I'm a one-issue voter

[ProVobis]

Admonish the sin, not the sinner. Who are we to judge what the state of their souls is?

Can you say the same for those who vote for abortionists? I don’t think we’d all be having this discussion if we all just said, “Ah heck, vote according to your conscience and be done with it,” do you?

 

[buckr02]

Can you say the same for those who vote for abortionists?

I don’t see why not.

 

[ProVobis]

buckr02, I added another sentence while you were posting, so you know. You’re too quick with the gun.

 

[buckr02]

buckr02, I added another sentence while you were posting, so you know. You’re too quick with the gun.

haha, I’m bored and trying to figure out what I should be doing with my time, so I keep checking my mail hoping something will come to mind. In the mean time…

I don’t think we’d all be having this discussion if we all just said, “Ah heck, vote according to your conscience and be done with it,” do you?

You can’t just go according to your conscience when it comes to sin. As Catholics, we have been told that specific things are sinful and abortion is one of them, as is voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I don’t understand what you mean. Would you explain your views on this issue?

I support Candidates who support doing thier job, and only their job, as laid out in the Constitution. None of this legislating from the bench(see recent California decision), national laws on Abortion(find that one in the Constitution), Education(specifically left to states, but search the Department of Eduaction and look at thier huge budget).

The Framers made a limited Government, not unlimited

 

[Nino]

Hey One issue…back in 1860 there was one main issue…slavery…now get this…in those days humans who were alive,had money and power,owned…owned other humans and forced this property to work and live etc all on orders …This one issue was fought over and after some 660,000 casualties…it was resolved. No human is the property of another period.Of course,another issue was the two party system…down south there was only one party,the slave party,called lets see…Democrat party…then in April of 1865 …there were,lets see…oh yeh.one party Democrat! then in 1901 when Teddy Roosevelt invited a former slave to the white house for a conference and dinner,the major newspapers down south condemned this as the worst event in american history…it seems this one party that ',lost" the civil war was still in control,it invented the KKK and terrorized the freed blacks so that they never did join the opposition party…even after in 1913 Democrat president Wilson premiered the pro-KKK film.Birth of a nation and endorsed it…and then in 1964 the civil rights act,more Republicans voted for this really no big deal…just a little bit of fairness…bill…still only one major party down south…and that is fully pro-abortion…which means still saying that the developing baby in the temporary hosts womb is the property of that host…go figure…also …sound familiar…'All, have the right to life,liberty etc"…your stand makes sense…the nay-sayers not withstanding…N

 

[jc-servant]

Is anyone else out there a one-issue voter?

No Jeff exercising my vote is not based on a one-issue litmus test. Most elected officials have no power to change abortion in their duties, so they can mouth anything they like to get the vote of single issue voters. We had how many years with a “pro-life” President and majority in Congress and we still have abortion? We have had 7 years of bush 43 plus 4 years of Bush 41 appointing federal judges and what real changes have happened?

For state level offices and local offices abortion is not a “real” issue for the performance of most elected officials as it relates to their job duties. If you want to make it a litmus test as to their character that is a totally different thing, but it may just be a line that they spout come election time since they never have to prove their true position. I believe that people will show us who they truely are by the totality of their actions, so merely checking a pro-life box on a survey of candidates will not get them my vote.

 

[nannygirl]

I am also a one-issue voter. I will always choose a truly pro-life candidate even if there is nothing they can do about abortion. The reason is that their position tells me about their character in general.

There is a story out now about a girl in China. (As many of us know, China is notorious for their use of abortion and their use of aborted fetuses in cooking.) She is being censored for her rant about how upset she is that China is shutting down all forms of entertainment (video games, etc) for a 3 day period of mourning for the earthquake victims. Her response was something like -so what; it wasn’t that many people. China already has too many people-. Obviously people mean very little to her. This is the pro-abortion mentality…

 

[estesbob]

We had how many years with a “pro-life” President and majority in Congress and we still have abortion? We have had 7 years of bush 43 plus 4 years of Bush 41 appointing federal judges and what real changes have happened?

pro-life box on a survey of candidates will not get them my vote.

The usual covoluted logic of those who support abortion on demand canidates raises it’s ugly head again. What you are saying is that since the Republicans have not been able to end abortion its ok to vote for those who want unlimited taxpayer funded abortion on demand. Of course Republicans cant end abortion beauce may , many Catholicsn use your logic and help elect abortion on demand canidatse who block every attempt to limit abortion in any way.

 

[nannygirl]

A sad and strange trend among many “pro-life” candidates is their fervent support of capital punishment–which, no less than abortion practices, undermine the value and dignity of human life. One may argue that the two are not comparable for a plethora of reasons. Fair enough.

I wouldn’t say I “fervently support” capital punishment, but I’ve never understood how this relates to abortion at all. To me, abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, whereas, one who has been condemned to die for some horrible crime is not innocent. It’s apples and oranges as far as I can see. That said, I don’t like capital punishment, but I think in some cases it is neccesary for justice’s sake and for the safety of the community. If a person has shown by their gastly deeds (take the BTK killer in Kansas who has never shown any remorse) that they are just plain evil, then their lives should be forfeited. What if there was a tornado or some other incident in Kansas that allowed the BTK killer to become loose? Sometimes it is necessary, IMHO.

 

[estesbob]

I wouldn’t say I “fervently support” capital punishment, but I’ve never understood how this relates to abortion at all. .

