Not Voting Promotes Abortion!

[psteichen]

I have heard many Catholics say that they will not vote for a candidate that does not support their values. Or some say they will not vote at all out of disgust for the political system. In fact there is another thread going on right now about whether its okay to not vote. Well I think that it is probably not a requirement that Catholics vote, but I would like to explore another angle.

I believe that when Pro-Life citizens fail to vote, even in cases where neither candidate is Pro-Life, they promote the continuation of legal abortion.

Hopefully as American Catholics (this would pertain equally to many other nations) we can all agree that abortion is by far the worst problem this country faces. 4000 children are murdered every day in the US. That death toll dwarfs every other possible evil. And they are completely innocent victims. Even in cases of rape and incest, the child has done nothing wrong, and is loved by God. And soon the morning after pill will be killing thousands more each day, perhaps tens of thousands! By the way, if you don’t believe killing an unborn baby is a horrible evil, then you are not Catholic no matter what you like to pretend.

Because of how heinous abortion is, it has far more weight than any other issue today. There is no issue in contention today that even comes close to the importance of limiting or preferably stopping legal abortions. Is gay marriage awful? Sure. Would it be bad to elect a bigot? You bet. Is corruption something to be concerned about? Of course. Is war an issue? Maybe if it topped 4000 deaths a day for several decades, which is highly unlikely. But do any of these issues today amount to more than a leaky ceiling compared to the tidal wave of evil brought about by abortion? No. 9-11 could happen every day for the rest of the history of this nation, and still the death rates would be far less than abortion. Shocking huh?

So we agree that abortion is the only valid voting issue unless the two candidates are essentially equal on the matter or won’t have any say on the subject (the local dog catcher perhaps).

Let say now that both candidates are Pro-Abortion. You would hate to vote for either right? Wrong! If you do your research you will probably find that one is more likely to vote for some level of restriction. Or if not the individual, then the party he or she represents would at least be bolstered by their presence and may put pressure on them to vote with the party on the issue. And we all know which party is dramatically more Pro-Abortion than the other.

Some of you will say we cannot commit an evil act in order to stop evil. Voting for a Pro-Abortion candidate in order to prevent an even stronger Pro-Abortion candidate from winning is not evil. See the explanation at Priests for Life for a full understanding of this.

Then there are some of you that would vote for some third party candidate that you know has no chance of winning. Or worse yet write in a name. You could have just as well stayed home. Your candidate will not win and you will have made no point at all. Nobody will look at the election returns and say “wow, 5000 people voted for that pro-life leader”. They won’t even notice.

Not voting for a candidate that has a chance of winning does only one thing. It removes a Pro-Life vote from the pool of voters. And it encourages your government officials to do nothing to stop abortion, thereby promoting its continuation. Your vote does count! By ourselves we can do nothing, but with the grace of God enough Pro-Life voters will turn out and we can hold back the Culture of Death from its advance.

Some of you who don’t like my opinion may ask, what does this have to do with moral theology? I’ll tell you. In this forum we discuss what is right and wrong from a moral perspective. I say that promoting abortion is wrong, and very sinful. I am tying this issue to the right to vote or not vote. You have your God given freedom: What are you going to do with it?

[sign]
Will You Help Stop Abortion?
[/sign]

 

[Wendy-Kay]

Some of you will say we cannot commit an evil act in order to stop evil. Voting for a Pro-Abortion candidate in order to prevent an even stronger Pro-Abortion candidate from winning is not evil. See the explanation at Priests for Life for a full understanding of this.

Thank you for this! We are having this very dilemma in Tennessee for a senate seat. The “pro-life” candidate is only for the rights of the unborn when the baby is conceived under desirable circumstances. I wasn’t sure what to do, but now I have a direction.

 

[mikeledes]

When I can, I vote pro-life. I live in New York and so I often don’t get the opportunity to do so. One problem I have is when the choice is between someone who says their pro-life but is incompetent or corrupt versus someone who is pro-choice. How can I, in good conscience, vote for someone who might do more harm then good to the state or nation in areas other then abortion. I prefer not to vote or to vote for some third party that I know will lose the election.

