Is it possible to vote democrat because you think they would do more against abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But I certainly see the logic in saying that having more Democrats in office would help lower abortions. Democrats are more likely to create and maintain government programs that maintain some kind of a social safety net that gives women a visible, concretely constructive alternative to abortion
I’m late to this thread (I see it’s already 9 pages long) but I did not see the fallacy of this reasoning addressed on page 1.



† Social spending includes housing and community services, welfare and social services, recreation and culture, health, education, retirement benefits, disability benefits and unemployment benefits.
‡ National defense includes military spending and veterans’ benefits.
§ General government and debt service includes the executive & legislative branches, tax collection, financial management, and interest payments.

Economic affairs includes transportation, general economic & labor affairs, agriculture, natural resources, energy, and space.​

£ Public order and safety includes police, fire, law courts, and prisons.

And what about all the federal off-budget spending? Does any of it help lower abortions?

There have been over 53,000,000 abortions in the U.S.A since 1973.

By contrast, the number of military casualties suffered by the U.S.A. in war or deployments is 1,343,812 deaths** since 1775 – that’s less than 2.6% the number of deaths due to abortion since 1973, and in just over 6.2 times as long of a time period.
**
 
On the other hand, support for abortion is in the Democrat platform. Virtually no Democrat votes prolife any significant part of the time. And what programs do you think the Democrats have passed in the last few decades that really do support human life and dignity? Concretely, now. No platitudes.
Granted it is very difficult, but i do not give up hope.
I have hope in pro-life Dem Bob Casey, since 2007 he has been fighting for woman and children.
Help for Pregnant Women and Adoption: ***The Pregnant Women Support Act ***provisions that Senator Casey authored were enacted into law as part of the health care reform bill and provide $1.2 billion in increased adoption assistance and $250 million to create a Pregnancy Assistance Fund. Both of these provisions will go a long way to reduce the number of abortions. So we are trying…talk comes cheap, especially when it is time to reelect. It has been 40yrs now …actually starting back well before Roe/Wade when Ronald Reagan signed that bad bill as Governor in California back in 1967. It’s true he repented and had a change of heart but what dreadful damage that kicked off. Will the law ever be killed? Peace, Carlan
 
Your assumption that the count of Democrats or Republicans is more important than how they vote is ill-founded. A pro-life Democrat, even if giving a super majority to that party, does not really count as a Democrat when real political power is called for. ** If he really is pro-life, then he is going to vote that way regardless of his party label.** And if one’s views continue to conflict with those of his nominal party, it is not unheard of that someone would actually change party affiliations. So I would not put too much stock in simple head counts.
Exhibit A: Bart Stupak
Exhibit B: Marion Berry
Exhibit C: Sanford Bishop
Exhibit D: Jerry Costello
Exhibit E: Kathy Dahlkemper
Exhibit F: Joe Donnelly
Exhibit G: Steve Driehaus
Exhibit H: Marcy Kaptur
Exhibit I: Dan Lipinski
Exhibit J: Alan Mollohan
Exhibit K: Nick Rahall
(i.e. the “Stupak Eleven”)

Stupak and his allies spent months opposing ObamaCare because it funds abortions. Most of them eventually voted for the bill after Obama agreed to sign an executive order requiring that no funds from the bill go to pay for elective abortions (So much for that… at least two states, Pennsylvania and Maryland, have accepted federal funds for high-risk insurance pools, and both offer significant abortion coverage).

But instead of members of the bloc establishing themselves as principled pro-lifers, they made enemies on both sides. Liberals were enraged by what they saw as grandstanding and obstructionism, and anti-abortion conservatives were incensed when the Stupak bloc “betrayed” them and voted for the health care bill.

So, I guess there are no real pro-life Democrats?
 
Granted it is very difficult, but i do not give up hope.
I have hope in pro-life Dem Bob Casey, since 2007 he has been fighting for woman and children.
Help for Pregnant Women and Adoption: ***The Pregnant Women Support Act ***provisions that Senator Casey authored were enacted into law as part of the health care reform bill and provide $1.2 billion in increased adoption assistance and $250 million to create a Pregnancy Assistance Fund. Both of these provisions will go a long way to reduce the number of abortions. So we are trying…talk comes cheap, especially when it is time to reelect. It has been 40yrs now …actually starting back well before Roe/Wade when Ronald Reagan signed that bad bill as Governor in California back in 1967. It’s true he repented and had a change of heart but what dreadful damage that kicked off. Will the law ever be killed? Peace, Carlan
I suspecty his Father is rolling over in his grave. Casey ALWAYS supports the Democrat party in their anti-life legislation. Just two examples-he voted for the abortion funding health care law and opposed cutting funding for Planned Parenthood

The passage of the health care law killed once and for all the myth of the pro-life democrat legislator.
 
