ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: JEdwards on October 04, 2021, 11:44:57 AM

Title: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: JEdwards on October 04, 2021, 11:44:57 AM
Dan Lipinski served in Congress as a pro-life Democrat until being successfully primaried from the left.  The day may be too far gone by now, but it would be nice if the Democrats heeded the warnings in this essay:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/10/common-good-republicans

Peace,
Jon
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 05, 2021, 09:10:01 AM
https://www.thecollegefix.com/leading-reproductive-justice-professor-insists-fetal-heartbeats-do-not-exist/

This is probably one of the reasons pro-life Democrats are going extinct. The old reasons for being a Democrat-- things like support for union labor, racial equality, etc.-- have been replaced by bizarre radicalism.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Terry W Culler on October 05, 2021, 09:20:21 AM
Another reason is the inability of orthodox Christians to have any affect on the Democratic Party and its policies because almost everyone has moved to the GOP.  I've come to believe that was a great mistake because it left the wingnuts in charge with no internal balance.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 20, 2021, 04:29:19 PM
This is a fascinating experiment. The pro-choice journalist daughter offers a verbatim of a conversation with her pro-life mother. Their relationship is complicated by the fact that the daughter even is alive because her mom decided for leaving school and getting married rather than aborting. The mom is hurt that the daughter would say she made the wrong choice, and the daughter, or course, is arguing against her own existence. If nothing else, the article helps put the discussion at the kitchen table level. The reader can take mental notes about what works and what doesn't in such a conversation.


https://www.thecut.com/2021/10/mother-daughter-debate-abortion-rights.html#_ga=2.235192257.1314027118.1634746743-1448634544.1634120520
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: JEdwards on October 20, 2021, 04:58:37 PM
Thanks for sharing.  I found it striking that when asked about late-term abortions, the pro-choice advocate inserted editorial notes to indicate that these are rare (which is true), and that therefore mentioning them is an irrelevant rhetorical trick (which is not true).  Considering extreme cases is a common and necessary part of moral analysis, not because they should automatically determine general rules, but because they force a careful examination of premises that may be unspoken or even unrecognized.  Ironically, only a few paragraphs later, the pro-choice advocate tries to support her argument by using a hypothetical example that is not merely rare, but has never occurred in the real world.

Peace,
Jon
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 20, 2021, 05:53:30 PM
Another reason is the inability of orthodox Christians to have any affect on the Democratic Party and its policies because almost everyone has moved to the GOP.  I've come to believe that was a great mistake because it left the wingnuts in charge with no internal balance.

As a registered pro-life Democrat in New York City/State, there are certain realities:
a) I can vote in all the primaries for the candidates who, I think, best fend off the hard left positions.  This would not be seen as such by everyone, but in a recent primary, our Queens DA was almost a person who would have swung the borough dead left.  She lost the primary by a tiny amount of votes, two of which were my wife's and mine.  NYC is basically a one party town, so those primaries are where the actual election takes place.  Eric Adams will be our next mayor. The general election is basically already over.
b) I can vote for whoever I find most closely aligned with my positions in the general elections across party lines.  Although I'm not going to vote for Curtis Sliwa, when it existed I used to vote the Right to Life ticket in general elections. 
c) I am disaffiliated from The Defenseless One, Obscene Buffoon Trump.
d) In what has been and will continue to be the abortion capital of the US, I can make my voice heard more consistently in a non-echo chamber way among Democrats, many of whom, especially Latinos, are themselves pro-life. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 20, 2021, 07:03:24 PM
Another reason is the inability of orthodox Christians to have any affect on the Democratic Party and its policies because almost everyone has moved to the GOP.  I've come to believe that was a great mistake because it left the wingnuts in charge with no internal balance.

As a registered pro-life Democrat in New York City/State, there are certain realities:
a) I can vote in all the primaries for the candidates who, I think, best fend off the hard left positions.  This would not be seen as such by everyone, but in a recent primary, our Queens DA was almost a person who would have swung the borough dead left.  She lost the primary by a tiny amount of votes, two of which were my wife's and mine.  NYC is basically a one party town, so those primaries are where the actual election takes place.  Eric Adams will be our next mayor. The general election is basically already over.
b) I can vote for whoever I find most closely aligned with my positions in the general elections across party lines.  Although I'm not going to vote for Curtis Sliwa, when it existed I used to vote the Right to Life ticket in general elections. 
c) I am disaffiliated from The Defenseless One, Obscene Buffoon Trump.
d) In what has been and will continue to be the abortion capital of the US, I can make my voice heard more consistently in a non-echo chamber way among Democrats, many of whom, especially Latinos, are themselves pro-life. 

