How about you stop characterizing those who consider abortion an important issue — among a long list of other issues — as “single issue” voters? That could be because — I submit — that you believe yourself to be holding, perhaps even wrongly, the correct view on all those other issues so that can only leave abortion as the “single issue” that remains to those who don’t vote as you do.
…so that the state can control which charities are supported and which are not because every individual ends up with less discretion on where their money goes.
If the candidate supported slavery would you be a single issue voter?
That would be because you appear to misunderstand that abortion in the context of the pro-life argument doesn’t mean when the fertilized eggs are not viable or the expulsion is beyond the control of any human being. So the intentional killing of a person is no more or no less wrong or morally significant than the natural death of a person? That is how you think the moral issue of abortion is to be resolved?stpurl:
After investigation following the Hobby Lobby kerfuffle, the answer is yes, they don’t get abortifacient contraceptive devices. All of the contraceptives considered primarily act prior to ovulation, and none act following implantation.
I’m aware that many pro-life supporters, contrary to medical practice, prefer to think of pregnancy as beginning at the moment of fertilization. But I’m not aware of any who consider the one-third to one-half of all fertilized eggs that naturally fail to implant as abortions, or count those abortions in their statistics, an inconsistency that can similarly be described as bad arithmetic.
Actually the confiscation by overlords of 60+% of the fruits of one’s labour is tantamount to being held in slavery so that “single issue” might be sufficient to vote against the party that promotes slavish tax agendas.EssentialBeing:
If the candidate supported slavery would you be a single issue voter?
Very ridiculous to claim that saying no one proactively supports abortion is in any way equivalent to promoting genocide.“I don’t support genocide, but if it happens oh well” See how ridiculous that sounds?
There are many other things that are not illegal yet virtually universally disliked (e.g. root canal). There are many reasons to oppose abortion; that is not one of them.
That is simply false. If one were indifferent to abortion, why would one support policies that would possibly reduce the number? Making it illegal is not the only way to oppose it or to reduce the number.
In 2020? That is an odd issue to bring up. I do not think any Republicans have gone that far. If they did, no one should vote for someone obviously mentally ill.
The point I’m making is that a candidates stance on one issue could be enough to disqualify them.
Well, I understand single issue voters. I really do. I regret that mutual respect does not exist for those who do not follow this, and opt instead to vote as the Church teaches. Surely following the Church on this should be an option for Catholics.
Mr. RIchards undermined his entire argument by stating:
So, Trump supporters are a monolith of “uncritical” and “continued” support, but he decries portraying “Black People” as a “Monolith?” Transference, perhaps?
I read this. He did not say that Trump supporters were a monolith. What he said was," However, I can speak for a wide swath of men and women who have questioned continued, uncritical support of President Trump over the past four years." I find it hard to deny that there are a lot of Trump supporters that are this way. The man himself said he had supporters that would back him shot someone in the street.