Bob Casey Betrays Pro-lifes In Pa

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24103768/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24103768/[/url]

[dUSt]

Don't trust whitey.

[XIX]

LOL


surprise, surprise

[ardillacid]

Was he that 'pro-life' senator that ran against santorum? I guess his true colors coming out.

lol

[XIX]

Yes, same guy.

[ardillacid]

for the pro-life dems who said he was better than Santorum.

[ardillacid]

Where you guys at? I know there were quite a few who supported him because he was a 'pro-life' socialist. I'm particularly interested in those who thought the dem party could be changed by voting a 'pro-life' dem into office vs a pro-life conservative.

[XIX]

Well is Casey was pro-life it could have helped nudge things in the correct direction.


But he's not.





So it didn't.

[Didymus]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1514867' date='Apr 30 2008, 03:27 AM']Where you guys at? I know there were quite a few who supported him because he was a 'pro-life' socialist. I'm particularly interested in those who thought the dem party could be changed by voting a 'pro-life' dem into office vs a pro-life conservative.[/quote]

Democrats aren't socialist. Get it right. Democrats love money and capitalism just as much as Conservative Republicans do...

[picchick]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1514867' date='Apr 30 2008, 03:27 AM']Where you guys at? I know there were quite a few who supported him because he was a 'pro-life' socialist. I'm particularly interested in those who thought the dem party could be changed by voting a 'pro-life' dem into office vs a pro-life conservative.[/quote]


If you take a look at the government now, you will find that there are not too many pro-life conservatives either....they claim pro-life but they have an exception to this or an exception to that.

I don't think the dem party could be changed by voting a pro-life democrat into office any more than the "pro-life" conservatives will do to change their party. They are one in the same in my mind.

[quote]Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics"]bioethics[/url]. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia"]euthanasia[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning"]human cloning[/url], research involving [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell"]human embryonic stem cells[/url], and the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty"]death penalty[/url], but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion"]abortion[/url], and support for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights"]fetal rights[/url]. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus"]fetuses[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo"]embryos[/url] are human beings, and therefore have a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_live"]right to live[/url].[/quote]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life"]Reference[/url]

Tell me, how many "pro-life" conservatives hold this up?

[CatherineM]

If Hillary or Obama wanted to choose a pro-life democrat for vp, who would be best choice?

[CatherineM]

If Hillary or Obama wanted to choose a pro-life democrat for vp, who would be best choice?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1514927' date='Apr 30 2008, 07:32 AM']Democrats aren't socialist. Get it right. Democrats love money and capitalism just as much as Conservative Republicans do...[/quote]
So is the implication here that the Democrats would be better if they [i]were[/i] (according to you) socialist??

All socialism does is take power and wealth and place it in the hands of government bureaucrats. And we know how lovely that all worked out for the USSR. . . .

Didymus, you seriously need to get over your infatuation with a system repeatedly and unambiguously condemned by the Church. (See my signature guote.)


[quote name='picchick' post='1514950' date='Apr 30 2008, 08:48 AM']If you take a look at the government now, you will find that there are not too many pro-life conservatives either....they claim pro-life but they have an exception to this or an exception to that.

I don't think the dem party could be changed by voting a pro-life democrat into office any more than the "pro-life" conservatives will do to change their party. They are one in the same in my mind.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life"]Reference[/url]

Tell me, how many "pro-life" conservatives hold this up?[/quote]
There aren't many real conservatives in government now, period, for that matter. And no, kids, Republican does not necessarily equal conservative.
So, is doing [i]something[/i] against abortion no better than actively promoting abortion??

Overall, Republicans (especially conservatives) have done more to protect life than Democrats.
You can compare their records here: [url="http://www.ontheissues.org/Abortion.htm#Headlines"]http://www.ontheissues.org/Abortion.htm#Headlines[/url]
(You can go to the state map on the homepage to look at the records of politicians in each state.)

Saying conservatives and liberals are "one and the same" does not show objectivity and fairmindedness, but rather intellectual laziness and unwillingness to look at the facts.

[zwergel88]

FYI just because Casey is backing Obama doesn't make him not pro-life. I consider myself pro-life, but I am voting for Obama. Why is it so hard for you guys to acknowledge that Casey is pro-life? You can't expect Casey to look at one issue when making his choice of who to support. I think both Bob Casey and I are probably of the same opinion, that outlawing abortion would be great, but electing John McCain is not going to make that happen. Really, did you expect him to back the Republican nominee?

The fact is that voting a certain way just because of the candidates stance on abortion doesn't make that much sense. Did having Bush as president make abortion illegal, or significantly change public opinion on the issue? No! (you could of course argue that more people are dead as a result of war) It is the legislative and judicial branches that make these decisions, and the president has little influence over either of them. Even the appointment of supreme court justices are hit or miss. Richard Nixon was a pro-life Republican, but it was him who appointed Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who wrote the majority decision in Roe V. Wade. Similarly, while Bush nominees did put a stop to late-term partial-birth abortion (which accounts for less that 1% of abortions performed) they have proved extremely reluctant to hear any cases related to abortion law, and most consider Roe v. Wade to be established precedent. So my point is that Bush was not much help to the pro-life movement. Also, considering that he just packed the court with his nominees, there is a strong possibility that the next president will not make any appointments, thus it doesn't really matter where they stand because they will likely not have any influence at all.

Stop picking on Casey, he's awesome!

[CatherineM]

I keep trying to make the point that choosing a presidential candidate based solely on a single issue he/she has virtually no chance of changing doesn't make sense to me. I keep getting stomped on for suggesting that we look at all the issues. I've got my head down again, so let the stomping begin.