I'm a one-issue voter

  • Thread starter Thread starter JKing
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think one issue voters are the reason we have the president we currently have.

McCain claims to be anti-abortion (save for rape and incest). However he’s pro-war, and says he’s prepared to stay in Iraq / Middle East for 100 years, LOL.

I guess the lives of our soldiers and the Iraqi’s isn’t as important.
 
myndsplyntur said:
I think one issue voters are the reason we have the president we currently have.

McCain claims to be anti-abortion (save for rape and incest). However he’s pro-war, and says he’s prepared to stay in Iraq / Middle East for 100 years, LOL.

I guess the lives of our soldiers and the Iraqi’s isn’t as important.
Click to expand...
You can’t compare the two issues.

Iraq may or may not be a just war or a wise political decision. I, personally believe that it is a just war, but has been grossly mishandled. In any case the decision was made by the competent civil authorities of the U.S., and a Catholic is free to oppose or support the war. The U.S servicemen who die in Iraq are heroes who volunteered to serve their country, and are being killed by an enemy devoted to our destruction.

Abortion is murder. Innocent American children are being murdered with the complicity of their Mothers. 1 million murdered each year. No Catholic can support abortion and remain a Catholic in good standing.

No comparison.

God Bless
 
myndsplyntur said:
I think one issue voters are the reason we have the president we currently have.

McCain claims to be anti-abortion (save for rape and incest). However he’s pro-war, and says he’s prepared to stay in Iraq / Middle East for 100 years, LOL.

I guess the lives of our soldiers and the Iraqi’s isn’t as important.
Click to expand...
One Democrat candidate is probably more warlike than Bush. Remember Kosovo? Milosevic did not start two wars, one of them involving nearly the whole world, and kill upwards of a million people. Milosevic was not shooting at our planes in violation of a ceasefire agreement. Milosevic did not attempt to assassinate an ex president of the U.S. Congress did not approve the Kosovo War, which it did the Iraq War. That Democrat candidate threatened Iran with nukes.

The other Democrat candidate wants to invade Pakistan, a nuclear power.

The former Democrat President; the one who thinks himself a “peacemaker” once threatened war against the former Soviet Union over Iranian oil.

And you’re worried about McCain? A man who says he hates war and saw the worst side of it that can possibly be imagined?

How long have our servicemen been in Germany? Sixty years. How long on Okinawa? Sixty years. How long in Korea? Fifty years. How long in the Philippines? Over a hundred. That’s what McCain is talking about, and then only as a possibility, not being in a war for 100 years. I think there are good reasons to not like McCain, but this is not one of them.
 
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...
Yes!!!

A year or so I got stopped by someone, right out of the blue, campaigning for a culture of death politician and when I told her no, I would never even consider voting for this person, she chewed me out, deriding me for being a one-issue voter and not being a complex enough of a human being.

Go figure.

Anyway, I read somewhere, probably here in this forum, that the “one-issue” label is actually a spin on things, to minimize their significance, probably, and that different issues have priorities. And like you say, LIFE is sort of a high priority issue.
 
estesbob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

I am convinced that the only way anything will change regarding life issues in this country is by working the problem from the ground up-which is what I do with my money and my time. If more of us took the time, money and energy we spend defending these so-called “pro-life” politicians and actually put that effort to work in solid grass roots efforts, I truly believe we would see much better results.

As always-your mileage may vary-but that’s how I have learned to deal with it.
 
I am a one issue voter today. I would have been a one issue voter in 1860. My issue, as an American, is the Constitution. Slavery as it existed, and invalid laws (fugitive slave act ie) and cour decisions (Dred Scott) supporting it, directly contradicted the foundational principles of the Constitution. Abortion as it exists and the invalid laws and court decisions supporting it attack the foundation, right to life. Without that right, guanteed to the most helpless, no other right protected can stand uner assault. RvW illegally suspended all our constitutional protections when it suspended the right to life in favor of a subsidiary right that is not even alluded to. Slavery existed because a subordinate right (to property) was held higher than a foundation right (life, liberty pursuit of happiness). Abortion exists for the same reason. Both “reasons” defy the logic upon which the Constitution is based.

