Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[tqualey]

I stand by the statment I made - and here is the reference to back it up: articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/politics/politics_fact-checking-gingrich-infanticide-charge_1_bar-abortions-opponents-of-abortion-rights-barack-obama?_s=PMOLITICS

Because of the precious little time we have before this election - I would request you supply a reference that supports this ‘Obama is not for infanticide’ position - or admit that it is your statement that is in error. This is nothing to play around with.

God bless

This is false and even Jill Stanek, admitted that she spun the story of when Obama was senator in Ill, and voted against the Born Alive Act the state had tried to pass. The wording was different than the federal version, and Stanek admitted this. The Ill, would’ve made obstetrician’s fighting against erroneous accusations of murder, when an infant who was still born, was thought to be alive by the distraught mother. All the medical groups in the state opposed the bill, and there was a law on the books that mandated that a physician who delivered an infant who was in distress, to do everything medically possible to care for the child and try to save it.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Because of the precious little time we have before this election - I would request you supply a reference that supports this ‘Obama is not for infanticide’ position - or admit that it is your statement that is in error. This is nothing to play around with.

God bless

I’ll do no such thing. Obama supporting infanticide is a far fetched opinion which has no support and is too ridiculous for fair minded people to even suggest.

Also, to prove a negative, is not possible.

It’s the very sort of rhetoric which the USCCB’s have said needs to be toned down.

Especially when we realize that such rhetoric only serves to drive people further away from the truth.

I stand by my statement, which of course is correct.

Jim

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ProVobis,

So, with all the people running for President, you are now claiming you are the most qualified and this justifies voting for yourself? Truly talk is cheap - do you really plan on qualifying in your state to run for President?

How about the moral code that goes beyond Cicero - one that Catholics need to address: 1968 “Huanae Vitae”
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html and 1995 “Evangelium Vitae”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

There really isn’t much time left to be making off-the-wall statements. Obama is a moral disaster and I do not honestly see how a Catholic can claim to be voting for him on election day. We all will have to answer to God on how we voted. Hey, if you don’t like Romney - fine - just vote for someone who does not trash human life, religious freedom and just plain keeping the promise he made when he got his honorary Notre Dame doctorate.

God bless

I may reconsider my position of not voting. I’ll vote for myself if I have to but I try to follow the moral code expressed in Cicero’s De Officiis (On Duties) especially in Primum minima de malis (“Of evils choose the least”.)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tampa Dave,

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head!

God bless

Romney is the only reasonable choice between the two candidates. I will do everything I can to defeat Obama. His policies are anti-Catholic in too many respects.

 

[ProVobis]

So, with all the people running for President, you are now claiming you are the most qualified and this justifies voting for yourself? Truly talk is cheap - do you really plan on qualifying in your state to run for President?

Actually I said that to make a point. I’m not qualified to be President; I was conceived in Germany and born and raised in the U.K.

And what’s wrong with Cicero? You do know St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose were very influenced by his moral code, don’t you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Officiis *

The Latin is beautiful but here’s what I consider a decent English translation. I recommend it over Ayn Rand.

constitution.org/rom/de_officiis.htm

• little known fact: De Officiis was the second book to be printed, the Gutenberg Bible being the first.

 

[ishii]

I don’t know about the rest of the country, but currently on the local Boston and New Hampshire stations, Obama is running attack ads on Romney, and the ads are
promoting abortion, not merely promoting pro-choice.

The Church clearly says we can not vote for a candidate who “promotes,” abortion, so I have no doubt about not voting for Obama.

It’s strange that Obama took this path in his campaign, ***where in the last campaign, he ***merely said he did not believe in forcing his beliefs on others and was open to both the pro-life arguments as he was to the pro-choice arguments. Now he’s totally into the pro-abortion argument as evident in his ads.

What moved him further away from the truth?

Why didn’t the pro-life movement work to bring him to the truth, instead of pushing him away with nasty rhetoric?

Jim

(my bold italics added to the above post for emphasis)

What makes you say Obama wasn’t just as pro-abortion as a senator or presidential candidate than he is now? How have his views on abortion changed? In 2005, 2006, & 2007 Obama received a 100% NARAL rating for his voting record. Furthermore, what makes you think the pro-life movement didn’t work to bring him to the truth? What evidence do you have for the pro-life movement “pushing him away”? Since becoming a serious politician, Obama has signed on to the abortion on demand view - which is required of anyone in the Democrat party who wants to go anywhere in national or statewide elective office. He has always been pro-abortion. No one “pushed him”.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

What makes you say Obama wasn’t just as pro-abortion as a senator or presidential candidate than he is now?

No one here is denying that Obama is pro-abortion. But is Romney in a position to throw stones?

youtube.com/watch?v=lNDsyKnQIes

or on anything for that matter?

youtube.com/watch?v=i1fThdWagJ4&feature=related

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JimR,

Hey, I can understand a refusal to provide a reference when one is called for to support the opinion you keep on claiming to be true - but are content with just an opinion. I really do understand. I just hope that you understand where this limited view is leading you.

