Pro-Life in Name Only

“Hi TT political junkies.

I come from a very Catholic family. I've watched, in my lifetime, the Catholic church go from about 70/30 Democratic to about 50/50 Democrat/Republican. That's millions of voters. It's one of the reasons why Bush has won the last two elections.

One of the core reasons for this change has been the "official" pro-life position of the Republican Party. For many, many Catholics, it is the ONLY issue. It is murder and outweighs all other issues. Republican positions on war, economics, social justice and the death penalty - positions opposed by official church positions - don't matter.

And it is this political fact that makes Sen. Bill Frist's flip-flop on stem cells so egregious. Catholics have voted Republican in the hope that government will eventually ban or restrict abortion legally. It is the "big government" route to abortion opposition.

In return, Catholics have gotten Republican politicians who talk tough on abortion but consciously nominate middle-of-the-road judges and throw up meaningless bills requiring women to view ultrasounds of unborn babies and forcing government officials abroad to refrain from discussing abortions.

The Republican calculation is that the middle of the road "talk tough, but take little action" position will fool the Catholics just enough to vote Republican without alienating the solid majority of Americans who believe that abortion should be legal.

Senate Majority Leader Frist and Sen. Orrin Hatch have just taken a position that says it is okay to experiment with human cells after conception. Can any Catholic now seriously believe that a party led by such men will ever, ever ban or significantly restrict abortion?

The reality is that abortion is still legal today because Republicans haven't cared enough about the issue to push it.

Catholics need to reconsider their political calculation on abortion. As Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has said, legal abortion is "settled law." It is no longer an issue in political or legal play.

The correct position for Catholics is to fight abortion in the free market. Change people's minds. Eliminate the factors that increase abortion. Stop voting for people who will take your vote but not respect you in the morning.

Watch what Frist and the boys DO on abortion rather than what they SAY.

Destroy the PLINOS.”

“I agree with your overall point, rl, but it seems in your argument you've made a few presumptions that don't necessarily follow. For example, you've grouped abortion with stem-cell research. I personally agree they are both murder, but it doesn't follow that Frist and "the boys" do, meaning you can't assume how they'll vote on abortion based on their stem-cell opinion. Other comments that you made in question: you've made it sound as if Frist "flip-flopped" as opposed to announcing his official position; you've given the impression that because of 2 senators, they're somehow representative of dozens of other senators and represent a new trend; you've made it sound as if Republicans are against stem-cell research, when they're often just against government funding (taxpayer funding) of it. Again, I agree on your overall point, but I think your point is still valid without the mischaracterizations.
last edited: 7/29/05 11:34:43 PM”

“you've grouped abortion with stem-cell research. I personally agree they are both murder, but it doesn't follow that Frist and "the boys" do, meaning you can't assume how they'll vote on abortion based on their stem-cell opinion.

this is basically what we were trying to tell you on the gay thread, but noooooo, the slippery slope exists (but now you say it doesnt)”

“crash - A slippery slope is not where people "change their minds" on an issue. It's where, because a similar issue has gotten approval, another issue is allowed through because the gap between it and acceptability has narrowed in the minds of relativists.”

“im not referring to the flip-flop part of your discussion with rl”

“What are you referring to?

That's the part of the thread you quoted of me.
last edited: 7/29/05 11:47:40 PM”

“ For example, you've grouped abortion with stem-cell research. I personally agree they are both murder, but it doesn't follow that Frist and "the boys" do, meaning you can't assume how they'll vote on abortion based on their stem-cell opinion.

in other words, no slippery slope.

but in the gay thread, you insist that allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamous canaries marrying incestous minors

in other words, yes, virginia, there is a slippery slope

one or the other, bro. pick one

(by the way, we both suck for being here on a friday night. see automobile repair ugh thread)”

“All I can say crash is look at my explanation above. You seem to have grouped somebody changing their mind on an issue with laws being passed because of their relative similarity to other passed laws. Not sure how else to explain the difference.

(I'm married. I'd just get in trouble if I went out. Can't hike yet, but the physical therapist had me running today. He said by the end of the month I can go on day hikes.)”

