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

[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.

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

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.

The same document, in #27-#30, notes that while life issues must be given their proper weight, it cannot be at the expense of other fundemental principles. In this it cites a Doctrinal Note from Rome:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (see #4)

Which puts serious contraints on the application of “limiting the harm” as introduced in EVANGELIUM VITAE. It also introduces the concept of certain fundemental and inalienable moral values being non-negotiable.

The Bishop’s also cite SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, where the Holy Father again cites these values as “non negotiable” with regards to voting under a principle of “Eucharistic consistancy”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html (see #83).

While the answer to your hypothetical is “maybe”, I would have to say that the answer to the current situation in the US is “no”. I can find nothing in Church teaching to suggest that it is licit to select a candidate who supports intrinsic evil on a very grave and important teaching over candidates who do not support such evil simply because of what the candidates chances of winning are perceived to be.

Proportional reasons do not permit direct complicency with intrinsic evil. That is, any connection must be “remote”. But if one selects evil over non evil for political expediency, it seems hard to argue that the connection is still “remote” since the evil is being adopted as a means to an ends.

 

[liotino]

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.

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

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.

Help the me to understand the bottom line to all this that there is a compromise to be set to save some lives at the detriment of others?

 

[SoCalRC]

Help the me to understand the bottom line to all this that there is a compromise to be set to save some lives at the detriment of others?

Go to the two documents I linked just above. One is from the USCCB on voting, the other is from Rome, in the form of a Doctrinal Note on voting.

They are addressed to the lay faithful and well worth reading.

Peace

 

[mapleoak]

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.

I would think that if one honestly believed it acceptable to support a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil in order to limit the evil, they may very well be justified in voting for the candidate who will likely limit the scale or magnitude of the intrinsic evil.

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.

This is why I said it would be gravely immoral to vote for the wholly pro-choice candidate on the basis that both are pro-choice, at least to some extent.

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

Most likely.

 

[johnnykins]

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

well, that’s a narrow silly thing to say so I presume you didn’t say it… If that was an axiom of your question, then why even ask the question? It’s both absurd and stacked. Let’s see, war is a life issue,euthanasia, capital punishment, starvation, disease, etc are all life issues in any normal meaning of the term.

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.)

BTW don’t forget your own hypothetical questions posits both candidates are pro-abortion, though one only a little bit.

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.

Issues of scale are quintessentially a component of prudential judgment since the underlying issue is identical.

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.

But - here is the “BUT” - both candidates are in favor of the intrinsic evil - hence we move on to the prudential issues and analysis.

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

I suggest they simply do not weigh them as you weigh them - (though I do agree many do not at all - but that’s not the issue here)

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

really a non sequitur We also know many Catholics DID vote for him.

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

a non sequitur. aren’t all lifes valuable? Why are you willing to condone affirmatively saying it’s OK to kill some - like those conceived by incest?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Help the me to understand the bottom line to all this that there is a compromise to be set to save some lives at the detriment of others?

It’s easy to understand. First of all, recognize that “compromise” is your term, not mine.

We are in a war. It is unrealistic to think a war can be won by a single battle, or even a single campaign. The best we can do is to make some gains. And there are times when we will suffer defeats, and the best we can do is limit the evil.

But by persistance, by focusing on the intrinsic evils, we can slowly whittle them down. And to fail to understand that is to cede the war to the forces of evil.

It is those who demand perfection in the candidate – and when they don’t find it, turn around and vote for a worse candidate – who have cost us victory to date.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

Not on a per year basis, and about 45,000,000 lives were lost world wide stopping that evil.

But either way one calculates, these sorts of comparisons do a disservice to the pain and suffering associated with all attrocities and intrinsic evil. Would you vote for a candidate with a perfect position on abortion and a long track record of actual tangible results on the issue knowing that he had a predatory pedophilia problem with young boys?

Would the argument be, ‘he is only sexually victimizing a few each year, vs. the millions he could save’? Or, ‘being emotionally scarred and miserable for life isn’t the same as being dead…’?

