Is Voting for a Pro-Choicer a Mortal Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeyWarren
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
There is a “vote for Rachel” movement that asks people to write in the name “Rachel” if they believe that they cannot cast a vote due to the fact that all of the candidates on the ballot are abortion supporters.

Rumor has it that “Rachel” has actually won several recent local elections. 😛
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard of this, is this a Canadian thing? 😉 If so, it might be worth starting a similar movement south of the border.
 
The poll doesn’t have an option for “No, if the other candidate was is even more pro-abortion.”

What if the next presidential election is Hillary VS. Giuliani? Both are pro-choice but one is far more beholden to the pro-abortion movement than the other. There would be no moral issue in voting for Giuliani despite his pro-choice stance, if the alternative were worse on life issues.
 
Time to review this again:

**Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics
** Copyright © 2004, Catholic Answers.

…**FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLES
** These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those that fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.
**1. Abortion
** The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it” (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.
The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child’s, who should not suffer death for others’ sins.
 
Grateful4mercy said:
I don’t see how voting or not voting for somebody would have any bearing at all on the current abortion ‘debate’. Except for the opportunity to select Supreme Court judges, the legislative and executive branches have been eliminated from the abortion forum. They can NOT create laws either in favor of or against abortion, whether they serve at the national, state or local level. So what you are asking is, is it a sin to cast a SYMBOLIC vote for a Pro-Choice candidate, right?

This is the unfortunate state of the union, and I hate every lousy day of it. Today 3500 living humans will be snuffed out for the convinience of their parents. We may have lost the next Blessed Mother Teresa, or JPII, or ironically the Supreme Court judge that would have cast the vote to end this madness.

Given all of that, I still can’t see how voting pro-abortion, vile as it may seem, can become a sin. Our political environment give as much power to change R vs W to a Senator as it gives to the county dog catcher, and I don’t remember what her position was on the issue :o

Prayer is much more powerful, and you can do it more than once 👍
Click to expand...
Actually, since there will almost certainly be at least 2 or 3 SC spots open in the next 4 years and since senators approve SC confirmations, a pro-life president (or strict constructionist) and 1 or 2 pro-life senators could cause R V W to be overturned in the near future.
 
Grateful4mercy said:
Thank you. It wasn’t an easy thing to come to terms with, I assure you.😛
Click to expand...
Yes I know it is not easy.

I just got off the phone with my Arch-Bishop . And asked him point blank. “Is voting for a pro-lifer a mortal sin if you are voting for him because of all the other issues that exist beyond the abortion issue?”

His answer was a flat out NO!

He said Yes if you are voting solely because of his stand on aboriton.

He asked why.

I told him SuzieB’s story.

He was disheartened to hear that a Bishop would make such a statement.

I am relieved that my Bishop does not believe the same as SuzieB’s Bishop.
 
Here’s a thought. Rather than worrying about mortal this, mortal that, just vote the way a Catholic is supposed to vote, which means never voting for any candidate for any office who isn’t anti-abortion.

👍

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Ham1 said:
Actually, since there will almost certainly be at least 2 or 3 SC spots open in the next 4 years and since senators approve SC confirmations, a pro-life president (or strict constructionist) and 1 or 2 pro-life senators could cause R V W to be overturned in the near future.
Click to expand...
No it will not be overturned. First of all someone has to request some type of review of the decision. We have a majority in the SC now of Catholics. No one yet has taken the initiative to attempt an overturning.

Second. The SC abides by the Medical Definition of when life starts of some sort. The Medical Definition is going to have to change first and I don’t see them changing that.

And if all the Prophecy Nuts are right, then Mrs Clinton will be the next President.
 
JoeyWarren said:
Second. The SC abides by the Medical Definition of when life starts of some sort. The Medical Definition is going to have to change first and I don’t see them changing that.
Click to expand...
:confused:

It is a scientific fact that life starts at conception. This isn’t a new fact. It is one the Blackmun court was well-aware, but chose to ignore by not addressing the issue at all.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
JoeyWarren said:
No it will not be overturned. First of all someone has to request some type of review of the decision. We have a majority in the SC now of Catholics. No one yet has taken the initiative to attempt an overturning.

Second. The SC abides by the Medical Definition of when life starts of some sort. The Medical Definition is going to have to change first and I don’t see them changing that.

And if all the Prophecy Nuts are right, then Mrs Clinton will be the next President.
Click to expand...
Currently, the court is one vote from overturning. The decision was actually made in 1994 and opinions written, but at the last minute Kennedy had a change of mind and sided with upholding the decision. As far as a challenge to it, SD could have challenged it with their abortion ban, but planned parenthood decided to attck via referendum rather than the SC. If the conservatives were to gain one more seat on the SC, it is likely that several states would pass laws similar to SD in order to escalate to the SC and overturn Roe V Wade.
 
mlchance said:
Here’s a thought. Rather than worrying about mortal this, mortal that, just vote the way a Catholic is supposed to vote, which means never voting for any candidate for any office who isn’t anti-abortion.

👍

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
This not the only way to vote as a Catholic. I would edit it this way:

just vote the way a Catholic is supposed to vote, which means never voting for any candidate for any office who isn’t the most pro-life candidate with a legitimate chance of winning.
 
Ham1 said:
This not the only way to vote as a Catholic. I would edit it this way:

just vote the way a Catholic is supposed to vote, which means never voting for any candidate for any office who isn’t the most pro-life candidate with a legitimate chance of winning.
Click to expand...
Very important point that many choose to overlook.
 
