Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Maybe because war (and the death penalty) are not intrisic evils, and I’ve seen no defininitive condemnation of any of the wars the Republicans are blamed for (with bipartisan approval in Congress), or the wars Obama is pushing for?



Let us know when the death toll in Iraq tops 50 million.

What’s definitive? As I remember, didn’t the Pope say something about preemptive war not being just?

 

[mab23]

No I don’t understand how they could be against abortion. If you can justify America’s wars you can easily justify abortion. A fetus in a woman’s womb is as much of a threat as a people a world away who are not attacking you. If you can make war on people, which includes the likely and frequent death of innocents, to prevent merely possible danger then you can abort a baby to prevent merely possible danger. The cavalier attitude towards foreigners makes me doubt the moral underpinnings of their anti-abortion claims.

very well stated

and I like your signature as well

 

[Mickey]

No I don’t understand how they could be against abortion. If you can justify America’s wars you can easily justify abortion. A fetus in a woman’s womb is as much of a threat as a people a world away who are not attacking you. If you can make war on people, which includes the likely and frequent death of innocents, to prevent merely possible danger then you can abort a baby to prevent merely possible danger. The cavalier attitude towards foreigners makes me doubt the moral underpinnings of their anti-abortion claims.

Nonsense! I am not a proponent of war (unless we would be defending America from attack). However, those who fight and die in wars have made a decision to enlist. They understand the consequences…they have made a choice Yes, there are innocent civilians who perish from collateral damage in wars…this is tragic.

But 50 million babies have been murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade…50 million!!!

They had no choice in the matter. They had no voice in the matter. It is genocide on a monumental scale of our most innocent children.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nonsense! I am not a proponent of war (unless we would be defending America from attack). However, those who fight and die in wars have made a decision to enlist. They understand the consequences…they have made a choice Yes, there are innocent civilians who perish from collateral damage in wars…this is tragic.

But 50 million babies have been murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade…50 million!!!

They had no choice in the matter. They had no voice in the matter. It is genocide on a monumental scale of our most innocent children.

Those innocent civilians who perish from collateral damage in wars did not make a decision to be in the line of fire. ‘They had no choice in the matter.’

 

[Mickey]

Those innocent civilians who perish from collateral damage in wars did not make a decision to be in the line of fire. ‘They had no choice in the matter.’

Yes. As I said …it is tragic…and I am not a proponent of war. But even these innocent people often have a chance to attempt to flee the line of fire.

But we are talking about 50 million voiceless babies with no choice to flee or protest their fate …being murdered in the womb.

How dare anyone try to use the horrors of war to justify abortion. That is sickening.

 

[scipio337]

What’s definitive? As I remember, didn’t the Pope say something about preemptive war not being just?

Pope Benedict called the Iraq war “unjustified”.

It wasn’t defined in terms of “Just War” doctrine.

I would point out that the US and MNF go well out of their way to avoid civillian casualties, even to their own peril.

I’m still wondering when the Iraq death toll will reach 50 million. Perhaps if it went on for another 2,500 years?

 

[Mickey]

I’m still wondering when the Iraq death toll will reach 50 million. Perhaps if it went on for another 2,500 years?

Good point.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes. As I said …it is tragic…and I am not a proponent of war. But even these innocent people often have a chance to attempt to flee the line of fire.

But we are talking about 50 million voiceless babies with no choice to flee or protest their fate …being murdered in the womb.

How dare anyone try to use the horrors of war to justify abortion. That is sickening.

I did not intend to justify abortion in anyway.

I find it disturbing when one uses numbers to justify war victims, because it’s a smaller number.

