Pro-life 3rd party vote = a vote for Obama?

[ishii]

Here is a question I would like to pose in light of the fact that in four very short years, we will be faced with another presidential election: What do you think of voting for a pro-life third party presidential candidate who has almost no chance of winning (like a protest candidate) over a pro-life major party (i.e. Republican) candidate? I ask this because I know of quite a few traditional Catholic friends and relatives who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a Republican for president, and instead voted for a 3rd party candidate who had no chance of winning. Or to put it another way: Was voting for a pro-life 3rd party candidate a vote for Obama? Is voting for a 3rd party candidate who is pro-life but has no chance of winning morally acceptable in light of the pro-abortion policies of the candidate who benefits indirectly from the 3rd party protest vote?

Ishii

 

[bilop]

Here is a question I would like to pose in light of the fact that in four very short years, we will be faced with another presidential election: What do you think of voting for a pro-life third party presidential candidate who has almost no chance of winning (like a protest candidate) over a pro-life major party (i.e. Republican) candidate? I ask this because I know of quite a few traditional Catholic friends and relatives who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a Republican for president, and instead voted for a 3rd party candidate who had no chance of winning. Or to put it another way: Was voting for a pro-life 3rd party candidate a vote for Obama? Is voting for a 3rd party candidate who is pro-life but has no chance of winning morally acceptable in light of the pro-abortion policies of the candidate who benefits indirectly from the 3rd party protest vote?

Ishii

I think that vote is morally acceptable but prudentially flawed, i.e. it is not an immoral action, but I believe it is a foolish action.

God Bless

 

[cam100]

Yes, in the last national US election, voting for a pro-life 3rd party candidate was actually a vote for Obama. Due to the way the US voting system works, having a 3rd-party pro-life candidate actually means that the pro-life vote is then split between that candidate and the major party candidate with the most similar views (as compared to the OTHER major party candidate) – in this case, the Republican party.

Is it immoral to vote for the 3rd party candidate in this situation? That’s a tough question. Certainly, those who did so did not intend to hurt the pro-life cause, even though they may have done so. Here’s an analogy: A child is hungry and reaches for an apple. The mother says “Don’t eat that, it might have pesticides or germs on it that could hurt you”. Every time the child tries to eat, the mother pulls the food away because she only wants perfect food for her child, and she can’t be sure that any of the food she buys is perfectly free of harmful substances. Eventually, the child starves to death. Did the mother kill the child? She was only trying to protect the child from harm. Yet look at the consequences.

 

[NTOT]

Here is a question I would like to pose in light of the fact that in four very short years, we will be faced with another presidential election: What do you think of voting for a pro-life third party presidential candidate who has almost no chance of winning (like a protest candidate) over a pro-life major party (i.e. Republican) candidate? I ask this because I know of quite a few traditional Catholic friends and relatives who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a Republican for president, and instead voted for a 3rd party candidate who had no chance of winning. Or to put it another way: Was voting for a pro-life 3rd party candidate a vote for Obama? Is voting for a 3rd party candidate who is pro-life but has no chance of winning morally acceptable in light of the pro-abortion policies of the candidate who benefits indirectly from the 3rd party protest vote?

Ishii

As we can see (once again) a vote for compromise gets us nowhere. Now we have to look forward to yet another up coming election with mediocre major candidates who don’t care one iota about the innocent and unborn because the pro-life movement failed to make a statement.

 

[NTOT]

I think that vote is morally acceptable but prudentially flawed, i.e. it is not an immoral action, but I believe it is a foolish action.

God Bless

Certainly if your definition of a foolish action is one which fails. In that case, it was a failure and therefore a foolish action to vote for the lesser (yet still pro-choice) candidate.

 

[NTOT]

Yes, in the last national US election, voting for a pro-life 3rd party candidate was actually a vote for Obama.

A 3rd party vote is a vote for Obama as much as it was a vote for McCain.

Due to the way the US voting system works, having a 3rd-party pro-life candidate actually means that the pro-life vote is then split between that candidate and the major party candidate with the most similar views (as compared to the OTHER major party candidate) – in this case, the Republican party.

