I loved that same anecdote, Arwen. Thanks for reminding me of it.

Arwen, I think this is the single best thing I’ve read on this site!  I’m a Catholic mother and I read this blog because I value the insights of all the women who write and comment here.  I’ve always been pro-life, but because I typically vote for Democrats I often feel like an outsider here.  I can’t tell you how much I appreciate this post and it will keep me coming back for more.

Longtime reader of your other blog—I also agree that as Democrats and Republicans, we have far, far more in common than things that separate us. After reading you for years, I can say that you are a kind person who follows a strict moral code, and I am also a kind person who follows a strict moral code. We probably agree on 99% of those morals/values even though I’m a lifelong Democrat who’s never voted Republican. It gives me hope!

Arwen, great point, thank you. 

For those of you who are democrat and have never voted republican, is it possible that you are holding onto your party, instead of taking a careful look at the issues?  As our Holy Father’s have explained to us we are truly in a culture of death and we need to really as Catholics defend the culture of life.  I would encourage you to look at what our Catholic leaders are telling us about the issues and really prayerfully inform yourselves.  IT IS CRITICAL to the future well being of our country and the world.  I am republican, but if someone running for office was democrat and he was the only canidate who stood for life, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.  Let’s work to support the culture of LIFE to bring peace and prosperity back and most of all please God!

Though I understand the passionate arguments I rad here for what allHis calls “a culture of life,” I also fear that being one-issue voters is something that’s dangerous for both Christians, and Americans, to engage in.  I’m stepping into dangerous waters on this board when I say something like this, but I firmly believe that overturning Roe v. Wade will not stop abortion.  Please, please, let’s be prayerful in considering other issues on the ballot and do examine your candidates’ positions on health care, homeland security, foreign policy, energy, free trade, etc.  All of these are important issues that we can be looking at through the lens of our faith.  That said, Arwen, I enjoyed this post. 

*Read, of course, not rad.  Someone needs to proofread!

Other issues?  No issues trump the protection of human life, period.  What good is education or healthcare if they are not available to 1/4 of our population?  And since when is free trade or any financial issue more important than human life!?  I just don’t get people who place anything else above the protection of our children, including the unborn.
I also do not understand “Catholics” who make such statements.  Our Holy Father, Mother Church, and our bishops have all made this VERY clear.  The protection of human life and marriage must be a priority.  Period.  We are to consider, above all, a candidate’s position on abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, defense of marriage, and cloning first and foremost.  And if a candidate’s stance on these issues is at odds with the teaching of the Church, this may disqualify him/her from being worthy of our vote (USCCB).  4000 babies are being killed and their mothers are left in distress EVERY DAY and people claim other issues are more important.
Obama has stated that his first act as President would be to inact the “Freecom of Choice Act.”  This law would strike down every pro-life law in every single state!  The state’s would have their right’s stripped away.  No more informed consent, no more parental notification, no more requiring abortion clinics to live up to the same standards as other medical facilities.  You may not think abortion is the most important issue, but Obama certainly does.
Please, pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  He has already enlightened our precious Mother Church, and she has made her thoughts very clear.

I think one thing to consider is the actual consequences of a vote, not just the stated party platform.  I agree with Annie that overturning Roe v. Wade would not stop abortion. It would return that decision to the individual states.  I think that many people would see that as a moral victory, but what would the consequences really be?  Would it really reduce abortion?  I think what would actually happen is that women would cross state lines to get abortions, and that some women would use back alley abortions. 

I also think that the Democratic platform on social issues is the one that is likely to result in fewer abortions overall, despite the different position on life issues, because fewer women would feel desperate and lost and forced by circumstances to end their pregnancy.

So, despite the different platforms, I think the relevant question is: what policies will result in the lowest number of abortions?  And, weighing this, what other policies are just and moral, and how do the two parties look on these issues too?

I think what I am really saying is that it is not as cut and dry, in my opinion, as it is often made out to be.  You can be pro-life and still argue for voting Democrat.

Just wanted to post a link to a good source of info. for catholics voting. I won’t get into the what I find surprising actually, difference of opinions between good Catholics, but simply to encourage each of you to honestly face Jesus in adoration when you are making your decision about whom to vote for and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truth, because if we are living for Heaven and not of this world, there are certain decisions that will help us get there and that are black and white.
http://www.ahumbleplea.com/Docs/FaithfulCatholicCitizenship.pdf

Arwen,
What difference does their motivation make? Look at it from the baby’s perspective. The baby is being killed for some reason. What difference does it make what reason? None of the reasons is adequate. Whether Mr. Biden, for example, “cares about babies” or not is irrelevant. What matters is he doesn’t stand up for their basic human rights, through his words and his votes, against those who would trample on them. Indeed, he champions the tramplers. And when you say that abortion supporters views are “most divergent from your own,” you have said the least that can be said. How about “most divergent from basic decency? Most supportive of callous & cruel policies?” As things get more & more heated over the next month, I am going to remember every day the millions of children killed by abortion in this country . . . and I pray you will too.