Also, do you consider children as ‘having a chance to attempt to flee the line of fire?’ Now many strikes come from long distance where the innocent have no chance to flee.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We’ve been hearing ‘one more justice’ for years now and the majority of justices were appointed by Republicans. There’s been opportunities, but no changes have been made. I really believe it’s because pro life people are being pandered to for their votes.**A counsel to despair if I ever read one. **

There are no specific instructions, from the Church, that excludes a third party candidate as a vote against the candidate supporting an intrinsic evil. Whether a candidate actually has a chance of being elected, or not, is determined after an election and not before. The Church does not go into particularities of voting. But we are morally obliged to oppose intrinsic evils and are morally obligated to do so politically if we can. There’s no question about that. And in judging whether some candidate is viable or not, it’s not at all difficult to know that.

However you want to spin it, I do not see anyone here saying they don’t oppose abortion. There seems to be a spin on wording to insinuate that if you don’t vote for a specific candidate it’s to support the intrinsic evil. That simply is not true, as far as I can see. It’s only political speak to support other issues. No sir. You can call peoples’ opposition to abortion a pretext if you like, but saying you’re skeptical of people who oppose it does not make it so.

There was an opportunity to choose a candidate that would have united people more than Romney, but people began the ‘electability’ discussion right out of the shoot, disqualifying other candidates for appears to have been ‘other issues’. Now the push is on to get everyone to go against their consciences and pick the ‘lesser of two evils’. Possibly one could address that if you gave your specifics on why you think Romney is evil. He wasn’t my first choice, but I never thought of him as “evil”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No I don’t understand how they could be against abortion. If you can justify America’s wars you can easily justify abortion. A fetus in a woman’s womb is as much of a threat as a people a world away who are not attacking you. If you can make war on people, which includes the likely and frequent death of innocents, to prevent merely possible danger then you can abort a baby to prevent merely possible danger. The cavalier attitude towards foreigners makes me doubt the moral underpinnings of their anti-abortion claims.

Which war(s) do you believe do not meet the Just War test, and why? Your post seems to suggest that one cannot intervene militarily against a foreign power unless one is directly attacked by that power first. The Just War doctrine does not require that.

One needs to be slow to attribute bad faith to others. There is no reason to suppose either that people who did not oppose particular wars were “cavalier” about the deaths of foreigners. And most definitely that does not justify a claim that their bona fides are doubtful just because they don’t agree with your views about war.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Pope Benedict called the Iraq war “unjustified”.

It wasn’t defined in terms of “Just War” doctrine.

I would point out that the US and MNF go well out of their way to avoid civillian casualties, even to their own peril.

I’m still wondering when the Iraq death toll will reach 50 million. Perhaps if it went on for another 2,500 years?

It might be a matter of semantics, but isn’t ‘unjustified’ the opposite of ‘just’? The Vatican’s Emissary, Cardinal Pio Laghi, did tell Bush that a war would be ‘illegal and unjust.’ I realize this did not include ‘immoral’, but it should have given us pause. I also realize that many often say that we are at liberty to disagree with the Pope on the subject of war, but I’m not sure how that disagreement sits with the ‘Just War’ doctrine.

Are you saying that if only 100k innocents die in military action, it’s no big deal? I know you’re not, but it comes across that way.

As we are discussing the lesser of two evils and voting, I think that falls short of placing one’s full trust in God, who is all powerful. God could force His will upon us, but does not. I’m not so sure we can decide between the lesser of two evils and legislate what God does not. We should be seeking conversion of hearts in all matters.

 

[ProVobis]

No I don’t understand how they could be against abortion. If you can justify America’s wars you can easily justify abortion. A fetus in a woman’s womb is as much of a threat as a people a world away who are not attacking you. If you can make war on people, which includes the likely and frequent death of innocents, to prevent merely possible danger then you can abort a baby to prevent merely possible danger. The cavalier attitude towards foreigners makes me doubt the moral underpinnings of their anti-abortion claims.

Agreed. When they dismiss thousands of deaths of pregnant women, children, and other civilians as “collateral damage” it speaks volumes of their “pro-life” position.

 

[scipio337]

Are you saying that if only 100k innocents die in military action, it’s no big deal? I know you’re not, but it comes across that way.

