DNC SEEKS TO WOO CATHOLICS

[Jaime]

[quote]. Bush won the Catholic vote 51-49% and 55-45% among Catholics who attend Mass weekly. That number is only going to go up folks.[/quote]

Let's be clear though, Bush is pro choice. His views are better than Kerry's but he is still pro choice

[sweetpea316]

Sigh...gotta love politics...
This is kinda off topic and all, but this past Tuesday, the Social Work majors got to go to Austin, TX for this program called 'Student Day at the Legislature' And wow...it was awesome. We got to go into the capitol and talk to representatives and senators about the issues that are most important to us. So...of course..I brought up the issues of abortion and gay 'marriage'. The senator I talked to was great and actually had the same views on it. (but then again, this is TX where there is a majority of conservatives in office) But yeah, its hard to be in the field of social work, where you're working to end social injustice and discrimination, but then you have these controversial issues that go against everything that you believe! But..I'm not gonna budge. I figure they can use some people like me. Sorry for the rambling! I just thought I'd share that! God bless.

Through Him,
Rebecca

[crusader1234]

Lets get together anr party

[argent_paladin]

Nothing would make me happier than for the Dems to truly embrace pro-lifers. Although I think that would be a major blow to the Republicans, I am a Catholic and pro-life first and a Republican second. But, I don't think it will ever happen. A good third of Americans still are strongly pro-abortion and the Dems wouldn't want to lose that group. Plus, the elites and moneymen of the Dems are the ones who tend to be most pro-abortion. They would lose their Hollywood crowd, many student activists, etc, etc. Though they would attract a lot of votes, they would lose a lot of funding, and funding is what makes the world go round. Theoretically a third party could form and cause the demise of the Democratic party. The dems are in a death embrace with the pro-abortion lobby.

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 15 2005, 02:31 PM'] As a hard-core conservative, I don't like anything about the modern Democratic party. However, I think it would be great if more Democrats (and Republicans) became pro-life.

However, I just don't see this happening in the Democratic Party. It seems that abortion "rights," gay "rights," and the like has become the ideological core of the party. These people with a radical leftist social agenda seem to have become the core voters in the Party, and the Party seems to be wedded to their agenda. [/quote]
I would definitely not embrace a Democratic Party that just ran from pro-choice positions, to grab votes. Nope, I just might go Green or go up the political ranks and make my own party if that happens, but the govt. regulating a woman's body? They better be for a lot of other things I like, and I am not the only one on this, for sure.

Radical leftist? How do you define that? It seems that the 'center' of the country is actually far-right-of-center as compared to most of the rest of the known world, so the Democrats are really pretty centrist. Like a British person online once told me, "The Republicans are like our conservative Party, and the Democrats are like our Conservative Party."

[argent_paladin]

The government already regulates a woman's body when the FDA quashes certain drugs as unsafe, or when the DEA says that you can't smoke marijuana or when the government says you can't use your body to suffocate someone or you can't use your body to rape someone or you can't use your own body to run onto a freeway or you can't use your own body to tresspass, etc. That is just tired rhetoric. You don't have to be a theist to be against abortion.
Also, yes, the Dems are quite radical on this subject. America has the most liberal laws concerning abortion, far more liberal than Britian, by the way. And in fact, i would say that both the Republican and Democrats are far more liberal in many ways that either the Labour or Conservative parties since they grew out of the Revolutionary war tradition of Locke and Rosseau. Americans are committed to individual liberty which is the heart of liberalism. Britian's parties both have reactionary totalitarian aspects to them, of elites governing every aspect of the citizens' lives.
European conservativism is very different than American conservatism. American conservatives are not the party of blood, soil and aristocratic privilege. That is why neoconservatives can spring from radical Marxists of the 60s.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 18 2005, 01:26 PM'] George W. Bush got more votes for president than anyone else in the history of our country. [/quote]
You sure? It wasn't that large of a margin.

(I support Bush, just to let you know)

[Guest Aluigi]

no, that's true. it's because there was such a high turnout. As a matter of fact, John Kerry got the second most amount of votes for any presidential candidate in American history. people are polarized and actually willing to get off their lazy butts and vote about it.

[crusader1234]

Unfortunately for JK, it was the wrong group of people

PS - all of you that say that democrats can't be pro-life can forgive my unpleasant disposition

[Ash Wednesday]

I would love to see more pro-life democrats. The republican party no longer ostracizes their pro-choice wing, so the dems need to stop ostracising the ones that are pro-life.


Meh. I think in 2008 I'm going to vote independantly for Joe Schriner. The rising stars in the Republican party aren't proving to be much different than the dems.

[Jaime]

I'd like to remind folks of something

The republican party is not pro-life. They are simply less pro-choice than the democrats.

[MichaelFilo]

You are right. They are a step in the right direction. Not the end of the right direction.

