Voting for the "lesser" of two evils

[Andreas_Hofer]

Philip P:

Two points. 1) Catholics have no more leeway to support an unjust war than they do to support any other unjust killing, abortion included. Where the “leeway” in war lies is in making the evaluation of whether it is just or not. Once you’ve made that evaluation, though, you are bound by your conscience just as surely as you are bound by your conscience on abortion. The problem with voting guides such as Catholic Answers, with their language of “non-negotiable issues” is that they give the impression other issues are negotiable. They’re not. Negotiation’s over by the time you enter the voting booth.

1. The major difference between abortion and war is that abortion is done by private individuals and war is carried out by the state. That means that every Iraqi killed has been killed in my name and in yours. The same cannot be said for abortion.

First, I agree with you that voting for a pro-choice politician does not automatically signal support for his stance on abortion and is not automatically an immoral act. Cdl. Ratzinger clearly stated that one could vote for such a candidate without the intent of supporting his pro-choice position so long as this was done in order to prevent a greater evil (proportionality).

As to #1, if you are firmly convinced that a war is unjust then, no, you cannot in good conscience vote for a politician who supports that war because of his support for the war. You could vote for him, though, despite his support for the war if the only other choice were advocating an even greater evil.

My point, however, was that even though you may disagree with a president’s evaluation, there is not an external authority that can definitively declare a particular war just or unjust in many cases. While many cardinals sounded off on the current conflict in Iraq, John Paul II never made a personal statement declaring the war unjust. He may have and probably did oppose the war, but he was not going to make a pronouncement on an issue that is rightly decided only by the man who has to evaluate the intelligence and make the call (Pres. Bush).

The case of abortion is not a neutral act that can be carried out either morally or immorally like war. It is an objectively evil act. A politician could be right in supporting war X. He could never be right in supporting abortion Z. So you have clear grave evil on a scale 20 times a possible grave evil. I don’t see proportionality favoring the (numerically) smaller, more ambigous evil.

#2 may be a decent point. It’s one that I would need to think about more closely. However, abortion is not an entirely personal issue. Legalized abortion is a tremendous failure of justice on the part of the government. Our current courts also enforce the legality of abortion even against the will of those who would justly ban it (seen in particular in the overturning of Nebraska’s partial birth abortion ban as well as the currently unenforced national ban). Our government also funds abortion activities by supplying money to Planned Parenthood - in my and your names. In some years one-third of all PPFA’s budget was supplied by the government.

When it comes down to it, even though governments don’t always perpetrate immoral acts, they have a moral duty to enforce morality under similar conditions of proportionality that exist for just war. A government can tolerate an evil in order to prevent greater evil or disorder (its purpose is the maintenance of temporal order). But we see in the case of war that to fail to wage a just war is evil; Aquinas classes it as an offence not against justice but against charity. I’m not schooled well enough in moral theology, but I do know a bit about reformation era political theology (a la Johannes Eck and Reginald Cardinal Pole), and I’m pretty sure government toleration of abortion would fall under the same category.

 

[seabird3579]

Catholic doctrine states that we MUST choose the Most pro-life candidate. In 2004, that was Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, it was not George Bush or John Kerry.

People who chose Bush, had to rationalize, just as Andreas Hofer has done, but they do it to skirt the Church’s teachings not to follow them.

That is a false assumption to say he could not have outlawed abortion. First, of all Abortion is not legal. Roe v. Wade is a legal opinion only. No American is required to follow a legal opinion that violates the U.S. Constitution. President Bush could have declared the opinion unconstitutional and required the Congress to review the matter. He did not. And why not? Well, he stated the country wasn’t ready for the change. How telling. He would dare not have stated that Before the election.

