If voting republican doesn't change Abortion laws, then why vote Republican?

[phil19034]

So your argument is that if you are a democrat you can’t be pro life?

That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s saying that all the Democrats in Congress (not all Democrats in state legislatures, and certainly not all Democrats in general) have a terrible pro-life voting record according to the National Pro-Life groups and have an excellent pro-choice voting record according to the national pro-choice groups.

Both the pro-life and pro-choice groups both agree on their individual analysis regarding the voting records of everyone in Congress.

 

[dmelosi]

So your argument is that if you are a democrat you can’t be pro life?

I am saying that if you are a democrat, you are following a party whose leaders you believe and follow, that vote almost 100% pro-abortion.

I am also saying that is almost as hard to be a pro life democrat as it is for there to be a justified death penalty carried out.

Rare.

I personally would consider anyone who is vocal to their party and publicly, that what they are doing on abortion is wrong, to be pro-life.

I believe also rare.

 

[dmelosi]

That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s saying that all the Democrats in Congress (not all Democrats in state legislatures, and certainly not all Democrats in general) have a terrible pro-life voting record according to the National Pro-Life groups and have an excellent pro-choice voting record according to the national pro-choice groups.

Both the pro-life and pro-choice groups both agree on there individual analysis regarding the voting records of everyone in Congress.

I am also saying that democrats who vote for their party without a fierce fight, are complicate.

 

[po18guy]

This is a Church issue, an issue of morality, and not political party.

Pass 1,000 pro-life laws and the Supreme court will strike each down. Looking at abortion as purely a matter of law is a red herring - wasted time and effort.

Change the makeup of the Supreme Court and progress will be possible.

However, it is even more a matter of changing the human heart which seeks the abortion in the first place.

Murder has always been illegal, but passing more laws against it will not alter the fact that there are now more murders than ever.

 

[Vonsalza]

…as you say, there are a number of pro-life democrats. However, the party is controlled by the pro-choice camp and control of the party seems to be moving further to the left.

I believe that’s the point dmelosi was trying to make.

In fairness, I recognize that as the point dmelosi was trying to make, in part. I’m dissenting on the notion that current leadership on one issue should somehow dictate whether or not your belong to a given political party (especially when your average rep isn’t too far behind in the same view).

As to the dems moving further left, I’m not so sure. I think society on-the-whole is moving further left, given the nationwide drift leftward on issues like gay marriage and legalized marijuana. Poll data today is more “leftward” than poll data that’s ten years old.

At the party level, there has been much talk in our camp over whether the tactic of pursuing identity politics is still a good one. Thank God, many are starting to question it. Bernie Sanders being among them.

To the point raised here; Trump is now the most efficacious man in the Republican party. So you should stop being a rep on that basis?

Of course not.

 

[Joe_5859]

Over 90% of democrats have a naral rating of 100%.
Over 88% of repulicans have a naral rating of 0%

Honestly, these are the numbers that matter the most. Whether a politician self-identifies as pro-life is inconsequential if it doesn’t effect the way they vote on legislation related to abortion.

 

[Vonsalza]

Honestly, these are the numbers that matter the most. Whether a politician self-identifies as pro-life is inconsequential if it doesn’t effect the way they vote on legislation related to abortion.

I’ll agree that these are the numbers that matter most… right now… on one particular issue…

As has been my cry throughout this thread, people choose political parties far a myriad of reasons and current party leadership can and does change.

But to your point: Trump is undeniably a “Rockefeller (liberal) Republican”. If you think he’d sign something that came across his desk that actually moved the needle against his progressive east-coast social class in a genuinely material way, I think you’d be sorely mistaken. As such, we’ve yet another Republican administration that isn’t going to do anything material about abortion in this country, but will continue to dangle it in front of you so they maintain your much-needed vote.

---

Nonetheless, there are several on these boards who think it is reasonable to ask pro-life Democrats to forsake their views on monetary policy, taxes, international relations, national defense and a host of other issues and just register/vote Republican for the sake that maybe, possibly, fingers-crossed, SCOTUS might someday reverse itself on Roe v. Wade, despite current Republican appointees like Gorsuch saying he wouldn’t do it…

That is insane.

 

[PluniaZ]

We have had many Republican presidents and senates, as well as a majority Republican Supreme Court for several decades.

And still Roe v Wade has not been overturned.

This is one of many reasons why I will never vote Republican.

 

[dmelosi]

We have had many Republican presidents and senates, as well as a majority Republican Supreme Court for several decades.

And still Roe v Wade has not been overturned.

This is one of many reasons why I will never vote Republican.

But what you vote does mean is that you will make sure to vote for the party that will make sure abortion on demand will never be slowed.

 

[dmelosi]

I’ll agree that these are the numbers that matter most… right now… on one particular issue…

As has been my cry throughout this thread, people choose political parties far a myriad of reasons and current party leadership can and does change.

But to your point: Trump is undeniably a “Rockefeller (liberal) Republican”. If you think he’d sign something that came across his desk that actually moved the needle against his progressive east-coast social class in a genuinely material way, I think you’d be sorely mistaken. As such, we’ve yet another Republican administration that isn’t going to do anything material about abortion in this country, but will continue to dangle it in front of you so they maintain your much-needed vote.

---

Nonetheless, there are several on these boards who think it is reasonable to ask pro-life Democrats to forsake their views on monetary policy, taxes, international relations, national defense and a host of other issues and just register/vote Republican for the sake that maybe, possibly, fingers-crossed, SCOTUS might someday reverse itself on Roe v. Wade, despite current Republican appointees like Gorsuch saying he wouldn’t do it…

That is insane.

I wouldn’t label him that way, but we will see.

What you say about the host of other issues is simply not true. Each can be debated and I will be glad to debate one of the issues. I quite possibly would agree with you.

 

[Peter_J]

This is for single issue voters.

After reading the thread title, I clicked on it in order to ask you if you’re a single-issue voter … guess there’s no reason to do that now.

But that being said, I’m not sure if the issue of abortion is a reason to vote Republican … perhaps it is better seen as a reason to vote against Democrats. It like when a politician says something really awful, which isn’t going to affect actual laws, but it nevertheless shows that he or she isn’t someone who should really be in office – as for example in last years GOP primary election, many of us avoided voting for Donald Trump because of his statements about Veterans, about women (not counting the Access Hollywood video, which only came to light later), about Mexicans, about black people and others: there wasn’t a particular law about e.g. veterans that we feared Trump would alter, it was just that his statements showed how unfit for the presidency he is.

 

[IWantGod]

---

Nonetheless, there are several on these boards who think it is reasonable to ask pro-life Democrats to forsake their views on monetary policy, taxes, international relations, national defense and a host of other issues and just register/vote Republican for the sake that maybe, possibly, fingers-crossed, SCOTUS might someday reverse itself on Roe v. Wade, despite current Republican appointees like Gorsuch saying he wouldn’t do it…

That is insane.

Its unreasonable to reject all the other good that could be done for the sake of avoiding a pro-life candidate.

It just seems to me that the republican party know how serious the abortion issue is for Christians and so they are counting on the support of one issue voters to get them into the white house. I can’t help but think those Christians are being hoodwinked.

 

[Joe_5859]

Its unreasonable to reject all the other good that could be done for the sake of avoiding a pro-life candidate.

It just seems to me that the republican party know how serious the abortion issue is for Christians and so they are counting on the support of one issue voters to get them into the white house. I can’t help but think those Christians are being hoodwinked.

I think one could just as easily argue that poor people are being hoodwinked to vote for Democrats on the promise that their lot in life will improve. There’s a lot of hoodwinking going around.

Would that we had only people of the utmost integrity in political offices. That’s just not the case. But when it’s a choice between someone who will reliably vote to give Planned Parenthood money and shoot down any incremental laws (such as parental notification, mandatory ultrasounds, etc.) and someone who will reliably vote to defund Planned Parenthood and support those incremental laws, I’ll vote for the latter over the former regardless of what their motivation is.

 

[Ender]

We have had many Republican presidents and senates,…

Surely you must understand the issue sufficiently to know that no legislature can ever ban what a Supreme Court ruling has explicitly legalized.

… as well as a majority Republican Supreme Court for several decades.

This rather seriously confuses the nature of the court. It may well be true that the majority of justices were appointed by Republican presidents, but that is a far cry from making them “Republican” justices. To understand the difference, had Robert Bork been confirmed he would have been the fifth justice needed to reverse Roe. Instead, because of the slanderous opposition of Democrats (led by Ted Kennedy), we got Anthony Kennedy. He reinforced Roe by his decision in Casey. Both men were nominated by Reagan, but both were hardly Republican in any meaningful sense of the word.

And still Roe v Wade has not been overturned.

