![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/09\/BabyNewborn.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Various thoughts of mine, and a few from friends of mine as well (in blue<\/span> and green<\/span> fonts):<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n You yourself would vote for a Klansman who thought it was fine and dandy to kill black people; thought slavery and Jim Crow were great, etc.? This fact in and of itself would not immediately disqualify the candidate? That<\/strong><\/em> is the strength and force of the analogy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n I think this analogy (and reductio ad absurdum<\/em>) in and of itself destroys the Catholic rationale for voting for pro-aborts (i.e., over against a pro-lifer on the same ballot). These are very serious and important ethical issues, and I continue to believe that abortion is the greatest social problem and evil of our time: much as slavery was in the 19th century.<\/p>\n \u201cLessen Evil\u201d Votes for Hillary?\u00a0<\/a>(vs. Mark Shea) [4-7-17]<\/p>\n Debate: Do Liberal Social Policies Lessen Abortion & Poverty?<\/a>\u00a0[4-12-17]<\/p>\n Simcha Fisher\u2019s \u201cNew\u201d Pro-Life Critique of \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Lifers\u00a0<\/a>[Simcha\u00a0did<\/em>\u00a0vote for Hillary Clinton] (+ vigorous\u00a0Facebook discussion<\/a>) [8-2-17]<\/p>\n Are \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Lifers Racists & \u201cAnti-Woman\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0(vs. John Cavanaugh-O\u2019Keefe) [8-30-17]<\/p>\n \u201cNew\u201d vs. \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Life Strategies<\/a>\u00a0(vs. John Cavanaugh-O\u2019Keefe) [8-31-17]<\/p>\n Left-Wing \u201cNew Pro-Lifers\u201d Are Also Pro-Life (DUH!)<\/a>\u00a0[9-20-17]<\/p>\n On Being a So-Called \u201cSingle-Issue\u201d Pro-Lifer\u00a0<\/a>[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 1-25-18]<\/p>\n Do Democratic Presidents Cause Fewer Abortions to Occur?<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 2-28-18]<\/p>\n Ratzinger\u2019s \u201cProportionate Reasons\u201d & a Pro-Abort Vote<\/a>\u00a0[11-6-18]<\/p>\n Debate: SCOTUS & GOP in Relation to Abortion Rates<\/a>\u00a0[11-15-18]<\/p>\n Dialogue on Conservative vs. Liberal Pro-Life Voting<\/a>\u00a0[2-9-19]<\/p>\n Explaining the Pro-Life, Christian Vote for Trump Yet Again<\/a>\u00a0[4-30-19]<\/p>\n Dialogue: Christian Witness, Trump, & Prudential Voting\u00a0<\/a>(vs. Deacon Steven D. Greydanus) [5-10-19]<\/p>\n Abortion Declines Under Trump (Surprise, New Pro-Lifers!)<\/a>\u00a0[1-10-20]<\/p>\n Liberal & Conservative Pro-Life Outlooks: A Dialogue<\/a>\u00a0[1-18-20]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n\nHow could an obedient, magisterial Catholic (consistently<\/em>, as opposed to \u201ccanonically\u201d<\/strong>) vote for one who favors abortion in all nine months, when a pro-lifer is on the ballot?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI don\u2019t ever vote for childkillers. I would by default if two pro-aborts were on a ballot and I had to choose the lesser of two evils. The Church permits that, but I think it is impermissible to vote that way when a pro-lifer (or, one who is \u2014 as part of a pro-life outlook \u2014 specifically anti-abortion)<\/em> is on the ballot.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nPerhaps someone (a liberal \/ \u201cnew pro-life\u201d Catholic) can answer my recent (still unanswered query): would you vote for a KKK Imperial Wizard, overlooking the fact that he favored the lynching of black people, since he has other<\/em> positions you like, and you\u2019re not really voting for the killing?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI don\u2019t see any ethical difference at all: none<\/em><\/strong>. In this case, the analogy to KKK racism and murder is perfectly valid.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMy esteemed friend, Nathaniel Sperling<\/a> wrote:<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\nDave, we\u2019ve had several good discussions on this, and I, as I\u2019ve said before, respect that you\u2019re willing to engage in a frank, but civil and charitable, conversation on this topic.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nLikewise . . .<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI think this an inapt comparison since it ignores the difference between someone who is commanding\/overseeing that gravely immoral acts be carried versus someone who is tolerating, or, at worst, passively supporting, gravely immoral acts. Pro-choice politicians generally fall into the latter category. Remember, we\u2019re not talking about the sin committed by the politician themselves (and, yes, tolerating\/supporting gravely immoral acts, especially if you have the ability\/power to try and prevent them, is objectively wrong, although we have no way of knowing how said sin is imputed on their soul, but we can say it is objectively wrong, even if there are mitigating factors that might reduce, even eliminate, the sin imputed to them), but whether it is objectively wrong for a Catholic to support said politician in spite of (not because of) their immoral policy and for a proportionate reason.