Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[Jeff_KC]

I started a thread, there will be many that will deal with it. It has been dealt with in this thread a few posts back, yet you ignore that?

No, I didn’t ignore that. I read those posts, which prompted my own. However, I would fail to agree with your definition of the topic having been “dealt with”. Thanks for the offer on the new thread, but I really don’t need one. The responses here have answered any questions that I had.

Peace,
Jeff

 

[rlg94086]

What is being discussed is candidates and their position on the sanctity of life. The US is currently involved in a war which has resulted in tens of thousands of innocent people being killed. Are you saying that a candidate’s position on this issue should not be included in a discussion of voting choices and the sanctity of life?

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread which seems to imply that it is very simple: Supporting a candidate that is not staunchly in opposition to abortion is lack of support for the Catholic faith. I’m simply saying that the sanctity of life is a complex issue. Certainly abortion is a major tenet in that discussion, but just as certainly, not the sole one. Further, while a prochoice stance may condone murder, war commits murder. It commits murder with money that has come out of my pocket and yours, and I certainly feel it pertinent to the topic at hand. However, I understand others’ uneasiness with the topic, it certainly does muddy the waters a bit.

War does not “commit murder.” Besides, there are very, very few candidates for any office in the government who is wholly opposed to the use of our military. Certainly, all of the 3-4 major candidates running for president would use military force, if they deem it necessary. The last several presidents have dropped bombs on other countries.

Now, there are some posters that will not vote for a Republican or a Democrat because they don’t believe in the current war and won’t support a pro-choice candidate. Is that what you are proposing…voting for someone who has no chance of being elected? Or, do you consider the argument about whether or not to leave Iraq as more important than life issues.

 

[ribozyme]

War does not “commit murder.” Besides, there are very, very few candidates for any office in the government who is wholly opposed to the use of our military. Certainly, all of the 3-4 major candidates running for president would use military force, if they deem it necessary. The last several presidents have dropped bombs on other countries.

Now, there are some posters that will not vote for a Republican or a Democrat because they don’t believe in the current war and won’t support a pro-choice candidate. Is that what you are proposing…voting for someone who has no chance of being elected? Or, do you consider the argument about whether or not to leave Iraq as more important than life issues.

Iraq is a life issue…

And what about the money necessary to fund social programs such as Medicare? Iraq has enormous opportunity costs.

 

[rlg94086]

Iraq is a life issue…

And what about the money necessary to fund social programs such as Medicare? Iraq has enormous opportunity costs.

Iraq is not a “life issue.” Grenada wasn’t a life issue, the first Iraq war wasn’t a life issue, Kosovo wasn’t a life issue, and the second Iraq war was not a life issue. It has only become a “life issue” for some Catholics wishing to justify their vote for a pro-choice candidate or wishing to justify their hatred for Republicans and/or the current president.

 

[seekerz]

Just to be clear: I have never voted for a prochoice candidate but the reason this thread continues to fascinate me is that some posters seem determined to restrict the definition of “life issues” to abortion.

War is a life issue. Any measure that interferes with the right of human beings to live on this earth is a life issue.

Maybe this attitude is why the Terri Schiavo’s of today languishing at the whims of our legal system do not seem to ignite the passion of Catholics in the same way abortion does.

I see no basis for this very restrictive definition of “life issues” in Church teachings.

P.S. Even when a war is waged to save lives it is still a “life issue”: the justification for such a war being the preservation of lives which are in clear and present danger from the other side.

 

[rlg94086]

Just to be clear: I have never voted for a prochoice candidate but the reason this thread continues to fascinate me is that some posters seem determined to restrict the definition of “life issues” to abortion.

War is a life issue. Any measure that interferes with the right of human beings to live on this earth is a life issue.

Maybe this attitude is why the Terri Schiavo’s of today languishing at the whims of our legal system do not seem to ignite the passion of Catholics in the same way abortion does.

I see no basis for this very restrictive definition of “life issues” in Church teachings.

