Catholic Exchange

Pro-lifer’s Dilemma

Call it the pro-lifers' dilemma. It comes down to this: conscientious opponents of abortion now face the distinct possibility of having no acceptable choice in the presidential election of 2008. After all, even staying home on election day could be seen as a copout.

The prolife community has been fretting over this problem for months, but there's  no consensus on what to do about it. Heading into the primary season, the only thing that's clear is that the situation is distressing and the dilemma all too real.

Start with the bedrock fact that all of the Democratic contenders are determined supporters of legalized abortion. Despite sweet talk about treating prolifers with respect and reducing the number of abortions, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards see the right to abortion as sacrosanct. Clinton has pledged that one of her first acts as president would be to reverse the prolife policies of George W. Bush.   

There are professed pro-life candidates on the Republican side of course — Thompson, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and others — but Rudolph Giuliani, an unblushing pro-choicer, has been ahead in the polls and out in front of the pack for months. Giuliani says abortion is "wrong," but he supports the "constitutional right" to have one.

A run at the White House by a pro-life independent candidate perhaps? The testimony of history is that an independent candidate would have as much chance of winning as the proverbial snowball in a warm place. Like it or not, his or her main contribution would be to siphon off GOP votes.

All this is, to put it mildly, no laughing matter. As opponents and supporters of abortion all understand very well, the abortion-related issue really at stake in the 2008 presidential race is the power to nominate new justices to the Supreme Court.

 As matters now stand, on abortion and much else, the high court is divided 4-4-1-four liberals, four conservatives, plus Anthony Kennedy, a classic swing voter but a supporter of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion back in 1973.

There will be no voluntary departures from the Supreme Court before a new president is chosen. The justices are at least as interested as anybody else in how that turns out. But what happens after the election is another story.

Departures from the court on the conservative side in the next few years are obviously possible but probably unlikely. The situation is, however, very different with the liberals.

Justice John Paul Stevens is 87. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a cancer survivor and is said to be in frail health. Justice David Souter is reported not to like his job. All vote pro-choice. The next president could have a shot at replacing one, two, or even all three.

As president, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and the rest of the Democrats could be counted on to nominate successors who also support Roe v. Wade. Giuliani says he would choose strict-constructionist jurists, without caring much where they came down on Roe. To varying degrees, the other Republicans would presumably be more sensitive to prolife concerns in making this particular choice.

In the year leading up to the election much can-and undoubtedly will-change. Even so, pro-lifers are understandably apprehensive that by next November they may have no really acceptable option before them.

So, what does a conscientious prolife voter do then? Try your best to identify the lesser of two evils, I guess, and-holding your nose, averting your eyes, and saying a little prayer-cast your ballot accordingly.

Comments

44 responses to “Pro-lifer’s Dilemma”

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    What kind of advice is this for Catholic voters?!  It's as if you're already resigning to the idea that it WILL be between two pro-abortion candidates.  We can do more than just wait and "hold our nose and avert our eyes."  Get active and go to your caucuses and primaries.  Have a strategy to defeat the pro-abortion candidate of the party.  Pro-lifers hang together and commit to only voting for delegates who will vote with a pro-life caucus for a pro-life candidate.  And if that doesn't work, do what's right, come what may.  We're not called to get results, just do the right thing. 

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I agree Michelle.  I was disturbed by the summation given by Mr. Shaw.  I like your answer better.

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    O Lord, deliver us from having to vote for either of the current leading candidates!!

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    EmbarassedWow! What a choice! A Democrat who we know for sure will appoint Supreme Court Judges who are "Pro Abortion" or a Republican who is Pro Choice who says he will appoint Conservative Judges . What a predicament we find ourselves in this up coming Presidential Election! —- Having been in this situation before in a Louisiana Governor's Election between Edwin Edwards and David Duke, I had to make the tough decision between not voting and allowing a KKK member to become Governor or "eating crow" and vote for a crook who is now in prison who I swore I would never vote for. I "ate crow". I still have an upset stomach from that experience. You too may have to hold your nose and choose the least of the two evils! "Down the Hatch"! Yell

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Has anyone looked into the record of Mike Huckabee.  From what I have seen so far he seems to be a great canidate for Pro-Life.  Is he the canidate we are looking for?  There is no way I will ever vote Democatic due to the abortion issue nor could I ever vote for Rudy Guliani.  Isn't it against our faith to vote for a Pro-Choice canidate? Let the chips fall as they may.  Stick with God instead of our own intelect. 

