A
Annie
Guest
Yes, the Church has spoken, and it said a certain thing. It said that Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates for proportionate reasons, and that is what I am saying.
Why do many Catholics vote for pro-choice candidates/parties?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
J
JMMJ
Guest
I am pro-choice.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
You are moving the question. The question is abortion. Abortion is legal in all 50 States of the US, infanticide is not legal in any State. There are no candidates in a major party, in a known 3rd party, who are running on a “pro infanticide” policy.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Exactly. The Church allows people to vote for the current Republican party which is pro-choice if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, pro choice if the mother will have physical, mental or emotional health conflicts, if the fetus has severe abnormalities. Catholics may still vote for the Republican candidates who are for abortion in those circumstances.
If the Church prohibited voting for any candidate who had any pro-choice opinions, Catholics would be limited to 3rd party candidates (and that might actually change our world!)
M
Mijoy2
Guest
Proportionate reasons - this is the key to what Ratzinger says here.
What current issues trump (pardon the pun) killing babies? Immigration? Taxes? Health Care?
I’d think the only issue that could trump killing babies might be killing some other group of people (in greater numbers). Perhaps if a candidate was running on the issue of conducting a genocide or seemed likely to want to use nuclear bombs on another nation. I don’t think something like taxing the rich qualifies. Even if one were a strong believer in climate change killing millions and destroying the earth, I’d think the science would have to be rock solid before it trumped abortion which is objective, imminent and unquestion murder.
I think this is what Ratzinger was referring to. But others may disagree, of course.
Last edited:
T
twoshoes
Guest
We are responsible for our soul. If the pope kneels and prays to a pagan god, does that mean it’s ok. I won’t. Abortion is an intrinsic evel, no half measure in that statement.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
For me, proportionate reasons are those things which are happening now to born persons. Speculation on what someone says they will/may do in the future is simply that, speculation. A million things can happen to change the future, I can act on what is happening now.
A
Annie
Guest
Or the current Democratic party which includes in its platform pro-choice under any circumstances at any time in the pregnancy, unlike the Repiblicans.
B
Bluebright
Guest
I don’t think my answer counts cos I am not American… but many people on this site are not… There are no pro life candidates. (leave out the word truly cos there are none that even vaguely pretend to be) or none that my research has ever uncovered.
G
godisgood77
Guest
I think that most Catholics who vote for a pro-choice candidate do so because they believe that one candidate will better serve the public across a multitude of issues.
The very Catholic Consistent Ethic of Life is an ideology that opposes abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, and euthanasia… the mistake so make is making abortion the moral equivalent of the other pro-life issues (of which there are many). Abortion is the most heinous of them…
I wonder though what happens when s a presidential candidate says he or she is opposed to abortion, but is pro-death penalty, pro-assisted suicide and pro-euthanasia… that would be a tough decision. Especially, if the candidate is not trustworthy… For instance, there a many lawmakers who have been in elected office for years where their record on these topics is clear… if one’s actions don’t back up their words, I think the words can, in good conscious, be dismissed.
The very Catholic Consistent Ethic of Life is an ideology that opposes abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, and euthanasia… the mistake so make is making abortion the moral equivalent of the other pro-life issues (of which there are many). Abortion is the most heinous of them…
I wonder though what happens when s a presidential candidate says he or she is opposed to abortion, but is pro-death penalty, pro-assisted suicide and pro-euthanasia… that would be a tough decision. Especially, if the candidate is not trustworthy… For instance, there a many lawmakers who have been in elected office for years where their record on these topics is clear… if one’s actions don’t back up their words, I think the words can, in good conscious, be dismissed.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Note that “proportional reasons” is not the same thing as “proportionate issues”. Cardinal Ratzinger chose his words carefully, and we should be just as careful in interpreting them. “Issues” considers only the core issue - abortion, taxes, health care, etc. “Reasons” can take other factors into account that are based on reason, but not incorporated in the core issue itself. One example is when the office has little if anything to do with the issue, such as when someone is running for City Council. Such a person, regardless of their position on abortion, will have little effect on abortion. Another example is when the person with the best pro-life position has almost no chance of winning, such as a minor third party candidate. Reason allows their chances of winning to be taken into account. Another example is if the voter’s reason leads him to believe that even if elected, the candidate will likely do nothing to change hearts and minds of the people to love their children, or that their proposals to combat abortion are ineffective. There are many reasons that one might take into account that are not reflected in the underlying core issues listed above. What is required is that the voter take seriously the values related to those core issues. Once the voter has done that, the exact consideration of how that proportionate calculation works out is up to him or her. There is a reason why neither Cardinal Ratzinger nor the US bishops in their voting guide do not make the claim that there can be no proportionate reasons in this case.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
Good point
T
thistle
Guest
Well if I misunderstood you I apologise but I read your posts as meaning there can’t be any proportionate reasons.
T
twoshoes
Guest
You should look at what President Trump has done in regard to preventing abortion. He is the most pro-life President in my life time.
I am fully aware of what he has done, and it is very good. I think of him as fundamentally a decent family man who does right by his children, and I am willing to assume that his present pro-life stance reflects his true convictions, rather than catering to his electoral base. But even if he were doing it for political reasons, I am more concerned with what he does, than what his reasons are. The more babies saved the better.
There are things he says and does that I find abhorrent, but he would have to do something awfully, awfully bad for me even to consider voting for a pro-choice candidate over him. He and I are both imperfect men.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
Her was strongly pro abortion before he started campaigning to become President. It was only when this issue became a talking point he magically flip-flopped and became pro-life. Personally I don’t think he changed his views. Its just for political perception purposes.
J
JimG
Guest
It doesn’t much matter what his motives are if his actions are pro-life. If Obama were pro-abortion but he nominated pro-life justices and protected the Little Sisters of the Poor, and retained the Mexico City policy he would have received pro-life support.
B
Bluebright
Guest
I’m not American… you do know that there are people on this forum who aren’t right?
N
nearlycatholic
Guest
I just don’t ever see me voting for a Democrat, or a woman. Am starting to wonder if I can even see me voting at all the way things are going. I don’t think the US gets through another administration without civil war honestly and where do we stand if and when that happens? It’s a very disconcerting possibility I’m afraid.
- Status