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

[vern_humphrey]

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?

Fallacy of limited alternatives. One can follow Christ and win, but only if one understands how the game is played.

And one is not justified by violating the rules, increasing the evil, and smugly saying, “Well, I voted for Blatzap – who got three other votes, too.”

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

The Roman empire was not a democracy – early Christians did not vote for candidates for the throne. So the question is not on point.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

Just to make sure I understand you. You are saying that, by voting for a candidate who is wholly pro-life and putting my trust in God, I am cooperating with evil?

But, by selecting a candidate who supports intrinsic evil on an absolute teaching over one who does not, others are inarguable doing good and not cooperating with evil?

I’m not asking to put you on the spot, I’m just trying to boil it down to simplest terms. Also, please don’t read too much into the questions. For example, I certainly did not mean to imply all intrinsically evil positions are the same. A sole exception of maternal life for abortion is understandable. Even the Church did not take a formal stand on this for 1800 years. We now know it is inarguably a moral disorder, but it is still a difficult teaching to wholly accept and I would not put the position on par with, say, ‘abortion on demand for any reason’.

But, being less intrinsically evil is not the same thing as being ‘good’, at least in Catholic dogma.

Sincerely, thank you for taking the time to answer. I’ll read through your answers again later. I may PM you some addtional questions if you do not mind.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

Actually, the pedophile exists, he resigned.

No one is asking about perfect candidates. The bar is being set as not compromising on intrinsic evil that the Church has specifically identified as being important not to compromise on in voting.

 

[frankadams]

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.

And I get what you are saying:
"Given a choice between

1. a candidate that supports abortion at any time for any reason
2. a candidate that supports restricting abortion to only the most extreme circumstances
3. a candidate who rejects all forms of abortion,

It is wrong to vote for the third candidate because I, vz71, have used my subjective analysis to deem him unable to win, and so I apply my own personal ideas of political viability and justify my vote for the second candidate, that is, the one who only wants to kill some babies.

Furthermore, anyone whose own subjective analysis and personal ideas of limiting intrinsic evils lead him to vote for the *first *candidate is clearly in error and should not consider himself Catholic."

Yes, what you are saying is perfectly clear.

 

[rlg94086]

Just to make sure I understand you. You are saying that, by voting for a candidate who is wholly pro-life and putting my trust in God, I am cooperating with evil?

But, by selecting a candidate who supports intrinsic evil on an absolute teaching over one who does not, others are inarguable doing good and not cooperating with evil?

Yes, but again you make it sound like the “one who does not” is a real choice. Since they have no chance of winning, I don’t consider it a real choice. Again, this is a matter for prudential judgment on both of our parts. I am not so much accusing you of cooperating with evil, as explaining that I can not vote the way you do because, to me, I would be promoting evil rather than limiting it.

SoCalRC:

But, being less intrinsically evil is not the same thing as being ‘good’, at least in Catholic dogma.

I agree, but voting for the “less intrinsically evil” can be good, if the other option is the “more intrinsically evil.” This is where I see a big distinction.

SoCalRC:

Sincerely, thank you for taking the time to answer. I’ll read through your answers again later. I may PM you some addtional questions if you do not mind.

You know you can PM me anytime, as my trash folder always has room.

(that was a joke…for those of you who don’t know me…SoCalRC and I have PM’d each other in the past, and we both responded charitably. )

 

[vz71]

It is wrong to vote for the third candidate because I, vz71, have used my subjective analysis to deem him unable to win, and so I apply my own personal ideas of political viability and justify my vote for the second candidate, that is, the one who only wants to kill some babies.

Your name is vz71?
Odd coincidence.

Unless it is really your intent to speak for me.
if so, there are a number of ways that could be considered wrong.

I have spoken of two candidates. Not three.
And apparently you cannot answer for it.

 

[vz71]

And I get what you are saying:
"Given a choice between

1. a candidate that supports abortion at any time for any reason
2. a candidate that supports restricting abortion to only the most extreme circumstances
3. a candidate who rejects all forms of abortion,

It is wrong to vote for the third candidate because I, vz71, have used my subjective analysis to deem him unable to win, and so I apply my own personal ideas of political viability and justify my vote for the second candidate, that is, the one who only wants to kill some babies.

Furthermore, anyone whose own subjective analysis and personal ideas of limiting intrinsic evils lead him to vote for the *first *candidate is clearly in error and should not consider himself Catholic."

Yes, what you are saying is perfectly clear.

Looks like I struck a nerve.

 

[vern_humphrey]

??? 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.

