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

[vern_humphrey]

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-

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.

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

So easy a cave man could understand it.

 

[SoCalRC]

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

His position supporting abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and maternal heath is support of an intrinsic evil. Our Catholic position on abortion is absolute. It is, infallibly, always a grave moral disorder.

That does not make him intrinsically evil. However, if you argue that his position is just and that you are voting for him specifically because of it, not because you are accepting an imperfect position as a means to limit harm, then neither “limiting the harm” or “proportionate reasons” applies to your vote, since your support of the infallibly grave moral disorder is direct.

In other words, it is theoloigically possible for you to politically support illicit positions on abortion for reasons other than their promotion. But it is never licit to directly support evil positions on abortion or to intentionally misrepresent them to others.

 

[SoCalRC]

So easy a cave man could understand it.

Apparently not. The article introduced the concept of how to deal with all evil choices. This is covered clearly in the document from the USCCB on voting as well.

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

But what is missing from the article is a theological argument that you should pick your candidate because he/she has a viable chance of winning. It just says “the canidates” and boils it down to a question: Which candidate would do less harm to unborn children?

I would say that the one who does not want to kill any of them is a better choice than the one who wants to kill some. But the simple answer to the question does not seem to suit you…

 

[BamaRider]

In other words, it is theoloigically possible for you to politically support illicit positions on abortion for reasons other than their promotion. But it is never licit to directly support evil positions on abortion or to intentionally misrepresent them to others.

Tell me ANYONE here has ever called for the support of abortion in any form or is your reference aimed at a political candidate?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Apparently not. The article introduced the concept of how to deal with all evil choices. This is covered clearly in the document from the USCCB on voting as well.

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

But what is missing from the article is a theological argument that you should pick your candidate because he/she has a viable chance of winning. It just says “the canidates” and boils it down to a question: Which candidate would do less harm to unborn children?

I would say that the one who does not want to kill any of them is a better choice than the one who wants to kill some. But the simple answer to the question does not seem to suit you…

Your simple answer: “Your candidate is not perfect. Therefore you must vote for the pro-choice candidate.”

 

[SoCalRC]

Your simple answer: “Your candidate is not perfect. Therefore you must vote for the pro-choice candidate.”

No, my answer is, given a choice, I pick the most pro life candidate available. That would seem to best answer the bottom line question in the article.

Your answer is, given a choice between a morally acceptable candidate and a viable candidate, you pick the viable one. The simple explanation would be that winning is more important to you than abortion.

The nuanced explanation would be that you are being pragmatic. ‘Getting things done’ as you would say, instead of ‘sitting on the sidelines’. If there was any evidence to suggest that your approach actually stops abortions, I might find the argument more compelling.

 

[BamaRider]

SoCal’s position is ALL current presidential candidates are evil, because they support abortion in some form. I don’t agree with this premise, but for the sake of debate lets go along with it.

So Vern asked-

: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

Then for some reason SoCal dodged the question with this response

I would say that the one who does not want to kill any of them is a better choice than the one who wants to kill some. But the simple answer to the question does not seem to suit you…

How he got this I dunno, because he’s already acknowledged no such candidate exits in this political season.

So when confronted with this option the Priest for Life organization advise Catholics to do 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.

So I ask the SoCal what is your response to the Priest of Life postion?

 

[SoCalRC]

Tell me ANYONE here has ever called for the support of abortion in any form or is your reference aimed at a political candidate?

You just did. You insisted that a candidate who supports abortion, albiet with limits, is legitimately pro-life.

In other words, you are directly endorsing a position that is not licit in Catholic doctrine.

I would not call you a “pro abortionist”, but if you insist that an illicit position is licit, you are not 100% pro life with regards to abortion.

If it helps, think of Vern’s false, but often repeated mantra, that I am calling for ‘perfect’ candidates. If your candidate is not perfect, but you argue, “I know, but I am promoting good and limiting harm”, that may be licit (“limiting the harm”). But if you argue “my candidate IS perfect on abortion…” when he is not, you are much closer in complicency with the evil, so you can no longer justify compromising on a non negotiable issue under theological arguments of “limiting harm” or “proportional reasons”.

Look at EVANGELIUM VITAE, which introduces the concept of “limiting the harm”. One of the conditions in the pope’s example is that the politician’s objection to the evil being voted for is well known. This is because it must be clear that the vote is not, in any way, an endorsement of evil, but only an attempt at limiting harm.

Similarly, look at Ratzinger’s comments on proportational reasons. In the Cardinal’s example the candidate’s position on abortion cannot be supported, because, again, that would be complicency with intrinsic evil.

These distinctions might seem subtle, but they are very important. Blurring natural law with regards to intrinsic evil, that is, presenting what is always evil as ‘good’, is one of the dangers of compromise with intrinsic evil in the first place (VERITATIS SPLENDOR).

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCal’s position is ALL current presidential candidates are evil, because they support abortion in some form. I don’t agree with this premise, but for the sake of debate lets go along with it.

Which part do you disagree with? The Church’s definition of intrinsic evil with regards to abortion? The candidate’s stated positions? Are we to assume that they are lying to conceal more perfect pro-life beliefs?

