Home - List All Discussions

Can Democrats be pro-life?

Can the Democrat make their umbrella cover Prolifers too?

by: yoda

Can Democrats be pro-life?

[TownHall]

"Many Democrats seem to realize that 'it's the values, stupid.' Candidates

such as presidential nominee John Kerry don't share the views of the

majority of Americans on cultural and social issues. Worse, many liberal

elites demonstrate ostentatious contempt for those opinions. As with the

issue of abortion." (01/11/05)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dougbandow/db20050111.shtml

reply from: shiprah

There's a group called Democrats For Life Of America.  There website is http://www.democratsforlife.org/.  You can find more liberal prolife organizations by visiting http://www.prolifecommunity.net/liberal.htm, a website run by a member of this forum.  Also, Senator Zell Miller is a pro-life Democrat.  I feel that you can push for being prolife in the Democratic party, but until that become's the party's message, prolife Democrats should become another party.

reply from: Christian4life

In politics people choose sides based on many different issues.  Since abortion and euthenasia are such strong issues of moral significance, I can not vote for a party that gets money from Planned Parenthood and fights to influence the media to their murderous logic.

However, if Democrats were pro-life and Republicans were not, no question I would become a Democrat, regardless of their views on other moral issues.  Even now, if it comes down to voting between a pro-life Dem and a Republican who I know to be a crook, I will vote for the Democrat.  That's why I'm an independant.

It's odd but, the person I just debated with on the wow just wow thread sounded much more like a Republican than I am, at least when it comes to things like government programs.

In a way I wish pro-lifers would form thier own party based on logic and facts.  There are so many things that the Republican party does wrong, no matter how much I relate to them because of their morality.

reply from: yoda

Hey, sign me up!

reply from: ForLife

I believe the Democratic philosophy is based on being progressive/liberal. They want to tolerate/be inclusive of all lifestyles/behaviors. Based on the progressive/liberal ideals they want to eliminate restrictions on sodomy, gay marriage, abortion. They don't want old restrictive values or laws from God or the Bible. They are the non-judgemental/you do whatever you want party. They have a blind eye to consequences such as the death of the pre-born, STDs, breakdown of traditional institutions (such as family). They want you, the individual, to do whatever you want without restriction. The great god of the Democrats is allowing everyone to be/do just what they desire. They will not limit a person's right to kill or engage in disease spreading behaviors. I don't know how a Democrat can claim to be pro-life or Pro-God. I understand most Democrats claim a faith in God and many are pro-life. But that seems to really fly in the face of the party's progressive/liberal policy.  

reply from: Navynate

Prolife Dems have a hard time. Just look at the time that Tim Roamer is going through in trying to be elected to become Chairman of the DNC. All the prochoicers in the DNC are almost foaming at the mouth they're so angry about a prolife person possibly becoming the DNC chairman. And notice how much they are attacking him for his prolife views. He could be a perfect Democrat in every other way, but that means nothing to them. Keeping a prolife person from becoming chairman is all that matters to them. 

My brothers tell me that I should be a Prolife Dem, but they (as a party) have no respect for prolife groups or people. They are so Proabortion that no, (and I do mean, NO) restrictions to abortion will ever pass with a majority of Dems support in Senate and the US House. Kerry specifically went back to DC from the campaign trail to vote against The Lacy and Conner Peterson Law. If that didn't show people how proabortion he is then nothing ever could. When Dems will start to vote for restrictions to abortion (not ever likely) then I might think of changing parties. A year ago I was at a Silent No More Rally at the  Minnesota State Capital. About 10 minutes before the rally was the end, 2 young 20 something young ladies walked through the group and handed out wire hangers. It was obvious that they were making a statement about what would happen if abortion were made iIlegal (hence the wire hangers representing back alley abortions). It was a stupid point since Silent No More is not a Prolife group, they aren't prochioce either, they take no position on weather abortion should be legal or not. Some are very prolife and some are very prochioce as well. But they are there for those who have been affected by abortion (something that Prochioce groups refuse to inform those who go to abortion clinics as possibly being a side effect of having an abortion) and help them survive and find healing. But my point is that prochioce groups attack anyone who they suspect of being prolife, it doesn't matter if they are or not, they will attack anyone who isn't supportive of abortion rights.        

reply from: shiprah

This is off topic, but that argument garners no sympathy from me.  It should be dangerous for people to kill their wives, or beat their kids, or have abortions.  In no other crime do we sympathize with the victimizer.

reply from: yoda

I think that's a point we too often miss, Shiprah. Well said!

reply from: whosays

Q: Can Democrats be pro-life? A: No. Not according to their party platform.

reply from: Wakeup

Jesus wasn't Joseph's baby, but that didn't stop him from treating him like his own son. Even though it was God who implanted His seed into Mary's body, Joseph never once considered terminating the child's life. Just goes to show that there are guys out there who don't care how many children you have by how many fathers... Life and waiting to have sex until after marriage are sacred. If anyone out there has had a spouse committ adultery behind their backs, don't take it out on the innocent life form growing in your loved one's uterus. Love it as your own as Joseph loved Jesus.

reply from: Christian4life

I don't understand you at all.  This is a perfect argument not to abort if you are raped, but you didn't seem to see that in your other post.

reply from: whosays

Can Democrats be pro-life? Click on http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/adams/050127 to read the interesting testimony of a former Democrat that would answer your question no.

reply from: whosays

From - http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lisuoz0511,0,656718.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi said today he wanted to bring together "intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate and religious people" on both sides the abortion debate..."

Compassionate abortion?

Religious abortion??

Intelligent abortion???

