Prolife Progress

[dairygirl4u2c]

would it be wrong to vote for a candidate who was libertarian, and instead of saying 'the constitution saves all from conception' they say 'it's a state issue'? as the one said above, 'the principle is the same'. i guess one could argbue 'lesser of two evils' (though that overlooks third parties. unless one were to say 'lesser of effective two evils', though there's still many a problem with this approach) and vote for hte person anyway. but it's not like there's such a clear answer in any of this. anyone who's ever acted like there was, gets holes punched into em like crazy, and usually end up with their tail between their legs, trying ot make this all out as if there is a clear answer.

[MichaelFilo]

I have a higher ideal of lay people's ability to reason. Most libertarians think that it is not a fed govt issue or any govt issue. The Constitution, however, allows for the federal govt to be a libertarian entity and the states to have all sorts of strange laws, so it is more a constitutionalists, rather than libertarian position, but that is picking hairs.

I'd vote for a libertarian before a pro-life federal level candidate. Why? Because the constitution relegates this issue to the States. Worse still, if pro-lifers win then there is the chance that they might be overturned one day. It is dangerous business making this a federal issue, like marriage, or drug policy, etc.

Edited October 20, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[dairygirl4u2c]

"but that is picking hairs"
i wouldnt disagree, at least the way it's being characterized. to argue the points wouldnt amount to anything other than semantics, given i agree with you in principle. (eg, id argue most libertaians are constitutionalists, but then i might be wrong, and this is a fuzzy field probably amounting to mostly semantics than anything. maybe our perception of the people's views are more accurate than the other's, i dont know)

"I'd vote for a libertarian before a pro-life federal level candidate. Why? Because the constitution relegates this issue to the States. Worse still, if pro-lifers win then there is the chance that they might be overturned one day. It is dangerous business making this a federal issue, like marriage, or drug policy, etc. "

the poster above recently said this was an unacceptable view. and, one could very plausibly, i dare say reasonably (but won't, cause it's not reasonable), to say that this isn't an acceptable view.

per 'it doesn't matter the liklihood of change' -- intrinsic evil, prudential judgment
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=86552&st=0

Edited October 20, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Maggyie]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287538116' post='2180869']
I have a higher ideal of lay people's ability to reason. Most libertarians think that it is not a fed govt issue or any govt issue. The Constitution, however, allows for the federal govt to be a libertarian entity and the states to have all sorts of strange laws, so it is more a constitutionalists, rather than libertarian position, but that is picking hairs.

I'd vote for a libertarian before a pro-life federal level candidate. Why? Because the constitution relegates this issue to the States. Worse still, if pro-lifers win then there is the chance that they might be overturned one day. It is dangerous business making this a federal issue, like marriage, or drug policy, etc.
[/quote]


Really!? You would vote for a pro-abortion libertarian over a pro-life federalist. Now that is a novel POV. Don't you think that is putting ideology ahead of social justice? If we just made it a states issue, many, many states would still have unjust abortion laws. Keep in mind that the Constitution, while admirable in some respects, is not a sacred document, and in many ways was deeply flawed from the beginning. The Church says that justice must be done, she doesn't have any advice to give us about states rights.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Maggie

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1287540236' post='2180886']
Really!? You would vote for a pro-abortion libertarian over a pro-life federalist. Now that is a novel POV. Don't you think that is putting ideology ahead of social justice? If we just made it a states issue, many, many states would still have unjust abortion laws. Keep in mind that the Constitution, while admirable in some respects, is not a sacred document, and in many ways was deeply flawed from the beginning. The Church says that justice must be done, she doesn't have any advice to give us about states rights.
[/quote]

That is the problem, our Constitution provides for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we disobey it we are destroying the intended framework for those protections. Our federal government today has defined what life is, and it has defined it as something that exists after conception. Is this what you want? Is this the battle you want to fight till the end of the Republic? Who will have power on the federal level to murder babies or protect them?

Rather, let us follow our Constitution. Let us make it a state right. On the state level questions of foreign policy are not made. We can finally separate the two. Catholics have a long history of being anti-unnecessary war. Let us be able to have a say on both. We were forced to pick between George Bush, who was more pro-life but evidently pro-war, vs someone who was pro-peace and anti-life. That decision shouldn't be up there. We should be able to separate the two. That is part of the wisdom of the founding fathers.

The federal governments limited nature is the best means to protect life. A clear distinction on what level government has what level of responsibilities is very important. The federal government should not have the right to allow baby murders, we all agree, but if we give it the right to ban them then we must concede that a democratic vote will be able to change that.

That is the problem, essentially. Roe vs Wade could not have had the level of impact it has today, if it was on the state level. It would be meaningless if it was a declaration of, say, the California courts. But our HIGH COURT has taken upon itself to answer the weighty issue of life. Do you see that if it defines it the other way, it will simply take a new arrangement of judges to get it back the other way. The courts are rendered meaningless on the State level when it comes to this issue. This country is very much for the limitation of abortions on a popular level and so we would have far greater success in the states.

