Prolife Progress

[dairygirl4u2c]

"show me a candidate who has advocated nuking the middle east and then i will revise my statement. until then, voting for a pro abortion candidate in america is wrong"

maybe as a practical matter, in today's world, it's wrong. but one cannot say that it's wrong, no matter what.

all candidates have something intrinsically evil about. i was throwing out lots of examples. but i'll make it simple-- A wants to teach and hand out contraception and promasturbation, everywhere as standard. he is prolife though. B is prochoice but is perfect in everything else. there's a liklihood that abortion will change, at less than 1%. if the prochoice candidate wins, contraception will not be handed out and taught in colleges everywhere.
is it wrong to vote for the prochoice candidate here?

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287604125' post='2181087']
"Constitution provides for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I think that's in the declaration of independance, not the constitution. pretty big difference there
[/quote]


The declaration is not independent of the Constitution. The Constitution sought to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and property) by creating a system of checks and balances. Reading the federalist papers, which were the letters by Hamilton John Jay and Madison(I think was the last) will tell you that these were indeed the principals that they sought to protect in the constitution. It's true, the document never states it, but it creates the system for which those individual rights could be protected.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287604125' post='2181087']
"Constitution provides for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I think that's in the declaration of independance, not the constitution. pretty big difference there
[/quote]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287610982' post='2181118']
The declaration is not independent of the Constitution. The Constitution sought to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and property) by creating a system of checks and balances. Reading the federalist papers, which were the letters by Hamilton John Jay and Madison(I think was the last) will tell you that these were indeed the principals that they sought to protect in the constitution. It's true, the document never states it, but it creates the system for which those individual rights could be protected.
[/quote]

Agreed. When you read most speeches from Statesmen that mention the relationship between both documents or rather simply quote both documents, it is never that they are opposed or in anyway disagree with one another. Rather, the Declaration is often looked at as the animating principle behind the bare bones structure that is the Constitution. To suggest a great distinction or gap between the way one reads or views or even approaches the Declaration and the Constitution is sophistry and does not approach the situation for what it is.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i would agree with that, that we should read into the constitution things like 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

what principle though allows this? i realize that not all conservatives are 'if it's not there, it can't be counted'. but isn't that 'being activist' at least according to traditional conservatives? the only way i know how to read somehting like that into it, is through the 'fundemental rights' doctrine of the 14th amendment, and some vaguer doctinres in the articles. anytime a judge uses these, conservatives cry foul. what should we make of this?

[MichaelFilo]

Well the Constitution and the bible were not documents in vacuum. To understand them we need historical context. I cannot imagine I could read the new Testament and have the same understanding as I would have if I read it and the Church Fathers. Protestants do the same, by introducing the understanding of Luther or Calvin (which obviously has some chronological and temporal issues, but you get the idea.) It is not enough to just read the constitution, but luckily we have many documents of intent written to clarify it's meaning.

[havok579257]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287604424' post='2181090']
"show me a candidate who has advocated nuking the middle east and then i will revise my statement. until then, voting for a pro abortion candidate in america is wrong"

maybe as a practical matter, in today's world, it's wrong. but one cannot say that it's wrong, no matter what.

all candidates have something intrinsically evil about. i was throwing out lots of examples. but i'll make it simple-- A wants to teach and hand out contraception and promasturbation, everywhere as standard. he is prolife though. B is prochoice but is perfect in everything else. there's a liklihood that abortion will change, at less than 1%. if the prochoice candidate wins, contraception will not be handed out and taught in colleges everywhere.
is it wrong to vote for the prochoice candidate here?
[/quote]


niether are pro life. don't vote for either.

[MichaelFilo]

It just isn't effective, the way you think. It is less likely to end abortions or reduce them. Any reduction in immorality is good. If both candidates are pro-choice but one advocates gay marriage and the other doesn't, you'd vote for neither because both are pro-choice?

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287677268' post='2181318']
It just isn't effective, the way you think. It is less likely to end abortions or reduce them. Any reduction in immorality is good. If both candidates are pro-choice but one advocates gay marriage and the other doesn't, you'd vote for neither because both are pro-choice?
[/quote]

i would vote for the candidate who is pro life. in almost all elections there iare numerous candidates :

examples-

republican
democrate
reform
libretarian

show me a true example of no pro life candidates instead of your hypotheticals.