Vote for a Pro-Choice person or Pro-Life tyrant or neither?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheFollower
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheFollower

Guest
Hello.

So I have a friend in another forum who says I HAVE TO vote for a “Pro-Choice” person who is good in terms of everything else, when the opposing is a “Pro-Life” tyrant. I told him, “The ‘Pro-Life’ person would be ‘Pro-Choice’. I don’t have to vote so I won’t vote for either.”

He gave me an example of:

There is a man who is going to kill one man and distroy the world. I have to choose one of the following:

The death of a man saving the rest of the world = Choosing Pro-Choice” person.
The saving of a man killing the rest of the world = Choosing Pro-Life” tyrant.
Don’t do anything = Not voting.

I told him, “That question is extreme.” But he insists me to answer.

What should I tell him?:confused:

God bless.
 
How can you be anymore tyrannical than choosing to support abortion where 50 million babies have lost their lives in the US alone? So I would vote for the pro-life candidate.

Seventy years ago, the Germans got to vote for Hitler or against Hitler.
One hundred and fifty years ago, we had pro slavery and anti slavery.

Have your friend read The Hand of God by Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D.
 
TheFollower said:
Hello.

So I have a friend in another forum who says I HAVE TO vote for a “Pro-Choice” person who is good in terms of everything else, when the opposing is a “Pro-Life” tyrant. I told him, “The ‘Pro-Life’ person would be ‘Pro-Choice’. I don’t have to vote so I won’t vote for either.”

He gave me an example of:

There is a man who is going to kill one man and distroy the world. I have to choose one of the following:

The death of a man saving the rest of the world = Choosing Pro-Choice” person.
The saving of a man killing the rest of the world = Choosing Pro-Life” tyrant.
Don’t do anything = Not voting.

I told him, “That question is extreme.” But he insists me to answer.

What should I tell him?:confused:

God bless.
Click to expand...
I loudly and utterly object to the term ‘pro-choice’ being used to describe those who are in favor of abortion on demand.

A pro-life position and tyranny do not go hand-in-hand.

But that’s just me.
 
You know, these false arguments are simply specious.

The reality is that no Catholic should ever vote for someone whose party platform includes abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research (which dovetails into abortion because the dead babies can be sold for $$).

That’s the plain and simple truth, but Catholics will twist themselves into pretzels trying to make up reasons why they can still vote for their favorite pro-abortion politician.

No special situations are necessary. Just tell your friend that Catholics are charged to vote pro-life. Period.
 
TheFollower said:
Hello.

So I have a friend in another forum who says I HAVE TO vote for a “Pro-Choice” person who is good in terms of everything else, when the opposing is a “Pro-Life” tyrant. I told him, “The ‘Pro-Life’ person would be ‘Pro-Choice’. I don’t have to vote so I won’t vote for either.”

He gave me an example of:

There is a man who is going to kill one man and distroy the world. I have to choose one of the following:

The death of a man saving the rest of the world = Choosing Pro-Choice” person.
The saving of a man killing the rest of the world = Choosing Pro-Life” tyrant.
Don’t do anything = Not voting.

I told him, “That question is extreme.” But he insists me to answer.

What should I tell him?:confused:

God bless.
Click to expand...
Interesting first post. Welcome.

I find it rare that a politician is pro-abortion while being right on everything else. It is unusual, at best.

Usually pro-abortion politicians are generally more libertine in their stand on multiple moral issues. In MOST (but not all) cases, they are more inclined toward socialism on economic issues and statism on authority issues (within the context of their beliefs on other points).

In fact, the few libertarians who are serious candidates for office are, for the most part, not pro-abortion, as they generally believe in the civil liberties of the baby. At least in my past experience.

But if somebody wishes to present a relativistic, utilitarian argument in an attempt to weigh the state-sanctioned (and likely state-funded) murder of millions of babies per year against ANYTHING else, by all means press on.

Again, welcome.
 
TheFollower said:
Hello.

So I have a friend in another forum who says I HAVE TO vote for a “Pro-Choice” person who is good in terms of everything else, when the opposing is a “Pro-Life” tyrant. I told him, “The ‘Pro-Life’ person would be ‘Pro-Choice’. I don’t have to vote so I won’t vote for either.”

