way of reducing abortions or ultimately making it illegal again.
To deal with some of the fallacies above:
And lets not forget Obama's chances are already very good, so we should not kill ourselves with fear if he is elected.
In fact, the polls are remarkably close. When even the media admit the race is close, it surely is. McCain has a real chance, but we pro-lifers who do not think properly and act inconsistently with our own beliefs may cause him to lose when he could very well win, just as clueless pro-lifers who voted for Perot in 1992 literally gave Clinton the election and caused Bush to lose. There is no question about this. Perot got so many votes that Clinton didn't even get a majority of votes. He got something like 42%, as I recall.
The real change has to come from the grassroots, starting in the Catholic pulpits and Bishops speaking up.
This is the fallacy of believing that because grassroots change is necessary, political change is irrelevant or precluded. YOU and I speak up by voting the right way on this issue and not defaulting to the culture of death. Don't just leave it to bishops. The responsibility rests on all of us for the holocaust. And I very much include myself. It's only when we look at ourselves closely and consider our own blame and share in it that this will ever end.
I'm not convinced McCain cares at all, he can tell us what we want to hear, but in practice I don't believe he will really push anything.
This is foolishness because he has a long voting record in support of life. He says he will do something. He may not, true, but it is still far better to vote for someone like him than the one we know will oppose life.
His track record on other issues (especially the so called "bipartisanship" and praise from the democrats) shows he moves with the wind rather than one with firm convictions.
To the contrary, he is his own man. He votes (agree or disagree with him, and I don't agree with everything) based on heartfelt principles, and this sometimes brings him into conflict with his own party and causes him to be praised by Democrats who agree with him in particulars. To me this is as it should be. I far more trust a person who is willing to pay a price and not always conform and be a party yes man, than one who is a clone of 99% of his party comrades. The "maverick" is far more likely to have more integrity and guts and principle. It may be a cliche by now but McCain truly seems to be a different sort of politician.
My own politics is neither totally Republican or Democrat but akin to Chesterton's and the Catholic "third way" which is why I appreciate this aspect of McCain. He's not a clone or party hack and he is right on the most important issues.
It's bad practice to rely on secular rulers to get God's work done.
Yet another fallacy: "God's work is not confined to politics; therefore, politics is altogether useless to help bring it about and we mustn't trust any ostensible pro-life candidate to do anything."
This is self-evidently false. Real things can be done by real politicians and judges to fight against and diminish real childkilling of real children. If we have a chance to help bring this about and do not do so, some of the blood is on our heads and hands, for helping to make possible the continued slaughter by our apathy and cynicism.
I'm not trying to be melodramatic. I consider this to be literally true and quite obvious and I'm screaming from the housetops to try to get people to see this. It's a thankless task but woe unto me if I don't do it. Pro-life has always been part of what I do.
So I have a choice between a man who has promised to do everything he can to expand our culture of death, and a man who might do something to fight it. Hmmm, whom should I vote for? Hmmm.
Sorry, how is that even a dilemma? Duh, of course I'm going to choose the man who might do something to fight it over the man who wants to expand it!
And lets not forget Obama's chances are already very good, so we should not kill ourselves with fear if he is elected.
Obama and McCain have been tracking about even in the polls. But if we start telling ourselves, "Well, he's got a pretty good chance of winning anyway," the scales will tip decisively in Obama's favor.
Hey, I'm not terribly excited about Sen. McCain, and there are a great many things about him, his record, and his policies that I'm absolutely opposed to. But I've got my eyes on the Supreme Court, and there is no way I want Obama picking the new two Supreme Court justices. If you can't work to get McCain elected, at least work to get Obama defeated, for the sake of our children and families, that is, for the sake of our nation and the world.
I also to note abortions where down under Bush, which is a step in the right direction. I know in some places they have to show 3d Ultrasound of the Baby before mom gives the ok to abort it. In Houston the prolife movement has built many safety nets to help saves moms and babys. The democrats down here are trying to destroy everthing thing we have done down here.
Amen, amen, Jordanes.
