Liberal?Conservative? What's the difference?

[Texas_Roofer]

You claim to be a “live and let live” kind of person and that you vote Democrat.

Do Democrats typically extend that philosophy to unborn infants?

Or is abortion to your liking?

I hope you will vote to let more live.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Would you like to go on record stating no Republican has ever had an abortion?
Or no Republican supports abortion? The legislatures which prevented abortion from becoming law were democrat party controlled. One reason I voted Republican was a call to extend legal rights to the fetus, seen any serious attempts at that? I have not and 6 years was far too long. The absence of a right to life movement in the last 6 years tells more than any speech.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Would you like to go on record stating no Republican has ever had an abortion?
Or no Republican supports abortion? The legislatures which prevented abortion from becoming law were democrat party controlled. One reason I voted Republican was a call to extend legal rights to the fetus, seen any serious attempts at that? I have not and 6 years was far too long. The absence of a right to life movement in the last 6 years tells more than any speech.

Of course not. If you have been following the thread, you will have noted that I wrote that abortion has been sustained “due to (largely) Democratic efforts”. I qualified my statement intentionally.

This is not a black and white issue, but one political party is a much darker shade of gray than the other, don’t you think? :yup:

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Of course not. If you have been following the thread, you will have noted that I wrote that abortion has been sustained “due to (largely) Democratic efforts”. I qualified my statement intentionally.

This is not a black and white issue, but one political party is a much darker shade of gray than the other, don’t you think? :yup:

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Absolutely not

If the Republican Party cared very much at all we would have seen legislation of some type by now. Second every survey I have seen indicated most Democrats’ were against abortion. We gave them the House, Senate, and Presidency we paid every month and what did they do? looks like nothing to me, and remember I voted Republican.

 

[cargopilot]

As I said. I’m not here to start an arguement. This was supposed to be a discussion on RELIGION, not POLOTICS, but since you seem determined…

Is war to YOUR liking?

Do Republicans extend a “right to life” philosophsy to Iraqis, or to our military personal for that matter?

I hope **you **will vote to let more live.

Kim

I just love the liberal Democrat defense of abortion, found above. Liberal Democrats are just so predictable. Above, you’ll find the liberal Democrat’s best defense of the indefensible. We support the slaughter of innocent babies because the conservative Republicans are war-mongers.

Kim, it would be my best guess that you’ve never been under enemy fire, watched your friends die and return home to be called a “baby-killer” by your countrymen. I wish you could walk a mile in the shoes of those who have been there, done that. Liberal? Conservative? There IS a difference.

Kim, without smoke-screening, by saying anything that’s unrelated, give me a REAL defense of the liberal Democrat’s continued, unwavering support of the killing if millions upon millions of innocent babies?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Absolutely not

If the Republican Party cared very much at all we would have seen legislation of some type by now. Second every survey I have seen indicated most Democrats’ were against abortion. We gave them the House, Senate, and Presidency we paid every month and what did they do? looks like nothing to me, and remember I voted Republican.

They got two conservatives on the Supreme Court who upheld the ban on partial birth abortion.

We’re just one supreme away from overturning Roe v. Wade.

Of course, the Senate has to approve any nominee, so keep those Republican votes coming.

 

[blessedtoo]

Second every survey I have seen indicated most Democrats’ were against abortion.

Really? How do you explain the position their elected representatives uphold?

Boxer introduced legislation Thursday which could have the effect of overturning the court’s decision.“We have to get a pro-choice president who means it into the White House in the next election,” Boxer said.

msnbc.msn.com/id/18201772/

Democratic former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who was running for president at that time as well, missed both votes on the issue but issued a quick response yesterday. “This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election,” he said.
​

“Criminalizing doctors for performing medically necessary procedures to save a woman’s life or protect her health is wrong,” said Pelosi, who has helped to clear the path for prevention legislation in her chamber.

Obama, who was not serving in the Senate at the time, said in a statement yesterday: “I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.”

