Why do many Catholics vote for pro-choice candidates/parties?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Annie said:
No, I am not pushing my view down your throat, I am trying to clarify the Church’s view.
Click to expand...
The Church’s view is that Catholics are ALLOWED to vote for a pro-choice candidate provided they disagree with that position but that there are other reasons the voter decides they can still vote for that person.
That does not change even if you disagree with the Church position.
 
Catholics are permitted to vote for pro-choice candidates for proportionate reasons.

Proportionality is important. Suppose a Catholic votes for a pro-choice candidate because the candidate is for a law which would benefit the voter’s business? Not proportionate.

I am not saying that it is prohibited for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate, simply that the reason for doing so must be proportionate.
 
You are right. Not much help out there for a woman who might want to have the baby and keep it, but doesn’t have the means for all of the expenses, no one to help her, and no place to go.
 
It seems like poor people with children are able to get on Medicaid, get Section 8 housing, TANF, etc. Are these not available to poor women who are pregnant?
 
Sure. And it can very often lead to a life of misery for both mom and her kids.
 
Justice Scalia explains why the ‘living Constitution’ is a threat to America – Acton Institute PowerBlog.
Shalom meltzer. - couldn’t answer you sooner. If you read this you get your answer. link above
and a quote I agree with: " I’m not very good at determining what the aspirations of the American people are. I am out of touch with the American people. I don’t even try to be in touch. People mention movie stars and I don’t know who they’re talking about, and I get a blank look on my face. If you want somebody who’s in touch with what are the evolving standards of decency that reflect a maturing society, ask the Congress to make the relevant decisions.

And of course that’s the way it’s done in the United Kingdom. The Parliament says what the English Constitution consists of.

So, if you really believe in the evolving theory, and you’re right about this, then we made a mistake in Marbury v. Madison , and the Supreme Court shouldn’t stick its nose into this stuff at all. It should be up to the Congress to determine where we evolve. What makes you think a committee of nine lawyers ought to tell where we’re evolving to? I’m a philosophy minor, but I didn’t train as a philosopher. I’m just a lawyer, just between you and me. That’s what I’m really good at. (C)
Supreme Justice Scalia
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
It seems like poor people with children are able to get on Medicaid, get Section 8 housing, TANF, etc. Are these not available to poor women who are pregnant?
Click to expand...
Sure the poor can often get some sort of medical coverage. And although they may qualify for Section 8 housing, that doesn’t mean there’s actually any Section 8 housing available. And the TANF program is temporary assistance, not permanent.

What about childcare expenses? Shouldn’t this mother have a job so as to rise out of her poverty? But childcare – especially for infants – is not only difficult to find in many areas, it’s also astronomically expensive!

Poverty is a waaaayyyy more complex issue than can be solved by our current welfare system in the US.
 
Last edited:
Would this not also be the case for women who go on welfare who already have children?
 
Gertabelle said:
What about childcare expenses? Shouldn’t this mother have a job so as to rise out of her poverty?
Click to expand...
I read about a case where two sisters were caring for each other’s children and they were able to do this because they received childcare vouchers, so that seems to be part of welfare: childcare vouchers so poor parents can get jobs.
 
I’m guessing it depends on the community, and it’s awesome if a woman has family the area. That can mitigate poverty completely for some folks. But again, having a voucher doesn’t mean costs are completely covered, or that spots are available.

I’ve worked in a Title 1 elementary school for the past 14 years. I’ve seen more poverty, and its effects, than I care to recall. It is a nearly impossible road sometimes.

All this is not to say that abortion should be allowed for women in poverty. I’m just pointing out that the government has not created a fail-safe system that negates what women perceive as the need for an abortion.
 
When looking for ways to discourage abortion (say, for instance, through child care subsidies) is it more important to discourage abuse of the system, or to discourage abortion? We cannot do both perfectly.
 
@JMMJ @Gertabelle @Shasta-Rose

Ok, I don’t really understand what is happening here. It seems like a number of people vote D despite their pro-choice rigor, because theoretically the Ds will help the women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant more than the Rs will.

But the help the Ds offer is not enough? Shasta-Rose writes:
Shasta-Rose said:
Not much help out there for a woman who might want to have the baby and keep it, but doesn’t have the means for all of the expenses, no one to help her, and no place to go.
Click to expand...
But the help actually is available, and childcare also, so that, more or less, is not a problem.

But now JMMJ and Gertabelle are saying it is not enough?

So I just don’t understand at all what you all are advocating.
 
I see what you mean, but I did not mean to imply that. I was just explaining how I had found out about childcare vouchers–that they really do exist.
 
I am advocating paid obstetric services for all, regardless of need. Some women could maybe afford the costs themselves, but choose abortion anyway because they are not so rich that the uncertain cost is not a worry.
 
Is this not theoretically the situation under the ACA? Seems to me people were complaining that even men had to pay for insurance that covered maternity costs?
 
Annie said:
What about childcare expenses? Shouldn’t this mother have a job so as to rise out of her poverty?
Click to expand...
That is certainly an interesting way of working the system to one’s advantage. I would never have thought of that! If it costs less to care for the children than the voucher is worth (depends on how you care for them), then both mothers make money. Not condoning it, just saying that someone figured out how to rig the system, and that took a certain level of intelligence and business acumen.

Let’s be clear that I want to see children cared for as well as they possibly can be. That means nutritious snacks, recreational outings (zoos, parks, museums, science exhibits, etc.), exercise, and so on — not being placed in front of a TV set all day with a can of soda and a bag of crisps. Nutritious food and worthwhile recreation often costs more. My son was in an outstanding (and very affordable) partial-day care facility for preschool, the center gets rave reviews, and in many ways it was his most enjoyable and rewarding outside education experience so far. (And it was secular.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
I am not saying that it is prohibited for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate, simply that the reason for doing so must be proportionate.
Click to expand...
Except you are saying or at least implying that there can never be any proportionate reasons!!
 
Annie said:
No, I was simply correcting your statements.
Click to expand...
What word is used is irrelevant. It’s up to the individual voter to decide if they will vote for a pro-choice candidate and they will decide the reasons for doing so, not you. The Church has spoken. It trumps whatever complaints you may have about that position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top