Arwen,

There is a message of tolerance in all you write it seems.  That you are able to convey tolerance for the opinions of others and yet be clear and actionable in your own beliefs is admirable.

Your writing has made me reflect on so much over the past few months, rather than just incite anger on my part for disagreeing views.

All the best.

I think what “A” posted above is my view as well. 
I also sometimes feel pandered-to by Republicans who claim they are pro-life in order to get votes, then get in office and do not do a darn thing about it. I feel lied to by them very much. 
McCain has made several different points about his stance in being pro-life, many of which make me wonder if it’s really a priority in his administration?

Thanks for the comments, everyone!  I appreciate the discussion.

I want to clarify, in case I was unclear on this point, that my saying that all persons are equally deserving of charity no matter what their views is NOT the same as my saying that all views are equally deserving of consideration.  I mentioned that I am passionately pro-life because wanted to make sure it was understood that I think any position that allows for the killing of innocent children at any stage of their lives is wrong, and unworthy of consideration.

I do think that there are many influences in our culture that can mislead a well-meaning person into a pro-abortion-rights position.  And I’m convinced that it’s our job as Christians to call legal abortion the evil that it is while still managing to love the people who misguidedly support it.  I’m also convinced that it is only by affording them the dignity they deserve that we have the slightest chance of convincing them to see the truth on this issue.  This is the point I was getting at when I referred to giving the benefit of the doubt and questioning judgments instead of motives.

I’ve got another topic I want to respond to, but I’m going to put it in the next comment so as not to make this one too long.

A,

In reading over your comment, I noticed a few things that didn’t quite make sense to me.

You wrote: “I agree with Annie that overturning Roe v. Wade would not stop abortion.”
First of all, can we really say that electing a pro-life president would mean the overturn of Roe v. Wade? I think that’s a possibility, but I don’t think that’s necessarily why we vote for pro-life candidates. I think we vote for them because we know that, if an opportunity comes up that would allow the pro-life president to decrease abortions, s/he’ll take it. We also think that this is worth doing, no matter how small that opportunity may be.

You continued: “It would return that decision to the individual states.  I think that many people would see that as a moral victory, but what would the consequences really be?  Would it really reduce abortion?  I think what would actually happen is that women would cross state lines to get abortions, and that some women would use back alley abortions.”
First of all, isn’t it better, or at least more hopeful, to have abortion legal in 49 states with the possibility that it will be outlawed in others than to have it definitely legal in all 50? And furthermore, whether abortion is illegal in 25 states or in none, you have to confront the question of back-alley abortions. If you think abortion is an evil at all, you can’t make it legal simply to negate the possibility of back-alley abortions. Its better, I think, to make abortion illegal in some states and then work to outlaw it in the rest and prevent back-alley abortions wherever that possibility exists. One idea would be for people to start little ministries to take care of women in crisis pregnancies. These already exist, but after abortion becomes illegal, they will be more and more necessary.

You wrote: “I also think that the Democratic platform on social issues is the one that is likely to result in fewer abortions overall, despite the different position on life issues, because fewer women would feel desperate and lost and forced by circumstances to end their pregnancy.”
I don’t think there is enough evidence to say this definitely. Women have abortions for many reasons, not simply because they are too poor to take care of their children. For instance, there is the temptation to selfishness. But, even in the case where a woman cannot afford to have a baby and take care of it, as Catholics, I think we are called to take care of our little sisters in need rather than rely on the government to take of them for us. If the government ended tomorrow, there would still be women in crisis pregnancies who would feel tempted to get abortions, and, as Catholics, it would be up to us to say yes to God’s call to take care of them. Even though our government is alive and well, I think God still gives us that call today.

