Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Apr 5, 2008.
I'm sure you would have supported this if Ron Paul won the republican nomination...
Absolutely. I am all in favor of reducing the number of abortions in this country.
I am a democrat who is in support of this initiative. :thumbs:
Being a pro-life democrat makes about as much sense as being a homosexual republican. O well, I guess people do strange things (like supporting a small government candidate and then switching to a big government candidate).
I'm a pro-life Democrat as well. Maybe you need to take a hard look at your assumptions. Also, I'm certain that there are a lot of homosexual Republicans as well.
As long as it's done on private property then it's don't ask/don't tell I mean your business according to McCain... :thumbs:
I like the idea and especially this part, "While both Democrats and Republicans talk about reducing the number of abortions, Democrats for Life of America offers real solutions to make this goal a reality."
However they don't discuss the nuts and bolts of the Initiative so I will reserve judgment until I know more about the plan itself.
Did you not read the brochure available as a pdf?
I could Support this. But Ken, did not this group try to get John Kerry to support this initiative 4 years ago? The Dems have a record of alienating Pro lifers in their own party. We shall see if it is a part of the party's platform after their convention. I for one go on record as saying, I hope so.
==There are plenty on both sides. I know all about the log cabin republicans (etc). However just because people do it does not mean it makes any logical sense. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Why? History has shown that it is a poor idea for people of any one issue, or of any one identity, to huddle in one political party. They eventually end up being ignored and losing their clout within that party.
Let me re-phrase this using an example. I attend a Southern Baptist Church. We are conservative, Bible believing, Bible preaching, and pro-family. Yet there is a lady who attends our church, she is not a member, who is a lesbian. Everyone knows and, while everyone is nice to her and prays for her, nobody can figure out why she attends our church. Our pastor preaches against the very way she lives. In the same way, a homosexual who is a republican is part of an organization that has a fundamental disagreement with them on a very important issue. A pro-life person who is a democrat is part of an organization that has a fundamental disagreement with them on a very important issue (literally one of life and death). Why would a logical person be a part of an organization that disagrees with them on such important issues? I can't see the logic. It makes no sense to me.
To eventually have a majority in that party agree with them so that both major parties will be pro-life. It would be a whole lot easier to accomplish something politically on the issue of abortion if this was the case.
No I didn't notice it. Looks like they are asking Gov to carry a large part of the load. Provide the 800#, increase WIC, etc... I don't think this get's to the cause just the effects. I do like the tax breaks for adoptions...
I really think adoption agencies are key to this problem but I don't think they should make big profits for being a "child broker". I would like to see them spend more of that money investigating the potential parents and even building national databases and running that 800#.
There are many couples who want a child and can't have one then there are people seeking abortions. My idea is to put the two together...
Ken, I agree with this concept whole-heartedly, and I certainly hope that the Democrats' national platform CAN allow for the pro-lifers in their party. That would be a major step forward.
But I have a couple comments and questions about this "95-10" initiative.
1) The original article was written in 2006. I do see that the page itself has been updated recently, but I see nothing specific about whether or not anything has gone forward on this issue.....AND
2) The legislation discussed, as introduced by Davis is the Pregnant Women Support Act. According to a quick google of this act, I found this: H.R. 6145 [109th] (2006 session): Pregnant Women Support Act....This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. . Then further digging turned up this: "H.R. 3192: Pregnant Women Support Act (2007-2008 session). This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Jan 26, 2008]" That's the most recent information I can find on the bill-that it's been sent to committee. Do you know of anything beyond that?
Also, I think a couple of other points should be noted....The Pregnant Women Support Act was NOT merely introduced by "Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN) and Pro-life Democrats in Congress who share this same commitment ", as stated on the Democrats for Life website article, but was co-sponsored (in 2006) by 27 different individuals and (in the 2007-2008 version), 36 different individuals. This latest incarnation of the bill has 11 Republicans as co-sponsors, and even Wikipedia mentions Rep. Chris Smith as "the lead Republican co-sponsor". I think it's only fair to point this out. Davis IS the guy with primary credit for the bill and I wish to take nothing away from him--I applaud his efforts here. But I also don't think it's fair for the DFL website to imply that Republicans are doing nothing concrete in this area, when, in fact the very bill being referred to in the article has Republican co-sponsors. Take this as the huge step forward for the pro-life minority within the Democratic Party that it is, but please don't do it by denying any truth of cooperation by Republicans with the same goals. Stemming the tide of abortion should not be an issue that is thwarted by political arguments and allegiances.
Also, another article on the DFL website, "03/15/2008 Study Shows Pro-Life Democrats On The Rise" states that "For instance, according to a 2003 Newsweek and Princeton University survey, 42 percent of women who self-identify as democrats also categorize themselves as pro-life. Moreover, the Eliot Institute alledges that one in four voting women have had an abortion and that the overwhelming majority of these women regret their decision later in life." That is good to know.
No, that is all I know as well.
Good points Hopeful.