Corrupt, but Pro-Life Candidate

[rwoehmke]

Two candidates stand for election. One of them is pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and otherwise strong on social justice. A second candidate is anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, mediocre on social justice, but is known to be dishonestly presenting his and his opponents past political accomplishments. Who would be the best candidate to vote for. This is a true to life scenario playing out today in the April 1 elections.

 

[stbruno]

Here’s what I usually do…I write in a candidate. Pray on it. I know it’s not the answer you are looking for, but I morally cannot vote any other way.

 

[bengal_fan]

well, i guess i’d rather have the one who is pro-life all the way.

anti-abortion
anti-death penalty
anti-war

as that is the consistent pro-life position.

i would end up with the first one though. being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. anti-death penalty is the pro-life stance. social justice is commanded in the NT repeatedly (“true religion is taking care of widows and orphans…” in James for example).

i guess the other reason is that at least we would know what we could expect from the first one as opposed to the second.

 

[vz71]

The problem I have with the logic of simply writing in is that the vote ends up assisting one or the other.
You cannot opt out of the decision. Even the decision not to vote assists one party or the other. In not voting, or writing in a candidate, you simply do not know who your vote assists until all of the ballots are counted.

You have to decide among who is running. Of those, who is likely to cause the least damage to the pro-life cause.

One candidate is pro-abortion. You know right there that they will do what they can to roll back progress that the pro-life side has made.

The other is “anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, mediocre on social justice, but is known to be dishonest[ly]”
So do we know if the second choice will roll back pro-life progress? Maybe, maybe not. But we know for certain about the opposition. Which is better? A ‘maybe will roll back pro-life progress’ or a ‘definitely will roll back pro-life progress’

On a side note…
“One of them is pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and otherwise strong on social justice.”
Is it really possible to be strong on social justice and willing to kill the unborn at the same time?

 

[ribozyme]

On a side note…
“One of them is pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and otherwise strong on social justice.”
Is it really possible to be strong on social justice and willing to kill the unborn at the same time?

Peter Singer is one example who is strong on social justice and he deems it ethically acceptable to kill the unborn.

 

[marty1818]

If you can’t protect the most innocent and helpless form of life, a child in the womb, how can you help those who have already been born.

God Bless,
Matt

 

[ribozyme]

If you can’t protect the most innocent and helpless form of life, a child in the womb, how can you help those who have already been born.

God Bless,
Matt

Here’s a glib answer: government programs and charity. Abortion does not preclude helping the least fortunate of society.

 

[marty1818]

Here’s a glib answer: government programs and charity. Abortion does not preclude helping the least fortunate of society.

But those children that are aborted are some of the least fortunate in society.

 

[fnz2thrght]

Let me jump in on this one because I have this very situation going on. In my city one of our elected officials is :

1. 
   *]Catholic. (were’ a big catholic city, so that a plus for a candidate here)
   *]pro-life (see #1)
   *]Beats his wife and children and has been arrested for it. This is not a disputed fact, he has been charged.
   *]has some shady dealings with people from the mob
   *]he committed adultery on his first wife
   *]is divorced 2 twice and remarried 3rd marriage
   he continually gets elected. I would sonner vote for belly button lint before I voted for him.
   
   So if the only requirement of our elected officials is that they are prolife we’re going to say every other behavior is tolerable?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Let me jump in on this one because I have this very situation going on. In my city one of our elected officials is :

1. 
   *]Catholic. (were’ a big catholic city, so that a plus for a candidate here)
   *]pro-life (see #1)
   *]Beats his wife and children and has been arrested for it. This is not a disputed fact, he has been charged.
   *]has some shady dealings with people from the mob
   *]he committed adultery on his first wife
   *]is divorced 2 twice and remarried 3rd marriage
   he continually gets elected. I would sonner vote for belly button lint before I voted for him.
   
   So if the only requirement of our elected officials is that they are prolife we’re going to say every other behavior is tolerable?

1. 
   This is exactly what is the consensus around here. Question that and people will talk about you as though you were trying to “justify your pro-choice vote” even if you never state an intention to vote pro-choice-on-abortion. Amazing the telethapy that goes on 'round here.

 

[johnnykins]

The problem I have with the logic of simply writing in is that the vote ends up assisting one or the other.

not so - you do not vote yes/no on candidates in the USA that I am aware of.

You cannot opt out of the decision. Even the decision not to vote assists one party or the other. In not voting, or writing in a candidate, you simply do not know who your vote assists until all of the ballots are counted.

