voting for prochoice over prolife - when acceptable?

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[LittleWaySoul]

I would've answered these all with "depends." It's more complicated than what you've described. 

[WhiteLily]

I will always vote for life. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

voting matters. if abortion cannot become illegal, but you have a chance to reduce abortions and don't do it, you are committing sin. you are placing ideology over human life. to the extent that this scenario plays out in the real world, whoever votes 'no' has the blood of innocents on their hands.

[Jack4]

Material cooperation with evil. Serious reasons excuse. 

[Anomaly]

There is always a chance that abortion laws can be further expanded, or further restricted.  I'm old enough to remember when abortion was illegal.  

You younger voters will tell the next generation you remember when abortion wasn't tax funded and the government could not make you have an abortion if they decided  you shouldn't have a child. 

[Anastasia13]

It's ok when the other person is a massacring evil genius bent on genocide?

 

When the thought of that person having the power to choose to use nuclear weapons makes your entire block's hair turn white?

[Socrates]

On 10/2/2016 at 5:44 PM, Anomaly said:

You younger voters will tell the next generation you remember when abortion wasn't tax funded and the government could not make you have an abortion if they decided  you shouldn't have a child. 

. . . and no doubt, the bleeding heart "Catholics" will find ways to justify those policies, and supporting the politicians who brought them about.

[Papist]

It's about a woman's right to privacy,

[mommas_boy]

Briefly, it's not OK to vote for someone pro-choice in the eyes of a Catholic. Ever.

Off the top of my head, there are two main reasons:

1. Laws other than the outright repeal of Roe v Wade. These include limited restrictions on access to abortion as your questions rightly point out. However, they also include laws for conscientious objectors to de facto participation in abortions. Examples of the latter include rights for individual doctors to say no to prescribing abortifacients such as "the pill" and "the morning after pill" or the "plan B pill", as well as the rights of tax payers and purchasers of health insurance that pays for abortions and abortifacient "contraceptives". I believe that it is very hard to go through even a two-year term of a congressman without having at least one vote called for such a broad category of laws. Further, it is not possible to predict the future as a voter, and know what issues will come up during a tenure in office, so it's not possible for a pro-life voter to be certain that there won't be a vote that could be impactful.
2. While you do point out a very unlikely situation where no comes up, I'll go ahead and assume for a moment that the situation you describe is true. If we somehow know that no vote, related directly or indirectly to the pro-life cause, will come up during a particular tenure in office, Catholics still cannot vote for someone pro-choice. The reason for this is scandal. It means that we are compromising our values when it is convenient to do so. This sets a bad example for others who do not understand our values, and is to be avoided as well.

Hope that this helps,

Kris

Edited October 11, 2016 by mommas_boy
clarification

[polskieserce]

And what exactly are you supposed to do if neither candidate is pro-life?  Hillary Clinton supports abortion as a form of birth control but has criticized the death penalty.  Trump has criticized abortion (though this is mostly just for show) but he favors capital punishment.  Stein and Johnson are also in favor of abortion.

The Church's teaching is to protect life from conception until natural death, even if the person is a heinous killer.  Getting strapped down and injected with toxic chemicals, electrocuted, or forced to breath lethal gas is not a natural death.

[Nihil Obstat]

Exactly which part of "does not forbid recourse" is so difficult for you to understand?

[Anomaly]

6 hours ago, polskieserce said:

And what exactly are you supposed to do if neither candidate is pro-life?  Hillary Clinton supports abortion as a form of birth control but has criticized the death penalty.  Trump has criticized abortion (though this is mostly just for show) but he favors capital punishment.  Stein and Johnson are also in favor of abortion.

The Church's teaching is to protect life from conception until natural death, even if the person is a heinous killer.  Getting strapped down and injected with toxic chemicals, electrocuted, or forced to breath lethal gas is not a natural death.

The Church teaches that the death penalty can be moral.  It is a prudential opinion that current circumstances allow other choices that makes the death penalty unnecessary.

Abortion is never moral according to the Church.

A few dozen are executed every year , less than one per week.   Compare that to overc 13,0000 abortions every week.   Over 700,000 n the US in 2015.  I can understand not being happy with both, but they two issues certainly aren't equal and cancel each other out, making iHillary okay.  

 

[little2add]

the killing of innocent preborn humans to the capital punishment of a heinous premeditated killer is two very different things

[little2add]

and is not a fair comparison