Obama and Romney Hit Final Stretch Part 3

[rlg94086]

Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy.

:tiphat:

 

[colmywaykurtz]

How does this make a different point than I was making?

I’d venture to say that Prodigal Son draws a distinction between voting for a candidate BECAUSE he supports (for instance) abortion rights, on the one hand, and voting for the same candidate IN SPITE OF his support for abortion rights, on the other. THAT is the distinction ignored by people who pose the type of question you posed above.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I’d venture to say that Prodigal Son draws a distinction between voting for a candidate BECAUSE he supports (for instance) abortion rights, on the one hand, and voting for the same candidate IN SPITE OF his support for abortion rights, on the other. THAT is the distinction ignored by people who pose the type of question you posed above.

If one takes into account all of the literature published and/or endorsed by the Church, there has to be a proportionate reason to vote for the pro-abortion canidate.

To invoke Godwins Law, if Obama was instead running against Hitler and it was a two man race, one could vote for the pro-abortion canidate,

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’d venture to say that Prodigal Son draws a distinction between voting for a candidate BECAUSE he supports (for instance) abortion rights, on the one hand, and voting for the same candidate IN SPITE OF his support for abortion rights, on the other. THAT is the distinction ignored by people who pose the type of question you posed above.

I draw the same vital distinction, as should be obvious from my post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9965748&postcount=73

 

[rlg94086]

I’d venture to say that Prodigal Son draws a distinction between voting for a candidate BECAUSE he supports (for instance) abortion rights, on the one hand, and voting for the same candidate IN SPITE OF his support for abortion rights, on the other. THAT is the distinction ignored by people who pose the type of question you posed above.

Not ignored…rather the distinction is meaningless, if you don’t have a proportionate reason to vote for the pro-abortion candidate. Those who try to use the statement to support a pro-abortion candidate are the ones who are ignoring an important distinction and/or making outrageous claims of proportionate reason to justify voting for a candidate in favor of killing over 1 million unborn children a year.

 

[oldcelt]

If one takes into account all of the literature published and/or endorsed by the Church, there has to be a proportionate reason to vote for the pro-abortion canidate.

To invoke Godwins Law, if Obama was instead running against Hitler and it was a two man race, one could vote for the pro-abortion canidate,

Not if Hitler was more pro-life…at least according to many on this board.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If one takes into account all of the literature published and/or endorsed by the Church, there has to be a proportionate reason to vote for the pro-abortion canidate.

To invoke Godwins Law, if Obama was instead running against Hitler and it was a two man race, one could vote for the pro-abortion canidate,

Please provide us the document that states another may decide what is proportionate for another?

 

[rlg94086]

Not if Hitler was more pro-life…at least according to many on this board.

Apparently, you aren’t familiar with the history of Hitler and the Nazi Party to make such a ridiculous statement.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Apparently, you aren’t familiar with the history of Hitler and the Nazi Party to make such a ridiculous statement.

In the teachings on conscience, please show us where one is to decide over another person’s conscience?

 

[oldcelt]

Apparently, you aren’t familiar with the history of Hitler and the Nazi Party to make such a ridiculous statement.

Quite familiar…Hitler was pro-life in the modern sense of the word. In fact, he was encouraging his people to reproduce for the good of the Reich. Therefore, according to the rules on non-negotiables that are so often bandied about here, he would have been the preferable candidate.

I didn’t makes the comparison…that was ComputerGeek. I’m merely pointing out the fallacy of his argument.

John

 

[rlg94086]

Quite familiar…Hitler was pro-life in the modern sense of the word. In fact, he was encouraging his people to reproduce for the good of the Reich. Therefore, according to the rules on non-negotiables that are so often bandied about here, he would have been the preferable candidate.

I didn’t makes the comparison…that was ComputerGeek. I’m merely pointing out the fallacy of his argument.

John

Noted.

So, John, aka oldcelt, believes that Hitler was more pro-life than Obama.

