I consider myself a very orthodox, pro-life Catholic, and I had planned to vote for McCain. However, I am now considering either not voting for president at all, or voting a third party like the Constitution Party or something similar.
The reason I am considering this is because I live in Illinois, a state whose electoral votes are virtually guaranteed to go to Obama (due to the sheer numbers of Democratic voters in Chicago) and whose Republican Party has degenerated into a corrupt, hollow shell of its former self. Pro-lifers and social conservatives have been ignored by the Illinois GOP for years, and some of us feel it's time to send them a message that they need to change.
I instinctively feel that McCain needs every vote he can get on a national level, but realistically, my vote for him would be but one drop of "red" in a vast "blue state" sea and won't make much difference. If I lived in a swing state, I would think differently.
One problem with many of these pronouncements about how to vote is that people assume that if you CANNOT vote for a particular candidate because of their stand on abortion, gay marriage, etc. that means you MUST vote for their opponent. I don't think so. That fails to take into consideration the fact that a pro-life candidate can also be unfit to hold public office because of a record of incompetence, malfeasance, mental instability or corruption.
Electing corrupt or incompetent office holders who claim to be pro-life only discredits the pro-life cause in the long run and makes it harder to elect more pro-lifers in the future. This is what happened in Illinois when a corrupt but nominally pro-life Republican (George Ryan) got elected governor over a pro-life Democrat (Glenn Poshard). Ryan eventually went to prison and the entire Illinois Republican Party has been pretty much ruined because of him. It also opened the way for a very pro-abortion Democrat to be elected governor twice (Rod Blagojevich), who, ironically, has proven to be even MORE corrupt than his predecessor.
To put it in theological terms, a negative moral duty NOT to vote for a pro-abortion candidate does not, necessarily, equal a positive moral duty to vote FOR his or her pro-life opponent at all costs regardless of his or her qualifications or fitness for holding office. One could morally choose not to vote for either candidate. If that means the pro-abortion candidate will win, at least it will have happened without one's active cooperation and without compromising the chances for a better pro-life candidate to win in the future.

Again...

I'm not sure it's necessary anymore, but here it goes...
Blockquote OFF!

If we consider the tragedy of abortion in supply and demand terms, the law is an obvious factor affecting "supply".
But we also need to consider the factors affecting "demand" - why do women seek abortion (even when it is illegal)?
Those who have had an abortion or know someone who has, might have some insight into this. Social research can also cast light on this, especially where there are variations eg 50 out of 1,000 black fetuses are aborted compared with 28 Hispanic and 11 white. source
Being genuinely pro-life means trying to reduce abortion by affecting both supply and demand.
Joint Statement by Cardinal Justin Rigali Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities and Bishop William Murphy Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Written by Doerflinger's "bosses", shortly after his piece. It is only 2 pages long and worth reading in full, but these sections struck me (my italics).
Some argue that we should not focus on policies that provide help for pregnant women, but just focus on the essential task of establishing legal protections for children in the womb. Others argue that providing lifeaffirming support for pregnant women should be our only focus and this should take the place of efforts to establish legal protections for unborn children. We want to be clear that neither argument is consistent with Catholic teaching. Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies.

...

The Catholic community is second to no one in providing and advocating for support for women and families facing problems during pregnancy. Catholic hospitals, charitable institutions, and thousands of pregnancy aid centers, provide life-saving care and compassionate alternatives to the violence of abortion. We have advocated for universal health care coverage, generous family leave policies, increases in the minimum wage, humane welfare policies for women who are pregnant or caring for young children, expanded funding for WIC and other nutrition programs, and a federal children’s health insurance program that includes coverage for unborn children and their mothers.. Because some women still feel pressured by economic hardship and lack of support to resort to abortion, our task in this regard is far from over.

These efforts, however, are not an adequate or complete response to the injustice of Roe v. Wade for several important reasons. ...

SDG remarked, "John McCain does not deserve your vote."
An unassailable truth: If that remark is true, then it is true that for any candidate, the candiate does not deserve your vote.
(Sigh. "Deserve" is soooo frequently misused and misunderstood.)

I have decided to vote for McCain even though I'm in Wisconsin and it probably won't matter. I think McCain is a terrible candidate and the Repubs have become a joke of a party. McCain will nominate 1.5 liberal judges to the Supreme court (as he reaches across the aisle) if he gets to nominate 2. I expect nothing useful from the man other than not supporting FOCA.
As far as Obama and war goes, don't ever thnk a Democrat is above making war.

"We're going to need more than just "Obama will sign FOCA" to argue that the negative consequences of electing Obama on the effots to stop abortion outweigh any possible good that might result from electing him."
The president is a LOT more than a policy wonk. He is the masthead of the country, a symbol, like a part of the flag that we modify every four years. The presidency *means* something far beyond plain matters of passing this or that bill or signing an act.
These things are important, yes, but the symbolic power of the presidency - the bully pulpit, the president as National Cheerleader - has long lasting effects all its own.
"President Barack Obama" would be a disastrous turn, a symbolic break with every foundational truth on which the country was established, and the rapidly fading traditions, the very echos of which have held us together these last several decades.
After Obama, I don't know that there will be any possibility of ever recapturing the moral strength that was once the life blood of America.
But God is great, and his ways are beyond searching out. One thing's for sure, we'll need a miracle to turn back the tide of moral relativism that is drowning our national character and turning our fields of "amber waves" into a fever swamp of dull witted self-indulgence.
So there.

