Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[vern_humphrey]

So, are you saying it is impermissibly immoral to vote for anyone who does not affirm and support the Catholic position on abortion - i.e., no abortion allowed under any circumstance?

If so, why even bother with your question above about imperfectly supporting it and not supporting it at all? It’s irrelevant.

Where is your head?

(Note that I am doing you the courtesy of believing your post is due to misunderstanding my postion, not to deliberately mis-casting it.)

If I can save one child, it is my duty to do it. Therefore I will support an imperfect pro-life candidate, but not a pro-choice candidate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Certainly we will not perish for having voted for what is right.

“If God is for us who can be against us?” Romans 8:28-31

If our vote furthers the pro-choice cause – and we have been repeatedly warned of the consequences – you just might be wrong.

 

[zab]

If our vote furthers the pro-choice cause – and we have been repeatedly warned of the consequences – you just might be wrong.

Any vote in favor of life is not a vote for death.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Any vote in favor of life is not a vote for death.

A penny thrown down the sewer is not a penny invested for the future.

 

[estesbob]

So you vote for none of the major party candidates since they are all in favor of abortion?

Only in the world of the abortion apologists is there no difference.

 

[estesbob]

Any vote in favor of life is not a vote for death.

Depends are you definition of life. Youd be suprised at what abortion apologists define as life issues.

 

[johnnykins]

Only if you espouse moral relativism.

Actually Vern I think you are the one espousing moral relativism. My position is that no candidate espouses the moral position. While abortion is of such import that if one candidate actually held the Catholic position and another didn’t - then you would have to vote for the Catholic-position candidate over the other. However, that is not the case. It’s most unfortunate it’s not the case. And, I agree, Catholics have done much to make it the case - including the clergy and hierarchy.

Once you determine that all are morally compromised on abortion, then you can consider other issues. You choose the candidate based on the moral position of other issues since concerning abortion, they are all in the wrong, morally.

You seem to be advocating moral relativism by reason of the fact that you are saying chose the candidate who is only a little morally wrong on murder and not the other. Both are advocating immorality - and you are saying a little immorality is the way to go. You have set up the classic moral relativism choice of one immoral death weighed against say 1000 immoral deaths. That’s moral relativism.

Note I have rejected both (or all) candidates on the basis of their immoral positions, but since they are equally immoral - i.e., both advocating immoral killing, and since they are the only choices I am allowed morally to consider other moral choices.

That is precisely how Catholics vote for certain pro-abortion candidates. What’s odd is that it is usually the conservative Catholic who falls into the moral relativism trap.

 

[johnnykins]

Where is your head?

(Note that I am doing you the courtesy of believing your post is due to misunderstanding my postion, not to deliberately mis-casting it.)

If I can save one child, it is my duty to do it. Therefore I will support an imperfect pro-life candidate, but not a pro-choice candidate.

I certainly understand that desire.

However, it is precisely that position that undermines the very thing you argue most passionately about - understanding abortion is murder. In your compassion and concern for the one child saved you perpetuate the understanding that the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus is not human because there are allowable circumstances where you can kill the child. It’s no different morally from the pro-abortion argument that saving one woman is worth allowing 1000 fetuses to be killed - and that was the reason that Roe came about. That’s why you’re wrong - as tender-hearted and concerned as you are.

 

[dmelosi]

I certainly understand that desire.

However, it is precisely that position that undermines the very thing you argue most passionately about - understanding abortion is murder. In your compassion and concern for the one child saved you perpetuate the understanding that the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus is not human because there are allowable circumstances where you can kill the child. It’s no different morally from the pro-abortion argument that saving one woman is worth allowing 1000 fetuses to be killed - and that was the reason that Roe came about. That’s why you’re wrong - as tender-hearted and concerned as you are.

I may be wrong, but it sure seems like you are completely blinded and loyal to the democratic party.

 

[johnnykins]

Your submit button seems to be broken or going to the wrong link.

Perhaps - would you care to suggest a list of serious viable candidates for major offices who hold to the Catholic abortion position of no abortions under any circumstance? If my “button” is broken, no doubt that will be an easy task for you.

 

[johnnykins]

I may be wrong, but it sure seems like you are completely blinded and loyal to the democratic party.

Hardly - the only party I have ever been a member of is the GOP. I simply see the warts in the nation and GOP - as well as the democrats. I also understand the arguments that answer the OP - which others here can’t seem to see because of their own blindness and illogic.

 

[dmelosi]

Perhaps - would you care to suggest a list of serious viable candidates for major offices who hold to the Catholic abortion position of no abortions under any circumstance? If my “button” is broken, no doubt that will be an easy task for you.

I never said that there was a candidate who holds to the Catholic position on abortion.

Where I disagree with you on is to lump the 2 as equally pro death.

 

[ribozyme]

Hardly - the only party I have ever been a member of is the GOP. I simply see the warts in the nation and GOP - as well as the democrats. I also understand the arguments that answer the OP - which others here can’t seem to see because of their own blindness and illogic.

I do not formally support any particular party; however, I dislike the Republican Party’s ideology. And if that makes me a Democrat by default so be it. The Democratic Party does not have any particular ideology, only interests.

