I'm a one-issue voter

[Ridgerunner]

Let’s say the following before it gets all buried in a lot of misleading stuff, which it will, very soon, if other abortion threads are any indication.

Of the Supreme Court justices, the following are prolife Catholics:

Roberts. Catholic. Appointed by G.W. Bush
Alito. Catholic. Appointed by G.W. Bush
Scalia. Catholic. Appointed by Reagan
Thomas. Catholic Appointed by G.H.W. Bush

Kennedy is Catholic, appointed by G.H.W. Bush, and is NOT prolife, though he did vote to ban partial birth abortion in the Carhart case. **I ENCOURAGE READERS TO GOOGLE “CARHART” AND “PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION”. READ THE CASE YOURSELVES AND SEE HOW THE JUSTICES VOTED AND WHO SAID WHAT. I encourage you to ignore what both SoCalRC and I say about it. Please read it yourself. **

The rest of the justices are Democrat appointees and ALL SUPPORT ABORTION ON DEMAND. It takes one more prolife justice to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Probably the next president will appoint one or two justices. A vote for the democrat candidates is voting to keep abortion on demand the “law of the land” as far as the eye can see. That’s for certain, as both have pledged to make that their “litmust test” for appointment of Supreme Court justices.

Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Rights Action League consider the Repub candidate a “threat” to “abortion rights”. Their very purpose is to promote abortion. I think they know what they’re talking about when they call him a “threat”.

Oh yes, the “Carhart” of the Carhart case is one who performs partial birth abortions, the “procedure” by which a baby is delivered alive, all but his head. The “doctor” then inserts a surgical instrument into his head and scrambles his brains, thus killing him seconds before he is born alive. The Democrat justices all voted to keep that legal. Both Democrat presidential candidates supported keeping it legal. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy voted in favor of banning it. “Dr.” Carhart was recently the houseguest of Kathleen Sibelius, the “Catholic” Democrat governor of Kansas. She was asked by the Bishop of Kansas City, Kansas not to receive communion anymore.

If, like SoCalRC, you hate the Repub party, it’s nothing to me, even though I think a lot of it is over the top. I’m not a Republican myself. I’m a “single issue voting” Democrat right now, like Zell Miller. Always have been a Democrat. But I’m not voting for abortion-supporting candidates.

 

[JKing]

It isn’t that I have no sympathy for your postion. It just seems that we have been answering the ‘too important’ call since Reagan. I’m paying $4.26 for gas in my car, $4.41 for my wife’s and there are two, literally, abandoned homes with jumbo mortgages within blocks of our home. Throw in a sluggish economy, serious inflation, and a couple of expensive, quagmire type wars, and it seems that it will take a miracle for anything but but Sandra Day O’Connor type moderate appointments to reach the court regardless of who is in the White House next.

Why does everyone try to bring up non-life issues? These issues pale in comparison. How is it that we can even think about them in the midst of fetal genocide?

• I’m a truck driver and I don’t care if gas is $10 a gallon and fuel is $20 a gallon.
• What does people making poor decisions in borrowing money against their homes that they couldn’t pay back have to do with anything?
• As for the economy, I don’t care if we go back to “stagflation” of the Carter years.
• Also, let us fight a hundred quagmire wars! (Lets see, 100 times 5000 Americans killed over 5 years–not even close.)

If that was the choice I had to make in order to end the killing of over 3000 innocent American children EVERY DAY, I would gladly choose it in a heartbeat.

But as long as those of us with the gift of life selfishly continue to turn a blind eye to a third of each generation being deprived of this gift, it will continue. How can we even be talking about gas prices when in the next hour 300 little kids are being snuffed out. How selfish can we get? Oh how I wish it was more visible.

Even on a very pragmatic level, our nation cannot continue much longer on this course. We are not replacing ourselves. SS and Medicare are going bankrupt because we’ve killed roughly 50 million people who would be paying into the programs. Probably well more than 50 million if you figure the compounding effect of all those people aborted from 1973 to about 1988 who would be having their own children now.

Our society is committing suicide out of pure selfishness.

Lord have mercy!
Jeff

 

[SoCalRC]

Why does everyone try to bring up non-life issues? These issues pale in comparison. How is it that we can even think about them in the midst of fetal genocide?

We are living in a culture of death. Rather we like it or not, I think that lots of people, including Catholics (sadly), are going to vote for their self interest. Many will view issues like war and poverty as “life issues”, and not without some foundation from the Church (CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI gives a very broad definition of “right to life” to the lay faithful, Rome’s Doctrinal Note on voting lists a number of issues as ‘non negotiable’ in voting, etc.)

