Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
KKK / Slavery Analogies & [“New”] Pro-Life Democrats

KKK / Slavery Analogies & [“New”] Pro-Life Democrats

Last updated on: September 29, 2020 at 11:20 am by Dave Armstrong

KKK / Slavery Analogies & [“New”] Pro-Life Democrats 2020-09-29T11:20:49-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Various thoughts of mine, and a few from friends of mine as well (in blue and green fonts):

*****

How could an obedient, magisterial Catholic (consistently, as opposed to “canonically”) vote for one who favors abortion in all nine months, when a pro-lifer is on the ballot?

I don’t 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 — as part of a pro-life outlook — specifically anti-abortion) is on the ballot.

Perhaps someone (a liberal / “new pro-life” 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 positions you like, and you’re not really voting for the killing?

I don’t see any ethical difference at all: none. In this case, the analogy to KKK racism and murder is perfectly valid.

***

My esteemed friend, Nathaniel Sperling wrote:

Dave, we’ve had several good discussions on this, and I, as I’ve said before, respect that you’re willing to engage in a frank, but civil and charitable, conversation on this topic.

Likewise . . .

I 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’re 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.

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 is the strength and force of the analogy.

I say that no one not insane would do so. And if they wouldn’t do that, I don’t see why they think they could vote for a Democrat childkilling advocate. There is zero ethical difference.

Under 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.

Exactly. 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 the numbers of murders by Stalin, Mao, and other mass murdering dictators and their minions.

My equally esteemed friend, Jonathan Prejean interjected:

Nathaniel, 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’s complicity in abortion eclipses every other issue.

Whatever 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’t 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’t know how you can possibly rationalize supporting the institutionalization of abortion any more than people could rationalize voting for slavery. The proportionate reasons don’t add up.

***

Slavery [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’s 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’t start calling ourselves the new abolitionists.

***

[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’t been able to find a significant difference in terms of moral position between abortion and slavery in that regard.

***

[to someone other than Nathaniel] So you would not (I’m 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 “holds positions more conducive to the common good and to protection of human dignity and human life than his opponent.” 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.

If you don’t 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’t vote for the Klansman, you need to explain why you would vote for people who butcher nine-month-old [from conception] babies.

[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?

They’re voting Democrat in order to maintain and increase abortions. The “new pro-lifer” / 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 “Champion of the Century” award by Planned Parenthood.

***

[to a third person] I don’t 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 en masse is immediately disqualified as a proponent of murder. And so are virtually all Democrats running today.

Pro-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.

If two pro-aborts are on the ballot; we can vote for the relatively less evil one; I agree. I’m saying I would not personally vote for either, but that’s 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 . . .

***

Even though the slavery analogy makes [some] sense, I still think it’s inappropriate. I’m not denying the evils of abortion, but it just seems like comparing it to slavery (America’s original sin) . . . is overwrought, and, further, unhelpful. It 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.

You have not overcome the force of the analogy. It’s not simply an emotional argument or name-calling. These are valid, legitimate reductio arguments by analogy. The ethics are equivalent: the wholesale murder or grotesque oppression and bondage of millions of human beings.

I’m not “calling my enemies Klansmen”; 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.

The purpose of the analogy is to wake up folks 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’s 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.

I 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.

For instance, like it or not, many of today’s economic populists are pro-choice, and it’s hard to envision them wanting to work with us to fix the economy if we’ve just finished comparing [them] to slavery apologists [and the KKK].

In 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.

Nathaniel, I’m with you on the “wise as serpents” 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’t 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.

I 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 (“it offends folks of a particular persuasion x, which upholds an intrinsically sinful act, to identify it as such, so we ought not do it, in order to work together”). If we followed this philosophy, no societal evil could ever be publicly questioned:
*

“We can’t question gay marriage because it offends millions of gays and therefore we can’t work with them to oppose terrorists or whatever else we agree on.”
*

“Lincoln and even more ‘polemical’ abolitionists shouldn’t have said that slavery was evil because it offended slaveholding Southerners, making it impossible to work with them on issues where there was agreement.”

