|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 11:45:08 AM
|
|
|
upNORTder
Posts: 220
Joined: 7/20/2006
Status: offline
|
I wish that the pro life movement would emphasise in thier ads that more females are aborted than males. Perhaps the far left feminists would then realize that they are aborting thier own. Maybe then they would realize that abortion really means murder.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 11:56:24 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 2972
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm a Christian and a Democrat but I don't consider myself to be pro-life or pro-choice. They are extreme views IMO.
Sharon,
I think many of you are confused when it comes to the term "right to choose". It came from the Roe v Wade legislation that gave women the right ot choose what to do with their own bodied even if it means destroying their unborn healthy child.
Abortion has NEVER BEEN ILLEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY FOR THE PRUPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, RAPE OR INCEST......never never never. Women have "always" had that right.
When the democrats say "right to choose" or "in keeping with RvW" they are talking about "abortion on demand". They are also talking about using tax payer dollars to pay for the abortions. (government sponsored baby murder on demand)
Way back almost 100 years ago my grandmother was offered and encouraged to have a safe, legal abortion by her doctors because her life was in extreme danger. This was and always has been legal.
"Right to Choose" and "Roe v Wade" deal with abortion on demand...Having the right to "use abortion" as a means of birth control if you so choose.
< Message edited by P31W -- 9/12/2008 12:05:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 12:09:09 PM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
I think many of you are confused when it comes to the term "right to choose". It came from the Roe v Wade legislation that gave women the right ot choose what to do with their own bodied even if it means destroying their unborn healthy child.
Abortion has NEVER BEEN ILLEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY FOR THE PRUPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, RAPE OR INCEST......never never never. Women have "always" had that right.
Which makes Palin's position - no abortion EVEN IN cases of rape - what is the word, ah yes, EXTREME even by the standards of the Right to Life community...doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 12:38:32 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1419
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
I don't see the term, Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. in the 2008 version...
Try reading it again - hint, a thesaurus was not a denizen of the Jurassic Era.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empowers people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
quote:
It was removed because it is said to undermined the right to abort...
And you know this because...how, again? Press release? Convention speech? Minutes of the platform committee? Or good old Republican telepathy?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Killing future mothers is how Dems reduce abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 12:49:17 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 2972
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Which makes Palin's position - no abortion EVEN IN cases of rape - what is the word, ah yes, EXTREME even by the standards of the Right to Life community...doesn't it?
I don't believe it's extreme. I like Sarah believe the baby no matter how it is concieved is a human being and should be protected. In the case of rape a mother has the option of putting that HUMAN being up for adoption.
People who are born from rape unions are still human being and should have a right to live.
To overturn RvW would not effect the abortion of babies concieved from rape or incest. But it certainly would be a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 1:11:27 PM
|
|
|
raivyne
Posts: 862
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
Like so much of the current democrat party's platform this (purple part) has me clutching at my wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 2:04:59 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2142
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Like so much of the current democrat party's platform this (purple part) has me clutching at my wallet.
Actually when one worries about the financial cost of the abortion as opposed to carrying it to term the cost of having the baby will far exceed the cost of aborting it in a majority of cases. When one factors in food stamps, medicaid, free school lunches, cost of public education etc. the financial cost of the abortion is far cheaper than the cost of having it on the tax payers. I'm not condoning abortion I am pointing this out.
quote:
Killing future mothers is how Dems reduce abortions.
Or more cynically killing off future dems is how dems would reduce abortions.
quote:
Abortion has NEVER BEEN ILLEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY FOR THE PRUPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, RAPE OR INCEST......never never never. Women have "always" had that right.
Women have not always had this "right". It wasn't until the late '60s that exceptions to state abortion laws for the reasons you mention began to be enacted in some states. Abortion before Roe v. Wade was done strictly by state anyway so there was no "national" law for it.
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 2:17:44 PM
|
|
|
jfwink
Posts: 344
Joined: 3/24/2006
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
So to any pro life Democrats, with the choice in November of 2 strong pro life Republicans and 2 strong pro choice Democrats, which way do you vote and why? Truly curious, not trying to play gotcha.
