Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[pnewton]

“Courts must have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases and other instances of heinous crime”

gop.com/2008Platform/Crime.htm#4

“Death penalty is an effective deterrent
Within proper federal jurisdiction, the Republican Congress has enacted legislation for an effective deterrent death penalty”

ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Crime.htm

CCC 2267 “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Here the Church teaching is a death penalty only in rare cases when it is the only way to defend lives against the aggressor.

Yet Republicans have previously spoken in their platforms about a death penalty being needed for a deterrent and as an option in capital murder and other crimes.

Hardly does that sound in only very rare if not practically non- existent cases.

Peace

I think the point is made, sort of. In this case the Republican position is not completely consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church. However, neither is it contradictory. Catholic moral teaching can still exist within the framework of this party plank. Thus, it is nothing like the Democratic pro-abortion plank.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How about FEAR? Fear of economic insecurity - of providing for oneself, one’s children (born or unborn), one’s parents, encompassing education, health care, living income and job security, retirement, public safety services. Fear of social stigma - despite cultural advances in the acceptance of public pregnancy, it still invites looks, questions, and complications to be a pregnant student or business professional, and if you are in a position dependent on your looks, size, or athleticism (model, actress, cheerleader, airline stewardess, even many wait staff and retail sales), forget about keeping your job.

I think many pro-life conservatives want to eliminate abortion through legislation and and restricted access - basically, trying to reduce supply. Many pro-life progressives believe in eliminating abortion through eliminating its causes (fear and perceived necessity) - basically, trying to reduce demand. We need to work on both simultaneously.

If we reduce abortion supply without reducing demand, the cost of that choice goes up. I’m not just talking about the price of procuring an abortion (which would increase, either because the abortionist can charge more for rarity or because the procurer must travel farther or jump through more hoops to do so). Costs to the individual go up in terms of personal safety (think back-alley), and costs to society increase as we have more children growing up in families and communities insufficient for their needs. Then those emerging adults are less able to contribute to a growing economy and more likely to perpetuate a cycle of under-educated, under-employed, dependent parenthood.

If, however, we improve the economic security of individuals, families, and communities in sustainable ways (education, preventative health care, public safety, living-wage job creation, environmental protection, greener energy and community infrastructure, etc), we create a society that is less toxic to parenthood. Couple that with increased societal messages that a fetus really is a complete human life that deserves protection, and abortion demand will dwindle. If a pregnant woman is looked upon not as a whore to be shamed but a heroine to be championed, she will have little reason to kill her child.

Fear? The government is supposed to free us from all of life’s fears? Does anyone really think government can deliver that?

We are born to die, and every last one of us will. Some will die peacefully, and some will die horribly, and there is no way out of that fear. We rightly fear crossing a busy street when we see someone speeding toward us. Will he stop?

Do we not fear for our children; that they will be accosted by some malefactor; that they will develop complexes, diseases, addictions or simply fail to succeed in life? The wholesale throwing of money at “education” tells us one of the metrics of our fears.

And does anyone really think middle class welfare will end fear? Ever talk to a bureaucrat about his career; how it might get sidetracked, how he might not ever achieve the GS level to which he aspires, how he has some higherup who simply doesn’t think he cuts it, and makes that clear?

And do you not think the most protected union man in the country doesn’t fear his company’s potential move to China? Do you really think this government has the ability, or even the willingness, to make that fear go away?

When we go to the doctor and our blood count is “off” what it ought to be, what do we fear? Do we fear the insurance company or the myriad of conditions, some deadly, that might turn up in the next round of tests? Do we not fear the mysterious, deep pain that awakes us at 3:00 a.m.?

Human life is fraught with fear, and it’s fear that motivates most of us to do those things that are useful, sometimes even heroic.

Those who greatly fear being left behind because of their looks, their marital status or whatever, might greatly reduce the basis for fear by being useful. The more useful one is to others, the less one has a basis for the more ordinary kinds of fear. And, of course, one who trusts in God’s Providence, fears least of all.

And, one might hazard to say that we will never build a society in which there is nothing to fear. We left that aspiration behind long ago and, after all, God placed an angel with a sword of flame at the gates of Eden lest we think somehow that, by our efforts we’ll manage to return.

