Stuff concerning voting for a pro-abortion candidate

[Maxirad]

The USCCB has come out with a document called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. Part I of the document contains a sentence in Section 34 that reads:

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.

Notice that I have added emphasis via boldface.

The late Fr. Stephen F. Torraco wrote this brief catechism. The last two sentences in Fr. Stephen’s answer to Question 14 in the catehcism read:

To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

This seems to suggest that Fr. Stephen generally considered it a mortal sin for someone to vote for a pro-abortion candidate even if there is no intent on the voter’s part to support said candidate’s pro-abortion views. Can someone on CAF help me out here? Please remember Canon 1373.

 

[Finite]

I’ve yet to see a pro-abortion candidate.

There are anti-abortion candidates and candidates who think it’s not their business.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’ve yet to see a pro-abortion candidate.

There are anti-abortion candidates and candidates who think it’s not their business.

I thought that Hillary said she strongly supports a woman’s right to an abortion.

 

[Rau]

The USCCB has come out with a document called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. Part I of the document contains a sentence in Section 34 that reads…

The USCCB has it right.

 

[Corki]

I thought that Hillary said she strongly supports a woman’s right to an abortion.

Actually, she has gone farther than that. She supports public funding for abortion as well as being a big fan of Margaret Sanger… That’s a pro-abortion position. You don’t give money to things you are anti or neutral about.

 

[Corki]

I’ve yet to see a pro-abortion candidate.

There are anti-abortion candidates and candidates who think it’s not their business.

Seriously? And you live in Houston? Don’t you remember Wendy Davis - abortion Barbie? She was an ardent advocate of abortion (not just choice). And she certainly thought it was her business.

 

[Finite]

I thought that Hillary said she strongly supports a woman’s right to an abortion.

I also strongly support a woman’s right to make that decision. That doesn’t mean I do a happy dance and throw an abortion festival.

My point is just because one is pro-choice, doesn’t mean they’re personally “for” abortions. I think abortions are wrong, especially when used as birth control. But I’m not about to thrust my beliefs in the face of the woman across the street.

 

[Rau]

But I’m not about to thrust my beliefs in the face of the woman across the street.

But we have done just that when the victim is a toddler. We each have our view on infanticide, and the view is overwhelming that it is wrong, and those with a contrary view have to lump it.

It would seem that to “put forward one’s beliefs” eg. by way of a vote on abortion is an equally just thing to do, and those losing the vote have to “lump it”. Or are you saying that, in the case of abortion, you’d vote contrary to your beliefs?

 

[Tomdstone]

I think abortions are wrong, especially when used as birth control. But I’m not about to thrust my beliefs in the face of the woman across the street.

I suspect that you are against honor killings where a family member, usually the father, kills another family member because the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family, by for example, refusing to enter an arranged marriage, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim of rape, dressing in inappropriate ways, engaging in homosexual relations, etc.
Are you willing to thrust your beliefs in the face of those who condone honor killings? Or should they be left alone to make these very personal and difficult decisions without the interference of the government?

 

[Horton]

I also strongly support a woman’s right to make that decision. That doesn’t mean I do a happy dance and throw an abortion festival.

My point is just because one is pro-choice, doesn’t mean they’re personally “for” abortions. I think abortions are wrong, especially when used as birth control. But I’m not about to thrust my beliefs in the face of the woman across the street.

Hillary not only is pro-abortion she believes an unborn child has no civil rights. She supports late term abortion, even in the last weeks of pregnancy. Since the last debate I’ve read several articles written by OBGYN’s, L&D nurses, and had a conversation with a NICU nurse.

Hillary basically said in the last debate that she has spoken to women who have been told their life is in danger in the last weeks of pregnancy and they needed to abort to save their lives. From everything I’ve read this is absolutely false. If a baby is causing issues for the mother the medical staff will first present the option of delivering the baby. Remember a late term abortion is after the viability of the child. The child may die, may have some medical issues or may just live fine, especially if after 32 weeks. But then that choice is God’s choice.

I understand there are people who are pro-choice but don’t support abortion? I have three boys, all grown now, but could be pretty hard to handle during there growing up years. If one of them was causing me so many problems that I decided to kill him because I was inconvenienced? Killed him during potty training, killed him when he brought notes home from school, killed him as a teen, killed him when he wrecked the car?

I know that sounds bad but really is it very different than killing the child in the womb?
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I dedicated you,
a prophet to the nations I appointed you.

Huge disclaimer***All of my boys grew to adulthood and are alive & well. While there were moments during the teen years…any parent of a teen knows those moments…I would not have ever killed my child.

 

[esieffe]

I’ve yet to see a pro-abortion candidate.

There are anti-abortion candidates and candidates who think it’s not their business.

I am afraid I have to disagree. Hilary said at the convention that she supports a woman’s right to choose. It does not get much more plain than that. If a woman chooses to kill her baby, then Hilary supports a woman’s right to kill her baby.

She did not say, “What a woman does with her baby is none of my business.”

 

[esieffe]

I suspect that you are against honor killings where a family member, usually the father, kills another family member because the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family, by for example, refusing to enter an arranged marriage, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim of rape, dressing in inappropriate ways, engaging in homosexual relations, etc.
Are you willing to thrust your beliefs in the face of those who condone honor killings? Or should they be left alone to make these very personal and difficult decisions without the interference of the government?