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\n\nI say that no one not insane would do so. And if they wouldn\u2019t do that, I don\u2019t see why they think they could vote for a Democrat childkilling advocate. There is zero<\/em><\/strong> ethical difference.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nUnder no circumstances would I support . . . a Stalinist, or Maoist: these are ideologies that are so murderous and vile (each one has millions of deaths and brutality on a scale that is utterly mind-boggling) that I think we would all agree there can never be proportionate reason to justify it.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nExactly. Thank you for confirming my analogy. I say that almost no one would vote even for a Klansman, who is equally evil in essence, but has caused far fewer deaths by murder than any of those three groups. Legal abortion has now far surpassed<\/em> the numbers of murders by Stalin,\u00a0 Mao, and other mass murdering dictators and their minions.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMy equally esteemed friend, Jonathan Prejean<\/a> interjected:<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\n\nNathaniel, I am genuinely curious about this position, because I have never understood it. Objectively, abortion is the most serious social justice issue in sheer numbers and gravity. That is simply being objective, so it must be given the most moral weight. It is analogous to slavery at the time of the Civil War; there is no real basis for debate in that respect. The government\u2019s complicity in abortion eclipses every other issue.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nWhatever justification is given for a pro-choice candidate today could have been given (and, in fact, was given) for pro-slavery candidates. I do not think such votes were justified then, and I don\u2019t think they could possibly be justified now. I can see not voting or voting third party if you honestly believe the cause is hopeless and lost, which was the stance I took in 2016, after Roberts turned liberal. But I don\u2019t know how you can possibly rationalize supporting the institutionalization of abortion any more than people could rationalize voting for slavery. The proportionate reasons don\u2019t add up.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\nSlavery [was] a similarly grave evil inflicted on millions of people. At the time, there were people who argued that the government should simply allow it to die out on its own over time by removing the economic need for it. This justification was used to vote against the Radicals who favored abolition. It\u2019s the same poor excuse now as it was then. Instead of pro-life, which has now been so abused by the opposite side, I wonder if we shouldn\u2019t start calling ourselves the new abolitionists.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n[directed to someone else] would you agree that slavery would be a correct analogy in terms of (1) affecting millions of lives and (2) being more permitted than practiced by government? I haven\u2019t been able to find a significant difference in terms of moral position between abortion and slavery in that regard.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n[to someone other than Nathaniel] So you would not (I\u2019m assuming; perhaps wrongly) vote for a KKK leader on the grounds that he believed killing of blacks was justified? In other words, that would be a dealbreaker for you? But you would vote for the radical pro-abort (all nine months) on the grounds that he \u201cholds positions more conducive to the common good and to protection of human dignity and human life than his opponent.\u201d Both persons hold immoral views regarding the murder of innocent people. I see no difference. Perhaps you would be so kind as to inform me of the difference in ethical principle.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIf you don\u2019t answer, I say it is a cop-out and you would then be tacitly admitting the strength and force of the analogy. If you wouldn\u2019t vote for the Klansman, you need to explain why you would vote for people who butcher nine-month-old [from conception] babies.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n[This was blown off; so I replied]: Let me ask you, then, if I may: Does it bother you that a pro-life Democrat votes for the very people that Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc., firmly believe are the ones that will further their abortion agenda? Do you really think they are so stupid as to not know which candidate will promote their agenda?<\/div>\n\n\n*<\/div>\nThey\u2019re voting Democrat in order to maintain and increase abortions. The \u201cnew pro-lifer\u201d \/ pro-life Democrat votes for the same people with the illusion that they will lower the numbers of abortions. Something has to give there. I think they are correct. There was a reason Hillary Clinton was given the \u201cChampion of the Century\u201d award by Planned Parenthood.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n[to a third person]\u00a0I don\u2019t think it works to make the distinctions of legal and illegal, because slavery was legal in the United States, just as abortion is now. Moral law transcends human laws. Slavery was legal before 1865. The Klansman who espoused the lynching of blacks\u00a0en masse<\/em> is immediately disqualified as a proponent of murder. And so are virtually all Democrats running today.