Do any true pro-lifers actually get taken in by this "let's seek common ground," "we should respect all points of view" nonsense? While dems and pro-abort rinos want to use pro-life-sounding-language their willingness to vote to allow the government-sanctioned killing of any children is the tell-tale sign!

reply from: Hereforareason

Boy my brother would agree with that! (It sounds very familiar)
There are some people out there who call themselves democrats. But they are the old school democrats. Just recently my brother and I where talking to a guy ( scrap that, I got to listen ) who used to call himself a democrat. But all his morals are the morals of the republicans. (What they are supposed to be.) And he realized it.
Amber

reply from: yoda

It's pretty clear that if a politican follows the Democrat party platform, or goes along with the majority in his party, he must be proabortion. So if he isn't, he's in a very small, and very uncomfortable minority. I do know of a handful of them, but they seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

reply from: bobinsky

I know many pro-life democrats and they do kind of have their own movements within the party. I would imagine they choose to remain in the party because of the other platform issues. Not everyone who is pro-life on the abortion issue is anti-euthanasia. But the democratic party, at least the party as we know it now, has generally been the party of tolerance and acceptance because the laws of this country are based on the Constitution/BOR, not on the emotional whims or religious bias of its citizens.

Christian4life said:

C4L, don't you find it odd that the republican party, which considers itself the pro-life, values and morality party, wants to drastically benefits to poor children and mothers not to mention other social safety nets? I find the dichotomy between the two positions strange.

reply from: yoda

Yes, that's their promotional propaganda, but what an extreme irony that most of the democrats do not give a damn about tolerating and accepting unborn humans as innocent human beings.

reply from: Diadema

"Pro-life Democrats are no fringe group, either. They represent about 15 percent of the party’s congressional ranks. (Of the 535 members of the House and Senate, between 35 and 40 are pro-life Democrats.) In fact, in the House, there are more pro-life Democrats than African-Americans."

Source: http://www.crisismagazine.com/may2002/feature1.htm

I also agree with C4L; if Democrats were all pro-life and Republicans were pro-choice, I would pronounce myself a Democrat. Because, like it or not, this issue is the most important one our country is facing right now--social security, privatization, the war in Iraq-- all pale in comparison to the the slaughter of our own children. And whoever takes the right position on that has my allegiance.

reply from: bobinsky

Another stereotypical response from you, Yoda, and showing that you don't know much about the democratic party.

reply from: bobinsky

4life, this is because this country is not governed by God or the Bible. It is governed by the U.S. Constitution/BOR. The FF intentionally left the meaning of various portions of the Constitution broad to encompass any change in the future centuries.
I'm sure there are countries out there that are governed by religion, but Christianity is not one of those religions. In fact, no country that has based its governance on Christianity/God/the Bible has ever been successful in its governing.

reply from: shiprah

Christian4life said:

C4L, don't you find it odd that the republican party, which considers itself the pro-life, values and morality party, wants to drastically benefits to poor children and mothers not to mention other social safety nets? I find the dichotomy between the two positions strange.

You mean by asking that able-bodies adults get off welfare and get jobs? Or perhaps you're referring to how according to the Census during the Reagan era, black high school education rose twelve percent, the dropout rate increase 2 percent, and college enrollment increased 150%, homeownership increased by .6 million, and the median value of black homes increased 63%. Perhaps you mean how black homeownership went up during the current Bush era?

reply from: bobinsky

Hello, Navymate. I think this is the first post of yours I've read here on this board. You make some interesting points.

The majority of democrats are pro-choice, so the selection of an anti-abortion person to chair the committee doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Just as if the repubs wanted to elect one of their pro-choice congresspersons to the RNC.

Did you read the bill that you referenced? Do you know why Kerry voted against the bill? Or do you only know that since the republicans wanted it passed and Kerry voted against it, that makes Kerry evil, immoral and pro-abortion? I would suggest you read the bill - you can google it - and get a good idea of what it all entails. These bills are long, with many amendments, but you can learn a lot about the government and the senators/reps and their beliefs. What you see in their stump speeches isn't always the way it is when they vote, dem or repub. You'll also see that what is introduced as a bill, i.e., the title of the bill, is not always actually what is entailed in the bill.

You base this statement on what? And may I ask you if you've not seen the same behavior from anti-abortion persons toward pro-choice people? Two women walk through an auditorium with coat hangers, you deduce the situation from their actions and make your decision based on this? Am I missing something. Would you rather have women go back to the days of back alley abortions? Or would you rather abortion remain safe and legal?

reply from: shiprah

Did you read the bill that you referenced? Do you know why Kerry voted against the bill? Or do you only know that since the republicans wanted it passed and Kerry voted against it, that makes Kerry evil, immoral and pro-abortion? I would suggest you read the bill - you can google it - and get a good idea of what it all entails. These bills are long, with many amendments, but you can learn a lot about the government and the senators/reps and their beliefs. What you see in their stump speeches isn't always the way it is when they vote, dem or repub. You'll also see that what is introduced as a bill, i.e., the title of the bill, is not always actually what is entailed in the bill.

You base this statement on what? And may I ask you if you've not seen the same behavior from anti-abortion persons toward pro-choice people? Two women walk through an auditorium with coat hangers, you deduce the situation from their actions and make your decision based on this? Am I missing something. Would you rather have women go back to the days of back alley abortions? Or would you rather abortion remain safe and legal?

Do you know that more women are murdered when pregnant than at any other time? If you really care about women's safety, you should support Laci's bill. As for coat hangers, I don't want it to be safe and legal for people to kill others.

reply from: Jenny222

You'll be singing a different tune when you finally meet your maker, Bobinsky.

Or did you come from a long line of apes?

reply from: shiprah

Jenny, people keep guns in their homes or have guard dogs because they don't want it to be safe and legal for others to rape and rob them. Are you suggesting this is immoral?

reply from: Jenny222

I was replying to Bobinsky saying that this country is not built on religion. I just think it is sad that she doesn't know God, and thinks it is okay with her if a woman 'chooses' to murder her unborn baby. I think it is great if people keep guard dogs in their home to protect there families. ...

reply from: yoda

You know, it's a strange thing to me that anyone would make such a statement. I'm not even religious, but I have read American history books, and I know that the founding fathers included elements of the Christian religion in practically every important document, building, and ceremony they had.

reply from: bobinsky

Hmmmm, I didn't think this would turn into a race issue. But you've piqued my curiousity, Shiprah. What did Reagan and bush do during their terms that specifically aided African-Americans in the areas you mentioned above? Tell me, what did Reagan and bush do during their terms to help end the plethora of pregnancies of unmarried black women? What did they do to stop the exodus of black men to prison?