God Bless

 

[dch1983]

I feel like a big problem in modern US politics is the fact that Catholics/Christians who are serious about their faith and serious about the issue of abortion are bound to vote for the Republican candidate, regardless of all else. Some argue that it is unwise or even wrong to vote based on one issue, however I do not believe this is the case. But I DO question the overall morality of the Republican party. And I question whether they have co-opted the moral stance on abortion and many other issues to ensure the vote of serious Christians in this country. I suppose this is the case with all political issues, but the fact that these are issues of morality makes me all the more uncomfortable. I must note also: it doesn’t help that the Democratic party has become the party of no morals - it’s not much of a decision with that being the case. Just another problem with the two party system…

 

[psteichen]

When I can, I vote pro-life. I live in New York and so I often don’t get the opportunity to do so. One problem I have is when the choice is between someone who says their pro-life but is incompetent or corrupt versus someone who is pro-choice. How can I, in good conscience, vote for someone who might do more harm then good to the state or nation in areas other then abortion. I prefer not to vote or to vote for some third party that I know will lose the election.

God Bless

Mike:

I share your disgust with the choices many of us have when choosing an elected official. I would only restate that the abortion issue is so much more important than everything else. Because of this I would vote for the Pro-Life candidate even if he/she was corrupt and incompetent in many other areas. An incompetent senator can do little harm compared to 4000 dead children daily in this country. But perhaps they will vote Pro-Life on a few issues. This would be more than payback for any other errors they could make, or funds they might embezzle. Of course most of the time Pro-Life candidates are better people over all, so you won’t usually have this dilemma.

Best Wishes

 

[rr1213]

Politics usually involves a decision as to which of the viable candidates you would *least *wish to see elected, as opposed to voting for someone you really believe in. Recognize also that politics involves compromises, even in areas where compromises are not theolgically justifiable. So, let’s say, one candidate is “pro-choice” and supports abortion on demand as being the right of the mother. The other is “pro-life” but would allow for abortion in the cases of significant harm to the mother, rape and incest. From a moral perspective, you would probably find neither of these candidates acceptable. On the other hand, sometimes half a loaf is better than no loaf. (Ronald Regan was very good at recognizing this). If the second candidate were to be elected, and his views prevailed in political society and law, then millions of babies would be saved even though some others would die if conceived through rape or incest. This is still better than the alternative.

Also, even when both candidates are pro-choice to the extreme, a Republican candidate (especially for the Senate) is more likely to support the nomination of conservative candidates to the judiciary than a Democratic candidate. Perhaps only in a matter of degree, but even an improvement to a degree can save lives.

 

[thistle]

I have heard many Catholics say that they will not vote for a candidate that does not support their values. Or some say they will not vote at all out of disgust for the political system. In fact there is another thread going on right now about whether its okay to not vote. Well I think that it is probably not a requirement that Catholics vote, but I would like to explore another angle.

I believe that when Pro-Life citizens fail to vote, even in cases where neither candidate is Pro-Life, they promote the continuation of legal abortion.

Hopefully as American Catholics (this would pertain equally to many other nations) we can all agree that abortion is by far the worst problem this country faces. 4000 children are murdered every day in the US. That death toll dwarfs every other possible evil. And they are completely innocent victims. Even in cases of rape and incest, the child has done nothing wrong, and is loved by God. And soon the morning after pill will be killing thousands more each day, perhaps tens of thousands! By the way, if you don’t believe killing an unborn baby is a horrible evil, then you are not Catholic no matter what you like to pretend.

Because of how heinous abortion is, it has far more weight than any other issue today. There is no issue in contention today that even comes close to the importance of limiting or preferably stopping legal abortions. Is gay marriage awful? Sure. Would it be bad to elect a bigot? You bet. Is corruption something to be concerned about? Of course. Is war an issue? Maybe if it topped 4000 deaths a day for several decades, which is highly unlikely. But do any of these issues today amount to more than a leaky ceiling compared to the tidal wave of evil brought about by abortion? No. 9-11 could happen every day for the rest of the history of this nation, and still the death rates would be far less than abortion. Shocking huh?

