Conclusions from the 10/26/2022 posting…

Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that promote actions that are always opposed to the authentic good of human beings or that undermine the sanctity and dignity of human life, cooperate with evil.

The conscientious voter must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

A conscientious voter chooses a candidate who accepts the grave responsibility to support laws shaped by human values, and opposes laws and policies that violate life and dignity at any stage from conception to natural death.

The conscientious citizen cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.

The conscientious voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify his/her indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

A conscientious citizen should not vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental understanding of human dignity.   The voter should not isolate some particular element of an apparent good to the detriment of the good of society. A voter’s commitment to a single isolated aspect of the common good does not exhaust his/her responsibility toward securing the common good.

There may be times when the conscientious voter, who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act, may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely pursue other authentic human goods.

All else being equal, a conscientious voter should also take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

The conscientious voter should realize that all issues in a society do not carry the same depth of the good and that the obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on the voter’s conscience, choices and action.

The political choices faced by voters not only have an impact on the general peace and prosperity of society in genera; but also seriously impact the lives of the individuals of that society.

The conscientious voter strives to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose a political leader according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.

Yes or No:

Do objective moral norms which are valid for everyone, exist.

Do you think that the flourishing of peace and justice depend on the society’s members believing in a benevolent God Who is the source of the good and the author of moral norms?

Do you think that the family—based on marriage between a man and a woman—is the first and fundamental unit of society and is a sanctuary for the creation and nurturing of children and that it should be defended and strengthened, not redefined or undermined?

Does the good of our society depend on the strength of healthy families?

Does the good of a society depend on its members having a good conscience?

Should a person of good conscience always attempt to make a sound moral judgment based on the truth by examining facts and background?

Should a person of good conscience discern the true good in every circumstance and then choose the right means of achieving it?

Basic human rights will never conflict with objective moral norms?

Does achieving a good end ever justify using immoral means?

Does a good conscience coupled with good moral norms offer the most effective means to protect that the weak and vulnerable and defend human rights and dignity?

Can human reason grasp as true, respect for the dignity of every person?

Does every member of a society have a direct duty to work for a just ordering of that society?

Does a society have an obligation to protect its most vulnerable members?

Are there some things that we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons and as such are intrinsically evil and must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned?

Are these examples of violations of human dignity that we must never do because they are intrinsically evil: genocide, torture, the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, human cloning, destructive research on human embryos, and other acts that directly violate the sanctity and dignity of human life e.g., the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death?

Are these examples of violations of human dignity that we must never do because they are intrinsically evil: acts of racism, treating workers as mere means to an end, deliberately subjecting workers to subhuman living conditions, and treating the poor as disposable?

An individual should not choose to do something that is always opposed to the authentic good of human beings merely as an exercise of his/her personal freedom?

Is a legal system, that supports individual choice to do something that is always opposed to the authentic good of human beings, fundamentally flawed? 

Should we avoid making ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity even if the issue is always opposed to the authentic good of human beings?

Should we avoid considering a particular issue involving human life and dignity as just one issue among many and avoid not assigning priority?

Should we dismiss or ignore serious threats to human life and dignity, to focus on one particular threat? 

You have seen the ads for the upcoming election. I’ve seen those produced by pro-choice advocates that appeal to, and exaggerate, fear in the minds of women of child-bearing age. These advertisements shamelessly champion abortion rights to win the election. Tragically these power-starved advocates are sacrificing the emotional, physical and spiritual health of women and sacrificing children in the womb–only wanting to be born–on the altar of the god of greed. May their tactics fail.

Have you seen or heard pro-choice advocates’ scare-tactic ads about pro-life legislation endangering the life of the mother?  Prolife legislation would address procured abortion, but would not interfere with medical procedures.  A procured abortion is one where an agent wills or intends, either as a means or an end, the death of an unborn child.  Examples of medical procedures that are not procured abortions:

 …when a pregnant woman develops appendicitis.   The doctor treats the pathology, meaning that an appendectomy is performed even though an undesired secondary effect may be the loss of the unborn baby. 

…when a pregnant woman develops cancer.   She may choose whether or not to have chemotherapy and/or radiation or choose alternative treatment even though the course of treatment may result in the undesired secondary effect of the loss of the unborn baby.

…when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy. The doctor treats the condition even though the undesired secondary effect is the loss of the unborn baby.

Pro-life advocates have the welfare of the mother, the unborn child and the born child at heart.