"One Issue Voter"

[Newbie2]

Except that the Catholic Church teaches that intent is a key ingredient of culpability.

Yep.

Like it or not, some people who voted Democrat in the last presidential election didn’t have the intent to further abortion or to have their candidate further abortion. How they couldn’t realize that such just wasn’t going to happen, I can’t imagine.

But, we cannot always assume that people think about abortion or are informed about how we should consider abortion positions of the respective candidates. Some are, as we might say, “uninformed”, “ignorant”, or perhaps a less charitable term when it comes to applying their Catholic values to voting.

To assume that all who voted for Obama clearly believed he would further support abortions is to get inside their heads and know their intent. Only God knows that. Maybe they believed Obama’s BS about wanting to reduce the number of abortions as a change of heart. Only they and the Almighty know.

 

[Newbie2]

Stop trying to justify a vote for that butcher. If you hit somebody, and they die, even if you did not intend to kill them, you still hold a degree of culpability.

Apples and oranges, methinks.

What I think you’re missing is that some people may have been convinced that Obama’s BS about wanting to reduce the number of abortions signaled a change in his thinking about abortions in general.

It’s plausable argument.

Think about some of the voters that have been interviewed on Television. Last year a woman in Detroit was asked where the money for the “stimulus” was coming from. She said it was from Obama. Obamamoney. It went WAY over her head that the money comes from John Q. Public in the form of taxation, not from Obama or the Federal Government.

I don’t know if she was Catholic or not, but can you imagine that maybe, just maybe someone with such limited intellect might be taken in by Obama’s pre-election pandering to the luke-warm pro-lifers?

 

[StTommyMore]

Apples and oranges, methinks.

Not at all. There is no justification for voting for Obama. None whatsoever.

 

[Newbie2]

See edited post…we crossed over.

 

[Newbie2]

It does not matter why someone voted for Obama, but a vote for him was a vote for abortion, whether that was the intent or not

Without intent, there can be no grave sin. Look it up.

 

[StTommyMore]

See edited post…we crossed over.

I think it was Tommy Lee Jones in Volcano that said “A person can be smart. People are stupid and prone to panic.”

 

[Newbie2]

I think it was Tommy Lee Jones in Volcano that said “A person can be smart. People are stupid and prone to panic.”

That’s along the lines of what I’m saying. There are some incredibly un-intelligent and/or uninformed people who’s vote counts the same as yours or mine. And some of them are Catholic.

I have a relative, a very devout Catholic who contributes regularly to anti-abortion causes who voted for Obama because “Democrats are for the working man”.

That was it. The thinking ended there. No consideration of any other issue besides that one (which is suspect anyway, to my way of thinking).

It’s not defending a vote for Obama, just one possible explanation of why or how someone could be duped into voting that way.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I have seen those as well. Apparently the following issues pale in comparison:

• the economy
• jobs
• health care
• education
• foreign policy
• war

Well…as a matter of fact…yes, they do.

It’s hard to explain, (least wise by me), but many of us have a strong belief that if a politician were really really on board with the sanctity of human life, then they’re going to naturally do the right things in these other areas. They will also help and hire those for their administration who are of like mind, just as any prez does. I don’t see a well rounded, prolife candidate coming out of the Democrats or the Republicans, myself, because they’re just too influenced by mammon and corruption which is long long standing, and hard to break out of. We’re going to have to learn to start looking elsewhere. Our major parties have become pretty darn corrupt. We still try, though. Who knows? We shouldn’t be so afraid to vote Constitution Party, or Libertarian, or whatever, though. That may really be our future. Provided that the candidates are sincere in their prolife stance. Guided by that, you can’t really go wrong. It means the candidate has real integrity, and love for people and human life. Everthing aside from that IS secondary.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I agree that it should probably start with abortion, but it doesn’t end there. After considering abortion, there are all those other issues to consider and weigh in as well.

If a candidate is pro-life, but I see red flags in his/her intentions with the elderly, the terminally ill, the disabled, education, healthcare, gun control, taxes, etc., then that “pro-life” plus wouldn’t be a determining factor. I’d not vote for this person, despite being pro-life. I look at the whole picture when I vote.

If you see “red flags” on the elderly, terminally ill, disabled, and health care, then chances are the person isn’t really pro-life to begin with, so they shouldn’t be running as pro-life… They just throw out the abortion issue to play a shell game. Pro-life is pro-life, and includes a large spectrum of which abortion is but a part. A BIG part mind you. But a part, none the less.