And, again he failed to uphold the constitutional civil rights of a disabled woman whose only crime was being brain damaged. He allowed the state of Florida to murder this woman by dehydration. Neither did the Florida governor send in the federal marshalls to stop the atrocity. Are they ignorant of constitutional law or are they deceivers? Either way, leadership is lacking to say the least!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Andreas Hofer:

First, I agree with you that voting for a pro-choice politician does not automatically signal support for his stance on abortion and is not automatically an immoral act. Cdl. Ratzinger clearly stated that one could vote for such a candidate without the intent of supporting his pro-choice position so long as this was done in order to prevent a greater evil (proportionality).

Proportionality is quite difficult to master. I can see why some people find it difficult to understand. I can see why some people refer to it without understanding it.

To make it quite simple, what greater evil than abortion has the Church identified?

There exists no back door to voting for the most pro-life candidate.

There is no wriggle room, no way to obfuscate, no relanguaging, no excuses.

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate constitutes remote material collaboration with an intrinsic evil.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Ani Ibi:

Proportionality is quite difficult to master. I can see why some people find it difficult to understand. I can see why some people refer to it without understanding it.

To make it quite simple, what greater evil than abortion has the Church identified?

There exists no back door to voting for the most pro-life candidate.

There is no wriggle room, no way to obfuscate, no relanguaging, no excuses.

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate constitutes remote material collaboration with an intrinsic evil.

I agree that, given today’s issues on the table, no one can vote for a pro-choice candidate because there is no proportionate evil. I just want to be fair and point out the Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter did point out the theoretical possibility of voting for one by mentioning proportionality. I find it hard to imagine what sort of evil could ever even possibly come close to the rate at which we are murdering innocent children. So I hope you didn’t think I was saying I think one can legitimately vote for a pro-choice candidate as things are.

 

[Philip_P]

Andreas Hofer:

First, I agree with you that voting for a pro-choice politician does not automatically signal support for his stance on abortion and is not automatically an immoral act. Cdl. Ratzinger clearly stated that one could vote for such a candidate without the intent of supporting his pro-choice position so long as this was done in order to prevent a greater evil (proportionality).

As to #1, if you are firmly convinced that a war is unjust then, no, you cannot in good conscience vote for a politician who supports that war because of his support for the war. You could vote for him, though, despite his support for the war if the only other choice were advocating an even greater evil.

My point, however, was that even though you may disagree with a president’s evaluation, there is not an external authority that can definitively declare a particular war just or unjust in many cases. While many cardinals sounded off on the current conflict in Iraq, John Paul II never made a personal statement declaring the war unjust. He may have and probably did oppose the war, but he was not going to make a pronouncement on an issue that is rightly decided only by the man who has to evaluate the intelligence and make the call (Pres. Bush).

The case of abortion is not a neutral act that can be carried out either morally or immorally like war. It is an objectively evil act. A politician could be right in supporting war X. He could never be right in supporting abortion Z. So you have clear grave evil on a scale 20 times a possible grave evil. I don’t see proportionality favoring the (numerically) smaller, more ambigous evil.

#2 may be a decent point. It’s one that I would need to think about more closely. However, abortion is not an entirely personal issue. Legalized abortion is a tremendous failure of justice on the part of the government. Our current courts also enforce the legality of abortion even against the will of those who would justly ban it (seen in particular in the overturning of Nebraska’s partial birth abortion ban as well as the currently unenforced national ban). Our government also funds abortion activities by supplying money to Planned Parenthood - in my and your names. In some years one-third of all PPFA’s budget was supplied by the government.

When it comes down to it, even though governments don’t always perpetrate immoral acts, they have a moral duty to enforce morality under similar conditions of proportionality that exist for just war. A government can tolerate an evil in order to prevent greater evil or disorder (its purpose is the maintenance of temporal order). But we see in the case of war that to fail to wage a just war is evil; Aquinas classes it as an offence not against justice but against charity. I’m not schooled well enough in moral theology, but I do know a bit about reformation era political theology (a la Johannes Eck and Reginald Cardinal Pole), and I’m pretty sure government toleration of abortion would fall under the same category.

