I'm against the death penalty. The Democratic Party supports the death penalty. How come? Because being pro-abortion is a litmus test for Democrats running for high political office and it's hard for people to oppose killing guilty criminals when they don't even oppose killing innocent little babies.
It makes sense that Democrats would be Pro-Life since they look out for human rights and the little guy. Abortion takes away the number one human right (to live) from the littlest guy (babies). Just like slavery was eventually seen to be evil by all, I truly believe that abortion will be as well. It will not be a country dividing issue in America in 100 years...I hope
I am Catholic first and foremost with my vote and conservative/traditionalist second with strongest emphasis on how everything effects the ideal of family (mother/father/children) and personal freedoms. I don't consider myself Republican, although that is how I reluctantly usually vote.
The family is the core institution, but matters pertaining to trade, economics, immigration, the environment, taxes, healthcare and others cannot be ignored by a Catholic faithful to the Magisterium. The encyclicals are broad, touching on a great diversity of issues, and declaring many of them to be of grave importance. I take a holistic approach to Catholic Social Doctrine and how we are to vote.
You said, "I strongly advise you not to judge or condemn those who work within the permissible moral framework of the Church." Nice jab, but nothing I said could be construed as condemning the Church Magisterium. All I said was that the USCCB 'guide' leaves one more confused than anything - read threads on those who have read it. I also believe your blue democrat roots are showing - may be time to re-die your hair again that nice gray color. :)
I never accused you of condemning the Church Magisterium. I simply gave a word of caution against judging laity, priests, or bishops who would vote Democrat, which happens to be acceptable given certain preconditions.
The USCCB didn't leave me confused. I have read it, written about it, and spoke about it at great length.
In 12 years, I have voted overwhelmingly Constitution Party, worked and voted for many Republicans, and voted for more libertarians than Democrats. Independent to the core.
That doesn't mean I compromised my morals because I hired them. The by far and away largest moral discrepency between the two parties is that one outwardly pushes immorality and gets most of their money from evil quarters, whereas the other outwardly supports CHRISTIAN morality and gets most of its money from same. Who's agenda do you think each will follow more? Follow the money!
Disagreed. This may even make for a good post. Goodness! At least you are providing great topics for my blog and radio show (once the school year begins)
As good of a debater as you are, your arguments trying to say Republicans are equal to Democrats on moral issues is weak. Simply because a gay person may work in an administration, or a leader may have had a failed marriage has little to do with where the party stands or where that particular leader is now morally. As Christians, we love the sinner, hate the sin, and stand against sin. I'm about as conservative as they come, but I would hire a gay person and I would hire a divorcee.
You listed off a series of questions. I simply answered them. I'm sorry for calling Republicans to the floor on their gross hypocrisy, their anti-Christian pluralism, their treacherous secularism, and their moral depravity, but that is my job as a journalist, regardless of what party is under the microscope.
I will be doing a post on my site detailing Bush and Co. I'll send you a link. This conversation has truly been an inspiration, and reminded me why I am an Independent.
For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a disqualifying issue. A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable.
If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate? This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue.
Wrong. Read the USCCB. I strongly advise you not to judge or condemn those who work within the permissible moral framework of the Church.
I have written about this issue on my blog. I have also written to my priest, Father Robert Sirico, about this matter. I also spoke to the diocese. All is well with the position I defended. If you are interested in reading them, send me a message and I'll get you the links.
"The Challenge of Faithful Citizenship" is not a voters guide. Have you read it? Do you still think it is a voter's guide? Which voters do you know who would read it would have a clear understanding of what they should do?
If you want an actual voters' guide, read the Catholic Answers Voters Guide for Serious Catholics or EWTN's. You'll find black and white distinctions that will actually guide you and I challenge you to find anything out of line with Church doctrine.
The "Serious Catholics Voter's Guide" is a rather sad piece of work. They ignore over 100 years of Catholic Social Doctrine and touch on what they, in their private opinion, are the make-or-break issues. By their very standards, nobody could have voted Republican in this past election. My video on Pro-Life Hypocrisy is sufficient on this point. I dealt with that "Voter's Guide" on Catholic Answer's forum as well as on my radio program.
1. Republicans refused to stand behind Justice Moore, and Bush appointed the prosecutor to a federal position.
2. This is a relatively obscure matter, especially since it was originally written without that phrase.
3. Both parties. Bush nominated gays to prominent positions, sent cabinet members to Log Cabin Republican meetings, and sent a letter to the Metropolitan Church on their anniversary.
4. Both. McCain was the only presidential candidate whose marriage was the result of an affair.
5. I am unaware of either party pursuing this, at least not by and large.
6. Both parties.
7. A Republican introduced the first no-fault divorce law. It was Gov. Ronald Reagan.
8. There are Republicans and Democrats who wish to do so. In fact, during the debate between Palin and Biden, both of them admitted to agreeing on the issue of marriage and treatment of gay couples. It was an outrage that the right glossed over.
Yes, I've read the USSCB voters guide. It's very clear that there are moral evils that are greater and trump others, i.e. abortion - trumps all others without question, thus one's vote may be funnelled down to a single issue. That's only one of many things I vote on, but the one determinant of how I will ultimately vote.
What does the USCCB say concerning those Catholics who vote for pro-choice candidates? Catholics are permitted to do so, but certain prerequisites must be met. What are they?
The Catechism speaks of the different roles of government. I also did not advocate for any particular style of government, only a non-oppressive one, the one democrats push for - to tax and regulate us into spiritless autonotons.
I agree that success normally must be obtsined through small steps, but that doesn't mean that we don't quit proclaiming and working toward the full truth. Christ was an extremist and thus we are called to be as well when it comes to protecting the truth.
The Catechism does not stand alone in this regard. It stands alongside the socio-political and economic encyclicals. These encyclicals talk about matters concerning healthcare and insurance, just wages, regulation of the market, welfare, the environment, abortion, fair trade, unions, war, euthanasia, birth control, etc. etc. The Catholic must take all of these serious, and not at the expense of another.
We can proclaim that the criminalization of abortion is our goal while voting incrementally
Liberals/socialists also believe in government control of nearly everything in our lives - that they can make better decisions that us. This is against God's design. He gave us free will to exercise it in playing a part in creation. Our ingenuity, inventiveness, etc. should be able to soar and not be restricted by a punitive and oppressive government. The less government, the more people can achieve what their God-given abilities were meant to. Liberalism/Socialism kills the free spirit.
The Catholic Church has defined socialism. Can you please tell me what that definition is and where it is found?
The Catholic Church has defined what the proper role of government is, as well as making clear what it may, should, or must be involved with? Can you name some of these and tell me where these were found?
I agree that socialism is evil and has been condemned, but I am curious to know what you think the Church has said of the state and how it has defined socialism. No offense.
What I mean by liberal is someone who is a moral relativist - which is essentially the definition of most democrats these days. The Catholic Church is the greatest charitable organization on planet earth so don't say we ignore infants after birth - a rediculous claim to try and justify voting for anything other than complete annihilation of all abortion. American business (philanthropists) far out spend the govenrment on charitable donations as well so business is good for community.
Most Republicans are too. They are horrifically pluralistic and secularist by nature. Establishment Republicans have bought into the mantra of multiculturalism, tolerance, and diversity. The majority of conservative Republicans are Protestant, which makes them, to some degree, religiously pluralistic as well. At any rate, Dems don't have a monopoly on the Modernist and Postmodernist market.
