R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
tight
tight
Last edited:
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence, for voting as you suggest absolutely precludes giving any attention at all to all other issues. Nowhere in the two references I cited does it say I may not vote for Biden.
I don’t. I strongly support doing things that I think will address this grave evil. I named some of them earlier.
I do reject abortion. I just don’t reject Joe Biden.
I don’t. I vote for Joe Biden, not for abortion.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
That’s where you make your mistake. You may try to separate your personal conscience from the act of abortion, but by voting for Joe Biden you are intentionally and actively voting FOR abortion. Cognitive dissonance is no excuse for being complicit in supporting this grave evil. Joe Biden has said he will repeal the Hyde Amendment and make abortion more available everywhere (even making taxpayers pay for it). You may disagree with Joe Biden on this particular issue and think it’s very bad, but if you vote for Joe Biden you are helping this evil come into fruition and you WILL be morally accountable to it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I disagree. I am not voting for abortion by voting for Biden, any more than you would be voting for grabbing women’s genitals by voting for Trump.
I suspect it is the tax issue more than the abortion access issue that is the main reason why Republicans don’t like Biden’s position. But as I said, if we focused more on the demand side of the abortion business, it would not matter that abortion is more available, because women would not want it. Why don’t you come on board with my suggestions for reducing demand?
Last edited:
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
I don’t disagree that there needs to be more effort on reducing demand. But I vehemently disagree with the idea that increasing access is irrelevant. More access=more demand until the demand issues are resolved, which I am sure you would agree with. But you fail to see that “until” demand issues are resolved, more access means MORE ABORTION. And a vote for Biden IS a vote for abortion BECAUSE Biden said so himself, repeatedly. You are trying to divide something that cannot be divided. Biden is synonymous to abortion for as long as he publicly claims to support and promote it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I didn’t mean that it was irrelevant, although I can see how you might interpret what I wrote that way. What I described was an extreme in reducing demand. Practically, it is unlikely we can reduce demand that much right away. But I still think emphasis on the demand is just as valid as emphasis on the punishment side. But you still have not said if you agree with my suggestions on exactly how to reduce demand.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
I fail to see how voting democrat will achieve this when their biggest supporters are those giants in the abortion industry? Democrat policies are not helping the poor, the mentally ill, the homeless, pregnant women, etc. They exploit them. The proof is in the works. Look at the fruit of democrat leadership in their cities? They have the largest concentration of these problems in their populations. A vote for the current democratic platform is a vote against women, minorities, and the unborn. This is the sad truth. But so many people buy into the rhetoric and narrative of the democrats. They promise the world to their voting base, but even when they have full control of the White House, House of Reps, and Senate, they do next to nothing to help these people. So voting democrat won’t help pregnant mothers or protecting unborn children at all.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I am glad that you are now arguing this issue the way it should be argued - as a prudential decision. I respect your right to hold those views on what would happen under a Democratic administration. I don’t exactly agree with you, but I do not feel inclined to argue the point, beyond asking you one more time if you support the suggestions I made for how to reduce the demand for abortion. Note: you do not have to vote for a Democrat to state your support of these measures. I am asking about the measures themselves, regardless of who might promote them.
Last edited:
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
Could you briefly lay it out again as I can’t find the post where you made said suggestions?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Sure. I suggested providing government-guaranteed OBGYN services, both pre-natal and delivery services, regardless of the complications, so that no woman will ever have to face the uncertainty of a pregnancy complication bankrupting them, and they will know that the society at large whole-heartedly supports their decision to carry their child to term.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Which wouldn’t stop abortion.
It’s been the trend lately to see some try to co-opt the title of ‘pro-life’. I saw one such attempt by a nun who has been censured by the Vatican. It’s pretty silly as the majority of people I see attempt this have been pretty outspoken on not wanting to ban abortion. So, they’re not pro life. They’re pro post pregnancy welfare. Please don’t try to change terms.