There is nothing wrong with being a complete pacifist, if that is what you believe you need to be. However, pacifism is a separate issue. It has not been a part of the pro-life movement in this country. You can consider part of the life issues, but it is not included when someone talks about pro-life vs. pro-choice; there are cases where war is justified; and bishops and the pope have said that we can differ on the war; whereas abortion is evil in all cases.

 

[seekerz]

There is nothing wrong with being a complete pacifist, if that is what you believe you need to be. However, pacifism is a separate issue. It has not been a part of the pro-life movement in this country. You can consider part of the life issues, but it is not included when someone talks about pro-life vs. pro-choice; there are cases where war is justified; and bishops and the pope have said that we can differ on the war; whereas abortion is evil in all cases.

I don’t consider myself a pacifist; war is not always wrong but when it is, those who die are no less worthy of our concern than babies in the womb.

In everything we have to be balanced in our views, and to act like abortion is the only life issue to be considered just does not appear balanced to me.

I also believe that some in the prolife camp are more committed to their political persuasions than to teachings or advice from the Church, which is why I passionately oppose the politicization of abortion.

We cling to Church teachings on abortion, but dismiss the very real teachings that we have been given regarding just war. Official teaching versus unofficial teaching or personal ideologies versus Catholic stances? To my mind, this is spiritual cherry picking that carries with it serious moral perils.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t consider myself a pacifist; war is not always wrong but when it is, those who die are no less worthy of our concern than babies in the womb.

In everything we have to be balanced in our views, and to act like abortion is the only life issue to be considered just does not appear balanced to me.

I also believe that some in the prolife camp are more committed to their political persuasions than to teachings or advice from the Church, which is why I passionately oppose the politicization of abortion.

We cling to Church teachings on abortion, but dismiss the very real teachings that we have been given regarding just war. Official teaching versus unofficial teaching or personal ideologies versus Catholic stances? To my mind, this is spiritual cherry picking that carries with it serious moral perils.

I see…so, you only vote for candidates who match 100% with the teaching of the Church? I don’t believe you. If it is true, you have never voted, or you have never voted for anyone who was elected.

As far as claiming that those of us who are pro-life are more committed to our political persuasion than to teaching or advice to the Church, that is just a personal prejudice you will have to deal with on your own. I assume my fellow Catholics are working on their salvation the best they can…even if we don’t agree on everything.

 

[Pong]

Amen seekerz. You are perhaps the only strict
pro-lifer" I have encountered here that understands that there is a balance to be found. I applaud you.

rlg- Why are you so threatened by opposing viewpoints? You say that we are all working out our own salvation, but it seems to me like you only belive that if the Catholic in question agrees with you.

 

[rlg94086]

Amen seekerz. You are perhaps the only strict
pro-lifer" I have encountered here that understands that there is a balance to be found. I applaud you.

rlg- Why are you so threatened by opposing viewpoints? You say that we are all working out our own salvation, but it seems to me like you only belive that if the Catholic in question agrees with you.

Why do you think I am threatened? Why do you think I “only believe that if the Catholic in question agrees with” me? I have plenty of Catholic friends on this forum and in real life whom I respect as fellow Catholics. Just because I vocally disagree with them doesn’t mean I question their catholicity as seekerz did.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am curious, why would a Catholic vote for a prochoice canidate? Do they not see abortion as evil?

Abortion is a type of genocide, so isn’t voting prochoice a method of giving approval to genocide of the most innocent, helpless of victims?

Some on this forum have said that they don’t want to use only one issue to vote for a candidate. But would you think the same if instead of killing unborn babies, we were talking about the killing of minority adults?

Imagine this: two candidates are up for office, one is a worthless human being but against killing the members of a minority group. The second candidate stands for everything that the voter believes in but thinks that killing adult minorities should be allowed, would you still vote for the second candidate?

I don’t see how killing unborn babies is different then killing adult minorities of any race or religion.

