- Status
J
JKing
Guest
And so… what?
You keep telling me how futile it is. What is a voter to do? Opt out? Move overseas? Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die? Vote on some other issue that will not be addressed by those elected?
What are you trying to tell me besides “It’s no use!”
F
fix
Guest
How does that prove politicians have no impact on the country’s laws?
F
fix
Guest
From what I discern he seems to claim “conservative” pols play no role in abortion laws, but other pols will lower gas prices. I fail to grasp any of it.
J
johnlal
Guest
Our political system is not likely to resolve the abortion issue. If you are looking to maximize the impact of your time and your dollars, I would put it towards public relations, catholic education, those types of things that will change the hearts and minds of the people in this country.
In the meantime, if you ignore such issues as war, the economy, civil liberties, poverty and hunger, things that CAN be effectively addressed by our political process, then you are shirking the responsibilities that you have under a democratic system.
Have the serenity to accept the things you cannot change, the courage to change the things you can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
F
fix
Guest
Not if people hold as you do that change is unlikely.
Sure, those are great things. Why leave out changing the law? If we were talking of slavery or rape would you think the same?
So, the pro abortion party will fix those items. Vote for them?
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81
J
JKing
Guest
Number 1: What about the war on babies? What about the impact on our economy of 50 million missing americans under 35 years of age? What about the civil liberties of the unborn? What about the millions who wish they had a chance to be poor or hungry, instead they are dead! It remains to be seen that war, economy, civil liberties, poverty and hunger CAN be addressed by either party.
Number 2: I don’t waste money or time on the political system. I vote once a year. Read my previous post (I’m too lazy to look it up) to see what I do spend my time talent and treasure on. I’m talking about my vote, not my resources.
Number 3: Anyone who ignores the abortion genocide doesn’t deserve my vote.
J
johnlal
Guest
OK.
I’d ask who you were going to vote for this time around, but it’s against the rules. Good luck with whatever choice you make.
E
estesbob
Guest
I suggest you start here:
righttoliferoch.org/nbushlist.htm
In addtion Bush:
stopped funing for new fetal stem cell lines
Vetoed a bill allowing Cloning
Signed the Partial Birth Abortion act which was upheld by the USSC becuase of his appointees
Signed the Born alive act(this act forbids the starving to death of children born alive during a abortion procedure.)
Tried to gain passage for but was blocked by the Democrats:
Parental Notification
Informed Consent
Waitng periods
He also signed bills increasng funding for every single social program that crossed his desk.
He has appointed numerous pro=life judges to district courts and two pro-life judges to the USSC
one as chief justice
The Demcrats controlled the presidency for 8 years under bill Clinotn yet we did not see them :
End War or
Poverty or
Oil Dependency or
provide health insurance for 42 milliom Americans without it
or reduce the natioal debt.
I guess we will have to admit that there were three less people waterboarded under Clinton but then perhaps had we done so the twin towers would still be standing
B
buckr02
Guest
Nice! I always love your posts, bob.
J
johnlal
Guest
I have a few more questions, out of curiosity.
Now that we have established that you will vote for one party over another because of how their platform deals with abortion, how do you vote in the primary election.
After all, every candidate in your party is going to tell you he’s pro-life. What do you do?
Again, you don’t have to say. I’m just curious. I sincerely don’t know anybody who is a single issue voter.
Now that we have established that you will vote for one party over another because of how their platform deals with abortion, how do you vote in the primary election.
After all, every candidate in your party is going to tell you he’s pro-life. What do you do?
- Check his credentials to see if he’s more pro-life than any of the other candidates, OR
- Choose the candidate who is more likely to beat the other party, regardless of his record on abortion; OR
- Assume that if he’s from a particular party, pro-life can be taken as a given, and weigh the candidates on other issues.
Again, you don’t have to say. I’m just curious. I sincerely don’t know anybody who is a single issue voter.
J
JKing
Guest
If you’d read my previous posts you’d already know the answer to this. I vote life at every level. I never vote along party lines. I’m not registered with either party. I don’t send any money to any candidates. If there was a democrat who was demonstrably pro-life running against a pro-abort republican, I’d vote dem.
I’ve been voting since 1980 and there is rarely more than one pro-life candidate in any race. IF there is, I look further down, but usually there is enough difference in their stance on life (exceptions for induced abortions, euthanasia, selective abortions, fetal stem cell research, etc.) to make the choice easy. I have never voted for a candidate that agrees with me (Catholic teaching) 100%. (Senator Rick Santorum was a good one, but I’m not in his state.) I always have to compromise, but I never have to look beyond the life issue.
So, you say you’ve never met a one-issue voter. Nice to meet you, I’m Jeff.
Sometimes, I wish I could vote for other candidates. Sometimes I am tempted to explore how a candidate rates on other issues, but I never get the chance, because they are not equal on their life stance. I have enough sin to take to confession without adding to it by voting for abortion.
Strictly hypothetically, of course, if, for instance my choice was between Obama and Clinton, I would feel free to explore their other stances because they are equally dispicable on life. I would not fail to vote and I would not vote for a third party that had no chance to win. I would try to find some differences and vote on that. Thank God I don’t have to make THAT choice. Like I said, no candidate I’ve ever voted for, at any level, has been perfect.
Jeff
E
estesbob
Guest
Being pro-life doesnt get my vote-it is merely the base requirement for me to consider voting for a canidate
J
johnlal
Guest
Jeff:
Thanks for responding. Very interesting posts.
