Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[ProVobis]

Why would he be desperate?

Not Ryan necessarily but the Republican Party, which apparently has been having some pressures to change their pro-life platform. Just saying.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Not Ryan necessarily but the Republican Party, which apparently has been having some pressures to change their pro-life platform. Just saying.

Could be, a little bit. Romney said that he wouldn’t oppose abortion in cases of rape.

 

[jwinch2]

**In defense of Christian responsibility
**By Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2268

I am not a policy expert. I do not know whether Paul Ryan’s fiscal plans are the right plans for America’s present- or her future. I cannot, nor would I, endorse him or any other candidate. But claims that Paul Ryan’s plan run deeply counter to Catholic social teaching are unfounded and unreasonable. Some criticisms are so insidious that one wonders whether the critics have actually read Ryan’s plans.

For Catholics- there are certain social issues on which the answers are firm and absolute. Catholics must recognize the dignity of the unborn, and the injustice of legalized killing. Catholics must recognize the dignity of human sexuality and the immutability of marriage between man and woman. Catholics must recognize the preferential option- the Lord’s love- for the poor. These issues must inform the decisions Catholic leaders make in proposing or supporting policy.

Beyond these non-negotiable principles, there is room for considerable debate on particular policy choices or initiatives. But a primary element of the debate for Catholics- for all reasonable adults- must be the long-term consequences of our choices. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica insists that strategic decisions take place in light of our end, or purpose, and the means to get there- rather than the dictates of immediate sentimental inclinations. The just means, he says, include the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity- that is, authentic fraternity with the poor, and real respect for the family and the local community.

 

[pnewton]

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

FYI, I noted this in your last post. This is very much in concert with the teaching of the Church on political action which permits both voting for the best candidate on moral issues, or the best and most electable candidate.

 

[jwinch2]

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=34952

Despite all the controversy surrounding GOP Missouri senate candidate Todd Akin and his (idiotic) comment about rape the Republican platform committee still approved today pro-life plank language that includes no exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JimR,

I am glad your pre-mature son has done alright. Yes, there can be complications with a full-term baby - and once the gestational time is reduced the chances of complications only increases. But, note, none of us was promised a trouble-free entry into this world - and the position of the Catholic Church is that life is be saved whenever possible. If it is not possible then that is another issue - but, simply because there may be problems later on is not sufficient reason to stop the process.

You apparently did not look at the site I gave you - it was not from a pro-life site it was from CNN (does that somehow make it unworthy of use, or too biased when contrasted with the obviously objective Fact Check… )

Here is the original link: articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/p…_s=PMOLITICS

This gives a some more detail: nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan (DISCLAIMER: A Conservative Site!!)

And even more details: washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/24/picket-obamas-bad-moves-infanticide-come-back-haun/

And if you are feel up to it: rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/24/media_ignorant_about_obama_s_infanticide_votes_in_the_illinois_state_senate (Right Wing Media!!!)

May I suggest that you do some checking beyond the Left Wing Media / pro-Obama news outlets. Obama was more then willing to have a survivor of an (botched?) abortion be left out to die of exposure. Now, from reading your response, you appear to be quite comfortable with this approach - but, let me tell you - the Catholic Church does not endorse this approach. The idea that an Illinois physican would be charged with murder if the child died is pure hog-wash. The issue was did the physician do anything to prevent the death of this now delivered ALIVE baby? No? Well, I guess that is a problem. Yes? The assumption is that doctor did his best.

Seriously, IMO, trying to sugar-coat Obama’s efforts at promoting infanticide is very sad to read about from a Catholic.

The infaticide issue is old news … so, any similar sugary words for the HHS Mandate?

God bless

tqualey;9669748:

Here is the easy place to read about what took place;

factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

However, if want a deeper analysis go to the American Pediatrics association and do some searching about the reasons they gave for opposing the Illinois version of the Infant Born Alive Act.