Exhibit A: Bart Stupak
Exhibit B: Marion Berry
Exhibit C: Sanford Bishop
Exhibit D: Jerry Costello
Exhibit E: Kathy Dahlkemper
Exhibit F: Joe Donnelly
Exhibit G: Steve Driehaus
Exhibit H: Marcy Kaptur
Exhibit I: Dan Lipinski
Exhibit J: Alan Mollohan
Exhibit K: Nick Rahall
(i.e. the “Stupak Eleven”)

Stupak and his allies spent months opposing ObamaCare because it funds abortions. Most of them eventually voted for the bill after Obama agreed to sign an executive order requiring that no funds from the bill go to pay for elective abortions (So much for that… at least two states, Pennsylvania and Maryland, have accepted federal funds for high-risk insurance pools, and both offer significant abortion coverage).

But instead of members of the bloc establishing themselves as principled pro-lifers, they made enemies on both sides. Liberals were enraged by what they saw as grandstanding and obstructionism, and anti-abortion conservatives were incensed when the Stupak bloc “betrayed” them and voted for the health care bill.

So, I guess there are no real pro-life Democrats?
They voted for the Helalth Care bill in spite of its funding of abortion. They proved once and for all that democrats ALWAYS put Party before life.
 
=fakename;8281770]Is it possible to vote democrat if you think they would help lower abortions?
I’m wondering since I see a lot of people voting democrat but at the same time some say that such a vote is a mortal sin. But if it were so, I doubt that people would continue something as controllable as voting so…🤷
Based on the framing of your question the answer is a definate YES! You many not so vote. IF however you take it to a specific person who opposesm abortion and VOTES their moral conscience; then party is NO longer an issue.

NO Catholic and NO CHRISTIAN can vote for a PRO choice candidate so long as ANY OTHER CHOICE is available to them without commiting grevious and Mortal sin.

That friend is God’s view! Amen!

God Bless you,
Pat
 
Granted it is very difficult, but i do not give up hope.
I have hope in pro-life Dem Bob Casey, since 2007 he has been fighting for woman and children.
Help for Pregnant Women and Adoption: ***The Pregnant Women Support Act ***provisions that Senator Casey authored were enacted into law as part of the health care reform bill and provide $1.2 billion in increased adoption assistance and $250 million to create a Pregnancy Assistance Fund. Both of these provisions will go a long way to reduce the number of abortions. So we are trying…talk comes cheap, especially when it is time to reelect. It has been 40yrs now …actually starting back well before Roe/Wade when Ronald Reagan signed that bad bill as Governor in California back in 1967. It’s true he repented and had a change of heart but what dreadful damage that kicked off. Will the law ever be killed? Peace, Carlan
Ronald Reagan is dead. Bob Casey isn’t.

Casey has only a 50% rating by the National Right to Life Committee. Among his problems are voting for Obamacare (which we now know funds abortions) against reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy (prohibiting funding abortions abroad) and his vote for appointment of Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court.

If he’s the Democrat “prolife poster child”, all it tells you is that the Democrat prolife record is abysmal.

Typical Democrat approach; pretend you’re fighting abortion by voting funds for programs that might or might not do anything to reduce it, but vote against anything that would directly curb it. Casey is a little better than most Democrats, but not by much.

Do you remember his father being denied the opportunity to speak at the Dem convention because he truly was prolife?

And, of course, support for abortion is right in the Democrat platform.

And if you look at the provisions of the Pregnant Women Support Act, it’s mostly about providing information to women about that nature of pregnancy and the choices they have. Oh, it also provides grants to the states to combat spousal abuse. It’s not really designed to promote actual financial support to women who might have abortions without it. (Assuming it would.)

And my own state, which has Republican majorities in both houses, provides substantial funds for terminating unfit parents and subsidizing adoptions. They did that under a Republican governor.

I was an active Democrat for most of my life. Held office in the party, as did my wife. But, you know, at a point you just have to accept it that abortion is now the party’s primary fixation. It does not resemble the party of my youth in any way. No, I didn’t become a Republican, probably out of respect for the old party people I knew. I’m just me, now.
But I don’t ever support abortion promoters, which means there is never a Democrat on my ballot that I could vote for.

It’s really that bad, and a Bob Casey with a 50% approval rating doesn’t change it.
 
I thought of perhaps a better strategic voting scenario:

Candidate A and B are running in a primary against each other in the same party. Candidate C and D are running in the opposing party against each other in the same primary.

Candidate A is rabidly pro-choice, but is a bit of a whacko and is far less likely to get elected than Candidate B, who is also pro-choice, but has what we might call a “moderate” leaning on all other issues.