Also, it is standard message board protocol to cite the sources of any information provided. I would like to ask you to please furnish the cites. Thanks.

reply from: shiprah

Hmmmm, I didn't think this would turn into a race issue. But you've piqued my curiousity, Shiprah. What did Reagan and bush do during their terms that specifically aided African-Americans in the areas you mentioned above? Tell me, what did Reagan and bush do during their terms to help end the plethora of pregnancies of unmarried black women? What did they do to stop the exodus of black men to prison?

Also, it is standard message board protocol to cite the sources of any information provided. I would like to ask you to please furnish the cites. Thanks.

It's standard message protocol to read the posts carefully. I said the census was my source in post. What Reagan and Bush did was to treat poor blacks like responsible adults instead of mentally disabled children unable to care for themselves which increased their education and prosperity.

reply from: bobinsky

Shiprah, what would you like me to do? Personally guard every pregnant woman until she gives birth? You make a statement, give no citation for it, then jump on me about "really caring for women". It is and always has been against the law to kill a pregnant woman. Were you not aware of this? Are you an American citizen? Pregnant women have always been protected by the law. Laci's bill was completely unnecessary. It was pushed through legislature on an emotional whim because of the death of the fetus or baby or munchkin or whatever you want to call it. But don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining by saying that Laci's bill makes pregnant women safer, because it doesn't.
Now, shiprah, tell me, have you read the entire bill? If you picked up a book and read only the first page, would you feel comfortable giving a review of the complete book? Just as with any bill in congress, up for vote, or passed or declined, unless you're familiar with the entire bill, you don't know what you're talking about, you're only regurgitating what's been told to you by biased sources. So don't explain Laci's bill to me. I've read it, I've read all the amendments to the bill; I know who voted for it and who didn't, and because I've read the bill, I know WHY the people who voted against did what they did. Until you can do the same, do not attempt to tell me what I should and should not support for legislative bills.

Then you'll excuse me if I don't believe your rhetoric about your concern for the mothers. You admit you don't want the procedure to be safe. Therein lies your "concern".

reply from: bobinsky

Jenny, while I'm sure you're a very nice person, please don't make assumptions about others. You know nothing about my religious beliefs and it is the height of arrogance to think that you do. Do you have special God-given powers to look into people's hearts? No, I didn't think so. You're no less of a sinner than I am in the eyes of God.
We have 14 rescue dogs in our huge house. I don't know if they could be considered guard dogs, but they do set up a loud barking noise when the doorbell rings.
As far as this country being "built on religion", many of the persons who came to this country originally came for religious and economic reasons. However, in the Constitution, where the FF has the perfect opportunity to make this country a theocracy, THEY CHOSE NOT TO. Now, if you believe this country is built on religion, why did our FF not use the opportunity they had to make it so? Could it be because they knew what happens to countries who are theocratic? This must have been one of the reasons. I don't know your background, Jenny, but studying some history of the very early days of this country might not hurt. Of course, this would take time and effort away from your task of making assumptions about and condemning people, but knowledge is not all bad. And if you're so concerned about the slaughter of innocent people, I imagine you feel great shame that your Christian forebears slaughtered millions of innocent Native American women, men and children. Is this the kind of religion you're speaking of, Jenny?

reply from: bobinsky

Shiprah, I completely understand your reluctance to include links to the "information" you provide. The few sources you have provided have been biased and non-neutral. However, I asked you to include examples of what they did specifically, instead of just a general statement by yourself. If you want to make statements such as those you make, please be prepared to support them.

edited to add:
Shiprah, you neglected to answer my questions concerning what Reagan and bush did and are doing to lessen the large numbers of unwed black mothers who are on welfare and decrease the exodus of black men into prisons. How are they addressing these issues? Or are these issues not important to you?

reply from: bobinsky

The fact is, Jenny, that you have no idea what will be taking place when I meet my "maker". This much is true. Again, your incredible arrogance at thinking you know what God thinks astounds me. I won't even waste my breath concerning evolution with you.

reply from: shiprah

quote:
It is and always has been against the law to kill a pregnant woman. Were you not aware of this? Are you an American citizen? Pregnant women have always been protected by the law. Laci's bill was completely unnecessary.
If the bill were unnecessary, pregnant women wouldn't be the most common female victims of homicide. Previous law wasn't enough.

reply from: shiprah

Shiprah, I completely understand your reluctance to include links to the "information" you provide. The few sources you have provided have been biased and non-neutral. However, I asked you to include examples of what they did specifically, instead of just a general statement by yourself. If you want to make statements such as those you make, please be prepared to support them.

Why don't you understand my source is the Census? What about that is confusing to you? What about the Census is biased and non-neutral?

edited to add:
Shiprah, you neglected to answer my questions concerning what Reagan and bush did and are doing to lessen the large numbers of unwed black mothers who are on welfare and decrease the exodus of black men into prisons. How are they addressing these issues? Or are these issues not important to you?

What Reagan and Bush did was to focus on black education, improve inner city schools to give black men other options, and to encourage abstinance education.

reply from: bobinsky

Shiprah, please provide me with sources that substantiate your position or don't bother with your supposition. Also, I'd like some data on how the murder of pregnant women has dropped since the legalization of Laci's bill. Thanks.

reply from: bobinsky

Then provide the link for me. That's all I'm asking.

Interesting. How did the abstinence education work? Did births of black babies to single women go down? Got the data?

