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

[Theo520]

what about my comments regarding Africa?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14852872&postcount=73

I wasn’t aware the Obama admin reduced aid to countries that did not legalize abortion, very sad.

 

[IWantGod]

I wasn’t aware the Obama admin reduced aid to countries that did not legalize abortion, very sad.

I think its very sad that the very poorest in america won’t get the support they need because of single issue voters

 

[dmelosi]

I think its very sad that the very poorest in america won’t get the support they need because of single issue voters

That is such a lie to say this. Don’t you think your party of death has kept them down long enough. Have some pity on your “under my thumb” policy.

 

[phil19034]

I think its very sad that the very poorest in america won’t get the support they need because of single issue voters

This isn’t really true. Non-profits and Churches can & do more to help the poorest in America than the Federal Govt can. Also the States & local govts do a lot of good too. Frankly, local cities and counties should be doing more, and so should the states.

All programs to help the poorest Americans should be ran on the private, city, county and state level, with nothing being organized at the Federal Govt. The Federal Govt can offer some grants, but they should be generic, allowing the local govts to handle.

Helping the poorest Americans should be the goal of every individual person, and a fundamental purpose of LOCAL govt.

The Federal Govt should be focused on national defense, foreign relations and multi-district (aka multi-state) deputes.

Republicans believe everything I have stated above. We want to help the poor. However, we feel the Federal Govt is the worst organization to do it because the Federal Govt isn’t capable of doing a good job on anything other than military, foreign relations & printing money. They can barely handle the Postal Service.

 

[Vonsalza]

what about my comments regarding Africa?

Frankly, I’m not a big fan of foreign assistance via direct funding or indirect funding via overseas military installation maintenance when the budget runs a deficit.

Cut it all, as far as I’m concerned. I prefer my tax dollars going to Americans.

This isn’t really true. Non-profits and Churches can & do more to help the poorest in America than the Federal Govt can. Also the States & local govts do a lot of good too. Frankly, local cities and counties should be doing more, and so should the states.

So you agree that government should assist the poor, but you have a gripe about which level?

In the end, taxes are taxes. To me at least. Which coffer it went in doesn’t really matter to me. A larger organization covering more people is inherently more efficient than a multitude of organizations covering pockets of people. Not to mention, standards of care and uniformity benefit incredibly by administration at a federal level…

All programs to help the poorest Americans should be ran on the private, city, county and state level, with nothing being organized at the Federal Govt. The Federal Govt can offer some grants, but they should be generic, allowing the local govts to handle.

Why?

Republicans believe everything I have stated above. We want to help the poor. However, we feel the Federal Govt is the worst organization to do it because the Federal Govt isn’t capable of doing a good job on anything other than military, foreign relations & printing money. They can barely handle the Postal Service.

The postal service does a vital job that simply no one else wants to do. FedEx and UPS does not, repeat, DOES NOT want to assume the cost of a fleet and personnel that do daily postal deliveries to everyone. They want only the premium parcel business.
It’s also why a lot of UPS deliveries are actually finished by the USPS, particularly in rural areas.

The feds aren’t total ingrates. They managed to put people on the moon and developed the A-bomb. I think most federal hate is irrational and anecdotal. Most folks just don’t like rules, even as they are necessary and will grow in necessity with more and more people living closer together.

 

[godisgood77]

That number is much higher than I’d expect (though I’d be happy if it were true). Where did you get this number from?

Go to the Democrats for life website. There is a great wealth of information and stats. For the 1/3 of dems number, there was a Gallup poll in 2015… 32% of registered dems identify as pro-life… as always there will be ‘noise’ in that number… but a reason for hope

 

[phil19034]

Frankly, I’m not a big fan of foreign assistance via direct funding or indirect funding via overseas military installation maintenance when the budget runs a deficit.

Cut it all, as far as I’m concerned. I prefer my tax dollars going to Americans.

So you agree that government should assist the poor, but you have a gripe about which level?

In the end, taxes are taxes. To me at least. Which coffer it went in doesn’t really matter to me. A larger organization covering more people is inherently more efficient than a multitude of organizations covering pockets of people. Not to mention, standards of care and uniformity benefit incredibly by administration at a federal level…

Why?

The postal service does a vital job that simply no one else wants to do. FedEx and UPS does not, repeat, DOES NOT want to assume the cost of a fleet and personnel that do daily postal deliveries to everyone. They want only the premium parcel business.
It’s also why a lot of UPS deliveries are actually finished by the USPS, particularly in rural areas.

The feds aren’t total ingrates. They managed to put people on the moon and developed the A-bomb. I think most federal hate is irrational and anecdotal. Most folks just don’t like rules, even as they are necessary and will grow in necessity with more and more people living closer together.

1. you mis-understood my point regarding the Postal Service. I agree that it should be federal. I was simply stating that the Federal Govt barely get that one right (and for a while the postal service used to be in shambles)

1a) in regards to NASA - NASA has been successful because the Federal level is the appropriate level. However, one day in the future, the private sector & universities will take over ***some ***parts of what NASA is doing today. However, since the time history began, exploration has always been a govt lead and/or sponsored. So, there will always be a need for national and/or international governmental space agencies.

1. I believe that private organizations (like Churches) should be the first line of defense against poverty and then local govts the 2nd line of defense, counties the 3rd line of defense and the state govts the 4th line of defense.
2. I believe all of this because I believe in subsidiary, which states that public services should be handled as close to the people as possible. Churches and Non-profits are often closest, then local govts, followed by counties & states. The federal govt and the United Nations are the furthest from the people. I’m also a fan of local school boards, because I believe that (in general) local people know how to best address their local issues. And yes, sometimes locals screw up… but they also learn from others and are quicker to adapt. And frankly, if you really don’t like your town that much, it’s a lot easier to move to another town in your local area than to move to another state or metropolitan area.
3. Again, Republicans are not against public sector funds being used to social programs. We just want it handled by lowest level of govt possible, if it can’t be farmed out to non-profit groups who specialize in that area.

God Bless.

 

[dmelosi]

Go to the Democrats for life website. There is a great wealth of information and stats. For the 1/3 of dems number, there was a Gallup poll in 2015… 32% of registered dems identify as pro-life… as always there will be ‘noise’ in that number… but a reason for hope

How do they define pro-life?

 

[YADA]

This is for single issue voters.

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

Why vote for a candidate simply because he is pro-life when doing so doesn’t change anything?

The anti-Life side wants to say it makes no difference [even though it does] because they do know that pro-Life candidates pass pro-Life Bills. And those bills are reducing the numbers of abortions. They fight every pro-Life candidate and every pro-Life legislation as if it was the end of the world. And when they lose at the ballot box they turn to the courts.

Priests for Life think its makes a difference - here’s a list of current legislation - How many Democrats do you suppose will step up and sponsor/vote for any of these? If not the Democrats then which party will - yes - it will most like be a Republican
priestsforlife.org/legislation/

So it does make a difference:

1995 Partial Birth Abortion Ban - Passed by Congress [by Republicans] vetoed by Bill Clinton
1997 Partial Birth Abortion Ban - Passed by Congress [by Republicans] vetoed by Bill Clinton
2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban - Passed by Congress [by Republicans] signed by George W Bush - 2007 Upheld by the US Supreme Court Gonzales V Carhart

At the State level - there have been many Pro-Life Laws passed -
heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/new-study-shows-pro-life-laws-save-lives

This isn’t merely the author’s opinion or a case of wishful thinking. Michael New, an assistant professor in political science at the University of Alabama, carefully and scientifically analyzed the numbers using a methodology that’s included with the paper. His research began with these two facts: During the 1990s, the number of abortions dropped by around 18 percent (after rising in the 1970s and '80s) even as the amount of pro-life legislation mentioned above – parental-notification laws, etc. – increased substantially:

In 1992, virtually no states were enforcing informed consent laws.By 2000, 27 states had informed consent laws in effect.
In 1992, no states had banned or restricted partial-birth abortion. By 2000, 12 states had bans or restrictions in effect.
In 1992, only 20 states were enforcing parental involvement statutes.By 2000, 32 states were enforcing these laws.
But we don’t have to throw up our hands. As New points out, there’s a built-in way to judge whether the laws are making a difference. In some states, courts have struck down the pro-life legislation in question; in others, obviously, it has become law. By comparing the two groups, we can find which has a greater effect: changes in values or changes in law. If it’s a shift in values, then states that have had their pro-life laws nullified will show a decline in abortion similar to states where the laws are allowed to take effect.

aclj.org/pro-life

Here is a nice list of just one State’s [Wisconsin] Pro-Life legislation
wrtl.org/legislationelections/right-to-life-laws-passed/

 

[HelenRose]

This is for single issue voters.

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

Why vote for a candidate simply because he is pro-life when doing so doesn’t change anything?

Without the right to life, all other rights are forfeited.

Without the right to life, there is no freedom.

There would be no reason to vote at all because without life all else is empty words and lies.

 

[IWantGod]

I found this article which is interesting.

uscatholic.org/blog/201603/can-catholic-vote-democrat-moral-considerations-30587

"*…Again, Catholic voters have a responsibility to consider all this when discerning how to vote. And after considering all of the above, Catholics might believe that a president could have an impact on the abortion rate in other ways—like through economic policy. Even though the overall abortion rate has declined in the past three decades, it has risen by 18% among poor women. Catholic voters might come to the conclusion that the Democratic platform of social and economic aid could help alleviate the conditions that are motivating poor women to seek abortion in the first place.

Even though a particular candidate might want abortion to remain legal, this candidate might also support policies to lessen hunger and homelessness, improve education and healthcare, and strengthen the economy. The Democratic candidate might be more in line with Catholic social teaching concerning protection of the environment, meaningful work, a just and living wage, and care for immigrants and the poor. The Democratic candidate might agree with the Catholic Church concerning the death penalty and torture. A Catholic voter might sincerely believe that the Democratic candidate would more effectively promote peace and justice, both nationally and globally*."

 

[IWantGod]

“A Catholic is not obligated to ignore the vast majority of a candidate’s political platform and public behavior and vote solely based on whether he or she wants to criminalize abortion—especially if there’s good reason to believe that said candidate doesn’t have the ability (or the intention) to do anything of the sort.”

 

[IWantGod]

Without the right to life, all other rights are forfeited.

Without the right to life, there is no freedom.

There would be no reason to vote at all because without life all else is empty words and lies.

So from your position you think it would be morally acceptable for us to lose all our human rights if it meant that abortion would be made illegal?

I don’t think that’s correct.

I think we have to be careful not to idolaterize the abortion issue at the expense of other goods.

 

[Wampa]

Mexico City Policy.

Will save 1 million lives by most estimates over 8 years.

Voting does make a difference

Yep. It’s sad that this thread is 9 pages long and only one post references this, because it’s the answer to the OP’s question.

Many seem to want to ignore the fact, but since 1984, our vote for either a Republican or a Democrat for President has made a direct and immediate impact on abortion. Republican Presidents quickly enact it when they enter office and Democratic Presidents quickly rescind it. President Trump both enacted it and massively expanded it.

Despite his many, many (many!) faults, one can argue he’s been the most anti-abortion President we’ve had in a long time. In fact, the New York Times has made that argument (Anti-Abortion Marchers Draw Inspiration From an Unlikely Source).

 

[Joe_5859]

Go to the Democrats for life website. There is a great wealth of information and stats. For the 1/3 of dems number, there was a Gallup poll in 2015… 32% of registered dems identify as pro-life… as always there will be ‘noise’ in that number… but a reason for hope

Thanks. I misunderstood your previous post. I thought you meant that 32% of Democrat politicians were pro-life. That 32% of registered Democrat voters identify as pro-life makes a lot more sense.

 

[dmelosi]

Thanks. I misunderstood your previous post. I thought you meant that 32% of Democrat politicians were pro-life. That 32% of registered Democrat voters identify as pro-life makes a lot more sense.

What is scary is how the democrats are trying to define what pro-life means.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think its very sad that the very poorest in america won’t get the support they need because of single issue voters

This line of thought bothers me. It assumes that the Democrat party is the “party for the poor”. I don’t agree. (Not that I think the Republican party is the “party for the poor” either.)

I think one could easily turn around the question in the OP: If voting Democrat doesn’t change poverty, then why vote Democrat? We still had poor people in the country even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. So clearly the Democrats are just posturing on being “for the poor” in order to manipulate people into voting for them.

If you disagree with this and/or think it’s a gross oversimplification, then perhaps you are closer to understanding why so many posters here continue to disagree with the premise in the OP.

 

[Mavzylor]

I vote just based on the abortion stance for the reasons already listed (they do in fact change things, and even if they didn’t they wouldn’t make thinks worse like the alternative). However even when it comes to issues like helping the poor, which a lot of democratic voters will claim is the reason they vote democrat, i still think republicans do better. From my perspective, democrats want to leave the poor living off of the programs they push for so they can keep getting their votes, rather than creating programs that will actually get the poor back on their feet.

 

[Vonsalza]

What is scary is how the democrats are trying to define what pro-life means.

What’s scary is that single-issue voters like yourself sometimes actually vote.

This line of thought bothers me. It assumes that the Democrat party is the “party for the poor”. I don’t agree. (Not that I think the Republican party is the “party for the poor” either.)

Subjectively, everything is potentially flawed. So I think you’re right here. But when you look at the kinds of bills that get past committee and actually make it to the floor, the Dems are generally more providing for the poor.

I think one could easily turn around the question in the OP: If voting Democrat doesn’t change poverty, then why vote Democrat?

Hear hear! One of my younger female colleagues just got her son a spot in the local Head Start program started by LBJ and the Dems. Her kid is going to learn something in a more structured way than her sitter provided AND (and this is big) she gets to keep the money she was spending on childcare and direct it to other things.

Happy to see my tax dollars funneled to such a useful program.

We still had poor people in the country even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency.

The poor will always be with us, as even Christ said. But the near-halving that poverty experienced during LBJs “Great Society” programs continues unto this day. I want to do LITERALLY anything I can to keep those “wasteful, bureaucratic, ‘big government’” programs going. They help lives in a way people have simply forgotten and take for granted.

If you disagree with this and/or think it’s a gross oversimplification, then perhaps you are closer to understanding why so many posters here continue to disagree with the premise in the OP.

I agree with your sentiment. Republicans have successfully created a myriad of marginal adjustments to Roe v. Wade like “no abortions on Mondays” and “No abortions for people in red T-shirts” that usually don’t survive the next administration or judicial challenge. If you want to call that progress, fine with me. But it looks awful cyclical.

98% of abortions occur within the first 21 weeks. If Republicans want to stop this, they’d have to overturn the SCOTUS or pass a constitutional amendment. THEN they’d have to find another issue to keep some voting Republican.

Hence, I don’t think party leadership really cares about the issue. Can’t remember the last time McConnell really championed it.

 

[dmelosi]

What’s scary is that single-issue voters like yourself sometimes actually vote.

Do you think the most innocent human beings that are intentionally and brutally killed think that my vote or your vote is more scary?

I would bet I am much more than a single issue voter than you.