Catholic Democrat and voting for pro-choice politicians

  • Thread starter Thread starter LennyFL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NeedsMercy said:
You cannot measure another by your own yardstick. This is what YOUR conscience is telling you to do. LennyFL’s conscience may tell him differently.
Click to expand...
The only way to measure your conscience is by the teachings of the Church. All Catholics should be using the same “yardstick” in that regard.
 
NeedsMercy said:
You cannot measure another by your own yardstick. This is what YOUR conscience is telling you to do. LennyFL’s conscience may tell him differently.
Click to expand...
The mere fact that our conscience chooses one action over another does not justify what we have done. If the act is wrong, the fact that we have done it with a clear conscience does not make it right, and while we cannot judge another person’s conscience we can surely judge his actions.

Ender
 
Ender said:
The mere fact that our conscience chooses one action over another does not justify what we have done. If the act is wrong, the fact that we have done it with a clear conscience does not make it right, and while we cannot judge another person’s conscience we can surely judge his actions.

Ender
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Church teaches the primacy of conscience but she also teaches that one’s conscience can be malformed. Depending on how diligently a person forms his/her conscience, following a malformed conscience can be sinful as well.
 
NeedsMercy said:
You cannot measure another by your own yardstick. This is what YOUR conscience is telling you to do. LennyFL’s conscience may tell him differently.
Click to expand...
It isn’t about following my measuring stick of your measuring stick on someone else’s measuring stick. All Catholics are required to use the same measuring stick, Churches measuring stick. And the Church says that voting for someone who that you know is Pro Choice is a Grave Sin.
 
ckutac said:
I don’t think so, and Father Matthew Habiger doesn’t think so.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/SINTOVOT.htm
Click to expand...
That is his opinion. It is not the teaching of the whole Church.

In particular, Father Habiger writes:
The argument can be made that voting is a very remote form of cooperation in abortion. But is it all that remote? The legislator who votes for abortion is clearly a formal accomplice, giving formal cooperation with abortion. S/he shares both in the intention of the act, and in supplying material support for the act. If I vote for such a candidate, knowing full well that he will help make available public monies for abortion, or continue it decriminalization, then I am aiding him/her. (my bolding)
Click to expand...
The part in bold is open to debate. If I vote for candidate who is pro-choice, that does not automatically imply that his election will help to make more public monies available for abortion, or that it will have any effect on decriminalization.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
In particular, Father Habiger writes:
"If I vote for such a candidate, knowing full well that he will help make available public monies for abortion, or continue it decriminalization, then I am aiding him/her."
The part in bold is open to debate. If I vote for candidate who is pro-choice, that does not automatically imply that his election will help to make more public monies available for abortion, or that it will have any effect on decriminalization.
Click to expand...
It is quite a stretch to suggest that voting for someone does not aid him in the furtherance of his policies. Of course it aids him; that’s why we vote for him. It may be true that our aim was to support all of a person’s objectives other than abortion, but the fact remains that the simple fact of electing him means we have aided him in all of his objectives, including abortion.

This constitutes material cooperation. It may be remote (as opposed to proximate) and it may actually be allowed (although in most cases I doubt it), but it is surely cooperation. We have aided him in whatever policies he enacts or even attempts to enact. You can argue that the aid was ineffectual but you cannot reasonably argue that it was not given.

Ender
 
Ender said:
It is quite a stretch to suggest that voting for someone does not aid him in the furtherance of his policies. Of course it aids him; that’s why we vote for him. It may be true that our aim was to support all of a person’s objectives other than abortion, but the fact remains that the simple fact of electing him means we have aided him in all of his objectives, including abortion.
Click to expand...
That depends on whether abortion is a real objective of his. Just because he nominal falls on the pro-choice side of an arbitrary dividing line does not mean he has any real desire to promote abortion. All the Church asks is that we consider his position on abortion very seriously.
This constitutes material cooperation. It may be remote (as opposed to proximate) and it may actually be allowed (although in most cases I doubt it), but it is surely cooperation. We have aided him in whatever policies he enacts or even attempts to enact. You can argue that the aid was ineffectual but you cannot reasonably argue that it was not given.
Click to expand...
Ender
Click to expand...
Let’s look at that last point. What if the aid were known to be ineffectual beforehand? Is that really aid?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The part in bold is open to debate. If I vote for candidate who is pro-choice, that does not automatically imply that his election will help to make more public monies available for abortion, or that it will have any effect on decriminalization.
Click to expand...
More than what, exactly? More than is currently spent, maybe not. But more than someone who is pro-life, certainly so. Even if both candidates were prop-choice, the Church has said the more moral choice is the one that would do the least harm.
 
Corki said:
More than what, exactly? More than is currently spent, maybe not. But more than someone who is pro-life, certainly so. Even if both candidates were prop-choice, the Church has said the more moral choice is the one that would do the least harm.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is official Church doctrine either. At least, not the implication that the “more moral” choice is mandated.
 
I find it rather ironic that our pro-abortion president has done something that will actually help unborn babies to survive.

Before Obamacare, it was perfectly legal to deny medical insurance to an unborn baby who had a pre-existing condition. Now, the law says that when a woman has a baby, there will be a window of time to add the baby to the family’s medical insurance, and also to get a different medical insurance policy for the whole family, if they are unhappy with the current policy. It will be against the law to deny medical insurance to the baby, no matter how sick the baby is.

Because of this, I believe that our president has done a whole lot more for unborn babies than any “pro-life” president has ever done.

People need to think about these things when they cast their vote.
 
Listener said:
I find it rather ironic that our pro-abortion president has done something that will actually help unborn babies to survive.

Before Obamacare, it was perfectly legal to deny medical insurance to an unborn baby who had a pre-existing condition. Now, the law says that when a woman has a baby, there will be a window of time to add the baby to the family’s medical insurance, and also to get a different medical insurance policy for the whole family, if they are unhappy with the current policy. It will be against the law to deny medical insurance to the baby, no matter how sick the baby is.

Because of this, I believe that our president has done a whole lot more for unborn babies than any “pro-life” president has ever done.

People need to think about these things when they cast their vote.
Click to expand...
Well, if a baby gets aborted, he will never get a chance to benefit from Obamacare now will he?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That depends on whether abortion is a real objective of his. Just because he nominal falls on the pro-choice side of an arbitrary dividing line does not mean he has any real desire to promote abortion.
Click to expand...
It is not a question simply of whether he actively promotes abortion. For a legislator in the end it comes down to how he will vote, either for or against bills to limit abortion, or for or against (especially Supreme) court nominees. When the votes are taken, an individual’s personal view on abortion does not matter; only his vote counts.
Let’s look at that last point. What if the aid were known to be ineffectual beforehand? Is that really aid?
Click to expand...
The aid cannot be ineffectual if the candidate is ever called on to comment on abortion or to cast a vote on any issue related to it. Any vote he casts is one that his supporters aided him in making and prevented his opponent from resisting.

Ender
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Well, if a baby gets aborted, he will never get a chance to benefit from Obamacare now will he?
Click to expand...
Obviously not, but my point is what if a woman is considering abortion because she has just found out that her baby will need several surgeries after it is born? Lack of money and insurance could easily influence her to decide for the abortion.

It is also true that if the baby gets aborted, it won’t be Obama who ordered the abortion. It will be the woman and her doctor.

I believe that the U.S. abortion rate has been dropping in the past few years. Could this have something to do with it?
 
NeedsMercy said:
If you vote for a pro-choice candidate because of his or her stand on abortion, that would be wrong. If you are voting for that candidate for other reasons, there is no problem. Don’t let anyone browbeat you into voting for something other than what YOUR conscience tells you. No one knows what is in your heart except you and the Lord.
Click to expand...
Excuse #4 and #8.

REASONS FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
  1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
  5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
 
LennyFL said:
So this is my dilemma. I am a democrat and a pro-life Catholic. I also do not agree with homosexual marriage. Now my question is, is it a sin to vote for a democrat that happens to be prochoice. I do not agree with the republican agenda other then the marriage and the pro-life aspects. If I were to vote for a democrat who happens to be pro-choice but do not agree with it at all but I agree with their stance on almost everything else would this be counted as sin?
Click to expand...
The answer to your question is Yes. No amount of govt programs and other items reach the level of severity and seriousness of abortion. It is the legalized killing of the innocent unborn. It is murder.

No amount of govt spending or taxation policies (or combination of them) reaches that level of seriousness and sin. And voting for a pro-choice or pro-abortion politician is cooperating with that sin.

In addition, for those pro-life Democrats, you must seriously weigh their support for their party, which is pro-abortion. They support the party, and they support their leadership. If they aren’t effectively fighting against this, then they are also complicit in the pro-abortion policies of the party. We saw this with the meaningless executive order during the Obamacare passage where several “pro-life” Democrats sold out for the worthless piece of paper and supported a very pro-abortion law.
 
Listener said:
Because of this, I believe that our president has done a whole lot more for unborn babies than any “pro-life” president has ever done.
Click to expand...
This is a grotesque and complete perversion of reality. Calling the most pro-abortion President we’ve ever had, saying that he has done a whole lot for unborn babies is twisted Orwellian double-speak.
 
Listener said:
Some people can’t vote for Republicans because they seem to be pro-homicide of babies who happen to live in Iraq or Afghanistan.

These people need to use their conscience to decide who to vote for, just as you use your own conscience to decide who to vote for.

Women have the power to decide whether or not to have abortions, whether it is legal or illegal. Politicians have the power to decide whether or not to kill people in other countries.
Click to expand...
Excuse #1

REASONS FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
  1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
  5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
 
Listener said:
Obviously not, but my point is what if a woman is considering abortion because she has just found out that her baby will need several surgeries after it is born? Lack of money and insurance could easily influence her to decide for the abortion.
Click to expand...
…and that happens in what? 0.01% of the abortions? In the vast majority of cases the babies aborted are perfectly healthy, right up to the moment their skull is crushed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top