Can a Christian be a Democrat?

I don’t understand the reason for the back and forth on who is and who isn’t pro-life or pro-life enough. I am Pro-life. If it were up to me, I’d say no abortion at all with maybe an exception for the life of the Mother.

It's easy spitballing on a forum as to what you would or wouldn’t do but often real life is messy. Our church founded a Crisis Pregnancy Center in the 80’s and my wife and I have been personally involved in the lives of these young ladies. I not long ago performed a wedding for one of the ’babies we helped save’…but his life has been anything but easy. I point all that out to reiterate I am Pro-life.

I, like many here understand the world o politics. A Pro-life amendment is what is ultimately needed but that is a political process. I know God is sovereign but I live in the real world and use my common sense and reasoning abilities to make political decisions. If the Lord tarries His coming, maybe one day the process will lead to such an amendment but no time soon. I will continue to work on behalf of the unborn and also cast my vote on those who hold the most pro-life position.

Until, of course, Sub reveals to us the ultimate moral candidate or Ransom lectures us into having a perfect political system like he‘s accustomed to having in Canada.
 
Ransom said:
Can't see what isn't there. It's not "hypocrisy" to refuse to be distracted by red herrings.
Click to expand...
But it’s not. Hypocrisy is probably the wrong word. But to drive by and give no credence to this argument is very interesting, to me.

I’m not accusing you of this, but speaking generally I jhear nothing of the other only abortion.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
I don’t understand the reason for the back and forth on who is and who isn’t pro-life or pro-life enough. I am Pro-life. If it were up to me, I’d say no abortion at all with maybe an exception for the life of the Mother.

It's easy spitballing on a forum as to what you would or wouldn’t do but often real life is messy. Our church founded a Crisis Pregnancy Center in the 80’s and my wife and I have been personally involved in the lives of these young ladies. I not long ago performed a wedding for one of the ’babies we helped save’…but his life has been anything but easy. I point all that out to reiterate I am Pro-life.

I, like many here understand the world o politics. A Pro-life amendment is what is ultimately needed but that is a political process. I know God is sovereign but I live in the real world and use my common sense and reasoning abilities to make political decisions. If the Lord tarries His coming, maybe one day the process will lead to such an amendment but no time soon. I will continue to work on behalf of the unborn and also cast my vote on those who hold the most pro-life position.

Until, of course, Sub reveals to us the ultimate moral candidate or Ransom lectures us into having a perfect political system like he‘s accustomed to having in Canada.
Click to expand...
I think you are one of the very few and my hat goes off to you.
 
Bruh said:
But it’s not. Hypocrisy is probably the wrong word. But to drive by and give no credence to this argument is very interesting, to me.

I’m not accusing you of this, but speaking generally I jhear nothing of the other only abortion.
Click to expand...
If you don't hear anything about the other, maybe use your eyes. I personally know individual Christians and churches as an organization that work in, support, and run ministries for the poor and orphans. Lots is already being done in these areas. Sure, more can be done, but that can be said of any societal issue. To say that they are being ignored is false.
 
Ransom said:
.

No. I want the Republican Party to put on the brakes and stop moving leftward.



I did. It simply doesn't apply to me, because I'm not advocating for an "all-or-nothing" abolitionist (as that word is currently used) approach.

All-or-nothing is why there's no law against abortion at all in Canada. When Bill C-43 was voted on in Parliament in 1990-91, basically, the hardcore abolitionists said it didn't go far enough, while the feminists said it went too far, and between the two of them, the bill was defeated. No party has had the courage to try again in 25 years.

I would support any law that aims to reduce the number of abortions from the previous level. But I make no secret of my ultimate goal: the complete abolition of abortion on demand.

The oft-used analogy is of William Wilberforce and the fight to abolish slavery in the British Empire. He didn't do it all at once. (He tried, and was defeated every time.) Instead, he adopted a strategy of incremental changes. First he successfully introduced a bill to outlaw British involvement in the foreign slave trade. Then, to abolish the slave trade. Finally, to abolish slavery outright. But it was never a secret that emancipation was his goal all along.

What the Republican platform does isn't accept an incremental compromise on the way to the abolition of abortion. They could have done that: they could have said, for example, "We welcome the overturning of Roe v. Wade and believe giving the states the right to legislate on abortion is a step in the right direction. We will continue to affirm the sanctity of life and the right of unborn children to life, and to support a human-life amendment to the Constitution," etc.

Instead, they moved the entire plank to the left. It's like if Wilberforce had said, sometime around 1806, "Well, actually, now all I want to do is get Brits out of the foreign slave trade."

Maybe the Repubs think they need to move this way to get votes. Who cares? If they can't distinguish themselves from the Democrats, then as I said earlier, they're just getting votes for the sake of getting votes--not because there's any difference between them.
Click to expand...
the william wilberforce approach worked well for england and for that time period.... but this is a very different country and a very different time...... and we are fighting against a group of degenerates a lot more determined to keep abortion legal than most britons were about keeping slavery.....

we want the same things.... and we agree on most everything.... .. with the exceptions of why the republicans feel they need to take this kind of measure to obtain votes..... and whether there is a difference in the 2 partys... .... there is a huge difference between democrats and republicans even with the changes to their platform...... ... .the new republican platform is very disappointing on the surface..... and does not reflect what most of us believe.... and it probably doesn;t refelct what most of them believe either.... and i believe if they are successul this time they will go back to their old conservative platform later that reaffirms the sanctity of life of all - including children still in the womb.. ...(the democrats also fear that is what republicans intend to do and are trying to warn their constituents about it) ........ . ..

but the bottom line for me is this...... if republicans don;t get the votes this cycle they don;t get elected.. .. and if they don;t get elected then the democrats stay in power and will most likely build on it..... .. and when that happens even more children will die...... ..i am about saving the lives of children... . i couldn;t give a rip about the reputations of individual politicans or any political party as a whole... .. as some have rightly stated here they are all corrupt in one way or another.... but we won;t win this fight without them and not without the voters they represent...... ..
 
