Is it always sinful to vote for a pro-abortion politician?

[LeafByNiggle]

Correct-you may vote for a pro-abortion candidate if their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are…

…or if you disbelieve what his opponent says is his position.

 

[oliver927]

Not voting is also a waste … But at least it is an honest waste.

How many Third Party Presidents has the U.S. had?

What is not honest about voting third party?

 

[Kal2012]

I think it depends on what office they are running for.

I really don’t care if the sheriff is pro-abortion because he/she won’t be legislating abortion, but enforcing the law.

Same with a county clerk or treasurer. Abortion never touches on their actual job.

However, if they are going to actively make laws, then yeah - it matters.

I struggle with the argument about it advancing the party if they win elections, which is true.

Because on one hand, lower level offices tend to be a stepping stone to higher office.

However, again, if the position doesn’t require them to specifically deal with abortion, then I want someone who’s qualified to do the job. Like years ago, I voted for the sheriff because he had tons of experience in law enforcement and the challenger really didn’t have any experience in the field at all and seemed like she was running for the job as a party hack, not because she’d actually be good at it.

These things matter too.

 

[BornInMarch]

What is not honest about voting third party?

I feel like voting for a third party candidate, and expecting him/her to win, would be lying to myself.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Check out this excerpt regarding three candidates in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. It may help you even though it is regarding different candidates.

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.

Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).

+Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159

 

[_Abyssinia]

To start out, I know abortion is evil. Any woman who gets an abortion is committing murder and will have to answer for it in at the end of her life.

But what if there are no pro-life candidates?

Some time ago, my state voted on a governor. Now, the way American Politics unfortunately works is that it eventually comes down to two choices: one left leaning (Democrat/Liberal/etc.) and one right leaning (Republican/Conservative/etc.). The third parties never win, so a vote for them is a vote wasted.

In the most recent governor election in my state, both candidates were pro-abortion.

Now, in this situation, would it be sinful to vote for the lesser evil or should I just stay out of the voting booth?

Isn’t there any differential on them in regards to abortion? Do they both support abortion to the same gestation? Do they both support funding to Planned Parenthood? Do they both support embryonic stem cell research?

 

[pnewton]

I feel like voting for a third party candidate, and expecting him/her to win, would be lying to myself.

Now clearly a decision to vote for the lesser evil between two candidates most likely to win can be a good moral decision. One can definitely weight elect-ability, if one thinks it is best. There are times when there is more than one morally correct way to see an election.

 

[Theo520]

How is it voting to lessen evil if both are 100% pro abortion?

At least here, I see the pro-abortion term applied too liberally. Some candidates reject abortion as birth control but accept it for cases where the pregnancy was not the result of a woman’s choice (rape/incest). While this is still the taking of an innocents life, it does the cause harm when they are tarred with same brush as an ardent Planned Parenthood supporter.

Even a candidate who only supports requiring a waiting period and viewing an ultrasound is moving the needle towards respecting life vs abortion on demand.

 

[stinkcat_14]

How is it voting to lessen evil if both are 100% pro abortion?

It clearly is not lessening evil. I would also disagree with the way the Archbishop phrased it. In my opinion, if you support abortion under any circumstance, that is evil, nobody can dispute that. If you are not in favor of all abortion under any circumstances, that is indeed a lesser evil. So if we support someone who supports less abortion, we are voting for a lesser evil.

 

[oliver927]

I feel like voting for a third party candidate, and expecting him/her to win, would be lying to myself.

In deeply “Blue” or “Red” states expecting the opposite major party candidate to win is typically a long shot at best but I don’t think those people think they are lying to themselves.