Why no ProLife Demos?

[HabemusFrancis]

Can someone explain to me why believing abortion is good is an article of faith for the democratic party? They have a high tolerance for diversions on other issues: I.e, death penalty, gun control, free trade, defense issues.

There is not a snowballs chance in hell the party would let a prolifer speak at a DNC convention, o become a major senator, governor or mayor (Bob Casey is only exception to this rule.)

By contrast, the republican party hardly shames or excludes pro choice people, as evidenced by the prominent position of Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Christine Wittman, and (maybe:shrug Mitt Romney?

Can someone explain this discrepancy? I think part of it could be that unless you are a Catholic or Evangelical Christian, being prolife simply isnt in your nature.

On a different note, for those old enough to remember, was Jimmy Carter prolife? I have heard that he was.

 

[bsroufek]

Do a search on “jimmy carter abortion” and you will get statements from him last year trying to get the Democrats to abandon their pro-abortion stance.

While in office, he said he had a “hard time” supporting the 1973 abortion ruling, because he doesn’t personally believe in abortion. He supported it politically due to his oath of office, but didn’t like it. And still doesn’t. He’s a practicing Protestant.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Can someone explain to me why believing abortion is good is an article of faith for the democratic party? They have a high tolerance for diversions on other issues: I.e, death penalty, gun control, free trade, defense issues.

There is not a snowballs chance in hell the party would let a prolifer speak at a DNC convention, o become a major senator, governor or mayor (Bob Casey is only exception to this rule.)

By contrast, the republican party hardly shames or excludes pro choice people, as evidenced by the prominent position of Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Christine Wittman, and (maybe:shrug Mitt Romney?

Can someone explain this discrepancy? I think part of it could be that unless you are a Catholic or Evangelical Christian, being prolife simply isnt in your nature.

On a different note, for those old enough to remember, was Jimmy Carter prolife? I have heard that he was.

Democrats For Life of America

Senators Casey and Manchin and Senator-Elect Donnelly

Pro life house democrats
Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

 

[oberebo]

Plenty of prolife democrats including me. As a matter of fact I would think that if you polled the democrat party in my state of Oklahoma you would find it about 85-90 percent pro life. I consider myself liberal and agree with many of the stands of the National Democratic party however you can not in all good conscience be for murder which is what abortion really is. If you believe that life starts at the instant of conception then you can not be for abortion in my opinion. If you do not believe that it starts then when does it start and there is no answer to that or as many answers as there are opinions.

 

[Lord_Keynes]

The main reason pro-lifers vote Democrat is because of the New Deal entitlements, medicare, the social safety net, and anti-austerity policies**.

They do exist, I tell you!
Proof: youtube.com/watch?v=07ihtHirKwY

**Though, I’ll admit this facade is over. The Democratic party has largely lost touch with its historical roots of the New Deal/New Frontier dirigiste-populist policies. The New Deal base is still varibly strong in the party, and it’s part of the reason so many people still vote for the party.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

I am sure many people who vote democrat are. Even local politicians are. What Im saying is if you hold those views, your future in higher echelons of party is limited.

For example, coudl there ever be a dem presidential nominee who was pro choice, but oppossed partial birth abortion? Inconceivable!

Bill Clinton was a fairly moderate/conservative democrat as governor of Arkansas and President. But the only far left, liberal principal he would not compromise on was abortion on demand!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Can someone explain to me why believing abortion is good is an article of faith for the democratic party?

I don’t think that abortion is seen as “good” by the party, but that it’s not seen as something to be unconditionally prohibited. I don’t think the principal of double-effect is widely adopted by those in the democratic party (might not be widely accepted by non-Catholics as general) so the solution for ectopic pregnancies would be an abortion (as opposed to removing the embryo and the Fallopian tube, in either case the child dies).

I get the feeling that if you get some one in an environment in which he or she can express their views without concern of political impact that you will find they find abortion as something undesirable. In the public sphere with it being a polarizing issue it seems as though people will be case as completed in favor of or completely in opposition to abortion. But the reality of the people behind the polarized labels may be different.

 

[Cojuanco]

Democrats For Life of America

Senators Casey and Manchin and Senator-Elect Donnelly

Pro life house democrats
Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

True. The thing is that the money-men in the Democratic Party (and I suspect certain counterparts in the Republicans) are hostile to the cause, out of greed. They would rather rub children out rather than aid in ensuring a better life for them, because it might mean their taxes might go up, for example.

It’s a pity. As late as the 1990s you had pro life liberals in prominent positions, even in California. The thing is, it served the purposes of certain politicians in both parties to identify being prolife with being on the Right, and the reverse with the Left. Which it isn’t, really - there is nothing about the Great Society, say, that calls for murder of the unborn.