Remdinding isn't neccessary. I don't think any REpublican here would stay REpublican if there was a party more inclined towards the Catholic teachings and had a [b]reasonable possibility of getting candidates in office[/b]. However, that doesn't exist.

God bless,
Mikey

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 20 2005, 12:41 AM'] The government already regulates a woman's body when the FDA quashes certain drugs as unsafe, or when the DEA says that you can't smoke marijuana or when the government says you can't use your body to suffocate someone or you can't use your body to rape someone or you can't use your own body to run onto a freeway or you can't use your own body to tresspass, etc. That is just tired rhetoric. You don't have to be a theist to be against abortion.
Also, yes, the Dems are quite radical on this subject. America has the most liberal laws concerning abortion, far more liberal than Britian, by the way. And in fact, i would say that both the Republican and Democrats are far more liberal in many ways that either the Labour or Conservative parties since they grew out of the Revolutionary war tradition of Locke and Rosseau. Americans are committed to individual liberty which is the heart of liberalism. Britian's parties both have reactionary totalitarian aspects to them, of elites governing every aspect of the citizens' lives.
European conservativism is very different than American conservatism. American conservatives are not the party of blood, soil and aristocratic privilege. That is why neoconservatives can spring from radical Marxists of the 60s. [/quote]
The drug war thing is actually awfully ineffective for the people, but great for votes.

The not using your body to inflict harm on other people thing is a non sequitur, truthfully.

<<you can't use your body to suffocate someone or you can't use your body to rape someone or you can't use your own body to run onto a freeway or you can't use your own body to tresspass, etc. >>

[argent_paladin]

Ah, Atheist Alex! So, your principle is not "One can do whatever one wants with one's body" but rather "One can do whatever one wants with one's body as long as it doesn't harm another." So, it wasn't a non sequitur at all. Pro-lifers assert that an abortion is not just an act involving the woman's body alone, but the body of the unborn baby (or fetus if you prefer). So, according to your logic, abortion is wrong IF it harms another. So the question is: is a fetus another? It has unique DNA, unique fingerprints, its own heart, brain, etc. It grows, it is self-organizing. It fits all the biological and medical conditions of life. If you are so objective and scientific, perhaps you should reexamine your assumptions.
Also, remember that it was not so long ago that women were not considered fully human, or Jews, or blacks. Just because the majority doesn't consider a life a life, doesn't make it true.

And, of course individual democrats can be prolife. Indeed, Harry Reid, the minority leader of the Senate is pro-life. But the Dems are going in the opposite direction as the country on this. With the growing power of kos and left wingers like Dean, there is no chance that any pro-life movement will be seen in the next four years (except by Hillary). I predict that the Dems will be slaughtered in the 2006 Senate race (losing 2-4 seats, so the Repubs will be very close to the magic 60) because the Repubs will copy the Daschle strategy and target pro-aborters in red states. Maybe then the Dems will wake up and moderate their platform on abortion.

[AtheistAlex]

Do not use sarcasm and patronism to try to push your points on me. I see now, instead of arguments, you just push the other person until they slip, right?

One cannot assert their rights to take away others'. That's a concept we can learn from looking at the Bill of Rights. You can have your religious stance, just as long as you don't take away my right to have my own. You can say what you want, just as long as you aren't taking my rights as well.

Similarly, we have taken to this idea of the rugged individual, and thusly, of the private individual, I do what I want, as I am a citizen. You can do the same, as you are a citizen.

That's why I, given the chance, would vote for a woman's right to make a choice when the time comes.

If abortion must be illegal, then riddle me this, what will you do for the women who truly wants to have an abortion? What will you do for the children who'll grow up with mothers who don't want them, because they were raped? I can't answer those, so I would rather side with giving the woman the options as well as information on abortion and both sides to help her make an informed decision. I would not let the government make that decision for her. So, if you wanted my abortion stance so far, there it is. I have grown tired of your word games, so I just cut to the chase. Sorry.

Edited February 25, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[argent_paladin]

But what do you do when two rights come into conflict, Alex? I have a right to free speech. You have a right to privacy. So, what happens if I am yelling outside your window at two in the morning? Rights are not absolute. Your rights as a citizen are not absolute. That is why you have your rights as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of another. So, given that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, she may do so, *UNLESS IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER*. I have a right to shoot my gun, unless it infringes on your right to live. I have a right to swing a bat around, until it infringes on your right to walk without threat of head trauma. Our lives are a give and take of rights because we are social creatures. Anytime two humans interact, there is an interaction of rights.
So you still must answer my question: Does a fetus have rights? If not, why not?

I will answer your question if you answer a similar one:
what will you do for the women who must kill their toddlers? What will you do for the children who'll grow up with mothers who don't want them, because they were raped?

If you can choose to kill a fetus because you cannot afford it, why not a 5 year old? If you can coose to kill a fetus because it is a product of rape or incest, why not a 5 year old?

Do you think that a woman can choose to abort her fetus solely because she doesn't want a girl? Or soley because she doesn't want a gay child (in the event that there is a proven biological basis?"

My questions boil down to one essential question: When does a person acquire those writes you say you hold so dear? Where do they come from? From the fact that there is no umbilical cord connecting them to the mother? From the fact that their head is outside the birth canal? From the fact that they have self-consciousness or can reason? Where? If you are not sure, then are you really willing to err on the side of murder?

[argent_paladin]

In case you are too stubborn to see my arguments again, here it is in schematic form:

A. Innocent human beings posess a right to life that is inviolate,
B. Fetuses are innocent human beings,

ergo,

C. Fetuses posess a right to life that is inviolate.

So, again, my question to you Atheist Alex, is, do you deny premise A or premise B? If B, why B?


Oh, and to answer your questions. No woman must have an abortion. If you think that a woman "must have an abortion" then you deny your own rhetoric of "choice" because there is not choice if a woman "must have an abortion." Second, I would place the child in a good home with loving parents. Why do prospective parents travel to Russia and China to adopt children? There are plenty of loving families. Is it really your contention that we as a societly should kill all those whe don't want? I don't think I want to be a part of that world.

Edited February 25, 2005 by argent_paladin

[AtheistAlex]

I do not have to deny either premise to support the freedom to have an abortion. I think a woman should be allowed to abort because it's not my call, for one thing.

Fetuses are living organisms, but, are not human. Just as sperm and eggs are not human. But that said, I cannot see anyway I would advise someone to have an abortion. It's not desirable, because of the horrible trauma it would cause, in addition to the loss of possible life.

But, there are cases in which a woman may be hurting severely due to the pregnancy, or the child could have a terminal illness that will cause them terrible conditions until an early death. Tell me, are those the scenarios you are advocating? Where people suffer unending pain until their very short life ends? I don't want to be on that world, either.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 25 2005, 05:01 AM'] I do not have to deny either premise to support the freedom to have an abortion. I think a woman should be allowed to abort because it's not my call, for one thing.

Fetuses are living organisms, but, are not human. Just as sperm and eggs are not human. But that said, I cannot see anyway I would advise someone to have an abortion. It's not desirable, because of the horrible trauma it would cause, in addition to the loss of possible life.

But, there are cases in which a woman may be hurting severely due to the pregnancy, or the child could have a terminal illness that will cause them terrible conditions until an early death. Tell me, are those the scenarios you are advocating? Where people suffer unending pain until their very short life ends? I don't want to be on that world, either. [/quote]
The first part of your post made no sense. If you believe that an innocent human beings inviolate right to life was being violated, why would that not be your call? It is "your call" because you are a fellow human being. If someone was abusing a spouse, would you say it wasn't "your call" to take action? If someone was whipping his slave, would you say that is not "your call"?

But then, after you say that you don't have to deny either premise, you deny one. I give you props for finally answering my question. I agree with you that sperm and eggs are not human. But a fetus is more than a sperm or egg. So a fetus is a living organism, but it is not human? Then what is it? And isn't a human fetus, different than a pig fetus, or a dog fetus or a cow fetus? So then, isn't it "human" in that it has human DNA and everything that humans should have? So if it is human and a "living organism" then it is a "human living organism", in other words, a human being.

So, you advocate killing a child because it has a terminal disease? Is that the mother's choice as well? So, we are to decide which lives are worth living and which are not? Do you really want to give the US government the power to decide which lives are worthy of continuing and which are not? I am not. I say that all life is worthwhile. That no life should be ended prematurely.

Nazi Germany thought that it knew which lives were worth living. To them, being a Jew was equivalent of having a terminal illness, as was being a homosexual, gypsy, etc. Again, do you really want the government to decide what lives should be terminated? I certainly don't.

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 25 2005, 05:20 AM'] Nazi Germany thought that it knew which lives were worth living. To them, being a Jew was equivalent of having a terminal illness, as was being a homosexual, gypsy, etc. Again, do you really want the government to decide what lives should be terminated? I certainly don't. [/quote]
All right, I'm invoking Godwin's Law here.
This thread has gone on too long.

Oh and so as to answer your statement, the Nazi analogy does not apply. In that case we could say the same about prisons and death row, as well as our war halfway across the world in the name of "freedom." So I guess you are yourself in favor of the governement deciding life and death.

I am in support of freedom of the mother. I could just as easily say "Are you in favor of our government telling us what to do with our bodies?" But you already saw the problem. That, like what you said, is already happening in other arenas. It's always happened, and so we're at an impass, and you are forced to bring in a Nazi analogy. So, as far as I'm concerned, this thread has stopped being logical via Godwin's Law.