Finally, you wrote: “So, despite the different platforms, I think the relevant question is: what policies will result in the lowest number of abortions?”
When considering the platforms and many promises made by both parties and candidates, I don’t think anyone can say definitely what one party or the other will accomplish once they’re in office. Regardless of what their platforms and promises were, candidates sometimes lie. Even if they do tell the truth while running for office, once in office, their choices can be affected by changing circumstances and the pressures of politics. All we definitely know about our candidates is what they have told us, as well as their voting records and past decisions. That is all we can go on. They might be lying, but, as Catholics, we have to vote for the person who says they are pro-life or is closest to it and whose voting record supports their claim. If they are lying, they’re the ones who will pay after they die, not us.

Sorry to pick on you specifically; I know other commenters had some of the same points you did. I thought you covered all the points at once, and it was easiest to copy and paste from your post.

Also, if I have totally misunderstood you, please let me know.

All of the talk about “other issues” makes me wonder how many are thinking about so-called “universal healthcare.”  This “promise” will succeed in making waits for emergency care longer, the standard of care lower, and the accessibility of care lower for certain people.  In Britain’s healthcare system, if you need a transplant, you can get one…if you are under 55.  Do you think 55 is a good cut off age for someone to be denied care?  Also, not only is abortion of children who would be born with any sort of disability encouraged (which is already going on here in the US…just ask Sarah Palin), children who are born this way are frequently denied healthcare and their families are encouraged to let them die.  We have fought long and hard in this country for underprivileged people of all races, creeds, religions, and ABILITY levels.  This barbarism would take us back many years, not forward.  This is change I would hate to see.  So called “universal healthcare”  will not truly be “universal.”  It will just be another way for the government to interfere in our lives.  I have watched for years as social welfare programs that were supposed to be a “hand up” have become a “hand out” enslaving people in a vicious cycle making them believe that they can never get beyond this need and support themselves.  Our grandparents made it through some really tough economic times because people helped each other, not because big government (Big Brother) “helped” them.

Also, any one who does not respect life at its most vulnerable, like unborn children and the Terry Schaivos of the world, does not respect human life at all, no matter what they tell you.

I commented earlier, but wanted to clarify that I voted Republican for many years before gradually switching to being a Democrat-leaning independent.  I definitely wouldn’t attribute my vote to party loyalty.  Like any good Catholic, my vote is always informed by Church teaching and prayer.  I watch the debates and speeches with the US Bishops’ faithful citizenship document by my side.  I honestly don’t understand how people interpret that document to mean good Catholics MUST vote Republican. But, as Arwen has wisely reminded us to do, and especially in the case of our fellow Catholic Christians, I respect that they are acting with a sincere desire to follow Christ and the Church.  I just hope they afford that same respect to me, if we cast a different votes on Election Day.

Laura,
I know for myself, and many others that voting Republican doesn’t mean you are a good Catholic, but sadly it just so happens that many Democrats tend to not follow the teachings of the Church that are suppose to guide our voting, especially when it comes to certain issues that are considered non-negotiable as life issues.
I really encourage you to read the link I posted earlier (comment#9)—you may need to hand type it into your browser as I don’t think it is working from the comment.
I am also a bit surprised that if you have the US Bishop’s faithful citizenship document by your side and have read it, then how can you vote for a candidate that supports abortion. As per page 19 of that document where it discusses Human Life. Of course we will afford you the same respect, but please don’t hold it against us if we want you to fully live the teachings of the Church you have embraced and hope to have you vote with it. We love you too much as a sister in Christ:) I have yet to find a candidate that was pro-abortion while campaigning be different when they were elected.

Janelle,
I appreciate that you can demonstrate your disagreement with me in a kind way.  Kudos to Arwen for setting a compassionate tone at the outset, and this will be my last comment as at this point it appears I should get my own blog! 

Back to Janelle, I did read the document you linked to but I didn’t find it compelling because, although I am pro-life, I really do not agree with Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and his tactics. 

I find the US Bishops’ document very compelling, though, and it does assert the preeminence of the life issue, no question.  (And, again, to be clear, I am pro-life.)  But, the Bishops do not provide abortion as the only relevant context for defending human life and dignity.  Page 9 and the summary on pages 29 and 30 make this clear.  The Bishops say that they want us to weigh all these issues outside of partisan politics.  If it was always immoral to vote for a pro-choice candidate, or if your vote is to be determined solely on the basis of a candidate’s pro-life stance, I would trust the Bishops to say so.  They do not (page 11), and we are left with prayer, and our own consciences.  That, and the Bishops’ call to respect one another during this divisive election time: “We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.”

Thanks again, Arwen, for the reminder.

The Dred Scott Ruling did not put an end to slavery, so perhaps we should not have bothered to put it into law.

