With the U.S. elections upon us, we should take a few moments to recall the type of country our Founding Fathers created and how voting impacts our culpability in the outcomes of legislative actions.
The United States of America is a republic, though some refer to it as a representative democracy, and in a republic/representative democracy, we elect representatives to pass laws in our stead. In essence, we assess political candidates’ agendas and we decide which agenda/candidate best comports with our values.
After this assessment, we cast a vote for that candidate, and this vote implies that we approve of his/her overall agenda. Thus, it is incumbent upon every voter to ensure they vote for candidates who will protect fundamental rights. Unless fundamental rights are secured, they and tangential rights become easily manipulated or destroyed.
The most fundamental right is life. Every other right presupposes the right to life, and without this right, every life becomes vulnerable to the whims of those in power.
The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law… and the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined (Catechism of the Catholic Church).
Right to Life
Every single human being has the right to life, and they should never have this right violated unless it is forfeited by intentionally infringing upon someone else’s right to life, such as when violent acts lead to killing in self-defense. According to Cornell Law School, self-defense is “the use of force to protect oneself from an attempted injury by another. If justified, self-defense is a defense to a number of crimes and torts involving force, including murder, assault, and battery.” Notice that this definition does not include protecting oneself from a child in the womb. This is because a fetus cannot commit crimes such as murder, assault, and battery. Rather, the individual in the womb is an innocent human being who is created through sexual activity in which the mother and father choose to engage. This action implies consent to having a child because the act itself is ordered toward conception. Rape, of course, is the exception to consensual intercourse. So, I think it would be prudent to pause and consider a child who is conceived by rape.
Rape Does Not Justify Abortion
According to the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, approximately 32,101 rape-related pregnancies among adult women occur in the U.S. each year. Although one rape is too many, rape-related pregnancies account for a very small percentage of the overall 6.3 million U.S. pregnancies per year. Still, some argue that abortion should be permitted for rape-related pregnancies despite their low percentage. But let us see if this logic is sound.
The argument our pro-abortion interlocutors proffer is this: A woman who is impregnated by a rapist did not ask for the baby and should, therefore, be allowed to kill the baby by abortion. Furthermore, the woman may undergo severe psychological trauma resulting from the rape, and having a baby conceived in rape would perpetuate her trauma. I grant that rape is traumatic; no doubt it. Does this mean, however, that a woman should have the right to kill her baby? Perhaps we can gain some insight if we approach this question using the following scenario:
A woman is impregnated by her rapist and reluctantly decides to have her baby. One day, when the child is three years old, the mother looks down, sees that the child looks like her rapist, has a flashback to the rape, and decides to kill the child. Should the mother have the right to kill her child? I hope that no one would answer in the affirmative; however, I know some demented abortion advocates would answer in this manner.
Regardless, killing this defenseless child is a crime. In fact, it is murder. The problem for abortion advocates is that the three-year-old child in this scenario is the same child who was in his mother’s womb three years earlier. Nothing has changed except for the child’s domicile. Therefore, intentionally killing a child in the womb is murder. Furthermore, if the child’s father abuses or abandons the child’s mother, thereby creating circumstances in which the mother feels she has no alternative but abortion, that father is equally guilty of murder.
Human Beings Begin at Conception
At the moment of human conception, a being with a unique human (not dog, cat, marsupial, alligator, space alien, or any other species) DNA is created and begins to grow. The being is a human organism, not an organ. Like all other human beings, it needs only time and nutrition to continue its life. It begins the way every human life begins, and this tiny human, which is the most innocent life among us, must be treated as a person. “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being” (Catechism of the Catholic Church). Murder, of course, is contrary to the respect all human beings deserve.
The common law and universal definition of murder is “killing another human being with malice aforethought.” If an innocent human being outside the womb can be intentionally killed by another and that action is labeled murder, then intentionally killing a child inside the womb is also murder. Now, every human being should have the right not to be murdered. If even one person has this right violated by government actions/laws, then every person’s right to life becomes subjective. The capital punishment objection, namely that pro-lifers typically support the death penalty, fails here, because capital punishment should only be used for society’s protection, a form of self-defense (See CCC para. 2263). It should not be used for revenge or efficiency. Note: CCC para. 2267 states that capital punishment is no longer admissible. So, what does voting have to do with culpability in murder?