Clinton called the decision “a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health.” She added, "It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802253.html

​

 

[mesquite_magic]

I just love the liberal Democrat defense of abortion, found above. Liberal Democrats are just so predictable. Above, you’ll find the liberal Democrat’s best defense of the indefensible. We support the slaughter of innocent babies because the conservative Republicans are war-mongers.

Kim, it would be my best guess that you’ve never been under enemy fire, watched your friends die and return home to be called a “baby-killer” by your countrymen. I wish you could walk a mile in the shoes of those who have been there, done that. Liberal? Conservative? There IS a difference.

Kim, without smoke-screening, by saying anything that’s unrelated, give me a REAL defense of the liberal Democrat’s continued, unwavering support of the killing if millions upon millions of innocent babies?

No I haven’t been under enemy fire or been called a baby killer. My father, unfortunately, was. He served 7 tours of duty to Vietnam, while my mother was home raising their 6 children. In a way I can walk a mile in his shoes. I have tapes he sent, so we children would remember his voice. I remember the nightmares that made his nights a terror zone. I know the story of his best friend dying in his arms because he jumped on a little boy strapped with explosives. War does some sick things to people.

I come from a military family. My father was in the Navy during the Korean War. He went into the Army, during the Vietnam War to be able to feed his family, then switched to the Air Force. My oldest brother was a Marine. My other brothers were in the Army. I dread the day the Army sends my youngest brother to Iraq. however it’s his job and he will go wherever the idiot in the White House sends him.My sisters and I were all married to Air Force men.I support the men and women doing their job in the military.

I don’t respect our president. Looking back on what I’ve written, the only mistake I made was calling him an Evangelical Extremist. That would be redundant. No. I take that back, because that would be like looking at all Muslims as extremeists. Most of them are not. Unfortunately, Bush doesn’t seem to realise that.

So… Cargopilot, give me a REAL answer as to why MANY Republicans support the killing of already living human beings. The abortion and war statements have entirely made my original question obsolete, so why don’t I start another thread about that? I will be happy to discuss it there.

Kim

 

[Catholig]

No one wants to respond to my comment? And I thought it was so philosophical…

Catholig

 

[mesquite_magic]

In regards to what is left and what is right (pun not intended but fitting ) there is a lot of confusion. And it is confusing, depending on the era of history which you examine, etc.

In general however, when talking about the Church those who favor tradition (Latin (or at least accurate literal translations and not “feel good”), women covering their head, No EMHC, No communion in the hand, altar rails, etc) are conservative, while those who favor novelties (liturgical dances, new translations, laity participation, a loosening of sexual morality, ordination of women) are liberals. Liberal Catholic really is a contradictory of terms in my opinion.

In politics however you need to understand that there are a whole bunch of different liberals and conservatives. In the conservative party for instance there are the neo-cons and the paleo-cons. The neo-cons favor free trade for instance, believing that it helps businesses and ultimately the people as well. While paleo-cons, like those conservatives from the early 20s, believe in helping American business (lowering taxes, less regulation, etc), but keeping them American (meaning tariffs, and no out sourcing). In away they are both trying to help the businesses, and even it could be said the people (trickle down effect) - but, IMO, the paleo’s position is better because it provides a controlled environment for the American Economy, less reliance on foreign manufacturers, and jobs for Americans (again, Neo’s believe per the Honkong example that more white collar jobs are created, but then again…there is more reliance on the rest of the world). The only liberal I really know, however, holds a favorable view on tarriffs as well - but that is understandable, because it reduces “American interests” in other parts of the world. Which would reduce war. I can also assume that he believes that it would give the environmentalist’s more control - but that is just speculation.

Catholig

I found this very interesting and on topic Thank-you for sharing. Sorry, I allowed myself to be taken off topic.

Kim

 

[Flem]

The Catholic Church Liberal and Conservative meanings dont apply to the American political versions of them.

The Democratic and Republican both hold views that the Catholic Church holds.

Democratic:
-More funding for social programs such as Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security

-More money to fight poverty

-Against the war in Iraq.

