P
ProVobis
Guest
Maybe but half of US births are funded by Medicaid. Do you wish to take that away too? That would be immoral given that the US borrows trillions to fund its military.
- Status
A
Annie
Guest
They won’t let us say pro-abortion–they chose “pro-choice” for themselves for a reason, because it sounded better and put those who were against legalization of abortion in the position of being anti- , which at the time was really bad.
Those against the legalization of abortion counted the word for their movement, and it has in the past been the Democrats who tried to eliminate the definition of the term and spread it around to a bunch of Democrat issues.
Pro-life has always stood for not letting people deliberately target and kill other people. Those issues are peripheral to the movement and I find it … unfortunate … that there are people who would join those who want to keep abortion legal to diffuse the meaning of the term.
P
phil19034
Guest
No one wants to remove Medicaid (at least not without replacing it with a better program).phil19034:
Maybe but half of US births are funded by Medicaid. Do you wish to take that away too? That would be immoral given that the US borrows trillions to fund its military.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Are talking about no abortion/euthanasia/death penalty?
Or the “seamless garment” ethic which is generalized charity towards the poor?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Last edited:
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
I would say all of those things pertain to the consistent life ethic.
Neither U.S. major political parties (Republicans and the Democrats) are 100% pro-life, but it should be pretty clear that the Republican Party is more pro-life than the Democratic Party.
Where the Republican Party needs a lot more work is on improving healthcare and housing so all Americans have access and can afford the cost of quality healthcare and have access to safe (and at least adequately maintained) housing.
A big problem with the Democratic Party besides being stridently pro-abortion is that even in pro-life issues that they supposedly support (better healthcare and better housing), they do a very lousy job in delivering on those issues even in states where they have a solid majority in the state legislator and governor’s office.
Where the Republican Party needs a lot more work is on improving healthcare and housing so all Americans have access and can afford the cost of quality healthcare and have access to safe (and at least adequately maintained) housing.
A big problem with the Democratic Party besides being stridently pro-abortion is that even in pro-life issues that they supposedly support (better healthcare and better housing), they do a very lousy job in delivering on those issues even in states where they have a solid majority in the state legislator and governor’s office.
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
RW was reaffirmed by Casey in 1992 by an all Republican court. Not to mention other rulings which are based on RW in one way or another. Methinks the SCOTUS would need to revisit a lot of past rulings if they were to overturn RW. Just sayin.
B
BT3241
Guest
All the political talk and issues reminds me of what Jesus said
A time will come when they will be divided father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
Well were living it.
A time will come when they will be divided father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
Well were living it.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Roe v Wade was a case, not a law. Congress passes laws, not the Supreme Court. Being appointed to the Court by one party or the other does not mean that the justice is a member of that party.
U
upant
Guest
The current system destroys the family unit, it is the reason we have so many fatherless children. It obviously has not worked to lift people out of poverty, which should be the goal.
Most people think of the Paris accord when they complain about the GOP climate issues
The Paris accord is a wealth distribution scheme to further globalization
It has no requirements and is self imposed and self enforced. Very few major countries are meeting their own goals. The worst part is that it proclaimed a dire need to stop co2 emissions while allowing China and India to build new coal plants for ten years effectively making the goal impossible to attain
It was an executive order
What do you mean by this? Stopping the looting and violence that is allowed to go on in our cities?
As said above this is not owned by the GOP and is exaggerated for political gain, why wasn’t it an issue when it was started
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
I hear what you’re saying, but Consistent Life Ethic is a particular theory
So it is something distinct from the “Seamless Garment Ethic”.
D
Dolphin
Guest
Medicare and healthcare distribution aren’t related to abortion since they are focusing on coverage for the poor not on abortion funding but okay…
Pro-Life means defending life in all forms. That is not just the unborn, it’s prisoners, impoverished, minorities, mentally ill, addicted, immigrants, abused, and so many others.
Pro-Life never has been just abortion, it’s the focus on protecting the dignity on life. Trent Horn who works for Catholic Answers has stressed this hundreds of times in his podcasts, books, and debates.
Pro-Life means defending life in all forms. That is not just the unborn, it’s prisoners, impoverished, minorities, mentally ill, addicted, immigrants, abused, and so many others.
Pro-Life never has been just abortion, it’s the focus on protecting the dignity on life. Trent Horn who works for Catholic Answers has stressed this hundreds of times in his podcasts, books, and debates.
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
Since you asked, here’s what a lot of Republicans probably think about these topics:
- Inhumane detention centers.
I don’t think anyone wants inhumane centers, most probably are not. However, this policy which was there during the Obama presidency (I believe iirc Trump tried to get a deal to end it but Congress didn’t agree). However, the detention centers are there for a good reason: when you have undocumented immigrants, you can’t know that a child really is with their parents. They may be traffickers (lots of traffickers use the Mexican-American border), including sex traffickers.
