Voting pro-choice always immoral?

[SoCalRC]

And that complaining will accomplish what?

If more people wholly vote their faith, their votes won’t be ‘wasted’…

I actually see this theme a lot in biblical studies from Africa and Latin America. The first step in altering oppression is to change the behaviors of the oppressed. However, the final outcome depends a great deal on what new behaviors are adopted.

If we allow a political party to lay claim to our absolute teachings using the narrowest possible definition and rhetoric, then we cannot complain when there is no measurable progress and the same party is comfortable having pro-abortionists as front runners for President.

We allow the bar to be set absurdly low, and then have nothing to do but howl when it goes lower still because we have bought in to a myth of earthly political power. In other words, we don’t dare ‘leave’ becase we have convinced ourselves that there is no better alternative to superficial power in a system that is not producing the results we want.

But if we just abandon fear and our belief in earthly power, we can stand with God. Just by shedding the label of ‘political base’, we are potentially empowered. We become a vote to be actively woo’ed, not taken for granted. And the future is potentially better. It is predicted that Catholics will grow to 50% of the US population in the coming decades. Most of this is driven by the growth in our Hispanic population. Under the current political entanglements, this political power is seriously diminished - because of the ‘pragmatism’ that ties together political alliances.

But again, just standing with God and foresaking the earthly power brokering and political alliances would make us very powerful indeed. It is the chasing of false illusions of power instead of dutifully following the one true power that makes us weak and largely ineffective.

 

[setter]

First off, here is the 2004 example of the USCCB rejecting the CA guide.
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=31706

Excerpt from same article:

“Faithful Citizenship,” a document issued by the lay staff of the USCCB, has been criticized even within the Church for placing the paramount issue of abortion on a level playing field with other lesser issues like promoting “social justice” and “global solidarity.” Bob Laird, director of the Family Life Office of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, said, “It equates abortion with debt relief. They are not equal.” Critics charge that the document has had the effect of minimizing the importance of abortion in Catholic social teaching. The USCCB is also set to release its staff-produced presidential questionnaire which has faced similar charges.

Question: Are pronouncements by the [lawyers for the] USCCB end all and binding?

And the “Life” issue is far from cut and dry and not isolated to just the abortion issue. The “Life” issue in Catholic teachings covers the wide spectrum, which includes wars, capital punishment, etc… This does not make it cut and dry towards one party or the other. The abortion issue and how to minimize it is not a one-solution, one-party issue.

One party primarily promotes unrestricted abortion on demand, the other seeks to limit and restrict abortion – to state, claim or seek to othrwise equate the two major parties is disingenuine at best.

Question: Who is the most vulnerable, at risk group in the US population, i.e., those persons least able to speak and defend for themselves, as in totally dependent upon others for their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[fix]

I hate to be a stickler for reality, but you were the one who invented that point and interjected it into the conversation. Assigning it to me does not make it mine.

I was trying to be kind. The obvious answer would have been that cost is irrelevant to the discussion. Christ calls us to do what is right, not what is cheap. Pointing out that spending has historically proven to have no relationship seemed like a more tactful way to remove it as a red herring from the discussion.

Look at the quotes. I am claiming only what the Church teaches (and providing quotes from the Church’s explanation intended for the laity). If you elevate any teaching, no matter how important, to the point where you are willing to compromise on the Catholic understanding of the human person, you are embracing evil at the expense of faith.

Look at it from the other direction - why are abortion and euthanasia absolutes for us? Why can we not place a mother’s life ahead of a fetus - which may only have a 50 or 60% chance of even resulting in a live birth?

Why can we not place the needs of a family ahead of dying invalid, perhaps spending that last of God’s greatest gift in a permanent vegative state?

Evangelium Vitae, JPII’s Gospel of Life, shows us that these teachings are both part of a coherent and cohesive single underlying belief. It is “incoherent” and a “detriment” to simultaneously support one manifistation of the teaching yet attack the underlying belief.