I don't believe that it is a ridiculous claim at all. For beginners, you can vote all you wish for the complete annihilation of abortion (which I agree with), but it won't even get out of committee. So, another 1.5 or so million babies die because of your absolutism. Another person puts forward a measure that wouldn't outlaw it, but could dramatically decrease the number of dead babies. You vote no because it doesn't go far enough. Another 1.5 million die. What did you prove?
I really like you, especially your zeal for your newly found Catholic faith, but as you study it more, you'll come to the conclusion that you vote Catholic First - period. You either accept the full authority of the Church, or you are in protest, and thus still a Protestant. I'm sure you bothered to read the Catholic Voters Guide. I'm also sure you found that certain, grave moral evils trump others - such as abortion - the killing of our most innocent. One can be a one issue voter.
Yes, Catholic first. I have written on this issue extensively. I have also talked on my show about it at great length.
I have read the social and economic encyclicals of the Church as well as well as the only official Voter's guide for Catholics in America (the one printed by the USCCB). Neither of those would require one to vote Republican or prohibit one from voting Democrat, not even in this last election.
Please note that the USCCB makes clear we are not single-issue voters.
The problem with 'pro-life' democrats is that the party has gone so far astray to representing nearly everything evil, anti-God, that this can only be viewed as a political ploy to gain votes. Praise God that you're Catholic now, but a democrat vote is a non-Catholic vote for sure.
Praise God there's those in their ranks that are pro-life, but they'd be better served to become conservatives and work toward snuffing out liberalism all togher.
The point of her book, which also happens to be my position, is that pro-life Democrats are a "silenced majority" of the Democrat party. In short, it isn't good to judge a group by those who have the biggest mouths and the most money. Thankfully, the party is made up of more Main St. Johnny Q Publics than loudmouth moneybags.
I would be cautious about saying a vote for a Dem is anti-Catholic. Fact is, the same could be said of Republicans.
Snuff out liberalism? Depends what you mean by liberal
I agree. Lets keep both sides of the coin within the Democratic party working towards the things we can agree on...
Stopping violence against women. reducing stigma surrounding women's issues, total workplace equality and a strong enough social safety net that the Republicans will never be able to destroy it.
Eventually a clear enough majority in opinion will emerge so that It no longer seems like a fringe issue either way.
So that's why I think a third-way position is perfect. Take away the need and allow the fight of both the pro-life and pro-choice positions to move forward. Let society sort it out over time through a natural progression of public opinion. If my side loses the fight, so be it.
I think a more reasonable third way is a both-and. Criminalize abortion while also providing those things mentioned in the 95-10. I would go further, supporting some form of socialized medicine. Beef up social services, strengthen opportunities for pregnant women, incentivize childbirth, cut health costs, and make murdering babies illegal. That sounds fair to me... in fact, more than fair, it is humane.
Paleo, I'm not a democrat or republican, but I've considered becoming a pro-life democrat. Are there other ways to reform the healthcare system besides socializing it? I've heard of other ideas that different politicians have had.
There is nothing more immoral than a woman having an abortion because she is afraid of her whole life falling apart. The difference its that I think the morality charge falls on our society, not the woman as an individual.
The rape and incest clause also isn't good enough for me. I can only imagine the pain a woman would be in to start with in a situation like that. To force her to go before a judge and explain herself is in my mind the equivalent to a witch trial.
The only thing more immoral than that is when a women deprives the most innocent and vulnerable human beings on the planet (children in the womb) of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment because she thinks her life is falling apart.
I don't make exceptions for rape and incest. The child is no less human, with no less dignity, because of the conditions whereby it was conceived.
"I don't make exceptions for rape and incest. The child is no less human, with no less dignity, because of the conditions whereby it was conceived."
I respect that position far more than those who try to pick apart the issue. The rape and incest clause is a red herring used by Republicans who don't want to admit that they are misogynists.
I'm pro-choice. Being pro-choice also means adopting public policy that allows women who choose to carry pregnancy to term all that they need to be healthy and on strong economic footing.
Because of that reasoning I have to say that the idea of a pro-life Democrat is much easier to respect than that of a pro-life Republican.
I'm curious, though. Does the position of a pro-life Democrat support overturning Roe immediately?
Not necessarily. In fact, most would say that including language that would overturn Roe in various pro-life policies would do more harm than good, at least in our current political climate. The bill would have about a 100% change of failure, not saving a single child.
I strongly encourage you to read the 95-10 Initiative on their site.
I'm a classic liberal Democrat and a feminist. I personally have no moral objection to abortion, but I understand why many people do.
I'm open to debate on this issue within the Democratic party, but I strongly oppose any legislation that would overturn Roe; mostly for reasons of economic inequality. It's good to know that the Blue Dogs mostly understand this line of thinking.
Conservative Democrats understand that line of thinking, but most still wish to someday criminalize abortion. Most of them believe, as I do, that abortion is infanticide and that we have murdered almost 50 time more babies through medical abortions and abortifacient contraceptives than Hitler killed in the Holocaust.
Still, they understand that all-or-nothing legislation won't pass, so they chip away one bit at a time. The tactic of the termite.
I respect your passion but I believe you can accomplish nothing as a Democrat. That party has gone to crap since the 60s. Parties do evolve. At one point the South voted Democrat. Think about it.
Liberals simply dominate that party. There is no room for a good person like you there. You should be considering yourself an indepedent.
Do you think that Obama, who suports infanticide, has the judgment to be a good president?
C. I think that those involved in journalism should treat partisanship like leprosy.
D. I am radically independent. Proud of it.
E. Liberals don't dominate the party. Well, at least not social and cultural liberals. The statistics are there. Americans, whether they be Republican or Democrat, tend to be purple rather than blue or red. Most don't hate large government, but most take a moderate-traditionalist view on cultural matters.
Not sure how he will do as a president. But rather than moan and complain I will pray for him and think of ways that we can push our agenda through, even in small baby steps, during his time in office.
My goal isn't to get Republicans in office. My goal is to get issues passed, or at least brought closer to completion.
You can complain from the sidelines and cross your fingers that Republicans will do what what they haven't done in 35 years: end abortion. I'll keep working, even with a Dem.
And as long as liberals sit on the Supreme Court bench it never will. Perhaps if people abandon the Democratic Party they may be forced to change their stance on abortion. Electing Obama may have guaranteed more liberals on the bench.
Getting issues passed means electing Republican presidents who in turn elect the judges we need.
You keep working..so is everybody else. The law is the problem.
Yeah. The infanticide claim loses me every time, as does the idea of criminalizing abortion. It goes against the core of what I believe to be a realistic solution.
Abortion is as old as time, women have always done it whether it is legal or not. I don't any woman to put herself in harms way because she feels she is in a desperate situation.
I'm sure you have heard this all before.
Unfortunately this is one issue that it will always be hard to get people to come to any consensus.
I had a very interesting discussion with my co-host about this matter. She is pro-choice. The conversation was polite and considerate, but the issue was very heavy. My question was very simple:
When does life begin?
The answer to this determines the difference between a simple surgery and murder.
If one believes, as I do, that it begins at conception, then what else should I call the taking of innocent life without due process, life, liberty, and happiness?
There was a consensus on this matter for a long time. In fact, when Roe was declared the vast majority of Americans were radically opposed to abortion.
Will there always be abortion? Sure. There will always be those women who would discard life for various reasons, some worse than others. But that isn't at stake. No, the issue is with the decriminalization of that decision.
