Republican voters??

[fix]

But at what other costs? An unjust war, systematic oppression of minorities and the poor? Forced abortions and profiteering in Saipan? The indigent dumped out of hospitals on the street to die?

You mean directly give support to people who endorse abortion, homosexual acts, embryonic stem cell destruction, and much more because in your view they support certain proposals to increase money for particular programs?

I think you are still missing my point. I vote wholly pro-life. I no longer accept the agrument that I must be pragmatic and compromise. I am not called to do what is expedient, I am called to do what is right.

And, for all the talk, I see little in the way of results from decades of ‘pragmatism’.

I think you are the pragmatist here. You want a certain end no matter if the candidate supports abortion.

 

[fix]

The problem is that things don’t fit neatly into compartments. Secular law is unchanged, abortions drop 400,000 a year. We pass a new secular law and the decline slows, even reversing in some states…

If we never factor actual results into our decision making how can we say we are honoring any of our Christian obligations?

Moral reasoning is moral reasoning. You seem to view this as a matter of results regardless of how we get there?

Among incumbants, it is easy to tell. Look at how they have voted. And, look at what they have refused to act on. With newcomers, it is hard to tell. Most tell you want they think you want to hear. For example, I’ll bet every GOP candidate in the country talk tough on gays, family values, and abortion, but we still have problems in public restrooms, a gay male escort getting a free pass into the White House pressroom for two years, and a lot of embarrassing connections to forced abortions for profit in campaign funding.

I do not defend the GOP, but I will say at least they still accept there are some rights and wrongs. The other party pretty much gave up on that long ago. One is a hypocrite and one is beyond hypocrisy and given over to openly endorsing what is objectively wrong.

Still a slight hope for the one, but the other seems too far left.

 

[estesbob]

Moral reasoning is moral reasoning. You seem to view this as a matter of results regardless of how we get there?

I do not defend the GOP, but I will say at least they still accept there are some rights and wrongs. The other party pretty much gave up on that long ago. One is a hypocrite and one is beyond hypocrisy and given over to openly endorsing what is objectively wrong.

Still a slight hope for the one, but the other seems too far left.

The idea that there have been no changes in the law but abortions have dropped is specious. There have been lots of laws passed, by mostly republicans state legislatures, in many States-. Parental Consent, Informed Consent, Waiting periods, outlawing taking a minor across state line for an abortion t name a few, In every state that one of these or a combination of these laws were passed abortion dropped

 

[SoCalRC]

Looking over the Guttmacher institue website, it is clear that they also have an agenda. Folks with agendas tend to cherry pick numbers.

But let’s say for grins and giggles the Guttmacher institute numbers are correct.

Yes, people with agendas most certainly cherry pick numbers. Some alter them and/or suppress them as well. Still others just make them up.

However, when the GOP wanted to refute claims that abortion numbers were going up nationally under Bush, guess where it went for data…

The Institute is respected because it has a long history of reporting exactly what it finds, rather it matches a particular sides politics or not.

As to why we care about rates in other countries, you actually answered it yourself. You have to isolate theoretical causal factors, which means you need larger data sets.

Your own little study is a good case in point. You believe that there is a correlation between secular law and abortion rates. And it would be tempting to look at the first section in your breakdown and say ‘see, they get As…’, then look at the bottom section and say, ‘look, lots of F’s…’ But look at the median sections. The slightly above average abortion rate set has a NARAL average grade below C, while the average abortion rate set has a NARAL average grade above C. And, while the highest abortion rates are all A/B, As, Bs, and C’s are well represented in even the lowest abortion rate data set.

Since the two data curves really only connect at one end, we have no real indication of a true statistical relationship. If you think about it, this would make sense. The difference in the abortions rates is fairly extreme, but the difference between permissive and restrictive laws is relatively minor (laws can only be so harsh under current Federal law).

But if it isn’t the laws (or political parties, since evil Democrats are over represented on both ends of estesbob’s study as well), how do we identify potential relationships and causal factors? We have to start breaking down the data along other boundaries. Just as example, look at how dense and urban the states at the top are. We know that 60% of abortions are procurred by women near or below the poverty line. So a possible hypothesis would be that states that are disproportionately dense with large low income populations would top the list because you have the people most likely to procure an abortion in a situation where abortion is readily available…

To test this we could break down the raw data on urbanity and/or socio economic status and see how that trackes rates…

If this is a subject (not just abortion, but the underlying statistical sciences) that interests you, I would be happy to make some good reading and study recommendations.

 

[SoCalRC]

The idea that there have been no changes in the law but abortions have dropped is specious. There have been lots of laws passed, by mostly republicans state legislatures, in many States-. Parental Consent, Informed Consent, Waiting periods, outlawing taking a minor across state line for an abortion t name a few, In every state that one of these or a combination of these laws were passed abortion dropped

You are making a broad statement with no demonstrable basis in fact. Just a few posts ago you were investing some of your own time into a little break down. Why even go through the motions of science when you are going to reject even your own findings?

Dems are over represented in states with exceptionally low abortion rates and states with prohibitive laws are over represented in the above-average abortion rate set. This alone is strong indication that most of the self evident ‘truths’ that you continue to assert (ex. secular laws are effective, the GOP is fundementally more pro-life, etc.) are statements of faith, not reasoned analysis.

 

[SoCalRC]

Moral reasoning is moral reasoning. You seem to view this as a matter of results regardless of how we get there?

Not at all. My principle point is that how we ‘get there’ is critically important from a Catholic perspective. We believe that evil means ultimately lead to evil ends.

However, I am also critical of embracing rhetoric as proof of morality in the absense of demonstrable works and in the obvious presense of blatant hypocricy. How can the GOP be ‘pro family values’ when it is disproportionately led by people who evidently have none? Similiarly, how can the DEMs really represent the poor and blue collar population when the leadership is the same socioeconomic demographic as the GOP? If you don’t reward what you claim to value, how can you truly believe your own ideology?

I do not defend the GOP, but I will say at least they still accept there are some rights and wrongs. The other party pretty much gave up on that long ago. One is a hypocrite and one is beyond hypocrisy and given over to openly endorsing what is objectively wrong.

Still a slight hope for the one, but the other seems too far left.

This is the fundemental point you seem to be missing. Most people cannot seem to accept the practicality of voting for sincere third party candidates. They believe that they are ‘wasting’ their vote. But what has this pragmatism brought us? The pro-life party supports and directly profiteers off abortion, runs pro-abortion candidates for party leadership, protects sexual deviants in its ranks, and has just given us two Supreme Court judges who just reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and Casey.

My point is that it is David and Goliath, or Early Christianity and Rome. Stand with God, forget the odds, and God will reward us. Keep compromising between evils, and we become evil, and will reap what we sow.

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCalRC,
You sound and think like my very liberal brother and nephew, they
are also in Southern California. However, my brother left the church and my nephew is very far from it,too,so that is different.

Perhaps part of the problem is listening. I stand (as best I can) with God. That means that I cannot fit in convenient secular political molds.

I fully embrace our pro-life teachings, from conception to natural death (not just in my vote, but in every aspect of my life I can). So I cannot vote for pro-abortion candidates. But nor can I ignore my other Christian obligations. Look at the Gospels, whenever asked about salvation and damnation, Jesus gives the same answer, stressing the same points.

I used to try to be ‘politically pragmatic’, but I got my stomach full in 2000. Every bit of my life experience told me that I should not vote for chickenhawks, but I did so anyway. In 2004 I started voting all my values. In some races, I went to the headache of doing write ins. No candidate I voted for won a race. But I no longer care. I’ll keep voting, as best I can, my Faith across the board. Maybe there isn’t a lot of ‘winning’ (at least not yet), but I have faith. My prediction is that a lot of people will either sit '08 out or hold their noses at the poles.

The ones sitting at home have reached their limit, they can’t embrace evil. So the next step is for them to let go of their believe in our earthly political power structures. Once they do that, more people will be wholly voting their faith, and long before we ‘win’ we will start to truly be heard.

 

[mozart-250]

Your own little study is a good case in point. You believe that there is a correlation between secular law and abortion rates.

Yes, and I believe that it supports that hypothesis as unscientific as it may be.

Imagine 2 a flat plane with 2 axes (x and y). Let x represent the abortion rate and let y represent the NARAL abortion rating.

Then plot each of these 50 states on this graph as data points. What do you see.

Well, you do not a straight line. That would be correlation of 1.0. But you do not see perfect randomness. That would be correlation of 0.0.

What you do see is a trend with outliers scattered around median line of ascending slope. That shows correlation but certainly not perfect correlation. The correlation can be calculated by a formula that I have long since forgotten and somone with statistical knowledge can do it. That is not my point. My point was to see whether there is a correlation and what the grade of it is.

And it would be tempting to look at the first section in your breakdown and say ‘see, they get As…’, then look at the bottom section and say, ‘look, lots of F’s…’ But look at the median sections. The slightly above average abortion rate set has a NARAL average grade below C, while the average abortion rate set has a NARAL average grade above C. And, while the highest abortion rates are all A/B, As, Bs, and C’s are well represented in even the lowest abortion rate data set.

Yes, but all this shows is that the correlation is not 1.0. Which is to be expected. With correlation between 0 and 1, there can be outlier points. The point is that these data points are not random either (correlation 0).

Hey I’ve forgotten most of what I learned in statistics class, but somehow I managed to remember correlation. Go figure.

Since the two data curves really only connect at one end, we have no real indication of a true statistical relationship. If you think about it, this would make sense. The difference in the abortions rates is fairly extreme, but the difference between permissive and restrictive laws is relatively minor (laws can only be so harsh under current Federal law).

But if it isn’t the laws (or political parties, since evil Democrats are over represented on both ends of estesbob’s study as well), how do we identify potential relationships and causal factors? We have to start breaking down the data along other boundaries. Just as example, look at how dense and urban the states at the top are. We know that 60% of abortions are procurred by women near or below the poverty line. So a possible hypothesis would be that states that are disproportionately dense with large low income populations would top the list because you have the people most likely to procure an abortion in a situation where abortion is readily available…

Correlation is not the same as causation. To determine causation you have to look at all of the variables and test the data in many wasy. However, correlation looks just at two variables and determines the degree these variables are related independently of all the remaining variables.

Two variables can be highly correlated. It does not mean however that one causes the other.

In the realm of abortions, what this data suggests is that a state passing abortion restrictions like parental notification and waiting periods can be an influence with regards to lowering the abortion of the state. But an influence is not to be confused with a cause.

To test this we could break down the raw data on urbanity and/or socio economic status and see how that trackes rates…

Eyeballing the data it appeared that states with lower per capita income level generally had lower abortion rates. I actually thought of doing something similar with state per capita income levels but don’t have the time.

 

[mozart-250]

I used to try to be ‘politically pragmatic’, but I got my stomach full in 2000. Every bit of my life experience told me that I should not vote for chickenhawks, but I did so anyway. In 2004 I started voting all my values. In some races, I went to the headache of doing write ins. No candidate I voted for won a race. But I no longer care. I’ll keep voting, as best I can, my Faith across the board. Maybe there isn’t a lot of ‘winning’ (at least not yet), but I have faith. My prediction is that a lot of people will either sit '08 out or hold their noses at the poles.

I actually can appreciate this position.

In 2000 I was an enthusiastic ‘R’.

In 2004 I was a disillusioned ‘R’ so much so that I determined not to advocate for any candidate and to make my choice for vote at the last minute. I ended up voting ‘R’ but only because

• I did not want a Democratic President choosing the Supreme courc.
• None of the minor candidates really matches my views (I consider myself a classic conservative with strong libertarian leanings).

I may have made a mistake. Oh well not the first time I looked at how I voted and had second thoughts.

Now if anything I am more inclined to go third party. Again I probably will not advocate for either candidate (but yes I have a Ron Paul bumper sticker on my car…he won’t get it though). I probably will decide again at the last minute. But this time I will have to convince myself to go ‘R’ again (in 2004 I was trying to convince myself to go third party and failed at it).

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You mean directly give support to people who endorse abortion, homosexual acts, embryonic stem cell destruction, and much more because in your view they support certain proposals to increase money for particular programs?

I think you are the pragmatist here. You want a certain end no matter if the candidate supports abortion.

That is not what s/he is saying. From what I’m getting (and I have read his/her posts), s/he is saying that it’s not enough for a politician to merely say that they are pro-life and not pro-choice, which is what Republicans generally do to gain the Christian vote.

S/he is NOT saying that it’s okay to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

 

[estesbob]

That is not what s/he is saying. From what I’m getting (and I have read his/her posts), s/he is saying that it’s not enough for a politician to merely say that they are pro-life and not pro-choice, which is what Republicans generally do to gain the Christian vote.

S.

Simply not true as has been shown to you dozens if times.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Simply not true as has been shown to you dozens if times.

No, it has not been shown or demonstrated.

What you have done is show how a few Republicans have doen things to nibble around the edges so as to appear pro-life in their actions, but the things SoCalRC talk about (profit from forced abortions, Saipan, et al) aren’t exposed on FOXNoise or Rush because they make the Party look bad.

You may not like it because you’re a loyalist. That’s all good and well. The first step is to recognize that you have a problem.

 

[thomass]

Dale_M makes the erroneous point about the seperation of church and state, that I have heard frequently in the last few years. In my memory, I first heard it around the same time I began to hear the incomprehensible term “activist judges.”

The Constitution clearly covers this topic in what is often called “the establishment clause”, which states in part that, “congress shall enact no laws establishing a religion…”

Sorry, I realize that is off topic.

Peace

 

[estesbob]

No, it has not been shown or demonstrated.

What you have done is show how a few Republicans have doen things to nibble around the edges so as to appear pro-life in their actions, but the things SoCalRC talk about (profit from forced abortions, Saipan, et al) aren’t exposed on FOXNoise or Rush because they make the Party look bad.

You may not like it because you’re a loyalist. That’s all good and well. The first step is to recognize that you have a problem.

The information is been posted so many times it’s useless to post it again. You have been reduced to making wild claims about Republican supporting forced abortions and slavery. Nearly every single advance made towards limiting abortion since 1972 has come through the Republican Party.

So go on and keep telling yourself that those who claim to oppose abortion actually support it and that those who push for taxpayer-funded abortions up until the moment the child’s head exits the womb actually oppose it. Meanwhile the children continue to die.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

So go on and keep telling yourself that those who claim to oppose abortion actually support it and that those who push for taxpayer-funded abortions up until the moment the child’s head exits the womb actually oppose it. Meanwhile the children continue to die.

I must ask again that you cease and desist from the unsanitary practice of putting words in my mouth.

I oppose the Republican party. That does NOT mean that I support the Democratic party by default. On the issue of abortion, I firmly believe that there is no real difference between the two parties except one claims to be pro-life.

So stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

 

[SoCalRC]

Eyeballing the data it appeared that states with lower per capita income level generally had lower abortion rates. I actually thought of doing something similar with state per capita income levels but don’t have the time.

It isn’t that simple. The populations in the states at the top of your list is huge, more than almost all the other states combined. So you need to look at equivelent socioeconomic groups.

Put another way, CA has both extreme wealth and extreme poverty on fairly large scales, which potentially distorts a simple per-capita distribution of GDP.

FWIW, I did both standard and scattered deviation and only came up with one congruent point, the top end. This does not mean that there isn’t a correlation, just that the data set is not fine enough to show it. Again, one would expect the effect to be subtle because states can only put up relatively minor roadblocks to abortion. That is why it is revealing to look at other systems, which can include outright bans.

 

[SoCalRC]

Let’s take this a step at a time.

The information is been posted so many times it’s useless to post it again. You have been reduced to making wild claims about Republican supporting forced abortions and slavery.

No one is talking about wild claims. We are talking about a situation that human rights groups and the Church have been pointing out for more than a decade.

We are also talking about multiple criminal convictions and resignations on capitol hill. The stench of the Abromof scandal, which also brings gambling and prostitution into the mix is still claiming GOP victims. For example Doolittle here is CA is getting clobbered for the corruption aspect by a primary challenger.

