So here's a moral conundrum for you

[Antigone]

I've posted this question before, but considering the fact that there are a lot of relatively new people here, I feel justified in asking again. Bear in mind that I'm asking this as a hypothetical. I'm not looking for answers along the lines of 'well, Wilders will win anyway, so it's irrelevant.' Yes, I know. I'm just looking for what you'd do.

Elections will be held here the 15th. My country is run through a parliamentary democracy. Parliament consists of 150 seats. To form a government, you need the majority, so 76 seats. As we currently have ten parties in parliament, plus another ten or so running, this always means a coalition government (we currently have the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, and by Liberal I mean European liberal, not the American bastardisation).

Abortion and same-sex marriage have a lot of support here; respectively about 80% and 90%, if I'm not mistaken. Political parties know this, and so they tend to be in favour of these things as well, regardless of whether they're right- or left-wing. There is only one party, the SGP (Statehood Reformed Party), that actively seeks to ban both. They're strict Dutch protestants. Up until a year or so ago, they didn't even allow women in their party, and they only changed their policy because the courts made them.

They're also rabidly anti-Catholic.

Currently their influence is minimal; they have only two seats.

So bearing all of this in mind, who would you guys vote for: a pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage party, or a party that is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage but also anti-Catholic?

 

[Strivax]

I tend to get off the political and/or moral and/or religious discussion when people assume they have some divine right to tell me how to I ought to live my life*, and want to enact that in legislation. Or anyone else how they ought to live theirs, for that matter, and seek the force of law to pursue their prejudices.

I am, however, amenable to rational argument, if such arguments are put and are solid and are persuasive.

Best wishes, Strivax.

*assuming, of course, I am doing no harm to anyone.

 

[Nithavela]

My suggestion would be to vote for the party that overall exhibits the trait you find desirable. While abortions and same sex marriage may be important to you, they are not the only issues one should vote on, and they are relatively minor compared to education, military, health care or environmental protection.

 

[Tallguy88]

Abortion is not a minor issue, not in the Catholic worldview. It is the most important, or at least one of the most important single issues.

As to the OP's question, since the pro life party is so flawed and unlikely to win anything meaningful, the OP could vote for one of the other major parties based on which is the "lesser evil" overall.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

My suggestion would be to vote for the party that overall exhibits the trait you find desirable. While abortions and same sex marriage may be important to you, they are not the only issues one should vote on, and they are relatively minor compared to education, military, health care or environmental protection.

There is nothing minor about killing babies.

 

[Strivax]

There is nothing minor about killing babies.

More accurately referred to as foetuses, but nevertheless, I agree. However, one has to note that the US Christian Right, so vocal on abortion, is quite happy to pursue neo-liberal, laissez-faire economic policies that advantage themselves and condemn 2 billion born and conscious poor people to eke out meagre lives on less than $2.00 per day, on which precarious living most will suffer and hunger, and many starve and die. And that's not to mention lax American gun laws, or the support for capital punishment. These inconsistencies concerning some supposedly transcendent 'right to life' need be noticed.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Genersis]

I would say vote for the party that is has the best balance between being well intentioned, and that you feel would benefit the most people while negatively impacting the least people.

That is, I don't think it's absolutely wrong to vote for a party with faults(I mean, none are without fault), especially if those faults come from a place of good intention.

As such, I'm not sure I could vote SGP even if I did share many views, as it seems to overtly have ill intention against what I figure is a minority religion in the Netherlands.

That's just my thoughts though.
Who really knows what a theoretical social conservative me would think like and prioritise. I would hope not voting for the SGP or Party for Freedom, but meh.

I guess there's also a secondary question, along the lines of "Do you want your religious views to be enshrined in and enforced through law", this seems to be a yes for most folk, but some think not. Though, yeah, it seems Catholics really are supposed to support such.

Hope not to derail the thread or anything, but how do you think the election will go Antigone?

 

[Nithavela]

There is nothing minor about killing babies.

I guess one could argue about that, but you should propably come to terms with the fact that the vast majority of the society you live in has decided otherwise, and that abortion and SSM is okay. So you can either try to push against the inevitable with your vote, or you can use your voice to choose between options that are actually discussed.

And even IF you get around to outlawing abortions, by some miraculous circumstance, women who want an abortion can just travel to Germany, Belgium, the UK or whereever, or get an illegal back alley abortion.

I would suggest that you do the second and try to work on the other issues in a way that is actually productive, by supporting things that are shown to lower abortion rates, like better sex education, ready access to contraceptives and social programs that support (single) mothers and help in raising children.

 

[Tallguy88]

Just a reminder that this thread is in OBOB and the rules about discussing abortion policy are centered around Catholic teaching. Please read this thread if you intend to discuss the issue here.

Limits on discussing abortion in OBOB

 

[football5680]

I would view both of the groups as Anti-Catholic with one just being more open about it than the other. So if I was forced to make a choice, I would go with the group whose platform is more in line with the laws of God.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Most anti-Catholic people are anti-Catholic because of misinformed beliefs about the Catholic Church and what it teaches. They still stand up for what is right according to God: Thou shalt not kill, and homosexual activity is a sin that leads to death, and marriage is between one man and one woman. The Catholic Church says that Protestants are its brothers and sisters in Christ. I'd rather vote for someone who is misinformed on doctrine than vote for someone who supports baby killing and sin that leads to death.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I'm on a phone so I'm not going to quote posts.
But someone needs to look up the definition of 'fetus.'
And someone else needs to remember that all kinds of things were popular with the great majorities at one time, only to be considered evil now.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

I'm on a phone so I'm not going to quote posts.
But someone needs to look up the definition of 'fetus.'
And someone else needs to remember that all kinds of things were popular with the great majorities at one time, only to be considered evil now.