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mr. Shaw is correct. If the nominating process yields two pro-abortion candidates, our civic obligation to vote, supported by the Church, obliges us to vote for the lesser of two evils.

    Christ never said it would be easy to be a Christian.

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The "dilemma" is easily solved by voting for Ron Paul, the most Catholic friendly candidate running in either party.  In fact, he's the most principled politician in the Congress. No candidate is more pro-life (He's delivered more than 4,000 babies!).  No candidate is more pro-home schooling.  No candidate agrees more with John Paul the Great or Pope Benedict about the Iraq war, embryonic research, etc. etc.  The list goes on and on.  Why not join the likes of Catholic writer Thomas Woods and many others and come on over to "Catholics for Ron Paul" and see for yourself?  We're at http://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Voters that think they have no choices may be misinformed, lazy idiots. Alan Keyes a strong Catholic is a candidate. Do Catholics know him? Probably not. Whose fault? The voter.

    Ron Paul is a very good candidate and arguably the candidate with the greatest personal integrity of the whole pack. By the way he is not the wacko as portrayed in lamestream media.

    Tancredo isn't to bad either. Although his war position is strong. Still he is pro life, limited government, immigration control etc. as are the others

    And so on.

    Although none of these candidates will be a perfect match for some they are in a much higher moral league than the 'front' runners. Voters should stop listening to ABC, msnbc, cbs, ny times, boston globe, washington post etc. and find out who the candidates are directly!!!

    There is a term for many americans who no longer think for themselves but swallow what the government and the press tell them, it is 'Sheepel.'

    I am purposely antagonistic in this case because I find the proposition that there is no one to vote for a crock of poop. The question begs the question; if the current candidates are unacceptable then why don't you find someone else?

    To pick the lesser of two evils is EVIL and morally unacceptable.

    Kent C. Bois

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I noticed someone likes Mike. Be careful he's cut from the same cloth as Bush. He will betray the people that vote for him just as Bush did.

    Kent C. Bois

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Even though Keyes is a Catholic, Ron Paul is more Catholic in his policies than Keyes. Also, of Tancredo, Keyes and Paul, Ron Paul is the only viable candidate at this point. Did you hear Sean Hannity gasp when Zogby told him that his polling in New Hampshire indicated that Paul might surprise some front runners with him getting up to 18% of the vote there? ?

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thanks, Mr.Durst. Yours is a constructive–truly pro-life–choice in a sea of unpalatable alternatives. If Catholics would spend half the time and energy supporting a good candidate that we expend preaching to the choir about Rudy and Hillary, we might actually have a real choice next November!

    Heidi Hess Saxton Editor

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    God loves you .

    As the article is headlined, it’s a ‘pro-life dilemma’. The solutions are among these posts. Pick a pro-lifer you can live with among his (or her) policies on other issues, and work for him.

    For me, Ron Paul at least seems to be ‘outside the Beltway’ buddies syndrome, where such as Dubya and the Goreacle and yon Billary and Mayor Rudy have more in common with each other than with any of us. Still, I have qualms about his willingness to take on the ongoing longer-term terror war; about that issue, any President would have no choice – loss in that war would be catastrophic. As well, Paul muddles about our border security and its correspondence with illegal immigration, and that frustrates me.

    The options are not simple – but, they never have been. The ‘lesser of two evils’ has long stuck in my craw.

    PRAY a lot.

    Remember, I love you, too .

    In the Suffering of Christ, and in His hope of His Resurrection,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @catholicexchange.com or … yahoo.com)

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Let's remember it's a potential dilemma.  We may face it.  So while I encourage Republicans to labor full force for a pro-Life candidate the public commentators are beginning a debate now.  It's good to think about it now since we don;t want to be starting this discussion post-Convention.

    Pro-Lifers are on the same side.  We must debate each other in charity.  This could be a very hard time for us.  Let's allow each other to express ideas without treating those of the other viewpoint as though we were – Hilliary!