Voting for the lesser evil accomplishes absolutely nothing, as 30+ years has proven over and over. It results in bringing forth candidates who prey on pro-life voters’ good intentions through lip-service to get elected.

Is it immoral to vote for the 3rd party candidate in this situation? That’s a tough question. Certainly, those who did so did not intend to hurt the pro-life cause, even though they may have done so. Here’s an analogy: A child is hungry and reaches for an apple. The mother says “Don’t eat that, it might have pesticides or germs on it that could hurt you”. Every time the child tries to eat, the mother pulls the food away because she only wants perfect food for her child, and she can’t be sure that any of the food she buys is perfectly free of harmful substances. Eventually, the child starves to death. Did the mother kill the child? She was only trying to protect the child from harm. Yet look at the consequences.

And how did voting for McCain advance the pro-life cause?

 

[peregrinator_it]

In this past presidential election there simply was no way to “advance the pro-life cause” in the way I imagine the poster above me means it. (I.e. elect a president who would have championed pro-life values across the board.)

It simply wasn’t an option; we were in a losing situation.

HOWEVER there’s simply no way whatever damage John McCain might have done as POTUS could even begin to equal the evil merely promised by Barack Obama (if only because the current legislature would have never passed a bill that met McCain’s wishes, out of principle); evil which we can see is almost guaranteed to take place when the legislature is not a check on the President.

A third-party pro-life vote in the past election if the voter lived in a state that was guaranteed to go to Obama was at least a harmless action.

A third-party vote in a swing state, was not IMO a prudent decision (the time for protest is **not **when you’re involved in a conflict that may involve catastrophic losses on your side) and helped put the most pro-abortion President of all time into office in a situation where he has the votes in the legislature to pass whatever policy he likes. Not a good thing.

 

[NTOT]

In this past presidential election there simply was no way to “advance the pro-life cause” in the way I imagine the poster above me means it. (I.e. elect a president who would have championed pro-life values across the board.)

Perhaps not to the extent that such a person would have actually been elected, however if there had been enough support for a third party pro-life candidate, even if there was no chance of being elected, any future candidates would have had reason to take notice that being wishy washy, or just plain indifferent to the cause of the unborn is not a viable platform to stand on. We would have a much better chance of getting nominees who are truly pro-life in deed and not just in smooth talking half hearted word.

It simply wasn’t an option; we were in a losing situation.

There was absolutely no chance of anyone getting elected save for Obama. The will of the people was directed more to their pocket books than to the sanctity of human life. Now what we have is a bad economy on top of the continuing slaughter. We get what we paid for.

HOWEVER there’s simply no way whatever damage John McCain might have done as POTUS that could even begin to equal the evil merely promised by Barack Obama; evil which we can see is almost guaranteed to take place when the legislature is not a check on the President.

Quite true.

A third-party pro-life vote in the past election if the voter lived in a state that was guaranteed to Obama was an acceptable form of protest.

It was acceptable in any state not only as a form of protest but out of desire to adhere strictly to the teachings of the Church on non-negotiable issues and rejection of intrinsic evil without compromise (which alone makes it justifiable), since morality is not based on chances of getting elected.

A third-party vote in a swing state, was not a prudent decision and helped put into the most pro-abortion President of all time into office in a situation where he has the votes in the legislature to pass whatever policy he likes. Not a good thing.

The numbers do not indicate that this is what has happened.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Frankly, I’ve no allegiance to either party, but too many of the people I know who voted third-party in this election, only stir themselves up during Presidential election years.

I wish more of my acquaintances, anyway, would direct their energy to supporting and campaigning for decent candidates of any any party at the state & local level, instead of just foaming at the mouth every four years.

Politicians come on the national scene from their local governments. If Barack Obama had never been elected a state senator, he would never have been a candidate for the Presidency.

Thus, talking to my acquaintances who “couldn’t bear” to vote for McCain, left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[NTOT]

Frankly, I’ve no allegiance to either party, but too many of the people I know who voted third-party in this election, only stir themselves up during Presidential election years.

I wish more of my acquaintances, anyway, would direct their energy to supporting and campaigning for decent candidates of any any party at the state & local level, instead of just foaming at the mouth every four years.

Politicians come on the national scene from their local governments. If Barack Obama had never been elected a state senator, he would never have been a candidate for the Presidency.

Thus, talking to my acquaintances who “couldn’t bear” to vote for McCain, left a bad taste in my mouth.

Exactly.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Perhaps not to the extent that such a person would have actually been elected

Unfortunately, elected officials are the first line- of defense or attack- for those who are the least protected in society.

There was absolutely no chance of anyone getting elected save for Obama. The will of the people was directed more to their pocket books than to the sanctity of human life.

Your first sentence is entirely false. Had McCain not mishandled his response to the financial crisis (because your second sentence is all too true) and had we not had such division in the pro-life community, we might not have a President Obama.

We would have a much better chance of getting nominees who are truly pro-life in deed and not just in smooth talking half hearted word.

See my prior post, as we’re cross-posting.

 

[cam100]

A 3rd party vote is a vote for Obama as much as it was a vote for McCain.

No, because no one could possibly think that voting for Obama was helping the pro-life movement. No sane person was voting for Obama because they thought he was the best pro-life advocate! Therefore, the pro-life vote was split between McCain and 3rd party candidates. This fractioning weakened the force of the pro-life movement.

Voting for the lesser evil accomplishes absolutely nothing, as 30+ years has proven over and over. It results in bringing forth candidates who prey on pro-life voters’ good intentions through lip-service to get elected.

I guess you never stopped to consider how much things could be, and might become. Even though Bush didn’t end abortion, he certainly did do some things that helped the pro-life movement, things which Obama plans to undo.

And how did voting for McCain advance the pro-life cause?

Because Obama was most pro-abortion candidate of the major party candidates, and McCain had the best chance of defeating Obama, as compared to other candidates.

 

[peregrinator_it]

The numbers do not indicate that this is what has happened.

I understand what you’re saying, but “the numbers” are only determined after the race has been run.

Frankly, showing a united front politically yields great results in the face of “the numbers.” Witness the passage of Prop. 8 in California.

Now it would have taken a great deal of distaste for the pro-life community to have been united behind John McCain (ugh) but I think it would have been better had there been no division…

…not that that means endorsing John McCain as the ideal candidate, because he clearly is not.

 

[DavidPalm]

It was acceptable in any state not only as a form of protest but out of desire to adhere strictly to the teachings of the Church on non-negotiable issues and rejection of intrinsic evil without compromise (which alone makes it justifiable), since morality is not based on chances of getting elected.

Exactly. The vote cast in conscience by an informed citizen is neither “thrown away” nor is it, by some bizarre verbal alchemy, transformed into a vote for some other candidate. When you vote for someone your vote is for that person, not for somebody else.

 

[ishii]

Thanks for the responses thus far. NTOT, and David Palm, I guess we will have to disagree on whether John Mcain was an acceptable pro-life candidate. Here are two points that I would like you to consider the next time you vote:

1)Obama has by executive order rescinded the mexico city policy which will allow the use of U.S. taxpayer funds to procure abortions abroad. This will increase the number of abortions that would otherwise not have taken place (i.e. the babies would have been born not aborted). Obama also will help usher in the Freedom of Choice Act which will codify Roe v. Wade and make it even harder to pass laws against abortion in the states. More abortions will result.

1. John McCain would have kept the policy that every Republican president since Reagan (I think) in place that forbids the use of taxpayer funds to help pay for abortions abroad. Further, John McCain would likely have vetoed the Freedom of Choice Act. Even further, McCain would have nominated a pro-choice justice that might have finally overturned Roe v Wade.

The problem with all or nothing pro-life voters is that they fail to see the value of incremental progress with the pro-life cause. Sometimes even preventing the abortion laws from getting worse, (i.e. defeating Obama) is progress. They might vote for their perfectly pro-life candidate (who has no chance of winning) and get to feel good about their vote, but in fact they have accomplished nothing. I truly hope that these voters think about this the next time around. I also hope that the priest, bishops, and archbishops do a better job of educating Catholics in America about the responsibility of being effective pro-life voters, rather than “feel good” pro-life voters who vote for candidates with no chance of winning, and rather than pro-choice Democrats. The latter group is, of course, much more responsible for electing Obama, and has much more to answer for than the former group. Actually,

Ishii