The Democrats Are confused

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='shelly_freak' date='Nov 4 2004, 11:36 AM'] See I don't agree with over running Roe vs Wade. This country was set up as a secular country, otherwise we would still be connected to England. Yes we do need morality in our government but that does not mean we need to over run Roe vs Wade. [/quote]
Who is to say what is moral and what is not? Some non-religious people would use the term 'natural law,' but what is natural law? If I feel that I should be allowed to kill my neighbor and that there is nothing morally wrong with it, should I be able to? If it's illegal, isn't the government infringing upon my rights?

If you think that abortion isn't immoral, then there is nothing I can do to convince you overturning Roe v. Wade without convincing you abortion is immoral first. If you do think that abortion is immoral and is murder, then the logical course of action would be to make the punishment for abortion comparable to the punishment for murder. Will making abortion illegal stop it completely? No. Murder, rape, and theft are all illegal but all still happen. We should not, however, legalize those crimes. Some argue that other methods are more effective than making abortion illegal, but let's be honest with ourselves; if some action is legal, then for the most part there are no consequences extrinsic to the said action.

[Balthazor]

[quote name='shelly_freak' date='Nov 4 2004, 11:15 AM']I guess I'm a "walking, talking oxymoron" myself then[/quote]


It was not only Kerry's resistance to change on Roe v Wade that put him in conflict.
Kerry had a lot going against him. In the end I don't think he was a wise choice for the Democratic party.

I personally do not think that just banning abortion is the best way to go about dealing with the problem either. It looks good yes, but the success of a Bill that would outright ban abortion are questionable. We should be aiming for the best result as well as the moral thing to do.

However, Kerry did not make much mention of how he planned to reduce abortion through any other means, like social programs. If he really wanted the Catholic church's approval I am sure that he would have emphasised this much more than he did, although granted if his plan to socialize healthcare would have probably put a nice dent in the number of poor women who get abortions because they can not afford the children or the healthcare.

He did not even support the bill that would ban partial birth abortions, I had a very hard time justifying that. I mean, partial birth abortions are late term pregnancies, we are no longer talkng about a fetus even but a child.
Also believe it or not it is possible to write a bill that takes into consideration the safety of the mother. I mean exceptions can be written into bills, and they probably were in this case.....I haven;t read the bill but I suppose I could look it up.

It was the lack of effort to do anything to even limit or reduce abortion that makes me wonder about his stand on abortion and his true feelings about the right to life and how we should try and protect it.

God Bless,
Balthazor

[shelly_freak]

now I remember why I don't speak my opinion here, my words get twisted

[azaelia]

[quote name='shelly_freak' date='Nov 4 2004, 03:23 PM'] now I remember why I don't speak my opinion here, my words get twisted [/quote]
Perhaps you would care to explain your position more clearly?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='shelly_freak' date='Nov 4 2004, 12:36 PM'] See I don't agree with over running Roe vs Wade. This country was set up as a secular country, otherwise we would still be connected to England. Yes we do need morality in our government but that does not mean we need to over run Roe vs Wade. [/quote]
This country was not founded as a secular nation. It was founded on deeply religious principles. The first amendment is only meant to keep the organizational structure of Church and state from choking each other off. Currently, our secular society is foolishly thinking that this only goes one way and that the state can suppress the Church, but the Church can have nothing to do with the state. It is an intrinsically flawed principle.

Furthermore, Roe perjured herself in Roe v. Wade, saying that she was raped. In addition, the case was based off the right to privacy, which is not secured by the constitution. The entire trial was entirely political and unconstitutional and should be overturned, even if just on that basis.

[StColette]

I'm a conservative Democrat and I'm definitely not confused!

Edited November 4, 2004 by StColette

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StColette' date='Nov 4 2004, 04:59 PM'] I'm a conservative Democrat and I'm definitely not confused! [/quote]




















But you're a conservative Democrat.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Nov 4 2004, 04:57 PM']

Furthermore, Roe perjured herself in Roe v. Wade, saying that she was raped. In addition, the case was based off the right to privacy, which is not secured by the constitution. The entire trial was entirely political and unconstitutional and should be overturned, even if just on that basis. [/quote]
In addition to that, they had no standing. THe child was already two years old at the trial.

[Ash Wednesday]

If the Democrats want to survive in the south and rural america, they need to lose the northeast and west coast liberal, hollywood, literary elite association. They need to stop trying to appeal to the fringe left and listen to what mainstream America is trying to tell them.

Hollywood, Manhattan and the Beltway need to realize that there ARE Americans outside of their little world.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday']If the Democrats want to survive in the south and rural america, they need to lose the northeast and west coast liberal, hollywood, literary elite association. They need to stop trying to appeal to the fringe left and listen to what mainstream America is trying to tell them.

Hollywood, Manhattan and the Beltway need to realize that there ARE Americans outside of their little world.[/quote]
At the same time, "mainstream America" needs to realize that there are Americans outside of their little world, too -- the President only won by 52%, signaling that the country or at least the electorate is about half divided. Take it from someone who knows, the losing half is feeling very alienated right now, and alienating them more isn't going to help either side. It's time for someone, hopefully the President, to make a real attempt to bring the country together -- not continue tearing it apart.

Obviously, this coming together shouldn't involve a compromise of moral principles for pro-lifers or anything like that. I'm just saying that maybe those on both sides should start trying to be a little nicer to each other, and triumphalism on the Republican side certainly isn't going to aid that goal. (Not that I'm accusing you of triumphalism, I'm not, I'm just making a general statement).

[Balthazor]

[quote name='shelly_freak' date='Nov 4 2004, 02:23 PM']

now I remember why I don't speak my opinion here, my words get twisted [/quote]
Now the independent is confused

Please clarify...... I don't see where you are coming from.
I wasn't arguing against you I was explaining myself and my opinion to you.