Democrats go all in for abortion rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dmelosi said:
If you do the research it was the pro abortionists that changed pro abortion to pro choice, not those against abortion, as you rightly call them pro-life.
Click to expand...
There are pro-lifers, pro-abortionists, and pro-choicers. The last two are NOT synonymous.
 
Julia_Mae said:
That’s not the choice. You can try and define it any way you want, but that’s not the choice. It’s the “pro-life” groups who did the spin of being pro-choice into “pro-abortion.” Almost all the people I know who support the law as it is are certainly not at all fans of abortion. YOUR side’s constant use of the term and trying to characterize everyone this way is hugely offensive, dishonest, and probably one of the ways you shoot yourselves in the foot.
Click to expand...
Bullfeathers. The Democratic platform supports abortion even to the point of “regardless of ability to pay”, and "“unequovacally” supports abortion.

The Democrat party and many of its supporters don’t just “support the law as it is”…they OPPOSE any attempts to change those laws, and won’t allow a SINGLE restriction on abortion. Prental consent for minors? Nope. Late term abortion ban? Nope. Ultrasound requirements? Nope.

Even to the point of demagoguery (see Akin, Mourdock, Personhood Amendment slams, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.)

Perhaps we can revert to the “I’m personally against, but don’t want to impose my religious views on others™” fallacy?
Julia Mae:
So, people with agendas spin things. You do, the Dems do, the Republicans do, my neighbors do and I imagine, I do.

People define their own choices, not you. For me the choice is: who’s the biggest lair. That’s Romney, no question. Or, who is most likely to care about the disenfranchised? That’s Obama. Or: who is most likely to defend the Constitution? That’s neither.
Click to expand...
Of course people define their own choices, but a majority of Obama supporters seem blind to the fact that Obama is pro abortion, or that Romney wouldn’t support pro-life legislation (“look, he said he has no plans for aborition legislation!”).
Julia Mae:
Your side made abortion a big issue, problem is, your side wouldn’t stop it if they could. Rich guys want their girlfriends and daughters taken care of. The “business” of abortion is being sustained by corrupt politicians from ALL sides. No one is going to do thing one to stop it. At least my side is honest about their position: legal choice.
Click to expand...
Bare assertion fallacy. Who has proposed pro-life legislation? Nominated SCOTUS justices who have upheld abortion restricting laws?
Julia Mae:
Too bad the real issues are lost in the rhetoric, in the media and here. Too bad everyone wants to be right and justified and claim victory instead of do anything useful that might lower the rate of unwanted pregnancy or take a look at how young women are educated or… or even be able to defend the stand that abortion is wrong without resorting to some Church document.

IMO everything about this is a tragedy.
Click to expand...
The greatest tragedy I see is the congnitive dissonance some are willing to engage in to continue blatant intrinsic evils.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
There are pro-lifers, pro-abortionists, and pro-choicers. The last two are NOT synonymous.
Click to expand...
The last statement you made is how way too many Catholics (and others) use to ease their self conscience. Bishop Paprocki is very clear on the danger to one’s soul.
 
dmelosi said:
Start with the basics and the picture becomes very clear.
Click to expand...
Basics:

Romney once stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. As his political aspirations changed, so did his view.

Since Roe vs. Wade, we’ve had more republican administrations than democrat.

Since Roe vs. Wade, republican administrations appointed the majority of supreme court justices. Currently, there is a majority of sitting supreme court justices appointed by republicans.

At some point it becomes clear that some issues are argued simply to promote other ‘self interests’.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
The nexus to this thread??? 🤷
Click to expand...
How does anyone know what to believe from a party? You have to get back to the basics, what is a person really like.

But I had the reason in my post, which you did not carry over in your quote.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Basics:

Romney once stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. As his political aspirations changed, so did his view.

Since Roe vs. Wade, we’ve had more republican administrations than democrat.

Since Roe vs. Wade, republican administrations appointed the majority of supreme court justices. Currently, there is a majority of sitting supreme court justices appointed by republicans.

At some point it becomes clear that some issues are argued simply to promote other ‘self interests’.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the republican party is more pro abortion that the democratic party?

Very convenient of you to leave off how blatantly pro abortion the democratic party is.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
There are pro-lifers, pro-abortionists, and pro-choicers. The last two are NOT synonymous.
Click to expand...
Daniel Webster tried to straddle the same indefensible and logically vacuous position.

