Bart Stupak Cashes In

[JimG]

Originally Posted by 1holycatholic

I'm not familiar with Nat Henthoff or Bob Casey Jr..

Martin Sheen claims to be pro-life yet he publicly supported Obama which abrogates any claim Mr. Sheen had to being pro-life. Anyone who claims to be pro-life, yet supports a flagrant supporter of abortion is lying about being pro-life.

I agree with that! I'll take a pro-life atheist like Nat Hentoff over a fake pro-lifer.

[ishii]

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov

It's very convenient I think for many conservatives to pretend that there is not pro-life sentiment among many democrats. I think it helps them justify refusing to compromise on hard-line right-wing positions to make progress toward saving the unborn.

You're right though about the double-standard for pro-life Republicans. Posters here quote Charles Krauthammer all the time when he's criticizing liberals as though he's "one of us." Krauthammer is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and irreligious. Why isn't he anathema?

If Charles Krauthammer makes a good argument in support of a given foreign policy or economic policy we are supposed to ignore him because he is a pro-choice atheist? What nonsense. If he makes a good argument and his commentary is spot on, why wouldn't I quote him on an issue different from abortion or gay marriage? Please explain how pro-life Republicans have a double standard.

Also, you are making the same argument on compromising to "make progress toward saving the unborn" that you made on another thread. What precedent is there for this compromise? Please explain how that would work and give the historical precedent for believing it would work.

Ishii

[ishii]

Originally Posted by gnjsdad

If this thread is any indication, the pro life movement has an awful lot of catch-up work to do if it is to become truly relevant again.

The mocking of pro-life Democrats on display here is an indication that the pro life movement as it exists in America today is merely an adjunct of the Republican Party.

Very few aspersions like this are cast at the more than a few pro abortion Republicans.

Some history for you: In 1987, Dan Evans, Pete Wilson, Nancy Kassebaum, Mark Hatfield, and Alan Simpson all voted to confirm Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Why is that noteworthy? Its noteworthy because all of those senators were pro-abortion rights Republicans voting to confirm what most would agree represented the biggest threat to Roe V Wade - Robert Bork. Now, how many pro-life Democrats voted to confirm Bork? None. I think a case can be made for voting for the pro-choice Republican over the marginally, lip-service pro-life Democrat as a lesser of two evils because the Democrat will likely cave in to the pro-abortion rights leadership of his party. "Pro-life" Democrats who cave in to Nancy Pelose, Obama, and Barbara Boxer deserve to be mocked. If a Democrat really went out on a limb for the pro-life cause I might be inclined to support him, but until then, he is a pretender.

Ishii

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by 1holycatholic

Bart Stupak Cashes In

The former Democratic congressman, a pro-lifer who buckled and supported the Affordable Care Act -- making it possible for the bill to pass the House -- has joined Venable LLP.

Among Venable's clients: Planned Parenthood of Maryland.
...

Looks like he got his 30 pieces of silver.

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by Gift from God

Democrats for Life

There's a lot of dems in your country. To label them all as pro-abortion is just wrong

Last year's healthcare vote in this year's budget debate has given lie once and for all to the myth of the pro-life Democrat Legislator. I'm sure you're aware that there is also a group called Catholics for choice- who no more reflect the views of Catholics than Democrats for life do of Democrats,

[kimmielittle]

You aren't Pro-life.............. Till your record proves it!!!!!!!


And I can't even vote yet

[gnjsdad]

Originally Posted by ishii

Some history for you: In 1987, Dan Evans, Pete Wilson, Nancy Kassebaum, Mark Hatfield, and Alan Simpson all voted to confirm Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Why is that noteworthy? Its noteworthy because all of those senators were pro-abortion rights Republicans voting to confirm what most would agree represented the biggest threat to Roe V Wade - Robert Bork. Now, how many pro-life Democrats voted to confirm Bork? None. I think a case can be made for voting for the pro-choice Republican over the marginally, lip-service pro-life Democrat as a lesser of two evils because the Democrat will likely cave in to the pro-abortion rights leadership of his party. "Pro-life" Democrats who cave in to Nancy Pelose, Obama, and Barbara Boxer deserve to be mocked. If a Democrat really went out on a limb for the pro-life cause I might be inclined to support him, but until then, he is a pretender.

