Voting based on one issue - Abortion

[Teflon93]

It looks as though the most likely candidates for the Grand Old Party are going to be pro choice. Apparently being pro-life is a political stigma even they don’t want. When push comes to shove neither party is that idealistic. Whatever it takes to get elected is the rule.

And if so, this will be an enormous problem. The Republican candidate may still be favored as the lesser of evils as while a candidate may be pro-abortion, the party is pro-life, and has compiled a solid legislative pro-life voting record.

If Election 2008 comes down to two pro-abortion candidates, I personally will refuse to vote for president for the first time since I reached voting age. The prospect of having NO political party staunchly pro-life is too much to bear.

 

[Sure]

You should probaly include beastiality, murder, pedophilia and any other crime while you’re at it.

So you would vote for people who are pro-pedophilia, pro-bestiality and pro-murder as long as they support welfare and won’t go to war?

Okay. Good luck with that. That’s a pretty interesting moral system you’ve constructed.

 

[estesbob]

Finally a voice of reason that doesn’t resort to amazing hyperbole to seek to demonize a member of this board…agreed.

Nobody demonized you. We merely pointed out you support those who aid and abette the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year.

 

[Publisher]

And if so, this will be an enormous problem. The Republican candidate may still be favored as the lesser of evils as while a candidate may be pro-abortion, the party is pro-life, and has compiled a solid legislative pro-life voting record.

If Election 2008 comes down to two pro-abortion candidates, I personally will refuse to vote for president for the first time since I reached voting age. The prospect of having NO political party staunchly pro-life is too much to bear.

Not voting in reality IS a vote. We should never throw away our constitutional right of a free election…just my opinion.

 

[Teflon93]

The assumption seems to be that the two Bush Candidates for the supreme court were appointed because they would be anti-abortion.I would be more inclined to believe that it was more that they would be in line with what is good for business and commerce as opposed to minorities, the working class, etc.

Their decision on abortion was a good one, but I would really hesitate to say that was a substantial part of the reason they were appointed.

It looks as though the most likely candidates for the Grand Old Party are going to be pro choice. Apparently being pro-life is a political stigma even they don’t want. When push comes to shove neither party is that idealistic. Whatever it takes to get elected is the rule.

It should also be noted that President Bush has been staunchly pro-life, supporting both the partial birth abortion ban and the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. It isn’t simply about judges, but about legislation signed and vetoed, and about executive branch activity such as giving money directly to Planned Parenthood, allowing abortion clinics on U.S. military installations, etc.

One may not be an ardent Republican, but one needs to acknowledge the basic truth that the Republican Party is the only pro-life party, and regularly puts forth candidates for office who fight the good fight on these issues.

If Christ could take up his cross and die for us, we can pull the lever on Election Day for the sake of these babies, and work constantly for the day when BOTH parties are reliably pro-life.

 

[estesbob]

And if so, this will be an enormous problem. The Republican candidate may still be favored as the lesser of evils as while a candidate may be pro-abortion, the party is pro-life, and has compiled a solid legislative pro-life voting record.

If Election 2008 comes down to two pro-abortion candidates, I personally will refuse to vote for president for the first time since I reached voting age. The prospect of having NO political party staunchly pro-life is too much to bear.

I will write in Brownback. There are no circumstances under wihich I will vote for a pro-abortion canidate for any office-from dog catcher up to the presidnet. How could anyone support a candidate who thinks killing children is OK?

 

[Sure]

I will write in Brownback. There are no circumstances under wihich I will vote for a pro-abortion canidate for any office-from dog catcher up to the presidnet. How could anyone support a candidate who thinks killing children is OK?

Vote for Fred Thompson, then. Trust me, he’s going to run. It’s a certainty. His pro-life record is impeccable.

 

[Publisher]

Nobody demonized you. We merely pointed out you support those who aid and abette the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year.

When gross hyperbole is used such as making the absurd statement, that I would vote for Kerry should his platform be to legalize rape…what would you suggest it be called?

 

[Teflon93]

I will write in Brownback. There are no circumstances under wihich I will vote for a pro-abortion canidate for any office-from dog catcher up to the presidnet. How could anyone support a candidate who thinks killing children is OK?

I absolutely agree with you, but the Church does allow voting for the candidate less pro-abortion and more likely to be restrained by party in this case, if my RCIA instructor has it right.

That seems too much of an endorsement to me, and so I am definitely in your camp on this one.

 

[Sure]

When gross hyperbole is used such as making the absurd statement, that I would vote for Kerry should his platform be to legalize rape…what would you suggest it be called?

But you would vote for him even if he favored rape, correct?

If not, please explain why abortion can be tolerated but rape cannot?

It’s not demonizing you. It’s asking you to carefully examine the implications of your decisions.

 

[estesbob]

When gross hyperbole is used such as making the absurd statement, that I would vote for Kerry should his platform be to legalize rape…what would you suggest it be called?

So you think rape is worst than killing children?

 

[Publisher]

So you would vote for people who are pro-pedophilia, pro-bestiality and pro-murder as long as they support welfare and won’t go to war?

Okay. Good luck with that. That’s a pretty interesting moral system you’ve constructed.