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I have this crazy idea that if all pro-life people would change their party to  Independent the two major parties would have to sit up and take notice. First that we do not accept the pro-choice candidates and second, that they would have no idea of how we might vote.  This means giving up the right to vote in primary elections but if they get the message that we want pro-life candidates, they may be more likely to look for pro-life candidates to run for the various offices.

  15. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If what we all fear happens,it is definitely time for a third party candidate.  We need to show the political establishment just how angry and fed up we are!  What we need is a very charismatic female who is pro life, anti-war , and a tree hugger.

    We are likely to win if only that person existed!

  16. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    One of the reasons Rudy is doing so well, is that pro-lifers are divided right now among Huckabee, Paul, Tancredo and Hunter.  (And some misguided are still supporting one of the "top tier" who are not pro-life, but have pro-life endorsements.) 

    We MUST get together and work out our other issues.  We are a big enough constituent to throw the general election, but we are not big enough by ourselves to prevail in a primary.  If we believe that the protection of innocent human life is the #1 issue, then we just might need to try to reach some consensus about the other issues and then coalition with those who don't oppose us on those, but demand their candidate be right on their issue. 

    I believe we ought to be coalitioning with people who believe strongly against illegal immigration, and amnesty for illegals.  That leaves out Huckabee.  And there is only a very small constituency within the Republican Party that believes as Ron Paul about the war.  That leaves Hunter and Tancredo.  Though they are both only polling small percentages right now, that can change.  Let's get behind these two guys right now. 

  17. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Voting for the lesser of two evils means that only evil people will run.

     

    Voting for a third party candidate is not wasting your vote, even if it means 'wasting' your vote for this presidential election.

     

    If a pro-life, third party candidate gets enough votes to throw the election to Hillary, the GOP will realise that, while being pro-life may not guarantee winning, being pro-choice will guarantee losing. Political parties take that kind of lesson to heart. If you do not vote for candidates that you consider to be immoral, and the GOP clearly loses elections because of it, the GOP will stop fielding immoral candidates– because they want to win!

     

    Christianity survived Julian the Apostate. Good christians can survive four to eight years of a Democratic Whitehouse.

     

    The important thing is that you vote. Politicians are very curious about why voters behave the way that they do, even voters that disagree with them. People that do not vote are merely a statistic, but politicians have this self-serving habit of pandering to voters– make sure they pander to you, too!

  18. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mr. Shaw is incorrect.  Both the Republicans and the Democrats have failed to support the right to life without exception.  Since Roe v Wade, the Republicans have controlled the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government from 2001-2008 and the Democrats have controlled those branches from 1977-1980 and 1993-1995.  The Republicans appointed 13 US Supreme Court Justices and the Democrats have appointed 5 justices.

    If the standard for an independent pro-life candidate is success, the same standard should apply to the Republican and Democratic parties.  Both parties have failed to introduce, pass, or sign an amendment to the constitution protecting the unborn and both parties have failed to appoint the number of justices to the court to protect the unborn.

    It is time to look at third parties and give them an opportunity to address this injustice.

    In 1860, there was a new party that adopted as part of its platform the abolition of slavery.  The same type of rhetoric was used to defend the status quo for slavery as for abortion.  The difference is that there is still a chance to settle this issue peacefully but it must be settled.

    And as a citizen of Louisiana, I also faced the choice between the Cajun Prince and the former Grand Wizard.  In my calculation of the lesser of two evils, I chose the candidate whom I considered most removable from office.  The majority of the state electorate was cowed by the fear of a “bad image” versus a criminally run regime.

    US citizens and Catholics in particular must not be deceived by the hypocritical “Big Tent” and must hold parties accountable and vote on principle.   

  19. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Michelle, you say, that few members of the Republican Party agree with Ron Paul about the war in Iraq. Who cares?  When I vote, I try to evaluate who stands for the most Christian values.  Ron Paul agrees with John Paul II and Benedict on the war.  I think it would be wise to go with him rather than what most Republicans think.

  20. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I think the point she was making is that his support among Republicans is too low for him to have a reasonable chance to get the nomination. But we'll see.