It's bad practice to rely on secular rulers to get God's work done.
That's not what St. Paul says in Romans 13. He says secular rulers are God's servants, appointed by Him to accomplish His will.
Also to note Grassroots are saying vote for prolife leaders and dont vote for pro choice leades
Well Dave, I am glad to see you are passionate about this, I really think you knocked some sense into me here. I can say there is really no arguing with the first half of your post, I don't agree with all of the 2nd half, but that is not much of an issue.
I wan't to make it clear, I would never vote Obama, my options were to go McCain or not vote at all.
After reading what you said and two very powerful Catholic news articles below I think I will go McCain and encourage others to do so as well:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/Arch...ccain-
palin.htm
http://remnantnewspaper.com/Arch...can_part-
II.htm
It makes me mad that we are always stuck with mediocre (if not outright evil) options to chose from, while I know there are people like Ron Paul and good Catholics who wont even get a chance. I and others basically said if we don't boycott we will only be perpetuating this nonsense.
It hurts to think is what voting has come down to, but now I guess I need to rethink that. I should not think of this specific election as a matter of voting to get my voice herd, but merely as a Christian duty to stop a would be Hitler in the only way we can.
If there are 10,000 people drowning and one "lifeguard" definately wont and one just might get off his butt, it is my Christian duty to side with the latter.
Thank you Dave, Jerry, Jordanes. In my heart I'm with Randy and Ryan, but the present situation demands special care and caution so this isn't a time to philosophize about the ideal candidate.
It hurts to think is what voting has come down to
As somebody or other once said, "I feel your pain."
Spectacular, Nick. Bravo!
The two party system does make for a lot of hard choices. I am thinking a more porportional representation system might work better. Then you get many parties and you can find one that is at least close to what you believe. It makes governing quite complex. You need to make coalitions on every issue and see who has more support. Presidents can do so much good and so much evil. Is it right to have so much power in one person? It makes for quick decision making but when the decisions are bad it leaves you no recourse for 4 years.
In a two party system you are going to see the presidency switch parties every now and then. The prolife strategy of simply preventing that from every happening is deeply flawed. It is not the way healthy democracies work. The prolife cause needs to get to a place where a Democrat winning is not a disaster.
I don't think either McCain or Obama have strong personal opinions on abortion. They are both trying to play the issue according to the political wisdom of their party. Either could do something radically different than they have said. But it would be politics and not principle that motivates that.
Exactly. To follow my prior reduction reasoning, then, we need to get a Hitler or Mao or Stalin in office every now and then because it's healthy for democracy and indicates a helpful diversity in societies and is not a "disaster." We mustn't think this should be prevented or protested against. Let history proceed as it must without our hysteria about it . . .
Cynicism and almost complete lack of trust in any politician (as you and Ryan have exhibited in this thread) is, rather, the death of democracy, not voting in good conscience, based on what we know, for one person who is clearly far more in line with the life ethic than the other.
The Christian believes the best of people and takes them at their word; even, alas, politicians. If they are lying, then that is on their head and God sees it and they will pay a consequence. But we have to at least take them at their word, save for massive documentation that they are lying through their teeth, as with a Bill Clinton-type, etc., where the evidence of that was utterly overwhelming.
I added another section, past the final five asterisks, clarifying my mode of argumentation, as of 2 PM EST, 9-4-08.
"A Vote for Sarah Palin," by Suann Therese Maier
http://www.firstthings.com/onthe...esquare/?
p=1161
We have a large variety of reasons to believe that McCain will do things that will support the pro-life cause. We have a huge variety of reasons to believe that Obama will do things that will greatly hinder the pro-life cause. It is hard for me to imagine a person voting for Obama if we were talking about the slaughter of millions of children that are three years old, but the unborn are intrinsically valuable like an adult or a child that is three. If there were a huge variety of reasons to believe that a potential president would do things that would greatly hinder the advancement of freedom for slaves, every person on earth would understand why we should vote for the person that gave us a large variety of reasons to believe he would support freedom for human beings that are slaves.
