Parties like that can always exist but the US electoral system prevents them from winning any seats. Which makes you wonder what people should want in an electoral system (for the legislative branch)? One that’s truly representative but incredibly frustrating to work with or one that’s not representative but can get things done easily?
I wish it were so simple. If there is one candidate who will even move the needle a smidge in the right direction, that is better than not voting and leaving it to others to decide. One must be pragmatic sometimes. That’s my opinion anyways, especially with all things political.
If you google the positions of candiates when asked the question, or read the text of legislation (I have posted several of these laws on this forum), if you read President Trump’s own tweets, the standard exceptions are:
Rape, Incest, Life of the Mother. Some states go on to also loophole “severe genetic abnormalities”, although, again in examples I have posted on this forum, that situation rolls up under the “life of the mother” exception. If a woman will be depressed because she is “forced to carry a deformed fetus” that means she is a suicide risk and the abortion happens.
A majority of the time when a severe genetic abnormality is discovered during pregnancy, the abortion happens.
Even late term abortions for genetic abnormalities have scary statistics
An article about the battle in Indiana to ban abortions for genetic abnormalities after 20 weeks:
There are more articles than I can link, however, simply remember any time you see the standard loopholes, “life of the mother” means soft eugenics.
I think the dilemma you speak of is one that many Catholics face. Many of us are against abortion, but we face a list of candidates who are running that make other issues a higher priority.
Now before I get attacked by the mass of pro-life-is-the-only-important-issue posters her, let me repeat that I am against abortion.
On the other hand, I am for a higher minimum wage, better health care benefits, lower costs for prescription drugs, more funds for education, less involvement by our military in the foreign wars, etc.
My suggestion is to look all of the other issues, before you decide on a candidate to vote for.
I am for civility and less name-calling by our politicians. It is possible for us to agree to disagree on issues without being disagreeable.
The problem is multifaceted:
- We have to work with non-Catholics to educate them on these issues
- If we wait for the perfect, we will never made headway
- Unfortunately proposing a 100% pro-life law(s) will not pass in most legislatures. The only way to address the majority of abortion is to propose laws that leave the “exceptions” at this point in time.
As of right now, we need to support the laws that LIMIT abortion rather than eliminate it.
After half of a century, time for a new strategy.
God does not call us to be successful but to be faithful.
If someone can provide a new strategy, I’m open.
Vote for Candidates who are pro life from conception til natural death. Break out of the two party trap.
Here’s my realistic strategy. All pro-life Catholics start voting Republican so we can change the Republican Party to make it more Catholic.
I think this is far more realistic vs tying a grassroots movement to end the 2 party system, which won’t happen.
Parties come and go, but we have always had a two party system. Every major third party candidate in American history was a popular politician who broke party ranks rather than a grassroots candidate.
Broken record here, we are not called to be successful but to be faithful.
Telling the same ole people that we are okey dokey with the same ole concessions by voting for those concessions just does not compute.
Edit to add:
Assuming that there are 51,000,000 Voting age Catholics in the US.
If one quarter of them voted for one third party candidate, that would be 12,750,000 votes.
That would most definitely cause both of the major parties to sit up and take notice.
As far as third party candidates are concerned, Ross Perot received 19,743,821 votes (18.9% of the vote) in 1992.
In 1996, he received 8,085,294 votes (8.4% of the vote)
Third parties haven’t made much noise since. And to be honest, Ross’s run didn’t really change anything. Tens of millions of people voting for a third party is meaningless because it’s not enough to win. We have a winner takes all system.
However, let’s assume assume that your 12,750,000 Catholic vote number is a 50/50 split of normally voting Republican / Democrat today. If the 6,375,000 could join the Republicans, it WOULD make Democrats notice.
And if all 12,750,000 are Pro Life Democrats, then that would be more than enough to change BOTH parties forever if they were to join the Republican Party.
6 million votes (let alone 12 million) leaving the Democratic Party would PROVE to the Democrats that their abortion policy positions are hurting their chances at winning the White House.
Pro Life Democrats have the power to change the Republican Party and make it more Catholic. If we Catholics could just unite under the Republican Party, we could EASILY transform that party into one that totally lines up with Catholic teaching.
After all, the Republican Party is the party that is more allied officially with Christian Parties around the world. The Republican Party is part of the “International Democrat Union,” which includes 18 members of the international Christian alliance called “Centrist Democrat International” (7 parties that have “Christian” in their names). Plus, another 3 are members of the “Christian Democrat Organization of America” are also part of the IDU.
Guess how many Christian parties are part of the “Progressive Alliance,” which is the international organization the Democratic Party in the USA, the Labour Party in the UK, and the New Democratic Party in Canada are all apart of? ZERO, NONE
I look at it like this: Would you rather vote for a candidate who doesn’t have a realistic shot at winning vs. trying to help modify the Republican Party?
NOTE: The American Solidarity Party is not part of the any international political alliance because they are considered a “minor” party.
That’s easy. I would vote my conscience which would be a vote for a candidate who doesn’t have a realistic chance of winning.
I gave the Republican party years of my life. And I put my time and energy where my mouth was. I chaired local RTL groups, worked with candidates, organized protests and stood across the road from polling places in EVERY election for 12 hours holding signs. My cell phone still has the numbers of the Republican political operatives in my state.
Was a major part of the Tea Party movement in my area.
I spoke on the steps of the State Capitol at state March for Life and did the same on sidewalk podium in front of the US Supreme Court.
When I speak of my choices, I did not just pick them up to be fashionable. I literally went to Confession for all of the things I did to hurt people in the name of Republican politics.
I had hopes for the Tea Party at one time until it got hijacked by the neocon Republicans.
Yeah, I learned a long time ago, that if you get that involved with any political party, you get dirty. I don’t approves of the parties themselves (I kind of share John Adam’s view of them) , I see them as a tool to be used to further one’s agenda - esp since the founders failed to ban them.
The problem is when one becomes loyal to the party itself (any party) - which is FAR TOO OFTEN.
Interesting… I viewed the Tea Party as a mix of libertarian & neocon from the beginning. I was never a fan of their movement.
Yes, I know. We will have to agree to disagree here. But please recognize that my view is NOT against traditional Church teaching.
Well, I was a registered Libertarian until I stopped voting about 12 years ago.
I’ve never made a judgment in that respect. You should vote your conscience or not vote if you choose. For me, not voting gives me the best peace of mind.
I want to thank you for engaging in a chariable discussion. God Bless