Accessory to Murder
As stated above, we choose our representatives to vote in our stead. When politicians run as pro-abortion candidates, the voter must decide if having a good economy, for example, is worth the “right” to murder children in the womb. If the voter says, I want a good economy regardless of how many children are murdered, then that voter becomes an accessory in every zygote’s, embryo’s, and fetus’ murder by direct abortion and is, therefore, morally culpable, because they prefer a lesser right to the most fundamental right. Briefly, an accessory is “a person not actually or constructively present but contributing as an assistant or instigator to the commission of an offense.” Therefore, a voter cannot justify homicide for a good economy, or any other political issue, without being an accessory to murder. Good economies and all other governmental actions/programs are predicated upon the existence of human beings, and voters have the moral responsibility to select pro-life representatives. Formal cooperation in abortion by way of voting is gravely immoral and, therefore, unacceptable. Inevitably, this discussion will lead to a very logical question: How can I know which representatives are pro-life and which advocate for murdering children in the womb?
Voting for Pro-Life Candidates
According to NARAL, a pro-abortion organization, all but four U.S. House Democrats support pro-abortion legislation, and all but two U.S. House Republicans support pro-life legislation. Additionally, all U.S. Senate Democrats support pro-abortion legislation, while all U.S. Senate Republicans reject this type of legislation. Their records are public and unambiguous. Therefore, no one has an excuse when voting for pro-abortion politicians, Republican or Democrat. A vote for pro-abortion politicians, is a vote for murder. The only exception to this when all candidates running for a particular office support abortion “rights.” The voter must then discern which candidate best supports other morally sound laws and/or poses the lowest threat to life in the womb.
In our upcoming elections, Americans must decide whether they want to be accessories to countless murders or lovers of human life. Those who choose life have a responsibility to help those who are in need, including pregnant women who are contemplating abortion. Those who choose murder are responsible for reforming themselves, turning to God, asking for forgiveness, and rejecting the culture of death. We can be a just nation only when we as a nation embrace a culture of life. The impudent idea that we can be a just nation while concurrently killing the most innocent among us is contrary to human nature. Saying that we want what is best for our fellow countrymen (e.g. a good economy, welfare, peace, tranquility, etc.) while killing around a million of them in the U.S. per year by abortion is hypocritical. Therefore, we must vote for pro-life candidates, put an end to the culture of death, and stop being accessories to murder.
Holy fuck you’re stupid.
Randall, I just prayed a decade of the Rosary for you. I asked God to heal your mind, heart, and soul that you may feel his love, turn to him, and leave behind the anger in which you currently exist. God Bless!
Nate
Nate, the captcrisis just wants to get an emotional reaction from you. He’s a troll. Trying to reason with a troll is an exercise in futility. They think they know it all and they are not here to be converted. They are beyond blind. They are belligerently ignorant. I think the worst of the pro abortion supporters have been complicit in one or more abortions, this usually hardens their stance. I would say probably one in four adults in our country have been accessory directly to an abortion. It’s something to think about:) I like your article, it is true. I have been grappling with a dilemma. It is if I vote for Trump and he leads us into a war, I am an accessory to what can be a unjust war and if out of fear of that I vote for Biden he will definitely support abortion. Problem is there is no real Christian candidate who will uphold the sanctity of life and not invoke some unjust war. I probably won’t vote because I cannot support either candidate conscientiously. Any thoughts on this? Thanks a bunch for any input, yours truly, NewCatholic2014.
Thanks Suzanne! I’ve been warned about captcrisis, but I don’t want his criticisms to go unanswered because I want other readers to understand that his arguments are deeply flawed. Thanks for the compliment also!
