Abortion and voting

[simpleusername]

One of if not the most important criteria when voting as a Catholic is the candidates position on abortion and respect for life. Abortion is clearly morally wrong under every circumstance, but is there justification for it being the primary thing we look towards when voting? What if the candidate, while saying federal government should not decide in the legalization of abortion, takes positions in which they support policies that reduce abortions by not allowing medicare to pay for abortions which has shown to increase abortion, and poverty which maybe the number one reason women choose to abort?

 

[JerryZ]

One of if not the most important criteria when voting as a Catholic is the candidates position on abortion and respect for life. Abortion is clearly morally wrong under every circumstance, but is there justification for it being the primary thing we look towards when voting? What if the candidate, while saying federal government should not decide in the legalization of abortion, takes positions in which they support policies that reduce abortions by not allowing medicare to pay for abortions which has shown to increase abortion, and poverty which maybe the number one reason women choose to abort?

cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details.aspx?NCDId=127&ncdver=2&bc=AAAAgAAAAAAA&
Abortions are not covered Medicare procedures except:

If the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
In the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

Also the executive branch cannot make abortion illegal.
The US Congress and the people can make abortion illegal.
In a limited way the SCOTUS also could, if they were to rule that Human Fetuses have the same rights afforded to HUMANS by the US Constitution.

Other than that the Executive branch “The President” can only work with the limits he has, by repealing the Health Care Act that imposes every Catholic to pay for abortions, sterilizations and anticonceptives against his/her will.
It is a strategy to force the Church to accept this “procedures” same as “same sex marriage”.
No faithfull Catholic can vote for anyone that is basically extorting your Church. You either comply with what they have enacted or pay fines that will basically make all the charitable services of the Catholic Church go Broke.
You want to talk about the poor?
Check how many Hospitals are run by the Catholic Church?
How many poor people will be affected if they are forced to close?

 

[mab23]

I voted my faith and I am proud to have done so !

 

[R_C]

Abortion is an intrinsic evil, and as far as I understand we should above all else stop intrinsic evils.

This ETWN guide is more clear on this.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Catholic teaching says to vote for the person who supports the fewest intrinsic evills. There are 2 voter guides in my signature

 

[_Abyssinia]

Catholic teaching says to vote for the person who supports the fewest intrinsic evills. There are 2 voter guides in my signature:blush:

 

[_Abyssinia]

There are 2 voter guides in my signature. Various Bishops and priests have said reasons such as tax, immigration, social security, health care are not proportionate enough as reasons to vote for a pro abortion candidate

 

[PaulfromIowa]

they support policies that reduce abortions by not allowing medicare to pay for abortions which has shown to increase abortion, and poverty which maybe the number one reason women choose to abort?

You are very much mistaken. Government paid abortion certainly does not decrease abortion. The states with government funded abortion also have the highest abortion rates.

Poverty is not the cause of abortion. Lack of respect for human life is.

BTW, do you know that Medicare is for the elderly? I suspect that you meant Medicaid.

 

[Veronica97]

What if the candidate, while saying federal government should not decide in the legalization of abortion, takes positions in which they support policies that reduce abortions by not allowing medicare to pay for abortions which has shown to increase abortion, and poverty which maybe the number one reason women choose to abort?

People associate things that are illegal with being “wrong” and things that are legal as being “okay”. Since abortion has been legal for so many years, many people (especially those who have always known it to be legal) think that it is a “woman’s right” and that if it’s legal it must be okay. Until it is illegal, these views are not going to change. So, yes, voting for someone who is going to work to limit or abolish abortion is the most important issue. Even if we could eliminate poverty, there will still be abortion because our culture teaches people that children should be “wanted” and if they are not “wanted” then they can be disposed of. People’s hearts need to be changed, and it’s going to take more than eliminating poverty to do that.

 

[edwest2]

One of if not the most important criteria when voting as a Catholic is the candidates position on abortion and respect for life. Abortion is clearly morally wrong under every circumstance, but is there justification for it being the primary thing we look towards when voting? What if the candidate, while saying federal government should not decide in the legalization of abortion, takes positions in which they support policies that reduce abortions by not allowing medicare to pay for abortions which has shown to increase abortion, and poverty which maybe the number one reason women choose to abort?

Can you provide some sources that back up your statements?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rence]

One of if not the most important criteria when voting as a Catholic is the candidates position on abortion and respect for life. Abortion is clearly morally wrong under every circumstance, but is there justification for it being the primary thing we look towards when voting? What if the candidate, while saying federal government should not decide in the legalization of abortion, takes positions in which they support policies that reduce abortions by not allowing medicare to pay for abortions which has shown to increase abortion, and poverty which maybe the number one reason women choose to abort?

I used the Bishop’s guide to faithful citizenship and no, I’m definitely not a one-issue voter. In the Bishop’s guide, several topics are given careful consideration.

nccbuscc.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

Here are the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, or our current Pope:

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons

.]

The rest of the document is here:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm

 

[_Abyssinia]

I used the Bishop’s guide to faithful citizenship and no, I’m definitely not a one-issue voter. In the Bishop’s guide, several topics are given careful consideration.

nccbuscc.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

Here are the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, or our current Pope:

The rest of the document is here:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm

What are proportionate reasons?

Archbishop John J Myers

What are ‘proportionate reasons’? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Archbishop Ramond Burke

What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be.

