Pro-Life Feminist voting for Pro-Abortion Politician?


I think the principles in the original article make sense: that is, that voting is a prudential judgment not on what the candidates say they will do but on what the voter believes in his or her best judgment that they will actually do. I have often been disappointed by candidates who espouse a pro-life message and then later do nothing to make it less likely that a pregnant mother who would rather avoid an abortion will avoid seeking one. (If the elected official isn’t even doing this much, the likelihood of preventing a pregnant woman who is hell-bent on obtaining abortion is totally nil.)

Yes, I think there are too many people in politics who cynically put stances on their agenda that mean nothing or next to nothing. By cynically, I mean the intention is to garner votes with no intention of fulfilling the promises made in order to get them. If you think a candidate’s pro-life support is cynical and not real, it should not be a mark in favor of support.

Holding a pro-choice stance that is not meant is problematic, in and of itself, yes, since it is encouraging other people to accept abortion as a moral choice or support for abortion as a positive good. If all other things were equal, this would make a difference. All other things are very rarely even close to equal, but it happens.

The third situation is that in which the office being contested has nothing to do with abortion policy. In that case, I would still not want to advance the career of someone who was very strongly pro-abortion. If the candidates were lukewarm on the issue and it had nothing to do with the contested office, the issue would have less importance.

So no, a candidate shouldn’t be able to get a check in their box merely for throwing out “pro-choice” on their campaign literature. That standard is just asking for abuse.


Is there a typo there? Or perhaps you can define what is a “socialist” economic policy and what is merely a just economic policy that balances the just expectations of both workers and employers, something like that? It was a pro-life candidate, after all, whose campaign famously attacked the “welfare queen,” the woman supposedly playing the system to support her indolence in grand style.


I think it would be rather risky to start voting for more socialists and other candidates who want to fundamentally change America. We’re the greatest country in the world, and let’s vote to keep it that way.


In March 2010, African-American unemployment hit an extremely high 16.8% under the previous President.
Currently, the number that reflects lowest unemployment in history indicates that the Republican Party leadership is quite possibly doing as good or better job than all prior administrations. If you criticize the current administration, then you might have to criticize everybody else before.
(Lowest unemployment in history is a GOOD thing.)


Sir, I’ve noticed that, since you’ve joined, you have not made one thread and are posting exclusively political content. Might I ask what are your intentions coming onto a Catholic forum?


It is unseemly.


I notice that you seem to duck the difficult questions. Is our current Medicare for some system socialist or not. Would you vote for a politician who supports Medicare?


I’ve noticed that too, which makes me wonder if people are picking pro-life candidates because they are pro-life, or because they prefer their other policies, and are using “pro-life” as a cover for their Republican politics.


I wonder the opposite about those who support pro abortion candidates i.e. they use the pro abortion candidates good policies to cover up support of or lack of opposotion to legal abortion.


People who study STEM make LOTS more money.

[One of the mods also posts very left, suspends me, and deletes my posts.][I’m still getting grey on white.]


Folks post this a lot. It was double the general unemployment then, and it is double the general unemployment now. The disparity still persists even as the numbers change.


Overwhelmingly, STEM degrees are sought out by white men.


Have any anti-poverty Democrats eliminated poverty?

Have any of the pro government health care for all democrats ensured that everyone doesn’t have to worry about health care yet?

Asking these questions in absolute terms will basically mean you should be voting for anyone.


I have not read all the replies, but I have to say tthat the arguments I saw in the article were the same tired arguments I have heard Catholic Democrats making every election cycle for many, many years.

The Republicans have made progress in the area of abortion, by persisting. Used to be they made a law, like parental notification, and it was struck down in the courts, if it passed at all. Then they’d go through the process until the law made it through the courts.

Now we have laws all over the country which at least do something about the scourge of abortion.

And we are getting originality justices instead of activists.

Bush 2 asked about the whole mortgage situation and was told by the D’s in charge of Freddie Mac that everything was fine. Oops. But now we have an economy which is recovering not only from that but from the outsourcing enabled by the D’s.

It may be weird to think it might be better for the feds to focus on maintaining a strong economy so we have jobs for those able to work and money to help those in need, but it seems to work better than the other way around.

And so on.

I’m sorry this woman fell for those tired old arguments.


From the article . . .

This week I voted for Beto O’Rourke and might have ruined my career. The jury is still out, but as an anti-abortion-rights activist, I broke the one golden rule within our movement: Vote Republican.

Well RCIAGraduate. The “golden rule” in the above quote from the article is a lie.

If Democrats want pro-life votes they need to quit putting pro-abortion people in charge to rig primaries, caucuses, etc.

The reason Democrats are excluded from (real in my opinion) pro-life voters is because they have morphed into the abortion party (again my opinion).

Watch Schumer’s first reaction to the Kavanaugh nomination back earlier.

I posted a link to it.

The first thing he goes into is protecting killing innocent babies (but he didn’t put it that way).

Do some searching of my posts–I put it up for all to see.

The pro-aborts ran pro-life Democrats right out of the party years ago.

Without getting into specifics about me or my personal experiences, you can take my word for it or reject it.

Go look at their national leadership and give me a list of even ostensible pro-lifers. They have one in a Polish Catholic district who had difficulties securing his party’s nomination.

Or ask Planned Parenthood. Any of their “rejections” is a proverbial badge of honor.

Social programs you say?

What good is some government program to you if you’re dead because you were dismembered at 20 weeks of gestational age.

Answer these questions to yourself honestly and you will be able to answer your own questions.

Articles like this are written by stooges for the abortion lobby. That is my opinion anyway (and that is what you explicitly asked me for in another thread to provide here on this thread–my opinion).

Are Republicans perfect?

Absolutely not.

I’ve said this before too.

Real conservatives have an uneasy relationship with the Republicans over some of this.

Some of the Republicans are ALSO conservative.
None of the Democrats are.

Again, these are my opinions.

So begin on the life issue and branch out from there. But when you look at pro-abort politicians, you don’t get any further.

And remember. Pro-abortion is not merely a political issue.

It is a whole WORLD VIEW that says it is OK to RE-DEFINE some persons in society as LESS THAN persons.

So if your REDEFINITION of WHO is not a person includes Jewish people or blacks, it is unacceptable.

Likewise if your REDEFINITION of WHO is not a person includes pre-born people, likewise that is ALSO unacceptable.

If an anti-black politician came out and told you he
“FAVORS” black “rights” by having it legal that
ONLY BLACKS be allowed to contracept
and kill each other off as long as they are pre-born,
you’d KNOW he is anti-black
despite the fact he might tell you he “SUPPORTS blacks” by that measure.

But when anti-people politicians do the same (with people in general), and
say they “SUPPORT” women . . . some people fall for it.

You will have to prayerfully come to your own conclusion as I cannot decide for you.

God bless.



This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

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