Voting For A 3rd Party Is Voting For Obama.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1351046870' post='2496723']
Jesus Christ was a revolutionary. What's more revolutionary than the Ron Paul Revolution itself?
[/quote]
And the point of bringing this up now is because...?

[PhuturePriest]

And you know, I believed the same exact thing as you. Not too long ago, in fact. I was all about Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich during the primary, and even Herman Cain at the very beginning. 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. We can't keep doing this. The two party system has gotten us here. It's time we woke up before the government has full control over us, and you would be amazed just how much closer we have gotten to that during the past few decades.

Edited October 24, 2012 by FuturePriest387

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351046811' post='2496721']


Thank God I don't know what you mean.
[/quote]

[PhuturePriest]

Somebody smarter needs to start posting. Traditionally that means Aloysius, but Winchester and Nihil are viable options as well.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351045406' post='2496699']
you meant to say your version of Catholic moral philosophy.
[/quote]
Principle of double effect. Not my philosophy. I just believe it.

[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?