The very fact that people will do certain things is hardly warrant for decriminalization. Imagine the ramifications!
I don't believe that abortion is murder, and a considerable majority of people are with me on that. I certainly agree that there are moral issues, but murder is not one of them.
Being a woman I am very receptive to the chaos an unplanned pregnancy can cause within life for a woman. I have heard the personal stories of women that have had abortions. Total desperation is the only way to describe how they felt at the time of their decision.
I am aware that there are many who agree with you. But that really wasn't the issue. The issue was with where we draw the line between human and non-human. When does a child become a human deserving right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment?
This, as I have said before, will provide us, and our legal system, with a way to determine the difference between surgery and murder.
Pro-life democrats is an oxy-moron. The party has been highjacked along time ago. It has evolved to be anti-religious, socialist, selfish, immoral mess.
If abortion is not on the top of a person priorities than they pro-lifer democrats might as well be pro-choice.
This line of logic indict the Republicans as well. For years the pro-life conservatives were called the "silent majority." There were plenty of them out there, but they didn't control the party apparatus.
Your third sentence is absurd. The loudest and most active of the bunch may be, but religious types are renown for their reserve. The majority go to church, likes a mixed-economy of private property and state assistance, and tend to be family oriented.
No. Religious types have a voice. I am well aware that religious Hispanics and blacks are remain Democrats. They simply ignore the abortion issue. Why? I have no clue.
Other than that, you have GIVE ME GIVE ME ENTITLEMENT mentality which the Democrat Party embodies..hardly a working class mentality. It's along way from
It is rather naive to say that people "ignore" the abortion issue because they aren't single-issue voters like most white fundamentalists. It is not at all surprising that you "have no clue."
btw- If the blacks and Hispanics hadn't shown up in CA, then gay marriage would have passed.
The Democrats and Republicans are both dominated by big government types. Conservatism is in the minority, and most identifying themselves as conservatives don't want to abolish bureaucracies, just control them.
"because they aren't single-issue voters like most white fundamentalists"
Who said I was white you racist. IF your a Christian, abortion should be at the top the list. Why? because it is so evil. It is suprising that people well look away at infants being murdered.
Yeah the gay marriage thing is strange. They vote yes on 8 but no 4...the abortion one. That will change though eventually. If they can compromise on abortion they will compromise eventually on gay marriage.
I am white! Am I racist against white people? You were talking about blacks and Hispanics. Does that make you racist?
Nobody is talking about compromising. We are talking about the idiocy of single-issue voting. I talk more about abortion than any other talk-show host I know of. I talk about the number of babies murdered on account of 99% of all contraceptives! But I'm not single-issue.
Strange? It was predictable! I called it on my show.
Last sentence....mark my words. It's complete compromise.
Abortion is an extremely important issue thats why. There is nothing worse. If the issue was something like big or small government...school vouchers or what not...you would have a point. Abortion is an abomination and if it doesn't bring outrage into a Christian then there is a problem.
No one is denying that abortion is an outrage. But unlike the partisan world of Republicans v. Democrats, there are "other" issues pertaining to war, unjust imprisonment, the death penalty, exploitation of Third World labor, pornography laws, divorce laws, the birth control holocaust, environmental and fiscal issues that impact us and our children, etc. etc. Tunnel vision may be easy, but it's intellectual stupidity and moral laziness.
Watch my video "Republican Pro-Life Hypocrisy." Learn.
For many, yes. But not all Democrats are liberals. The loudest may be, but this doesn't say too much about Democrats as a whole.
Pro-life, Blue Dog Democrats have become a real scare to the establishment. Even The Nation, which is possibly the most hardline Left magazine in the US, has admitted this. Democrats for Life have cited poll after poll on this matter.
Rather than regurgitate Limbaugh and Co., learn to read between the lines... and listen to the silent majority.
Still, millions of a babies to me is at the top of the list. Electing democratic presidents leads to democratic judges..thus Roe. vs. Wade remains unchallenged.
I really can't think of anything on the list you mentioned that comes close to this atrocity. Thats why I have a real problem with peeps like yourself. You seem to weigh it out and babies come last.
Who said that any one thing on that list, taken by itself, is as big as infanticide? Not me! No, I have spent hour upon hour on my program, on my blog, and on my YouTube talking about the issue of the legalized, taxpayer funded infanticide in America. I have talked about how contraceptives murder 5 or more times as many babies as medical abortions and, as such, should be illegal. So for you to say that I put babies last is as ignorant as it is offensive.
By being a democrat you have put the issue in the back. It is the democratic party as a whole that is pro-choice. Just look at the president you probably voted for.
When Roe is gone abortions will still occur. However, not to the same level. When the fear of going to prision threatens women then it will die down. If they legaized rape I'm sure rape incidents would go up. The law does make a difference.
In Brazil, abortion is illegal, yet there are between one million and two million abortions a year in Brazil.
The law is important, but not nearly as important as other methods that would lower the abortion rate (such as better pre-natal care, education, and health care).
The law is important, but not nearly as important as other methods that would lower the abortion rate (such as better pre-natal care, education, and health care). "
I totally agree. I would add that functional, loving families play the biggest role in this.
No but when the law is enforced it will deter abortions.
Brazil really can't be compared to the U.S.. I find it interesting that they have a statistic of how many babies are aborted....I mean is that how many people are being arrested?
It's estimated. The Brazilians don't know for sure how many abortions there are a year. It is known, however, that about 200,000 people each year get medical treatment for complications relating to illegal abortions.
I question whether enforcing an anti-abortion law would really lower abortion rates. As I said, abortion is illegal in Brazil, yet their abortion rate is as high as ours. In Peru, abortion has never been legal, yet their abortion rate is HIGHER!
Though I think that abortion has to be made illegal (as a secondary or tertiary concern), I think it more important to focus on things like pre-natal care, things that will reduce the numbers of abortions.
Even if making abortions illegal would reduce the number, I think that such a law would be very unlikely under any administration. I think it much more likely that our government will decrease the number of abortions through healthcare and adoption rather than through legislation.
Yeah yeah I agree.....we need to stop woman from having abortions through education ya da ya da.
Still, murdering infants is murder. I suppose we can legalize child molestation as it's gonna happen anyways.
Yeah I guess the law makes no difference.
I'm sorry the law is despicable. Abortion is wrong. Fear of going to prison for life and being ostracized by society (much like a pedophile) may actualy deter the act. That in addition to the other stuff you mentioned.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a law. I'm saying that it's not nearly as important as other factors. We should make abortion illegal as a secondary or tertiary concern.
I understand your point about the law. One would think that it would decrease the number of abortions. But the fact is that it DOESN'T.
Theories, no matter how logical they seem, are meaningless when they aren't backed up by facts.
"One would think that it would decrease the number of abortions. But the fact is that it DOESN'T"
How can you be so sure? Imagine if Brazil didn't have any laws how many MORE babies would be slaughtered?. Guessing by what your saying they probably don't even enforce the laws anyways.
Do you know what a theory is? It is a collection of facts and evidence for some kind of idea or concept.
I'm sorry ENFORCING LAWS deter crime. Or doesn't it? Your contradictcing thousands of years of a method for regulating a society. Laws exist so we have order. Of course their is gonna be people who break the laws....
But without no law at all you would have UTTER CHAOS. I
Yes, and Brazil ENFORCES her laws against abortion.
Laws do deter crime, but it depends very much on the specific crime in general. Their are exceptions.