When one candidate would work to have less abortion, and the other work to have more are we not morally obliged to support the first candidate?

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

Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger – you keep misstating my position.

 

[liotino]

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.

I am not at the level of knowing much that is being quoted from or the level of how is understood at so I approach this at somewhat simplistically. I may use words such as “compromise” for a lack of a better word and not to be argumentative. Now with all that being said I weight in with this: Is not the fight of ending abortion weaken when we take a position that there is a settling to accept a position to for the greater good. Such as accepting the rape/incest abortion? Does anyone believe if a ground swell of a tough stance on life with no compromise took hold the tide would turn. The thinking change? It is when in my humble opinion we give room to wiggle wiggle we will. I know I wrote this under your name Vern but it is thrown out to anyone who wants to repond…Later

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am not at the level of knowing much that is being quoted from or the level of how is understood at so I approach this at somewhat simplistically. I may use words such as “compromise” for a lack of a better word and not to be argumentative.

Please cease using the word “compromise” since it does not describe my position.

Now with all that being said I weight in with this: Is not the fight of ending abortion weaken when we take a position that there is a settling to accept a position to for the greater good.

Who does that?

I want to end all abortion. In any given election, I may only be able to make slight progress toward that goal. Do you say it is immoral for me to make that progress?

Such as accepting the rape/incest abortion?

Who is “accepting” the rape/incest abortion?

Does anyone believe if a ground swell of a tough stance on life with no compromise took hold the tide would turn. The thinking change? It is when in my humble opinion we give room to wiggle wiggle we will. I know I wrote this under your name Vern but it is thrown out to anyone who wants to repond…Later

Unfortunately, those Catholics who say, “Well, if the pro-life candidate isn’t perfect, we can’t vote for him – so we’ll vote for the pro-abortion candidate” have prevented us from turning the tide.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

I am Pro-Life. I cannot imagine a circumstance that would make me think otherwise.

My mother had a secret which my much older half-brother told after my mother died. He kept the secret for years for fear of mother: my mother had self aborted a child. She did a belly flop off the back of a high porch. This occurred during the late 40s. Her first husband who was a monster had told my mother something (not sure what) but it was enough to make her want to abort that child. She finally divorced that man and married my father, who helped raise her 4 minor children. I came along 9 years later as a menopause baby. Lots of dirty little secrets came out over the years. I probably should have gotten counseling like my other siblings.

My mother was later diagnosed as mentally ill and and had been through all kinds of therapy, drugs, shock therapy. She went to counseling many years. I am convinced, by her actions that she never forgave herself. I think she went to her grave with that abortion on her conscience.

Please, if you are considering an abortion, you have options. You can give the child up. There are so many options. My mother suffered 50 years because of this. She was the angriest person I have ever met. She had no friends and her family didn’t even want to be around her. She died with only one of her four living children at her side because she had run the other three off.

If the aborted child had lived, we probably would all would have been there.

So whatever reason you have, however the circumstances seem right now, whoever is pressuring you for whatever reason, the choice you might make is whether you keep your sanity.

May God bless you and protect you all.

 

[SoCalRC]

Yes, but again you make it sound like the “one who does not” is a real choice. Since they have no chance of winning, I don’t consider it a real choice. Again, this is a matter for prudential judgment on both of our parts. I am not so much accusing you of cooperating with evil, as explaining that I can not vote the way you do because, to me, I would be promoting evil rather than limiting it.

Again, thank you. This is why I’m trying to ‘boil it down’.

‘I disagree with your prudential judgement’ is a little different from ‘you are a couch potato Catholic who promotes abortion’!

I agree, you cannot disobey the absolute certainty of your moral conscience:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” - CCC 1790

But we tend to forget the second part. Even when we are absolutely certain, we can be in error. Which brings me to my next question.

It seems that you agree that my position is not, strictly speaking, illicit. That is, my position is compatible with what we both agree is a reasonable interpretation of relevant Church teaching. Our disagreement is, then, not a large difference over the fundemental meaning of the teachings, but a difference of opinion over some fairly complex questions (political viability, tangible results, gravity of other evils, etc.)

Would you agree with that? That is, our difference, as you say, is “prudential judgment”?

I agree, but voting for the “less intrinsically evil” can be good, if the other option is the “more intrinsically evil.” This is where I see a big distinction.

I think I know what you mean, but in case I am missunderstanding let me be clear. I do not believe that willful evil can ever be a path to good. When confronted with all evil choices we can attempt to limit harm and promote other good works, but to embrace evil is, as St. Thomas Aquinas noted, to reject reason and divine law.

Thanks again for answering so many questions.

 

[KathleenElsie]

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.

Our job is to find that pro-lifer who wants to run for dog-catcher, help him, urge him to run for higher offices later on, and support him. To those in either party, I say, purge your party of pro-abortion candidates.

Vern I think we agree more then we disagree.

 

[rlg94086]

Again, thank you. This is why I’m trying to ‘boil it down’.

‘I disagree with your prudential judgement’ is a little different from ‘you are a couch potato Catholic who promotes abortion’!

I agree, you cannot disobey the absolute certainty of your moral conscience:

But we tend to forget the second part. Even when we are absolutely certain, we can be in error. Which brings me to my next question.

It seems that you agree that my position is not, strictly speaking, illicit. That is, my position is compatible with what we both agree is a reasonable interpretation of relevant Church teaching. Our disagreement is, then, not a large difference over the fundemental meaning of the teachings, but a difference of opinion over some fairly complex questions (political viability, tangible results, gravity of other evils, etc.)

Would you agree with that? That is, our difference, as you say, is “prudential judgment”?

Absolutely! That is exactly what I mean.

SoCalRC:

I think I know what you mean, but in case I am missunderstanding let me be clear. I do not believe that willful evil can ever be a path to good. When confronted with all evil choices we can attempt to limit harm and promote other good works, but*** to embrace evil is, as St. Thomas Aquinas noted, to reject reason and divine law.***

Yes, but this is where we may differ. Voting for the “lesser of two evils” is not “embracing evil.” By supporting a major candidate whose beliefs and stands are far closer to the Church than the other major candidate, I am promoting the good works they represent.

I believe that is what the bishops meant when they wrote this (bolded) in their “voter’s guide,” Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship:

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A** Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism,** if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
2. **There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would **be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
3. 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.

By supporting the major candidate who is closest to the Church, I am voting for someone who has some views which fit the “intrinsic evil”, but I am not voting for the candidate because I support his exceptions for rape/incest or his exceptions on embryonic stem cell research (“discarded” embryos)! I am also not ignoring those issue (for example) in order to justify “partisan preference.”

I am weighing the views and experience of the major candidates according to Catholic teaching and making an informed choice in line with the Church and our Bishops’ guidelines.

 

[KathleenElsie]

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?

NO. If the alternative was a person that has stated freely they would support and try to advance abortion rights. I think it then becomes a duty to try our best to choose the lessor of two evils.

But you mentioned someone that can not win. There truly is no one that can 100% loose if on the ballot. If Catholics and others voted the moral teachings of Christ and of Holy Mother Church that person could win.

 

[KathleenElsie]

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.

So letting a someone that would expand the affability of abortion even infanticide to the age of 2 years old be elected would be your choice over someone that allows a couple of exceptions?

If we allow the more death orientated person to be elected we might never find a way to stop abortions and other life issues. So yes holding your nose and voting is the more pro-life vote. No perfect.

There is an ad of TV that I think says it all. It shows a man on crutches and says “almost giving is almost as good as almost walking”.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

Nope, you read what I said wrong. It was not a choice between someone who kills one person per year or a candidate who kills millions per year.
It was a choice between a candidate who kills one person per year (or rapes, child molests) but supports saving millions per year or a candidate who supports the killing of those millions but is otherwise upstanding.
Neither candidate deserves the office as they both are tainted by intrinsic crimes.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

A candidate who holds an intrinsically evil position has no business being in office. Supporters of baby killing do belong in the position of leadership. It is amazing the support shown for having the leader of ones country being someone with such a serious character flaw.

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.

No a person doesn’t have to, but it is morally acceptable to do so, and probably the more correct thing to do.

I don’t remember Ridgerunner’s accusation, but if it is that you are cooperating with evil. I would say, in a way, ‘yes.’

It cannot be said that one is ever cooperating with evil when ones actions are in line with the Church. If one votes for a moral choice, they can be certain they are in keeping with the Church’s teaching. If one chooses to make successions with evil for a good cause, it is at ones own risk of whether one is putting oneself in the way of peril.

 

[mapleoak]

??? 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.

Both are fatally compromised, but one candidate supports mass propagation of the proposed evil, and therefore, in no way is the door open. Neither candidate deserves office, but especially the avowed pro-choice candidate.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

No it is not a fallacy, but a simile. The fact is there are candidates who support killing several thousand people per year.

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.

The answer to the question is no. Just as the answer to question of whether it is okay to vote for a candidate who supports killing thousands of people.

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

It is never acceptable to vote pro-abortion.