I’m personally don’t think that slavery should be outlawed, but don’t own any slaves of my own.

Hence, I am not “pro-slavery”
 
dmelosi said:
The last statement you made is how way too many Catholics (and others) use to ease their self conscience. Bishop Paprocki is very clear on the danger to one’s soul.
Click to expand...
Again: pro-choicers are not pro-abortionists. The bishop’s opinion needs be given serious consideration by all American Catholics; it is binding only in his own diocese.

Let me give you an example of that - there have been instances when a group of bishops have come out in favor of stronger gun control. A lot of folks on the Forum have rejected their position - and that is fine. They disagree with the bishops’ conclusions and it makes them no less Catholic for that. Same with those who might not agree with Bishop Paprocki.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Basics:

Romney once stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. As his political aspirations changed, so did his view.

Since Roe vs. Wade, we’ve had more republican administrations than democrat.

Since Roe vs. Wade, republican administrations appointed the majority of supreme court justices. Currently, there is a majority of sitting supreme court justices appointed by republicans.

At some point it becomes clear that some issues are argued simply to promote other ‘self interests’.
Click to expand...
A 1 justice majority, in the current court, and Souter is the most unfortunate nomination in the past 50 years.

How have the Democratic vs. Republican appointed justices voted?
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Again: pro-choicers are not pro-abortionists. The bishop’s opinion needs be given serious consideration by all American Catholics; it is binding only in his own diocese.

Let me give you an example of that - there have been instances when a group of bishops have come out in favor of stronger gun control. A lot of folks on the Forum have rejected their position - and that is fine. They disagree with the bishops’ conclusions and it makes them no less Catholic for that. Same with those who might not agree with Bishop Paprocki.
Click to expand...
We are talking about a party that is in favor of taking a human life whenever that human life is a little bit convenient. On demand…

Am I wrong in saying that the pro abortion party also wants us to pay to kill that "inconvenience?
 
dmelosi said:
We are talking about a party that is in favor of taking a human life whenever that human life is a little bit convenient. On demand…

Am I wrong in saying that the pro abortion party also wants us to pay to kill that "inconvenience?
Click to expand...
It’s not enough that it be “legal” but it must be free too.
 
scipio337 said:
A 1 justice majority, in the current court, and Souter is the most unfortunate nomination in the past 50 years.

How have the Democratic vs. Republican appointed justices voted?
Click to expand...
It is a 1 justice majority, at this time. Before the two most recent appointments, what was the majority count?
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Again: pro-choicers are not pro-abortionists. The bishop’s opinion needs be given serious consideration by all American Catholics; it is binding only in his own diocese.

Let me give you an example of that - there have been instances when a group of bishops have come out in favor of stronger gun control. A lot of folks on the Forum have rejected their position - and that is fine. They disagree with the bishops’ conclusions and it makes them no less Catholic for that. Same with those who might not agree with Bishop Paprocki.
Click to expand...
Gun ownership isn’t an intrinsic evil.
 
scipio337 said:
Daniel Webster tried to straddle the same indefensible and logically vacuous position.

I’m personally don’t think that slavery should be outlawed, but don’t own any slaves of my own.

Hence, I am not “pro-slavery”
Click to expand...
I’ve explained in several posts that there is a difference between those who are pro-active about abortion, and those who see it only as an alternative course of action for a pregnant woman.
 
scipio337 said:
Gun ownership isn’t an intrinsic evil.
Click to expand...
It was an example of how one can hold a different opinion than that of a bishop or bishops. I’m not taking any position about gun ownership. Sheesh!
 
SamH said:
So does that make you more likely to vote him?
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my first post. It does not matter what one states on these forums as it will be spun, or rejected as truth, unless one is showing support for a particular partisan candidate.

In this thread I have not voiced a support for anyone, or against anyone. I tried to show that there appears to be shortcomings on both sides of the aisle.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It is a 1 justice majority, at this time. Before the two most recent appointments, what was the majority count?
Click to expand...
Stevens and O’Connor were also very poor picks.

How have the Democratic vs. Republican appointed justices voted? Which way would have Gonzales v. Carhart gone, sans Bush appointees?

That single case was the watershed moment for the pro-life movement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top