Abortion question

[Michaeljc4]

When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor 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 strictly defined.

I am trying to understand ‘proportionate reasons.’ For example, the candidate who is opposed to abortion (even if they will not actively seek to end legal abortions) but has made it clear that (s)he will actively vote to dismantle the social safety net–reduce spending on food assistance, disability payments, government sponsored health care programs, etc.–is still the correct choice over a pro-choice candidate who isn’t not actively seeking to promote abortion?

In other words, a candidate can call themselves ‘pro-life’ but do very little to actually end abortion, while doing a great deal to–in the words of the Bible–‘grind the face of the poor.’ Conversely, a ‘pro-choice’ candidate may not actively seek to increase the number of abortions in America, but be a strong champion of programs to help the weakest among us. I find it difficult to believe that voting for the ‘pro-life’ candidate, in this instance, is worse than voting for the ‘pro-choice’ one.

Can you all help me with this? I have seen, again and again, Republican politicians claim the mantle of ‘pro-life’ while they, first, do nothing to end abortion, and second, make the lives of the weakest among is completely miserable. Likewise, I have seen “pro-choice” Democrats who will not actively try to expand abortion ‘rights’ (like championing federal funding) but do a great deal to help the weak and the vulnerable. There is some moral algebra here that I am not getting. SOS!

 

[TFK_Emery]

Well, if one candidate was opposed to abortion but supported a new holocaust, I don’t think he’d get any of our votes. But on a less extreme level, I think the deciding factor is the damage done. If the pro-life candidate would cause more damage than the pro-choice candidate, then the choice is clear. However, it is very difficult (barring the situation that the candidates are not in a position to do anything about abortion) for that to happen. Few things are more damaging than the daily slaughter of thousands of infants.

 

[brgregmack]

I think ‘proportionate reasons’ mostly refers to when both candidates are pro-“choice”. In such a situation, we would vote for the candidate who is better for other reasons. The debacles you describe I think would be more subjective. However, I could be wrong:shrug:

 

[TheRealJuliane]

We are not to support candidates who support abortion. No moral relativism in that. It’s just that Catholics don’t want to see the truth.

The government should not be in the position of becoming the sustainer of one’s life. God gave US, the Church, that task but over time we have allowed the federal government to assume that duty which means we grow less and less involved in the lives of our brothers’ and sisters’ in need. Remember Jesus said, “The poor will always be with you?” He wanted US to take care of widows and orphans and the poor. Not any government especially not the federal government, which takes from one to give to the other a la social justice. Remember God tells us that he who would live, must work.

Just the idea that my tax money goes to Planned Parenthood in any proportion means that I am being robbed and my morals being violated.

Republicans are more interested in giving people the opportunity to be self-reliant, most of us can, many more people are able-bodied but living off entitlements. Times like right now, people are being driven toward welfare as a way of getting permanent votes for the party that hands our money out the fastest.

 

[Corki]

The Church recognizes a heirarchy of life issues. Intentionally taking of innocent human life is at the top of the heirarchy. A proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate might be if the other candidate was advocating racial genocide or euthenasia while the pro-abortion candidate was opposed to those ideas.

I have seen, again and again, Republican politicians claim the mantle of ‘pro-life’ while they, first, do nothing to end abortion, and second, make the lives of the weakest among is completely miserable.

This is a bit of a red herring. Often a politician is accused of “having done nothing to end abortion” but when you look at his/her voting record you can see that he/she has consistently voted to limit and control access to abortion. The fact that these votes are not successful or not “enough” doesn’t equate to “nothing”. Likewise please show me even one politician of either party who has acted to intentionally “make the lives of the weakest among (us) miserable”.

Likewise, I have seen “pro-choice” Democrats who will not actively try to expand abortion ‘rights’ (like championing federal funding) but do a great deal to help the weak and the vulnerable.

Yeah but that number is incredibly small. Most of the votes to limit abortion, at least on the federal level, have all or nearly all of the Democrats voting ‘against’. That’s pretty active.

For example, the candidate who is opposed to abortion (even if they will not actively seek to end legal abortions) but has made it clear that (s)he will actively vote to dismantle the social safety net–reduce spending on food assistance, disability payments, government sponsored health care programs, etc.–is still the correct choice over a pro-choice candidate who isn’t not actively seeking to promote abortion?

Show me a candidate like that pro-choice candidate you describe. Most “pro-choice” candidates have records of working or voting to protect abortion “rights”. That’s actively promoting abortion. On the other hand, reducing federal involvement in certain social programs is a matter of prudential judgement. I have yet to see a single politician of either party that says he/she wants to end all aid for the poor or to eliminate disabilty or health care. Saying we spend too much or that the programs are wastefull and need to be trimmed is nowhere near proportionate to acting to protect abortionists and abortion clinics and to help those who want to exploit children and thwart parental rights.

 

[mulayeuxbleu]

Unwinding social programs that have been run from the top-down–ie. at the Federal level–is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it means that, equally, more revenue can be retained at the State level and the individual States, counties, and cities can decide how best to deal with their own specific social issues in the best way. This is in conformity with subsidiarity and gives you more control locally.

There is more than one layer to government and more than one way to effectively care for the poor and disadvantaged. I believe that running federal programs for local problems is grossly inefficient and also the most dehumanizing way to address the poor. It strips their dignity.