Dave Benke
As an aside, I voted for Trump and would do so again because he is one of the only politicians in recent memory actually to advance the pro-life cause in political battle, not just harp on it in safe company. Presumably, a fair number of alpb readers are in the same position. But I understand not everyone sees it that way, and many think like Dave, too. I am able to participate here and discuss the issue despite the obvious disdain for my outlook in the tone of alpb president Dave’s post, and fully expect people whose views I disdain to be thick-skinned enough to deal with it.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 20, 2021, 07:47:54 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/opinion/abortion-pro-life-movement.html?searchResultPosition=1 (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/opinion/abortion-pro-life-movement.html?searchResultPosition=1)

Why have pro-life sentiment and activism survived this past half century of far-reaching social liberalization? Because the abortion conflict was never really a culture war. Instead, it’s a quarrel within what philosophers call the liberal tradition focused on individual rights, in this case, concerning the rights of women versus the rights of embryos.

Thus, the pro-life movement endures precisely for the same reason that the pro-choice movement does — both are nurtured by our common rights-oriented culture. It is a rare fight in American history in which people on both sides think of themselves as human rights activists, called to expand the frontiers of freedom and equality.


This rings true to me. The author compares the enduring nearly even split over abortion to genuine "culture war" issues--e.g., the rapid acceptance (obviously not universal) of same-sex marriage.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 20, 2021, 07:52:25 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/opinion/abortion-pro-life-movement.html?searchResultPosition=1 (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/opinion/abortion-pro-life-movement.html?searchResultPosition=1)

Why have pro-life sentiment and activism survived this past half century of far-reaching social liberalization? Because the abortion conflict was never really a culture war. Instead, it’s a quarrel within what philosophers call the liberal tradition focused on individual rights, in this case, concerning the rights of women versus the rights of embryos.

Thus, the pro-life movement endures precisely for the same reason that the pro-choice movement does — both are nurtured by our common rights-oriented culture. It is a rare fight in American history in which people on both sides think of themselves as human rights activists, called to expand the frontiers of freedom and equality.


This rings true to me. The author compares the enduring nearly even split over abortion to genuine "culture war" issues--e.g., the rapid acceptance (obviously not universal) of same-sex marriage.
I think RJN saw it that way, too, meaning he saw the natural progression of the Civil Rights Movement as going on to champion the pro-life cause, and was surprised by many of his colleagues who saw the pro-choice position as the natural outgrowth of the same struggle for human rights. So it all comes down to what makes a human being human, and in that score the pro-choice side is philosophically bankrupt.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: John_Hannah on October 20, 2021, 08:18:01 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/opinion/abortion-pro-life-movement.html?searchResultPosition=1 (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/opinion/abortion-pro-life-movement.html?searchResultPosition=1)

Why have pro-life sentiment and activism survived this past half century of far-reaching social liberalization? Because the abortion conflict was never really a culture war. Instead, it’s a quarrel within what philosophers call the liberal tradition focused on individual rights, in this case, concerning the rights of women versus the rights of embryos.

Thus, the pro-life movement endures precisely for the same reason that the pro-choice movement does — both are nurtured by our common rights-oriented culture. It is a rare fight in American history in which people on both sides think of themselves as human rights activists, called to expand the frontiers of freedom and equality.


This rings true to me. The author compares the enduring nearly even split over abortion to genuine "culture war" issues--e.g., the rapid acceptance (obviously not universal) of same-sex marriage.
I think RJN saw it that way, too, meaning he saw the natural progression of the Civil Rights Movement as going on to champion the pro-life cause, and was surprised by many of his colleagues who saw the pro-choice position as the natural outgrowth of the same struggle for human rights. So it all comes down to what makes a human being human, and in that score the pro-choice side is philosophically bankrupt.

I believe that is correct. It is what I understood about his thinking on abortion.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 21, 2021, 08:58:00 AM
Another reason is the inability of orthodox Christians to have any affect on the Democratic Party and its policies because almost everyone has moved to the GOP.  I've come to believe that was a great mistake because it left the wingnuts in charge with no internal balance.

As a registered pro-life Democrat in New York City/State, there are certain realities:
a) I can vote in all the primaries for the candidates who, I think, best fend off the hard left positions.  This would not be seen as such by everyone, but in a recent primary, our Queens DA was almost a person who would have swung the borough dead left.  She lost the primary by a tiny amount of votes, two of which were my wife's and mine.  NYC is basically a one party town, so those primaries are where the actual election takes place.  Eric Adams will be our next mayor. The general election is basically already over.
b) I can vote for whoever I find most closely aligned with my positions in the general elections across party lines.  Although I'm not going to vote for Curtis Sliwa, when it existed I used to vote the Right to Life ticket in general elections. 
c) I am disaffiliated from The Defenseless One, Obscene Buffoon Trump.
d) In what has been and will continue to be the abortion capital of the US, I can make my voice heard more consistently in a non-echo chamber way among Democrats, many of whom, especially Latinos, are themselves pro-life. 