It is a known FACT that parental consent, informed consent, waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, and other such laws reduce the number of abortions.  Obama has vowed as his first act as President to make all such laws illegal.
Many states have laws on the books that would make abortion illegal the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned.  And believe me, many women would decide to keep their babies rather than bothering to cross state lines. 
These laws may not end abortion, but that reduce it drastically. And even if they only reduce abortions by one, that is one life worth saving.

(the Republican Party is NOT your only choice.  If you truly do not want to vote for McCain, and your well-formed conscience tells you that Obama is out of the question, you may want to consider Chuck Baldwin or Alan Keyes.)

To all those who believe that one can be a serious Catholic and still vote for Obama, please reconsider.  A vote for Obama is a vote for socialism and the culture of death. 

He is adamantly pro-choice (pro-death).  He voted repeatedly to let a child surviving a botched abortion die. 

Furthermore, according to his voting record, he is THE most liberal, socialist senator in the entire US senate.

If you are truly Catholic, you simply can not vote for Obama.

A really thoughtful, loving post, Arwen!  May we all remember that we are Christians first and supporters of a particular candidate or cause second in the weeks ahead.

I came to this blog from the Zenit.org website where I was reading the pastoral letter written by Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Penn. regarding exactly the issue under discussion here.  I would suggest you read it—very thought provoking!

http://www.zenit.org/article-23793?l=english

Thanks Mary for posting this link—I read it too and thought about posting it as well, but figured I had commented enough on the topic. I hope it changes some hearts to the truth.

Thank you for this. It does neither a cause nor its supporters any good to have the supporters be flip, dismissive, or hostile of the other side (and I’m a UCC support of Obama, so I’m speaking from the other side).

Oh, poo—“supporter,” not “support.”

(Now’s your chance not to take a typo as proof of deeper flaws—do you like it when people do that to you? heh heh)

Arwen,
Thank you for this post, usually when the question of Democrat or Republican come up I state that I am Catholic. I am neither really, I vote in communion with Church teachings. I think we all need to look to the church to guide us. I think so many of us are trying to form the Churches teachings to fulfill our will instead of allowing Gods will to prevail. Anyone who is stating that voting for a pro-choice canidate is okay is either not listening to the church or choosing to ignore what the church is saying. Anyone trying to say that the church doesn’t say right out that you have to vote for a pro-life canidate is not paying attention, because this is exactly what the church has been telling us. If you don’t agree then ask your priest or bishop.  As for the people that state being a one issue voter isn’t logical, the Church teaches that abortion is the most important issue. I feel that as long as we vote in line with the Church that we must trust in God to take care of the rest of the issues. Let us follow Gods will and trust Him to take care of us! God bless you all, and let us all pray for the end of abortion in any form!

How come no one is supporting Alan Keyes?
He seems to me to a candidate that would really fit in line with most of the church’s teachings, or am I wrong?
Just curious.  Learn more here:
http://www.selfgovernment.us/

I think there is only one issue to consider and I don’t mind at all being a single issue voter.  There is nothing more important in a society than respect for all LIFE.  If Hitler was wonderful in every way but just killed Jewish people, would you vote for him? 
There is no other more important issue than life. Period.

Old thread- which I just read- yet I know more may still read it.

Working together with God Himself is what I’m hearing Him say to me right now, in regard to Satan lying to women of the need to abort.. spending our time helping women & children, & God truly does use the below to guide a woman & her husband/boyfriend’s heart to decide to give their baby life:  parent’s knowledge -at times (unexpected unconditional love) & waiting periods (to speak to their hearts), mandatory ultrasounds (the amazing tender images they will see).  It is important to keep control of some decisions within the states & not have a government take away these things.

I feel that both Rep. & Dem. will not protect this fully… the Constitution Party is committed to this & Chuck Baldwin is also a Christian/Pastor for pro-life.

He will also care about not meddling in other countries- which cause turmoil & blowback.. this in essence has been done in a way of believing we can rule over other countries in a wrong way.  (I don’t have time to explain the whole belief- = to Ron Paul’s words)  I did agree prior with Bush & war.. yet have learned so much this last year.. & very thankful for it.  Our founding fathers really knew what was important when they wrote the specific protections of the people in the Constitution! Wow!  Look into this!  :  )

There have been country leaders in history to use fear of homeland security to strip us of our rights—this is a huge danger I see may come.. leading to too much government control.

I want to spend the majority of my time listening to His Holy Spirit on what I should be helping Him do in lives He has around my one life- the purposes & His glory He wants to bring about. How exciting that God works in & through us.

Much love to everyone! Hope this encourages & helps some.