As Catholics, we accept the natural law. That is, there are some things you simply do not do, not for any reason. Treasuring life in every stage and every condition is perhaps the highest form of our obligation to Love our neighbors as ourselves. It is not a zero sum game, trading some for others, but an obligation to God.

 

[mapleoak]

The Bishop’s also cite SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, where the Holy Father again cites these values as “non negotiable” with regards to voting under a principle of “Eucharistic consistancy”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html (see #83).

While the answer to your hypothetical is “maybe”, I would have to say that the answer to the current situation in the US is “no”. I can find nothing in Church teaching to suggest that it is licit to select a candidate who supports intrinsic evil on a very grave and important teaching over candidates who do not support such evil simply because of what the candidates chances of winning are perceived to be.

Proportional reasons do not permit direct complicency with intrinsic evil. That is, any connection must be “remote”. But if one selects evil over non evil for political expediency, it seems hard to argue that the connection is still “remote” since the evil is being adopted as a means to an ends.

Thank you for adding this to your prior post.

 

[vz71]

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

But an explanation for supporting someone that cannot win the election has not been forthcoming.

So it appears that there is a surrender going on here.

 

[johnnykins]

It’s easy to understand. First of all, recognize that “compromise” is your term, not mine.

We are in a war.

As with using sports metaphors - use of “war” here is simply inapt. It’s not a war in the common sense of the term.

It is unrealistic to think a war can be won by a single battle, or even a single campaign. The best we can do is to make some gains. And there are times when we will suffer defeats, and the best we can do is limit the evil.

Mixed metaphor alert - works with war but not political campaigns which - sorry to say - are not war.

But by persistance, by focusing on the intrinsic evils, we can slowly whittle them down.

Except , maybe, when we give mixed messages and elect support candidates who say a little intrinsic evil is OK - that just might be counterproductive.

And to fail to understand that is to cede the war to the forces of evil.

back to war…

It is those who demand perfection in the candidate – and when they don’t find it, turn around and vote for a worse candidate – who have cost us victory to date.

NO Vern - it’s those who cannot properly make a moral decision who cost us all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

well, that’s a narrow silly thing to say so I presume you didn’t say it… If that was an axiom of your question, then why even ask the question? It’s both absurd and stacked. Let’s see, war is a life issue,euthanasia, capital punishment, starvation, disease, etc are all life issues in any normal meaning of the term.

Let me point out you raised this issue.

Some life issues involve intrinsic evil (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia) and others are subject to prudential judgement (the death penalty, war and peace.)

BTW don’t forget your own hypothetical questions posits both candidates are pro-abortion, though one only a little bit.

BTW – don’t forget you agreed not to put words in my mouth.

You are advancing the fallacy of limited Alternatives – a candidate must be perfect, or we have to vote for his pro-abortion opponent.

Issues of scale are quintessentially a component of prudential judgment since the underlying issue is identical.

So how come you say:

a non sequitur. aren’t all lifes valuable? Why are you willing to condone affirmatively saying it’s OK to kill some - like those conceived by incest?

Those are your words, not mine.

You seem to be saying, “If you can’t save all with a single vote, you must side with killing all.”

 

[mapleoak]

Would the argument be, ‘he is only sexually victimizing a few each year, vs. the millions he could save’? Or, ‘being emotionally scarred and miserable for life isn’t the same as being dead…’?

As Catholics, we accept the natural law. That is, there are some things you simply do not do, not for any reason.

This is exactly right. It is no different than if the candidate himself only kills one person per year, but hey, he is going to save millions of lives. Intrinsic evil is intrinsic evil, period.

 

[rlg94086]

Q1. Do you agree with Evangelium Vitae that direct abortion is, infallibly, always a grave moral disorder?

Yes.

SoCalRC:

Q2. More specifically, do you believe that it is a legitimate position for a Catholic to believe that abortion is a moral absolute on which there is no compromise?

Yes.

SoCalRC:

Q3. In a Doctrinal Note on voting prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger, and approved by Pope John Paul II, we find the following quote:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (#4)

In the context of the document, do you agree or disagree that a reasonable interpretation of the above statement is that NO Catholic, politician or otherwise, should promote or vote for any law that attacks human life?

Agree.

