I'm a one-issue voter

  • Thread starter Thread starter JKing
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fitswimmer said:
You can call it whatever kind of thinking you want-but the **FACT **remains that not ONE Republican administration has done what they have promised to do since 1973. They’ve gotten our votes, they’ve gotten some of our money, and with it they have postured and posed-and done nothing substantial regarding ANY life issue.

.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not so. The only things that can overturn a Supreme Court decision are a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court itself. With more than half of the Congress being pro-abortion, an amendment can’t happen. That leaves the Supreme Court. The four prolife judges are:

Scalia: Appointed by Reagan
Thomas: Appointed by Bush I
Roberts: Appointed by Bush II
Alito: Appointed by Bush II

Please don’t argue that they’re not prolife. Even NARAL admits that they are.

It only takes one more. With the Repub presidential candidate, there is some hope of getting a prolife justice. With the Dems, none at all. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) considers the Repub presidential candidate anti-abortion. It considers both Dem candidates pro-abortion. Abortion is their ONLY cause. So I think we can be pretty sure which presidential vote is pro-abortion.
 
I don’t condider myself a one issue voter per se. If Guiliani got the nomination, for example, I would have been really upset but I would not want to throw away my vote so I would then still debate between the two candidates on other issues. I also probably would have voted for Clinton over Dole had I been old enough to vote in that election. That’s the only exception I can thjnk of where I woud not have voted Republican though and the abortion factor is still a big issue that factors into my decision.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) considers the Repub presidential candidate anti-abortion. It considers both Dem candidates pro-abortion. Abortion is their ONLY cause. So I think we can be pretty sure which presidential vote is pro-abortion.
Click to expand...
It’s worth noting that NARAL originally stood for “National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.” They achieved that objective without ever succeeding at repealing any state abortion law, just by making an end run to the supreme court.

Since they’re still in business they had to change their name, but not their initials.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Absolutely not so. The only things that can overturn a Supreme Court decision are a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court itself. With more than half of the Congress being pro-abortion, an amendment can’t happen. That leaves the Supreme Court. The four prolife judges are:

Scalia: Appointed by Reagan
Thomas: Appointed by Bush I
Roberts: Appointed by Bush II
Alito: Appointed by Bush II

Please don’t argue that they’re not prolife. Even NARAL admits that they are.

It only takes one more. With the Repub presidential candidate, there is some hope of getting a prolife justice. With the Dems, none at all. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) considers the Repub presidential candidate anti-abortion. It considers both Dem candidates pro-abortion. Abortion is their ONLY cause. So I think we can be pretty sure which presidential vote is pro-abortion.
Click to expand...
The FACT remains that nothing has changed since 1973 regardless of all the money and support that the Republican party has received from Pro Life voters. Until you can show me actual changes that can be DIRECTLY related to any Republican administration-I’m taking my energy, time and money and putting it toward organizations on the ground that are actually doing something for pregnant women and their babies.

It’s been made very clear to me over the last 35 years that the Republican party is only Pro Life when there’s an election coming.
 
Fitswimmer said:
The FACT remains that nothing has changed since 1973 regardless of all the money and support that the Republican party has received from Pro Life voters. Until you can show me actual changes that can be DIRECTLY related to any Republican administration-I’m taking my energy, time and money and putting it toward organizations on the ground that are actually doing something for pregnant women and their babies.

It’s been made very clear to me over the last 35 years that the Republican party is only Pro Life when there’s an election coming.
Click to expand...
Well I would say atleast there’s a chance with them vs. the others that come right out and say they’re pro-choice… what chance is there then?
 
Fitswimmer said:
The FACT remains that nothing has changed since 1973 regardless of all the money and support that the Republican party has received from Pro Life voters. Until you can show me actual changes that can be DIRECTLY related to any Republican administration-I’m taking my energy, time and money and putting it toward organizations on the ground that are actually doing something for pregnant women and their babies.

It’s been made very clear to me over the last 35 years that the Republican party is only Pro Life when there’s an election coming.
Click to expand...
Yuor money is your own and donating it to charities is a fine idea. But you’re setting up a false test in the political contest. Put it another way, what has the Dem party done since 1973 to overturn Roe and its progeny? Nothing. One the contrary, it has done, and still does, everything in its power to ensure that abortion is the “law of the land”, and that the people remain powerless to do anything about it. I would not think a sincere Catholic would want to vote for that which is, after all, the issue in this thread.
 
Ridgerunner said:
…
Put it another way, what has the Dem party done since 1973 to overturn Roe and its progeny? Nothing. One the contrary, it has done, and still does, everything in its power to ensure that abortion is the “law of the land”, and that the people remain powerless to do anything about it.
…
Click to expand...
Not only that, but they want to get even more pro-abortion laws put in place all the time, such as the ability for a girl to get an abortion without the parents ever being notified, pushing for legalized third trimester abortions, etc. Even if Republican candidates won’t do anything to overturn Roe v. Wade, they can help keep more laws from being passed to put us in an even larger hole.
 
estesbob said:
The similarities to the debate over slavery are striking. Both were constitutionally protected, both were vigorously defended by Democrat party and both were couched in terms of being “rights” whether that be “women’s rights” or “states rights.”