And, just as a matter of definition - killing a new born (besides being obviously murder) is called infanticide. If the child survived the botched abortion then he is a citizen and entitled to life, liberty and happiness - not a second chance at being murdered to save a totally flawed Supreme Court decision.

Now, if you change your mind and try to refute the one reference I gave you… I have a couple more.

God bless

I’ll do no such thing. Obama supporting infanticide is a far fetched opinion which has no support and is too ridiculous for fair minded people to even suggest.

Also, to prove a negative, is not possible.

It’s the very sort of rhetoric which the USCCB’s have said needs to be toned down.

Especially when we realize that such rhetoric only serves to drive people further away from the truth.

I stand by my statement, which of course is correct.

Jim

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ProVobis,

Please reference the thread - the contest is between two people with flaws. The difference is that Obama is pro-abortion - and if that fails pro-infanticide, anti-religious freedom and when all else fails - outright lying as he did at Notre Dame University. Obama is a moral disaster - Romney is no saint but, IMO, far more moral and acceptable to those with a moral sense. There is no doubt that Romney is more acceptable to Catholics then Obama.

We have a real adult decision ahead of us - sticking our head in the sand and saying we are not going to vote is an refusal to demonstrate maturity. Sorry things are the way they are - but - they are what they are, so make up your mind if you will combat evil or do something - maybe the only thing - you can do: vote.

God bless

No one here is denying that Obama is pro-abortion. But is Romney in a position to throw stones?

youtube.com/watch?v=lNDsyKnQIes

or on anything for that matter?

youtube.com/watch?v=i1fThdWagJ4&feature=related

 

[ishii]

No one here is denying that Obama is pro-abortion. But is Romney in a position to throw stones?

youtube.com/watch?v=lNDsyKnQIes

or on anything for that matter?

youtube.com/watch?v=i1fThdWagJ4&feature=related

Hello Provobis,

I would make two points here. One, Obama is the most pro-abortion president we’ve ever had. His supreme court justice appointments are a lock to affirm roe v wade. He was even among the most pro-abortion senators - and that includes senators like Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski. Two, Romney has a mixed record throughout his history to be sure. If we go by his statements he made in 1994 and also as a gubernatorial candidate in 2004 and assume that he hasn’t changed his position at all since then, I think one could argue that he is still a much better choice than Obama. Think about all of the people who would be advising Romney on abortion/sanctity of life policy, supreme court justice picks, etc. The choice is simple: Would you rather have a president Romney with Paul Ryan and a host of other pro-life people advising him on social policy or would you rather have president Obama with pro-aborition advisors? And Obama is a committed pro-abortionist. Romney claims to have changed his views. Let him show us. He has to know that if he disappoints, he will pay dearly in 2016. Pro-vobis, don’t let a youtube clip from 1994 keep you from voting to stop the evil policies of the Obama administration.

Ishii

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ishii,

Great post!

Here is a letter from Paul Ryan’s Bishop concerning the upcoming election: madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/3366-bishop-column.html

Catholics really need to be thinking about what is really at steak concerning this election.

God bless

Hello Provobis,

I would make two points here. One, Obama is the most pro-abortion president we’ve ever had. His supreme court justice appointments are a lock to affirm roe v wade. He was even among the most pro-abortion senators - and that includes senators like Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski. Two, Romney has a mixed record throughout his history to be sure. If we go by his statements he made in 1994 and also as a gubernatorial candidate in 2004 and assume that he hasn’t changed his position at all since then, I think one could argue that he is still a much better choice than Obama. Think about all of the people who would be advising Romney on abortion/sanctity of life policy, supreme court justice picks, etc. The choice is simple: Would you rather have a president Romney with Paul Ryan and a host of other pro-life people advising him on social policy or would you rather have president Obama with pro-aborition advisors? And Obama is a committed pro-abortionist. Romney claims to have changed his views. Let him show us. He has to know that if he disappoints, he will pay dearly in 2016. Pro-vobis, don’t let a youtube clip from 1994 keep you from voting to stop the evil policies of the Obama administration.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

Please reference the thread

Okay, in that case for the sake of argument, let’s say I find a third party candidate who is more pro-life than Romney, not difficult to do IMO? How can I justify voting for Romney then?

And before you respond that the third party candidate has no viable way of winning, let me respond by saying that I voted for Keyes ahead of Obama for Senate, when Keyes was not given any viable chance of winning either.

 

[ProVobis]

Think about all of the people who would be advising Romney on abortion/sanctity of life policy, supreme court justice picks, etc. The choice is simple: Would you rather have a president Romney with Paul Ryan and a host of other pro-life people advising him on social policy or would you rather have president Obama with pro-aborition advisors?

I wish I could share your optimism. I received an email yesterday from the National Prolife Alliance asking to sign a petition. Now why would they have people sign petitions if they felt that Romney was solidly pro-life?

This summer, if they get their way, the pro-abortion activists hope to remove the only pro-life language in either of the major party’s platforms.

Since 1976 the Republican Party’s platform has contained strong support for our Life at Conception Act and other pro-life measures.

The Democrat platform, of course, states their unequivocal support for abortion-on-demand.