I’ll wait for that to happen - then, I’ll think about answering it.​

My answer to the main question: because there might be no others for whom to vote. What good is served by disefranchising oneself by not voting for a candidate whose more objectionable intentions may never be able to be carried out ?

FWIW, I think it’s horrendous that Christians should be involved in the armaments industry, but I’m not aware that such people are in any way penalised by the CC for their activities. But how is bombing civilians with napalm & causing their skin to peel off while they are fully conscious, in any sense compatible with even the most elastic definition of Christianity ? Such activity is not “pro-life”.

Because political candidates might well have other, good, ideas; & because it is not clear one issue can ever be important enough to stop one voting - especially for this reason: if the candidate is elected, his or her intentions will be affected by the realities of the issues with which he or she has in fact to deal; even the most fervent pro-abortionist will not be able to honour promises to make abortion easier to obtain when there are many other issues calling for attention also. Politicians are not entirely free agents - they have to deal with what comes up, not with those issues which are most important to them.

• osjspm.org/majordoc_statement_of_note_common_good.aspx

 

[mikew262]

Why do you think the pro-choice crowd doesn’t want such photos shown?

Maybe because they are inappropriate, in some cases gross, and common sense dictates otherwise?

 

[seekerz]

Why do you think I am threatened? Why do you think I “only believe that if the Catholic in question agrees with” me? I have plenty of Catholic friends on this forum and in real life whom I respect as fellow Catholics. Just because I vocally disagree with them doesn’t mean I question their catholicity as seekerz did.

Each person is free to have an opinion, but in putting forward opinions as a Catholic these have to be weighed against what the Church actually teaches.

All I’d like someone here to show me is where the Church teaches that abortion is the only significant “life issue” to be considered when voting. Why should the feeding-tube dependent brain-damaged child waiting for the ax to fall, not be accorded the same attention and passion?

As a further example, you mentioned above that Grenada was not a life issue. The official reason given for that military intervention was to rescue Americans caught there. Actually, the event prompting our actions was infighting among communist leaders that left numerous people dead. During the invasion, an asylum was mistakenly bombed killing all the inmates. Many reasonable people think the invasion even with the accidental bombing, was justified to prevent further carnage. Every consideration I just mentioned here is a life issue. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the actions taken, preservation of life had to be a consideration at every stage.

 

[Jeff_KC]

Iraq is not a “life issue.” Grenada wasn’t a life issue, the first Iraq war wasn’t a life issue, Kosovo wasn’t a life issue, and the second Iraq war was not a life issue. It has only become a “life issue” for some Catholics wishing to justify their vote for a pro-choice candidate or wishing to justify their hatred for Republicans and/or the current president.

What an interesting perspective, and what a great topic. I feel it truly is an opportunity to stretch ones experience of Christ-like love.

For me, war is always a life issue. Having lived as a civilian in countries torn apart by war, I think it always will be. Having listened to children cry through nights of shelling, walking through city parks converted to graveyards because it is the only safe place to bury the dead, seeing cities, lives and futures reduced to rubble, its hard for me to see it otherwise. Yet I have lived with and come to know and love both the victims and perpetrators of war. I know that the perpetrators often do not go into war with the intention of creating suffering, for they also create suffering for themselves. They do so because they lack the wisdom, compassion and resources needed to make a better choice. They are often good people who allow fear to dictate their choices to very sad ends. What is the appropriate response? Surely to speak the truth as I see it. But I also feel compelled to do so with as much compassion and love for one side as the other, for if I do otherwise, I have disregarded the divine nature that lies at the heart of all I share this earth with.

I also see abortion as a life issue. It also seems to me that many who initiate, participate in, support or otherwise make possible abortion do so not because they have the the intention of creating suffering, for they often create suffering for themselves I have come to know and love a number of people involved in some way in abortion procedures. Some have a life view that is such that they do not believe that the human soul enters the fetus at conception. For others, there is simply a lack of the wisdom, compassion and resources needed to make a better choice. They are often good people who allow fear to dictate their choices to very sad ends. What is the appropriate response? Surely to speak the truth as I see it. But I also feel compelled to do so with as much compassion and love for one side as the other, for if I do otherwise, I have disregarded the divine nature that lies at the heart of all I share this earth with.

