Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[bbarrick8383]

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.

Im not so selfish to vote for what I need. I’ll take care of my own one way or another. But I’m not so naive as to think there are not people who don’t need help, especially single mothers. I see the downsides of trying to use government as a tool for charity. Ive always said, and will maintain that liberals, more specifically the bleeding heart ones are the champions of unintended consequences. You want insurance forgrown children? Fine, keep it in your state, leave mine out of it.

 

[Rence]

Im not so selfish to vote for what I need. I’ll take care of my own one way or another. But I’m not so naive as to think there are not people who don’t need help, especially single mothers. I see the downsides of trying to use government as a tool for charity. Ive always said, and will maintain that liberals, more specifically the bleeding heart ones are the champions of unintended consequences. You want insurance forgrown children? Fine, keep it in your state, leave mine out of it.

What it boils down to is that there are many issues to consider and everyone will hold them of different levels of importance. I completely understand that abortion is your single most important issue, and I respect that. But I also undrestand when other issues are just as important to others.

What I find odd is that you are trying to use the government as a tool for ending abortions, which you consider to be way more important that social services. But if you don’t trust them to provide social services, I don’t see how you can trust them to end abortion, especially when there is a huge market for it.

 

[bbarrick8383]

What I find odd is that you are trying to use the government as a tool for ending abortions, which you consider to be way more important that social services. But if you don’t trust them to provide social services, I don’t see how you can trust them to end abortion, especially when there is a huge market for it.

I do not want the government to end abortions, I do not want them to do anything other than what they are allowed to do by the constitution. I want Roe V. Wade to be overturned so that my state can make it illegal. I want liberals to leave my state alone, but I reckon a tyrant can be a tyrant and not realize it, he’s just trying to help, right? Problem is, this country is full of tyrants who can not leave other people be.

 

[Rence]

I do not want the government to end abortions, I do not want them to do anything other than what they are allowed to do by the constitution. I want Roe V. Wade to be overturned so that my state can make it illegal. I want liberals to leave my state alone, but I reckon a tyrant can be a tyrant and not realize it, he’s just trying to help, right?

I understand what you’re saying.

Problem is, this country is full of tyrants who can not leave other people be.

I can totally relate to this last comment.

 

[mary_bobo]

What it boils down to is that there are many issues to consider and everyone will hold them of different levels of importance. I completely understand that abortion is your single most important issue, and I respect that. But I also undrestand when other issues are just as important to others.

What I find odd is that you are trying to use the government as a tool for ending abortions, which you consider to be way more important that social services. But if you don’t trust them to provide social services, I don’t see how you can trust them to end abortion, especially when there is a huge market for it.

There are five non-negotiables for Catholics, and one of those is abortion. The Church has pronounced it as murder. I can’t see what is more important than that. I don’t expect anyone to be a one issue voter, but I do expect Catholics to abide by the magisterium with regard to abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, homosexuality and human cloning. No less personage as Benedict XVI has written on this. So, with all due respect, can you explain how other issues are just as important than these.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

You don’t get it.

 

[smichhertz]

I’d vote for any pro-life candidate over President Barrack Obama.

I have slight leanings towards Pawlenty simply due to his executive experience, but I admit, I know little about him, and I honestly probably won’t start really paying attention to the Presidential race until after there is a clear Republican candidate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What I find odd is that you are trying to use the government as a tool for ending abortions, which you consider to be way more important that social services. But if you don’t trust them to provide social services, I don’t see how you can trust them to end abortion, especially when there is a huge market for it.

There is also a huge market for street drugs. Some libertarians would make them legal too, precisely because there is a huge market for them. But does that really mandate that the society legalize them? Say what one will, the prohibition on free sale of drugs like heroin, morphine and cocaine was passed due to the perception of societal harm caused by them. Society really can’t be accused of being amiss in attempting to combat it, however difficult combatting it might be.

Those who support abortion-supporting politicians have a lot of reasons for making light of abortion as a societal evil, and “they’ll get them anyway” is one of those arguments, notwithstanding that abortions have massively increased since abortion on demand was imposed. Maybe they wouldn’t “get them anyway”. Certainly they didn’t before. Abortion is viewed so lightly by so many (and publicized that way) that it’s regarded by many as simply another method of birth control. Unfortunately, a lot of people get their moral sense from what’s legal or illegal.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There is also a huge market for street drugs. Some libertarians would make them legal too, precisely because there is a huge market for them. But does that really mandate that the society legalize them? Say what one will, the prohibition on free sale of drugs like heroin, morphine and cocaine was passed due to the perception of societal harm caused by them. Society really can’t be accused of being amiss in attempting to combat it, however difficult combatting it might be.

Those who support abortion-supporting politicians have a lot of reasons for making light of abortion as a societal evil, and “they’ll get them anyway” is one of those arguments, notwithstanding that abortions have massively increased since abortion on demand was imposed. Maybe they wouldn’t “get them anyway”. Certainly they didn’t before. Abortion is viewed so lightly by so many (and publicized that way) that it’s regarded by many as simply another method of birth control. Unfortunately, a lot of people get their moral sense from what’s legal or illegal.

Why don’t they do it with alcohol then? Do you know how many “societal problems” are cause by the availability of alcoholic beverages? WHy is one mind altering substance more “moral” than another?

 

[Rence]

There are five non-negotiables for Catholics, and one of those is abortion. The Church has pronounced it as murder. I can’t see what is more important than that. I don’t expect anyone to be a one issue voter, but I do expect Catholics to abide by the magisterium with regard to abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, homosexuality and human cloning. No less personage as Benedict XVI has written on this. So, with all due respect, can you explain how other issues are just as important than these.

I just did. It’s okay that you disagree. But I just did. See my previous posts.

 

[Rence]

You don’t get it.

I get it. I get that some issues are more important to some than others.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I get it. I get that some issues are more important to some than others.

The right to life is more important to the Catholic Church than the right to free food from the government. If the Church is the “some others” that you are referring to, you’re correct.

 

[Rence]

There is also a huge market for street drugs. Some libertarians would make them legal too, precisely because there is a huge market for them. But does that really mandate that the society legalize them? Say what one will, the prohibition on free sale of drugs like heroin, morphine and cocaine was passed due to the perception of societal harm caused by them. Society really can’t be accused of being amiss in attempting to combat it, however difficult combatting it might be.

That might be a very important voting issue to some, but it wouldn’t be a voting issue for me…

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

:

Well, now you do. I’m sure insurance companies are fine with it because they can raise their premiums to cover the additional risk. Family coverage is always more expensive than individual coverage, and young adults are probably the least risk of all.

Individual coverage for a young adult is also very inexpensive, particularly if the young adult is free to eliminate some coverages. I have no doubt some will think it’s heartless of me to suggest that young adults are the most employable people of all in this society. It isn’t always the employment they would prefer, or that their degree (if they have one) might seem to prepare them for, but when you get right down to it, there isn’t any better argument for keeping a 25-year-old on his parents’ policy than there is for keeping a 30-year-old on it.

Are some of them still in college at age 26? There wouldn’t be very many, other than those who are in graduate school. But none of my children attended a college or graduate school that didn’t have inexpensive health insurance available. Granted, it’s PPO-type coverage, but it is coverage nonetheless.

But any time coverages are mandated, costs are increased.

 

[Rence]

The right to life is more important to the Catholic Church than the right to free food from the government. If the Church is the “some others” that you are referring to, you’re correct.

The “some others” that I am referring to, are the voters.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The “some others” that I am referring to, are the voters.

If those voters put “the right to free food from the government” in a higher moral standing than “the right to life” and claim to be Catholic, they should consider becoming Episcopalian or something.

 

[Rence]

Well, now you do. I’m sure insurance companies are fine with it because they can raise their premiums to cover the additional risk. Family coverage is always more expensive than individual coverage, and young adults are probably the least risk of all.

Individual coverage for a young adult is also very inexpensive, particularly if the young adult is free to eliminate some coverages. I have no doubt some will think it’s heartless of me to suggest that young adults are the most employable people of all in this society. It isn’t always the employment they would prefer, or that their degree (if they have one) might seem to prepare them for, but when you get right down to it, there isn’t any better argument for keeping a 25-year-old on his parents’ policy than there is for keeping a 30-year-old on it.

Are some of them still in college at age 26? There wouldn’t be very many, other than those who are in graduate school. But none of my children attended a college or graduate school that didn’t have inexpensive health insurance available. Granted, it’s PPO-type coverage, but it is coverage nonetheless.

But any time coverages are mandated, costs are increased.

Actually, no I don’t know anyone in real life who is oppsed to continued coverage for kids and young adults until 26. I know that there are a few people here on this forum who are opposed to kids and young adults being covered until 26, but I don’t know anyone in real life who is opposed to it.

I was in college well past 26…but again, I was always blessed with a job that provided insurance. Where I live, I don’t know too many young adults with insurance, except nurses.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I do not understand how so many Catholics can support a man who attacks the family and the unborn. You do not need to understand why the Church holds the position it does; it opposes it. So why do you oppose the Church?

Without human beings, there is no Church, no government, no economy, no civilization - no humanity. All the jewels in the world and all the euros or dollars on Wall Street are fruitless and useless without human beings to make use of them.

As for myself, I am undecided at the moment; I need to do some research (although that Ron Paul fellow’s looking pretty good).

But I will never vote for a pro-choice candidate. Man makes the economy; economy does not make the man.

 

[Rence]

If those voters put “the right to free food from the government” in a higher moral standing than “the right to life” and claim to be Catholic, they should consider becoming Episcopalian or something.

Well, actually, if they have been Baptized Catholic, the Church teaches they are Catholic, no matter who they vote for…who they vote for isn’t going to erase the indelible mark made by Baptism.

When I read the voting guidelines put out by the US Bishops, I didn’t see any forbidding of voting for pro-choice candidates. What I read was a list of issues to consider, and that we are not supposed to be single issue voters. And that the position of pro-choice may disqualify a vote, but not anything that required we not vote for a pro-choice candidate. We can argue back and forth about it. But there it is in black and white. I’ve talked with two different priests about it at length and I am comfortable with my decision to vote with my conscience. Everyone has to do the same.

Voters are stil going to vote for issues that are most important to them. Abortion is an important issue for sure, but it’s not going to be the deciding factor for many people. People want to make sure their livelihoods, their homes, their ability to feed themselves and their families are protected first.

 

[addictedkoala]

For a Catholic, abortion is the top of the list of priorities among the current issues in the United States. Assuming, as in virtually all elections, that there isn’t an extraordinarily poor candidate such as someone who supports bringing totalitarianism to America, then it is hard to justify voting for a pro-choice candidate. Catholics who vote pro-choice may do so, but the hierarchy they submit themselves to has grave reservations about the idea that an economic issue can outweigh fifty-million murders and counting.

Rence, I would suggest reading USCCB documents on this matter where it is clear that considering abortion as just one issue among many is wrong and you must have serious justification.