Catholic author argues a vote for Warren will save unborn lives. Thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WillPhillips
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
robertmidwest said:
That only partially answers the question. Who are is the “we” you are referring to? It appears you making assumptions and painting with a very broad brush.
Click to expand...
I don’t think its a broad brush at all, as we includes everyone (except you, I have given you an exclusion at your seeming request, as to avoid offending you), including myself. To say we have not committed this admittedly minor act at one time or another–especially on this site–would be a stretch.
 
DIERM said:
The unfortunate reality is the dilemma will never be resolved, because we have chosen to make the sanctity of life a political issue rather than a moral issue.
Click to expand...
Bingo. The biggest tactical mistake the Pro-Life movement made was to identify itself far too closely with the Republican Party. And especially with Donald Trump.

The second biggest tactical mistake was to pursue goals that have nothing to do with abortion, like opposition to LGBT rights, among others.
 
GordonP said:
The second biggest tactical mistake was to pursue goals that have nothing to do with abortion, like opposition to LGBT rights, among others.
Click to expand...
Since the other major party is explicitly pro abortion I don’t blame them for being Republican. On saying that the policies should not be immune to criticism.
 
Elf01 said:
Since the other major party is explicitly pro abortion I don’t blame them for being Republican.
Click to expand...
I think that the Prolife movement alienated the Democratic Party rather than the other way around. And not only the Democratic Party and its supporters, but everyone else outside the right wing of the Republican Party. They’ve limited themselves to preaching to the choir, and destroyed any chances of picking up support from outside. Young people are turned off by the partisan and anti-LGBT rhetoric, regardless of whether they agree on abortion.
 
GordonP said:
Young people are turned off by the partisan and anti-LGBT rhetoric, regardless of whether they agree on abortion.
Click to expand...
I think you have a point there all right.

I see that as a Catholic rather than a Republican stand.

I don’t know much about the history. Certainly as the dems are now I could not support them.
 
I wish there was a truly pro life party in all ways. It doesn’t exist.

The democrats most certainly did abandon the prolife movement when they made abortion rights the defining issue in the platform. Thank goodness that there are some prolife democrats, especially in Louisiana, who are attempting to take the Democratic Party back.

I don’t tend to vote for either party personally. I have seen positives and negatives in Bush 2, Obama and Trump. I did vote for Bush, didn’t vote for either of the other two. I find it very concerning that so many people will flip flop on previously accepted ideas when those ideas are adopted by the other party instead of staying true to their own morals. That is the harm of identifying solely to one party. In my region, that seems to be a stronger tendency among the ones that identify as Democrat, but republicans aren’t completely immune.
 
WillPhillips said:
lives would be saved under a Warren Administration.“
Click to expand...
Again… assuming her economic policies work, and the economy stays healthy, and assuming her pro abortion policies don’t make it easier for women on the fence to get abortions, and…

For me, there are too many variables that have to work for his scenario to work out. I’m not a Trump fan. I didn’t vote for him. I likely won’t. But this argument doesn’t move me at all and relies on so many variables to work out that it’s basically specious.

It would be a risk if candidate Warren said 'I want all these social programs and economic policies specifically because I want to limit abortion. More of a ‘safe, legal, and rare’ approach. But she isn’t that person at all. She is staunchly pro abortion and very much wants to hamstring any limitations. Her stance is clear.

Again, just for me, I can’t vote for someone who says 'these humans aren’t humans and we can do what we want with them.
 
“This continued a virtually unbroken string of exclusively pro-abortion speakers at the DNC following the 1992 decision to prevent pro-life Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey from speaking at the DNC. Kristen Day, the Executive Director of Democrats for Life, has observed that the Democratic Party’s platform now fails to even recognize the existence of pro-life Democratic views. “Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the abortion lobby have a choke-hold on the Democratic Party according to Day”

 
JimG said:
“Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the abortion lobby have a choke-hold on the Democratic Party according to Day”
Click to expand...
Long before then, the Republican party had a choke-hold on the pro-life movement. You’re mixing up cause and effect.
 
DIERM said:
we includes everyone
Click to expand...
everyone is about the broadest brush you could use.

It can’t be political and moral issue?

Your post appears to be belittling to the pro-life movement. Frequently we se posted here about how conservatives are only “pro-birth” and don’t really care about human lives past policing pregnancies. We see posted on CAF frequently that without the abortion issue the Republicans would fold.

Yes it is offensive for someone to say pro-life conservatives are only using unplanned pregnancies for a political power grab.
 
Last edited:
robertmidwest said:
Yes it is offensive for someone to say pro-life conservatives are only using unplanned pregnancies for a political power grab.
Click to expand...
Me thinks thou doth protest to much.

To use a similar concern you raised, who is “someone”?

I don’t recall hearing “someone” say pro-life conservatives are only using unplanned pregnancies for a “political power grab”.

Your brush seems a bit wide itself!
 
DIERM said:
who is “someone”
Click to expand...
See post #34.
robertmidwest said:
Your post appears to be belittling to the pro-life movement. Frequently we se posted here about how conservatives are only “pro-birth” and don’t really care about human lives past policing pregnancies. We see posted on CAF frequently that without the abortion issue the Republicans would fold.

Yes it is offensive for someone to say pro-life conservatives are only using unplanned pregnancies for a political power grab.
Click to expand...
Here is one example:

All that the abortion issue has done has allowed Republicans to guarantee a certain percentage of voters remain loyal to it, regardless of its real policies or its intent to actually get rid of Roe v Wade. It’s the perfect wedge issue; lawmakers never have to do more than token stumping, and just automatically get the vote.

I will find a few more for you.
 
Last edited:
Jimbo said:
I’m unclear; are you saying that outlawing abortion would only marginally reduce abortion?
Click to expand...
No one knows definitely. But I can say this, if it is illegal, there is no chance to regulate it. If you can’t regulate it, you can’t control the point at it which it can’t happen. You can’t mandate how “humane” the abortion is, meaning methods and sanitary conditions. You will attract sub par medical personnel working in shady conditions. I hate to see a baby aborted, but at least we can advocate for the most competent and painless method if legal.

We have to combat why abortions happen, not wish them away with some law. I strongly believe this is the best effective moral response. No, it is not the “purest” response, but history tells us problems like this are social in nature and do not enjoy near universal support for being outlawed. This is the root of the problem.
 
GordonP said:
Long before then, the Republican party had a choke-hold on the pro-life movement. You’re mixing up cause and effect.
Click to expand...
No. The only reason the Republican party gained nearly all the pro-life voters is because the Democratic Party effectively kicked out pro-life people. They banned pro-life speakers from the DNC convention, wouldn’t allow pro-life candidates into their primaries, and wrote pro-abortion into their platform. I had always been a Democrat, but it took me a long time to figure out that my party had abandoned pro-life principles and was working exclusively for pro abortion candidates. As the article mentioned, JFK could not be a Democratic nominee today because he was not pro-abortion.
 
 
Last edited:
DIERM said:
Good luck with that, because you have not provided any text to match your claim.
Click to expand...
i abandoned the republican party long ago for a variety of reasons the hypocritical lip-service they give to the pro-life agenda being the biggest reason…

The GOP is the pro-death party: no respect for life once the baby’s born.

Republicans love abortion. They will never allow it to be banned, because it’s incredibly valuable as an unsolved problem. This is the topic they use to get the “moral right” to continue to support their criminally corrupt practices.

One could argue that the stigmatization of poor single mothers as welfare queens promotes abortion. That is a Republican sin that does in fact punish women for having children.

I propose that the reason abortion hasn’t been definitively dealt with over the past 40 years is that the usefulness of the abortion *debate * itself is too great. Pro life organizations are incredibly numerous and bring in millions of dollars to religious causes.
 
Last edited:
All I’m seeing is opinion…if not being in agreement with “someone’s” opinion means it is “offensive”, there are a whole lot of people in the world who I would find offensive…and while I rarely agree with you opinions, even I am not so sensitive or overdramatic that I would label you or your opinions “offensive”, although I would certainly vocalize my lack of disagreement.
 
I suppose I’m of a different take.

We know from one of abortions earliest proponents that the numbers of ‘back ally abortions’ were drastically over-exaggerated in order to try to strengthen his argument.

We know that most doctors and people would try to obey a law, even if unpopular. Just like most pro-life people obey rules outlining where and when we can be outside of abortion clinics.

So to me it stands to reason that we stand a good chance of drastically cutting down on the nearly million abortions every year in the US.

I wholeheartedly agree that we have to combat the why of abortion. Abortion is such a crime against humanity that we have to use every tool in the shed. Social networks. Changing hearts. Getting good philosophy to replace bad. And outlawing when and where possible.

But to keep it legal so you can regulate it makes as much sense to me as saying ‘we need to legalize sex trafficking so we can regulate it…’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top