During prohibition, people actually drank MORE alcohol than before or after.
Considering the abortion rates of countries like Peru or Brazil, I am inclined to believe that this is one of those times when the law has very little effect on the crime.
Okay, see, this is the point where our debate stops being a debate and descends into mindless insults.
If you want to have a rational discussion with me, let me know. But I'm not going to sit here and have you throw insults at me because you think I'm a "weak, spineless, tree-hugging hippie" or whatever stupid stereotype you've bought into.
Okay, I'll have a daily debate with you, I'm a conservative Catholic Christian, I believe life begins at conception, therefore you are interfering with the inalieable right to live by the baby by killing it. It has the right to its own chance. Barack Obama was in a good situation for abortion, what if he had been aborted? Shoot me down! I welcome your criticism liberal, bring it on!
Oh yeah, Obama is the less of the two evils. Diddn't you know that Obama is passing Universal Healcare that will hurt more people than it will help. He is also taking away our freedoms. And what good does raising taxes do to this nation? Our Unemployment is 9.5% and rising. Obama is a joke and he needs to Convert to Christianity.
Our health care system is in desperate need of reform. Universal Health Care would be much more efficient, and it would provide coverage to the 50 million Americans who don't have insurance. Every other first-world country on earth has Universal Health Care. The notion that we shouldn't have it is a joke.
Of course he's raising taxes. Our country is trillions of dollars in debt. How are we suppossed to get the money?
And what does this have to do with Obama, who is a Christian, converting?
Yes our healthcare is in need of reform but Universal Healcare is not the answer. Canada has it and people have to wait years to get there services. Obama views the American people as a comodity. For instance, I busted my but getting a bachelors degree and I am working a matience job part time making $8.15 an hour. If our government wasn't soo liberal, I would be making $30,000-$40,000 a year starting out with benifits.
I know people from Canada who say that they have no problem getting healthcare on time. Canada's healthcare system is very good. The health insurance companies tell you otherwise, but they lie.
And how does our government being "liberal" cause you to make less money?
The problem with our society is it has lost its backbone and moral conviction. Thanks to your liberal moral relativism millions of babies have been murdered since 1973.
When you start trying to understand how a pedophile or baby murderer EEEEEEEEEEEELS instead of putting the FEAR of GOD in them you have a mess on your hands.
Any candidate who makes arbitrary exceptions to abortion (i.e., rape, incest, health, etc.) and/or isn't willing to place the ban of abortifacient contraceptives - which is over 90% of contraceptives currently available - at the top of his or her to-do list is pro-death. The only difference is that of degree.
I would include war into the mix, but the topic at hand is strictly the matter of abortion.
There is nothing contradictory or impossible about being a pro-choice Republican. There are tons of pro-choice Republicans. Worse yet, there are tons of so-called pro-life Republicans who are nothing more than selectively anti-medical abortion. The fact that the pro-life community has ignored the distinction is possibly one of the biggest reasons for our failure over the past 35 years.
There have been conservatives on the bench. The law has not been overturned.
And, as I have explained before, a LOT can be done against abortion with Roe v Wade still active. Education, health care, helping women, etc. all play a role.
The point is liberals believes its' the RIGHT of woman to choose to murder. So how is supporting that right while at the same time trying to deter abortion gonna stop abortions.
I don't care whatt issue you take. So you know a few pro life democrats. Congratulations. Thats a drop in the bucket for the immoral liberal party and its agenda.
So that we can nominate a guy who might replace one Republican appointed justice (Stevens, 88) and one Democrat appointed justice (Ginsberg, 75) with pro-life justices? "Open minded to Roe" Alito may have been easy, but Roberts was tough. This was with minority filibustering. That minority is now the majority, and presumably will remain so. At any rate, Republicans will go from 7/9 justices to 8/9. All we needed was 5/9! Pathetic.
Or we could go with a constitutional amendment. Bet the odds?
People, as long as they are Pro Life, they are good! It does not matter what they support!!!! God is an independent, He loves all people.
DavidVelezPerez 2 years ago
Paelocrat, I hope you are aware that "Democrats for Life" support pro abortion democrat politicians.
I hope you are aware that they supported Obama?
And where do pro life democrats stand on homosexuality? I take it they favour it. Now how is that in accordance with Catholic teaching??
ariaane 2 years ago
I'm against the death penalty. The Democratic Party supports the death penalty. How come? Because being pro-abortion is a litmus test for Democrats running for high political office and it's hard for people to oppose killing guilty criminals when they don't even oppose killing innocent little babies.
ZAGGLETON 2 years ago
It makes sense that Democrats would be Pro-Life since they look out for human rights and the little guy. Abortion takes away the number one human right (to live) from the littlest guy (babies). Just like slavery was eventually seen to be evil by all, I truly believe that abortion will be as well. It will not be a country dividing issue in America in 100 years...I hope
jusmart 3 years ago 7
Absolutely.
seltian 2 years ago
Dude the debate was long over. It was over before it started.
Good day to you man.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
I am Catholic first and foremost with my vote and conservative/traditionalist second with strongest emphasis on how everything effects the ideal of family (mother/father/children) and personal freedoms. I don't consider myself Republican, although that is how I reluctantly usually vote.
God bless
Wilyam23 3 years ago 4
The family is the core institution, but matters pertaining to trade, economics, immigration, the environment, taxes, healthcare and others cannot be ignored by a Catholic faithful to the Magisterium. The encyclicals are broad, touching on a great diversity of issues, and declaring many of them to be of grave importance. I take a holistic approach to Catholic Social Doctrine and how we are to vote.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You said, "I strongly advise you not to judge or condemn those who work within the permissible moral framework of the Church." Nice jab, but nothing I said could be construed as condemning the Church Magisterium. All I said was that the USCCB 'guide' leaves one more confused than anything - read threads on those who have read it. I also believe your blue democrat roots are showing - may be time to re-die your hair again that nice gray color. :)
Wilyam23 3 years ago
I never accused you of condemning the Church Magisterium. I simply gave a word of caution against judging laity, priests, or bishops who would vote Democrat, which happens to be acceptable given certain preconditions.
The USCCB didn't leave me confused. I have read it, written about it, and spoke about it at great length.
In 12 years, I have voted overwhelmingly Constitution Party, worked and voted for many Republicans, and voted for more libertarians than Democrats. Independent to the core.
paleocrat 3 years ago
That doesn't mean I compromised my morals because I hired them. The by far and away largest moral discrepency between the two parties is that one outwardly pushes immorality and gets most of their money from evil quarters, whereas the other outwardly supports CHRISTIAN morality and gets most of its money from same. Who's agenda do you think each will follow more? Follow the money!
Wilyam23 3 years ago
Disagreed. This may even make for a good post. Goodness! At least you are providing great topics for my blog and radio show (once the school year begins)
paleocrat 3 years ago
As good of a debater as you are, your arguments trying to say Republicans are equal to Democrats on moral issues is weak. Simply because a gay person may work in an administration, or a leader may have had a failed marriage has little to do with where the party stands or where that particular leader is now morally. As Christians, we love the sinner, hate the sin, and stand against sin. I'm about as conservative as they come, but I would hire a gay person and I would hire a divorcee.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
You listed off a series of questions. I simply answered them. I'm sorry for calling Republicans to the floor on their gross hypocrisy, their anti-Christian pluralism, their treacherous secularism, and their moral depravity, but that is my job as a journalist, regardless of what party is under the microscope.
