Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[tqualey]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

We need to move out of the cloud of confusion that has engulfed these posts. I realze that some may thing the ‘cloud of confusion’ provides a hiding place - but the first breeze clears the air. Maybe it is time to open the jwindow.

You have yet to provide any documentation for any statement you have made. And, of even more interest you seem to really misunderstand what is being communicated.

It is official Catholic ‘policy’ to oppose evil and promote good. And, here is what separates my responses from your statements - I give you the references to the statements I make. Try reading these links and see if you can maintain the positions you claim are acceptable with Catholic teachings:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

catholic.com/tracts/abortion

Please note - I did not say you had to vote for Romney, the obligation is on you to demonstrate good faith on why you did not vote at all or voted for Obama - should you chose either position. But, it does not end there! You now must demonstrate good faith in chosing the person you did vote for. At the very least, this is a person who will not champion evil.

Murder is a great evil. The Church does not specify civil penalties for murder. When we knowingly and willfully participate in a great evil - we have everything necessary for a mortal sin. The Catholic Church has identified that abortions are a great evil. The Church has clearly taught that we are to do good and avoid evil - not support, promote and sanction evil in any way. As an adult, it is your decision to make an informed choice - and part of the information is to actually be aware of what the Chruch teaches. Wheter you agree with teachings of Catholic Church is between you and God. Now, I think this should resolve all of the issues you raised.

Be advised - making unsubtantiated statements about the Church’s teachings may cause some readers to be confused and to actually fall into error that you are responsible for creating. Claiming that Obama is OK to vote for demonstrates serious confusion as to what constitutes supporting evil. If you claim your conscience allows you to vote for Obama - that is really between you and God. The responsibility is for eveyone to have an informed conscience. There really is no way to have this matter disguised as you wish to present. Either you stand for continued and increased abortions under another Obama Presidency - or you reject this grave evil.

Seriously, if nothing else, you have not made your case. If you feel this committed, then simply refute what I have presented - to wit - those who support, endorse, promote abortion are doing something at least morally neutral. You’re on.

God bless

Your use of the term “Catholic policy” is very telling. It implies that there is an official Catholic policy - that is, an official Church doctrine on how to best address the problems of the world. In fact the Church does not prescribe specific solutions to problems. Instead she teaches moral doctrine that is supposed to inspire the laity to put into practice using their prudential judgement. For example we are taught that we have a duty to charity - to the Church and to the poor. But the Church does not specify exactly how much is required. Similarly the Church teaches that murder is a great evil. But it does not specify the punishment that must be inflicted by civil authority for these crimes. That is for the laity to decide. And on abortion, the Church teaches that this is an intrinsic evil, wrong in all circumstances. But it does not specify exactly how this evil is to be combatted. One can evangelize the women considering abortion. One can promote civil punishments for committing abortion. Which combination of these solutions should be taken is not specified. That is for the laity to decide.

If it were a mortal sin to vote for Obama under any and all circumstances then the Church would explicitly say so. The fact that they would lose their tax exempt status in the US would not stop them. The various Church martyrs were not afraid to lose their very lives to proclaim the truth. I believe our current Church leaders are no less inspired than those martyrs and would proclaim that truth if they were sure it was true. Instead I believe that they (rightly) see this kind of decision as one that the laity should make based on the general doctrines of the Church. Otherwise how do you interpret the USCCB’s Faithful Citizenship document?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is official Catholic ‘policy’ to oppose evil and promote good.

Is placing an anti-abortion lawn sign on your lawn opposing evil? Does the Catholic Church require it? This illustrates the difference between general doctrine and specific policy. It is Church doctrine that we must oppose abortion. But the Church does get into the level of specifics that says you must do it with a lawn sign.

I give you the references to the statements I make. Try reading these links and see if you can maintain the positions you claim are acceptable with Catholic teachings:

I see those documents, but they don’t explicitly say what you say. That is your response to those documents - just like some people may feel called to put up an anti-abortion lawn sign to oppose abortion.

Please note - I did not say you had to vote for Romney…

But why don’t you say that? Any vote withheld from Romney has exactly the same effect on the election as a vote for Obama as opposed to not voting at all. So if you think any vote for Obama is a mortal sin why isn’t any vote withheld from Romney also a mortal sin?

When we knowingly and willfully participate in a great evil - we have everything necessary for a mortal sin. The Catholic Church has identified that abortions are a great evil. The Church has clearly taught that we are to do good and avoid evil - not support, promote and sanction evil in any way.

