Do any CAF members who lean towards the Democrat party put any kind of pressure on the Party or on Democrat candidates to change their Pro-Choice (pro

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peeps
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree.

Legal abortion is a curse on any nation. I believe the only reason why the United States (and other nations where abortion is legal) is only still around because Christians are continually asking God for mercy on us all for the sake of the “ten.”
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
Of course. You are–like all pro-life fanatics–equating pro-abortion and pro-choice. They are NOT the same at all. You can be against abortion, but be in favor of allowing everyone to make the choice of having an abortion on an individual basis.
Click to expand...
Do you feel the same way about slavery or rape? For example, would it be an acceptable position of saying that slavery is wrong, but if one wants to own slaves that is their business? The difference with me is that I would still call that a pro-slavery position, but by your logic, it would just be pro-choice, with the same argument made for rape. Is that a man’s choice?
 
I think the question as initially asked it a little askew. The “Party” is just people. The idea of changing a party is too abstract and impossible. I better approach would be whether those who are Democrats are vocal to their friends and families about why supporting abortion is wrong and needs to be re-considered.
 
I will never support the legalization of a grave evil. God help us all.

It should NOT be legal to choose to kill another human being! If abortion is legal, then all murder should be legal. Why is the unborn human less worthy to live than the teenage boy in Cabrini Green or any other murder victim?

One of the reasons why there is so much violent crime in the U.S. is because we do not value Human Life and the reason we do not value human life is that we do not honor God.

You quote information “proving” that economics is the main reason for a woman to choose to end her unborn child’s life. I can quote information that a large number of abortions are performed on women and teenagers who have more than adequate incomes and many resources to help them bear a child and either raise the child or give it up for adoption to a loving family. Rich people have abortions and rich people are among the most vocal advocates for legalized abortion. As we have seen over and over again in the U.S., high income does not deter people from evil actions.

You quote information that education deters women from getting pregnant when they’re not ready to raise a child. Again, there are plenty of women and girls who know all about the “birds and the bees,” and they still choose to have sex during fertile times when they are not ready to bear a child. In the U.S., children get educated about sex in school beginning in the early grades.

The problem is not education or income. The problem is that we love evil rather than good, and we love ourselves more than our neighbor. The reason abortions continue is that we do not honor God, but instead, we make laws that deliberately exclude God from all of our public lives. We laugh at God and His people.

The Catholic Church and many Protestant churches are involved with many ministries that help women in crisis pregnancy. There are also numerous secular organizations that help women (and men) in need. I can take you on a tour of my city and point out dozens of good organizations that are in the trenches doing work to help lift the poor and the marginalized people up and make it possible for them to enjoy a dignified, happy, healthy life.

For several years, my husband and I were a “Shelter Home.” We welcomed women who were in a crisis pregnancy and helped them to get to a point where they would be able to give birth and either give their baby up for adoption or care for their baby themselves.

I’ll admit that we weren’t very good at this ministry, but it certainly gave us a lot of insight into why women get pregnant and what is needed to help them choose life for their unborn child. Now we’re involved with other organizations in our city to help those who have not been dealt a good hand in this life. I would venture to say that most pro-life people are over-involved in organizations and ministries that help people.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
For example, would it be an acceptable position of saying that slavery is wrong, but if one wants to own slaves that is their business?

The difference with me is that I would still call that a pro-slavery position, but by your logic, it would just be pro-choice, with the same argument made for rape. Is that a man’s choice?
Click to expand...
Well, I think your position was tried c. 1961 and it led to a civil war with 610,000 dead, the South devastated, and blacks still 150 years or so away from respectability. Maybe you think we should go down that road with abortion? Civil War, hundreds of thousands dead, etc.?

