No room for Pro Life Democrats

[Michael68]

Doesn’t surprise me. Rape and incest seem to be now accepted as justification for abortions in the Republican circles. But they are human beings too, aren’t they?

I happen to live in Henry Hype’s old district and defended his use of exceptions in the Amendment before the local prolife President. But I later realized she was right, an abortion is an abortion no matter what your rationale.

I agree there is no rationale for abortion ever, imo

 

[YADA]

Doesn’t surprise me. Rape and incest seem to be now accepted as justification for abortions in the Republican circles. But they are human beings too, aren’t they?

I happen to live in Henry Hype’s old district and defended his use of exceptions in the Amendedment before the local prolife President. But I later realized she was right, an abortion is an abortion no matter what your rationale.

And we all know that … the question then is do you allow for legislation that eliminates 99% of all abortions or wait for a "pure’ bill that eliminates 100% … and how many years do you allow the 99% to be sacrificed … when the numbers are staggering and the loss of life horrendous? I support imperfect bills even as I know that all children are blessings and all abortions for any reason are wrong.

Once the abortion mentality is legalized - I think fewer women would choose that - even for the exceptions …

In my family I have two relatives one that was conceived in rape and kept by mother and one conceived via incest and whom was adopted into our family as an infant [before Roe V Wade thank God] … our family was and is blessed by both of these beautiful human beings. Family, friends, employees and employer are grateful for their contributions …

Adoption is a loving choice and even though a child can be stressful for a single mom - any and all moms - they are blessings

 

[dmelosi]

They say about half the miscarriages are due to environmental harms, like pollution and toxins in our household and personal care products.

But these are not the only deaths from env harms, and we are teetering on the brink of scrapping the EPA and all our env regulatory enforcement abilities (which I strongly suspected would happen with Trump and associations – in fact I saw that as one of their main goals, so as to favor big,dirty corps and alliances – money over life).

We are talking about annihilating a huge portion of humanity from climate change over the centuries by tipping the world into a life-inhospitable state, and we don’t have much time to turn this Titanic around, and there are likely harms in the pipes for decades and centuries even if we were to suddenly do the right things. The only thing we could do now with God’s abundant grace inspiring and guiding our intense efforts is cut the losses.

And CC is just one of many very serious environmental harms we are now plunging headlong into that put human lives at risk.

God gave us what we need: healthy air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, and a life-sustaining climate to produce food. We were commanded in Genesis to take care of the garden, not destroy it, causing death to many around the world (esp the poor) and to future generations for 100s, even 1000s of years.

Anyone who would have known or strongly suspected these extreme risks to life that a Trump presidency would bring – I would not call that person “pro-life,” not by my definition for 40+ years which has always included all human lives.

Just as it unfortunately seems there is no room for Pro-Life (meaning anti-abortion) Democrats, there is no room for more thoroughly pro-life (including all human lives) Republicans the way that party is today and the candidates they put forward for our voting consideration – anti-environment, CC denialist.

So, a pox on both parties.

Seriously, how more thorough is death than killing the most innocent.

 

[dmelosi]

Doesn’t surprise me. Rape and incest seem to be now accepted as justification for abortions in the Republican circles. But they are human beings too, aren’t they?

I happen to live in Henry Hype’s old district and defended his use of exceptions in the Amendment before the local prolife President. But I later realized she was right, an abortion is an abortion no matter what your rationale.

You and I agree with that, an abortion is an abortion no matter what. It is never the babies fault.

But what did that have to do with the post you were answering?

 

[lynnvinc]

Seriously, how more thorough is death than killing the most innocent.

I’ve never had an abortion, and I’ve always been against abortion since I was a child in the 50s. So it is simply wrong to accuse me of being in favor of it.

It’s sort of interesting, though, that some Democrats I saw on TV recently were actually confused and offended that people were calling them “pro-abortion” when they simply thought of themselves as “pro-choice.” And in my campaigning to make abortion illegal back in the 70s and 80s I ran into a lot of people who said they were personally against abortion and would never think of having one themselves, but they were against imposing their views and values on others.