That’s a very thoughtful response. I’ll respond in more depth later, but I wanted to take the time to thank you for the tone of your post. It’s so rare to see reasoned, level-headed posts on such highly controversial issues that it’s worth praising when it happens.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

seabird3579:

Catholic doctrine states that we MUST choose the Most pro-life candidate. In 2004, that was Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, it was not George Bush or John Kerry.

People who chose Bush, had to rationalize, just as Andreas Hofer has done, but they do it to skirt the Church’s teachings not to follow them.

That is a false assumption to say he could not have outlawed abortion. First, of all Abortion is not legal. Roe v. Wade is a legal opinion only. No American is required to follow a legal opinion that violates the U.S. Constitution. President Bush could have declared the opinion unconstitutional and required the Congress to review the matter. He did not. And why not? Well, he stated the country wasn’t ready for the change. How telling. He would dare not have stated that Before the election.

And, again he failed to uphold the constitutional civil rights of a disabled woman whose only crime was being brain damaged. He allowed the state of Florida to murder this woman by dehydration. Neither did the Florida governor send in the federal marshalls to stop the atrocity. Are they ignorant of constitutional law or are they deceivers? Either way, leadership is lacking to say the least!

I don’t recall ever disagreeing with the necessity of voting for the most pro-life candidate. Nor did I ever state that I voted for Bush in any election. You know what happens when you assume, don’t you? I only put forth the positions of Bush and Kerry, though, because I was not aware of any third party candidate on the ballot in all fifty states [excepting perhaps Nadar (I’m not sure if he made every ballot), who is even less pro-life than Kerry]. The point I was trying to make from the comparison was not that I thought Bush was the best choice but that I thought Kerry was obviously not the best choice (or even an acceptable choice). I happen to agree that we need to vote for the best candidate, not the best candidate who can be expected to win the immediate election.

I actually refrained from voting in the last election because a) I would have had to drive home from school which would have caused an academic hardship at the time and b) I didn’t foresee the non-effect my votes would have had as justifying undergoing the hardship. The duty to participate in government is a different debate, though.

Concerning the legality of abortion, I think we have radically different readings of the constitution. You say that no American must follow a law that is unconstitutional. But the constitution sets up a body whose job is to interpret the constitution and decide which laws comply and which do not. To say that a president and/or Congress should simply disregard the Supreme Court amounts to advocating a high degree of disorder and instability in our government. I say that even when authoritative interpretation is poorly done, we do not automatically have the power to ignore it or override it. Judicial activism is a horrendous thing. But countering it with activism that favors one’s own causes only legitimizes it and opens the door for greater disruption in the future. We (hopefully) learned that lesson a half-century ago regarding court packing. It may be nice to get your way on one issue, but then you invite your successor to enlarge the court even more in order to overturn your initiatives, and so on.

Roe v Wade is patently bad jurisprudence. But setting a precedent of violating the constition by setting aside a legitimate Supreme Court ruling is also a very dangerous step to take. Such an act would equal either the executive or legislative branch saying “No, I/we authoritatively interpret the constitution.” That would, of course, be a falsehood. Now, Congress could still ban abortion through legislation (which I think it must), but if that law were to be struck down in the courts it would be struck down. Congress cannot say, “Nuh uh!” to the Supreme Court on such an issue.

This falls under the rubric of toleration of evil if you ask me. I can either tolerate the evil of abortion while working within the system to affect change or I can demolish the system leaving nothing good in its place, which is what discarding the judicial branch effectively does.

 

[seabird3579]

Andreas Hofer:

Concerning the legality of abortion, I think we have radically different readings of the constitution. You say that no American must follow a law that is unconstitutional. But the constitution sets up a body whose job is to interpret the constitution and decide which laws comply and which do not. To say that a president and/or Congress should simply disregard the Supreme Court amounts to advocating a high degree of disorder and instability in our government. I say that even when authoritative interpretation is poorly done, we do not automatically have the power to ignore it or override it…

We not only have the power and the right to ignore an unconstitutional court order, we have the Duty to do it! Remember: “Give me liberty, or give me death!” ?!?

