Is it Moral to Vote for Lieberman since Lamont is Worse? Both "ProChoice"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patmos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Patmos

Guest
Is it moral to vote for Lieberman since Lamont is worse in significant respects? Both are committed “ProChoicers” but the Republican candidate has no chance of winning. In all previous races I have always voted for the pro-life candidate no matter how slim his chances. In previous elections I have always voted for Lieberman’s Republican opponent even though there was no chance he could win - that way I wasn’t supporting Lieberman and his support of the Culture of Death.

But now Lamont is in the picture and although there is no difference between them on their support of the Culture of Death Lamont would clearly be worse in a secular sense. Should we abruptly pull out of Iraq it could significantly damage the WOT and, concievably, endanger the US. That is the main reason why I would vote for Lieberman.

What are other’s opinions and judgments in this matter? I don’t like the idea of voting for Lieberman but does the damage that Lamont could do proportionately outweigh the damage that Lieberman would do if elected? The possibility of electing a ProLife candidate in this race is nil so my only choice is one bad candidate versus a worse candidate. Would it be better just to vote for the Republican? Is there anyone else in Connecicut who is mulling this over?
 
Assuming the candidates are as you say (and I don’t doubt that) vote for neither and keep a clean conscience.

Scott
 
Remember that God only asks us to do right; He doesn’t require that we win. He can get the results He wants in anything but our actions and growth. That is the wonderous part of our Free Will; only we can control our actions. I expect to cast a lot of votes for third parties or blanks this year in California. :cry:
 
You end up with blood on your hands either way. When faced with a similar situation i declinded to vote.
 
vote for a not likely to win 3rd party canadate, write in a vote, or decline to vote.
 
Let me see if I understand what is being recommended here. It is a given that the next senator from Connecticut will be either Lamont or Lieberman but since neither of them will help end the evil of abortion we shouldn’t vote for either, even the one we feel will help end evil of another kind. Is that the position?

I’m having trouble understanding why this is perceived as the moral position. No matter what I do with my vote it will have no impact on the issue of abortion. I can, however, use it to ameliorate other evils. Why would I throw away that opportunity?

Ender
 
Ender said:
Let me see if I understand what is being recommended here. It is a given that the next senator from Connecticut will be either Lamont or Lieberman but since neither of them will help end the evil of abortion we shouldn’t vote for either, even the one we feel will help end evil of another kind. Is that the position?

I’m having trouble understanding why this is perceived as the moral position. No matter what I do with my vote it will have no impact on the issue of abortion. I can, however, use it to ameliorate other evils. Why would I throw away that opportunity?

Ender
Click to expand...
Voting to limit the harm is a possibility, but not a necessity.
 
As a Catholic who believes that it is a moral duty to vote for elected officials and be an active citizen, you must look at the reality of the situation (which is what I believe you are doing). If the choice were to be between a pro-abortion Democrat and a pro-abortion Republican, then you would have to look at their views and voting history regarding other life and marriage and justice issues. Not voting, I believe, is just as bad as voting for the “greater” of two evils. God has entrusted us with our position within our own country, to deny our privledge of voting, is to deny what God has entrusted to us and then we really will continue to get what we deserve.

Back on your specific question. Now, I’m not from CT, but I do understand a thing or two about Liebermann. I do not know a thing about your state’s other candidates. Liebermann is more willing to listen to others who disagree with his voting than many other senators on the left. That’s the good thing I can say about him.

A somewhat similiar example happened in '04 here in Illinois. we had the choice between Obama and then many other candidates until about 60-90 days before the election when Keyes became the Repulican candidate. I voted for Keyes because he is pro-life. I knew that the ever popular Obama would win, but I couldn’t bring myself to vote for a man who has 0 respect for life and is only about publicity. The only good thing I can say about Obama when it comes to life issues is that his staff actually responds and are polite (unlike Senator Durbin’s staff) and they also call back and are respectful about opposite opinions. I still would never vote for him unless a greater evil came along, then I would have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
 
I stand corrected, Abortion is not the only issue to look at. I listed decline to vote last because it should be done only if noone on the ballot could do a good job.

That said, I am against voting only for canadates you think have a chance of winning. People doing that is the reason we only ever have two choices and the reson that we often don’t like either one of them. If *everyone *voted only for the person they felt would do the best job, reguardless of what they thought everyone else was gonna do, we’d have way better politicians in general.
 
