A
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
What do you think they are, given what the various Bishops etc. have said in the links provided about what would not be considered proportional?
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
I know what the “non-negotiables” are. Now you are taking this one letter from one US bishop and ignoring the crucial words.
The bishop is correct: the given “non-negotiables” cannot be supported by a Catholic. But a Catholic voting for a pro-choice candidate is not voting for the non-negotiable issue. At the last presidential election, I voted for a candidate. There was no lever to vote for or against abortion.
Once again, the Catholic voting for a pro-choice candidate is not voting for a “program”—which I take to mean pro-choice or pro-life. He or she is voting for the candidate.
And here the operative word is “could”.
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
That would depend on the election.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Any election where there is a candidate who supports liberal abortion laws against a candidate who supports more laws restricting abortion. What proportional reasons would their be to vote for any of the nominees who favour more liberal abortion laws? I know you say it depends on the election, but I am pretty sure that I have asked a question about what would be proportional reasons before, not specifying a presidential election, it may have even been to you, and I do not think there was a response with specific answers about what proportional reasons there are to vote for a candidate who is more in favour of more liberal abortion laws.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Would a hypothetical scenario be sufficient? Or must it be a real election in history or current events?
E
Ender
Guest
I wouldn’t phrase it that way but it is clear that I support the use of capital punishment.
You’ve done a lot more than switch from the word lynchings to electrocutions, you have ignored the relevance of the word innocent (not to mention brutal). I support the punishment of the guilty and the protection of the innocent; I don’t see an inconsistency there.* …what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: “Thou shalt not kill:” The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty* (Pius XI, Casti Connubi)
I do agree, however, that if I vote for a candidate who supports capital punishment that I am to some degree complicit in his efforts to employ it.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
No, this is actually very far from the truth. Back in 1987 Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Bork was savaged by Senate Democrats and his nomination was defeated. As his third choice, Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed. The point is, Bork’s position on Roe was clear as he had written about the decision after it was handed down and called it wrongly decided. Had he been confirmed he would have joined the other four justices who had already opposed Roe from the court and Roe would have been reversed at least by the Casey decision in 1992 (5-4 with Kennedy in the majority). That was twenty-five million abortions ago.
There may be valid reasons for opposing Republicans but this is not one of them.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
That “quote” was my synopsis of the arguments made about the role of the conscience in voting. Here are some of the actual quotes.- *a person’s conscience plays a key role in the voting process. *(NeedsMercy #42)
- The truth is that we are to use our own conscience… (Listener #54)
- …you can’t judge a person by the mere fact that he/she votes Democratic (the action). You don’t know what is in their heart. (NeedsMercy #60)
*- I am not an “accomplice to murder” and how dare you imply it! My conscience is clear. *(NeedsMercy #66)
- But everyone says this one thing: a voter’s conscience—properly catechized, of course—should guide them in the voting booth. And that’s the point that I’ve been trying to make all along. One person can’t force the ideas of his/her conscience on another. It just doesn’t work that way. And only God knows someone’s heart. (NeedsMercy #113)
The point I’ve been making is that the mere fact that we follow our conscience does not justify whatever action we take. If voting for a pro-abortion candidate (for other reasons) is not a sin then there is no more work for our conscience to do in that choice than in choosing what clothes to wear to work.
Ender
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Has anybody voted for a candidate who supports more liberal abortion laws over the opposition? If anybody that has done this believed there were proportional reasons to vote for the candidate in favour of more liberal abortion laws, I would like to hear from what they think they are.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
OK, here is a hypothetical scenario. Suppose we are living in some future time when the abortion laws are already quite strict - Life imprisonment for both the doctor and the mother and anyone who assisted in the operation. Now along comes a candidate who says that it is unfair to subject the mother to that harsh a punishment, since she may have been coerced, and is in favor of reducing the mother’s penalty to one year in prison, with early release possible based on individual circumstances. I think it would be proportional in that case to vote for the candidate who favored those particular “liberal” laws.
Of course that is not the situation we find ourselves in now, but it is still worthwhile to mention this scenario as it illustrates how the voting decision, at least in principle, can be dependent on political realities and is not so absolute as some would have us believe. And we in the Catholic Church know what it means for something to be absolute. It means it is true for all times and places. For example, I could never come up with a scenario under which abortion itself is OK. That is an absolute.
So let’s look a little closer to a realistic scenario, given today’s political realities. Suppose a candidate happens to be pro-choice, but he is running for an office in which abortion is never an issue, such as the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation. How would I know, then, of his pro-choice position? Well, suppose the candidate happens to be my neighbor, and we got to talking. If I thought that his opponent had an agenda for the park system that was bad for our town, I think I could vote for my neighbor, even if his opponent was more likely to be pro-life.
Another situation might be where the political realities are such that my vote for a pro-life candidate could be reasonably expected to make no difference in actual abortion policy. Of course we can never know for sure when a vote might make a difference, so we can’t say that it won’t make a difference with absolute certainty. But I think the probabilities of success are a relevant factor in deciding such an action.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
To advocate from the other side: you should not vote for your neighbor. By not voting for him you may be able to keep a pro-choice person out of public/civic life, and therefore will have done your part to reduce pro-choice attitudes by even a scintilla.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And that is where the proportionality comes in. The scintilla you mention is the proportionality factor.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
With your Comissioner of Parks and Recreation example your talking about an example where you don’t know what their position on abortion is. There may be people that know what candidates position on abortion is and choose the candidate that favours more liberal abortion laws over the candidate that favours more restrictive laws or banning abortion altogether, and this goes back to my question of what proportional reasons are there to vote for the person who favours more liberal abortion laws.
Who knows if the Comissioner of Parks and Recreation’s work wouldn’t extend to providing permits for abortion clinics, I don’t know this sure but it’s just an example idea, or have impact in some way with abortion, and their views on the issue could extend to what they do in their job.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
With your Comissioner of Parks and Recreation example your talking about an example where you don’t know what their position on abortion is. There may be people that know what candidates position on abortion is and choose the candidate that favours more liberal abortion laws over the candidate that favours more restrictive laws or banning abortion altogether, and this goes back to my question of what proportional reasons are there to vote for the person who favours more liberal abortion laws.
Who knows if the Comissioner of Parks and Recreation’s work wouldn’t extend to providing permits for abortion clinics, I don’t know this sure but it’s just an example idea, or have impact in some way with abortion, and their views on the issue could extend to what they do in their job.
How could you have reasonable expectation that voting for a pro-life candidate would not effect abortion laws?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Who knows if the Comissioner of Parks and Recreation’s work wouldn’t extend to providing permits for abortion clinics, I don’t know this sure but it’s just an example idea, or have impact in some way with abortion, and their views on the issue could extend to what they do in their job. It would be a good idea to ask if their job impacts anything to do with the abortion issue.
How could you have reasonable expectation that voting for a pro-life candidate would not effect abortion laws? Even if you don’t reasonably expect a pro-life candidate could effect abortion laws, by them being elected they could draw attention to the issue and be counted as a defender of life. Also, by looking at pass legislation the candidate has voted on, their vote could have helped abortion regulation legalisation be passed.
M
Matilda_Bennett
Guest
Please remember that discussions of particular political figures or parties are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.
- Status