Dave Benke
As an aside, I voted for Trump and would do so again because he is one of the only politicians in recent memory actually to advance the pro-life cause in political battle, not just harp on it in safe company. Presumably, a fair number of alpb readers are in the same position. But I understand not everyone sees it that way, and many think like Dave, too. I am able to participate here and discuss the issue despite the obvious disdain for my outlook in the tone of alpb president Dave’s post, and fully expect people whose views I disdain to be thick-skinned enough to deal with it.

I guess you're finding disdain in the term Obscene Buffoon, Peter.  It's not my term - it's yours.  I've just borrowed it a few times, because in my opinion it's accurate. 

I read the editorial mentioned by Richard and John this morning, and it rings true to me as well. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 21, 2021, 09:46:49 AM
Another reason is the inability of orthodox Christians to have any affect on the Democratic Party and its policies because almost everyone has moved to the GOP.  I've come to believe that was a great mistake because it left the wingnuts in charge with no internal balance.

As a registered pro-life Democrat in New York City/State, there are certain realities:
a) I can vote in all the primaries for the candidates who, I think, best fend off the hard left positions.  This would not be seen as such by everyone, but in a recent primary, our Queens DA was almost a person who would have swung the borough dead left.  She lost the primary by a tiny amount of votes, two of which were my wife's and mine.  NYC is basically a one party town, so those primaries are where the actual election takes place.  Eric Adams will be our next mayor. The general election is basically already over.
b) I can vote for whoever I find most closely aligned with my positions in the general elections across party lines.  Although I'm not going to vote for Curtis Sliwa, when it existed I used to vote the Right to Life ticket in general elections. 
c) I am disaffiliated from The Defenseless One, Obscene Buffoon Trump.
d) In what has been and will continue to be the abortion capital of the US, I can make my voice heard more consistently in a non-echo chamber way among Democrats, many of whom, especially Latinos, are themselves pro-life. 

Dave Benke
As an aside, I voted for Trump and would do so again because he is one of the only politicians in recent memory actually to advance the pro-life cause in political battle, not just harp on it in safe company. Presumably, a fair number of alpb readers are in the same position. But I understand not everyone sees it that way, and many think like Dave, too. I am able to participate here and discuss the issue despite the obvious disdain for my outlook in the tone of alpb president Dave’s post, and fully expect people whose views I disdain to be thick-skinned enough to deal with it.

I guess you're finding disdain in the term Obscene Buffoon, Peter.  It's not my term - it's yours.  I've just borrowed it a few times, because in my opinion it's accurate. 

I read the editorial mentioned by Richard and John this morning, and it rings true to me as well. 

Dave Benke
I do find disdain in the term. Very few people would apply it to someone intending to convey genuine, respectful description. But I am not offended by your disdain. You find the term accurate. Okay. If pro-Trump people log onto the alpb forum, they'll just have to encounter some disdain for things they support, because while we can all respect other people, we can't and shouldn't respect every political, social, or theological idea or position. Far worse than Trump- far more obscene and clownish-- is the idea that two men can be husband and wife or that a marriage can consist of husband and husband. And that is just one example. If a person supports abortion, the lgbtq+ agenda, and in general the social positions taken by the ELCA, I find that person's views every bit as obscene and buffoonish in the theological realm as he or she might find Trump in the political realm. That doesn't mean we can't be in the same forum or have good discussions, but it does mean that this is not a place where people get their way by claiming to be offended and passive-aggressively controlling the conversation by being thin-skinned.

A pro-life Democrat, per this thread, would have to be used to having their views ignored by now. Given the purpose of politics and political parties, and given that the ship has sailed in terms of the Democrats' pure, wholesale support for abortion, the term "pro-life Democrat" is problematic. How reliable a Democrat can other Democrats presume you to be if you are pro-life? How pro-life can anyone who cares about the abortion issue think you really are if you're out their voting for Democrats? The only thing that makes an impact in the political realm is your actual vote, not your personal preferences and ideals. So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter. And there is no excuse for a pro-life Democrat not to know that. Not today. A few decades ago, perhaps. Today, voters who actively oppose the pro-life cause with their votes but who personally wish it didn't have to be that way are not really allies of the pro-life cause. The days when they could claim to be trying to exert influence on the party from within are over on that issue. 
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: RDPreus on October 21, 2021, 10:03:11 AM
How many Democrats are there in the U. S. House of Representatives?  Is there one among them who is pro-life?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 21, 2021, 10:58:20 AM
So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter

I hear what you're saying, Peter.  The issue in an inter-Lutheran online forum is that people may also enter the forum who think very little of Donald Trump, and may believe that although they are pro-life, they are also pro life as it translates to pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, pro universal pre-kindergarten, anti-death penalty and other items that the Republican/Trump party pushes away from with great zeal.

