P
Petaro
Guest
I think voting for decades in your country for the worse of two evils is why you are in the situation you find yourself. You have abandoned God in your institutions and governmental functions.
- Status
P
PelagiathePenit
Guest
The argument is who defines life. A fetus in a womb is not fully developed enough to be considered “human.” Women will always find ways to terminate their pregnancy legal or not. I am more appalled by women who throw their babies in the trash or try to flush them down the toilet.
L
LethalMouse
Guest
And most who would vote for them do not based on that. Whay would the situation look like if people chose to not fear that?
R
Rau
Guest
. So, at what point does the life in the womb become human? What was the species prior to that point?
P
pianistclare
Guest
I’m not a gun proponent. But guns don’t always kill. Sometimes they are left in a box on the shelf.
But abortion ALWAYS does. It’s not equitable at all.
S
Stephen_says
Guest
While I disagree with the first 2 sentences, I wholeheartedly agree with the rest.
There is more work to be done in this country than just making the act of abortion illegal, but I don’t trust candidates who make “protecting” abortion, or choice, or “women’s health” or whatever buzz word their using now, part of their platform.
We must be limiting abortion, and maybe that means more education to prevent unplanned pregnancies, or systematic support for these women who seek abortion as their only option, but it also means that the act of killing a child cannot be tolerated either.
Maybe it’s not a cold-turkey kind of thing, maybe we can’t ban abortion overnight. Maybe it’s the last step of a continuum of social programs, but an end to abortion should definitely be the goal we work towards, because the lives of future generations literally depend on how we approach the topic.
P
pianistclare
Guest
God defines life. And if you can’t see that, then there is no common ground to talk about it. We’re Catholic. We believe that human beings give birth to human beings. Not cats, not dogs, not sheep.
Do you believe that you only got a chance at life be happenstance? You mother’s good will? Luck of the draw?
P
pianistclare
Guest
Where do you all suppose aborted children go?
They go in the dumpster. If one is going to appalled, then be appalled.
P
PelagiathePenit
Guest
I do not know. When are they recognized as personhood. I do not know. It does sound weird that the government will require people to follow through with their pregnancy. Ultimately the mother carries the fetus no one else does. I do not necessarily think abortion is right. If a person does not recognize the fetus as life they never going to agree. I just do not think the only reason to vote for a presidential candidate should be based on their stance on abortion if people cannot even agree on when life begins. For me personally I think we should focus more on the living where it is not debatable on their personhood.
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
Thank you for all of the comments. I greatly appreciate seeing all the different perspectives on this.
Recently there was a thread here (Six moral vacuum questions) that posited several moral dilemma situations.
In pondering this, I realized that voting can be similar to the train track scenario in the above thread.
A train is heading down the track and is going to result in the killing of unborn innocents. You can pull a switch to divert the train, but doing so will send the train down a track that will kill way less unborn innocents, but will in turn jeopardize the lives of refugees, immigrants, and still won’t save all the unborn innocents.
In pulling the switch, are we “judging the morality of human acts” (voting lesser of two evils, pulling switch to change tracks) by “considering only the intention that inspired them or the circumstances which supply their context” (less abortion)?
It is said that not voting the lesser of two evils is really just a “vote for the other side”. Basically, by choosing not to vote against the greatest evil, you are supporting it. But if we vote for the lesser of two evils, we are then supporting the evils that come with that candidate instead.
If not voting or choosing a third party/write in is viewed as supporting the greater evil (candidate A) then one could argue that voting for candidate B to stop candidate A still makes you guilty of supporting the evils that come with candidate B.
CCC1756 shows we cannot choose to kill someone, commit adultery, commit blasphemy or perjury, etc… just because a moral good will come of it. By pulling the switch in the above scenario, we are choosing to kill one set of people to save another.
By choosing a third party/write in or choosing not to vote in that particular race or “choosing not to pull the switch” are we then guilty of inaction? What moral responsibility do we have to decide between the two tracks? Or does that responsibility lie with those who set the train on that course and placed the lives in the way?
When presented two morally repugnant options, do we have a duty to choose between them, or should we turn away from the evil being forced on us and leave that moral choice to the ones trying to force us to choose?
If a terrorist puts a gun to your head and one in your hand and tells you to make a decision between you killing one person or him killing 10 should we comply? Or do we preserve our moral integrity and abstain from becoming a part of his misdeeds? If we can launch a missile and take out all of ISIS, but it would in turn destroy a school full of children, are we supposed to push the button? Or are these examples of trying to do good through evil means?
Voting is much less dramatic and doesn’t have the sense of emergency as the above scenarios, but morally presents us with a similar dilemma. Is voting the lesser of two evils noble, or complying with evil? Is not voting removing yourself from moral misgivings, or is it failing to do your duty to save innocents?
I posted CCC1756 because it seemed relevant based on my train of thought. Let me explain…
Recently there was a thread here (Six moral vacuum questions) that posited several moral dilemma situations.