SoCalRC:

Q4. Immediately following the quote above, the document introduces the concept of “limiting the harm”, quoting EVANGELIUM VITAE directly. Immediately after introducing that concept, we find the following quote:

In the context of the document, do you agree or disagree that a reasonable interpretation of the above statement would be that “limiting the harm” should** not be used as a justification for voting against fundemental Catholic morals and principles**?

I agree, but not in the way that you worded it. The document is more specific: “to vote for a political program or an individual law.” I think it important to note that a candidate is neither a “political program” nor “an individual law.”

SoCalRC:

Q5. Immediatly following the above quote, the document continues:

In the context of the document, do you agree or disagree that a reasonable interpretation of the above quote is that the 9 examples of moral principles that follow are non negotiable for Catholic voters?

Agree.

SoCalRC:

Q6. In SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, #83, Pope Benedict reiterates part of the list referenced in the proceeding quote, cites the doctrinal note quoted above, and then states:

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

Do you agree, or disagree that a legitimate interpretation of the entire section would be that Catholics, in particular Catholic politicians, should not vote against the fundemental moral principles listed in the Doctrinal Note and, if they do, they are likely making themselves unfit for Holy Communion?

Agree.

SoCalRC:

Q7. Do you agree with statement that the Catholic teaching on abortion is absolute. That is, that we do not permit exceptions for incest, rape, or even the life of the mother?

Yes.

SoCalRC:

Q8. Do you agree or disagree that, in of themselves, the abortion positions held by all major party presidential candidates in 2008 are intrinsically evil in the Catholic Faith?

That is a poorly worded question, because it is full of your assumptions. I agree that "the major party candidates hold intinsically evil abortion stances according to our faith. But, I disagree with the underlying assumption in your question that all intinsically evil positions are equal.

SoCalRC:

Q9. The USCCB has issued a statement on voting:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Here is a portion:

Do you believe that these three paragraphs, in the context of the document, are a legitimate reflection of Catholic doctrine?

Absolutely. I always consider our bishop’s reflections when deciding on my votes.

SoCalRC:

Q10. The Bishops statement also contains the following:
Do you believe that this a legitimate reflection of Church teaching?

Sure.

SoCalRC:

Q11 Using the same quote as Q10, do you agree or disagree with the Bishops’ assertion that voters face a “dilemma”?

I’ve stated more than once (quoting a fellow parishioner, theologian and former CA staffmember) that we should feel “tension” when voting. Yes, we are always faced with more than one dilemma.

SoCalRC:

Q12. Again referring to the quote in Q10, do you belief that the phrase “all candidates” means every candidate for the office, every major candidate for the office, or something else?

Every major candidate. However, I do believe that Catholics can differ on this.

SoCalRC:

Q13. And, referring to the quote in Q10 one last time, if any candidate for an office held a position on an important life issue like abortion that was not intrinsically evil do you belief that the choices listed for voters in the quote would still be licit?

That is a tortured question. I believe what you are asking is whether or not a Catholic has to vote for an unheard of candidate in a three-person political party, who happens to be on the ballot and holds the 100% Catholic pro-life position. To that question, my answer would be ‘no’ - they do not. It is licit to make the choice between the major candidates and completely ignore fringe candidates.

SoCalRC:

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position on the question of morality. Once I am clear on the moral transgression(s) you are specifically accussing me of, I will be happy to defend myself. And, after that, I would be happy to defend myself against your accusations regarding my motives.

I don’t remember Ridgerunner’s accusation, but if it is that you are cooperating with evil. I would say, in a way, ‘yes.’ While your voting choice is completely licit, I believe you are helping the major party candidate whose standing on life issues is the least “Catholic” by not voting for the major party candidate whose standing on life issues is more “Catholic.” This is an opinion, of course, and has no bearing on your state of grace with regards to presenting yourself for the Eucharist.

 

[rlg94086]

This is exactly right.** It is no different** than if the candidate himself only kills one person per year, but hey, he is going to save millions of lives. Intrinsic evil is intrinsic evil, period.

It is, if I’m having to choose between a candidate who kills one person per year or a candidate who kills millions per year. That is an easy choice in my book.