“btw, sorry, rl for derailing your thread

let me say something about the thread topic. i absolutely hate abortion. you dont wanna have a baby, keep your fcking legs together. or use protection. in the case of forced sex, two wrongs dont make a right. incidentally, id like to see the stat for percentage of pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest. im guessing its very low. i dont mean to come off as insensitive, but i think treating an unborn child like a fcking piece of tissue is pretty goddamn insensitive”

“whether or not anybodys changed their mind is irrelevant to the point”

“crash - I think it's about 1-1.5 %.

The total percent of abortions that are reasons other than convenience for the mother (rape, incest, health safety) is 3%.

In other words, 97% of abortions are because the mother felt inconvenienced by the baby.”

“Sarge, most of the Catholics in my family and parish who are single-issue abortion voters see no difference between stem cell research and early term abortion. They both result in the destruction of post-conception human cells. That is against church law.

This bill IS an abortion bill because it allows federal funding to destroy post conception human cells. There is nothing "slippery" about it. It would be federally funded abortion, at least in the official Catholic view.

I understand that Frist might make a distinction and that he might vote accordingly. But that is distinction that is not reconcilable with official Catholic doctrine.

Now, I certainly agree that the positions of one or two Senators can't, necessarily, be construed as representative of an entire party. However, we have a 30 year track record of Supreme Court and other federal judges nominated by Republican presidents.

Sandra Day O'Connor was the embodiment of this Republican legal position. I've heard interviews with former Reagan administration officials who say that O'Connor's record was exactly what Reagan wanted - conservative, but not too conservative. I am skeptical that Roberts will be any different given his quotes on the issue and the fact that his wife is involved in the "free market" approach to abortion opposition.

I also would present Bush's oft-quoted line that he doesn't have a litmus test for judges. If abortion is the MOST IMPORTANT issue for a voter, as it is for this particular slice of Catholicism, then shouldn't you demand a litmus test?

And, the party is not going to hold against abortion, then what is the point of voting for Republicans? It is hopeless and useless. Anti-abortion efforts would be better placed in the free market of ideas and individual situations.”

“sarge, this is really going to throw off the whole dynamics of the board if you and i are agreeing on a fuego topic, especially one that has the potential to get really heated. this could be terry schiavo times 10”

“Sarge, most of the Catholics in my family and parish who are single-issue abortion voters see no difference between stem cell research and early term abortion. They both result in the destruction of post-conception human cells. That is against church law.

We agree rl. But do the senators? If they don't, then it's completely irrelevant.

This bill IS an abortion bill because it allows federal funding to destroy post conception human cells. There is nothing "slippery" about it. It would be federally funded abortion, at least in the official Catholic view.

Absolutely agree.

I understand that Frist might make a distinction and that he might vote accordingly. But that is distinction that is not reconcilable with official Catholic doctrine.

But if your contention is that Catholics should not vote for him because he will also associate the two, then your contention is wrong. The Catholic view is irrelevant when determing how Frist will vote. Only his view is relevant.

However, we have a 30 year track record of Supreme Court and other federal judges nominated by Republican presidents.

Well, sort of ... and Democratic presidents too. I get your point though, and am not a Republican because of their inconsistencies (to make a point, not to reflect how I will vote for a particular office), but I do think the overall problem has to be solved by voting for particular individuals based on their track record, not the track record of their party. That's why we not have Dems and Repubs that you can't tell apart. Repubs are "accidentally" voting for liberal Repubs, and Dems are "accidentally" voting for conservative Dems, if you get my meaning.

I just think it's dangerous to lump all Repubs together because of basically, two senators.

If abortion is the MOST IMPORTANT issue for a voter, as it is for this particular slice of Catholicism, then shouldn't you demand a litmus test?

Well, in most public held offices, "yes". But the Supreme Court is the exception. Why? Because they're supposed to objectively apply the Constitution of the U.S. to the case at hand. If you think they'll let their personal views influence the vote, you shouldn't be voting for them for that job.

And, the party is not going to hold against abortion, then what is the point of voting for Republicans? It is hopeless and useless. Anti-abortion efforts would be better placed in the free market of ideas and individual situations

See above.
last edited: 7/30/05 12:17:29 AM”

“LOL crash”

“I understand that Frist will vote however he wishes to vote. What I am saying is that Catholics and other Pro-Life voters need to watch what is happening right now.

Frist IS representative of all Republicans because he is the elected majority leader in the Senate. All Senate Republicans voted for him and he leads them. Some Senate Republicans certainly disagree with him on this issue, but you can make a strong case that he is representative of at least a significant chunk of the Republican Party.