Republicans:

Pro-Life

Stem Cell Research

---

I am a democrat but basically hold all the views above. So Im a pro-life democrat.

However on the issue of Stem Cell Research I find that I am supporting it.
It may be able to find cures that could save millions of innocent people. The Castle-Degette bill is a perfect bill because it only uses embryoes that are in surplus of Invitro-Fertilization clinics and are scheduled for destruction. So they are going to be destroyed anyways so why not use them for something that could save millions of lives.

 

[Catholig]

The Catholic Church Liberal and Conservative meanings dont apply to the American political versions of them.

The Democratic and Republican both hold views that the Catholic Church holds.

Democratic:
-More funding for social programs such as Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security

-More money to fight poverty

-Against the war in Iraq.

Republicans:

Pro-Life

Stem Cell Research

---

I am a democrat but basically hold all the views above. So Im a pro-life democrat.

However on the issue of Stem Cell Research I find that I am supporting it.
It may be able to find cures that could save millions of innocent people. The Castle-Degette bill is a perfect bill because it only uses embryoes that are in surplus of Invitro-Fertilization clinics and are scheduled for destruction. So they are going to be destroyed anyways so why not use them for something that could save millions of lives.

I wanted to address your tally regarding the pros & cons of the republicans & democrates, however I find it necessary to talk about the stem cell research bit first.

There is no such thing as “surplus embryoes”. All embryoes are people, according to the teachings of the magisterium. To refer to them as “embryoes” is only an attempt to dehumanize them. Truly, I’m all for cures. Use adult stem-cells if you must. But to say that killing innocent embryos is alright is blantly against the teachings of the church.

Besides that 1) stem-cell lines eventually become unusable after x generations so more embryoes will be necessary 2) this will be government money used to kill these embryoes (20% of the country is catholic, and I am certain that other protestant denominations object) and to reiterate the old argument 3) no cures have been derived from embryonic stem-cell research.

Another thought is that while first beginning this post I remembered Jesus’ message:

24 Amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, 25*Itself remaineth alone. But if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world, keepeth it unto life eternal.

The hero is one who sacrafices himself for a cause, not another.

Catholig

 

[Flem]

I wanted to address your tally regarding the pros & cons of the republicans & democrates, however I find it necessary to talk about the stem cell research bit first.

There is no such thing as “surplus embryoes”. All embryoes are people, according to the teachings of the magisterium. To refer to them as “embryoes” is only an attempt to dehumanize them. Truly, I’m all for cures. Use adult stem-cells if you must. But to say that killing innocent embryos is alright is blantly against the teachings of the church.

Besides that 1) stem-cell lines eventually become unusable after x generations so more embryoes will be necessary 2) this will be government money used to kill these embryoes (20% of the country is catholic, and I am certain that other protestant denominations object) and to reiterate the old argument 3) no cures have been derived from embryonic stem-cell research.

Another thought is that while first beginning this post I remembered Jesus’ message:

The hero is one who sacrafices himself for a cause, not another.

Catholig

The Invitro-Fertilization Clinics are required to destroy the remaining embryoes after a certain period of time because they are deemed not fit to be put inside the mother. Those Embryoes that are FOR CERTAIN GOING TO BE DESTROYED WOULD BE THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD BE PUT FOWARD FOR RESEARCH.
THEY ARE FOR 100% ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAY SO WHY NOT PUT THEM TOWARD RESEARCH THAT COULD HELP HUMANITY.

The problem with Adult Stem cells is that they are just that:Adult Stem Cells. Embryonic Stem Cells have the ablility to morph into any cell. That helps so the can morph into the cells needed to combat the disease that the person has.

I would love it just as much as you that the clinics didnt destroy the embryoes. But if they have to destroy them then why not give it to stem cell research rather than just throwing them away.

The reason embryonic stem cells havent derived a cure is because we only had a select few after the president banned getting anymore. Those are now degraded and useless.

Bottom Line: Leftover Embryoes in clinic---->Going to be destroyed------>Use them for research instead of just needlessly destroying them.