If you know that’s not what I’m saying, why ask?
Prodigal Son1:

As we are discussing the lesser of two evils and voting, I think that falls short of placing one’s full trust in God, who is all powerful. God could force His will upon us, but does not. I’m not so sure we can decide between the lesser of two evils and legislate what God does not. We should be seeking conversion of hearts in all matters.

Agreed, but in the context of the thread, war and abortion are two evils, but in this case, abortion is a much greater one.

No party has “go to war, kill innocents” as part of its platform, and war is largely a bi-partisan effort.

 

[Mickey]

I did not intend to justify abortion in anyway.

Good. Then you should not be making analogies.

 

[ProVobis]

But 50 million babies have been murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade…50 million!!!

And the Democrats are responsible for all of them while it was mostly a Republican appointed Supreme Court which not only made Roe vs Wade the law of the land but it made it most difficult to overturn? Congress never passed the law so how did the SC justify its ruling?

 

[Mickey]

Agreed. When they dismiss thousands of deaths of pregnant women, children, and other civilians as “collateral damage” it speaks volumes of their “pro-life” position.

It is called collateral damage…and it is tragic. Perhaps you should be looking at that beam in your own eye before you start judging how someone feels about being pro-life.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A counsel to despair if I ever read one.

That is only your opinion. My opinion is already stated. When do I give up on those who promise change and do nothing to make it happen when opportunity arises?

The Church does not go into particularities of voting. But we are morally obliged to oppose intrinsic evils and are morally obligated to do so politically if we can. There’s no question about that. And in judging whether some candidate is viable or not, it’s not at all difficult to know that.

It’s not all the difficult to know, however, it is difficult to go against one’s faith formed conscience when one is called to avoid the lesser of two evils. You should go by your conscience and accept that I will go by mine. We are neither more or less righteous than the other in our decision, as long as we use our faith formed conscience. At least we cannot declare the other less, or ourselves as more.

No sir. You can call peoples’ opposition to abortion a pretext if you like, but saying you’re skeptical of people who oppose it does not make it so.

I did not call people’s opposition to abortion a pretext, I said that others do that through insinuation in what appears to be an attempt to sway someone to vote for a specific candidate, even at the risk of causing one to go against their faith formed conscience. No one in this thread, that I’ve noticed, has supported abortion at all, even those who have said they may not vote, or vote for a third party candidate.

Possibly one could address that if you gave your specifics on why you think Romney is evil. He wasn’t my first choice, but I never thought of him as “evil”.

That has also bothered me, when I pause to think about it. To call anyone evil is to judge them. It cannot be avoided.

I have several issues with Romney, and other politicians, who flips on an issue. That really makes me suspect of being pandered too. Was he sincere in supporting abortion then, or sincere about being pro-life now? Risky business; placing one’s trust in a man.

 

[Mickey]

And the Democrats are responsible for all of them while it was mostly a Republican appointed Supreme Court which not only made Roe vs Wade the law of the land but it made it most difficult to overturn? Congress never passed the law so how did the SC justify its ruling?

There you go…judging again. I vote by my conscience. One candidate (and most of his party) is pro-life and against abortion (and I take him/them at his/their word). The other candidate (and most of his party) is staunchly pro-abortion. And I would not vote for him in a billion years.

I choose not to stand before the judgemnet seat of Christ one day and attempt to justify why I voted for openly pro-abortion people to run the country.

You will do as your conscience dictates.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Good. Then you should not be making analogies.

I was responding to your analogy between the innocents in a military action and abortion. It was explained more in the part of my post you didn’t post.

I find it disturbing when one uses numbers to justify war victims, because it’s a smaller number.

Also, do you consider children as ‘having a chance to attempt to flee the line of fire?’ Now many strikes come from long distance where the innocent have no chance to flee.

 

[ProVobis]

It is called collateral damage…and it is tragic. Perhaps you should be looking at that beam in your own eye before you start judging how someone feels about being pro-life.

First they would have to define “pro-life.” Then I will decide whether to vote for them on that basis or not. You’re right, though, I shouldn’t have to judge them on that or on any basis.