 

[Pugsly]

Democrats For Life of America

Senators Casey and Manchin and Senator-Elect Donnelly

Pro life house democrats
Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

Barack Obama voted “present” on everything as an Illinois State Senator…then one day he felt strongly about a topic…so he Chaired the Committee. What was the topic…? A nurse had brought forth a bill to protect children who had survived abortions from being killed by exposure…(she was ordered to leave a newborn in a closet until it died)
…hence…
The Democrat Party is quite happy with President Barack Obama who (twice) voted down the “Born Alive Protection Act” .

The Democrat Party voted for the moral equivalent of Dr.Gosnell

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Barack Obama voted “present” on everything as an Illinois State Senator…then one day he felt strongly about a topic…so he Chaired the Committee. What was the topic…? A nurse had brought forth a bill to protect children who had survived abortions from being killed by exposure…(she was ordered to leave a newborn in a closet until it died)
…hence…
The Democrat Party is quite happy with President Barack Obama who (twice) voted down the “Born Alive Protection Act” .

The Democrat Party voted for the moral equivalent of Dr.Gosnell

I don’t see how that precisely applies to the topic, which seem to ask ‘why no pro life Democrats?’ I provided a link to Democrats For Life, which lists those democrat politicians that are pro life. It was not my intention to post that information as an invite for an argument.

Is it your suggestion that all republicans are pro life?

 

[Pugsly]

I don’t see how that precisely applies to the topic, which seem to ask ‘why no pro life Democrats?’ I provided a link to Democrats For Life, which lists those democrat politicians that are pro life. It was not my intention to post that information as an invite for an argument.

Is it your suggestion that all republicans are pro life?

You’re right Prodigal…here is my answer to the OP. THe Democrat Party is almost completely taken over by a worldly philosophy that has a form of godliness (seeming care for the Weak)…but denies the power thereof (denial of Jesus as Lord and savior in the Public Square).

Democrat Christians have been watching the party slowly turn more and more godless in its overall positions…for over 50 years. Now, we have openly anti-christian wolves throwing off their sheeps clothing…and pushing for celebrating homosexuality and even voting for infanticide to “protect a woman’s right to choose”–Obama.

In my experience…Democrat Christians remain loyal to this antichristian movement by holding on to an even worse characterization…an evil cartoon image of Republicans. Thus, when confronted with the evil of their support for evil…goodhearted Catholic and Christian Democrats merely point toward some childish image of Republicans raping the Earth of resources via phony wars…etc.

This is why the Left so often does a moral pivot on the Right Wing as slightly removed from Nazis…(even though Hitler was a fascist, godless Machiavellian and racial Darwinist whom Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthoods founder) admired.

Wouldn’t it be great if Christian and Catholic Democrats stopped using “the evil of THE OTHER” for their moral compass…and really took a hard look at what they are doing and tolerating. Patience is a virtue…but Tolerance is like “change”…it can be quite bad.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re right Prodigal…here is my answer to the OP. THe Democrat Party is almost completely taken over by a worldly philosophy that has a form of godliness (seeming care for the Weak)…but denies the power thereof (denial of Jesus as Lord and savior in the Public Square).

Democrat Christians have been watching the party slowly turn more and more godless in its overall positions…for over 50 years. Now, we have openly anti-christian wolves throwing off their sheeps clothing…and pushing for celebrating homosexuality and even voting for infanticide to “protect a woman’s right to choose”–Obama.

In my experience…Democrat Christians remain loyal to this antichristian movement by holding on to an even worse characterization…an evil cartoon image of Republicans. Thus, when confronted with the evil of their support for evil…goodhearted Catholic and Christian Democrats merely point toward some childish image of Republicans raping the Earth of resources via phony wars…etc.

This is why the Left so often does a moral pivot on the Right Wing as slightly removed from Nazis…(even though Hitler was a fascist, godless Machiavellian and racial Darwinist whom Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthoods founder) admired.

You generalize all Christian democrats, while upholding a generalized view of republicans. This is void of praising the few that are taking a stand. Is demonizing the few a way of protecting a political view?

Politics is secular, and no side is free of those who deny the power, directly or indirectly. We need to support individuals of principle.

 

[Pugsly]

You generalize all Christian democrats, while upholding a generalized view of republicans. This is void of praising the few that are taking a stand. Is demonizing the few a way of protecting a political view?

Politics is secular, and no side is free of those who deny the power, directly or indirectly. We need to support individuals of principle.

In my post I addressed bad ideas, tendencies and trends…and your response addressed me.

Didn’t I mention this tendency above?

Ps…Barack Obama is indeed a man of principle.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In my post I addressed bad ideas, tendencies and trends…and your response addressed me.

Didn’t I mention this tendency above?

Ps…Barack Obama is indeed a man of principle.