I don’t have an answer, but it seems worth a dialog. I’m stuck on voting 100% pro-life, which you understand, but strikes you as doubtful to have any meaningful political success. You factor in candidate viability, which we both agree means some compromise on pro-life, but it strikes me that we are not getting the any significant progress their either (case in point, we’re approaching three decades and you are ‘holding your nose’ on the compromise again this year).

I brought it up to you, because you seem capable of discussion. Normally, this results in a response like Ridgerunner’s. Yes, the USCCB notes my approach is licit, but somehow he just knows that my voting 100% pro-life is an evil secret plot to derail Republicans (where it seems to me that the least popular president in modern history is a massively bigger factor in this election cycle than a handful of die-hard 100% single issue voters like myself).

It is hard to have a dialog if we abandon any Christian obligation with regards to others and start flinging baseless accusations and debating strawmen. For example, I’ve only noted that Roberts and Alito applied Roe/Casey as precedent and did not join Scalia and Thomas in doing so ‘with comment’ in Carhart - this should be no suprise, both Roberts and Alito acknowledged this in their confirmation hearings. For example:

“[Roe is] settled as a precedent of the Court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis.” - John Roberts, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sept 2005

But, somehow, the fact that he testified he would do this, and joined all 5 Catholic GOP appointees in applying Roe and Casey as precedent in Carhart, will be an insurmountable hurdle for Ridgerunner. There will be a lot of screaming about secret agendas, etc. and when the dust settles there will be no meaningful discussion on a situation which the USCCB describes as a moral “dilemna” with no obvious answers…

Thanks for your thoughts though.

 

[SoCalRC]

**Please quote Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas where they say they SUPPORT abortion on demand. You won’t, because you can’t. You know you can’t, and you know they are not abortion supporters at all, but prolife Catholic justices. But you get on every abortion thread (you seem to have no other interests on CAF) and suggest that by innuendo, even though know it’s false. 100% OF THE DEMOCRAT APPOINTEES TO THE SUPREME COURT VOTED TO KEEP PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION LEGAL. CLINTON APPOINTEE GINSBERG CALLED THE BAN “ALARMING”. **

As noted before, I can only defend the truthfullness of what I specifically say, not the voices in your head. I just quoted Roberts talking about Roe as precedent under oath above, and I quoted the Carhart decision itself the last time you made this baseless claim.

I’ve also quoted the USCCB stating that my position is licit, and shown the portions of Rome’s documents (CDF Doctrinal Note on Catholics in Political Life and Pope Benedict XVI’s Post-synodal apostolic exhortation). So it should be noted that if you continue in reiterating your baseless accussations regarding my character and motives, that you are not just demonstrating a disdain for forum rules, but the audacity to claim moral authority in excess of the mother Church. That would seem pretty bold for someone who has already claimed to have been a political hack who attempted to subvert the democratic process in exchange for money.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I brought it up to you, because you seem capable of discussion. Normally, this results in a response like Ridgerunner’s. Yes, the USCCB notes my approach is licit, but somehow he just knows that my voting 100% pro-life is an evil secret plot to derail Republicans (where it seems to me that the least popular president in modern history is a massively bigger factor in this election cycle than a handful of die-hard 100% single issue voters like myself).

when the dust settles there will be no meaningful discussion on a situation which the USCCB describes as a moral “dilemna” with no obvious answers…

Whether Bush is “the least popular president in modern history” is totally beside the point. A total red herring. The USCCB does NOT support your approach. Regarding your relegating abortion to parity with other “life” issues, they said, in “Living the Gospel of Life”, the following:

“But being ‘right’ in such matters [racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care] can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.”

Your encouraging prolifers to waste their votes on candidates that cannot possibly win is, indeed, supporting the pro-abortion position. We are obligated to vote responsibly; in a way that our votes count, not as some kind of statement of personal pique.
Again, from the bishops:

“We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life…”

Voting for non-viable candidates is not a responsible excersise of our duty. It’s a self-indulgence that only serves the purposes of the abortionists, who will NOT waste their votes on third party candidates who have no chance of winning.