_____________________________
James
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 2:25:24 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2142
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
So to any pro life Democrats, with the choice in November of 2 strong pro life Republicans and 2 strong pro choice Democrats, which way do you vote and why? Truly curious, not trying to play gotcha.
They'll probably vote dem. After 6 straight years of Republican House, Senate, White House and a 7 to 2 majority in SCOTUS justices and diddly/squat got done to overturn Roe v. Wade even though the pro choice crowd was petrified this would happen leading up to the 2000 election - they'll vote for the party that actually tells the truth in what it wants to do about abortion even though they disagree. One party lies the other party tells the truth. Sounds not too difficult to me.
While some will come on and say that 1.3000012343423532% of all abortions were ended because of Republican initiatives those initiatives did not force a showdown over Roe.
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 2:38:33 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 4171
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
Actually when one worries about the financial cost of the abortion as opposed to carrying it to term the cost of having the baby will far exceed the cost of aborting it in a majority of cases. When one factors in food stamps, medicaid, free school lunches, cost of public education etc. the financial cost of the abortion is far cheaper than the cost of having it on the tax payers. I'm not condoning abortion I am pointing this out.
actually is there any reason you neglect to think that a low income pregnant woman has to either kill her baby or let it grow up on government subsidies? why not mention adoption to non-low income people who can afford a baby for a fairer comparison?
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 2:46:20 PM
|
|
|
URForgiven
Posts: 1080
Joined: 3/22/2008
Status: offline
|
How does the executive or legislative branch of government initiate a showdown with the judicial branch of government? Bush appointed constitutional judges, which may prove to be his greatest achievement.
The next President will most probably choose two more supreme court justices. We all know what kind of justices will be put forth by the two opposing candidates. If you are truly pro-life, it seems simple to me...put your vote, where your mouth is.
Peace
_____________________________
"Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit,
are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" Galatians 3:3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 3:58:30 PM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
How does the executive or legislative branch of government initiate a showdown with the judicial branch of government? Bush appointed constitutional judges, which may prove to be his greatest achievement.
The next President will most probably choose two more supreme court justices. We all know what kind of justices will be put forth by the two opposing candidates. If you are truly pro-life, it seems simple to me...put your vote, where your mouth is.
Peace
And that way, we can get a resolution of the issue...legislated from the bench.
Goodie.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 4:07:20 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 665
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
Women have not always had this "right". It wasn't until the late '60s that exceptions to state abortion laws for the reasons you mention began to be enacted in some states. Abortion before Roe v. Wade was done strictly by state anyway so there was no "national" law for it.
And it should go back to being a State issue
quote:
And that way, we can get a resolution of the issue...legislated from the bench.
Which is how we got to the Federal "right" to murder children in the first place....can you say Roe v Wade?
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 4:17:21 PM
|
|
|
raivyne
Posts: 862
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
Women have not always had this "right". It wasn't until the late '60s that exceptions to state abortion laws for the reasons you mention began to be enacted in some states. Abortion before Roe v. Wade was done strictly by state anyway so there was no "national" law for it.
And it should go back to being a State issue
quote:
And that way, we can get a resolution of the issue...legislated from the bench.
Which is how we got to the Federal "right" to murder children in the first place....can you say Roe v Wade?
I whole-heartedly agree with both of your statements rhippie!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 5:24:06 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1419
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
So to any pro life Democrats, with the choice in November of 2 strong pro life Republicans and 2 strong pro choice Democrats, which way do you vote and why? Truly curious, not trying to play gotcha.
They'll probably vote dem. After 6 straight years of Republican House, Senate, White House and a 7 to 2 majority in SCOTUS justices and diddly/squat got done to overturn Roe v. Wade even though the pro choice crowd was petrified this would happen leading up to the 2000 election - they'll vote for the party that actually tells the truth in what it wants to do about abortion even though they disagree. One party lies the other party tells the truth. Sounds not too difficult to me.
While some will come on and say that 1.3000012343423532% of all abortions were ended because of Republican initiatives those initiatives did not force a showdown over Roe.
If Democrats told the truth about abortions they'd never win an election except in the most blood thirsty liberal areas. Imagine them saying:
- I want it legal to tear a baby apart limb from limb.
- I want it legal to disembowel a live baby.
- I want it legal to stab a baby during birth and suck her brains out.