Amen! Vote, folks. Parents who have seven children and who adopted one on the spot who needed help, from one of Mother Teresa's orphanages, are certainly pro-child and pro-life, aren't they?
Exactly. To follow my prior reduction reasoning, then, we need to get a Hitler or Mao or Stalin in office every now and then because it's healthy for democracy
You miss the point. Should the USA be a one party state? Would that be a good thing? I don't think so. A strategy the same party to win every time requires the USA to become a de facto one party state. So when you say to be pro-life is to be Republican then you are creating a long term problem. You either have an unhealthy democracy where the same party always wins or you have a government that isn't pro-life.
What makes it worse is the standard the Republicans must meet seems very low. They don't have to actually stop abortion. They don't even have to appoint justices who clearly state they feel Roe v Wade was badly decided. We have to settle for code words. A system that has disappointed us in the past.
Even that was more acceptable when we had in Bush a man who was clearly pro-life. I believed he felt a moral obligation to do what he could even if he paid a political price. I don't have the same feeling about McCain. He has made the minimum number of noises to keep his base happy. I am just not impressed.
I do live Sarah Palin. She is the legit pro-lifer that makes McCain seem even weaker. I don't know much about her but she seems great. Just the Down Syndrome thing is pretty cool. Still, how much difference do VP's make? Depends on the president. JFK hardly talked to LBJ.
You miss the point.
I haven't missed my own point, which I was reiterating, since you haven't dealt with it.
Should the USA be a one party state?
That's completely irrelevant to my own argument. I favor diversity of political viewpoints: the more the merrier. I call myself a distributist, which is very different from many aspects of either party. I've often written about a political "third way".
Would that be a good thing? I don't think so. A strategy the same party to win every time requires the USA to become a de facto one party state.
That's also irrelevant to my argument, which is that certain paramount issues trump all others until they are resolved.
So when you say to be pro-life is to be Republican then you are creating a long term problem.
Did I say that? I have often voted for local pro-life Democrats.There are many pro-death Republicans. At least two (Giuliani, Ridge) spoke at the convention. But the Republican platform has been pro-life since 1980 and all presidential candidates since that time have been pro-life, while the Dems all through that period have been death advocates.
What makes it worse is the standard the Republicans must meet seems very low. They don't have to actually stop abortion. They don't even have to appoint justices who clearly state they feel Roe v Wade was badly decided. We have to settle for code words. A system that has disappointed us in the past.
This has nothing to do with my argument, either. Obviously, I think they should do such things, and we must put pressure on them to do it.
Even that was more acceptable when we had in Bush a man who was clearly pro-life. I believed he felt a moral obligation to do what he could even if he paid a political price. I don't have the same feeling about McCain.
Your "feeling" is neither here nor there. It's just subjective mush. We have a record to go by, as with all sitting politicians.
He has made the minimum number of noises to keep his base happy. I am just not impressed.
This ignores his actual record (a lot more substantive than Palin's). It's as if that counts for nothing at all; as if it didn't exist.
You want to have feelings; I give you hard facts. Look, e.g., about what the pro-death group NARAL says about McCain's pro-life credentials. They've given him a 0% rating for six straight years:
http://www.naral.org/elections/s...nts/
mccain.html
That's not good enough? Okay, look at what National Right to Life says about his record:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3845.html
Or see what he himself said when he addressed the NRL convention in July 2008:
http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Vie.../
nv0707b08.html
Or read how Gerard V. Bradley defended his pro-life credentials in National Review in January 2008, arguing that he had an "unmatchable record.":
http://
article.nationalreview.co...GUzYWQwM2VhMDk=
Another exchange over at CHNI:
Bishop Joseph F. Martino defines his stance on politicians receiving Holy Communion by pointing to a July 2004 memorandum written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Here are some excerpts from that letter:
“... A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
Does the third bullet point mean that a Catholic may vote for whoever he wishes so long as it is not because of their pro-choice stances, therefore, voting for Obama in this election would not be gravely sinful as long as one were not doing so because of his stances on life?