Emphasis on “still”. The best way to ensure that Roe is never reversed is the one you have chosen: claim it is not possible and don’t try. While not all Republican appointees will oppose Roe, some will, and if Republican presidents get to appoint enough justices, eventually Roe will fall. No justice appointed by a Democrat has ever opposed Roe, and it becomes ever less likely that one will.

This is one of many reasons why I will never vote Republican.

I’m sure you have many reasons to oppose Republicans, but this isn’t a reason. It is a rationalization.

Ender

 

[Vonsalza]

Emphasis on “still”. The best way to ensure that Roe is never reversed is the one you have chosen: claim it is not possible and don’t try.

The insistence that pro-life dems should forsake their views on everything else that makes them a dem in the blind hope that SCOTUS might oddly decide to reverse itself on some happy day in the abstract future just isn’t rational.

 

[Ender]

The insistence that pro-life dems should forsake their views on everything else that makes them a dem in the blind hope that SCOTUS might oddly decide to reverse itself on some happy day in the abstract future just isn’t rational.

I didn’t actually insist on that. At a minimum, though, it would be refreshing if Catholic Democrats would simply admit that other issues are more important to them than abortion. Continually portraying the reversal of Roe as impossible, especially given how close the court was to doing exactly that in the 80’s (with Bork’s nomination) is, as I observed before, a rationalization.

Ender

 

[Vonsalza]

I didn’t actually insist on that. At a minimum, though, it would be refreshing if Catholic Democrats would simply admit that other issues are more important to them than abortion. Continually portraying the reversal of Roe as impossible, especially given how close the court was to doing exactly that in the 80’s (with Bork’s nomination) is, as I observed before, a rationalization.

Ender

Well, as the highest court in the land has ruled that it’s constitutionally protected, that means the fight is over at the legal level. One could hope for reversal, but it’s highly unlikely given that attitude of 4/5ths of democrats and a full third of republicans are in support of it in some way.

We might have a shot at this reversal when the culture on-the-whole swings against it. As such, the proper target for the abolition of abortion is bottom-up. Not top-down.

To your line of “it would be refreshing if Catholic Democrats would simply admit that other issues are more important to them than abortion”;

For the sake of pragmatism, this is exactly how most feel. Catholic Democrats see it as “other issues that are undecided or continually in flux deserve more consideration than issues already authoritatively settled by SCOTUS”.

In the words of Gorsuch, Trump’s recent appointee to SCOTUS concerning abortion, “It is the law of the land”.

 

[Ender]

Well, as the highest court in the land has ruled that it’s constitutionally protected, that means the fight is over at the legal level. One could hope for reversal, but it’s highly unlikely given that attitude of 4/5ths of democrats and a full third of republicans are in support of it in some way.

Reversal, as I’m sure you know, is not dependent on what the population thinks about the issue. It is entirely in the hands of the nine justices, and reversal has always been a possibility, which is why it continues to be such a concern every time a new justice is appointed. If Trump gets to name another one we will all be treated to a battle over the nomination the likes of which we haven’t seen since Bork.

To your line of “it would be refreshing if Catholic Democrats would simply admit that other issues are more important to them than abortion”;

For the sake of pragmatism, this is exactly how most feel.

I’m sure this is true, which is why it would be refreshing to see people admit this.

Catholic Democrats see it as “other issues that are undecided or continually in flux deserve more consideration than issues already authoritatively settled by SCOTUS”.

In the words of Gorsuch, Trump’s recent appointee to SCOTUS concerning abortion, “It is the law of the land”.

Of course it’s the law of the land, and it will be until SCOTUS reverses its earlier decision.

Ender

 

[Vonsalza]

Reversal, as I’m sure you know, is not dependent on what the population thinks about the issue.

I wouldn’t be so sure. The language within the reversal, of course, will reference no such thing. But the Court is a product of the attitudes of the time.

You think SCOTUS’s legalization of homosexual marriage and acceptance by the majority of the populace prior to the ruling just happened to be coincidences? Frankly, why do you think reversals from SCOTUS happen? If we nullified the 14th amendment with another amendment, do you think the Court would uphold the Dred Scott decision?

A very significant part of the field of political science deals with these very issues. Attitudes do change. As a result in part, so do rulings from the bench.

If you really want to make abortion illegal, evangelize the culture. When the majority of Americans feel abortion is unambiguously evil, I’m confident that the Court will then agree. Not until then.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[IWantGod]

I

If you really want to make abortion illegal, evangelize the culture…

This is what i keep saying!!! But it seems single issue voters prefer legalism.