Reflections of a pro-life Democrat

[JEdwards]

Dan Lipinski served in Congress as a pro-life Democrat until being successfully primaried from the left.  The day may be too far gone by now, but it would be nice if the Democrats heeded the warnings in this essay:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/10/common-good-republicans

Peace,
Jon

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.thecollegefix.com/leading-reproductive-justice-professor-insists-fetal-heartbeats-do-not-exist/

This is probably one of the reasons pro-life Democrats are going extinct. The old reasons for being a Democrat-- things like support for union labor, racial equality, etc.-- have been replaced by bizarre radicalism.

[Terry W Culler]

Another reason is the inability of orthodox Christians to have any affect on the Democratic Party and its policies because almost everyone has moved to the GOP.  I've come to believe that was a great mistake because it left the wingnuts in charge with no internal balance.

[peter_speckhard]

This is a fascinating experiment. The pro-choice journalist daughter offers a verbatim of a conversation with her pro-life mother. Their relationship is complicated by the fact that the daughter even is alive because her mom decided for leaving school and getting married rather than aborting. The mom is hurt that the daughter would say she made the wrong choice, and the daughter, or course, is arguing against her own existence. If nothing else, the article helps put the discussion at the kitchen table level. The reader can take mental notes about what works and what doesn't in such a conversation.


https://www.thecut.com/2021/10/mother-daughter-debate-abortion-rights.html#_ga=2.235192257.1314027118.1634746743-1448634544.1634120520

[JEdwards]

Thanks for sharing.  I found it striking that when asked about late-term abortions, the pro-choice advocate inserted editorial notes to indicate that these are rare (which is true), and that therefore mentioning them is an irrelevant rhetorical trick (which is not true).  Considering extreme cases is a common and necessary part of moral analysis, not because they should automatically determine general rules, but because they force a careful examination of premises that may be unspoken or even unrecognized.  Ironically, only a few paragraphs later, the pro-choice advocate tries to support her argument by using a hypothetical example that is not merely rare, but has never occurred in the real world.

Peace,
Jon

[Dave Benke]

Another reason is the inability of orthodox Christians to have any affect on the Democratic Party and its policies because almost everyone has moved to the GOP.  I've come to believe that was a great mistake because it left the wingnuts in charge with no internal balance.

As a registered pro-life Democrat in New York City/State, there are certain realities:
a) I can vote in all the primaries for the candidates who, I think, best fend off the hard left positions.  This would not be seen as such by everyone, but in a recent primary, our Queens DA was almost a person who would have swung the borough dead left.  She lost the primary by a tiny amount of votes, two of which were my wife's and mine.  NYC is basically a one party town, so those primaries are where the actual election takes place.  Eric Adams will be our next mayor. The general election is basically already over.
b) I can vote for whoever I find most closely aligned with my positions in the general elections across party lines.  Although I'm not going to vote for Curtis Sliwa, when it existed I used to vote the Right to Life ticket in general elections. 
c) I am disaffiliated from The Defenseless One, Obscene Buffoon Trump.
d) In what has been and will continue to be the abortion capital of the US, I can make my voice heard more consistently in a non-echo chamber way among Democrats, many of whom, especially Latinos, are themselves pro-life. 

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

Another reason is the inability of orthodox Christians to have any affect on the Democratic Party and its policies because almost everyone has moved to the GOP.  I've come to believe that was a great mistake because it left the wingnuts in charge with no internal balance.

As a registered pro-life Democrat in New York City/State, there are certain realities:
a) I can vote in all the primaries for the candidates who, I think, best fend off the hard left positions.  This would not be seen as such by everyone, but in a recent primary, our Queens DA was almost a person who would have swung the borough dead left.  She lost the primary by a tiny amount of votes, two of which were my wife's and mine.  NYC is basically a one party town, so those primaries are where the actual election takes place.  Eric Adams will be our next mayor. The general election is basically already over.
b) I can vote for whoever I find most closely aligned with my positions in the general elections across party lines.  Although I'm not going to vote for Curtis Sliwa, when it existed I used to vote the Right to Life ticket in general elections. 
c) I am disaffiliated from The Defenseless One, Obscene Buffoon Trump.
d) In what has been and will continue to be the abortion capital of the US, I can make my voice heard more consistently in a non-echo chamber way among Democrats, many of whom, especially Latinos, are themselves pro-life. 

Dave Benke

As an aside, I voted for Trump and would do so again because he is one of the only politicians in recent memory actually to advance the pro-life cause in political battle, not just harp on it in safe company. Presumably, a fair number of alpb readers are in the same position. But I understand not everyone sees it that way, and many think like Dave, too. I am able to participate here and discuss the issue despite the obvious disdain for my outlook in the tone of alpb president Dave’s post, and fully expect people whose views I disdain to be thick-skinned enough to deal with it.

[Richard Johnson]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/opinion/abortion-pro-life-movement.html?searchResultPosition=1

Why have pro-life sentiment and activism survived this past half century of far-reaching social liberalization? Because the abortion conflict was never really a culture war. Instead, it’s a quarrel within what philosophers call the liberal tradition focused on individual rights, in this case, concerning the rights of women versus the rights of embryos.

