I'm a one-issue voter

[buffalo]

It’s both, because the President nominates supreme court justices, but the Senate must confirm them.

Jim G is correct.

 

[myndsplyntur]

I certainly have a hard time understanding the rationale behind one-issue voting. I have read all your responses and I understand what has been written. I just still cannot understand it.

Personally, I feel there are too many issues affecting America today to be so blind as to only be concerned with one issue… it’s really frightening to me, actually.

It seems to me that it is a lack of personal integrity for someone to NOT look at the overall picture and choose who would be best for the COUNTRY, rather than picking a single moral issue that would best service your religious convictions. It seems very selfish and self righteous to me; but that could possibly be because I don’t understand it. I just can’t wrap my little brain around someone not caring about all the other issues.

It’s like… deciding to buy a house, based solely on the way the backyard is landscaped… and not taking into consideration the foundation, the neighborhood the home is in, the way the home is insulated, etc etc etc…

I know this sounds harsh and I really am not meaning to upset or personally offend anyone, I just cannot understand it ALL and I apologize if this upsets anyone.

 

[buffalo]

I certainly have a hard time understanding the rationale behind one-issue voting. I have read all your responses and I understand what has been written. I just still cannot understand it.

Personally, I feel there are too many issues affecting America today to be so blind as to only be concerned with one issue… it’s really frightening to me, actually.

It seems to me that it is a lack of personal integrity for someone to NOT look at the overall picture and choose who would be best for the COUNTRY, rather than picking a single moral issue that would best service your religious convictions. It seems very selfish and self righteous to me; but that could possibly be because I don’t understand it. I just can’t wrap my little brain around someone not caring about all the other issues.

It’s like… deciding to buy a house, based solely on the way the backyard is landscaped… and not taking into consideration the foundation, the neighborhood the home is in, the way the home is insulated, etc etc etc…

I know this sounds harsh and I really am not meaning to upset or personally offend anyone, I just cannot understand it ALL and I apologize if this upsets anyone.

Life issues have to trump quality of life issues or there will be no quality of life to worry about.

Life must be protected at all costs.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Here’s something interesting I found in my travels-http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305456,00.html

All in all, 5 percent of voters say abortion will be the most important issue in their vote decision, putting it on equal footing with immigration (5 percent) and ethics (5 percent), but far below the top issues of Iraq (22 percent), terrorism (18 percent), economy/jobs (17 percent) and health care (13 percent).

With those numbers-I’m not surprised that the Republicans aren’t giving more than lip service to this issue. They don’t have to-the numbers in play are so small that they can get away with it.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Life issues have to trump quality of life issues or there will be no quality of life to worry about.

Life must be protected at all costs.

Abortion is not the only life issue.

 

[JimG]

I certainly have a hard time understanding the rationale behind one-issue voting. I have read all your responses and I understand what has been written. I just still cannot understand it.

Personally, I feel there are too many issues affecting America today to be so blind as to only be concerned with one issue… it’s really frightening to me, actually.

First, I would remind you that there have been and will be a large number of “one issue” voters on the pro-abortion side as well. The constituencies of NARAL as well as numerous pro-abortion interest groups will use this one issue as a litmus test for voting.

Secondly, I don’t know of many voters who actually make a list of issues candidate by candidate, and then rank the issues according to importance, and then rate the candidates weighted by importance of the issue and where they stand on them, coming to a compromise nominee that was not already been pre-determined. There may be some, and if so, more power to them. But political ads will not be targeted in such a nuanced manner.

Finally, I consider life issues to be considerably more important than others. I mentioned before that I felt betrayed by my own party, which I thought of as the party of the little people and the least among us. When then went from advocating the protection of the little people to killing them, it was a turning point for me.

Life issues don’t stand alone. As we have seen, if life is not sacred before birth, neither is it sacred at birth or after birth. Today it is abortion, tomorrow it will be (already is) the newly born, the disabled, the elderly, who will be targeted. (see, for example, notdeadyet.org)

So I don’t see it as single issue. I see it as my own self-interest.

 

[Fitswimmer]

First, I would remind you that there have been and will be a large number of “one issue” voters on the pro-abortion side as well. The constituencies of NARAL as well as numerous pro-abortion interest groups will use this one issue as a litmus test for voting.

Secondly, I don’t know of many voters who actually make a list of issues candidate by candidate, and then rank the issues according to importance, and then rate the candidates weighted by importance of the issue and where they stand on them, coming to a compromise nominee that was not already been pre-determined. There may be some, and if so, more power to them. But political ads will not be targeted in such a nuanced manner.

Finally, I consider life issues to be considerably more important than others. I mentioned before that I felt betrayed by my own party, which I thought of as the party of the little people and the least among us. When then went from advocating the protection of the little people to killing them, it was a turning point for me.

Life issues don’t stand alone. As we have seen, if life is not sacred before birth, neither is it sacred at birth or after birth. Today it is abortion, tomorrow it will be (already is) the newly born, the disabled, the elderly, who will be targeted. (see, for example, notdeadyet.org)

So I don’t see it as single issue. I see it as my own self-interest.