Thanks for sharing your perspective and listening to mine.

Peace,
Jeff

 

[vern_humphrey]

Maybe because they are inappropriate, in some cases gross, and common sense dictates otherwise?

An, “inappropriate.” Which article of the Constitution defines “inappropriate?”

I agree they are gross – generally speaking, crime scene photos of murders tend to be gross. Which is why murderers and their lawyers don’t want them shown in court.

 

[rlg94086]

Each person is free to have an opinion, but in putting forward opinions as a Catholic these have to be weighed against what the Church actually teaches.

All I’d like someone here to show me is where the Church teaches that abortion is the only significant “life issue” to be considered when voting. Why should the feeding-tube dependent brain-damaged child waiting for the ax to fall, not be accorded the same attention and passion?

You’ve brought that up a couple of times (ala Terry Schiavo). For pro-lifers, that is a big issue - it is called euthanasia. I’m not sure why you think we don’t include it in the right-to-life issues.

 

[seekerz]

You’ve brought that up a couple of times (ala Terry Schiavo). For pro-lifers, that is a big issue - it is called euthanasia. I’m not sure why you think we don’t include it in the right-to-life issues.

What I’m hearing is that abortion is the only real life-issue. What I’m seeing is few discussions on euthanasia.

 

[fix]

What is being discussed is candidates and their position on the sanctity of life. The US is currently involved in a war which has resulted in tens of thousands of innocent people being killed. Are you saying that a candidate’s position on this issue should not be included in a discussion of voting choices and the sanctity of life?

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread which seems to imply that it is very simple: Supporting a candidate that is not staunchly in opposition to abortion is lack of support for the Catholic faith. I’m simply saying that the sanctity of life is a complex issue. Certainly abortion is a major tenet in that discussion, but just as certainly, not the sole one. Further, while a prochoice stance may condone murder, war commits murder. It commits murder with money that has come out of my pocket and yours, and I certainly feel it pertinent to the topic at hand. However, I understand others’ uneasiness with the topic, it certainly does muddy the waters a bit.

What do you make of this?

Some Catholics have suggested that a candidate’s position on the death penalty and war are as important as his or her position on procured abortion and same-sex “marriage.” This, however, is not true. Procured abortion and homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, and, as such, can never be justified in any circumstance. Although war and capital punishment can rarely be justified, they are not intrinsically evil; neither practice includes the direct intention of killing innocent human beings. In some circumstances, self-defense and defense of the nation are not only rights, but responsibilities. Neither individuals nor governments can be denied the right of lawful defense in appropriate circumstances (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2265 and 2309). While we must all work to eradicate the circumstances which could justify either practice, we must stop the killing of innocent unborn children and the practice of euthanasia, and safeguard marriage and the family now. One cannot justify a vote for a candidate who promotes intrinsically evil acts which erode the very foundation of the common good, such as abortion and same-sex “marriage,” by appealing to that same candidate’s opposition to war or capital punishment…

ewtn.com/library/bishops/burkecom.htm

 

[rlg94086]

What I’m hearing is that abortion is the only real life-issue. What I’m seeing is few discussions on euthanasia.

Euthanasia is more of a state-by-state issue at this point, so some states are busier than others on this issue. It is in the same position abortion will be, if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Because of that, you will hear more national discussion on abortion than euthanasia. Similarly, you will also hear more about embryonic stem cell research, because that is also a nationalized issue.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

In response to SEEKERZ post #472. Abortion is not the only issue. See my two posts, # 435 and #455. These are moral issues which should concern not only all Catholics, but everyone. All those I have listed are definitely against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Any Catholic who says otherwise is in GROSS ERROR.
Deacon Ed B