The two positions are as different as night and day.

Nevertheless, the so-called “Republicans for Choice” and other pro-abortion activists are fighting to remove from the platform this fundamental support for the sanctity of life which separates the two parties.

In fact, they already have organizers in the field, recruiting people to go to the Republican National Convention in order to strip the pro-life plank from the platform.

That is why it is so important that you sign the petitions letting Mitt Romney and the platform committee know that removing or weakening the pro-life plank from the platform is unacceptable to pro-life voters.

nationalprolifealliance.com/rpp_petition2.aspx?PID=0819a&NPLA=HEAJAA12I

 

[ishii]

Okay, in that case for the sake of argument, let’s say I find a third party candidate who is more pro-life than Romney, not difficult to do IMO? How can I justify voting for Romney then?

And before you respond that the third party candidate has no viable way of winning, let me respond by saying that I voted for Keyes ahead of Obama for Senate, when Keyes was not given any viable chance of winning either.

Thanks for responding, Provobis. I believe you are a sincere pro-life voter and are arguing from that perspective. However, voting for Keyes has nothing to do with the argument that voting for a 3rd party in 2012 is a worthy endeavor. There was no other serious viable candidate for the Illinois senate race. You voted for Keyes, and he didn’t really have a chance, but then, no one else did either - other than Keyes, the top two 3rd party guys combined to get a whopping 2.9% of the vote. Now, there is no other viable alternative to Romney. It is Obama or Romney. My question still stands Provobis: would you rather have the pro-abortion Obama with Kathleen Sebelius, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi at his side advising him who to pick for the next two supreme court justices or would you rather have Romney with pro-life Catholic Paul Ryan and other pro-life advisors advising him? I agree that there is no guarentee with Romney. But I would take Romney with Ryan by his side over Obama with Biden/Sebelius at his side. In a heartbeat. It is a no-brainer.

I wish I could share your optimism. I received an email yesterday from the National Prolife Alliance asking to sign a petition. Now why would they have people sign petitions if they felt that Romney was solidly pro-life?

nationalprolifealliance.com/rpp_petition2.aspx?PID=0819a&NPLA=HEAJAA12I

I have no idea why the National Pro-life alliance would ask you to sign a petition or why they think pro-abortion forces will somehow change the platform of the GOP. I would not take the actions of one pro-life group and jump to the conclusion that Romney isn’t pro-life. If Romney wasn’t pro-life, then why did he pick Paul Ryan? Either way, it doesn’t matter. Whatever we don’t know about Romney - we do know that Obama is certainly pro-abortion and surrounds himself with other pro abortionists. As I said, the decision to support Romney/Ryan should be a no-brainer for anyone interested in voting for the most electable pro-life ticket.

Ishii

 

[cyejbv]

I’m a Catholic realist. I will vote for Romney. Period.

Agreed agreed agreed, Tampa Dave. You’re also pithy; admirable considering the topic! I concur- it’s that simple, even though it isn’t and I will surely be lambasted for saying so. Matt Abbot had a great column about the issue; I’ve posted the link to head off any lambasters.

renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/120814

Pax

 

[Pork_Roll]

Romney Mormonism should be reason enough to worry about his presidential qualifications. But more worrisome is that he was so adamantly pro-choice when it was convienient for him to be so and now he’s pro-life for likely the same reasons. I don’t trust him.

He supported the Wall Street bailouts!!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ProVobis,

Please note, I never said that a third-party candidate has no chance of winning. Chosing to vote for a person who is more pro-life then Romney is perfectly fine with me - and that is because you are voting AGAINST the person who is advocating abortions under any and all circumstances.

Seriously, vote your informed conscience for the candidate who best promotes life - and not death. That is THE issue.

God bless

Okay, in that case for the sake of argument, let’s say I find a third party candidate who is more pro-life than Romney, not difficult to do IMO? How can I justify voting for Romney then?

And before you respond that the third party candidate has no viable way of winning, let me respond by saying that I voted for Keyes ahead of Obama for Senate, when Keyes was not given any viable chance of winning either.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hey, I can understand a refusal to provide a reference when one is called for to support the opinion you keep on claiming to be true - but are content with just an opinion. I really do understand. I just hope that you understand where this limited view is leading you.

 

[ProVobis]

But I would take Romney with Ryan by his side over Obama with Biden/Sebelius at his side. In a heartbeat. It is a no-brainer.

Okay but I’d still say Caveat Emptor. I noticed Ryan already changing his tone somewhat about Medicare and his balanced budget when speaking in front of the elderly crowd. He’s already compromised his Ayn Rand position. I can only imagine what he’d say if out of desperation, he’s asked to speak before pro-choice crowds in swing states.

 

[seekerz]

Okay but I’d still say Caveat Emptor. I noticed Ryan already changing his tone somewhat about Medicare and his balanced budget when speaking in front of the elderly crowd. He’s already compromised his Ayn Rand position. I can only imagine what he’d say if out of desperation, he’s asked to speak before pro-choice crowds in swing states.

Why would he be desperate? Elections are win or lose - it was his choice to run; nobody forced him…correct?