Our country will experience continued disconnect between its foundational values and reality as long as this illegal condition exists. Abortion has the potential to tear this country apart as slavery did if the situation is not remedied at its root, restoring the full protection of the Constitution.
 
myndsplyntur said:
McCain claims to be anti-abortion (save for rape and incest). However he’s pro-war, and says he’s prepared to stay in Iraq / Middle East for 100 years, LOL.
Click to expand...
This is a gross misinterpretation that the libs have overplayed to make McCain look bad (what you said is correct, but I think what you are implying is not). Most people think that when McCain said he was prepared to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, he meant that he is prepared to have this war last for a hundred years. This is not the case. What McCain said was that if we were to establish peace and American soldiers are safe, we could set up a base there which could last a hundred years. The base could do all sorts of things - maintain peace, maintain foreign relations, etc.

People forget that we have had bases such as these in many other countries for decades. There are a few asian countries which we have been in for 60+ years, if I remember correctly. We’ve been in Germany since the end of WWII.

Anyway, to the OP’s question: I am not a single-issue voter, but the issue of abortion is enough for me to disqualify a candidate. Obviously (and I think anyone will agree here), if there are a few pro-life candidates, we will choose based off of other issues. On the other hand, if there is only one pro-life candidate, which is the case in most instances, I will vote for that person. Because of this, I think to say that one is a single issue voter is just silly.
 
puzzleannie said:
I am a one issue voter today. I would have been a one issue voter in 1860. My issue, as an American, is the Constitution. Slavery as it existed, and invalid laws (fugitive slave act ie) and cour decisions (Dred Scott) supporting it, directly contradicted the foundational principles of the Constitution. Abortion as it exists and the invalid laws and court decisions supporting it attack the foundation, right to life. Without that right, guanteed to the most helpless, no other right protected can stand uner assault. RvW illegally suspended all our constitutional protections when it suspended the right to life in favor of a subsidiary right that is not even alluded to. Slavery existed because a subordinate right (to property) was held higher than a foundation right (life, liberty pursuit of happiness). Abortion exists for the same reason. Both “reasons” defy the logic upon which the Constitution is based.

Our country will experience continued disconnect between its foundational values and reality as long as this illegal condition exists. Abortion has the potential to tear this country apart as slavery did if the situation is not remedied at its root, restoring the full protection of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
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.”

Those who opposed slavery were split into two camps the "immediasts " and “gradualists” The immediasts contended that slavery was an abject evil and should be ended now. The Gradualists believed that slavery was wrong but should be eliminated over a long period of time-they claimed that the country was not ready to eliminate slavery and we needed to change the countries attitudes towards slavery before any progress could be made(the old “hearts and minds” argument.’)

The pro-slavery forces used many or the same tactics we see used by the abortion supporters today. They claimed, for instance, that only those who owned slaves should have a say on the issue of slavery(their property) To which, BTW, John Adams indignantly replied that that would be akin to saying only people who owned dogs could vote on laws pertaining to dogs.

The attempted to make it illegal to protest slavery and even pushed thorugh a law than made it illegal to send Anti Slavery material to the South (the clinic protection act being the modern version of this). They also tried to forbid the discussion of slavery in the congress claiming it was settled law.

They were as found of euphemisms as the pro-aborting crowd is. Slavery was referred to as “that peculiar institution”. Although expressly allowed by the Constitution the word slavery never appears. They gave high minded speeches about protecting their “property” never about protecting the right to own and make life and death decisions of other human beings.

It is a perfect example of the old adage"the more things change the more things stay the same"
 
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.”

