The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,542 times Debate No: 61874
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (187)
Votes (7)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

by catholic church standards, it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

the pope said a person shouldn't vote for prochoice politicians unless a proportionate reason exists to vote for them. this could include not just bigger genocides, but also the idea that voting on the issue of abortion likely wont change abortion. prolife presidents get elected, but not much changes. there's not enough people who are prolife to justify keeping voting on that issue alone, arguably.
dsjpk5

Con

My opponent has offered no source for her claims concerning the Pope, so please disregard them at this time. I, on the other hand, offer a quote from an official papal encyclical (Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 73):

"In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting
abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to
"take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote
for it"

Remember, dear voters, this debate is NOT about whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. It's about whether or not the Catholic Church says it's ok for its members to vote pro-choice. I think we all know the answer to that. With all due respect to my opponent, this debate is basically over. Please vote Con.

Source:

1.http://www.vatican.va...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," wrote Ratzinger, who is head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department charged with ensuring fidelity to church teachings. But Ratzinger added: "When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

voting for a prochoice candidate despite them being prochoice is not engaging in propaganda for that law. and is not voting for it, it's voting in spite of it. the quote by con is irrelevant. and con hasn't even engaged my reasoning about how voting for a prolife candidate likely won't change anything anyway.
the debate is essentially over.
vote pro
dsjpk5

Con

Although my opponent did not offer a source for the quote she used, I figured I should still respond to the quote so I can clear up the confusion my opponent seems to be having.

She quotes then Cardinal Razinger as saying, "When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

My opponent seems to think that the Catholic Church says it's ok for its members to vote for a pro-choice candidate as long as the voter has other reasons other than the abortion issue. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The key phrase is "proportionate reasons". In this context, "proportionate reasons" basically means "of equal value".

"We thus might ask: What kind of reasons could there be to vote for a
pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia politician?

Here is a clear case: Suppose that in a given election either Candidate
A or Candidate B is morally certain to win, but it is not clear which
will win. Candidate A"s only policy is that he supports abortion, while
Candidate B has two policies: He supports both abortion and euthanasia.
In this case, more harm will be done to society by the election of
Candidate B, and so based on principles touched on by John Paul II in
Evangelium Vitae 73, one may cast one"s vote in such a way as to limit
the harm done to society." [2]

At any rate, in our current political climate, there has never been a presidential election where both candidates were pro-choice, so my opponent's claims that "proportionate reasons" exist is just wrong. And since proportionate reasons don't exist in the current political climate, the resolution has been proven false.

Finally, my opponent said, "voting for a prochoice candidate despite them being prochoice is not engaging in propaganda for that law. and is not voting for it, it's voting in spite of it."the quote by con is irrelevant. and con hasn't even engaged my reasoning about how voting for a prolife candidate likely won't change anything anyway."

My response:

That's not what then Cardinal Ratzinger said. He said, "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia,"

Sounds like the then Cardinal Ratzinger says voting for such a person would be a problem for a Catholic. And whether or not things "likely won't change" is irrelevant to this debate. We're not debating that. We're debating whether or not the Catholic Church is ok with its members voting pro-choice.

Sources:

2.http://jimmyakin.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con has taken it upon himself to define what proportinoate reasons means, on behalf of the catholic church. given it wasn't defined, it is more open to interpretation. and, the quoted part where ratzinger said a catholic can't vote for a prochoice person because they are prochoice, was irrelevant to this situation.... the people are voting for them in spite of their prochoice stance. given proportional reasons is open to interpretation, it would make common sense to say if nothing is going to change to vote for a candidate, that you don't have to vote on that issue.

a common issue presented back in the days of that quote, was torture. eg A is prolife but protorture, an intrinsic evil. B is prochoice but not protorture. the abortion issue won't change as a practical matter in this hypothetical. torture is pivotal on who wins. everything else is the same issue wise. how is it not proportionate to vote for B given torture has a chance of changing? it is proportionate. anything else would be to read an agenda into the pope's words.
dsjpk5

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate.

Before I begin refuting my opponent's claims this round, I would like to remind the voters that we are debating whether or not, by Catholic standards, IN THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE, the Catholic Church says it's ok to vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate. I will expand on this distinction later in this round.

Also, I would like to point out that my opponent didn't cite ANY sources for her claims at any time. I guess she just expects the voters to take her word for it.