In pondering this, I realized that voting can be similar to the train track scenario in the above thread.
A train is heading down the track and is going to result in the killing of unborn innocents. You can pull a switch to divert the train, but doing so will send the train down a track that will kill way less unborn innocents, but will in turn jeopardize the lives of refugees, immigrants, and still won’t save all the unborn innocents.
In pulling the switch, are we “judging the morality of human acts” (voting lesser of two evils, pulling switch to change tracks) by “considering only the intention that inspired them or the circumstances which supply their context” (less abortion)?
It is said that not voting the lesser of two evils is really just a “vote for the other side”. Basically, by choosing not to vote against the greatest evil, you are supporting it. But if we vote for the lesser of two evils, we are then supporting the evils that come with that candidate instead.
If not voting or choosing a third party/write in is viewed as supporting the greater evil (candidate A) then one could argue that voting for candidate B to stop candidate A still makes you guilty of supporting the evils that come with candidate B.
CCC1756 shows we cannot choose to kill someone, commit adultery, commit blasphemy or perjury, etc… just because a moral good will come of it. By pulling the switch in the above scenario, we are choosing to kill one set of people to save another.
By choosing a third party/write in or choosing not to vote in that particular race or “choosing not to pull the switch” are we then guilty of inaction? What moral responsibility do we have to decide between the two tracks? Or does that responsibility lie with those who set the train on that course and placed the lives in the way?
When presented two morally repugnant options, do we have a duty to choose between them, or should we turn away from the evil being forced on us and leave that moral choice to the ones trying to force us to choose?
If a terrorist puts a gun to your head and one in your hand and tells you to make a decision between you killing one person or him killing 10 should we comply? Or do we preserve our moral integrity and abstain from becoming a part of his misdeeds? If we can launch a missile and take out all of ISIS, but it would in turn destroy a school full of children, are we supposed to push the button? Or are these examples of trying to do good through evil means?
Voting is much less dramatic and doesn’t have the sense of emergency as the above scenarios, but morally presents us with a similar dilemma. Is voting the lesser of two evils noble, or complying with evil? Is not voting removing yourself from moral misgivings, or is it failing to do your duty to save innocents?
P
PelagiathePenit
Guest
Sure true. I still do not understand why someone needs such weapons if they are not planning to kill someone or an animal. You cannot claim to carry about life if you own a gun in my opinion. I don’t think it makes you a mass murderer or crazy but I think it means you may not have any trouble taking someone’s life.
L
LethalMouse
Guest
The armed citizenry who have stopped mass shooting attempts… those evil citizens cared nothing for the lives they saved.
B
Bookcat
Guest
One is not voting so much for the “lesser of two evils” but voting to avoid greater evils. Voting for the good that is there and not for the evil.
P
PelagiathePenit
Guest
How often does that happen? People are killing each other left and right on the news. Guns have proven to have done more harm than good. What about all the recent shootings? How many times do police kill unarmed African Americans? Gang violence has nothing to do with the easy accessibility of guns in poor neighborhoods. I think gun violence has done more harm to our society than abortion ever will. If people have no concern about killing the living what makes the unborn so special? Why do their “lives” matter more than people being killed in the middle East?
L
LethalMouse
Guest
So you are claiming that even the police need to not have guns?
You know there was a time when police had weaker guns.
Bad guys got stronger guns
We learned the lesson.
Let alone the altered truths that are peddled by some.
If you believe the US is a shooting gallery where police walk around looking for cool new black dot targets… I fear reasoned discourse is not possible
P
PelagiathePenit
Guest
where did I say I don’t police should have guns? I am tired of people pretending like guns are not lethal weapons. The recent news has really got me thinking about how America can reduce gun violence. I just do not understand why some people are so adamant about saving the unborn while living are suffering. I think the living are far more important than fetuses. How is abortion a threat to society? I meant to say I never said the police force should not have guns. I think gun violence is more serious issue than abortion because it is hurting the living. Why is a fetus life so special to be protected?
X
XXI_4
Guest
It’s not. Some people just believe everything CNN (or Fox, or MSNBC, or Facebook, et al) tell them and can’t be bothered with facts or actual reality.
P
PelagiathePenit
Guest
present facts or reality.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Lame argument which was abolished by Pope Pius IX in the 19th century. :banghead:I cannot find a candidate that perfectly aligns with my stances. If a president cares more about abortion than fighting the gun violence in this country be obviously doesn’t care about the living. Why protect the unborn but not the living? No one even knows at what point during conception the soul enters the body.
B
Bookcat
Guest
One is not voting so much for the “lesser of two evils” but voting to avoid greater evils.
Indeed one *may not *“vote for evil” be it lesser or greater.
One would be voting for the* good *that is there and not for the evil.
And for the good of avoiding greater evils.
Indeed one *may not *“vote for evil” be it lesser or greater.
One would be voting for the* good *that is there and not for the evil.
And for the good of avoiding greater evils.
- Status