- I want you to pay for it.
These are all true statements, but Democrats are too cowardly to speak honestly. Instead they speak deceptively like you do and use terms like "pro choice."
< Message edited by ljmac -- 9/12/2008 11:12:46 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 6:31:18 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5392
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _sharon
I'm a Christian and a Democrat but I don't consider myself to be pro-life or pro-choice. They are extreme views IMO.
Being against the murder of the unborn is an extreme view?
quote:
If a woman is the victim of rape then I also support abortion. But even then it depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't dream of making a rape victim live with a living, breathing reminder of probably the most traumatic experience of her life if she didn't want to. But if she was prepared to have the baby and give it up for adoption, then I'd favor that over abortion but I still wouldn't be totally against abortion. In the case of rape, it's definitely the victims choice to have the baby or not IMO.
Where is one granted the right to murder the child for the actions of the father?
quote:
But again, in the case of teen pregnancy it's still hard to take a stance on abortion. You have to think about what happens if you do make an ultimatum and you ban abortions. How many pregnant teens will you find lying dead in a pool of their own blood with a coat hanger stuck half-way up themselves?
In case of abortion now there is always a dead unborn child.... 3500 daily... Sounds kinda extreme... At least the teen had a choice not to attempt such a thing to themselves, the child NEVER has a choice. or a chance...
And lets not forgot that the majority of abortion are not for distressed teens...
_____________________________
John
Proverbs 29:12 If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 6:34:05 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5392
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: upNORTder
I wish that the pro life movement would emphasise in thier ads that more females are aborted than males. Perhaps the far left feminists would then realize that they are aborting thier own. Maybe then they would realize that abortion really means murder.
They know and it doesn't dissuade them since the empowerment surrounding abortion is far more important than who is being aborted... Remember, it's not human, not male or female, it's a fetus, a group of cells, anything other than a human being...
_____________________________
John
Proverbs 29:12 If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 6:37:13 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5392
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
I think many of you are confused when it comes to the term "right to choose". It came from the Roe v Wade legislation that gave women the right ot choose what to do with their own bodied even if it means destroying their unborn healthy child.
Abortion has NEVER BEEN ILLEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY FOR THE PRUPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, RAPE OR INCEST......never never never. Women have "always" had that right.
Which makes Palin's position - no abortion EVEN IN cases of rape - what is the word, ah yes, EXTREME even by the standards of the Right to Life community...doesn't it?
Shouldn't be... Since there is no just cause to put the child of rape to death for the actions of the father... As well, many of those who do think it's ok to put the child to death would be appalled at the idea of the rapist being put to death for his actions... Condemn the just and justify the wicked...
_____________________________
John
Proverbs 29:12 If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 6:45:53 PM
|
|
|
URForgiven
Posts: 1080
Joined: 3/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
How does the executive or legislative branch of government initiate a showdown with the judicial branch of government? Bush appointed constitutional judges, which may prove to be his greatest achievement.
The next President will most probably choose two more supreme court justices. We all know what kind of justices will be put forth by the two opposing candidates. If you are truly pro-life, it seems simple to me...put your vote, where your mouth is.
Peace
And that way, we can get a resolution of the issue...legislated from the bench.
Goodie.
LOL, legislation from the bench is what we have now. Constitutional judges would be the solution to that problem.
Peace
_____________________________
"Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit,
are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" Galatians 3:3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 10:59:24 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2142
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
Lots to respond to:
LJMAC:
quote:
If Democrats told the truth about abortions they'd never win an election except in the most blood thirsty liberal areas. Imagine them saying:
- I want it legal to tear a baby apart limb from limb.
- I want it legal to disembowel a live baby.
- I want it legal to stab a baby during birth and suck her brains out.
- I want you to pay for it.
These are all true statements, but Democrats are too cowardly to speak honestly. Instead they speak deceptively like you do and use terms like "pro choice."
Usually when you make statements like this it annoys me but not this one. You are correct on this one and it isn't so far from reality as some of the others.