I fervently oppose capital punishment. But you are corredct -it has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion and to call it a “life” issue is a stretch at best. The Church condmens abortion as an intrnsic evil that is never justified. On the othe rhand the Church allows that Captial Punishment can be apropriate in some cicrcumstances. The Church has made it clear that Catholics of good conscience can support Caprial Punishment (and the Iraw war) without being in conflict with the teachings of the Church

 

[JimG]

My prediction, and I hope I’m wrong, is that a majority of Catholics will vote for the more pro-abortion candidate in November.

 

[Wirraway]

a question for you single issue voters.

when you candidate loses, or, worse yet, you candidate wins and is unable to stop legal abortions, do you then completely withdraw from the political process and refuse the benefits of government because the civil authorities are now out of step with the CC?

actually, that’s more of a rhetorical question. for anyone not a hermit, disappointed single issue voters no doubt avail themselves of the usual public services, benefits, protections, and other rights that government provides or guarantees.

as I see it, your protest vote is meaningless except, of course, to yourselves. that’s why its hard to take any of this single issue voting seriously. in most, if not nearly all, these protest votes don’t reach dog-in-the-manger status.

 

[estesbob]

as I see it, your protest vote is meaningless except, of course, to yourselves. that’s why its hard to take any of this single issue voting seriously. in most, if not nearly all, these protest votes don’t reach dog-in-the-manger status.

How is voitng for one of the two major canidates for president a protest vote? And what issue or combination of issues do you feel is more important than the killing of 1.2 million children a year?

The reason pro-life polticians have a hard tme limiting abortion is people keep rationalizing electing abortion on demand politicans who then block every effort to stop or limit abrtion. Then those who put the abprtion on demand politicians in office declare it was OK to vote for them since the pro-life politicians didnt stop abortion. its called a self fullfilling prophecy

 

[Wirraway]

How is voitng for one of the two major canidates for president a protest vote?

No major presidential candidate will make good on a promise to end abortion, and even if such a promise were to be made, it would be made in standard waffling language that fools only the people who want to be fooled.

And what issue or combination of issues do you feel is more important than the killing of 1.2 million children a year?

When I vote for the mayor, I want the potholes fixed. When I vote for president, abortion weighs in along with a dozen other issues, but I tend to vote party line for practical purposes.

The reason pro-life polticians have a hard tme limiting abortion is people keep rationalizing electing abortion on demand politicans who then block every effort to stop or limit abrtion. Then those who out them office declare it was OK to vote for them since the pro-life \politicians didnt stop abortion. its called a self fullfilling prophecy

The real reason is that pro-life politicians and groups self destruct when it comes to winning the PR campaign that needs to be won. Pro life groups are singularly inept in this regard, showing a stunning naivety aggravated by a poor grasp of constitutional law and practical poliltics.

 

[estesbob]

No major presidential candidate will make good on a promise to end abortion, and even if such a promise were to be made, it would be made in standard waffling language that fools only the people who want to be fooled. ss

Thus its ok to vote for the abortionists?

When I vote for the mayor, I want the potholes fixed. When I vote for president, abortion weighs in along with a dozen other issues, but I tend to vote party line for practical purposes.

And to hell with the children, right?

The real reason is that pro-life politicians and groups self destruct when it comes to winning the PR campaign that needs to be won. Pro life groups are singularly inept in this regard, showing a stunning naivety aggravated by a poor grasp of constitutional law and practical poliltics.

1.2 miilion children a year are slaughter becuase pro-life supportes are inept.? it all our fault.

The mental mastrubation required to claim to oppose for abortion but consistently support abortion on demand politicians is a terrible thing to behold.

 

[Wirraway]

Thus its ok to vote for the abortionists?

And to hell with the children, right?

1.2 miilion children a year are slaughter becuase pro-life supportes are inept.? it all our fault.

The mental mastrubation required to claim to oppose for abortion but consistently support abortion on demand politicians is a terrible thing to behold.

if you want to have a discussion, we’ll have a discussion. but strawman provocations aren’t for me.

pro life supporters are politically inept and **haven’t been able to persuade voters **to end it: that’s a fact and the movement has got to deal with it. getting upset because I’m not glossing over this rather obvious point won’t help and merely illustrates the problem.

 

[estesbob]

if you want to have a discussion, we’ll have a discussion. but strawman provocations aren’t for me.

pro life supporters are politically inept and **haven’t been able to persuade voters **to end it: that’s a fact and the movement has got to deal with it. getting upset because I’m not glossing over this rather obvious point won’t help and merely illustrates the problem.

Having declared pro-life voters fools and pro-life policiticans inept you then claim you want a discussion. Go figure.

 

[JimG]

if you want to have a discussion, we’ll have a discussion. but strawman provocations aren’t for me.

pro life supporters are politically inept and **haven’t been able to persuade voters **to end it: that’s a fact and the movement has got to deal with it. getting upset because I’m not glossing over this rather obvious point won’t help and merely illustrates the problem.

Legal abortion was put in place by voters. Legislation passed by state legislatures elected by voters was overturned by courts. Voters don’t get a direct vote on abortion. But we can elect legislators and executives who will have the ability and willingness to nominate judges who aren’t already committed to the pro-abortion cause.

 

[Wirraway]

Having declared pro-life voters fools and pro-life policiticans inept you then claim you want a discussion. Go figure.

Drop it, pal. You intentionally misstated my posiiton, again. I don’t want to discuss anything with you. You’d be better off arguing with yourself. Go figure.