Frist is also a many who has presented himself as a strong pro-lifer and Christian conservative. And yet he now votes in a way that undermines THE core issue for many, many Christian conservatives. Time and again this has happened in the Republican Party. Opportunities to restrict abortion legally were ignored because of potential political backlash.

Pro-Life voters need to realize that there is not and will not be a political majority in Washington D.C. in favor of supporting anything more than minor abortion restrictions. The issue is done and decided.

Frist is exhibit A. He says life begins at conception, but he doesn't act or vote like it.”

“Could you all educate me on stem cell. All I know is that it is a fetal type tissue with lots of research possibilites. I'm assuming the issue is how this tissue is "harvested?" Is it post abortion tissue and that's the sticking point? I'm not trying to be smart here. I'm really asking because I don't know and haven't looked into it.”

“dayhiker - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research”

“So the embryonic ones are the sticking point then. I didn't read all of the info. We had a miscarriage this week and it's a bit more than I can read right now. Thanks for the link.”

“One of my best friend's wife had one about 2 weeks ago. I didn't know there was about a 50% rate of mischarriage for 1st termers. They were (relatively) ok b/c they accepted ahead of time that you can't get your hopes up too much until the 2nd trimester. I know that probably doesn't help you too much right now, but it's a good mindset to consider for the future. Sorry about your loss dayhiker.”

“Thanks. We found out 8 days apart that we were pregnant and then that we weren't. Pretty tough rollercoaster.”

“So how many kids do you have?
last edited: 7/30/05 12:03:31 PM”

“A number of points just to keep the discussion lively.

1. We keep forgetting (or no one mentions) that the whole Roe v Wade panic that strikes whenever a potential Supreme Ct. nominee is named is really pretty silly. Even if the Supreme Court did overturn RvW it wouldn't close down one singe Abortion Clinic. All it would do is throw the issue back to the states, where many believe it belongs anyway.

2. Part of the disagreement about SCR is the question of Federal Funding vs. research paid for by private companies. Just because someone is opposed to the legislation doesn't mean they're opposed to SCR, it may mean they're opposed to the Feds funding it. Same debate exists about a whole host of medical research initiatives, the argument being that private companies (the pharmaceutical industry specifically) will benefit greatly and reap gazillions in profits from research they didn't have to conduct (or pay for). Pretty valid argument when you think about it.

3. Frist is simply being a politician. He's moving closer to the center to position himself for his run for Pres.

4. Single-issue voters fascinate me, regardless of whether it's a conservative or liberal issue. There are so many important issues that impact millions of us, I just don't get how one can view a single issue as so overwhelming in importance that it over-rides everything else. For instance, I think the Environment is pretty important, but so is the War in Iraq, the Economy, Socialism vs. Capitalism, etc.”

“0. Aiming for 2 or 3. We'll probably start once we buy a house in the next year or two.

BTW, waterdog, I am not as extreme as the above post would suggest. I just live within the constructs of my faith and try to take the framework to its logical extension to make a point or work through an idea.

So, the "life begins at conception" idea is the 800 pound gorilla that is hard to avoid.

My dad, uncle and many, many relatives and friends vote almost solely on the basis of a stated abortion position. An argument based on a "woman's right" or "choice" does not work with them or the Catholic framework.

However, an argument based on the idea that Pro-Life national politics is a dead end does work. And an argument based on the idea that better social policy saves more kids also works.

So, I am sympathetic to many pro-choice arguments. However, those are mainly futile within the Catholic framework.”

“Life begins before conception, that is why your not suppose to use birth control.”

“Not in official Catholic theology. Certainly that used to be true before the idea of conception. But the current ban on pre-conception birth control stems from the rule that a couple must be open to life in every sexual encounter. It is not based on the existence of life at all. Post-conception birth control, of course, is considered abortion.

BTW, I don't agree with all that. And there are sound theological reasons to oppose both positions. But that is the current framework.”

“I applaud Frist for seeing the light and recogizing how important stem cell research will be.”

“Just because something is important, doesn't mean it should have government (tax payer) funding.”

“neither should my taxes go to church based programs (marriage programs for one)”

“Ewker - Your taxes go to marriage programs, or was that a hypothetical?”

