Voting For A 3rd Party Is Voting For Obama.

[dUSt]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1351047089' post='2496726']
But a vote for Ron Paul would NOT be a vote for Obama. It's a vote for Ron Paul and to say otherwise is illogical.
[/quote]

Ron Paul is pro-abortion.

"[b]Very early pregnancies[/b] and victims of rape [b]can be treated with the day after pill[/b], which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice." - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 5 ,

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351046823' post='2496722']
[b]Q. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?[/b]

As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.

[b]Q. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?[/b]

In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in the previous question.

[b]Q. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?[/b]

Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.

[b]- Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD[/b]
[/quote]

So a Catholic may be justified in voting for Romney....

Go for it. I won't argue against that. But you cannot cite Church teaching that says I can't promote a real pro-life candidate.

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1351044900' post='2496685']
easy analysis:

1. either Romney or Obama WILL win the election
2. a vote for neither is the same as a vote for Obama
3. neither is truly pro life, but Romney is closer, hence an improvement
4. SO WHY THE FLOOPY WOULD YOU THROW AWAY A CHANCE AT EVEN A LITTLE IMPROVEMENT BY VOTING FOR SOMEONE YOU KNOW CANNOT WIN??!?!

that's like not praying in front of the abortion clinic because you might only save 1 life out of the 50 that day. save the 1 when you can for pete's sakes!

REALLY PHOLKS!?!?!?!
[/quote]

Because maintaining the status-quo is not an improvement. I argue that the number of abortions in America will stay the same regardless if Obama or Romney get elected. Neither will significantly change it. Both will keep it going. Both will nominate justices that protect abortions in the name of "health."

Your analogy loses power in that instead of praying to save the one life, the "deserter" goes across the street and begins to work to elect someone who will shut down the abortion clinic.

Because....I am not throwing away my vote in the same way Rosa Parks didn't throw away her seat. I am going to use my vote to fight for a better tomorrow as Rosa Parks held onto hers to fight for a better tomorrow.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351047306' post='2496730']
Ron Paul is pro-abortion.

"[b]Very early pregnancies[/b] and victims of rape [b]can be treated with the day after pill[/b], which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice." - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 5 ,
[/quote]


We settled this months ago.

Ron Paul would put moral issues to the states by promoting his [b]We the People Act[/b]. This way, Roe v. Wade would be nullified OVERNIGHT, and each state would decide for itself.

Since abortion is legal in all 50, the pro-life movement could only gain ground by this Act. Ron Paul also was open to a person hood amendment at some point.

Romney claims he wants Roe V. Wade overturned......but he'll appoint pro-choice justices that allow the infinite loophole of abortion being justified if the mother has a headache or some other fake health issue.

Which candidate is more pro-life at the end of the day?


REVOLUTION!

[dUSt]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1351047399' post='2496733']
But you cannot cite Church teaching that says I can't promote a real pro-life candidate.
[/quote]
I never claimed I could. I am not doubting anybody's morality or questioning their conscience. I am doubting and questioning their ability to think rationally and pragmatically in making a decision that will affect unborn lives.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351044216' post='2496674']
You can deny it all you want, but reality is that it's hypocritical to vote for a 3rd party when you know quite well it's a hopeless vote. You want Obama to win, vote for the 3rd party period.
[/quote]
It's false piety to refuse to vote for a man who believes we should kill Iranians. Got it.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351047895' post='2496742']
It's false piety to refuse to vote for a man who believes we should kill Iranians. Got it.
[/quote]
Faulty logic.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351048013' post='2496744']
Faulty logic.
[/quote]
Yeah. That's [i]my [/i]point.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351047617' post='2496740']
I never claimed I could. I am not doubting anybody's morality or questioning their conscience. I am doubting and questioning their ability to think rationally and pragmatically in making a decision that will affect unborn lives.
[/quote]

I must be getting something wrong about Romney. Please let me know where I am wrong in my analysis of Romney.

Romney believes the health of the mother justifies abortion. This is a giant loophole that will keep the abortion numbers the same. There will be no significant decrease in abortion in this country because of Romney. Therefore, it is pointless to support such a guy in the name of being pro-life.