(Yes, I also see that as a weak argument, since we don’t say that about murdering born people – “Oh, I’m personally against murdering people and would never do such, but I wouldn’t want there to be laws against murder or impose my views on others.”)

However, I am also against killing of people in general, all types of killing of people, any person, born, unborn, or yet to be born. Which is why I cannot ever vote for any Republican, but also feel bad about voting for Democrats. It’s a matter of which is the lesser evil.

Those who consider themselves “pro-life” (meaning against killing of any person unborn or born) should also have at least some tug of conscience and bad feeling when they vote for a Republican who is a climate-change denialist, anti-environment, and against universal health care and social programs aimed at helping poor children, pregnant women, and families.

 

[dmelosi]

I’ve never had an abortion, and I’ve always been against abortion since I was a child in the 50s. So it is simply wrong to accuse me of being in favor of it.

It’s sort of interesting, though, that some Democrats I saw on TV recently were actually confused and offended that people were calling them “pro-abortion” when they simply thought of themselves as “pro-choice.” And in my campaigning to make abortion illegal back in the 70s and 80s I ran into a lot of people who said they were personally against abortion and would never think of having one themselves, but they were against imposing their views and values on others.

(Yes, I also see that as a weak argument, since we don’t say that about murdering born people – “Oh, I’m personally against murdering people and would never do such, but I wouldn’t want there to be laws against murder or impose my views on others.”)

However, I am also against killing of people in general, all types of killing of people, any person, born, unborn, or yet to be born. Which is why I cannot ever vote for any Republican, but also feel bad about voting for Democrats. It’s a matter of which is the lesser evil.

Those who consider themselves “pro-life” (meaning against killing of any person unborn or born) should also have at least some tug of conscience and bad feeling when they vote for a Republican who is a climate-change denialist, anti-environment, and against universal health care and social programs aimed at helping poor children, pregnant women, and families.

I am not certain if he is a climate-change denialist, but the claims you are making on each and every one of the other accusations are so false they are the point of being slander.

I see how passionate you are about climate change, but you have a bad way of cutting down people who don’t think the way you do on it.

 

[lynnvinc]

There are many pro-life (meaning anti-abortion) Democrats, apparently about one-third of Democrats, according to Democrats for Life - see democratsforlife.org/

I saw that webpage some years ago, but was too busy with work to investigate further. I’ll think I’ll look into it.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here is a definition of “pro-life” I can agree with - see aclj.org/pro-life/what-does-it-really-mean-to-be-pro-life:

1. To Be Pro-Life is to Promote Human Flourishing for All

But above all, the pro-life movement is deeply rooted in the fundamental belief that all life, no matter how small or poor or unwanted, is worth protecting.

Those of us who are pro-life fight for the inherent dignity within every human life, no matter what the age or stage of human development. Our advocacy does not end in the delivery room. In fact, that is only where it begins.

To be pro-life is to defend the unborn, the widows, the disabled, and the orphans, like organizations serving those with special needs or helping families adopt orphans. To be pro-life is to serve the least of these in communities next door and across oceans, like organizations who serve the homeless or refugees who have fled war zones. To be pro-life is to build institutions that promote the flourishing of all human beings.

IOW, from conception to natural death. Life doesn’t end in the delivery room, and I would suggest it also includes concern for those miscarried by environmental pollution (and other things we can control or mitigate, but have failed to do so), not just elective abortion babies.

I don’t see why we cannot have big hearts to include everyone.

I know you’ll think it waters down the message, but I think it actually strengthens the message. Esp for environmentalists who are “saving the earth” for the children. I have told them that it makes no logical sense to kill babies in the womb in order to save the earth for the children. And I’ve had some luck with that message.

 

[lynnvinc]

I am not certain if he is a climate-change denialist, but the claims you are making on each and every one of the other accusations are so false they are the point of being slander.