The problem is, Obama did not support not treating an infant born alive, in a botched abortion. For one, 2nd trimester abortions are performed in Hospitals and only to save the life of the mother, they’re not performed in Planned Parenthood clinics.

Also, as stated before, the Illinois version of the law, would have doctors being brought up on charges for not attempting to save a child delivered earlier than viability. In other words, a child born at 18 weeks, which would have no chance of survival, the doctors would be forced to try and save the child despite the technology not being available to do so. His failure to try, would bring a charge of murder against him.

Such a law would essentially send a message to medical students, don’t become an obstetrician or pediatrician.

FYI, my son was born at 27 weeks, back in 1981. While in the intensive care unit, I saw infants as young as 24 weeks who were saved, with complications of course. So I follow the technology and information very closely. Today, infants born prior to 24 weeks, they can not save and to attempt to do so, only cases the baby to suffer for no reason at all.

There are times we have to let go, and the last thing we want is a government bureau deciding whether or not to charge a doctor with murder, because the mother thought she saw her 18 week still born child move and the physician didn’t attempt to save it.

From here all I can say to you is, do some research and stay out of the pro-life political websites, but go to the medical association sites where the doctors who are the experts in the field have to say.

Jim

 

[LoveRoses]

Remember that whoever is elected will replace several Supreme Court Justices, which will determine the future course of our country.
So, all of you moralists, don’t be right, but still do harm to our country.

Excellent post George, I think you’ve articulated what I feel very well. This is an extremely important election, there is much on the line here. I implore every registered voter to do so.

As a Catholic, I also believe that other Catholics/Christians need to examine their conscience here and vote according to what rings true to their religious beliefs and the respect of religious freedom. Again, there are MANY important issues here and as George stated, future Supreme Court Justices will determine the course of our country.

Another note as an FYI: If you are not registered, you can do so online. Google for the form, complete, print out and mail. Keep in mind you must be registered at least 21-days in advance of the election to be eligible to vote.

 

[ishii]

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.

I think I now understand you better - You see Ryan distancing himself from his earlier praise for a Randian esoteric political philosophy and assume that he will also now abandon his pro-life stance. As if a desire to protect the unborn somehow is on equal footing with one’s views of Ayn Rand. You seem to be saying " abandon Ayn Rand today, abandon the Catholic faith tommorow" See how absurd you sound? Caveat emptor, indeed! But give the seller a chance. Like I’ve been saying to others - if Romney/Ryan do not govern as a pro-life team then they will have a hard time being re-elected. Does this mean you will give Romney/Ryan a chance?

Ishii

 

[Yeoman]

I’ve been reviewing this thread with interest in part because I’m struggling against an inclination to vote the way that I probably should not.

It seems to be the case that most sincere Catholics, which is what I am, and those who are generally conservative, which is what I am, feel they should vote for Romney. Indeed, in the sincere Catholic category, due to the moral concerns, the feeling is that we must vote for Romney. The election is going to be close, and every vote will indeed count in some way (although my state is definitely going to Romney no matter what).

Here’s my problem.

I feel horrible about even saying this, but here it is. I’m highly educated, holding three degrees, and I’m a professional. I also live in the Mormon belt and have had Mormon friends and associates over the years. I even have some Mormon relatives, by marriage. I’m highly exposed to the Mormons, and as a result, I really have an extremely strong reluctance to vote for Romney.

I’m not universally opposed to every Mormon politician by any means. I liked the Mormon candidate from Utah who was running earlier. But Romney nearly perfectly fits a certain Mormon mold to a T, it seems to me. Mormonism is a very odd, polytheistic religion which has an institutional habit of being deceptive as to some of its core beliefs. It’s highly aggressive, and just during the past few years alone, in this area, it’s become increasingly aggressive. Locally, they’ve managed to secure a unique ability to spring children from class time during high school for “seminary” and then arm them with the Book of Mormon with orders to pass them out to their fellow students. No way Catholics would get away with that.

