Who do you vote for when both sides are immoral?

[Cath4life]

According to soon to blessed Mother Theresa:
“We cannot fight credibly against **other social and moral evils, including poverty and violence, **while we tolerate mass killings by abortion”

At least the ones affected by poverty have are ALIVE and have a VOICE and can ask/petition for help :crying:

 

[Strydersroom]

So is a real topic of this thread who can we vote for when both sides are pro-choice? Since it seems that any pro-choice candidate would be considered immoral by lots of people on here correct?

 

[hausofferni]

In regards to this question, would it be wrong to vote for presidential candidate Hillary since she is pro-choice? Or should one just not vote at all?

 

[Strydersroom]

In regards to this question, would it be wrong to vote for presidential candidate Hillary since she is pro-choice? Or should one just not vote at all?

It’s not wrong at all to vote for whomever you wish.

 

[Ambition]

This is pretty representative of the Catholic political dilemma. Because of this I find myself being a sort of centrist. It is my first time voting as of this year, so I’ve been reading Catholic voting guidance as of late. Here is a helpful little page to check out.
ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Hope it helps. Personally, I will always vote pro-life, and I’m pretty sure the Church teaches that this is the most important social issue. It is the killing of unique, unborn human beings with souls, after all. At least the poor were not killed in the womb.

 

[dshix]

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.

Ok, of course it is true to say that we don’t have a moral obligation to vote in every available election, especially since there are many (and often, some fall under the radar). However, for elections which are important, and which have large impact, it is very important that we exercise our civic right to vote.

 

[anon67074017]

I would vote for the pro-life candidate. Abortion is a major moral issue.

 

[Cimachol]

In regards to this question, would it be wrong to vote for presidential candidate Hillary since she is pro-choice? Or should one just not vote at all?

Here are a couple of links you might find worth reading:
lifenews.com/2012/10/26/archbishop-catholics-cant-vote-for-pro-abortion-candidates/
catholic.com/magazine/articles/explaining-ratzingers-proportionate-reasons

In the second link above, I think Jimmy Akin makes an especially compelling point based on then Cardinal Ratzinger/now Pope Emeritus Benedict XIV’s memorandum about abortion, voting and reception of Communion:

Consider: A million and a half new Americans are murdered every year by abortion.

While particular historical circumstances increase or decrease the number of Supreme Court appointments a president gets to make (some presidents get many and some get none), if we average out the differences, it turns out that a pro-abort president on average could extend the abortion holocaust by four years equivalent to the four-year term he spends in office.

At 1.5 million kids killed per year, that means that a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include six million additional murders.

When one takes into account the fact that about half of the recent presidents have had second terms, that would mean a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include approximately nine million Americans.

No other issue involves numbers that high. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear or biological war between well-armed nation states would kill that many people, and we aren’t in imminent danger of having one of those.

 

[Corki]

It’s not wrong at all to vote for whomever you wish.

Since this is a Catholic forum, I feel it is important to point out that your post does not represent the Catholic teaching regarding voting. The Church considers voting to be a serious duty. One should never vote simply on “wishes” or personal likes/dislike. Rather one must look at the issues and make an informed, responsible choice in the voting booth.

Yes, there are some people who have made a case that voting for a pro-abortion candidate can be a moral choice. Some have even used Catholic teaching to support that choice (using a rather convoluted logic path, IMHO). Using poor reasoning is not always wrong. However, voting without reasoning is.

 

[hausofferni]

Here are a couple of links you might find worth reading:
lifenews.com/2012/10/26/archbishop-catholics-cant-vote-for-pro-abortion-candidates/
catholic.com/magazine/articles/explaining-ratzingers-proportionate-reasons

In the second link above, I think Jimmy Akin makes an especially compelling point based on then Cardinal Ratzinger/now Pope Emeritus Benedict XIV’s memorandum about abortion, voting and reception of Communion:

Okay I see I see. So then not voting I think would be the best option. Trump isn’t exactly an advocate regarding pro-life. I wouldn’t wanna vote for someone who’s “prolife with exceptions”

 

[Viki63]

There is no way I could vote for a candidate who believes in the sanctity of partial birth abortion up to the baby’s due date – cutting the child’s spine with scissors and sucking out his brain.
She said banning the procedure was a “slippery slope”, meaning it might lead to women losing the right to abortions. How can anyone with a particle of compassion defend such a thing?

Anyone who could defend partial birth abortion has a very big blind spot in their intellect, and is no way fit to be president. Maybe next she would decide that all Christians should be rounded up and put in internment camps. Or that all children should be removed from their parents and raised by the state, to protect them from extremist ideas.

God help us, that we even let this woman get as far as running for president.

.

 

[LethalMouse]

You should also be careful with “end all help”. Often this is a false narrative.

There really is not too much alteration that can be done to pro choice in implementation…

But as to welfare, there are many who gain the image of wanting to cut all “help” who actually just want to curtail it especially abuses and such.

Wether agreed with the implementation or not evwn those who want to “privatize SS” might be “wrong” but surely they dont want to end all help, they just believe there is a better way.

Even most of the most anti welfare people I know don’t want ZERO help available… just want to cut hings down and implement a form of system that lends to people being helped TEMPORARILY.

To note a persobal story, a family member fell on hard times and needed like 1-2yrs of welfare. Should they have gotten it they would have gladly even paid back in payments once their issue was resolved.

The only way to qualify? Destroy their ability to resolve their issue and live on welfare for life. If it had not been for family able to barely limp them along and the use of bankruptcy to screw over the debts they racked up… they would have had to be on welfare FOREVER.

This is a system that needs fixed lol.

And in a multifactoral help sector, some help equates between state child care, food stamps, taxes, free lunch… that getting too small a raise makes a person lose money.

This motivates people to maintain on the system as for example I knew a single mother who recieved $50/day in child care as part of assistance… that is $1,000/ month tax free.

Needing to make around 1,200/month more to pay that without not being able to afford to live since she was already barely making it.

Making about $4-500/month more would disqualify her from childcare assistance so that she can not afford to accept incrementally better jobs. They had to be less than the 400 or more than 1000. So that if offered a job for 700 more she would lose half her rent…

Assitance is great, but what we tend to accomplish is oppression

 

[Cimachol]

Okay I see I see. So then not voting I think would be the best option. Trump isn’t exactly an advocate regarding pro-life. I wouldn’t wanna vote for someone who’s “prolife with exceptions”

Personally, I strongly dislike Trump as a candidate, but I’m voting for the candidate more likely to be supportive of policies restricting abortion, because restricting abortion, even without eliminating it altogether, is better than allowing it under all circumstances. I’m also considering which candidate is more likely to nominate Supreme Court justices who do not view abortion as a constitutional right. Allowing Clinton to put at least one and possibly several more justices on the Supreme Court to restrict religious freedom even further and increase abortion access even further just seems unconscionable to me.

I’m not willing to throw away the opportunity to make a difference, even if it’s just a slight one.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that discussions of particular political figures or parties are not allowed in this forum. Thank you for your cooperation.