No COURT, government or person can order you to go against God’s law. When we uphold the U.S. Constitution, we are implicitly upholding God’s law — if you understand how the Constitution came into being in the first place.

I would really recommend that those who are confused about this issue obtain the two CD’s put out by the Constitution Party under the Institute on the Constitution. This will provide you with a complete education on the U.S. Constitution as intended by the Founding Fathers. If you go to the americanview.com you can order the CDs. They are very enlightening. Every Catholic should own a copy and keep it as a reference.

I have to say Andreas you do seem to spout what the national media regurgitates to us on a daily basis, so I understand why you feel the way you do. However, as truth-seeking Catholics, it is our civic and religious duty to study and investigate further the historical roots of our Constitution and see how far afield we (as a country) have wandered from what the founders intended.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

seabird3579:

We not only have the power and the right to ignore an unconstitutional court order, we have the Duty to do it! Remember: “Give me liberty, or give me death!” ?!?

No COURT, government or person can order you to go against God’s law. When we uphold the U.S. Constitution, we are implicitly upholding God’s law — if you understand how the Constitution came into being in the first place.

I would really recommend that those who are confused about this issue obtain the two CD’s put out by the Constitution Party under the Institute on the Constitution. This will provide you with a complete education on the U.S. Constitution as intended by the Founding Fathers. If you go to the americanview.com you can order the CDs. They are very enlightening. Every Catholic should own a copy and keep it as a reference.

I have to say Andreas you do seem to spout what the national media regurgitates to us on a daily basis, so I understand why you feel the way you do. However, as truth-seeking Catholics, it is our civic and religious duty to study and investigate further the historical roots of our Constitution and see how far afield we (as a country) have wandered from what the founders intended.

How exactly is one supposed to ignore a law that does not enjoin any particular act? Are you proposing that I myself arrest and detain abortionists and those who procure abortions? I suppose I could convert my storeroom into a somewhat secure prison cell. The power of the sword belongs to the government, not to private individuals. I suppose it could be wrested from an unjust government by force (given a reasonable chance of success), but I don’t see how else to remedy the solution.

If you were talking about disregarding a law that forces me to commit an evil act myself, then of course I have a duty to uphold God’s law. But you’re going to have to explain more clearly how to ignore a law that says I can’t put someone in prison for doing Act X.

 

[PLAL]

Ani Ibi:

ben and seabird: what are your bottom lines on abortion in the political arena? Who are the candidates who most closely adhere to Catholic teaching on abortion?

My pick is Dr. Alan Keyes.

renewamerica.us

 

[seabird3579]

Andreas Hofer:

How exactly is one supposed to ignore a law that does not enjoin any particular act? Are you proposing that I myself arrest and detain abortionists and those who procure abortions? I suppose I could convert my storeroom into a somewhat secure prison cell. The power of the sword belongs to the government, not to private individuals. I suppose it could be wrested from an unjust government by force (given a reasonable chance of success), but I don’t see how else to remedy the solution.

If you were talking about disregarding a law that forces me to commit an evil act myself, then of course I have a duty to uphold God’s law. But you’re going to have to explain more clearly how to ignore a law that says I can’t put someone in prison for doing Act X.

My statement speaks clearly for itself.

As I have said before though, the confused, bewildered and befuddled should order a copy of the Institute on the Constitution. It just might – no guarantees – clear up the picture for the downright confounded!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

seabird3579:

My statement speaks clearly for itself.

As I have said before though, the confused, bewildered and befuddled should order a copy of the Institute on the Constitution. It just might – no guarantees – clear up the picture for the downright confounded!

