View Single Post
Old 23rd August 2012, 10:37 AM
Posts: n/a

Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
The moral weight of an issue is not the same as whether or not it is infallibly taught. The Church has infallible teachings on lesser issues as well as weighty issues.

Ok, I understand your here on the general concept and the words I have used to explain myself were general so I will stick to the specific example.
Doesn't abortion carry more moral weight than "immigration or Socialized health care vs our current health care"? - Thats the real question I did not mean to imply that infallible teaching, no matter what the teaching, has greater moral weight over ever non-infallible teaching.
I would like a comment on the moral weight of the example above, and while we are at it, please give an example of infallible teaching that has lesser moral weight of fallible teaching.

Examples of cases where one could vote for a pro-abortion candidate:

How is #1 acceptable knowing that it would hurt the pro-life cause?

#4, how can the voter know what can and cant be done? All things are possible with God, and isnt being a pro-abort in itself really show the credibility of the moral compass of the person? How can they be trusted to care about any other humane issue if they support the brutal murder of innocent humans.

And thanks for the examples, they really help in showing HOW to apply the concepts to real life and in my opinion, help guide the reader to better understand the limited situations where voting for a pro-abort is acceptable, rather then them walking away thinking they can just vote for a pro-abort for any reason...but I still think we need more clarification on "More Weighty Issues" - this needs to be defined better and not left up tp the subjectivity of the average Catholic who votes pro-abort.

1. The pro-abortion candidate's party is generally pro-life, and electing him would give his party a majority in the Senate. The party in the majority has a lot more power to pass legislation and block legislation. If you vote for the pro-life candidate in a situation in which a party that is generally pro-abortion would take power, they can block all pro-life bills, even if the bill has enough votes to pass.
How is #1 acceptable knowing that it would hurt the pro-life cause?

2. The election is for an office which has no influence over the abortion issue. You would then be morally obligated to vote for whichever candidate will do the most good and the least harm. The pro-abortion candidate does little or no harm on that issue, since his office has no influence over the issue. E.g. a position on the school board:
A. candidate is pro-abortion, but wants to make a series of reasonable improvements to the school
B. candidate is pro-life, but wants to make a series of harmful changes to the school system

3. The pro-abortion candidate favors additional restrictions on abortion, which have a chance of passing; this candidate has a track-record of being able to pass bills. The pro-life candidate has no track-record of passing (or even voting for) pro-life bills, and his proposed legislation (e.g. banning all abortion) has no chance of passing.

4. The pro-abortion candidate would not change current laws on abortion. The pro-life candidate would not be able to change current laws on abortion. The pro-abortion candidate has the better position on other weighty issues.[/quote]

Last edited by TheGiftOfLife : 23rd August 2012 at 10:40 AM.
Reply With Quote