[Maggyie]

It would be meaningless as a declaration of a California court, except to the millions of people living in California. I fear we pro-lifers tend to overestimate pro-life sentiment across the country. People are pro-life in principle (when taking a phone poll) but when it comes to changing laws... not so much.

[MichaelFilo]

Yes, but on a base level it will disassociate the foreign policy issue with the life issue. I know many Catholics who are more anti-war than anti-life but they favor the anti-war stance over the pro-life stance. This maybe a southern phenomenon, but we'd go a long way by separating the two.

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287505616' post='2180708']
It is not absolute as that, but I agree.

If there was a candidate who supported abortion in the case of rape and wanted peace with other nations vs a candidate who supported nuking the middle east but was against abortion we might rightly be justified to vote for the former. I know it hasn't come up in our politics, but you understand it isn't so absolute.

But I really like the idea that we vote pro life because they are pro-life. But what about the third option, the option to remove that right to decide from the federal government and return it to the state. There are many libertarians, for instance, who want to give women the right to murder their own babies in the womb, but would be strongly against imposing it from Washington. Would it be OK to vote for them?
[/quote]


this idea does not work. the libertarians in this scenerio support abortion. that is wrong. they believe people should be able to murder unborn babies. there is no way around that. it is wrong on all levels, most of all to a catholic who adhears to the catholic church teaching. the ends do not justify the means. we as catholic know this. so voting for a pro abortion libritarion who could reduce some abortions but still make them possible and legal is wrong. plain and simple.

[havok579257]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287537616' post='2180865']
as fio said, it's not as absolute as this. at least, it's not the official stance that it is this absolute.
it's not unreasonable to say "it's like trying to justify the means with the end", but then we get into situations, at least hypothetically, and probably even realisically similiar, where two percent of the population thinks Roe is wrong or who are prolife, and yet we're required to vote that way anyways?
it's actually a lot more complicated than this, even, cause we start seeing how trying to make absolutes such as havok is doing, starts leading to all kinds of weird results. (i can start forming other hypoheticals that make the point) if you are interested, i can dig that thread up where this debate occurred.
but for most practical purposes, it's a limited view to folks like havok, and not even most catholics who are 'good catholics', and not even the official view of the catholic church, that one "must" vote for the prolife candidate, despite any other possible condition or context.
[/quote]


show me a candidate who has advocated nuking the middle east and then i will revise my statement. until then, voting for a pro abortion candidate in america is wrong. i don't care what else they advocate. if they advocate ending homelessness but still advocate killing unborn babies it is wrong for a catholic to vote for them. if they advocate world peace and never being involved in war but advocate killing unbron babies, then its stil wrong for a catholic to vote for them.

the catholic church holds the sanctity of life extremely high. catholics who follow the catholic churchs teachings must have the same respect for sanctity of life. voting for a candiate who supports abortion goes against that very basic idea.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1287584480' post='2180998']
this idea does not work. the libertarians in this scenerio support abortion. that is wrong. they believe people should be able to murder unborn babies. there is no way around that. it is wrong on all levels, most of all to a catholic who adhears to the catholic church teaching. the ends do not justify the means. we as catholic know this. so voting for a pro abortion libritarion who could reduce some abortions but still make them possible and legal is wrong. plain and simple.
[/quote]

He would ban the federal level dictating this issue. There is no Catholic principal that says a ban on abortion must be a federal level issue. For long term sustainability of an abortion free society I would argue that the federal level must NOT be where it is banned. It will be 40 years now that we have not been able to repeal Roe VS. Wade. The Federal government is largely insulated to popular opinion on this issue.

[quote]show me a candidate who has advocated nuking the middle east and then i will revise my statement. until then, voting for a pro abortion candidate in america is wrong. i don't care what else they advocate. if they advocate ending homelessness but still advocate killing unborn babies it is wrong for a catholic to vote for them. if they advocate world peace and never being involved in war but advocate killing unbron babies, then its stil wrong for a catholic to vote for them.

the catholic church holds the sanctity of life extremely high. catholics who follow the catholic churchs teachings must have the same respect for sanctity of life. voting for a candiate who supports abortion goes against that very basic idea. [/quote]

This is my point, human life at any point is sacred. You must protect the person who advocates for the most human life. Sometimes going to war might kill more people than abortion. Now, I realize to date this has not been the case, but it can be that case. You would be forced to defend the greater number of people. Being pro-life does not automatically translate into a vote. I would say blindly following religious precepts without reasons is dangerous but this isn't even a religious precept.

