What Anti-Life Action(s) Would Make You Change Your Mind About A Politician Who Ran As A "PRO-LIFE" Candidate?

[LCMS_No_More]

Ridgerunner;3785350:

Neither can GW Bush, thanks be to God.

Aaahh-men! :extrahappy:

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;3785350:

Neither can GW Bush, thanks be to God.

I think those on the far left are very likely to get their wishes granted this election cycle. Certainly, that will mean nationwide prohibition of state laws banning partial birth abortion. Definitely, it will mean the appointment of abortion and gay marriage advocates on the Supreme Court. It will certainly mean no development of energy resources in the U.S. other than further use of croplands for fuel, and billions spent on alternative energy boondoggles here while competing economies enjoy cheaper oil.

I guess since Hillary Clinton is no longer running, it’s okay to say her name on here. I do think the Democrats (and even Republicans) are going to eventually wish she had been the Democrat candidate. She’s pro-abortion, and I couldn’t have voted for her for that reason. But she isn’t far, far, far left.

I think we’re in a beaucoup of trouble, politically.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Historically, most candidates run hard to the base in the primaries, then drift back towards the center for the general because in the end most of the country is neither Red or Blue, but Purple.

 

[estesbob]

Fitswimmer;3785354:

I think those on the far left are very likely to get their wishes granted this election cycle. Certainly, that will mean nationwide prohibition of state laws banning partial birth abortion. Definitely, it will mean the appointment of abortion and gay marriage advocates on the Supreme Court. It will certainly mean no development of energy resources in the U.S. other than further use of croplands for fuel, and billions spent on alternative energy boondoggles here while competing economies enjoy cheaper oil.

I guess since Hillary Clinton is no longer running, it’s okay to say her name on here. I do think the Democrats (and even Republicans) are going to eventually wish she had been the Democrat candidate. She’s pro-abortion, and I couldn’t have voted for her for that reason. But she isn’t far, far, far left.

I think we’re in a beaucoup of trouble, politically.

If a democrat becomes president abortion will be enshrined as the law of the land for at least another generation. but that will be offset by the fact 3 less people will be waterboarded than were under bush…

 

[Verisimilitude]

If a democrat becomes president abortion will be enshrined as the law of the land for at least another generation.

Can you tell me who passed the abortion law to begin with? What bill was debated in Congress and signed by a President that made abortion legal and law?

 

[Dale_M]

Can you tell me who passed the abortion law to begin with? What bill was debated in Congress and signed by a President that made abortion legal and law?

I think Bob is referring to Supreme Court nominees, at least one of whom will be needed during the next four years. The Supreme Court judge appointed by the next president could determine the balance of the Court, which is currently slightly right of center.

But considering that Democrats will likely control the Senate after the next election, it may be difficult to get anything but a centrist or left judge confimed. So the choice of the next president may not actually matter in terms of the Supreme Court and abortion.

I would like so-called pro-life politicians to actually try to reduce the number of abortions by implementing programs which would reduce demand for abortion. Bills which would provide increase support for pregnant women seem only sensible to me, but haven’t gone anywhere in our anti-tax climate.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I think Bob is referring to Supreme Court nominees, at least one of whom will be needed during the next four years. The Supreme Court judge appointed by the next president could determine the balance of the Court, which is currently slightly right of center.

I was just using his comment to highlight the fact SCOTUS made law with Roe and not Congress as prescribed by law. I’m likely preaching to the choir.

But considering that Democrats will likely control the Senate after the next election, it may be difficult to get anything but a centrist or left judge confimed. So the choice of the next president may not actually matter in terms of the Supreme Court and abortion.

Congress could pass a law like the Sanctity of Life Act, or the Court could set the rulling aside because of activism. Abortion is not law but for some reason we protect it like it is.

 

[estesbob]

I think Bob is referring to Supreme Court nominees, at least one of whom will be needed during the next four years. The Supreme Court judge appointed by the next president could determine the balance of the Court, which is currently slightly right of center.

But considering that Democrats will likely control the Senate after the next election, it may be difficult to get anything but a centrist or left judge confimed. So the choice of the next president may not actually matter in terms of the Supreme Court and abortion.

I would like so-called pro-life politicians to actually try to reduce the number of abortions by implementing programs which would reduce demand for abortion. Bills which would provide increase support for pregnant women seem only sensible to me, but haven’t gone anywhere in our anti-tax climate.

There is no corealation between the level of social spending and the rate if abortion

I would much rather take my chances with a proilife president and a democrat congess than a pro abortion president and a democrat congress of course if Catholics wouldnt vote for pro abortion politicins abortion would have ended a long time ago

 

[vz71]

I guess since Hillary Clinton is no longer running, it’s okay to say her name on here.

The campaign is only suspended.
She may still call a roll on the delegates at the primary.

Its like a George Romero film…

 

[wynnejj]

Taking the question as framed, I would think the whole list would be a turning point with varying levels of “furious”. Because of sheer numbers of casualties, those items that directly fuel the abortion trade would make me most “furious”.

However, unjust war and its casualties, both combatants and non-combatants, must be considered as serious anti-life issues. All life and death issues with mounting casualty counts must be weighed with the idea of emergency room TRIAGE - that is, how can I save the most, if I can’t save them all. The War in Iraq has something on the order of 100,000 casualties, both combatant (willing participants since there is no draft) and non-combatant (unwilling victims of war). Abortion has a body count of about 50 million in the USA. Abortion to IRAQ war casualties has a ratio of about 500 to 1. Clearly abortion must have greater weight than the war issue.

But how can one get “furious” with a politician anyway, because politicians have to get elected in the art of compromise and TRIAGE of principles. I save my sense of “furious” with our local Catholic churches that have kept the abortion issue out of the pulpit over the years in a spirit of TRIAGE of financial support instead of moral principles. Our Lord’s sense of TRIAGE of principles kicked the money-lenders out of the temple. Was Our Lord uncharacteristically “furious”?