DNC chairman is pro-life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bradwill911
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bradwill911

Guest
This was posted on cnn.com’s political blog, I posted it under secular news, but thought it was also appropriate to post here: politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Kaine blocks funding for embryonic stem cell research
Posted: 02:03 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has signed a bill into law banning the use of state funds for embryonic stem cell research.

The move puts the DNC chairman at odds with President Obama, who signed an executive order earlier this month reversing the Bush administration’s ban on federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells.

Kaine approved the Virginia bill on Monday, according to the governor’s office, the same day he enacted legislation that would permit “Choose Life” license plates in the commonwealth — an act that angered state and national abortion rights advocates.

The governor signed another piece of legislation Monday aimed at promoting “science and technology-based” research and development in Virginia. It contains language inserted by the General Assembly that would prevent a state fund from providing dollars to organizations or businesses that undertake “research in Virginia on human cells or tissue derived from induced abortions or from stem cells obtained from human embryos.”

Kaine’s support for the legislation is not surprising: He is a staunch Catholic who has long opposed using taxpayer money for embryonic stem cell research. But the platform of the Democratic Party, now headed by Kaine, describes embryonic stem cell research as “research that could save lives.”

Both the stem cell bill and the license plate uproar highlight the balancing act Kaine faces in his dual roles of the moment: one as policy-minded governor of a moderate state, and another as a the national face for a partisan organization seeking to promote President Obama agenda. Kaine will assume the DNC position full time when his term expires in January.

Asked for comment about Kaine’s departure from the national party line, the DNC referred questions to the governor’s office in Richmond.

Lynda Tran, the governor’s communications director, said that Kaine’s decision is “in keeping with his faith and his personal beliefs.”

“The governor is opposed to the use of state funds to fund embryonic stem cell research, but he generally agrees with the national platform broadly, that there are scientific values to stem cell research,” Tran said. “In Virginia, where there has been strong opposition to embryonic research, he has made it a choice to focus on other forms of research like adult and placental stem cell research.”

The bill signed Monday allows funding for non-embryonic types of research.

All three of the Democrats vying to replace Kaine as governor this fall — Terry McAuliffe, Brian Moran and Creigh Deeds — support using state money for embryonic research.
 
It will be interesting to see what develops.
I miss when we had a choice in political parties.
 
There are pro life democrats out there. I just wish they would speak out more.
 
Don’t get to excited, although he’s against stem-cell research and supports a ban on partial birth abortions, is in favor of parental notification, and other restrictions on abortion, he still doesn’t advocate for specifically for overturning Roe v. Wade by some magical means.

As such, no matter what else he does to promote life and reduce the number of abortions, he is part of the culture of death and is destined to Hell, not just because he’s anti-life, but just as importantly because he’s a Democrat.😉
 
Don’t get to excited, although he’s against stem-cell research and supports a ban on partial birth abortions, is in favor of parental notification, and other restrictions on abortion, he still doesn’t advocate for specifically for overturning Roe v. Wade by some magical means.

As such, no matter what else he does to promote life and reduce the number of abortions, he is part of the culture of death and is destined to Hell, not just because he’s anti-life, but just as importantly because he’s a Democrat.😉
You mean he favors legalized abortion? If he does that is gravely wrong.
 
You mean he favors legalized abortion? If he does that is gravely wrong.
He is typical of many “pro-lifers” in that he says he is personally pro-life, and he supports some pro-life legislation, but he is incompletely pro-life. One of my senators is pro-life in all cases except rape/incest and safety of the mother. Is he also part of the pro-death culture?

Personally, and I am as flawed as a person can be, I think it is counter-productive to reject someone like this who has given more than just a hint of pro-life rhetoric. He is actually doing something pro-life here. He is imperfect and ultimately not as pro-life as we would like, but perhaps with our prayers he will become more and more pro-life. To me, it is a small glimpse of light from the leader of the party that is known for their pro-choice platform. The dems could use more people like this, he is someone who doesn’t seem to be completely hardened on this issue. Here is someone who is paddling against a strong current. This is only my humble opinion.
 
He is typical of many “pro-lifers” in that he says he is personally pro-life, and he supports some pro-life legislation, but he is incompletely pro-life. One of my senators is pro-life in all cases except rape/incest and safety of the mother. Is he also part of the pro-death culture?
If abortion were limited to cases involving rape, incest or where the mother’s LIFE was threatened, abortion would be reduced by about 95%. But a phrase such as “safety of the mother” is essentially meaningless, and allows for any abortion, as is the case now.

Now I don’t agree that a child should be executed for the crime of its father, or the crimes of its parents. But I’ve never seen even a pro-life Democrat propose meaningful restrictions that would actually prohibit abortions in such cases, so as to to make it “rare.”
 
He is typical of many “pro-lifers” in that he says he is personally pro-life, and he supports some pro-life legislation, but he is incompletely pro-life. One of my senators is pro-life in all cases except rape/incest and safety of the mother. Is he also part of the pro-death culture?

