National Party Platforms - In Their Own Words

[Sojourner]

[url="http://www.republicansforchoice.com/keyissues.htm"]This is an interesting note from "Republicans for Choice"[/url]:
[quote]What will this Congress look like for women’s rights after this election?

If control of Congress switches from Republican to Democrat won’t that mean a woman’s right to choose will be safe? The answer is “not necessarily.”

When Republicans For Choice was founded following the Supreme Court’s Webster decision back in 1989 (the first decision that almost overturned Roe) the majority of state legislatures were Democrat-controlled. Congress was Democrat-controlled.

[b]Some of the most active anti-choice activists in office were Democrats. And many still are. The Democrat’s Leader in the U S Senate, today, Harry Reid, for example is a strong opponent of a woman’s right to choose.[/b]

[b]So we founded Republicans For Choice (RFC) to help you look past the Party label.[/b]
...
Many of our strongest pro-choice GOP officeholders are under attack. Some may lose. But the sad irony is they will lose not because of their position on Choice….[b]but because voters will unfairly paint them as anti-choice and anti-stem cell research and pro-Bush just because they are Republican.[/b]

So our plea to the voting public is this….if you care about preserving a woman’s right to choose…take the time to find out the real position of the candidates. [b] Look past the Party label. [/b]

And also understand this…it takes a whole lot more principle and courage to be a Republican running as a pro-choice advocate than to be a Democrat. So if you are lucky enough to have two pro-choice candidates to choose from…please reward the courage of the Republican with your vote.
...
Remember as well when you vote for a pro-choice Republican you not only get a candidate who trusts women to make their own decisions and who fights to keep government out of the bedroom as well as the boardroom…but they also believe in lower taxes so you get to keep more of what you earn! Such a deal!![/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352556' date='Aug 7 2007, 10:06 PM']I think there is plenty of dissent from the party platform on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.[/quote]
At the top national level, the Democratic Party is 100% pro-abort. This includes all post-Roe Dem Presidents and major presidential candidates. Not much dissent there.
And in congress, pro-life Dems are a small minority.

Do the research.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

RON PAUL '08

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1352596' date='Aug 7 2007, 10:27 PM']At the top national level, the Democratic Party is 100% pro-abort. This includes all post-Roe Dem Presidents and major presidential candidates. Not much dissent there.
And in congress, pro-life Dems are a small minority.

Do the research.[/quote]
Well heck, you should have told me we were limiting our survey to only top national level folks. Though I suppose if you keep changing the parameters of the discussion, of course you can ensure that you're right.

If my comments appear partisan it is solely because the unholy affection for the Republican party so often displayed on these boards bothers me. If there were a similar unholy affection for Democrats I would be more than happy to combat that as well. I think our pro-choice Republican friends are right on at least one thing: Look past the Party label.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352612' date='Aug 7 2007, 10:35 PM']Well heck, you should have told me we were limiting our survey to only top national level folks. Though I suppose if you keep changing the parameters of the discussion, of course you can ensure that you're right.

If my comments appear partisan it is solely because the unholy affection for the Republican party so often displayed on these boards bothers me. If there were a similar unholy affection for Democrats I would be more than happy to combat that as well. I think our pro-choice Republican friends are right on at least one thing: Look past the Party label.[/quote]
I'm aware that there are pro-abort Republicans and pro-life Democrats, however the majority of pro-lifers are Republican.
I support individuals rather than parties, but the truth is, the higher the level of office, the more the party platform matters (especially at the Presidential level).
I'm not saying we can vote for a person on party platform alone, but this debate was about comparing platforms, and I'd disagree that looking at them is totally useless (especially as this thread was introduced when Presidential candidates were being discussed).

And it's also a fact that pro-life Dems almost never run against pro-abort Reps. (It's usually pro-life Dem vs. pro-life Rep or pro-abort Dem vs. pro-abort Rep.)

[curtins]

terra Firma, your argument about marriage is completely inane. NO party is supporting civil marriage as a sacrament. No party ever will. However, in protecting civil marriage as a man and a woman, you protect the family. It does not endanger sacramental marriage.

On the other hand, allowing gay civil marriage opens the door for the gays to petition the church for sacramental gay marriage.