Rape: I don’t know of any religion or organization that condones rape. I do know of major religions
(Judaism, Islam, etc.) that allow abortion. If there are people who condone rape, they are a tiny, tiny minority. But in the case of abortion, only 18% now think all abortion should be illegal–in other words, you seem to b e saying that the 18% should impose it’s will on the 82%. Doesn’t seem like a great idea to me.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
You quote information “proving” that economics is the main reason for a woman to choose to end her unborn child’s life.
Click to expand...
Really? Did I say “prove”? Where? I said “The Guttmacher Institute did a study on that…Read it for yourself.” Did you? I’m going to go out on a limb and bet you didn’t–you didn’t need to, right?
The reasons the women themselves gave were usually economic. Neither I nor the study said that well-off people don’t have abortions. They do. But most are not well-off.

Read any study you want: the more educated women are, the fewer babies they have. Again, does this mean if you get a PhD you will be childless? Don’t be silly. It DOES mean that if I am a peasant in India and never go to school, I will–on average–have more children than a peasant who has a high school (or even a grade school) education. This is beyond dispute.

I applaud you for actually doing something to support your beliefs. Personally, I also do something: I give money to the Sisters of Notre Dame, who run schools and clinics for girls in India. Education = fewer pregnancies = fewer abortions. Simple. http://www.sndbangalore.org/ However, you are like a doctor who is treating a fever without treating the CAUSE of the fever. In the end, that’s a futile approach.

There are only six countries where all abortions are illegal: El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Chile, Malta and the Vatican. Clearly God has blessed these countries above all others. Please.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
The Democrat Party Platform pledges support for abortion. Therefore the Democrat party Platform is immoral.
Click to expand...
First, the correct name of the party is the “Democratic Party.”

Second, their platform does NOT support abortion. It supports ACCESS to abortion for those who want it. This is a big difference.
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
Well, I think your position was tried c. 1961 and it led to a civil war with 610,000 dead, the South devastated, and blacks still 150 years or so away from respectability. Maybe you think we should go down that road with abortion? Civil War, hundreds of thousands dead, etc.?
Click to expand...
Choice is your position, not mind. I understand well enough the hypocrisy and stupidity of the term “pro-choice.” The verb “to choose” requires an object, and is meaningless of itself.

The percentages of people who believe in abortion, rape, or slavery do not affect the logic, or in the case of abortion, lack of logic, of using language improperly. Rather, since one cannot use the same logic for something known to be evil should serve as proof that this “choice” stuff is contrary to reason.
Erikaspirit16 said:
Second, their platform does NOT support abortion. It supports ACCESS to abortion for those who want it. This is a big difference.
Click to expand...
Do you really not think easy access is a way of supporting something? If I had a business (an amusement park, e.g.)away from the main road, and the city built me a four-lane highway to my business, just for my business, you would not view that as supporting it. Now, instead of this park, I had a bordello, or an adult store of some type, and the city built this road, just for me, you would not see it as support? I am sure none that would be giving this type of “access” could use the line you are using, “I personally do not approve of prostitution and pornography. I am not supporting it. I just think it is the job our our city to provide access, you know choice!”
 
Last edited:
Elf01 said:
Based on your next post you have no problem with abortion.
Click to expand...
That seems like a peculiar conclusion. What do you mean?

I believe no woman should choose abortion. I do not see legislation to outlaw abortion as an effective way to reach that objective. Is that what you mean by saying I have no problem, that I do not think legality is particularly important?
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
Second, their platform does NOT support abortion. It supports ACCESS to abortion for those who want it. This is a big difference.
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see a “big difference” here. A minor nuance , sure.

But if someone runs a chain of abortion mills, all they want is access to the market place. The fact that some people are opposed to the practice of abortion is nothing to them as long as they have a right to peddle their services and make their fortunes from others.
 
pnewton said:
Choice is your position, not mind. I understand well enough the hypocrisy and stupidity of the term “pro-choice.” The verb “to choose” requires an object, and is meaningless of itself.
Click to expand...
You lost me. Why is “pro-choice” meaningless? Why does it need an object? But if you want an object, it’s obvious, isn’t it? “I believe in the right of other people to choose abortion if they think that’s right for them.”
pnewton said:
Do you really not think easy access is a way of supporting something? If I had a business (an amusement park, e.g.)away from the main road, and the city built me a four-lane highway to my business, just for my business, you would not view that as supporting it.
Click to expand...
Why do people on these threads insist on changing wording? “easy access” is NOT “access.” Please restrain yourself and don’t change words to suit your own argument.

