I'm a one-issue voter

[JKing]

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.

But the way I see it, everything else pales in comparison. The question I have is this: If a candidate for any office can’t get it right on the most basic issue of all, life, how can I trust his judgement on any other issue?

What if, abortion was legal up through the 15th trimester? What if our laws defended the right of a mother to destroy their child up to the age of three years?

What if everey day, there was an army of white-coated men and women who fanned out across the country gathering up all the children 3 years and under who–their mothers decided–should not continue to be a burden on society? What if this army-in-lab-coats gathered them all up and, in the public squares across the nation, lined them up and cut them to pieces? What if every day over 3,000 children were dismembered? What if the law protected the mothers’ right to choose to have their children destroyed in this way?

How long would this go on? How many days in a row would our citizenry stand by and let this perfectly legal activity continue? (Digression: Would people be justified in trying to explain to the mothers the implication of their choice? Would we be careful about trying to protect the mothers from the truth of what’s happening?)

Anyway, this is what I picture whenever I think about abortion. To me (and the Catholic moral teaching) when it comes to value or worth, there is no difference between a one-minute old fertilized egg, and a one month old fetus. No difference between a fetus and an infant. No difference between an infant and a child or a child and an adult. No difference between a young adult and a senior citizen. No difference between a healthy working person and a handicapped person who will never work a day in their life. All human life is sacred. All human persons deserve the same right to life.

So if a candidate says, personally I’m opposed, and then goes on to defend abortion, even under exceptional circumstances–rape/incest/health of mother, I can’t even consider any of their other positions.

Truthfully speaking, if a candidate promised to work tirelessly to outlaw abortion, even if he was a whacky socialist/liberal/democrat who wanted to confiscate all my money and give it to my neighbor, socialize everything, open our borders and retreat in Iraq, I’d vote for them.

I wish I could look at other issues. The only way I can ever consider a candidate’s other positions is if all candidates have the same position on abortion. But inevitably, their positions are not the same. I always end up picking the one that is closer to right on this one issue.

Anyway, so I’m looking for comments. Am I blind or stupid? Does anyone else feel frustrated by this? Are there any Catholics here who do NOT vote only on this one issue? Have I changed your mind at all? How can you even begin to consider someone’s position on the economy or the war when they are ok with 3000 children being dismembered every day?

Jeff

 

[IrishAm]

Is anyone else out there a one-issue voter? . . .

Am I blind or stupid? Does anyone else feel frustrated by this? Are there any Catholics here who do NOT vote only on this one issue? Have I changed your mind at all? How can you even begin to consider someone’s position on the economy or the war when they are ok with 3000 children being dismembered every day?

I have very firm beliefs on abortion. It is murder. Period. Regardless of the situation, regardless of the hardship, it is murder. And women and their children deserve better.

But I am not a one-issue voter. Abortion is a worldwide phenomena and a medical procedure. Even if it were outlawed in the United States, it would take place in doctors’ offices and clinics around the world – as well as continue in the US. Outlawed, it would be an unenforceable ban here, and an open event in other lands.

Yes. It factors into my political decisions. But it is not the only factor. Like most Americans, I have to look at each issue that effects me, and each issue that effects others who perhaps have less of a voice than I do, and make my decisions accordingly. I probably don’t vote for ALL the same people you do, JKing – but I bet I vote for some of them. And, in some cases, because we are a military family, I struggle with some of my own decisions, and pray that I make correct ones.

I also pray for the day we live in a world that cherishes and supports all life, from conception to natural death. I do not believe abortion will be eliminated, or even significantly reduced, until we live as a species (not just a nation) within a culture of life. People speak of abortion as undermining that culture of life, as if the availability of abortion is the initiating event; I think the culture which reveres life needs to come first, then abortion will be abhored by all thinking people.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have very firm beliefs on abortion. It is murder. Period. Regardless of the situation, regardless of the hardship, it is murder. And women and their children deserve better.