The family is the basic unit of society. That is why there is civil marriage.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='curtins' post='1352629' date='Aug 7 2007, 10:52 PM']terra Firma, your argument about marriage is completely inane. NO party is supporting civil marriage as a sacrament. No party ever will. However, in protecting civil marriage as a man and a woman, you protect the family. It does not endanger sacramental marriage.

On the other hand, allowing gay civil marriage opens the door for the gays to petition the church for sacramental gay marriage.

The family is the basic unit of society. That is why there is civil marriage.[/quote]
Where did I say that marriage should be protected as a sacrament? I'm not saying everyone needs to be married Catholic. But I am saying that if we're going to have civil marriage, the elements of civil marriage should mirror those set out by the church -- the defining qualities of marriage: free, total, faithful, fruitful union of man and woman.

The primary areas in which marriage has been attacked so far are with regard to contraception (totality/fruitfulness) and divorce (faithfulness). We've lost on both those fronts. And those losses have had major consequences on the abortion front. Contraception, for example, led [i][b]directly [/b][/i]to Roe v. Wade. Even the Republicans for Choice say so: “The Supreme Court’s Decision in Roe v. Wade was based on previous decisions legalizing birth control first for married couples and then for single people, too (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972).” [url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/scaperlanda/sexmarriageandprocreation.pdf"]And here's a Catholic take on this very subject[/url].

And let's just think for a moment what impact the introduction of divorce has had on abortion. Preaching the truth matters. There are dire consequences when we compromise on the essentials.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352633' date='Aug 7 2007, 11:06 PM']Where did I say that marriage should be protected as a sacrament? I'm not saying everyone needs to be married Catholic. But I am saying that if we're going to have civil marriage, the elements of civil marriage should mirror those set out by the church -- the defining qualities of marriage: free, total, faithful, fruitful union of man and woman.

The primary areas in which marriage has been attacked so far are with regard to contraception (totality/fruitfulness) and divorce (faithfulness). We've lost on both those fronts. And those losses have had major consequences on the abortion front. Contraception, for example, led [i][b]directly [/b][/i]to Roe v. Wade. Even the Republicans for Choice say so: “The Supreme Court’s Decision in Roe v. Wade was based on previous decisions legalizing birth control first for married couples and then for single people, too (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972).” [url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/scaperlanda/sexmarriageandprocreation.pdf"]And here's a Catholic take on this very subject[/url].

And let's just think for a moment what impact the introduction of divorce has had on abortion. Preaching the truth matters. There are dire consequences when we compromise on the essentials.[/quote]
This is not any kind of logical argument against not legally recognizing "gay marriage."

Are you saying that as long as we legally allow divorce and contraception, we must also legally recognize "gay marriage"??
If you're so much against the devaluing of marriage, why should we allow it to be devalued even further?

I honestly find your apparent "all or nothing" reasoning very hard to follow. You seem to be saying that unless the law is 100% perfectly in line with all of Catholic teaching, it should not reflect morality at all.
(Maybe I'm misreading something, but that's what you seem to be saying, in a nutshell.)

[Jaime]

[quote]The family is the basic unit of society. That is why there is civil marriage.[/quote]

Nope

The reason there is civil marriage is directly due to a lack of faith.

Also there is nothing within civil marriage that calls for permanence of the marriage or any call for children.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1353157' date='Aug 8 2007, 07:18 PM']This is not any kind of logical argument against not legally recognizing "gay marriage."[/quote]
Well, OK, that's kind of an obvious statement since my argument had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. What's your point?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1353157' date='Aug 8 2007, 07:18 PM']Are you saying that as long as we legally allow divorce and contraception, we must also legally recognize "gay marriage"??

If you're so much against the devaluing of marriage, why should we allow it to be devalued even further?[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about?

I never once mentioned that gay marriage should be legalized. In fact, I said, "But I am saying that if we're going to have civil marriage, the elements of civil marriage should mirror those set out by the church -- the defining qualities of marriage: free, total, faithful, fruitful union [b]of man and woman.[/b]" That last bolded bit should clear up where I stand on legalizing gay marriage. And frankly I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Is it that you want someone to argue against so badly that you'll twist my words -- even those plainly opposite to what you assert -- to mean something that I don't mean? Or is it really just poor reading comprehension skills?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1353157' date='Aug 8 2007, 07:18 PM']I honestly find your apparent "all or nothing" reasoning very hard to follow. You seem to be saying that unless the law is 100% perfectly in line with all of Catholic teaching, it should not reflect morality at all.
(Maybe I'm misreading something, but that's what you seem to be saying, in a nutshell.)[/quote]
Well, perhaps that is because you went into it thinking, "TF supports gay marriage" and then tried to make it fit your assumption. Since I said nothing of the sort, it was a little difficult to twist my words to get to that conclusion.

