M
mapleoak
Guest
Given the fact that there currently are no pro-life candidates in the major political parties, one WILL be voting for a pro-choice candidate if one chooses to vote for any of them. Some tend to posit that culpability is mitigated by the attempt at limiting evil when voting for a ‘pro-choice’ candidate who supports killing fewer people in order to limit the number of people killed.
This can be likened to a parallel scenario where a candidate A supports killing anyone between the age of 20 and 30 and an opposing candidate B who is against killing people between the age of 20 and 30 except in the rare instance they have freckles.
A person voting in this scenario would not be obliged to vote for the latter candidate in order to limit evil. He would certainly be justified to either refrain from voting or vote for someone else who ‘in popular opinion’ has ‘no chance of winning’ but is solidy pro-life. I am sure a 25 year old with freckles would not vote for the latter candidate B and certainly not the former A. A 45 year old without freckles might rationalize that it is unacceptable to vote for the former candidate because he is ‘pro-choice’ and figure it is okay to vote for the latter candidate because the candidate is self proclaimed ‘pro-life’ even though in a limited fashion and a vote for him would ‘limit the evil’ allowed.
This of course is not much different than someone who claims to be pro-life, but supports killing the unborn in cases of rape. There are many folks who themselves were conceived via rape and are absolutely opposed to voting for someone who would have approved of their own death sentences.
My position is no candidate who supports the killing of unborn children, whether that be one child or a million, be it my child or yours, be it a healthy child or one with a disease, or if it be the child from the obscure and unknown woman of the ghetto, is worthy of any position of power, let alone being a candidate for the presidency. It is morally correct to refrain from casting ones vote for such a person or to cast it for an ‘unpopular’ choice.
Discussion welcome.
This can be likened to a parallel scenario where a candidate A supports killing anyone between the age of 20 and 30 and an opposing candidate B who is against killing people between the age of 20 and 30 except in the rare instance they have freckles.
A person voting in this scenario would not be obliged to vote for the latter candidate in order to limit evil. He would certainly be justified to either refrain from voting or vote for someone else who ‘in popular opinion’ has ‘no chance of winning’ but is solidy pro-life. I am sure a 25 year old with freckles would not vote for the latter candidate B and certainly not the former A. A 45 year old without freckles might rationalize that it is unacceptable to vote for the former candidate because he is ‘pro-choice’ and figure it is okay to vote for the latter candidate because the candidate is self proclaimed ‘pro-life’ even though in a limited fashion and a vote for him would ‘limit the evil’ allowed.
This of course is not much different than someone who claims to be pro-life, but supports killing the unborn in cases of rape. There are many folks who themselves were conceived via rape and are absolutely opposed to voting for someone who would have approved of their own death sentences.
My position is no candidate who supports the killing of unborn children, whether that be one child or a million, be it my child or yours, be it a healthy child or one with a disease, or if it be the child from the obscure and unknown woman of the ghetto, is worthy of any position of power, let alone being a candidate for the presidency. It is morally correct to refrain from casting ones vote for such a person or to cast it for an ‘unpopular’ choice.
Discussion welcome.