Read the whole point very carefully. There must be "proportionate reasons." In any event, it is "remote material cooperation." In this instance, the reasonable, realistic choice (third party candidates having no chance whatever) come down to two people. Obama is pro-death. McCain is solidly pro-life (as I just documented immediately above). I think the pope (if he were asked) would say that this is a clear choice, so that in this historical, cultural circumstance, a Catholic should definitely vote for the pro-life candidate.
If both were pro-aborts, then it would be a different story, and different ethical dynamic as to voting, and a Catholic could arguably vote for one or the other as the "lesser of two evils," etc. We'll cross that bridge (God forbid) when we come to it, but right now we have a pro-life vote.
I do want to know how to dialogue with Catholics and other Christians who do consider voting for him (or Chuck) before outright accusing them of being sinful for doing so.
I showed one way to do that above, which does not entail regarding a person as evil and sinful at all, but as merely a victim of insufficient consideration of the implications of their vote, via the reductio ad absurdum logical technique. But you seem to have misunderstood it just as [name] did (characterizing it as overly hostile). Whatever you think of the method, it is one way to accomplish what you desire and ask for. The problem is largely lack of thinking and reason when it comes to these issues. Folks aren't taught in schools how to do that, and it is a learned art. The unfamiliarity with reductio ad absurdum is one symptom of the widespread problem.
It's because Catholics and other Christians and non-religious pro-lifers hadn't properly thought through why abortion is evil, that we got legal abortion in the first place. We'll have to do better this time around, to get rid of this monstrous law and pra
Fellow CHNI moderator David W. Emery made a great point, replying to the same person:
Americans tend to think in this manner because they are used to dealing with English jurisprudence. However, the Vatican uses Roman jurisprudence, and furthermore there are points of morality that are assumed rather than enunciated in this pronouncement. Therefore, I would have to say No, one does not ordinarily have a choice. It takes a special circumstance, where all the candidates are anti-life, for this point to apply.
The idea here, spelled out in bullet point number four, is that being anti-life is ordinarily a disqualifying factor in a candidate, and one may not vote for such a person at all unless there is no pro-life candidate on the ballot. This is not true of every kind of evil, but only of those whose moral weight is of the highest level, as the example given shows. Then we are informed from from moral theology that our choice must still be the candidate whose stand is least anti-life and whose proposed actions would result in less anti-life consequences within his jurisdiction.
Applied to the third bullet point, this principle means that a person who violates bullet point number four is clearly sinning in a grave manner, but there may be circumstances where there is no choice but to vote for someone whose record or ideology is anti-life, in which case the voter’s action is not a matter of sin, but of “remote material cooperation.” This last phrase means that the person cannot avoid helping the anti-life cause in some small degree, even though he minimizes it by voting for the least objectionable candidate.
Proximate material cooperation would be sinful; it would be exemplified by actual campaigning for a candidate who is anti-life, even though he is the least objectionable on the ballot.
To summarize: Catholic moral doctrine does not allow a person to vote for an anti-life politician at all except under the circumstance that there is no pro-life candidate. Then the voter must choose the candidate whose record and proposals are least offensive. The reason this stand is taken is because innocent human life is at stake. This is of the highest importance in our moral doctrine. There is simply nothing of greater intrinsic worth in all of creation than human life. To disregard human life, then, is the most serious of crimes.
That's also irrelevant to my argument, which is that certain paramount issues trump all others until they are resolved.
Sure they do. Abortion is certainly such an issue. But does not the canidate you are supporting have to agree that the issue is paramount? That is where I don't get it. In 2000 McCain was the bad guy and supporting Bush as the nominee was considered a much better prolife option. McCain was considered soft and unreliable. That has all been forgotten. Based on what? Mostly wishful thinking. Sure he has voted pro-life for the last 6 years. He is a Republican senator from a southern state with one eye on the white house. Those seem like easy votes to me. When it got hard, like on embryonic stem cells, he didn't do so well.
