Which is the greater evil?

[CJsmommy]

Yet another voting thread (sorry).
My primary is a little more than a week away and this is really bothering me. Let me start by saying that I am entirely pro-life… however the candidate that I most agree with is highly pro-choice.
So which is worse, to vote for a candidate who is pro-life, but does not care to help those who have already been born, or to vote for a candidate who doesn’t care at all about those who haven’t even had the chance to live, but wants to help the poor? And wouldn’t helping the poor indirectly help many of the unborn?

 

[pensmama87]

For me it would greatly depend on the nature of the office and the duties required.

If I feel I cannot in good conscience vote for any listed candidates for an office, I write in, even though I know the write in candidate is incredibly unlikely to win.

What you cannot do is vote for a candidate because of an immoral position they hold.

 

[catholicbball17]

Is it a partisan primary or a Top-2 primary? If so, is one a sitting incumbent? If there is an incumbent in your primary, is he the pro-life one? I would say go for the Pro-Life one.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yet another voting thread (sorry).
My primary is a little more than a week away and this is really bothering me. Let me start by saying that I am entirely pro-life… however the candidate that I most agree with is highly pro-choice.
So which is worse, to vote for a candidate who is pro-life, but does not care to help those who have already been born, or to vote for a candidate who doesn’t care at all about those who haven’t even had the chance to live, but wants to help the poor? And wouldn’t helping the poor indirectly help many of the unborn?

this is never a dilemma for me. If ANY candidate supported killing Jews, or publicly supported genocide or even racism or freedom to rape no one would ever consider voting for them! What if the candidate supported a mothers right to kill a birthed child?
I just can’t imagine!

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

You should not vote for a pro-choice candidate. They are advocating for murder of the most innocent & helpless; no amount of government aid to the poor can outweigh such an abhorrent practice.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yet another voting thread (sorry).
My primary is a little more than a week away and this is really bothering me. Let me start by saying that I am entirely pro-life… however the candidate that I most agree with is highly pro-choice.
So which is worse, to vote for a candidate who is pro-life, but does not care to help those who have already been born, or to vote for a candidate who doesn’t care at all about those who haven’t even had the chance to live, but wants to help the poor? And wouldn’t helping the poor indirectly help many of the unborn?

Do you have to vote for either one?

 

[TwoNames]

this is never a dilemma for me. If ANY candidate supported killing Jews, or publicly supported genocide or even racism or freedom to rape no one would ever consider voting for them! What if the candidate supported a mothers right to kill a birthed child?
I just can’t imagine!

Wow, that’s a good way to look at it.

 

[WJeffrey]

Perhaps there are other ways of looking at it.

Does the pro choice candidate favor programs that directly assist the poor (like welfare) by taxing the wealthy? Perhaps the other candidate has more of a pro business approach. However, if the pro business candidate’s programs go towards programs that grow the economy, more people are employed. When more people are employed, many of those people receiving welfare go back to work and rediscover the dignity of no longer being dependent on the government.

Viewing it this way, aren’t both candidate helping the poor?

Part of my work is in advocacy for people with disabilities. Almost every piece of legislation that helps people with disabilities has come from Republican administrations. Republicans believe in creating a level playing field for everyone, while people like President Obama and Rahm Emanuel have been caught on tape making fun of handicapped people.

Is helping disabled people helping the poor. Yes. Most disabled people live below the poverty line. They are the poorest segment of society.

If you believe in helping the disabled community, you just might be supporting the Pro Life candidate. Pro life people believe in supporting all life. And they don’t make fun of “retards” at Special Olympics events.

 

[Pedro_1987]

Honestly, the law isn’t going to change regardless of who’s in office. Has any Republican president actually overturned Roe vs Wade since 1973? No. Anything any Republican candidate says about being pro-life is nothing but lip service to get more votes.

 

[Pedro_1987]

Perhaps there are other ways of looking at it.

Does the pro choice candidate favor programs that directly assist the poor (like welfare) by taxing the wealthy? Perhaps the other candidate has more of a pro business approach. However, if the pro business candidate’s programs go towards programs that grow the economy, more people are employed. When more people are employed, many of those people receiving welfare go back to work and rediscover the dignity of no longer being dependent on the government.

Trickle down economics has never worked and has only ever resulted in more deficit.

 

[Cimachol]

Yet another voting thread (sorry).
My primary is a little more than a week away and this is really bothering me. Let me start by saying that I am entirely pro-life… however the candidate that I most agree with is highly pro-choice.
So which is worse, to vote for a candidate who is pro-life, but does not care to help those who have already been born, or to vote for a candidate who doesn’t care at all about those who haven’t even had the chance to live, but wants to help the poor? And wouldn’t helping the poor indirectly help many of the unborn?

I suspect your view that the other candidate “does not care to help those who have already been born.” There are many people who want to help the poor but feel that many government programs and policies do more to harm the poor than help.

For example, I am against minimum-wage laws, not because I think it is OK for employers to exploit workers, but because I believe minimum-wage laws reduce the number of employment opportunities for inexperienced workers to gain experience and become more marketable in the future. Additionally, driving up the cost of labor also drives up the cost of goods and services, which makes it harder for low-income workers to make ends meet.

That’s just one example and I’m sure we could debate it, but my point is that labeling people as uncaring because they don’t support a particular policy is rather unfair.

 

[CJsmommy]

I suspect your view that the other candidate “does not care to help those who have already been born.” There are many people who want to help the poor but feel that many government programs and policies do more to harm the poor than help.

