Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

[mary_bobo]

I suggest that the research might be needed on your part. My conscience is clear. I would imagine it takes a fair dose of rationalizing to consider a party that demonizes the poor as having some kind of moral advantage over another. The Republican party may call itself pro-life, but many of its actions contribute to the causes of abortion and none have achieved its stated goal of reversing Roe v Wade. Where’s the advantage in that for the baby yearning to breathe?

Stats on reasons for abortion?

 

[Ridgerunner]

She may possibly be even more pro-abortion than the president. .

I doubt that’s possible. Remember when Obama spoke in favor of “choice” and said he wanted it available if one of his daughters made a “mistake” and ended up with an unwanted pregnancy?

My immediate reaction was: “How could his first thought NOT have been ‘I would support my daughter and raise the child myself, if it came to that’” But it wasn’t. He was willing to see his own grandchild killed. I’m not sure even Sebelius is as cold-hearted as that.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Anyone who votes for a pro-abortion, pro-choice murderer also has blood on his hands and will have to face God with bloody hands. Then all the rhetoric and sidestepping will be over.

 

[the_phoenix]

We are to use our conscience and prayer in casting our vote. I, despite what you would say, have a WELL FORMED conscience shaped by reading what the Church teaches and what I have prayed on.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Like the ten commandments, for example?



Both photos taken by me
at the March for Life
in Washington, DC,
January, 2010.

 

[estesbob]

Stats on reasons for abortion?

we have entered the Bizzaro world of pro-abortion catholics where those who oppose abortion actaully cause it and those who promote it actually limit it. it is the kind of moral gymnastics Archbishop Chaput states is worthy of an Olympic Gold Meadl.

 

[seekerz]

As a born and raised “cradle Democrat” who once held office in the party, I find myself to the “left” of today’s party in perhaps the most important way. The Democrats had two years in which they could have passed anything they wanted for the benefit of the truly poor, yet they didn’t. Instead, there was only “middle class welfare”. Remember “Cash for Clunkers”? Who buys clunkers? Why, the poor, of course. But they destroyed them in order to give middle and upper class people a tax break and perhaps to aid the UAW. How could they have failed to distribute those cars, most of which were perfectly good, to the people who needed transportation but couldn’t afford it? All they did was make the remaining “clunkers” more expensive.

Obamacare is also middle class welfare. It did nothing at all for the poor. In fact, due to the reordering of “reimbursement”, the emphasis is now on providing medical care to the well, who tend to be those who are better off, not to the sick, and certainly not to those with chronic illnesses. Ask someone who arranges medical care for the disabled. Those with “chronic conditions” are being dumped now. And who’s to thank for that? Well, HHS, that’s who.

Today’s Democrat party is essentially the “Rockefeller Republican Party” of years ago; elitist, disdainful of the truly needy, socially libertarian, mildly eugenecist, servitors to the well-connected super-wealthy.

Are the Repubs any better when it comes to the truly poor? No. Nobody has done a thing for them since Reagan’s “earned income credit”. But improvements to SSI? No. Nothing from the Repubs either.

So, since no one can credibly claim there is any greater concern for the poor in the Dem party than there is in the Repub Party, one has to ask oneself whether there is anything that ought to tip the scale in the favor of either one.

Abortion certainly is one, and would outweigh all others in a moral sense. The Dem party’s wedded devotion to abortion is precisely the reason why I resigned my office in the party some time back. It certainly cost me some friends in high places. Sure did. It’s also the reason why I cannot support any Democrat candidates on my ballot. I do research their records and their statements. Well, I’ll admit, there was one prolife Democrat who ran for sheriff some time ago, and I could support him. That’s it.

And what Repub ever championed homosexuality by officially equating it with heterosexuality in the military? What Repub of national stature supports homosexual “marriage” as the current administration does?

What Repub has told us that our home heat and lighting would cost us dramatically more due to his policies? None. But Obama did, and he’s acting on it. Never mind that the poor also need to keep warm and see after dusk, and wash their clothes and dry them. And never mind that they need gasoline at reasonable rates in order to go find a job or go to work, to the store, or even go to the doctor. No, make them pay more so they’ll be in even worse financial condition. That’s the elitist formulation of this administration.

One could go on and on, but one should never imagine that somehow the Democrat party of today remotely resembles the Democrat party of before. It doesn’t.

(And yes, I know people say “Democratic party” on here. I say “Democrat party” because that’s what I was taught to say by the old party folks in my area, and it is out of respect for them that I still say it.)

