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

[SoCalRC]

No problem.

Just want to clarify the terms here as I can see that this issue is going to reduce to hair splitting.

Abortion = intrinsic evil
believing abortion to be a valid choice = very warped, but not intrinsic evil.

I’m sure others will correct me if I am mistaken here.

It actually is more complicated still. Look at the exact text of Evangelium Vitae:

“I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder…” - EVANGELIUM VITAE #62

The key word is “always”. Abortion is never licit. The act itself is, as you say, intrinsically evil.

This does not make all the moral situations for each abortion perfectly clear. For example, several folks here who proport to be staunchly pro-life have loudly professed in uncertain terms that aborting ectopic pregnancies are licit under an application of double effect (a position I do not hold, by the way).

And many Catholics, including myself, have great sympathy for certain circumstances, like the raped nine year old in Central America, or the woman in Illinois who chose to abort one severely deformed fetus (no brain) to save the child’s twin. Sympathy does not make the act licit, but it reminds us that doing what is right, versus doing what is emotionallyl easy or expedient are sometimes two different things.

Interestingly, publicly supporting intrinsic evil is sometimes described as potentially more grievous, not less, than the acts themselves. Consider Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical VERITATIS SPENDOR. The Pope not only stresses the existance of intrinsic evil and reaffirms the long standing Catholic tradition of ‘the end does not justify the means’, he stresses that all Catholics have a duty to reflect natural law for the greater good of society, and that the duty increases with position. That is, the duty is especially incumbant upon the pastoral members of the Church.

We can see this in the subject at hand. In instructing all Catholics, Rome laid out nine broad principles which are non negotiable moral principles in voting:

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

But, with regards to Holy Communion, Pope Benedict referred to the doctrinal note, again described the morals as “non negotiable”, but placed a special responsibility on politicians and public leaders and tied it to fitness for communion:

“Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound…” - SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS #83

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

Note that all baptized Catholics have the duty to uphold fundemental and inalienable principles in public life, but political leaders are “particularly bound…”

This matches the argument in VERITATIS SPENDOR. We can get caught up in arguing about ‘more’ or ‘less’ intrinsic evil (John Paul II used the example of contraception) but we have to understand that support of intrinsic evil in any form has a corrosive effect on society.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[frankadams]

Yes. I thought that your position was different, and didn’t want you tarred with the same brush.

There is a sentimental attachment to the Democratic party among many Catholics, including, sadly, priests and bishops, that has prevented them from acting and speaking forthrightly on abortion and other life issues. Them mental gymnastics and torture of logic used to justify supporting pro-abortionists are painful to watch.

God Bless

I suppose it is easy to dismiss people who disagree with by stating they do so out of a “sentimental attachment.” Some of us have voted for numerous Republican candidates. I have worked on the campaigns of a couple.

I don’t refer to looking at facts and history as “tortured logic.” I find the poor logic being as long as a candidate states he is “mostly pro-life,” I am bound at risk of my immortal soul to support him. In fact, many of you suggest I must do so even if there is a fully pro-life candidate that you have decided “can’t win.” To me, it is painful to watch people try to turn their interpretation of proportionality and limiting harm into Catholic dogma. It is not.

I object strongly when it is stated that a Catholic who reaches a different conclusion than you regarding “proportionality” and “limiting harm” through his own “careful deliberation,” you see fit to brand that person of undeserving of the name “Catholic.”

Sorry to all those who take this position, but if you say you can vote for a “less” pro-abortion candidate on the premise that the truly pro-life candidate “can’t win,” another Catholic can vote for the “more” pro-abortion candidate on the basis than the “less” pro-abortion candidate can’t (or won’t) do anything about abortion.

 

[SoCalRC]

I’m glad we agree. I can see a Catholic, in good conscience, voting 3rd party, but I can not see voting for the pro-abortionist.

God Bless

This is an odd choice of words. All major party presidential candidates are, strictly speaking, “pro-abortionist”, the only difference is in degree. So what you are seemingly saying is that you can vote for a pro-abortionist, but only up to a point.

I actually had an interesting conversation on this subject last night with someone who writes regularly for our Archdiocese weekly, The Tidings. I’m not going to give the name, lest it unfairly incur someone’s wrath while the person isn’t here to clarify and defend (but I will note that this person is widely recognized as being staunchly pro life).

After the conversation I was convinced that my previous interpretation of the situation was too simplistic. When you step back and look, it was pointed out to me that there is really only one Church teaching.