I see how passionate you are about climate change, but you have a bad way of cutting down people who don’t think the way you do on it.

First of all I didn’t put a comma before my “who,” so I was only referring to “Republicans who…” Not “Republicans, who…”

And maybe you haven’t been seeing the news, or do not have your “antennae” trained as I do to environmental issues and political actions/policies re to them.

They’ve already just made it legal to pollute waterways with toxic coal waste (see vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule ), and Trump plans to dismantle the EPA or drastically reduce it, its regs, and its enforcement capabilities, and the EPA is already operating on a shoestring. It seems he’s going to get rid of all the governmental climate data (I know climate scientists are struggling to preserve what they can).

Past Republican presidents (except Teddy Roosevelt and Nixon) have been bad on the environment, but Trump and associates take the cake.

 

[Michael68]

Trump wants to pollute water with coal waste? Are you serious?

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes - I remember DDT and all of the reasons … but that policy had consequences … I did not mean DDT was good or should not have been banned … I was just using this as an example of a policy that caused deaths - measured and studied - reportable - which the poster with their “Republican policies kill human beings” with their policies cannot produce an example for with any statistics …

I’m not referring to ALL Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt and Nixon were very good on environmental issues and worked to preserve the environment and reduce harm to the environment and human health related to env harms.

In fact Nixon established the EPA in 1970 by executive order because the sounding-good-on-paper National Environmental Policy Act that had just been passed by Congress was pretty useless without an agency to enforce it.

It’s many (not ALL) of today’s Republican politicos who have gone over to the dark side of death and destruction re environmental issues (as payback to their corp funders). Dems also are not totally clean on this, as they too receive money from corps.

You have to understand that corps do not have any morality – in fact legally they have to put “fiduciary responsibility” well before life and death matters. That’s actually where the problem is. And what have recent Republican SC judges and lawmakers been up to – giving corporations MORE rights as persons – rights to fund huge amounts of money to political candidates, to in effect buy the government.

Actual human beings have very little power now to protect themselves and their unborn babies against the overwhelming power of corporations, which now tightly control our government, and since this new administration is running hog-wild in favor of multinational corporations (whether domestic or foreign based, whether legal or fronts for nefarious autocratic governments) against the life and well-being of the people.

If Trump found out that health care is complicated (so now it’s going to be cut away from many people), then “following the money” to what’s really going on in this era is extremely complicated, above the heads or attention span of the vast majority…unless we wake up and use our God-given minds and hearts.

My hunch is that bec the corporate media, including MSNBC & Fox, are also bought and paid for by corps, that’s why they are not looking into this environmental harms connection much.

 

[JimG]

The abortionization of the Democratic Party.

 

[ATraveller]

It doesn’t seem like the Democrats would ever seek to be like this anytime soon:

The [Dutch Christian Union] holds socially conservative positions on issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia …] the CU bases its policies on the Bible, and takes the theological principles of charity and stewardship as bases for its support for public expenditure and environmentalism. The party seeks for government to uphold Christian morality, but supports freedom of religion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Union_(Netherlands

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m not referring to ALL Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt and Nixon were very good on environmental issues and worked to preserve the environment and reduce harm to the environment and human health related to env harms.

In fact Nixon established the EPA in 1970 by executive order because the sounding-good-on-paper National Environmental Policy Act that had just been passed by Congress was pretty useless without an agency to enforce it.

It’s many (not ALL) of today’s Republican politicos who have gone over to the dark side of death and destruction re environmental issues (as payback to their corp funders). Dems also are not totally clean on this, as they too receive money from corps.

You have to understand that corps do not have any morality – in fact legally they have to put “fiduciary responsibility” well before life and death matters. That’s actually where the problem is. And what have recent Republican SC judges and lawmakers been up to – giving corporations MORE rights as persons – rights to fund huge amounts of money to political candidates, to in effect buy the government.