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPro-Life Democrats today, by analogy, would also be willing to vote for a KKK Grand Imperial Wizard. I would not ever do such a thing. There are things that immediately disqualify a person.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\nIf two pro-aborts are on the ballot; we can vote for the relatively less evil one; I agree. I\u2019m saying I would not personally vote for either, but that\u2019s just my own personal opinion. Currently, we have rabid pro-abortion vs. an avid anti-abortion President. The choice is as easy as almost any I can imagine in November. Three pro-lifers added to the Supreme Court . . .<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\nEven though the slavery analogy makes [some] sense, I still think it\u2019s inappropriate. I\u2019m not denying the evils of abortion, but it just seems like comparing it to slavery (America\u2019s original sin) . . . is overwrought, and, further, unhelpful. I<\/span>t seems like such analogies serve little purpose other than to rile up the preached-at choir and anger\/offend people who are pro-choice, which, again, seems counterproductive to actually trying to get them to change their views, and makes it harder for us to collaborate with people who are pro-choice on areas outside of abortion where there might be agreement.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\n\n\nYou have not overcome the force of the analogy. It\u2019s not simply an emotional argument or name-calling. These are valid, legitimate reductio<\/em> arguments by analogy. The ethics are equivalent: the wholesale murder or grotesque oppression and bondage of millions of human beings.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nI\u2019m not \u201ccalling my enemies Klansmen\u201d; rather, I am saying that their ethics in supporting people who uphold the abortion genocide is indistinguishable from KKK morality. I have seen no one overcome the analogy so far; few have even tried, and I think it is because, down deep, they know that it has force.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nThe purpose of the analogy is to wake up folks<\/strong> <\/em>and to virtually beg and plead with them to recognize the evil that they are supporting and literally making possible, by continuing to vote for pro-abort politicians. It\u2019s like the thunderings of the prophets in the Old Testament, where God had the prophet Hosea actually marry a prostitute, to get people to wake up out of their sinful stupor in following idolatry and even child sacrifice (another direct analogy to what is happening now), or Isaiah walking around naked. The prophets were sounding the alarm, and it made them mighty unpopular, and virtually all of them were martyred as a result.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\nI think these analogies are unhelpful in terms of trying to convince pro-choice people to change their views. Further, these kinds of analogies will, in offending and enraging pro-choice people, will prevent us from being able to work with pro-choicers on areas where we do agree.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nFor instance, like it or not, many of today\u2019s economic populists are pro-choice, and it\u2019s hard to envision them wanting to work with us to fix the economy if we\u2019ve just finished comparing [them] to slavery apologists [and the KKK].<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIn fact, I had to ban the discussion of abortion on my threads because, having a mix of pro-life and pro-choice FB friends, oftentimes when I would bring up support for various economic populists (such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. AOC, etc.), some pro-lifer would bring up the subject of abortion (often in a combative and aggressive way), which would then cause pro-choicers to fire back, and next thing I know, a discussion on promoting economic populism becomes a nasty argument between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nNathaniel, I\u2019m with you on the \u201cwise as serpents\u201d stance requiring that people be silent at times. I actually think that this example might help people to empathize more with us. In other words, the point is not to judge the opposition but to point out that they shouldn\u2019t expect us to be less strident on the point that those who opposed slavery or the KKK. Sometimes the issue is so important that you simply must take a stand.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\nI can work with anyone, where there is common ground (and we all should be able to do that). I put up articles commending the friendship between Justices Scalia and Ginsburg. Your argument here is merely a pragmatic one (\u201cit offends folks of a particular persuasion x<\/em>, which upholds an intrinsically sinful act, to identify it as such, so we ought not do it, in order to work together\u201d). If we followed this philosophy, no societal evil could ever be publicly questioned:
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u201cWe can\u2019t question gay marriage because it offends millions of gays and therefore we can\u2019t work with them to oppose terrorists or whatever else we agree on.\u201d
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u201cLincoln and even more \u2018polemical\u2019 abolitionists shouldn\u2019t have said that slavery was evil because it offended slaveholding Southerners, making it impossible to work with them on issues where there was agreement.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*