Then reframe it solely it solely in the context of the discussion at hand. Bush professes to be pro-life. But he signed a bill making euthanasia (removing hyrdation and nutrition) on the basis of ability to pay easier. So his “pro life” aspects come with the baggage of euthanasia.

Similiarly, he professes to believe in the sanctity of fetal life, but still permits federal funding for stem cell research. In the last (GOP) Congress, a bill restricting the research altogether did not make it out of committee (blocked by a GOP chairman). So the “pro life” aspects come with more baggage still.

The war has been declared unjust by two different Vicars of Christ. Our current Pope selected Easter to describe the war as a “grave evil”.

One of the greatest Catholic apologists for the war, George Weigel, has conceded both a) that state approved torture would make a just war defense impossible under Catholic teaching and b) that the Vatican has opposed the war since before it started.

Cardinal Ratzinger noted in a letter that, in of itself, disagreement with the Church on the matter of just war does not inherently make one unworthy of communion. But that does not change the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

Look at my handle. When the Vicar of Christ selects Easter to decry something as gravely evil, I take it seriously.

No, certain moral principles are non negotiable. You cannot embrace grave evil and you must compromise only very carefully.

Look at our teaching on abortion. You cannot embrace evil for even the most laudable ends.

This is more obfuscation. There is no perfect candidiate or party. The culture is a mess. That does not mean we cannot vote morally. You bring up individual cases and then try to claim each one is equal in moral weight to those who support direct abortion. But, that is not so.

It is as if you want to claim a street mugger who kills a person during a robbery is the same as the holocaust. Both acts are terribly evil, but the magnitude of one is greater than the other.

This brings us back to proportionate reasons. What you have shown is your very private, and very circuitous way, you try claim the Church supports your vision.

I am not even sure what your point is because you are all over the place.

One last point. The war may be unjust or it may not be just. In either event the Pope has not bound anyone’s conscience. To claim he has is to claim something the Church has not done.

 

[Newbie2]

Actually, sometimes people want to convince others to their point of view. SoCalRC makes some excellent points. I’ve read enough of his posts to know that he’s not a Democrat but he doesn’t buy the Republican claim of being “pro-life.”

Maybe this whold thread illustrates why discussiions on politics and religion don’t always mix well.

 

[SoCalRC]

One party primarily promotes unrestricted abortion on demand, the other seeks to limit and restrict abortion – to state, claim or seek to othrwise equate the two major parties is disingenuine at best.

This is the party’s stated positions, but what about actions, what about results?

If I tell you that I support life, but then spend Federal funds on death, or help my political party profiteer from abortions, am I truly what I say?

Question: Who is the most vulnerable, at risk group in the US population, i.e., those persons least able to speak and defend for themselves, as in totally dependent upon others for their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The populations are intertwined. The poor, who have less clout in American politics also have the most abortions. So when a party conspires to disenfranchise those people further, it is harming and oppressing the families most likely to procure abortions in response to what they self identify as socio-economic need.

If your interest in pro life ends at birth, and you give little consideration to the infant going to bed hungry, not being able to get health care, or a satisfactory education so that he/she can be a productive member of society (all items that the Church has identified as morally non negotiable for Catholic voters), you are not pro-life in a coherent, Catholic sense.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The populations are intertwined. The poor, who have less clout in American politics also have the most abortions. So when a party conspires to disenfranchise those people further, it is harming and oppressing the families most likely to procure abortions in response to what they self identify as socio-economic need.

It is true that between the debilitating effect of Great Society and the failure of the Education Establishment to make progress, we have disinfranchised generations of poor and kept them in poverty.

 

[po18guy]

Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate who is pro-choice in order to “weigh in” against a much worse pro-choice candidate if the two front-runners are both pro-choice? Would God look at the voter’s intention which would be never to vote pro-choice except to help prevent a more vehemently pro-choice candidate from becoming president?

This is an interesting supposition. Would you vote for the second candidate if they were the only one running? If not, then can you justify that vote in any case? Can you, in good conscience, perform a Pilate-like washing of hands and take no action at all? Certainly a strong need of prudential judgment in such matters.