Candidates C and D are relatively equal in their pro-life stance.

In this particular state, one can vote for a candidate in one party but not the other in the primarly

I submit it is morally acceptable to vote for Candidate A (the rabid pro-choicer) in the primary, there being a far greater chance that he will be trounced by either C or D in the general election, the caveat being that the voter is voting in such a manner in the primary with the intent to vote for whoever wins between C or D in the general election.

This is done routinely i.e. crossing party lines in the primary in order to get the weaker candidate on the ballot in the opposing party.

This strategy is aimed at making sure neither A nor B are elected to that particular office.

Anybody disagree, and why?
 
It’s really that bad, and a Bob Casey with a 50% approval rating doesn’t change it.
Yes, well RR nothing is ever perfect in this life and especially in politics.
I will not be voting for President Obama because of his position on abortion expressly. I believe he has served us well otherwise for the most part and I like him and his lovely wife and family I ask God to bless him and protect his family always and I continue to pray for his complete conversion to the Fathers will.
I am not a republican and I will not consider following their philosophy. peace, Carlan
 
Suppose I voted for a political candidate who had at one time committed adultery (not too unusual these days).

According to some of the logic used on this thread, by voting for such a candidate I would automatically be pro-adultery.

I would also be guilty of adultery by voting for this candidate, and I would have to go to Confession.

This is what drives me crazy about one-issue voting. To me, that kind of logical is simply not logical.
 
Suppose I voted for a political candidate who had at one time committed adultery (not too unusual these days).

According to some of the logic used on this thread, by voting for such a candidate I would automatically be pro-adultery.

I would also be guilty of adultery by voting for this candidate, and I would have to go to Confession.

This is what drives me crazy about one-issue voting. To me, that kind of logical is simply not logical.
That’s only if you are voting for them BECAUSE of being an adulterer. When voting for a pro-choice candidate, you also have to consider what else they support and are against, and how much impact they will have on making abortions more accessable, etc. You also have to look at the other candidate=

for instance:

if the pro-life candidate is extremely racist and is for raising taxes on the poor but lowering taxes for the rich when the rates were equal, and the pro-choice candidate is normal and all besides the pro-choice stance, the pro-choice option might do more good for the community than the pro-life person who is a bozo.

and I really wish that democrats would change their stance on the non-negotiables as Catholics were the major supporters of it in the past. Or I wish Catholics formed a new party like the ones formed in Switzerland and places like that.
 
Suppose I voted for a political candidate who had at one time committed adultery (not too unusual these days).

According to some of the logic used on this thread, by voting for such a candidate I would automatically be pro-adultery.

I would also be guilty of adultery by voting for this candidate, and I would have to go to Confession.

This is what drives me crazy about one-issue voting. To me, that kind of logical is simply not logical.
Surely you are not suggesting there is a moral equivalency between supporting abortion and commiting adultery!!! Thats what dirves me crazy about pro-abortion Catholics-always the most bizarre rationales for why its OK for them to reject church teaching if it interferes with their politics.
 
A person needs to vote with their conscience. Let’s not forget many of the “catholic” politicians out there are STRONGLY proChoice. The late Senator Ted Kennedy and his Son Patrick Kennedy come to mind. The governor of NY is living with a girlfriend , strongly pushed to get homosexual marriage legalized in NY, and is ALSO prochoice.

On the other side of the coin…Rudy Giliuani is REPUBLICAN and staunchly pro choice.

That is why we need to listen to our consciences. Example: what if a political candidate is Pro Life but supports Gay Marriage or Gay Domestic Partnership? That person will NOT be getting MY vote.
 
Surely you are not suggesting there is a moral equivalency between supporting abortion and commiting adultery!!! Thats what dirves me crazy about pro-abortion Catholics-always the most bizarre rationales for why its OK for them to reject church teaching if it interferes with their politics.
Bob, you wrongly assume that all those who vote for pro-choice candidates are voting for them because of the candidates pro-choice stance.

IF they did so,all of us would seem to agree that this would be morally objectionable, of course, but nobody seems to be debating that point.

See my post 129. I’d like your thoughts on this real-life, non-hypothetical situation. This has happened in my state, and I voted for the radical pro-choice democrat candidate for governor in the primary in hopes that he would win the primary. If he did so, the consensus across the board was that he was so radical on other issues that he was non-electable, practically giving the election to the pro-life republican candidate on the other side (all the republican candidates in the primary were pro-life).

So, in the Primary, I cast a vote for a radical pro-choicer, hoping that he would win the primary. Do you think this sort of strategic voting woul be morally acceptable? Did I commit a mortal sin?
 
Suppose I voted for a political candidate who had at one time committed adultery (not too unusual these days).