Ishii

More recent history shows that in 2010, there were 37 pro life Democrats in the House. Now, thanks in part to the efforts of Republican lobbies like the Susan B Anthony Foundation, there are probably less than half that number.

It's a truly sad state of affairs when pro life groups shoot themselves in the foot all in the name of a partisan political agenda, as Susan B Anthony did when they targeted pro life Democrats for defeat because some of them voted contrary to the Republican agenda.

Better, I guess, to revile the Democratic Party than to support those in the party who agree on the evil of abortion. Are we stronger now that the pro life presence in the Democratic party is reduced? I don't think so.

I would like to make life harder for people like Nancy Pelosi by ADDING to the number of pro life Democrats in the House....not targeting them for defeat.

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by ishii

Also, you are making the same argument on compromising to "make progress toward saving the unborn" that you made on another thread. What precedent is there for this compromise? Please explain how that would work and give the historical precedent for believing it would work.

We have a few posters on here who are left leaning but pro-life who have indicated a willingness to vote for a pro-life Republican who isn't far-right on everything else. Polls have also indicated that significant portions of Democrats consider abortion to be manslaugher. Depending on the exact year or the survey, perhaps even over a third. One such poll is cited on the wikipedia article for "Democrats for life" I think, though I know that's not an entirely reliable source. Anyway, the closer to the center Replicans get on other issues, the more of these votes they'd gain. For me of course it's not merely strategic; I disagree with the far right and so would like to see a centerward shift anyway, but that's just me.

If Charles Krauthammer makes a good argument in support of a given foreign policy or economic policy we are supposed to ignore him because he is a pro-choice atheist? What nonsense. If he makes a good argument and his commentary is spot on, why wouldn't I quote him on an issue different from abortion or gay marriage? Please explain how pro-life Republicans have a double standard.

I meant pro-choice Republicans by the way. I just can't get these terms right, can I?

I've seen numerous posters here say that anyone who supports abortion forfeits all moral credibility whatsoever on any issue. And it is quite frequent on these forums, if you haven't noticed, for a discussion about some political issue unrelated to abortion being disrupted by someone bringing abortion into it. One may criticize the a Republican for doing suh and such and somone will say "well at least he didn't support abortion" or "you're just a Catholic Democrat trying to justify supporting pro-choice politicians." It goes on and on, and often you cannot discuss anything but abortion.

Now suddenly when the pro-choicer is a conservative, it's okay to compartmentalize? That is clearly a double-standard.

[1holycatholic]

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov

I've seen numerous posters here say that anyone who supports abortion forfeits all moral credibility whatsoever on any issue. And it is quite frequent on these forums, if you haven't noticed, for a discussion about some political issue unrelated to abortion being disrupted by someone bringing abortion into it. One may criticize the a Republican for doing suh and such and somone will say "well at least he didn't support abortion" or "you're just a Catholic Democrat trying to justify supporting pro-choice politicians." It goes on and on, and often you cannot discuss anything but abortion.

If a politician supports the intentional killing of their innocent constituents, then yes they forfeit all moral credibility. Any policy they could possibly propose is moot for the innocent human beings in whose slaughter they are complicit.

The myth of the pro-life Democrat has been shattered with the recent vote on defunding Planned Parenthood. All of the purported pro-life Democrats voted against it in lock step with, and in absolute unrepentant support of The Party of Death™ .

