Question on Abortion and voting

[Teelynn]

This has probably been talked about before on this forum, Cannot find it in search but hopefully (again), I am in the right place.

What if: Presidential Candidates in both parties are pro choice? Seems like a real quandary to me, but I absolutely WILL NOT vote for someone pro choice. Nor does our faith allow us to. So I guess we have a choice (a) not to vote at all, or (b) possibly vote for an independent if in fact the independent is pro life or (c) vote for the candidate that is best suited according to our political beliefs (other than pro choice) and most importantly meets other criteria of which our faith dictates.

Who knows the odds of this happening but it is a real possibility really in any election.

 

[emily47017]

i think officially we’re allowed to vote for pro-choice candidates as long as we’re not voting for them because they’re pro-choice. so in your situation, option C is perfectly acceptable.

 

[mainusch]

Who knows the odds of this happening but it is a real possibility really in any election.

Very real.

Consider: Rudy v. Hillary

 

[mlchance]

i think officially we’re allowed to vote for pro-choice candidates as long as we’re not voting for them because they’re pro-choice…

Hardly. Let’s say there’s a front-running candidate for the presidency right now who vigorously supports abortion-on-demand, who has promised to nominate only pro-abortion justices, and who wants to further expand the abortion “franchise” by using even more tax dollars to pay for them both here and abroad.

Unless all of the other candidates are campaigning on the exact same abortion platform plus something along the lines of a “pro-nuclear war” platform, no Christian has any justification for voting for the pro-abortionist.

Right now, one major political party in the U.S. hasn’t fielded a single candidate any Catholic can vote for in good conscience. About half the other major party’s candidates would be acceptable.

If you’re unclear on which major political party supports everything outlined in the first paragraph, google 2004 party platforms as well as individual voting records. You’ll also find this one party – let’s call them the Party of Death – aggressively supports embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), even to the point of voting against adult stem cell research funding unless ESCR is included in the bankroll.

After this, people will chime in with nonsense about the death penalty (which Catholics may support or oppose as they deem prudent, and which both major party’s support in any event) and getting out of Iraq (which John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the USCCB has said the U.S. ought not do).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[melensdad]

(c) vote for the candidate that is best suited according to our political beliefs (other than pro choice) and most importantly meets other criteria of which our faith dictates.

Sometimes in the political world we have to vote for the one who will do the LEAST HARM. But to not vote, or to intentionally vote for someone who will certainly lose by a wide margin, is to effectively cast a vote for a candidate who will do harm.

 

[valenzuelaf]

Sometimes in the political world we have to vote for the one who will do the LEAST HARM. But to not vote, or to intentionally vote for someone who will certainly lose by a wide margin, is to effectively cast a vote for a candidate who will do harm.

Good Answer. Even though it would bother me to vote for a Pro Choice candidate. If you no other choice you have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

This has probably been talked about before on this forum, Cannot find it in search but hopefully (again), I am in the right place.

What if: Presidential Candidates in both parties are pro choice? Seems like a real quandary to me, but I absolutely WILL NOT vote for someone pro choice. Nor does our faith allow us to. So I guess we have a choice (a) not to vote at all, or (b) possibly vote for an independent if in fact the independent is pro life or (c) vote for the candidate that is best suited according to our political beliefs (other than pro choice) and most importantly meets other criteria of which our faith dictates.

Who knows the odds of this happening but it is a real possibility really in any election.

There is a very strong case for voting for the candidate you think would be the best president. There will always be someone standing who is anti-abortion.

 

[pray4peace]

Your question has been on my mind as well, so I dd some checking. I pulled up EWTN and found help to answer our questions on this:

ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

I hope this helps.

 

[mapleoak]

If there are only TWO candidates and both are pro-choice, I would not vote. It is tragic how something as serious as abortion could possibly be even thought of in terms of ‘lesser-evil’, ‘least amount of damage’, etc. If both candidates were pro-murder of any class of people besides the un-born, how much support would they get. It would be an outrage. No one who supports in any way the slaughter of 4000+ people every single day, will EVER get my vote.
Not given the option of a suitable third party or other media hushed eligible candidate, I would stay home. Not voting is in no way, shape, or form the same as casting a vote for the worse candidate.
In any case, which of these is considered the worse candidate: The one who supports the killing of 4000 people every day no matter their age; the one who supports the killing of 2000 people every day no matter their age; the one who supports killing 4000 people every day who are pre-born; or the one who supports killing 2000 people every day who are up to the third trimester?
Food for thought.

 

[melensdad]

If there are only TWO candidates and both are pro-choice, I would not vote. It is tragic how something as serious as abortion could possibly be even thought of in terms of ‘lesser-evil’, ‘least amount of damage’, etc.

However, not voting means your voice is simply unheard. Therefore if you don’t vote then politicians do not listen to you!

