Democrats versus Republicans - the great divide on life

Status
Not open for further replies.
The disparity is easy to explain.

The Republican party is focused on the fetus. In fact, it’s not a fetus, but a baby. It’s a person with a right to life from it’s very conception and in its innocence, the Republicans see themselves as the defenders of the quintessentially weak.

The Democratic party is focused on the mother. Since pregnancy is often dangerous and always life changing and since a woman always has control over her own body which the fetus must use, she must always be able to choose if she doesn’t want to be pregnant.

One looks at the unborn. One looks at the mother. Whichever they focus on is inherently more important to them.
 
Last edited:
i wish you were able to post a link to that. But you are new and cannot.
 
Last edited:
Found it:

www.nationalreview.com

Pope Francis's Poor Response to the Catholic Sex-Abuse Crisis | National Review

The laicization of McCarrick is held up as a victory of accountability, even justice, but actually amounts to a public-relations move.
www.nationalreview.com www.nationalreview.com

Quote comes at the end:

‘’The supposed justice meted to McCarrick amounts to a cover-up. The pope’s summit is trash and a coverup. These men do not fear the justice of God or men. All their training in theology, and their great insight about man’s depravity, is the schoolyard taunt “Whoever smelt it, dealt it.” To hell with them all.’’
 
Maybe a more accurate description of Republican Party “government” preference would be “subsidiarity”-the idea that decisions should be made as “close to home” as possible , by local governments first, and then by county, state, and finally, federal government.

This makes sense in the United States because of the many differences between the states. What makes sense for Californians does not necessarily make sense for people living in North Dakota. For that matter, what’s good for Southern California is not necessarily good for people in Northern California.

You’ve probably heard a lot of us Republicans saying that we don’t want our lives governed by Los Angeles, NYC, and Chicago. Yep, that’s the way I feel.

When I visit my daughter in NYC, it’s obvious that many of the people there have no clue about how we live in Northern Illinois. Many New Yorkers seem to think we should walk everywhere, like they do, or take a bus, train, or subway, rather than driving a big gas-guzzling car. Yeah, sure. They don’t realize that it’s about 3 miles to my grocery store, and there are no sidewalks, just a six-lane main drag through our town. Nope, I’ll be driving, gas, emissions, and all the rest, and I think they would, too, if they lived here.
 
Last edited:
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the National Review? Who publishes it?
 
@ontheway1

It’s a well-established conservative political journal. I’m fairly sure it has a more secular view, although it’s founder, William F. Buckley, was a Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Buckley hasn’t been around for a while. Is it still the same journal?
 
I don’t know—I don’t read it. I just accessed it to find the article that poster was alluding to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top