One-issue voters

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t see a significant difference in the essay you posted and the one I did; both talk about using a process to decide how to vote using Church teachings and how you perceive the candidate will either move the Country further or closer to those teachings.
 
I see a vast difference; one cites actual Church documents to back its premises. In the other, it states, for one thing, that the government doesn’t fund abortion; that’s patently untrue. Fungible government monies go directly to U.S.’s largest abortion provider. Whatever else the author of that blog may be, he seems to be more pro-Democratic than anything else. He gives more reasons to vote Democratic (or pro abortion) than reasons to vote Republican (or pro life).
 
The article was about why a Catholic could, in good conscience, vote for a Democrat; it would make no sense to talk about voting Republican. If de facto Republican voting wasn’t such a thing there wouldn’t even be a need for the article.

The citations provided in your essay don’t contradict what this priest says; if anything I think they could be added to his article and achieve the same result: think through Catholic teaching, rank each candidate on how you feel each will likely move the needle closer or further from those goals, vote accordingly.

I don’t care to discuss the semantics of government money going to Planned Parenthood vs government funding abortions.
 
Personally speaking, I’m not a Republican or a Democrat; they both suck, frankly.
The original post was someone saying they were willing to vote in a candidate who was pro abortion because they were also for gun control. I’m convinced that would be sinful. One doesn’t even come close to the other, morally speaking; and especially with Church teaching in mind.
 
I think it is all far more complex than either a single, double or triple issue criterion. Some issues may be more likely to be affected by the election even though they may be less important. Some strategies might also be more effective even though they seem indirect.
 
Sugabee43 said:
The original post was someone saying they were willing to vote in a candidate who was pro abortion because they were also for gun control. I’m convinced that would be sinful. One doesn’t even come close to the other, morally speaking; and especially with Church teaching in mind.
Click to expand...
Tell that to someone who has lost a loved one to gun violence. I don’t think any of us really need to be telling others how they should decide who to vote for, actually.
 
It depends how likely one believes in the ability to create action towards either of those goals.

Personally, I think we are so far away from having the legality of abortion changed and often have serious doubts regarding the sincerity of pro-life candidates that I have no qualms voting for whatever candidate I feel has a better chance of advancing other social justice issues. Basically, I don’t think the pro-lifer is going to actually do anything for abortion and, typically, may actually cause harm by their other positions.

Basically, what you said, all the choices suck.
 
I firmly believe that without the right to life, all other points are moot. We as voters, and pro-life politicians, should strive to always vote to lessen the evil that is legalized abortion. Will any one candidate have all of the qualities/stances that would make up the ideal Catholic candidate? No. However, Pope St. John Paul II, in ‘Evangelium Vitae’, is clear: "In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.
So I stand by my reply to the OP: voting for a candidate who supports and promulgates abortion because they support gun control is not licit. Far, far more children are killed daily by abortion than guns.
 
As the OP, I make the following statement: I won’t be voting for candidates who take money from the NRA.

My U.S. Rep is a guy I’ve always liked. He’s a moderate Republican, he’s strong on innovations in public education, strong on business, practical on immigration (from a business perspective). I always agreed with him. But his campaign was funded by NRA money, and he gave an ambivalent answer when he was questioned about it. Unfortunately, I’m nearly certain he’s lost my vote. He’s lost my wife’s vote, for sure.
 
Sugabee43 said:
So I stand by my reply to the OP: voting for a candidate who supports and promulgates abortion because they support gun control is not licit. Far, far more children are killed daily by abortion than guns.
Click to expand...
We can do something about the guns now. Until we reframe the right-to-life argument as including all life, even if it means giving up our “God given” second amendment rights (“God given” according to Wayne LaPierre), we will never, ever win the abortion debate. This is a reality of politics. The numbers simply aren’t there. If they were, it would’ve been over with years ago.
 
It doesn’t really matter what Wayne LaPierre says. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms; to defend one’s self and property from tyranny. This would require a repeal; something which I believe will not happen.
Abortion, unlike the right to bear arms for self defense, has the exclusive purpose of ending human life. You can own a firearm without ever shooting anyone; you cannot procure an abortion without ending at least one human life.
 
I agree. But realistically, we’ll get a lot more good done in the fight to restrict gun rights than we will in ending abortion.
 
That’s where our opinions are divergent. Ending abortion, and the reasons why women and men think killing their children is normal in our society, is more important to me. With upwards of a million babies being murdered every year, that is more urgent a cause.
 
The culture of death is insidious. I think it starts with indifference to the suffering of animals (especially for our own food supply). But that is only the beginning. Television violence, movies, video games. Gun violence seem to be the answer to our conflicts. Our instant gratification culture has contributed to making us self indulgent and self centered. So naturally when it comes to sex it is recreational and without consequence or commitment. If a pregnancy results and it is not desired nor longed for nor cherished, in this culture abortion it is a legal option, a “choice”. So much needs to change.
 
Last edited:
I don’t care what the socio-economic or emotional situation is of the expecting mother; we ought to be able to provide the support so that all may celebrate the new life.

But then that takes us to the question of how best to provide “support”. Now we get into opposition of food stamps and WIC as “welfare state” over extending itself. But the need is clearly more than churches and non profits can handle.
 
Last edited:
I believe welfare, food stamps, and the like are good temporary modes to help those in need, but they are not (and were never intended to be) long term, like they are being used now. I don’t believe most conservatives, despite media’s histrionics, think the benefits ought to be eliminated completely and abruptly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top