I agree. The question is whether voting for Obama for other reasons constitutes support of evil.

 

[je333]

He promotes abortion, supports Planned Parenthood with tax dollars, and has favored infanticide. From what I have seen, our President has not found a way - yet - to increase the number of abortions currently in this country.

In the rather unique balance scale you seem to be using: belief that Christ is God vs belief in the scantity of life - you may want to follow Matt 25 - and see how it is actions rather then words that make the difference in the final analysis.

God bless

Hello tqualey! No, Obama does not favored infanticide. It’s a dubious and dishonest politics. Surviving infants are already protected under current laws. Obama’s pro life stance is on health care and education, support and protection for the environment, helping the poor and the needy, caring for the sick.

Yes, I agree that professing is not equal to practicing one’s faith. How do I determine this while one seems to be very vocal about his faith and the other seems secular is to ask the ultimate question, WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE FATHER AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD and who among the 2 candidates already possessed it and putting that into action. And which candidate Jesus would most likely work with? Those are the things that comes to mind when I cast my vote…

 

[je333]

The question is whether voting for Obama for other reasons constitutes support of evil.

Absolutely not!

Cardinal Ratzinger on Voting, Abortion …“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”…

 

[JimG]

Absolutely not!

Cardinal Ratzinger on Voting, Abortion …“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”…

What proportionate reasons are there to offset 55 million dead unborn babies?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What proportionate reasons are there to offset 55 million dead unborn babies?

The term “proportionate reason” has been thrown around a lot in these discussions without sufficient understanding of what is being compared proportionally. Some say it refers to the relative seriousness of the underlying issues. For example one might say that any decision that involves abortion on the one side and tax policy on the other side must ignore the tax policy issue because abortion is the more serious issue. Such an analysis might be correct if there are no other probabilities involved. That is, the decision either results in an absolutely certain effect on abortions versus an absolutely certain effect on tax policy. But such is not always the case. When voting for a candidate for office there are various probabilities involved. If you vote for a candidate who has a stated position on abortion and a stated position on taxes you might reasonably conclude that if this candidate is elected he would more likely be effective in causing his vision for tax policy to become reality than to affect even one abortion. In that case the seriousness of the underlying issue can be combined with the probability of that issue being affected by this candidate in order to arrive at an overall “score” for making that choice. It is then the overall scores that can be compared for proportionality to guide that choice.

A concrete example of such reasoning would be a vote for a county office that has a lot to do with property tax assessments and almost nothing to do with abortion. In that case it is unlikely the candidate would make a point of advertising his personal position on abortion. But suppose you found out anyway that this candidate is quite pro-choice with regard to abortion. And suppose you agree with his approach to property tax assessment. In deciding if tax policy is a proportionate reason to ignore this candidate’s pro-choice stance you certainly could take into account that his job will never deal with abortion policy and vote for him anyway.

From that extreme case it is not hard to see that similar probabilistic reasoning could play a role in decision making, even for politicians who might actually have occasion to deal with abortion policy. And that I think is a fuller understanding of the proportionate reasons doctrine.

 

[JimG]

The term “proportionate reason” has been thrown around a lot in these discussions without sufficient understanding of what is being compared proportionally. Some say it refers to the relative seriousness of the underlying issues. For example one might say that any decision that involves abortion on the one side and tax policy on the other side must ignore the tax policy issue because abortion is the more serious issue. Such an analysis might be correct if there are no other probabilities involved. That is, the decision either results in an absolutely certain effect on abortions versus an absolutely certain effect on tax policy. But such is not always the case. When voting for a candidate for office there are various probabilities involved. If you vote for a candidate who has a stated position on abortion and a stated position on taxes you might reasonably conclude that if this candidate is elected he would more likely be effective in causing his vision for tax policy to become reality than to affect even one abortion. In that case the seriousness of the underlying issue can be combined with the probability of that issue being affected by this candidate in order to arrive at an overall “score” for making that choice. It is then the overall scores that can be compared for proportionality to guide that choice.

A concrete example of such reasoning would be a vote for a county office that has a lot to do with property tax assessments and almost nothing to do with abortion. In that case it is unlikely the candidate would make a point of advertising his personal position on abortion. But suppose you found out anyway that this candidate is quite pro-choice with regard to abortion. And suppose you agree with his approach to property tax assessment. In deciding if tax policy is a proportionate reason to ignore this candidate’s pro-choice stance you certainly could take into account that his job will never deal with abortion policy and vote for him anyway.