  21. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I think the attitude of 'do the right thing and let God worry about the consequences' is the one to adopt. Any politician who can not recognize that it is morally unacceptable to allow tiny people to be cut up in little pieces while alive, or worse yet recognizes that it is wrong but continues to support it for political expediency, will compromise on anything and can not be trusted to make good decisions about other issues. Government is suppose to be about people and all decisions are to be made in that context whether the issue is the environment, a war, energy, immigration, or anything else. Let's pray for politicians who are pro-people. If they make their decisions in this light we can be more confident of their ability to lead.

  22. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Did any of you see Mike Huckabee on Fox this morning and if so what did you think of him?

  23. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I find fault with our bishops on this issue. Where is their leadership? Do they really think that the avergae Catholic is going to read their "Voters Conscience Guide" document that they just put out? They need to take a stand -talk names and let the flock know who specifically meets the standards. If they can't do that because they are afraid of the consequences then do the reverse-tell us who doesn't meet the standards.

     

    For Catholics to have any chance to come together is some sort of voting block there must be leadership and a driving force behind it. I cannot think of where that force comes from other than the Catholic bishops of this country.

  24. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Actually it is not the role of the bishops to guide Catholic voters.  It is their role to clearly, without mealy-mouthed equivocation, teach the faith.  Action in the political arena is the lay mission.

  25. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Then why did they issue a Voters guide? What lay mission would take the lead in the political arena? Who will organzie it? You mean to say that a bishop cannot get on a pulpit and say this candidate does not follow Catholic moral teaching and is not following teh tenents of the faith?

     

    I don't mean to be combative here, but quite honestly the Catholic vote is so fragmented because there is no leadership.

     

    We just had a local election in upstate NY and the candidates who won did so because of the Hasidic block vote-politicians seek out these votes and pander to those who are organzied.

  26. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I didn’t see Huckabee today, but I did see him on Face the Nation last Sunday. When asked if he’d be willing to be Guiliani’s VP of course he said he expected to win himself. When asked if he’d be willing choose pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Guiliani’s as his VP he didn’t rule it out and praised Guiliani. That was after he had just questioned how Pat Robertson could throw his suppot to Guiliani. Apparently Huckabee has not more principles than the rest of them, except of course Ron Paul. BTW, check Huckabee’s tax as Gov. of Arkansas. It seems he never met a tax he didn’t like.

  27. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Any Catholic who does not understand that the issue of life is foundational and that the right to life of innocent humans is invioble is a Catholic lacking in moral and faith education.  That education should be ongoing and does not depend on some "voters' guide" and in fact, as illustrated by the way the voters' guide is already being spun, it is clear that without that education, Catholics can't even understand the voters' guide.  (See the thread under the article about Hillary for an example.)  Not that it matters all that much, because how many of them are even going to wade through it anyway?

  28. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Michelle, What about Keyes?

  29. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    But that is the problem in a nutshell. Either Catholics don't understand or disagree with their own Church's teaching on the fundamental issue as laid out by the bishops-the right to life. Election after election we see the Catholic vote basically split about 50/50 with one half voting for yhe pro-abortion candidate. I don't know the answer as to why this happens, but I guess my question or concern is given that fact, what should teh bishops do? Issue a voting guide or become more specific?

  30. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Maybe it WOULD send a message if there were a third party candidate who ran on a completely pro-life platform, and a massive number of pro-lifers voted for that person.  Even if he/she did not win.  We did survive 8 yrs. of Bill….granted Hillary is light-years worse.  Hmm.  We could pray that no justices die/retire in her term, and that the Repub. Party comes to its senses…or that the 3rd party person might win on the second go-round in four years.  BTW, how much are we praying anyway?  Does anyone not believe that it was God Himself who raised Abraham Lincoln from near obscurity to end slavery?  Does anyone not believe that the anti-slavery forces PRAYED that end into existence…along with working with all their might?  Who might God raise up today to end this horrible evil if we along with our other pro-life labors labor deeply in believing PRAYER?!

  31. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Keyes, is — I am sorry to say this, because my husband and I were county coordinators for him in 2000 — not a serious candidate.  He simply does not have the kind of national organization built over a period of time to make him one. He really is in the race only to have a podium.  That isn't necessarily bad. I would love for him to be heard far and wide. But I think he should have tried to position himself for VP or for a prominent position in another administration if he wanted to get to the White House.