“Priests for Life” organization said the following about demanding the “perfect candidate”, the “100% prolife requirement”:

"Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. "

This is fully in accord with the doctrine of the Church. One presidential candidate opposes Roe vs. Wade and, though he has been quoted in the past as not opposing abortion in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother (the last might be in accord with the Church’s doctrine in some cases. Of the first two, there are about 400/year of the million per year that happen.) Both Democrat candidates not only support abortion on demand, but partial birth abortion as well, even though the Supreme Court said it could be banned legally.. The Repub candidate favors returning the issue to the states, which would require overruling Roe. Overruling Roe requires one more prolife Supreme Court Justice. Some states would allow abortion. Many would not. Few would approve abortion on demand.

“We must support candidates who uphold the Gospel of Life…This presidential election and the related Senate elections are most crucial because the next president will probably appoint up to three justices to the Supreme Court.” – Bishop Paul S. Loverde, Bishop of Arlington, August 5, 2000. Unfortunately, his prediction was one short of the need. The next president will almost certainly appoint at least one justice. The Democrats have already promised to appoint justices who will support abortion.

Professor John Finnis, one of the world’s leading Catholic philosophers said:

Professor John Finnis has explained the application of these principles to abortion law reform as follows:
“The always illicit vote is [the vote] for a law as permitting, precisely to permit, abortion. This is always illicit…”
“The kind of vote which then Cardinal Ratzinger, in Evangelium Vitae”] judges can be licit has as its object not to permit abortions now illegal but rather to prohibit abortions now legal or imminently likely otherwise to become legal."

That is exactly what we’re dealing with in this election. Two candidates support abortion on demand fully, and say so, even expansion of it to include partial birth abortion. At worst, the other would leave 400 out of 1 million legal, and act to prevent the remaining 999,600 performed each year in the U.S.

 

[estesbob]

Whether Bush is “the least popular president in modern history” is totally beside the point. A total red herring. The USCCB does NOT support your approach. Regarding your relegating abortion to parity with other “life” issues, they said, in “Living the Gospel of Life”, the following:

"S.

Pope Benedict put it best:

**Vatican City (LifeNews.com) – **Pope Benedict XVI told a delegation from Guatemala in a Saturday meeting that fighting child hunger is linked to the pro-life battle against abortion. He said promoting the best interest of children on hunger are similar to pro-life interests in a child’s right to life.

The pontiff said that, without the right to life, children die, and without food, children are subjected to death as well.
“This primary right to food is intrinsically connected to the protection and the defense of human life, the first and inviolable rock upon which the entire edifice of human rights is founded,” the pope said.

“The effort to help mothers, above all those who are in great difficulty, to bring children into the world with dignity, thus avoiding the unjustified recourse to abortion, will never be sufficient," the pope added, according to a Zenit report.
Pope Benedict continued his explanation, saying efforts to curb hunger are important but still placing the Catholic Church’s pro-life message against abortion on a high pedestal.

"In this sense, safeguarding human life, in particular that which has already been conceived but not yet born, which is more innocent and defenseless, is a duty, with which there is linked, by its very nature, the care that the adoption of children be guaranteed by the legality of the procedures followed for this purpose," he said.

The pope traveled to the United States in April, where he clearly and articulately defended the Catholic position against abortion.
A poll from the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion found Pope Benedict XVI motivated Catholics to take a stronger stand on pro-life and moral issues. The survey found half of respondents revealed a desire to lead a more moral life as a result of the pope’s visit.

The results showed 64 percent of Catholics say they better understand the Church’s position on issues now and 40 percent said they are more likely to vote as a result of the pontiff’

 

[Ridgerunner]

But, somehow, the fact that he testified he would do this, and joined all 5 Catholic GOP appointees in applying Roe and Casey as precedent in Carhart, will be an insurmountable hurdle for Ridgerunner.

On the contrary. ** To other readers: At no time, and certainly not in SoCalRC’s quote, did Roberts ever say he would FOLLOW Roe if it was directly presented. Scalia and Thomas are well known opponents of Roe vs. Wade. Everyone knows they would overrule it if they could. They were joined as prolife judges by Roberts and Alito. That’s four. It takes five to overule Roe. Anthony Kennedy has never voted prolife EXCEPT in Carhart, where all five voted AGAINST THE VOTES OF ALL DEMOCRAT JUDGES to allow a partial birth abortion ban to stand.** Since Kennedy is normally not prolife, and the Democrat judges are never prolife, it was a very narrow thing.

