I don't know about #1 (that is difficult to judge), but she certainly made the abortion issue more forward than Democratic nominees for president have in the past. That is certainly true.
Not just abortion but a number of exteme views that are far left of the party. But that is where the party was at. They had decended into identity politics to the point of allowing the radical aspects to dominate. Biden even qualified his pick for VP based on identity. The Dems created the mess they ended up in.
And it would probably be higher if so many of us hadn't left the Church already.
Yes that is what I am talking about when people claim to be Christain because maybe once they went to church. But that is the DEms today. They morph into whatever identity is required to win votes.
Oh, no Steve, you've got this backward. These pro-abortion Catholics didn't join the Democratic party and then choose party doctrine on abortion over the Church. The Catholics that favored abortion were more likely to become or stay Democrats.
Thats more or less what I said. Even if they became or stayed as Dems they still would have had to reconcile the contradiction between their Catholic faith and the Dems policy on abortion. But this is a challenge for any Christain.
Thats why its said that you can't be a Dem and a Christain at the same time because of their secular beliefs on a number of issues. At least the Rep are halfway there and their policies often align with Christain beliefs and values.
The parties weren't polarized on abortion decades ago. It was only because those favoring or opposing abortion clustered with other liberal/conservative ideas that the issue became more partisan with the reshaping of the US political parties into ideological groupings unlike before.
The social norm was against abortion and it was against the law. Roe V Wade changed that. But this was a time where progressive ideology was taking over. We had the womens movement, Feminism and the sexual revolution all happening around the same time.
It was the secularisation of social norms that causedd the divide between the Christain underpinnings we based social norms on and the progressive ideology making its stand.
Then from this point secularisation became more and more dominant until today its flipped where secular ideology is the controlling basis for society and no longer Christainity. As a result we seen the opposite over reaction from Christain fundementalist in defending those long held beliefs.
The Democrats became a pro-abortion party because there members were for abortion access, not the other way around. (And the same with the anti-abortion position and the GOP).
The Dems are a progressive party so of course they will allow whatever progressive society wants or becomes popular. Being progressive they are opposed to tradition and conservatism.
The Rep have traditionally been aligned with Christainity in their traditional views on marriage, sex and family. I know at least in my lifetime this has been the case back to the 80's. Before then my parents generation were even more traditional. So pro abortion, SSM, sex outside marriage, Trans are all a good fit for Dem political ideology. But they are much less a fit for the Rep.
Nearly everyone knows that and it isn't a problem. It does make it hard to compare surveys and the actual script should be reviewed, but when delineated properly, ( RvW = abortion by choice prior to viability, very limited access afterwards) a majority of Americans back the "RvW" ruling position.
Hum I still think its misleading. Christains know Gods truth about abortion and its equivelent to murdering an innocent one. So I am not sure the question or even the facts have been clarified to the participants to make an informed decision.
But lets then run with results that most Americans support abortion with little or no restrictions. We can then eliminate these people as giving trusstworthy or at least conflicting results based on their own hypocracy in claiming to be Catholic while supporting unrestricted abortion.
They are not a good example to use as to what makes society and the world better. They are not even sure of their own position and/or don't have the courage of their convictions.
Steve, unless something is obvious, then it is an opinion, even if shared by 100 million or more. If there wasn't differences of opinion on how to interpret text, all denominations would have the same opinions on abortion. That you agree with the RCC doctrine only means that you agreement with them is your personal opinion that their position is "biblical truth". If you disagreed you might go to a different church than the one you do (or maybe abortion might not be a dealbreaker theologically). [Frankly, I never got the obsession of the RCC with abortion.]
Neither did I even though I am RC. Never been to their church for decades. But the truth they base their position on abortion is biblical and supported by most Christain denoiminations.
The idea that everything is opinion and nothing is truth is a postmodernist idea. Now churches are reinterpreting the bible to the point it looks no different for the progressive norms of secular society.
Abortion is clearly wrong on so many levels within the bible truth. There is no way around this. So then people start trying to undermine the bible itself. Then we are back at the same place. We may as well not have a bible.
But there is another way we can determine the truth about abortion. Through science. There you go we have introduced science in again. We can and especially with new tech, have a more detailed understanding we can see whether pro choice unlimited abortion is good for society or not. Or whether the Christain position aligns with a better world.
To me ideologies are ideologies, so I'm already there.
Thats the problem. This is what I was talking about how we cannot seperate ourselves from whatever it is we are trying to determine the truth with. When you say "I;n already there" your actually in a different paradigm to someone who is not where you are at. This is the secular and Christain worldview.
So your already skewing how you see things by not including or trying to understand the alternative worldviews that see things differently to your. You are assuming your position and worldview is already the truth because you have dismissed all other alternative views.
There is almost a mirror like opposite ideological belief between the Christain worldview and the non Christain and especially between progressive secular ideology which tends to be more explicit in defying anything religious especially Christain. Opposite to the point of antagonism. So how can that be a neutral position. But rather an assumed belief position.
Sigh.
1. No persons political opinions will agree with everything a party stands for unless they have complete control over what goes in the manifesto.
Abortion is a major moral issue. Its not like fiscal policy. I think as Christains we have to think about these moral issues in light of Gods word. Plain and simple. Faith comes first then polictics and if you need to vote then align with the party that most reflects Gods word. Plain and simple.
2. No persons theological opinions will match everything in their religion/denomination unless they just founded their own religion.
No but the Catholics doctrine on abortion is a unanimous agreement and studied many times to uphold its accuracy in line with Gods word. Its as fundemental as 'Thou shall not murder'.
Especially when you consider the Dems willingness to allow unlimited abortion for any reason even up to birth. This could be argued as murder without any religious support. Especially now with new tech that is showing the baby even pre 20 weeks can feel pain and has DNA, fingerprints, a heart beat.
At the very least it gives anyone pause for thought and doubt, not confidence and defiance against the possibility it may be wrong. This is part of the progressive lefts ideology that individual rights to sefl come before all else. Even on that basis we can show this form of rights based politics is damaging for society.
3. Disagreeing with your church on party doctrine or vice versa does not make you untrustworthy or a hypocrite (see above).
It does when it comes to Gods word. If you support say sexual freedom without marriage as a political ideology. Then how can you then say you believe in the biblical truth of sex within marriage. I think to be true to yourself you have to align your beliefs with your politics as much as you can.
The problem is its easy to compromise beliefs in todays iudentity politics. I have heard the progressives when they talk about Christ as supporting all sorts of things because Christ is love. Or love is love. Its false prophesy and turning the truth into a lie by using bits of truth and injecting a bunch of ideology in. Thats the progressive Lefts MO. They did it woth Trans by claiming it was for protecting chidlren.
But basically what I hear from you is that we cannot even tell what Christain truth is anymore and all views are acceptable. That doesn't sound like Gods truth.
This (the thread or even my comment about survey numbers) isn't about the details of abortion policy at all and I can see several things objectively wrong with what you wrote above, but let me leave you with one thing you probably don't think about as a non-Catholic.
Ah I am a Catholic.
There is a big disconnect between the laity in the pews and the priests and bishops on sex and family life because the priests and bishops don't have any. Their policies, doctrines, pronouncements, and sermons seem disconnected from the lived reality of the people in the pews. Listing to someone give sermons on things they have no experience with can erode your regard for their positions on that and related topics. That's how so many Catholics end up disregarding Church teaching on these types of issues.
But what I am talking about, Gods truth about abortion and other social and moral issues is clearly in Gods Word. Its not the Catholic priests or heads that have determined this. They found it in Gods word and chose to make it the basis for their position on social morals.
The founding fathers mentioned because we were made in Gods image we had natural God given rights to life. That made human life special and above the determinations of individuals, specials or even entire States.
It seems to me progressive secular ideology is disregarding those truths. Like I said we don't even have to use religion or Christainity to make the case that unlimited abortion is wrong.