  32. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The problem with a third party is that right now we do have a party with a pro-life platform. Many pro-life people have risked and sacrificed to make sure that party is pro-life.  I think, that unless and until that party repudiates the pro-life position, which it will do if it nominates a pro-choice candidate, we should try to hold onto that party as a vehicle for the pro-life movement. It will take years to build a third party.  We really can't delude ourselves about how hard that will be.

  33. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Re: MREINER16‘s post:

    "I find fault with our bishops on this issue. "

    I think the Bishops perceive that losing the Church’s tax exempt status would ultimately lead to enormous evil.  They are embracing the alternative and providing the instruction each of us needs to form our own consciences and vote correctly.  Political leadership should come from the laity, not the clergy.

    Regards,
    Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic [Latin rite] & generally inveterate amateur)
  34. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Re: viable alternatives

    Well, perhaps this isn’t truly viable.

    But maybe it falls in the category of “doing the right thing.”

    What about a write-in of Sam Brownback?

    Is Ron Paul’s candidacy any more certain, really?

    Regards,
    Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic [Latin rite] & generally inveterate amateur)
  35. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Why not Mike Huckabee?

  36. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Two elections I thought about Keyes, but when I learned of his stance on the Middle East I dumped him.  I could never in good conscience vote for a candidate whose policies would do so much harm to the Palestinian Christians of the Holy Land.

  37. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Ron Paul is pro-life.

    Ron Paul has a growing national following.

    Ron Paul is raising money faster than most of the candidates.

    It is worth splitting the Republican Party to bring them back to their core values. I'd rather have Hilary and know what I'm dealing with than Rudy whose only claim to faim is 9/11. I would never vote for hilary, but we don't owe anthing to a republican party that doesn't represent our values.

  38. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    First, if you, like I, have family and friends who have been wedded to the Democratic party for decades (in Michigan, our pro-abortion “Catholic” governor has proved to be less than brilliant in economic matters as well), trying to get them to understand what the bishops have said (as well as the Church has taught since the beginning) will be a losing battle. Perhaps a different approach needs to be taken.

    Have you looked up Hillary's socialist stances? If we can't talk with them on the issue of Life, perhaps pointing out she is in fact a socialist and give them supporting documentation, we could at least get them not to vote for her in the primaries. This might be an especially good argument with anyone who has been in the military service and has fought against socialist and communist regimes, from WWII to the current time.

    Lastly, Our Lord stated that some demons could only be exorcised by prayer and fasting. May I suggest you visit, http://www.cenaclesoflife.org/index.php, which offers a plan for doing just that. We must all get on our knees, pray and make reparations to end the culture of death.

  39. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    We must pray and make reparations for an end to abortion.  Pray the rosary each day.  Fast one day each week on bread and water or a meager diet that your health can tolerate.

    The late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.(1914-2000) made a somber statement.  “Unless we recover the zeal and the spirit of the first century Christians-unless we are willing to do what they did and to pay the price that they paid, the future of our country, the days of America are numbered.”

  40. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Shaw's closing comments about holding our noses and voting for the lesser of 2 evils could be interpreted in different ways.  I would agree with frfrancis in the sense that there is scandal involved with supporting a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage politician who publicizes his Catholic identity.  Perhaps voting for such a candidate is the greater evil.  

  41. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Amen Fr. Francis!  Ron Paul seems to me to be the obvious choice to the Catholic dilemma.  If someone disagrees, I'd be intersted in hearing your reasons.

  42. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I agree Mr. Shaw's article is premature, but perhaps his intent was to energize pro-life folks before his dilemma is a fait accompli.  When the general election comes around, it may very well be a difficult choice for a Catholic voter. But we're not there yet.

  43. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I love Alan Keyes, but frankly do not understand why he jumped in this race after there were already two candidates who agree with him on the key issues, Tancredo and Hunter.  I don't believe he is serious about his run either.  He adds to the debate, certainly, and that is why I think he entered. 

    By the way, I think Catholics are being mislead by the American Bishops on Catholic teaching regarding Illegal Immigration, and it really needs to be addressed.  It is the cause of so much confusion among pro-lifers. 

  44. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Re: Michelle‘s post:

    "I think Catholics are being mislead by the American Bishops on Catholic teaching regarding Illegal Immigration,"

    Could you explain this a little more, please?

    Regards,
    Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic [Latin rite] & generally inveterate amateur)

Leave a Reply