"
Click to expand...
for a MA class in social protest movements I did a paper on this topic comparing rhetoric and tactics of the anti-slavery/emancipation (not the same thing) movements, vs. the pro-life/anti-abortion (not the same thing) movements. conclusion: the emancipation people did a whole lot better in mobilizing support and changing hearts and minds than the pro-life people have done, mainly because of unity among disparate groups with the same goal, something right to life has failed to achieve in this country, or world-wide. IMO prolifers who refuse to work together on this issue bear some of the responsibility for the continuing shame of abortion.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Yuor money is your own and donating it to charities is a fine idea. But you’re setting up a false test in the political contest. Put it another way, what has the Dem party done since 1973 to overturn Roe and its progeny? Nothing. One the contrary, it has done, and still does, everything in its power to ensure that abortion is the “law of the land”, and that the people remain powerless to do anything about it. I would not think a sincere Catholic would want to vote for that which is, after all, the issue in this thread.
Click to expand...
My point is that we cannot and should not expect any civil/secular political parties to do the Lord’s work. They’re not going to, that’s not their main goal. Their goal is to get power and stay in power. Putting our hopes for a better world on ANY political party is going to lead us to wasted money, time and effort. If the Republican party gets polling data that their Pro life position will cost them an election, they’ll drop it faster than you can imagine. The converse is true of the Democratic party, if their Pro abortion stance was costing them votes-you can bet they’d drop it.

Everyone makes their own choice once they get in that little booth, and I know people who vote on every issue from abortion, to the economy to which candidate is better looking. I may not agree with the choices people make, but I believe strongly in the right of each of us to do our own homework. I’m not going to call anyone a sinner or tell them they’re going to hell because of what candidate they support. My only point through this is to remind folks that politicians are just that-politicians. Their ultimate goal is NOT to save the lives of the unborn, and ascribing such motives to them is only going to lead to disappointment. Look at the facts, search your conscience, PRAY and then make your decision.
 
R = 6 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice who decided Roe

R = 8 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices who upheld Roe in 1992

R = controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years

0 = the number of abortion reduced by R since Roe

Millions = the number of abortions that R helped legalize and keep legal

As I noted earlier, with “pro-life” friends like these, who needs enemies?R = 6 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice who decided Roe

R = 8 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices who upheld Roe in 1992

R = controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years

0 = the number of abortion reduced by R since Roe

Millions = the number of abortions that R helped legalize and keep legal
 
JKing said:
Is anyone else out there a one-issue voter?

I’m often called stupid or blind or naive when I reveal that I only vote on one issue–life.
Click to expand...
You are not stupid, but I suspect you lack effort when it comes to thinking.

If you ever want to base your vote on one issue the the way to do it, is pull the calling card of America. Abortion. You are their baby. You think simply.

You are free to vote how you want, but if you vote on one topic only , then a political party owns you by supporting that one view, lock stock and barrel.

Most of us outside the US realize that life is complex.

Simplicity, and certainty are killing us, abortion is just the big ticket items that politicians define themselves by.
 
Dameedna said:
You are not stupid, but I suspect you lack effort when it comes to thinking.

I you ever want to base your vote on one issue, then you are exactly what the US has bred. You are thier baby. You think simply.

You are free to vote how you want, but if you vote on one topic, then a political party owns you, lock stock and barrel, as long as they support your one issue.

Most of us realize that life is complex, and will embrace it and think about all issues.

Simplicity, and certainty are killing us.
Click to expand...
Thank you!! That’s what I’ve been trying to say. We should not be owned by any political party because they are of this world and we are of God.
 
Fitswimmer said:
Roe has been around for how long now? And in that time, how many Republican administrations have there been? I’ve gotten very cynical about them because we’ve been hearing promises since Reagan and seen very little in the way of results.
Click to expand...
Roe began when I was in my 20’s.

I too despair of abortions becoming illegal.

I’m hoping for a staunchly prolife democrat one day.

Tell you the truth, if one day it comes out that we’ve been played, I would not be surprised.
 
buckr02 said:
Don’t lose hope, they do exist:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Casey,_Jr.

But the chances of them getting to the presidential election are practically 0, I don’t suspect he’d get anywhere close.
Click to expand...
Casey has been a huge disapointment . He has toed the party line on many abortion issues-including voting to repeal the Mexico City protocol that denies federal funds to overseas organizations that provide abortions.

Worts of all, however, is he has endorsed the most pro-abortion canidate to ever run for president. A canidate so extreme he opposed a bill that would stop Drs from taking children born alive during an abortion and dumping them in the trash to starve to death.

Remember-when voting party matters.
 
richardwy said:
Roe began when I was in my 20’s.

I too despair of abortions becoming illegal.

I’m hoping for a staunchly prolife democrat one day.

Tell you the truth, if one day it comes out that we’ve been played, I would not be surprised.
Click to expand...
See post #50…I think it says it all.
 
estesbob said:
Yes it does say it all-It showns the rationale people use to support the killing of 1.2 million children a year.
Click to expand...
Those are FACTS. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own FACTS.

The definition of Rational is “based in accordance with reason or logic”. When someone believes the opposite of what the FACTS prove, that is NOT rational.
 
Fitswimmer said:
Those are FACTS. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own FACTS.

The definition of Rational is “based in accordance with reason or logic”. When someone believes the opposite of what the FACTS prove, that is NOT rational.
Click to expand...
I base my reaosning on the teachngs of the Church-:

Bishop Garcia states the Churchs position very well:

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life.

That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1321
What do you base your reasoning on?
 
You have quoted the same Church teaching that we are all called to follow…what you have not explained is how you can reconcile that Church teaching with your support of the Republican party given the FACTS presented.

I can no longer support the Republican party-not only because of those facts, but also because of their stance on the death penalty (against Catholic teaching), pre-emptive war (which does not fit the Catholic definition of a Just War) and the lack of a preferential option for the poor. (also against Catholic teaching)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top