Posted on 01/23/2007 1:51:41 PM PST by presidio9
If he doesn't support pro-life 2008 candidates, what business is it of the pro-life movement? If it's true that he himself is pro-life, then that's good and that's one more vote for pro-life legislations. Again, assuming he's TRULY pro-life and not putting on this dog and pony show. Keep in mind that Casey is a Democrat and will probably vote with the Rats Once again, the pro-life movement is shooting themselves in the foot with their narrow thinking.
Your hypothetical choice is just that, hypothetical. It would depend on the candidates and the circumstances.
For instance, President Bush when he first ran said that he was against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. I don't agree with the first two exceptions, but frankly I couldn't conceive of any practical circumstances where it would matter, because I doubted that it would have any practical influence on his policies as president.
And I don't think it has. Bush has been consistently pro-life, and has done a great deal to further the cause. The only thing he actually did that I disagreed with was to agree to fund current lines of fetal stem cells for research, which I think was wrong. But that's far outweighed by his positive actions.
If I looked at someone who might conceivably, as president, succeed in outlawing all abortions past the first trimester, then, sure, I would vote for such a person against an all out abortionist. It's not like committing a lesser evil; it's an improvement of the current situation.
Or someone might say that, but I might evaluate it as meaningless. This person would do nothing to improve the situation. In that case, depending on who the Democrat was, I just might not vote, because the last thing we need is to increase the number of pro-abortion Republicans and end up with two pro-abortion parties instead of one, or maybe one and a half.
That is a very good question, and one that every pro-lifer should wrestle with. Personally, I don't know if my conscience would allow me to support either one. I would probably support any independent candidate that was pro-life. I wouldn't be trying to "teach the Republicans a lesson" by voting third party, I would simply be voting based on my belief that good and evil exist, and there is nothing more evil than killing a baby, not even Islamofascism or socialism.
"Can you really be pro-life and SUPPORT pro-abortion candidates?"
It's hard to say. I'm for reduced government and strong borders yet I voted straight Republican.
Thank you for the response. I am in no way trying to open a debate on the evils of abortion but rather using it as an example of some of the choices we are faced with politically. There are times when we must support someone who is not 100% ideologically aligned with our individual values because the choices simply aren't there. In those circumstances we make individual choices based on what we think are advancing our cause. I believe that was the point Sen. Bob Casey was trying to make.
Anyone who supported Casey and is surprised by this is a fool.
That's the most important issue here. How Bob Casey votes himself. The rest is window dressing. I can assure you that there will never be a single person in this country who walks into a voting booth and says "Hmmm, who should I vote for? Let's see... Bob Casey endorsed candidate X, who is from the same party as him... That's good enough for me. I'll go with candidate X."
What Bob Casey (or anybody else in politics) votes for or against is what matters. Not who they vote for. not what they say. From what I know right now, I'd probably rather have Bob Casey picking my next Supreme Court justice than Rudy Giuliani.
Oh please. He's an incumbent Dim in a state dominated by the unions and the Philadelphia democrat machine. That Senate seat is his for the rest of his life if he wants it. He can drop the pro-life charade any time now, and he just did.
No which is why I will never support Rudy for POTUS.
I won't support him either, but when he inevitibly wins the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for him, because I believe that Hillary would certainly be even worse.
Oh, please. There is no need for Casey to "drop the charade." You're right that he's in a good spot, but the man is a Catholic, and he can vote with his conscience with impunity if he so chooses. Because he is an incumbent, about the only thing that will get him out of office is if he so pisses off pro-life independents who voted for him (and I'm guessing that more than a third of all Catholics describe themselves as such) that they rally to the polls against him.
And in exchange, the Dims and the unions will make sure he has plenty of money and manufactured Philly and Pittsburgh ballots to comfortably stay in office, no matter how many pro-life "neanderthals" he hacks off.
JMO.
Realistically, the most anti-abortion thing that a Federal Senator can do is to approve strict-Constitutionalist judges to the bench.
Casey will find other reasons to avoid doing that.
"I don't think you could make a determination, in my judgment, about who the president should be based upon their position on that issue."
If the President isn't pro-life, then we won't get the kind of Supreme Court appointees necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade. So how can anyone claim to be pro-life and support an abortionist for President?
Because a pro choice President can appoint a pro-life judge?
And a pro-life President can appoint pro-choice judges. Think Reagan and O'Connor/Kennedy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.