Those who opposed slavery were split into two camps the "immediasts " and “gradualists” The immediasts contended that slavery was an abject evil and should be ended now. The Gradualists believed that slavery was wrong but should be eliminated over a long period of time-they claimed that the country was not ready to eliminate slavery and we needed to change the countries attitudes towards slavery before any progress could be made(the old “hearts and minds” argument.’)

The pro-slavery forces used many or the same tactics we see used by the abortion supporters today. They claimed, for instance, that only those who owned slaves should have a say on the issue of slavery(their property) To which, BTW, John Adams indignantly replied that that would be akin to saying only people who owned dogs could vote on laws pertaining to dogs.

The attempted to make it illegal to protest slavery and even pushed thorugh a law than made it illegal to send Anti Slavery material to the South (the clinic protection act being the modern version of this). They also tried to forbid the discussion of slavery in the congress claiming it was settled law.

They were as found of euphemisms as the pro-aborting crowd is. Slavery was referred to as “that peculiar institution”. Although expressly allowed by the Constitution the word slavery never appears. They gave high minded speeches about protecting their “property” never about protecting the right to own and make life and death decisions of other human beings.

It is a perfect example of the old adage"the more things change the more things stay the same"
Click to expand...
Well said 👍
 
estesbob said:
Well then I guess if the people arent following the law we should just maked slavery legal.Right? Thats what the abortion apologists they tell us about abortion. Is that your point or is there a point ?
Click to expand...
My point is that making something illegal does not always result in it’s disappearance. If you asked 10 people in Times Square whether or not slavery existed in the USA, I would bet 9 of them would say no-when our government clearly shows that it does.

Making abortion illegal will reduce the number of abortions, but it will not eliminate abortion. Overturning Roe will not eliminate abortion, there will be states where it will remain legal and states where it will become illegal.

If the true goal is to eliminate abortion, our energy should be primarily ( but not exclusively) focused in such a way that we change the way people feel about abortion. To be more specific, we need to change how society views conception, women’s health, poverty and other issues that directly or indirectly lead a woman to choose abortion over other options available.

What I’ve experienced since 1973 is a primary focus on the law-I’ve gotten tired of beating my head against a wall there and have shifted my efforts. I was shocked to discover the ignorance regarding fetal development even in our supposedly well educated suburban children. Teaching JPII’s Theology of the Body was a truly enlightening experience, and I know some of our students see themselves in a different way now. Working with young pregnant women and seeing the conditions they were living in made me realize why some choose abortion and how we as Christians can better help them see a different way out.

If you want to keep fighting the legal fight-God bless and go with you. I’m just offering an alternative option and another front to engage the battle.
 
Fitswimmer said:
My point is that making something illegal does not always result in it’s disappearance. If you asked 10 people in Times Square whether or not slavery existed in the USA, I would bet 9 of them would say no-when our government clearly shows that it does.

Making abortion illegal will reduce the number of abortions, but it will not eliminate abortion. Overturning Roe will not eliminate abortion, there will be states where it will remain legal and states where it will become illegal.

If the true goal is to eliminate abortion, our energy should be primarily ( but not exclusively) focused in such a way that we change the way people feel about abortion. To be more specific, we need to change how society views conception, women’s health, poverty and other issues that directly or indirectly lead a woman to choose abortion over other options available.

What I’ve experienced since 1973 is a primary focus on the law-I’ve gotten tired of beating my head against a wall there and have shifted my efforts. I was shocked to discover the ignorance regarding fetal development even in our supposedly well educated suburban children. Teaching JPII’s Theology of the Body was a truly enlightening experience, and I know some of our students see themselves in a different way now. Working with young pregnant women and seeing the conditions they were living in made me realize why some choose abortion and how we as Christians can better help them see a different way out.