Thus, the pro-life movement endures precisely for the same reason that the pro-choice movement does — both are nurtured by our common rights-oriented culture. It is a rare fight in American history in which people on both sides think of themselves as human rights activists, called to expand the frontiers of freedom and equality.

This rings true to me. The author compares the enduring nearly even split over abortion to genuine "culture war" issues--e.g., the rapid acceptance (obviously not universal) of same-sex marriage.

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/opinion/abortion-pro-life-movement.html?searchResultPosition=1

Why have pro-life sentiment and activism survived this past half century of far-reaching social liberalization? Because the abortion conflict was never really a culture war. Instead, it’s a quarrel within what philosophers call the liberal tradition focused on individual rights, in this case, concerning the rights of women versus the rights of embryos.

Thus, the pro-life movement endures precisely for the same reason that the pro-choice movement does — both are nurtured by our common rights-oriented culture. It is a rare fight in American history in which people on both sides think of themselves as human rights activists, called to expand the frontiers of freedom and equality.

This rings true to me. The author compares the enduring nearly even split over abortion to genuine "culture war" issues--e.g., the rapid acceptance (obviously not universal) of same-sex marriage.

I think RJN saw it that way, too, meaning he saw the natural progression of the Civil Rights Movement as going on to champion the pro-life cause, and was surprised by many of his colleagues who saw the pro-choice position as the natural outgrowth of the same struggle for human rights. So it all comes down to what makes a human being human, and in that score the pro-choice side is philosophically bankrupt.

[John_Hannah]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/opinion/abortion-pro-life-movement.html?searchResultPosition=1

Why have pro-life sentiment and activism survived this past half century of far-reaching social liberalization? Because the abortion conflict was never really a culture war. Instead, it’s a quarrel within what philosophers call the liberal tradition focused on individual rights, in this case, concerning the rights of women versus the rights of embryos.

Thus, the pro-life movement endures precisely for the same reason that the pro-choice movement does — both are nurtured by our common rights-oriented culture. It is a rare fight in American history in which people on both sides think of themselves as human rights activists, called to expand the frontiers of freedom and equality.

This rings true to me. The author compares the enduring nearly even split over abortion to genuine "culture war" issues--e.g., the rapid acceptance (obviously not universal) of same-sex marriage.

I think RJN saw it that way, too, meaning he saw the natural progression of the Civil Rights Movement as going on to champion the pro-life cause, and was surprised by many of his colleagues who saw the pro-choice position as the natural outgrowth of the same struggle for human rights. So it all comes down to what makes a human being human, and in that score the pro-choice side is philosophically bankrupt.

I believe that is correct. It is what I understood about his thinking on abortion.

Peace, JOHN

[Dave Benke]

Another reason is the inability of orthodox Christians to have any affect on the Democratic Party and its policies because almost everyone has moved to the GOP.  I've come to believe that was a great mistake because it left the wingnuts in charge with no internal balance.

As a registered pro-life Democrat in New York City/State, there are certain realities:
a) I can vote in all the primaries for the candidates who, I think, best fend off the hard left positions.  This would not be seen as such by everyone, but in a recent primary, our Queens DA was almost a person who would have swung the borough dead left.  She lost the primary by a tiny amount of votes, two of which were my wife's and mine.  NYC is basically a one party town, so those primaries are where the actual election takes place.  Eric Adams will be our next mayor. The general election is basically already over.
b) I can vote for whoever I find most closely aligned with my positions in the general elections across party lines.  Although I'm not going to vote for Curtis Sliwa, when it existed I used to vote the Right to Life ticket in general elections. 
c) I am disaffiliated from The Defenseless One, Obscene Buffoon Trump.
d) In what has been and will continue to be the abortion capital of the US, I can make my voice heard more consistently in a non-echo chamber way among Democrats, many of whom, especially Latinos, are themselves pro-life. 

Dave Benke

As an aside, I voted for Trump and would do so again because he is one of the only politicians in recent memory actually to advance the pro-life cause in political battle, not just harp on it in safe company. Presumably, a fair number of alpb readers are in the same position. But I understand not everyone sees it that way, and many think like Dave, too. I am able to participate here and discuss the issue despite the obvious disdain for my outlook in the tone of alpb president Dave’s post, and fully expect people whose views I disdain to be thick-skinned enough to deal with it.

I guess you're finding disdain in the term Obscene Buffoon, Peter.  It's not my term - it's yours.  I've just borrowed it a few times, because in my opinion it's accurate. 

I read the editorial mentioned by Richard and John this morning, and it rings true to me as well. 

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

Another reason is the inability of orthodox Christians to have any affect on the Democratic Party and its policies because almost everyone has moved to the GOP.  I've come to believe that was a great mistake because it left the wingnuts in charge with no internal balance.