Bishop Robert J. Carlson:

If one had a properly formed conscience admitting the grave evil of abortion and euthanasia, as the Church teaches, and does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and euthanasia, but votes for the candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation which can be permitted, Cardinal Ratzinger states, if proportionate reasons are present, e.g., the candidate would limit abortions.

Bishop Joseph A. Galante:

Note that "proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions.

Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD

“Proportionate reasons” has a very specific meaning in Catholic moral teaching. A proportionate reason [to vote for pro-abortion candidates] would be the desire to avoid supporting an equally grave or graver intrinsic evil, and not just for any reason at all. An intrinsic evil is an evil that cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. So, for example, capital punishment is not a proportionate reason. A candidate’s stand on economic issues is not a proportionate reason.

Pope John Paul II

When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Arthur Hippler, PhD

This could not mean . . . that support for a pro-abortion . . . candidate could be justified by his support for economic proposals, whether of a ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ character. The protection of life is greater than the protection or redistribution of wealth [CCC #2197-2198]. **Cardinal Ratzinger had already affirmed the priority of protecting innocent life when he stated that ‘not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s remark would have to mean that support for a pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia candidate could only be licit where the alternative was more detrimental to the defense of innocent life**. A candidate who supports legal abortion with a number of restrictions would be proportionately better than a candidate who supports abortion “on demand.”

Father Roger J. Landry

When Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments are viewed within the general context of all his declarations, it’s clear that he thinks few justifications would suffice to outweigh participation in the evil of the politician’s pro-choice position and votes. In an address to European politicians on March 30th of this year, Pope Benedict stated, ‘As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family — as a union between one man and one woman based on marriage…; and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.’

George Weigel

But the crucial questions – largely missing from press coverage of the cardinal’s letter – remain: When is this morally justifiable? What are the “proportionate reasons” that would lead a pro-life voter to conclude that a pro-abortion candidate’s unacceptable position on the life issues can, in effect, be bracketed?

I can imagine one such situation: when the choice is between two pro-abortion candidates, and a voter opts for the pro-abortion candidate of a pro-life party in order to keep that pro-life party in control of Congress. That was the case in my own Congressional district for years. But that is not the situation that Catholic voters face in the current presidential contest or in most Congressional races

my emphases

 

[oldcatholicguy]

One of if not the most important criteria when voting as a Catholic is the candidates position on abortion and respect for life. Abortion is clearly morally wrong under every circumstance, but is there justification for it being the primary thing we look towards when voting? What if the candidate, while saying federal government should not decide in the legalization of abortion, takes positions in which they support policies that reduce abortions by not allowing medicare to pay for abortions which has shown to increase abortion, and poverty which maybe the number one reason women choose to abort?

For me it boils down to- if a person does not have the right to life, then they do not have a right to that which is necessary to not only live (food, shelter, etc), but to live above the level of survival (healthcare, education, etc) or those things which are not rights (not being poor, living in comfort).

It makes no logical sense to me to prioritize non-rights and lesser rights over the right which allows for them.

 

[simpleusername]

You are very much mistaken. Government paid abortion certainly does not decrease abortion. The states with government funded abortion also have the highest abortion rates.

Poverty is not the cause of abortion. Lack of respect for human life is.

BTW, do you know that Medicare is for the elderly? I suspect that you meant Medicaid.

your first point is the same point i made not in contradiction to it. True poverty does not cause abortion in is the selfishness and ignorance of ones heart. but poverty is known to increase the likelihood significantly. and I meant medicaid sorry.

 

[simpleusername]

Is pro abortion and a neutral position as a presidential candidate the same thing? What if I think some one is lying about being pro-life, ie never being strongly committed, switch stance to appeal to voters. What if he/she are just as neutral in reality and some one who claims neutrality. And when I say neutrality I mean they do not believe the federal Government should be involved with whether or not abortion should be legal or not, and it should be a state law, such as most laws should be in their opinion.

 

[Rence]

Archbishop Ramond Burke

Bishop Robert J. Carlson:

Bishop Joseph A. Galante:

Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD

Pope John Paul II

Arthur Hippler, PhD

Father Roger J. Landry

George Weigel

my emphases

Thank you for our emphasis. They are certainly worth looking at. However, these are individual opinions. The Pope obviously believes there are proportionate reasons, or he wouldn’t have made an exception for them. Notice that he doesn’t list them out. Therefore, the individual has to decide what is proportionate reasons after considering both parties.

 

[Rence]

Is pro abortion and a neutral position as a presidential candidate the same thing? What if I think some one is lying about being pro-life, ie never being strongly committed, switch stance to appeal to voters. What if he/she are just as neutral in reality and some one who claims neutrality. And when I say neutrality I mean they do not believe the federal Government should be involved with whether or not abortion should be legal or not, and it should be a state law, such as most laws should be in their opinion.

Well first of all, they’re all lying: they’re politicians. Secondly, I’m quite sure both candidates really are set on doing what they think is best to achieve the same goal: better circumstances for our people. But who gets my vote is the one who makes me believe their plan for this goal is better than the other guy’s plan. People will vote for the candidate that they believe will make things either better, or not worse, and will vote with issues in mind that direct affect them and their fellow citizens.

 

[_Abyssinia]

What are proportionate reasons?

Archbishop John J Myers

Joint Statement from Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann

1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil — even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or `proportionate " reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil — and, therefore, morally impermissible.

Quotes from various Bishops, Priests and other Catholics on proportionate reasons

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9645449&postcount=150