Pro-Choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?

[SoCalRC]

There you and I agree. But the reality of the situation is that under our system of government, there can only be two major parties. Only one time in our history has a third party triumphed (the Republicans in 1860), and when that happened, it killed off one of the two major parties (the Whigs) and sparked a civil war.

Then the question would be, just how low does the bar have to be for you to decide to finally not vote for someone on the basis of abortion?

For the last 3 presidential elections, you have favored supporting someone who has take a public position that Roe should be upheld in the past and who currently holds a position on abortion which is considered intrinsically evil. Is there a threshold at which your need to stand on principle with regards to abortion would pass the ‘realities’ of two party rule?

In other words, is there actually a limit, or do you believe that ‘lesser of two major party evils’ should always be applied? Remember, not only are the last three GOP presidential candidates only recently reformed from wholly pro choice (upholding Roe), two primary contenders this year had contributed and supported to pro-choice causes, a third had worked as a paid lobbiest for an abortion clinic. So we could have been confronted with two essentially identical major party positions. Would it then come down to ultra hair spitting (ex. tiny restrictions vs. no restrictions)?

Again, I’m just asking at what point (if any) the balance tips between voting ‘principle’ and voting ‘viable’.

 

[vz71]

I thought she did answer it, as has Mapleoak and myself. I do not condemn Catholics who decide that they must vote ‘pragmatically’, but I will not do so with regards to instrinsic evil myself.

Further, in both Rome’s and the USCCB’s documents on voting, I cannot find anything to support a ‘more viable over more moral candidate’ position. I’d be happy to have it pointed out to me:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

I must be missing something here.

I have not seen anyone here say anything to the effect of “I will vote for a pro-life candidate that cannot win over a less perfect pro-life candidate that can win.”

Please clarify what you are saying.

Will you vote for a pro-life candidate that cannot win over a less pro-life candidate that can win?

 

[mapleoak]

What is the big deal about me teasing LCMS_No_More about having his feelings hurt because I didn’t include him in my earlier comment?

It wasn’t “personal,” except in a light-hearted manner. I handle disagreement just fine. It would appear that perhaps you don’t though, based on your reaction.

It just looked like you were getting frustrated. No harm, no foul.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then the question would be, just how low does the bar have to be for you to decide to finally not vote for someone on the basis of abortion?

For the last 3 presidential elections, you have favored supporting someone who has take a public position that Roe should be upheld in the past and who currently holds a position on abortion which is considered intrinsically evil. Is there a threshold at which your need to stand on principle with regards to abortion would pass the ‘realities’ of two party rule?

In other words, is there actually a limit, or do you believe that ‘lesser of two major party evils’ should always be applied? Remember, not only are the last three GOP presidential candidates only recently reformed from wholly pro choice (upholding Roe), two primary contenders this year had contributed and supported to pro-choice causes, a third had worked as a paid lobbiest for an abortion clinic. So we could have been confronted with two essentially identical major party positions. Would it then come down to ultra hair spitting (ex. tiny restrictions vs. no restrictions)?

Again, I’m just asking at what point (if any) the balance tips between voting ‘principle’ and voting ‘viable’.

And again, I ask: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

 

[johnnykins]

And again, I ask: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

The way you phrased it, I would say no.

However, if by the caveat "“albeit imperfectly” you mean the person who espouses the “pro-life position” espouses abortion in certain circumstances, then the answer is yes, since both candidates are morally reprehensible and there being no other candidates one could consider other moral issues as well as the difference in applicability of “pro life” issues - whatever that means in this scenario.

 

[mapleoak]

I must be missing something here.

I have not seen anyone here say anything to the effect of “I will vote for a pro-life candidate that cannot win over a less perfect pro-life candidate that can win.”

I would say it is more to the liking of “I will vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil in some circumstances, but is going to win, over someone who does not support intrinsic evil who will not win.”

 

[vz71]

I would say it is more to the liking of “I will vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil in some circumstances, but is going to win, over someone who does not support intrinsic evil who will not win.”

I’m finding the absolutest POV here to be very discouraging.

There is a war going on here over abortion. And it appears that many believe that if we cannot win all at one time, then there is no point in fighting.

War is won one battle at a time. Not all at once.

 

[mapleoak]

The way you phrased it, I would say no.

However, if by the caveat "“albeit imperfectly” you mean the person who espouses the “pro-life position” espouses abortion in certain circumstances, then the answer is yes, since both candidates are morally reprehensible and there being no other candidates one could consider other moral issues as well as the difference in applicability of “pro life” issues - whatever that means in this scenario.

The answer can never be “yes” since the Church has specifically condemned supporting “pro-choice” candidates. Because both candidates support abortion, one to a much greater extent, this does not give one the free pass to now ignore the fact that the candidates support abortion and vote on other issues. This is a grave mistake.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The way you phrased it, I would say no.

However, if by the caveat "“albeit imperfectly” you mean the person who espouses the “pro-life position” espouses abortion in certain circumstances, then the answer is yes, since both candidates are morally reprehensible and there being no other candidates one could consider other moral issues as well as the difference in applicability of “pro life” issues - whatever that means in this scenario.

Catholic morality does not require us to vote only for the perfect candidate (there will never be such a candidate.) Nor are we released from our moral obligations if we cannot find a perfect candidate. If the best we can do is to vote to limit evil, then we are morally obliged to do so.

 

[mapleoak]

I’m finding the absolutest POV here to be very discouraging.

There is a war going on here over abortion. And it appears that many believe that if we cannot win all at one time, then there is no point in fighting.

War is won one battle at a time. Not all at once.

We are not called to surrender or compromise our faith to achieve our goals. Not all means to an end are moral.

