Voting and Conscience

  • Thread starter Thread starter salvereginadude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

salvereginadude

Guest
I’m 17 and will be turning 18 this March and hope to register to vote as soon as possible. With the upcoming elections and the current campaigns going on I just wanted a little clarrification, and I know this is a hot issue. In any circumstances, does the Church approve of voting for a pro-choice candidate? If so, what must be the criteria for these circumstances?
 
Hi!

I started voting recently too. I’m past 18, but I moved around a lot and just never got around to registering, and now I finally did.

Yeah, it’s tough. I can only give my opinion, which is I don’t think one can ever vote for a pro-abortion politition. If my vote helped put into office someone who caused greater destruction of human life, in a way I’d feel partially responsible. It’s kind of like, you didn’t pull the trigger, but you gave the person the gun.

I asked someone once if you can vote for the lesser of two evils: say one candidate is VERY pro-abortion and the other is only slightly pro-abortion. Can you vote for the lesser one just for the sake of keeping the very pro-abortion person out? The answer I consistently got was that no pro-abortion candidate should be voted for. Best to go with a pro-lifer and have a clear conscience.

Abortion is, after all, a life and death issue, so it’s a very serious matter.

If you have further questions, I’d recommend talking to a priest. When I have morality questions, I usually save them for after my confession and make it quick. Usually they don’t mind answering a question or two.

God bless you and good luck.

🙂

Nita
 
If you’re voting for them because they are pro-choice, definitely no.

However, there are some times when it is ok to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil. One instance would be if the politician would have no impact on that issue. For example, take a local election. A mayor would probably have no impact on whether or not abortion is outlawed not. In that case, their pro-choice status would not automatically disqualify them.

Concerning the president this year, it is a little more tricky–how much influence does a president have over this issue? If the amount is not negligible, other positives about the person may have to be sacrificed to prevent the intrinsic evil from being perpetuated.
 
There is always the question of whether to hold the line or to be practical.

One would hold that God doesn’t ask us to be successful, just faithful. Hold to Truth and let God straighten out the problems.

Others woud be practical and seek for perfection half a loaf at a time.

One has to weigh each situation. One must not cross the line from tolerating evil to supporting it. For myself, I will not vote for anyone in any office who supports abortion, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cells, or homosexual marriage. However, given no better choice I may reluctantly vote for one who, while not supporting them, will do little to oppose them.
 
Genesis315 said:
If you’re voting for them because they are pro-choice, definitely no.

However, there are some times when it is ok to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil. One instance would be if the politician would have no impact on that issue. For example, take a local election. A mayor would probably have no impact on whether or not abortion is outlawed not. In that case, their pro-choice status would not automatically disqualify them.

Concerning the president this year, it is a little more tricky–how much influence does a president have over this issue? If the amount is not negligible, other positives about the person may have to be sacrificed to prevent the intrinsic evil from being perpetuated.
Click to expand...
The president does have quite a bit of influence on this issue in the appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court. Problem at this time is that the Dems are in charge of the Congress, therefore they are chairmen of the committees. No constructionist nominee is going to get past Patrick Leahy if the Dems stay in control.
 
The he-can’t-do-anything-about-abortion approach is seriously flawed. Technically no one person can do anything to end abortion, but they can still lend formal and material support to it, such as a mayor allowing Planned Parenthood into the neighborhood.
 
Scottgun said:
The he-can’t-do-anything-about-abortion approach is seriously flawed. Technically no one person can do anything to end abortion, but they can still lend formal and material support to it, such as a mayor allowing Planned Parenthood into the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
In most municipalities mayors don’t have that kind of authority. Completely banning legal enterprises (rather than appropriate zoning) almost always is barred–the closest cities have come to doing it is with nude dancing or pornography shops–and even then they are just relegated to certain corners of the city, and not completely banned.

As for the President appointing justices, there are a majority of professed pro-lifers on their now and not much has been done to overturn Roe v. Wade.
 
Genesis315 said:
In most municipalities mayors don’t have that kind of authority. Completely banning legal enterprises (rather than appropriate zoning) almost always is barred–the closest cities have come to doing it is with nude dancing or pornography shops–and even then they are just relegated to certain corners of the city, and not completely banned.

As for the President appointing justices, there are a majority of professed pro-lifers on their now and not much has been done to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...
Ok, perhaps not the best example, but he can still lend formal and material supports somehow. Best bet: don’t vote for them any more than one would vote for a KKK member to be dog catcher.
 
Genesis315 said:
In most municipalities mayors don’t have that kind of authority. Completely banning legal enterprises (rather than appropriate zoning) almost always is barred–the closest cities have come to doing it is with nude dancing or pornography shops–and even then they are just relegated to certain corners of the city, and not completely banned.

As for the President appointing justices, there are a majority of professed pro-lifers on their now and not much has been done to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...
Have they had a case come before them on that subject? I don’t remember it if they have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top