 

[johnnykins]

You are advancing the fallacy of limited Alternatives – a candidate must be perfect, or we have to vote for his pro-abortion opponent.

??? I most certainly am NOT saying that - please quote me on that. I am saying when two candidates (the ONLY 2 candidates) both support an intrinsic evil one may consider other moral issues to determine who to vote for. I am saying very clearly both are fatally compromised - and that opens the door to consider other issues as well as their respective positions on abortion.

You seem to be saying, “If you can’t save all with a single vote, you must side with killing all.”

Either you have misread me - or I have somehow seriously misstated something because I cannot even figure out where this came from.

Gotta go put some food in my own mouth.

 

[SoCalRC]

But an explanation for supporting someone that cannot win the election has not been forthcoming.

So it appears that there is a surrender going on here.

Yes, but who is ‘surrendering’ is debatable. Logically speaking, why can’t the other candidate ‘win’? Do we really believe that following Christ cannot win against US politics?

What if early Christians had looked at their odds with regards to Rome and decided that following Christ just wasn’t practical?

 

[vz71]

??? I most certainly am NOT saying that - please quote me on that. I am saying when two candidates (the ONLY 2 candidates) both support an intrinsic evil one may consider other moral issues to determine who to vote for. I am saying very clearly both are fatally compromised - and that opens the door to consider other issues as well as their respective positions on abortion.

I understand what you are saying now.
Given a choice between a candidate that supports abortion at any time for any reason and a candidate that supports restricting abortion to only the most extreme circumstances, it is perfectly acceptable to vote for the first becasuse they both support abortion.

 

[frankadams]

You have pointed out the fallacy of the argument of those that say it is okay to support the ‘lesser’ of two evils. It becomes subjective as to which candidate is the ‘lesser’ evil and is a slippery slope to more and more acceptable evils. One should not compromise on Church teaching when it comes to intrinsic evils. When a foundation is shaky, it crumbles.

I would think that if one honestly believed it acceptable to support a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil in order to limit the evil, they may very well be justified in voting for the candidate who will likely limit the scale or magnitude of the intrinsic evil.
likely.

I am taking your post from the “Voter’s Guide” thread which has been running simultaneously with this thread and posted it above a quote of yours from this thread.

Many posters here have repeatedly tried to justify their refusal to support a consistently pro-life candidate on the basis that they believe he cannont win. That is fine. But I believe you are correct in saying that such a mentality “becomes subjective.”

Case in point, some Catholics take into account not only a candidate’s viability, but also the likelihood of him actually doing something to limit the intrinsic evils, especially given the past history of that candidate and his party. Other sanctity of life issues come into play here as well.

But the mechanics are not the issue here. What is the issue is that once you say, “I’m not voting for truly pro-life candidate because I believe…”, you give tacit permission to other Catholic voters to make that same statement, even though they may come to a different conclusion.

You stated that if “one honestly believed it acceptable to support a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil in order to limit the evil, they may very well be justified in voting for the candidate who will likely limit the scale or magnitude of the intrinsic evil.” I concur. But the posters here need to know that two “honest” Catholics might well reach different conclusions in trying to limit the “scale or magnitude of the intrinsic evil.” Far too many of you have made your subjective conclusion equal to Catholic truth, and that is wrong.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is, if I’m having to choose between a candidate who kills one person per year or a candidate who kills millions per year. That is an easy choice in my book.

The fallacy is that we are being asked to accept that a candidate who was known to commit one murder a year could be a party nominee.

Suppose we say, “Could you vote for a candidate who was perfect in any way, but who practiced cannibalism, child molestation and devil worship.” Such a candidate does not exist. So the question is pointeless.

Just another example of the smokescreen some raise to justify voting pro-abortion.

 

[rlg94086]

The fallacy is that we are being asked to accept that a candidate who was known to commit one murder a year could be a party nominee.

Suppose we say, “Could you vote for a candidate who was perfect in any way, but who practiced cannibalism, child molestation and devil worship.” Such a candidate does not exist. So the question is pointeless.

Just another example of the smokescreen some raise to justify voting pro-abortion.

Yes, I agree. I believe it is called *reductio ad absurdum. *