Interesting Perspectives on Voting Pro-Choice

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

St_Aloysius

Guest
I’m a happy liberal. I’m also a devout pro-lifer.

I’ve been rooting for candidates who stand up for the prolife issue . Anyhoo, I’ve been encouraging my friends to consider this when voting in the mock election this coming Monday at school.

Well, while discussing this issue in our Religious Education class, one of our teachers said something that really made me think about it in a different light. She told us that she had a friend that underwent an abortion because her financial situation was so bad that she felt it was a mercy-act: She didn’t think she could give her child everything it needed. So our teacher told us that she has made sure since then that the candidate that she votes for gives hope to people like her friend, that can help financially those in desperate need in order to prevent more abortions springing from such a scenario. In other words, she might vote for a pro-choice candidate in order to save a child’s life.

Likewise, a very strong and opionated pro-life friend of mine is rooting for a pro-choice candidate in the race. When I asked about why she supported a pro-choice candidate, she answered: “Right now, in this country, people already have the choice. They probably will for a while. I want good policies in the meantime. I think our job should be giving hope to those that have the choice to make–because even were it illegal, without doing that, we’d’ve made little real difference.”

These thoughts really caught me off-guard. Both are working toward the preservation of human life. Their resolutions seem good and perfectly justifiable. After all, a pro-life president will always be subject to the rulings of Congress. Their campaigns for life, and their unique ways of going about it: What are your thoughts on this?
 
Sorry, but just because you have a bad financial situation there is NO mercy involved when you are killing a child…this is disgusting.

Why would anyone think someone pro ABORTION is a good candidate??

This isn’t rocket science…killing an unborn child is a horrible and dastardly thing. Can’t we vote for someone who figures the life of a human is valuable?
 
I think what you are trying to say is that your friend wanted to vote for a pro-choice candidate who might reduce poverty, thus in a misdirected way, reduce abortions?

Reducing poverty probably has quite an impact on abortion rates, but it isn’t enough of an argument to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Also, I would be interested in analytical, empirical studies on finances and abortion correlation. See, financial difficulty is such a subjective word. It would be more accurate to say women choose abortion because of financial fear…e.g. fear of what ifs.

It is certainly an issue that deserves our notice and compassion. It does not, however, mean that we should compromise our position on the right to life. Fostering a loving and life-oriented society will open up new pathways for us to reduce poverty.

A woman who aborts because of money issues will still have money issues. More of them, with the average first trimester abortion costing 300-600 buckaroos. At the end of it, she will still have money problems, but she will also be the mother of a dead baby. 😦
 
I’m a happy liberal. I’m also a devout pro-lifer.

I’ve been rooting for candidates who stand up for the prolife issue . Anyhoo, I’ve been encouraging my friends to consider this when voting in the mock election this coming Monday at school.

Well, while discussing this issue in our Religious Education class, one of our teachers said something that really made me think about it in a different light. She told us that she had a friend that underwent an abortion because her financial situation was so bad that she felt it was a mercy-act: She didn’t think she could give her child everything it needed. So our teacher told us that she has made sure since then that the candidate that she votes for gives hope to people like her friend, that can help financially those in desperate need in order to prevent more abortions springing from such a scenario. In other words, she might vote for a pro-choice candidate in order to save a child’s life.

Likewise, a very strong and opionated pro-life friend of mine is rooting for a pro-choice candidate in the race. When I asked about why she supported a pro-choice candidate, she answered: “Right now, in this country, people already have the choice. They probably will for a while. I want good policies in the meantime. I think our job should be giving hope to those that have the choice to make–because even were it illegal, without doing that, we’d’ve made little real difference.”

These thoughts really caught me off-guard. Both are working toward the preservation of human life. Their resolutions seem good and perfectly justifiable. After all, a pro-life president will always be subject to the rulings of Congress. Their campaigns for life, and their unique ways of going about it: What are your thoughts on this?
First thought is that a pro life president will more than likely nominate a pro life supreme court justice. A pro death president will make sure that if they nominate someone, that person will also be pro death.

If you have any questions on where the parties state they stand, look at their national websites.

Just curious, you say you are a happy liberal, what does liberal mean to you?
 
So our teacher told us that she has made sure since then that the candidate that she votes for gives hope to people like her friend, that can help financially those in desperate need in order to prevent more abortions springing from such a scenario. In other words, she might vote for a pro-choice candidate in order to save a child’s life.
I agree that it is important to enact policies which reduce the demand for abortion. Doing so, as well as restricting or banning abortions, seems the right path to take.
 
Dosen’t the church condemn doing evil for a supposed “greator good”?
 
Those are extremely different. The first comment is spin, pure spin, what could be worse for the child than the murder suffered? Second, all the mother needed to give was love which cost nothing. And third an rather obvious killing the child by definition did caused the loss of life and can not be consider as the definition of saving life.

In the second issue a complex condition exists. This occurs because the person is probably correct that all these candidates will probably have a minimal affect on abortion thus making abortion a neutral issue in the current race. However any direct support for abortion can be considered sin. This leaves the judgment of whether abortion is neutral in the election as the key question.
 
Actually, you may want to look up a few difinitions
And you may choose to use spell checker next time…:eek:

Since you obviously didn’t bother to look it up yourself, an “oxymoron” is a contradiction of terms. To call oneself “liberal” and “pro-life” is definitely a contradiction. You won’t find the term “pro-life” within the platform of any political party that considers itself attractive to liberals.
 
Dear Student,

This country has safeguards in place so that women who find themselves expecting a baby have many options to avoid killing the child.

First: Poverty is no excuse. few parents if any have the financial means to give their chld [children] every thing they could want. So define what this mother could not give her child? Food, shelter health care … this is hype, there exists many social programs [government sponsored] and many private organizations that assist in providing these needs. Perhaps they do too good a job as un - planned pregnancies continue to occur with regularity, and single parenthood which used to be rare is now practically the norm. Adoption is much rarer than either single motherhood or abortion … Adoption is a real option for a young person who feels they truly do not have the resources to raise a child …

A young woman was quoted in our paper saying she had"an abortion rather than consider adoption because she would feel bad worrying about her child being adopted by parents who would hurt her child"

Do you get that? That is the same faulty thought process used by your teacher! Somehow, her murdering her child was better than taking the chance that this child would not find a loving happy home but would be harmed by the adoptive parents …

You say you are a “Happy Liberal” strong families are good for children … murdering children in the womb devalues all human life …

What would this young person do if her financial situation [satifactory before birth] changed a year after her child was born to extreme poverty? Should she be abe to compassionately kill her child then? What if it was less than a year, ho about a month, a week or after only a day?

If you answer “No”, then ask yourself what is changed … the child’s address? The childs worth? I think you will not have a satisfactory answer why
 
And you may choose to use spell checker next time…:eek:

Since you obviously didn’t bother to look it up yourself, an “oxymoron” is a contradiction of terms. To call oneself “liberal” and “pro-life” is definitely a contradiction. You won’t find the term “pro-life” within the platform of any political party that considers itself attractive to liberals.
It is possible to be pro-life and support policies that are generally considered liberal, regardless of what your radio and a certain cable channel named after a canine tell you.
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Sound familiar?
 
In other words, she might vote for a pro-choice candidate in order to save a child’s life.

These thoughts really caught me off-guard. Both are working toward the preservation of human life. Their resolutions seem good and perfectly justifiable. After all, a pro-life president will always be subject to the rulings of Congress. Their campaigns for life, and their unique ways of going about it: What are your thoughts on this?
One cannot ignore the courts in this matter i.e. that laws can be enacted but deemed unconstitutional by a liberal or conservative high court.

It’s complicated, and depends on a person’s motives. If one is voting for a “pro-choice” candidate, whom they don’t really feel will have a pro-abortion effect but really believe will have a significant effect on reducing poverty and saving lives, I see nothing wrong with them voting their conscience.

If, however, they’re voting pro-choice to support the “choice”, which is abortion, that’s an entirely different matter.

Some who vote Pro-life as a single issue may not take this complexity into account, as well as those who underestimate the pro-abortion potential of some candidates.

The best thing to do appears to inform oneself on where the candidates really stand (looking at their history), critically compare, pray and go vote. 👍
 
And you may choose to use spell checker next time…:eek:

Since you obviously didn’t bother to look it up yourself, an “oxymoron” is a contradiction of terms. To call oneself “liberal” and “pro-life” is definitely a contradiction. You won’t find the term “pro-life” within the platform of any political party that considers itself attractive to liberals.
Well if thatis all it takes okay
“Actually, you may want to look up a few definitions”

The law of the land is Pro-choice would like to conserve that or liberate the unborn from legal killing ?
 
Of course not, the anti-abortion issue was co-opted by the right-wingers of the Republican party in 1980 to garner the Christian vote.

It is, however, possible to be pro-life and support policies that are generally considered liberal, regardless of what your radio and a certain cable channel named after a canine tell you.
I disagree I think the 1980’s republicans were Pro-Life, however today’s republicans are probably lip service only on that issue. The radio crowd practices deceit with the intent to divide and mislead on many if not all issues.
 
If you look back through the posts, you can mostly tell which posters are democrats and which are republicans and which are neither.

Everyone of those that appear to be republican condemn abortion as well as the “neither” do.

The ones that appear to be democrat spend most of their time smoothing over the abortion issue.

The absolute fact of the matter is, cannot dispute it because it is in black and white.

Go to the party platform and see what each say about abortion.

Democrats want unrestricted abortion.
Republicans are against abortion.

All of the other issues can be debated and I suggest a thread for each of the disputes, but who is pro life and who is pro death on abortion is in black and white, right from the horses mouth.

Democrats will not allow a pro life democrat to run. Doesn’t this say something to those democrats who will not vote anything but democrat?

The most important issue is who nominates the supreme court justices…democrats will not allow a pro life judge.
 
I’m a happy liberal. I’m also a devout pro-lifer.

I’ve been rooting for candidates who stand up for the prolife issue . Anyhoo, I’ve been encouraging my friends to consider this when voting in the mock election this coming Monday at school.

Well, while discussing this issue in our Religious Education class, one of our teachers said something that really made me think about it in a different light. She told us that she had a friend that underwent an abortion because her financial situation was so bad that she felt it was a mercy-act: She didn’t think she could give her child everything it needed. So our teacher told us that she has made sure since then that the candidate that she votes for gives hope to people like her friend, that can help financially those in desperate need in order to prevent more abortions springing from such a scenario. In other words, she might vote for a pro-choice candidate in order to save a child’s life.

Likewise, a very strong and opionated pro-life friend of mine is rooting for a pro-choice candidate in the race. When I asked about why she supported a pro-choice candidate, she answered: “Right now, in this country, people already have the choice. They probably will for a while. I want good policies in the meantime. I think our job should be giving hope to those that have the choice to make–because even were it illegal, without doing that, we’d’ve made little real difference.”

These thoughts really caught me off-guard. Both are working toward the preservation of human life. Their resolutions seem good and perfectly justifiable. After all, a pro-life president will always be subject to the rulings of Congress. Their campaigns for life, and their unique ways of going about it: What are your thoughts on this?
Yes this is absurd. I am sorry, but those are just rationalizations. 4000 abortions happen every day. Voting to keep them legal is not saving anyone’s life.

And most women do not procure an abortion because they can’t afford it, they get one simply because they don’t want the baby.
 
Democrats will not allow a pro life democrat to run. Doesn’t this say something to those democrats who will not vote anything but democrat?
This is key. The democrats won’t even allow an anti-abortion candidate to speak at the convention! This alone bars me from ever even thinking about voting for democrats.
 
This is key. The democrats won’t even allow an anti-abortion candidate to speak at the convention! This alone bars me from ever even thinking about voting for democrats.
That’s fair. Remember we had a republican president, senate, and house which together did zero on the issue, thus the position the election is morally neutral on this issue maybe correct
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top