I’m afraid it’s that clarity I’m asking you to elaborate on. The clear sense of your statement is that each and every citizen must interpret the Constitution for himself and then do as he sees fit in all cases. A new, secular form of omnipapism. I must ask you, then, how many “criminals” do you have imprisoned on your property?

 

[seabird3579]

Andreas Hofer:

I’m afraid it’s that clarity I’m asking you to elaborate on. The clear sense of your statement is that each and every citizen must interpret the Constitution for himself and then do as he sees fit in all cases. A new, secular form of omnipapism. I must ask you, then, how many “criminals” do you have imprisoned on your property?

Andreas, the fact that you do not understand the American Constitution, nor my statements, does not make you a bad person – just an annoying and confused one.

I’ve given you ways to remedy your situation but you seem to “enjoy” the argument rather than the truth of the matter.

So continue to talk to yourself, but after this I will not be responding to you. Your obstructionists tactics will not work here.

 

[Promoman]

Seabird3579 states: Join Date: November 24, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 32

Re: Voting for the “lesser” of two evils

---

What does everyone think about the Constitution Party? They are 100% pro-life and no apologies. Why is it, do you think, they didn’t get more press with Catholics?

Too many Catholics are held sway, like prots, by the GOP machine, including a lot of Neo-con money ala Deal Hudson and others.

Support the CP and watch what happens if millions of others would instead of making excuses and do the same.

Former Lt. Gov candidate Peg Lukisk is Catholic, as are several candidate in the CP
Texas’ press secreatry, Vince Page, is Catholic and a big whig in the increasingly Neo-Con/GOP K of C.

NC Constitution party Chairman Chris Campbell is a devout, orthodox Catholic. He is making slow, but sure, progress

Look at the enitre platform (non-abriged) the CP stands for Catholic positions the best

 

[Promoman]

One instance that you bring up is a Living (or Livable) wage - I’m not how that could be best handled at the state level: in one instance, a lower wage is likely to bring in more jobs and yet might harm the average worker. We have to realize how important a roll greed has come to play in the corporate economy and carefully examine the economics of social justice, as defined by the Church, when it comes to keeping rampant capitalism at bay. “Corporate greed” are not just buzz words - we’ve seen real evidence and seen the genuine harm that it can do to all.

---

Ben

Ben,

Only in socialistic countries is it the Govt’s duty to set wages and dictate them to hard working business owners. This was first implimented in Fascist Italy.

In the Republic, it is a private matter between employer/employee.

Read up on subsdiarity (not sure if correct spelling) by Leo XIII. It is actually the views, more or less, of the Constitution Party.

Govt should not make decisions about these matters, as ours has no legal/constitutional right to do so.

catholicresistence.manicfish.com

 

[Philip_P]

Hi Andreas,

I think a major difference between my position and yours (and in fact of several posters here) is that I don’t think support for legalized abortion is the same thing as support for the act of abortion. On the immorality of the act of abortion, there is no disagreement. Indeed, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone on these forums, from any political stripe, argue that abortion is a good thing. Here’s an example of why this distinction is relevant. You said

However, abortion is not an entirely personal issue. Legalized abortion is a tremendous failure of justice on the part of the government

I on the other hand, would change the second sentence to “abortion is a tremendous failure of justice on the part of society.” I do think there is a strong social component in abortion. Women do not make this choice in a vacuum. If a significant number of people are making poor choices, I think we need to look at their society and ask why they are making this choice?

My problem with making the focus on legalization is that it DOES make this a purely “personal” problem rather than a social failing. Suppose we make abortion illegal. Now, if a woman aborts, it is the act of one person subject to prosecution and punishment for their choice to violate the law. We, as a society, no longer have to ask questions such as “why.” The problem is taken care of. We have shifted responsibility from ourselves to the woman who chooses to break the law, and thus we can wash our hands of the matter. This seems to pat, rather like proposing you can end crime simply by arresting everyone without needing to pay any attention to the community crime is occurring in. Arresting people does a good job of filling jails, but community policing, providing economic opportunities, promoting policies that keep families and communities intact, and so forth, are more effective in actually reducing crime.

