Republican convention

[salusanimarum17]

My mistake, the language was changed. That the original language was used to begin with and did not seem offensive to its proponents is troubling though.

Do you know why the term “forcible” was used in the draft proposal? It was to ensure that federal funds would continue to not have been used in cases of statutory (yet consensual), “rape” but the funding would have been allowed in…how would you say it…the other kind of rape.

 

[seekerz]

Do you know why the term “forcible” was used in the draft proposal? It was to ensure that federal funds would continue to not have been used in cases of statutory (yet consensual), “rape” but the funding would have been allowed in…how would you say it…the other kind of rape.

I know that and I still protest it. Not that I want funding to go to any abortion, but that distinction could have been better made: non-statutory rape for example. But even then that would tend to have the effect of legitimizing rape between a consenting child and a much older adult or a consenting child and someone in a position of authority. So, no, even if I understand the reasoning I do not agree with the parsing of rape into acceptable and not-acceptable, which is what this terminology does.

 

[Suudy]

The right to life, is ***never ever ***about numbers. Basic human right and dignities are non-negotiable, non-tradeable and non-transferable.

It is about a sense of proportion. It seems to me the outrage is not proportional to the impact.

Was 9/11 a greater or lesser tragedy than the Oklahoma City bombing? Similarly, is the death of 1 million unborn children a greater or lesser tragedy than a tenth that number of women potentially at risk due to a personhood amendment/law?

It appears to me that many are content to let millions of innocent children die as long as the woman’s individual rights are preserved. It comes across as focused more on the woman and less on the child.

 

[seekerz]

That’s because (like Akin’s comment) there was no conspiracy to demean or dismiss non-violent rapes.

Some cried foul about the language, and are still crying foul after the language was changed before it was voted on in the House.

Yes, a this nefarious bill made the Hyde Amendment a permanent part of federal funding, and provide conscience protections was passed in the House.

You can read the FINAL version of the bill here:

govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3/text

Seeing that 175 Democrats voted AGAINST said bill with the updated language (but hey, 16 Democrats voted for it), and it is currently blocked from vote in the Senate, perhaps you can tell us what is so bad about the actual final version of the bill, or rationalize voting against it.

clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll292.xml

We’ve seen the “Republicans aren’t really pro-life!” charge SOOOO many times, I’ve become immune to it, but even when funding limits for abortion are voted on, Democrats oppose it at every turn (and their supporters conveniently ignore).

Can you explain why?

You find the original language that wasn’t even voting on “troubling”, but the fact that a vast majority of Democrats voted against the final version, and the fact that Democrats are blocking this bill in the Senate = “meh”???

You’re doing the same thing as the original bill did while denying it: dividing rape into more and less acceptable types. The law already recognizes statutory rape - that is sufficient. I don’t want ANYONE telling me that my 14yr old’s teacher did not really rape her because she mouthed the word “yes”. Same would go for a teenaged son and his coach. No, no, no. We have consent laws FOR A REASON. Lawmakers need to respect that: Democrat or Republican.

Does it worry me that Democrats opposed the bill? It already worries me that as a party they support abortion ‘rights’. I don’t see what difference this particular bill makes.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I think its hysterical that the people who have a problem with the “inflexibility” on abortion in the Republican platform are Catholic Democrats.

They want to feel better about being Democratic since then there would be two prochoice parties.

 

[seekerz]

It is about a sense of proportion. It seems to me the outrage is not proportional to the impact.

Was 9/11 a greater or lesser tragedy than the Oklahoma City bombing? Similarly, is the death of 1 million unborn children a greater or lesser tragedy than a tenth that number of women potentially at risk due to a personhood amendment/law?

It appears to me that many are content to let millions of innocent children die as long as the woman’s individual rights are preserved. It comes across as focused more on the woman and less on the child.

The sense of proportion is this: women and their babies have an equal right to life and both should be protected. I don’t see how this focuses more on women than on babies. Like I said, you can’t ‘trade’ one person’s right for another’s.

 

[salusanimarum17]

I know that and I still protest it. Not that I want funding to go to any abortion, but that distinction could have been better made: non-statutory rape for example. But even then that would tend to have the effect of legitimizing rape between a consenting child and a much older adult or a consenting child and someone in a position of authority. So, no, even if I understand the reasoning I do not agree with the parsing of rape into acceptable and not-acceptable, which is what this terminology does.

If that’s the way you want to interpret it, I can’t change your mind. The intent of the wording was to codify the federal practice (i.e., the “Hyde Amendment”) into a legal text. It is not a matter of acceptable or not but what the federal government would agree to fund. The criminal code is, and would have been no matter the language of this Act, unchanged.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

“…the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed”

A procedure that is necessary to protect the life of the mother may very well infringe upon the life of the child. The Catholic Church does not view this as abortion. However, the GOP platform does not make this distinction and as worded would criminalize these types of medical interventions.

But you have already heard this and don’t seem to think it’s a valid concern.

So you don’t think an unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed? This is about abortions, not about medical procedures.

Abortion

2270** Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.**71

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

**“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. **
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
**Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”**79

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined…
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."80

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

 

[seekerz]

If that’s the way you want to interpret it, I can’t change your mind. The intent of the wording was to codify the federal practice (i.e., the “Hyde Amendment”) into a legal text. It is not a matter of acceptable or not but what the federal government would agree to fund. The criminal code is, and would have been no matter the language of this Act, unchanged.

By choosing the type of post-rape abortion to fund, those who support the bill are exposing their underlying philosophy. That’s not a matter of interpretation. Why would one type of abortion ‘deserve’ funding more than another?

Not only that, by making that differentiation, they are basically saying that abortion after certain types of rape is less unacceptable. Neither of these messages is acceptable to me.

