If there were a Pro-Life Democratic candidate

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeShlabotnik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, it’s clearly alive. I can see how somebody can honestly disagree about when it become a person though. Just having that conversation with yourself can be very uncomfortable. What criteria do you use? What if you’re wrong? It’s clearly a person at some point. You don’t get to kill someone just because they began their life inside of you.
 
I’ll vote for a Democrat if they oppose abortion and aren’t “buddies” with people like Schumer and Pelosi- in other words, if they aren’t going to let themselves be bullied into supporting it. That said, with the democrats we have in office now, let’s just say that I’m highly suspicious of anyone claiming to be pro-life while allying with a party which has abortion as its cornerstone issue.
 
Lemuel said:
I’m also a pro-life libertarian, but I won’t support either of the two parties, as both parties have contempt for the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Are there actually any pro-life Libertarian candidates? Libertarians seem to combine the worst Republican economic ideas with the worst Democratic social / moral ideas.
 
Bob Barr was the nominee in 2008 and he was pro life. Libertarians go both ways on the issue. The non aggression policy (NAP) is what I (and other pro lifers) would view as pro life but others will place more emphasis on the govt being able to control us. The abortion issue is tricky but I think the first step is to turn it back to the states. I hate to be pessimistic but I doubt that it will ever go away completely 😦 The best we can do is educate and help women facing unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.

IMHO I think that Libertarians combine the best of the 2 parties. I honestly don’t want the govt to do much other than keep us safe (right to life basically which extends to the unborn as well) and uphold the constitution. I don’t want them telling me what I can or can’t do…that’s for the Church to decide.

Ron Paul is another pro life Libertarian (although he ran on the Republican ticket similar to how Bernie is Independent but runs on the Democrat ticket).
 
Last edited:
Yeah, its a tough call…I’m glad you posted this here and not on World News…it might have taken a far darker and uglier turn there.

But, to ask about a Pro-Life Democrat without holding Republicans to account doesn’t make it any easier of a decision.

Because, within the GOP, there does seem to be confusion between “Pro-life” and simply “Pro-birth”.

Its difficult to accept carte blanche “Pro-life” and then turn a blind eye to the needs of the impoverished, infirm, disenfranchised, alienated people. “Pro” is the suffix, and “Life” is the root, and sometimes we miss that point.
 
DIERM said:
Because, within the GOP, there does seem to be confusion between “Pro-life” and simply “Pro-birth”.

Its difficult to accept carte blanche “Pro-life” and then turn a blind eye to the needs of the impoverished, infirm, disenfranchised, alienated people. “Pro” is the suffix, and “Life” is the root, and sometimes we miss that point.
Click to expand...
I agree…we ALL have the duty to help each other out. Private charities should be the norm.
 
Ron Paul was a libertarian when I voted for him in 1988. He was a Republican, sort of, when I voted for him in the 2008 primaries. He was the only Republican candidate who had any respect for the Constitution.
After he got railroaded out, I just didn’t vote. That was the last time I’ve participated in a national election.

As you said, the libertarians generally go by the NAP and combine some of the best freedom policies of the two major parties. A lot of libertarians are pro-life but don’t believe this is an issue of the federal government and should be pushed back to the state level. Personally, I disagree. I think that the 5th amendment protects the unborn.

The whole NAP issue regarding abortion is divisive. One side believes that it’s the mother’s body and she has the right to defend herself against the unwanted fetus. The other side holds that the baby was put in the womb against its will and the person who put it there is morally obligated to protect it until it gets out. I’m of the latter opinion.

But, yeah, the libertarians espouse freedom and are far superior to the two major parties who espouse control.
 
Last edited:
Hobgoblin said:
Well, it’s clearly alive. I can see how somebody can honestly disagree about when it become a person though. Just having that conversation with yourself can be very uncomfortable. What criteria do you use? What if you’re wrong? It’s clearly a person at some point. You don’t get to kill someone just because they began their life inside of you.
Click to expand...
Right.