Every politican has certain hills he is willing to die on. The rest of the issues he might compromise to serve his personal political ambitions or get something else done. But some things he believes so strongly he simply will not compromise. For Bush abortion was such an issue. For McCain it simply is not. Everyone knew that in 2000. If anything McCain has become less principled in his recent run to the presidency.
If McCain wins I hope you are right. I hope he gives the pro-life cause something to cheer about. I would rate the odds at less than 50-50. With a Republican senate I would put it higher but that isn't going to happen.
In 2000 McCain was the bad guy and supporting Bush as the nominee was considered a much better prolife option. McCain was considered soft and unreliable. That has all been forgotten. Based on what? Mostly wishful thinking. Sure he has voted pro-life for the last 6 years. He is a Republican senator from a southern state with one eye on the white house. Those seem like easy votes to me. When it got hard, like on embryonic stem cells, he didn't do so well.
Looking at things in 2000, both McCain and Bush seemed pretty comparable on pro-life issues, but McCain wasn’t trusted by a lot of the conservatives and by other Republicans, so Bush ended up winning the nomination: then Bush faced off against Gore. This year there were several pro-life candidates seeking the Republican nomination, including McCain. I voted in the Republican primary, but I thought McCain, though pretty good on pro-life issues (no, not perfect), wasn’t solid enough on other issues, so I voted for another candidate even though I was pretty sure McCain was going to lock it up, which of course he did. And now McCain is facing off against pro-abortion Obama. Is McCain the ideal candidate in matters pro-life? Not really, though he’s pretty good as pro-life Republicans go. Will he do something to fight the culture of death? Probably. We hope so. Would an Obama presidency set the pro-life movement back 30 years? Definitely.
Abortion is certainly such an issue. But does not the canidate you are supporting have to agree that the issue is paramount?
McCain virtually does. But even if he didn't, he would just have to be more pro-life than the opponent, or pro-life at all, to more than justify voting for him, per the Catholic moral reasoning above, presented by my friend David Emery.
That is where I don't get it.
I don't see what's so difficult about it.
In 2000 McCain was the bad guy and supporting Bush as the nominee was considered a much better prolife option. McCain was considered soft and unreliable. That has all been forgotten. Based on what? Mostly wishful thinking.
Again, all that is in the face of his pro-life record.
Sure he has voted pro-life for the last 6 years. He is a Republican senator from a southern state with one eye on the white house. Those seem like easy votes to me.
I believe Goldwater was pro-abort from the same state (I might be wrong on that). Also, your surmising that he has flip-flopped (as, e.g., Mitt Romney did: that I have written about on this blog) is not borne out by the facts, either. The same NARAL page showed his record back to 1987 and it was still virtually the same, only rising to 5% or 10% for four of the years:
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2h....pdf&
images=yes
Bradley stated in his National Review article that I cited:
"Of the remaining pro-life Republicans, none can match McCain’s record of opposing abortion. He has served in Congress for 24 years, and cast a lot of votes on abortion legislation during that time. His record is not merely exemplary — it is perfect. McCain’s votes on abortion really could not be better."
http://
article.nationalreview.co...GUzYWQwM2VhMDk=
When it got hard, like on embryonic stem cells, he didn't do so well.
Bradley wrote about that, too:
"McCain has said — it is true — that he approved embryo-destructive research in the limited case of so-called “spares”— those embryos “left-over” after couples have exhausted their interest in IVF. I disagree with him.In face-to-face conversation with McCain I said not only that such research was wrong, but that it would never be limited to “spares.” I said that big biotech needed a far larger supply of research subjects than “spares” could provide. McCain asked to continue that conversation, to hear more. Now he realizes that there is no need to exploit “spare” embryos, in light of recent successes with adult cells. And so he has been telling South Carolinians over the last few days."
Every politican has certain hills he is willing to die on. The rest of the issues he might compromise to serve his personal political ambitions or get something else done. But some things he believes so strongly he simply will not compromise.For Bush abortion was such an issue. For McCain it simply is not.
Bush (like his father) believed in the rape and incest exceptions, which are contrary to Catholic teaching, so he wasn't perfect, either. These guys aren't Catholics, but they are good pro-lifers in the somewhat watered-down Protestant sense.