And, who are you voting for again?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Please provide us the document that states another may decide what is proportionate for another?

Voters Guide for Serious Catholics by Catholic Answers

Here are several clips from Bishops, JPII, priests and other theologans:
vox-nova.com/2007/10/13/proportionate-reasons/

Jimmy Akin posts/summarizes Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles”

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

jimmyakin.com/2004/07/ratzinger_proab.html

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Quite familiar…Hitler was pro-life in the modern sense of the word. In fact, he was encouraging his people to reproduce for the good of the Reich. Therefore, according to the rules on non-negotiables that are so often bandied about here, he would have been the preferable candidate.

I didn’t makes the comparison…that was ComputerGeek. I’m merely pointing out the fallacy of his argument.

John

It’s not a fallacy.

I don’t really care when/who/how people are murdered… Murder is murder, is it not?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Voters Guide for Serious Catholics by Catholic Answers

Here are several clips from Bishops, JPII, priests and other theologans:
vox-nova.com/2007/10/13/proportionate-reasons/

Jimmy Akin posts/summarizes Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles”

jimmyakin.com/2004/07/ratzinger_proab.html

It’s not a closed case until we get a unified voice of the Church, or the one voice that can unify. I appreciate many of the apologists for the Church, but they have no more authority than I do, and we are going to disagree on interpretations of below, also from the voter’s guide.

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism,** if the voter’s intent is to support that position ***). In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Not ignored…rather the distinction is meaningless, if you don’t have a proportionate reason to vote for the pro-abortion candidate. Those who try to use the statement to support a pro-abortion candidate are the ones who are ignoring an important distinction and/or making outrageous claims of proportionate reason to justify voting for a candidate in favor of killing over 1 million unborn children a year.

“Proportionate reasons” will always be shot down on the basis of past numbers of abortions performed—numbers that are in no way a guarantor of what will happen in the future.

Beyond that, anymore I just consider that kind of reasoning so much ideology-soaked philosophical manure that I don’t even try to argue with anymore. So, have the last word, and enjoy it, rlg. My vote’s already cast, and I voted a straight Democratic ticket.

 

[rlg94086]

“Proportionate reasons” will always be shot down on the basis of past numbers of abortions performed—numbers that are in no way a guarantor of what will happen in the future.

Beyond that, anymore I just consider that kind of reasoning so much ideology-soaked philosophical manure that I don’t even try to argue with anymore. So, have the last word, and enjoy it, rlg. My vote’s already cast, and I voted a straight Democratic ticket.

My bad…there might only be 999,850 abortions next year. Does that make it better for you?

I’m glad your “straight Democratic ticket” voting isn’t “ideology-soaked,” but I am sad to see that you believe that millions of dead human beings are equivalent to manure.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

The point really is this:

if the election results in Romney decreasing abortions by “just” 1 (it will be vastly more than that based on the Mexico City Policy alone), it is enough to

1. not vote for Obama or
2. not vote third party, even if the third party is 100% prolife (because the third party has absolutely zero chance of winning and a vote “wasted” on their candidates is a vote stolen from Romney*)

*NB if you live in a non-swing state, you can certainly “waste” your vote on a third party, as it will not make a bit of difference, practically speaking

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s not a fallacy.

I don’t really care when/who/how people are murdered… Murder is murder, is it not?

Murder is murder, and we have laws against it. How’s that working out to end murder?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have said on several occasions that I would most likely vote for a third party candidate, and everyone, every single one has agreed that is perfectly consistent with Church teaching.

The point really is this:

1. not vote third party, even if the third party is 100% prolife (because the third party has absolutely zero chance of winning and a vote “wasted” on their candidates is a vote stolen from Romney*)

Aside from viewing it as a stolen vote, is it consistent with Church teaching to not vote, or write in a third party candidate?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Just 45 People Show Up to “Catholics for Obama” Event