Voting pro-choice always immoral?

[fix]

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

I at least grasp you claim the Church is binding people on the war, right?

 

[vern_humphrey]

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?

I take you make posts like these just to hear the rattle.

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

Any Freshman course in Political Science that discusses the American government will explain why we have only two viable national parties.

In fact, instead of writing sophistry like the opening paragraph above, you might profit by trying to explain why we have only two viable national parties.

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.

And no one ever said they are "morally negotiable.’ I pointed out that if Jones and Smith are the candidates of the Democrats and Republicans, and both are bad, but one is worse than the other, we have an obligation to defend against the greateer evil, even if it means the lesser evil will win.

 

[fix]

And no one ever said they are "morally negotiable.’ I pointed out that if Jones and Smith are the candidates of the Democrats and Republicans, and both are bad, but one is worse than the other, we have an obligation to defend against the greateer evil, even if it means the lesser evil will win.

Exactly right.

 

[po18guy]

This is not true. Life issues cover Abortion, Euthanasia, annd stem cell research that kills embryos. On these issues there is no disagreement possible while remaining faithful to the Church.

Wars and capital punishment are allowed under appropriate circumstances. These are prudential judgements for the competent authorities.

One can support a war, or the application of capital punishment in a given society while being in total fidelity to the Church. One can not support abortion and be a Catholic in good standing.

God Bless

It is just such fuzzy logic that balances feeding the hungry and building wheelchair ramps with allowing abortion. God is not a zero sum game. You cannot do one, two, three good things then one evil and still come out ahead on His balance sheet. This concept came from the father of lies. It may appear reasonable on its face, but has juuuuust that little bit of the lie in it. That veers you ever so slightly off the path. Once off, the evil one finds the rest to be easy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is just such fuzzy logic that balances feeding the hungry and building wheelchair ramps with allowing abortion. God is not a zero sum game. You cannot do one, two, three good things then one evil and still come out ahead on His balance sheet. This concept came from the father of lies. It may appear reasonable on its face, but has juuuuust that little bit of the lie in it. That veers you ever so slightly off the path. Once off, the evil one finds the rest to be easy.

And for those who whine that “Social Justice” issues trump abortion, I ask, "How can any nation have any kind of justice when the most innocent and helpless are routinely and legally put to death?

 

[Ender]

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

Would you vote that way in decisions affecting your personal life? Suppose you had a choice of two schools your children could attend, both bad but one clearly worse than the other. Would you choose the better of the two or would you opt for a third choice, a good school on paper but one that has no chance of being built? I think most parents would choose to take the best they can get given the realities of the situation. I would certainly choose the better of the two bad choices than risk getting my children stuck with something worse.

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

Yes, and if cars could run on water we wouldn’t have an oil crisis. Life requires making realistic choices, not avoiding them by betting on the impossible. The chances of an as yet unknown third party candidate winning the presidency are worse than those of your winning a lottery.

Isn’t it the devil putting in peoples minds “your wasting your vote if you vote for the pro-life independent candidate”?

I dunno, the devil’s pretty tricky. Maybe he’s trying to convince us that a third party candidate is possible just so we will waste our votes.

Why not just put our trust in God and vote for the best candidate period – and let God worry about the rest?

It’s nice when miracles happen but it seems presumptuous for us to demand them.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

I at least grasp you claim the Church is binding people on the war, right?

No, I claimed only that the Church has expressed an opinion that the war is unjust.

The Pope is the undisputed moral leader of the Church (see the First Vatican Council), and two Popes have made the assessment, while speaking and writing in their official capacity. By definition, this is now a teaching of the Church.

It is not an infallible teaching, this has been made clear by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. But it is the teaching.

Given that the most ardent writer concerning the application of Catholic just war tradition has conceded that torture would invalidate his arguments I, personally, now find it highly improbable that the Church was/is wrong.

I cannot, in accordance with my faith, support a war I believe to be unjust. There is no moral justification, I cannot make meaningful comparisons between two attrocities. So, torture/unjust war makes the list, along with profiteering from abortion, on things which I will not compromise.