Ham1 said:
just vote the way a Catholic is supposed to vote, which means never voting for any candidate for any office who isn’t the most pro-life candidate with a legitimate chance of winning.
Click to expand...
Nope. Doesn’t fly. It lets people weasel into voting for people like Senator Clinton or Senator Kerry by claiming they are “more pro-life.” No Catholic can justify voting for the likes of Senator Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Specter, et cetera. It simply can’t be done.

Now if the choice were between Senator Clinton and someone who plans on extending abortion “rights” to include newborns and infants, or if they’re running against nobody but equally rabid pro-abortionists, I could see the point, but let’s be honest: That doesn’t happen much if at all.

That point aside, Catholics make up at least 25% of the U.S. population. If we all voted the way we’re supposed to, the pro-life cause would succeed.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Justice-----------------Affiliation

John Roberts----------- Catholic
Stephen G. Breyer---- Jewish
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- Jewish
Anthony M. Kennedy- Catholic
Antonin Scalia--------- Catholic
David H. Souter------- Episcopalian
John Paul Stevens---- Protestant
Clarence Thomas----- Catholic
Samuel Alito----------- Catholic

If 5 Catholics and 2 Jews can’t overturn Roe vs Wade by Religious Conviction Alone, then nothing will.
 
mlchance said:
Nope. Doesn’t fly. It lets people weasel into voting for people like Senator Clinton or Senator Kerry by claiming they are “more pro-life.” No Catholic can justify voting for the likes of Senator Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Specter, et cetera. It simply can’t be done.

Now if the choice were between Senator Clinton and someone who plans on extending abortion “rights” to include newborns and infants, or if they’re running against nobody but equally rabid pro-abortionists, I could see the point, but let’s be honest: That doesn’t happen much if at all.

That point aside, Catholics make up at least 25% of the U.S. population. If we all voted the way we’re supposed to, the pro-life cause would succeed.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Only someone of extremely minimal intelligence would interpret pro-life that way. (Note: I don’t mean you, I mean anyone who attempts to justify a vote in that way). So, I’ll change the wording:

A Catholic must always vote for the candidate who is the most anti-abortion and who has a legitimate chance of winning the election.

Or reverse it to a negative proposition:

A Catholic can never vote for the candidate who is more pro-abortion than any other candidate with a legitimate chance at winning the election.

You point about it being rare is not true. It is very likely that the next presidential election will be between a very pro-abortion democrat and a somewhat pro-abortion (but judicially conservative) republican. In that case, the Catholic ought to vote for the somewhat pro-abortion politician over the very pro-abortion candidate.

And yes, even if 75% of Catholics voted truly pro-life, there would be very few pro-choice politicians in office.
 
Ham1 said:
… with a legitimate chance at winning the election.
Click to expand...
We’re voting; not betting on the horses.

The candidate with the best chance of winning is the one who gets the most votes.

Therefore, if all Catholics and pro-life Christians (who are the majority of voters) vote for the pro-life candidate, without regard for popularity or party affiliation, he will get the most votes, and he will have a chance to win the election.
 
jmcrae said:
We’re voting; not betting on the horses.

The candidate with the best chance of winning is the one who gets the most votes.

Therefore, if all Catholics and pro-life Christians (who are the majority of voters) vote for the pro-life candidate, without regard for popularity or party affiliation, he will get the most votes, and he will have a chance to win the election.
Click to expand...
Ideally yes, but in reality no. Polling data is pretty accurate. Even if you increase the margin of error to 10-12%, you still know which candidates have a reasonable shot a week or 2 before the election and which do not.

Let’s say you have 3 candidates running for President and it is certain that a SC seat will be opening up. 1 is pro-abortion and at 45% in the polls. 2 is pro-life (with rape/incest exception) and at 38% in the polls. 3 is pro-life (no exceptions) and at 10% in the polls.

Where do you cast your vote? I say vote 2. Voting 3 won’t get you anything accept candidate number 1.
 
Ham1 said:
Ideally yes, but in reality no. Polling data is pretty accurate. Even if you increase the margin of error to 10-12%, you still know which candidates have a reasonable shot a week or 2 before the election and which do not.

Let’s say you have 3 candidates running for President and it is certain that a SC seat will be opening up. 1 is pro-abortion and at 45% in the polls. 2 is pro-life (with rape/incest exception) and at 38% in the polls. 3 is pro-life (no exceptions) and at 10% in the polls.

Where do you cast your vote? I say vote 2. Voting 3 won’t get you anything accept candidate number 1.
Click to expand...
Yes, unfortunately that’s the way it is, BECAUSE too many of the voters think they are betting on the horses.

My mission in life (well, one of my messages) is to educate people that how they vote actually changes the outcome of the vote. If enough people finally eventually realize that voting for the pro-life candidate gets him votes, then I will die happy. 😛

PS: Also, we would do well to keep in mind that our task is not to vote for the winning candidate; rather, we are mandated by God to vote for the pro-life candidate, regardless of whether we think he will win.

It’s not about winning the election; it’s about supporting the pro-life cause.
 
If all the choices were “pro-choice” and you vote on the next most serious issue then IMHO it is not a sin. I also believe it is our Catholic Christian duty to work to get someone with our moral beliefs on the ballot. But, then that is another thread.

If there is someone on the ballot that is “pro-life” and you still vote “pro-choice” then it is condoning and enabling sin which is a sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top