REBUTTALS

My opponent said:

"con has taken it upon himself to define what proportinoate reasons
means, on behalf of the catholic church. given it wasn't defined, it is
more open to interpretation. "

My response:

I'd be happy to offer a source for the definition of "proportion".

Proportion: "comparative relation between things or magnitudes as to
size, quantity, number, etc.; ratio." [3]

I think we can all see how my opponent's use of "proportionate reasons" to be flawed in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The Church doesn't see every reason for voting to be proportional. Also notice that my opponent didn't offer any Catholic source that supports her interpretation of "proportionate reasons".

My opponent said:

"and, the quoted part where ratzinger said
a catholic can't vote for a prochoice person because they are
prochoice, was irrelevant to this situation.... the people are voting
for them in spite of their prochoice stance. given proportional reasons
is open to interpretation, it would make common sense to say if nothing
is going to change to vote for a candidate, that you don't have to vote
on that issue."

My response:

My opponent just said that Pope Benedict XVI (formally Cardinal Ratxzinger) were "irrelevant" in this matter. REALLY??? His comments irrelevant on a Catholic matter??? Funny how my opponent was the first one to quote him in this debate.

My opponent said:

"a common issue presented back in the days of that quote, was torture. eg A is prolife but protorture, an intrinsic evil. B is prochoice butnot protorture. the abortion issue won't change as a practical matter in this hypothetical. torture is pivotal on who wins. everything else is the same issue wise. how is it not proportionate to vote for B giventorture has a chance of changing? it is proportionate. anything else would be to read an agenda into the pope's words."

AGAIN, in this debate, we're debating about voting in THIS POLITICAL CLIMATE. Maybe 500 years ago, a candidate for office would be "pro-torture", but not so in this political climate. No presidential candidate in my lifetime (43 years) has ever claimed to be "pro-torture". So my opponent's example is invalid. If such a candidate did exist who was both pro-choice and pro-torture, then my opponent may have a point. However, IN THIS POLITICAL CLIMATE, no such candidate exits. Therefore, no proportionate reasons exist for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate. But don't take my word for it. In the last presidential election, the Bishops of Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri both said that no proportionate reasons exist to vote for a pro-choice candidate. [4]

So in conclusion, no proportionate reason exists to vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate in this political climate. And because of this, the resolution HAS BEEN NEGATED. Please vote Con.

Sources:
3.http://dictionary.reference.com...

4http://www.tldm.org...
Debate Round No. 3
187 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
One, I should want to deny people the "right" to abortion because it's inherently evil. Two, by voting for a Pro choice candidate, you are indirectly supporting abortion,, which is always sinful. It may not be as sinful as committing the act itself, but being materially compliant is a wrong that can be avoided.
Posted by leftevrything 1 year ago
leftevrything
no, Catholics can vote for a pro- choice presidents no problem. Here's why. Not everybody in this world is catholic, therefore why would you want to deny that person that right? As long as you yourself as a catholic do not physically commit the act, there is no sin
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
It doesn't matter what the thorn is. You can't escape the fact that Paul asked God three times to take it away, but Paul STILL had the weakness after God told him he had grace. Period.

It is obvious that the thorn was a demon sent from satan. Not a sickness. And Paul said that in his weakness. weakness in his own ability, the power of God would be greater. First, we do not know what Paul's weakest was. It may have been bigger than you or I.He said that Christ's power would rest on him. Christ's power says that he can do all things through the anointing .He said that when he was weak in his own abilities, he becomes strong in God's abilities. God's ability says, YOU take My name and YOU cast out the devil. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.What was Paul doing. He was begging God to swat the devil off him. Jesus said, you have grace ( unmerited favor for power). It is sufficient. He did not say it was insufficient.

And if you read the previous chapter you will find what the thorn was. In the 4th chapter of Mark, Jesus said that thorns were the cares ( worries ) of this world. Paul said" the care of all the churches fell on him". That was not his to carry. He should have rolled all those cares over on a promise. The Holy Spirit is big enough to do something about those churches, not Paul.

