Prolife Democrats Get Completely Shafted by Party

Prolife Democrats Get Completely Shafted by Party September 17, 2012

The Dems have dropped the last pretense of being anything but the party of zealous eager celebration of child murder by aborting the word “rare” from their cosmetically prettied up rhetoric about abortion rights. The maniacs and dogmatic ideologues are now in charge and are crazily refusing to give any quarter whatsoever to Dems who would empathize with them about many other issues but remain troubled by abortion and hope to moderate the party’s stance. For those you keeping track, that’s 30% of the Democratic party that considers itself prolife. The very clear message is an upraised middle finger and a demand to get out to anybody who is less than 100% passionately thrilled about killing children–and with luck infants–in maximum numbers in celebration of the power of the strong over the weak. It’s a classic example of sin making people really *really* stupid when, in a tight election year, you flip 30% of your supporters and tell them to get lost.

As the article makes clear, even some moderate abortion supporters are made queasy by this insane zealotry. It may be a time for prolife workers to make some loving appeals to those troubled in conscience as the mask slips off Moloch’s face. Meantime, I repeat: no Catholic in their right mind can support the lunatics who have taken over the Dem party. 30% of Dems: if you guys and the people on the Right who are just as queasy about the nuts and cynics who are running the GOP got together, you could actually find a candidate who *didn’t* want to enshrine monstrous evil as US policy and who might even want to do something rational aimed at the common good. Just a thought.

"Total agreement. There are not nearly enough Saturdays in the week.You win on the number ..."

Noodling Leviticus with a Reader
"Alas--no bathrobe. (Ah, Saturday, when will you come?)I have eight kids, a 25th birthday to ..."

Noodling Leviticus with a Reader
"Based on the bishops attitudes I have no confidence that anything has substantially changed. We ..."

Another heroic saint in the Church ..."
"Okay. Your assumptions that my day is not actually quite similar to yours are unfounded. ..."

Noodling Leviticus with a Reader

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mike in KC, MO

    But that’s ok, though, because you see they make up for it by being the party that cares about the pppoooooooooooooorrrr…

    You probably hate the poor, don’t you Mark? That’s the only reason you talk about this abortion thing, to draw away talk about the poooooooooooorrr.

    Don’t you know that anything goes, just so long as you claim to care about the poooooooooooorrrr?

    • brian

      Even on the poooooooooooorrr front, they’re a suspect crowd. More $$$ for programs that support the poooooooooooorrr doesn’t mean that the $$$ actually gets to the poooooooooooorrr. The bureaucracy that runs those programs that theoretically support the poooooooooooorrr does quite nicely regardless who in the poooooooooooorrr does or does not get that $$$.

    • Ted Seeber

      it’s hard to claim that you care about the poor when you’re into preventing them from having children.

  • IC

    “It may be a time for prolife workers to make some loving appeals to those troubled in conscience as the mask slips off Moloch’s face.”

    can I hear an Amen?

  • beccolina

    I have to wonder if the 30% on the dem’s side and the disillusioned on the GOP side could actually agree on a candidate, or get over the bad blood that has grown up between them long enough to agree on anything.

    • Blog Goliard

      I suspect that a significant share of the disillusioned are too used to the cheap virtue of “a pox on both their houses!” to cope well with the compromises and disappointments involved in real-world politics. The wonderful third parties of their imaginations are where their loyalties will ever lie; no actual third party that manages to become credible could ever compare.

      • Dee

        Can you please restate you thought. I have absolutly know idea what you mean. Thank you.

        • Blog Goliard

          What I mean is that some people reject both major parties due to a limited, well-defined list of non-negotiable bedrock principles which both parties regularly violate. These people could be reached by a credible third-party that did not violate those principles.

          Other people reject both major parties because it’s way easier, and more cool, to just say that all politicians stink; or because they’re determined to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and so have an endless list of non-negotiables; or because they’re too busy thanking God they’re not like those publicans–er, politicians–to spend time trying to find the decent candidates. These people would desert any conceivable third party as soon as it became credible–because once it was a threat to actually win, support for that party would no longer be a self-indulgent exercise in fantasy and purity, but something that would have real consequences…and real flaws.

          • Scott W.

            In other words, Mark is a doodyhead for refusing to vote for people who think abortion is just fine and dandy, but in few circumstances than his opponent.

            • Blog Goliard

              That wasn’t remotely my point…but if that’s the one you’d prefer to make, please do go ahead.

          • I suspect the number of those for whom politics is a self-indulgent exercise in fantasy and purity will always be dwarfed by the number of those who blame self-indulgent exercises in fantasy and purity for the failings of their own crummy candidates.

            • ivan_the_mad

              I’m hitting the imaginary like button as hard as I can.

            • Scott W.

              That’s right Tom, that 9.5 million-vote shortfall in 2008 was YOUR fault!

  • Seamus

    It’s a classic example of sin making people really *really* stupid when, in a tight election year, you flip 30% of your supporters and tell them to get lost.

    It’s not the party that’s stupid. It’s the pro-life Democrats who keep voting for the party, even after the party repeatedly behaves like an abusive husband toward them, who are stupid.

    • Mark Shea

      Yep. Much like the prolife Republicans who tell themselves Mitt Romney has had a dramatic “conversion” and now deeply care about the unborn.

  • Deciding to kill or not to kill is a one time policy decision. The decisions occupying governments of every stripe for the vast majority of their time in office is budget and fiscal matters. A party whose major wings disagree a majority of the time but only come together for life issues is not one that will ever survive.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “Deciding to kill or not to kill is a one time policy decision.” There are so many things wrong with that statement. Murder is slightly more consequential than that.

      • Kristen inDallas

        especially when we keep on fundng it…. or (sorry) rather we keep on forcing someone to fund it for us.

  • John

    Thank God these elections only come up every four years. BOTH conventions were about the crazy base. Why, you ask? Because that is whom they have to make sure comes out in less than 60 days. The diehards. Why are we at all surprised?

    In 2004, Karl Rove’s genius was to get SSM on the ballot in key swing states. Why, you ask? To get out the Evangelicals, whom are traditionally Conservative Republicans, and had their own issues with George W. Bush. And, what happened? They did, and played a hugely important role in reelecting GWB and his compassionate conservative use of torture. By doing this, there is another side to the sword which brought greater attention to the issue, and softened it up for passage in some states, and I’m sure more to come.

    What’s different today? The Far Left Democrats go hard on abortion “rights”, and changes the way it reads in the “platform” at their convention? Why? To fire up their base, and some independent women. The platform has two purposes…fire up the base, and fire up the opposition. The other side of the sword on this is it fires up everyone on this blog, and beyond whom are passionate about this issue.

    Suckers. We fall for it every time…and, then some. We are getting played once again. Too bad, the kooks on the right couldn’t get behind a more reasonable candidate like Huntsman. The one candidate in the bunch that concerned Obama. Instead, you get the RomneyTron 5000. What a charmer.

  • Ted Seeber

    There’s still a major problem- as they’re not even living up to the Safe bit of Safe and Legal. Abortion can never be made safe, but the case of the Butcher of Philadelphia showed us, this radical push for abortion often goes beyond mere safe all the way to “look the other way while women are being murdered right along with their children”