Typically, even if there are only 2 candidates, and both believe in abortion, ONE of the two will have some vocal beliefs and be part of the Pro-Abortion crowd while the other will have serious reservations about abortion but might allow it as a limited but horrible choice. It strikes me that we want to support the candidate who would only have limited support for it, and it also strikes me that we need to work with that candidate to have our voices CLEARLY heard.

 

[mapleoak]

However, not voting means your voice is simply unheard. Therefore if you don’t vote then politicians do not listen to you!

Doing what is right even if there be no one, save God who knows what you do ultimately is what we all answer for one day. They are many, many ways to get ones voice heard throughout the year which can be much more effective than one day of voting. It is not a matter of doing what is right only when there is someone there to notice.

 

[Teelynn]

Very real.

Consider: Rudy v. Hillary

You read my mind

 

[Teelynn]

Thanks for all the replys. We will have to watch the candidates very closely. And pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance

 

[Ender]

If there are only TWO candidates and both are pro-choice, I would not vote. It is tragic how something as serious as abortion could possibly be even thought of in terms of ‘lesser-evil’, ‘least amount of damage’, etc.

I have some sympathy for this position even though I do not share it with regard to the current presidential race. I would only take the not-voting option if I felt there would be no significant difference regardless of who won. In my mind, not voting benefits the winner since I have taken no action to influence the outcome otherwise. As horrible as abortion is there are several other extremely serious issues to be dealt with and I will not ignore them to make a moral statement about this one concern. Nor does the Church make such a demand of us. We are free to vote or not vote in such a situation and both choices are morally valid.

Ender

 

[IanBoyd57]

This has probably been talked about before on this forum, Cannot find it in search but hopefully (again), I am in the right place.

What if: Presidential Candidates in both parties are pro choice? Seems like a real quandary to me, but I absolutely WILL NOT vote for someone pro choice. Nor does our faith allow us to. So I guess we have a choice (a) not to vote at all, or (b) possibly vote for an independent if in fact the independent is pro life or (c) vote for the candidate that is best suited according to our political beliefs (other than pro choice) and most importantly meets other criteria of which our faith dictates.

Who knows the odds of this happening but it is a real possibility really in any election.

That is incredibly simple-minded. I would advise you to read and learn about real world issues. I know, I know, it takes effort and thinking and reasoning but you can’t look at the world in black and white.

Like it or not, there are real people out there who are sentient and who feel pain. They are suffering in ways unimaginable to you, and to decide that you will not vote for the otherwise best candidate just because he is prochoice…

Well, that’s kicking billions of sentient, conscious beings in the face and telling them that they can feel pain and suffer all they want, but that you care more about unconscious fetuses which cannot think, make decisions, or feel pain. Those conditions if present in an adult would classify them as brain dead.

Yes, fetuses have their own unique DNA. But so do billions of other living humans in the world, and they are dying just as much.

Bush said he was pro-life. So good job all you loyal catholics for voting for him and making abortion…

…still legal.

I know where you’re coming from though. Politics is complicated, and the issues demand intelligence in order to truly comprehend them. Abortion is probably the most clear cut issue, you can look at it as life versus death, say you support life, and then feel like you are smart, on top of things, and understand politics, and are an informed voter.

I was truly shocked, however, to hear that if all candidates are pro-choice then people will not vote.

In other words, you will refuse to change or help the world at all.

How pathetic.

 

[mapleoak]

Like it or not, there are real people out there who are sentient and who feel pain. They are suffering in ways unimaginable to you, and to decide that you will not vote for the otherwise best candidate just because he is prochoice…

Yes indeed, there are real people out there who feel pain. Not only do they feel pain, but are then killed. About 4000+/- daily to be sure.

Well, that’s kicking billions of sentient, conscious beings in the face and telling them that they can feel pain and suffer all they want

I can assure you, no matter how YOU vote, you will not be kicking me in the face and telling me I can feel pain and suffer all I want. What exactly are you referring to?

but that you care more about unconscious fetuses which cannot think, make decisions, or feel pain. Those conditions if present in an adult would classify them as brain dead.

This is a totally ignorant statement. It is a proven FACT that human embryos feel pain. Lets also say that when you are asleep, you cannot think and make decisions. Is it okay to kill people who are sleeping?

Yes, fetuses have their own unique DNA. But so do billions of other living humans in the world, and they are dying just as much.

First of all, we are not talking about one world order, where your vote affects billions of people world wide. I know of no such place to vote for world affairs.
Second, in the U.S. what issue are you talking about that is so directly involved in the very life and death of anywhere close to 4000 human beings DAILY. Social Security? no. Illegal Immigration? no. Lunches for school kids? etc…

Bush said he was pro-life. So good job all you loyal catholics for voting for him and making abortion…

…still legal.

Last time around, I refrained. Time before that, third party.
Please clarify what the above comment is saying. Are you saying people were deceived? No, I believe most everyone who voted for Bush voted in good concience. This is a very insulting statement to be sure.

I know where you’re coming from though. Politics is complicated, and the issues demand intelligence in order to truly comprehend them. Abortion is probably the most clear cut issue, you can look at it as life versus death, say you support life, and then feel like you are smart, on top of things, and understand politics, and are an informed voter.

