What if all viable political parties support abortion?

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?

Well in that situation:

If you are poor: go left wing.
If you are well-off: vote right wing

That’s how it has always been in places like that United States and Boliva.

The greater of two evils is still evil!

We must never give our vote for a political party which supports murder of any kind. In the case of the political climate of the United States, this effectively eliminates ones ability to support either the Democrats or the Republicans, as the former supports murder in the case of abortion, and the latter supports murder in the case of capital punishment. Furthermore, both parties have consistently supported unwarranted and deadly military conflicts abroad for the purpose of ensuring economic interests.

All these issues considered, it is the moral prerogative of the faithful to oppose both parties of a system which embraces a “culture of death”, even if that means opposing the electoral system itself. The people must demand a consistent life policy from their politicians with such great enough conviction, that their politicians will respect said wishes for fear of overthrow or revolution.

:rolleyes:

:ehh: Not exercising your right to vote is a sure way to remove your political voice.

This is correct. If there are no anti-abortion candidates or parties, you must vote based on the other four non-negotiables. Never stop fighting abortion, though.

Don’t belong to any party. Why do you have to be in a party, or join the Right to Life Party. Maybe we should have a Real Catholic Party. If we had more Bishops with backbone the 25% Catholic voting block really would be a voting block.

Silence sometimes speaks louder than a shout. There are other things to vote on besides President.

I said to our relatively new Priest (26) to our Parish that I could not vote for the war and he said I couldn’t vote for the greater evil. I replied I may write in the Pontiff and he just shook his head no. So I’ll write in my name or someone elses or leave it blank but vote on everything else. If 30 million Cathlics did that I bet some other Chirstians would join and non-religious to make quite a statement in a non-violent way. Promote a no vote for either/any candidate-evil as an option by the people in the Church is within the bounds of free speech.

I like your strategy, but the Constitution could put a damper on it and get in the way. I know that hasn’t stopped too many people lately from getting what they want so maybe it shouldn’t bother you either. However, if you don’t want the Constitution and all those lawyers to get in the way how’s about writing in someone like Bishop Broskawitz of Lincon Nebraska. Now that’s a leader. God Bless him.

Please read the threads in other forums regarding the Bishop’s voting guidelines. i believe you will find abortion is a not negotiable; the issue of capital punishment while objectionable is not deemed a reason to withhold one’s vote.

I’m not voting for the person when I cast my ballot for president. I’m voting for the judges. One has promised strict constructionists, the other has not.

Ceasar, you are wrong as can be. There certainly is an anti-abortion party-at least in the U.S. Every election they even put it in their party platform.

Did you perhaps misunderstand my post? The question was if there isn’t an anti-abortion party. The OP is in Canada anyway.

I’m curious why you think the Constitution would get in the way. I know lawyers will but not the Constitution. The 1st Amendment puts a limit on government with respect to religion, not the other way around on the people.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The ‘separation of church and state’ as practiced was never envisioned by the Founders. It is written no where but has been brought in by the horrid 16th Amendment and the ability of the government to tax individuals.

Most churches in America have organized as “501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations.” This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping “public policy.”

Although Johnson proffered this as a “favor” to churches, the favor also came with strings attached (more like shackles). One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day.

For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares “legal,” even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a “chilling effect” upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.

Not only is it completely unnecessary for any church to seek 501c3 status, to do so becomes a grant of jurisdiction to the IRS by any church that obtains that State favor. In the words of Steve Nestor, IRS Sr. Revenue Officer (ret.):

"I am not the only IRS employee who’s wondered why churches go to the government and seek permission to be exempted from a tax they didn’t owe to begin with, and to seek a tax deductible status that they’ve always had anyway. Many of us have marveled at how church leaders want to be regulated and controlled by an agency of government that most Americans have prayed would just get out of their lives. Churches are in an amazingly unique position, but they don’t seem to know or appreciate the implications of what it would mean to be free of government control."
from the Forward of In Caesar’s Grip, by Peter Kershaw

We should and could lead ourselves out of the fog and a no-vote is appropriate this election.

The only time a politician is telling the truth is when they call each other liars. The system is broken and we can’t rely on judges. There are 5 Catholics on SCOTUS to include the Chief Justice. the 72 Court that decided Roe made law which is not permitted by the Constitution. They could reverse itself, it has before in other cases. Congress could set the decision aside since they did not vote on it and the President could ask Congeress to do so because no President signed and abortion bill into law as required by the Constitution. A vote for either evil is a vote to continue as is. This nation will not survive another 40 years of abortion on demand and wars with the world to bring them peace and democracy.

The presumptive lesser evil nominee of the GOP fights to include exceptions in the law such as the late-term abortion bill recently passed and said he would not overturn Roe but keep it legal and limited. I can beleive he wants abortion limited but I think he is dedicated to it as much as his promise to secure the borders. These things are not a priority to them and nothing will be done. The new-conservatives like Bush and Mc are as, if not more dangerous than the obvious evil.

How true. :smiley:

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.

The religion of the Supremes matters less than their constructionist core. As we have seen in politicians, Catholics are some of the most rabid anti-life individuals in Congress.Politicians who promise constructionists are much more likely to return the decision of RvW to the states than politicians who have actively rallied against any pro-life measures.

Conservatives appointing powers have gotten into trouble when they attempt to appease their liberal counterparts with a “moderate”. We cannot appease evil. An old teacher of mine use to say the devil never tries to get you to swallow the apple whole, just a bite at a time.

The lesser evil is not a constructionist but a neo-conservative liberal who will do all he can to appease the left in this regard. Put down the apple and drink some water instead.

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…

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

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.