You are actually a majority of people that believe the way you do. Even in the church I go to, thast is always open for discussion. It is just easier to lay down under a problem and hope God does something than to stand in faith against the problem.Our suffering is standing in faith when the easy thing to do is hope ( wish ) God does something about it.If sickness were to hit, it is a lot easier just to lie in bed and be sick, than to stand up in faith and confess you are healed.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
It is obvious that the thorn was a demon sent from satan. Not a sickness. And Paul said that in his weakness. weakness in his own ability, the power of God would be greater. First, we do not know what Paul's weakest was. It may have been bigger than you or I.He said that Christ's power would rest on him. Christ's power says that he can do all things through the anointing .He said that when he was weak in his own abilities, he becomes strong in God's abilities. God's ability says, YOU take My name and YOU cast out the devil. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.What was Paul doing. He was begging God to swat the devil off him. Jesus said, you have grace ( unmerited favor for power). It is sufficient. He did not say it was insufficient.

And if you read the previous chapter you will find what the thorn was. In the 4th chapter of Mark, Jesus said that thorns were the cares ( worries ) of this world. Paul said" the care of all the churches fell on him". That was not his to carry. He should have rolled all those cares over on a promise. The Holy Spirit is big enough to do something about those churches, not Paul.

You are actually a majority of people that believe the way you do. Even in the church I go to, thast is always open for discussion. It is just easier to lay down under a problem and hope God does something than to stand in faith against the problem.Our suffering is standing in faith when the easy thing to do is hope ( wish ) God does something about it.If sickness were to hit, it is a lot easier just to lie in bed and be sick, than to stand up in faith and confess you are healed.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Where did it say God gave Paul a sickness?

Response:
I never said that God gave Paul a sickness... although Paul says some kind of suffering was "given" to hiim

"7To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Paul asked God.to remove it BUT God said...

Even if the proper translation is "and God said..." The passage is clearly telling us that God did not remove Paul's suffering. We know this because after God told him "My grace is enough", Paul STILL describes the situation as "weakness". If Paul was healed,how could he still be suffering from weakness?
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Where did it say God gave Paul a sickness? must have missed that one in my extensive study of the bible.And nowhere did it say Paul was not able to get rid of that demon that was pestering him.God said, " resist the devil and he will flee from you."Jesus said, " in my name YOU cast out the devil.?"Grace gave Paul the name of Jesus. The word of God, the spirit of God , the covenant of God, and the right to use those things.

Now if YOU want to go to bed with the devil for some fantasy " greater good, " then have at it.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Why not go to whoever does your reading of scripture for you, and ask them just once when Jesus ever said to a sick person, " You need to stay sick for the greater good?.

I already have shown where God did this to Paul.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Why not go to whoever does your reading of scripture for you, and ask them just once when Jesus ever said to a sick person, " You need to stay sick for the greater good?.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
WHAT greater good.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
You are so wrong.If you cannot believe God will heal you now, what makes you think you will believe him for eternal life.

Answer: Never said He can't heal me now. Please don't put words in my mouth. Sometimes God does heal physical suffering, and (as was the case for Paul), sometimes God uses suffering to bring about greater good.

This stuff isn't for the sweet by-and-by, but for the rotten here and now.

Response: Yet another interpretation from you.

Why would anyone need healing in heaven. There is no sickness there

Response: Because Jesus has healed them before allowing them to enter Heaven.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con always provided sources for his quotes. Pro tried to twist the meanings of the Vatican's words into something other than what they obviously meant. Con pointed out how Pro tried to weasle her way out of the burden she put on herself when she specified "in this political climate". Pro resorted to a red herring when she talked about past history.
Vote Placed by Narwhalicorn 3 years ago
Narwhalicorn
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had much better grammar and convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had terrible grammar so that point goes to Con. Con used more sources so that point also goes to him and since Pro's rebuttles didn't fully tackle and refute Con's point's the resolution is negated.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro really offered nothing for her position. Also, she used no sources.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed the Catholic Church does not consider proportionate cause to be a carte blanche to vote for proponents of pre-natal genocide. Also Con showed sources of varying weight whereas Pro used none.
Vote Placed by daley 3 years ago
daley
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had sources, Pro didn't, and Con kept to the current political climate while Pro speculated about one with pro-torture candidates. Pro's argument that abortion would happen anyway didn't show it would be right. Murder will happen anyway, happens all the time, doesn't make it right. I thought Pro's logic was poor and couldn't overcome Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 3 years ago
1Credo
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave much better arguments in favor of their side. Pro didn't really offer any reasoning for the claim that was made, and certainly did not fulfill the burden of proof in showing that there is nothing wrong with Catholics voting for a pro choice president in this political climate. Spelling/grammar goes to Con and sources go to Con as well because Pro didn't use any. This was an interesting debate topic but it's disappointing that Pro didn't offer much substantive argument.