Democrats excluding Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
A truly ugly misrepresentation of my statements and the position of the Repub party.
Click to expand...
Fine. I am open to an explanation of why you went to the term “on-demand”.

But there is not a thing wrong with my representation of the position of the Republican party on abortion. There is no evidence that ii wants to make abortion illegal. It does aim to outlaw certainly procedures and to expand restrictions that will hardly change the numbers of abortions. And abortion will remain legal. And of course it doesn’t want to provide financial assistance to anyone.

They have a pro-life posture that gets votes from the earnest, but their actual stated aims fall far short of the Catholic position, with no path to get there.
 
Last edited:
jagged said:
40.png
Imdaman:
NO actually it doesn’t
Click to expand...
YES, actually it does.
Click to expand...
No actually it doesn’t
 
Or you could ven diagram the two, and where they intersect, there is abortion on demand.

Most US states allow a woman to decide up to 6 months. I think all, but need to qualify.
Your addition link doesn’t contradict.
 
Last edited:
jagged said:
I can’t provide any evidence that the republicans support torture except for direct quotes from the leader, you mean. I can also point to the nomination of Gina Haspel to run the CIA and the fact that torture occurred in the last Republican administration. I’m pretty sure that qualifies as evidence.
Click to expand...
Not one thing you have said demonstrates that Repubs support torture.
 
Your own statements are contradictory.

Regardless, the Repubs have done a good deal more to combat abortion than you say. Just because you view all of it with partisan cynicism does not mean it’s insincere.

And there is a “path to get there” and you know it. It’s Repub appointment of one more Supreme Court justice. Dems will fight it tooth and nail, of course if Trump gets to nominate an additional justice, because without abortion, nothing is left of the Dem party ideology. That’s also why Dems dread and hate Trump’s election so much.

You know all of that. You won’t admit it, of course, because you’re a Democrat.
 
Theo520 said:
Most US states allow a woman to decide up to 6 months. I think all, but need to qualify.

Your addition link doesn’t contradict.
Click to expand...
Adult women.
One could speak of abortion on demand for adult women through n weeks of gestation. But the qualifiers are important; they distinguish the situation from literal “abortion on demand”.

Alternatively, if one takes abortion on demand to mean any, but not necessarily all, women at any, but not necessarily every moment of gestation, then the Republican platform does not preclude abortion on demand.
 
Last edited:
jagged said:
It doesn’t. Hmm, that’s interesting. I guess direct quotes of the current Republican leader, actions of that leader and actions under the previous Republican nomination aren’t good enough for you. I’ll keep that in mind when I read your critiques on those you disagree with politically.
Click to expand...
You would read whatever I say with hostility anyway, so nothing lost.

Trump did not say “I support putting people in acid baths” or “I support pulling peoples’ fingers off with a pliers” or anything of the sort.

The issue of waterboarding was presented, and he said he would approve worse. What does that mean? It means nothing at all unless one has already concluded that waterboarding is “torture” and that somehow he had something more punishing than that in mind.

There have been long and arduous debates in CAF as well as elsewhere as to whether waterboarding is rightly considered “torture”. It has never been resolved, one of the major barriers to resolution being that nobody has yet come up with so much as a definition for “torture”. Well, actually, I think one person did propose a definition and another proposed a slight variation on it. And that was in all the years “torture” was debated here. One definition one time. That’s it.

Of course, you’re free to propose your definition if you wish.
 
dvdjs said:
Adult women.

One could speak of abortion on demand for adult women through n weeks of gestation. But the qualifiers are important and distinguish the situation from abortion on demand.

Alternatively, if one takes abortion on demand to mean any, but not necessarily all, women at any, but not necessarily every moment of gestation, the the Republican platform does not preclude abortion on demand.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you are saying.
Are you creating your own ‘no true scotstman’ definition in spite of the web definitions posted?
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
I don’t understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...
No. I am saying that the definitions allow for qualification, but those need to to be explicit to make sense. Abortion on demand allowed for 4 weeks is obviously not the same legal situation as abortion on demand allowed for12 weeks. If you insist otherwise, then you must admit that the Republican platform does in fact allow for abortion on demand.
 