Actual human beings have very little power now to protect themselves and their unborn babies against the overwhelming power of corporations, which now tightly control our government, and since this new administration is running hog-wild in favor of multinational corporations (whether domestic or foreign based, whether legal or fronts for nefarious autocratic governments) against the life and well-being of the people.

If Trump found out that health care is complicated (so now it’s going to be cut away from many people), then “following the money” to what’s really going on in this era is extremely complicated, above the heads or attention span of the vast majority…unless we wake up and use our God-given minds and hearts.

My hunch is that bec the corporate media, including MSNBC & Fox, are also bought and paid for by corps, that’s why they are not looking into this environmental harms connection much.

The idea that people would abort because of corporate influence in government is absurd.

People abort most of the time for very selfish reasons.

And as Pope Francis has noted, the environment does not exist on the same plane as abortion no matter how many excuses and twisting try to make it so.

Really, liberals, media moguls, academics, mainstream Democrats and union workers need to STOP reaching all over the place to keep justifying their lethally anti-Catholic voting patterns out of fear of changing.

I know in my mind if there was a more Catholic Democrat or Catholic Labour candidate, I’d vote for him/her without question.

 

[lynnvinc]

The idea that people would abort because of corporate influence in government is absurd.

I was referring to “natural” abortions from environmental harms, or what we American’s call miscarriages, but also to the birth defects, and harms and death to born people from environmental harms, as well.

Are there really people out there who only care about the lives of the unborn, and only those unborn slated for elective abortions? And they don’t even seem to care much about the welfare of their own born children?

I just can’t go that route. My conscience won’t let me. I’m concerned about all lives, not only those of today, but also those in the future, the yet-to-be-born.

The reason I keep bringing up environmental harms causing death is that people are not much aware of these harms and deaths. That is in part perhaps due to the gov and media being bought and paid for by the corporations that cause many of these harms, and also perhaps because “we the people” are also complicit in many of these harms.

It seems Democrat politicos are somewhat more concerned about such harms than Republicans, even though Republican politicos express concerned about abortion…which is no skin off their noses, since they don’t plan to help much the children once they are born, and would even like to reduce whatever aid needy children and adults have now.

Maybe Trump won because he sounded like he cared both about ending (or reducing) abortion AND helping out the poor and needy with jobs and universal health care. But I couldn’t vote for him because of his extreme anti-environmental stance…which seems to be one of his main objectives, to dismantle whatever anemic environmental protections we have now and totally fail to address climate change, reverse whatever anemic regs and solutions we now have in place.

That may end up in a huge number of deaths over the years, decades, and centuries. He is steering the Titanic straight into the berg, and after 4 years (when hopefully he is replaced by someone more truly compassionate about all lives) we may not be able to turn it away in time to avoid annihilation of a large portion of life on earth over the decades and centuries – we may be committed to this ongoing genocide.

My conscience would never allow for me to vote for such a person who wittingly or unwittingly would push us into such genocide.

 

[Michael68]

I was referring to “natural” abortions from environmental harms, or what we American’s call miscarriages, but also to the birth defects, and harms and death to born people from environmental harms, as well.

Are there really people out there who only care about the lives of the unborn, and only those unborn slated for elective abortions? And they don’t even seem to care much about the welfare of their own born children?

I just can’t go that route. My conscience won’t let me. I’m concerned about all lives, not only those of today, but also those in the future, the yet-to-be-born.

The reason I keep bringing up environmental harms causing death is that people are not much aware of these harms and deaths. That is in part perhaps due to the gov and media being bought and paid for by the corporations that cause many of these harms, and also perhaps because “we the people” are also complicit in many of these harms.

It seems Democrat politicos are somewhat more concerned about such harms than Republicans, even though Republican politicos express concerned about abortion…which is no skin off their noses, since they don’t plan to help much the children once they are born, and would even like to reduce whatever aid needy children and adults have now.