 

[Rence]

Nice try. dis you see that phrase “properly formed conscience”? Someone with a prperly formed conscience would not throw their support behind a proponent of an intrinsic moral evil. Sorry, you lose.

Sorry, I lose? What, are you 12?

My vote is my own, and I will not be dictated to by anyone. The directives are clear enough by the Bishops, despite some people reading between the lines. There is NO WHERE in any Vatican document or document from the Bishops that say we absolutely can’t vote for a pro-choice candidate, nowhere. It has not been produced on this forum because it doens’t exist. If it was forbidden, they would distinctly say so, just like any other “rule” of the Church is distinctly spelled out. Of course the Bishops don’t want someone to vote for a pro-choice candidate and they have made that clear, however, those who vote for pro-choice candidates do not separate themselves from the Church. Period.

A properly formed conscience does not translate to “whatever StTommyMore wants it to be”. It’s what each individual, as described in the document from the Bishops, discerns with the information available to that voter. Some issues will be more important to some than others, especially if the results directly affect that voter. That’s the reality of it. That’s what’s true. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. Otherwise Obama wouldn’t have won. Voters, Catholic or otherwise, are going to vote the way they feel is best at the time of their vote. And it shows. And it’s not likely to change. This is our country, not the Vatican. We live here, not at that Vatican. The political leaders voted into office govern us legally, not the Vatican. If we are dedicated to following the Vatican, we can do so without concern for the laws here, because the laws here are meant to govern everyone, not just Catholics. And the laws here do not prevent us from practicing our Faith. People will not vote for a candidate that they believe will make things worse for the American public, whether or not that candidate is pro-life or pro-choice. That is why all issues together are considered and not just one.

 

[Rence]

If you see “red flags” on the elderly, terminally ill, disabled, and health care, then chances are the person isn’t really pro-life to begin with, so they shouldn’t be running as pro-life… They just throw out the abortion issue to play a shell game. Pro-life is pro-life, and includes a large spectrum of which abortion is but a part. A BIG part mind you. But a part, none the less.

I believe the abortion issue for ANY candidate is a shell game to begin with.

 

[estesbob]

I believe the abortion issue for ANY candidate is a shell game to begin with.

Which, of course, is one of the standard rationalizations for those who defy the church when they vote.

 

[StTommyMore]

Sorry, I lose? What, are you 12?

My vote is my own, and I will not be dictated to by anyone. The directives are clear enough by the Bishops, despite some people reading between the lines. There is NO WHERE in any Vatican document or document from the Bishops that say we absolutely can’t vote for a pro-choice candidate, nowhere. It has not been produced on this forum because it doens’t exist. If it was forbidden, they would distinctly say so, just like any other “rule” of the Church is distinctly spelled out. Of course the Bishops don’t want someone to vote for a pro-choice candidate and they have made that clear, however, those who vote for pro-choice candidates do not separate themselves from the Church. Period.

A properly formed conscience does not translate to “whatever StTommyMore wants it to be”. It’s what each individual, as described in the document from the Bishops, discerns with the information available to that voter. Some issues will be more important to some than others, especially if the results directly affect that voter. That’s the reality of it. That’s what’s true. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. Otherwise Obama wouldn’t have won. Voters, Catholic or otherwise, are going to vote the way they feel is best at the time of their vote. And it shows. And it’s not likely to change. This is our country, not the Vatican. We live here, not at that Vatican. The political leaders voted into office govern us legally, not the Vatican. If we are dedicated to following the Vatican, we can do so without concern for the laws here, because the laws here are meant to govern everyone, not just Catholics. And the laws here do not prevent us from practicing our Faith. People will not vote for a candidate that they believe will make things worse for the American public, whether or not that candidate is pro-life or pro-choice. That is why all issues together are considered and not just one.

Actually, it says in the document you selectively quoted that abortion eclipses all other issues.

 

[Newbie2]

A little different tack for this discussion, prompted by Rence’s statement:

“Some issues will be more important to some than others, especially if the results directly affect that voter. That’s the reality of it. That’s what’s true. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. Otherwise Obama wouldn’t have won.”

I agree that if all Catholic voters voted as per Abortion being the overriding factor that there’s no way Obama would have won the election.

The question that I’ll throw out is that why do you all suppose that so many Catholics ignored the “prime directive”, so to speak. Are so many “Pro-choice”? So many not “well formed”? So many duped by Obama? Tired of a Republican in the oval office? Something else?

 

[estesbob]

A little different tack for this discussion, prompted by Rence’s statement:

“Some issues will be more important to some than others, especially if the results directly affect that voter. That’s the reality of it. That’s what’s true. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. Otherwise Obama wouldn’t have won.”