I really fear that electing Romney as President legitimizes the odd Mormon religion which is yet another cult like late 19th Century millennial religion, like the 7th Day Adventist, albeit one with extremely odd theology and very pronounced durability. I’d be worried about darned near any religion held by a President, even Islam, much less, at least when held in the hidden Romney fashion. If worn on the sleeve, for what it is worth, I wouldn’t worry about it, as people would see it for what it is.

I’m aware, of course, that this sounds highly bigoted, and maybe it is. But I’m surrounded by it constantly. It amazes me that people accuse Obama of being a Moslem when the same people are backing somebody who isn’t even a member of a monotheistic religion.

So, in my view, my choices are:

1. Don’t vote for the Presidential candidates at all, in my state, which is going to go very heavily over to Romney anyhow.
2. Vote for Romney on the basis that his presently stated views are opposed to abortion and homosexual unions.
3. Vote for a 3d party in protest.

I’d seriously consider voting for Obama but I regard his positions on abortion and homosexual unions as so immoral that I cannot. Indeed, even though I don’t like Obama’s generally left of center views on most things, I’d vote for him to keep Romney out but for abortion and homosexual unions. I just don’t think any Catholic can vote for him, in good conscience, this year.

Okay, in terms of morality, where am I off?

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Please check with your state’s requirements. In Texas it is 30 days before the election!!

 

[ProVobis]

Does this mean you will give Romney/Ryan a chance?

Of course. And it would be a done deal today if they let up on their military talk. Two trillion on that, while there may be mothers unable to pay for deliveries of their kids here, is a little above my comprehension.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rich Olszewski,

You’re right - Romney seems to be slipping on his Mormon beliefs here! The real issue is getting legislation through Congress first - and then wondering about what Romney will do. There is no doubt about Obama’s actions!

Yesterday, I was listening to the Catholic Channel while driving to work - and they interviewed this female attorney (Rebecca Kiessling) who was conceived as the result of a rape, and her mother thought about aborting the child but was stopped on several occasions - and ended up giving the infant for adoption. 19 years later, this young woman finds out about her past and how close she came to be aborted - and decided that she has an obligation to speak out for such targeted children. Here is the link to her site: rebeccakiessling.com/index.html

What struck me during this interview was that the states are financially punished by the fedreal government by making a no exception law (so rape, incest and the life of the mother would not be a reason for having an abortion). Her comment is that as long as there is this federal law - the chances of shutting down abortion will always remain out of reach becaue killing some innocent children is still allowed.

This is all the more obvious when the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was a ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment for rape - and in this case, raping a child. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana) So, if the rapist can not be killed - how do we justify killing the innocent child he fathered?

She did an excellent interview.

God bless

Tom

Could be, a little bit. Romney said that he wouldn’t oppose abortion in cases of rape.

 

[LoveRoses]

I’d seriously consider voting for Obama but I regard his positions on abortion and homosexual unions as so immoral that I cannot. Indeed, even though I don’t like Obama’s generally left of center views on most things, I’d vote for him to keep Romney out but for abortion and homosexual unions. I just don’t think any Catholic can vote for him, in good conscience, this year.

Okay, in terms of morality, where am I off?

Yeoman, I’ve read your post and I don’t think you are morally off. I agree with you one this: I don’t think any Catholic, with a good conscience, should vote for Obama. If we, as Christians, profess our faith without shame, they we need to stand firm. Obama is probably the greatest anti-Christian POTUS in our history, based in his stance on moral issues alone. The abortion issue, in and of itself, stands alone.

We need to remember as we vote this election … the stakes are incredibly high and not just because we are in such financial chaos as a country. Where does this financial chaos come from? Oh yes, financial pundits and those with a sharpened pencil can tell us, intellectual, the dollars and cents. The perils of socialism and big government.

But … I’ll dare to say what many others (not necessarily on this board) are reticent to say in public: We have taken GOD out of our country. We are becoming, day by day, a GOD-LESS society, in our acts, how we are showing hatred towards the unborn and laughing at the sanctity of marriage. Christians are being metaphorically fed to the lions.