From that extreme case it is not hard to see that similar probabilistic reasoning could play a role in decision making, even for politicians who might actually have occasion to deal with abortion policy. And that I think is a fuller understanding of the proportionate reasons doctrine.

What we do know for sure is that both President Obama and the DNC Platform are strongly pro-abortion. We know that if re-elected, Obama will likely have the opportunity to appoint several Supreme Court justices. We know that he will do his best to appoint justices who favor Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. Such appointments would pretty much guarantee the legal availability of abortion on demand for another generation.

Does the possibility of levying higher taxes for some groups—i.e., the rich—provide sufficient justification for re-electing the most pro-abortion president ever and the near certainty of guaranteeing a million abortions a year for the next generation? I don’t think so.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

It would appear to me that you are simply evading what I am telling you. But, the quality of the examples you are using truly leaves a lot to be desired. So, once more into the breach - but, I am determined I will not let your evasive statement go unchallenged. By the way, have you noticed that there has not been one link you have provided to support your apparent claim that the Church is really ‘Pro-Choice’? I’ve noticed. Chances are, others have noticed, too. I gave you three links that clearly identify the Church’s official teaching - and you said nothing. How truly remarkable for posts that have waxed on about your own opinions claiming one fantasy after another as a fact. Now, if you think I am wrong in any of this - how about a reference that will clearly identify that your’s is the correct position? Hey, I know it is a lot to ask. But, I think you owe it to everyone to prove your point.

Please, move beyond yard signs. Why? Because there are more appropriate and meaning ways to oppose abortion. If you want to put up a sign - be my guest - but, this is not the criteria to use to find out if one is supporting or oppising evil. So, let’s get serious. The Catholic Church has yet to make any statement on ‘yard signs’ - so if this is where you have spent your valuable time - you can stop now. The real issue is voting (and, if you are in doubt - just look at the title of this thread!)

The Church does not require anyone to vote for Romney - even though you now claim that every vote not for him effectively is a vote for Obama. What is required is to vote your conscience - and this is where the action is. We are to have a rightly formed conscience so that we can identify evil and avoid it and we can identify good and support it. There are other candidates - and no one supports abortion like our current President. But, if you are going to take a stand, please do not do so on the film of slippery words laid down on the slope towards more abortions.

I think JimG has an excellent post - and I would invite you to clearly identify how you have arrived at the ‘proportionate reason’ you seem to be making a stand on. But, please, give some references to support your apparent ‘Pro-Choice’ position to endorse the US government’s current funding and promotion of the butchering of babies. Yes, ‘proportionate reason’ is a real consideration - I just do not see how it can possibly apply to wholesale murder.

Tell me, why do you continue to play word games on this vital subject? You see I’m not. You know it is Church doctrine to oppose abortion. So, now let that gentle breeze blow away that smoke - just how do you propose to oppose the grave evil of abortion when election day comes around in 57 days?

God bless

Is placing an anti-abortion lawn sign on your lawn opposing evil? Does the Catholic Church require it? This illustrates the difference between general doctrine and specific policy. It is Church doctrine that we must oppose abortion. But the Church does get into the level of specifics that says you must do it with a lawn sign.

I see those documents, but they don’t explicitly say what you say. That is your response to those documents - just like some people may feel called to put up an anti-abortion lawn sign to oppose abortion.

But why don’t you say that? Any vote withheld from Romney has exactly the same effect on the election as a vote for Obama as opposed to not voting at all. So if you think any vote for Obama is a mortal sin why isn’t any vote withheld from Romney also a mortal sin?

I agree. The question is whether voting for Obama for other reasons constitutes support of evil.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Je333,

I hunted for a reference that would support your statement (I guess that is the only way to get some objectivity here…) and here it is: nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/fact-check-gingrich-claim-on-obama-infanticide-vote-a-stretch-20120222

Now, just read it and try to tell anyone that this isn’t a pathetic excuse on how this State Senator thought about infants who survive abortion.

Suppporting the type of argument Obama gave says a lot… and none of it is good.

Do you think such a stated position would really be an acceptable way to view present Catholic Church teaching on the sanctity of life? I don’t. So, if you do - please tell me how.