My point is to hold individuals accountable, and recognize the good in even a few, irregardless of political affiliations. They are all politicians, of a secular government.

Your response seem to fall along partisan lines, in my opinion.

 

[commenter]

Do a search on “jimmy carter abortion” and you will get statements from him last year trying to get the Democrats to abandon their pro-abortion stance.

While in office, he said he had a “hard time” supporting the 1973 abortion ruling, because he doesn’t personally believe in abortion. He supported it politically due to his oath of office, but didn’t like it. And still doesn’t. He’s a practicing Protestant.

Of course Jimmy Carter didn’t “like” abortion. Like everyone, he “personally doesn’t believe” in it. But he endorsed legalization of abortion prior to his election. This was significant, because he was arguably the leading politician identified as evangelical. The abortion issue might have gone either way in the early 70s, might have been repealed. His support cleared the way for a generation of Southern evangelicals to support or at least condone legalization. When he was president, his oath of office did not require him to keep supporting vicious laws and court rulings. He could have worked to overturn Roe v Wade. He was not in any way prolife; he supported the status quo, which means pro choice. He rejected the tradition of Protestantism, which is prolife. I have read some of his recent statements on abortion. The sense I have is that he wants the Democrats to tone down some of the platform language, to make it a lower profile for them, so some Republicans would return. I have found nothing to show he would support overturning Roe v Wade. Even if he wants the Party to be more tactful on abortion, he offers nothing towards legal protection from abortion on demand. A friendlier, less abrasive party platform on abortion might bring some evangelicals back into the Party; the Party that continues to support abortion on demand - as Carter does.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course Jimmy Carter didn’t “like” abortion. Like everyone, he “personally doesn’t believe” in it. But he endorsed legalization of abortion prior to his election. This was significant, because he was arguably the leading politician identified as evangelical. The abortion issue might have gone either way in the early 70s, might have been repealed. His support cleared the way for a generation of Southern evangelicals to support or at least condone legalization. When he was president, his oath of office did not require him to keep supporting vicious laws and court rulings. He could have worked to overturn Roe v Wade. He quietly supported pro choice. He was not in any way prolife; he supported the status quo, which means pro choice. He rejected the tradition of Protestantism, which is prolife.

Sadly, much of this is true of all administrations since Roe vs. Wade.

 

[Pugsly]

My point is to hold individuals accountable, and recognize the good in even a few, irregardless of political affiliations. They are all politicians, of a secular government.

Your response seem to fall along partisan lines, in my opinion.

Actually, I loath discussing politics. But, the worldly philosophy I’ve mentioned makes everything political. The worldly philosophy I mention also “despises” moral absolutes…hence generalizations. Therefore, I battle an ideology that does not allow itself to be discussed…for violation of the taboo against generalizations.

I really know when I’m with someone who is bathing in that worldly philosophy…when they avoid discussing WHAT IS HAPPENING…and deflect toward our inability to know ALL THINGS ACCURATELY.

Ps…I have read your posts for a while now. I have no doubt you are a brother in the Lord. There is patience and love in your words. However, I do believe that you should wake up to the dangers of Leftism or Radical Liberalism as it has been on a 500 year march through Western civilization and has infected much of Western Christianity.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, I loath discussing politics. But, the worldly philosophy I’ve mentioned makes everything political. The worldly philosophy I mention also “despises” moral absolutes…hence generalizations. Therefore, I battle an ideology that does not allow itself to be discussed…for violation of the taboo against generalizations.

I really know when I’m with someone who is bathing in that worldly philosophy…when they avoid discussing WHAT IS HAPPENING…and deflect toward our inability to know ALL THINGS ACCURATELY.

And the point stands that both political parties have let us down on moral issues. Neither side was 100%, which is expected of ‘men.’ We need hold individuals accountable, instead of making generalizations to include those few trying to make a stand. Wouldn’t it be great if it were a growing trend? It seems some would rather 100% wrong, instead of the few making a stand.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ps…I have read your posts for a while now. I have no doubt you are a brother in the Lord. There is patience and love in your words. However, I do believe that you should wake up to the dangers of Leftism or Radical Liberalism as it has been on a 500 year march through Western civilization and has infected much of Western Christianity.

The infection began with Judas. It has existed throughout the Church’s history.

 

[Pugsly]

And the point stands that both political parties have let us down on moral issues. Neither side was 100%, which is expected of ‘men.’ We need hold individuals accountable, instead of making generalizations to include those few trying to make a stand. Wouldn’t it be great if it were a growing trend? It seems some would rather 100% wrong, instead of the few making a stand.

Overviews…summary statements…generalizations are the key to discussing a subject in a wise and fruitful way.

Atomization…arguing the exception to the rule…getting into the minutia of motivation and individual circumstances…is the best way to obfuscate.