If you want to keep fighting the legal fight-God bless and go with you. I’m just offering an alternative option and another front to engage the battle.
Click to expand...
I m not going to derail the thread by getting into a discussion as to whether slavery exists in the US. However i was correct that you were making the usual argument that making something illegal doesnt eliminate it. So what? Prior to Roe there were at the most 400,000 abortions in this country per year(a large number of which were legal). Now its 1.2 million. When the Civil War ended there were 4.6 million Slaves freed. Now, if we buy your definition of slavery ,there a few thousnads . It would seem the lesson here is that making something illegal drasticly reduces the incidence of the thing being made illegal.
 
estesbob said:
I m not going to derail the thread by getting into a discussion as to whether slavery exists in the US. However i was correct that you were making the usual argument that making something illegal doesnt eliminate it. So what? Prior to Roe there were at the most 400,000 abortions in this country per year(a large number of which were legal). Now its 1.2 million. When the Civil War ended there were 4.6 million Slaves freed. Now, if we buy your definition of slavery ,there a few thousnads . It would seem the lesson here is that making something illegal drasticly reduces the incidence of the thing being made illegal.
Click to expand...
I would venture to guess that she realizes this, but what she is more concerned with is eliminating abortion all together. She is right in saying that eliminating it is only going to happen when a change of heart comes to the people, which can be achieved by focusing on this change of attitude.
 
We can work from the ground up all we want to fight abortion, and I think we should. But the votes of millions of pro-life workers and pro-life voters, and even of existing pro-life laws are easily vitiated by the votes five individuals on the U.S. Supreme Court.

That’s why presidential politics is important to the prolife cause. A pro-life majority of the population is useless without a Court which will follow the constitution. And there are some candidates who are ardently committed to putting only pro-abortion candidates on all courts.
 
buckr02 said:
I would venture to guess that she realizes this, but what she is more concerned with is eliminating abortion all together. She is right in saying that eliminating it is only going to happen when a change of heart comes to the people, which can be achieved by focusing on this change of attitude.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I’m not in any way suggesting that making it illegal is a bad idea, but if the real goal is to irradicate it-the law is only a partial step. Since the law is only a partial step toward the end goal, I feel that more effort should be placed on working on the change of heart necessary to eliminate it.

Since 1973 the primary focus has been on making it illegal. Guess what? It’s still legal. I’m not suggesting we stop trying to change the law, I’m suggesting that we ALSO put as much, if not more effort into the grass roots efforts that bring about fewer people even considering abortion-whether it is legal or not.
 
Fitswimmer said:
Exactly. I’m not in any way suggesting that making it illegal is a bad idea, but if the real goal is to irradicate it-the law is only a partial step. Since the law is only a partial step toward the end goal, I feel that more effort should be placed on working on the change of heart necessary to eliminate it.

Since 1973 the primary focus has been on making it illegal. Guess what? It’s still legal. I’m not suggesting we stop trying to change the law, I’m suggesting that we ALSO put as much, if not more effort into the grass roots efforts that bring about fewer people even considering abortion-whether it is legal or not.
Click to expand...
If we had had a Republican Senate when Robert Bork was nominated to the Suprem Court Roe would have been overturned in 1992. that is why party matters and the presidency matters wheh casting our votes.
 
estesbob said:
If we had had a Republican Senate when Robert Bork was nominated to the Suprem Court Roe would have been overturned in 1992. that is why party matters and the presidency matters wheh casting our votes.
Click to expand...
That is our election again this year - what Supreme Court Justices will be added? That is why we must vote for a nominee that will seat judges that will overturn Roe v Wade.
 
buffalo said:
That is our election again this year - what Supreme Court Justices will be added? That is why we must vote for a nominee that will seat judges that will overturn Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...
If a Democrat gains the presidency this year abortion will be enshrined as the law of the land for at least another generation.
 
estesbob said:
If a Democrat gains the presidency this year abortion will be enshrined as the law of the land for at least another generation.
Click to expand...
You would think more Catholics would get this. :crying: I hope the Bishops and Pastor’s have the courage to speak out on this forcefully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top