I will be doing a post on my site detailing Bush and Co. I'll send you a link. This conversation has truly been an inspiration, and reminded me why I am an Independent.
paleocrat 3 years ago
For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a disqualifying issue. A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
Watch my video on Republican Pro-Life Hypocrisy and get back with me later.
paleocrat 3 years ago
If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate? This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
Wrong. Read the USCCB. I strongly advise you not to judge or condemn those who work within the permissible moral framework of the Church.
I have written about this issue on my blog. I have also written to my priest, Father Robert Sirico, about this matter. I also spoke to the diocese. All is well with the position I defended. If you are interested in reading them, send me a message and I'll get you the links.
paleocrat 3 years ago
"The Challenge of Faithful Citizenship" is not a voters guide. Have you read it? Do you still think it is a voter's guide? Which voters do you know who would read it would have a clear understanding of what they should do?
If you want an actual voters' guide, read the Catholic Answers Voters Guide for Serious Catholics or EWTN's. You'll find black and white distinctions that will actually guide you and I challenge you to find anything out of line with Church doctrine.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
The "Serious Catholics Voter's Guide" is a rather sad piece of work. They ignore over 100 years of Catholic Social Doctrine and touch on what they, in their private opinion, are the make-or-break issues. By their very standards, nobody could have voted Republican in this past election. My video on Pro-Life Hypocrisy is sufficient on this point. I dealt with that "Voter's Guide" on Catholic Answer's forum as well as on my radio program.
paleocrat 3 years ago
test
Wilyam23 3 years ago
What party would/do the enemies of Christ vote for?
1. Against public display of anything with reference to God.
2. Want God taken out of Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Pro homosexuality
4. Pro adultery
5. Want any reference to God removed from public airwaves.
6. Outwardly moral relativists
7. Constanly work to erode the family unit as ordained by God - Father, Mother, children.
8. Want to redefine the holy institution of marriage.
...and we can go on...
Wilyam23 3 years ago
1. Republicans refused to stand behind Justice Moore, and Bush appointed the prosecutor to a federal position.
2. This is a relatively obscure matter, especially since it was originally written without that phrase.
3. Both parties. Bush nominated gays to prominent positions, sent cabinet members to Log Cabin Republican meetings, and sent a letter to the Metropolitan Church on their anniversary.
4. Both. McCain was the only presidential candidate whose marriage was the result of an affair.
paleocrat 3 years ago
5. I am unaware of either party pursuing this, at least not by and large.
6. Both parties.
7. A Republican introduced the first no-fault divorce law. It was Gov. Ronald Reagan.
8. There are Republicans and Democrats who wish to do so. In fact, during the debate between Palin and Biden, both of them admitted to agreeing on the issue of marriage and treatment of gay couples. It was an outrage that the right glossed over.
Any more?
paleocrat 3 years ago
Yes, I've read the USSCB voters guide. It's very clear that there are moral evils that are greater and trump others, i.e. abortion - trumps all others without question, thus one's vote may be funnelled down to a single issue. That's only one of many things I vote on, but the one determinant of how I will ultimately vote.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
What does the USCCB say concerning those Catholics who vote for pro-choice candidates? Catholics are permitted to do so, but certain prerequisites must be met. What are they?
paleocrat 3 years ago
The Catechism speaks of the different roles of government. I also did not advocate for any particular style of government, only a non-oppressive one, the one democrats push for - to tax and regulate us into spiritless autonotons.
I agree that success normally must be obtsined through small steps, but that doesn't mean that we don't quit proclaiming and working toward the full truth. Christ was an extremist and thus we are called to be as well when it comes to protecting the truth.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
The Catechism does not stand alone in this regard. It stands alongside the socio-political and economic encyclicals. These encyclicals talk about matters concerning healthcare and insurance, just wages, regulation of the market, welfare, the environment, abortion, fair trade, unions, war, euthanasia, birth control, etc. etc. The Catholic must take all of these serious, and not at the expense of another.
We can proclaim that the criminalization of abortion is our goal while voting incrementally
paleocrat 3 years ago
Liberals/socialists also believe in government control of nearly everything in our lives - that they can make better decisions that us. This is against God's design. He gave us free will to exercise it in playing a part in creation. Our ingenuity, inventiveness, etc. should be able to soar and not be restricted by a punitive and oppressive government. The less government, the more people can achieve what their God-given abilities were meant to. Liberalism/Socialism kills the free spirit.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
The Catholic Church has defined socialism. Can you please tell me what that definition is and where it is found?
The Catholic Church has defined what the proper role of government is, as well as making clear what it may, should, or must be involved with? Can you name some of these and tell me where these were found?
I agree that socialism is evil and has been condemned, but I am curious to know what you think the Church has said of the state and how it has defined socialism. No offense.
paleocrat 3 years ago
What I mean by liberal is someone who is a moral relativist - which is essentially the definition of most democrats these days. The Catholic Church is the greatest charitable organization on planet earth so don't say we ignore infants after birth - a rediculous claim to try and justify voting for anything other than complete annihilation of all abortion. American business (philanthropists) far out spend the govenrment on charitable donations as well so business is good for community.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
Most Republicans are too. They are horrifically pluralistic and secularist by nature. Establishment Republicans have bought into the mantra of multiculturalism, tolerance, and diversity. The majority of conservative Republicans are Protestant, which makes them, to some degree, religiously pluralistic as well. At any rate, Dems don't have a monopoly on the Modernist and Postmodernist market.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I don't believe that it is a ridiculous claim at all. For beginners, you can vote all you wish for the complete annihilation of abortion (which I agree with), but it won't even get out of committee. So, another 1.5 or so million babies die because of your absolutism. Another person puts forward a measure that wouldn't outlaw it, but could dramatically decrease the number of dead babies. You vote no because it doesn't go far enough. Another 1.5 million die. What did you prove?
paleocrat 3 years ago
Paleo,
I really like you, especially your zeal for your newly found Catholic faith, but as you study it more, you'll come to the conclusion that you vote Catholic First - period. You either accept the full authority of the Church, or you are in protest, and thus still a Protestant. I'm sure you bothered to read the Catholic Voters Guide. I'm also sure you found that certain, grave moral evils trump others - such as abortion - the killing of our most innocent. One can be a one issue voter.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
Yes, Catholic first. I have written on this issue extensively. I have also talked on my show about it at great length.
I have read the social and economic encyclicals of the Church as well as well as the only official Voter's guide for Catholics in America (the one printed by the USCCB). Neither of those would require one to vote Republican or prohibit one from voting Democrat, not even in this last election.
Please note that the USCCB makes clear we are not single-issue voters.
paleocrat 3 years ago
The problem with 'pro-life' democrats is that the party has gone so far astray to representing nearly everything evil, anti-God, that this can only be viewed as a political ploy to gain votes. Praise God that you're Catholic now, but a democrat vote is a non-Catholic vote for sure.
Praise God there's those in their ranks that are pro-life, but they'd be better served to become conservatives and work toward snuffing out liberalism all togher.
Wilyam23 3 years ago
The point of her book, which also happens to be my position, is that pro-life Democrats are a "silenced majority" of the Democrat party. In short, it isn't good to judge a group by those who have the biggest mouths and the most money. Thankfully, the party is made up of more Main St. Johnny Q Publics than loudmouth moneybags.
I would be cautious about saying a vote for a Dem is anti-Catholic. Fact is, the same could be said of Republicans.