What bothers me about the pro-criminalization crowd is that this is virtually all they talk about. If people were proposing bills that, say, banned abortion but also increased aid to working mothers, I’d begin to take their pro-life credential more seriously. I’m not, conceptually, opposed to making abortion illegal. I am opposed to a position that sees criminalizing abortion as a sufficient end in itself, or that tacitly assumes an easy correlation between the legality and the incidence of abortion.

Also, a quick note on proportionality. I do sincerely believe that the policies of the current political leadership is endangering the future security of the U.S. The effect of their policies has been to further increase the gap between the few super-rich and everyone else. That becomes a serious moral problem because when economic disparity grows large enough, you run a risk of serious and damaging social instability. Last century a number of countries went fascist or communist because these ideologies offered a compelling vision at a time of great suffering. I worry that we are setting ourselves down a path toward a repeat of that era, and there are no guarantees that a new FDR will arise this time around. That, to me, is proportional, especially when measured against the (in my opinion) not credible promise by the GOP to end abortion. This is of course my own personal evaluation of what was on offer, but it is my conscience I have to vote on, not my neighbor’s.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Philip P:

Hi Andreas,
My problem with making the focus on legalization is that it DOES make this a purely “personal” problem rather than a social failing. Suppose we make abortion illegal. Now, if a woman aborts, it is the act of one person subject to prosecution and punishment for their choice to violate the law. We, as a society, no longer have to ask questions such as “why.” The problem is taken care of. We have shifted responsibility from ourselves to the woman who chooses to break the law, and thus we can wash our hands of the matter. This seems to pat, rather like proposing you can end crime simply by arresting everyone without needing to pay any attention to the community crime is occurring in. Arresting people does a good job of filling jails, but community policing, providing economic opportunities, promoting policies that keep families and communities intact, and so forth, are more effective in actually reducing crime.

What bothers me about the pro-criminalization crowd is that this is virtually all they talk about. If people were proposing bills that, say, banned abortion but also increased aid to working mothers, I’d begin to take their pro-life credential more seriously. I’m not, conceptually, opposed to making abortion illegal. I am opposed to a position that sees criminalizing abortion as a sufficient end in itself, or that tacitly assumes an easy correlation between the legality and the incidence of abortion.

I disagree that criminilization makes the issue a personal one, suddenly shifting the burden wholly onto the mother. For one, we already have laws against stealing, even though there are poor people under tremendous pressure to do just that in order to provide greater security to their families. Outlawing theft does not end all discourse on poverty. Even if it did, does that mean we need to discard laws protecting property in order to allow the poor to steal free of penalty until we come up with better ways of handling poverty?

Also, the law is a shaper of society, its first teacher. One could argue, which I take it you would, that you can’t criminalize something that a very large chunk of society does not condemn. But it’s hard to get society to condemn something that the government constantly insists is a right which cannot even be impeded by measures to slow the exercise thereof. It’s not impossible, but it’s much more difficult to get society to turn against a right than against a crime, if you ask me.

Another consideration is that criminalizing abortion actually does relieve some of the pressure to procure an abortion. It immediately transforms the abortion industry from a profitable, government subsidized profession into a criminal activity. Instead of being a trip to a clinic for a procedure, abortion becomes an act that endangers one’s liberty and, perhaps, physical health (even more so than it does now, in addition to the mental danger which will probably remain consistent). Our current system protects those who try to induce their girlfriends, daughters, etc. to have abortions. Criminalized abortion would not, they would be inciting someone to violence, and if they aided in the crime by transporting the mother or funding the abortion, they would be accomplices.

