"One Issue Voter"

[sedonaman]

When it’s a clear choice between someone who is likely to influence abortion law or policy and we have the choice between a pro-lifer and a pro-abort, sure, it’s the most important issue.

But that all falls apart when you have two choices to vote for, and their both “pro-choice”.

There appear to be three situations:

1. One candidate is clearly pro-life, and the other is “pro-choice” to some degree;
2. One candidate would limit abortion more than the other;
3. Both are “pro-choice” [meaning both are for abortion on demand].

In cases 1 and 2, you would have to support the one that places more limits on abortion.

In case 3, you can use lower priority considerations.

 

[sedonaman]

…
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?

Perhaps some resent what they consider the Church’s telling them how to vote. I never understood this because the Church tells us how to conduct our lives in a manner consistent with other moral considerations. I have also noticed a significant overlap [like 99.44%] between these Catholics and those who use the Church’s teaching on social justice [whatever that is] to justify their support for socialist causes that take away more of our rights, IOW, that tell us more of what we can and cannot do.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps some resent what they consider the Church’s telling them how to vote. I never understood this because the Church tells us how to conduct our lives in a manner consistent with other moral considerations. I have also noticed a significant overlap [like 99.44%] between these Catholics and those who use the Church’s teaching on social justice [whatever that is] to justify their support for socialist causes that take away more of our rights, IOW, that tell us more of what we can and cannot do.

Unfortunately the far left has hijacked the church’s social justice teachings and have so twisted them that they’re hardly recognizable as anything that came out of the Catholic Church. When a Catholic starts telling me about their commitment to social justice I can guarantee you that nine times out of 10 they vote for pro-abortion candidates

 

[sedonaman]

One thing that is apparent is that when a Catholic proclaims they are not a single issue voter they are really saying is " I vote Democrat"

LOL!

 

[sedonaman]

The “one-issue voter” charge is a red herring. Where is it written that I cannot be a one-issue voter if I choose? After all, those making the charge are supposed to be "pro-choice", aren’t they?

 

[Newbie2]

The “one-issue voter” charge is a red herring. Where is it written that I cannot be a one-issue voter if I choose? After all, those making the charge are supposed to be “pro-choice”, aren’t they?

It’s similar to the charge by the “tolerance” crowe that one’s views are intolerant, no?

We have to tolerate all sorts of behavior, but our opposition to such behavior is not tolerated. Every woman should have such choices, but you are not permitted to choose to be a one-issue voter. Que sera, sera.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

-Rush

 

[Christopher68]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

-Rush

Ah, yes - Rush - the wonderful musical power trio from Canada. A quote above from one of their timeless classics!

 

[JKing]

Were does it say in the official Catholic literature that voters must have a monomaniacal view on abortion in politics? Surely, abortion is an important issue and no Catholic can be for abortion, but where is the evidence that it is an issue that trumps all others?

The sane person values all human life regardless of age. If you are unmoved by hearing that 3000 surgical abortions are performed in the US every day, substitute 4-year-old preschoolers for the preborn victims. How long would anyone stand for 3000 4-year-olds being dismembered and thrown in the garbage every day? How long would you stand for your tax dollars being used to perpetrate such an atrocity on our children? 3000 people are slaughtered at the whim of the person closest to them every day. I cannot consider any other issue as long as this continues. I would dearly love to consider other issues. I hate what’s happening to this country, but until I have a choice between two 100% pro-life candidates, I can’t.

 

[JKing]

To me, it did not look specific. Sorry. No where did it say, “you can’t vote this way” or “you have to vote that way”.

Proportionate reasons allowing a Catholic to vote for Obama depends on the voter*** and what is important to them.

I’m sure every Catholic is not going to ask the Magesterium for whom they should vote. I know I don’t.

***Moral Relativism: There is no objective right or wrong. The truth is in the eye of the beholder. To quote a famous politician from the 1st century: "Truth? What is truth?"

 

[JKing]

Of course abortion is a serious issue, but no where does it say that all the other items on the list are not to be considered after abortion has been considered. The statement from the Bishops gave a list of issues important to consider in that article, and it didn’t by any means stop with abortion. The Bishops want us to look at all of the issues and vote accordingly.

For example, if the only pro-life candidate is promising to wage war on N. Korea during his/her term, I certainly would vote to make sure he/she didn’t win the election. For example, If the only pro-life candidate is promising to outlaw firearms, I’d certainly vote to make sure he didn’t win that election. For example, if the only pro-life candidate is promising to double the taxes on farms, I’d most certainly make sure I vote against him/her. Just because the there is a “pro-life” candidate doesn’t mean that candidate is going to save the world. In fact, he might make it much worse. Vote the way your conscience dictates, and so will I.

War in N. Korea? Bound to happen some day anyway. It would be good to get this thorn out of the world’s side. But more importantly save 4 million + US children during a 4-year term (assuming abortions stop when he is elected). I’d vote pro-life.

Outlaw firearms? That would not be good but at least 4 million + kids are saved. We can work on the firearms thing. Right now we need to stop killing babies! I’d vote pro-life.