Dear Ender,

The issue is that 1) either Lieberman or Lamont will win; the Republican doesn’t have a chance to win, 2) both the Democrats are firmly proabortion including PBA, but, 3) Lamont is also a pacifist and would pull our troops abruptly out of Irag, and, 4) if he wins and casts a deciding vote/persuades others then there are grave consequences. I am thinking of voting for Lieberman to prevent Lamont from winning, since Lamont could weaken us in the war in Iraq/WOT, which could lead to greater deaths due to terrrorism in both the Middle East and possibly even here at home. Could this be an example of a ‘double effect’, I take an action for one end i.e. to prevent Lamont winnning and endangering the security of the US yet knowing that another action will occur which is not the primary, material reason for my action, i.e., Lieberman will vote for abortion including PBA?

Does my reasoning bear up under moral scrutiny? Or is the only moral course I have to vote for the Republican even though he has no chance of winning?
 
40.png
Patmos:
is the only moral course I have to vote for the Republican even though he has no chance of winning?
Click to expand...
I can think of cases where not voting might make sense or where voting for someone with no chance of winning (e.g. the Republican in this race) also might be the right thing to do, but I do not believe that the situation in Connecticut is such a case.

Your vote, whatever you do with it, will have no affect on the issue of abortion. As much as that might be deplored, the fact remains. I think the relevant question in this case is whether you believe either of the two viable candidates (even though equally bad on abortion) would be better on other major issues. You clearly feel there is a distinction in regard to their likely impact on the war in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism. That is no small matter.

In an imperfect world we are only required to do what we can. In this case that means accepting (for this election) that you cannot affect the primary moral issue of our time and not using that as an excuse for ignoring other great concerns.

Ender
 
In his letter to the American Bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger added this note:
N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour 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.
Click to expand...
During the six year term of a senator over 6,000,000 babies will be aborted due to his actions. So if you vote for him be prepared to face 6,000,000 babies on Judgement Day to explain what proportionate reason outweighed their lives.
 
Joe_Kelley said:
In his letter to the American Bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger added this note: During the six year term of a senator over 6,000,000 babies will be aborted due to his actions. So if you vote for him be prepared to face 6,000,000 babies on Judgement Day to explain what proportionate reason outweighed their lives.
Click to expand...
However, in the OPs case, 6,000,000 babies will still be aborted if he doesn’t vote. So if he votes for one of the two probable candidates or does not choose to vote, he’s still voting for abortion according to your logic. If that is the case, he should vote for the pro-life Republican who will not win.
 
gmarie21 said:
However, in the OPs case, 6,000,000 babies will still be aborted if he doesn’t vote. So if he votes for one of the two probable candidates or does not choose to vote, he’s still voting for abortion according to your logic. If that is the case, he should vote for the pro-life Republican who will not win.
Click to expand...
Father Nesbit once told us that God doesn’t ask us to win; just to do that which is right. He can take care of the winning.
 
Apologies for resurrecting an old thread - but I was hoping someone might be able to provide a link to a Church document or letter that deals with this very issue - right ot life over political rights

In particular - is there a church document that deals with this specific point - that you should never vote for someone who is pro life

In response to the original question - the answer would be to spoil your ballot paper - saying why - that you feel disinfranchised on the issue
 
… subsequent to previous post I see Christifideles Laici 38 is pretty good - other rights are illusionary unless the right to life is defended

Any advances on CL38?
 
Joe Kelley:
In his letter to the American Bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger added this note: During the six year term of a senator over 6,000,000 babies will be aborted due to his actions. So if you vote for him be prepared to face 6,000,000 babies on Judgement Day to explain what proportionate reason outweighed their lives.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you’ve understood what Ratzinger was saying. He specifically makes the point that it can be moral to vote for someone who supports abortion, depending on the circumstances. Understand also that this statement is almost surely addressed to the situation where one candidate favors abortion and the other opposes it. Even in that case it is not automatically evil to vote for the candidate favoring abortion.

In this case, however, both of the viable candidates support abortion; on this issue there is nothing that distinguishes them and there is no satisfactory solution. The next senator from Connecticut will be someone who supports abortion. Where is the benefit in sitting out this election or wasting a vote? What is the wisdom in permitting a lesser evil simply because you cannot prevent a greater one?

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top