Last edited:
What as puzzled me is why the issue of keeping abortion legal has essentially become the sine qua non of Democratic policy. It doesn’t make sense that the party cannot tolerate pro-life views. It is like maintaining the right to sacrifice babies is the only non-negotiable item in the whole platform. I guess the party thinks that it must preserve sexual license and the sexual revolution at all costs or any cost and that requires abortion on demand. As has been noted, the party has fought tooth and nail against any restriction on abortion.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Your own statements are contradictory.
Click to expand...
Not in the least.
Ridgerunner said:
Repubs have done a good deal more to combat abortion than you say
Click to expand...
Combat. That is not the Catholic standard. Why not make a move to eliminate it? Why not propose the move?
Ridgerunner said:
And there is a “path to get there” and you know it. It’s Repub appointment of one more Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...
What do you think will happen? Do you think the SCOTUS will outlaw abortion? Do you think that it can? Will it just be left to the states without regard to any of the ongoing precedents from Roe or Casey? How will that judicial appointment effect a substantial change in the number of abortions?
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
What as puzzled me
Click to expand...
You considerably overstate the situation, and you also miss the point.
This is not about sexual license or revolution, it is about individual women having control over the own child-bearing.
 
Thought I would comment on your soap box speech
  1. Force your religious beliefs and practices on others.
    Nobody is forced to attend church - a moment for prayer doesn’t qualify as forcing your beliefs on someone. To an atheist is just a moment for reflection or mediation, still very healthy and helpful.
  2. Advocate for war.
    Read up on “The Long Peace” which the US has largely instigated.
  3. Favor the rich over the poor.
    You didn’t make any coherent points on this one, nothing to refute as it relates to politics.
  4. Cut funding that hurts the least of these.
    Just maybe the funding isn’t being spent wisely, or actually getting results. Feeding your neighbor is really your responsibility, not the federal govt. Read up on the teachings of Subsidiarity
  5. Let people go hungry.
    Food is readily available for citizens in need. Any hunger is likely associated with addiction or mental illness, not lack of food availability. Again, this is really a local responsibility, get involved yourself when you see a gap.
  6. Withhold healthcare from people.
    Emergency rooms are open 24/7
  7. Limit the rights of a select group of people.
    Again, you failed to make a coherent point as it relates to politics.
  8. Turn away immigrants.
    We focus on the needs of legitimate refugees. Open borders is not a Christian teaching.
  9. Devalue education.
    Increased budgets has clearly been proven to not improve outcomes, so reducing the budgets is not explicitly wrong. Why should the Govt forgive student loans?
When you examine budget spent on education, you are dishonest if you exclude state and local budgets, since they are the ones responsible for this public good.
  1. Support capital punishment — execution.
    This is really a bi-partisan issue, if you took the time to study it’s history.
  2. Abortion - Self Explanatory
Click to expand...
 
dvdjs said:
No. I am saying that the definitions allow for qualification, but those need to to be explicit to make sense. Abortion on demand allowed for 4 weeks is obviously not the same legal situation as abortion on demand allowed for12 weeks. If you insist otherwise, then you must admit that the Republican platform does in fact allow for abortion on demand.
Click to expand...
Definitions usually do allow for qualification.

I’d say the GOP platform is for a reduced window of ‘abortion on demand’ The platform can’t really call for ending abortion completely, which the courts have ruled a legal right.
 
dvdjs said:
That is not an honest representation of the the position of the Democratic party
Click to expand...
Sure it is: http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay."

Safe, legal murder. Vote Dem!
dvdjs said:
nor its voters.
Click to expand...
I’ll grant that many of its voters might not be aware of this, or might not be aware of what abortion objectively is: the murder of another human being. But for those who ARE aware, well. I can’t say too much about them that’s kind.
dvdjs said:
If your goal is sharpen the wedge for the sake of divisiveness to aid opponents of the Democratic party, then this is great rhetoric.
Click to expand...
My goal is to cleave to the truth. If that truth is unpalatable for some, then they ought to consider what kind of lies they’ve been swallowing.
dvdjs said:
If your goal is to solve the aborion problem, this is a very poor way to go about it.
Click to expand...
Is abortion the murder of a human being, or isn’t it?
 
Theo520 said:
I’d say the GOP platform is for a reduced window of ‘abortion on demand’ The platform can’t really call for ending abortion completely, which the courts have ruled a legal right.
Click to expand...
I think that this is fair, but once upon a time there was talk of a Constitutional amendment.
 
dvdjs said:
What do you think will happen? Do you think the SCOTUS will outlaw abortion? Do you think that it can? Will it just be left to the states without regard to any of the ongoing precedents from Roe or Casey? How will that judicial appointment effect a substantial change in the number of abortions?
Click to expand...
I think there is a good chance of it, yes, and an even better chance of it being left to states and thus restricted or prohibited by most of them.

Precedents are only honored when they’re honored. What happened with the “precedent” in Plessy vs. Ferguson that upheld segregation? It, and all cases flowing from it vanished as "precedent’ overnight.

“Roe” and cases flowing from it could disappear overnight as “precedent” with one decision of the Supreme Court. That’s why the Dems would do anything to remove Trump; so he won’t appoint another Supreme Court justice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top