I don’t really agree with one issue voting-no matter what the one issue is-either. I think that the world is simply too complex a place to make that kind of decision based on one issue.

And for your second point-that’s not exactly how I choose who to vote for-but it’s pretty close. I look at my key issues, then I look at the voting records of the candidates in question-as far back as I can go-and choose accordingly. I mute the political ads because I don’t think any elected office should be filled based on a 30 second sound byte.

I would also add issues like jobs and health care as subsidiaries to life issues. I would be interested to see stats on abortion rates matched against the economy. Are there more abortions when the economy is doing poorly? It would seem to me there would be, since more women would be unable to afford children. Does available pre-natal care help? What about other life issues? If people have better access to affordable health care, are they less likely to support euthanasia?

Strange stuff, I know-but it’s the kind of thing I think about.

 

[estesbob]

Life issues have to trump quality of life issues or there will be no quality of life to worry about.

Life must be protected at all costs.

Quality of life issues are meaningless to those who have been denied the right to life.

 

[buffalo]

Abortion is not the only life issue.

Right - euthanasia, embryonic stem cell esearch, cloning,

 

[estesbob]

II know this sounds harsh and I really am not meaning to upset or personally offend anyone, I just cannot understand it ALL and I apologize if this upsets anyone.

If a candidate promoted rounding up, at random, 1.2 million 7 years old a year and killing them BUT you agreed with him on all the other issues would you vote for him? Or would you decline based on a single issue?

Would you have voted for pro-slavery canidates because you liked their veiws on tarriffs?

Would you have voted for a man who sent Jews to death camps becuase he made the train system more efficient?

 

[myndsplyntur]

Secondly, I don’t know of many voters who actually make a list of issues candidate by candidate, and then rank the issues according to importance, and then rate the candidates weighted by importance of the issue and where they stand on them, coming to a compromise nominee that was not already been pre-determined. There may be some, and if so, more power to them. But political ads will not be targeted in such a nuanced manner. .

And I believe that is what the problem is with today’s politics. People DON’T do the necessary research on the candidates to find out what they are getting into. Personally, I do. I do a ton of research. Most people don’t. And I think that’s part why this country is in the shape that it is.

Our country’s leaders - with soooo much responsibility and control over soooo many different issues - are elected based on hear-say, religion, and what the media has to say about it. Pretty irresponsible decision making process if you ask me.

Not enough people are willing to invest the time necessary to make an educated decision. “Research is hard, so why not just go with the issue I feel is most important and call it a day.” Very upsetting, really.

 

[buckr02]

Would you have voted for a man who sent Jews to death camps becuase he made the train system more efficient?

Not just the train system, how about the entire country? Like getting them out of the depression…

 

[JimG]

And I believe that is what the problem is with today’s politics. People DON’T do the necessary research on the candidates to find out what they are getting into. Personally, I do. I do a ton of research. Most people don’t. And I think that’s part why this country is in the shape that it is.

Our country’s leaders - with soooo much responsibility and control over soooo many different issues - are elected based on hear-say, religion, and what the media has to say about it. Pretty irresponsible decision making process if you ask me.

Not enough people are willing to invest the time necessary to make an educated decision. “Research is hard, so why not just go with the issue I feel is most important and call it a day.” Very upsetting, really.

OK, but I’m still guessing that in your ranking and rating of issues, you’re not putting 1.2 million dead children a year very high on the list. And how high are you ranking euthanasia and infanticide?

 

[myndsplyntur]

If a candidate promoted rounding up, at random, 1.2 million 7 years old a year and killing them BUT you agreed with him on all the other issues would you vote for him? Or would you decline based on a single issue?

Would you have voted for pro-slavery canidates because you liked their veiws on tarriffs?

Would you have voted for a man who sent Jews to death camps becuase he made the train system more efficient?

OBVIOUSLY all of these are outlandish examples and I really expected more for a rebuttal.

As mentioned previously, it’s a process. Personally I think that killing 1.2 million 7 year olds is a bad idea, as is slavery, and sending Jews to death camps. You really think that I would view taxes and train systems as more important?

 

[buckr02]

OBVIOUSLY all of these are outlandish examples and I really expected more for a rebuttal.

As mentioned previously, it’s a process. Personally I think that killing 1.2 million 7 year olds is a bad idea, as is slavery, and sending Jews to death camps. You really think that I would view taxes and train systems as more important?

The point is that 1.2 million children ARE being killed every year, but you are ignoring that to look at other issues which you deem more important.

 

[Fitswimmer]

And I believe that is what the problem is with today’s politics. People DON’T do the necessary research on the candidates to find out what they are getting into. Personally, I do. I do a ton of research. Most people don’t. And I think that’s part why this country is in the shape that it is.

Our country’s leaders - with soooo much responsibility and control over soooo many different issues - are elected based on hear-say, religion, and what the media has to say about it. Pretty irresponsible decision making process if you ask me.

Not enough people are willing to invest the time necessary to make an educated decision. “Research is hard, so why not just go with the issue I feel is most important and call it a day.” Very upsetting, really.