 

[Catholig]

The Invitro-Fertilization Clinics are required to destroy the remaining embryoes after a certain period of time because they are deemed not fit to be put inside the mother. Those Embryoes that are FOR CERTAIN GOING TO BE DESTROYED WOULD BE THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD BE PUT FOWARD FOR RESEARCH.
THEY ARE FOR 100% ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAY SO WHY NOT PUT THEM TOWARD RESEARCH THAT COULD HELP HUMANITY.

The problem with Adult Stem cells is that they are just that:Adult Stem Cells. Embryonic Stem Cells have the ablility to morph into any cell. That helps so the can morph into the cells needed to combat the disease that the person has.

I would love it just as much as you that the clinics didnt destroy the embryoes. But if they have to destroy them then why not give it to stem cell research rather than just throwing them away.

The reason embryonic stem cells havent derived a cure is because we only had a select few after the president banned getting anymore. Those are now degraded and useless.

Bottom Line: Leftover Embryoes in clinic---->Going to be destroyed------>Use them for research instead of just needlessly destroying them.

All humans are, if not going to be destroyed, are going to die so your argument could be used to euthanise the elderly, or those who have been told by their doctors that they only have x months to live. It is the wrong argument to make. I can’t find a biblical quote (I haven’t even begun to look), however embryonic stem-cell research, regardless of ANY benefits over adult stem cells, is WRONG.

In any case, the fact that someone will sin (the people at the clinic who order the destruction of those embryoes) does not give us license to sin ourselves, by in anyway condoning such activity. If someone is going to set fire to a furniture store do you have the right to steal the merchandise first?

Besides that [animal/mice] embryonic stem cells have been used by scientists since the 60s, according to a priest on EWTN, and if true…well then the reason might not be so much underfunding, or government prohibition, but the difficulty of coercing these stem cell lines to produce a certain type of cell or organ, instead.

Again, at least Adult cells have produced some results. And if those results aren’t good enough (although I obviously believe that these cell lines can be further exploited) you also have the options of using the stem-cells from the umbilical cord, and now even from the fluid within the womb (I forgot the exact name but I think it starts with an “a”). Neither of those three options require the murder of innocent human beings.

Bottom Line: All people deserve their constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, embryoes being no exception.

Catholig

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Seems like it should be a no-brainer, but I’m confused. I’m pretty liberal in that I’m a “live and let live” type of person and I vote Democrat But please explain to me the difference, as you see it, between liberal and conservative Catholics. Do you have to attend Latin Mass to be consertive? Does enjoying a folk Mass mean you’re liberal?

Which Orders are Conservative? Which are considered liberal?Why does it matter? Is a Priest a Priest kind of like a rose is a rose?

Not trying to start an arguement. I really want to know.

A liberal is a conservative of whom the speaker does not approve​

A conservative is a liberal of whom the speaker does approve

 

[Contarini]

My favourite is the Catholic Land Association, so reactionary that they want to abolish machinery and go back to a subsistence economy.

Do they accept Anglican members? Do you have to swear off all machinery in order to be a member?

Edwin

 

[ALotLessThumb]

Forgive me if this has already been brought up; but does it concern anyone else that liberal and conservative sections are being drawn into the identity of Catholics. Because at least here in the northeastern United States, and from conversations I’ve had with similiar aged individuals (18-30 for me,) people have been more concerned with discribing themselves as a liberal or conservative Catholic- then arguing that these division exist and are acceptable. And to me, it makes me do this face:

I was just having a conversation with a few people (most atheist/agnostic) and the one other Catholic there was assuring them that there is no hell, and that it is okay not to believe in all the church teachings, and that they were a proud Liberal Catholic. When I tried to privately correct them- I was accused of calling them a bad Catholic, and I must be a conservative one.

The way I see it (and this is what I said) is that there is no such thing as a liberal Catholic or a conservative Catholic; instead there are obedient and disobedient Catholics who vary in the stringency of that obedience. That the Church is not a political organization one can assign political titles; and that assignment bothers me more than liturgical errors or sloppy laity or a million other issues that seem to pop up because it splits the faithful in a devious way, and gives weight to the idea that the Chuch is a political machine that can have its Spiritual Truths changed.