Rhippie:
quote:
And it should go back to being a State issue
I totally concur and that has been my point for almost 2 decades. The pro choice crowd doesn't want this issue to go back to the states or to be put up for a vote in any assembly at any level. A majority of jurisdictions would outlaw it to a certain degree though there will still be California, New York, Massachusettes (spelling :P ) etc. where it would be legal we could then rally in those areas and work against it there. If they thought that a majority of Americans were really pro choice they wouldn't care who was on the bench. Pro Choicers know the truth it's why they refuse to concede it to a vote.
Wes:
quote:
This is also a false argument. The majority would have to be 2/3 to guarantee anything, and the majority in SCOTUS is definitely not 7-2 in this regard.
Breyer and Bader-Ginsburg are the only 2 Justices that were appointed by a Democrat President. There are currently 7 Justices that should vote to Overturn a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. The replacement of Reagan appointed O'Connor with Alito can only sway the court more to the Pro Life or "State" side of the issue. The problem is Roe hasn't even been challenged since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 (as close to a direct challenge as it has seen and of the rulings in that case Souter, O'Connor, Stevens and Kennedy refused to overturn Wade and didn't side with Casey (PA) on almost all of the ruling.
UR:
quote:
How does the executive or legislative branch of government initiate a showdown with the judicial branch of government? Bush appointed constitutional judges, which may prove to be his greatest achievement.
You pass laws over and over and over again that lead you to what your ultimate goals are. Those laws get struck down and you just keep doing it over and over and over again. In 2004 for example Georgia, Ohio and I believe Texas had Republicans in control of both statehouses and they had Republican Governors there was NO challenge to Roe V. Wade from any of those 3 states. I'm sure if I had the time and inclination I could go back and find several more states over the last decade or so that had Republicans in control of both statehouses and governor's mansion that did NOT send a law on up to get struck down by the courts to work its way up to the SCOTUS. Then after saying this someone should have proposed some piece of legislation that would once again take a bite out of abortion that can be worked up the courts. After all, didn't we at some point or another vote Republican because they are pro life? Then where is the legislation?
TBC
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 11:20:49 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2142
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
raivyne:
quote:
I personally would rather my tax dollars going into the nanny state went to support life, not extinguish it.
I agree with you. Being pro life is the more expensive way and in this case it is the right way. That is what I was disagreeing with when the monetary cost of the abortions was first mentioned. From a fiscal viewpoint abortion is cheaper. From every other viewpoint it isn't, it is far more expensive. The cheapening of life continues when you mention the elderly.
iwillfearnoevil:
quote:
actually is there any reason you neglect to think that a low income pregnant woman has to either kill her baby or let it grow up on government subsidies? why not mention adoption to non-low income people who can afford a baby for a fairer comparison?
Yes, because this is a discussion on the cost and the cost is relevant. If these women carry the baby through someone has to pay for the prenatal, birth, post natal, shots, follow up, etc. until the baby is adopted. Since pro-lifers (at least on this forum) are so adamantly against socialized anything and everything who pays for it? If 50% of abortions are performed on women from ages 13 to 24 if these women carried these children to term you would be looking at perhaps a 70% or 80% chance of the child spending the majority of its life in poverty where someone besides that mother will be paying for a big, long list of things.
Wesp:
quote:
There is a major flaw in this argument. If the fetus had been allowed to live, he/she probably would have been able to contribute to society. Being able to live a life provides more than ample opportunity to offset cost of rearing in most cases.
One of the great arguments against the "Great Society" is that it created a cycle of poverty. Poverty consistently begats poverty. Children born to young, single mothers a majority of the time - not in many cases but a majority of the time end up in poverty. While you are correct that there is nothing to say it will the statistics are against you.
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS - 9/12/2008 11:25:46 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2142
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Where is one granted the right to murder the child for the actions of the father?
By the 10th amendment where it says "anything not covered in this document is left up to the individual choice of the states". The Constitution does not cover when a life begins though Common Law was used for a long time so it is a decision left up to the individual states. I am not PRO abortion in cases of rape or incest I will not however support the government or anyone else for that matter who wishes to make this decision for the victims or alleged victims. This opinion is consistent with the pro life opinion of the President, McCain, Sarah Palin and pretty much every Republican I have ever seen take office at any level of government. As a matter of fact the same people you have promoted over the years. So since that is an opinion consistent with the people you support in office as being morally superior to the ones you don't, why bother making an issue of it?
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
