Why are you in the party you’re in?

[Sketcher]

I’m a republican, but lately I’ve been thinking more about politics. Every political side, Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Independent- everyone is doing what they think is best for the country. Not every democrat is a socialist, not every republican is a nazi. There are extremes, but most people are not extreme and are trying to do what is best. I was wondering what political party you guys are in, why you like that party, and maybe replace any political myths with the truth?

My state has open primaries, so I'm not registered.

I tend to vote Republican, though I have voted for Libertarians as well. Although in recent years, the Republican party has changed for the worse. The Democrats have too though, and they were already bad enough.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I chose Republican for this site, but I actually consider myself an independent who leans Republican.

The main reason I tend to vote Republican is due to the abortion issue. I admit that aside from that issue, I'm otherwise fairly moderate politically and willing to compromise on most issues.

There are some conservative Democrats I like and respect, and I'd probably be a Democrat if the conservative kind were more common in politics.

The abortion issue can be solved easily. Republicans have abortions as often as Democrats, so none of them are really "pro-life" because their real intent is to treat women like they are second-class citizens. I do not doubt there are exceptions to this, but if Republicans were really pro-life, none of them would get abortions or say stuff like, "She should have chosen not to get pregnant," when nature takes its course or the mother was impregnated by RAPE.

 

[Albion]

The abortion issue can be solved easily. Republicans have abortions as often as Democrats, so none of them are really "pro-life" because their real intent is to treat women like they are second-class citizens.

It may be that Republican voters are as likely to have abortions as Democratic voters are.

However, it is true that the Republican Party and its elected representatives are almost completely united in being against unnecessary abortions while the Democratic Party and its elected officials are almost totally in opposition to any restrictions whatsoever.

What this means, therefore, is that when any of us goes to vote, we're voting for or against candidates, not the other voters.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It may be that Republican voters are as likely to have abortions as Democratic voters are.

However, it is true that the Republican Party and its elected representatives are almost completely united in being against unnecessary abortions while the Democratic Party and its elected officials are almost totally in opposition to any restrictions whatsoever.

No Democrat has ever remotely implied support for infanticide. They support every female citizen's bodily autonomy right, which is clearly spelled out in the Constitution and has been upheld in multiple rulings. A few Democrats support third trimester abortions, but they are extremely rare and only happen if the fetus is expected to be stillborn, so defective he/she has no chance of going home, or killing his/her mom. Most Democrats support some restrictions, including myself. The most common one by far is viable fetuses.

 

[Albion]

No Democrat has ever remotely implied support for infanticide.

"Partial birth abortion" was fought out in Congress a few years ago and it was the Democrats there who defeated the proposal to prohibit even this very reasonable restraint upon abortion-on-demand. In addition, elected Democrats supported the idea not long ago of allowing a single doctor to be in the act of delivering a baby, to set it aside, and then hold a discussion with the mother about whether or not he should go ahead and "abort'' that child who was already living on his own. The elected officials recanted when the news reports produced public outrage.

 

[GodLovesCats]

"Partial birth abortion" was fought out in Congress a few years ago and it was the Democrats there who defeated the proposal to prohibit even this very reasonable restraint upon abortion-on-demand. In addition, elected Democrats supported the idea not long ago of allowing a single doctor to be in the act of delivering a baby, to set it aside, and then hold a discussion with the mother about whether or not he should go ahead and "abort'' that child who was already living on his own. The elected officials recanted when the news reports produced public outrage.

Partial birth abortions were federally outlawed by the second George Bush. I was as happy as pro-lifers to read about that.

If a woman needs an abortion after the 24th week, her life is in danger and it is extremely important that she only be required to see one doctor. The two-doctor requirement is just delaying the inevitable since a life-threatening emergency is the only reason she can get an abortion that late.

 

[Albion]

Partial birth abortions were federally outlawed by the second George Bush. I was as happy as pro-lifers to read about that.

Happy or not, you claimed that "No Democrat has ever remotely implied support for infanticide."

That statement is clearly incorrect, and my reply was concerned with that mistaken claim.

The Bush move was of course challenged in the courts. The Supreme Court upheld it 5-4 with, of course, the Democrats on the Court voting in the minority. And then leading Democrats in Congress almost immediately introduced legislation to circumvent the Court's ruling. In sum, the claim that "No Democrat has ever remotely implied support...." is nonsense.

 

[9Rock9]

The abortion issue can be solved easily. Republicans have abortions as often as Democrats, so none of them are really "pro-life" because their real intent is to treat women like they are second-class citizens. I do not doubt there are exceptions to this, but if Republicans were really pro-life, none of them would get abortions or say stuff like, "She should have chosen not to get pregnant," when nature takes its course or the mother was impregnated by RAPE.

But abortion restrictions do make rates of abortion go down. Even most Americans who identify as "pro-choice," still favor having some restrictions in place for abortions.