Finally, a government which forbids depriving anyone of “life…without due process,” but only if that person can defend himself, is inconsistent and severely lack legitimacy. If abortion is taking innocent human life, it is murder, which is already illegal. We haven’t rescinded our anti-murder laws simply because some people feel compelled to commit it because of their conditions. We don’t talk about it as a tragic but personal decision. We don’t say, I’ll only support criminalizing murder if we create a better free mental health network, increased government spending for treatment of drug addiction, and more comprehensive anti-violence education in public schools. We condemn murder, and punish those who commit it. We’re still free to try to find ways to reduce its incidence, but we don’t act as if it’s alright to let murderers kill with impunity until every possible motive has been removed from society.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

I think a major difference between my position and yours (and in fact of several posters here) is that I don’t think support for legalized abortion is the same thing as support for the act of abortion. .

Support for legalized lynching is not the same thing as support for the act ol lynching? Support for legalized segregation is not the same thing as support for the act of segregation?

 

[AndyF]

seabird3579:

Which is morally right?

a) to vote for the party that most represents your highest pro-life ideals though their chances to win would be minimal, or

b) vote for a party that has more promise of winning but you’re not sure they would really do what they say they will?

Choice C. Neither one.

The case simply presents options that are not pickable, therefore ask for more to pick from. Evil probagates evil, and there is no alternative that would have us make a choice. Also, we must realize these candidates have had a time to reaffirm their beliefs that something is good or bad. Therefore, we are not being asked to choose between issues they present that were spur of the moment and not carefully thought over by them.

If candidate A,will lower taxes but impose abortion, we must reject him. If candidate B will raise taxes but disapproves of abortion, we must reject him. (assuming we don’t want more taxes of course). We nominate candidate C who will reject both. If there is no platform for a potential candidate C, then some issues he would have addressed were not deemed important by society, leaving you out of the vote.

The real problem is the lack of a platform that encompasses the ideal candidate for your segment of the population.

Andy

 

[vern_humphrey]

This brings us back to the parable of the skydiver.

Most problems are solveable if you address them before you jump. If we don’t have candidates we like, it’s our own fault:

• Did we join a party and work to get morally acceptable candidates?
• Did we support those candidates in primaries?
• When there was no acceptable candidate, did we offer ourselves?

 

[Philip_P]

Andreas Hofer:

One could argue, which I take it you would, that you can’t criminalize something that a very large chunk of society does not condemn.

Yeah, that’s essentially my point in a nutshell. A good law is also an effective law. Your brought up laws against murder. If a similar proportion of people believed murder was ok as believed in abortion, though, I think a law against murder would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Does this mean I think murder is ok? No, it means I think a law dealing with it would be ineffective (and this is not such a long shot. Think back of, say, historical examples of honor-based societies, were an insult to you or your family’s honor was sufficient grounds to kill. Was that moral? No. Was it tolerated by society? Yes. We’d of course have to get more specific, and talk about specific societies, to discuss the legal landscape in these situations).

It’s really a matter of priorities for me. If I were a Congressman, no, I would not support keeping abortion legal. If there were a refererndum, again, I would not support keeping abortion legal. I do not agree that it is a fundamental right. There is no natural “right” to an abortion. It is, however, currently a legal right.

So as a voter, the question is, where do I want to focus my energies? What is the likely outcome of making a procedure illegal that a sizeable portion of the population not only believes is acceptable, but maybe even a right? The result, I think, is that many people would simply disobey the law. Then not only do we have a situation where abortion is still ocurring, but where the authority of civil law is being eroded, too. Now I have to spend my energy not only trying to change attitudes on abortion, but defending the legitimacy of an unpopular law as well?

A better approach seems to me to work to create a society where abortion doesn’t happen first, and then make it illegal. To put it another way, I’m not sure I agree that the law is our “first teacher.” While this may be true in the context of canon law, and is true in moral law, in democratic civil law I think it law is the reflection of society’s standards. The fact that abortion is legal reflects the fact that our society accepts abortion. I think it makes more sense to change what society accepts, rather than change the law and hope that this will change society.