Pro-life candidates are mean people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

on_the_hill

Guest
Why does it seem that pro-life candidates (at least those I’m familiar with) are angry? They come across as vengeful, eye-for-an-eye people.

The pro-life candidate running for governor in my state presents himself as mean and violent, as a harsh, unforgiving businessman who will do whatever is necessary to win whatever battle he’s in. He seems to pride himself on stomping on anyone who crosses him.

Yet he’s pro-life. What ever happened to compassionate conservatives?
 
on_the_hill said:
…
Click to expand...
Righteous anger is not contrary to compassion. Pro-life is compassion for the killed unborn humans and perhaps the souls of those that kill them. Therefore for that issue there is no conflict.

Websters New World
compassion noun
sorrow for the sufferings or trouble of another or others, accompanied by an urge to help; deep sympathy; pity
Click to expand...
 
I actually always see Pro-choice people as being the angry ones…
Maybe its just another one of those things where the “other side” is always worse?
 
that’s the problem with many conservatives these days, treating everything like some high-fantasy-level war where justice must be sought out by only the pure. It turns the conservatives into a laughing stock and doesn’t get anything done ultimately. You’re not Constantine, this isn’t ancient Rome, we don’t have to do as the ancient Romans do because this is a modern era wherein plenty of compassion is accessible without ending the overall cause (in the case of this thread, pro-life).

Conservative candidates almost never focus on the compassion aspect of the pro-life movement. Financing those single mothers, victims of rape and incest, kicked out of their families but still fighting for their unborn child’s life. No, because that would cost taxpayer dollars to help her.
 
??? The Church doesn’t have the power to finance millions of pregnant women, at least not in America where, to be honest, the Church holds little power at all these days (much to the chagrin of many. It is just a fact, unfortunate or not).

Also, how does your reasoning stand when a theocracy is in place? Government and Church combined. That is ultimately a Christian desire that many have.
 
All in all it’s starting to feel hopeless. Republicans have the opportunity to at least defund PP and pass on it, they never move forward in the pro life fight. Im starting to feel used.
That said, at the state and federal level I can’t bring myself to vote for Pro Infanticide candidate, even if I agree with everything else they say. I did it once i still feel sick over it.
It’s the greatest moral evil of our time, but if it comes down to voting for one of two monsters I find a 3rd party instead
 
on_the_hill said:
Why does it seem that pro-life candidates (at least those I’m familiar with) are angry?
Click to expand...
Because society is murdering children on an industrial scale with the permission of most governments in the allegedly-civilized western world and with the support of people who claim to stand for personal freedom. Against such a monstrous injustice some level of anger is justified. Moreover, righteous anger can fuel you in the fight against great wrongs. It’s strong fuel against despair; a compassionate heart can be broken but a burning spirit will double down and dig in.

As an example from a similar debate, let’s look at William Lloyd Garrison. He was an abolitionist and he crusaded against Slavery for his entire adult life. He was a passionate man who believed in God and in his cause, but he was an angry man too who allowed no excuse for those who participated in or tolerated the evil institutions he was opposing. I’m sure many in his time, even fellow abolitionists, called Garrison a “mean” and “harsh” man.
 
Last edited:
on_the_hill said:
Why does it seem that pro-life candidates (at least those I’m familiar with) are angry? They come across as vengeful, eye-for-an-eye people.
Click to expand...
The Old Colonel has a novel idea. Why don’t you ask those candidates your question directly? Surely, they will have the most accurate information about themselves.

Who knows? You may be so impressed by what they say that you no longer feel you have to paint all Pro-life Conservative political candidates with the same broad and negative brush.

Indeed, you may be so moved at what they say, you also may decide to join them in calling for mercy and compassion towards the unborn. 😎
 
Last edited:
I dunno, it seems to me conservatives such as myself get labeled as not having compassion because of our views, not because of actual actions.

Particularly with abortion, talk about it long enough with 99% of people on either side and you’ll get them worked up. That doesn’t meant much really. I think it’s par for the course.
 
