I think one has to differentiate between material and formal support or aid given a person.
Here is an example demonstrating the difference:
A taxi driver transports a woman to an abortion clinic with neither hope nor intention that she procure an abortion. He is merely delivering her as a client who contracted business with him to transport her to a specific place.
This is material aid. The action of transporting fares is neutral.
A taxi driver transports a woman to an abortion clinic because he wants her to procure an abortion for which she is intending to go there. His is taking her not only to fulfill a contract, but also to fulfill the union of wills regarding the procurement of the abortion.
This is formal aid. Aligning one's self in union with commission of an intrinsic evil is evil action.
Sin is not committed by material aid in itself, but sin is committed by formal aid.
If an adult voted for Pres. Obama in spite of his party platform, for the purpose of moral benefit Mr. Obama offered in campaign promises, then he has offered only material support by his vote.
If an adult voted for Pres. Obama, in union with his party platform, for the purpose of immoral benefits Mr. Obama offered in campaign promises, then he has offered formal support by his vote.
That said, I don't know how a Pres. Obama supporter can stand before Christ at his particular judgment and offer a good enough reason to give material aid to a man who has no scruple about ending the lives of so many children before they are even born.
I totally disagree with your analysis, Chelsea. The adults who voted for Pres. Obama for the purpose of moral benefit or immoral benefits all knew more babies would die if Obama were reelected. No one can hide behind rationalization on this issue.
I do agree with your last statement.
Hi Elizabeth et alia,
Elizabeth, I certainly disagree with what you wrote. There's no way of knowing what would have happened if Romney got elected, aside from a radical free-market approach to the American Economy, that only would have been tempered by the fact that the Senate is controlled by the Democrats. And in fact, as I pointed out somewhere else here, Romney said that “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” I'm also not the only one to bring this up. I do believe that Chelsea has mentioned this also.
Why wizards here have gone ga-ga over Romney is one of the mysteries of the universe.