Certain things, including abortion, should be non negotiable for Catholic voters. Rome spells this out in a Doctrinal Note, the USCCB reiterates the point and quotes the note, and our current Pope reiterates that they are not negotiable when teaching about communion.

But while there is only one teaching, there are two theological arguments to justify compromising in voting on things that the Church has deemed non negotiable.

One is “proportionate reasons”. This is a case where one votes for a candidate, not to support an evil position, but because of a competing evil of graver proportions. Many Catholics, including the person explaining this to me, cannot personally envision something more important than abortion, but we cannot project our own moral certainty on others. It is conceivable that a Catholic could look at something like unjust war, or a policy of expanded war, and compare that to the seeming ineffectiveness of politically supporting a still evil position on abortion, and conclude that one evil is more grievous and pressing than another.

However, for an application of “proportionate reasons” to even possibly be licit, at least two criteria must be met:

1. The Catholic voter must in no way support the intrinsic evil position being compromised on.
2. The Catholic must be following the absolute certainty of his/her moral conscience with regards to identifying and attempting to address graver evil(s).

When Catholics vote for, say, a GOP candidate who supports some abortion over a 3rd party candidate who doe not for the stated purpose of addressing abortion, many theologians apparently argue that this is not “proportional reasons”, since an evil position is being selected over a non evil one specifically on the moral issue at hand. Instead, it may be an application of “limiting the harm”. This is a case where evil is being politically endorsed, but specifically as an alternative to graver evil.

I can almost here a number of people here saying “duh”. But it was pointed out to me that “limiting the harm” has a couple of absolute criteria for potential legitimacy as well.

1. The Catholic’s personal objection to the evil being supported must be public and well established.
2. The principle of “limiting the harm” cannot be used to justify compromising on other fundemental moral prinicples.

I know a lot of Catholics here disagree with #2. ‘Abortion is so important that it trumps war, torture, etc.’ But, this crtieria is the stated position of Rome in its doctrinal note, and the USCCB reiterates it in its document on voting. And, of course, the Pope has reiterated the “non negotiable” nature of these ‘lesser’ issues in a Post-synodal apostolic exhortation regarding Holy Communion.

This didn’t really change my position. In both cases, I meet #1, but not #2. I cannot say with the absolute certainty of my conscience that any other social ill trumps abortion. But neither can I deny that I agree with the Church with regards to the war in Iraq, torture of detainees, and the death penalty. So I will continue to not compromise in voting.

However, I do find the argument compelling that Catholics voting GOP and those DEM are not subject to the same theological justification as I previously believed.

 

[mapleoak]

Yes. I thought that your position was different, and didn’t want you tarred with the same brush.

Thank you.

 

[mapleoak]

But while there is only one teaching, there are two theological arguments to justify compromising in voting on things that the Church has deemed non negotiable.

One is “proportionate reasons”. This is a case where one votes for a candidate, not to support an evil position, but because of a competing evil of graver proportions. Many Catholics, including the person explaining this to me, cannot personally envision something more important than abortion, but we cannot project our own moral certainty on others. It is conceivable that a Catholic could look at something like unjust war, or a policy of expanded war, and compare that to the seeming ineffectiveness of politically supporting a still evil position on abortion, and conclude that one evil is more grievous and pressing than another.

However, for an application of “proportionate reasons” to even possibly be licit, at least two criteria must be met:

1. The Catholic voter must in no way support the intrinsic evil position being compromised on.
2. The Catholic must be following the absolute certainty of his/her moral conscience with regards to identifying and attempting to address graver evil(s).

When Catholics vote for, say, a GOP candidate who supports some abortion over a 3rd party candidate who doe not for the stated purpose of addressing abortion, many theologians apparently argue that this is not “proportional reasons”, since an evil position is being selected over a non evil one specifically on the moral issue at hand. Instead, it may be an application of “limiting the harm”. This is a case where evil is being politically endorsed, but specifically as an alternative to graver evil.

I can almost here a number of people here saying “duh”. But it was pointed out to me that “limiting the harm” has a couple of absolute criteria for potential legitimacy as well.

1. The Catholic’s personal objection to the evil being supported must be public and well established.
2. The principle of “limiting the harm” cannot be used to justify compromising on other fundemental moral prinicples.