Everyone knew that in 2000. If anything McCain has become less principled in his recent run to the presidency.
I think you are excessively cynical. If you agree that abortion is a legitimate overriding single issue, the choice in this election is clear.
If McCain wins I hope you are right.
He very well may not win if pro-lifers like you don't vote for him by the millions, based on grossly inadequate, unfactual reasoning.
I hope he gives the pro-life cause something to cheer about. I would rate the odds at less than 50-50.
And so you sit out this election and do nothing when you could at least have a 50% chance (even by your own reckoning) of continuing pro-life gains?
With a Republican senate I would put it higher but that isn't going to happen.
So we do what we can do. The President has veto power and appoints Supreme Court Justices. He can do other things, too, such as make declarations about abortions on military bases, etc. Lives are definitely saved when a pro-life President is in office.
Yep, as I recalled, Barry Goldwater completely flip-flopped on abortion in his later years (during the 80s and 90s):
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/....com/
barry.html
He was an Arizona Senator and a supposed rock-solid conservative. He betrayed the innocent preborn. McCain has done no such thing. So that polemic of yours about Arizona politics and expedient flopping collapses. It applies to Goldwater, Romney, Gore, Gephardt, Clinton, Jesse Jackson, even Reagan (who voted in a sweeping abortion law in California as Governor) and the elder Bush, but not to McCain.
He also favored "gay rights," though apparently after he retired:
http://
article.nationalreview.co...Dg3NDRiYmE4NWM=
It's the typical movement of some conservatives to a secularized libertarian platform on social issues. Even William F. Buckley, e.g., favored legalization of some drugs, which is wrongheaded tomfoolery from a Catholic communitarian perspective.
Just for the record, Goldwater was raised Episcopalian and was half-Jewish, so it's the same old secularism and hostility to traditional Christian morality from the prominent liberal / secularist wings of those quarters.
I've said for years that libertarianism was infiltrating the Republican party as well as the Democratic, and Goldwater's moves illustrate that perfectly.
After listening to McCain's acceptance speech. The country first not God. He's decided that his Ultimate allegience is to the country. Therefore if the abortion issue is divisive he will try to ignore it. That's my suspicion.
He is on the right side. So a catholic has to vote for him.
I saw speaker Pelosi laying a wreath at the victims to the A Bomb. She must have seen the photographs of the mutilated bomb victims. And she must have seen photos of mutilated feotuses. Why can't she/they SEE?
It's really not that complicated. Rather than speculating on what lurks in the id of Republicans, just look at recent history. In the early primaries, pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage Guiliani was the shoe-in. You could bet money on it. And to our shame, Catholic Sean Hannity was shilling for him and it took non-Catholic James Dobson and others to say no way. (Hat tip to the Catholics Against Rudy blog however). Then thankfully, Rudy got kicked the the curb.
Contrast with the Democrats--was a pro-life Democrat candidate even within light years of a nomination? Even on the radar? Not at all--in fact, they were battling over who was the most pro-abortion.
So however shaky the alliance is between pro-lifers and the Reps is, the rejection of Rudy and the Palin pick proves that the alliance still holds and is honored.
Hi people, I need your help.
Is abortion just as bad/evil as an UNJUST war?
A Catholic fried of mine says in an unjust war innocent life is targeted, so it is no different in gravity as abortion. I had to agree with this.
But my friend says this is why he is not voting for McCain because to him the war is unjust and McCain fully supports and wants to expand it.
My friend would NEVER vote Obama, so that is not the problem, but instead wants to go third party.
I'm convinced of the fact McCain is the only hope against Obama and at least pledges to stop abortion, but I don't know how to argue against my friend.
What do I say?
Is someone justified in voting McCain if he is anti-abortion but pro unjust war?
Isn't that hypocritical?
War is not intrinsically evil, abortion is. McCain's position is not, "I think war should be fought unjustly, I'm in favor of unjust wars." Many believe the Iraq War is unjust, many believe it is just. Certainly the war has been fought unjustly: that is, there certainly have been violations of just war principles in the execution of the war if not also in the lead-up to the war (I think the cause was just, however). But the war itself is not intrinsically unjust: if we prosecute the war justly, then there is no objection.