God bless

Hello tqualey! No, Obama does not favored infanticide. It’s a dubious and dishonest politics. Surviving infants are already protected under current laws. Obama’s pro life stance is on health care and education, support and protection for the environment, helping the poor and the needy, caring for the sick.

Yes, I agree that professing is not equal to practicing one’s faith. How do I determine this while one seems to be very vocal about his faith and the other seems secular is to ask the ultimate question, WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE FATHER AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD and who among the 2 candidates already possessed it and putting that into action. And which candidate Jesus would most likely work with? Those are the things that comes to mind when I cast my vote…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

By the way, have you noticed that there has not been one link you have provided to support your apparent claim that the Church is really ‘Pro-Choice’

I made no such claim. It would be ridiculous to believe that. I fully support the Church’s position that no one has the right to choose to end the life within them. Let me state it very clearly: I am not pro-choice, nor do I believe the Church is pro-choice.

how about a reference that will clearly identify that your’s is the correct position?

You can reference the link to Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement about remote material cooperation, already contained in this thread.

Please, move beyond yard signs. Why? Because there are more appropriate and meaning ways to oppose abortion.

Are you sure about that? Let’s step it up a notch and consider renting a large billboard over a major expressway. One month of such a sign is very likely to change at least 10 votes (in my unsubstantiated opinion) and perhaps many more. But if I simply do as you ask and vote against Obama that is just one vote. So it is likely that a sign can have at least 10 times the power to oppose abortion as my simply voting myself. So why do you call it not meaningful? In fact of all the things one could do to oppose abortion, why is it only voting gets all the attention? Why is it the only proper voting is mandatory while donating to an alternate pregnancy counseling center is optional?

The Church does not require anyone to vote for Romney - even though you now claim that every vote not for him effectively is a vote for Obama.

Are you willing to take a stand on that question? Or do you see a moral distinction between voting for Obama and not voting for Romney?

I think JimG has an excellent post - and I would invite you to clearly identify how you have arrived at the ‘proportionate reason’ you seem to be making a stand on.

I could do that, but then I would be arguing my own personal opinion.

Yes, ‘proportionate reason’ is a real consideration - I just do not see how it can possibly apply to wholesale murder.

That is exactly what Ratzinger was talking about - wholesale murder. And yet he felt the need to allow for proportional reasons. What reasons do you suppose he was thinking of?

 

[pnewton]

Obama’s pro life stance is on health care and education, support and protection for the environment, helping the poor and the needy, caring for the sick.

I never cared for the term “pro-life.” Everyone is pro-life in some way in that no one wants everyone dead. Likewise, “pro-choice” is ridiculous because everyone believes in choice in some areas, limits in others.

Obama is pro-abortion.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

It takes a lot of time to spin and respin the yarn you are working on this thread… and time you really could be spending just answering the question I posed. Notice, there is no slight of hand, no hyperbolic diversion like moving from a yard sign to a billboard as if votes can be determined by the size of an ad. No lack of imagination here. But, at the risk of sounding repititious, let me ask you the same question you managed to evade last time: " just how do you propose to oppose the grave evil of abortion when election day comes around in 57 days?"

Looking forward to a straight answer.

God bless

I made no such claim. It would be ridiculous to believe that. I fully support the Church’s position that no one has the right to choose to end the life within them. Let me state it very clearly: I am not pro-choice, nor do I believe the Church is pro-choice.

You can reference the link to Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement about remote material cooperation, already contained in this thread.

Are you sure about that? Let’s step it up a notch and consider renting a large billboard over a major expressway. One month of such a sign is very likely to change at least 10 votes (in my unsubstantiated opinion) and perhaps many more. But if I simply do as you ask and vote against Obama that is just one vote. So it is likely that a sign can have at least 10 times the power to oppose abortion as my simply voting myself. So why do you call it not meaningful? In fact of all the things one could do to oppose abortion, why is it only voting gets all the attention? Why is it the only proper voting is mandatory while donating to an alternate pregnancy counseling center is optional?
Are you willing to take a stand on that question? Or do you see a moral distinction between voting for Obama and not voting for Romney?

I could do that, but then I would be arguing my own personal opinion.

That is exactly what Ratzinger was talking about - wholesale murder. And yet he felt the need to allow for proportional reasons. What reasons do you suppose he was thinking of?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…let me ask you the same question you managed to evade last time: " just how do you propose to oppose the grave evil of abortion when election day comes around in 57 days?"

