- This topic has 1 reply, 7 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 12 months ago by Anonymous.
October 28, 2007 at 8:42 pm #1756
Question: is it immoral to vote for a pro-choice president? Are we cooperating with evil if we vote for a presidential candidate who supports legal abortion?
The president alone does not make laws for our society. In fact, I’d say Congress has much more power. They are the ones who pass bills and even have the power to override a presidential veto. So would someone be able to vote for a president who supports legal abortion in good conscience? Wouldn’t it be more effective to elect a Congress who can enact change rather than concentrate on one person with more limited power?October 29, 2007 at 12:09 am #8665AnonymousInactive
” title=”Very Happy” /> My point of view is all politicians are crooked so what ever they say probably will never be done(they tell you what you want to hear).October 29, 2007 at 10:52 pm #8666AnonymousInactive
I would imagine that it’s important to elect both presidents and congressman that best matches our morals. Although a signature of the president isn’t necessary (although recommended) he sure can make it difficult for them. A law/bill takes sometime to write up and if it’s vetoed, it can take up to another year to pass it through.
By then, some congressman can be out of office. So although they don’t need the president, he certainly can slow it down and inevitably stopping it by the mere change of congressman.
I can only see myself voting for a pro-choice president if he was the lesser of two evils.October 30, 2007 at 4:59 am #8669AnonymousInactive
I won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate. Period.October 30, 2007 at 1:34 pm #8670"Subvet":1mx2a6r1 wrote:I won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate. Period.[/quote:1mx2a6r1]
So even if all the sides of the issues this person campaigned for fell in line with Catholic Social Teaching, except legal abortion, you would not vote for that candidate? In other words you would vote on a single issue?
I think I’m with Victor, that if the candidate was the lesser of 2 evils I would. I think if the candidate were to campaign for legalized abortion (sadly), but unfolded a plan to reduce the number of abortions in this country (and everything else added up) I would strongly consider that candidate."weather":1mx2a6r1 wrote:My point of view is all politicians are crooked so what ever they say probably will never be done(they tell you what you want to hear).[/quote:1mx2a6r1]
That’s for sure. Same thing year after year.
I heard a good quote last night as I was getting off the subway going home. Someone asked a friend how she was doing and she replied, “Different day, same s***.” I think it’s like that with politicians. Different person, same promises.
Although, in fairness to the politicians, it’s easy to promise things from the outside, but once elected to the position there are many other things to deal with, many hurdles to clear and possible changing conditions so it’s not always easy to keep he promises.October 30, 2007 at 8:35 pm #8671AnonymousInactive"Jon":2bjb54v1 wrote:So even if all the sides of the issues this person campaigned for fell in line with Catholic Social Teaching, except legal abortion, you would not vote for that candidate? In other words you would vote on a single issue?
I think I’m with Victor, that if the candidate was the lesser of 2 evils I would. I think if the candidate were to campaign for legalized abortion (sadly), but unfolded a plan to reduce the number of abortions in this country (and everything else added up) I would strongly consider that candidate.[/quote:2bjb54v1]
Well the measure of who is more evil isn’t about tallying up who matches up in terms of numbers. What I meant by the lesser of 2 evils is about using our hierarchy of morality to determine whom you’d bring into office. If a candidate matches up in most ways, but believes in abortion I would probably vote for the one that matches up less but does not believe in abortion.
Why? As far as I know abortion carries more moral weight (in terms of hierarchical morality) then say economic issues do. So who I chose would in a nutshell be determined by who mirrors Christ the most. Economically, liberals tend to be seen as mirroring Christ better (although this is arguable).
Imagine a portrait of Christ, each feature, down to hair, the shape of the eyes, nose, ect. are all doctrines/teachings of the Church. If you deviate on say feeding the poor, then that would be like reshaping the nose or eye of the portrait slightly. You can still see that’s its Christ, but it’s changed a bit. Now, depending on what you deviate from, depends on how much of a change you do on the portrait. Abortion is almost like rearranging the nose, separating the eyes, cutting his hair, essentially making him unrecognizable. The same analogy can be used in terms of venial and mortal sin but I hope that clarifies what I mean by mirroring Christ.
So, I’m not entirely sure whether we agree or not.October 31, 2007 at 9:00 am #8672AnonymousInactive
I will never vote for a pro-death, …..I mean pro-choice candidate. I believe it is immoral and sinful. My vote would first be influenced by this single issue and no matter how anyone words it to sound like to might be worth voting for a pro-choice candidate, I will never do it because in good conscience I just can’t. If someone justifies voting pro-choice no matter how they sugar-coat it, they are justifying murder. Shame, shame.November 1, 2007 at 2:50 am #8674
That’s quite the analogy, Victor. I’ll have to think about this some more.
I still don’t believe in voting on a single issue. It doesn’t seem balanced to me.November 1, 2007 at 4:02 am #8675AnonymousInactive
Abortion aside, I consider all issues when deciding what candidate to vote for. It’s why I stay registered as an independent though most of the time I’ll vote Republican.
However the issue of abortion is not up for negotiation. If both candidates are pro choice I’ll stay home and write both the DNC and RNC a letter informing them of my action and the reason for it.November 1, 2007 at 9:16 am #8676AnonymousInactive"Jon":3jjp0qz2 wrote:That’s quite the analogy, Victor. I’ll have to think about this some more.
