Posted on 10/27/2008 5:14:52 PM PDT by rhema
I have become something I once reviled: a single-issue voter. I used to think that a wise voter tries to discern each candidate's intentions on major issues, and then casts his vote based on an assessment of who will do the greatest overall good—or the least evil. I thought those voters who support a candidate based on a single issue—whether he will increase school funding, say, or lower taxes—were shirking their duty to consider the full ramifications of putting someone in office. What good is electing someone who is "right" on one thing, I thought, if he gets everything else disastrously wrong? This was the reasoning I used as I congratulated myself for wisely apportioning my votes based on utilitarian calculations.
Now I suspect this sort of calculation misses something. I've become convinced that a nation which sanctions the extinguishing of unborn children, and further, the outright execution of near-term infants, doesn't deserve admiration even if it gets every other policy right.
I used to include abortion as part of my voting calculus, mind you, but only a part. What if a candidate is pro-life, for example, but favors disastrous tax and trade policies that would consign people to lower living standards? Or what if he wants to use our military in pursuit of ill-defined foreign policy goals? Shouldn't these things factor into my equation?
Those other issues certainly affect a country's safety, prosperity, and greatness. But I've come to believe that a nation that tolerates destruction of innocents deserves neither safety nor prosperity nor greatness. We've descended into barbarism, and it poisons how we treat the elderly, the incapacitated, even ourselves. We shouldn't be surprised, having made life a utilitarian calculation, that more and more humans become inconvenient.
It's certainly true that there are other issues that ought to concern Christians, like the sanctity of marriage, and how we treat the mentally ill, the elderly, and children who have been born. But abortion is, in my view, the touchstone. Get this one wrong and your moral compass can guide you in nothing else.
There are complications. Does it really matter, for example, if a county supervisor is pro-life? Maybe so. Years ago the late-term abortionist George Tiller expanded his murderous facility in Wichita, Kan., with little trouble, even as local authorities harassed pro-life groups. The battle over abortion is being waged locally, and it makes all the difference in the world whether officials welcome abortionists with open arms, gutlessly tolerate them for fear of legal trouble, or actually get down to the business of scrutinizing their activities with a fine-toothed comb.
Even worse in the Wichita case, the city's mayor during this period advertised himself as pro-life. Hence an additional problem for the single-minded voter: Many candidates claim this label, yet they have no intention of taking action. The ones who will act, meanwhile, may be far less electable. Voters who don't care about abortion can tolerate a candidate who pays lip-service to the Bible-thumpers. But there's a danger they'll write him off as a nut if he devotes significant energy to the cause once in office.
There's also the challenge that a genuine and committed opponent of abortion may win office, work to end this abomination, and simultaneously arm regimes that slaughter innocents in other countries. If we oppose the murder of unborn infants not because they are cute, but because the execution of innocents is evil, then we have to apply this standard throughout our politics. I always thought the single-issue voter didn't have to think, but maybe that's not the case. There are indeed complications.
Yet there is also painful clarity that comes with single-mindedness. Jobs, highways, schools, economic growth—none of these matter if we're willing to sanction murder to get them. Perhaps my mentality is a recipe for political isolation for Christians, for the losing of elections, and maybe even a loss of national greatness. I worry that the alternative, however, is to lose something far greater, which is our ability to discern good from evil, and to act accordingly.
What if a candidate is pro-life, for example, but favors disastrous tax and trade policies that would consign people to lower living standards?
his name was Ceausescu.
No life, no rights.
It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with someone else is a single issue voter in the eyes of the other. I’ve got a whole range of issues that are important to me.
It all does seem that some issues are more important than others. If every issue is equally important, none of them are.
Obviously it depends on how important the issue is.
But in practice, it’s rare to find a politician who is pro-abortion who doesn’t have plenty of other problems as well.
Single issue voter here- I have a higher power to answer to one day. See my tagline :)
I could be called a single-issue voter.
Gun rights.
If a politician doesn’t trust me to keep and bear arms, then I don’t trust them.
I went through that same phase. As the years pass, the more I see that pro-choice leaders have other deep failings as well. The only possible exception might be Guilianni. I knew, for example, that Powell would be trouble because he’s pro-choice.
God bless Rush Limbaugh for speaking out more about the abortion issue lately.
Isn’t it interesting that most gun-grabbers are pro-choice?
The mind-set that makes abortion seem "OK" to a politician has certain characteristics or markers --
The goals are more important than individuals.
Ends justify the means.
The powerful win over the powerless. Government is to be used to make people do what we want.
That sort of mind-set and socialism/communism go hand in hand.
What Barack Obama tried to do while in the Illinois legislature was remove Constitutional Rights from newly born alive infants separated from their mother's body. By claiming his defense of induced labor/force delivery abortion was to protect Roe v Wade, he used infanticide as a defense for abortion 'rights'. The only way to do that was to use negation of Illinois legislation which was aimed at affirming the Constitutional Rights of the alive just born. Rather than allow mandated medical attention for these struggling children, Obama sought to make it so that the abortionists could not kill these struggling little ones via purposed neglect.
Once a child is born alive and completely separated from his or her mother's body, that alive infant is entitled to full Constitutional rights. Barack Obama sought to negate the Constitutional rights of those preemies so the abortions could escape legal consequences for killing those alive children via purposed neglect, such that these preemies suffocate, eventually.
So, the issue of abortion points to the heart of Barack Obama, showing he is more than willing to cancel the Constitutional rights of struggling infants in order to protect the supposed right to kill any child int he womb a pregnant females desires killed ... Obama sought to extend that killing 'right' to include Constitutionally protected alive just born children.
With Barack Obama's abortion philosophy, we also get a man who is more than willing to ignore rights of protection Constitutionally imbued. THAT is a very dangerous man indeed.
Yes, Obama is really vulnerable on abortion. He’s hurting his cause like no other pro-choicer. Here’s a related link:
Abortion Survivor Releases New Ad Re Obama, Infanticide
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116585/posts
“Above my pay grade.” What a gaffe that was.
[You probably read this ‘old saw’ of mine before, but what the hay]
And when he said, “I don’t want to punish my daughter with a baby,” he essentially admitted that if he found out his daughter wanted an abortion, he wouldn’t say one word to defend his own grandchild. That’s creepy. He fights for ACORN, but not for his grandchild.
“I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby” was kind of a gaffe, too.
I think I have seen that family together once or twice, at the Democratic Convention and in early stages of the campaign. But as many Freepers have noted, he didn’t bother to bring his kids with him to Hawaii for a last chance to meet their grandmother—if, indeed, they have ever met her.
I suspect that the Obamas’ marriage, like the clintons’ marriage, is a marriage of convenience, a political alliance, two people hooking up to gain power.
What a difference from the way the Palin family looks. And much of the difference is probably based on how they value—or despise—the lives of others.
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. Obama is very much an “ends justify the means” kind of guy, whether you are talking about his Communist ruthlessness or his personal ambition.
“I don’t want my daughter punished with a baby.”
Ice water flowing through his veins. “Daddy, I’m pregnant. And I’m going to have an abortion.”
“Let me finish my meal here, and then I’ll drive you.”
Some issues are so important they are non-negotiable. Among those life is the first.
I always start w life because if a candidate can't respect the basic Right to life of preborn children, I’d be a fool to think he would respect any of our Rights.
If a candidate gets life wrong they have disqualified themselves from my consideration and the rest of their positions are worthless to me.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.