args

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

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...