As a registered pro-life Democrat in New York City/State, there are certain realities:
a) I can vote in all the primaries for the candidates who, I think, best fend off the hard left positions.  This would not be seen as such by everyone, but in a recent primary, our Queens DA was almost a person who would have swung the borough dead left.  She lost the primary by a tiny amount of votes, two of which were my wife's and mine.  NYC is basically a one party town, so those primaries are where the actual election takes place.  Eric Adams will be our next mayor. The general election is basically already over.
b) I can vote for whoever I find most closely aligned with my positions in the general elections across party lines.  Although I'm not going to vote for Curtis Sliwa, when it existed I used to vote the Right to Life ticket in general elections. 
c) I am disaffiliated from The Defenseless One, Obscene Buffoon Trump.
d) In what has been and will continue to be the abortion capital of the US, I can make my voice heard more consistently in a non-echo chamber way among Democrats, many of whom, especially Latinos, are themselves pro-life. 

Dave Benke

As an aside, I voted for Trump and would do so again because he is one of the only politicians in recent memory actually to advance the pro-life cause in political battle, not just harp on it in safe company. Presumably, a fair number of alpb readers are in the same position. But I understand not everyone sees it that way, and many think like Dave, too. I am able to participate here and discuss the issue despite the obvious disdain for my outlook in the tone of alpb president Dave’s post, and fully expect people whose views I disdain to be thick-skinned enough to deal with it.

I guess you're finding disdain in the term Obscene Buffoon, Peter.  It's not my term - it's yours.  I've just borrowed it a few times, because in my opinion it's accurate. 

I read the editorial mentioned by Richard and John this morning, and it rings true to me as well. 

Dave Benke

I do find disdain in the term. Very few people would apply it to someone intending to convey genuine, respectful description. But I am not offended by your disdain. You find the term accurate. Okay. If pro-Trump people log onto the alpb forum, they'll just have to encounter some disdain for things they support, because while we can all respect other people, we can't and shouldn't respect every political, social, or theological idea or position. Far worse than Trump- far more obscene and clownish-- is the idea that two men can be husband and wife or that a marriage can consist of husband and husband. And that is just one example. If a person supports abortion, the lgbtq+ agenda, and in general the social positions taken by the ELCA, I find that person's views every bit as obscene and buffoonish in the theological realm as he or she might find Trump in the political realm. That doesn't mean we can't be in the same forum or have good discussions, but it does mean that this is not a place where people get their way by claiming to be offended and passive-aggressively controlling the conversation by being thin-skinned.

A pro-life Democrat, per this thread, would have to be used to having their views ignored by now. Given the purpose of politics and political parties, and given that the ship has sailed in terms of the Democrats' pure, wholesale support for abortion, the term "pro-life Democrat" is problematic. How reliable a Democrat can other Democrats presume you to be if you are pro-life? How pro-life can anyone who cares about the abortion issue think you really are if you're out their voting for Democrats? The only thing that makes an impact in the political realm is your actual vote, not your personal preferences and ideals. So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter. And there is no excuse for a pro-life Democrat not to know that. Not today. A few decades ago, perhaps. Today, voters who actively oppose the pro-life cause with their votes but who personally wish it didn't have to be that way are not really allies of the pro-life cause. The days when they could claim to be trying to exert influence on the party from within are over on that issue. 

[RDPreus]

How many Democrats are there in the U. S. House of Representatives?  Is there one among them who is pro-life?

[Dave Benke]

So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter

I hear what you're saying, Peter.  The issue in an inter-Lutheran online forum is that people may also enter the forum who think very little of Donald Trump, and may believe that although they are pro-life, they are also pro life as it translates to pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, pro universal pre-kindergarten, anti-death penalty and other items that the Republican/Trump party pushes away from with great zeal.

The term you use in the quote above is kind of mysterious to me, because the pro-choice Republican voter is by definition in the left hand, political realm.  What other realm does that voter enter?
And God's realm of the left is indeed a mishmash.  Although you may opine that pro-life democrats can no longer remain democrats, there are pro-life democrats voting in elections as a way of exerting influence.  I'm equally sure there are immigration reform Republicans who desire a pathway to citizenship for all the migrants in our country including but not exclusive to DACA, as a way of exerting influence. 

At the end of the day, a society dominated by the edges of its cultural trends in the category of noise and funk still is made up mostly of people in and around the middle.

Dave Benke 

[Steven W Bohler]

So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter

I hear what you're saying, Peter.  The issue in an inter-Lutheran online forum is that people may also enter the forum who think very little of Donald Trump, and may believe that although they are pro-life, they are also pro life as it translates to pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, pro universal pre-kindergarten, anti-death penalty and other items that the Republican/Trump party pushes away from with great zeal.

The term you use in the quote above is kind of mysterious to me, because the pro-choice Republican voter is by definition in the left hand, political realm.  What other realm does that voter enter?
And God's realm of the left is indeed a mishmash.  Although you may opine that pro-life democrats can no longer remain democrats, there are pro-life democrats voting in elections as a way of exerting influence.  I'm equally sure there are immigration reform Republicans who desire a pathway to citizenship for all the migrants in our country including but not exclusive to DACA, as a way of exerting influence. 

At the end of the day, a society dominated by the edges of its cultural trends in the category of noise and funk still is made up mostly of people in and around the middle.

Dave Benke

Do you leave the right-hand kingdom when you enter the voting booth?