Now, when there are official papers as in legal immigration, this is not so much an issue. I’d personally say we need better immigration laws. - Looking down on the welfare system
I don’t think most Republicans are against any and all welfare, but are against people abusing the system (ie using welfare when they aren’t in need) or from getting so much that it’d incentives them to refrain from working when they can. “He who does not work does not eat,” obviously this is different for those who cannot work. A lot of Republicans believe among the best way to fight poverty is capitalism and a better economy, as then there’s less unemployment and higher wages (meaning fewer need welfare). - Passive on Climate Change
Many Republicans simply don’t believe climate change is an existential threat. Alarmists have been saying x years until (insert catastrophic thing) and it has never happened. But saying they are passive isn’t exactly correct. I don’t know if this happened (haven’t looked into it) but during a debate Trump said his administration was planting (iirc) a BILLION trees, which is a lot. (1/2 )
K
Kei
Guest
Most Rs don’t think you need government coercion. Many companies are going green of their own accord. There is even a company claiming they can literally pull Carbon Dioxide from the air, named Carbon Engineering.
4) Blackballing Social Justice
I don’t think the R’s are Blackballing them, but in general they probably disagree with the idea that Blacks are systematically attacked more than whites by cops. The data shows something like 19 unarmed Whites killed last year by police officers, compared with 9 unarmed Blacks (compare not with general population but with how often each group has interaction with cops). They often view the marches as pushing and pushed by a false narrative, one I view as very dangerous. If you thought someone was gonna kill you, how many would just follow their instructions? Then you don’t follow, and then you actually put yourself in real danger. It’s a vicious cycle. But in terms of Black Lives Matter, they were calling for Marxist stuff, so while obviously Black lives matter, the organization did not get R support.
While all the issues matter, the literal genocide going on of abortion is more important. Without life you have no further rights to protect. Third parties have no chance of winning, and hence a vote that could have gone to actually stopping it goes to something that has no chance to stop it. This is why I find I cannot vote prolife. Like, imagine it was a 2 party system like in the US. Candidate A’s only platform is abortion, candidate B’s is abortion and also the genocide of all Asians. There is a 3rd party with 0 chance of winning, but it’s completely ok with Catholic moral teaching. To me, voting this 3rd party is taking away from A’s chance to beat B, since A is obviously the better choice.
This isn’t a party issue: democrats, I believe, used to be the prolife anti-abortion party. They aren’t anymore, though individual democrats may still be prolife like the governor of Louisiana.
4) Blackballing Social Justice
I don’t think the R’s are Blackballing them, but in general they probably disagree with the idea that Blacks are systematically attacked more than whites by cops. The data shows something like 19 unarmed Whites killed last year by police officers, compared with 9 unarmed Blacks (compare not with general population but with how often each group has interaction with cops). They often view the marches as pushing and pushed by a false narrative, one I view as very dangerous. If you thought someone was gonna kill you, how many would just follow their instructions? Then you don’t follow, and then you actually put yourself in real danger. It’s a vicious cycle. But in terms of Black Lives Matter, they were calling for Marxist stuff, so while obviously Black lives matter, the organization did not get R support.
While all the issues matter, the literal genocide going on of abortion is more important. Without life you have no further rights to protect. Third parties have no chance of winning, and hence a vote that could have gone to actually stopping it goes to something that has no chance to stop it. This is why I find I cannot vote prolife. Like, imagine it was a 2 party system like in the US. Candidate A’s only platform is abortion, candidate B’s is abortion and also the genocide of all Asians. There is a 3rd party with 0 chance of winning, but it’s completely ok with Catholic moral teaching. To me, voting this 3rd party is taking away from A’s chance to beat B, since A is obviously the better choice.
This isn’t a party issue: democrats, I believe, used to be the prolife anti-abortion party. They aren’t anymore, though individual democrats may still be prolife like the governor of Louisiana.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
The term pro-life was coined by people who were against abortion to describe their position on that one issue.
I think you may have to clarify this as he has just written a book called Persuasive Pro Life: How to Talk about Our Culture’s Toughest Issue, in which he discusses how to talk about the issue is abortion, not poverty or welfare or climate change.
Perhaps you have links to an article or two he has written which clarifies this.
Aside from that, I am not sure what one person’s point of view has to do with this.
Last edited:
D
Dolphin
Guest
Trent Horn two days ago on Catholic Answers radio, go to 21:13. Defines the basis of pro-life as about protecting dignity of all life.
Why are you pro-choice?
This seems like semantics anyway. What does life mean? Anything living. What does pro mean? In support of. Therefore pro-life is support of anything living.
Why are you pro-choice?
This seems like semantics anyway. What does life mean? Anything living. What does pro mean? In support of. Therefore pro-life is support of anything living.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
They are not talking about healthcare distribution, they are talking about health care rationing. And if you click on the Medicare link, you will see that there too they are talking about issues related to euthanasia, which is another area in which some people would like it to be legal to kill innocent people this related to abortion.
Last edited:
D
Dolphin
Guest
Euthanasia is not related to abortion anymore than the death penalty is. Both are about killing life and protecting the dignity of life. But euthanasia is not abortion nor is the death penalty abortion. Thus my point, the pro-life website as issues other than abortion. Otherwise you could say any life issue is related to abortion… and therefore, pro-life means all these related issues and not just literal abortions.
Semantics.
Semantics.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
You can say whatever you want. I will go with what those who work hard on what they themselves call the prolife issues call it.
- Status