 

[Albion]

But abortion restrictions do make rates of abortion go down.

That would be because the courts have not allowed even modest restrictions to be put in place. As a result, the restrictions that HAVE been allowed are, not surprisingly, weak.

In addition, so long as the restrictions are only statewide, people determined to have an abortion can simply cross some state line in order to get what they want.

 

[GodLovesCats]

But abortion restrictions do make rates of abortion go down. Even most Americans who identify as "pro-choice," still favor having some restrictions in place for abortions.

I am one of those pro-choicers - even more so now than I used to be - but totally understand why people who support third trimester abortions oppose more restrictions. IOW I am totally objective about all sides of the issue, basing my opinions on biology, psychology, and sociology as well as my faith. I hope none of the CF posters who disagree with my specific views on abortion will attack me for disregarding the Bible - I really don't - by being a realist and patriotic American woman.

Anyway, what I meant in my post was restrictions on safe abortions would cause more dangerous (for the mother) abortions. If a pregnant girl or woman is desperate enough, she will not will do whatever it takes to have an abortion within her ability. If she can't travel to Canada, the only country in the world that has no restrictions (according to a pro-choice friend who lives there), she will look for a person who has never had formal training to dissect her abdominal area and remove the fetus, amniotic sac, umbilical cord, and placenta. What are the chances that person made sure everything is sterile? I think close to zero.

Now, this is not to say I support abortions for any reason. I hate eugenics. Wanting a baby until she finds out it is not the right sex is totally unacceptable. You either want a baby or you don't. If a defect that has no life-threatening consequences or is highly treatable is diagnosed, a loving mother would accept that as part of being his/her mom. But this requires a change in attitudes; morality cannot be governed by a law. So when it comes to the severely defective babies everyone knows will die before or shortly after birth, in all cases it should be the mother's decision because her morals in this situation are totally subjective.

 

[Fantine]

I am registered Democrat but have sometimes voted Libertarian or Green Party. Our state is so Republican that sometimes the only opposition a candidate has is a libertarian. I look at the two and try to decide which one is the better human being. Our state's senator, for example, whom I loathe, was running against a libertarian who was a prison chaplain. It was a no brainer which one was the better human being.

Two years ago, our local congressman, whom I also dislike, was running against a libertarian who ran a food pantry. These two libertarians were people who obviously shared my values far more than the Republican senator and congressmen, but TBT, if they were running unopposed I would have just left that category blank.

But why am I a Democrat? Because I believe that they support the common good much more than the Republicans do. I am not a single issue candidate.

Are there things I would like Democrats to change? Sure. I am sure Republicans have issues with some of their candidates' positions (I would have issues with 99% of them..)

Finally, I have seen the Republican Party turn against its most principled members, people like Romney and Liz Cheney. And I have seen in my own state how Republicans have worked against the common good, through gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and trying to subvert referendums to change the minimum wage, etc.

The last Republicans I kind of liked were Senator Jacob Javits (NY), John McCain, and George HW Bush.

 

[9Rock9]

I am one of those pro-choicers - even more so now than I used to be - but totally understand why people who support third trimester abortions oppose more restrictions. IOW I am totally objective about all sides of the issue, basing my opinions on biology, psychology, and sociology as well as my faith. I hope none of the CF posters who disagree with my specific views on abortion will attack me for disregarding the Bible - I really don't - by being a realist and patriotic American woman.

Anyway, what I meant in my post was restrictions on safe abortions would cause more dangerous (for the mother) abortions. If a pregnant girl or woman is desperate enough, she will not will do whatever it takes to have an abortion within her ability. If she can't travel to Canada, the only country in the world that has no restrictions (according to a pro-choice friend who lives there), she will look for a person who has never had formal training to dissect her abdominal area and remove the fetus, amniotic sac, umbilical cord, and placenta. What are the chances that person made sure everything is sterile? I think close to zero.

Now, this is not to say I support abortions for any reason. I hate eugenics. Wanting a baby until she finds out it is not the right sex is totally unacceptable. You either want a baby or you don't. If a defect that has no life-threatening consequences or is highly treatable is diagnosed, a loving mother would accept that as part of being his/her mom. But this requires a change in attitudes; morality cannot be governed by a law. So when it comes to the severely defective babies everyone knows will die before or shortly after birth, in all cases it should be the mother's decision because her morals in this situation are totally subjective.

I'm saying that abortion restrictions actually disincentivizes women from seeking back alley abortions in the first place.

Most pro-lifers are fine with exceptions such as rape or when continuing the pregnancy would endanger the mother's life.

Also, I would argue morals are not subjective, as there is a God who exists and who has set down the rules for morality.

Granted, there is a debate over whether abortion is murder, but both sides still acknowledge that murder is morally wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not in any party, but I strongly disagree that "everyone is doing what they think is best for the country." That strikes me as Pollyannish in the extreme.

