Morality and the Election

Stealth apologist Michelle from Oceanside, CA asks:

I understand that as Catholics we are told to vote for a candidate that is pro-life. But since the President of the United States doesn't really have the authority to change laws concerning abortion and other things whenever he feels like it, why can't we vote for the other side if we feel they are the better candidate? What I mean is, it's not like the laws will change either way during their term.

Michelle, even though I'm stealthy, my response to you will not be transparent; that argument makes about as much sense as "I like voting because it's ice cream time!" I always find it interesting that so many people use this argument when it comes to life-issues, but not with anything else. For example, who says "I agree with so-and-so's views on health care and other economic issues, but I'm not going to vote for him because he doesn't have a direct effect said issues." Just about everything that the Presidential candidates propose cannot be directly implemented by the President. Economic, health care, and a variety of other issues require the approval of the House and the Senate in order for them to be initiated. It is blatantly clear that we elect our Presidents because we feel that they will seek to pass laws and other reforms that agree with us.

Secondly, allow me to paint a mental picture as to the importance of your pro-life vote. Say you have two candidates: one is named Johanne McClaine, and the other Bara Khobamma. These are purely fictional candidates, each with their own campaign platform. Now, let's say that McClaine is running on a platform of cutting taxes, and protecting the life of Michelle's (namely your) family, and Khobamma believes in raising taxes for cheaper health care, but holds a pro-Michelle's-family's-death (say that five times fast) view. Remember, neither of these candidates has the absolute power to make your family's death happen whenever they feel like it since they have to get it approved by the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. If I were a betting man (and I am, because I am Catholic and I'm allowed to gamble), I would have to assume that you would vote for the candidate that wasn't vying for your family's demise. I'm not sure how much you love your family, they may be annoying enough to where you don't care, but the point is that most people would like their family to live whether or not they agreed on economics and other material issues.

The point is, if we are talking about human lives being destroyed or saved then we should vote for a candidate that will seek laws to reduce their destruction, just as we vote for a candidate that we feel will help make our 401K fatter. Priorities, priorities, priorities. It's not that hard to deduce whether life is more important than economics. Rather, should I say that human life is more important than money. We just find ways to rationalize filling our pockets before protecting "the least of these."

Sincerely,

Your Stealthiness

Comments

Add New

DGS - Great Argument (& welcome back from your nonabsen

|2008-10-18 23:07:37

I have never thought of putting the argument exactly in those terms, substituting family for fetuses. Excellent.

Even though you were never gone, welcome back.

Quote

Stealth Apologist - Thanks!

|2008-10-20 01:22:20

Thanks DGS! Glad to be back... or not back. Umm.. I'm just glad to be here, and glad to see you back as well!

Quote

Derp	\|2008-11-11 19:27:20

Are you kidding me? A vote for a pro-choice candidate equals the death of families? Wow. That's a leap I'd expect someone with a double digit IQ to make, but not a rational, functioning adult out in the world. How about voting for the candidate who supports affordable heath care for the people who are already here, so that THOSE families can remain intact?

But I guess hey don't matter to you. Seems like once a baby's born, what happens to it is no longer any of your affair.

Quote

Stealth Apologist - Context people!! Geez!!

|2008-11-12 07:14:48

Derp wrote:

"Yes, that's exxaaactlyyy what I was saying," said the Stealth Apologist sarcastically, "voting for a pro-choice candidate also leads to Cholera outbreaks."

Can you see how the latter subject follows from the former? (Please say no). I can't either. That's because it doesn't.

I never made the leap that voting for a pro-choice candidate will lead to the death of families. I was using particular type of cognitive process called argument by analogy. Using an analogous argument to prove a point does not require that two particular subjects be linked (which I am sure you know). Rather, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular.

So my point was – to make it simpler – why would we vote for someone who advocated the killing of a human child in the womb (which prominent scientists affirm to be the case ) when we wouldn't vote for someone that desired legislation legalizing the murder of your family, or your friends, or any innocent person currently alive? How those two subjects are analogous is that they both entail the murder of a human being. The argument is not that abortion will lead to the death of families.

As far as affordable health care for those that are here, that is fantastic. Tell me, which candidate during the election said that they advocated unaffordable healthcare? Doesn't sound like much of a platform to me, but if you can enlighten me that'd be great.

Perhaps it's my double digit IQ talking, but the whole "what about affordable healthcare for those that are here" sounds kind of selfish to me. It's just my observation, but those that hold that stance are the same that say that we need to save the environment for our children's sake.

A little bit of con-tra-dic-tion perhaps? Why not affordable healthcare for everyone, to include prenatal care?

I'm not going to touch your last sentence. Brain.... hurting... from... nonsensical... argument.

In summary:

Read context of my argument. Abortion bad, pro-choice candidate voting bad, murder of innocent people in general bad, affordable-healthcare good, affordable healthcare for newborn babies good too..

Quote