\n\u201cWe can\u2019t condemn racists today, lest we offend them . . . \u201c<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*
\nWhere does it end<\/em>? Nowhere in the Bible does it ever teach a principle that we can\u2019t or shouldn\u2019t condemn evil because it will be pragmatically unwise or offend the hearers who hold the views.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nWe must proclaim moral truth. We can\u2019t compromise that. We can be nice and kind personally to those who hold wrong views; that\u2019s fine and I do that. But it doesn\u2019t follow that we can\u2019t speak in the way I am speaking, in publicly condemning the evil of abortion, and the wrongfulness of how it is upheld, as a result of millions of proclaimed pro-lifers who vote for the very same people that Planned Parenthood endorses, as ones who will continue to allow legal abortion to continue and flourish.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nOur job is not to have all and sundry love us because we are so \u201ctolerant and reasonable.\u201d Christianity is not a popularity contest. We have to speak truth, and be hated for it, as Jesus said we would be: all the way to martyrdom, if that is what is required. Christianity ain\u2019t for wimps, in other words. It is always<\/em><\/strong> countercultural (i.e., insofar as culture is evil and sinful). It will always<\/strong><\/em> be hated by the world, and so will we if we consistently live it out and believe it.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\nI\u2019m not talking about politics, but about consistent Christian ethical and moral principles. Perhaps this is why we are disagreeing. We are talking about two different things. We cannot not<\/em><\/strong> talk about this, simply because it offends people and makes political compromise more difficult. We have<\/strong><\/em> to try to rescue those being led to slaughter.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nYou have said won\u2019t be an ally of bigots or Maoists or Stalinists (again, thank you for confirming my point), yet you will with folks who think it is perfectly permissible by law to take a fully-formed baby about to be born, deliver him or her up to the neck, insert scissors into the poor child\u2019s neck and remove their brain. And all because they have no rights at all, not being yet outside the womb. Partial-birth infanticide is insane, diabolical madness, and was supported by every Democrat candidate for President in the primaries, except for Tulsi Gabbard (who is still pro-abortion, but to a less extreme degree).
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nPlease tell me the ethical difference between these groups of people. A person who would sanction that heinous evil is no better in that respect<\/em><\/strong> than a racist bigot KKK leader. What is the essential difference<\/em>? You tell me.
\n*
\nMost good so-called \u201cpro-choice\u201d Democrats and new pro-life voters would never consider voting for KKK Imperial Grand Wizard for one second; yet they will vote for the advocate of wholesale murder of defenseless preborn children. I don\u2019t see any ethical distinction whatever and in my opinion no one has yet explained how the analogy can be overcome.
\n*<\/div>\nWould anyone actually say that they would vote for a KKK leader because they advocated\u00a0other<\/i>\u00a0good policies, such as government-paid daycare, stipends for poor pregnant women, welfare programs that help poor families, opposition to wars, etc.?: and that they were not voting for lynchings and bigotry and racist discrimination and hatred when they did so, but for these other<\/em> compassionate policies?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI will never ever vote for a pro-abort if a pro-lifer is on the ballot. I think pro-lifers who do so (or any Christian of any stripe) have blood on their hands and help to bolster, further, and uphold the abortion genocide, as (in effect) a \u201cuseful idiot\u201d for Planned Parenthood and its grotesque and diabolical mass murder \/ harvest body parts agenda.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n***<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nRelated Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nChristians Voting for Pro-Aborts?!?!<\/a>\u00a0[4-4-04]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nTen Reasons Why Pro-Lifers Vote for Pro-Aborts<\/a>\u00a0[10-29-08]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nReply to Democrats for Life<\/a>\u00a0[5-1-12]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOn the Complaint that Pro-Lifers are \u201cSingle-Issue\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[9-24-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOn Trump & the \u201cSupreme\u201d Pro-Life Cause<\/a>\u00a0[8-16-16]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nReply to \u201cLeft-Wing\u201d Pro-Lifers (Crisis Pregnancy Centers, the Supreme Court, and \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Life Efforts to Help Struggling Pregnant Women)\u00a0<\/a>[10-24-16]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nDialogue with Deacon Steven Greydanus on Voting & Pro-Life<\/a>\u00a0[11-8-16]<\/div>\n