Double taxes on farms? Get serious! No contest. We’d all end up paying a bit more for food and food byproducts. Maybe revenues to the gov’t would increase. Maybe we’d pay down some of this debt. Easy. Vote to save 4 million + kids over a few bucks in my wallet? Any day.

Pro-life candidate isn’t going to save the world? Reminds me of the story of the kid throwing starfish back into the ocean. “You can’t save 'em all kid.” He chucks another starfish: “Yeah but I made a difference for that one.”

You evidence a malformed conscience.

 

[JKing]

I’m sorry you’re upset about this estesbob, but the documents provided are pretty easy to read and basically all say the same thing. If we were forbidden to vote for a pro-choice candidate that we felt is the best candidate for the job, the Vatican, who is not timid about saying “no”, would say so with no uncertain terms. It has not been shy about doing so about other issues, and it wouldn’t be shy for this issue. The fact is, we are not forbidden to vote for our pick, despite the fact that he/she may be pro-choice.

The reason you only see guidelines and not specific directives about voting is they are addressing all catholics in all precincts around the world. (The USCCB is addressing all Catholics across the US) Every race is different. If the Church came out and said “Under no circumstances may you vote for a pro-abort” then there would be a race with an anti-abortion candidate who was in favor of extermination of all people who live at odd-numbered addresses. So the choice in this absurd example would be between a million lives per year or half of the whole population and using our well-formed conscience we would have to vote for the pro-abort/pro-life-to-odd-numbered-address-dwellers candidate.

They expect Catholics to use their well-formed conscience. Taking the guidelines laid down in scripture, tradition and the magisterium, it is very clear that in the normal circumstance we find ourselves these days, having a pro-abort and a pro-life candidate to choose from, we cannot vote for the pro-abort. Period. All other issues pale (to invisibility) in comparison.

 

[JKing]

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.

Your hypothetical is flawed. Pro-life means from conception to natural death. So the pro-life candidate protects the unborn, the elderly, the terminally ill, and the disabled. As for the others–education, healthcare, gun control, taxes–they don’t measure up to the issue of life.

 

[Newbie2]

***Moral Relativism: There is no objective right or wrong. The truth is in the eye of the beholder. To quote a famous politician from the 1st century: "Truth? What is truth?"

No, weighing a politician’s position isn’t exactly moral relativism, if that is what you’re saying.

For example, Obama said that he’d like to see a reduction in the number of abortions. For some voters, that could in their minds signal the beginnings of “change” in his mind and heart and give hope that he is starting to see the light.

Such is not Moral Relativism. Believing the unbelievable, perhaps. Being duped, perhaps.

But not Moral Relativism.

That is not to say that such moral relativism does not exist for voters, and that is precisely the problem with how many Catholic ***do ***rationalize their voting preferences.

 

[JKing]

So a politician can oppose the issues mentioned above, and yet be responsible for disastrous foreign policy and economic policy and throw the country into a near depression - and that’s preferable because he’s in-line with the ‘most important’ issues??

EXACTLY! That’s preferable because he is not responsible for deliberate killing of innocent people.

That is ‘ivory tower’ thinking that doesn’t reflect real world situations. Someone who’s lost his job and his health insurance is going to less concerned with embryonic stem cell research than he is in actually finding a job and being able to support himself and his family.

How is voting for someone who favors creating kids so that they can be experimented on going to get the unemployed man a job or health insurance? And even if somehow a person had assurance that the baby killer could get him a job, how can he have peace if that’s the trade he’s willing to make? And if he’s willing to make that trade, he ain’t Catholic.

Unemployment sucks. Poverty sucks. Hunger sucks. But not as bad as having your arms and legs ripped off. Not as bad as having your skin burned off or your brain sucked out of a hole in the back of your neck!

You obviously do not consider a preborn baby as a human. If black-suited g-men fanned out every day to preschools across the country and selected 3000 rugrats to be dragged to the town square and dismembered, would you be worrying about health insurance? There is no difference. 4 years old. 4 months old. 4 months gestation. 4 minutes post conception. NO DIFFERENCE!

 

[JKing]

No, weighing a politician’s position isn’t exactly moral relativism, if that is what you’re saying.

For example, Obama said that he’d like to see a reduction in the number of abortions. For some voters, that could in their minds signal the beginnings of “change” in his mind and heart and give hope that he is starting to see the light.

Such is not Moral Relativism. Believing the unbelievable, perhaps. Being duped, perhaps.

But not Moral Relativism.

That is not to say that such moral relativism does not exist for voters, and that is precisely the problem with how many Catholic ***do ***rationalize their voting preferences.

That’s not what I’m saying. The asterisks refer back to the phrase “depends on the voter”. That’s moral relativism.

You remind me of the answers the two candidates gave to the question “When does life begin?” Dear Leader Chairman Mahatmabama said it was above his paygrade. The RINO said life begins at conception–period.

That settled it for me and I am decidedly uneducated.

 

[estesbob]

No, weighing a politician’s position isn’t exactly moral relativism, if that is what you’re saying.

For example, Obama said that he’d like to see a reduction in the number of abortions. For some voters, that could in their minds signal the beginnings of “change” in his mind and heart and give hope that he is starting to see the light.