Our country was founded on Christian-Judeo principles, our constitution acknowledges GOD and yet we (government) are scrambling in the courts to remove any mention of God in government and our schools. This is a different from separation of church and state.

I think Obama is unprecedented … he is the worst thing to ever come upon our great country. I could go into what I think about his fiscal policies, his soft yet increasingly-leaning attitude towards a communistic society, but I won’t. I’ll simply say, that if for nothing else, his trambling attitude towards Christian beliefs alone would set me voting for any opponent.

 

[Mickey]

I think Obama is unprecedented … he is the worst thing to ever come upon our great country.

I agree with you…as do many others on this forum.

 

[SeekNFind]

Romney is a shady character, a liar and crooked. I will not be voting for him. I do not agree with Obama on moral issues, however, and that’s my struggle.

And I disagree that Obama is the worst thing to happen to this country–clearly George W deserves that honor.

 

[SeekNFind]

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!!

Right! He was pro-abortion when it suited him. He’s a liar and a flip-flopper. He’s as slippery as oil. Not to be trusted.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SeekNFind,

Maybe the next time both the Democrats and Republicans will try to get someone like Mother Teresa to run for office. But, right now - we are faced with a real choice and, like the thread says, we are looking for the lesser of two evisl.

So, since you said you will not be voting for Romney - are there other candidates you will not be voting for?

The adult version of this conflict is that we are to stand up against the greater evil. Your harshness in addressing Romney is pretty tame by your muted qualms about Obama. Romney has really flip-flopped on several moral issues - you are so right about that. Fortunately, our President has been, “… as constant as the northern star…” on abortion and freedom of religion. I think this greatly reduces any confusion. While we can hope that Romney will not follow Obama over the moral cliff - there is no doubt that Obama is going head first in promoting the policies moral degeneration.

Hey, you are upset about Romney lying - but, awfully quiet about Obama’s Notre Dame speech where he promised to respect the rights of those who do not agree with abortion - and then accepted his honorary doctorate.

My suggestion is to just review how you have painted both of these politicians - I suggest you identify what it is in Obama that has you drawn to him - at least to the ballot box. Obama is clearly the greater of two evils - and his promotion of abortion is directly in opposition to Catholic teachings. Romney is not that way.

God bless

Romney is a shady character, a liar and crooked. I will not be voting for him. I do not agree with Obama on moral issues, however, and that’s my struggle.

And I disagree that Obama is the worst thing to happen to this country–clearly George W deserves that honor.

 

[CaptFun]

Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

Not BECAUSE of the evil ever (but yes, given that no candidate is Jesus or the Blessed Mother, we do, or SHOULD).

It is BETTER to put it - we vote for the BEST candidate (that we CAN).

It gets more complicated when there are two (let’s say “committed pro-aborts”) being run by the “major parties” and the BEST candidate (a committed pro-life one) is a third party candidate that the POLLS say :dts: “can’t possibly win.” What to do?

Pray (that’s good). And DO the best thing for the best reasons.

**In MY case such an examination of conscience might go something like:
**

• If I vote for the Democrat it’d be - because if a pro-choice Republican wins there’ll be more of them and we’ll never have anything but pro-abort candidates. I want that RINO GONE, badly beaten so that we never see one AGAIN.
• I’ll grit my teeth and vote for the RINO who might under pressure from the rest of the party vote pro-life or abstain when the time comes. Who knows? “Pro-life” candidates I once voted for sometimes flip once they’ve been elected (e.g. Pete Wilson (R) and (D) John Garamendi :banghead This guy might be Arlen Spectre - and be more
  likely to vote right than the Democrat - sooo …
• I’ll cast a principled vote for the third party candidate. People will notice. Even if that candidate loses, if they draw more percentage points than the margin of loss for the second place candidate (particularly the pro-abort Republican) the party may say, "we can’t run one of these again - we didn’t get the pro-abort voters and some of the pro-life voters actually jumped ship and sealed our “loss”. OH! And by the way. Independents do win sometimes. Even in races as big as the US Senate where there are currently TWO of the 100. Though neither Bernie Sanders or Joe Lieberman is “pro-life”.

