Democrats and Abortion

I can tell you that I know "far-left" Democrats who are pro-life - much like I am pro-life and anti-death penalty.

It's consistent with their belief in personal liberties. As my Libertarian friend has said before: if we are going to make abortion illegal, that should also include in vitro fertilization. If we are going to make drugs illegal, that should include alcohol, nicotene and caffeine. We cannot legislate morality as a cafeteria plan. (his words, not mine)

Hope all is well StefanM, as you can imagine, downtown Richmond was CRAZY today.

Regards,
BiR

 

This sounds like a real sensible rational statement (for about 5 seconds) until you realize what is being said.

1 Nicotine and caffine can IN NO WAY be compared to alcohol and illegal drugs.
2 It's rather stupid to decide if you can't have the whole cake that you refuse a piece of cake.
3 I agree that alcohol should be on the list

We all know the results of trying #3 in the past---!
Therefore do away with the illegality of these drugs with the following stipulation:
Any crime commited while under the influence of ANY DRUGS, under any circumstance warrents twice the penalty of the same crime by a routine criminal.

DUI & kill somebody--double the manslaughter sentence!
High and assault/molest/rob etc --- whatever the max is now, doubled!

This way if you want to get your snort of coke or whatever, you know ahead of time that "UNDER THE INFLUENCE" will result in not a lesser, but harsher sentence.

One could probably make a pretty good living being a "designated driver" then.

Anyway it probably wouldn't take but a few well publicized convictions and the usage would be lessened and the rest more "stay at home" type.

But for the nicotine and caffine; how many people have commited crimes under the influence of either? C'mon get real!

 

True, but murder is never legitimate. There are cases, though rare, in which an abortion must be preformed to save the life of the mother. If it abortion where illegal as many conservative Christians would like it to be then in those cases two lives would be lost.

Also I am trying to deal with the reality of the situation as we find it here in America and right now abortion is legal and sought out by women everyday. I'm not convinced that changing the law would make all that go away. To get someone not to seek out an abortion that really wants one you need to reach them at the heart level not the legal level.

 

Life is life and should remain in the hands of the Creator as much as possible. If we have the ability to punish wrongdoers without taking life then that is what we should do. Revenge seems to me to be lazy (though very politically prudent) criminal justice.

 

If I could outlaw abortion, I'd give up the death penalty in a heartbeat (life without parole seems like a harsher punishment to me, anyway).

I guess the more salient point is this: no pro-life Democrat is ever going to be nominated for the presidency unless the party undergoes dramatic change.

 

As previously stated, the "life of the mother" exception would not be eliminated, nor would I want it to be.

Murder may not be legitimate, but killing sometimes is. If you have to shoot someone who is running at a crowd with bomb, that's justified. It's not "good," but it's not wrong. Generally, though, killing is not justified.

Abortion is similar. In almost all cases, abortion is morally wrong and is essentially equivalent to murder. However, as in the case of the mother whose life is in danger, sometimes abortion can be justified. It's still not a good thing, but it sometimes is necessary.

 

The problem is that the life of the mother is not really the issue with many of the supporters of abortion. The actual word used is "health" and that includes mental stress which is ridiculous and gives room for unfettered abortions.

 

Mental stress is a ridiculous argument that has indeed been taken too far. There are lots of helps for the partums surrounding pregnancy. Unless of course the woman is in a relationship where no one is listening to her or noticing that she has changed perceptively, but that is for another thread.

 

Why do we associate Democrats alone with abortion? Republican Giuliani has the same position. Romney is for abortion, he just lies about it, and McCain has no idea where he stands. While the Democrats are as guilty as sin over this, so are the Republicans. It seems to me that Bush in six years of a Republican Congress did nothing about the issue. The only answer to this dilemma for Christians is a choice that truly believes in life, not political gain like Bush. It comes down to a third party, or getting rid of the two we have.

 

I for one do not let Rudy "off the hook." On every appopriate occasion, I tell how Iwill refuse to vote for him because of his lack of personal integrity and his liberal social policies. I'm not sure about Romney. He may have had a genuine change of heart, but it does look too convenient. McCain is a joke.

Bush, however, has done something for the pro-life agenda. I honestly believe that Alito and Roberts are a WHOLE LOT closer to voting to overturn Roe v. Wade than justices in the mold of Ginsburg and Breyer. The Dems know this, and this is why the filibuster threat always comes down the pike. I admit that it's not enough, and I'm not happy with the GOP's "big tent" policy.

Bottom line though: pro-life Democrats are ostracized on the national level and excluded from the party platform (wasn't Sen. Casey banned from the convention stage because of his pro-life stance?), whereas pro-choice Republicans seem to be welcomed with open arms.

The problem I have with this is that it shows that the GOP is about economics first and social policy second.

Democrats, at least on the national level, make no bones about being staunchly pro-choice. Your mileage may vary locally, though.