 

[qui_est_ce]

They want to feel better about being Democratic since then there would be two prochoice parties.

Amazing how they pick apart miniscule subtleties to suit their interpretations to justify voting Democrat.

 

[scipio337]

You’re doing the same thing as the original bill did while denying it: dividing rape into more and less acceptable types. The law already recognizes statutory rape - that is sufficient. I don’t want ANYONE telling me that my 14yr old’s teacher did not really rape her because she mouthed the word “yes”. Same would go for a teenaged son and his coach. No, no, no. We have consent laws FOR A REASON. Lawmakers need to respect that: Democrat or Republican.

Simply put, this is obfuscation. I have never “divided rape” and supporting a final bill that had NO SUCH language clearly does not.

The final bill was bad, again, why???

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Amazing how they pick apart miniscule subtleties to suit their interpretations to justify voting Democrat.

:sad_yes:

But then again if you’re in a place with prochoice Republicans not much you can do anyway. Look at Massachusetts with Scott Brown.

 

[scipio337]

By choosing the type of post-rape abortion to fund, those who support the bill are exposing their underlying philosophy. That’s not a matter of interpretation. Why would one type of abortion ‘deserve’ funding more than another? …

Could you point out where the bill did that?

Here’s a copy of the bill that was voted on, in case you missed it in the previous post:

govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3/text

‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to–

‘(A) an abortion–

‘(i) in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest, or

‘(ii) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy, and

‘(B) the treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or disorder that has been caused by or exacerbated by the performance of an abortion.

 

[salusanimarum17]

By choosing the type of post-rape abortion to fund, those who support the bill are exposing their underlying philosophy. That’s not a matter of interpretation. Why would one type of abortion ‘deserve’ funding more than another?

Not only that, by making that differentiation, they are basically saying that abortion after certain types of rape is less unacceptable. Neither of these messages is acceptable to me.

The philosophy seems to be that they wanted to limit federal funding for abortion, as has been the practice ever since the “Hyde Amendment.” As to why they have these exceptions–that’s the political/moral reality of our nation. A total ban on funding would seem to have no chance of approval: even this one, with these exceptions, is DOA in the Senate and at the White House. The hope is that the federal funding is banned in as many cases as possible, not that some abortion is “acceptable” to all those who support the bill. I’m sure it’s not. But, they are doing what they think is possible. If I was in the position of a US Representative, that is how I would explain my own support for such an Act.

 

[seekerz]

Could you point out where the bill did that?

Here’s a copy of the bill that was voted on, in case you missed it in the previous post:

govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3/text

I already admitted to my mistake. What I am now discussing is the original bill and the THINKING that contributed to that term being coined in the first place. Somebody didn’t just get up one morning and think that ‘forcible rape’ had a better ring to it than plain and simple rape… Words are usually generated in the brain, not the tongue or the fingers.

 

[scipio337]

I already admitted to my mistake. What I am now discussing is the original bill and the THINKING that contributed to that term being coined in the first place. Somebody didn’t just get up one morning and think that ‘forcible rape’ had a better ring to it than plain and simple rape… Words are usually generated in the brain, not the tongue or the fingers.

You don’t have any insight into the “thinking” behind that phrasing. Obviously, that particular wording didn’t carry much weight, as it was changed before even coming out of committee.

If you have any legislation passed or proposed by the sponsor, any of the co-sponsors, or anyone who voted for the bill in Committee or in its final form (including the 16 Democrats) that contains similar language, you might have a valid point.

As it stands, most Democrats voted against the bill with the updated language.

So let’s ignore the bill being voted against by nearly every Democrat in the House, and blocked int he Senate, and focus on language before the bill left committee??

 

[seekerz]

You don’t have any insight into the “thinking” behind that phrasing.

I do have insight, because my rational processes work. What I don’t have is an explanation in the words of those who coined the phrase…now why does that not surprise me?

 

[Joe_5859]

Does anyone actually believe this?

Jim

I do. Why not take the Cardinal at his word?

Except he offered the invitation to both parties. Honestly, people on these threads are too conservatives verse liberals it’s almost disheartening.

It seems we are constantly suspicious of our Church leaders, and think of them as corrupt politicians and the modern apostles of the faith.

Can we please have more faith in our cardinals.

Indeed. I think it’s a great temptation for us who enjoy politics to turn every single thing that every single person does into something politically motivated to benefit either the left or the right.

It’s not all about politics, people!

Nonetheless, I think Cardinal Dolan is very savvy. His mere presence brings the HHS mandate and religious liberty to the center of the discussion. It doesn’t afford the opportunity to ignore it and hope that voters forget about it. That’s important enough to risk a “scandalous” photo op.

 

[scipio337]

They also have a Greek Orthodox Archbishop giving a benediction:

Greek Orthodox Archibishop Demetrios, the leader of the archdiocese based in New York City, will give the benediction after Rep. Paul Ryan accepts the nomination for Vice President on Wednesday night…

And yes, Archbishop Dolan offered his services to both conventions:

New York archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling said Dolan offered to attend both conventions, but the Democrats haven’t yet responded. “I don’t know whether we will hear from them,” Zwilling told the BBC on Thursday. “As of now, we have not.”

wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2012/aug/23/cardinal-dolan-bless-republican-convention/

Is this is a bad thing, and why?

To contrast, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parent Action Fund, Nancy Keenan, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America and Georgetown student Sandra Fluke will have speaking slots at the Democratic Party convention.

 

[scipio337]

I do have insight, because my rational processes work. What I don’t have is an explanation in the words of those who coined the phrase…now why does that not surprise me?

You do? Who was the original sponsor? Who penned the bill?