No, we support life not to feel smart and high up in the world, but out of respect for that very precious gift entrusted to man that is totally helpless and whose very life is so intricately dependent on its mother during the beginning of its life. To let these ‘least of My people’ down by not being relentless, but rather lukewarm in their plight is by far the most tragic of issues facing us today. I sincerely believe this country will suffer dearly for all its bloodshed if this situation does not change. Instead of comments like these, so much better to pray and beg God’s mercy on all of us. As long as abortion is legal, we cannot say we have done enough.

I was truly shocked, however, to hear that if all candidates are pro-choice then people will not vote.

Truly shocking.

In other words, you will refuse to change or help the world at all.

Actually, just the opposite. For one, don’t begin to think that all you need to do is go and vote and then sit back and watch the world go 'round.

On another note, if candidates were to start to losing by huge margins because of moral strain and voter abstention, someone may possibly get the hint.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

That is incredibly simple-minded. I would advise you to read and learn about real world issues. I know, I know, it takes effort and thinking and reasoning but you can’t look at the world in black and white.

Like it or not, there are real people out there who are sentient and who feel pain. They are suffering in ways unimaginable to you, and to decide that you will not vote for the otherwise best candidate just because he is prochoice…

Well, that’s kicking billions of sentient, conscious beings in the face and telling them that they can feel pain and suffer all they want, but that you care more about unconscious fetuses which cannot think, make decisions, or feel pain. Those conditions if present in an adult would classify them as brain dead. Classifing them(in this case babies) as brain-dead make a person less human? At what point is a baby considered human, one year old? Babies don’t think or make decisions on there own until then.

Babies not feeling pain in the womb is pure fiction, something to make abortionist feel better about killing small humans.

At what age were you when your mother was still within her rights to kill you?

Yes, fetuses have their own unique DNA. But so do billions of other living humans in the world, and they are dying just as much.

Death is a natural function of life. Murder isn’t. More feel good stuff that doesn’t really work.

What is the carring capacity of the earth for the best human existance experience. Are you saying that we should eliminate a portion of the population until we reach an exceptable carring capicity that meets your opinion of “not so much dying”.

Bush said he was pro-life. So good job all you loyal catholics for voting for him and making abortion…

…still legal.

Parical Birth Abortion is illegal.

I know where you’re coming from though. Politics is complicated, and the issues demand intelligence in order to truly comprehend them. Abortion is probably the most clear cut issue, you can look at it as life versus death, say you support life, and then feel like you are smart, on top of things, and understand politics, and are an informed voter.

I was truly shocked, however, to hear that if all candidates are pro-choice then people will not vote. I am truly shocked that one person, a former fetus, can even write this stuff.

In other words, you will refuse to change or help the world at all.

How pathetic.How Pathetic, indeed!

 

[Ender]

… to decide that you will not vote for the otherwise best candidate just because he is prochoice…

Well, that’s kicking billions of sentient, conscious beings in the face and telling them that …

I don’t agree with this tirade but this is the relevant point: given that no matter what we do (in a presidential race between two pro-abortion candidates) we cannot change the outcome on this issue, is it better to vote based on other criteria or not vote at all?

Abortion is the great evil of our time but it is surely not the only issue of great significance. As tempting as it may be to walk away from a race between two pro-abortion candidates it does nothing to solve any of the other problems we face, problems that lead others to - or keep them in - misery and want.

The time to make our voices heard on abortion is during the primary, but if there is no choice on the issue of abortion in the general election I think we still have the obligation to (try to) alleviate suffering as best we can by voting for the person we believe has the better ideas on how that can be done.

Ender

 

[elts1956]

i think officially we’re allowed to vote for pro-choice candidates as long as we’re not voting for them because they’re pro-choice. so in your situation, option C is perfectly acceptable.

Hi, I just happened to see this thread, probably past discussion, but emily you gave the wrong info. If BOTH candidates are pro choice, one mustmist seriously find out which one is more likely to LIMIT intrinsic evil. Such as in this past Presidential election both candidates were pro choice, one, bo, to a fanatical degree and McCain who was pro choice in SOME instances. We were told to vote for a candidate likely to limit the spread of the evil. We could also have voted for a candidate who was pro life, but this would have been basically cutting off your nose to spite your face.

WHERE the idea that one could vote for a pro abortion candidate if one was not voting for him/her for that reason, as opposed to voting for a more pro life candidate came from I don’t know. From the miasma of misinformation I suppose.

ABORTION was at the head of the list and bo headed it.

 

[mapleoak]

WHERE the idea that one could vote for a pro abortion candidate if one was not voting for him/her for that reason, as opposed to voting for a more pro life candidate came from I don’t know. From the miasma of misinformation I suppose.

ABORTION was at the head of the list and bo headed it.

Exactly. It is no different than saying one thing while doing another, voting pro-abortion while telling yourself that is not what you are doing. Nothing less than self deception.