What Anti-Life Action(s) Would Make You Change Your Mind About A Politician Who Ran As A "PRO-LIFE" Candidate?

[PLAL]

If a U.S. President ran as a “Pro-Life” Candidate, What ANTI-LIFE ACTION or ACTIONS would make you furious you voted for that individual and decide never to vote for him/ or her for a second term?

---

Would it be increasing birth control funding oversea’s, selecting A Pro-Choice Supreme Court Justice, federally funding embryonic stem cell research, federally funding cloning, increase federal funds to Planned Parenthood, reducing funds to abstinence-only education, backing abortions without parental consent, promoting gay unions or gay marriage, stating he/or she would never overturn Roe v Wade.

There’s so many Pro-Life issues out there. What is your answer?

 

[mapleoak]

If a U.S. President ran as a “Pro-Life” Candidate, What ANTI-LIFE ACTION or ACTIONS would make you furious you voted for that individual and decide never to vote for him/ or her for a second term?

---

Would it be increasing birth control funding oversea’s, selecting A Pro-Choice Supreme Court Justice, federally funding embryonic stem cell research, federally funding cloning, increase federal funds to Planned Parenthood, reducing funds to abstinence-only education, backing abortions without parental consent, promoting gay unions or gay marriage, stating he/or she would never overturn Roe v Wade.

There’s so many Pro-Life issues out there. What is your answer?

If the candidate were to support the killing of a select isolated segment of the population, It would make me furious that I had voted for him. In addition, the selection of pro-choice justices, and the funding of any institution which kills human beings whether for research or otherwise. Among other things.

 

[A_dollars_worth]

There’s so many Pro-Life issues out there. What is your answer?

Anything. I think if the candidate runs on an unqualified pro-life position I would feel betrayed if with malicious intent they violate that idea in any way. A change of mind is a change of position.

I don’t think politcs and cooperation is a justification to break ones integrity because life is non-negotable.

 

[vz71]

Usually changing position once the office is obtained is enough to rile my fury.

However, I find that a fair amount of research in the candidates before the vote prepares me well. I frequently will know the change beforehand.

 

[Della]

No candidate I know of is going to line up 100% with what the Church teaches on the life issues. Sometimes all we have is the least objectionable option. And if that’s all there it is better for vote for a candidate that is closest to the Church’s teaching who has a real chance of winning. Voting for some 3rd/4th/5th party candidate that hasn’t a chance of winning is actually voting for the candidate you would least likely have voted for. Why hand the election over to that candidate/party by doing so?

Besides, we are not and cannot put our trust in politicians (princes to put it in biblical terms). Politicians will fail us because they are only human beings. We must do what is within our power to do outside of politics and within it, but never put all our hopes in any politician or political system.

 

[Fitswimmer]

No candidate I know of is going to line up 100% with what the Church teaches on the life issues. Sometimes all we have is the least objectionable option. And if that’s all there it is better for vote for a candidate that is closest to the Church’s teaching who has a real chance of winning. Voting for some 3rd/4th/5th party candidate that hasn’t a chance of winning is actually voting for the candidate you would least likely have voted for. Why hand the election over to that candidate/party by doing so?

Besides, we are not and cannot put our trust in politicians (princes to put it in biblical terms). Politicians will fail us because they are only human beings. We must do what is within our power to do outside of politics and within it, but never put all our hopes in any politician or political system.

 

[Verisimilitude]

No candidate I know of is going to line up 100% with what the Church teaches on the life issues. Sometimes all we have is the least objectionable option. And if that’s all there it is better for vote for a candidate that is closest to the Church’s teaching who has a real chance of winning. Voting for some 3rd/4th/5th party candidate that hasn’t a chance of winning is actually voting for the candidate you would least likely have voted for. Why hand the election over to that candidate/party by doing so?

Besides, we are not and cannot put our trust in politicians (princes to put it in biblical terms). Politicians will fail us because they are only human beings. We must do what is within our power to do outside of politics and within it, but never put all our hopes in any politician or political system.

If the candidate was a self-proclaimed practicing Catholic I think I have every right to assume they are in full agreement with the Church regarding life. I do not understand why Catholic politicians like John Kerry, Bill Richardson, Ted Kennedy, Nacy Pelosi and Rudy Giulianni are given a pass by Catholics specifically. If they were my local representative they would not get my vote just as if they were a national candidate. I saw a sign once that I agree with: You can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion. Either give up the faith or give up the office.