He gave me an example of:

There is a man who is going to kill one man and distroy the world. I have to choose one of the following:

The death of a man saving the rest of the world = Choosing Pro-Choice” person.
The saving of a man killing the rest of the world = Choosing Pro-Life” tyrant.
Don’t do anything = Not voting.

I told him, “That question is extreme.” But he insists me to answer.

What should I tell him?:confused:

God bless.
Click to expand...
Don’t vote for either!
 
Since it’s a math question, I guess they cancel eath other out so “0”(None)

LOL
 
TheFollower said:
Hello.

So I have a friend in another forum who says I HAVE TO vote for a “Pro-Choice” person who is good in terms of everything else, when the opposing is a “Pro-Life” tyrant. I told him, “The ‘Pro-Life’ person would be ‘Pro-Choice’. I don’t have to vote so I won’t vote for either.”

He gave me an example of:

There is a man who is going to kill one man and distroy the world. I have to choose one of the following:

The death of a man saving the rest of the world = Choosing Pro-Choice” person.
The saving of a man killing the rest of the world = Choosing Pro-Life” tyrant.
Don’t do anything = Not voting.

I told him, “That question is extreme.” But he insists me to answer.

What should I tell him?:confused:

God bless.
Click to expand...
The very question implies that you are God.
That somehow you know that which you could not know.
Additionally, it implies that people do one thing and the rest of our existance is … fluff.
It also speaks of predestination.

Either “man” would always have the choice; just as we all have, to kill or save. That is he would always have the choice unless it was taken from him by killing him while he was at his most vulnerable.

NO… “Pro-choice” is an extreme misnomer.
 
That Catholic dictator of South Vietnam was a pro-life tyrant… Diem I think his name was…

Mussolini and Stalin were pro life tyrants… Stalin banned all abortion until his death…
 
mro said:
That Catholic dictator of South Vietnam was a pro-life tyrant… Diem I think his name was…

Mussolini and Stalin were pro life tyrants… Stalin banned all abortion until his death…
Click to expand...
dictator…tyrant…were these people really “voted in”? This also precludes that there was no other alternative that was not also pro-life.
 
mro said:
That Catholic dictator of South Vietnam was a pro-life tyrant… Diem I think his name was…

Mussolini and Stalin were pro life tyrants… Stalin banned all abortion until his death…
Click to expand...
I would be interested to see proof of all the above.
 
I would tell them a Catholic is morally bound to voting for a Pro-life candidate.

Also this person has mixed up his “what if” situations to the point that its rather pathetic.

However it does raise a point.

If say there was the possibility of a Catholic Dictator with an army capable of taking down the US military and any rebellion that would pop up afterwards would we as fellow Catholics be morally obliged to support our abortion supporting USA or join up with the coup?

Edit: Also for the sake of answering the important question (should we support rebellions with possibility of success over our established government) I’d ask we refrain from over thinking the question by adding in the US allies and other outside influences that muddle the question.
 
Or you could just not vote… If it’s between a Republican conservative who’s pro life and a Democrat who’s liberal I won’t vote…

Republicans are increasingly anti-poor…

But if there’s a pro life Democrat count me in 👍
 
The only thing you are responsible is your own actions. If you have to choose between X and Y, and both are terribly immoral, then you don’t or maybe even can’t vote.

Then at least you will not have contributed to the bad outcome.

Sometimes people are faced with tough choices. During WW2, many Europeans were faced with Fascists/Nazis or Communists.
 
mro said:
Or you could just not vote… If it’s between a Republican conservative who’s pro life and a Democrat who’s liberal I won’t vote…

Republicans are increasingly anti-poor…

But if there’s a pro life Democrat count me in 👍
Click to expand...
Curios…upon what do you base your statement that Republicans are increasingly anti-poor?
 
mro said:
Or you could just not vote… If it’s between a Republican conservative who’s pro life and a Democrat who’s liberal I won’t vote…

Republicans are increasingly anti-poor…

But if there’s a pro life Democrat count me in 👍
Click to expand...
Like ‘pro-life’ Stalin, that would have to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Define also ‘anti-poor.’ The Democrats have as their party platform not only abortion on demand, but out-and-out socialism.

Socialism damages the poor first, last and foremost. Never render unto Caesar what is God’s, and it is never charity when at the point of a gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top