I believe the abortion holocaust, the celebration of LGBTQ practices, and the attack on religious freedom are three matters that have a strong moral dimension and are actually of significance to God. Ergo, a candidate's or party's position on them will typically determine my voting choices.

And have you considered why you independently picked these three issues above others?

 

[SkyWriting]

I chose Republican for this site, but I actually consider myself an independent who leans Republican. The main reason I tend to vote Republican is due to the abortion issue.

What causes you to be emotionally involved on this issue?

 

[coffee4u]

I’m a republican, but lately I’ve been thinking more about politics. Every political side, Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Independent- everyone is doing what they think is best for the country. Not every democrat is a socialist, not every republican is a nazi. There are extremes, but most people are not extreme and are trying to do what is best. I was wondering what political party you guys are in, why you like that party, and maybe replace any political myths with the truth?

You don't have to support or be 'in' any party. You can vote for independents or you could be a 'swinging' voter. Maybe Americans don't do that much, but a lot of us do that here. A swinging voter means you might vote for one party one election but might vote for a different one another election.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I'm saying that abortion restrictions actually disincentivizes women from seeking back alley abortions in the first place.

The Prohibition movement did not prevent people from making beer in their basements, so I need proof it would be effective with abortion. Do you have a completely unbiased legal source for this claim?

Most pro-lifers are fine with exceptions such as rape or when continuing the pregnancy would endanger the mother's life.

Some other CF members hate the whole idea to consider rape exceptions. I even know a JW who said she is willing to die if an abortion would save her life for religious reasons. It is sad that not all pro-lifers want to show the raped girl or woman the Biblical love, compassion, respect, and dignity she deserves from us.

Also, I would argue morals are not subjective, as there is a God who exists and who has set down the rules for morality.

It is subjective because not all pregnant Americans have the same religious beliefs. We cannot force other people to become Christians no matter how hard we try. If that was possible, America would be more, not less, Christian today. Jesus told us to love our neighbors, period - including those who do not believe him. How is telling a pregnant teenager who does not believe in God, "If you have an abortion you go to prison for killing your baby," loving your neighbor? Would Jesus say that to talk her out of abortion? I don't think so. It is about kindness - doing to others what you would have them do to you, as Jesus clearly instructed people in Israel to do. That is objective morality no matter where a Christian stands on aborting defective fetuses who would die soon either way. Keep in mind I am not talking about viable preemies here.

Granted, there is a debate over whether abortion is murder, but both sides still acknowledge that murder is morally wrong.

The only reason many pro-lifers say abortion is murder is they wish it was. The dictionary definition is not killing an innocent human like they love to say, but illegal homicide with evil intent. So because of the phrase "All persons born" in our Constitution, which clearly prevents the unborn from having any rights in the United States, including the right to life, it is not legally possible to argue abortion is murder. That is a completely objective fact I would have used if I had been a SCOTUS judge on January 22, 1973.

 

[9Rock9]

The Prohibition movement did not prevent people from making beer in their basements, so I need proof it would be effective with abortion. Do you have a completely unbiased legal source for this claim?

I have a few sources, yes. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased source. The sources I have presented do have a bias, but they still present findings from the Guttmacher Institute, which is an organization that advocates for abortion.

How Abortion Has Changed Since 1973 | FiveThirtyEight


EXPLAINER: Do state-level anti-abortion laws reduce abortion rates? | Baptist Press


Pro-life laws stop abortions. Here's the evidence. - Secular Pro-Life

 

[GodLovesCats]

You don't have to support or be 'in' any party. You can vote for independents or you could be a 'swinging' voter. Maybe Americans don't do that much, but a lot of us do that here. A swinging voter means you might vote for one party one election but might vote for a different one another election.

People can't be swing voters in the primary elections. For them, most voters have to vote "straight party" (only for one party's candidates). Swing voting is allowed during the general election, when many people, whether they belong to a party or not, vote "split ticket" - for candidates from both parties.

 

[coffee4u]

People can't be swing voters in the primary elections. For them, most voters have to vote "straight party" (only for one party's candidates). Swing voting is allowed during the general election, when many people, whether they belong to a party or not, vote "split ticket" - for candidates from both parties.

Politics is very different here compared to the US. Politics tends to be rather low on most peoples priority lists and many Aussies don't have any loyalty to a particular party like Americans do. I have voted for both sides over the years.

 

[Fantine]

Perhaps the parties in Australia are not as polarized as they are in the United States.

When I was young I would sometimes vote for candidates who were not in my preferred party because the parties were closer together and there were more moderate candidates on both sides.

I could not imagine in my wildest imagination voting for a candidate in my non-preferred party today.

They seem to be more aligned with supporting and protecting a particular leader than anything else, and it seems as if many are willing to ignore the basic principles of democracy to achieve their victories.

The one or two candidates who don't seem to fit this mold hold other positions that don't align with my values.

It's sad that there is no one in the middle anymore, but that's the case.