So we agree that abortion is the only valid voting issue unless the two candidates are essentially equal on the matter or won’t have any say on the subject (the local dog catcher perhaps).

Let say now that both candidates are Pro-Abortion. You would hate to vote for either right? Wrong! If you do your research you will probably find that one is more likely to vote for some level of restriction. Or if not the individual, then the party he or she represents would at least be bolstered by their presence and may put pressure on them to vote with the party on the issue. And we all know which party is dramatically more Pro-Abortion than the other.

Some of you will say we cannot commit an evil act in order to stop evil. Voting for a Pro-Abortion candidate in order to prevent an even stronger Pro-Abortion candidate from winning is not evil. See the explanation at Priests for Life for a full understanding of this.

Then there are some of you that would vote for some third party candidate that you know has no chance of winning. Or worse yet write in a name. You could have just as well stayed home. Your candidate will not win and you will have made no point at all. Nobody will look at the election returns and say “wow, 5000 people voted for that pro-life leader”. They won’t even notice.

Not voting for a candidate that has a chance of winning does only one thing. It removes a Pro-Life vote from the pool of voters. And it encourages your government officials to do nothing to stop abortion, thereby promoting its continuation. Your vote does count! By ourselves we can do nothing, but with the grace of God enough Pro-Life voters will turn out and we can hold back the Culture of Death from its advance.

Some of you who don’t like my opinion may ask, what does this have to do with moral theology? I’ll tell you. In this forum we discuss what is right and wrong from a moral perspective. I say that promoting abortion is wrong, and very sinful. I am tying this issue to the right to vote or not vote. You have your God given freedom: What are you going to do with it?

[sign]
Will You Help Stop Abortion?
[/sign]

What about a situation where both candidates fully support abortion to the same extent (i.e. they are both identical in their position), while one also supports contraception and the other supports gay marriage.
Are you telling me that you should vote for one of them?

 

[rr1213]

What about a situation where both candidates fully support abortion to the same extent (i.e. they are both identical in their position), while one also supports contraception and the other supports gay marriage.
Are you telling me that you should vote for one of them?

Choose the lesser of two evils and, if the race is for the US Senate which has the obligation under our Constitution to confirm nominations to the judiciary, choose the Republican except in those (very few) cases where the Democratic candidate is more pro-life than the Republican. Republican administrations are more likely to appoint judges that oppose unlimited abortion than Democratic administrations. If you can’t bring yourself to vote for either of them, then write in “Mickey Mouse”…a perfectly legitimate and rational vote that shows your disgust at the options offered you, that a cartoon character would be a better choice than either of these two clowns.

 

[thistle]

Choose the lesser of two evils and, if the race is for the US Senate which has the obligation under our Constitution to confirm nominations to the judiciary, choose the Republican except in those (very few) cases where the Democratic candidate is more pro-life than the Republican. Republican administrations are more likely to appoint judges that oppose unlimited abortion than Democratic administrations. If you can’t bring yourself to vote for either of them, then write in “Mickey Mouse”…a perfectly legitimate and rational vote that shows your disgust at the options offered you, that a cartoon character would be a better choice than either of these two clowns.

I’m Catholic and would never vote for any candidate who endorses abortion and other positions which are anti-Catholic. Choosing the lesser of two evils must never be an option. If you choose the lesser of two evils you are still endorsing evil and that is sinful. In this case I would spoil my ballot paper with something like you suggest.

 

[mary_bobo]

Thank you for this! We are having this very dilemma in Tennessee for a senate seat. The “pro-life” candidate is only for the rights of the unborn when the baby is conceived under desirable circumstances. I wasn’t sure what to do, but now I have a direction.

I have been following this race and I just heard ogon the radio news that the National Right to Life has endorsed the GOP candidate.

 

[psteichen]

If you choose the lesser of two evils you are still endorsing evil and that is sinful.