It’s been the trend lately to see some try to co-opt the title of ‘pro-life’. I saw one such attempt by a nun who has been censured by the Vatican. It’s pretty silly as the majority of people I see attempt this have been pretty outspoken on not wanting to ban abortion. So, they’re not pro life. They’re pro post pregnancy welfare. Please don’t try to change terms.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Neither will making it illegal.
No, I did not change the terms. I am limiting my suggestion specifically to OBGYN services before and during delivery.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
I wouldn’t support government run healthcare as that always leads to socialism. Even taking socialism out of the picture, look what Obamacare did to the medical field? Look at how long the wait times have been extended to see doctors because of this recent push for universal healthcare. I believe everyone should be allowed health care, but not at the tip of the government sword. I would be supportive of a law that permits private insurances to operate freely so long as they all make provision for this. Private insurance is better because it allows competition in the market making it more affordable. Universal healthcare equates to reduction in quality of service and lengthier wait times in getting the healthcare people need.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Is the VA = socialism? Is Medicare = socialism? They are both government run. The Church has not declared them to be socialism.
Obamacare is not my proposal. It is a government-guaranteed insurance that women can rely on if they don’t have private insurance. It would not be mandatory to use it under my proposal.
OK, so what it comes down to is your view on the superiority of the private sector in delivering health insurance. That is an economic argument. You are putting your values of what you believe to be a
superior way of delivering health insurance, over the “preeminent issue of our time”, which is abortion. So when it comes to weighing your favorite values (smaller government, private sector, etc.) against the issue of abortion, all of a sudden you are willing to give more attention to your personal views on the private sector than to the value of reducing abortion. You didn’t even try to argue that providing this government-guaranteed benefit would have no effect on abortion. Instead you switched to how you didn’t think the solution is worth the cost. If abortion really is the “preeminent issue of our time”, you would not even consider the cost, or your views on the superiority of the private sector. You would be on board with doing whatever you could to reduce abortion - even if it meant giving in on this government-guaranteed benefit.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
That’s actually not the case. One can consistently oppose abortion and offer alternative views of government run health care. There’s no inherent contradiction.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
I wasn’t aware we were still talking about abortion in this context. I thought you were talking about something else entirely. Abortion should not be covered by any insurance company and should be made illegal in all cases, including rape/incest. Even in the horrible circumstance of a sexual assault, while the woman should not feel forced to keep her baby, terminating the life of the baby is never an acceptable answer under any circumstance. Adoption is a suitable solution. Killing a baby conceived in rape doesn’t make the mother “un-raped”, it just makes her a murderer in addition to being a victim of rape. And adding severe trauma on top of an already severely traumatic experience is not in the best interest of women.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
But the alternative offered is not as comprehensive as the one I suggested. Why not support the plan that does the most to reduce the incentive for abortion?LeafByNiggle:
That’s actually not the case. One can consistently oppose abortion and offer alternative views of government run health care. There’s no inherent contradiction.
I was never suggesting government-guaranteed abortions. That would be ridiculous. I was talking about providing services whose only purpose is life - live births.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Thats one theory on what would reduce abortions. Not the only one.
And as for not supporting the plan that does the ‘most’, the same reason Catholics give for voting for a pro abortion politician: proportionate reasons.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Exactly. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I’m glad you recognized the point I was trying to make - namely that the very basis upon which Democrats are criticized (proportionate reasons) is the same basis that a Republican will use to support not doing “the most”.LeafByNiggle:
Thats one theory on what would reduce abortions. Not the only one.
And as for not supporting the plan that does the ‘most’, the same reason Catholics give for voting for a pro abortion politician: proportionate reasons.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
I could agree with that policy, depending on where it was coming from. It would be contradictory if that policy was proposed by a Democrat as they would be promoting that and at the same time pushing for more abortion. It would be hypocrisy on full display (which is not uncommon in contemporary politics). So let’s take your theoretical policy and attribute it to Joe Biden. That’s great. That’s something, individually, that I could support. But it wouldn’t mean I could vote for him without violating my Catholic faith, simply because he is an active and public supporter and promoter of abortion. One cannot separate these two contradictory positions and support one while opposing the other when ones vote would tangibly mean support for both.
- Status