Ron Paul?


#1

What is everyone's opinion of Ron Paul's moral positions, particularly on pro-life issues? Keep in mind that Romney has stated, like Ron Paul, that he would like to repeal Roe v. Wade and then let states decide the legality of abortion, but that he would not administer federal policies about abortion. However, Ron Paul is more pro-life than Romney, having no exceptions to his pro-life stance (unlike Romney, who believes abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest or the endangerment of the mother's life), and being opposed to embryonic stem cell research (which Romney is only against if they have/make embryos exclusively for this purpose, not if they are harvested from, say, artificial insemination's "extra" babies). To boil it down, Ron Paul is more pro-life than Romney, with somewhat similar political stances. What is your view of him? Also, if Ron Paul is more pro-life but has less chance of winning, is it more conscientious to vote for Ron Paul or Romney?

Thanks for the help and God bless. :)


#2

[quote="scameter18, post:1, topic:303855"]
What is everyone's opinion of Ron Paul's moral positions, particularly on pro-life issues? Keep in mind that Romney has stated, like Ron Paul, that he would like to repeal Roe v. Wade and then let states decide the legality of abortion, but that he would not administer federal policies about abortion. However, Ron Paul is more pro-life than Romney, having no exceptions to his pro-life stance (unlike Romney, who believes abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest or the endangerment of the mother's life), and being opposed to embryonic stem cell research (which Romney is only against if they have/make embryos exclusively for this purpose, not if they are harvested from, say, artificial insemination's "extra" babies). To boil it down, Ron Paul is more pro-life than Romney, with somewhat similar political stances. What is your view of him? Also, if Ron Paul is more pro-life but has less chance of winning, is it more conscientious to vote for Ron Paul or Romney?

Thanks for the help and God bless. :)

[/quote]

As I stated in another thread with a similar topic, If it were me, voting for a third party may be an ethical choice but not necessarily the practical one. Face it: Either Romney or Obama are going to win the election despite any challenge by a third party. The future of our country will be in the hands of one of them.

I would take the Lesser of Two Evils approach and vote for Romney or Obama. Instead of trying to elect the *perfect *candidate, vote for the *best *candidate.

Nevertheless, do what you think is right.


#3

[quote="Lost_Sheep, post:2, topic:303855"]
I would take the Lesser of Two Evils approach

[/quote]

I disagree with this because, IMO, voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil. I would prefer not to vote for evil.

God Bless,
Bill


#4

[quote="Bill_7154, post:3, topic:303855"]
I disagree with this because, IMO, voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil. I would prefer not to vote for evil.

God Bless,
Bill

[/quote]

I think it's better framed this way -- candidate A promises to randomly kill 20% of the people. Candidate B promises to randomly kill 10% of the people. Which one is the better choice? Maybe the term of choice here would be "palliative voting...?"


#5

[quote="Bill_7154, post:3, topic:303855"]
I disagree with this because, IMO, voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil. I would prefer not to vote for evil.

God Bless,
Bill

[/quote]

Perhaps from a spiritual point yes, but like I said either Romney or Obama are going to win no matter which third-party candidate you vote for. That means either Romney or Obama are going to lead this country for the next four years.

So which of those two will do the best job (or perhaps least harm) to the country? Considering the fact that we are all sinners, whether you perceive Romney or Obama or both as "evil" shouldn't influence your decision. Casting the first stone and all that.

But hey, it's your vote. Do what you want. :shrug:


#6

Ron Paul isn't running for anything. He is 77 and is retiring from the US House.

The US has a two party political system. There is no point in pretending otherwise.


#7

[quote="PaulfromIowa, post:6, topic:303855"]
Ron Paul isn't running for anything. He is 77 and is retiring from the US House.

The US has a two party political system. There is no point in pretending otherwise.

[/quote]

Before this thread (inevitably) gets locked, there's an interesting question -- is a political system which limits choice of candidates for various reasons (money, ballot rules, etc) an inherently unjust one?


#8

If Americans had any sense, no one would vote in the November election. Whoever wins the November election, it will be a defeat for the American people. If Americans did not show up at the polls it would send a clear message to Washington.
Whether it be Rombama or if you prefer Obamney, abortions will continue, wars will continue. Neither candidate is pro-life, they are both for death. They are for the interests of Wall Street, more wars, and both support the NDAA.
The Republicans had a real chance for a genuine conservative in Ron Paul. In rejecting him (and in how they rejected him), Republicans displayed to the world who and what they are.
I truly believe Ron Paul was America's last chance to turn things around. Now, I believe the only way for Americans to wake up is go through the fire.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Pray the Rosary.


#9

[quote="jc4751, post:7, topic:303855"]
Before this thread (inevitably) gets locked, there's an interesting question -- is a political system which limits choice of candidates for various reasons (money, ballot rules, etc) an inherently unjust one?

[/quote]

Yes.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.