[Stylteralmaldo]

Originally Posted by ishii

Some history for you: In 1987, Dan Evans, Pete Wilson, Nancy Kassebaum, Mark Hatfield, and Alan Simpson all voted to confirm Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Why is that noteworthy? Its noteworthy because all of those senators were pro-abortion rights Republicans voting to confirm what most would agree represented the biggest threat to Roe V Wade - Robert Bork. Now, how many pro-life Democrats voted to confirm Bork? None. I think a case can be made for voting for the pro-choice Republican over the marginally, lip-service pro-life Democrat as a lesser of two evils because the Democrat will likely cave in to the pro-abortion rights leadership of his party. "Pro-life" Democrats who cave in to Nancy Pelose, Obama, and Barbara Boxer deserve to be mocked. If a Democrat really went out on a limb for the pro-life cause I might be inclined to support him, but until then, he is a pretender.

I can not support any Democrat no matter how pro-life he/she claims to be for this reason. When push comes to shove, the pro-life issue will take a back seat to the party line. The "pro-life" Democrat will only vote pro-life when his/her vote doesn't make the critical difference in passing/rejecting legislation.

Having said that, this does not automatically clinch a vote for the Republican candidate in my opinion. A potential pro-abortion Republican president for instance, probably doesn't see the importance of overturning Roe v. Wade when deciding who to select to put on the Supreme Court, and a Republican Senate majority (if one exists) that is only nominally pro-life likely won't see it as that critical as well.

What needs to be done (according to this voter):

• Democratic party needs to embrace the pro-life position and adopt it in their platform before I will even consider voting for him/her.
• Republican candidates need to publicly support pro-life as well as show it with their actions as legislators/community leaders.

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by gnjsdad

More recent history shows that in 2010, there were 37 pro life Democrats in the House. Now, thanks in part to the efforts of Republican lobbies like the Susan B Anthony Foundation, there are probably less than half that number.

It's a truly sad state of affairs when pro life groups shoot themselves in the foot all in the name of a partisan political agenda, as Susan B Anthony did when they targeted pro life Democrats for defeat because some of them voted contrary to the Republican agenda.

Better, I guess, to revile the Democratic Party than to support those in the party who agree on the evil of abortion. Are we stronger now that the pro life presence in the Democratic party is reduced? I don't think so.

I would like to make life harder for people like Nancy Pelosi by ADDING to the number of pro life Democrats in the House....not targeting them for defeat.

As the health care vote showed were are few , if any pro-life democrats in the house. People have woken up to the fact that so called pro-life demcrats always fold to the pressure of their party on crucial votes. The alleged pro-life democrats were replaced by authentic pro-life republicans-a win win situation for pro-life .

Pro-life Democrats suffer from battered wife syndrome. No matter how bad their party abuses them no matter how many times they betray them they always come back and always find somebody else to blame for the problem.

[StTommyMore]

Where are the Criticisms of the huge number of "pro-life" politicians that claim "I am personally against abortion, but I do not feel that I can interfere the the rights of another to choose"? (Rudy Giuliani, for one)

[1holycatholic]

Originally Posted by StTommyMore

Where are the Criticisms of the huge number of "pro-life" politicians that claim "I am personally against abortion, but I do not feel that I can interfere the the rights of another to choose"? (Rudy Giuliani, for one)

The criticism of Giuliani occurred when he was campaigning and culminated at the ballot box where he was smacked down for his hypocrisy.

He dropped off the radar.

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by StTommyMore

Where are the Criticisms of the huge number of "pro-life" politicians that claim "I am personally against abortion, but I do not feel that I can interfere the the rights of another to choose"? (Rudy Giuliani, for one)

You must not have been around there is last election. Rudy Giuliani found out the hard way that there is no support for pro-abortion politicians on the national level in the Republican Party.

[Stjudeprayforus]

Originally Posted by estesbob

You must not have been around there is last election. Rudy Giuliani found out the hard way that there is no support for pro-abortion politicians on the national level in the Republican Party.

He was my candidate until I found out his abortion stance. I could not support him.