I don’t know if he is willing to, but I sure am. I hereby thrust my belief in the face of those who condone honor killings… along with most of the civilized world, and the world press. Here it is, there is no honor what so ever in “honor killings.” Honor killings are wrong, they are murder, and they are morally reprehensible no matter where they take place, no matter what culture they take place in.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The USCCB publication in 2012 was clearer on actual voting (p. 11) than the 2016 version:

"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.

1. 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."

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/Forming-Consciences-for-Faithful-Citizenship-2011.pdf

Seems pretty clear to me. First, you can’t be a one-issue voter. You can’t just vote for someone who opposes abortion and ignore the fact that they favor other important policies that are morally wrong (for example, favoring the death penalty, ignoring racism, denying health care to the poor, etc.).

Second, of course you can’t vote for someone because you favor a policy that is intrinsically wrong–you can’t vote for Hillary simply because she is pro-choice. Or you can’t vote for a candidate because they want to deny health benefits to the poor.

Third, you can’t ignore a candidate’s position on moral issues for frivolous reasons–they promise to put extra money in your pocket, or you like their position on a minor issue like repairing a road in your neighborhood, etc.

 

[josh987654321]

I suspect that you are against honor killings where a family member, usually the father, kills another family member because the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family, by for example, refusing to enter an arranged marriage, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim of rape, dressing in inappropriate ways, engaging in homosexual relations, etc.
Are you willing to thrust your beliefs in the face of those who condone honor killings? Or should they be left alone to make these very personal and difficult decisions without the interference of the government?

Exactly, I bet it’s a different story when it could be their lives in question.

Good analogy.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rose_kelly]

The USCCB publication in 2012 was clearer on actual voting (p. 11) than the 2016 version:

"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.

1. 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."

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/Forming-Consciences-for-Faithful-Citizenship-2011.pdf

Seems pretty clear to me. First, you can’t be a one-issue voter. You can’t just vote for someone who opposes abortion and ignore the fact that they favor other important policies that are morally wrong (for example, favoring the death penalty, ignoring racism, denying health care to the poor, etc.).

Second, of course you can’t vote for someone because you favor a policy that is intrinsically wrong–you can’t vote for Hillary simply because she is pro-choice. Or you can’t vote for a candidate because they want to deny health benefits to the poor.

Third, you can’t ignore a candidate’s position on moral issues for frivolous reasons–they promise to put extra money in your pocket, or you like their position on a minor issue like repairing a road in your neighborhood, etc.

That does seem quite clear and reasonable.
There are so many issues I carefully consider before I vote in a general election.

 

[kozlosap]

That does seem quite clear and reasonable.
There are so many issues I carefully consider before I vote in a general election.

 

[Finite]

A lot of people replied to my comment and I’m not about to respond to each individually. I’ll just make a general statement.

I am personally opposed to abortion. Back before my wife went through the change, we never once considered abortion an option for us. If we did not want another child, we took precautions.

I do not think it is my place to tell another woman she must be the same way.

As for whoever made the comparison to honor killings…not really the same thing. If we want to tie things together, then I could just as easily say it is wrong for a catholic to judge a woman who chooses to get an abortion, but also told her she can’t use condoms or birth control. This is another reason I left the church. There’s a couple of simple ways to prevent ever reaching that point: birth control or abstinence.

You will not be able to keep every female from having sex. This is why I oppose abstinence only education.

We have a way of preventing the issue of abortion from arising. It’s called birth control.

 

[Rau]

…I am personally opposed to abortion. …I do not think it is my place to tell another woman she must be the same way.

I’m sure you are against infanticide too. Would it be your place to vote against a proposal to introduce a law to allow infanticide within some period after birth?

 

[Tomdstone]

As for whoever made the comparison to honor killings…not really the same thing.

Can you please explain why it is not the same. It is one of the most personal and difficult decisions of a father to decide to kill his daughter in an honor killing. Isn’t that the same thing when a woman decides to murder her infant whose umbilical cord has not been cut yet, but otherwise is fully formed? In both cases there are groups on one side or the other. Why should you force your views on the father who is in the process of making this very difficult personal decision. Shouldn’t the government be kept out of it? The only difference i see is that in one case it is the woman who is making this difficult decision to kill her child by partial birth abortion, but in the other case it is the man who is making this difficult decision to kill his daughter. Why should the government intervene when a man kills his child, but not intervene when a woman kills her child?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’ve seen these references to honor killings and infanticide before. They are red herrings. They have no relevance to the discussion.

Why? Because in the case of abortion, there is a genuine difference of opinion between different religions as to when a fetus becomes a human being. And it’s not just a small group of people who are pro-choice. It’s roughly half the population of the US, and similar pro-choice laws are in place throughout the developed world. It’s not some small cult that’s in favor of it.

In the case of infanticide, I’m not aware of any religion that condones it. All would consider it murder. And yes, in some societies (including Medieval Europe), it was resorted to by families too poor to raise a baby. But it was never seen as a good thing; it was something to be ashamed of.

As for honor killings, again, even Islam condemns them. Even places like Pakistan have laws against it–which they just strengthened, by the way. So yes, it happens, but it’s a relatively small number of people who carry it out, and the great majority of the people, even in countries where it happens, think it’s wrong.