Democrats for Life?

[Amolibri]

No mention of supporting abortion was made here. Prolife Dems do not.

 

[melensdad]

No mention of supporting abortion was made here. Prolife Dems do not.

So how does a Pro-Life Democrat send a message to a Pro-Abortion Democratic party . . . by switching parties . . . or by supporting the Pro-Abortion Democratic candidates . . . or by sitting out the election?

Seriously, how do Pro-Life Democrats send their message when they vote?

 

[estesbob]

No mention of supporting abortion was made here. Prolife Dems do not.

But pro-life democrats vote for pro-abortion canidates. It may assauge ones conscience to call themsleves a “pro-life democrat” but if they vote for a pro-abortion canidate they are supporting the very despicable procedure they claim to oppose.

If is a Democrat who claims to be in line with Church teachings they could not have voted for a Demcorat Presidential Canidate since 1976.

 

[Amolibri]

Look…I will not convince you about the prolife Dems…because you are stuck on the “gotcha” stuff. I stand by my statements. Have it your way, then. that’s what you want. Be happy.

AND it’s CANDIDATE/B], by the way.

 

[estesbob]

Look…I will not convince you about the prolife Dems…because you are stuck on the “gotcha” stuff. I stand by my statements. Have it your way, then. that’s what you want. Be happy.

AND it’s **CANDIDATE/**B], by the way.

You are right -it is gothca stuff. Your postition i untenable. A perfect examole of one whos policis trump their faith.

No matter how you try to rationalize it you vote for pro-abortion canidates you are aiding and abetting the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year. As I have said many times before the mental mastrubation required to rationalize suppoting pro-abortion candates while claming to both pro-life and a faithful catholic is a terrible thing to behold.

 

[melensdad]

Look…I will not convince you about the prolife Dems…because you are stuck on the “gotcha” stuff. I stand by my statements.

I’m not stuck on any “gotcha” stuff that others may be, so please indulge my question.

The USCCB document says we are not to be single issue voters, but the way I see it we have 5 non-negotiable issues that we should start out with, not just one. All are “life” issues. All 5 of those issues are opposed to our Catholic teaching in the Democratic party platform, they are:

• Abortion
• Euthanasia
• Human cloning
• Embryonic Stem Cell Research
• Gay Marriage & the radical gay agenda

The USCCB document also states that “life” issues carry more weight than “social justice” issues. So unless we want to fall into the trap of moral relativism, which our Church also opposes, then we have to look at 5 critical issues when we vote, not just “abortion.” And we have to weigh those with far more gravity than we would weigh things like “minimum wage” and similar issues.

I ask again, with the above points in mind: So how does a Pro-Life Democrat send a message to a Pro-Abortion Democratic party . . . by switching parties . . . or by supporting the Pro-Abortion Democratic candidates . . . or by sitting out the election?

Seriously, how do Pro-Life Democrats send their message when they vote?

 

[Amolibri]

To paraphrase ‘chicago’…a political party does not equal a church. I still stand by the US Bishops statement. So please…

You are approaching the line of badgering.

 

[mlchance]

To paraphrase ‘chicago’…a political party does not equal a church. I still stand by the US Bishops statement.

Great! Then you too refuse to vote for a pro-abortion candidate regardless of that candidate’s party. Now that eliminates every single Democratic candidate for the presidency as well as at least a few of the Republican ones, so it looks we both got our work cut out for us.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[estesbob]

To paraphrase ‘chicago’…a political party does not equal a church. I still stand by the US Bishops statement. So please…

You are approaching the line of badgering.

Actually you stand by your ***personal ***(name removed by moderator)terpretation of what the Bishops said . Easier to follow what you *say *the Church teaches rather than what it actually does. More mental mastrubation

16,000 chldren have doed since this thread began. One party supports theses eaths-the tother oppposes it. It really is that simple.

 

[chicago]

I ask again, with the above points in mind: So how does a Pro-Life Democrat send a message to a Pro-Abortion Democratic party . . . by switching parties . . . or by supporting the Pro-Abortion Democratic candidates . . . or by sitting out the election?

Seriously, how do Pro-Life Democrats send their message when they vote?

I don’t see why those are the only options offerred.

What about supporting pro-life Democrats who DO run for office, for instance? How about working at the local level to run pro-life candidates, or raising money for them? Why not get involved and slowly but surely build up things in a direction you’d like to see it head?

Afterall, this sort of long process is how both the Republican and Democratic Parties changed direction over the past 4 decades and got to where they are today.

Politics is the practice of the possible. That’s hard and complicated work. Not usually as easy as making a simple choice of this or that. It takes dedicated citizens and elected officials who are ready and willing to engage in this struggle to make the system function well.

 

[tomarin]

I ask again, with the above points in mind: So how does a Pro-Life Democrat send a message to a Pro-Abortion Democratic party . . . by switching parties . . . or by supporting the Pro-Abortion Democratic candidates . . . or by sitting out the election?

Seriously, how do Pro-Life Democrats send their message when they vote?

i’m not a member of democrats for life but i am for the time being still registered as a democrat and i am also a practicing catholic and therefore staunchly pro-life.

i’m in a quandry about what to do about it, about how to “send a message” as you say. if i thought there was any hope in reversing the party’s stand on that issue by reforming it from within, then that would be the logical choice. but i think it is already too late and the pro-life contingent is too small and marginalized to make it a going concern. also, i know from talking to secular liberal friends that the pro-life position is anathema to them.

i’ve also thought about switching parties, and i may still do that, but the problem there is that the republican party is not a good fit for me (to put it mildly). apart from whatever overlap there is with the five non-negotiables, i have little if nothing in common with republicans. right-wing talk radio makes me want to gag. i think ronald reagan was a bit of a dunce. so i wouldn’t really be true to myself and the other party members wouldn’t know what to make of me.

sitting out the election may make sense once in a while (if say both major party nominees are pro-choice) but in the long run, it’s a cop-out. and it contradicts what the church teaches about the importance of political participation.

so by default i’m leaning towards registering independent and casting my vote on a candidate-by-candidate basis (which i’m obliged to do now, anyway).