To your points/questions about Biden and Trump, I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “the devil you know.” Biden is certainly the devil we know. He is vocal about his support for abortion, whereas as President Trump is equally vocal about his rejection of it. So, my first point is that Biden publicly supports murder by abortion. When it comes to war, any president could “start” a war at any time. I placed quotes around “start” because, historically, American Presidents respond to aggressors rather than start unjust wars. In President Trump’s first four years, he has not started a war. By the way, the Democrats have been criticizing Trump’s “erratic” behavior since the 2016 primaries, claiming that his behavior would provoke military responses from our enemies. This has clearly not happened, and their prognostications are nothing but fearmongering. This leads me to my second point – We have no idea whether or not there will be a war under President Trump. Since we have no idea about whether a war will occur under President Trump or whether Trump will initiate an unjust war, we would not be held accountable for one that might break out. This is because of the moral maxim that we will be held accountable for what we know, and we do not know about war under Trump. So let’s bring all this together: 1) Biden is pro-murder by abortion; 2) Trump is not; 3) we do not know if there will be a war under President Trump; therefore, 4) we must not vote for Biden.
Now, as to not voting at all, the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2240 states, “Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country.” Notice the phrases “morally obligatory” and “exercise the right to vote.” We Catholics must vote. We must vote for the candidate who best protects life at all stages and refuses to be complicit in murdering the most vulnerable.
Since murdering children is the most heinous act another human being could commit, and Biden supports this abominable behavior, we cannot vote for him. Though there may be third-party candidates, they are not viable alternatives. Therefore, in my opinion, we must vote for President Trump. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. I do not speak on behalf of Catholic Stand.
Finally, please remember that politicians who are willing to support laws that protect/expand rights to murdering children cannot be trusted to support other human rights.
I hope this helps. God bless!
Thanks, Peter! I appreciate it. God bless!
Nate Guyear, I am all for life starting at conception of a human being as taught by the Catholic Church. By the same teaching, you will admit, the self-defense against an aggressor is allowed without any infringement of moral law. By the same logic, moral theology of the Catholic Church holds that a conception by rape is an unjust aggressor and the fetus may be aborted. Therefore, do not impose unnecessary burden on the poor victims of rapes.
John Padinjarekutt
John, you have clearly never studied the moral theology of the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reflects the Church’s theological, biblical, and historical teaching in lay language, states: “Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (para. 2271). It further states, “”Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being” (2258). Additionally, “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense…” (2272).
To your statement about an unjust aggressor and the fetus, the fetus is NOT the unjust aggressor, the rapist is and the rapist should be imprisoned for a very long time. The fetus, however, is a human being who didn’t do anything to his mother. If we extend your explanation to its logical end, we would have to make it legal for mothers to murder their children created in rape to any age. Why stop in the womb? The zygote is the same human being as the five year old he/she later becomes. If the mother can murder her baby at five months old in the womb because she was raped, why can she not murder her five year old who was created in the same circumstance?
I’m not sure that it is helpful to use technical legal terms in a nonlegal context: it is unconvincing.
I’m not sure that it’s not helpful. Please prove your point. Murder is a legal term and it describes the intentional killing of a innocent human being. An accessory is merely someone who helps another carry out an offense. You don’t like labels because it forces you to deal with the truth that you support murder and are an accessory to it.
By the same token, however, if a mother of a three year old child hired a hit man to kill the child, both she and the hitman would be jailed. If an embryo and fetus are completely equal to a child, then both the mother and doctor would have to be jailed for the abortion. Somehow, putting one out of every four women in jail (one in four women in the US have had abortions) doesn’t seem right either. And punishing “only” the doctor is the equivalent of punishing “only” a hitman, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion that both killings are equivalent.
Important questions.
If pro-lifers want to be treated as serious people, and not culture warriors who care about the unborn only in theory and not in reality, they would have worked these out by now. But they don’t want to be bothered. The important thing is to accuse liberals of “murder” without considering the consequences of the word.
