G.O.P. Platform on Abortion should be more prominent

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Monergist, Oct 6, 2004.

  1. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know that is not exactly "NEWS." But I keep seeing posts here that seem to suggest that the GOP and President Bush are all consistently Pro-Life. For example:

    For me, this is an important issue; a single point that can alone determine how I vote. It seems to be that the GOP as a whole varies greatly on this issue, and our President cannot be considered to be totally pro-life.

    I don't believe that anyone could rationally argue that the Constitution Party's platform is committed to eliminating the murder of the unborn. From their website:

    If someone wants to disagree with me that a vote for the CP candidate rather than the GOP's will further the danger to the unborn (since we all know Kerry's position) I can understand that.
    I disagree, but to disagree with a Christian brother who adamantly opposes abortion yet supports the GOP is simply that; a disagreement between brothers. I am truly thankful for many such brothers, some of whom I have personally met, and who hold public office under the GOP banner.

    But what I cannot understand, is when brothers who agree with me on the issue trash the only party and only candidate who is consistenly and totally pro-life. When we point out the inconsistencies of the GOP, we're accused of 'circular reasoning' and attempting to somehow 'sabotage' or 'hi-jack' the election. I find that inexcusable. I'm fully aware that a Kerry win will potentially reverse progress that has been made and endanger thousands more of the unborn. I'm also aware that a Bush win will not secure the safety of all the unborn. I'm against killing babies. One dead baby is one too many.

    [ October 07, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? Did you read the platform? Or just listen to someone else? I didn't know what it said, but rather than just listen to someone else's report about it, I pulled it up and did a search for "abortion" and "life." The following are some of the results.

    From the 2004 Platform:

    Perhaps you want to haggle over the definition of "definitive statement," but it seems hard to read this platform and deny what it says.
     
  3. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said. I too disagree with but understand the "lesser evil" vote. But I also am dismayed that Christians are so viciously opposed to the only party and candidate who actually take their position. It's BACKWARDS.

    BTW, as to "lacking any definitive statement", you are correct, however if you look up Bush's official campaign website, his agenda lacks ANY statement on abortion whatsoever. And the blood continues to flow, while we split hairs over two candidates who will do nothing to stop it.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim, How would you reword these to make them "definitive"? How much stronger could it be?

    I think the argument we should be making is that the Republicans' actions will not live up to their statement. But I cannot see anyway to argue that these statements are not "definitive."
     
  5. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry,

    Before I made this post I spent quite some time looking for a 'definitive statement' on abortion at both the GOP's official website GOP PAGE and Pres. Bush's website. I searched through "AGENDA" on both sites and searched both sites with 'abortion' 'pro-life' and other terms. I found nothing.

    If I am wrong about this, I will stand corrected. Thanks for the info you posted. If in fact, this serves as the platform of the party as a whole then I will join you in rejoicing at their commitment and pray for their success in this matter.

    But I have a really hard time believing that what you post represents the agenda of the entire Republican Party. I even have a hard time believing that it represents the agenda of our President. If there is indeed an unified effort among all Republicans to make the elimination of abortion a top priority, why is it not more visible as part of their campaign platforms, both at the party level and the Bush re-election level? And why is there so much dissension allowed among rank-and-file Republican officials on this issue?

    I guess that I just need some more convincing.
     
  6. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Me, too.

    Larry, is there a reason that you did not provide the link to the quotes? If not, could you?
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only my bad memory. :D I meant to include it and then forgot. Sorry about that.

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/Conventions/RNC-2004platform.pdf

    I think it represents the "rank and file" of the party. I do not believe that those at the top as as committed as they should be. But judging from the title of this thread, that did not appear to be the topic, so I just commented on what the topic was.

    Based on his statements, I think he is pro-life as a whole. But I think he is not doing nearly enough about it. I think he is right to say that we have to change the culture first; but he should use his bully pulpit to do just that. I am very unhappy with his abortion actions in this term.

    The fact remains that until the courts change, abortion will not change. (The congress is, as of now, unwilling to make any thing beyond judicial review.) That is why this election is so important. There is only one member of this court who is under 65 and there are three octogenarians (I have always wanted to use that word in a sentence). The next president will have 3 or 4 appointments. If KErry gets them, they will be pro choice appointments. If Bush gets them, they will perhaps be pro life appointments. With Bush, there is at least a chance to change the court. With KErry there is no chance; it will become more solidified against life. That is why I believe we have to take the chance with Bush. I wish there was another legitimate candidate. I wish Peroutka was electable. I would likely vote for him if he were. But he is not, this time around. And we can't give 30 years of the Supreme Court to John Kerry.
     
  8. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    While the GOP platform does have some pro-life wording in it, the President and the majority of the GOP leadership have not accted in accordance with the platform.

    Funding has continued to the abortion providers both here and abroad. Bush has said that he doesn't think we should try to overturn Roe v. Wade, as the nation is not ready. Other than signing the "do nothing" PBA ban, our current GOP administration has done nothing to stop abortions.