Snuff out liberalism? Depends what you mean by liberal
paleocrat 3 years ago
I agree. Lets keep both sides of the coin within the Democratic party working towards the things we can agree on...
Stopping violence against women. reducing stigma surrounding women's issues, total workplace equality and a strong enough social safety net that the Republicans will never be able to destroy it.
Eventually a clear enough majority in opinion will emerge so that It no longer seems like a fringe issue either way.
popgyrl 3 years ago
So that's why I think a third-way position is perfect. Take away the need and allow the fight of both the pro-life and pro-choice positions to move forward. Let society sort it out over time through a natural progression of public opinion. If my side loses the fight, so be it.
popgyrl 3 years ago
I think a more reasonable third way is a both-and. Criminalize abortion while also providing those things mentioned in the 95-10. I would go further, supporting some form of socialized medicine. Beef up social services, strengthen opportunities for pregnant women, incentivize childbirth, cut health costs, and make murdering babies illegal. That sounds fair to me... in fact, more than fair, it is humane.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Paleo, I'm not a democrat or republican, but I've considered becoming a pro-life democrat. Are there other ways to reform the healthcare system besides socializing it? I've heard of other ideas that different politicians have had.
TolsmaLMC 3 years ago
There is nothing more immoral than a woman having an abortion because she is afraid of her whole life falling apart. The difference its that I think the morality charge falls on our society, not the woman as an individual.
The rape and incest clause also isn't good enough for me. I can only imagine the pain a woman would be in to start with in a situation like that. To force her to go before a judge and explain herself is in my mind the equivalent to a witch trial.
popgyrl 3 years ago
The only thing more immoral than that is when a women deprives the most innocent and vulnerable human beings on the planet (children in the womb) of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment because she thinks her life is falling apart.
I don't make exceptions for rape and incest. The child is no less human, with no less dignity, because of the conditions whereby it was conceived.
paleocrat 3 years ago
"I don't make exceptions for rape and incest. The child is no less human, with no less dignity, because of the conditions whereby it was conceived."
I respect that position far more than those who try to pick apart the issue. The rape and incest clause is a red herring used by Republicans who don't want to admit that they are misogynists.
(I don't think you are a misogynist)
popgyrl 3 years ago 2
I'm pro-choice. Being pro-choice also means adopting public policy that allows women who choose to carry pregnancy to term all that they need to be healthy and on strong economic footing.
Because of that reasoning I have to say that the idea of a pro-life Democrat is much easier to respect than that of a pro-life Republican.
I'm curious, though. Does the position of a pro-life Democrat support overturning Roe immediately?
popgyrl 3 years ago
Not necessarily. In fact, most would say that including language that would overturn Roe in various pro-life policies would do more harm than good, at least in our current political climate. The bill would have about a 100% change of failure, not saving a single child.
I strongly encourage you to read the 95-10 Initiative on their site.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Cool. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
I'm a classic liberal Democrat and a feminist. I personally have no moral objection to abortion, but I understand why many people do.
I'm open to debate on this issue within the Democratic party, but I strongly oppose any legislation that would overturn Roe; mostly for reasons of economic inequality. It's good to know that the Blue Dogs mostly understand this line of thinking.
Can we be friends? :)
popgyrl 3 years ago
Conservative Democrats understand that line of thinking, but most still wish to someday criminalize abortion. Most of them believe, as I do, that abortion is infanticide and that we have murdered almost 50 time more babies through medical abortions and abortifacient contraceptives than Hitler killed in the Holocaust.
Still, they understand that all-or-nothing legislation won't pass, so they chip away one bit at a time. The tactic of the termite.
I am always friendly. :) Not really.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Paleocrat,
I respect your passion but I believe you can accomplish nothing as a Democrat. That party has gone to crap since the 60s. Parties do evolve. At one point the South voted Democrat. Think about it.
Liberals simply dominate that party. There is no room for a good person like you there. You should be considering yourself an indepedent.
Do you think that Obama, who suports infanticide, has the judgment to be a good president?
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
A. I am not a Democrat.
B. I am not a Republican.
C. I think that those involved in journalism should treat partisanship like leprosy.
D. I am radically independent. Proud of it.
E. Liberals don't dominate the party. Well, at least not social and cultural liberals. The statistics are there. Americans, whether they be Republican or Democrat, tend to be purple rather than blue or red. Most don't hate large government, but most take a moderate-traditionalist view on cultural matters.
aleebannister 3 years ago
Not sure how he will do as a president. But rather than moan and complain I will pray for him and think of ways that we can push our agenda through, even in small baby steps, during his time in office.
My goal isn't to get Republicans in office. My goal is to get issues passed, or at least brought closer to completion.
You can complain from the sidelines and cross your fingers that Republicans will do what what they haven't done in 35 years: end abortion. I'll keep working, even with a Dem.
aleebannister 3 years ago
And as long as liberals sit on the Supreme Court bench it never will. Perhaps if people abandon the Democratic Party they may be forced to change their stance on abortion. Electing Obama may have guaranteed more liberals on the bench.
Getting issues passed means electing Republican presidents who in turn elect the judges we need.
You keep working..so is everybody else. The law is the problem.
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
Yeah. The infanticide claim loses me every time, as does the idea of criminalizing abortion. It goes against the core of what I believe to be a realistic solution.
Abortion is as old as time, women have always done it whether it is legal or not. I don't any woman to put herself in harms way because she feels she is in a desperate situation.
I'm sure you have heard this all before.
Unfortunately this is one issue that it will always be hard to get people to come to any consensus.
popgyrl 3 years ago
I had a very interesting discussion with my co-host about this matter. She is pro-choice. The conversation was polite and considerate, but the issue was very heavy. My question was very simple:
When does life begin?
The answer to this determines the difference between a simple surgery and murder.
If one believes, as I do, that it begins at conception, then what else should I call the taking of innocent life without due process, life, liberty, and happiness?
Fault me for consistency.
paleocrat 3 years ago
There was a consensus on this matter for a long time. In fact, when Roe was declared the vast majority of Americans were radically opposed to abortion.
Will there always be abortion? Sure. There will always be those women who would discard life for various reasons, some worse than others. But that isn't at stake. No, the issue is with the decriminalization of that decision.
The very fact that people will do certain things is hardly warrant for decriminalization. Imagine the ramifications!
paleocrat 3 years ago
I don't believe that abortion is murder, and a considerable majority of people are with me on that. I certainly agree that there are moral issues, but murder is not one of them.
Being a woman I am very receptive to the chaos an unplanned pregnancy can cause within life for a woman. I have heard the personal stories of women that have had abortions. Total desperation is the only way to describe how they felt at the time of their decision.
(continued)
popgyrl 3 years ago
I am aware that there are many who agree with you. But that really wasn't the issue. The issue was with where we draw the line between human and non-human. When does a child become a human deserving right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment?
This, as I have said before, will provide us, and our legal system, with a way to determine the difference between surgery and murder.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Pro-life democrats is an oxy-moron. The party has been highjacked along time ago. It has evolved to be anti-religious, socialist, selfish, immoral mess.
If abortion is not on the top of a person priorities than they pro-lifer democrats might as well be pro-choice.
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
This line of logic indict the Republicans as well. For years the pro-life conservatives were called the "silent majority." There were plenty of them out there, but they didn't control the party apparatus.
Your third sentence is absurd. The loudest and most active of the bunch may be, but religious types are renown for their reserve. The majority go to church, likes a mixed-economy of private property and state assistance, and tend to be family oriented.
