Democrats... The Pro Life Party


#1

The fact is that there are less abortions in the United States when democrats are in power then when republicans are in power. This is attributed to the fact that there is generally more funding made available for health care for women when the demo’s control things.

So if abortion is a hot button issue for you, it seems that Catholics should be voting democratic. Results over rhetoric.


#2

What are and where did you find statistical evidence for your claim?
Shalom~

If it’s not a baby… then you’re not pregnant.

Hitler made 6 million choices.


#3

I don’t want fewer abortions, I wan’t zero abortions.

When exactly have the Democrats been in power? The last time was 1993-1995 I believe. One needs control of Congress and the Presidency to get anything done.


#4

Sounds like a post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after it, therefore because of it) argument.

Related to this, from Pro-Life Blogs:

What caused the number of abortions in America to decline?


#5

Valke-- excellent insight.

Not only that, but religious conservatives sometimes condemn for life a woman for 15 minutes of (perhaps drunken) sex. The social stigma of unwed pregnancy is a contributor to the abortion rate. Not exactly “Christian”, is it?


#6

Could it be because fewer teenagers are having sex? They see the Democrats in power and realize they don’t want to be like Bill Clinton, so they abstain.

It could also be because many of the children who were aborted came from liberal families and would be at the age now where they would be having abortions. Because these children are dead, there are fewer liberals in the younger generation and fewer abortions.


#7

What insight? He/She gave no evidence.


#8

I agree with you. The “liberal” party i.e. the Democrats, have tried to do more in respect on social funding than their Republican counterparts. I never did believe that all Democrats were Pro-Choice, just like I never believed that all Republicans are Pro-Life. I have always been Pro-Life with one and only one exception. If the mother’s life is in danger (such as a tubular pregnancy) and is not aborted, then the mother dies along with the fetus. So, which life is more precious? Just for the sake of discussion, prior to 1994, how many Republicans openly proclaimed that they were Pro-Life? Virtually none that I know of. In 1994 I believe is when the alliance between the Republicans and the Christian Coalition was formed. It became politically correct to say you were a Republican because the party is Pro-Life. Americans, being gullible as most are, jumped on the wagon. Where were these Pro-Life Republicans in 1973 regarding Roe v Wade? :thumbsup:


#9

valke2,

Based on your posts in the thread “Greater Threat to Humanity: Abortion or Global Warming,” it doesn’t appear that you consider abortion the killing of an actual human person, or at least not an important one. In that thread, I said:in post #248:

Larry1700
According to your own numbers Valke:

GLOBAL WARMING: 300,000 deaths per year by 2030
ABORTIONS: 48 million per year NOW

Now it’s been almost 30 years since I’ve been in school, but to the best of my recollection, 48 million is bigger number than 300,000. I would even go so far as to say it’s probably ALOT bigger. Now, let’s see, 48 million divided by 300,000 equals
160. I think that means that there are currently 160 times more actual deaths by abortions than are estimatedto occur 23 years from now???

Help me understand how you figure global warming causes more deaths. (Please use simple math for my simple mind.)

If you choose to speak in terms of infrastructure, you’re dodging the question. I’m using your own numbers of the PEOPLE that die/will die each year.

To which you replied in post #251:

Valke2
THe question was, which is the greater threat to humanity. 48 million abortions a year, in a world where the population has gone from3 billion to 6 billion in about 30 years, and will go from 6 billion to 9 billion in another 30, pose no threat to humanity.

So…
If you don’t consider an unborn baby a “life,” how can you call the Democrats a “Pro-Life” party? Or if you don’t consider an unborn baby an important life, why does it even matter whether abortions are fewer under either party?


#10

Myth Exploded!
The Annenberg Center’s Factcheck.org says Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, and Howard Dean were dead wrong to claim that abortions have increased under the Bush Administration – the truth is, abortions are going down. To read Factcheck’s hard-hitting critique, “Biography of a Bad Statistic,”

nrlc.org/rko/index.html


#11

And then there is the Supreme Court which found Roe v Wade to be constitutional.


#12

Yes, but the Court is not ruled by a political party.


#13

Yes, but the Court is not ruled by a political party.

You gotta be kidding!!! When the president thinks he can fire lawyers in public service because he disagrees with them??? What is going to happen next?


#14

Regardless of which political party gets more done to limit abortions, the fact remains that MOST Americans favor the availability of abortion. Therefore, laws may be adjusted a little here and there, but abortion will continue to be available throughout America unless there is a conversion of the American person at the heart level.

That is why I don’t vote on the issue of abortion alone. I think it is a mistake for us to spend so much time and money trying to do what is perceived by pagans and atheists as “ramming our religion down their throats” via the law.

It has been said by some commentators, and I agree, that Republicans don’t really want an end to legal abortion. It is one of their bread and butter issues. If abortion became illegal again, there’d be a tremendous liberal-atheist-pagan backlash that would drive Republicans from office for the next generation. So, they dance around abortion, using it as their money issue, but never really doing anything to stop it, apart from lip service.


#15

Yes I’m sure that’s the reason. Does it rain gum drops and chocolate kisses on your planet?


#16

You can tarbrush it all you want. But if you are looking to reduce abortions, look at the candidates who are going to ensure that women have affordable health care.


#17

What stigma?
Maybe forty years ago and when it was you had fewer abortions, fewer people living together without marriage, and fewer divorces. It is an act of Christian love to chastise the sinner.


#18

Basically that means birth control which is anything but health care.:mad:


#19

IT also means having medical care necessary to bring a baby to term. Do you view someone choosing to use birth control as being on the same moral ground as someone choosing to have an abortion?


#20

Yes, if it is artificial birth control.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.