The Confessions of a Pro-Life, Right Wing Conservative, Part 1

mcmama (51978) 02 Nov 2008 01:33 PM

What? No comments yet??? or is everyone taking a very DEEP breath before exhaling....

Valorie Delp (49340) 02 Nov 2008 02:11 PM

You're funny Janet. ;-)

mimigrandma (445) 02 Nov 2008 03:20 PM

Yesterday I made quite a few comments about pro-life candidates, but I agree there are other issues that are important, too. I am amazed at the number of people I talk to that don't understand the basics of economics. I live in Indiana and when I was in high school government and economics were required courses. If you choose a candidate that will raise taxes on corporations consumers will pay more for goods and services as taxes are figured in to the prices. As a Christian I am not concerned a lot about the economy as I know that God is my provider not the government. He has taken very good care of me. I would rather have His favor in my life than anything either candidate has to offer. As far as the war in Iraq, I would rather our troops fight the terrorists over there than here. My daughter has a friend that works at the Pentagon and he said if we pull out our troops too soon that is exactly what will happen. The terrorists will follow our troops home and we will have war here. This election is extremely important and now more than ever all Christians must pray and ask to hear from God as to the direction He would like us to go. We can't go by what we see or how we feel we must use the Word of God for direction our future depends on it.

Pattie Hughes (7652) 02 Nov 2008 07:45 PM

That was the warning the Republicans used when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and it just didn't happen. There was greater job growth during the Clinton years than at any time since the end of WWII. Trickle down economics does not work. It has now been tried twice and both times has led to recession. Economists tend to favor Obama's plan. A strong middle class makes America strong, not the top five percent.

We were never at risk from Iraq. It is a lie. There was not one Iraqi involved in 911 and there was no threat to this country from Iraq. Walking away from hunting down bin Laden to go into Iraq was a giant mistake and there is no end in sight, particularly if Mr. We'll stay in Iraq for 100 years is elected. The hawkish foreign policy of this administration has made us less safe and McCain is even more hawkish. Saying that we are only safe with a Republican is nothing less than fearmongering and is simply not true.

Good blog Val!

mcmama (51978) 02 Nov 2008 07:57 PM

It appears that Al Quaeda has set their sites on Pakistan, and will try to bring down the new government there. It ain't over.

Al Quaeda with nukes. Now that's an international crisis.

Melissa J (13710) 02 Nov 2008 08:14 PM

Hi Val!

I am one of "those" who look at the candidate's position on unborn life. I'm undecided on the death penalty issue but believe in protecting the lives of unborn? Why the difference? Because, an unborn child is innocent and helpless; without voice and it should be natural that we as humans wish to help the defenseless. Just my opinion of course--and like I said I'm not decided with the death penalty. It makes me uncomfortable though.

I have little respect for a candidate who doesn't value the life of a human yet to take their first breath; a citizen in the making. I have NO respect for a candidate who supports partial birth abortion as it is nothing short of infantcide in my opinion.

I agree there is more to consider in a candidate than whether they're prolife or not. After all, if we had 2 candidates who supported the right to terminate unborn babies, what would we do? To me, where a candidate stands on life is important, but whether they believe they are accountable by the God of the Bible is more important to me. A candidate with no fear of God would be the most detestible.

Valorie Delp (49340) 03 Nov 2008 02:29 AM

Yes--I agree--a candidate with no fear of God would be most detestible. And I do think that the sanctity of life issues are important. . .but I think that simply being "pro-life" doesn't affect the abortion rate.

And MJ--you are right--my 'pro-life' stance happens to also include capital punishment but I recognize that that's not the same for most Christians. However, if we say that we believe life begins at conception--we DO have to look at issues like stem cell research, fertility treatments and birth control.

ruthann8 (6378) 03 Nov 2008 07:11 AM

I have only participated in the last 3 elections and I really only remember the last two, so please correct me if I am wrong. I would assume that (major candidates) Republican is always pro-life and Democrat is always pro-choice. Would a candidate get its parties support if it wasn't? Will it always be that way. It seems like we won't ever get a major candidate that mixes it up. It seems as if we have this set of ideals that is strictly Republican or Democrat. To a politician it is a career. I almost feel as if they don't always believe what the are saying. Sometimes I get the feeling that politicians say certain things or votes a certain way b/c it is there job and are always looking to get re-elected. My mom has always been a Democrat and raised me that way (or so I thought) I have recently found out she is a registered republican and has voted that way for the last 15+ years. She is county deputy treasure, and she has been doing this b/c when her boss retires she may run for treasure. Why? This was very very disappointing. She is a hypocrite and I think a lot of politicians may be. But I still love her! I wonder how many politicians set aside there ideas for there career?

Valorie Delp (49340) 03 Nov 2008 09:36 AM

No. . .not all Republicans are pro-life. Guiliani is not. . .Bloomberg (who is now technically independent) is not and there are others. There are many Republicans who feel that the abortion question should be left to the states and so while not all are pro-life, many will consistently vote pro-life or reject pro-choice legislation at the federal level bc they feel it should be a state issue. There is also an organization called Democratsforlife.org which is, as the name implies, a pro-life organization of Democrats.