 

[PLAL]

Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate who is pro-choice in order to “weigh in” against a much worse pro-choice candidate if the two front-runners are both pro-choice? Would God look at the voter’s intention which would be never to vote pro-choice except to help prevent a more vehemently pro-choice candidate from becoming president?

I would say anyone who is Pro-Abortion is not fit running for a government office. Therefore I would say anyone who is Pro-Abortion would disqualify themselves from my vote for them.

I would look to a Pro-Life Independent Candidate to vote for or write in the name of a Prominent Pro-Lifer in my community as my vote.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is an interesting supposition. Would you vote for the second candidate if they were the only one running? If not, then can you justify that vote in any case? Can you, in good conscience, perform a Pilate-like washing of hands and take no action at all? Certainly a strong need of prudential judgment in such matters.

When there is no realistic choice, it is not wrong to vote for the lesser of two evils – the alternative, after all, is to vote for the greater of those two evils.

In American politics, there are only two viable parties, and the candidate of one or the other is going to win. If you can’t vote for the best candidate, vote for the least worst.

 

[SoCalRC]

This is more obfuscation. There is no perfect candidiate or party. The culture is a mess. That does not mean we cannot vote morally.

That is my point. We can vote morally, but most of us chose not to. We morally compromise because we believe that voting outside of two parties inherently robs us of power.

At a certain point, that belief in power can grow to where our priorities become confused and we run the risk of idolotry. We begin to feel compelled to argue that God’s will and our party affiliation are synomymous.

I keep making the same basic points over and over. I cannot think of a way to better explain them. I accept that some of this reflects my own limitations as a writer, but is it really necessary to assume that every failure in communication is a clear indication of disengenuous tactics on my part?

When you have assigned a number of viewpoints to me that I have never broached or even remotely held, I have not responded with conjecture that this reflects major shortcomings in you personally, only that no, in fact, I made no such point.

We are quite likely spanning a generational gap and a life experience gap. In addition, we are using a less than optimum communication medium. I am happy to extend to you that you are, in fact, attempting to communicate in good faith. To do otherwise would be to simply create even more barriers to communication.

 

[PLAL]

If you can’t vote for the best candidate, vote for the least worst.

Wouldn’t it be great someday if we could vote for “the best of the best”.

I don’t know if this would ever happen again.

 

[buffalo]

Bottom line - Democrats in general represent the “Culture of Death”

Republicans in general represent the “Culture of Life”.

 

[fix]

When there is no realistic choice, it is not wrong to vote for the lesser of two evils – the alternative, after all, is to vote for the greater of those two evils.

In American politics, there are only two viable parties, and the candidate of one or the other is going to win. If you can’t vote for the best candidate, vote for the least worst.

Great point. While I am open to a third party I also see the merit in limiting greater evil.

 

[SoCalRC]

It is true that between the debilitating effect of Great Society and the failure of the Education Establishment to make progress, we have disinfranchised generations of poor and kept them in poverty.

Yes, darn that GI bill and its creation of an artificial middle class or that pesky social security and its effect on poverty rates among the elderly! Don’t even get me started on rural electrification. What was the greatest generation thinking?

In American politics, there are only two viable parties, and the candidate of one or the other is going to win. If you can’t vote for the best candidate, vote for the least worst.

And it is the belief that there are only two that makes it so. It is self fulfilling.

But it is not necessarily acceptable under Church teachings. The Church has given some specific examples where ‘limiting the harm’ allows voting for otherwise evil things, but the Church also stresses that this does not make the principles themselves morally negotiable.

 

[PLAL]

Let’s say we have 2 Pro-Abortion Candidates. We also have an Independent Candidate who is 100% Pro-Life on the pro-life issues. The Independent Candidate is viewed as no chance of winning. Therefore person “A” chooses one of the two Pro-Abortion candidates.

Shouldn’t we just vote for the best candidate period! – Regardless of what society views of his/her chance of winning?

If we all voted for the best candidate (the Christian Vote does control elections), then the Pro-Life candidate would win hands down.

