Author Topic: Catholic Voting Guide (Read 22849 times)

Nadir · « **Reply #25 on:** February 06, 2016, 01:05:26 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Ladislaus

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion. So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?

I'm teeter-tottering on the edge of quite confused. : )

No real Catholic would say they're voting for him because "he's for 1st trimester abortion" (an evil) but rather, "because he's against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion" (a good). Presuming no one else is against abortion at all, wouldn't it be permissible to vote for the only candidate who is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion?

Mater, put it this way:
A candidate says:

Quote

I believe it is OK to kill 1 yr old children, but I think killing a 2 or 3 yr old is going too far.

Does that make the issue less confused. He is not against abortion per se. He against aborting older babies, and, I would presume, he is for it in difficult circuмstances, in the case of rape, young girls, women endangered, disabled child, etc.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #26 on:** February 06, 2016, 01:46:24 AM »

Quote from: Nadir

Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: Ladislaus

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion. So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?

I'm teeter-tottering on the edge of quite confused. : )

No real Catholic would say they're voting for him because "he's for 1st trimester abortion" (an evil) but rather, "because he's against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion" (a good). Presuming no one else is against abortion at all, wouldn't it be permissible to vote for the only candidate who is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion?

Mater, put it this way:
A candidate says:
Quote
I believe it is OK to kill 1 yr old children, but I think killing a 2 or 3 yr old is going too far.

Does that make the issue less confused. He is not against abortion per se. He against aborting older babies, and, I would presume, he is for it in difficult circuмstances, in the case of rape, young girls, women endangered, disabled child, etc.

So likewise, you wouldn't support someone who is only in favor of killing disabled children or children who were the result of rape.

So, my next question is whether or not there is any amount of good positions in line with the natural law a candidate could have which would be sufficient to override the evil of being in favor of any sort of abortion?

clare · « **Reply #27 on:** February 06, 2016, 02:10:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: MaterDominici
I appreciate the accurate explanation, but it didn't seem to me to have much effect on the overall conclusion.

No, no, no. Principles matter, Mater. Two people can do the exact same action, materially speaking, but it could be a sin for one but a virtue for the other depending upon their formal intent, and it's the reasoning and principles applied that will determine the formal morality of the action. This is absolutely crucial and cannot be blown off as mere pedantic or academic splitting of hairs.

"Lesser evil" thinking is morally repugnant and must be repudiated by all Catholics. Period.

And there can in fact be radically different material outcomes of applying double effect vs. lesser evil.

So, no, it's absolutely NOT just hair-splitting.

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion. So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?

What if you see it as a matter of not voting for the lesser evil, but voting against the greater evil?

Nadir · « **Reply #28 on:** February 06, 2016, 03:07:10 AM »

MaterDomenici said:

Quote

So likewise, you wouldn't support someone who is only in favor of killing disabled children or children who were the result of rape.

In answer to your first question, Mater. I would never vote for a candidate who supports any abortion whatsoever.

What is this only the disabled and only the child conceived in rape?
Is (being in favour of) the killing of a disabled child or a child of rape any less heinous than (being in favour of) killing a presumedly healthy child or a child conceived within marriage?

Quote

So, my next question is whether or not there is any amount of good positions in line with the natural law a candidate could have which would be sufficient to override the evil of being in favor of any sort of abortion?

No. "Any amount of good positions in line with the natural law" could not overide the evil of supporting abortion in any circuмstance. Isn't abortion the killing of the innocent child that God Himself decreed should live on this earth? How could such a person who is willing to support abortion represent us, our needs and our beliefs etc? He is not fit to do so. No Catholic ought to vote for him.

McCork · « **Reply #29 on:** February 06, 2016, 07:39:55 AM »

Quote from: B from A

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Ladislaus
It is neither "prudent" nor "permissible" to vote for a lesser evil. Sorry. That's false ends-justifies-the-means moral reasoning. It is NOT Catholic.

The principle is that if one ONLY has two choices of evil, he must choose the lesser evil. But "voting" really isn't that....because you can choose NOT TO VOTE, or to vote for a WRITE IN CANDIDATE....at least in the U.S.

Just so I understand what you're saying:

People are arguing that there are only 2 choices:

1. vote for evil candidate X
2. vote for evil candidate Y, who is supposedly slightly less evil than candidate X (because it's only way to keep out supposedly even worse candidate X)

Whereas you are saying that is incorrect, in that we have more choices,

1. vote for evil candidate X
2. vote for evil candidate Y, who is supposedly slightly less evil than candidate X
3. don't vote at all because both X & Y are evil (and our voting system is a complete fraud anyway)
4. write someone else in

i.e. It's not like someone is putting a gun to our head, saying "you must vote for evil candidate X or Y."

Is that what you're saying above?

Yes. We can vote for an evil when we have no other choice but to vote for an evil, and if that time comes, we would be forced to choose the lesser evil. But we DO have a choice to refrain from voting, or to write in a candidate. Until people realize this, evil will forever be voted in, and the degradation of society will continue.