Also, I only indicated that, currently, the 3 remaining major party candidates all support abortion in some form. There are still 100% pro-life candidates, and even major parties have run 100% pro-life (at least with regards to abortion) candidates in the past.

So I ask the SoCal what is your response to the Priest of Life postion?

And my answer is the same. If I understand the USCCB document correctly, it is potentially licit (the USCCB puts more conditions on proportionate reasons, but the general idea is the same). However, since you and Vern are not following the simple advice (“pick the most pro-life candidate”), it does not support your position.

Perhaps I am misreading it. Please show me in the article where it tells me to pick the more electable candidate over the most pro-life one.

 

[BamaRider]

Just for those lurking out here I follow this premise, don’t let a SoCal smoke screen make anyone think I support pro choice. But sometimes I have to follow the lesser of evils.

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.

Is it YOUR opinion the Priest for Life position is incorrect? Bearing in mind they have the support of the American Bishops, and influence millions of Catholics.

Also the postion below is that of the candidate I support, I can’t mention names so y’all have to PM. But painting this candidate as pro choice is disingenious as all get out.

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.

I’m thinking voting for this candidate satisfies the Priests for Life movement criteria come this fall. It is without question the most pro life and Catholic position available to us. You keep mentioning you’d vote the guy that kills none. I asked you to send me a name a while back, who that might be and I’d take a look, and I’ll tell you folks I’m still waiting.

 

[BamaRider]

Perhaps I am misreading it. Please show me in the article where it tells me to pick the more electable candidate over the most pro-life one.

I keep asking you to point out WHO this pro life, unelectable candidate is??? Is he a secret? LOL Send me his name in a PM and I’ll take a look.

I’d like for you to throw out the what ifs, and fantasy scenarios, and deal with the election at hand. We have 2 candidates to choose from. ONE of them will be elected. You can WRITE that down. There is NO knight in shinging armor out there.

Without question this WILL be the menu for Nov.-

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.

VS

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

Priest for Life say-

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.

And there ya have it.

 

[ribozyme]

I keep asking you to point out WHO this pro life, unelectable candidate is??? Is he a secret? LOL Send me his name in a PM and I’ll take a look.

I’d like for you to throw out the what ifs, and fantasy scenarios, and deal with the election at hand. We have 2 candidates to choose from. ONE of them will be elected. You can WRITE that down. There is NO knight in shinging armor out there.

Without question this WILL be the menu for Nov.-

VS

Priest for Life say-

And there ya have it.

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

Well, there are ways one can get around the forum rules… he he he. I know who you are trying to mention.

 

[SoCalRC]

Just for those lurking out here I follow this premise, don’t let a SoCal smoke screen make anyone think I support pro choice. But sometimes I have to follow the lesser of evils.

And sometimes you pick a greater evil, that is where the argument comes in. (The other issue is that you contend that postions that do not match the Church’s are still completely pro-life, but let’s ignore that one for now.)

You keep quoting the priests for life, and asserting that somehow I am disagreeing with it. I’m not, it is essentially the argument from the USCCB:

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

The article you site goes farther in a methodology for deciding, but also sets some pre-requisites in beliefs at the beginning, so it seems reasonably licit.

Their bottom line, vote for the most pro life candidate. This is pretty reasonable. If the most pro life candidate is 100% pro life, great, if not, then all the candidates positions are intrinsically evil so you are applying the principle of limiting the harm, since you have already decided (see the first paragraph in the article) that abortion is the most important pro life issue you face.

Because there are 100% pro life candidates, I am currently in sync with this. If no candidate held a position on abortion that was not intrinsically evil I would either do a write in vote or sit out (which you will notice that the USCCB suggests is a viable choice). This is not because I do not believe abortion is important, but because I believe that voting for evil does not limit it, it promotes it.

Vern’s stated position, and seemingly yours, is different. You are not picking the most pro-life candidate. You are advocating voting for a candidate whose position is intrinsically evil instead of one whose position is not, but arguing that it is a licit application of limiting the harm. That may or may not be the case, but nothing in the Priests for Life article appears to support picking a pro-abortion candidate over a wholly pro-life one.

You keep mentioning you’d vote the guy that kills none. I asked you to send me a name a while back, who that might be and I’d take a look, and I’ll tell you folks I’m still waiting.

I cannot use names under forum rules (“CAF is banning all discussions of political candidates.”) PM is not a legitimate circumvention, since Vern has already demonstrated that your private communications can end up in the public forums. However, several candidates are easy to find. From one web site:

“First and foremost, no exceptions for legalized abortion, and no federal funding of abortion, nor for bio-research using human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.”

Another was recently mentioned, by name, as an ‘example’ by a retired Bishop.

 

[SoCalRC]

I keep asking you to point out WHO this pro life, unelectable candidate is??? Is he a secret? LOL Send me his name in a PM and I’ll take a look.

To re-emphasize:

The forum rules are clear and it has already been demonstrated that your PMs can end up in public forums.