As for your point, I’ll take the bait: If prostitution and pornography were legal, yes, the city/county would have a duty to provide a road to these businesses if they were on a public road. And electricity, and water, too. If it were for “just your business” --i.e. not a public road–then that’s your problem. A public road is not “supporting” your business, it’s simply treating you like any other citizen.
 
Augustinian said:
Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see a “big difference” here. A minor nuance , sure.
Click to expand...
Well, you could apply the same principle to a lot of things: I don’t believe getting drunk is a good thing, but I don’t think the government should make selling alcohol illegal. People can choose whether or not they want to get drunk. Because I support “access” to alcohol does that mean I support getting drunk? Of course not.

Maybe you support “access” to buying A-15s. Does that mean you are in favor of school shootings? Of course not.

But at least you see some difference! That’s progress!

“Abortion mills”? “Make their fortunes”? Maybe I’ve missed something here. I’m unaware of any of this.

And of course drugs are illegal. So how are we coming along on that “War on drugs” thing? Not too well. So did making drugs illegal solve the problem? Would making abortion illegal solve the problem?
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
Well, you could apply the same principle to a lot of things: I don’t believe getting drunk is a good thing, but I don’t think the government should make selling alcohol illegal.

“Abortion mills”? “Make their fortunes”? Maybe I’ve missed something here. I’m unaware of any of this.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I vote for candidates who support the laws I want enacted- not necessarily based on their personal behavior. If you want to do otherwise, that’s fine too.

You apparently don’t realize the large amount of money which is being made doing abortions. Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia was searched and investigators found almost a quarter million dollars in cash. Gosnell’s abortuary was in rough part of Philadelphia and had a poverty stricken clientele and still made a bundle. PA law forbids state funds for abortions
 
Augustinian said:
I vote for candidates who support the laws I want enacted- not necessarily based on their personal behavior. If you want to do otherwise, that’s fine too.
Click to expand...
Me too. But as I said, I am pro-choice. This doesn’t mean I personally think abortion is a good thing–I don’t. But I do think everyone has a right to choose for themselves.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
Me too. But as I said, I am pro-choice. This doesn’t mean I personally think abortion is a good thing–I don’t.
Click to expand...
Based upon that, if you were running for office , I would not vote for you for political office. The fact that you personally think that abortion isn’t a good thing, is a fact that I wouldn’t be considering at all.
 
Augustinian said:
Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia was searched and investigators found almost a quarter million dollars in cash. Gosnell’s abortuary was in rough part of Philadelphia and had a poverty stricken clientele and still made a bundle.
Click to expand...
Never heard of him, but I looked him up on Wikipedia Kermit Gosnell - Wikipedia He was clearly an evil man. But please note that he went FAR beyond what was allowed (legal)–he was actually killing babies after they were born, etc. etc. not to mention selling oxycontin, etc. It looks like he’s serving a life sentence. But do you really think he’s someone you can use as a typical example? It looks to me like he’s the most extreme case around.
 
Augustinian said:
Based upon that, if you were running for office , I would not vote for you for political office. The fact that you personally think that abortion isn’t a good thing, is a fact that I wouldn’t be considering at all.
Click to expand...
No worries–I won’t be running for anything!

And it’s fair enough to support politicians who support your beliefs. However, as I said above, I think simply trying to make abortion illegal is the wrong way to go about it. Again, I think you need to understand why women want to get abortions and then attack those reasons. And–again–I don’t think any woman ever said to herself, “Whee, abortions are fun! I want one!” It’s something they feel they are forced into by circumstances–change those circumstances, you reduce abortions. And–again–as I pointed out above, after 42 years of lobbying by the pro-life groups, public opinion has actually shifted the other way–towards pro-choice. So do you REALLY think the 42 years of pro-life efforts have been effective? Is this really the best way to go about it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top