Post going around about voting/abortion

[Lamb]

I saw a post on Facebook about a woman writing to Christians about how they're wrong to vote for Trump if they're against abortion and then it goes into the reasoning why they're wrong...because Trump is a bad man is what it comes down to it.

If a Christian has it placed on his/her heart that abortion is wrong and wants to vote Republican because they KNOW that the Democratic party is NEVER going to stop abortions then letters like those are only meant to try to sway you from what is being written on your heart. Don't listen to that. If you want to vote against abortion then don't vote Democrat. It's as simple as that and don't let anyone trivialize your beliefs and tell you that you should be voting for other things that THEY deem to be more important...because it helps their causes for you to vote the way they want.

 

[Josiah]

I saw a post on Facebook about a woman writing to Christians about how they're wrong to vote for Trump if they're against abortion and then it goes into the reasoning why they're wrong...because Trump is a bad man is what it comes down to it.

Sooooo.....

Biden is pro-life now? Again? Biden has now pledged to appoint pro-life judges?

If you want to vote against abortion then don't vote Democrat. It's as simple as that and don't let anyone trivialize your beliefs and tell you that you should be voting for other things that THEY deem to be more important...because it helps their causes for you to vote the way they want.

Correct.

The Democrat Party is passionately pro-abortion, passionately supportive of the 600,000 innocent, defenseless, unarmed children murdered each year in the US (one-third are Black lives, over twice the proportion of their population); it's the one over-arching thing that unites Democrats, it's practically its Sacrament. ONCE there were a FEW pro-life Democrats who held that lives matter but those have all been forced out of the Party or did a "180" in order to be in the Party (Biden is one of these).

250 years ago, THE stunning (and united) issue for Democrats was slavery..... they had other issues, but this was the passionate and uniting one... and no Democrat who was against slavery could get votes from Democrats or get any nomination. Now, the Democrat Party THEN may (may!) have been good and right on some other issues (no one much remembers) BUT a LOT of Christians would not vote for any Democrat BECAUSE they were pro-slavery. They were not "one issue" voters BUT there was one issue that disqualified a person for many Christians. IMO, we have a much greater, stronger example today. Because slavery did not impact 1/4 of children as abortion does....and as sinful and horrible and disgusting as slavery was, it rarely resulted in the active purposeful legal KILLING of them as it always does with abortion. Frankly, I agree with the Democrat Party on some issues.... as a Christian, I CANNOT vote for them because there are no pro-life Democrats (at least on any ballot - the Party won't allow it). 250 years ago, I have liked some Democrat personally, I may have agreed with them on many issues, but I would NOT have voted for them - their passionate support and defense of slavery morally disqualified him. Today, the Democrat's passionate support and defense of the infanticide of 70 innocent, defenseless, unarmed children EVERY HOUR disqualifies them. I hold that lives matter. The murder is wrong. The Democrat Party passionately, foundationally disagrees.





.

 

[Lamb]

Yes, Josiah, they're now trying to say that old Joe is pro-life so it makes more sense to vote him in since he's a better all around candidate than evil Trump.

The shame tactics being used are very sly and I almost didn't catch it in the post I had read but I couldn't stop thinking about how wrong they were to do what they were doing and it was completely sneaky. If your heart says no to abortion then you don't vote Democrat. It doesn't matter if any Democrat candidate SAYS he's against abortion. His party is never going to make changes to put any sort of end to them. The candidate will be bullied to follow their vision for what they want no matter what he promises he can do...it isn't going to change. I got snookered into thinking things could change when I was in my 20s thru the 40s and did split party tickets voting for people who believed what I did. Now I know that what they say they believe in doesn't matter because it's what the party wants and that's all there is to it

 

[NewCreation435]

I have friends who are very conservative and passionate about being anti-abortion and that one issue will make them vote for Trump instead of Biden come November.

 

[Josiah]

‘Factcheckers’ Keep Lying about Biden’s Abortion Position | National Review

Joe Biden supports the right of unlimited abortion, funded by the taxpayers, up until the moment of birth.

www.nationalreview.com

.

 

[Lamb]

I have friends who are very conservative and passionate about being anti-abortion and that one issue will make them vote for Trump instead of Biden come November.

And there is nothing wrong with them voting that way because that's what the Lord has placed upon their hearts.

I had a relative today mock me and say "People should vote with their brains".

As if no one made a decision based on what is in their heart. She's Atheist so I don't know why she poked her nose in the conversation.

 

[tango]

And there is nothing wrong with them voting that way because that's what the Lord has placed upon their hearts.

I had a relative today mock me and say "People should vote with their brains".

As if no one made a decision based on what is in their heart. She's Atheist so I don't know why she poked her nose in the conversation.

In a way she's right. You could point her towards articles like this one...

The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights

Millennials in the “pro-life generation” are not interested in a culture war, but simply want to save preborn children and their mothers from the tragedy of abortion.

www.americamagazine.org

 

[Bluezone777]

When someone tells you that someone should vote with their brain, what they are really saying is someone should vote exactly as how they would.

Another thing, voting doesn't make a difference because in the end, you always wind up with the same thing which is a collection of democrat and republicans in power and that is why nothing changes because it is the parties that make the decisions not the people we elect to office. The only real change is going to come when the parties themselves are removed from office entirely but that's not going to happen because everyone is convinced if we just vote that one new guy into power from the party who is not in office that somehow it will solve everything and it never does.

 

[Lamb]

When someone tells you that someone should vote with their brain, what they are really saying is someone should vote exactly as how they would.

Another thing, voting doesn't make a difference because in the end, you always wind up with the same thing which is a collection of democrat and republicans in power and that is why nothing changes because it is the parties that make the decisions not the people we elect to office. The only real change is going to come when the parties themselves are removed from office entirely but that's not going to happen because everyone is convinced if we just vote that one new guy into power from the party who is not in office that somehow it will solve everything and it never does.

I agree 100% with what you wrote! I guess I never thought of your first sentence in that light but after playing it out in my mind with different people who have said that, it seems that you're absolutely correct.

 

[JRT]

I do not agree that abortion is everywhere and always wrong but at the same time I believe that we should adopt policies that would greatly reduce the numbers of abortions. I say this for a number of reasons. First, we do not know when the zygote/embryo/ fetus is ensouled. We cannot say with any certainty that there is such a thing as a soul. We can say that there is a potential human being there and for that reason alone it should be protected unless there is very good reason not to. Second, the only person qualified to make that decision is the mother. She should make that heart wrenching decision only after being fully informed as to all her options. The woman has absolute sovereignty over her body and her fertility. Third, we know from centuries of experience that no human law will ever completely eliminate abortions and that some draconian laws against abortion have actually had exactly the opposite effect. So, what can be done to reduce the incidence of abortion? Two of the most important factors driving abortion are ignorance and poverty and we can mitigate both those factors. Ignorance can be eliminated through age appropriate sex education in all our schools. This would include not just biological details but other appropriate information about birth control, child care and LGBTQ issues. Poverty can be addressed by policies that would either eliminate or reduce the expense of prenatal care, birthing and post natal care. As a Canadian father of two those expenses were fully funded through our national single payer health plan. In Canada there are no laws on the books about abortion at all and it is fully funded through our health plan. You might think that might lead to a greater abortion rate. It doesn't. Canada's abortion rate is about half that of the USA.

 

[tango]

I do not agree that abortion is everywhere and always wrong but at the same time I believe that we should adopt policies that would greatly reduce the numbers of abortions. I say this for a number of reasons. First, we do not know when the zygote/embryo/ fetus is ensouled. We cannot say with any certainty that there is such a thing as a soul. We can say that there is a potential human being there and for that reason alone it should be protected unless there is very good reason not to. Second, the only person qualified to make that decision is the mother. She should make that heart wrenching decision only after being fully informed as to all her options. The woman has absolute sovereignty over her body and her fertility. Third, we know from centuries of experience that no human law will ever completely eliminate abortions and that some draconian laws against abortion have actually had exactly the opposite effect. So, what can be done to reduce the incidence of abortion? Two of the most important factors driving abortion are ignorance and poverty and we can mitigate both those factors. Ignorance can be eliminated through age appropriate sex education in all our schools. This would include not just biological details but other appropriate information about birth control, child care and LGBTQ issues. Poverty can be addressed by policies that would either eliminate or reduce the expense of prenatal care, birthing and post natal care. As a Canadian father of two those expenses were fully funded through our national single payer health plan. In Canada there are no laws on the books about abortion at all and it is fully funded through our health plan. You might think that might lead to a greater abortion rate. It doesn't. Canada's abortion rate is about half that of the USA.

I agree that we have to be careful to avoid enshrining the sensibilities of one particular religion into the law - as you say there is no objective proof that there is such a thing as a soul so it's hard to use the concept of when (and indeed whether) the unborn is granted this thing that we can't prove even exists at all.

That said we can consider, by objective measurements, the concept of what it means to be alive. In end-of-life care there are criteria to determine whether a person is still alive (a pulse, brain activity etc). If we apply the same standards to what we might call start-of-life care it becomes much harder to argue that the unborn is not alive.

If we conclude that the unborn is alive, even if temporarily capable of surviving within the provisions of the womb, then removing it from the womb without providing an environment that offers similar protection is clearly an active step taken to end its life.

There is certainly some merit in reducing medical costs associated with childbirth although striking a balance between a broken system like the one in the US where the individual gets stuck with huge bills and a broken system like the one in the UK where the NHS pays for just about everything but the standard of care you receive may be so good you'd wonder if your carers are angels in human form but may be so bad you'd be forgiven for thinking you were in some tinpot banana republic, is tricky. Too far one way and people don't get care because they can't afford it, too far the other way and people can't get care because there's a huge waiting list of people wanting to see the doctor because they have a headache.

How do you see education relating to LGBTQ issues affecting the abortion rate?

 

[JRT]

I agree that we have to be careful to avoid enshrining the sensibilities of one particular religion into the law - as you say there is no objective proof that there is such a thing as a soul so it's hard to use the concept of when (and indeed whether) the unborn is granted this thing that we can't prove even exists at all.

That said we can consider, by objective measurements, the concept of what it means to be alive. In end-of-life care there are criteria to determine whether a person is still alive (a pulse, brain activity etc). If we apply the same standards to what we might call start-of-life care it becomes much harder to argue that the unborn is not alive.

If we conclude that the unborn is alive, even if temporarily capable of surviving within the provisions of the womb, then removing it from the womb without providing an environment that offers similar protection is clearly an active step taken to end its life.

There is certainly some merit in reducing medical costs associated with childbirth although striking a balance between a broken system like the one in the US where the individual gets stuck with huge bills and a broken system like the one in the UK where the NHS pays for just about everything but the standard of care you receive may be so good you'd wonder if your carers are angels in human form but may be so bad you'd be forgiven for thinking you were in some tinpot banana republic, is tricky. Too far one way and people don't get care because they can't afford it, too far the other way and people can't get care because there's a huge waiting list of people wanting to see the doctor because they have a headache.

How do you see education relating to LGBTQ issues affecting the abortion rate?

I mentioned LGBTQ issues only a s a component of sex education not as affecting abortion.

 

[Lamb]

I wanted this thread to not state whether or not you all believe abortion is right or wrong but to show that those who do believe abortion is wrong are being shamed on social media so that maybe they would not vote for Republicans (and especially Trump). Could we get back on that track?

 

[tango]

I wanted this thread to not state whether or not you all believe abortion is right or wrong but to show that those who do believe abortion is wrong are being shamed on social media so that maybe they would not vote for Republicans (and especially Trump). Could we get back on that track?

Sure. Orange man bad. That's all we need to know, right?

On a more serious note, I suspect the people who are trying to make it socially unacceptable to vote for Trump actually achieved little more than rendering polls useless. If it's socially unacceptable to say you plan to vote Trump so you say you're going to vote Clinton (or not vote at all) then all the polls show that Clinton will win, only to lose in the one poll that counts. That sounds familiar. Now it's no more socially acceptable to say you'll vote Trump because the "correct" thing to do, apparently, is vote Biden. Until these people figure out a way to determine where people actually put the X when it counts all they'll do is skew the polls that don't count and lead to ever-more upset when the candidate who is obviously going to win doesn't actually win.

 

[Josiah]

I wanted this thread to not state whether or not you all believe abortion is right or wrong but to show that those who do believe abortion is wrong are being shamed on social media so that maybe they would not vote for Republicans (and especially Trump). Could we get back on that track?

Personally, I've heard nothing about Biden returning to his PERSONAL pro-life position (but insisting abortion should be legal right up to if not beyond the moment when the toe exits the birth canal). All I've heard in this matter is that Biden of course holds that abortion is THE most important "right" in all humanity and MUST be supported, defended and funded in all cases for any or no reason. That he's now a Democrat.



.

 

[hedrick]

Being a single-issue voter based on abortion seems weird. The president has little direct effect on it. Republicans are getting votes by promising pro-life Supreme Court justices. But it is notoriously difficult to predict how a justice will vote on an issue. Anyone you actually want as a Supreme Court justice is not going to commit on specific issues. And even if they give hints, they may well not vote the way you expected.

If you want to reduce abortion, better health care, sex education and access to contraception are your best bets. I don't think there's any realistic hope that your choice of president will make it illegal.

 

[Josiah]

Being a single-issue voter based on abortion seems weird.

.... if you lived 250 years ago in these United States.... and you agreed with a Democrat on 5 issues (including national parks and cost of postage stamps) but disagreed with him on slavery - his passionate, foundational, strong position that every man should be allowed to own slaves.... and if you agreed with the Republican on only 3 issues BUT you very much agreed with him that slavery should be ourlawed, you'd vote for the Democrat?

The president has little direct effect on it.

Well, no ONE person completely determines much of anything. But there is no one person in the USA who even comes close to having as much influence on this. Among other things, he appoints judges (not just Supreme Court ones) and while the Senate must confirm, he is the only one who submits nominees.

And, IMO, this reveals much about their value about life (and whether all lives matter) and about rights (after all, none matters a bit if we deprive some of the right to be, the right to exist).




.

 

[tango]

Being a single-issue voter based on abortion seems weird. The president has little direct effect on it. Republicans are getting votes by promising pro-life Supreme Court justices. But it is notoriously difficult to predict how a justice will vote on an issue. Anyone you actually want as a Supreme Court justice is not going to commit on specific issues. And even if they give hints, they may well not vote the way you expected.

If you want to reduce abortion, better health care, sex education and access to contraception are your best bets. I don't think there's any realistic hope that your choice of president will make it illegal.

Why does it seem weird? Is it any more weird than a single-issue voter based on climate change or gay rights or any other single issue?

 

[Forgiven1]

The post you talk about is becoming pretty typical of those who are so anti-Trump that they will twist anything to make it sound like Biden is the better choice. I see this kind of thing going in both directions. What people don't get is that to be an informed voter, one needs to shut all this out and look at their stand on issues and listen to what they are saying. These kinds of posts are not going to sway many people in their direction. I have so many people on "Snooze" on FB due to the preachy COVID-19 posts and political rants. Many of the posts devolve pretty quickly into name calling and such.

 

[Lamb]

The post you talk about is becoming pretty typical of those who are so anti-Trump that they will twist anything to make it sound like Biden is the better choice. I see this kind of thing going in both directions. What people don't get is that to be an informed voter, one needs to shut all this out and look at their stand on issues and listen to what they are saying. These kinds of posts are not going to sway many people in their direction. I have so many people on "Snooze" on FB due to the preachy COVID-19 posts and political rants. Many of the posts devolve pretty quickly into name calling and such.

FB is definitely becoming less fun the closer we get to election day and the name calling is rampant I know which posts to immediately "Hide" now when my husband's family members post. I don't want to stop following them but I don't want to be tempted to even give any opinion because they only want to hear their own being echoed back.