    Bush has appointed both pro-life and pro-abortion judges, and will continue to do so. He has promised not to use abortion as a litmus test when selecting judges. He has pro-abortion leaders and politicians campaigning for him.

    While he may be "pro-life with exceptions", we can all see from those who he surrounds himself with, that the majority of the GOP leadership is pro-aboriton. I would guess that they left the wording in the GOP platform in order to keep they conservative Christian voters happy. The GOP doesn't require it's candidates to abide by the party platform, and untill they do, they platform is simply a bunch of meaningless words.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is certainly an arguable viewpoint, JGrubbs. As I said, I think the argument we should be making is that the Republicans' actions will not live up to their statement. But I cannot see anyway to argue that these statements are not "definitive." However, it was not the discussion here. The discussion here was about what the platform said.
     
  10. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    JGrubbs,

    It is also not entirely correct. The PBA ban was not all he did to fight for life. There is also the Lacy Peterson law.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking of "evils", it was Thomas Jefferson who believed slavery should have been abolished at the country's founding, but also believed it was a "necessary evil" whose time for demise had not yet come. I don't think it's unreasonable to view the abortion topic as today's "necessary evil", that has a lot of work that needs to be done before its demise can be seen. Aside from the emotional and political polarization of the topic, there are certainly more imminent positions that I will be weighing when I choose whom to vote for. Unless someone touts the idea of relaxing current abortion legislation, I don't see abortion being a major enough factor in a candidate's platform.
    Joseph is correct. The Lacy Peterson law was, imo, good legislation. As for the PBA ban, I stated at its signing that a lack of a health exception made it challengeable, so when it was challenged, I wasn't a bit surprised. I do wish, however, that our legislators had simply reintroduced the bill with a health exception added. That would have restricted abortion more than it is today. Instead, they chose to leave the abortion practice untouched, a victory for groups like NOW.
     
  12. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    A flat out statement in favor of banning all abortion would be embarassing to Bush, since he favors abortion in some cases.
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not sure what the problem is with that though. Even the very conservative Jerry Falwell says that he favors making abortion illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother's life.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is never, ever a reason for a procured abortion. No person should have to die for another person's crime as in rape and incest. And there is no reason to intentionally kill a baby to save the mother's life -

    "In short, a pregnant woman who is faced with the grim reality of impending death short of the use of, e.g., chemotherapy or hysterectomy, may use these and other morally licit medical treatments an procedures for the reasonably grave reason of saving her life, as long as the death of her unborn child is not directly intended as the end (or purpose) of using these procedures, or is the means by which her life is saved, but only allowed or permitted o happen as an accidental by-product of these medical actions, and no other reasonable medical treatment is available. However, the directly intended death of an unborn child by means of procured abortion remains morally indefensible - even to save the life of the mother, or for the best of intentions, or under very difficult circumstances - even in the case of incest or rape.

    There is too much at stake to leave the lives of so many millions of innocents - both women and unborn children - up to mere persnal whimsy or political bartering." Rest at www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html .
     
  15. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are correct, the Lacy Peterson law is a victory for life, but it still does nothing about the issue of abortion.
     
  16. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    What it does about the issue of abortion is it recognizes by law the fetus is a human life in need of protection from harm and murder.

    It is not the end of abortion, for sure. But, it is the beginning of the end.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  17. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Barbarian observes:
    A flat out statement in favor of banning all abortion would be embarassing to Bush, since he favors abortion in some cases.

    If it's a child, it doesn't matter what the circumstances are, it's a child, and killing it is wrong. If it's not a human life, then it's a woman doing what she has a right to do.

    If the mother likely will die if an abortion is not done, then you must consider which is the less harmful thing to do. In some cases, it would be to abort. In others, a mother might decide to risk death to save the baby.

    But rape or incest is not like that.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    MIsleading at best. Bush allows for abortion in some cases. That is far different than favoring abortion in some cases. Integrity would have demanded that distinction be made in order to give a true statement.
     
  19. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    A distinction without a difference. Bottom line, Bush would, if it was up to him, permit people to abort babies, if they were concieved in unfortunate ways.

    That is indefensible.
     
  20. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, Larry has provided the link. The fact is that the GOP platform does make a definitive statement against abortion. Another fact, that Larry also points out, is that that is different from actually doing something about it. Unfortunately, the GOP does not use the platform as a guide.

    In fact, I couldn't even find it on their official website. There they have their "agenda". I guess they realize that they pay no attention to the platform, so they have a second document that they call the "agenda". It not only does not make a definitive statement, it does not even bring it up. Some pro-life partuy, huh?

    No need for doubt or uncertianty. Look on his own official campaign website, and click on "agenda". There, you will find all sorts of ultra-liberal stuff, and NO MENTION of abortion AT ALL.
     

Share This Page

Loading...