But there is no dispute that abortion is intrinsically unjust, intrinsically evil. It is impossible to perform a just abortion the way it is possible to prosecute the Iraq War justly. So no, McCain's position on the Iraq War does not rise to the level of importance to abortion has.
"THAT abortion has," that is.
But IF the war was unjust, then what? It is targeting innocent human life. If someone thinks Iraq is unjust then they logically have a case, as far as I can tell.
Another Catholic just told me that unjust wars are worse than abortion because the state is commanding the killing, while in abortion the state "only" permits it.
If someone thinks Iraq is unjust then they logically have a case, as far as I can tell.
Again, they don't, because the war in Iraq may be prosecuted justly: there's nothing that prevents Iraq from being an unjust war but the human will, but there is nothing that can make abortion anything but unjust. Again, McCain has not promised to wage war unjustly, so that cannot be a consideration in whether or not it is permissible to vote for him. If he was campaigning on a platform of unjust war, the way Obama is campaigning on a platform of killing unborn children, then one could well understand not wanting to vote for either of them, but that isn't the choice we're faced with.
As for the claim that unjust wars are "worse" than abortion, with legal abortion we have the "normalisation" of the daily slaughter of unborn children, accompanied by the distortion of sex, marriage, and family that results, whereas war, whether just or unjust, is never "normal": it's a departure from what everyone understand to be the normal state of affairs. It's never a perpetual, day-in-day-out-for-centuries rearrangement of the culture the way legal contraception and legal abortion is. As a culture we now believe that abortion and contraception are no big deal: we don't believe that about war, whether just or unjust. Therefore I would argue that legal abortion is "worse" than unjust war.
I found a problem with my original comments. I got something wrong.
An unjust war cannot be said to be worse than abortion because the state commands war versus "permits" abortion. The fact an abortion is a freer act makes it more grave, where as a soldier following orders has his culpability reduced (even dramatically). The state commanding the killings is actually secondary, if not irrelevant, in this situation.
Well done, Nick. You argue a better case than I do!
Again, they don't, because the war in Iraq may be prosecuted justly
The question is not whether all wars are unjust. Just whether, in the voters opinion, this war is unjust. If it is the situation is still complex. We must make judgments about the gravity of the number of abortion likely to be effected by the election and the size of the war likely to be effected. The president has clear jurisdiction in war and Roe v Wade makes his jurisdiction unclear in the case of abortion. So all these things must be weighed.
The sheer numbers of abortions being procured make it quite easy to imagine more lives being saved by even a slight decrease in the number of abortions than would be saved by avoiding the war entirely. The key is honestly weighing things. That is so hard to do in the noise of an election. We need to think with the mind of the church. Only the church can save us from the slavery of being a child of our times.
Hi all, I wanted to add several comments about comparing the issue of abortion and the issue of the war in Iraq.
First, theologically speaking, war is not objectively evil. Abortion is. While people can legitimately debate whether a particular war is just or unjust and whether the means used both on a government level or those used by a particular soldier to fight even in a just war are morally correct or not, I do not know of any way that one can justify abortion.
Second, as far as this particular election goes, the Democratic candidate for President has waiting in the wings a law to be passed by the Congress that would preempt the states from determining their own abortion policies in the event that Roe vs. Wade is reversed. What Roe vs. Wade, Doe vs. Bolton, etc. and their progeny did was to set limits on what criteria the states can enact to limit abortion "rights." The Democratic-controlled congress intends to pass Senate Bill 1173 (co-sponsored by Barak Obama) which would take away each individual state's right to enact legislation to limit or even abolish abortion should Roe vs. Wade ever be reversed and to restore partial-birth abortion as an abortion option by utilizing the supremacy clause of the Constitution which allows the federal government to preempt state action.
This legislation shows that abortion is truly a "sacrament" of a godless society.
Commenting by HaloScan