Also, no one invented all the connections to abortion, including some for profit, that plague many of the current GOP hopefuls.

And abortion is not the only problem, we cannot seem to go a week without another revelation regarding predatory gay sexual activity, predophilia, or prostitution addiction. Which, presumably, helps explain all the divorces and serial womanizing…

Nearly every single advance made towards limiting abortion since 1972 has come through the Republican Party.

What advances? You profess they exist and that the results are self evident, but where is quantitive data to back that up? Your own ‘research’ shows that Democrats are disproportionately involved in states doing best at reducing abortion and the National data also shows no meaningful trend. Abortions in the US hit their highest under Reagan and Bush I, dropped the most steeply under Clinton, and have now declined much more slowly, and even reversed trend in some states, under Bush II and a flurry of new spending and legislation related to the topic.

So go on and keep telling yourself that those who claim to oppose abortion actually support it and that those who push for taxpayer-funded abortions up until the moment the child’s head exits the womb actually oppose it.

No one has said that. In fact, every aspect of that statement is false. Remember, this is not conservative talk radio, where demonizing other people with fraudulent claims (like 12 year old brain damaged children) is the norm. This is supposedly a Catholic influenced environment.

Meanwhile the children continue to die.

That has been my point. We cannot expect to reach good ends by evil means. Pragmatism has brought us record deficits and a state of perpertual war. And for what? An abortion rate that stops declining? The worst infant mortality and childhood poverty rates of any industrialized nation?

You have previously claimed that everyone who disagrees with you and does not attempt to address abortion in the exactly same way as you is a “sideline” Catholic, not a “real” Catholic doing “real” work. I have no such confidence.

I am not longer willing to compromise my faith. If someone truly believes that the GOP is the earthly political embodiment of Catholic teachings, regardless of the current administrations cool relationships with our Pope, fine. But if, like me, a person is getting a little disgusted with voting for the ‘lesser’ of two evils, I would urge them to try standing with God instead of chasing the false religion of earthly, two party, political power. No, we will not ‘win’ at first, but if enough people start following their faith, the system can change. It may seem otherwise, but even political parties do not last forever.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You have previously claimed that everyone who disagrees with you and does not attempt to address abortion in the exactly same way as you is a “sideline” Catholic, not a “real” Catholic doing “real” work. I have no such confidence.

I am not longer willing to compromise my faith. If someone truly believes that the GOP is the earthly political embodiment of Catholic teachings, regardless of the current administrations cool relationships with our Pope, fine. But if, like me, a person is getting a little disgusted with voting for the ‘lesser’ of two evils, I would urge them to try standing with God instead of chasing the false religion of earthly, two party, political power. No, we will not ‘win’ at first, but if enough people start following their faith, the system can change. It may seem otherwise, but even political parties do not last forever.

VERY well stated, as always.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

On different forums one thing that stands out on manyRepublican voters is they will vote Third Party November 2008. So many are disaffected with the Repub Party.

There are a number of issues that many Christian/Republicans are frustrated with and many are cutting there ties with the Party.

They realize a Third Party gives democrats victory but they (Repub voters) see it as a kind of purging. And they are not Dems.

Many say, “…no more lesser of two evils for me anymore…”

November 2008 will be a day of oblivion for Republicans I fear.

It would be best for ALL of us to stay cloce to The Sacrament in these days and the days immediately ahead. It’s going to be a very bumpy ride.

 

[estesbob]

On different forums one thing that stands out on manyRepublican voters is they will vote Third Party November 2008. So many are disaffected with the Repub Party.

There are a number of issues that many Christian/Republicans are frustrated with and many are cutting there ties with the Party.

They realize a Third Party gives democrats victory but they (Repub voters) see it as a kind of purging. And they are not Dems.

Many say, “…no more lesser of two evils for me anymore…”

November 2008 will be a day of oblivion for Republicans I fear.

It would be best for ALL of us to stay cloce to The Sacrament in these days and the days immediately ahead. It’s going to be a very bumpy ride.

You get blood on yur hands either way-Ill stay home.