Hey SDG,
I wanted to make sure you knew about the Public Discourse from the Witherspoon Institute editted by Ryan Anderson. It's been talking about these prolife issues recently. Did you know of it?
-Cj

Personally, I think many of you folks are making the morality of voting way too hard. There is nothing intrinsically evil about voting. Nothing. The morality of one's choice turns solely on intentions and prudential calculus. Plainly, one cannot vote for a candidate for the wrong reasons/intentions -- e.g., voting for Obama because one agrees with him that abortion is an important right that should remain legal is morally unacceptable. Aside from that, the question devolves into according appropriate moral weight -- i.e., value -- to those moral factors that are relevant and then excercising prudential judgement in discerning which candidate will, on balance, do the most good in advancing the moral values so valued. In other words it invites -- even requires -- an analysis of consequences. Many orthodox Catholics are so sensitive to the error of consequentialism that they too eagerly declare something to be intrinsically evil or wrong when it is not. A Catholic plainly is permitted to vote for Obama (or anyone else for that matter) as long as (i) he is not voting with the intention of advancing something that is morally illicit (e.g., abortion) and (ii) he has assigned weight to relevant moral issues consistent with Church teaching and has based his vote on a good faith evaluation of the consequences of his vote with respect to such values.
Most Catholic Obama supporters satisfy (i). At bottom, the real problem with Obama supporters is grounded in their almost certainly dishonest application of (ii). More specifically, while they perform the calculus required by (ii)'s second prong, it is performed only after assigning too little weight to the intrinsic evil of abortion under (ii)'s first prong. Of course, this necessarily corrupts their execution of the second prong. They try to mask this fact by asserting prudential claims that are not credible. Of course, if they really believe these claims then they may have actually properly exercised their duties under (ii), and since this cannot be proven one way or the other the uncertainty allows them to claim to be good Catholics applying their prudential judgment, which is their right and duty. But I believe that this claim is generally grounded in some very serious dishonesty. More specifically, when they claim that Obama's policies will somehow serve to reduce the number of US abortions they are asserting a phony pretext for their the real justification for their support, which is that while abortion is bad it is not as bad as the Church teaches.

Decker said: We're going to need more than just "Obama will sign FOCA" to argue that the negative consequences of electing Obama on the effots to stop abortion outweigh any possible good that might result from electing him.
Anyone concerned with social justice and compassionate, moral health care for the people of this land had better think twice about voting for Barack "I will sign FOCA" Obama. Under FOCA, Catholic health care would be illegal.
A vote for Obama is a vote in favor of the worst health care crisis this nation has ever faced.

Decker:
Only beligerence or willful ignorance could lead one to believe Bush's presidency has not been vastly superior on life issues to that hypothetical Gore presidency.

decker2003,
I fully disagree with you that Gore would not have gone to war in Iraq. If you recall, under Clinton, the US attacked Iraq on three separate occasions, and I never heard his vice president object once. Clinton also sent troops to the Sudan and killed a lot of Serbs in Kosovo. The pro-life cause has no friends in either mainstream party. The Republicans pretend to oppose abortion and the Democrats pretend to oppose wars, but it's all empty talk. Perhaps you will recall that every single Democratic senator in 2003 voted to give Bush the power to declare war in Iraq.
After this election, I fully expect the winner (whoever he is) to not only do nothing to reverse our country's abortion trend, but to attack at least one sovereign state in the next few years- probably Iran or Pakistan, and quite possibly both.

This time without the typos --
Eight years ago, the argument was made that we have to vote for Bush over Gore because Gore favored legal abortion while Bush did not. I think we can safely say that, had Gore become president, there would never have been an Iraq War. We can also safely say that Bush has not yet delivered any legal action to protect life which reduces abortion on a scale comparable to the loss of innocent civilian life due to the Iraq War and ensuing chaos. The lessons of the past eight years just make me a little skeptical of the argument that the election of the candidate who favors legal restrictions on abortion will result in less loss of innocent human life.

Eight years ago, the argument was made that we have to vote for Bush over Gore because Gore favored legal abortion while Bush did not. I think we can safely say that, had Gore become president, there would never have been an Iraq War. We can also safely say that Bush has not yet delivered any legal action to protect life which reduces abortion on a scale comparable to the loss of innocent civilian life due to the Iraw War and ensuing chaos. The lessons of the past eight years just make me a little skeptical of the argument that we the election of the candidate who favors legal restrictions on abortion will result in less loss of innocent human life.