I know a lot of Catholics here disagree with #2. ‘Abortion is so important that it trumps war, torture, etc.’ But, this crtieria is the stated position of Rome in its doctrinal note, and the USCCB reiterates it in its document on voting. And, of course, the Pope has reiterated the “non negotiable” nature of these ‘lesser’ issues in a Post-synodal apostolic exhortation regarding Holy Communion.

This didn’t really change my position. In both cases, I meet #1, but not #2. I cannot say with the absolute certainty of my conscience that any other social ill trumps abortion. But neither can I deny that I agree with the Church with regards to the war in Iraq, torture of detainees, and the death penalty. So I will continue to not compromise in voting.

However, I do find the argument compelling that Catholics voting GOP and those DEM are not subject to the same theological justification as I previously believed.

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing this perspective.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course that side of the debate makes no sense at all.

There is no intent that side of the debate make sense – the intent is to throw up a smokescreen and “justify” a vote for the party of unlimited abortion.

 

[SoCalRC]

There is no intent that side of the debate make sense – the intent is to throw up a smokescreen and “justify” a vote for the party of unlimited abortion.

How do you know the hearts and minds of others?

They could point to you and say ‘your political choices have not reduced abortions, so your real intent must be use abortion as a “smokescreen” to “justify” a vote for the party of endless war, increased poverty, and social injustice…’

This is why we are instructed in the Catechism to attempt to perceive the thoughts, words, and deeds of others in as favorable a way as possible (CCC 2466-2468).

So, even though you publicly support the intrinsic evil of abortion with your voting, I must accept your assertion that you are, in fact, trying to reduce abortions. I can look at the measurable world and argue that your methods are not effective, but I cannot look in your heart and argue your intent.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How do you know the hearts and minds of others?

I borrowed your crystal ball and turban, of course!!

They could point to you and say ‘your political choices have not reduced abortions, so your real intent must be use abortion as a “smokescreen” to “justify” a vote for the party of endless war, increased poverty, and social injustice…’

And that would just be more of your smokescreen.

This is why we are instructed in the Catechism to attempt to perceive the thoughts, words, and deeds of others in as favorable a way as possible (CCC 2466-2468).

So when a Democrat says he wants unlimited abortion, paid for by the taxpayer, you say we should interpret this as a “pro-life” position?

So, even though you publicly support the intrinsic evil of abortion with your voting, I must accept your assertion that you are, in fact, trying to reduce abortions. I can look at the measurable world and argue that your methods are not effective, but I cannot look in your heart and argue your intent.

I have assisted several young women and worked with them to help them as they had their babies, got an education and got a job.

What successes do you have in reducing abortion?

 

[BamaRider]

The SoCal said-

When Catholics vote for, say, a GOP candidate who supports some abortion over a 3rd party candidate who doe not for the stated purpose of addressing abortion, many theologians apparently argue that this is not “proportional reasons”, since an evil position is being selected over a non evil one specifically on the moral issue at hand. Instead, it may be an application of “limiting the harm”. This is a case where evil is being politically endorsed, but specifically as an alternative to graver evil.

Shoot me the name of the 3rd party, perfect pro life candidate, who’ll be on the ballot in November, and I’ll take a look.

In the meanwhile, I’ll make sure my vote is NOT for the pro choice, abortion on demand candidate.

Because I can’t mention names, I can’t tell you the URL I cut and pasted this from. You will have to do your own research. If you send a PM, I’ll be glad to send the URL.

Except where I had to delete names, the text is a direct quote.

I can assure the moderators, no names or political party are mentioned.

I]Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As ------- has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”

Promoting Adoption

In 1993, ------- and his wife, -------, adopted a little girl from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. She has been a blessing to the-------- family and helped make adoption advocacy a personal issue for the Senator.

The ------- family experience is not unique; millions of families have had their lives transformed by the adoption of a child. As president, motivated by his personal experience, -------will seek ways to promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy. In the past, he cosponsored legislation to prohibit discrimination against families with adopted children, to provide adoption education, and to permit tax deductions for qualified adoption expenses, as well as to remove barriers to interracial and inter-ethnic adoptions.

In the interest of fair and balance, the othe candidate’s view. Again I deleted the name, you’ll have to PM me for URL. But it is a direct quote. The candidate’s view is summed up in just one paragraph, I didn’t edit it for length.

*----- understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree. However,has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President, and opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case. *

This will be the choice Catholics will have to choose from come this November. I’ll leave it to y’all to decide which who best represents Catholic teachings.

 

[SoCalRC]

I borrowed your crystal ball and turban, of course!!

Odd, considering how much time you spend ridiculing it, but consistancy has not appeared to be one of your strengths.

Consider, you are willing to assert evil motives to large groups of people with certainty. You repeatedly attack my motives with certainty. But you cannot bring yourself to express a clear opinion on rather or not a major party candidate’s publicly expressed position on abortion is licit in the Catholic faith!

Then, as now, you attempted to change the subject while shouting ‘smokescreen!’. Again, let’s see if you are up to answering a simple question:

Where in Catholic Doctrine do you find justification for asserting knowledge of the true hearts and minds of others? More specifically, under what Christian principle do you excuse yourself from the portions of the Catechism that I just cited?

My crystal ball says you will either avoid the question by attacking me, or attempt to claim that another subject supercedes the question…

 

[vern_humphrey]

The SoCal said-

Shoot me the name of the 3rd party, perfect pro life candidate, who’ll be on the ballot in November, and I’ll take a look.

In the meanwhile, I’ll make sure my vote is NOT for the pro choice, abortion on demand candidate.

Because I can’t mention names, I can’t tell you the URL I cut and pasted this from. You will have to do your own research. If you send a PM, I’ll be glad to send the URL.

Except where I had to delete names, the text is a direct quote.

I can assure the moderators, no names or political party are mentioned.

I]Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As ------- has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”

Promoting Adoption

In 1993, ------- and his wife, -------, adopted a little girl from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. She has been a blessing to the-------- family and helped make adoption advocacy a personal issue for the Senator.

The ------- family experience is not unique; millions of families have had their lives transformed by the adoption of a child. As president, motivated by his personal experience, -------will seek ways to promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy. In the past, he cosponsored legislation to prohibit discrimination against families with adopted children, to provide adoption education, and to permit tax deductions for qualified adoption expenses, as well as to remove barriers to interracial and inter-ethnic adoptions.

In the interest of fair and balance, the othe candidate’s view. Again I deleted the name, you’ll have to PM me for URL. But it is a direct quote. The candidate’s view is summed up in just one paragraph, I didn’t edit it for length.

*----- understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree. However,has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President, and opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case. *

This will be the choice Catholics will have to choose from come this November. I’ll leave it to y’all to decide which who best represents Catholic teachings.

Not good enough! Not good enough! Your candidate has no halo! Where’s his stigmata?

He’s not perfect, so if you don’t vote for the candidate who “has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President,” you’re compromising with evil!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Odd, considering how much time you spend ridiculing it, but consistancy has not appeared to be one of your strengths.

Consider, you are willing to assert evil motives to large groups of people with certainty. You repeatedly attack my motives with certainty. But you cannot bring yourself to express a clear opinion on rather or not a major party candidate’s publicly expressed position on abortion is licit in the Catholic faith!

Smokescreen!!

The old, “Your pro-life candidate isn’t perfect so you must vote for the pro-abortion candidate” smokescreen.

 

[SoCalRC]

Because I can’t mention names, I can’t tell you the URL I cut and pasted this from. You will have to do your own research.

The candidate in question publicly supported upholding Roe in 1999. Similarly, he criticized then candidate Bush, not for his position on abortion (which includes exceptions and then included upholding Roe), but for his unwillingness to call for a change in the GOP platform to match it - that is, he called Bush a hypocrit and drew the ire of the party’s religious right support by insisting that it was being an agent of intolerance against “the common sense and will of the American people”.

As of this year, the candidate has publicly repeated his stance that he believes in exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and maternal heath.

But, if you are sure he is legitimately pro-life, coax Vern into taking a stance on rather or not the candidate in question’s position on abortion is licit or not in the Catholic fatih.

I’m with Mapleoak, the position is intrinsically evil. One can talk about ‘more or less evil’, but the intrinsic evil threshold itself puts special obligations on Catholics.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The candidate in question publicly supported upholding Roe in 1999. Similarly, he criticized then candidate Bush, not for his position on abortion (which includes exceptions and then included upholding Roe), but for his unwillingness to call for a change in the GOP platform to match it - that is, he called Bush a hypocrit and drew the ire of the party’s religious right support by insisting that it was being an agent of intolerance against “the common sense and will of the American people”.

As of this year, the candidate has publicly repeated his stance that he believes in exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and maternal heath.

But, if you are sure he is legitimately pro-life, coax Vern into taking a stance on rather or not the candidate in question’s position on abortion is licit or not in the Catholic fatih.

I’m with Mapleoak, the position is intrinsically evil. One can talk about ‘more or less evil’, but the intrinsic evil threshold itself puts special obligations on Catholics.

Smokescreen!!

The old, “Your pro-life candidate isn’t perfect so you must vote for the pro-abortion candidate” smokescreen.

 

[SoCalRC]

Smokescreen!!

The old, “Your pro-life candidate isn’t perfect so you must vote for the pro-abortion candidate” smokescreen.

It’s funny, the section of the Catechism I quoted talks about false witness. I have explained many times that I do not require a candidate to be perfect, just one that meets the simple critieria of not promoting intrinsic evil and the expense of innocent human life.

Others appear to understand the distinction, but you keep insisting something that is false. The charitable interpretation is presumaby that you literally cannot grasp the distinction between setting a bar of minimum moral qualifications and setting a bar at perfection.

However, your shouting “smokescreen” instead of answering at least shows that my crystal ball is working…

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Just to briefly interject…I found this article on the Priests for Life web site.

priestsforlife.org/elections/imperfectcand.htm

 

[BamaRider]

*Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As ------- has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”

Promoting Adoption

In 1993, ------- and his wife, -------, adopted a little girl from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. She has been a blessing to the-------- family and helped make adoption advocacy a personal issue for the Senator.

The ------- family experience is not unique; millions of families have had their lives transformed by the adoption of a child. As president, motivated by his personal experience, -------will seek ways to promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy. In the past, he cosponsored legislation to prohibit discrimination against families with adopted children, to provide adoption education, and to permit tax deductions for qualified adoption expenses, as well as to remove barriers to interracial and inter-ethnic adoptions.*

You’re telling us, a candidate with this position, who has demonstrated his personal commitment to pro life as intrinsically evil?

Then you wanted to know-

But, if you are sure he is legitimately pro-life

I was convinced when he went to India and brought home a baby from Mother Teresa’s Orphanage. How ya say? Walks the Talk? And where I come, a place where folks cling to their guns and Faith, thats big!

Vern doesn’t need me to convince him of anything it is plain to see!

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s funny, the section of the Catechism I quoted talks about false witness.

So stop bearing false witness when presenting other peoples’ positions!!

I have explained many times that I do not require a candidate to be perfect, just one that meets the simple critieria of not promoting intrinsic evil and the expense of innocent human life.

In other words, perfect.

Now you’ll hem and haw, and say, “Well, he only has to be perfect in regards to life issues.”

And then go on with the smokescreen that since no candidate is perfect regarding life issues, we have to vote for taxpayer-supported abortion on demand.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just to briefly interject…I found this article on the Priests for Life web site.

priestsforlife.org/elections/imperfectcand.htm

This may help to clarify the confusion: Forget about putting any labels or endorsements on anyone. Don’t call them anything. In your mind, don’t give any endorsements. Or, if you prefer, call them both pro-abortion.

Then just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

You’d think anyone with common sense could understand that – but without the smokescreen, people might vote for a Conservative!

 

[BamaRider]

Mary Gail provided us with a excellent link, so I read it and cut and pasted it. And this is what Vern has been saying for weeks on these threads. But some here try to say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The Priest For Life pro life organization offers this-

OK, so you’ve heard all the exhortations about how you have to vote, and how a candidate’s position on abortion is the primary issue in deciding whether to vote for him or her. You know that the wrong position on abortion can never be balanced by having great positions on lots of other issues. You accept all that.

But then when you look at the candidates, you find one worse than the other in accepting and promoting child-killing. Then you see some pro-life organizations endorsing one of the two miserable choices, and other pro-life groups saying that neither one is pro-life, and neither deserves our endorsement.

Then you are confused about whether it is OK to vote for any of them, or perhaps not vote at all.

This may help to clarify the confusion: Forget about putting any labels or endorsements on anyone. Don’t call them anything. In your mind, don’t give any endorsements. Or, if you prefer, call them both pro-abortion.

Then just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea?

Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other. And if you can, then what is your choice?

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. (You, and many who think like you, could run for office yourself and have the perfect position on abortion, but you don’t have the political base needed to get elected…at least not right now.) So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

But acknowledging this, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm.

Why?

Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.

This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil.

But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don’t agree.

But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good.

Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer – in the case described above – is yes.

For more

Now you are free to take the stance of SoCal and stay at home election day, but don’t let him tell y’all it is against Church teaching to vote a less than perfect candidate.

An entire organization of priests, and confessors say othewise.