Bruh said:
I think you are one of the very few and my hat goes off to you.
Click to expand...
i was right.... you really do run in the wrong circles.... or you are going through life with blinders on..... .. . .every church i have ever been a part of had a ministry to unwed mothers... and i know most of the churches represented on this forum do as well........ . one of the ministries i work in now works with homeless children and trafficked teenagers and goes to great lengths to help those who are.. or might be.. pregnant... .. it;s always geared to getting the girls out of the lifestyle they are in and teaching them how to be a parent to their child.... but if they can;t then adoption is the second pathway... ... but abortion is never an option.....
 
subllibrm said:
Who started the process of amending the constitution in 2016 or 2020? The issue was part of Reagan’s platform too. The GOP controlled both US chambers several times in the intervening years as well as the majority of state governments.When did they ever actually pursue an amendment? Lip service to the religious right. Nothing more nothing less.
Click to expand...
The Constitution didnt/doesnt need to be amended. That would be an impossible and unnecessary road.

Trump victoriously gave us Supremes to overturn a horrible Supreme Court decision.

Now... fight this at the State level where it is FAAAAAAR more easily done and most effective.
 
FSSL said:
The Constitution didnt/doesnt need to be amended. That would be an impossible and unnecessary road.

Trump victoriously gave us Supremes to overturn a horrible Supreme Court decision.

Now... fight this at the State level where it is FAAAAAAR more easily done and most effective.
Click to expand...
The very next year Michigan voters amended the state constitution to allow all abortions without any restrictions. Not the result that you or I wanted.
 
Bruh said:
It just seems hypocritical to me that ppl will make much about abortion but not make anything about the born. Before birth we care a lot and say a lot, after birth I will say and do nothing. Except scream about all these mothers on food stamps feeding these babies that are born.
Click to expand...
How is it being hypocritical to say you don't get to kill your kids AND you have to raise them?
 
Ekklesian said:
How is it being hypocritical to say you don't get to kill your kids AND you have to raise them?
Click to expand...
No no. Nothing wrong with either. What I’m saying is, we make much about abortion but after the kid is born that’s ur problem and don’t get government assistance you lazy bum, to feed the kid.
 
Bruh said:
No no. Nothing wrong with either. What I’m saying is, we make much about abortion but after the kid is born that’s ur problem and don’t get government assistance you lazy bum, to feed the kid.
Click to expand...
Now you're spinnin'. That ain't what you were saying at all.
 
Ekklesian said:
Now you're spinnin'. That ain't what you were saying at all.
Click to expand...
Definitely not trying to spin.

I believe I’m consistent on this. All along I’ve said, we care more about the baby before birth than after birth. That to me is very very inconsistent.

That’s all I’m saying.
 
Ekklesian said:
Now you're spinnin'. That ain't what you were saying at all.
Click to expand...
I read it exactly as he explained. No spin that I could see.

Again the issue is the tone deafness of those who speak loudly about the sanctity of life while denigrating those who choose to keep their babies yet need support to do so. Is the comparison between abortion and welfare exact? Not at all. But if you are the one in that situation they both play into your decision. Does it help that both options are vocally criticized by the same people? No. Essentially making both options scorn worthy.

The best choice is to not get pregnant in the first place. The reality is that was not the choice made. The result is not being able to avoid a decision about the pregnancy. How we respond to that decision is important. I support having the baby and providing some form of welfare.
 
Bruh said:
No no. Nothing wrong with either. What I’m saying is, we make much about abortion but after the kid is born that’s ur problem and don’t get government assistance you lazy bum, to feed the kid.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this, but all you're doing is recycling pro-abort talking points without any reality behind them.
 
Ransom said:
You keep saying this, but all you're doing is recycling pro-abort talking points without any reality behind them.
Click to expand...
The charge that Christians don’t care about the child after birth is ridiculous. The charge that Christians are critical of mothers receiving government assistance for the same child is accurate.
 
Ransom said:
You keep saying this, but all you're doing is recycling pro-abort talking points without any reality behind them.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about this is the reality
 
subllibrm said:
The charge that Christians don’t care about the child after birth is ridiculous. The charge that Christians are critical of mothers receiving government assistance for the same child is accurate.
Click to expand...
You’ve communicated this much better than I ever had. Thank you you are so accurate.
 
subllibrm said:
The charge that Christians don’t care about the child after birth is ridiculous. The charge that Christians are critical of mothers receiving government assistance for the same child is accurate.
Click to expand...
speak for your own broken down church...cult... or whatever it was.. that obviously left you with this sour disposition - and also put a broad brush in your hand.... .... my church and the groups i work with do not resent or attempt to stop the government from assisting unwed - homeless - or at risk mothers..... and neither do i... ..in fact we even assist them on applying for it...... ..

but what we do believe in is that if more churches had stepped up decades ago and done their job where those in need and the less fortunate were concerned, then the government might have never believed it had to step in....

government generally moves in to take charge of reponsibilities others have either abdicated or proven to be incompetent with.... .. trouble is the government usually does a horrible job and churches could do many times better... - if they only would.... and once the government takes something over it wants to control ..regulate... and micromanage it from that moment on.. .. so it;s very hard for a church or christian group to work without goverment interference... .. but it;s still our job to do....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top