But I am not a one-issue voter. Abortion is a worldwide phenomena and a medical procedure. Even if it were outlawed in the United States, it would take place in doctors’ offices and clinics around the world – as well as continue in the US. Outlawed, it would be an unenforceable ban here, and an open event in other lands.

Yes. It factors into my political decisions. But it is not the only factor. Like most Americans, I have to look at each issue that effects me, and each issue that effects others who perhaps have less of a voice than I do, and make my decisions accordingly. I probably don’t vote for ALL the same people you do, JKing – but I bet I vote for some of them. And, in some cases, because we are a military family, I struggle with some of my own decisions, and pray that I make correct ones.

I also pray for the day we live in a world that cherishes and supports all life, from conception to natural death. I do not believe abortion will be eliminated, or even significantly reduced, until we live as a species (not just a nation) within a culture of life. People speak of abortion as undermining that culture of life, as if the availability of abortion is the initiating event; I think the culture which reveres life needs to come first, then abortion will be abhored by all thinking people.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I’ll add my two cents. I was once a very avid political person, and held a position in the Dem party. But I haven’t been for a long time. When the Dem party became totally devoted to abortion, I no longer had a political home, and still don’t.

I do think other culture of life issues are important. But I do not believe the culture we live in will take any of them seriously until the most obvious aspect of the culture of death is faced and pushed back definitively. I am not willing to wait for the “culture to change” because I believe abortion on demand is profoundly corrupting to the culture, and a society that does not act to protect the most innocent cannot be counted upon to be honestly and sincerely protective of anyone else.

The next Supreme Court appointment will almost certainly determine whether abortion on demand remains the law of the land. One candidate seems to be prolife at least when it comes to abortion. Two support abortion.

I take comfort only in that there is now little difference between the parties. Neither ever does anything for the poorest. One party is dedicated to middle class welfare and the other is a poor imitation of the same thing. Both parties voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and both continually vote to fund them. Both parties take corporate money and support corporate welfare. The biggest differences are talk and abortion.

Therefore, I do vote single issue, and I do so with a clear conscience in every other way.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now, I’m sure we’ll hear from those on here who are dedicated to getting Catholics to vote for abortion-supporting candidates, but don’t admit it.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Well I go for five issues:

1. Abortion
2. Embryonic stem cell research
3. Human cloning
4. Homosexual marriage
5. Euthanasia

I cull out any candidate who supports any one of these. I then select from those, if any, who are left. If none left then I cast a blank ballot or write in Pro-Life Rita.

I think it was Mother Theresa who said that God doesn’t ask us to be successful, just faithful.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well I go for five issues:

1. Abortion
2. Embryonic stem cell research
3. Human cloning
4. Homosexual marriage
5. Euthanasia

I cull out any candidate who supports any one of these. I then select from those, if any, who are left. If none left then I cast a blank ballot or write in Pro-Life Rita.

I think it was Mother Theresa who said that God doesn’t ask us to be successful, just faithful.

I’m not sure of this, but I think one of the candidates is definitely anti-abortion but has, in the past, voted for #2. Not sure where that candidate is on it with respect to “new lines” now. Even Bush did not oppose “old line” research. Unfortunately, if can be viewed as favorable to “new line” research, then you cannot vote against an affirmatively pro-abortion candidate, notwithstanding that embryonic stem cell research seems to be at a standstill for lack of any successful outcomes.

 

[JimG]

People speak of abortion as undermining that culture of life, as if the availability of abortion is the initiating event; I think the culture which reveres life needs to come first, then abortion will be abhored by all thinking people.

But in practice is has worked just the opposite. Abortion was relatively rare before it was legalized for all 9 months of pregnancy in Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, and later cases.

Even the most ardent of abortion supporters speak of wanting abortion to be rare. But the supreme court decisions overturned laws in every state which had in fact made it rare; those decisions caused it to explode in frequency.

The law is a teacher: if the supreme court says it is ok, then it must be ok. And if the supreme court says it is ok, then mom and dad and boyfriend and grandma will all be pushing girls into it. What kind of choice is that?