The main issue is that basically any criteria someone uses to claim that the unborn is not a person can be (and has been) applied to born people too. So it’s not a very good marker to use to look at the morality of abortion.
 
Au contraire, mon frere; you should read Catholic Republic, by Timothy Gordon. Upholding the right to life and upholding the Constitution ARE two necessary components to the American Republic, but there’s more!
I used to be a libertarian myself, so I’m not just knocking your views, by the way
 
Je suis une soeur, mais merci pour votre suggestion. 🙂

I will check that out!
 
Sbee0 said:
The main issue is that basically any criteria someone uses to claim that the unborn is not a person can be (and has been) applied to born people too.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow that. If someone says life begins at a heartbeat (which does seem fairly arbitrary) how could that be applied against born people? Now if they say it begins when viable outside the womb, that might be used against a born person requiring life sustaining assistance. I see it more as a problem of certainty though. By what authority can you know your beliefs are right? Are you just making something up because it seemed right when you scratched yourself in the shower? 🙂 Or is there an objective truth source you’re using? You can’t start having these discussions with yourself without going to uncomfortable places.
 
Hobgoblin said:
40.png
Sbee0:
The main issue is that basically any criteria someone uses to claim that the unborn is not a person can be (and has been) applied to born people too.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow that. If someone says life begins at a heartbeat (which does seem fairly arbitrary) how could that be applied against born people? Now if they say it begins when viable outside the womb, that might be used against a born person requiring life sustaining assistance. I see it more as a problem of certainty though. By what authority can you know your beliefs are right? Are you just making something up because it seemed right when you scratched yourself in the shower? 🙂 Or is there an objective truth source you’re using? You can’t start having these discussions with yourself without going to uncomfortable places.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about the Personhood of the unborn child. And whether only once you are deemed a “Person” - only then are you entitled to the right to life. We know life begins at conception. So this is where the prochoice argument is at now, as modern science has given us insight into life at that stage that didn’t exist at the time of Roe or even Casey, so many of their arguments made back them - like “clump of cells like a tumor” are null and void. Now they say one does not have the right to life until they are a “person”.

Personhood is not a scientific benchmark it is a philosophical one. And intentionally vague thus it is very difficult to assess. I was saying most arguments being made against the Personhood of the unborn can easily be applied to born people as well.
 
Last edited:
Well if you’re not a person yet you can’t be murdered, so it’s an important distinction. I think there are those who haven’t thought this issue through though. I remember when I was first confronted by it in high school I honestly had never considered it. Abortion was legal so it must be ok. I had never been taught otherwise, having left the church before my teens. I had actually become an atheist.
Once I started to think through it logically though it became inescapable that life begins at conception. I think many just don’t think it through. They’re caught up in the passion of the women’s rights part of it.
 
This thread almost makes one think that Republicans don’t support abortion rights or that Republican women don’t obtain abortions. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Republican women get safe legal abortions all the time. They just call them by a different name.
 
Dobby said:
This thread almost makes one think that Republicans don’t support abortion rights or that Republican women don’t obtain abortions.
Click to expand...
I’m sure they do. It’s a politcal party not a religion. It’s a large tent of differing folks united on major things. A plank of the party is opposition to abortion, but of course not everyone agrees on that. Same as the Dem party has pro-life folks. The difference is one party actively works to promote and defend the murder of the unborn. I can understand Catholics aligning with the Dem party on given issues and working to change it from within, particularly at the primary level. I don’t understand how any practicing Catholic could actually vote for any of the Dems currently running for president though.
Dobby said:
They just call them by a different name.
Click to expand...
What’s that?
 
Doctors give their affluent female patients a procedure commonly called “d&c”.
 
Not sure where you live - I live in the state he governs. He is not fantastic.
He is a typical bleeding heart, left-wing rampant spender —- just like the last republican governor we had. He is terrible for this state.
His one saving grace is that he is Catholic and on the issue of murdering helpless babies, he is apparently guided by his conscience.
That makes him superior to 110% of the other dems in this state and in the country; it does not make him fantastic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top