Democrats... The Pro Life Party

[ricmat]

How is that different than just pulling out or using the rythm method? In both cases you are still the “arbiter of life”

There is an important difference. God did not tell us to “go forth and multiply, and be sure to do it every single day…” Therefore God gave us latitude as to when we can do it.

Natural Family Planning (approved by the Church) uses knowledge of the woman’s natural cycles to decide whether or not to abstain. These natural cycles are part of God’s design for women. The only arbiting we do is “not doing it continuously.”

The issue is that other than abstinence, other birth control methods are artificial, i.e. not of God.

I see no connection between contraception and Euthanasia. The connection between contraception and abortion is more plausible. But the turth is that as long as there have been women getting pregnant there have been people looking for ways to end pregnacies.

Other than to repeat what I already said, I’m at a loss here. It’s obvious to me that a mentality of “I can override God and decide when life begins” can easily transform to “I can override God and decide when life ends.” This was predicted by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humane Vitea (sp?).

Certainly there are more Euthanasia advocates these days and they seem to be of the pro-Choice mindset.

 

[JoeyWarren]

And we have not even breached the subject of “Battlefield Euthanasia”

I had to Euthanize three comrades in 1981. I was on a covert mission for Ronald Reagan. The mission went bad for us. There were nine of us. Four of us got shot badly. We were going to be outmanned and out-runned. Only one could be saved. So I had to choose the one that had the best chance of surviving.

The other three, I put a bullet in thier head for a number of reasons, which very few of you could even understand or appreciate.

Since then, I have talked to a number of Battle Medics whom have had to face the same ultimatum.

It never is easy.

 

[VociMike]

well then, I’m in good company. Because everytime the abortion issue is raised it is a matter of playing politics with dead babies (or fetuses if you are on the other side).

No, “playing politics” has the clear conotation of being insincere, or at the very least unserious, in the quest for partisan gain. Not all politics is “playing politics”, but to claim that democrats are the pro-life party most certainly is.

 

[Valke2]

No, “playing politics” has the clear conotation of being insincere, or at the very least unserious, in the quest for partisan gain. Not all politics is “playing politics”, but to claim that democrats are the pro-life party most certainly is.

they deserve the title as much as the republicans.

 

[dmelosi]

You are so very deeply a democrat and it is really unbelievable how your views are twisted to say this.

The democrat platform states very clear that they are pro choice.

The republican platform states very clear that they are pro life.

That is about as black and white as it could possibly be.

How in the world do you justify that every nominee to the supreme court is almost disqualified if they hint of being pro life. That is the single biggest issue to the democrats during that process.

There are many old timer democrats that also allow the wool to stay over their eyes.

they deserve the title as much as the republicans.

 

[Valke2]

You are so very deeply a democrat and it is really unbelievable how your views are twisted to say this.

The democrat platform states very clear that they are pro choice.

The republican platform states very clear that they are pro life.

That is about as black and white as it could possibly be.

How in the world do you justify that every nominee to the supreme court is almost disqualified if they hint of being pro life. That is the single biggest issue to the democrats during that process.

There are many old timer democrats that also allow the wool to stay over their eyes.

The platforms can say whatever they want. The actions of each party speak for themselves. As for supreme court nominations, the facts also belie that old saw.

 

[dmelosi]

They certainly do! Finally some progress on you seeing the light.

The platforms can say whatever they want. The actions of each party speak for themselves. As for supreme court nominations, the facts also belie that old saw.

 

[kangnamdragon]

The platforms can say whatever they want. The actions of each party speak for themselves. As for supreme court nominations, the facts also belie that old saw.

All the pro-life Supreme Court members were appointed by Republicans.

 

[JoeyWarren]

All the pro-life Supreme Court members were appointed by Republicans.

And they outnumber the Pro-choice members, yet there is still no overturning the ruling. So, did some of them lie about their stance so they could get appointed?

 

[dmelosi]

The point I made in my previous post was that Democrats will do their best to disqualify someone because of the pro life issue alone.