ML Martin wrote:
Regardless of one's opinion on the justification for the Iraq War, does anyone really think that a near-immediate withdrawal of the type espoused by Obama would decrease civilian casualities? I think it much more probable that it would make things much worse.
I agree that an immediate and total withdrawal of American troops would probably lead to a terrible bloodbath. Probably. The truth is that I hear such conflicting stories about the occupation and the state of the Iraqi people and government that I don't know what to believe.
However, that's not exactly what Obama is advocating. I've listened to many of his speeches and read statements from his camp, and the man is very good at saying very little. I suspect that his policy in Iraq would be more or less the same as McCain's: we keep American troops there for the foreseeable future.
My best guess on Iraq is that we're really stuck there for a long time. We invaded, toppled the only source of order (abhorrent as it may have been) and we now have an obligation to the Iraqi people to see them through to a state that is once again stable. That may take a very long time, and may not ever really happen. What concerns me more with the two candidates is how they plan on dealing with other countries such as Iran and Pakistan. Can we expect more of the same unjust invasions from them once they're in office? All indicators point to a great big YES.
On the two issues that concern me most - war and abortion - both candidates are truly frightening, and I still can't see my way clear to voting for either of them.

Oops--Sorry about the accidental anonymity on that one.

Please note that that some plausible esimates of the number of innocent civilians kiiled by the Iraq War and ensuing chaos are as high as 125,000 per year. Arbuably, the loss of life resutling from passage of FOCA is roughly comparable to the loss of life resulting from the Iraq War. We're going to need more than just "Obama will sign FOCA" to argue that the negative consequences of electing Obama on the effots to stop abortion outweigh any possible good that might result from electing him.

Done. Any other requests?

Please note that that some plausible esimates of the number of innocent civilians kiiled by the Iraq War and ensuing chaos are as high as 125,000 per year. Arbuably, the loss of life resutling from passage of FOCA is roughly comparable to the loss of life resulting from the Iraq War. We're going to need more than just "Obama will sign FOCA" to argue that the negative consequences of electing Obama on the effots to stop abortion outweigh any possible good that might result from electing him.

"Heh. I see you've weighed in on Zippy and Shea... you don't seem to have covered me or Disputations.
I made a comment that I'll be expanding upon here when I get a chance."
I'm not sure I quite see it that way as I make reference to your arguments collectively in the commentary about those arguing with Zippy. If you think I've missed some cogent nugget of your argument, I'm happy to address it, but I don't think I have.
FWIW, Disputations only weighed in recently in real force and I've commented over at his blog. I think he and I, at the end of the day, are pretty darn close in our views.
In the end I think you and Zippy both are struggling with the plural quality of the meaning/nature of the act of voting, each emphasizing a particular component that tilts the scales of the argument in your direction. I'm not confident of who has the better argument and I suggest that both suffer from the fact that you are reducing the reality of the act of voting to just one aspect of its nature/meaning rather than trying to offer up a judgment that accounts for the full reality of the nature of voting.

Sorry Tim J.
Just now I realize your comment is old...This flu seems to drive me crazy.

Ia anyone seeing the last couple of posts... Jimmy's Pyramid Mystery Photo, for instance?

They don't show up at all when I hit the link in my bookmarks, or even when I refresh that link. It's only when I click Jimmy's masthead that I get the latest posts and comments.

Alas, it seems JA.o is suffering some DNS issues on top of everything else. www.jimmyakin.org isn't working correctly -- but jimmyakin.org (without the www) IS. Also, jimmyakin.typepad.com (with or without www) works correctly. It's only www.jimmyakin.org that is having problems.

Dear Tim J.
So far, it's been showing up fine either through the link or on my RSS aggregator. Keep refreshing...

Ia anyone seeing the last couple of posts... Jimmy's Pyramid Mystery Photo, for instance?
They don't show up at all when I hit the link in my bookmarks, or even when I refresh that link. It's only when I click Jimmy's masthead that I get the latest posts and comments.

FWIW, I've weighed in on the Zippy-Shea-SDG-Disputations conversation on voting for McCain over at Integrity

Heh. I see you've weighed in on Zippy and Shea... you don't seem to have covered me or Disputations.
I made a comment that I'll be expanding upon here when I get a chance.

FWIW, I've weighed in on the Zippy-Shea-SDG-Disputations conversation on voting for McCain over at Integrity (http://jackblogs.typepad.com/integrity/2008/10/on-...).

#2 is certainly true. If true, and McCain is the best option to ensure that #2 happens, then #1 is moot.

Yep, that's how I see it too. (Just to be clear: The fact that McCain doesn't deserve my vote has not stopped me from planning to vote for him.)

Forgive the cross-comment posting, but I just ranted the same thing at the Curt Jester:
Michael New, a professor at the University of Alabama who crunches the numbers on abortion laws, estimates that passing FOCA (which will eliminate all pro-life laws on the books nationwide, and which Obama promises to sign first thing!) will increase the number of abortion in this country by 125,000. So just by putting Obama in office, we will see abortions in this country increase by just about 10%. Let's be crystal clear on that point. 10% increase in abortions by virtue of electing Obama.
I don't think even the Obamessiah-craziest of the bunch will argue that his brilliant social policies will turn around and cut the abortion rate by more than he will increase it by signing FOCA.

#2 is certainly true. If true, and McCain is the best option to ensure that #2 happens, then #1 is moot.

#2 is undeniable, Steve.