 

[buffalo]

I am with you -life issues always trump quality of life issues.

 

[JimG]

What if everey day, there was an army of white-coated men and women who fanned out across the country gathering up all the children 3 years and under who–their mothers decided–should not continue to be a burden on society?

We are not as far from this scenario as it may seem. Medicine, and parts of society, has already decided that some lives are worth less than others, and that some lives may be terminated for the overall good. Down syndrome babies are targeted in utero. The disabled, the elderly, and those with a low quality of life, whatever that means, are also deemed rather expendable. If the least among us is not safe, none of us are safe.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We are not as far from this scenario as it may seem. Medicine, and parts of society, has already decided that some lives are worth less than others, and that some lives may be terminated for the overall good. Down syndrome babies are targeted in utero. The disabled, the elderly, and those with a low quality of life, whatever that means, are also deemed rather expendable. If the least among us is not safe, none of us are safe.

I am inclined to agree that we are not far away from these things. If we recognize, e.g., the “right to die”, how far can we be from an “obligation to die”?

I have long thought that the Terri Schiavo case was a terrible precedent inasmuch as her alleged statement to the very questionable “husband” was, in effect, her own death warrant, imposing on her the “obligation to die” in circumstances she could not have foreseen, and doubtless did not foresee. Assuming she actually said what she is alleged to have said, might she not, if asked, have added “But wait! If my parents and siblings still have hope and are willing to care for me, and if I even seem to have better moments, and if my life is important to them…” But, we are assured, she did not think of that possibility. Not only was it taken as a “suicide note”, it was taken by the court to confer not only a “right to kill” but an “obligation to kill” on the part of her caretakers. The probative value of the supposed expression of intent would not have been sufficient evidence to support the promise to purchase a used car, yet to the court, it was sufficient to support an “obligation to die” and an “obligation to kill”.

There was a great rush on the part of many, following that case, to write “living wills” or “advanced directives”. After all, thought many, “I would not want to live like that”. Like what?, one might ask. Part of the difficulty with those documents is that the crucial terms do not have precise meaning. “Persistent vegetative state”, “burdensome”, “quality of life”, the typical phraseology that, in less celebrated and non-litigated cases conceivably confers the power of life and death and perhaps the obligation to act on them upon, say, the third shift charge nurse.

That’s without even considering the fact that the law in many places has now put the burden on people who are “burdensome” to relieve others of the burden of themselves. It’s legal, after all; approved by society. It’s the right thing to do, then, isn’t it?

validity of the “death warrant” was questionable. C

 

[Fitswimmer]

Life is a big issue that encompasses many things and makes it very difficult for American Catholics. There is no party that aligns completely with Catholic teaching on life issues.

 

[JimG]

If we recognize, e.g., the “right to die”, how far can we be from an “obligation to die”?

I am quite sure that once the “right to die” is enshrined into law it will inevitably morph into the “duty to die.” How long can Grandpa hold out when his grandchildren are incessantly sticking that piece of paper in front of him insisting that he must sign an advanced directive which gives them the right to pull the plug at their option?

 

[bilop]

Life is a big issue that encompasses many things and makes it very difficult for American Catholics. There is no party that aligns completely with Catholic teaching on life issues.

But there is one that is opposed to it across the board.

I figure it’s my obligation as a Catholic to vote against the party that opposes Church teaching on almost evry life issue.

Even if the opposition isn’t perfect, it’s WAAAAAY better.

I agree with the poster above. The next 1-2 Supreme Court Judges will decide if Roe is overturned. I don’t want Obama picking those names.

God Bless

 

[Fitswimmer]

But there is one that is opposed to it across the board.

I figure it’s my obligation as a Catholic to vote against the party that opposes Church teaching on almost evry life issue.

Even if the opposition isn’t perfect, it’s WAAAAAY better.

I agree with the poster above. The next 1-2 Supreme Court Judges will decide if Roe is overturned. I don’t want Obama picking those names.

God Bless

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.