According to some of the logic used on this thread, by voting for such a candidate I would automatically be pro-adultery.

I would also be guilty of adultery by voting for this candidate, and I would have to go to Confession.

This is what drives me crazy about one-issue voting. To me, that kind of logical is simply not logical.
There is a big differnce between a politician who commits a sin and a politician who supports enshrining a sin in law.

We all sin. It is how we handle our sinning that counts. When I see a politician who says, I committed a sin and I regret that, and his voting record etc shows that he is against sin, I think he is a regular human being. When I see a politician whose attitude towards sin is so what? let’s chance the law to make it easier to sin, let’s remove the legal barriers to escaping to consequences of sin, then I won’t vote for that person whether I have knowledge that he sinned or not.
 
Here’s a real world situation:

Incumbant Default nominee - (Democrat)

The most pro-choice
American since Margaret
Sanger. Just shy of
installing an abortion
clinic by the gift shop
in the White House.

Challenger nominee - (Republican)

Every candidate with an actual
shot at the nomination, (That is excluding
two pro-choice candidates who have
virtually no shot at nomination by the GOP),
Are not only pro-life, but have signed a committment
to guard and protect the unborn, oppose funding
abortion, support conscience clauses to legislation)

Now, as a pro-life person, which way would you vote.

This is the real world.

This isn’t if Candidate A did this and felt this and Candidate B does and says this.

This is the situation facing the United States of American right now.

We have never had a more clear cut, stark exposition of black and white morality placed in front of the American people before at any time in post modern history.

I’d like to say that it’s a slam dunk, but sadly, I don’t think it is. Because people don’t want to vote for the life of the defenseless, and for the conscience of American workers.

Now we should all pray for the conversion of heart for the incumbant. We should all respect the office he holds. But to vote for him is just plain wrong. It is a loud cry of triumph for eugenics, state controlled wombs, and a spit in the face of human rights for the most defenseless among us. Our future presidents, doctors, teachers, construction workers, musicians, engineers and so on.

Ave Maria, Gratia plena,
Dominus tecum,
Benadicta tu in mulieribus,
et benedictus fructus ventris tui Jesus

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei
Ora pro nobis,
peccatoribus nunc,
Et in hora mortis nostrae
Amen

Peace,

Steven
 
Yes, well RR nothing is ever perfect in this life and especially in politics.
I will not be voting for President Obama because of his position on abortion expressly. I believe he has served us well otherwise for the most part and I like him and his lovely wife and family I ask God to bless him and protect his family always and I continue to pray for his complete conversion to the Fathers will.
I am not a republican and I will not consider following their philosophy. peace, Carlan
A 50% rating such as Casey’s, in any other context would warrant a grade of “F”. That’s a long way from being perfect.

I am not a Republican either, but I am also aware there is no such thing as “their philosophy”, except in the propaganda messages of their opponents. One should be cautious about adopting such messages in lieu of one’s own thinking.

I have lived a fair number of years, and, strange as it may seem, the Republican “average” philosophically speaking, right now is about where the Democrat party was when i was a young man. The Democrats most closely resemble the “Rockefeller Republicans” of old; mostly libertarian morally, paternalistic and coercive in social and economic policies.
 
A 50% rating such as Casey’s, in any other context would warrant a grade of “F”. That’s a long way from being perfect.

I am not a Republican either, but I am also aware there is no such thing as “their philosophy”, except in the propaganda messages of their opponents. One should be cautious about adopting such messages in lieu of one’s own thinking.

I have lived a fair number of years, and, strange as it may seem, the Republican “average” philosophically speaking, right now is about where the Democrat party was when i was a young man. The Democrats most closely resemble the “Rockefeller Republicans” of old; mostly libertarian morally, paternalistic and coercive in social and economic policies.
I stand corrected on my use of the word “philosophy”. 😉
OOPS,with your grade of “F” I was way off the grade of perfect that you think I gave Casey Jr.But gosh considering the guy is a Democratic Pro-life politician , loves women and children and is a Catholic, I would think he would at least deserve a “D”🤷
Peace, Carlan
 
=Gift from God;8294515]Doesn’t matter either way. The GOP only claims it opposed abortion. You guys had Ford, Reagan, and the Bush’s, and you still have legal abortion.
That is not Church teaching at all. It’s just a falsehood propagated by a bunch of right-wingers trying to use religion to get people to vote their way
So the Fifth Commandment “Thou SHALL NOT KILL” is only a suggestion? 🤷

REALLY?

2271 ***Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. ***This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

And look this up:

priestsforlife.org/articles/godislovecommentary.htm

So God does not care if you vote for Democrats [or any politician] that URGE and vote to murder innocent babies? :eek:

WOW, are you in a dream world,

God Bless you friend,
Pat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top