You can just keep looking forward because I am not going to answer that question. My personal response to this issue is irrelevant to the question of the thread which is “Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?”. I take that to be a question of Catholic doctrine, not a poll of individual personal responses. I only joined this thread to respond to what I thought were misstatements about Catholic doctrine, and that is the level on which I wish to participate in this thread. If a statement of personal belief and a promise of action on election day is the price of admission to discuss this matter then I choose not to participate. But if you wish to discuss what is and what is not Catholic doctrine then I would be glad to answer any questions you may have along those lines if I can. But don’t ask me what I personally will be doing on election day for I will not be drawn into that discussion.

But speaking of not answering questions, how about answering this one for me on Catholic doctrine that I asked before: Is there a moral difference between voting for Obama and not voting at all? You seem to indicate there is a difference since you said “the Church does not require you to vote for Romney”. Yet common sense tells us that not voting at all has exactly the same effect on the election as voting for Obama as opposed to not voting at all. It is hard to see how one of these is a mortal sin and the other is not when both have exactly the same effect.

 

[tqualey]

Oh, LeafByNiggle - your nose is going to grow!

You have been given clear statements of Catholic doctrine on the grave evil presented by abortion and you have simply shifted your weight from one foot to the next - seeming to move but being unmoved. But, I do have to hand it to you - not one reference to back up all of those truly wild statements - even after repeated efforts. Your determination to champion opinion is noteworthy.

I do want you to know that your response is really quite relevant - given the confusion you have spread about Catholic doctrine in this area. Seriously, your past posts have questioned Obama on abortions, have claimed that the numbers of abortions have gone down under Obama and that he is not really going to advance the cause of abortion contrasted with any other Candidate. We can not know the future, and abortion is the law of the land - but, there is no doubt that Obama would appoint more abortion approving federal judges if elected to another term - and, that is something that I do not think any other candidate has claimed. The links I have given about Catholic encyclicals condemning abortion remain unchallenged with any facts supporting your opinion. And, while there are claims that the Church’s position is supported - you still equivocate on the very essence of this thread - do we vote for the lesser of two evils? It would seem to me that you have consistently chosen to support the greater - and, that is very sad.

Your decision not to continue to participate on this thread is strictly yours. I certainly hope that the smoke screen you have try to give to Obama and his pro-death policies has been blown away with just the facts. But, please, please pray that the butchery of unborn babies will quickly be brought to an end. The next step is to match words with deeds - and we can do this quite well when we vote.

God bless

You can just keep looking forward because I am not going to answer that question. My personal response to this issue is irrelevant to the question of the thread which is “Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?”. I take that to be a question of Catholic doctrine, not a poll of individual personal responses. I only joined this thread to respond to what I thought were misstatements about Catholic doctrine, and that is the level on which I wish to participate in this thread. If a statement of personal belief and a promise of action on election day is the price of admission to discuss this matter then I choose not to participate. But if you wish to discuss what is and what is not Catholic doctrine then I would be glad to answer any questions you may have along those lines if I can. But don’t ask me what I personally will be doing on election day for I will not be drawn into that discussion.

But speaking of not answering questions, how about answering this one for me on Catholic doctrine that I asked before: Is there a moral difference between voting for Obama and not voting at all? You seem to indicate there is a difference since you said “the Church does not require you to vote for Romney”. Yet common sense tells us that not voting at all has exactly the same effect on the election as voting for Obama as opposed to not voting at all. It is hard to see how one of these is a mortal sin and the other is not when both have exactly the same effect.

 

[pnewton]

You can just keep looking forward because I am not going to answer that question. My personal response to this issue is irrelevant to the question of the thread which is “Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?”. I take that to be a question of Catholic doctrine, not a poll of individual personal responses. I only joined this thread to respond to what I thought were misstatements about Catholic doctrine, and that is the level on which I wish to participate in this thread. If a statement of personal belief and a promise of action on election day is the price of admission to discuss this matter then I choose not to participate.

We are allowed to participate to any degree that we wish, as long as we do not violate any rules. It has always seemed a little presumptious to me to expect others to always answer the questions we ask. We can ask, but we need to be respectful whether we get an answer or not.

I too have declined to post my vote. My reason is the lack of respect for the opinions of others that others have when it comes to politics. I think anyone who follows politics here knows which group struggles most with charity.

 

[oldcelt]

We are allowed to participate to any degree that we wish, as long as we do not violate any rules. It has always seemed a little presumptious to me to expect others to always answer the questions we ask. We can ask, but we need to be respectful whether we get an answer or not.

