Democrats for Life?

[mlchance]

The problem I have with Cardinal O’Malley’s statements and some of the comments here is that I don’t understand why the Democrats are criticized and the Republicans get a pass.

Nobody is giving pro-abortion Republicans a pass. Nobody is condemning pro-life Democrats. When a bishop says one cannot vote for a pro-abortion politician, he isn’t saying one cannot vote for a Democrat or that one must vote for a Republican. He’s saying one cannot vote for a pro-abortion politician regardless of party.

But one cannot escape this fact: The Democratic Party platform is unequivocally pro-abortion. It advocates increased, direct funding of more abortions both here and abroad. The Democratic Party – at the national level, at least – opposes any restrictions on abortion. The Democratic Party is the Party of Death. That might change in the future, but so far the Magic 8-Ball says, “All signs point to no.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I don’t know if this is the right place or not… but for all Catholics who are fiercely pro-life, yet align with the Democratic Party on other issues like the environment and social programs, there is a home for you. democratsforlife.org/

There is a huge error in the thinking of this group. Their goal and purpose for being is to reduce the need for abortion by 95% with abstience, and personal responsiblity in the next ten years.

What they are not saying is that they feel it is okay to hand out birth control to our children to acheive that ends.

This is not acceptable on any level as a faithful Catholic. One moral sin cannot undue another in this case. The ends do not justify the means. End of story. Continued discussion over whether the ends does justify the means in this case is pointless to the well formed Catholic conscience of a voter.

Nice try “Democrats for Life”, don’t be afraid to start over.

 

[estesbob]

I have long pondered what the situation would be like if it were the Democrats who better supported pro-life issues and the Republican leaders who were blatantly pro-choice. Would the die hard Republicans and conservatives lambast their own party? Would they try to find ways to work within for upbuilding and change? Would they vote Democratic? Or would they tow the party line and make excuses about the pro-life issues?

As a cradle Democrat when faced with the choice above I changed parties when the Democrat party stopped being the party of compassion and became the party of death.

 

[mediatrixx]

Thanks, I like that website. It’s about time there was a pro life Democratic candidate out there somewhere. Tired of being a fish out of water, so to speak, with the life issue, but it’s so important.

 

[josephdavid]

As a cradle Democrat when faced with the choice above I changed parties when the Democrat party stopped being the party of compassion and became the party of death.

Both parties are a partyof death. Neither political party except a special few are truely pro-life. Either they vote for pro-death issues while life is in the womb or vote for issues for pro-death when life is out of the womb. Some vote on both.

Most are just Pro-Life in name only to get votes. Period.

For me life does not end at birth nor does it begin at birth. Life is through out from conception to end.

 

[josephdavid]

There is a huge error in the thinking of this group. Their goal and purpose for being is to reduce the need for abortion by 95% with abstience, and personal responsiblity in the next ten years.

What they are not saying is that they feel it is okay to hand out birth control to our children to acheive that ends.

This is not acceptable on any level as a faithful Catholic. One moral sin cannot undue another in this case. The ends do not justify the means. End of story. Continued discussion over whether the ends does justify the means in this case is pointless to the well formed Catholic conscience of a voter.

Nice try “Democrats for Life”, don’t be afraid to start over.

Most Republicans are fror both abortion AND handing out contreceptives. Even the President said it was good thing for Plan B to be over the counter.

 

[mary_bobo]

Most Republicans are fror both abortion AND handing out contreceptives. Even the President said it was good thing for Plan B to be over the counter.

With respect, your source for this statement???

 

[Amolibri]

With respect, your source for this statement???

August 25, 2006
F.D.A. Approves Broader Access to Next-Day Pill
By GARDINER HARRIS
WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved over-the-counter sales of the morning-after contraceptive pill to women 18 and older, resolving one of the most contentious issues in the agency’s 100-year history.

Nationwide over-the-counter sales of the drug, Plan B, are expected to start by the end of the year. It will be sold in pharmacies and health clinics only, and buyers must show proof of age. Anyone under age 18 will still need a prescription. Men may also buy Plan B for a partner.

The prescription drug now sells for $25 to $40 per two-pill dose, but the manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals of Woodcliff Park, N.J., said the price could change.

The agency’s decision, which took three years and spanned the terms of three F.D.A. commissioners, did little to dampen what has became a central part of the nation’s debate on abortion. Abortion rights advocates argue that the wide availability of Plan B may reduce abortions; abortion opponents assert that Plan B will cause them.

Abortion rights advocates hailed the F.D.A.’s decision on Thursday, although many bemoaned the age restriction.

“We are pleased that a common sense, common ground agenda for reducing unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion finally won out,” said Kirsten Moore, president of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project in Washington.

Abortion opponents threatened political retribution, however, and were displeased when President Bush backed the agency’s decision.

“Let there be no mistake about it,” said the Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, an anti-abortion group based in Virginia. “Today’s decision lies at the feet of President Bush and has created a lasting rift with the Catholic faithful who comprise a large part of his support base.”

In a briefing on Monday, Mr. Bush was asked whether he supported the intention by Andrew C. von Eschenbach, acting commissioner of the F.D.A., to approve over-the-counter sales of Plan B.

“I support Andy’s decision,” he replied, a rare moment when a president addressed an application pending before the drug agency.
[remainder of article available at nytimes site]

 

[TMC]

Both parties are a partyof death. Neither political party except a special few are truely pro-life. Either they vote for pro-death issues while life is in the womb or vote for issues for pro-death when life is out of the womb. Some vote on both.

Most are just Pro-Life in name only to get votes. Period.

For me life does not end at birth nor does it begin at birth. Life is through out from conception to end.

This is my view also. It makes it hard to find a candidate to support, but I don’t think the fact that someone goes to a church and give a pro-life speech once or twice a year earns him my vote. That is all I see most “pro-life” politicians doing.

 

[estesbob]

Both parties are a partyof death. Neither political party except a special few are truely pro-life. Either they vote for pro-death issues while life is in the womb or vote for issues for pro-death when life is out of the womb. Some vote on both.

Most are just Pro-Life in name only to get votes. Period.

For me life does not end at birth nor does it begin at birth. Life is through out from conception to end.

To have that attitude one must totally ignore the fact that ALL progress on limiting abortion has come from the Republican Party. In addtin it is the Republican party that offers the poor a way out of poverty-not the Democrats who define compassion as givng away others peoples money and who’s prorgrams are designed to keep the poor poor.

 

[estesbob]

This is my view also. It makes it hard to find a candidate to support, but I don’t think the fact that someone goes to a church and give a pro-life speech once or twice a year earns him my vote. That is all I see most “pro-life” politicians doing.

A view that is unsupportable by the facts. But we have numerous times destroyed this myth but those who put their politics ahead of their faith will continue to perform whatever mental mastrubation that is necessary to jusify supporting the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year.

 

[Ender]

Abortion opponents threatened political retribution …

More specifically, Republican abortion opponents threaten political retribution; Democratic abortion opponents have long since decided that abortion is an acceptable price to pay for other social goals.

Ender

 

[Amolibri]

political retribution? Is that what gets results?
Did you ever think that working for justice and other social goals might be a way to bring the desired results?

 

[chicago]

As a cradle Democrat when faced with the choice above I changed parties when the Democrat party stopped being the party of compassion and became the party of death.

May I ask, then, where you stand on “other” issues and whether you find yourself comfortable within the Republican Party if they tend to be at odds with your concerns on those things.

 

[TMC]

A view that is unsupportable by the facts. But we have numerous times destroyed this myth but those who put their politics ahead of their faith will continue to perform whatever mental mastrubation that is necessary to jusify supporting the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year.

OK, what facts? For the 18 of the last 26 years the “pro-life” party has controlled the White House. The “pro-life” party controlled both houses of congress for about ten of the last 26 years. What advances have been made?

 

[mlchance]

OK, what facts? For the 18 of the last 26 years the “pro-life” party has controlled the White House. The “pro-life” party controlled both houses of congress for about ten of the last 26 years. What advances have been made?

Once the question has been answered, in all fairness, please then compare the advances to those made when Democrats controlled the White House and/or the Congress.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[estesbob]

May I ask, then, where you stand on “other” issues and whether you find yourself comfortable within the Republican Party if they tend to be at odds with your concerns on those things.

I think Republican stands on social issues are far better than the Democrats. But then catholics of good faith can disagree on the best way to accomplish social goals. the same can not be said for abortion. You simply can not jusify aiding and abeting the killing of 1.2 million children a year. ALL rights flow from the Right to Life

 

[Sean_Boyle]

political retribution? Is that what gets results?
Did you ever think that working for justice and other social goals might be a way to bring the desired results?

Remember the issue at hand…

One party, promotes as it’s platform and believes that it is okay, even a God given right, to kill 1.2 million of my fellow Americans citizens every year.

There is no honor in that position. NONE!

If voting for the lesser of two evils is the answer, then that is the civic duty of every Catholic and christian in the eyes of God to do that, vote for the lesser of two evils. Doing otherwise is serving your own personal god, Not God the Father.

 

[chicago]

I think Republican stands on social issues are far better than the Democrats.

See, you’re probably a bad example of the question I’m asking then. More of a Reagan Democrat, type, I suppose.

The theoretical has more to do with “what if” someone who grew up in, say, a suburban community, was inculturated in a Republican environment, and who held a certain value set that was encapsulated by the Republican agenda suddenly found himself at odds with party leadership on the life issues? What would it be like for this person were the Democrats (who are at odds which much of what else the person was raised believing and who never held any real control in their local geographic area of residence) to become the pro-lifers? Could that person bring himself to jump ship and become a Democrat? Would he go around derogatorily lambasting his own party of native birth (even though he still agreed with them on the majority of things which remained important and essential, in his mind)? Might that person try to work from within for change? Or would he simply minimize the issue of abortion (and maybe a couple of other things) to focus on other areas of concern that he could agree with the Republicans upon?

I think it is easy for Republican supporters to claim the moral high ground and trash Democrats when the Red Elephant Party provides an overall environment which they find appettising. But if they were stuck in a situation where they didn’t see any real potential from that party and had to jump ship to a side which they ultimately detested for the hoped advanement of one sole key issue (or a small, but significant set of concerns), perhaps while knocking that which they still treasure in the party of original affiliation, would they be able to bring themselves to do it?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

See, you’re probably a bad example of the question I’m asking then. More of a Reagan Democrat, type, I suppose.

The hypothesis has more to do with “what if” someone who grew up in, say, a suburban community, was inculturated in a Republican environment, and with a certain value set that was encapsulated by the Republican agenda suddenly found himself at odds with party leadership on the life issues. What would it be like for this person were the Democrats (who are at odds which much of what else the person was raised believing and never held any real control in their local geographic area of residence) to be the pro-lifers? Could that person bring himself to jump ship and become a Democrat? Would he go around derogatorily lambasting his own party of native birth (even though he still agreed with them on the majority of things which were still important and essential, in his mind?) Might that person try to work from within for change? Or would he simply minimize the issue of abortion (and maybe a couple of other things) to focus on other areas of concern that he could agree with the Republicans upon?

I think it is easy for Republican supporters to claim the moral high ground and trash Democrats when the Red Elephant Party provides an overall environment which they find appettising. But if they were stuck in a situation where they didn’t see any real potential from that party and had to jump ship to a side which they ultimately detested for one sole key issue (or small, but significant set of concerns), perhaps while knocking that which they still treasure in the party of original affiliation, would they be able to bring themselves to do it?

I’m a one issue voter. I meet your criteria.

There is only one true question when voting in American politics. Are you “for or agianst” killing 1.2 million or more innocent babies a year ? No grey area! A yes or no question.

Now are you a person of integrity or not? Do your actions back-up your words?