Soc, the whole point of this thread is about how great Republicans are. Curtins made the point earlier that civil marriage isn't sacramental marriage, and I agree that it's not, and I also think that in fighting for "family values" in the sense they're described in today's political arena, we are fighting for something that is not what we believe marriage to be. In fact, it's such a far cry from what marriage is supposed to be that it has directly led to more abortions. And yet we keep supporting it. That's insane. If we want to support family values, then let's support what our REAL values are. It doesn't mean we need to mandate sacramental marriage, but it does mean that we need to be preaching the truth about the things that make marriage something special -- that it is a free, total, fruitful, faithful union between a man and a woman. ALL of these characteristics are necessary. And because we deemed some of these to be unnecessary throughout the years we are paying the price with more abortions. [b]Our faulty image of marriage as promulgated through our civil laws leads directly to more abortions.
[/b]
Now I realize that you're going to twist my words here to mean that I hate puppies and butterflies, but I guess there's not much I can do about that.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Terra Firma

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1353190' date='Aug 8 2007, 07:51 PM']Also there is nothing within civil marriage that calls for permanence of the marriage or any call for children.[/quote]
Huh, I think someone else said this. I know that you won't be able to bring yourself to acknowledge that so I thought I'd help you out.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352633' date='Aug 8 2007, 02:06 PM']The primary areas in which marriage has been attacked so far are with regard to contraception (totality/fruitfulness) and divorce (faithfulness). We've lost on both those fronts. And those losses have had major consequences on the abortion front. Contraception, for example, led [i][b]directly [/b][/i]to Roe v. Wade. Even the Republicans for Choice say so: “The Supreme Court’s Decision in Roe v. Wade was based on previous decisions legalizing birth control first for married couples and then for single people, too (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972).” [url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/scaperlanda/sexmarriageandprocreation.pdf"]And here's a Catholic take on this very subject[/url].[/quote]
Actually the court's decision in Griswold was based more on the alleged "right to privacy" which did [i]somewhat[/i] contribute to the thinking behind Roe. However, the real philosophy behind Roe is the non-personhood of the fetus. Also, nothing in Church doctrine says contraception must be outlawed. Birth control pills do have medicinal proposes other than contraceptive, and condoms can actually be used for wilderness survival believe it or not.

So basically this leave us with the marriage issue. While I am the first proponent of getting rid of no-fault divorce, I haven't seen anywhere a Church teaching that the State has to perfectly reflect Church law in this matter. I'm for civil divorce in cases of abuse for example. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge the Church has no problem with this.

I acknowledge that our definition of marriage in this country is messed up, and that contributes to abortion. However, I think if you choose not to participate in politics at all, or deicide to throw away your vote for a third-party you won't have any voice in the government to change these policies.

I am a registered Republican because as I see it as they are the party most likely to be pro-life and pro-marriage--especially at the national level. I desire to vote in the primaries in an effort to [b]keep[/b] the Republican that way and give those who have a no voice a voice in Washington. I am sorry that the Republicans might not have a perfect definition of what marriage should be, but quite frankly with six million babies being slaughtered every year in this country I find it a non-issue.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Justin86

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1353965' date='Aug 9 2007, 11:52 AM']Actually the court's decision in Griswold was based more on the alleged "right to privacy" which did [i]somewhat[/i] contribute to the thinking behind Roe. However, the real philosophy behind Roe is the non-personhood of the fetus. Also, nothing in Church doctrine says contraception must be outlawed. Birth control pills do have medicinal proposes other than contraceptive, and condoms can actually be used for wilderness survival believe it or not.[/quote]
So no you're a legal scholar? You've dissected Griswold and Roe and know all the inner workings of the legal issues involved?