 

[jfmarm81]

I actually ignored the question because I do not vote for pro-abortion Democrats. Therefore I do not understand the logic of the question.

Also, can you tell me when America operated with more than two significant parties? i.e. an election when the 3rd party actually had a chance to win? Examples please.

There was a time a 3rd party candidate had a chance to win…1912. Not to be a pain, as it is not exactly a recent election, but the question was asked and I am a history nerd…

 

[Rence]

I’m proud that the administration took on health care reform, and all though Republicans turned out to be quite a huge hurdle, we were able to get something passed.

Can’t be denied base on pre-existing conditions now. Also, allowing children to remain covered by their parents’ insurance until the age of 26

I’m happy about the unemployment benefits being extended. Although they did not cause this economic recession, the middle and lower classes are the ones being punished for it.

I’m happy that Obama has fought the Tea Party in their unholy war on the poor and needy.

Signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids – 4 million of whom were previously uninsured

Signed New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)

I’m hopeful about the DREAM Act Legislation.

Met with the Pope!

Well, I’m glad you tried, you have to know that no matter how many things you point out that you like that Obama did, someone is going to whine about it. The guy can’t even chew gum in public without being criticized for it. What good will his silly little contrabutions (that mean so much to some, and so little to others) do for a tough crowd?

 

[estesbob]

I don’t see how anyone can argue with you on this, but I’m sure you will stir the pot and the party line will be reiterated over and over. good luck, and God bless.

It easy to refute because it presents the false premise that their is a correlation between the number of abortions and the amount of money spent on welfare programs. There is mo such correlation-in fact when comparing the rate of abortions between countries the primary determining factor is the amount of restrictions placed on it. The more restrictions, the fewer abortions regardless of the level of social spending.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Well, I’m glad you tried, you have to know that no matter how many things you point out that you like that Obama did, someone is going to whine about it. The guy can’t even chew gum in public without being criticized for it. What good will his silly little contrabutions (that mean so much to some, and so little to others) do for a tough crowd?

The fact that 26 states are challenging the constitutionality of the so called “Health Insurance Reform” law means that it isn’t some “silly little contribution”.

 

[irishpatrick]

I do not vote for pro-choice politicians as a general rule because of this teaching from the bishops, and I agree that those who do vote for them when other options are available have to examine their justification extraordinarily seriously because, as you indicate, the issues they have with the pro-life candidate must outweigh tens of millions of murdered children. However at the same time it would be incorrect to state that objectively speaking it is always non-negotiable to vote for someone pro-choice, as rare as possible justification exists. This is what the Bishops of our country have said.

The BIshops have not said that the five non-negotiables are wrong…they did not even comment on those five. The point is, in real life, those five non-negotiables are effectively accurate–there are very rare exceptions, yet for the genuine vast majority of cases they hold true and accurate.

Since we agree that there is indeed only extreme (and very, very rare) situations in which voting for a pro-choice candidate is acceptable due to proportionate reasons, that into itself means that for all practical purposes one cannot vote for pro-choice candidates because the very rare conditions do not exist.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The BIshops have not said that the five non-negotiables are wrong…they did not even comment on those five. The point is, in real life, those five non-negotiables are effectively accurate–there are very rare exceptions, yet for the genuine vast majority of cases they hold true and accurate.

Since we agree that there is indeed only extreme (and very, very rare) situations in which voting for a pro-choice candidate is acceptable due to proportionate reasons, that into itself means that for all practical purposes one cannot vote for pro-choice candidates because the very rare conditions do not exist.

I guess making sure that food stamps is a guaranteed right is more important than the right to be born.

 

[Rence]

How about FEAR? Fear of economic insecurity - of providing for oneself, one’s children (born or unborn), one’s parents, encompassing education, health care, living income and job security, retirement, public safety services.

All more important to 45% of respondents of this poll

Fear of social stigma - despite cultural advances in the acceptance of public pregnancy, it still invites looks, questions, and complications to be a pregnant student or business professional, and if you are in a position dependent on your looks, size, or athleticism (model, actress, cheerleader, airline stewardess, even many wait staff and retail sales), forget about keeping your job.