 

[liotino]

When it comes to human life, I don’t really understand this idea of “varying degrees.” Sounds like a copout and an excuse to marry “pro-life” to other things that are inimical to human life, like Republican ideology (war profits, mammon worship, etc.). Just sayin’

And I’m not pro-choice in any way whatsoever, so don’t even think of going there with me…anyone. :nope:

Help me understand what you are saying in essence that we should compromise in order to get some abortion restrictions?

 

[johnnykins]

The answer can never be “yes” since the Church has specifically condemned supporting “pro-choice” candidates. Because both candidates support abortion, one to a much greater extent, this does not give one the free pass to now ignore the fact that the candidates support abortion and vote on other issues. This is a grave mistake.

I do not believe you are correct - and would love to see something authoritative that clearly supports your assertions since that would mean a reverse of long held moral principles. Effectively you are claiming that in a two candidate situation where both support abortion a Catholic cannot vote - A position the Church simply has not taken.

 

[johnnykins]

Catholic morality does not require us to vote only for the perfect candidate (there will never be such a candidate.) Nor are we released from our moral obligations if we cannot find a perfect candidate. If the best we can do is to vote to limit evil, then we are morally obliged to do so.

Agreed - the issue is what is the vote to limit evil here. That’s precisely what opens the issue to other moral questions and the impact of other evils. .

 

[vern_humphrey]

Agreed - the issue is what is the vote to limit evil here. That’s precisely what opens the issue to other moral questions and the impact of other evils. .

The smokescreen is that other issues can pre-empt the life issues – that we can vote for a candidate who wants taxpayer-supported abortion, for example, because he supports raising the minimum wage, and ignore a candidate who wants to dramatically limit abortion, but not stop it 100%.

It is just this smokescreen that has led us to the point where the majority of Catholics vote pro-abortion.

 

[johnnykins]

The smokescreen is that other issues can pre-empt the life issues – that we can vote for a candidate who wants taxpayer-supported abortion, for example, because he supports raising the minimum wage, and ignore a candidate who wants to dramatically limit abortion, but not stop it 100%.

It is just this smokescreen that has led us to the point where the majority of Catholics vote pro-abortion.

Vern, you may well disagree with how many Catholics vote - I certainly do - but there are actual “life issues” beyond abortion.

That being said, I believe your real problem is that you - and I’m putting words in your mouth - disagree with the prudential judgment made by many Catholics in the weighing of these “life issues.” I have to agree that I, too, think many Catholics either do not weigh the issues or err in that weighing. Nonetheless, if they have weighed them and in good faith believe that the prudential thing to do in light of other positions on other “life issues” is to vote for the more strident pro-abortion candidate - I cannot say authoritatively they are immoral.

 

[SoCalRC]

And again, I ask: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

If you mean ‘supports abortion for rape, incest, and health reasons’ than the answer seems to be “maybe”.

The Bishops tell us this:

1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

So, if the condition is met (“all candidates”) it may be licit to vote for candidate who supports intrinsic evil. But it is not clear that the decision is automatically one candidate or another based solely on being ‘less intrinsically evil’ than abortion.

 

[johnnykins]

BTW Vern, I believe the true “smokescreen” (to steal a phrase) is to hide behind the argument that it’s OK to kill several thousand deformed babies (or other such argument) but not OK to kill millions of normal babies. The fact is that it is immoral to abort ANY babies and once you make one exception, you open the moral door to decide on other exceptions. It’s this dichotomy that is the weakness of those who shout the loudest to vote for the candidate who makes only “minor” exception s.

 

[johnnykins]

If you mean ‘supports abortion for rape, incest, and health reasons’ than the answer seems to be “maybe”.

The Bishops tell us this:

So, if the condition is met (“all candidates”) it may be licit to vote for candidate who supports intrinsic evil. But it is not clear that the decision is automatically one candidate or another based solely on being ‘less intrinsically evil’ than abortion.

Exactly

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, you may well disagree with how many Catholics vote - I certainly do - but there are actual “life issues” beyond abortion.

Did you hear me say there are not life issues beyond abortion?

However, they can be divided into two categories – those that involve intrinsic evil (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia) and those that are subject to prudential judgement (the death penalty, war and peace.)

Next, there are issues of scale – the death of millions of children through abortion surely is a more serious matter than the execution of a few dozen duly-convicted heinous criminals.

Therefore, the intrinsic evil issues take precedent, and among them, the evil that kills the most innocent people is at the top of the list.

That being said, I believe your real problem is that you - and I’m putting words in your mouth - disagree with the prudential judgment made by many Catholics in the weighing of these “life issues.”

I suggest that Catholics who vote for pro-abortion candidates do not “weigh” life issues at all.

I have to agree that I, too, think many Catholics either do not weigh the issues or err in that weighing. Nonetheless, if they have weighed them and in good faith believe that the prudential thing to do in light of other position on other “life issues” is to vote for the less strident pro-abortion candidate - I cannot say authoritatively they are immoral.

If Catholics voted for Hitler, would you authoritatively say such votes were immoral acts?

Remember, Hitler killed only about a quarter as many innocents as we have killed by abortion.

 

[mapleoak]

BTW Vern, I believe the true “smokescreen” (to steal a phrase) is to hide behind the argument that it’s OK to kill several thousand deformed babies (or other such argument) but not OK to kill millions of normal babies.

This is exactly what I have been saying. Both are wrong.

The fact is that it is immoral to abort ANY babies and once you make one exception, you open the moral door to decide on other exceptions.

I disagree, as no moral door opens saying that we “now don’t have to worry about the candidates abortion stance since they are both pro-abortion”.

It’s this dichotomy that is the weakness of those who shout the loudest to vote for the candidate who makes only “minor” exception s.

When it comes to intrinsic evil, there is no minor exception.