Edited October 20, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287584905' post='2181001']
He would ban the federal level dictating this issue. There is no Catholic principal that says a ban on abortion must be a federal level issue. For long term sustainability of an abortion free society I would argue that the federal level must NOT be where it is banned. It will be 40 years now that we have not been able to repeal Roe VS. Wade. The Federal government is largely insulated to popular opinion on this issue.
[/quote]


there is a catholic principle that says that abortion is wrong. by supporting a pro abortion candidate you are supporting abortion. you are promoting scandel which is a sin. the church teaches abortion is never ever ok. to vote for a candiaite who support abortion is not ok. that candiadtes agenda is to make abortion legal. be it legal on a state level or a federal level, it is still wrong. a catholic can not support abortion, plain and simple. voting for a pro abortion candidate is supporting abortion. there is no wiggle room, its black and white.

[MichaelFilo]

There is a utilitarian principle here that you are ignoring. Catholics cannot support abortion, obviously, but if I am interested in making sure there are the least abortions over the longest period of time then I don't see how a system where the federal government that is in control by popular vote is a good mechanism for keeping it illegal for any long period of time. Rather, I am convinced that if we can separate the abortion issue from the foreign policy issue we will have a whole lot less abortion.

Furthermore, the Catholic church teaches there are lots of things you can never support, illicit war being one of them. You cannot support gay marriage. You cannot support a whole slew of things, why does abortion hold it's head the highest. This is a a matter of reason, where the Catholic must find the best means to have the least abortions possible over the longest period of time. The problem with the federal system is two fold:

Since the winds on a national level change quite often on the abortion issue, sometimes in just how you phrase a question, we will have many places where abortion clinics will exist when it is illegal to have abortions and offer other services, but will keep their abortion related equipment. If it is banned in states, rather, than abortion equipment and doctors trained in abortions will be removed in a more permanent manner (states don't sway like the nation as a whole does on most issues.) State level bans are more effective at destroying the abortion infrastructure because of it's more permanent nature. There is that practical issue.

Secondly, if there was a pro-war candidate that was against abortions but wanted us to go to war with.. say China, and there was a candidate that was anti-war but only approved of abortions in cases of rape and incest then we can be assured that the first candidate will be responsible for more illegitimate deaths than the anti-war candidate. This is the reality. You cannot, with all the zealotry in the world, support the pro-war candidate on some principal that does not make sense and will actually lead to more deaths. That would defeat the purpose.

[Maggyie]

[quote]Since the winds on a national level change quite often on the abortion issue, sometimes in just how you phrase a question, we will have many places where abortion clinics will exist when it is illegal to have abortions and offer other services, but will keep their abortion related equipment. If it is banned in states, rather, than abortion equipment and doctors trained in abortions will be removed in a more permanent manner (states don't sway like the nation as a whole does on most issues.) State level bans are more effective at destroying the abortion infrastructure because of it's more permanent nature. There is that practical issue.[/quote]

Hmmm. I don't think the winds change at all very often at the national level. Abortion has been legal at the federal level ever since Roe v Wade, with no interruptions :mellow:

[quote]There is a utilitarian principle here that you are ignoring. Catholics cannot support abortion, obviously, but if I am interested in making sure there are the least abortions over the longest period of time[/quote]

This is the argument that Catholic Democrats who are pro-choice sometimes use. The idea being that if we offer enough social support through program expansions, fewer women will choose abortion b/c they have the economic support they need to continue the pregnancy.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1287588926' post='2181009']
Hmmm. I don't think the winds change at all very often at the national level. Abortion has been legal at the federal level ever since Roe v Wade, with no interruptions :mellow:[/quote]
Roe vs Wade is not a reflection of public opinion. Unfortunately, you cannot just vote a pro life law to counteract it. You would need it overturned by a court. So, it is insulated from the vote. Public polling shows something quite different.

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1287588926' post='2181009']
This is the argument that Catholic Democrats who are pro-choice sometimes use. The idea being that if we offer enough social support through program expansions, fewer women will choose abortion b/c they have the economic support they need to continue the pregnancy.
[/quote]

Catholic democrats have no concept of economics. Welfare programs from the govt will not cure the problem. Also, democrats enact specifically anti-life legislation. For instance, Obama overturned the Mexico City policy as soon as he got in. I am not interested in anyone using anti-life means. I only mean that a libertarian would remove the jurisdiction from the federal government and you could pass a law that nullified the court on that basis. You cannot pass a pro-life law on that basis, because the court has decided that women have certain rights. All you can do is make their ruling null by declaring it outside of their jurisdiction.

Also, pro-choice democrats want to use evil means for good ends. A libertarian candidate would have no concern with supporting programs abroad that support abortion because he would be against supporting programs abroad. I want to achieve good ends, the end of abortion, with good means, by restricting the courts and federal government's jurisdiction.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Constitution provides for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I think that's in the declaration of independance, not the constitution. pretty big difference there