Thistle:

You’re rule doesn’t apply in this case. I know you may have heard this from some others who are misinformed. Please follow the link that I provided in the initial post. I’ll attach it again bellow.

Some of you will say we cannot commit an evil act in order to stop evil. Voting for a Pro-Abortion candidate in order to prevent an even stronger Pro-Abortion candidate from winning is not evil. See the explanation at Priests for Life for a full understanding of this.

Casting a vote in order to prevent a dangerous Pro-Abortion candidate from winning is not a sin. Priests for Life is a very reputable and faithfully Catholic organization.

 

[psteichen]

What about a situation where both candidates fully support abortion to the same extent (i.e. they are both identical in their position), while one also supports contraception and the other supports gay marriage.
Are you telling me that you should vote for one of them?

Reread paragraph 6 from the original post. You would vote for the one that belongs to the party that most supports life.

 

[thistle]

Reread paragraph 6 from the original post. You would vote for the one that belongs to the party that most supports life.

I know the OP scenario and in my view you should still not vote.
I was giving my own example whereby neither candidate supports more life than the other. What would you do in that case?

 

[psteichen]

I know the OP scenario and in my view you should still not vote.
I was giving my own example whereby neither candidate supports more life than the other. What would you do in that case?

Thistle: You would vote for the one that belongs to the party that most supports life. By doing this you strengthen their position and allow them to more fully implement Pro-Life policies and laws.

 

[tequilamac]

Thistle: You would vote for the one that belongs to the party that most supports life. By doing this you strengthen their position and allow them to more fully implement Pro-Life policies and laws.

When all Catholics stop voting and boycott the polls when confronted with completely unsuitable candidates regardless of the “party favors”, politicians will take stop and take notice. Catholics do not yet realize nor are they unified enough to realize what a huge voting block they represent and how devastating their refusal to vote would be to any candidate running for office. Actually, since we are consistently offered mediocre candidates, including those who are Catholic in name only, all americans should simply boycott the polls. What a thought and what a solution.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Politics usually involves a decision as to which of the viable candidates you would *least *wish to see elected, as opposed to voting for someone you really believe in. Recognize also that politics involves compromises, even in areas where compromises are not theolgically justifiable. So, let’s say, one candidate is “pro-choice” and supports abortion on demand as being the right of the mother. The other is “pro-life” but would allow for abortion in the cases of significant harm to the mother, rape and incest. From a moral perspective, you would probably find neither of these candidates acceptable. On the other hand, sometimes half a loaf is better than no loaf. (Ronald Regan was very good at recognizing this). If the second candidate were to be elected, and his views prevailed in political society and law, then millions of babies would be saved even though some others would die if conceived through rape or incest. This is still better than the alternative.

One can not compromise with Evil. To do so is evil.

The alternative you are selling is the death of an innocent human being. It doesn’t matter if only one innocent is murdered instead of 100 or even a million. You can not justify this. One murdered innocent is just as bad as a million murdered innocents.

Choose the lesser of two evils and, if the race is for the US Senate which has the obligation under our Constitution to confirm nominations to the judiciary, choose the Republican except in those (very few) cases where the Democratic candidate is more pro-life than the Republican. Republican administrations are more likely to appoint judges that oppose unlimited abortion than Democratic administrations. If you can’t bring yourself to vote for either of them, then write in “Mickey Mouse”…a perfectly legitimate and rational vote that shows your disgust at the options offered you, that a cartoon character would be a better choice than either of these two clowns.

This goes against what the Church teaches. One may not do evil so that a good out come can be reached.

From the Catechism.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

As you can see, we may never do evil even if a good will come from it and it is wrong for us to do something that may cause our brother to stumble which I can see happening when you support a pro-death candidate.

Thistle: You would vote for the one that belongs to the party that most supports life. By doing this you strengthen their position and allow them to more fully implement Pro-Life policies and laws.