SoCalRC wants us to think Roberts is pro-abortion because of the following:
“[Roe is] settled as a precedent of the Court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis.” - John Roberts, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sept 200

That’s like saying of the president “I respect the office”, though the speaker might despise the man. Anyone who knows anything at all about the law, knows that for Roberts to have said otherwise would have been moronic. Of course Roe was “settled law” at the time, being the “law of the land” for over thirty years. It’s exactly equivalent to saying “abortion is legal, and has been for a long time. We do have to recognize that in making decisions.” But it does not mean he would not overrule Roe if he could. Roe would have to be mentioned as precedent even if it was overruled. It does not, in any way, say Roberts approves of abortion or of Roe.

**I challenged SoCalRC to directly quote Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas, all Catholic Republican Justices, saying they support abortion. He didn’t do it because he can’t do it. They did not say so in Carhart either, though every Democratic appointee did. Read Carhart. Google “Carhart” and “partial birth abortion” and read the case. Don’t pay any attention to what I say or what SoCalRC says about it. See for yourself. **

 

[Ridgerunner]

An interesting comparison:

National Catholic Reporter. 3/24/08

“In the Illinois Legislature in 2002, (A well known Illinois Senator…we’re not supposed to name names.) voted against a bill to require life-sustaining measures for babies who survive late-term abortions and are born alive “accidently”. Then, in 2003 he killed this measure in the Illinois Senate Health committee he chaired.”

His perspective on these “surprise” children: “What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

Mother Teresa of Calcutta was quoted in the Wall Street Journal
:
"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe vs Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society.

It has portrayed the greatest of gifts-a child-as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.

The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

Kind of sounds like Mother Teresa would likely have been a “single issue voter” if she could have. And I doubt she would have thrown away her vote on some non-viable third party candidate either. She believed in acting with purpose.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

Kind of sounds like Mother Teresa would likely have been a “single issue voter” if she could have. And I doubt she would have thrown away her vote on some non-viable third party candidate either. She believed in acting with purpose.

I think she said that God requires us to be faithful, not successful.

 

[estesbob]

On the contrary. To other readers: At no time, and certainly not in SoCalRC’s quote, did Roberts ever say he would FOLLOW Roe if it was directly presented. Scalia and Thomas are well known opponents of Roe vs. Wade. Everyone knows they would overrule it if they could. They were joined as prolife judges by Roberts and Alito. That’s four. It takes five to overule Roe. Anthony Kennedy has never voted prolife EXCEPT in Carhart, where all five voted AGAINST THE VOTES OF ALL DEMOCRAT JUDGES to allow a partial birth abortion ban to stand. Since Kennedy is normally not prolife, and the Democrat judges are never prolife, it was a very narrow thing.

**. **

 

[estesbob]

I think she said that God requires us to be faithful, not successful.

If Mother Theresa had followed the “logic” presented in this thread she would have declined to help any of the poor and sick in the world since she couldnt stop ALL poverty and sickness in the world.

 

[SoCalRC]

**I challenged SoCalRC to directly quote Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas, all Catholic Republican Justices, saying they support abortion. He didn’t do it because he can’t do it. They did not say so in Carhart either, though every Democratic appointee did. Read Carhart. Google “Carhart” and “partial birth abortion” and read the case. Don’t pay any attention to what I say or what SoCalRC says about it. See for yourself. **

Please link to our exchange. You quoted me saying that they had acknolwedged the concept and importance of precedent and had applied it in Carhart.

I responded, breaking my sentence down into two halves, and provided quotes supporting both, including citing the entire concurring opinion from Scalia and Roberts.

I posted a link to the entire ruling and, for the umpteenth time, encourgaged people to read it for themselves. Again, I can defend what I actually say, not whatever ranting gibberish you want to apply to me.

My interest in voting and acting as I do is to be an obedient Catholic who puts faith first. In exchange here, I try to stick to the truth. Portraying a particular candidate’s evil position in the starkest terms (in violation of forum rules, BTW) does not change the fact that all the major party candidates support some form of legalized abortion and all have publicly supported upholding Roe within the last two presidential election cycles.

Arguments along the lines of ‘candidate X wants to molest 4 year old boys, my candidate only wants to molest 13 year old girls…’ might be compelling to you, but it is a line of reasoning that gets precariously close to complicency with intrinsic evil for me.

Notice that JKing has no trouble acknowledging that his support is with misgivings, particularly this election cycle. That is to be expected, applying “limiting the harm” or “proportionate reasons” in voting requires that the evil position not be directly supported.

You insistance on rants, baseless attacks, distractions, and even false assertions about the statements of others would appear to blur that line. I have tried to quiz you on your theological understanding of the Church’s position on aboriton in the past - the idea being to disprove your baseless accussations in a logical order, but you ignored the request.

