The Non-Negotiables

[dairygirl4u2c]

this is a topic that comes up often. the gist of why a catholic could vote for someone pro-choice is because he thinks there's 'proportionate reasons' to do so. even the pope said this... that you must vote for the intrinsic nonnegotiables unless there's a proportionate reason not to. this i'd argue gives enough flexibility to someone who thinks abortion isn't going to change any time soon, or whatever.... that these as political issues subject to change are moot points.
i'd suppose this is the only reason i could think of to justify not voting on the nonnegotiables. though i give a throw out to this sort of thing, 'look, feeding the poor or whatever is more important than gay marriage' were gay marriage to not be a moot point per subject to change, yet making sure people don't die doesn't happen to be on the typical list of nonnegotiables. it's not like the list has ever been said to be officially exhaustive, right?

this nonnegotiable stuff is often just an excuse for conservatives to not have to consider the social justice ramifications, that they may needto alter their vote to the non-conservative etc. she mentionedh er friend was rationalizing, as i'm sure she was in her own mind.... but she and her kind are for sure not the only ones.

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1328725935' post='2383755']
this is a topic that comes up often. the gist of why a catholic could vote for someone pro-choice is because he thinks there's 'proportionate reasons' to do so. even the pope said this... that you must vote for the intrinsic nonnegotiables unless there's a proportionate reason not to. this i'd argue gives enough flexibility to someone who thinks abortion isn't going to change any time soon, or whatever.... that these as political issues subject to change are moot points.
i'd suppose this is the only reason i could think of to justify not voting on the nonnegotiables. though i give a throw out to this sort of thing, 'look, feeding the poor or whatever is more important than gay marriage' were gay marriage to not be a moot point per subject to change, [b]yet making sure people don't die doesn't happen to be on the typical list of nonnegotiables[/b]. it's not like the list has ever been said to be officially exhaustive, right?

this nonnegotiable stuff is often just an excuse for conservatives to not have to consider the social justice ramifications, that they may needto alter their vote to the non-conservative etc. she mentionedh er friend was rationalizing, as i'm sure she was in her own mind.... but she and her kind are for sure not the only ones.
[/quote]


Preventing abortion is literally [b]making sure people don't die[/b]

Edited February 8, 2012 by brianthephysicist

[dairygirl4u2c]

nice way of completely ignoring the point of that post. that in some situations the likelihood of abortion changing is effectively zero. thus making other issues more important. primary point.

secondary point, nice way to ignore the point of what you bolded, and ignore the fact that sometimes saving people's lives is something that can be changed, not via abortion, and only vis a vis issues not invovling people dying, gay marriage, as i used in the example you ignored.

it's rare for those here to do so, but it looks like one of the main posters here has at least recognized the fact:

"Is it truly better to have a candidate in office that is pro-life only in name, but doesn't do anything to end abortion in our country than it is to have someone who is similarly lukewarm but pro-choice, but does much to promote the social welfare of the poor? I'm not talking about any particular candidates at all, just in hypotheticals. All I'm trying to say is that while it's perfectly moral and good for the abortion cause to be primary, we have to also consider the reality of a candidate's record, and how much good he or she will ACTUALLY DO to promote life issues."

Edited February 8, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c