You absolutely have a right to NOT vote or vote for a write-in. In totalitarian governments you see 95% + voting - not in democracies. You assist the person you vote for.

You have to decide among who is running.

NOPE

Of those, who is likely to cause the least damage to the pro-life cause.

Not so, at all - and I challenge you to come up with any church document that is that stark - or even close.

One candidate is pro-abortion. You know right there that they will do what they can to roll back progress that the pro-life side has made.

as someone noted above, you do NOT have to vote for someone who is immoral on other issues just because they are anti-abortion. Indeed, there is no requirement to vote FOR anyone - just a prohibition on voting for someone who is pro-abortion.

The other is “anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, mediocre on social justice, but is known to be dishonest[ly]”
So do we know if the second choice will roll back pro-life progress? Maybe, maybe not. But we know for certain about the opposition. Which is better? A ‘maybe will roll back pro-life progress’ or a ‘definitely will roll back pro-life progress’

As noted above, you are not required to vote FOR anyone.

On a side note…
“One of them is pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and otherwise strong on social justice.”
Is it really possible to be strong on social justice and willing to kill the unborn at the same time?

yeah - unfortunately.

 

[Gisella]

Here’s a glib answer: government programs and charity. Abortion does not preclude helping the least fortunate of society.

Charity doesn’t have to have anything to do with the government. I see government redistribution programs as legal robbery. Isn’t it illegal for someone to take money away from some walking out of the bank and give it to the poor person on the street for them to buy beer? How is what the government does any different?

 

[ribozyme]

Charity doesn’t have to have anything to do with the government. I see government redistribution programs as legal robbery. Isn’t it illegal for someone to take money away from some walking out of the bank and give it to the poor person on the street for them to buy beer? How is what the government does any different?

I see poverty and suffering worse than “legal robbery.”

But charity only works if people are charitable. Sometimes people are not charitable so government is necessary for redistribution.

 

[vz71]

Here’s a glib answer: government programs and charity. Abortion does not preclude helping the least fortunate of society.

The least forunate in our society are those aborted.

 

[vz71]

So if the only requirement of our elected officials is that they are prolife we’re going to say every other behavior is tolerable?

Not the only credential…
The opposition is pro-death.

And I would simply be weighing the impact to the pro-life movement.

 

[vz71]

not so - you do not vote yes/no on candidates in the USA that I am aware of.
You absolutely have a right to NOT vote or vote for a write-in. In totalitarian governments you see 95% + voting - not in democracies. You assist the person you vote for…

I believe you need to re-read my post, you seem to have mistaken notions concerning what I have written.

 

[vz71]

I see poverty and suffering worse than “legal robbery.”

But charity only works if people are charitable. Sometimes people are not charitable so government is necessary for redistribution.

So where precisely do you see abortion in this?

Is it not the robbing of someone of their life?

 

[Gisella]

I see poverty and suffering worse than “legal robbery.”

But charity only works if people are charitable. Sometimes people are not charitable so government is necessary for redistribution.

So the end(giving people money they didn’t earn) justifies the means(stealing people’s hard earned money)?

People have a hard time being charitable when the government decides they know how to spend your money better than you do. This might have something to do with the fact that Americans give more to charity than those from socialist countries.

 

[hasikelee]

Two candidates stand for election. One of them is pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and otherwise strong on social justice. A second candidate is anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, mediocre on social justice, but is known to be dishonestly presenting his and his opponents past political accomplishments. Who would be the best candidate to vote for. This is a true to life scenario playing out today in the April 1 elections.

Investigate their voting records. Plenty of people claim to be “strong on social justice,” just the phrase itself sounds good here. So what has that person actually done?

Same for the person claims to be against abortion. Okay, that might right off be a harder stance to take, but does that person really vote against abortion, or is it lip service to gain a carefully calculated demographic?

And to the person who says the government can care for the unfortunate and still sanction abortion…how is that logically consistent?

If abortion and euthanasia are legal answers, then those who are poor, physically disabled, substance abusers, of a certain race, of a certain religion, politically out of line, elderly, the list goes on can be killed. The government has two options that can be legally used here. We know history can tell us which one is faster, easier and cheaper.

 

[ribozyme]

So the end(giving people money they didn’t earn) justifies the means(stealing people’s hard earned money)?

People have a hard time being charitable when the government decides they know how to spend your money better than you do. This might have something to do with the fact that Americans give more to charity than those from socialist countries.

Yes, the ends do justify the means in a utilitarian paradigm.

But if God is so loving, why does he allow poverty?