I too have declined to post my vote. My reason is the lack of respect for the opinions of others that others have when it comes to politics. I think anyone who follows politics here knows which group struggles most with charity.

Nice post Michael,

John

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Participation is totally voluntary - and obeying rules is far better then anarchy.

To dismiss this issue as mere politics, (like on the local level if we want to pay for more police and fire protection in our communities or on the national level if we can stop at $16 trillion in debt) in my opinion, misses the millions of bodies from these butchered unborn babies who were pulled apart by the abortionist in their mother’s wombs.

Yes, it is political in the sense that we have the most abortion supporting President who is also in the process trying to put his limited view of religious liberty as having the force of law. But, hyou know - it is more then politics - it really is life itself. Now, maybe that is viewed as presumptious. So be it. Excuse the poker analogy, but I guess the respect aspect is that if you want to play cards sooner or later someone is going to call your hand.

On November 6 we will have stopped with ‘raising’ the issue - and now we have all been ‘called’ to show our hands - and we do that when we cast our vote. But, it is not over on November 7 - at least not for most of us. We’re going to make an accounting of our actions to either support those who good (maybe just not as evil) or to support those who actively promote and champion the grave evil of abortion.

Maybe I just lack the sophistication or political correctness to walk quietly out of the burning building without saying anything thinking I may distrub those who are unconcerned or just don’t mind the smell of smoke. So be it. This is the crowded theater and there are some who really are yelling ‘Fire!’

God bless

We are allowed to participate to any degree that we wish, as long as we do not violate any rules. It has always seemed a little presumptious to me to expect others to always answer the questions we ask. We can ask, but we need to be respectful whether we get an answer or not.

I too have declined to post my vote. My reason is the lack of respect for the opinions of others that others have when it comes to politics. I think anyone who follows politics here knows which group struggles most with charity.

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Pnewton,

To dismiss this issue as mere politics, (like on the local level if we want to pay for more police and fire protection in our communities or on the national level if we can stop at $16 trillion in debt) in my opinion, misses the millions of bodies from these butchered unborn babies who were pulled apart by the abortionist in their mother’s wombs.

Nothing is missed, except my point, that is if you thought for half a second that what I said dismisses abortion. However, not one person will ever be saved by rude and uncharitable behavior here. Abortion does not change our obligation to others, nor should it be an excuse for lack of courtesy.

Rather, it is the failure of appreciation of the dignity of others that is the foundation of abortion and every other offense we commit against others.

 

[Codix105]

I’m a liberal and if I could vote this year Romney all the way Obama has only made things worse so yes lesser of two evils:blush:

 

[ishii]

What we do know for sure is that both President Obama and the DNC Platform are strongly pro-abortion. We know that if re-elected, Obama will likely have the opportunity to appoint several Supreme Court justices. We know that he will do his best to appoint justices who favor Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. Such appointments would pretty much guarantee the legal availability of abortion on demand for another generation.

Does the possibility of levying higher taxes for some groups—i.e., the rich—provide sufficient justification for re-electing the most pro-abortion president ever and the near certainty of guaranteeing a million abortions a year for the next generation? I don’t think so.

It doesn’t at all. A vote for Obama is a vote to guarantee the legality of abortion for generations. He will likely appoint two more justices to go with the two he already appointed. Obama is pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-reproductive rights, pro-legalized slaughter of the unborn - fill in your favorite descriptive term for it - whether its a euphemism designed to hide the reality of what abortion is, or a no-nonsense term. Pro-Obama catholics can argue until they’re blue in the face - making sophisticated nuanced arguments that there are other issues which outweigh the abortion issue, or " I’m not voting for Obama because of his abortion rights policy" nonsense are at the end of the day, voting to ensure the continuation of the slaughter.

And some folks will continue to say, " I don’t support either Obama nor Romney" I don’t like partisan politics and won’t lower myself to the level of voting for Romney - I’m too good for that. " Know that Romney would also choose the next two justices - who would possibly finally overturn Roe V Wade. Know that you are making it easier for the pro-abortion guy to win. Romney isn’t perfect, but take a look - he has Paul Ryan at his side, and Robert Bork advising him on judicial appointments. And before you cry " uncharitable post!" think about the millions of babies aborted every year. And consider that you have a choice - you can do something, or do nothing. Do something.

Ishii