I disagree that a vote for a 3rd Party is a wasted vote regardless if the consequences bring the greater evil of a pro-abortion candidate. At the end of the day I will have to justify my individual actions and the lesser of two evils is still evil. I think most people with conviction would not willingly vote for evil even if a gun was put to their head with the choice to vote for a Hitler/Saddam/Stalin type person or be killed. Ther is no gun to anyones head in the voting booths of America though I think the media puts undue pressure to select our candidates for us. Do not vote for evil.

 

[Della]

If the candidate was a self-proclaimed practicing Catholic I think I have every right to assume they are in full agreement with the Church regarding life. I do not understand why Catholic politicians like John Kerry, Bill Richardson, Ted Kennedy, Nacy Pelosi and Rudy Giulianni are given a pass by Catholics specifically. If they were my local representative they would not get my vote just as if they were a national candidate. I saw a sign once that I agree with: You can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion. Either give up the faith or give up the office.

It’s sad so many professed Catholic politicians are more concerned with following their party’s policies than in following the moral teachings of their Church. We don’t expect Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian politicians to go against the teachings of their respective faith communities, but somehow too many of our Catholic ones have no qualms about it. Sad indeed.

I disagree that a vote for a 3rd Party is a wasted vote regardless if the consequences bring the greater evil of a pro-abortion candidate. At the end of the day I will have to justify my individual actions and the lesser of two evils is still evil. I think most people with conviction would not willingly vote for evil even if a gun was put to their head with the choice to vote for a Hitler/Saddam/Stalin type person or be killed. Ther is no gun to anyones head in the voting booths of America though I think the media puts undue pressure to select our candidates for us. Do not vote for evil.

That is not the position of the Church on this issue. We can vote for the lesser of two evils if that is our only viable option. Voting for 3rd party candidates who haven’t a chance of winning is simply handing one’s vote to the candidate for whom one would be least likely to vote for. That is plain reality. So, it is better to vote for the candidate that comes closest to Church teaching rather than to throw away one’s vote or worse.

 

[Verisimilitude]

That is not the position of the Church on this issue. We can vote for the lesser of two evils if that is our only viable option. Voting for 3rd party candidates who haven’t a chance of winning is simply handing one’s vote to the candidate for whom one would be least likely to vote for. That is plain reality. So, it is better to vote for the candidate that comes closest to Church teaching rather than to throw away one’s vote or worse.

The criteria for viable option is debatable. To brake the hold of the two party system to allow alternative choices that differ from the lesser of two evils is also a valid choice. Hopefully one day enough people will decide to vote their concscience rather than a lesser evil. The Church allows divorce despite Mt 19:8- Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

I don’t see political voting a choice between a lesser of two evils as a hardness of our (social) hearts but rather a weakness of will. There is only one excpetion to life: a fair and legitimate civil judgement to end the life of a human. Because I disagree with the years and years of incarceration on death-row before an execution is carried out and the sometimes circumstantial evidience used in death penalty cases I no longer support the death penelaty. If executions were carried out within 24 hours of conviction I might once again support capital punishment but untill then in all cases I must side with life if there is any ambiguity or chance to preserve life no matter the odds of making the social changes to bring about my particular view.

I accept the Churches position as an option as you describe, I just do not excercise that option. To me it is like when Pope John Paul II voiced an opinion against the 2003 Iraq war but since it was not a ‘formal’ Church position Catholics have the option to support it within certain views to include personal fear. I don’t choose that option of supporting the war either .

 

[Della]

The criteria for viable option is debatable. To brake the hold of the two party system to allow alternative choices that differ from the lesser of two evils is also a valid choice. Hopefully one day enough people will decide to vote their concscience rather than a lesser evil. The Church allows divorce despite Mt 19:8- Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

As you say, one day a 3rd party may be able to break the 2 party system, but I don’t see it happening any time soon–certainly not before the Nov. elections, anyway. And the Church does not permit divorce in the way you seem to mean it. Besides, that is a topic for another thread, of which there are several.

