Republican convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter bellasbane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
scipio337 said:
No. Parlo poco Italiano. Madre non parla nella nostra casa.

But I do know some choice Sicillian curses!
Click to expand...
And, there are a lot to choose from. My wife’s grandfather used a variety of blasphemous curses that the rest of the family got on his back for.
 
scipio337 said:
No. Parlo poco Italiano. Madre non parla nella nostra casa.

But I do know some choice Sicillian curses!
Click to expand...
Don’t get me started. i lived in Sicily for 3 years. I learned the best stuff, most of which is not repeatable here.
 
scipio337 said:
No. Parlo poco Italiano. Madre non parla nella nostra casa.

But I do know some choice Sicillian curses!
Click to expand...
Io parlo due dialetti: il vero italiano e zeneise (che e come una lingua tutta diversa) 🙂
 
I only read a few threads each week but this one has gone off on one of the wierdest tangents I’ve ever seen. GOP convention platform re: abortion → Sicillian curses. What next?
 
bellasbane said:
This is precisely the problem.

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.
Click to expand...
This is valid only insofar as the death of the unborn child is not a willed end or means. The example of the Arizona hospital demonstrates an example where the death of the child was a willed end. This is unacceptable.

This is why the discussion on the other thread about the chemotherapy about the types of treatment needs to occur. And why my earlier post suggested an acceptable definition. From that post:

  1. *]All direct abortions are illegal.
    *]Direct abortion is defined as the willed and intended death of an unborn child.
    *]It is not a direct abortion if a treament intended for another illness, disease, etc indirectly induces the death of an unborn child.
    *]Any treatment that indirectly induces the death of an unborn child may only be used if all other treatments are not viable or ineffective.

    Would this be an acceptable “legal” definition (of course massaged appropriately by legislators/lawyers)?
 
Corki said:
A platform plank is not a law, let alone the procedural material that would go along with a law. There is no need for a party platform to go into that level of specificity. The plank does not, and should not, address the implementation issues.

The same goes for the opposite. If you had a party plank proclaiming the right to abortion, you wouldn’t expect to see issues such as parental consent, going accross state lines or even viabilty to be addressed. Those are not convention considerations, they are legislative ones.

This party plank expresses an overarching goal - to protect all human life, and to extend that protection to the unborn. Any questions about specific procedures or distinctions won’t be at the GOP party level. This is a valid discussion to engage when legislation is actually being considered.
Click to expand...
From what I have seen drafted, laws do not address these distinctions either, which is why personhood laws and such do not have my support. If not addressed at the highest level, we leave the fate of sick women in the hands of any number of ill-informed ideologues. The right to life of neither baby nor mother should left to chance.
 
Corki said:
Has anyone in the US **ever **proposed a ban that would include treatments that could potentially harm or kill the baby? Even before abortion became legal, there was no ban on treatments that might have indirect abortive effects.
Click to expand...
If the term ‘abortion’ is not qualified in the ban, then yes, it does preclude such treatments, because the medical definition of abortion includes pregnancy loss as a result of treatment of conditions in the mother.
 
Suudy said:
This is valid only insofar as the death of the unborn child is not a willed end or means. The example of the Arizona hospital demonstrates an example where the death of the child was a willed end. This is unacceptable.

This is why the discussion on the other thread about the chemotherapy about the types of treatment needs to occur. And why my earlier post suggested an acceptable definition. From that post:

  1. *]All direct abortions are illegal.
    *]Direct abortion is defined as the willed and intended death of an unborn child.
    *]It is not a direct abortion if a treament intended for another illness, disease, etc indirectly induces the death of an unborn child.
    *]Any treatment that indirectly induces the death of an unborn child may only be used if all other treatments are not viable or ineffective.

    Would this be an acceptable “legal” definition (of course massaged appropriately by legislators/lawyers)?
Click to expand...

  1. It’s definitely a good start. The use of ‘indirectly’ does trouble me a bit, because I know of no provider who would describe cutting out a tube with a baby in it, as ‘indirect’. Hence the problem using theology to guide abortion policy in a largely secular field.
 
seekerz said:
The right to life of neither baby nor mother should left to chance.
Click to expand...
The right to life of the baby is already ignored–for even frivolous reasons. Personhood amendments/laws would greatly improve things. We either have 1.9 million innocent children killed each year, or what, 100,000 women each year at risk due to fears of treatment that might affect the unborn child? Which puts the most innocent life at risk, personhood amendments or legal abortion?
 
seekerz said:
It’s definitely a good start. The use of ‘indirectly’ does trouble me a bit, because I know of no provider who would describe cutting out a tube with a baby in it, as ‘indirect’. Hence the problem using theology to guide abortion policy in a largely secular field.
Click to expand...
Why? Is removing the tube an act that wills the death of the child? It isn’t a theological question of what is an willed end or means, it is a philosophical one. And philosophy is a key component to the crafting of good law.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Great! My wife is Sicilian-American, and doesn’t speak Italian. Her father was born in Sicily, her mother in Brooklyn. Though born here, my wife didn’t learn how to speak English until she was in parochial school.

Parra sicilianu? Un parru italianu, ma capisciu un poco in sicilianu. 😃
Click to expand...
Here’s a joke for you and Scipio (I now know his real name) I won’t give you the answer until both of you answer.

Why are so many Italian-Americans named Tony? :ehh:
 
qui_est_ce said:
Here’s a joke for you and Scipio (I now know his real name) I won’t give you the answer until both of you answer.

Why are so many Italian-Americans named Tony? :ehh:
Click to expand...
Because the emigration officers at the Italian ports painted “to NY” on suitcases, and the immigration officers at Ellis Island thought those were the men’s names.

My BILs were born in Brooklyn, so that’s why they are Joey and Peter, not Tony. 😃
 
qui_est_ce said:
Here’s a joke for you and Scipio (I now know his real name) I won’t give you the answer until both of you answer.

Why are so many Italian-Americans named Tony? :ehh:
Click to expand...
I know it, but don’t want to give it away. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top