Exactly when did it become ‘noble’ to be pregnant out of wedlock? When did that change? I don’t think it did. They’re still looked down upon and astracized. But ‘pro-lifers’ tell us girls who have their illegitimate babies are heros. What happened to those girls who were sent into ‘hiding’ and secretly gave up their kids for adoption and returned home from ‘vacation’ as if nothing was any different? I don’t think much has changed…they’re still looked down upon.

If we reduce abortion supply without reducing demand, the cost of that choice goes up. I’m not just talking about the price of procuring an abortion (which would increase, either because the abortionist can charge more for rarity or because the procurer must travel farther or jump through more hoops to do so). Costs to the individual go up in terms of personal safety (think back-alley), and costs to society increase as we have more children growing up in families and communities insufficient for their needs. Then those emerging adults are less able to contribute to a growing economy and more likely to perpetuate a cycle of under-educated, under-employed, dependent parenthood.

I hear a lot of ‘pro-life’ people claiming that making abortion illegal will somehow force people to stop having sex unless they are ready to have children. The horse is already out of the barn folks…people have been having their cake and eating it too. They’re not going to give that up so easily just because strict religious folks want them to, and we can’t force them to do so. The rate of abortion is high because people want abortion. It’s not going to go away. Badgering people to vote for your favorite candidate is not going to work in real life because the common people have real problems that they are trying to work on by their vote. Abortion is a real problem, but it is affected by supply and demand. We are not forced to have them. People are not being lined up and marched into abortion clinics. They’re going to them because they want them. But people are being relieved by certain laws and they are burdened by others. This is real to them. What the kid next door does, does not directly affect them.

If, however, we improve the economic security of individuals, families, and communities in sustainable ways (education, preventative health care, public safety, living-wage job creation, environmental protection, greener energy and community infrastructure, etc), we create a society that is less toxic to parenthood. Couple that with increased societal messages that a fetus really is a complete human life that deserves protection, and abortion demand will dwindle. If a pregnant woman is looked upon not as a whore to be shamed but a heroine to be championed, she will have little reason to kill her child.

Abortion won’t go away until women either don’t want to have them, or think they have to have them. As long as they do, they will have them, one way or another. I’m not going to vote for a candidate just because the only thing they have going for them is the fact that they’re ‘pro-life’. They better do better than that. You want the 45% of the respondents to this poll to change their vote? Then find someone better to run who will both take care of the common person and the problems that directly affect them, as well as working towards eliminating abortion.

 

[Rence]

This is not, however, what the Church teaches us. We should absolutely do what you suggested, but at the same time the Bishops have made it clear that we must also oppose legalized abortion.

Absolutely, they say we must ALSO, not only. There’s a difference…

 

[Rence]

I can’t answer for that poster, but it seems that in Europe and elsewhere, “youth” are considered to be anybody age 25 or younger. One can buy “youth” tickets for transit and museums at cheaper rates if under 26.

I don’t think that 26 is necessarily an arbitrary number either. It is increasingly common that youth must stay in college longer (or return for more education) to earn a degree and may have greater difficulty finding long-term full-time employment which should offer health benefits. It is also becoming well-known that children do not achieve full rational maturity until about age 25 when the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for abstract decisioning and higher-moral-level reasoning, finishes development. (Statistically this makes sense when you note that auto insurance rates for 25-year-olds drop; they can perceive and judge situations on the road and respond in ways that are safer driving behaviors.)

So yes, I think that if children are entitled to health care through the full range of their development, it is not unreasonable to insure them through age 26.

When I was a teenager, I had a full time job that offered great insurance. The problem is, not many places offer any insurance anymore. OR, they make sure that the employee doesn’t get enough hours to be eligible for insurance. I know people that were one hour a pay period short of the requirement to get insurance, and that’s just sad IMOHO…

Given the fact that things have changed so much, and people need insurance, I agree with this law, and find it can be very beneficial. I don’t think it’s a deterrent for teenagers and young adults finding jobs. They have jobs…they just don’t have insurance…

 

[Rence]

You are preaching to a choir, Kimmie. Those who would vote Republican shall do so regardless of Democratic arguments, and vice-versa. I expect no one to have a sudden epiphany and change sides.

That’s the way it’s always been. Even when abortion wasn’t an issue, you just didn’t talk politics I remember the adults fighting over candidates when I was a kid, and abortion wasn’t a topic. Nothing one side said good about one candidate was good enough for the other side and vice versa. Thank God we all own our own vote

 

[Rence]

To Kimmielittle Your quote:

Outside of special circumstances - can you tell me why adults should be under mommies insurance?
This IS NOT a special circumstance law - it IS a broad brush bill. Why do you think ALL Non Dependant children deserve / are entitled to this?Because, if you hadn’t noticed, kids are graduating from college with huge student loans and no jobs. I’m glad that my kid is at least covered with my insurance if he/she gets in a car accident. it’s a normal parental concern. Most people I know are thrilled with this reform.

I don’t know anyone in real life who is opposed to kids being covered by their parents’ insurance until 26 except for insurance companies and those who work for them. Like you, most people I know in real life are thrilled about it. It’s a wonderful thing for many people.

Remember, nobody is going to care about your problems but you, and those who share them. Those who do not need their kids covered, and kids who don’t need it, will be opposed to it. Those who need their kids covered, and kids who need it, will be in favor of it. No one’s cause is more important that you’re own. And no one cares about the kids next door because they’ve already been born

 

[irishpatrick]

I guess making sure that food stamps is a guaranteed right is more important than the right to be born.

Seems that way, at least in the general population.

It seems the “Thou shall not kill/murder…” thing does not mean much either…

 

[Rence]

I guess making sure that food stamps is a guaranteed right is more important than the right to be born.

It matters to those who are hungry or who are worred about feeding their children. I’m not even sure why that’s surprising to some. Obviously, if you’re not hungry or worried about feeding your children, or know someone in danger of being hungry, it would not be that important to you. That’s normal. We worry most about what affects us directly most.

 

[bbarrick8383]

It matters to those who are hungry or who are worred about feeding their children. I’m not even sure why that’s surprising to some. Obviously, if you’re not hungry or worried about feeding your children, or know someone in danger of being hungry, it would not be that important to you. That’s normal. We worry most about what affects us directly most.

Most people I know on food stamps are in no danger of starving.

 

[Rence]

Most people I know on food stamps are in no danger of starving.

I know people on food stamps who are in no danger of starving too. And I also know people who would not be able to feed their families without foodstamps. And I also know people who are in danger of not being able to feed their families and who are applying for food stamps currently.

What you see and experience where you are will reflect in your vote. It can’t be otherwise.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Most people I know on food stamps are in no danger of starving.

Is that the criterion for where the bar is to be set - just above starving???

 

[Rence]

Is that the criterion for where the bar is to be set - just above starving???

Let me tell you something Rich, my ex-sister-in-law lost her job to a layoff. She has three children that she is raising on her own. She has been looking, and has been unable to find a job. The extension of her unemployment benefits is the only way that she was able to pay her bills and feed herself and her kids. NO ONE CARES about other people’s problems and it can’t be anymore obvious than when people state that it is selfish to vote in favor of such benefits over the abortion issue. These are people who are already born, and struggling. The extension of unemployment benefits is insignificant to those unaffected by it. And even more, it’s hated to those who have to pay it.

Health insurance for kids until their 26? Who cares? Not those who don’t need it. What about those who need it? Who cares. They’re on their own, or at least some think they should be.

Ex-sister-in-law has been going to food banks lately. The cost of food is rising, and she doesn’t have enough money to support herself and the kids. She is in the process of applying for food stamps. I hope she gets them. I don’t know what she will do if she doesn’t. I guess she could keep going to the food bank and hope they can always provide for her. Because she still hasn’t been able to find a job.

Sorry, but abortion is not my single most important ever in the world issue. Women will continue to have abortions if they want them, whether they’re legal or not, whether legislation screws up every other secular insitution or not, whether they’re expensive or cheap, whether they have to drive to another state or not, whether a doctor or a meat packer performs it, and whether I agree with it or not. But my family and friends need help now. If there is a politician out there running who can help my family and friends now, or they have already done so, and I think they will continue to do so, then that candidate has my vote.

There is no perfect candidate. There is only a lesser screw-up.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Is that the criterion for where the bar is to be set - just above starving???

I said no danger of starving. One of them has 5 daughters and sells food she gets from welfare for drug money.