I don’t see political voting a choice between a lesser of two evils as a hardness of our (social) hearts but rather a weakness of will. There is only one excpetion to life: a fair and legitimate civil judgement to end the life of a human. Because I disagree with the years and years of incarceration on death-row before an execution is carried out and the sometimes circumstantial evidience used in death penalty cases I no longer support the death penelaty. If executions were carried out within 24 hours of conviction I might once again support capital punishment but untill then in all cases I must side with life if there is any ambiguity or chance to preserve life no matter the odds of making the social changes to bring about my particular view.

We are all weak of will in many things. But that doesn’t change what the Church has advised we are to do in the event there are only two viable candidates. And the death penalty is another topic for another thread (of which there are many). As to bringing about our own views via the political process, by all means pursue it if you wish. Just don’t throw away your one and only vote on titling at windmills.

I accept the Churches position as an option as you describe, I just do not excercise that option. To me it is like when Pope John Paul II voiced an opinion against the 2003 Iraq war but since it was not a ‘formal’ Church position Catholics have the option to support it within certain views to include personal fear. I don’t choose that option of supporting the war either .

Of course you are free to do whatever you please. However, the Church has given us clear guidelines regarding voting, so it is wise to follow them. And the pope’s opinion about the Iraq war is not comparable to the Church giving us voting guidelines. The Iraq war is also a topic for another thread.

 

[SoCalRC]

That is not the position of the Church on this issue. We can vote for the lesser of two evils if that is our only viable option. Voting for 3rd party candidates who haven’t a chance of winning is simply handing one’s vote to the candidate for whom one would be least likely to vote for. That is plain reality. So, it is better to vote for the candidate that comes closest to Church teaching rather than to throw away one’s vote or worse.

You need to make a distinction between what the Church teaches and how you interpret it. For example, the USCCB in it’s Faithful Citizenship document does introduce the concept of proportionate reasons, but it simply says “all candidates”, not “all viable candidates”. It also notes that the situation is a moral “dilemna” and suggests that even the extraordinary step of not participating might be warranted. If the Church has an official stance against ‘wasting’ votes, it would certainly not mention not voting at all.

Rome appears to give even less elbow room. The Doctrinal Note from the CDF on voting from 2002 refers to a collection of issues as “the essence of the moral law” and indicates that they are non negotiable in voting, outside the scope of the concept of “limiting the harm”. This is somewhat reiterated in Pope John Paul’s compendium to the social teaching of the Church from a couple years later, and expressly reiterated in Pope Benedict XVI’s Post-synodal apostolic exhortation SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS (see #83). So we really have to look to the US Bishops for any guidance on appropriate applications of proportional reasons or limiting the harm at all.

And, even in introducing these concepts, the USCCB’s document reiterates Rome’s Doctrinal Note warning about using the principles to rationalize single issue voting that runs contrary to the faith (see #27-#30 in the document).

You must, of course, follow the absolute certainty of your own moral conscience (CCC 1790), but as the Catechism notes we must be careful not to assume too much certainty onto ourselves. Just because you believe that the best balance of obligations to the Faith is reflected by, say, voting for a candidate who, until recently, publicly supported upholding Roe and still holds a position on abortion which is intrinsically evil does not mean that is where the moral conscience of other Catholics will inevitably arrive.

Since the US Princes of the Church have identified the situation as a moral dilemna with no obvious and perfect solution we should be careful to keep our own prudential judgements in proper perspective.

 

[Verisimilitude]

As you say, one day a 3rd party may be able to break the 2 party system, but I don’t see it happening any time soon–certainly not before the Nov. elections, anyway. And the Church does not permit divorce in the way you seem to mean it. Besides, that is a topic for another thread, of which there are several.

The divorce reference was to indicate the original intent of God’s law is not always what we have come to accept in society today.

We are all weak of will in many things. But that doesn’t change what the Church has advised we are to do in the event there are only two viable candidates. And the death penalty is another topic for another thread (of which there are many). As to bringing about our own views via the political process, by all means pursue it if you wish. Just don’t throw away your one and only vote on titling at windmills.

Yes, we are weak in many ways. When I can find a position I can remain strong on I do so. Thank goodness for reconciliation for the rest. A vote cost nothing but your integrity and as far as tilting at windmills; when does strident determination become hopeless futility?