Does anyone else agree? Am I incorrect to see the situation as such?

 

[Catholig]

Forgive me if this has already been brought up; but does it concern anyone else that liberal and conservative sections are being drawn into the identity of Catholics. Because at least here in the northeastern United States, and from conversations I’ve had with similiar aged individuals (18-30 for me,) people have been more concerned with discribing themselves as a liberal or conservative Catholic- then arguing that these division exist and are acceptable. And to me, it makes me do this face:

I was just having a conversation with a few people (most atheist/agnostic) and the one other Catholic there was assuring them that there is no hell, and that it is okay not to believe in all the church teachings, and that they were a proud Liberal Catholic. When I tried to privately correct them- I was accused of calling them a bad Catholic, and I must be a conservative one.

The way I see it (and this is what I said) is that there is no such thing as a liberal Catholic or a conservative Catholic; instead there are obedient and disobedient Catholics who vary in the stringency of that obedience. That the Church is not a political organization one can assign political titles; and that assignment bothers me more than liturgical errors or sloppy laity or a million other issues that seem to pop up because it splits the faithful in a devious way, and gives weight to the idea that the Chuch is a political machine that can have its Spiritual Truths changed.

Does anyone else agree? Am I incorrect to see the situation as such?

I feel I agree with you, and sort of regreted my classification of liberal and conservative catholicism in my post, having remembered the commend by a certain Pope Benedict, which said that such terms should not be employed & only serve to disunify.

All said and done however it is hard to avoid Liberal & Conservative Labels. Ideally, I would have it that every catholic obeyed the Church teachings, and that every catholic truly believed the mysteries of the faith.

Catholig

 

[mchale]

The Invitro-Fertilization Clinics are required to destroy the remaining embryoes after a certain period of time because they are deemed not fit to be put inside the mother. Those Embryoes that are FOR CERTAIN GOING TO BE DESTROYED WOULD BE THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD BE PUT FOWARD FOR RESEARCH.
THEY ARE FOR 100% ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAY SO WHY NOT PUT THEM TOWARD RESEARCH THAT COULD HELP HUMANITY.

This is of course decidedly off topic, but I did want to chime in with several points.

1. The Catholic Church not only teaches against embryonic stem cell research, but it also teaches against in vitro fertilization. Besides the natural law arguments against it, there is the basic argument that there are almost always eggs fertilized that are never used, thus preventing the persons contained therein from developing as God intended.
2. For an action to be just, not only must the goal be just, but the means must also be just. During the Holocaust, the Nazis performed experiments on thousands of people who were placed in the concentration and death camps. Any scientific knowledge gained from those experiments is automatically tainted as a result. I doubt you will find any post war papers citing the results of any of those experiments.
3. The ability to use the stem cells contained in the embryo becomes an incentive for fertility clinics to extract and fertilize additional eggs, thus increasing the harm done.

The problem with Adult Stem cells is that they are just that:Adult Stem Cells. Embryonic Stem Cells have the ablility to morph into any cell. That helps so the can morph into the cells needed to combat the disease that the person has.

There are still placental stem cells, and there might be other methods of obtaining embryonic stem cells or stem cells with the same properties.

I would love it just as much as you that the clinics didnt destroy the embryoes. But if they have to destroy them then why not give it to stem cell research rather than just throwing them away.

Because it is akin to building a house on sand. The corrupt means of obtaining stem cells corrupts the ethical nature of the treatment.

The reason embryonic stem cells havent derived a cure is because we only had a select few after the president banned getting anymore. Those are now degraded and useless.

Except, those are not the only stem cells that are being studied. Bush’s ban on new stem cell lines only applies to studies using Federal government funding. The ban does not apply to private research nor does it apply to research done in other countries. Embryonic stem cells have been big on promise for years now, but very thin on actual results.

Bottom Line: Leftover Embryoes in clinic---->Going to be destroyed------>Use them for research instead of just needlessly destroying them.

One evil cannot be justified by another evil.

–
Bill

 

[Flem]

All humans are, if not going to be destroyed, are going to die so your argument could be used to euthanise the elderly, or those who have been told by their doctors that they only have x months to live. It is the wrong argument to make. I can’t find a biblical quote (I haven’t even begun to look), however embryonic stem-cell research, regardless of ANY benefits over adult stem cells, is WRONG.

In any case, the fact that someone will sin (the people at the clinic who order the destruction of those embryoes) does not give us license to sin ourselves, by in anyway condoning such activity. If someone is going to set fire to a furniture store do you have the right to steal the merchandise first?

Besides that [animal/mice] embryonic stem cells have been used by scientists since the 60s, according to a priest on EWTN, and if true…well then the reason might not be so much underfunding, or government prohibition, but the difficulty of coercing these stem cell lines to produce a certain type of cell or organ, instead.

Again, at least Adult cells have produced some results. And if those results aren’t good enough (although I obviously believe that these cell lines can be further exploited) you also have the options of using the stem-cells from the umbilical cord, and now even from the fluid within the womb (I forgot the exact name but I think it starts with an “a”). Neither of those three options require the murder of innocent human beings.

Bottom Line: All people deserve their constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, embryoes being no exception.

Catholig

Ahh, yes I suppose that my arguement could be twisted around to defent Euthansia. However, over 30 Republican Congressman/woman and over 10 Republican Senators realize that the two are not the same and made the decision to support getting something out of a bad thing (Possible cures out of the horrible In Vitro Fertilization Clinics) Who would of thought!!

And in regards to your Furniture stealing anology, I belive that we are saving the furniture, not stealing it, and puting it to some use rather than letting it be needlessly destroyed.

The priest, Im sorry to say, couldnt be more wrong: msnbc.msn.com/id/9401832/

 

[Flem]

This is of course decidedly off topic, but I did want to chime in with several points.

1. The Catholic Church not only teaches against embryonic stem cell research, but it also teaches against in vitro fertilization. Besides the natural law arguments against it, there is the basic argument that there are almost always eggs fertilized that are never used, thus preventing the persons contained therein from developing as God intended.
2. For an action to be just, not only must the goal be just, but the means must also be just. During the Holocaust, the Nazis performed experiments on thousands of people who were placed in the concentration and death camps. Any scientific knowledge gained from those experiments is automatically tainted as a result. I doubt you will find any post war papers citing the results of any of those experiments.
3. The ability to use the stem cells contained in the embryo becomes an incentive for fertility clinics to extract and fertilize additional eggs, thus increasing the harm done.

There are still placental stem cells, and there might be other methods of obtaining embryonic stem cells or stem cells with the same properties.

Because it is akin to building a house on sand. The corrupt means of obtaining stem cells corrupts the ethical nature of the treatment.

Except, those are not the only stem cells that are being studied. Bush’s ban on new stem cell lines only applies to studies using Federal government funding. The ban does not apply to private research nor does it apply to research done in other countries. Embryonic stem cells have been big on promise for years now, but very thin on actual results.

One evil cannot be justified by another evil.

–
Bill

I am against In Vitro Fertilization Clinics I think they should be abolished.

I most certainly disagree with your arguement that Nazi Concentration Camp Expirements can be likened to Stem Cell Research. Micheal Steele tried that arguement back in the 2006 elections and the was widely critisized by Holocaust Survivors and their families. Plus the Ethics are there now and the Goals are just. Nazies just did what they did to see what would happen, not a just goal in my opinion.

I also doubt the Fertilization clinics have anything to gain by stem cell research and I highly doubt that would happen.

Some of the best Research and Medical Scientists are in the United States and our facilities are much more advanced that lets say South Korea’s or Japans. However we are losing those scientist to foreign countries because of this and without the United States leading the research, South Korea and Japan are going foward with Stem Cell research without the moral and Ethical guidlines put in place by the Deggette-Castle Bill and the Harkin-Specter-Hatch Bil.