*
“We can’t condemn racists today, lest we offend them . . . “

*
Where does it end? Nowhere in the Bible does it ever teach a principle that we can’t or shouldn’t condemn evil because it will be pragmatically unwise or offend the hearers who hold the views.
*

We must proclaim moral truth. We can’t compromise that. We can be nice and kind personally to those who hold wrong views; that’s fine and I do that. But it doesn’t follow that we can’t 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.

Our job is not to have all and sundry love us because we are so “tolerant and reasonable.” 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’t for wimps, in other words. It is always countercultural (i.e., insofar as culture is evil and sinful). It will always be hated by the world, and so will we if we consistently live it out and believe it.

I’m 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 talk about this, simply because it offends people and makes political compromise more difficult. We have to try to rescue those being led to slaughter.

You have said won’t 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’s 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).
*

Please tell me the ethical difference between these groups of people. A person who would sanction that heinous evil is no better in that respect than a racist bigot KKK leader. What is the essential difference? You tell me.
*
Most good so-called “pro-choice” 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’t see any ethical distinction whatever and in my opinion no one has yet explained how the analogy can be overcome.
*

Would anyone actually say that they would vote for a KKK leader because they advocated other good 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 compassionate policies?

I think this analogy (and reductio ad absurdum) 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.

I 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 “useful idiot” for Planned Parenthood and its grotesque and diabolical mass murder / harvest body parts agenda.

***

Ten Reasons Why Pro-Lifers Vote for Pro-Aborts [10-29-08]

Reply to Democrats for Life [5-1-12]

On the Complaint that Pro-Lifers are “Single-Issue” [9-24-15]

On Trump & the “Supreme” Pro-Life Cause [8-16-16]

Reply to “Left-Wing” Pro-Lifers (Crisis Pregnancy Centers, the Supreme Court, and “Old” Pro-Life Efforts to Help Struggling Pregnant Women) [10-24-16]

Dialogue with Deacon Steven Greydanus on Voting & Pro-Life [11-8-16]

“Lessen Evil” Votes for Hillary? (vs. Mark Shea) [4-7-17]

Debate: Do Liberal Social Policies Lessen Abortion & Poverty? [4-12-17]

Simcha Fisher’s “New” Pro-Life Critique of “Old” Pro-Lifers [Simcha did vote for Hillary Clinton] (+ vigorous Facebook discussion) [8-2-17]

Are “Old” Pro-Lifers Racists & “Anti-Woman”? (vs. John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe) [8-30-17]

“New” vs. “Old” Pro-Life Strategies (vs. John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe) [8-31-17]

Left-Wing “New Pro-Lifers” Are Also Pro-Life (DUH!) [9-20-17]

On Being a So-Called “Single-Issue” Pro-Lifer [National Catholic Register, 1-25-18]

Do Democratic Presidents Cause Fewer Abortions to Occur? [National Catholic Register, 2-28-18]

Ratzinger’s “Proportionate Reasons” & a Pro-Abort Vote [11-6-18]

Debate: SCOTUS & GOP in Relation to Abortion Rates [11-15-18]

Dialogue on Conservative vs. Liberal Pro-Life Voting [2-9-19]

Explaining the Pro-Life, Christian Vote for Trump Yet Again [4-30-19]

Dialogue: Christian Witness, Trump, & Prudential Voting (vs. Deacon Steven D. Greydanus) [5-10-19]

Abortion Declines Under Trump (Surprise, New Pro-Lifers!) [1-10-20]

Liberal & Conservative Pro-Life Outlooks: A Dialogue [1-18-20]

***

Photo credit: [public domain / PickPik]

***

voting for pro-aborts

Previous Post

September 27, 2020

Catholic Charismatic Movement Defended

Next Post

September 28, 2020 Charismatic Emotional / Demonstrative "Excesses": Biblical Analogies

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz