How to vote when there is no pro-life choice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bill6

Guest
Greetings in Christ,
I live in the USA and this year we are having U.S Congressional Elections. Our Congressional Representative is strongly pro-choice. His opponent( for the general election, we aren’t having a primary) is a state legislature. She is not pro-life. She is personally pro-life, but she has suggested that she shouldn’t “impose” her view on other women who may be in very difficult situations. She does oppose abortion in the third trimester, she has voted against expanding abortion “rights” in our state law, and she seems friendly to the pro-life movement (unlike the guy she’s running against). She is also a great woman who has done tremendous good for our community and our state as a whole. Additionally, many she has many other positions that are fully in line with Catholic Social Teaching (also unlike her opponent).

Since there will be no pro-life candidate on the ballot, how would you vote? I am considering voting for her because she would limit abortion at least to an extent. Still, voting for someone who is (at least publicly) pro-choice feels impossible to do in good conscious.
 
Last edited:
My personal view:

If I lived in a swing state or a local area with a tight race, I would vote for the candidate that supports a Culture of Life.

In a state where my vote is meaningless and irrelevant (which is most places because of Gerrymandering) I would vote for the ideal candidate, such as the Solidarity Party. For most of us across the country, we don’t actually have the legal right to vote other then in a make-believe Santa Claus sort of way, but I suppose it still carries personal significance for a person and makes them feel like they matter.

If there are no Culture of Life candidate, then I don’t know. Pro-life is paramount because of the gravity and scale of the disaster.
 
Last edited:
You can vote for a third party candidate, a write-in candidate, or pick the lesser of the two evils and choose the candidate who you think will best support Church teachings overall.
 
I think it is important to participate since currently only 60% of eligible voters vote. That leaves a lot of the population with representation they didn’t play a part in choosing. It’s less than ideal to vote for a pro-choice candidate, but it is still good to vote for the candidate that is closer to matcing our values.
 
Vote for whoever you think will best represent God’s will on these subjects, and as a concerned citizen petition the winner and communicate your viewpoint with regard to those positions that you differ on.
 
As a non-American, I sometimes wonder if you guys over the Big Pond realize how lucky you are to have pro-life options at all. Voting when no-one at all, big parties or alternative candidates, is pro-life, is what everybody has to do over here.

I pick the lesser of two evils. It wouldn’t occur to me not to vote at all, because there are other important ethical battles to fight.
 
Last edited:
Bill6 said:
does oppose abortion in the third trimester, she has voted against expanding abortion “rights” in our state law, and she seems friendly to the pro-life movement (unlike the guy she’s running against). She is also a great woman who has done tremendous good for our community and our state as a whole. Additionally, many she has many other positions that are fully in line with Catholic Social Teaching (also unlike her opponent).
Click to expand...
You choose the lesser of two evils.

On the pro-life issue, it sound like the “personally pro-life but doesn’t want to impose” is the better choice. She might not be perfect, but sounds better than “strongly pro-choice”
 
Last edited:
Pray about it and trust that God will tell you who to vote for. 🙂
 
RuthAnne said:
40.png
phil19034:
You choose the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...
Why would I choose evil?
Click to expand...
huh?

Catholic social teaches says that when voting, we are to choose the candidate who best lines up to Catholic teaching. However, when there is no VIABLE option, we are allowed to vote for the lesser of two evils in order to minimize the damage.

When we cast a “throw away vote” or abstain from voting we may inadvertently be helping the worse candidate to be elected to office. This is why we are permitted to cast a vote for a “lesser of two evils.”

I hope I’m making sense.
 
Last edited:
The saying sounds bad, but the meaning isn’t. If someone jumps in front of a bullet to save a child, they have kind of chosen the “lesser of two evils”, injury to themself over the child.
 
I figure vote Pro-MOM. Mom’s protect the unborn, no one else can. To help them help her.
 
Can’t dictate to other Catholics what to do.

But, if I were in that position, and other things were equal, I would vote for the “oppose abortion in the third trimester” person over the “strongly pro-choice” person.

I agree with you; I don’t care very much for the “personally pro-life, but . . .” routine. But I’d probably vote that way anyway.

Also, when you have “pro-choice” versus “pro-choice,” again assuming other things are equal, I would vote for the challenger over the incumbent, figuring that that person might be a weaker opponent for the next time.
 
RuthAnne said:
40.png
phil19034:
When we cast a “throw away vote” or abstain from voting we may inadvertently be helping the worse candidate to be elected to office.
Click to expand...
What if I consider them to be equally bad?
Click to expand...
That’s why the church ranks the issues of importance and why the Church ranks mortal sins.

Church documents help people to discern this.

Yes, all evil is evil and all mortal sin is mortal sin… but some evils are worse than others, just like some mortal sins are worse than others.

The problem we face today is because of the heretical “seamless blanket theory” which has infiltrated a large percentage of Catholics.

HOWEVER, in the unlikely situation that BOTH are 100% equal as far as Catholic teaching is concerned, then you simply pick the one you feel most comfortable with.

God Bless
 
If I vote, which I rarely do, I’ll chose someone who I believe is honorable rather than choosing evil.
 
Thank you all for your responses. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who is pro-choice. Since I am not aware of any pro-life third party options, I’ll either not vote or write someone in. I’m leaning towards not voting.

God bless and Mary keep you!
 
Last edited:
OddBird said:
As a non-American, I sometimes wonder if you guys over the Big Pond realize how lucky you are to have pro-life options at all. Voting when no-one at all, big parties or alternative candidates, is pro-life, is what everybody has to do over here.
Click to expand...
U.S. voters take note. This is why you should vote for pro-life candidates when you have that option. In the case of the OP’s question, I would choose the one who is most friendly to pro-life issues. Even though both describe themselves as pro-choice, one seems to be more pro-life than the other.
 
Bill6 said:
She does oppose abortion in the third trimester, she has voted against expanding abortion “rights” in our state law, and she seems friendly to the pro-life movement (unlike the guy she’s running against).
Click to expand...
The fight against abortion is incremental. There’s no version where “life wins next week.”

With each small win, the lines move, and the consensus to further restrict moves as well.

So there’s a huge difference between all-out pro-choice and lukewarm restrictionism.

And for that matter, if my choices were between a candidate that wouldn’t compromise on anything less than heartbeat legislation, and one that could take the compromise of the moment to ban third trimester, I’d vote for the latter every time.

I’d rather save as many lives as we can than posture for the ideal . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top