Is the Repulican Party Truly Pro Life?

[Christianbookworm]

Sometimes I wonder if the politicians who claim to be pro life are doing so merely to get votes from pro life people. I know, how cynical, but I don't trust the Republican party or the Democratic Party. Good thin my trust is not in mere human political parties! Now, if only everyone would be convicted into being better people, that would be wonderful!

[JimL]

Sometimes I wonder if the politicians who claim to be pro life are doing so merely to get votes from pro life people. I know, how cynical, but I don't trust the Republican party or the Democratic Party. Good thin my trust is not in mere human political parties! Now, if only everyone would be convicted into being better people, that would be wonderful!

Some probably are pro life, and some aren't, but mostly it's just a wedge issue that the republican party uses to get you to vote republican so that they can screw you over economically. Example, the tax bill they just passed in which 83% of the benefit goes to the top 1%, while knocking 13 million people, many of whom voted for them, off of healthcare.

[Jedidiah]

Sometimes I wonder if the politicians who claim to be pro life are doing so merely to get votes from pro life people. I know, how cynical, but I don't trust the Republican party or the Democratic Party. Good thin my trust is not in mere human political parties! Now, if only everyone would be convicted into being better people, that would be wonderful!

Aside from his snarkiness I have to agree with JimL. If the majority were "pro life" something would have been done about it by now. (I do not consider myself pro life, but rather anti abortion)

[Christianbookworm]

And they should possibly give more grants to charities that help poor people. Because I don't trust the government to actually help the poor, they should encourage donating to charities.

[Cow Poke]

Some probably are pro life, and some aren't, but mostly it's just a wedge issue that the republican party uses to get you to vote republican so that they can screw you over economically. Example, the tax bill they just passed in which 83% of the benefit goes to the top 1%, while knocking 13 million people, many of whom voted for them, off of healthcare.

On the other hand, you have the Democrat party which touts "choice", yet any Democrat who "chooses" to run as a "pro-life" candidate can't rely on help from the Dems. The Democrats are having an internal battle, of sorts, because they want to control "choice". Seems a bit hypocritical, eh?

Democratic leaders, for their part, have repeatedly affirmed both the platform and the party’s pro-choice ethos. But some activists want more than that. They want the party to tell its 2018 candidates that they must uphold the pro-choice policy agenda embedded in the platform if elected—and they believe the party should withhold support from any candidate who isn’t willing to do that.

source

[Christianbookworm]

I trust the various government departments more than the actual three branches of government. For some reason. Maybe because the people working in those departments likely want to improve lives and aren't living in an ivory tower like the Congress people and other politicians are. Would it take divine intervention to get everyone to shape up?

[Cow Poke]

I trust the various government departments more than the actual three branches of government. For some reason. Maybe because the people working in those departments likely want to improve lives and aren't living in an ivory tower like the Congress people and other politicians are. Would it take divine intervention to get everyone to shape up?

You are more charitable about this than I am. While it may well be true that the people "working in those departments" are like you say, those departments tend to be headed by political appointees who have their own agenda.

[Christianbookworm]

You are more charitable about this than I am. While it may well be true that the people "working in those departments" are like you say, those departments tend to be headed by political appointees who have their own agenda.

I can't wait for Jesus to make all the government appointments. He is the King of kings after all. Be nice if governments recognized that!

[KingsGambit]

Many individual members of Congress are; others pretend (like the Congressman who had a 100% record from pro-life groups and got caught on tape ordering his mistress to get an abortion).

If Roe v Wade got overturned, the Republicans would suddenly be unable to use the judge issue every presidential election, so honestly, would they even want to overturn it?

[JimL]

On the other hand, you have the Democrat party which touts "choice", yet any Democrat who "chooses" to run as a "pro-life" candidate can't rely on help from the Dems. The Democrats are having an internal battle, of sorts, because they want to control "choice". Seems a bit hypocritical, eh?

[box]Democratic leaders, for their part, have repeatedly affirmed both the platform and the party’s pro-choice ethos. But some activists want more than that. They want the party to tell its 2018 candidates that they must uphold the pro-choice policy agenda embedded in the platform if elected—and they believe the party should withhold support from any candidate who isn’t willing to do that.

Newly elected Senator Doug Jones was fully supported by the democratic party in Alabama even though he is staunchly anti-abortion. Democrats do not use wedge issues in order to stab their constituents in the back economically as republicans do to their constituency like the tax cut for the wealthy bill they just past. The reason; because unlike the republican pols, the democrats are not trying to stab their constituents in the back!

[Cow Poke]

Newly elected Senator Doug Jones was fully supported by the democratic party in Alabama even though he is staunchly anti-abortion.

He was their only option to take that seat from a Republican - they were quite opportunistic in that, understandably so.

[Christianbookworm]

I thought he was for abortion? Or was that slander from talk radio?

[Cow Poke]

I thought he was for abortion? Or was that slander from talk radio?

He's a typical politician - he says whatever he thinks will get votes. JimL just overlooks it because he's one of his own.

During a wide-ranging interview on Tuesday, Jones - who faces Republican Roy Moore in the Senate election -- was asked by AL.com about his position on abortion.

"Those comments, everybody wants to attack you so they are going to make out on those comments what they want to their political advantage," Jones said. "To be clear, I fully support a woman's freedom to choose to what happens to her own body. That is an intensely, intensely personal decision that only she, in consultation with her god, her doctor, her partner or family, that's her choice.

It kinda goes to my point....

On the other hand, you have the Democrat party which touts "choice", yet any Democrat who "chooses" to run as a "pro-life" candidate can't rely on help from the Dems. The Democrats are having an internal battle, of sorts, because they want to control "choice". Seems a bit hypocritical, eh?

The Democrats don't mind hypocrisy when it gets their own guy elected.

[Cow Poke]

Newly elected Senator Doug Jones was fully supported by the democratic party in Alabama even though he is staunchly anti-abortion.

ooops

During a wide-ranging interview on Tuesday, Jones - who faces Republican Roy Moore in the Senate election -- was asked by AL.com about his position on abortion.

"Those comments, everybody wants to attack you so they are going to make out on those comments what they want to their political advantage," Jones said. "To be clear, I fully support a woman's freedom to choose to what happens to her own body. That is an intensely, intensely personal decision that only she, in consultation with her god, her doctor, her partner or family, that's her choice.

There ya have it!

[One Bad Pig]

Aside from his snarkiness I have to agree with JimL. If the majority were "pro life" something would have been done about it by now. (I do not consider myself pro life, but rather anti abortion)

Given Roe v. Wade and later Supreme Court decisions affirming it, even restrictions on abortions tend to be knocked down as "unconstitutional"; it's pretty much a waste of time to enact laws which aren't ever going to go in effect anyway. We need a judicial revolution before Republicans can truly address abortion the way they'd like.

Not sure why you apparently agree with Jim's ridiculous spin on healthcare. Making healthcare no longer mandatory is hardly knocking people off of it.