I agree that if all Catholic voters voted as per Abortion being the overriding factor that there’s no way Obama would have won the election.

The question that I’ll throw out is that why do you all suppose that so many Catholics ignored the “prime directive”, so to speak. Are so many “Pro-choice”? So many not “well formed”? So many duped by Obama? Tired of a Republican in the oval office? Something else?

They either don’t know or don’t care what the Church teaches. Their politics is more important to them than their faith

 

[Newbie2]

They either don’t know or don’t care what the Church teaches. Their politics is more important to them than their faith

Do you think there are more that don’t know or more that don’t care?

 

[estesbob]

Do you think there are more that don’t know or more that don’t care?

I believe it is the latter

 

[Christopher68]

Well…as a matter of fact…yes, they do.

It’s hard to explain, (least wise by me), but many of us have a strong belief that if a politician were really really on board with the sanctity of human life, then they’re going to naturally do the right things in these other areas. They will also help and hire those for their administration who are of like mind, just as any prez does. I don’t see a well rounded, prolife candidate coming out of the Democrats or the Republicans, myself, because they’re just too influenced by mammon and corruption which is long long standing, and hard to break out of. We’re going to have to learn to start looking elsewhere. Our major parties have become pretty darn corrupt. We still try, though. Who knows? We shouldn’t be so afraid to vote Constitution Party, or Libertarian, or whatever, though. That may really be our future. Provided that the candidates are sincere in their prolife stance. Guided by that, you can’t really go wrong. It means the candidate has real integrity, and love for people and human life. Everthing aside from that IS secondary.

Regarding your comment about politicians who are pro-life naturally doing the right things in other areas, the only politician who remotely fits that criteria is Ron Paul. In general I don’t trust politicians any further than I can throw them.

You mention the Libertarian Party. I am a registered Independent, but I usually vote for the Libertarian candidates. This is partly because the concepts of individual liberty and personal responsibility are part of my core. The other reason is that time after time government has been an abject failure at whatever it tries to accomplish. They turn small problems into big problems. Oftentimes their government ‘solution’ ends up costing exponentially more than anticipated, makes the existing problem worse, and creates new and unintended problems as well. Those who rabidly want government to step in to combat abortion should probably think more deeply about the reality of government. A government-led war on abortion would have the same success as the governments war on drugs, which has been an abject failure. However, I am fully aware that the emotional nature of the issue often blinds people to the unfortunate reality of government.

 

[StTommyMore]

Regarding your comment about politicians who are pro-life naturally doing the right things in other areas, the only politician who remotely fits that criteria is Ron Paul. In general I don’t trust politicians any further than I can throw them.

You mention the Libertarian Party. I am a registered Independent, but I usually vote for the Libertarian candidates. This is partly because the concepts of individual liberty and personal responsibility are part of my core. The other reason is that time after time government has been an abject failure at whatever it tries to accomplish. They turn small problems into big problems. Oftentimes their government ‘solution’ ends up costing exponentially more than anticipated, makes the existing problem worse, and creates new and unintended problems as well. Those who rabidly want government to step in to combat abortion should probably think more deeply about the reality of government. A government-led war on abortion would have the same success as the governments war on drugs, which has been an abject failure. However, I am fully aware that the emotional nature of the issue often blinds people to the unfortunate reality of government.

As a pro-lifer, all I want the federal government to do is get out of the issue. The federal gov’t was never involved until Roe v. Wade. So I simply want the gov’t to fix the mess. In other words, reverse Roe v. Wade, and turn the decision back to the individual states, where we can work on the states one at a time.

 

[SalesianSDB]

As a pro-lifer, all I want the federal government to do is get out of the issue. The federal gov’t was never involved until Roe v. Wade. So I simply want the gov’t to fix the mess. In other words, reverse Roe v. Wade, and turn the decision back to the individual states, where we can work on the states one at a time.

That’s exactly what Ron Paul has said in his book, The Revolution: A Manefesto. In fact, he authored a bill called “We The People Act” which would overturn Roe v. Wade by saying that the federal government and the courts overreached in their decision, and give it back to the states to decide.

I am very close to the Libertarian Party and consider myself a libertarian Republican. Before I sent out my voter’s registration a few weeks ago, I was struggling for some time on whether or not to register as a Republican or Libertarian. In the end, I chose to become a Republican because I’d like to be able to vote in the primaries (my state is a closed primary state). And I find that there are an increasing amount of libertarian Republicans (Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul, Barry Goldwater Sr/Jr).