Also, your disdain for forum rules and things like a Christian obligation to the truth as outlined in the Catechism notwithstanding, I still find your claim of political insiderdom dubious. You may have the morals of a political operative attacking democracy for money, but you do not seem to have the wit or intelligence. I’ve watched those sharks give interviews for years and you just don’t seem in their league.

Since you won’t discuss your theological attacks, perhaps you could enlighten us more on your political operative experience. Because that is supposedly the basis of your insistantance that you have moral authority in excess of the Church and have the power to know my heart and will, it seems important to explore. Unless, of course, you are the sort of person who makes attacks but is unwilling to subject them to scrutiny. Of course, I know that I am not a political operative of any kind, so for me the only question is rather or not you are a pathological liar.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Please link to our exchange. You quoted me saying that they had acknolwedged the concept and importance of precedent and had applied it in Carhart.

I responded, breaking my sentence down into two halves, and provided quotes supporting both, including citing the entire concurring opinion from Scalia and Roberts.

I posted a link to the entire ruling and, for the umpteenth time, encourgaged people to read it for themselves. Again, I can defend what I actually say, not whatever ranting gibberish you want to apply to me.

My interest in voting and acting as I do is to be an obedient Catholic who puts faith first. In exchange here, I try to stick to the truth. Portraying a particular candidate’s evil position in the starkest terms (in violation of forum rules, BTW) does not change the fact that all the major party candidates support some form of legalized abortion and all have publicly supported upholding Roe within the last two presidential election cycles.

Arguments along the lines of ‘candidate X wants to molest 4 year old boys, my candidate only wants to molest 13 year old girls…’ might be compelling to you, but it is a line of reasoning that gets precariously close to complicency with intrinsic evil for me.

Notice that JKing has no trouble acknowledging that his support is with misgivings, particularly this election cycle. That is to be expected, applying “limiting the harm” or “proportionate reasons” in voting requires that the evil position not be directly supported.

You insistance on rants, baseless attacks, distractions, and even false assertions about the statements of others would appear to blur that line. I have tried to quiz you on your theological understanding of the Church’s position on aboriton in the past - the idea being to disprove your baseless accussations in a logical order, but you ignored the request.

Also, your disdain for forum rules and things like a Christian obligation to the truth as outlined in the Catechism notwithstanding, I still find your claim of political insiderdom dubious. You may have the morals of a political operative attacking democracy for money, but you do not seem to have the wit or intelligence. I’ve watched those sharks give interviews for years and you just don’t seem in their league.

Since you won’t discuss your theological attacks, perhaps you could enlighten us more on your political operative experience. Because that is supposedly the basis of your insistantance that you have moral authority in excess of the Church and have the power to know my heart and will, it seems important to explore. Unless, of course, you are the sort of person who makes attacks but is unwilling to subject them to scrutiny. Of course, I know that I am not a political operative of any kind, so for me the only question is rather or not you are a pathological liar.

Please quote where I ever said I have moral authority in excess of that of the Church. Never have I said that. You just invented that entirely. I have never said I have any moral authority at all. You are the one who has been hurling judgments around like Zeus hurling thunderbolts at mere mortals, beginning in the above post alone with “ranting gibberish” and ending with “pathological liar”.

What I did do is comment on how judges cite precedent in cases. If you read many of them (and I think perhaps you do) you know that merely citing a precedent that has been controlling for years and years is not, in itself, an endorsement of that precedent. Perhaps you did not mean to imply that Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas endorsed Roe or Casey in Carhart, or agreed with it in any way. But it seemed so. Now is your opportunity to say clearly that you didn’t mean to imply it, if you didn’t.

Truth be told, you cannot find any of them saying they SUPPORT abortion or Roe or Casey. You didn’t do it before, and you didn’t do it in your above post either. If you could have, I am sure you would have.

I made no theological arguments. If you will scroll up, you will see that I quoted bishops, the Pope, Mother Teresa, a theologian and a Senator. But of course, you know that.

Did I say I am a political operative in the DNC sense? No I didn’t. You made that up too. What I did say, in another thread, is that I was once a Democrat political worker myself, and held office in the party. I also said I no longer vote for Democrat candidates or support the party because every one of them on my ballot is pro-abortion. I also said I am not a Republican. Never did I say that I worked for money. I didn’t. Few do. You made that up as well. I worked for the party because I believed in it then. I quit because the party became pervasively abortion-supporting.

If you want to think of me as a pathological liar, be my guest. What you think of me is of no concern to me whatever.