No my dear, that was an attempt to be as foolish as your statement concerning rape…if Kerry advocated the legalization of rape, I believe it would outweigh his social issues of fighting poverty and opposing war…as an evil to be withstood…I would then vote for a different canidate…don’t know if it would be Bush, but again, weighing the lesser of evils would be in order…I’m sure you understand that even though you try hard to appear otherwise…please speak from the Center of Truth…speaking otherwise only produces such exchanges and muddies the issues with gross exagerations…which I fell prey to…to my shame.

 

[estesbob]

Vote for Fred Thompson, then. Trust me, he’s going to run. It’s a certainty. His pro-life record is impeccable.

I deleted my post you replied to-you should delete this one also as we are on violation of forum rules concerning not discussing candidates

 

[estesbob]

No my dear, that was an attempt to be as foolish as your statement concerning rape…if Kerry advocated the legalization of rape, I believe it would outweigh his social issues of fighting poverty and opposing war…as an evil to be withstood…I would then vote for a different canidate…don’t know if it would be Bush, but again, weighing the lesser of evils would be in order…I’m sure you understand that even though you try hard to appear otherwise…please speak from the Center of Truth…speaking otherwise only produces such exchanges and muddies the issues with gross exagerations…which I fell prey to…to my shame.

So rape outweighs all the “good things” a canidate stands for but killing children does not?

 

[Sure]

No my dear, that was an attempt to be as foolish as your statement concerning rape…if Kerry advocated the legalization of rape, I believe it would outweigh his social issues of fighting poverty and opposing war…as an evil to be withstood…I would then vote for a different canidate…don’t know if it would be Bush, but again, weighing the lesser of evils would be in order…I’m sure you understand that even though you try hard to appear otherwise…please speak from the Center of Truth…speaking otherwise only produces such exchanges and muddies the issues with gross exagerations…which I fell prey to…to my shame.

So why is rape worse than murdering little babies? Why does rape “outweigh” but abortion does not?

I find them equally reprehensible and I am curious why you do not. And I speak that from the center of Truth.

 

[Publisher]

So rape outweighs all the “good things” a canidate stands for but killing children does not?

We are assuming that the canidate who “opposes” abortion truly does, IMO it is simply a smoke screen to keep the conservatives polarized…IMO he has no vested interest in truly getting any anti-abortion laws passed…with that you may disagree, but I do not vote in light of your opinions, I vote by what I believe is true and probable…the killing of children is evil…I do not embrace your opinion that abortion is murder. I accept a womans choice…no matter how deeply I disagree with that choice, but it is her choice and her’s alone…while I realize this will polarize us even further, it is what I believe, and I am not alone in that belief…even many American Catholics hold to that position, even against their own church.

The Republican party has no desire to remove abortion from public life…they would then have no polarizing platform…it is a “hot” issue that will get them votes…Roe v. Wade has not been overturned since it’s inception…and we have had many Republican years for it to happen…but it has not occured nor is it likely to happen any time soon…that is truth.

 

[BobP123]

Question 1: Is someone who votes against abortion except in the case of rape or incest really considered pro-life?

Question 2: If a third party candidate is the only one against abortion in all cases (and you can throw in against artifical contraception as well), would you still be obligated to vote for him/her?

 

[Tracyms1974]

I think one thing that everyone forgets about our military is that we are one country that still has a volunteer military. People enlist freely - for pay, granted, but still, no one is forced to join like in China and places like that. That being the case, the war in Iraq isn’t even like abortion because when people join the military they know full and well what they are getting themselves into. The child aborted in the womb knows nothing and asks for nothing. I agree that perhaps the troops need to at least decrease in number over there to provide for less of an opportunity for assault and death, but to me it’s not worth voting for a pro-abortion candidate to make that happen.

Tracy

 

[estesbob]

We are assuming that the canidate who “opposes” abortion truly does, IMO it is simply a smoke screen to keep the conservatives polarized…IMO he has no vested interest in truly getting any anti-abortion laws passed…with that you may disagree, but I do not vote in light of your opinions, I vote by what I believe is true and probable…the killing of children is evil…I do not embrace your opinion that abortion is murder. I accept a womans choice…no matter how deeply I disagree with that choice, but it is her choice and her’s alone…while I realize this will polarize us even further, it is what I believe, and I am not alone in that belief…even many American Catholics hold to that position, even against their own church.

The Republican party has no desire to remove abortion from public life…they would then have no polarizing platform…it is a “hot” issue that will get them votes…Roe v. Wade has not been overturned since it’s inception…and we have had many Republican years for it to happen…but it has not occured nor is it likely to happen any time soon…that is truth.

OK-you’re pro-abortion. That explains everything. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Publisher]

So why is rape worse than murdering little babies? Why does rape “outweigh” but abortion does not?

I find them equally reprehensible and I am curious why you do not. And I speak that from the center of Truth.

“Mudering babies” is as evil, if not more so than rape…having an abortion isn’t “murder”…that is a difference in opinion, I realize it is one you do not agree with…but that is the way it is…I do not believe that abortion is right…it must remain in the hands of the woman who msut make that decision…I do not believe it is “murder”…you do…here is our difference…you may go on a diatribe on this issue…that’s ok…vote your conscience…also spoken from the Center of Truth.