All salient issues and ones that we could flesh out, but not the point of my post. I was referring to specific instances and attitudes, one of which I pointed out months ago on this forum - the demonization of the poor, or the denial of their existence. It is one thing to say that neither party’s policies favor the poor and another thing to gloss over specific attitudes of current candidates. I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who negatively stereotypes the very segments of society where some in the pro-life movement identify the greatest risk for abortion. How is he supposed to decrease abortion among them if he becomes president? By saying, “Hey, look at me, I’m so much better than you because I kept the kid you wouldn’t have?”

 

[seekerz]

Stats on reasons for abortion?

Stats on reversing Roe v Wade?

 

[seekerz]

Stats on reversing Roe v Wade?

Since you asked, here are some:

google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=8.+Torres+A+and+Forrest+JD%2C+Why+do+women+have+abortions%3F+Family+Planning+Perspectives%2C+1988%2C+20(4)%3A169-176.

Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, about two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems.

guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html#8

Results: Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman’s perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons. Women’s characteristics are associated with their reasons for having an abortion: With few exceptions, older women and married women are the most likely to identify limiting childbearing as their main reason for abortion.

 

[seekerz]

Anyone who votes for a pro-abortion, pro-choice murderer also has blood on his hands and will have to face God with bloody hands. Then all the rhetoric and sidestepping will be over.

Easy there judge of hearts - don’t fall over yourself in your enthusiasm to condemn without trial. Remember the measure you give will be the measure you get…

 

[BVM_1221]

To whom it may concern…I have started a thread in “Social Justice” concerning the USCCB voters’ guide :tanning:

 

[irishpatrick]

Think of people back in the day who fought to keep slavery legal. Were they right or wrong?

Think of people who fought to keep women from attaining the vote. Were they right or wrong?

Think of people today who are fighting against giving human lives a chance to live. Are they right or wrong?

Think of how Hitler killed six-million Jews. Was he right or wrong?

Think of any number of a thousand different historical cases in which people were either enslaved, or killed. Were the leaders that instituted those events** right or wrong?**

One day in the future history will record the great shame and guilt of the left (and of this nation and world) for having fought so long and so hard ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THIS ISSUE!

Sadly, many more innocent little ones will be killed while people change their minds over the course of years and decades.

 

[seekerz]

I doubt that’s possible. Remember when Obama spoke in favor of “choice” and said he wanted it available if one of his daughters made a “mistake” and ended up with an unwanted pregnancy?

My immediate reaction was: “How could his first thought NOT have been ‘I would support my daughter and raise the child myself, if it came to that’” But it wasn’t. He was willing to see his own grandchild killed. I’m not sure even Sebelius is as cold-hearted as that.

Ah, but when Herman Cain vacillated on a similar question, his pro-life credentials remained essentially intact. After all, he knew what he was supposed to believe - it was just the way the MSM came at him…

The bare, cold truth, in my experience, is that many people oppose abortion but will be tempted or confused when an unintended pregnancy happens close to home. This phenomenon is actually reflected in the numbers given to me one (lost the link) which showed a growing number of people opposing abortion in surveys, alongside stagnant abortion numbers. For those seasoned in the strong, rhetoric of the vocally pro-life, such realities may seem unbelievable, but they are a sad fact of life.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Easy there judge of hearts - don’t fall over yourself in your enthusiasm to condemn without trial. Remember the measure you give will be the measure you get…

Do you really think my opinion is a judgment?

Abortion is murder. People who get abortions are murderers. People to do abortions are murderers. People who support people who do abortions are murders also. Where do you fit in? Don’t waste your time telling me you’re pro-choice, that’s support of murder too.

 

[Ridgerunner]

All salient issues and ones that we could flesh out, but not the point of my post. I was referring to specific instances and attitudes, one of which I pointed out months ago on this forum - the demonization of the poor, or the denial of their existence."

I can’t be expected to remember something one poster said months ago if, indeed, I even saw it.

Well, go ahead and provide reputable sources (not stereotyping opinions) for each of the present Repub candidates. Possibly I missed where, e.g., Romney demonized the poor or denied their existence. Perhaps you could quote him and the others saying “the poor do not exist” or “those poor people deserve what they get” or something of the sort.

I’m talking about the really poor here; the ones who can’t help themselves. Not middle class people who simply want more than they have earned.

I’ll stipulate that probably Obama has never said those things. He just acts as if he believes them.

 

[seekerz]

Do you really think my opinion is a judgment?

