earlier post. But the question is, at what point is abstaining from the process altogether (at least in the national election) or voting for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning legitimate? If the little ones in the womb could speak, how would they want us to vote?
I decided to examine the two presidential candidates' positions with respect to intrinsic evils. But first the definition: an intrinsically evil act is one that is always evil no matter the circumstances. The life issues are the most obvious cases involving intrinsic evil. There is nothing that can make an abortion acceptable - ever! It is always, in every circumstance, evil. Someone may object that the Church allows the removal of an ectopic pregnancy or a cancerous uterus even during pregnancy. But those acts are NOT abortions. In both cases, a diseased organ is removed, i.e., the uterus or the fallopian tube and the baby unhappily cannot be saved. But there is nothing done to directly kill the baby and, if technology ever provides artificial wombs, those babies can be saved. Essentially, that is the principle of double effect where the evil that occurs (the death of the child) is not sought or intended.
Other examples of intrinsic evils are embryonic stem cell research which kills a baby at an early stage to cannibalize his cells for the "good" of others who may benefit from research; removing essential, unpaired organs from a still living organ donor causing premature death; both active and passive euthanasia to hasten the death of a person who may or may not be dying; murder (defined as the deliberate killing of an innocent person; and homosexual sex. Obviously forcing others, or attempting to force others, to engage in intrinsic evils also falls into the category of intrinsic evils. None of these acts can ever be justified in any circumstance.
If you compare the two tickets and the positions of the parties, it becomes clear as crystal which team is more committed to intrinsic evil. The Republican platform supports NO intrinsic evils; the Democrat platform includes several. Obama supports: abortion on demand, infanticide by neglect of babies who survive abortion, embryonic stem cell research, federal funding of Planned Parenthood (which has spent millions on political ads for Obama), exporting abortion to foreign countries, taxpayer funding of contraception including abortifacients mislabeled as contraceptives, violation of freedom of religion and conscience rights including forcing Catholic organizations to provide moral evils in their health plans. Obama also supports same-sex "marriage."
As for Romney, he also favors abortion on a more limited scale. On the other hand, he also says he would like the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and has promised to appoint strict constructionist judges rather than the pro-abortion liberals Obama promises to support. Romney has said he will reinstate the Mexico City Policy to prevent using foreign aid money for abortion. He opposes taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and says he will sign a bill withdrawing Obamacare and the HHS mandate. He opposes same-sex marriage. So there are clear differences between the two candidates on intrinsic evils.
I certainly do not consider Romney an ideal, or even a particularly good, candidate; but when I measure the harm Obama has done to unborn babies, religious rights, and marriage by supporting intrinsic evils, there is no question that limiting the damage to the innocent and to the common good as much as possible means voting for Romney. As a Catholic I will have no qualms of conscience casting a vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket. If I lived in an Obama state like New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, or California rather than a swing state, I might go for a 100% pro-life third party candidate to send a message to the Republican Party to stop taking pro-lifers for granted. (Is there a 100% pro-life candidate?) A conservative vote in those states is pointless. However, Catholics who vote for third party candidates or abstain from voting when they live in states where the outcome is close could contribute to an Obama win. I couldn't, in good conscience, do that. The lives of too many little ones are at stake and I hear them in my heart calling out to be rescued from death.
If Romney keeps his promises, fewer babies will die. More slaughter, publicly funded by taxpayers, is the guaranteed result of an Obama win. So for me, the answer becomes simple. If I listen to the little ones waiting to be born, I hear them begging me to vote for a chance at life. And the only ones holding a lifeline are Romney/Ryan. Vote pro-life on election day!