I still don’t believe in voting on a single issue. It doesn’t seem balanced to me.[/quote:3jjp0qz2]
My vote is [b:3jjp0qz2]influenced[/b:3jjp0qz2] by the abortion issue. That doesn’t mean I don’t consider anything else. I take into consideration all other issues as well and decide who to vote for.November 1, 2007 at 11:58 pm #8678AnonymousInactive
I do see what you mean and I do have a tendecy of going on the fence on whom to nominate. Not because I can’t find which candidate is best in relation to our faith, but it’s not just about where they stand on issues but there is other factors that come into play (which is kind of what you were touching on…I think). I’d certainly vote for the candidate who didn’t believe in abortion, but had plans to lower the number of abotions. But that would all depend on who else is running.
Honestly, I think there alot of catholics out there that have just given up. They feel they don’t have a fighting chance for there policies to ever go through and would much rather take the lesser of two evils with those [b:2wt4le98]who do have[/b:2wt4le98] a fighting chance. Leaving us with guys like Rudy Giuliani…I’d pick Mitt Romney over him.November 5, 2007 at 7:23 pm #8684AnonymousInactive
In our political climate, being a one-issue voter is, IMHO, dumb. Here’s why.
Lets stay with abortion as the issue. You find a candidate that is totally against abortion. Excellent. Now that same candidate is also a firm beliver that we need more government programs to support the “victim-of-the-month club” folks, so he will actively seek to raise your taxes. Also, since he loves the “victim-of-the-month” folk, he also seeks to eliminate or lessen restrictions on folks coming into this country. Now that they are here, this socialist wants to provide them with housing, clothing, a job, medical benefits, etc, and you, Joe Taxpayer will be required to pay for it. Which of course you obviously can afford to fork over more of your hard earned wages since you are “rich” by his definition (an arbitrary one at that) and “it’s the right thing to do”. next thing you know this guy who came over illegally has all his ammenities paid for (by you via the govt) his kids get free education and you’re now struggling to survive.
But you can rest easy, because your guy doesn’t support abortion.
It’s not easy in our political climate to choose the right guy. You have to take a total look at the persons’s positions, past history, and decide what issues you’ll compromise on.
Baby killing will never stop while our country continues is moral descent. I’m willing to compromise near-term on abortion, if I can get a guy who will ensure the security of our borders so that we have the security to re-focus our efforts on re-gaining lost Christian-based moral ground within our political arena. With that we should then be able to confront abortion. “You’ll never run a marathon without first having shoes”November 5, 2007 at 8:57 pm #8685AnonymousInactive
Chiefu, I somewhat agree with you but see my first post (#6) and take the issue in light of the point I bring up. You seem to ignore the fact that there is a hierarchy in morality.
For that reason alone, one can’t use the tallying up system to vote, IMHO.November 5, 2007 at 10:44 pm #8687AnonymousInactive"Victor":29op7u25 wrote:Chiefu, I somewhat agree with you but see my first post (#6) and take the issue in light of the point I bring up. You seem to ignore the fact that there is a hierarchy in morality.
For that reason alone, one can’t use the tallying up system to vote, IMHO.[/quote:29op7u25]
Agree there is a heirarchy in morailty, didn’t think it applied directly to the point. And I think we agree on more than we differ. Womanizing and lying can’t be given too much wieght in the decision or else we wouldn’t elect anyone ” title=”Smile” />
I was trying to illustrate that using only one issue, abortion in this case, as the only determining factor in who to vote for is not wise. First, unless enough anti-abortion officials are elected, no change in Roe v Wade is possible..a wasted vote. Simultaneously, while you may feel good that you have a anti-abortion guy in office, the rest of his policy/viewpoints will/may detrimentally affect you and yours. So using only abortion as the criteria, you have added nothing to the solution and added more problems to deal with (all hyptohetical at this point of course). If your candidate is against abortion but all for homosexual marriage and polygamy, did you win?
My point is when deciding on a candidate, we must take a wholistic view, not narrow our focus on just one issue.
Sorry if this is getting off Catholicism and into politics, but I think it’s relevant and linked.
Its not a secret that many politicians, on the national level for sure and likely at the state level, are corrupt morally. They are married with kids, and a mistress in a DC condo. There have been no ideal Catholic candidates for state or national office that I’ve been able find recently. best (term used loosely) example I can provide right now is Kerry v Bush. Kerry claimed to be Catholic, yet he espouses socialism. Socialism is anti-American no matter how you define it, and relgion, particularly Christianity, is suppressed and opporessed under socialism–the only god allowed in socialism is the State. Bush at least supported the military and does attend regular Christian services.
probly not the best analogy, but all I got right now.
So which is better, voting for a anti-abortion socialist (if there even is one) or someone who is pro-abortion but will protect your religous freedom?
I may have gone off topic, but I still think total package is better criteria than single issue. We currently live in this reality, and we should approach decisions in this reality from a Catholic viewpoint influenced by the realities of this world. (did that make any sense???)January 11, 2008 at 7:16 pm #8728AnonymousInactive
Very good points to all, but it does’nt matter what they say, it’s what they do. How we’re supposed to figure it out beforehand is anyones guess. Point, George Bush is against abortion, but has he changed or attempted to change the law in all these years? All of the candidates gives us their Personal views but in the grand scheme nothing changes. People need to take personal responsibility for their actions.January 12, 2008 at 12:26 am #8730
Funny you should mention this. I was reading a Boston Globe article about Hillary Clinton and I was thinking “how many things is she promising and how many times will she do the opposite?”
And that’s the thing that gets me about these presidential campaigns/elections: regardless of who we vote for the president will have to work within the system and with the senators and representatives, whom we also elected, who may disagree with the president. The president does not have ultimate authority, but it’s important to remember that the president does have strong influence.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.