And they outnumber the Pro-choice members, yet there is still no overturning the ruling. So, did some of them lie about their stance so they could get appointed?

 

[kangnamdragon]

And they outnumber the Pro-choice members, yet there is still no overturning the ruling. So, did some of them lie about their stance so they could get appointed?

I only count 4 pro-life Justices: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

 

[2shelbys]

And they outnumber the Pro-choice members, yet there is still no overturning the ruling. So, did some of them lie about their stance so they could get appointed?

You really do not understand much at all about how things work. The Supreme Court can not just pick a previous ruling and overturn it. They have to have a case brought before them that challenges the previous ruling. Until that happens, they can not do a thing.

 

[dmelosi]

Shelby, I think you are the one missing the point here. There is no where in this post or any that I have seen that says the Supreme Court can pick a ruling to overturn it. Everyone knows that the pro life judges are important if and when pro life issues come before them.

You really do not understand much at all about how things work. The Supreme Court can not just pick a previous ruling and overturn it. They have to have a case brought before them that challenges the previous ruling. Until that happens, they can not do a thing.

 

[Valke2]

Economic policy and abortion are related issues. Rhetoric about right to life is worthless without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage.

When President Bush took office, the nation’s abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute’s studies).

three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky’s increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan’s increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania’s increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002.

52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back.
sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5

updated statistics since this article was released suggest that the abortion rate has stalled, rather than reversed. However, it is clear that it is no longer on the decline.

 

[JoeyWarren]

You really do not understand much at all about how things work. The Supreme Court can not just pick a previous ruling and overturn it. They have to have a case brought before them that challenges the previous ruling. Until that happens, they can not do a thing.

Then the abortion issue is a moot and mute point. Unless someone…for the greater good…fabricates a case…and it is eventually brought to the Surpreme Court for thru Clandestine measures.

Being realistic of course, what are the chances that such a case would make it’s way to the Highest Supreme Court?

 

[dmelosi]

You fool no one. Your first statement where you use the word “without” causes you to lose all credibility on this view. Simply put, you are trying to ease your conscious so you can vote for the democratic party, no matter how pro death they are.

You simply should be honest an say that the abortion issue is not that important to you.

Economic policy and abortion are related issues. Rhetoric about right to life is worthless without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage.

When President Bush took office, the nation’s abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute’s studies).

three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky’s increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan’s increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania’s increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002.

52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back.
sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5

 

[JoeyWarren]

I only count 4 pro-life Justices: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

Justice-----------------Affiliation

John Roberts----------- Catholic ------ Pro
Stephen G. Breyer---- Jewish ------ should be
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- Jewish ------ should be
Anthony M. Kennedy- Catholic ------ should be
Antonin Scalia--------- Catholic ----- Pro
David H. Souter------- Episcopalian ---- ?
John Paul Stevens---- Protestant ----- ?
Clarence Thomas----- Catholic ---- Pro
Samuel Alito----------- Catholic ---- Pro

 

[2shelbys]

Originally Posted by Valke2 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Economic policy and abortion are related issues. Rhetoric about right to life is worthless without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. *

You could not be more wrong, it is quite the reverse. None of those issues and indeed nothing at all has meaning without the right to life.

 

[2shelbys]

Then the abortion issue is a moot and mute point. Unless someone…for the greater good…fabricates a case…and it is eventually brought to the Surpreme Court for thru Clandestine measures.

Being realistic of course, what are the chances that such a case would make it’s way to the Highest Supreme Court?

You give further support for my observation. Not only is there no need to “fabricate” a case, no one could. To say so exposes you as having absolutely no knowledge of the judicial system. All that needs to happen is for one state to enact restrictions on abortion as South Dakota tried to do and the fight over it is guaranteed to make it all the way to the Supreme Court. It is only a matter of time.

 

[Valke2]

You could not be more wrong, it is quite the reverse. None of those issues and indeed nothing at all has meaning without the right to life.

my point was that the better things are economically for the lower class, the less abortions there are.