The pro choice candidate is intrinsically evil. And I don’t believe any one congressman/woman will get something like ending all benefits to the poor, disabled, and elderly will get far.
Which candidate is that? PM me if you don’t want to say on the forum. Thank you.
The hypothetical you presented has been answered correctly by the above posters.
The appropriate question is which candidate has a chance of doing good or limiting harm. Since there are several pro-life bills that have come before Congress recently, there is a good chance that the pro-life candidate will be able to use his vote in Congress to limit the harm caused by abortion. The pro-choice candidate will have a likely chance to use his vote to further the evil of abortion. There is just about zero chance that there will ever be a bill before Congress to eliminate all government aid to the poor and/or to end Social Security and Medicare. So the pro-life candidate will not have the chance to use his role in Congress to forward that agenda. His personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant since he can only act on bills that actually come before Congress.
Saying that you must vote in every election is like saying you must give to every good charity that asks for a donation.
There are a lot of Catholics who feel like they are facing the same dilemma.
Amusing analogy, but I fail to see the truth in it. Please explain how the analogy holds.
If the opportunity to donate to “every” good charity comes along, and if you have adequate means do it without harm to your family, then I submit that you must.
But in this particular election and the administration to follow, Trump cannot turn pro-abortion and have any chance at all of re-election, and he’ll just end up alienating those with whom he’ll have to work on other issues.
The catechism enjoins us to give alms to the poor - to be charitable. But it does not say we must give to every charity or poor person we see. Similarly, the catechism enjoins us to engage in civic life by voting. But it doesn’t insist that we vote in every election. It just doesn’t. This is different from the requirement to attend mass every Sunday - not just once in a while. Because it does say that.
I find it hard to believe that there is a congressional candidate who literally wants to end all government charity for the poor and disabled, as well as social security and Medicare. Could you provide the name of the candidate?
I disagree with your assertion that such a position would necessarily mean the candidate is not truly pro-life. A candidate could believe that taking care of the orphan, the widow, the poor, the marginalized, the sick and the elderly, but advocate doing so outside of government programs. Personally, I believe that the more we can privatize charity, the better, although I would oppose any sudden changes that would instantly render those in need without resources in the short term.
The pro-life position is only concerned with one issue, whether an unborn child has the right to life. It doesn’t extend to such things as government funded programs and the death penalty (I know you didn’t mention this, I’m including it), those are separate issues. The “pro-choice” position is only concerned with allowing a woman, one party, to have the choice to kill her unborn child. Insisting that someone can’t be pro-life if they don’t support government funded services like welfare, is like saying someone can’t support the second amendment unless they support a felon’s right to own a gun.