 

[estesbob]

I never said that there was a candidate who holds to the Catholic position on abortion.

Where I disagree with you on is to lump the 2 as equally pro death.

Rape and incset abortions account for .04% of abortion per year. Thats about 480. Anyone who tells you that there is a moral eqauivalence between an candiate who would limit abortion to 480 a year and a canidate who allows for 1.2 million i a year is trying to derail the discussion. In the case of this thread it appears he is doing a very good job of it.

The question remains why would a Catholic vote for a Pro-abortion canidate-the answer is out of igorance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually Vern I think you are the one espousing moral relativism. My position is that no candidate espouses the moral position.

Help me out here – do you not go on to say that makes it okay to vote for the greater of two evils – the one who will work to make abortion more common?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not formally support any particular party; however, I dislike the Republican Party’s ideology. And if that makes me a Democrat by default so be it. The Democratic Party does not have any particular ideology, only interests.

:whacky:

Good thing I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that – you’d owe me a new keyboard.

 

[johnnykins]

Help me out here – do you not go on to say that makes it okay to vote for the greater of two evils – the one who will work to make abortion more common?

No - I am saying you cannot vote for anyone supporting an unconscionable evil like abortion - unless that is your only choice, i.e, everyone running supports it. Then because all possibilities are pro-abortion, you may consider other moral issues and use that as a basis for a vote.

I know of no one in either party that works to make abortion more common, per se - though many support promoting abortion as a right with the consequence that many abortions are performed. If you are saying that positions that seek to restrict the “right” to an abortion are moral issues that can be properly considered among the issues also otherwise considered - I agree. If you say that positions that seek to restrict the “right” to an abortion are the only moral issue that can be properly considered among the issues also otherwise considered - I have a much harder time with that, and can’t agree except by looking at the particulars.

 

[elt1956]

By the wording of your reply, one could not tell if you are for abortion or not. What you said is true. That does not make pro=choice OK. It is still immoral and murder to kill an innocent unborn whatever the rhetoric. *** I said, it is not a choice, it is a life. Pro life means upholding NOT killing the innocent unborn, for whatever misguided reason the proponent for Pro Choice cares to use.
Deacon Ed B

Okay Deac. I suppose I HAVE to DEFEND myself. I am anti-abortion, period. In my post I was just trying to verbalize what I see as the rationale for the mind set of the pro-choice, pro-abortion, no-absolute truth believers. They feel comfortable using secular (scientific, political correct) laws to WORM (note that sentence in my previous post, please) their way around a law that is God’s, THOU SHALL NOT KILL. They use the definition of personhood as another excuse to say it is alright to kill innocents. How does one define personhood if one does not have respect for the SANCTITY OF ALL LIFE? You will also note at the end of my explanation I said, "
More studies have shown the embryo is sensitve to light, sound and especially pain. No one can say this is not life."

This, as Pope John Paul II said, I hold to be true" ’
Of all crimes possible, abortion and infanticide are defined as “unspeakable crimes” by the Second Vatican Council. This direct and VOLUNTARY action will always be regarded as MORALLY EVIL and CAN NEVER BE CONSIDERED AS NECESSARY, EITHER AS AND END, OR AS MEANS TO A GOOD END."

If you knew my personal history, you would know that I could NEVER uphold the termination of life “AT THE BEGINNINING NOR AT THE END”. I will hold the following to be true until the time I die. God’s law is above human law. Those who hold secular law to be the higher are like the dwellings built on sand. PEACE.

Peace

 

[vern_humphrey]

No - I am saying you cannot vote for anyone supporting an unconscionable evil like abortion - unless that is your only choice, i.e, everyone running supports it. Then because all possibilities are pro-abortion, you may consider other moral issues and use that as a basis for a vote.

Okay – I’ll take you at your word.

I know of no one in either party that works to make abortion more common, per se - though many support promoting abortion as a right with the consequence that many abortions are performed.

Which is different from making abortions more common, how?

Go and get the latest Democratic Party Platform off the web – and post it here. Note the part about taxpayer-supported abortion.

If you are saying that positions that seek to restrict the “right” to an abortion are moral issues that can be properly considered among the issues also otherwise considered - I agree. If you say that positions that seek to restrict the “right” to an abortion are the only moral issue that can be properly considered among the issues also otherwise considered - I have a much harder time with that, and can’t agree except by looking at the particulars.

I say when a candidate is in favor of mass murder of the innocent, we need examine that candidate no farther.

We must always support the candidate who is willing to restrict or eliminate this mass murder – if there is such a candidate.

 

[elt1956]

Do Catholics really stand behind Evangelical Fundamentalists in light of this 1 issue and vote republican? I don’t believe in abortion, but even a president or court of law can’t stop a young woman from aborting her baby. She will utlimately find a way if her mind is set. Let God be the ultimate judge of these people, meanwhile those of us in ministry offering counseling and forgiveness to women who have already committed the act and who seek repentence. Should this really be a political issue???

Prayer and forgiveness

I think Catholics stand behind their conscience. That Evangelical Fundamentalists also do this is “possibly” a coincidence. Peace.