 

[rlg94086]

To paraphrase ‘chicago’…a political party does not equal a church. I still stand by the US Bishops statement.

From the document…

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

Now, back up a bit…

1. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia.
   …
2. Similarly, direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil. These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.

Okay, so you could take that to mean that you need to vote 100% Catholic on all of these, but that wouldn’t lead one to be a Democrat or a Republican. We have to compromise and choose one party, or go with a third party.

However, if you read the quotes above you will note that some items are worded as “must always be opposed” - abortion, euthanasia, cloning and embryonic research. Others, “can never be justified” - genocide, torture, racism, targeting non-combatants. Now, the only items in the “never be justified” column that I would say could be argued against some Republicans would be the “torture,” but then you get into a “what is torture” debate. On the other hand, the Democratic Party clearly supports the “must never be supported” column.

To me, the choice is fairly simple. The Bishops certainly are not telling us we must be Republicans. It is more complex than that. But, I don’t see the Democratic Party as a viable option with their pro-death stances.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t see why those are the only options offerred.

Of course you dont. Rather than admit the evil the Democrat party supports you look for ways to rationalize supporting them in spite of it.

What about supporting pro-life Democrats who DO run for office, for instance? How about working at the local level to run pro-life candidates, or raising money for them? Why not get involved and slowly but surely build up things in a direction you’d like to see it head?

I can give you 50 million reasons why we cant afford the long slow process you describe… And of course abortion is just one of a long list of reprehensible things the Democrat party supports.

Afterall, this sort of long process is how both the Republican and Democratic Parties changed direction over the past 4 decades and got to where they are today.

It is apparent that you are looking at abortion as just another politica lissue. Being we are talking about the slaughter of children your take our time approach is untenable.But to give you the the beneift of the doubt you could gve us the list of things he democrats have done about abortion. After all faithful Democrat Catholics have had 35 years to start this process of change.

Politics is the practice of the possible. That’s hard and complicated work. Not usually as easy as making a simple choice of this or that. It takes dedicated citizens and elected officials who are ready and willing to engage in this struggle to make the system function well.

Well it is most certainly not possible to eliminate abortion when one keeps voting for pro-abortion politicans. Meanwhile the children continue to die.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Bush is in favor of contraception(including plan B) and abortion only in cases of rape and incest. His opponents in the last two elections and the Party they represent favored tax payer funded abortions up unitl the moment the head fully exits the womb and contraception. Seems like a preety clear cut disitinction to me.

partal birth abortions would be another example.

 

[Amolibri]

The Bishops certainly are not telling us we must be Republicans. I prefer to contemplate what they are telling us.

 

[mlchance]

The Bishops certainly are not telling us we must be Republicans. I prefer to contemplate what they are telling us.

What’s to contemplate? It’s very simple. Does a candidate support the current unlimited abortion license? If yes, don’t vote for that candidate. The fact that this means it’s slightly easier to find hen’s teeth than an acceptable Democratic candidate is quite beside the point.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[estesbob]

The Bishops certainly are not telling us we must be Republicans. I prefer to contemplate what they are telling us.

No they are not tellng us to be Republicans. They are telling us not to vote for those who support abortion. There s no need to contemplate it. its thee in black and white.

 

[rlg94086]

The Bishops certainly are not telling us we must be Republicans. I prefer to contemplate what they are telling us.

Okay, so contemplate. Explain to me how the document justifies support of the Democratic Party platform and/or a vote for Democratic candidate who wholeheartedly supports the pro-death aspects of that platform.

I was just making it clear that my personal decision to support the Republican Party is from my own contemplation on what the Church and the bishops are teaching us. The voting guides from the bishops, and from Catholic Answers for that matter, are just to help us form our own consciences.

 

[estesbob]

Po-life democrats have the same attributes as a battered spouse. No matter how many time he lies to you, no matter how many times he beats you they always take him back and and always make excuses for his behavior.

 

[mary_bobo]

i’m not a member of democrats for life but i am for the time being still registered as a democrat and i am also a practicing catholic and therefore staunchly pro-life.

i’m in a quandry about what to do about it, about how to “send a message” as you say. if i thought there was any hope in reversing the party’s stand on that issue by reforming it from within, then that would be the logical choice. but i think it is already too late and the pro-life contingent is too small and marginalized to make it a going concern. also, i know from talking to secular liberal friends that the pro-life position is anathema to them.

i’ve also thought about switching parties, and i may still do that, but the problem there is that the republican party is not a good fit for me (to put it mildly). apart from whatever overlap there is with the five non-negotiables, i have little if nothing in common with republicans. right-wing talk radio makes me want to gag. i think ronald reagan was a bit of a dunce. so i wouldn’t really be true to myself and the other party members wouldn’t know what to make of me.

sitting out the election may make sense once in a while (if say both major party nominees are pro-choice) but in the long run, it’s a cop-out. and it contradicts what the church teaches about the importance of political participation.

so by default i’m leaning towards registering independent and casting my vote on a candidate-by-candidate basis (which i’m obliged to do now, anyway).

How about doing a little research on Ronald Reagan. I think you will find he was far from being a dunce. Read some of his early writings when he was President of the Screen Actors Guild and later. Hardly a dunce.