Isn’t it the devil putting in peoples minds “your wasting your vote if you vote for the pro-life independent candidate”? Why not just put our trust in God and vote for the best candidate period – and let God worry about the rest?

 

[fix]

That is my point. We can vote morally, but most of us chose not to. We morally compromise because we believe that voting outside of two parties inherently robs us of power.

That is an opinion. Which candidate, any party, would not be a compromise?

At a certain point, that belief in power can grow to where our priorities become confused and we run the risk of idolotry. We begin to feel compelled to argue that God’s will and our party affiliation are synomymous.

I agree, and I have read that in these fora many times. Including support for politicians claiming to be in full communion while supporting abortion.

I keep making the same basic points over and over. I cannot think of a way to better explain them. I accept that some of this reflects my own limitations as a writer, but is it really necessary to assume that every failure in communication is a clear indication of disengenuous tactics on my part?

Direct answers may help.

When you have assigned a number of viewpoints to me that I have never broached or even remotely held, I have not responded with conjecture that this reflects major shortcomings in you personally, only that no, in fact, I made no such point.

We disagree.

We are quite likely spanning a generational gap and a life experience gap. In addition, we are using a less than optimum communication medium. I am happy to extend to you that you are, in fact, attempting to communicate in good faith. To do otherwise would be to simply create even more barriers to communication.

I have no idea what your age is or what experiences you have had. In any event, none of that justifies your position.

 

[SoCalRC]

Great point. While I am open to a third party I also see the merit in limiting greater evil.

But is it a legitimate application of the concept. Case in point, the name Clinton invokes blatant hatred among self described conservatives. But abortions in the US dropped the most sharply under the Clinton administration than during any other period since Roe v. Wade.

So, is one truly limiting a greater evil, or engaging in self deceit? Artificially enlarging the perceived ‘evil’ of an earthly alternative to rationalize complicency with another source of evil…

Many fiscal conservatives have started expressing the belief that GOP losses would be good for their cause, since the party has abandoned all the policies that they champion. They reason that, without an honest recommittment to principles, there is no legitimate difference.

This would seem to match the rhetoric we are now hearing from high profile social conservatives. Meetings, talk about a 3rd party, etc. But I think that it is just talk to put pressure on the GOP. When push comes to shove I think that those leaders are too enamored with their earthly political clout to turn away from even a blatantly pro-death presidential nominee.

 

[SoCalRC]

I have no idea what your age is or what experiences you have had. In any event, none of that justifies your position.

You profess to not understand my position, so what qualifies you to judge it? After all, judgement is a grave matter to a Christian…

 

[SoCalRC]

Isn’t it the devil putting in peoples minds “your wasting your vote if you vote for the pro-life independent candidate”? Why not just put our trust in God and vote for the best candidate period – and let God worry about the rest?

There is a saying about the devil only needing one of two tools, a sense of futility or despair.

I’ve asked the rhetorical question before, what if early Christians had considered their odds against the Roman empire? Yet within a few centuries, Christianity was the empire…

 

[fix]

But is it a legitimate application of the concept. Case in point, the name Clinton invokes blatant hatred among self described conservatives. But abortions in the US dropped the most sharply under the Clinton administration than during any other period since Roe v. Wade.

Does that mean you think a pro abortion candidate is morally acceptable? Is there a cause/effect relationship? I do not follow you?

So, is one truly limiting a greater evil, or engaging in self deceit? Artificially enlarging the perceived ‘evil’ of an earthly alternative to rationalize complicency with another source of evil…

What does this mean?

Many fiscal conservatives have started expressing the belief that GOP losses would be good for their cause, since the party has abandoned all the policies that they champion. They reason that, without an honest recommittment to principles, there is no legitimate difference.

Is that view immoral? If they all voted for a pro life third party candidate would that be bad?

This would seem to match the rhetoric we are now hearing from high profile social conservatives. Meetings, talk about a 3rd party, etc. But I think that it is just talk to put pressure on the GOP. When push comes to shove I think that those leaders are too enamored with their earthly political clout to turn away from even a blatantly pro-death presidential nominee.

Perhaps.