I’ve heard people say that they are voting for a candidate based on everything from how he pronounces “nuclear” to what he looks like-not to mention religion-even though the Constitution makes it clear that there is to be NO religious test for any political position. We live in a world of 30 second sound bytes and many people make choices based on those sound bytes and nothing more.

I look at my vote as a business decision. Would I hire this person? Would I trust them to work for me? I would never hire anyone based only on their interview, I’d want to speak to former bosses, look at examples of their work, maybe even talk to co-workers. A pretty speech or a 30 second sound byte isn’t enough for me.

 

[JimG]

I guess what it comes down to, if one really wants to put abortion on demand way down the list is to make the decision that over a million killed by abortion every year is just not that important in the grand scheme of things. And this is exactly the decision that many Catholics will make, consciously or not, when they go to vote.

 

[nice2000]

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.

So true. I agree Jim G.

I call it “Legalized Murder”.

Remember the Terri Schiavo case in March of 2005?

Here is the statement issued 10 days before Terri’s Feeding tube was removed by Cardinal Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace:

“The courts have ruled again and again. Unfortunately, the deadline for the removal of the tube delivering food and water to Terri Schiavo is quickly approaching. I am sorry to have to use the word ‘deadline’ but this is the most accurate way to describe what will happen. Without the tube which is providing life-giving hydration and nutrition, Terri Schiavo will die. But it is not that simple. She will die a horrible and cruel death. She will not simply die; she will have death inflicted upon her over a number of terrible days, even weeks. How can anyone who claims to speak of the promotion and protection of human rights — of human life — remain silent? Is this not a question of the right to life? I believe that I must speak out about this in the same way that I would speak of the protection of the unborn and just as I would concerning any injustice.

“Has due process in this case been truly served? Have all options been employed? Where is love? Where is human compassion? No one would ever wish to witness the suffering of another, especially a loved one. And I am sure that no one could ever choose to witness suffering or a cruel death being inflicted upon another, especially one who is loved. How then have we come to this point?

“If it is true that the process has been fair and that all legal avenues have been exhausted, how is it that this woman, who has done nothing wrong, will suffer a fate which society would never tolerate in the case of a convicted murderer or anyone else convicted of the most horrendous crimes? Again, it is an issue of human rights. It is an issue of the right to life, and as I stated earlier, no one can be the arbiter of life except God Himself!

“The State of Florida has many laws on its books which protect animals, whether they be household pets, domesticated farm animals or animals destined for slaughter. (And please pardon me as I make this analogy. I am not comparing Terri to an animal. I only want to show the protection that the courts afford to animals in the State of Florida.) These laws ‘prohibit anyone from intentionally committing an act to any animal which results in cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering’ (828.12). It is also unlawful to keep an animal in a place while failing to supply ‘a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water’(828.13).

“Are these laws not enforced by the same courts, are these not the same laws established by lawmakers in order to protect other creatures of God?

“However, in just a few days, [if her husband and the courts have their way] this is exactly what will happen to Terri. She will be completely deprived of water and food. She will have excessive suffering and pain inflicted upon her which will lead to her cruel death. Yet we have come to the point of asking whether due process has been fully carried out and all options exhausted on behalf of Terri. This is unbelievable! Is it not sufficient enough to say that there are still questions that must be answered? We plead, we make the urgent appeal for the life of a helpless human being … a person with whom we all share our God-given human dignity. How can anyone say that her best interests have been taken into consideration?

“In his Message for the Eleventh World Day of the Sick (11 February 2003) His Holiness Pope John Paul II stated: ‘And while palliative treatment in the final stage of life can be encouraged, avoiding a “treatment at all costs” mentality, it will never be permissible to resort to actions or omissions which by their nature or in the intention of the person acting are designed to bring about death.’

“Palliative care, by its definition is the alleviation of suffering and relieving pain. In the last stage of life, it is this care for which we all must hope because, if the feeding tube is removed and Terri is forced to die this slow, terrible, painful death, we must ask ourselves, ‘And who will be next?’. Will this open the door for a state to decide whether this or that incapacitated person should die … not be allowed to die a dignified death but that they should have death inflicted upon them?

“It must stop here and now. The courts, the judges and everyone involved with this must understand that all of the questions involved in the case of Terri Schiavo have not yet been answered. Society must realize that we can never inflict this sort of death on a human being, on any other creature, without each and every one of us and society as a whole suffering a terrible fate.” (Cardinal Martino)(Emphasis Added)

 

[Fitswimmer]

I had hoped that after the Schiavo incident, there would be some kind of law passed that would reduce the chance of such a thing happening ever again. Unless I missed something, no such legislation was even proposed.

We’re on our own to protect ourselves.

 

[nice2000]

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

All I know and truly believe that the message that Jesus and Our Lady of Fatima communicated to the three children in the year of 1917 is coming true.

The error of “legalized” abortion was first introduced in modern times in Russia from where it has spread all over the world and now causes 50 MILLION innocent babies to die very painful deaths each year.

“Legalized murder” was officially sanctioned by the government of Canada in 1968 and in the United States in 1973. It’s not called murder, it’s called abortion. Now more than 30 years later, this is the outcome of the slaughter of innocent life.

Source: Cardinal Martino, March 2005.