Personally, and I am as flawed as a person can be, I think it is counter-productive to reject someone like this who has given more than just a hint of pro-life rhetoric. He is actually doing something pro-life here. He is imperfect and ultimately not as pro-life as we would like, but perhaps with our prayers he will become more and more pro-life. To me, it is a small glimpse of light from the leader of the party that is known for their pro-choice platform. The dems could use more people like this, he is someone who doesn’t seem to be completely hardened on this issue. Here is someone who is paddling against a strong current. This is only my humble opinion.
Praise his good actions, but his position is not pro life.
 
Re: DNC chairman is pro-life? No he is not pro-life.

Tim Kaine supports abortion and therefore a pro-abortion politician. The fact that he may reject some abortions under certain circumstances is only an experienced politician’s or pacifist’s way of buying the confidence of so called non-extremist type voters.
 
He is typical of many “pro-lifers” in that he says he is personally pro-life, and he supports some pro-life legislation, but he is incompletely pro-life. One of my senators is pro-life in all cases except rape/incest and safety of the mother. Is he also part of the pro-death culture?
The pro-death culture got to be what it is beginning some time ago with a small crag in wall. A little at a time. When we let in a little bit of evil, the evil is not satisfied and ever seeks for more. If society became what it is today by letting in a little evil, it makes no sense that by still allowing a little bit of evil in, that things will get better. Compromising with the devil is a futile effort.
 
If abortion were limited to cases involving rape, incest or where the mother’s LIFE was threatened, abortion would be reduced by about 95%. But a phrase such as “safety of the mother” is essentially meaningless, and allows for any abortion, as is the case now.

Now I don’t agree that a child should be executed for the crime of its father, or the crimes of its parents. But I’ve never seen even a pro-life Democrat propose meaningful restrictions that would actually prohibit abortions in such cases, so as to to make it “rare.”
Thanks for the reply. If abortions were eliminated except in these rare cases, would the people who supported this be part of the culture of death?

Let me rephrase this, if I am a senator and I support abortion ONLY in the cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life was threatened, would I be considered pro-life or pro-choice?
 
Praise his good actions, but his position is not pro life.
At what point does one become “pro-life” by definition? Is it a zero-tolerance policy? What about those who are pro-choice only in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother could die?
 
At what point does one become “pro-life” by definition? Is it a zero-tolerance policy? What about those who are pro-choice only in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother could die?
When one protects innocent. Pro life has no exceptions.
 
Thanks for the reply. If abortions were eliminated except in these rare cases, would the people who supported this be part of the culture of death?

Let me rephrase this, if I am a senator and I support abortion ONLY in the cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life was threatened, would I be considered pro-life or pro-choice?
You would be pro-choice, but you would not be a pro-choice extremist as is the case with most Democrats currently, because they effectively support abortion for any reason throughout nine months of pregnancy. By attempting to actually prohibit most abortions, you would increase the chance of political compromise. Not because those who are pro-life support even those 1% of abortions that are done for rape, incest, or life of the mother, but because most who are pro-life would be willing to support legislation that eliminates 99% of abortions rather than that which eliminates none.
 
Let me rephrase this, if I am a senator and I support abortion ONLY in the cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life was threatened, would I be considered pro-life or pro-choice?
You would be considered pro-abortion and as a Catholic senator could not in good conscience hold such a position. Under certain circumstances some may find it morally legitimate to vote for you by taking a pragmatic approach in an attempt at “limiting the harm” as defined in Evangelium Vitae provided certain conditions are met.
 
I used to be Pro-Choice years ago personally, and I was a Democrat. Then I started practicing Buddhism years ago, studying the morailty/ethics behind it, and I realized my stance was incompatible with the ethical teachings. So, I stopped considering abortion as a “necessary evil” so much, I stopped sending money to Planned Parenthood. I support a persons right to contraception but I don’t believe in subsidizing abortion.

Now, I no longer really consider myself a Buddhist, I’m not sure what I am though I am considering returning to Christianity as I believe that is the religion most likely to contain “the fullness of truth”. I vote for “pro-choice” candidates, though, and I definitely am more Democrat and liberal than Republican. I don’t see how outlawing abortions will automaticy reduce them. Abortion is very ancient, in some cases it doesn’t even require that sophisticated medical technology to induce and it can be done in all sorts of ways other than a clinic. I honestly think, until the culture changes, that “safe, legal, and rare” would be the best that can be hoped for. I think it is a question of changing peoples hearts rather than just aiming at institutions- that’s one of the things I was frustrated growing up trying to be Christian, it was so much about an outward transformation, having the right doctrine, beliefs, saying the right things, having a certain political stance, when I believe real religion is about an inward transformation and personal encounter with the Divine.

My feeling is alot of energy is being spent on the abortion battles and the culture is deaf to it, in short. We live in a despiritualized culture, it really is a culture of death and alienation, we just don’t see it because the pain and misery is exported to other countries and future generations, it’s more vampiric that life-affirming and reciprocal. It’s keeping people away from even listening to religion, all they hear is a message about “controlling people” from religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top