Maybe Trump won because he sounded like he cared both about ending (or reducing) abortion AND helping out the poor and needy with jobs and universal health care. But I couldn’t vote for him because of his extreme anti-environmental stance…which seems to be one of his main objectives, to dismantle whatever anemic environmental protections we have now and totally fail to address climate change, reverse whatever anemic regs and solutions we now have in place.

That may end up in a huge number of deaths over the years, decades, and centuries. He is steering the Titanic straight into the berg, and after 4 years (when hopefully he is replaced by someone more truly compassionate about all lives) we may not be able to turn it away in time to avoid annihilation of a large portion of life on earth.

My conscience would never allow for me to vote for such a person who wittingly or unwittingly would push us into such genocide.

You have already been shown that pro-life isn’t just for the unborn. You are being dishonest

 

[lynnvinc]

You have already been shown that pro-life isn’t just for the unborn. You are being dishonest

Well, according to many here at CAF “pro-life” only refers to unborn babies slated for elective abortions. They’ve gotten upset with me for using a broader definition.

But I do agree with you that it means all human lives.

 

[randomuser]

---

Well, according to many here at CAF “pro-life” only refers to unborn babies slated for elective abortions. They’ve gotten upset with me for using a broader definition.

But I do agree with you that it means all human lives.

“Pro-life” also means affordable prenatal care and delivery costs so the unborn baby’s mommy can afford the hospital bills. Even WITH insurance, having a baby is way too expensive - yes, “pro-life” does mean all human lives, including the unborn baby’s mommy.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I was referring to “natural” abortions from environmental harms, or what we American’s call miscarriages, but also to the birth defects, and harms and death to born people from environmental harms, as well.

Are there really people out there who only care about the lives of the unborn, and only those unborn slated for elective abortions? And they don’t even seem to care much about the welfare of their own born children?

I just can’t go that route. My conscience won’t let me. I’m concerned about all lives, not only those of today, but also those in the future, the yet-to-be-born.

The reason I keep bringing up environmental harms causing death is that people are not much aware of these harms and deaths. That is in part perhaps due to the gov and media being bought and paid for by the corporations that cause many of these harms, and also perhaps because “we the people” are also complicit in many of these harms.

It seems Democrat politicos are somewhat more concerned about such harms than Republicans, even though Republican politicos express concerned about abortion…which is no skin off their noses, since they don’t plan to help much the children once they are born, and would even like to reduce whatever aid needy children and adults have now.

Maybe Trump won because he sounded like he cared both about ending (or reducing) abortion AND helping out the poor and needy with jobs and universal health care. But I couldn’t vote for him because of his extreme anti-environmental stance…which seems to be one of his main objectives, to dismantle whatever anemic environmental protections we have now and totally fail to address climate change, reverse whatever anemic regs and solutions we now have in place.

That may end up in a huge number of deaths over the years, decades, and centuries. He is steering the Titanic straight into the berg, and after 4 years (when hopefully he is replaced by someone more truly compassionate about all lives) we may not be able to turn it away in time to avoid annihilation of a large portion of life on earth over the decades and centuries – we may be committed to this ongoing genocide.

My conscience would never allow for me to vote for such a person who wittingly or unwittingly would push us into such genocide.

My Melkite Priest says it best-----“I am PRO-LIFE under all circumstances, including being against the death penalty.”

Kind of/sort of OT, but the late great anti-censorship/libertarian columnist/author Nat Hentoff (who happened to be a lifelong atheist as well) became staunchly pro-life late in his life and sometimes debated pro-choicers on it------

During one debate the other side became agitated and challenged Hentoff---------

“Well, if you are so dedicated to the anti-abortion side, why don’t you go out and start killing abortion doctors?”

“Because,” replied Hentoff, “I am Pro-Life.” :clapping::clapping:

 

[MaryT777]

Trump wants to pollute water with coal waste? Are you serious?

I thought the same thing? Is this poster that wrote that serious? Some post can truly be so out there they don’t seem to address reality but some convoluted “fact” to back the claims of a post.

Bizarre.

Mary.