Democrats go all in for abortion rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
scipio337 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So what are the assurances that ‘very poor picks’ will not continue under future administrations, and at what point would it be safe to consider that the ‘very poor picks’ aren’t intentional to keep an issue alive for the sake of maintaining a bloc of voters?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
So what are the assurances that ‘very poor picks’ will not continue under future administrations, and at what point would it be safe to consider that the ‘very poor picks’ aren’t intentional to keep an issue alive for the sake of maintaining a bloc of voters?
Click to expand...
At the point that Catholic voters show how pro-life they are and not how “pro-choice” they are.
 
dmelosi said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do not deny that the majority of the democratic party is pro abortion; however, I question the republican commitment to pro life when I see candidates change views, with their political aspirations, and track records of a majority of republican administrations and supreme court justices, where nothing has been accomplished.

There is no intentional convenience behind my thoughts, except to seek true answers.
 
dmelosi said:
At the point that Catholic voters show how pro-life they are and not how “pro-choice” they are.
Click to expand...
Voting for someone who changes views for the sake of maintaining a bloc of voters does not show how pro life, or pro choice one maybe. It could be showing an issue being used for other issues of self interests.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
So what are the assurances that ‘very poor picks’ will not continue under future administrations, and at what point would it be safe to consider that the ‘very poor picks’ aren’t intentional to keep an issue alive for the sake of maintaining a bloc of voters?
Click to expand...
I suppose there is no absolute guarantee. But we can either support a nominee who proposes to do his best to nominate pro life judges, or one that openly states they support unfettered “choice”. The law of probabilities would favor the first.

We can tell it isn’t intentional by seeing the other acts these other presidents took part in that DID show their intent: Reagan’s “Baby Doe” rule, vetoing UNFPA, Mexico City policy, etc.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I do not deny that the majority of the democratic party is pro abortion; however, I question the republican commitment to pro life when I see candidates change views, with their political aspirations, and track records of a majority of republican administrations and supreme court justices, where nothing has been accomplished.

There is no intentional convenience behind my thoughts, except to seek true answers.
Click to expand...
I think everyone saw what happened to Judge Bork because of his pro life views.

Very easy to check the republicans vs democrats who voted against him.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Voting for someone who changes views for the sake of maintaining a bloc of voters does not show how pro life, or pro choice one maybe. It could be showing an issue being used for other issues of self interests.
Click to expand...
Those that are consistently pro-abortion are more than likely pro-abortion, wouldn’t you agree?
 
scipio337 said:
I suppose there is no absolute guarantee. But we can either support a nominee who proposes to do his best to nominate pro life judges, or one that openly states they support unfettered “choice”. The law of probabilities would favor the first.

We can tell it isn’t intentional by seeing the other acts these other presidents took part in that DID show their intent: Reagan’s “Baby Doe” rule, vetoing UNFPA, Mexico City policy, etc.
Click to expand...
‘Proposes’ is the keyword. At one time in his political history he stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. Now we must accept his proposal as complete truth and not pandering to a bloc of voters.
 
dmelosi said:
Those that are consistently pro-abortion are more than likely pro-abortion, wouldn’t you agree?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. While one is truthful about their stance, it is not more likely if the other is pandering to a bloc of voters.
 
dmelosi said:
I think everyone saw what happened to Judge Bork because of his pro life views.
Click to expand...
His hearings were in 1987, 26 years ago, so it’s not likely that everyone on this Forum witnessed the hearings.

Also, opposition to him centered on “Bork’s stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts, and his opposition to the right of the Federal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states. Bork was also criticized for being an ‘advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy,’ as demonstrated by his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.”

Bork was/is a reactionary. Pro-life was only a small part of why he was rejected.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
His hearings were in 1987, 26 years ago, so it’s not likely that everyone on this Forum witnessed the hearings.

Also, opposition to him centered on “Bork’s stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts, and his opposition to the right of the Federal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states. Bork was also criticized for being an ‘advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy,’ as demonstrated by his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.”

Bork was/is a reactionary. Pro-life was only a small part of why he was rejected.
Click to expand...
The “catholic” Ted Kennedy seemed to think it was a major reason to reject him.

lifesitenews.com/news/mitt-romney-made-desperate-push-to-save-an-unborn-baby-as-a-mormon-bishop/
 
I saw where one poster presented what one bishop had to say. We cannot look through the list of bishops for one that agrees with a view and call it done. There is one voice over all Catholics.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
‘Proposes’ is the keyword. At one time in his political history he stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. Now we must accept his proposal as complete truth and not pandering to a bloc of voters.
Click to expand...
Don’t buy that hype. He ran that way against Kennedy, but acted the exact opposite as governor.

The Obama camp is trying to spin Romney as a rabid “anti abort” who’s going to ban contraception. Catholic Obama supporters are trying to spin him as not “really” pro life (even while denigrating people like Murdouch who openly are). We can’t have it both ways.

Romney used his veto pen in 2005 to block a law that would expand access to emergency contraception.

There are hit pieces galore about Romney advising an LDS parishoner (not sure if that is the right term) against having an abortion:
One day in the hospital, her bishop—later identified as Romney, though she did not name him in the piece—paid her a visit. He told her about his nephew who had Down syndrome and what a blessing it had turned out to be for their family. “As your bishop,” she said he told her, “my concern is with the child.” The woman wrote, “Here I—a baptized, endowed, dedicated worker, and tithe-payer in the church—lay helpless, hurt, and frightened, trying to maintain my psychological equilibrium, and his concern was for the eight-week possibility in my uterus—not for me!”…
Click to expand...
vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-201202
 
scipio337 said:
Don’t buy that hype. He ran that way against Kennedy, but acted the exact opposite as governor.
Click to expand...
So, this is proof he’s telling the truth, by how he misrepresented facts then? He runs one way, but does another, so we can trust him now…
 
Julia_Mae said:
That’s not the choice.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. You can try and define it any way you want, but that’s 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...
If you support the Democrat party, you support abortion on demand. You may justify it to yourself all you want, but you empower groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood. As far as being offensive, I find supporting abortion on demand to be offensive, especially from anyone who claims to be personally opposed to abortion.
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...
Clearly, Obama is not lying about giving women the right to kill their babies for any reason they choose. I guess the disenfranchised don’t include those “mistakes”.
Your side made abortion a big issue, problem is, your side wouldn’t stop it if they could.
Click to expand...
My side is the Church. Can you say the same on this issue?
Rich guys want their girlfriends and daughters taken care of.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that there are no rich Democrats?
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...
Agree that your side is honest about their position. And YOU choose to support the side that advocates the killing of children on demand for any reason.

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top