Why no ProLife Demos?

[Pugsly]

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

Paul was harassed by the Stoics (almost “religious” in their god-free philosophy) and Lucretius followers (scientific/hedonistic/materialist that reject all religion in the Public Square). This worldly philosophy was tamped down on the world stage until the enlightenment philosophers revived it all.

 

[commenter]

Sadly, much of this is true of all administrations since Roe vs. Wade./QUOTE
But some administrations appointed pro life judges and cabinet officials. Other administrations sent the IRS to specifically go after pro life groups. We can agree that all of the presidents since 1973 could have done more to help pro life. That said, some administrations were sometimes helpful to prolife. Others were relentlessly opposed. The fact that nobody has been perfect does not eliminate the fact some were better than others.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1;10798608:

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

Since Roe vs. Wade, the republicans have held the majority of administrations, in the white house, and appointed the majority of supreme court justices. Knowing this, one can legitimately wonder, how many placated the pro life bloc of voters, compared to how many actually made positive steps in reversing Roe vs. Wade. While those who relentlessly, and openly, opposed the pro life issue, it would be just as wrong, possibly more so, to placate a bloc of voters.

There were some better than others, but all have failed the issue, in my opinion.

 

[Escopiliatese]

Your statement that claims the democratic party believes abortion is “good” is completely and utterly misconceived. While I am a pro-life democratic liberal, I do understand the pro-choice arguments and at one time supported them.

 

[openmind77]

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.

Nobody in his right mind believes abortion is good. What liberals have tried to do is balance the right of a woman to control her own body with their own personal view on when human life begins.

However, I would like to make a comment about ‘pro-lifers’ - it is very, very easy for women politicians of non-childbearing age and most men politicians to claim that they are ‘pro-life’. Unless they have daughters who are currently pregnant with an unwanted child, it costs these people nothing to take a ‘pro-life’ stance. By being ‘pro-life’ they can feel virtuous, protective of the defenseless, goody-goody, even saintly, all at the same time with absolutely no cost to themselves.

Taking a pro-choice stance for these people on the other hand may actually be a major compromise with their own personal beliefs (as in the case of Carter) and also be a reason for being disparaged or even shunned by their own religious community. So a pro-choice stance is at great cost to themselves and requires courage as well as compassion for those women who ask for the right to control their own bodies.

Since you have mentioned specific politicians, you may want to google Scott DesJarlais.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

However, I would like to make a comment about ‘pro-lifers’ - it is very, very easy for women politicians of non-childbearing age and most men politicians to claim that they are ‘pro-life’. Unless they have daughters who are currently pregnant with an unwanted child, it costs these people nothing to take a ‘pro-life’ stance. By being ‘pro-life’ they can feel virtuous, protective of the defenseless, goody-goody, even saintly, all at the same time with absolutely no cost to themselves.

As some one once told me, many politicians have a primary goal of getting re-elected. So they pander to what ever group they think will give them more support in many cases. Their public position may be completely different from their private position. Similar to your example there have been the anti-gay politicians whose position changes once a child of theirs is discovered to be gay.