For example, I am against minimum-wage laws, not because I think it is OK for employers to exploit workers, but because I believe minimum-wage laws reduce the number of employment opportunities for inexperienced workers to gain experience and become more marketable in the future. Additionally, driving up the cost of labor also drives up the cost of goods and services, which makes it harder for low-income workers to make ends meet.

That’s just one example and I’m sure we could debate it, but my point is that labeling people as uncaring because they don’t support a particular policy is rather unfair.

I was simply generalizing for the sake of the thread. The pro-life candidate wants the states to take care of their own. My state isn’t the best at that. The pro-choice candidate is all about the little guy - except of course for the very littlest. (I may have said too much and you can guess who I’m talking about. I’ll delete this post if I need to.)

 

[Cimachol]

Honestly, the law isn’t going to change regardless of who’s in office. Has any Republican president actually overturned Roe vs Wade since 1973? No. Anything any Republican candidate says about being pro-life is nothing but lip service to get more votes.

This simply isn’t true. Here’s a list of some of the pro-life victories during the GWB administration. He also nominated two constitutionalist justices to the Supreme Court, who would be more likely to see Roe v. Wade as a flawed ruling if an opportunity to reverse it ever came up.

Unfortunately, flat-out making abortion illegal would require either a reversal of Roe v. Wade, followed by the passage of anti-abortion laws at state or federal levels, or a constitutional amendment, which pro-lifers have been in no position to do since Roe v. Wade took place. Pro-life elected officials have had to focus on what changes they CAN make.

 

[Cimachol]

Trickle down economics has never worked and has only ever resulted in more deficit.

The very phrase “trickle-down economics” is a straw man. Nobody believes “allowing” the wealthy keep the money they have earned automatically makes the poor wealthier. What free-market advocates believe that markets tend to allow for greater economic opportunity for everyone, and that excessive taxation can hinder the market, leading to less opportunity. Father Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute touches on this a bit here.

In any event, here are a few examples of times when tax cuts led to increased tax revenues.

Of course, when spending exceeds revenue, you are always going to have a deficit.

 

[peter26]

There is no point in having all sorts of welfare programs (even effective ones) if you allow people to be killed before they are born and can benefit from them! And yes, voting pro-life has made a difference. Look at what Matt Bevin has been doing since he was elected Governor of Kentucky last year for instance, and he has only been in office a couple of months! An outright ban would take a lot of factors being all present at the same time, but what can and is being done is de-funding and making baby killing more difficult.

 

[Cimachol]

I was simply generalizing for the sake of the thread. The pro-life candidate wants the states to take care of their own. My state isn’t the best at that. The pro-choice candidate is all about the little guy - except of course for the very littlest. (I may have said too much and you can guess who I’m talking about. I’ll delete this post if I need to.)

I get that, but I’m not so sure the solutions being proposed will really help the “little guy” as much as this candidate might think. There is a reason people have risked their lives fleeing socialist countries to come here.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Honestly, the law isn’t going to change regardless of who’s in office. Has any Republican president actually overturned Roe vs Wade since 1973? No. Anything any Republican candidate says about being pro-life is nothing but lip service to get more votes.

I agree with you, Pedro. I think both parties use this particular issue to get their respective bases riled up, but there is no way in this world that we - as a society - are going to take away a woman’s right to control her own body and declare that women who have abortions are murderers. Truly, imagine the madness of that. Neither party has any intention of meddling with Roe v. Wade.

 

[josh987654321]

Yet another voting thread (sorry).
My primary is a little more than a week away and this is really bothering me. Let me start by saying that I am entirely pro-life… however the candidate that I most agree with is highly pro-choice.
So which is worse, to vote for a candidate who is pro-life, but does not care to help those who have already been born, or to vote for a candidate who doesn’t care at all about those who haven’t even had the chance to live, but wants to help the poor? And wouldn’t helping the poor indirectly help many of the unborn?

I would only ask every voter to first put themselves in the shoes of the unborn before they vote.

I would rather have a chance, even if it is a poor one. X candidate might not help me much at all, he/she may even make it harder for me, but at least he/she will not kill me. At least I can have a chance. So I’ll choose the pro-life candidate every time, no question about it.

I hope this has helped

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Trickle down economics has never worked and has only ever resulted in more deficit.

I agree that trickle down economics does not work, there will always be unemployment and people needing government aid in tough times, the idea I believe should be to reduce the amount of people unemployed and on government aid as much as is reasonably possible, not to remove it all together.

That being said, if one votes for a pro-choice candidate thinking that it is ‘futile’ anyway. They will have blood on their hands.

It is not futile just because the president himself cannot strike out roe vs wade with his/her own hand. The president and our politicians have a say and they represent the people who have a say through the politicians they voted for, if the majority of them are pro life, roe vs wade will be overturned, even if it’s not by their own hands. It is a vital step that needs to be taken in order to overturning roe vs wade.

It is the only process in which the people can overturn roe vs wade, it is in no way ‘futile’ by any means.

 

[Tomdstone]

I agree that trickle down economics does not work, there will always be unemployment and people needing government aid in tough times, the idea I believe should be to reduce the amount of people unemployed and on government aid as much as is reasonably possible, not to remove it all together.

That being said, if one votes for a pro-choice candidate thinking that it is ‘futile’ anyway. They will have blood on their hands.

It is not futile just because the president himself cannot strike out roe vs wade with his/her own hand. The president and our politicians have a say and they represent the people who have a say through the politicians they voted for, if the majority of them are pro life, roe vs wade will be overturned, even if it’s not by their own hands. It is a vital step that needs to be taken in order to overturning roe vs wade.

It is the only process in which the people can overturn roe vs wade, it is in no way ‘futile’ by any means.

I saw Hillary on the debate and she said that Roe V Wade is the law and she wants to keep it that way.