However, with that said, I think a pro-choice Republican could have a hard time getting elected and your assessment is certainly correct in the last several elections that I can remember.

Pattie Hughes (7652) 03 Nov 2008 10:05 AM

McCain has said he thinks its a state issue. Do you consider him pro life, since he is in favor of stem cell research? How is he on capital punishment? I completely agree that they should all go hand in hand. I noticed that he didn't tout his pro lifeness as much as Bush did in the past elections. It really wasn't talked about much until Palin started bringing it up. I haven't heard much of that from McCain this time around, other than one question in one debate.

I agree that a pro life Republican would have a hard time getting elected, or probably even past the primaries. He'd have about as much luck as a pro life democrat! These issues are tied to each party, but not exclusively. There are many pro life democrat voters, but they just can't head the ticket. I think the same is true of Republicans. To get past the primaries, they each have to get past the base of the party.

Valorie Delp (49340) 03 Nov 2008 10:13 AM

No--I don't consider McCain "pro-life" although he has consistently leaned towards pro-life. . .but again, he thinks it should be a state issue. I think this was part of his choice of Palin--although I don't know why he couldn't have chosen Romney or Huckabee or. . .and the list goes on. But that's another discussion. I think this is also part of the reason you see a lot of Republicans voting Democrat this time around.

mcmama (51978) 03 Nov 2008 08:00 PM

There was a big fuss after the democratic fracas of the late 60s and the constitutional crisis in a Republican presidency in the 70s about each party's "platform". Abortion was a huge plank in the platform. And all the good candidates are supposed to support the party and the platform on which it is built. Abortion seems to be the one issue where you are not allowed to be a moderate or dissent from the "platform" if you want the support of the party. Seems like they can dissent on just about anything else. Oh, and gun control too. That seems to be a biggie.

I think this is about party politics, and how the power bases are constructed more than the actual issue.

Pam Connell (2658) 04 Nov 2008 12:47 AM

I look at whether I can do anything other than voting to help bring about the outcomes that I want. For example, I can do things to help prevent abortions--contribute to maternity centers that help pregnant women, volunteer, promote adoption, talk to youth at our church and parish school. About trade and foreign policy issues, I can't really do much except vote. So while I look at a candidate's pro-life record carefully, sometimes I do end up voting for a candidate who holds the opposite of my views in that area but who I believe will improve the economic conditions that lead to more abortions and who will support respect for life in other ways. Then I try to make a positive contribution to a pro-life effort like an adoption agency or a prolife billboard campaign.

I do think pro-life is a fundamental issue. I have several times changed my voting plans and voted for a pro-life candidate other than the one who was my initial preference. The way my church puts it, life is a fundamental right on which all others depend, but sometimes we may vote for a candidate who holds an opposing viewpoint on this issue if we have a "grave moral reason" for doing so. If President Bush were running again today I believe I would have that grave reason. I hope that a more pro-life Supreme Court will be one legacy of his presidency, but I am just so disgusted with being lied to about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. And isn't it hypocritical to impeach President Clinton because he "lied to the American people"--which he did, but about a matter that basically wasn't the concern of any Americans except himself and his wife. Whereas Bush lied and 4000 of our solidiers--including my friend--died in Iraq while our military commanders in Afghanistan were and are screaming for the troops they need to fight Al-Qaeda and find Bin Laden?

In 2000 I was really excited about John McCain. This year it seems like he has flip-flopped a lot to please different voting constituencies.

Valorie Delp (49340) 04 Nov 2008 03:36 AM

I don't know Janet.. .I mean I know what you mean but I think that this is changing. Guiliani is definitely pro-choice. I think he could've done well but just wasn't that into it.

lavatea (3371) 25 Jan 2009 08:24 PM

I am coming into this discussion late, but I found this blog yesterday and feel compelled to comment.

I am, for the most part, a one issue voter. And here's why: if a candidate were running who believed that murder should be legalized, then I could not vote for him/her, no matter what his/her stance on other issues was. If this person believed that it was ok to kill other citizens (and would use his/her political office for furtherance of that belief), then no idealistic economic or social policy would trump that.

This is what abortion is, and I cannot support it. To me, it trumps all other issues. I get the point that better economic times and better access to support programs lowers abortions, and I think that is wonderful. However, lowering abortions is just a step. I want abortions to be made illegal, just like other types of murder. I am most definitely anti-choice. I do not believe a woman should have the choice to kill a baby anymore than she should have the right to kill her next-door neighbor.

And that is why I am a one-issue voter.

Valorie Delp (49340) 25 Jan 2009 08:31 PM

Thanks lavatea. I appreciate your comment and you make a very good argument. I really see the coin from two sides. I'm sure you're well aware by now that I'm pro-life and strongly so. I don't think you can ignore other sanctity of life issues though. . .like stem cell research and fertility ethics. However, candidates may well take a stance on abortion but not these--to me it's all the same.

On top of that, IF making abortions illegal stopped them or decreased them, I too would see that as the single most important issue. But it doesn't. So I feel like as a Christian it's my responsibility to affect change locally. While I would be thrilled to have abortion illegal. . .the bottom line is I don't want babies to be murdered. Making abortions illegal isn't causing less babies to be murdered.