It is not my place to judge people who are willing to compromise on abortion and torture. Though, seemingly, it is theirs to judge me!

 

[SoCalRC]

And for those who whine that “Social Justice” issues trump abortion, I ask, "How can any nation have any kind of justice when the most innocent and helpless are routinely and legally put to death?

And how can a nation says it truly values those pre-natal children if it will happily let them go without all the basic and inalianable rights of the human person (per the Church) once they are born?

This is why the Church warns about the focus on a single teaching, not just in the Doctrinal Note, but in rejecting certain voter guides, etc. If you truly hold the principle, you will protect it in all manifestations.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And how can a nation says it truly values those pre-natal children if it will happily let them go without all the basic and inalianable rights of the human person (per the Church) once they are born?

Whoop! Delberate Smoke Attack!

Here’s a hint, under the XIV Amendment, persons born in the United States are Citizens. They have the right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all the other rights of all other citizens. Upon reaching majority, they can even vote.

So to claim that we “happily let them go without all the basic and inalianable rights of the human person (per the Church) once they are born” is bogus – unless you claim that all citizens are deprived of the same rights.

 

[PLAL]

Ender,

My questions were put there so all on the board can reflect if they are lacking “Trust In God” by NOT voting for the best candidate period.

As far as your question on schools – I would choose homeschooling myself.

Please everyone go see the movie “Bella” this weekend!!

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Whoop! Delberate Smoke Attack!

At least you admit it.

Here’s a hint, under the XIV Amendment, persons born in the United States are Citizens. They have the right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all the other rights of all other citizens. Upon reaching majority, they can even vote.

Denied. We’re not talking about the United States Constitution, we’re talking about fundamental human rights as defined by the CHURCH…unless you consider the Constitution a Magisterial document?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

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?

Not always. Say you have **only **two candidates who are pro-choice. Then it is obviously not immoral. There are also other special circumstances, however innocent lives are **always **more important than lower taxes, better education etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Denied. We’re not talking about the United States Constitution, we’re talking about fundamental human rights as defined by the CHURCH…unless you consider the Constitution a Magisterial document?

Are you saying all American citizens are denied fundamental rights?

And that the Magisterium has condemned the United States for this?

 

[SoCalRC]

Whoop! Delberate Smoke Attack!

There is no smoke about it, it directly goes to the argument that Church makes about the incoherence of isolating teachings.

In another thread, someone proposed the hypothetical of a fire in a fertility clinic. You have a bunch of fertilized zygotes in a mini fridge and a terrified child. You only have time for one, which do you save?

You, of course, vehemently refused to answer. But for most of us, it is a no brainer. We could make it an infant in a baby carrier, an elderly person in a wheel chair, whatever. Similiarly, we can make it any number of zygotes, 20, 500, 5000. Virtually all of us aren’t going to leave that obvious human person in lieu of tiny cells that might develop into what we recognize as people.

This is perfectly natural. Again, look at Pope Stephen V comment abortion and infanticide written over 1000 years ago:

“If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old.” -Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz

Look at the words, “how much more”. To the Pope, it was self evident. If you truly respect our teaching on abortion, how much more must you respect life when it is in an obvious form.

Opposites cannot both be true. We cannot, in self honesty, accept that, in our hearts, we value the birthed child more when life is most immediately in our hands, then argue that it is reasonable for the life and welfare of that birthed child to be of dimished importance in our voting. Not if our voting is truly driven by our obligations to our faith.

This is why the Church can say:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.” - DOCTRINAL NOTE on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

If you make a distinction between loving the fetus and loving the fully formed human being, then it becomes highly doubtful that your professed love for either is “based on a correct understanding of the human person” (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes).

Here’s a hint, under the XIV Amendment, persons born in the United States are Citizens. They have the right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all the other rights of all other citizens. Upon reaching majority, they can even vote.