Romney claims he'll defund Planned Parenthood. Has he done this in the past? No. Has he flip-flopped in the past? Yes, several times.

It is not reasonable to trust someone who has repeatedly changed their principles. Rather it is foolish to trust them at all.


Romney also declined to sign the Susan B. Anthony pledge to appoint pro-life justices. So it would be reasonable to think the guy will appoint pro-choice justices.

I don't see where Romney saves lives.

Obama wants to expand abortion rights. Bottom line is that abortion rights cannot get expanded much more to have a significant impact on the yearly abortion number.

So I can vote for a huge evil in the name of saving a statistical insignificant number, or I can start working for real change, and demand a candidates that actually believe in the sanctity of life, and won't sell me out, when the guy across the street promises two more cents on the dollar.

Romney will sell the Catholic and pro-life side out. I am sorry. But he will fail us. He has NO record to reasonably believe that he means what he says. I am going to stand up for the million per year, and not the hypothetical.


For those who believe they must vote for Romney, go for it. But you cannot make the case, that Romney is to be trusted or bet on.

[Freedom]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1351047399' post='2496733']
So a Catholic may be justified in voting for Romney....

Go for it. I won't argue against that. But you cannot cite Church teaching that says I can't promote a real pro-life candidate.



Because maintaining the status-quo is not an improvement. I argue that the number of abortions in America will stay the same regardless if Obama or Romney get elected. Neither will significantly change it. Both will keep it going. Both will nominate justices that protect abortions in the name of "health."

Your analogy loses power in that instead of praying to save the one life, the "deserter" goes across the street and begins to work to elect someone who will shut down the abortion clinic.

Because....I am not throwing away my vote in the same way Rosa Parks didn't throw away her seat. I am going to use my vote to fight for a better tomorrow as Rosa Parks held onto hers to fight for a better tomorrow.
[/quote]

Suit yourself, but that's all you're doing, you're suiting yourself.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351048543' post='2496752']
Suit yourself, but that's all you're doing, you're suiting yourself.
[/quote]


How so?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351048543' post='2496752']
Suit yourself, but that's all you're doing, you're suiting yourself.
[/quote]
I wish I was so holy that I got the gift of reading hearts.

[Freedom]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1351048676' post='2496753']


How so?
[/quote]

Your vote will not accomplish anything. You're luring yourself.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351049111' post='2496758']
Your vote will not accomplish anything. You're luring yourself.
[/quote]

And yours will?

[Winchester]

Yeah. All self-righteous prigs get double counted. You didn't know that, Eagle?

[Freedom]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1351049158' post='2496760']

And yours will?
[/quote]

Again, this is a Country with two major parties,. If you are a Republican & you vote for a 3rd party, you're voting for Obama. If you're Independent & you vote for a 3rd party, you're voting for Obama. Don't fool yourself.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351049551' post='2496765']
Again, this is a Country with two major parties,. If you are a Republican & you vote for a 3rd party, you're voting for Obama. If you're Independent & you vote for a 3rd party, you're voting for Obama. Don't fool yourself.
[/quote]
You failed maths didn't you?

[Freedom]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351049778' post='2496767']
You failed maths didn't you?
[/quote]

And your a liberal, aren't you?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351046186' post='2496716']
Jesus Christ Himself was a Revolutionary.
[/quote]
And the major party candidates and their supporters are not.

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351047306' post='2496730']
Ron Paul is pro-abortion.

"[b]Very early pregnancies[/b] and victims of rape [b]can be treated with the day after pill[/b], which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice." - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 5 ,
[/quote]

That's cute.
[quote][color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=4]With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.[/size][/font][/color][/quote]
Guess where I got that from.
[spoiler]Hint: not Ron Paul's website.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values[/spoiler]

Not, however, that I believe that he earnestly holds all (any) of the beliefs that the party has told him it is in his best interest (and that of his career aspirations) that he hold.

[qfnol31]

I'll make this response in general since there are so many topics happening in this thread.

I think I've posted something like this before, but it's worth repeating.

1. Catholics must vote in America. If we don't vote, then there must be an extremely good reason why not.

2. Catholics must try to minimize the amount of evil performed. Since we don't have a presidential candidate who is 100% in line with Catholic teachings, we must go for the candidate that will limit evil the most. In other words, our vote must limit the amount of evil performed by the person who wins. If this is accomplished by a third party candidate, then we should vote for a third-party candidate. Our intentions alone do not determine whether or not we truly act well. We are morally responsible for our actions and the outcome of our actions, insofar as we are able to ascertain the outcome of our actions. Prudence, the virtue, is knowing the correct end and seeking the [i]best[/i] possible means to that end. If we don't act prudently, then we act in an evil manner and are morally culpable for the outcome that we could have (and didn't) prevent to the best of our ability.

3. Catholics, when forced to choose between an evil and a greater evil must choose the lesser of two evils. If there are three evils, we must choose the lesser of three, and so on. But again, see my previous point: intention alone is not all that matters. We can be held accountable for our inaction or the end sought as well. When Catholics act, they may only materially cooperate with evil (meaning that they cannot formally cooperate with evil, or choose to perform an action for the sake of an evil outcome). This means you can't support President Obama on account of his views on abortion or because of his views on marriage. If you cooperate materially in evil, you go along with evil to prevent a greater evil. Any material cooperation with evil must be as remote as possible, or the action performed is evil.

4. Catholics cannot vote for a 100% pro-abortion candidate, unless all candidates are pro-abortion. In this case Catholics must go for the best choice possible. The same goes for euthanasia, cloning, marriage, etc., though these cases do not receive equal weight.

5. This means Catholics must choose between someone who is for limiting abortions or flat-out stopping them. This goes for the other issues listed above as well.

6. Catholics not only cannot vote for a 100% pro-abortion candidate (unless they have no other choice), they must also try as hard as possible (legally) to keep such a candidate out of office. If they do not try as hard as possible to keep this person out of office, then they have materially cooperated in this person's election (by not preventing it). Material cooperation can occur when a person does not act, just as much as it can appear when they do act.

7. If there is an extremely pro-abortion (etc.) candidate, who can make things worse in our country or keep things where they are, then we ought to work as hard to keep him from obtaining office. By voting for a candidate who is very little pro-abortion, we are remotely and materially cooperating with evil insofar as we do not intend this person to be in charge, but intend the other person to stay out of office.

8. By voting for a completely pro-life candidate who has no chance of getting into office, we remotely and materially cooperate in the evil of whosoever ends up elected by not trying all possible to prevent that person from entering office. If the more pro-abortion candidate gets in, then the person who did not try to prevent his election is culpable for his actions. If the voter votes for the other candidate (the less pro-abortion candidate), then this culpability is mitigated.

9. If the person votes for the 5% pro-abortion candidate in order to keep the other candidate out of office, then he only materially cooperates in the candidate's election, because he did not elect the candidate for the candidate's sake.

10. It follows that the person who votes for the unelectable candidate remotely cooperates in the election of whoever gets elected. If he votes for the less pro-abortion candidate, then he only remotely cooperates in that person's election, regardless of the outcome.

11. It would be possible to vote for a third-party candidate if the evil prevented by such a vote outweighs the evil of abortion, marriage, etc., then we ought to vote third-party. However, recall that no matter what, intention is not enough to make an action good. We are just as culpable for the end perceived (and I don't mean intention, but what we know will come of our actions) as we are for performing a bad action in the first place. I think this is where the discussion should go. Is abortion a greater evil than our country politics?

Is the government now set up in such a way that is morally evil and will protect evil actions more than a different system. I don't think that limiting abortion decisions to states is more viable or more worthwhile than the current system.

Is leaving abortion decisions to the states a more prudent means of protecting the unborn?

Is Ron Paul's system really the best way to prevent evil and rid our government of true evil? Do we perceive the results of our actions helping as much as everyone says, or are we acting based only on ideals?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351049551' post='2496765']
Again, this is a Country with two major parties,. If you are a Republican & you vote for a 3rd party, you're voting for Obama. If you're Independent & you vote for a 3rd party, you're voting for Obama. Don't fool yourself.
[/quote]

nope. you're voting for the person you voted for.

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351049982' post='2496768']

And your a liberal, aren't you?
[/quote]


lol