It's interesting how people can walk the wide road and be so oblivious to it.

 

[Antigone]

As to the OP's question, since the pro life party is so flawed and unlikely to win anything meaningful, the OP could vote for one of the other major parties based on which is the "lesser evil" overall.

That's an interesting answer.

In reality, on paper at least, we do have more parties who are against these two issues, but they are unlikely to do anything about it in reality as it's so impopular.

Hope not to derail the thread or anything, but how do you think the election will go Antigone?

I think we'll end up with a Freedom Party/Liberal Party (PVV/VVD) coalition, as they're the largest in the polls and they're both right-wing. The VVD leader has said he refuses to work with Wilders but I'm pretty sure he'll do it anyway.

I'm torn between the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats (GroenLinks/D66) personally, but I've yet to read their party programmes. GroenLinks is probably closer to my ideology, but D66 is good with education and I prefer their leader, Alexander Pechtold, to GroenLinks's leader (Jesse Klaver). Klaver's just the kind of left-wing populist that's drawing in the anti-Wilders crowd, but Pechtold's a skilled debater and has the amusing quality of being able to get under Wilders' skin more than anyone else. So I'm kind of on the fence.

 

[Strivax]

There is nothing minor about killing babies.

More accurately referred to as foetuses, but nevertheless, I agree.

I'm on a phone so I'm not going to quote posts.
But someone needs to look up the definition of 'fetus.'

So, I did that, to save you the hassle. 'In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception until the moment of birth'. So I guess embryos get aborted, too. But, either way, strictly speaking, they are not babies until they are born.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

So, I did that. 'In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception until the moment of birth'. So I guess embryos get aborted, too. But, either way, strictly speaking, they are not babies until they are born.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Semantics. Human, earthly logic.

They are young human life and nothing can change that.

 

[Strivax]

Semantics. Human, earthly logic.

They are young human life and nothing can change that.

Not semantics, just a matter of terminological accuracy, for the purpose of preventing the emotional associations of the word 'baby' from clouding the issue.

If we are to find valid and sound arguments against abortion, as I believe we can and should, then they should be rational and logical, not merely emotional or theological. Emoting will convince none who don't share the emotion, and theology will convince none who don't share the faith.

Reason, however, has a universal scope.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Genersis]

That's an interesting answer.

In reality, on paper at least, we do have more parties who are against these two issues, but they are unlikely to do anything about it in reality as it's so impopular.



I think we'll end up with a Freedom Party/Liberal Party (PVV/VVD) coalition, as they're the largest in the polls and they're both right-wing. The VVD leader has said he refuses to work with Wilders but I'm pretty sure he'll do it anyway.

I'm torn between the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats (GroenLinks/D66) personally, but I've yet to read their party programmes. GroenLinks is probably closer to my ideology, but D66 is good with education and I prefer their leader, Alexander Pechtold, to GroenLinks's leader (Jesse Klaver). Klaver's just the kind of left-wing populist that's drawing in the anti-Wilders crowd, but Pechtold's a skilled debater and has the amusing quality of being able to get under Wilders' skin more than anyone else. So I'm kind of on the fence.

Not that it matters, but I would likely support the Green Left. Though I'm not familiar with nuances like specific issues, only their general politics.

I think you're probably right about the result. Unless the PVV can somehow sidestep the need for the VVD. Perhaps by gaining the support of the CDA and SGP. It looks like the CDA got burned by the electorate for siding with the PVV before though, so I guess that's pretty unlikely.

Has the the largest party ever ended up in opposition?
If so I guess there's a chance of centrist or centre left parties banding together. Would be messy though and probably considered undemocratic/illegitimate by many.
*shrugs*
Either way, the results seem sure to be interesting and depressing. Yay.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Life begins at conception. There's not a neurobiologist on the planet that would disagree.
def: Fetus: offspring

 

[Tallguy88]

That's an interesting answer.

In reality, on paper at least, we do have more parties who are against these two issues, but they are unlikely to do anything about it in reality as it's so impopular.



I think we'll end up with a Freedom Party/Liberal Party (PVV/VVD) coalition, as they're the largest in the polls and they're both right-wing. The VVD leader has said he refuses to work with Wilders but I'm pretty sure he'll do it anyway.

I'm torn between the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats (GroenLinks/D66) personally, but I've yet to read their party programmes. GroenLinks is probably closer to my ideology, but D66 is good with education and I prefer their leader, Alexander Pechtold, to GroenLinks's leader (Jesse Klaver). Klaver's just the kind of left-wing populist that's drawing in the anti-Wilders crowd, but Pechtold's a skilled debater and has the amusing quality of being able to get under Wilders' skin more than anyone else. So I'm kind of on the fence.

Well we just had an election in the USA between someone who openly supports abortion and someone who may have stopped supporting abortion for political reasons. Plus all the other baggage both had. Most people held their nose and voted for one or the other. Some voted third party out of principle. But the Church says that you can vote for a pro choice candidate if you have proportionately good reason to do so (like the pro life candidate would cause more deaths through war or something) and that you don't vote for them because of their anti-life stance, but in spite of it.