Thanks for responding. Very interesting posts.
I think nearly all of these single issue pro-life voters think the same way.
Just ask what happens if all candidates are pro-life…or pro-abortion. The rest of the issues will show.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It is my impression that this is the situation with most serious prolife voters. Once you get past that, prolifers are pretty diverse.
It seems ironic to me that there are plenty of “single issue voters” on the other side of the question. But nobody ever talks about that.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I appreciate your clarity and sincerity. However, the problem I have is that I do not see any significant difference between the candidates you mentioned and the major party alternative. All three candidates have publicly supported upholding Roe, all three support legalized abortions as a ‘right’ now.
There is some difference in degree, but I am always skeptical of 11th hour conversions (it seems to me if someone changes a long held public position just in time for an election, it is reasonable to doubt their sincerity on the matter). Also, it also troubles me that the same candidate that flip flopped on Roe, also flip flopped on torture, away from Church teachings.
I do typically choose to vote 3rd party. And no, I haven’t seen a lot of winning (though some local success). But I can’t help but wonder if the ‘no chance’ prediction is somewhat self fulfilling. If one starts with the premise that voting 100% pro-life is a ‘wasted vote’, then such candidates remain marginalized and there is little pressure on the major parties to treat the matter sincerely. It bothers me that in the last six presidential elections, only one GOP candidate has actually embraced the GOP platform on abortion. And George H.W. Bush, like his son, had previously supported upholding Roe.
Bob Dole seemed to have legitimate pro-life credentials, then actively sought to soften the GOP platform to be, in his words, “more inclussive” on the issue. 24 years like that and it seems reasonable to me to get the feeling that the pro-life vote is taken for granted.
Peace
J
JKing
Guest
I understand this point and I struggle with it. But (at least this time around) I think there is too much at stake not to vote for the candidate who at least professes to intend to appoint judges who will not deem it their duty to legislate from the bench. (sorry for the run-on sentence). When it comes right down to it all we ever have to go on are the promises made by the candidate. His/Her record is only their past. If one of them declares allegience with ideals that you share, that at least is more than the candidate(s) from the other side are willing to do.
In the end, I think that our politics only reflect the will of the people. I think that the primary skill of too many of our elected officials is being able to spot the direction the parade is going in and quickly jumping in front of it so as to appear to be leading it. I don’t think that there is any political will in this country to lead, only to follow-from-the-front. So it’s up to us at the grassroots to change America’s mind and then watch all the politicians scramble to get the credit.
Right now, main stream media and secular academia are controlling public opinion and until that changes we will keep on getting what we’ve always gotten.
I sure am cynical in my old age, ain’t I?
Jeff
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Perhaps the problem is that I am even more skeptical. It was, after all, a GOP appointee dominated court that gave us Roe and a extremely GOP dominated court (8 of 9) that upheld it.
We have five GOP appointed Catholics on the bench now, and all five not only applied Roe and Casey as precedent in Carhart, only Scalia and Thomas even did so ‘with comment’.
The GOP seemed to be able to put single party rule (including a GOP dominated court) to good use for part of its causus. The congress was still passing tax breaks and special interest handouts at the 11th hour before losing control of congress. At what point do values voters start demanding tangible results for their support?
It isn’t that I have no sympathy for your postion. It just seems that we have been answering the ‘too important’ call since Reagan. I’m paying $4.26 for gas in my car, $4.41 for my wife’s and there are two, literally, abandoned homes with jumbo mortgages within blocks of our home. Throw in a sluggish economy, serious inflation, and a couple of expensive, quagmire type wars, and it seems that it will take a miracle for anything but but Sandra Day O’Connor type moderate appointments to reach the court regardless of who is in the White House next.
I cannot help but wonder if a particular party “brand” would be as toxic today if voters had held it accountable to honest conservative principles earlier. After all, George W. Bush’s conservative bona fides, particularly with regards to pro-life were no more impressive than what we are looking at today.
Peace
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It was only a matter of time before you showed up to encourage prolifers to waste their votes or to vote for abortion supporters. Those who intend to vote for the Democrat abortion candidates will NOT throw away their votes on some third party candidate.
Of the five justices who voted in favor of a ban on partial birth abortion, four are prolife. Roberts and Alito did not comment on anything. Kennedy, who is not a true prolifer and never was, wrote the opinion, not Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas. Of course Roe and Casey were cited as precedent, because they ARE precedent. “Precedent” simply means the seminal cases of the law as it is right now. Citing precedent does not mean endorsement. You know that, but you keep implying it in your posts.
**Please quote Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas where they say they SUPPORT abortion on demand. You won’t, because you can’t. You know you can’t, and you know they are not abortion supporters at all, but prolife Catholic justices. But you get on every abortion thread (you seem to have no other interests on CAF) and suggest that by innuendo, even though know it’s false. 100% OF THE DEMOCRAT APPOINTEES TO THE SUPREME COURT VOTED TO KEEP PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION LEGAL. CLINTON APPOINTEE GINSBERG CALLED THE BAN “ALARMING”. **
Oh, departing from the topic a bit, I did read where the Democrat National Committee has organized a “Catholic outreach” organization to persuade Catholics to vote Democrat this fall. Being pro-abortionists, they don’t talk a lot about the fact that all Democrat candidates and virtually all Democrat officeholders support abortion on demand, but they do talk a lot about “other life issues”. I guess the strategy is to confuse Catholics. I wonder if any of them will get on CAF to do that. I guess we’ll see.
- Status