Your logic is incorrect, John and Crisis. If the government passed a law allowing mothers to murder their children who are five years old and under, and pro-lifers said that the doctors and mothers who kill these children should be imprisoned, your argument would be that putting two out of four or three out of four women in jail doesn’t seem right. What pro-lifers say is that from the moment of conception until natural death, every human life is a human being. Therefore, both the mother and the doctor (and anyone else who facilitates abortion) are equally guilty of murder and God will administer justice perfectly. My article, however, is about voting for pro-abortion politicians and how that makes you guilty of being an accessory to murder.
By the way, Crisis, pro-lifers care about all human life. Their are countless organizations that provide direct assistance to struggling mothers. Pro-aborts are the only people who are saying, “Hey let’s let mothers murder their babies and let organizations like Planned Murderhood profit from it.” Yours is the easy answer. Conversely, pro-lifers want a country/world in which all human life is respected and work tirelessly to support this morally upright agenda. If the people say it is okay to murder one category of human beings, then they can create reasons to murder other categories of humans.
Nate,
You seem to be one of the few who has thought out the issue of penalties. Your view is that both the woman and the doctor are guilty of murder. It’s obviously first degree, premeditated. Most pro-lifers are in favor of capital punishment so the woman and the doctor would be dead.
No, pro-life people do not care about the unborn. They are not interested in addressing why women go for abortions and how to decrease the “demand”. It is perfectly ok for them if back-alley abortions increase when (and if) abortion is outlawed. And though there are some volunteer organizations that help with the baby afterwards, pro-lifers are notably hostile to funding the social services net, so their concern is all show, no substance.
Crisis, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement, “No, pro-life people do not care about the unborn. They are not interested in addressing why women go for abortions and how to decrease the “demand”. It is perfectly ok for them if back-alley abortions increase when (and if) abortion is outlawed. And though there are some volunteer organizations that help with the baby afterwards, pro-lifers are notably hostile to funding the social services net, so their concern is all show, no substance.”
I know a great many pro-lifers who religiously contribute to charities that provide for mothers who have children inside and outside the womb. My wife and I give to Catholic Charities, which helps countless poor people, to include women and children, throughout our country. We also give to Cross Catholic International, which helps the poor in third-world countries, to include building schools and medical centers. Rachel’s Vineyard helps women who are in abusive relationships by providing them with a place to live and by connecting them with employers.
Regardless, the problem with your critique is that it uses generalizations to argue against the pro-life message. This is a huge problem on both sides, but if you’re serious about honest dialogue, I must ask that you argue specifics. Going back to my article, my thesis is that human life begins at conception, abortion is murder, and knowingly voting for pro-abortion politicians when there are alternatives makes a voter an accessory to murder.
Your thoughts about pro-lifers being hostile to social services is a red herring. Please stick to the issue. Thank you!
[…] at CNA When a Person You Love Leaves the Faith – Maggie Green at National Catholic Register Can Voting Make Electors Accessory to Murder? – Nate Guyear at Catholic Stand Seven Sensational (& Unknown) Facts About St. Monica […]
You might reflect, with the humility and self-criticism so often advocated here at CS, on why your viewpoint gets so little traction among “pro-choice” people and even so many of your fellow Catholic churchgoers.
Dear Sergeant Crisis,
The truth offends those who love lies. If you have an issue with a specific section of my article or the logic used herein, please let me know. Your vague criticism about my humility, however, betrays your inability to argue reasonably. God bless!
Nate Guyear
So tell me — why does your viewpoint get so little traction? Can you discern it?
Please define “little traction.” I could easily say that the other side gets little traction or that the pro-life side gets a lot of traction, because the words “little” and “a lot” are relative. If your wondering why many people are pro-abortion, the answer lies in St. Paul’s second letter to Timothy. “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, will turn away from listening to the truth and will wander into myths” (2 Tim 4:3-4). People don’t like to be called out for the reprehensible beliefs. They prefer that everyone agree with them and get angry with they don’t. Pretty pathetic, but that’s the world in which we live.
You should read some of the articles here. Many are about the importance of self-awareness.