Such is not Moral Relativism. Believing the unbelievable, perhaps. Being duped, perhaps.

But not Moral Relativism.

That is not to say that such moral relativism does not exist for voters, and that is precisely the problem with how many Catholic ***do ***rationalize their voting preferences.

Of course Catholics, at least those who bothered to find out what the Church teaches, would know that vague promises to lower the number of abortion could not offsset ones support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

Catholics who assert the Church is wrong are a lot more honest than those who defy her teachings and try to convince everyone that they are indeed in comlpiance with Her teachings. Both , of course, are sinning greviously but at least the former are not trying to convince people that the Church in any way supports their vote.

 

[sedonaman]

The reason you only see guidelines and not specific directives about voting is they are addressing all catholics in all precincts around the world. (The USCCB is addressing all Catholics across the US) …

The reason you see only guidelines is because, as a tax-exempt organization, the Church is prohibited from engaging in three types of activities: Candidate endorsements (or denouncements), candidate ratings, and contributions of cash, goods, or services to a campaign." See a complete explanation here priestsforlife.org/elections/symposiumwatkins.htm .

…
They expect Catholics to use their well-formed conscience.

That’s right. And they have even explained what a “well-formed conscience” is. Voting for the one with the most eloquent oratory is not using a well-formed conscience, for eloquent oratory may be used for good or evil.

Taking the guidelines laid down in scripture, tradition and the Magisterium, it is very clear that in the normal circumstance we find ourselves these days, having a pro-abort and a pro-life candidate to choose from, we cannot vote for the pro-abort. Period. …

In that case, you are correct; but most of the time it seems we are presented with two [or more] candidates who are pro-abort to varying degrees, and no pro-life ones. If that is the case, we are to select the one who will do the least damage to innocent life.

The Virtue of Prudence

The Church also encourages Catholics to develop the virtue of prudence, which enables us “to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1806). Prudence shapes and informs our ability to deliberate over available alternatives, to determine what is most fitting to a specific context, and to act. Prudence must be accompanied by courage which calls us to act. As Catholics seek to advance the common good, we must carefully discern which public policies are morally sound.
…
Doing Good and Avoiding Evil

There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. These intrinsically evil acts must always be rejected and never supported. A preeminent example is the intentional taking of human life through abortion. It is always morally wrong to destroy innocent human beings. A legal system that allows the right to life to be violated on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

Similarly, direct threats to the dignity of human life such as euthanasia, human cloning, and destructive research on human embryos are also intrinsically evil and must be opposed.
…
As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

“The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”
Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2007
usccb.org/bishops/FCBullInsert.pdf

Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. … But being “right” in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the “rightness” of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.

“Statement On Life” – United States Catholic Conference of Bishops on November 19, 1998
kofc.org/un/eb/en/about/activities/culture/encyclicals/lifestatement.html

I might add to the last sentence that any claims to the “rightness” of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community renders suspect anyone who makes such claims.

In view of these two documents, I don’t see how any Catholic could vote for the most perfect pro-abort candidate in American history.

 

[CPA2]

The United States Supreme Court took the first step down a dark and slippery slope by legalizing abortion in 1973. A child is legally entitled to life only if his or her mother wants that child. Abortion is murder, pure and simple. Abortion is not a religious issue. It is an issue of a human right – the right to life.

“Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead **there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection **(Pope John Paul II).”

There are moral obligations in voting. A voter who votes for a candidate who supports abortion has intentionally and deliberately helped someone who promotes a violent and destructive activity. That vote is similar in seriousness to participating in a pro-abortion rally, or writing an editorial that supports abortion.

 

[sedonaman]

… A child is legally entitled to life only if his or her mother wants that child. …

That’s right. "Want" is the key word.

Consider the following scenario: A woman learns she is pregnant and decides to give birth → the baby in her womb is a person with all the rights of people already born. Then despair takes over, and she decides to abort —> the baby is not a person and therefore has no rights. Things start to look bright and promising, so she decides once again to give birth —> the baby in her womb is a person with all the rights of people already born. What about the baby has changed in all this? Nothing … NO THING!

Children are the de facto property of their mothers. We can see this in family law as well.

 

[John_Pascendi]

Do any of these issues matter if one is denied the right to life?

Yes,amen to that.this is an old gambit by the radical left…dur,wha about…yeh sure…back in 1860 the main issue was slavery…the ‘riight’ of ownership of one human being over another! This is what abortion is all about.the person who started this worn out neutralizer and supporters ,I guess would not have voted for Abe Lincoln after all! And yes,the three reasons for the American revolution,as so stated in the Declaraction of Independence…was the (inborn) right to life (!) liberty and the pursuit of happiness…period. We have the greatest nation in the world thats why billions want to come here…the French revolution failed and ended up with the guillotine…because of the last word of its trilogy of purpose…Equality,Liberty and Fraternity yes get that last word…that means…PC…those who disagreed with certain polices ended up losing their heads.In this country now,with blatant marxists in control…we are called buzz words like Rascists,right-wing kooks,teabaggers,lunatic right,wackos…etc…whats next…do I hear metal being sharpened…oh oh…gotta go…will put my UN flag up outside again…