Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
Kasz, you clearly value intellectual consistency, and believe that people *shouldn't* compromise their principles in order to support "the lesser of two evils". So, in your view, if Romney strongly disagrees with the position that God intends some rapes to result in pregnancy, don't you think that he *should* withdraw his support for Mourdock?
Edit: Here's the new top headline on Google: "Romney campaign stands by Mourdock".
|
I don't actually have any problem with the "Lesser of two evils" move. It's why I voted for Obama instead of McCain... since both of them wanted the bailouts, and their positions were nearly identical on basically everything, but Obama was slightly more socially liberal and his election would mean a lot to a small portion of the country. Hell i'll probably vote Gary Johnson... and he's still a lesser of three evils at that point. He still has a lot of flaws.
I just believe that after a certain point, the lesser of two evils statment kinda loses it's point after a while when the evil becomes to heinous.
To use a crude analaogy that i think would apply to anybody... if i lived in Nazi Germany and I could vote for Hitler, or Super Hitler who believed in everything hitler did but that the jews should be killed in a more painful way....
I still couldn't vote for Hitler.
As for if romney should remove his support? I think that would largely depend on if he critisized someone else for standing by someone who committed a lesser offense.
|
About the validity of choosing between the "lesser of two evils": Fair enough.
But I disagree that Mourdock's view--that God intends for some women to become pregnant through rape--constitutes a small evil. He had clearly thought a lot about the issue before expressing his view, he's stood by his comments today, and if elected he would support legislation banning abortion even in the case of rape. What bigger evil is Joe Donnelly (Mourdock's opponent) guilty of, that Mourdock isn't also guilty of? I'm guessing that Mourdock supports drone strikes or indefinite detention.
|
See.. what your conflating here now... is your (and my) view of evil, with Mitt Romney's and Mourdocks.
Sure based on what you or I know about the election... we'd vote donnelly however...
Mitt Romney doesn't see Drone strikes as evil, and i don't know his opinion on the NDAA. So such things would be irrelevent on if he should remove his support. The reference was just showing that to most democrats, even things that bad, that generally fly against most liberals (all?) beliefs aren't enough to shake support.
Mitt Romney, at the moment is at least positioning himself as Pro Life. Whether this is actually the case or not i'm unsure based on his past history.
Assuming he is telling the truth though... generally the Pro Life position tends to be "A fetus = a baby."
So if I were to critisize Mitt Romney for anything. It would be that he WASN'T supporting Mourdocks comments... and that if you see a fetus as a babies it's pretty henious to support legislation that allows the killing of some babies based on their heritage. I don't see it that way, but as far as I can tell... his positions come to that conclusion.
|