Actually the right to privacy, which stems out of the court's interpretation of substantitive due process, is a foundational element of the legal reasoning in Roe. The question of the baby's personhood is an issue as well, yes, but the legal foundation on which the decision rests is substantive due process and a resultant right to privacy. There is a clear linkage between the reasoning established in Griswold and the reasoning in Roe.

[quote name='Justin86' post='1353965' date='Aug 9 2007, 11:52 AM']So basically this leave us with the marriage issue. While I am the first proponent of getting rid of no-fault divorce, I haven't seen anywhere a Church teaching that the State has to perfectly reflect Church law in this matter. I'm for civil divorce in cases of abuse for example. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge the Church has no problem with this.

I acknowledge that our definition of marriage in this country is messed up, and that contributes to abortion. However, I think if you choose not to participate in politics at all, or deicide to throw away your vote for a third-party you won't have any voice in the government to change these policies.

I am a registered Republican because as I see it as they are the party most likely to be pro-life and pro-marriage--especially at the national level. I desire to vote in the primaries in an effort to [b]keep[/b] the Republican that way and give those who have a no voice a voice in Washington. I am sorry that the Republicans might not have a perfect definition of what marriage should be, but quite frankly with six million babies being slaughtered every year in this country I find it a non-issue.[/quote]
As I've stated multiple times, I'm not saying that sacramental marriage needs to be enshrined in civil law. However, I am saying that [i]our societal conception of marriage as expressed in our laws has real-life life-and-death consequences[/i]. I understand the need for political compromise, etc., in order to make marginal advances. However, I think we have been too free with the things we are willing to compromise on.

We have compromised on the definitions of marriage, and we are paying the price for it with the lives of unborn children. The connection is very clear between our societal views of marriage and understanding of life and the reasoning that leads to the deaths of six million babies. Abortion is a horrific symptom of a much deeper illness.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Terra Firma

[kateri05]

[quote]Actually the right to privacy, which stems out of the court's interpretation of substantitive due process, is a foundational element of the legal reasoning in Roe. The question of the baby's personhood is an issue as well, yes, but the legal foundation on which the decision rests is substantive due process and a resultant right to privacy. There is a clear linkage between the reasoning established in Griswold and the reasoning in Roe.[/quote]

Amen!!

THe Catholic Church ALWAYS argued that contraception would lead to abortion, because it creates a false worldview that destroys the family and rightly ordered sexuality. its a slippery, slippery slope, and the Devil was gleefully pleased over Gvs.Ct because even HE knew where it would lead!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1353706' date='Aug 9 2007, 07:18 AM']Well, OK, that's kind of an obvious statement since my argument had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. What's your point?
What the hell are you talking about?

I never once mentioned that gay marriage should be legalized. In fact, I said, "But I am saying that if we're going to have civil marriage, the elements of civil marriage should mirror those set out by the church -- the defining qualities of marriage: free, total, faithful, fruitful union [b]of man and woman.[/b]" That last bolded bit should clear up where I stand on legalizing gay marriage. And frankly I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Is it that you want someone to argue against so badly that you'll twist my words -- even those plainly opposite to what you assert -- to mean something that I don't mean? Or is it really just poor reading comprehension skills?
Well, perhaps that is because you went into it thinking, "TF supports gay marriage" and then tried to make it fit your assumption. Since I said nothing of the sort, it was a little difficult to twist my words to get to that conclusion.

Soc, the whole point of this thread is about how great Republicans are. Curtins made the point earlier that civil marriage isn't sacramental marriage, and I agree that it's not, and I also think that in fighting for "family values" in the sense they're described in today's political arena, we are fighting for something that is not what we believe marriage to be. In fact, it's such a far cry from what marriage is supposed to be that it has directly led to more abortions. And yet we keep supporting it. That's insane. If we want to support family values, then let's support what our REAL values are. It doesn't mean we need to mandate sacramental marriage, but it does mean that we need to be preaching the truth about the things that make marriage something special -- that it is a free, total, fruitful, faithful union between a man and a woman. ALL of these characteristics are necessary. And because we deemed some of these to be unnecessary throughout the years we are paying the price with more abortions. [b]Our faulty image of marriage as promulgated through our civil laws leads directly to more abortions.
[/b]
Now I realize that you're going to twist my words here to mean that I hate puppies and butterflies, but I guess there's not much I can do about that.[/quote]
I thought the whole thing about marriage concerned your opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment.