Democrats for Life?

[estesbob]

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?

Its easy for Republcians to claim the moral high ground becuase they have it. There is no way one can legitimately rationalize suporting a Party who thinks killing ones child is a constitutional right. If the Republcian Party emabraces abortion “rights” i will leave then like I did the Democrats.

 

[tomarin]

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?

bob’s right on this one. the democrats are on the wrong side of the church’s moral teaching – it is immaterial whether or not the republicans are being opportunistic in opposing legal abortion.

and i say this as a life-long liberal who never considered voting for any party other than the democrats until my conversion (well, reversion).

 

[chicago]

Its easy for Republcians to claim the moral high ground becuase they have it. There is no way one can legitimately rationalize suporting a Party who thinks killing ones child is a constitutional right. If the Republcian Party emabraces abortion “rights” i will leave then like I did the Democrats.

Fair enough for your scenario. (Where else would you go, BTW, if the Republicans were to abandon the position?)

But, like I say, is the “moral highground” which often is claimed by many Republicans REALLY just about pro-life or is it a combination of factors which they heartily believe in? That’s the hypothetical test which I am posing.

 

[chicago]

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

Actually, if you are a “one issue voter” then you don’t meet my criteria. I’m looking for cultural Republican die-hard believers who happen to also be pro-life as a test, not mere pro-lifers who truly place that issue first and foremost.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, if you are a “one issue voter” then you don’t meet my criteria. I’m looking for cultural Republican die-hard believers who happen to also be pro-life as a test, not mere pro-lifers who truly place that issue first and foremost.

That’s not a fair criteria. I would fit the cultural Republican description, even though I was a Democrat during my misspent youth. However, like estesbob, I would have no choice but to abandon the party if their platform was changed to a pro-death platform. Technically, to paraphrase a past Republican president, the party would have left me at that point.

I would say that a “cultural Republican die-hard believer who happens to be pro-life” is an oxymoron. Part of being a “cultural Republican” is the pro-life cause…just as much as Federalism. If the party changed either of those, I would guess that a third party would replace it - much as it replaced the Whigs due to the slavery issue.

 

[Amolibri]

“the democrats are on the wrong side of the church’s moral teaching”
Untrue. How many pro-choice Repubs. are there? I’m frankly tired of the painting of all Dems. with the same brush. Where are the real social justice people…the PEACEmakers? Let’s talk people and not abstract “party”.

 

[mlchance]

“the democrats are on the wrong side of the church’s moral teaching”
Untrue.

Actually, it’s quite true with reference to the Democratic Party Platform.

How many pro-choice Repubs. are there?

Which has what to do with the Democratic Party Platform?

Where are the real social justice people…the PEACEmakers? Let’s talk people and not abstract “party”.

Okay, let’s. Every abortion kills a person. The Democratic Party calls for abortion-on-demand directly paid for with taxpayer monies both here and abroad. The Democratic Party champions the daily murder of approximately 3000 people.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, if you are a “one issue voter” then you don’t meet my criteria. I’m looking for cultural Republican die-hard believers who happen to also be pro-life as a test, not mere pro-lifers who truly place that issue first and foremost.

I am amused at your phrases “just happens to be pro-life”. and “mere pro-lifers”. it shows such a profound ignorance of the Republican Party and the Pro-life Movement it nearly takes your nreath away.

 

[estesbob]

“the democrats are on the wrong side of the church’s moral teaching”
Untrue. How many pro-choice Repubs. are there? I’m frankly tired of the painting of all Dems. with the same brush. Where are the real social justice people…the PEACEmakers? Let’s talk people and not abstract “party”.

The Demorat party is not only on th wrong side of theChurch’s moral teachings in most casesa they are fighting it tooth and nail.
A party that has infaniticde enshrined in its paltform has no moral authroity on anything.

 

[Online_Knight]

You see, we are getting away from what Democrats for Life is all about… Changing the Democratic Party platform for the better. Change the party or at least support Democratic office holders who are pro-life, anti-death penalty, and anti-embryonic stem-cell research.

To those who don’t think it can be done… why not do our best? We’ll never get the change we seek in politics without a little effort!

 

[mlchance]

You see, we are getting away from what Democrats for Life is all about… Changing the Democratic Party platform for the better.

I give pro-life Democrats props for being pro-life. No argument. If they want to make an impact on politics, they’d be better off abandoning the Democratic Party en masse and working to improve the Republican Party, the platform of which is already on board with many if not most of their objectives.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[chicago]

That’s not a fair criteria.

I don’t see why it’s at all unfair. It is essentially the same criteria which is expected of traditional Democratic voters who are pro-life. So it is a mere role reversal, trying on another’s shoes type of exercize.

I would fit the cultural Republican description, even though I was a Democrat during my misspent youth. However, like estesbob, I would have no choice but to abandon the party if their platform was changed to a pro-death platform. Technically, to paraphrase a past Republican president, the party would have left me at that point.

Alright, then were the Democrats to espouse pro-life and the Republicans pro-abort (all other things essentially - or at least largely - the same) would you go back Democratic?

I would say that a “cultural Republican die-hard believer who happens to be pro-life” is an oxymoron. Part of being a “cultural Republican” is the pro-life cause…just as much as Federalism.

Well, no. A lot of old skool Republicans never really were pro-life (they may well have been some of the more significant advocates for the contraceptive culture, really) and there are plenty of cultural Republicans (not cultural conservatives, mind you) who are quite liberal, especially socially.

Just as being pro-choice isn’t an inherant doctrinal requirement of being a Democrat, there is no essential character to Republicanism which requires one to be pro-life.

But, still, you are probably getting more at what I am articulating than anyone else thus far in that you, as do many others of this perspective, seem to expect it to all be part of a package. My test case asks, “What if you remove this key factor from that package?” What does that do to your partisianship and overall ideological beliefs - and how would it affect your voting? For, as long as it seems to be part of an acceptable package, it’s easy to accept. However, if it is an issue which must make strange bedfellows with others that you are opposed to, then what?

If the party changed either of those, I would guess that a third party would replace it - much as it replaced the Whigs due to the slavery issue.

But no possibility of going Democratic among those voters, instead, if the Dems simultaneously went pro-life?

 

[chicago]

I give pro-life Democrats props for being pro-life. No argument. If they want to make an impact on politics, they’d be better off abandoning the Democratic Party en masse and working to improve the Republican Party, the platform of which is already on board with many if not most of their objectives.

– Mark L. Chance.

Something which must be considered as a practical matter is that most geographical areas are essentially controlled by one party. It is quite difficult (especially over the short term) to make inroads in changing such things. Consequently, the only real effective way of going about matters most of the time is via working within the context of already established systems.

 

[repo_man]

i’ll register as a democrat until there is a pro-life, anti-war, pro-environment and corporate responsibility, pro-working class and poor third party candidate.

and what happens if a hypothetical republican that was pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research is nominated in '08?

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t see why it’s at all unfair. It is essentially the same criteria which is expected of traditional Democratic voters who are pro-life. So it is a mere role reversal, trying on another’s shoes type of exercize.

Alright, then were the Democrats to espouse pro-life and the Republicans pro-abort (all other things essentially - or at least largely - the same) would you go back Democratic?

Well, no. A lot of old skool Republicans never really were pro-life (they may well have been some of the more significant advocates for the contraceptive culture, really) and there are plenty of cultural Republicans (not cultural conservatives, mind you) who are quite liberal, especially socially.

Just as being pro-choice isn’t an inherant doctrinal requirement of being a Democrat, there is no essential character to Republicanism which requires one to be pro-life.

But, still, you are probably getting more at what I am articulating than anyone else thus far in that you, as do many others of this perspective, seem to expect it to all be part of a package. My test case asks, “What if you remove this key factor from that package?” What does that do to your partisianship and overall ideological beliefs - and how would it affect your voting? For, as long as it seems to be part of an acceptable package, it’s easy to accept. However, if it is an issue which must make strange bedfellows with others that you are opposed to, then what?

But no possibility of going Democratic among those voters, instead, if the Dems simultaneously went pro-life?

I already answered that I would go to the Democratic Party if they went pro-life and the Repubicans went pro-death. But the question is absurd…it won’t happen. The likelihood of the Democratic Party going pro-life is much, much more absurd than the Republican Party going pro-choice, which is why I described the third-party-Whig-repeat scenario.

As far as pro-life being a core Republican value - this is a fact. There are a substantial number of pro-choice Republicans, but the party platform represents the core beliefs of a party - they are voted on by the party members. Read them…the Republican Party is pro-life and the Democratic Party is decidedly pro-death on all of the key issues - abortion, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage.

 

[chicago]

I am amused at your phrases “just happens to be pro-life”. and “mere pro-lifers”. it shows such a profound ignorance of the Republican Party and the Pro-life Movement it nearly takes your nreath away.

I don’t mean to denigrate pro-lifers. I am just distinguishing the active, dedicated people for whom this is the key issue from the Republican rank and file for whom it may be only one issue among many.

Afterall, if the party itself is so heartily tied inherantly to the pro-life movement, then the oft criticism of, “What have they done about it?” becomes quite fair and poignant.

 

[mary_bobo]

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]

And from this you have decided that “most Republicans” favor abortion? I think that is quite a stretch.

 

[repo_man]

As far as pro-life being a core Republican value - this is a fact. There are a substantial number of pro-choice Republicans, but the party platform represents the core beliefs of a party - they are voted on by the party members. Read them…the Republican Party is pro-life and the Democratic Party is decidedly pro-death on all of the key issues - abortion, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage.

how is gay marriage pro-death?

if that counts surely support of the death penalty and guns counts for the death points on the republican side.

 

[chicago]

I already answered that I would go to the Democratic Party if they went pro-life and the Repubicans went pro-death.

Cool, fair enough.

But the question is absurd…it won’t happen.

You don’t seem to grasp the rhetorical purposes of the question. It is intended to get people thinking outside their box in order to look at what it is that Catholic Democrats are being asked. It is only fair to try on their shoes, therefore, and see what it feels like before asking them to wear someone else’s.

As far as pro-life being a core Republican value - this is a fact. There are a substantial number of pro-choice Republicans, but the party platform represents the core beliefs of a party - they are voted on by the party members. Read them…the Republican Party is pro-life and the Democratic Party is decidedly pro-death on all of the key issues - abortion, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage.

I think this is another area where some differ. A political party is not a belief system to which one must ascribe wholly in order to be an active member of it. Indeed, Bob Dole articulated this when running for President as the Republican nominee, insisting that the Republican Party’s platform was not his nor what he was running on. Rather, those are simply sets of principles that many agree to work towards. A party, therefore, is more of a pragmatic political system (a means to an end rather than an end itself) in which a people can practically work within for whatever their own beliefs are. Individuals or collectives within the party may be working towards alternative ends. The overall articulated principles of the majority can change as a result.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I give pro-life Democrats props for being pro-life. No argument. If they want to make an impact on politics, they’d be better off abandoning the Democratic Party en masse and working to improve the Republican Party, the platform of which is already on board with many if not most of their objectives.

– Mark L. Chance.

You missed a point in an earlier post. “Democrats for life” plan to decrease the need for abortion by 95% by promoting birth control.

The “pill” and “the morning after pill” are still abortions!!! Democrats for life want us to forget that these two options are abortions and they want the public to believe that these are not abortions but contraception. Democrat’s for Life must think the public is plain stupid to try to pass of this spin as policy for the good of people.

They still think that killing babies is a Right to be upheld for all men, they just want to decrease the number of dead babies.

Bottom line… They are still killing babies. Abortion is never right or acceptable, or it’s always morally, wrong. To think otherwise is to think as Nazi Germany did during the final solution. Same outcome, more victims, unfortunately for us!

God help us!