Also, what specifically did they do about the number of black men being sent to prison? Did these numbers decrease while Reagan and bush were/are in office? I'd be interested in seeing the data links.

reply from: ChristianLott

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kla/kla_02abstinenceedu1.html

reply from: ChristianLott

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_05ocpworldramification.html

reply from: ChristianLott

http://www.abortionfacts.com/breast_cancer_connection/breast_cancer_connection.asp

reply from: ChristianLott

http://www.lifeissues.net/sub_section.php?topic=bc&subsection=sci

reply from: bobinsky

Then if you're so well-read history wise, yoda, answer my question: why did the FF not, while they had the chance, write the U.S. Constitution to make this government or a Christian country only? That they invoked God occasionally really means nothing. If you look at the money we carry, besides seeing "In God We Trust" you'll see Masonic symbols and other non-Christian allusions.
What element of the Christian religion can be found in the White House?

reply from: Dmourning

Sorry, try backing yourself up with a source that isn't a pro-life propaganda site.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

reply from: ChristianLott

And your link is pro abortion.

reply from: Dmourning

Oh? So the ACS is a biased pro-choice organization?

That is probably the most ill-informed and ignorant thing I've seen posted on this board in a long time.

reply from: ChristianLott

You've got a monopoly on ignorance around here.

reply from: shiprah

Shiprah, please provide me with sources that substantiate your position or don't bother with your supposition. Also, I'd like some data on how the murder of pregnant women has dropped since the legalization of Laci's bill. Thanks.

Homicide was found to be the leading cause of death for pregnant women in Maryland, according to a March 2001 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Using death records and coroner reports, state health department researchers found 247 pregnancy-associated deaths between 1993 and 1998. Among those deaths, 50 were murders. By comparison, homicide was the fifth-leading cause of death among Maryland women. And, nationwide, the maternal mortality rate was just 9.9 percent in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

I don't have to prove the bill's success, I just have to prove that its needed.

reply from: shiprah

Then provide the link for me. That's all I'm asking.
GO TO THE CENSUS WEBSITE, I GAVE THE SOURCE, I'M NOT PANDERING TO YOUR PETTY LAZINESS.

Interesting. How did the abstinence education work? Did births of black babies to single women go down? Got the data?

Also, what specifically did they do about the number of black men being sent to prison? Did these numbers decrease while Reagan and bush were/are in office? I'd be interested in seeing the data links.

My post was that republican presidents don't stifle resources which was your claim. If you want to continue that claim, you put up a post, otherwise, you analyze their political periods.

reply from: Dmourning

Coming from a christian you would know better than anyone about ignorance.

By the way, you never answered my question - What exactly is your problem with the American Cancer Society?

reply from: shiprah

Then provide the link for me. That's all I'm asking.
GO TO THE CENSUS WEBSITE, I GAVE THE SOURCE, I'M NOT PANDERING TO YOUR PETTY LAZINESS.

Interesting. How did the abstinence education work? Did births of black babies to single women go down? Got the data?

Also, what specifically did they do about the number of black men being sent to prison? Did these numbers decrease while Reagan and bush were/are in office? I'd be interested in seeing the data links.

I'd also be interested in seeing the data links referencing your claim that Republicans take resources from the poor.

reply from: ChristianLott

I have some excellent statistics gathered by pro aborts which show how bad abortion is.

reply from: Dmourning

I went there and was greeted with the most foul sexual content I've ever seen. I am reporting your post to a moderator for posting porn.

reply from: bobinsky

Which census website? There are many out there. It is not up to me to do your research and citing, it's up to you. That you are too lazy to copy a link while you are on a particular website page is not my problem. It is your issue and you are the lazy one for not doing it, or you have a particular reason for not doing it. As it stands, your info is meaningless.

Now, you did not answer my questions that you have ignored for the second or third time:

Why do you not answer these questions? I think I understand why you are ignoring these questions, but I'm not about to make an assumption. I'll wait for your response.

reply from: bobinsky

Dmourning, that's quite an interesting article. To quote part of it:

What the Experts Say
In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

Breast cancer risk is transiently (temporarily) increased after a term pregnancy [resulting in the birth of a living child].
Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level)."

Did you notice that breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after giving birth? I wonder if women are told by the ob/gyns that giving birth can temporarily increase their risk of breast cancer?

reply from: bobinsky

CL, provide proof for your accusation that the American Cancer Society is pro-abortion.

reply from: shiprah

Which census website? There are many out there. It is not up to me to do your research and citing, it's up to you. That you are too lazy to copy a link while you are on a particular website page is not my problem. It is your issue and you are the lazy one for not doing it, or you have a particular reason for not doing it. As it stands, your info is meaningless.
HONEY, www.census.gov/ , THE ONLY US CENSUS WEBSITE. DUH. I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS SPEAKING WITH SOMEONE SO INCOMPETENT THEY COULDN'T ACCESS US CENSUS INFO.
Now, you did not answer my questions that you have ignored for the second or third time:

Why do you not answer these questions? I think I understand why you are ignoring these questions, but I'm not about to make an assumption. I'll wait for your response.

WHY HAVEN'T YOU ANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT SUPPOSED LOSS OF RESOURCES TO THE POOR DURING REPUBLICAN ERAS? I'M WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE.

reply from: shiprah

Which census website? There are many out there. It is not up to me to do your research and citing, it's up to you. That you are too lazy to copy a link while you are on a particular website page is not my problem. It is your issue and you are the lazy one for not doing it, or you have a particular reason for not doing it. As it stands, your info is meaningless.
HONEY, www.census.gov/ , THE ONLY US CENSUS WEBSITE. DUH. I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS SPEAKING WITH SOMEONE SO INCOMPETENT THEY COULDN'T ACCESS US CENSUS INFO.
Now, you did not answer my questions that you have ignored for the second or third time:

Why do you not answer these questions? I think I understand why you are ignoring these questions, but I'm not about to make an assumption. I'll wait for your response.

WHY HAVEN'T YOU ANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT SUPPOSED LOSS OF RESOURCES TO THE POOR DURING REPUBLICAN ERAS? I'M WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE. UTILL YOU YOURSELF PROVIDE A SOURCE, YOUR DEMANDS FOR SOURCES HAVE NO CREDIBILITY

reply from: whosays

Since getting trounced in the last election cycle a careful reading of all the Democratic commentaries and suggestions by Democratic strategists and Democratic party leaders proves the following:

The question is not "Can a Democrat be pro-life?" but rather the question is "Can a Democrat TALK pro-life?"

That is, "Can Democrats find a way to PORTRAY THEMSELVES AS pro-life (so that they can get elected) even as they continue to sanction, fund and promote legalized abortion?"

This IS what the Democratic party is encouraging it's members to DO. Their "pro-life" goal is not to STOP ABORTION but to STOP PRO-LIFERS FROM BEING ELECTED by using pro-life language so that ignorant (or pro-abortion) Democratic voters can rationalize (read 'pretend to have a clear conscience before GOD') when they knowingly pull the lever for someone who will vote the pro-abortion (read Democrat) party line!

reply from: Alexandra

Pfft. I'm a Constitution Party member because I think even the Republicans are too far to the left for my liking. Today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals, it seems.

I want someone who goes strictly by the Constitution, and who recognizes the fact that legalized abortion is unconstitutional. That's why I voted for Michael Peroutka last fall.

(This sounds like a TV ad, doesn't it? )

But yeah, a lot of Democrats are pro-life. You have Atheists for Life, Vegans for Life, Pagans for Life, etc. You even have pro-life gays.

reply from: Dmourning

You're a strict constructionist - Fair enough. So you would also agree that state sanctioned discrimination against gays is also unconstitutional as it flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment, correct?

reply from: Tam

You're a strict constructionist - Fair enough. So you would also agree that state sanctioned discrimination against gays is also unconstitutional as it flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment, correct?

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I think state-sanctioned discrimination against anyone is unconstitutional, right? We all have the same right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. To me, that most certainly includes unborn children. It also includes those convicted of a capital crime. On the other hand, if the government decided tomorrow to amend the Constitution to say that women are slaves to their husbands--well, the simple fact that it's constitutional doesn't make it okay with me.

I think we should consider breaking down the argument.

Legal
Philosophical
Medical
Historical

What if we started four (or more? anyone think I left something out?) threads and debated different aspects of abortion separately? That might be cool.

reply from: Dmourning

This is why you are not a member of the constitution party!

Just to clarity, "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is declared in the Declaration of Independence, not Constitution.

Assuming that it was, the notion of an embryo being magically bestowed with personhood was not what the framers of these documents intended. Moreover, the forcing of a woman to carry out a pregnancy against her will would definately contradict the idea of "pursuit of happiness". Since, this could make some women very UNhappy. In effect, outlawing abortion would, in and of itself for that reason, be unconstitutional.

This is a weak choice of hypothetical since it would clearly be unconstitutional on the basis that slavery is outright unconstitional as it violates the 13th Amendment.

reply from: Tam

This is why you are not a member of the constitution party!

Just to clarity, "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is declared in the Declaration of Independence, not Constitution.

Thanks. True, and a good point.

Except that the right to life comes before the right to anything else. Without a life, there is no way anyone could experience liberty or happiness.

This is a weak choice of hypothetical since it would clearly be unconstitutional on the basis that slavery is outright unconstitional as it violates the 13th Amendment.

True, it's weak. But my point is the same: that whether or not the government agrees with me, and whether its laws reflect my views, is irrelevant to me in most ways. It's relevant in that it affects my life, but it's irrelevant in that just because Uncle Sam thinks one way does NOT mean I agree. And, of course, it's that freedom to disagree with the government that is probably the most important aspect of the government of this country. That's why I think it's good to separate the argument into different perspectives. It's one thing to argue the constitutionality of abortion. It's another thing to acknowledge that many individuals' views are not linked to whether something is constitutional.

reply from: Alexandra

You're a strict constructionist - Fair enough. So you would also agree that state sanctioned discrimination against gays is also unconstitutional as it flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment, correct?

How about denying pedophiles the right to pursue happiness? Messing with kids makes them happy!

Homosexuality is a behavior, not a physical characteristic. "Bigotry" doesn't apply for behavior.

Regardless, ALL people, born or unborn, have the same basic, God-given human rights.

reply from: Dmourning

You can compare homosexuality with pedophilia (after all, it's straight guys who go around killing and raping little girls) when I can compare apples with baseball since both comparisons are baseless and lack any kind of factual evidence to back them up.

You and your ilk hide behind these tired and ignorant arguments to justify your bigotry. How is homosexuality any more of a choice than heterosexuality? How is your natural inclination towards men any different than a gay person's natural inclination towards someone of their own sex?

Gay and lesbian relationships are not all about sex. They are based on love and mutual respect - for you to seek to deny them happiness in their relationships. Well...unconstitutional.

So you do support equality for gays, then?

reply from: ForLife

Homosexuality is a behavior. Some men have gone to different degrees in pursuit of their elective interest. An interest that is voluntarily engaged in, not forced on them by genes. They may walk, talk, or dress feminine. They may put on wigs or have "sex-change" surgery. Other men decide not to take it that far, they don't try to mask their masculine attributes.

I've seen US and UK studies, such as Kinsey, etc. which reflect practices of homosexual men. Almost 100% engage in oral sex, 90% anal sex, nearly 80% do both in the same encounter. Sexual experiences among study participants range from just over 100 to over 1000 times per year. In one study, just over 50% of the experiences are with someone they will never have sex with again.

The lower intestine's lining is a single cell layer thick, as opposed to the thick wall of the vagina. The intestine easily absorbs fluids into the bloodstream. The rectum and lower intestine is easily torn and bleeds. STDs are efficiently transferred by anal sex. One study said the average lifespan of a man engaging in homosexuality is 42, only 1% live to retirement age.

There is much concern that the men engaging in these activities are carriers of diseases that can break out into health epidemics in the general population.

Just on the basis of physical and mental health reasons, sodomy should be illegal.

Many of us men do healthy things with other men. We go on fishing or hunting trips together. We are on softball or basketball teams. You don't have to engage in the type of lusts that you desire to fulfil.

reply from: bobinsky

Except that in this country, it's not god who gives us our rights. It's the Constitution.