So to claim that we “happily let them go without all the basic and inalianable rights of the human person (per the Church) once they are born” is bogus – unless you claim that all citizens are deprived of the same rights.

The first argument is interesting. By extension it could then be argued that the revelations we have concerning the political corruption of the Justice Department, particularly it’s civil rights division, and voter suppression tactics, like the convictions we have in the GNC for phone fraud and the White House entanglement in the Georgia ID law (where no outlet was allowed to exist in Atlanta) are a reflection of a non pro-life agenda.

You are arguing that the secular laws exist to protect the human person in the Catholic sense, so intentionally corrupting God’s priorities for earthly political gain would then become not just secular political corruption, but grievous sin.

I see it that way, but merely because it opresses the weak, in direct contradiction to Christ. But I am surprised to see you take it a step farther and connect it to abortion.

I do not understand your second argument. Why would the proper word not be “any” instead of “all”? If any are denied their inalianable rights as a human person isn’t intentionally neglecting that need a reflection of an incoherent application of Catholic fertilization to natural death teaching? Each individual is of infinite value as a creation of God. When infinite is used as a term, mathmatical comparisons become meaningless.

 

[SoCalRC]

Are you saying all American citizens are denied fundamental rights?

I would sincerely like to hear why you think “all” is a requirement. The very concept of ‘oppression must be universal’ to be relevant would appear to be anathema to Christ’s earthly ministry.

If nothing else, it rejects the Gospels and Holy Tradition in terms of special dispensation for the poor.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would sincerely like to hear why you think “all” is a requirement. The very concept of ‘oppression must be universal’ to be relevant would appear to be anathema to Christ’s earthly ministry.

Then you must show that somehow, some children are marked for discrimination and denial of rights.

And you must show that the Chuch – not you, but the Church – officially condemns the United States for this.

And finally, you must show that such “denial of rights” is due to wrong-headed and destructive governmental policies.

 

[SoCalRC]

Then you must show that somehow, some children are marked for discrimination and denial of rights.

And you must show that the Chuch – not you, but the Church – officially condemns the United States for this.

And finally, you must show that such “denial of rights” is due to wrong-headed and destructive governmental policies.

I’m sorry, you’ve still lost me. We’d better back up further. Are you saying that we have no Christian obligation to the poor? Or that there is some burden of proof that the poor must pass on a massive scale for an obligation to apply?

Sounds awfully complicated to me. I don’t have to go any further than the readings at Mass. It is estimated that tens of thousands of children go to bed hungry in the US every day. According to the Bible I don’t have to even be overtly cruel to them, just well fed and indifferent to their plight to risk eternal damnation.

Jesus spoke directly on salvation and damnation several times. I don’t recall a burden of proof on causal factors behind systemic inaction ever being part of the answer.

 

[po18guy]

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.

How come abortion seems to be the only campaign promise that’s kept? I just wish that the “least worst” would actually get elected…

 

[po18guy]

And for those who whine that “Social Justice” issues trump abortion, I ask, "How can any nation have any kind of justice when the most innocent and helpless are routinely and legally put to death?

All the while demonstrating against the death penalty for the guilty…

 

[fix]

No, I claimed only that the Church has expressed an opinion that the war is unjust.

The Pope is the undisputed moral leader of the Church (see the First Vatican Council), and two Popes have made the assessment, while speaking and writing in their official capacity. By definition, this is now a teaching of the Church.

It is not an infallible teaching, this has been made clear by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. But it is the teaching.

Given that the most ardent writer concerning the application of Catholic just war tradition has conceded that torture would invalidate his arguments I, personally, now find it highly improbable that the Church was/is wrong.

I cannot, in accordance with my faith, support a war I believe to be unjust. There is no moral justification, I cannot make meaningful comparisons between two attrocities. So, torture/unjust war makes the list, along with profiteering from abortion, on things which I will not compromise.

It is not my place to judge people who are willing to compromise on abortion and torture. Though, seemingly, it is theirs to judge me!

So, you admit the Church has not bound anyone’s conscience in this matter?