This is just non-sense as political parties really have no power in our Government. If a pro-death candidate is elected from a so-called “Pro-Life” party it in no way helps to strengthen the Pro-Life movement. Really it does the opposite by providing the pro-death camp with another vote and it weakens the, so-called, “Pro-Life” party by making their “Pro-Life” stance a joke and showing those who are in the party that it really does not matter where they stand on this issue.

 

[psteichen]

When all Catholics stop voting and boycott the polls when confronted with completely unsuitable candidates regardless of the “party favors”, politicians will take stop and take notice. Catholics do not yet realize nor are they unified enough to realize what a huge voting block they represent and how devastating their refusal to vote would be to any candidate running for office. Actually, since we are consistently offered mediocre candidates, including those who are Catholic in name only, all americans should simply boycott the polls. What a thought and what a solution.

Tequilamac:

What a horrible idea. Think your idea through. If all Catholics failed to go to the polls, would the election be called off? No, the election would go on and huge numbers of Pro-Life voters would be removed from the pool. The results? More Pro-Abortion winners than you can shake a stick at. You’d have abortion on demand locked in. And along with that you’d get all the other pet projects that these sort of people support. Gay marriage, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning…the sky would be the limit.

What exactly would be accomplished by your boycott idea? How would this help elect leaders that share even some of your values if you try to get everyone who agrees with you not to vote?

That idea is reactionary and emotional and not based on any good logic or strategy. Ensuring moral decay in our government is not the moral high ground you seem to think it is.

 

[psteichen]

This is just non-sense as political parties really have no power in our Government. If a pro-death candidate is elected from a so-called “Pro-Life” party it in no way helps to strengthen the Pro-Life movement. Really it does the opposite by providing the pro-death camp with another vote and it weakens the, so-called, “Pro-Life” party by making their “Pro-Life” stance a joke and showing those who are in the party that it really does not matter where they stand on this issue.

ByzCath:

Really? Political parties have no power? Then why on earth would they care who controls congress? I’m afraid you don’t have a very sharp grasp of the way government works. By the way, the only time you should vote based on party is when the two candidates are identical on the issue of abortion. This situation is a hypothetical because it almost never happens. I was responding to a poster who seemed to only be interested in that one extremely rare situation. Normally you should always vote for the candidate that will do the least amount of harm to unborn children regardless of party.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath:

Really? Political parties have no power? Then why on earth would they care who controls congress? I’m afraid you don’t have a very sharp grasp of the way government works. By the way, the only time you should vote based on party is when the two candidates are identical on the issue of abortion. This situation is a hypothetical because it almost never happens. I was responding to a poster who seemed to only be interested in that one extremely rare situation. Normally you should always vote for the candidate that will do the least amount of harm to unborn children regardless of party.

Yes, political parties have no power in our Government as they are not a recognized force. Anyone that is elected to the Senate or House of Representatives can vote any way he wishes regardless of which party he belongs to.

Voting for a pro-death candidate is voting for a pro-death candidate no matter if both running for the office share that belief or not.

As I have shown, the Church teaches that one may not do evil for a good outcome which is what you are advocating with this situation. Simply put, it is evil.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Tequilamac:

What a horrible idea. Think your idea through. If all Catholics failed to go to the polls, would the election be called off? No, the election would go on and huge numbers of Pro-Life voters would be removed from the pool. The results? More Pro-Abortion winners than you can shake a stick at. You’d have abortion on demand locked in. And along with that you’d get all the other pet projects that these sort of people support. Gay marriage, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning…the sky would be the limit.

What exactly would be accomplished by your boycott idea? How would this help elect leaders that share even some of your values if you try to get everyone who agrees with you not to vote?

That idea is reactionary and emotional and not based on any good logic or strategy. Ensuring moral decay in our government is not the moral high ground you seem to think it is.

No more a horrible idea that suggesting that people vote for candidates that are for murdering innocent children.

Or did you not say in your first post to open this thread, “By the way, if you don’t believe killing an unborn baby is a horrible evil, then you are not Catholic no matter what you like to pretend.”

Yet you seem to be saying that it is ok to vote for people who thinking that this is ok if both candidates support doing just that.