Last sentence: Give me a break.
paleocrat 3 years ago
No. Religious types have a voice. I am well aware that religious Hispanics and blacks are remain Democrats. They simply ignore the abortion issue. Why? I have no clue.
Other than that, you have GIVE ME GIVE ME ENTITLEMENT mentality which the Democrat Party embodies..hardly a working class mentality. It's along way from
"Ask not what your country can do for you,
ask what you can do for your country"
JFK
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
It is rather naive to say that people "ignore" the abortion issue because they aren't single-issue voters like most white fundamentalists. It is not at all surprising that you "have no clue."
btw- If the blacks and Hispanics hadn't shown up in CA, then gay marriage would have passed.
The Democrats and Republicans are both dominated by big government types. Conservatism is in the minority, and most identifying themselves as conservatives don't want to abolish bureaucracies, just control them.
paleocrat 3 years ago
"because they aren't single-issue voters like most white fundamentalists"
Who said I was white you racist. IF your a Christian, abortion should be at the top the list. Why? because it is so evil. It is suprising that people well look away at infants being murdered.
Yeah the gay marriage thing is strange. They vote yes on 8 but no 4...the abortion one. That will change though eventually. If they can compromise on abortion they will compromise eventually on gay marriage.
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
I am in a mixed-marriage! My wife is Korean.
I am white! Am I racist against white people? You were talking about blacks and Hispanics. Does that make you racist?
Nobody is talking about compromising. We are talking about the idiocy of single-issue voting. I talk more about abortion than any other talk-show host I know of. I talk about the number of babies murdered on account of 99% of all contraceptives! But I'm not single-issue.
Strange? It was predictable! I called it on my show.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Last sentence....mark my words. It's complete compromise.
Abortion is an extremely important issue thats why. There is nothing worse. If the issue was something like big or small government...school vouchers or what not...you would have a point. Abortion is an abomination and if it doesn't bring outrage into a Christian then there is a problem.
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
No one is denying that abortion is an outrage. But unlike the partisan world of Republicans v. Democrats, there are "other" issues pertaining to war, unjust imprisonment, the death penalty, exploitation of Third World labor, pornography laws, divorce laws, the birth control holocaust, environmental and fiscal issues that impact us and our children, etc. etc. Tunnel vision may be easy, but it's intellectual stupidity and moral laziness.
Watch my video "Republican Pro-Life Hypocrisy." Learn.
paleocrat 3 years ago
It ain't about those issues its about handouts, black presidents, free healthcare, welfare, woman's rights, and a etopia for all.
Why else would you be a liberal.
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
For many, yes. But not all Democrats are liberals. The loudest may be, but this doesn't say too much about Democrats as a whole.
Pro-life, Blue Dog Democrats have become a real scare to the establishment. Even The Nation, which is possibly the most hardline Left magazine in the US, has admitted this. Democrats for Life have cited poll after poll on this matter.
Rather than regurgitate Limbaugh and Co., learn to read between the lines... and listen to the silent majority.
paleocrat 3 years ago
O.K. thats fair.
Still, millions of a babies to me is at the top of the list. Electing democratic presidents leads to democratic judges..thus Roe. vs. Wade remains unchallenged.
I really can't think of anything on the list you mentioned that comes close to this atrocity. Thats why I have a real problem with peeps like yourself. You seem to weigh it out and babies come last.
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
Who said that any one thing on that list, taken by itself, is as big as infanticide? Not me! No, I have spent hour upon hour on my program, on my blog, and on my YouTube talking about the issue of the legalized, taxpayer funded infanticide in America. I have talked about how contraceptives murder 5 or more times as many babies as medical abortions and, as such, should be illegal. So for you to say that I put babies last is as ignorant as it is offensive.
What happens when Roe is gone? You know?
paleocrat 3 years ago
By being a democrat you have put the issue in the back. It is the democratic party as a whole that is pro-choice. Just look at the president you probably voted for.
When Roe is gone abortions will still occur. However, not to the same level. When the fear of going to prision threatens women then it will die down. If they legaized rape I'm sure rape incidents would go up. The law does make a difference.
hypermonkey26 3 years ago
Don't be so sure.
In Brazil, abortion is illegal, yet there are between one million and two million abortions a year in Brazil.
The law is important, but not nearly as important as other methods that would lower the abortion rate (such as better pre-natal care, education, and health care).
seltian 2 years ago
"
The law is important, but not nearly as important as other methods that would lower the abortion rate (such as better pre-natal care, education, and health care). "
I totally agree. I would add that functional, loving families play the biggest role in this.
No but when the law is enforced it will deter abortions.
Brazil really can't be compared to the U.S.. I find it interesting that they have a statistic of how many babies are aborted....I mean is that how many people are being arrested?
hypermonkey26 2 years ago
It's estimated. The Brazilians don't know for sure how many abortions there are a year. It is known, however, that about 200,000 people each year get medical treatment for complications relating to illegal abortions.
I question whether enforcing an anti-abortion law would really lower abortion rates. As I said, abortion is illegal in Brazil, yet their abortion rate is as high as ours. In Peru, abortion has never been legal, yet their abortion rate is HIGHER!
seltian 2 years ago
Though I think that abortion has to be made illegal (as a secondary or tertiary concern), I think it more important to focus on things like pre-natal care, things that will reduce the numbers of abortions.
Even if making abortions illegal would reduce the number, I think that such a law would be very unlikely under any administration. I think it much more likely that our government will decrease the number of abortions through healthcare and adoption rather than through legislation.
seltian 2 years ago
Yeah yeah I agree.....we need to stop woman from having abortions through education ya da ya da.
Still, murdering infants is murder. I suppose we can legalize child molestation as it's gonna happen anyways.
Yeah I guess the law makes no difference.
I'm sorry the law is despicable. Abortion is wrong. Fear of going to prison for life and being ostracized by society (much like a pedophile) may actualy deter the act. That in addition to the other stuff you mentioned.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a law. I'm saying that it's not nearly as important as other factors. We should make abortion illegal as a secondary or tertiary concern.
I understand your point about the law. One would think that it would decrease the number of abortions. But the fact is that it DOESN'T.
Theories, no matter how logical they seem, are meaningless when they aren't backed up by facts.
seltian 2 years ago
"One would think that it would decrease the number of abortions. But the fact is that it DOESN'T"
How can you be so sure? Imagine if Brazil didn't have any laws how many MORE babies would be slaughtered?. Guessing by what your saying they probably don't even enforce the laws anyways.
Do you know what a theory is? It is a collection of facts and evidence for some kind of idea or concept.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
I'm sorry ENFORCING LAWS deter crime. Or doesn't it? Your contradictcing thousands of years of a method for regulating a society. Laws exist so we have order. Of course their is gonna be people who break the laws....
But without no law at all you would have UTTER CHAOS. I
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Yes, and Brazil ENFORCES her laws against abortion.
Laws do deter crime, but it depends very much on the specific crime in general. Their are exceptions.
During prohibition, people actually drank MORE alcohol than before or after.
Considering the abortion rates of countries like Peru or Brazil, I am inclined to believe that this is one of those times when the law has very little effect on the crime.
seltian 2 years ago
They didnt' throw people in prison in life or possibly execute them for drinking during the 20s.
You start doing that to women who murder their children and ENFORCING those laws I guarantee the FEAR losing your life will stop them.
We would do the same to a woman who threw her 2 year old child over a balcony.