Of course you are free to do whatever you please. However, the Church has given us clear guidelines regarding voting, so it is wise to follow them. And the pope’s opinion about the Iraq war is not comparable to the Church giving us voting guidelines. The Iraq war is also a topic for another thread.

War is anti-life like abortion. Whether or not this thread is the place to debate the justifications of Iraq in the sense of the topic may be a toss-up, but I am willing to pass if you like.

I disagree again in that I think the Popes opinion is very much like the voters guide; both required us to make an informed and reasoned choice.

 

[SoCalRC]

I disagree again in that I think the Popes opinion is very much like the voters guide; both required us to make an informed and reasoned choice.

FWIW, we don’t have to guess. This Doctrinal Note was prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger and approved for distribution by Pope John Paul II:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

It is well worth reading, though #4 is particularly relevent to pro life issues.

The USCCB quotes this document in it’s own document on developing a proper conscience for faithful citizenship:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

I cannot reconcile the “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” to either of these documents, since it argues against a principle reiterated in both (see #27-#30 in the USCCB document, which includes a quote from the Doctrinal Note). Nor was the USCCB able to recommend the Voter’s Guide when asked its opinion.

 

[Verisimilitude]

FWIW, we don’t have to guess. This Doctrinal Note was prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger and approved for distribution by Pope John Paul II:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

It is well worth reading, though #4 is particularly relevent to pro life issues.

The USCCB quotes this document in it’s own document on developing a proper conscience for faithful citizenship:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

I cannot reconcile the “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” to either of these documents, since it argues against a principle reiterated in both (see #27-#30 in the USCCB document, which includes a quote from the Doctrinal Note). Nor was the USCCB able to recommend the Voter’s Guide when asked its opinion.

You are correct they cannot be reconciled and the Note was a very good read. Thanks.

 

[Della]

Since I did not provide quotes from Church documents, it is indeed my position based on what the Church teaches. As I see it, it’s a sort of if-push-comes-to-shove kind of decision, with the added factor of voting in the most effective manner so we don’t waste our votes. That is my point.

I am fortunate to have pro-life candidates I can support vs. having to choose between two or three pro-abortion candidates. Not every 3rd party supports the life issues as taught by the Church any better (and sometimes worse) than the two major parties.

If a grassroots pro-life candidate could have a real effect on the outcome of the election, I’d be right there. And that puts the onus on us to teach our own fellow Catholics the importance of the life issues so we can have candidates arise to whom we can give our whole-hearted support, instead of having to settle for the best we can get under the circumstances.

 

[Jofantioch]

If a U.S. President ran as a “Pro-Life” Candidate, What ANTI-LIFE ACTION or ACTIONS would make you furious you voted for that individual and decide never to vote for him/ or her for a second term?

---

• disobeying his solemn oath to uphold the constitution
• wage an unprovoked war
• allow those who attack his country to get away
• allow his own people to suffer in a natural disaster
• turn a blind eye to attrocities in other countries because of money

 

[Fitswimmer]

PLAL;3726040:

If a U.S. President ran as a “Pro-Life” Candidate, What ANTI-LIFE ACTION or ACTIONS would make you furious

you voted for that individual and decide never to vote for him/ or her for a second term?

---

• disobeying his solemn oath to uphold the constitution
• wage an unprovoked war
• allow those who attack his country to get away
• allow his own people to suffer in a natural disaster
• turn a blind eye to attrocities in other countries because of money

all of the above-and do nothing to end abortion even when his party had a majority in Congress.

 

[repo_man]

“Certainly in the short term or even in the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade”

or if a pro-life candidate said he wouldn’t want his daughter to be forced to carry a baby to term.

 

[Ridgerunner]

PLAL;3726040:

If a U.S. President ran as a “Pro-Life” Candidate, What ANTI-LIFE ACTION or ACTIONS would make you furious

you voted for that individual and decide never to vote for him/ or her for a second term?

---

• disobeying his solemn oath to uphold the constitution
• wage an unprovoked war
• allow those who attack his country to get away
• allow his own people to suffer in a natural disaster
• turn a blind eye to attrocities in other countries because of money

But this is academic because Bill Clinton can’t run again.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Jofantioch;3767480:

But this is academic because Bill Clinton can’t run again.

Neither can GW Bush, thanks be to God.