I’ve said it many times, abortion is a symptom of society’s failure to protect, care for and be compassionate for (esp. pregnant) women in need. The church is doing a wonderful job trying to close this gap and help and care for them.

As for the original post, there are plenty of “angry” politicians on both the pro life and pro-abortion-rights side. I don’t think there’s much of a connection to this issue.
 
Last edited:
Sbee0 said:
I’ve said it many times, abortion is a symptom of society’s failure to protect, care for and be compassionate for (esp. pregnant) women in need.
Click to expand...
There is truth in that and yes there are many desperate women who see little option and could be helped by financial and social support, and we should do this much better as a society, I think. But sadly abortion seems also to be used as a form of birth control, or as a means of screening out disabled children, or even as a way to select the sex of a child. In these cases the provision of care may have little impact.

If something is as gravely morally wrong as abortion is, then it should be outlawed, and considering what abortion actually does to the most vulnerable and innocent of people (the unborn) then righteous anger is very understandable.
 
Last edited:
on_the_hill said:
Why does it seem that pro-life candidates (at least those I’m familiar with) are angry? They come across as vengeful, eye-for-an-eye people.

The pro-life candidate running for governor in my state presents himself as mean and violent, as a harsh, unforgiving businessman who will do whatever is necessary to win whatever battle he’s in. He seems to pride himself on stomping on anyone who crosses him.

Yet he’s pro-life. What ever happened to compassionate conservatives?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I really don’t see this. Look at the last Republican Primary… everyone there was no anger in that primary except for the anger that Trump brought into it. But then again, I’m conservative.

In my experience (as a conservative), conservatives are typically very by the book. Both in religion and the law - but esp in regards to the law. (This is why Saul Alinsky tells people in his “Rules for Radicals” to use the opposition’s rules against them.)

Because of this, conservatives stereotypical have little patience for criminal apologists. However, MOST conservatives (esp religious ones) typically uphold to “hate the sin and not the sinner” philosophy.
And conservatives also error on the side of justice when it comes to crime.

Liberals on the other hand, typically believe “hate the sin and not the sinner” or “love the sinner but hate the sin” is too judgmental. And liberals will error on the side of mercy.

Conservatives typically view that to always error on the side of mercy can be naive, while liberals typically view to always error on the side of justice can be mean-spirited.

So this is what it really comes down too… Conservatives are viewed by liberals as “mean” because we typically error on the side of justice, while conservatives typically view the average liberals as naive because they typically error on the side of mercy.

NOTE: I am not referring to political parties, party leadership / leaders, activists, extremists, etc. Just to your average conservatives and liberals.

In regards to pro-life specifically. Please keep this in mind: Pro-life people believe abortion is MURDER. So it’s easy to view pro-abortion politicians as “abortion apologists” (aka “murder apologists”). Because murder is a crime against the law and God, it can sometimes become difficult for the average pro-life person to not show their frustration. HOWEVER, outside a few libertarian extremists who bomb abortion clinics - Pro Life people protest with love and compassion. Often, you will see it’s the pro-abortion group who will get ugly and violent with Pro Lifers.

God bless.
 
I live in PA.

Scott Wagner, while pro-life, is not really a conservative. He’s more of a libertarian, from a very rural part of the state (York, County PA).

He was raised on a farm, attended one semester of community college, and then started founding his own businesses. Not that this is an excuse for his comments, but Scott Wagner is a very blue collar guy. Besides his farm upbringing, he worked as a bail bondsman, owns a trucking company, rental properties, ski shop, laundromat, etc.

He’s a Republican outsider, who ran for the State Senate for the first time in 2014 and won as as a write-in candidate against the main Republican candidate and the Democrat. He actually almost doubled the vote of both the Republican and Democratic nominations.

He’s not a politician at all, and has only served part of 1 state senate term. No other time in office. I think that’s what some people the rural parts of PA like about him. But he didn’t win a majority of the primary vote. He only had 44%. My candidate, Paul Mango came in 2nd with 37% of the vote.

But again, he’s not a conservative. He’s fiscally conservative, but he’s very liberal in some of his social views (besides abortion).

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top