And I dont' wanna hear how cruel that is. It is cruel when doctors stick a sharp object in the back of a babies head.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
I'd love you to show me a politician in any country who suggests life-imprisonment or the death penalty as a punishment for abortion.
I suppose that THAT would substantially decrease the abortion rate.
But that is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!
seltian 2 years ago
"But that is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!! "
Cuz its weak liberals like you that are in the way of justice.
You may think your courageous and a good person.
But your politics are spinless and weak.
They don't exist for this world we live in.
Seltian your better off drugging yourself up and living in your own world.
You simply won't see the world for what it is. I can' help that. You have a diseased mind.
Keep fighting the fight....or hugging trees or whatever you do.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Okay, see, this is the point where our debate stops being a debate and descends into mindless insults.
If you want to have a rational discussion with me, let me know. But I'm not going to sit here and have you throw insults at me because you think I'm a "weak, spineless, tree-hugging hippie" or whatever stupid stereotype you've bought into.
This should be a debate, not a brawl.
seltian 2 years ago
Okay, I'll have a daily debate with you, I'm a conservative Catholic Christian, I believe life begins at conception, therefore you are interfering with the inalieable right to live by the baby by killing it. It has the right to its own chance. Barack Obama was in a good situation for abortion, what if he had been aborted? Shoot me down! I welcome your criticism liberal, bring it on!
ACDCLedZeppelin93 2 years ago
I think you may have misinterpreted my words.
I am also a Catholic Christian. I believe that life begins at conception, and that abortion is a horrible, sick evil that must be stamped out.
And I acknowledge that Barack Obama is as pro-abortion as they come.
seltian 2 years ago
That being said, I still voted for Obama. This is because:
1. I sincerely doubt that McCain would have actually done anything to stop abortion.
2. There are other important issues besides abortion, and, having considered them, I believe that Obama is the lesser of two evils.
seltian 2 years ago
Oh yeah, Obama is the less of the two evils. Diddn't you know that Obama is passing Universal Healcare that will hurt more people than it will help. He is also taking away our freedoms. And what good does raising taxes do to this nation? Our Unemployment is 9.5% and rising. Obama is a joke and he needs to Convert to Christianity.
stairsm 2 years ago
Our health care system is in desperate need of reform. Universal Health Care would be much more efficient, and it would provide coverage to the 50 million Americans who don't have insurance. Every other first-world country on earth has Universal Health Care. The notion that we shouldn't have it is a joke.
Of course he's raising taxes. Our country is trillions of dollars in debt. How are we suppossed to get the money?
And what does this have to do with Obama, who is a Christian, converting?
seltian 2 years ago
Yes our healthcare is in need of reform but Universal Healcare is not the answer. Canada has it and people have to wait years to get there services. Obama views the American people as a comodity. For instance, I busted my but getting a bachelors degree and I am working a matience job part time making $8.15 an hour. If our government wasn't soo liberal, I would be making $30,000-$40,000 a year starting out with benifits.
stairsm 2 years ago
I know people from Canada who say that they have no problem getting healthcare on time. Canada's healthcare system is very good. The health insurance companies tell you otherwise, but they lie.
And how does our government being "liberal" cause you to make less money?
seltian 2 years ago
The problem with our society is it has lost its backbone and moral conviction. Thanks to your liberal moral relativism millions of babies have been murdered since 1973.
When you start trying to understand how a pedophile or baby murderer EEEEEEEEEEEELS instead of putting the FEAR of GOD in them you have a mess on your hands.
And yeah I brought God up. Sue me.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
You see, it is exactly this sort of attitude that makes stopping abortion so difficult.
You HAVE to account for how they feel. You HAVE to ask WHY they make the decisions they make. Otherwise, you'll NEVER change anyone's heart.
seltian 2 years ago
so why would a pro-life democrat ever vote FOR a pro-death Democrat such as Obama??
JSenator06 3 years ago
Any candidate who makes arbitrary exceptions to abortion (i.e., rape, incest, health, etc.) and/or isn't willing to place the ban of abortifacient contraceptives - which is over 90% of contraceptives currently available - at the top of his or her to-do list is pro-death. The only difference is that of degree.
I would include war into the mix, but the topic at hand is strictly the matter of abortion.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Yes the subject at hand is strictly abortion or I would throw in intellectual property rights for drugs that are needed in Africa.
The videos were both very good.
Tony63efc 3 years ago
Pro-life and democrat? Unusual combination. But hey, better than a pro-abortion republican, huh? Which is impossible by the way ..
- Pro Patriam.
SwordsmanOfFaith 3 years ago 2
There is nothing contradictory or impossible about being a pro-choice Republican. There are tons of pro-choice Republicans. Worse yet, there are tons of so-called pro-life Republicans who are nothing more than selectively anti-medical abortion. The fact that the pro-life community has ignored the distinction is possibly one of the biggest reasons for our failure over the past 35 years.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Like Colin Powell? Rudy Guiliani?
grampben 3 years ago
Where did you hear that there are no pro-choice Republicans?
Rudy Guiliani, Arnold Schwartzenager...
The Republican party is NOT the pro-life party!
seltian 2 years ago
Yeah it is. Their are exceptions but for the most part it is.
hypermonkey26 2 years ago
I strongly disagree.
Many Republicans rant about how evil abortion is, but few do anything to actually stop it. They just use abortion as a way of manipulating the people.
And there are enough openly pro-choice Republicans that their party clearly can't value life the way it claims to.
seltian 2 years ago
They can do nothing as the law set against it. The only way Roe vs. Rade will be overturned is if their are conservative judges on the bench.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
There have been conservatives on the bench. The law has not been overturned.
And, as I have explained before, a LOT can be done against abortion with Roe v Wade still active. Education, health care, helping women, etc. all play a role.
seltian 2 years ago
Not enough conservatives on the bench.
Again and again..yes I know....their are other methods of deterring abortion.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
The point is liberals believes its' the RIGHT of woman to choose to murder. So how is supporting that right while at the same time trying to deter abortion gonna stop abortions.
Your a battle is meaningless and vain.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Comment removed
seltian 2 years ago
I take issue with your defining this in terms of liberals vs conservatives.
I'm a liberal. I don't believe that women have a right to abortion.
seltian 2 years ago
Yeal well 99% of them do. Supporting the liberal only keeps the massacre going.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Please.
I know lots of liberals who are very much against abortion.
You're buying into a very untrue stereotype.
seltian 2 years ago
I don't care whatt issue you take. So you know a few pro life democrats. Congratulations. Thats a drop in the bucket for the immoral liberal party and its agenda.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
See, I don't see where you get this idea that conservatives=pro-lifers and liberals=pro-abortionites.
It simply isn't true.
seltian 2 years ago
Facts speak for themselves seltian.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
That's right, they do.
Your point?
seltian 2 years ago
A lot of Pro-life Democrats out there, most Catholic but if they care about stopping abortion ... this is one election not to vote Democrat.
Doyler3 3 years ago
So that we can nominate a guy who might replace one Republican appointed justice (Stevens, 88) and one Democrat appointed justice (Ginsberg, 75) with pro-life justices? "Open minded to Roe" Alito may have been easy, but Roberts was tough. This was with minority filibustering. That minority is now the majority, and presumably will remain so. At any rate, Republicans will go from 7/9 justices to 8/9. All we needed was 5/9! Pathetic.
Or we could go with a constitutional amendment. Bet the odds?
paleocrat 3 years ago
Did you know that, when Roe v. Wade was passed, 6 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republicans?
seltian 2 years ago