“sarge, Bush has started church based programs where money (taxes) will be sent to churchs to help establish pre-marriage counseling programs. Supposedly he thinks this will cut down the number of divorces in this coutry. I remember that one more than the others. Bush had quite a few more of these programs for church's that would be supplemented by tax money.
I will see if I can find a link about it. This was discussed some on here about a yr ago.”

“I'd like to see a lot of federal money go to fund stem cell research. I think that would be money well spent.

So, is someone going to tell me I'm complicit in murder again?”

“Ewker - Why did you bring up that? This thread has nothing to do with that. My only guess is that since I said that "Just because something is important, doesn't mean it should have government (tax payer) funding." you thought you'd take that opportunity to bash Bush, thinking I, being a Bush supporter, must support all of his ideas, and therefore, am hypocritical in not wanting some things supported by the tax money, yet support others.

I agree with you that our tax money should not go for that. That makes me sick to think it would.

Yet, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Just because Bush "wants it his way", doesn't mean we have to retailate by doing other things that are wrong, like supporting tax-payer funded stem cell research.

Like I said before ...

Just because something is important, doesn't mean it should have government (tax payer) funding.

There are reasons for using tax payer money to support important causes, but this does not apply.”

“Treebeard, you're complicit in murder, again.”

“sarge, here is an old link
http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/columns/AK012404.htm


also check out this site if you haven't already. Taxpayers for Common Sense. A non-partisan budget watchdog

http://www.taxpayer.net/



why did I bring it up?? Since you think money for stem cell research isn't important, I think money for pre-marriage counseling and money for any church isn't important.

Stem cell research is far more important than pre-marriage counseling.
last edited: 7/31/05 3:07:38 PM”

“Stem cell research is far more important than pre-marriage counseling.

This is where we disagree.

I believe that one's relationship with God is more important than murdering innocent people.

Nevertheless, I believe neither should be paid for by the state.

You, apparently, believe that I should have to pay for your belief system, a system of creating life to destroy it for the benefit of others.

I believe that is pure evil.

Do you at least agree that something like that should be left up to the private sector?

If it is so important, and so many people believe so, you should have no difficulty whatsoever in finding enough financial donors to support your cause. Forcing others to pay for it, though, is wrong.

You do realize, don't you, that Bush did not push to make it illegal, right?”

“why did I bring it up?? Since you think money for stem cell research isn't important, I think money for pre-marriage counseling and money for any church isn't important.

Again, I don't know what this has to do with me. You said "Since [I] think, ..." What does what you think I think have to do with this? Retaliation of some sort?”

“how does the "two wrongs dont make a right" argument make any sense if ewker and treebeard and others feel that stem cell is right?

whos retaliating? that is ludicrous

youre reaching, and twisting ppls words 180 degrees

tih
pih
cull
last edited: 7/31/05 3:17:45 PM”

“crash - Ewker's argument was that because Bush wants things his way, he (Ewker) should have things his way too. It's the 2 wrongs make a right argument. What is your question?
last edited: 7/31/05 3:24:17 PM”

“did sargey-poo say something he shouldnt have?

typical

:-P”

“I tried to rewrite this so that you could understand it. I tried to rewrite it more simply just for you crash.”

“awww coochy coochy coo you so cute when you petulant”

“It's Sunday crash. Is your head spinning? You've been extraordinarily fair lately, but today you seem to be in rare form again. Something about Sundays has you uptight? LOL

Did you read that book? I'll send you a copy if you didn't if you promise to read it.”

“ Ewker's argument was that because Bush wants things his way, he (Ewker) should have things his way too.

no, it isnt.”

“why did I bring it up?? Since you think money for stem cell research isn't important, I think money for pre-marriage counseling and money for any church isn't important. - Ewker”

“i havent been unfair today, either. ive been sarcastic, but fair

heres another fair statement: youre a smart guy, you research your position well, but have trouble following other ppls arguments and often mis-understand their points”

“be specific”

“there is no cause and effect there, sarge. ewker probably could have worded that statement better. i know what he meant”

“be specific

RIGHT NOW, for example”

“Crash - I understand his argument perfectly. Let me say this for you slowly.

I was a liberal freak whack-o all of my child-life, and the VAST majority of my adult life.

I just became a Christian about 5 years ago. I understand what it's like to think like an atheist, and I understand what it's like to think as an agnostic.

I understand his point perfectly.

It's just wrong.”