Abortion is murder. People who get abortions are murderers. People to do abortions are murderers. People who support people who do abortions are murders also. Where do you fit in? Don’t waste your time telling me you’re pro-choice, that’s support of murder too.

Murderers are people who have been convicted of murder.

I will forgive your dismissive tone in an attempt to educate you: I do not wear labels as I generally find them to be very variable in true meaningfulness, but for the purposes of argument you could say that I am pro-life. I am not pro-Republican or pro-what the conservative movement seems to mean these days. However, I tend to be conservative in my moral beliefs - these I weigh individually, not being one to simply assume an overall stand on issues en-masse.

A more pertinent question is, how do I view the right to life of unborn children: simply put, I passionately support their right to a life of dignity. That does not mean for me, as it does in some quarters of the left, that a child whose life I predict to be lacking in dignity should not enter this world. All children, from the moment of conception, have the right to be born into this world, but for me, that is just part of what it means to respect life. If you read any of the Church documents on life (which some fellow posters love to quote), you will notice that the words ‘life’ and ‘dignity’ tend to occur in close proximity to each other. In other words, to be respectful of life, one has to support the right of the unborn to a life of dignity. That is the definition of life I consider relevant when making an evaluation of candidates. Which party, based on the most of their history and policies, is most likely to act to reduce or end abortion (neither in my opinion) - and failing that, which party is most likely to enable the unborn to enter a life of dignity (which is where other social issues come into play).

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ah, but when Herman Cain vacillated on a similar question, his pro-life credentials remained essentially intact. After all, he knew what he was supposed to believe - it was just the way the MSM came at him…

The bare, cold truth, in my experience, is that many people oppose abortion but will be tempted or confused when an unintended pregnancy happens close to home. This phenomenon is actually reflected in the numbers given to me one (lost the link) which showed a growing number of people opposing abortion in surveys, alongside stagnant abortion numbers. For those seasoned in the strong, rhetoric of the vocally pro-life, such realities may seem unbelievable, but they are a sad fact of life.

Oh, did Herman Cain say he would have a “pro-choice” plank in his platform? Did he say he would be fine with his daughter aborting his grandchild? Did he say he favors Roe and its progeny? Maybe you can quote the damning statement.

I don’t know that a slowly declining abortion rate reflects a contradiction to a growing disapproval of abortion on demand. Could be the same people having multiple abortions for all one knows. Sort of like the divorce rates that are skewed by those who have multiple marriages and divorces.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

=irishpatrick;8799137]Think of people back in the day who fought to keep slavery legal. Were they right or wrong?

wrong

Think of people who fought to keep women from attaining the vote. Were they right or wrong?

right

Think of people today who are fighting against giving human lives a chance to live. Are they right or wrong?

wrong

Think of how Hitler killed six-million Jews. Was he right or wrong?

wrong

Think of any number of a thousand different historical cases in which people were either enslaved, or killed. Were the leaders that instituted those events** right or wrong?**

I don’t know.

One day in the future history will record the great shame and guilt of the left (and of this nation and world) for having fought so long and so hard ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THIS ISSUE!

Sadly, many more innocent little ones will be killed while people change their minds over the course of years and decades.

Unfortunately Catholics think they should afford mothers the choice of killing their babies. It upsets me that 54% of Catholics voted for obama last time when they knew he would kill babies.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It upsets me that 54% of Catholics voted for obama last time when they knew he would kill babies.

Actually about 46% until you count Hispanics, who might not have actually gotten the information on how abortion-minded Obama is. Still, 46% is a lot, but is probably not a whole lot more than the percentage of Catholics who have had abortions or been complicit in one. Guttmacher says its study shows 22% of Catholic women have had abortions. For most of those women, there was undoubtedly a parent, a boyfriend, a husband, a friend, someone, who was complicit in the act.

 

[mary_bobo]

Stats on reversing Roe v Wade?

Stats on why women have abortions? Having worked in quality assurance in hospitals in several cities, and thus necessarily having access to medical records, I have my own ideas why people have abortions and mostly they are for selfish reasons.

 

[irishpatrick]

Actually about 46% until you count Hispanics, who might not have actually gotten the information on how abortion-minded Obama is. Still, 46% is a lot, but is probably not a whole lot more than the percentage of Catholics who have had abortions or been complicit in one. Guttmacher says its study shows 22% of Catholic women have had abortions. For most of those women, there was undoubtedly a parent, a boyfriend, a husband, a friend, someone, who was complicit in the act.

Spin it anyway you want, 54% of Catholics voted for Obama. Period.

That number should be 0%,