I don’t think McCain, Obama or Clinton would be very different, frankly. McCain has a recent conservative history-he’s followed GW Bush 95% of the time, but if you go back further in his voting record you’ll see much more liberal views. (see ontheissues.org) Once he’s elected, he won’t need the Right wing anymore, and my bet is that he’ll jettison those ultra conservative views the day he walks through the WH doors.

 

[JimG]

When it comes to the Court, the only question is who is more likely to select jurists who will follow the text of the constitution rather than read current social policy into it. Who gave us Alito, Roberts, and Thomas?

Bellieve me, the pro-abortion lobby will be making a BIG issue of this in their mailings.

 

[Fitswimmer]

When it comes to the Court, the only question is who is more likely to select jurists who will follow the text of the constitution rather than read current social policy into it. Who gave us Alito, Roberts, and Thomas?

Bellieve me, the pro-abortion lobby will be making a BIG issue of this in their mailings.

it’s not that easy to predict what a justice will do once he/she is out of the nominating process. These are very bright people and it’s not that hard to learn the right answers to get confirmed.

 

[JimG]

it’s not that easy to predict what a justice will do once he/she is out of the nominating process. These are very bright people and it’s not that hard to learn the right answers to get confirmed.

Neither is it hard for a president to discover the judicial temperament and leanings of any nominee. It’s not likely that a President Kerry or Gore would have nominated Alito or Roberts.

 

[bilop]

it’s not that easy to predict what a justice will do once he/she is out of the nominating process. These are very bright people and it’s not that hard to learn the right answers to get confirmed.

That’s true. Some of the recent Republican nominess have turned out to be mediocre (Kennedy) or worse (Souter). But some have been Great.

ALL the recent Democratic nominees (Ginsburg, Breyer) have been staunchly pro-abortion.

They won’t mess up this next one given their fervor; and Stevens is 88.

Nothing in life is certain, but you’ve got to play the odds that lean towards the side of the Angels.

God Bless

 

[JKing]

Wow, all great feedback.

I like Joe Kelley’s list

1. Abortion
2. Embryonic stem cell research
3. Human cloning
4. Homosexual marriage
5. Euthanasia

All are life issues. I guess this is the “5 non-negotiables” from the voters guide. I would prioritize them with #4 being least important in protecting life.

Another point that I didn’t hear anyone make is that as bad as surgical abortion is, there are millions more being aborted chemically by abortifacient birth control. These are unseen victims flushed by the thousands every month. I don’t know the numbers but if 1% of women on the pill conceive a child that fails to implant, that’s a whole bunch of abortions every month.

Another point: With RU486 now available, abolition of surgical abortion will only push women over to this convenient method.

I agree with IrishAm that only a culture of life will remove abortion completely. But consider this: Slavery was eliminated legislatively. The culture that held down blacks in this country took a long time to die out. We still have a way to go, but you must agree that the plight of African Americans is much better now than in 1830. Abortion is similar.

As for who to vote for. I don’t belong to a party. I look at the issues. I’ve never been able to, but if there were ever two candidates for an office with equal stances on life, then I’d look further down the list of issues. At every level, from school board to President, I vote life.

Just think, if everyone in the world followed Church teaching all of our social ills would disappear!
No AIDS, or STDs.
No out-of-wedlock births
No families broken by divorce
etc.

Thanks again for all the feedback, I’ll keep reading!

 

[estesbob]

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.

I don’t think McCain, Obama or Clinton would be very different, frankly. McCain has a recent conservative history-he’s followed GW Bush 95% of the time, but if you go back further in his voting record you’ll see much more liberal views. (see ontheissues.org) Once he’s elected, he won’t need the Right wing anymore, and my bet is that he’ll jettison those ultra conservative views the day he walks through the WH doors.

This is the kind of convoluted thinking that had allowed abortion to reamain legal in this country. It distills down to this"

Although I oppose abortion I am not sure those who claim to oppose it really oppose it therefore its ok for me to vote for those who maked no bones about unequivocably supporting it" A self fullfilling prophecy if ever there was one.