There are currently multiple 100% pro life (on abortion) candidates and there are web sites that list all balloted candidates and compare their positions on different issues. Also, at least two other pro-life candidates are still considering 3rd party bids.

Since you are so convinced a particular candidate is pro-life, I thought it would be interesting to see what a pro-life group’s web site, that tracks all candidates as well, collected for public statements/articles on said canidate:

GovWatch: 1999: Don’t force women to have illegal operations. (Feb 2008)
Abortion issue shows what kind of country we are. (Aug 2007)
Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations. (May 2007)
Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)
“Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)
Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity. (Jan 2000)
Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Support adoption & foster care; work together on abortion. (Oct 1999)
Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. (Aug 1999)
Nominate justices based on experience not values. (Jun 1999)

Asside from the 1 year flip-flip on Roe (which I recall), I cannot attest for the accuracy of the research. But, again, it should be easy to find.

 

[rlg94086]

Apparently not. The article introduced the concept of how to deal with all evil choices. This is covered clearly in the document from the USCCB on voting as well.

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

But what is missing from the article is a theological argument that you should pick your candidate because he/she has a viable chance of winning. It just says “the canidates” and boils it down to a question: Which candidate would do less harm to unborn children?

I would say that the one who does not want to kill any of them is a better choice than the one who wants to kill some. But the simple answer to the question does not seem to suit you…

I would say that people have a choice of accepting SoCalRC’s narrow interpretation of the Bishop’s document or accepting the Priests for Life understanding of the document.

Boy…that’s a toughy…hmmm…I wonder who has better pro-life *bona fides *SoCalRC or Priests for Life?

 

[BamaRider]

First SoCal says-

Their bottom line, vote for the most pro life candidate. This is pretty reasonable. If the most pro life candidate is 100% pro life, great, if not, then all the candidates positions are intrinsically evil so you are applying the principle of limiting the harm, since you have already decided (see the first paragraph in the article) that abortion is the most important pro life issue you face.

So when I say that is what I plan to do you say this-

Vern’s stated position, and seemingly yours, is different. You are not picking the most pro-life candidate. You are advocating voting for a candidate whose position is intrinsically evil instead of one whose position is not, but arguing that it is a licit application of limiting the harm. That may or may not be the case, but nothing in the Priests for Life article appears to support picking a pro-abortion candidate over a wholly pro-life one.

Now how am I not picking the most pro life candidate when I vote for a guy that does this-

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

VS a guy that wants to do this-

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

Please don’t tell us there are better pro life options. There are NO 3rd party, pro life guys on the ballot this fall. Not happening. Might be a 3rd party, but he won’t be pro life!

It is what it is, I’m gonna agree with Rigs on this one, you can follow the interpretation of SoCal, who has painted himself into a corner where he can’t vote for ANYONE, in the fall, or you can follow the guides of the Priests for Life, who say voting the lesser of evils is NOT voting for evil, but voting good because you are defeating the more extreme view. Check the posts above for the full text.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, my answer is, given a choice, I pick the most pro life candidate available. That would seem to best answer the bottom line question in the article.

Your answer is, given a choice between a morally acceptable candidate and a viable candidate, you pick the viable one. The simple explanation would be that winning is more important to you than abortion.

The nuanced explanation would be that you are being pragmatic. ‘Getting things done’ as you would say, instead of ‘sitting on the sidelines’. If there was any evidence to suggest that your approach actually stops abortions, I might find the argument more compelling.

Ah, the old, “Your candidate isn’t perfect, so you have to vote for the party of abortion” scam again. Followed by the ever-popular, “My party is able to prevent your party from making progress against abortion, so you have to vote for my party” argument.

 

[mapleoak]

So you are still waiting to see who is going to be the most popular, and then will make your moral choice based on that?

Nope. I plan to see which one is best able to reduce abortion.

So you would not base your decision on which candidate is more likely to win? Doesn’t that contradict what you are saying about a candidate being electable? Are the chances of winning more important than the moral stance of the candidate or the other way around?

 

[vern_humphrey]

So you would not base your decision on which candidate is more likely to win? Doesn’t that contradict what you are saying about a candidate being electable? Are the chances of winning more important than the moral stance of the candidate or the other way around?

Are we commanded to fail?

What good does it do us to vote for Candidate C, when we know either Candidate A or B will win – and that if B wins, there will be such horrors as taxpayer-supported abortion?

Like it or not, we are locked in a struggle with millions of innocent lives at stake. There is no merit in throwing down our arms and fleeing the battlefield.

Note also that you are being victimized – the whole purpose of the counterargument is to draw strength away from the candidate who might make things better, and leave victorious the candidate who pledges to make things worse.

 

[mapleoak]

Are we commanded to fail?

What good does it do us to vote for Candidate C, when we know either Candidate A or B will win – and that if B wins, there will be such horrors as taxpayer-supported abortion?

But then couldn’t we even take it a step further and look at the polls some more? Supposing for instance the polls say Pro-Abortion Candidate B is leading by a huge margin. Now the argument could be, since neither candidate A nor candidate C has any chance of winning, we should vote for Candidate B. That way we will not fail.