Good points, D. There is no difference between the inclinations toward one sex or the other, but the thumpers will tell you that, in the eyes of god, homosexuality is an abomination. Okay, whatever. But again, this country is not governed by the Bible, no matter how much the thumpers wish it were. And with the divorce rate of married heterosexuals at around 43%, down from almost 50%, I don't think heterosexuals have any lock on love and happiness.

But hey, for hoots and giggles, let's pretend this country is a theocracy, like the dominionists want it to be. Whose interpretation of the Bible would be followed? Which version of said Bible would be used? Also, the majority of the Christians in this country belong to the Catholic religion, so it seems that this would be the denomination that would be enforcing ITS laws on the baptists and other protestants. You think the Protestant fundies/vangies would allow their kids to be saying the Rosary every morning in school? Lots of problems. Even the bible thumpers can't agree on interpretations of certain passages of the Bible. What then? Flip a coin? Go on some of the conservative Christian boards and watch them wail away at each other over interpretation. Good giggly-wiggly it's a sight.

reply from: bobinsky

ForLife, the fact that you reduce a homosexual relationship down to nothing more than sex says a lot more about you than it does about homosexuals and any "behavior". My advice would be to pull your mind out of the gutter and see homosexuals as the human beings they are. Dmourning said it best:

That you can see only ONE aspect of a healthy relationship is rather . . . odd.

Homosexuality is no more a behavior than is heterosexuality. I did not choose to be heterosexual; I was born this way, just as homosexuals are born.

Well, on the basis of physical and mental health reasons, stupidity should be illegal, but it's not. Are you kidding yourself into believing that only homosexual men engage in sodomy? You need to do a little more research. And as far as the number of partners male homosexuals have during a lifetime, let's look at the fact that heterosexual males do a lot of "wandering" amongst partners. As I said earlier, the divorce rate among heterosexual marriages is 43%, and the rates are even higher for subsequent marriages. In other words, the majority of heterosexual marriages FAIL. Why do you think this is, 4life? Got any clues?

reply from: Dmourning

And heterosexual couples don't?

And heterosexual couples don't?

Cite your source, please.

reply from: bobinsky

Good post, D. One by one, the arguments against homosexuality fall by the wayside, but the thumpers keep on trying.

reply from: LochFyne

So, if it was proven using the scientific method that homosexual desires are physical in origin, would you modify your position? Or would you just say, "Well, but they don't have to ACT on those desires!"?

reply from: AmericanPie

This is absurd. Homosexuality is not a learned behavior. A person is born with the inclination. In addition, your stereotype of homosexual men as "effeminate" is also ludicrous. I've known burly football players and body builders who have been gay all their lives.

Did you know a large portion of the animal kingdom engages in gay behavior?

http://www.grohol.com/psypsych/Homosexuality_in_animals

Excerpt:

Quite interesting reading. I guess animals "learned" how to be homosexual as well, eh?

reply from: ChristianLott

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/

Scroll down to:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_04_07.html

reply from: ForLife

The information for what I wrote came from the article "Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do" by Paul Cameron, Ph.D. The article is at http://familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html. The statitistics of 99% oral, 91% anal, and 83% oral & anal was referenced from Jay, K. & Young, A. THE GAY REPORT. NY Summit, 1979.

It is also unhealthy in heterosexual activity to engage in sodomy or to be promiscuous. Citing others failures as a supporting case to engage in the same activities is not wise.

I had said there are men who don't mask or change their outward looks or behaviors. They appear to be manly men, football players, etc. I was illustrating that there are those who decide they want to be femine-like by changing the tone of their voice, or even medically altering their genitalia. I was pointing out that the genes didn't force one to wear a dress, and another to remove his facial hair. These are all decisions one can make one way or the other. Men do have a decision between whether they want a physical relationship with a man or woman. Like drugs, once one has started down the sodomy path, it is hard for that person to imagine a better way or option. But options there are!

reply from: Tam

Except that in this country, it's not god who gives us our rights. It's the Constitution.

Actually, far be it from me to correct a potential supreme court justice, but the FF were pretty clear on this one. The rights are derived from God (or, for those who don't believe in God, the rights fall magically from the sky, whatever) and governments are instituted to secure those rights. The Constitution does not give us any rights; it secures the rights that are ours by virtue of our existence. Its language is often about how one right or another shall not be violated by the government. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect our rights from being violated, not to bestow those rights upon us. This is absolutely true: my right to live does not depend upon any government. Even if a government kills me, that act will not mean it had the right to do so. My right to life is mine by virtue of my existence (which, I might add, indisputably began at conception). I am sure you'll disagree with something in this paragraph, counselor. Ok, let's get on with it.

Good points, D. There is no difference between the inclinations toward one sex or the other, but the thumpers will tell you that, in the eyes of god, homosexuality is an abomination. Okay, whatever. But again, this country is not governed by the Bible, no matter how much the thumpers wish it were. And with the divorce rate of married heterosexuals at around 43%, down from almost 50%, I don't think heterosexuals have any lock on love and happiness.

But hey, for hoots and giggles, let's pretend this country is a theocracy, like the dominionists want it to be. Whose interpretation of the Bible would be followed? Which version of said Bible would be used? Also, the majority of the Christians in this country belong to the Catholic religion, so it seems that this would be the denomination that would be enforcing ITS laws on the baptists and other protestants. You think the Protestant fundies/vangies would allow their kids to be saying the Rosary every morning in school? Lots of problems. Even the bible thumpers can't agree on interpretations of certain passages of the Bible. What then? Flip a coin? Go on some of the conservative Christian boards and watch them wail away at each other over interpretation. Good giggly-wiggly it's a sight.

Words like "thumpers," "fundies," and "vangies" do not foster the peaceful, respectful forum atmosphere I think we both desire, Bobinsky. I actually agree with some of what you're saying here, but it's almost impossible for me to get through it and continue to have any respect for what I've read, because of the tone of the post. I know you want this forum to be a place where your views are treated with respect. It's just hard to see them that way when they're so filled with disrespect for others. The flippancy is disrespectful enough, but the epithets are really over the line. The result is that instead of a reply that starts out, "You know, you're right about ..." you will receive posts that start out, "You know, it's really unnecessary to resort to ..." and even ones that start out "Why, you [unprintable] jerk, how dare you..." -- and I don't want you to be on the receiving end of that any more than I support your dishing out that sort of stuff. Let's all try harder, ok?

reply from: sarah

Bravo, Tam.

If you've noticed that I haven't posted much, the above reasons are why.
I feel that sometimes it's best to not post at all, rather than get bogged down with "epithets" and such.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Tam.

reply from: yoda

Good points, Sarah. However, I think that I should point out that making ProLifers reluctant to post their views is the reason for the personal invective they spew. If they can silence us by changing the focus to a mud-slinging contest, they have won a partial victory.

Come back and post, and simply ignore their taunts and insults as much as possible.

reply from: sarah

Good points, Sarah. However, I think that I should point out that making ProLifers reluctant to post their views is the reason for the personal invective they spew. If they can silence us by changing the focus to a mud-slinging contest, they have won a partial victory.

Come back and post, and simply ignore their taunts and insults as much as possible.

Thanks, Yoda.
Of course, you're right. I'm just one of the "timid" ones, but I'll keep your sound advice and reasoning in mind.

reply from: whosays

Here is someone who clearly believes that there is such a thing as "pro-life democrats"

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47369

But how can this be so?

I just have to wonder if the idea of a "pro-life democrat" isn't equivalent to the idea of a 'pro-Jewish NAZI,' for example. Does someone fighting for the rights of Jews remain active in the NAZI party seek to reduce death camp numbers by 90% - i.e. making the death camp experience 'rare' - or do they disassociate themselves from a party that promotes evil (and openly declares so in its platform)?

reply from: whosays

Opps, I mistakenly said 90% but what the "pro-life democrats" actually say they'd like to reduce abortion by 95%.

So instead of sanctioning and allowing 10% of the current 'legalized' abortions to continue, their stated goal is in fact to only allow 'choice' to kill just 5% of the current 3000-4000 babies a day that are sacrificed to abortion.

I regret any erroneous characerization of "pro-life democrats" that may have been caused by this mistake.

reply from: Tam

Except that in this country, it's not god who gives us our rights. It's the Constitution.

Actually, far be it from me to correct a potential supreme court justice, but the FF were pretty clear on this one. The rights are derived from God (or, for those who don't believe in God, the rights fall magically from the sky, whatever) and governments are instituted to secure those rights. The Constitution does not give us any rights; it secures the rights that are ours by virtue of our existence. Its language is often about how one right or another shall not be violated by the government. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect our rights from being violated, not to bestow those rights upon us. This is absolutely true: my right to live does not depend upon any government. Even if a government kills me, that act will not mean it had the right to do so. My right to life is mine by virtue of my existence (which, I might add, indisputably began at conception). I am sure you'll disagree with something in this paragraph, counselor. Ok, let's get on with it.

Bobinsky?

reply from: bobinsky

Yes Tam? If you're referring to this discussion, I've already said what I wanted to say, I stand behind my statements and see no further point in continuing the discussion.

reply from: whosays

Well, Bobinsky, since you 'ran away from' your pro-KKK statements in your other post it's nice to see that you stand behind some of your misstatements.

Now let's see how easy it is to prove you wrong again.

Pay close attention and get out your stop watch. Ready - set - go:

"...all men are created equal and endowed by their C R E A T O R with certain inalienable rights..."

Bobinsky, trust me the America's founding father's knew how to SPELL "C O N S T I T U T I O N" - and, since you fancy yourself as a "student of history" your assertion that it is the Constitution that "gives us our rights" is not only demostrably false, it reveals that your "student of history" claim is just as much of a self-delusion as your delusion about the source of our rights.

Like I said on your other post - "stupid is as stupid does" and there you go again.

Suggestion. You might want to actually READ some history before you go making (truely making-up) statements about history. It might help you avoid having your mouth cause you additional public embarassment in the future.

reply from: yoda

Say, maybe I missed it, was there even an admission of error about saying that the "Klanparenthood" site was an endorsement for the KKK?

reply from: sarah

Say, maybe I missed it, was there even an admission of error about saying that the "Klanparenthood" site was an endorsement for the KKK?

If there was one, and I HIGHLY doubt it, I missed it too.

Last I read she was still defending MS who endorced the likes of KKK and their view on minorities. Go figure, huh?

reply from: whosays

No.

Bobinsky is pro-choice, not pro-truth.

reply from: yoda

Oh! So, as far as we know, she still believes that LDI is promoting the REAL KKK?

Wow........ that defies description....... so I won't even try........

reply from: Dmourning

I can't believe you would sit here and chide someone for having an erroneous grip on our nation's origin and history yet you attributed a quote from the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (which is not what our laws are based on) to the CONSTITUTION (which our laws are based on.

http://www.geocities.com/qubestrader/declaration.html

Please follow the above link to learn some of the basics of our historical documents. You obviously need the help.

You own advice to Bobinsky is probably best followed by you. You obviously have no grip on the basis of our constitution and origins of our nation and its institutions.

Want further proof that christianity is NOT what this nation was founded upon? Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously approved by the Senate and declared by John Adams specifically answers that question.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Let me know how this burns your toast.

reply from: bobinsky

I ran away from nothing, jerk-off. I admitted my mistake. And what exactly is it that YOU add to this forum? What enlightening posts have you made except to call people names and belittle them? You're so stupid you don't even know the Constitution from the DOI and you call other people stupid? My neighbor's fifth grader knows the difference. I understand where your stupidity is coming from. Tam's faulty post from above. Now it's crystal clear. She believes the Bible gives us our rights and that the Constitution "is to protect our rights from being violated, not to bestow those rights upon us." She also says, "The Constitution does not give us any rights; it secures the rights that are ours by virtue of our existence." Seldom have I read anything quite as humorous as that last statement. "By virtue of our existence". Oh, god, my sides are splitting. Maybe Tam could tell us then why the amending document to the Constitution is called the Bill of RIGHTS. Perhaps it should have been entitled "Stuff that we can do and the government can't". What do you think?

What the hell does the DOI have to do with the Constitution? Have your read the DOI and seen the context in which that statement was made?

Speaking of delusions about the source of our rights. Stupid is as stupid does is your area of expertise. Pray tell, then, justsays, which document(s) give the citizens of this country their rights? I will defer to your obviously superior intellect and wait for you to inform us all further of exactly instrument from which the rights of the citizens of these country are derived. Oh, wait, the right to vote is given to us by our mere existence. So does this mean that Saddam Hussein, because he exists, can vote in the next U.S. election? Or since all it takes is mere existence to have the rights granted to in the U.S., then my dog can run for president.

As I said above, I will defer to your superior intellect and read with great interest the information you provide on the history of this country's FF's. You made a statement above that I assert that the Constition/BOR gives us our rights and that this statement is demonstrably false. Prove it.

reply from: bobinsky

D, I'm sorry, I didn't see your response to "just says". If I had, I wouldn't have added my post. Sorry.

reply from: sarah

And miss a chance to call someone a "jerk-off" and swear a little...I doubt it.

reply from: Dmourning

A little double reinforcement doesn't hurt

reply from: Tam

Well, let's take this apart.

Wrong. I never said this, and I DEFINITELY do not believe it.

I definitely DO believe this. The Constitution is supposed to enumerate our rights so that no government tries to enfringe upon them.

You find this funny? Well, I'm puzzled. You think that if the Constitution did not say we have a right to life, you would have no right to live? You really think that the Constitution gives you the right to live? That you would not have the right to live if this piece of paper did not say so, and that therefore the government could revoke your right to live by changing this document? Is this what you are saying?

Because it lists our rights...I think it's a pretty good name for it, actually...

reply from: yoda

You DID?? Where?? Did anyone else see it??? Hey everyone, is this the admission we've been waiting for???

My, my, such anger! According to LochFynee, whenever someone shows "anger" in a post, that relieves the person to whom it is addressed from responding to any of the points in that post......

So, sorry, we'll have to ignore your post now.

reply from: sarah

You DID?? Where?? Did anyone else see it??? Hey everyone, is this the admission we've been waiting for???

This is her idea of an admission,


I won't apologize for posting the original post or starting the thread, because I feel I did nothing wrong. However, I was remiss - and this was pointed out to me by Sarah in a recent thread - that after Terry posted his "note to posters" (shown as follows), I should have let the matter drop. I did not and for this I apologize. I bullied my way ahead and should have heeded. I was devastated by the reaction of the posters who decry the actions of the KKK, as we all do, or I hope we all do. See Terry's note below:

__________________________________________

She's just sorry she didn't drop it when Terry said it should have been. So, in other words, she's just sorry she got caught as far as I can tell.

reply from: yoda

Hmm...... not a very clear one, is it? It doesn't say what mistake, or how it was in error.

The only thing she admitted to is not stopping when told to do so, not that she was wrong about the whole thing.

reply from: sarah

Exactly. Here's further proof she thinks we're linked with the KKK. Nice, huh? Of course she can't admit it's her side of abortion that is linked with the KKK as they are the ones who support PP, whose dispicable founder was enraptured with the KKK. Try as they might to whitewash the reputation of MS, it just can't be done. They are STUCK with the connection to the KKK thru their high priestess whether they like it or not.

______________________

I'm sorry, Sarah, but the KKK is anti-choice, as I said, making them pro-life in your book. If you don't want to admit it, fine. More head burying. Denial, as usual. Course your compats want that pure race, as has been its goal for decades. Maybe with your help they'll get there.

reply from: yoda

Much like Hitler, the KKK is proabortion for those they don't like, and antiabortion for those they do like. That makes them "prochoice" as long as they are the ones doing the choosing.

But for someone to mistake a sarcastic reference linking them to Planned Parenthood for an "endorsement" of the KKK is almost beyond belief.

reply from: bobinsky

In your post above, you said that our rights are derived from God. What am I missing? God/Bible. Oh, that's right. Our rights are given to us by virtue of existence. May I ask from where you derived this opinion. So by virtue of existence, everyone's rights should be the same. Correct?

The USC/BOR does "enumerate" our rights; it also tells us expressly what our rights are and are not. And it outlines the powers of the federal government. Anything it does not cover, as I've said before, it left to the states to determine.

My right to life came about because my parents procreated and I was born. If you were born in Sweden, you would not have the same "rights" there as you do here and this is because the Constitutions differ. In fact, I don't even know if Sweden has a Constitution. Or if you were born in Uganda, you exist, but your rights there would be almost non-existant because of the government. But according to you, these people have the same rights we have by virtue of their existence. Ain't so because they do not fall under the umbrella of this Constitution.
Unless I'm a felon of the worst sort, the Constitution says my life cannot legally be taken away from me.

It tells us what our Constitutionally protected rights are.

reply from: Tam

In your post above, you said that our rights are derived from God. What am I missing? God/Bible. Oh, that's right. Our rights are given to us by virtue of existence. May I ask from where you derived this opinion. So by virtue of existence, everyone's rights should be the same. Correct?

Everyone has the right to life. No one's right to life trumps anyone else's, if that's what you're asking.

The USC/BOR does "enumerate" our rights; it also tells us expressly what our rights are and are not.

Yes, it does.

No--your LIFE came about because of that. Your right to life comes with your life. It's a package deal.

Yes. Just because our government recognizes the right to life does not mean another government will recognize it. That's why it's written in the Constitution--to protect our right to life. The right would not disappear if the document were burned tomorrow.

It tells us what our Constitutionally protected rights are.

Yes, it does. Constitutionally-protected, not Constitutionally-granted. It's different.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics