Hypothetical Election

[goldenchild17]

And we also need to keep in mind, do the ends justify the means?

[Didymus]

well then we'd have to define 'means' and 'end'

[goldenchild17]

Let's do so . Means: voting for lesser of two evils (yet still quite an evil). Ends: Avoiding the bigger of two evils.

How is this different from say supporting the execution of one or two people, in order that a whole group of people can be saved?

Edited February 11, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Didymus]

It would be more like a whole group of people are going to be executed, and you support the man who will save a great deal of them, because any other decision would leave all of them to be killed. Supporting the other candidate means they'll all die, and throwing away support means the first man may not have enough support to save some of them.

In the case of say, voting for Bush in '04. In voting for Bush, one was voting for a change for the better. One thus voted to save millions that could not be saved. Voting third party (or not voting at all) could have meant one less vote for Bush and thus the millions that [i]could[/i] have been protected would be at the mercy, or lack of, of the other candidate. I cant really apply this to '08 though, since as has been pointed out, there seem to be no definitive protectors of life aside from Brownback.

[goldenchild17]

How is your example different from mine? Would you say that it is okay to support the killing of some people in order to save the majority of them?

[Didymus]

because we have no tangible way of preventing the deaths of the innocent right at this moment save from using physical force. Prayer is always necessary, but I always believe in voting against the one who is blatantly pro-death. If there is a candidate that is willing to change the law for the better and he/she actually has a shot of winning, then I'd be willing to give them my vote. You have every right to call me out, cuz I might very well be wrong . That's just the way I see it. I'm looking at it from the current state of the country, not if I would actually stand next to that particular candidate's platform and support it, because I actually do want a candidate who is 100% pro-life no exceptions. (just wanted to clarify where I am myself)

Edited February 11, 2007 by Didymus

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1191013' date='Feb 10 2007, 07:28 PM']
+

His name is Brownback.
[/quote]

Yay, Brownback! He's my senator!!!

Abortion isn't the only one of the non-negotiable issues. If there wasn't a pro-life candidate, I'd vote for the one that was the most suitable when it came to gay marriage and cloning (the candidates would probably be against all of the other ones...). The Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics helps a lot...just saying that you dont have to take your vote out or vote for a third party candidate if neither the republican or democrat candidates are pro life.

Edited February 11, 2007 by aalpha1989

[goldenchild17]

Not trying to call anyone out. Just trying to figure out hte right course of action in the matter. In the case of a serial killer who has taken a group hostage: he offers to let the rest of the group live if we allow for the deaths of a few of them. Either some will die, or all will die, no other alternative. Is it okay to support the murder of the few?

In the case of a presidential candidate who is against abortion in most cases, but supports it in some cases: he offers the country a relief against the murder of many unborn children. In exchange he asks for our support in allowing the deaths of many unborn children still in certain circumstances. EIther some will die, or many more will die, many unborn children will die regardless. To add onto this, he also supports birth control. Is it okay to support such a candidate simply because it's better to kill some than to kill many?