***What KILLS me is voting for JUDGES! ***

“Who ARE these PEO-ple?” - Jerry Seinfeld

Really. They are just names on a paper. They have MORE power than anyone and scarcely ANYTHING is written about them.

• Do I abstain so I don’t re-elect a stealth scoundrel or dis-elect a good Judge I just haven’t heard of? Or abstain so as not to ELECT a new bad Judge or rubber stamp a Judge that deserves to be replaced.
• Do I re-elect a Judge I haven’t heard much BAD about because it seems safe?
• Do I automatically vote OUT the incumbent because Judges terms are so long, and
  you don’t want anyone so entrenched in power.
• OR automatically vote a Judge back IN because with experience - one might reason - a Judge should be getting better and better and particularly better than a rookie Judge.

:juggle: - “SOMEBODY take these &%$#-ing things AWAY from me!”

 

[Jeffrey]

Not even close. obama is the worst… i’ll bet jimmy carter is happy.

Romney is a shady character, a liar and crooked. I will not be voting for him. I do not agree with Obama on moral issues, however, and that’s my struggle.

And I disagree that Obama is the worst thing to happen to this country–clearly George W deserves that honor.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CaptFun,

Ah, but to know the future we would have done some many things differently… Pray and then do the right thing.

Here is a quote I enjoy:

“Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.”
― Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

God bless

Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

Not BECAUSE of the evil ever (but yes, given that no candidate is Jesus or the Blessed Mother, we do, or SHOULD).

It is BETTER to put it - we vote for the BEST candidate (that we CAN).

It gets more complicated when there are two (let’s say “committed pro-aborts”) being run by the “major parties” and the BEST candidate (a committed pro-life one) is a third party candidate that the POLLS say :dts: “can’t possibly win.” What to do?

Pray (that’s good). And DO the best thing for the best reasons.

**In MY case such an examination of conscience might go something like:
**

• If I vote for the Democrat it’d be - because if a pro-choice Republican wins there’ll be more of them and we’ll never have anything but pro-abort candidates. I want that RINO GONE, badly beaten so that we never see one AGAIN.
• I’ll grit my teeth and vote for the RINO who might under pressure from the rest of the party vote pro-life or abstain when the time comes. Who knows? “Pro-life” candidates I once voted for sometimes flip once they’ve been elected (e.g. Pete Wilson (R) and (D) John Garamendi :banghead This guy might be Arlen Spectre - and be more
  likely to vote right than the Democrat - sooo …
• I’ll cast a principled vote for the third party candidate. People will notice. Even if that candidate loses, if they draw more percentage points than the margin of loss for the second place candidate (particularly the pro-abort Republican) the party may say, "we can’t run one of these again - we didn’t get the pro-abort voters and some of the pro-life voters actually jumped ship and sealed our “loss”. OH! And by the way. Independents do win sometimes. Even in races as big as the US Senate where there are currently TWO of the 100. Though neither Bernie Sanders or Joe Lieberman is “pro-life”.

***What KILLS me is voting for JUDGES! ***

“Who ARE these PEO-ple?” - Jerry Seinfeld

Really. They are just names on a paper. They have MORE power than anyone and scarcely ANYTHING is written about them.

• Do I abstain so I don’t re-elect a stealth scoundrel or dis-elect a good Judge I just haven’t heard of? Or abstain so as not to ELECT a new bad Judge or rubber stamp a Judge that deserves to be replaced.
• Do I re-elect a Judge I haven’t heard much BAD about because it seems safe?
• Do I automatically vote OUT the incumbent because Judges terms are so long, and
  you don’t want anyone so entrenched in power.
• OR automatically vote a Judge back IN because with experience - one might reason - a Judge should be getting better and better and particularly better than a rookie Judge.

:juggle: - “SOMEBODY take these &%$#-ing things AWAY from me!”