The term you use in the quote above is kind of mysterious to me, because the pro-choice Republican voter is by definition in the left hand, political realm.  What other realm does that voter enter?
And God's realm of the left is indeed a mishmash.  Although you may opine that pro-life democrats can no longer remain democrats, there are pro-life democrats voting in elections as a way of exerting influence.  I'm equally sure there are immigration reform Republicans who desire a pathway to citizenship for all the migrants in our country including but not exclusive to DACA, as a way of exerting influence. 

At the end of the day, a society dominated by the edges of its cultural trends in the category of noise and funk still is made up mostly of people in and around the middle.

Dave Benke 
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 21, 2021, 11:27:38 AM
So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter

I hear what you're saying, Peter.  The issue in an inter-Lutheran online forum is that people may also enter the forum who think very little of Donald Trump, and may believe that although they are pro-life, they are also pro life as it translates to pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, pro universal pre-kindergarten, anti-death penalty and other items that the Republican/Trump party pushes away from with great zeal.

The term you use in the quote above is kind of mysterious to me, because the pro-choice Republican voter is by definition in the left hand, political realm.  What other realm does that voter enter?
And God's realm of the left is indeed a mishmash.  Although you may opine that pro-life democrats can no longer remain democrats, there are pro-life democrats voting in elections as a way of exerting influence.  I'm equally sure there are immigration reform Republicans who desire a pathway to citizenship for all the migrants in our country including but not exclusive to DACA, as a way of exerting influence. 

At the end of the day, a society dominated by the edges of its cultural trends in the category of noise and funk still is made up mostly of people in and around the middle.

Dave Benke

Do you leave the right-hand kingdom when you enter the voting booth?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 21, 2021, 11:32:17 AM
Peter posts in a loquacious way saying that we can all be in this forum even if we disagree drastically, then suggest that in the civic realm, namely our political parties, some kind of lockstep unity is required. Yes, a pro-life Democrat will probably have their views ignored in the party. So what? Is that the only issue that matters?
I’m puzzled and wonder why supposedly decent Republicans put up with the obscene, adulterous, tax-dodging, buffoon who heads a company that is under multiple indictments, lies about his failed businesses, including a con-job “university,” is known to stiff “the little guy” who works for him, used the presidency to direct business to his hotels and resorts, let his top aides cozy up to Russians with money seeking influence and uses the death of Colin Powell as an opportunity to dis the noted General in a fundraising letter sent out just after Powell’s death.
But, By Gosh and By Golly! He is likely to appoint “pro-life” judges!
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 21, 2021, 11:42:55 AM
Peter posts in a loquacious way saying that we can all be in this forum even if we disagree drastically, then suggest that in the civic realm, namely our political parties, some kind of lockstep unity is required. Yes, a pro-life Democrat will probably have their views ignored in the party. So what? Is that the only issue that matters?
I’m puzzled and wonder why supposedly decent Republicans put up with the obscene, adulterous, tax-dodging, buffoon who heads a company that is under multiple indictments, lies about his failed businesses, including a con-job “university,” is known to stiff “the little guy” who works for him, used the presidency to direct business to his hotels and resorts, let his top aides cozy up to Russians with money seeking influence and uses the death of Colin Powell as an opportunity to dis the noted General in a fundraising letter sent out just after Powell’s death.
But, By Gosh and By Golly! He is likely to appoint “pro-life” judges!

Are you equally puzzled why supposedly decent Democrats put up with the obscene, adulterous, tax-dodging (used underwear as charity?) buffoon who used the Oval Office to get sexual favors from young interns?  Who uses his former office to make millions (how much did the Clintons get on the Haiti rescue fund again?)?  Why don't you devote as much time and effort into criticizing him as you do President Trump?  Oh, THAT'S different -- because he is on your side, politically.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Mark Brown on October 21, 2021, 12:07:10 PM
If we are going to use obscene buffoon correctly it would have to be applied to our new 4 star Admiral who cut his genitals off as part of some obscene public kink, yet he is the one we are supposed to trust to tell us correct medical information.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 21, 2021, 12:12:02 PM
So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter

I hear what you're saying, Peter.  The issue in an inter-Lutheran online forum is that people may also enter the forum who think very little of Donald Trump, and may believe that although they are pro-life, they are also pro life as it translates to pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, pro universal pre-kindergarten, anti-death penalty and other items that the Republican/Trump party pushes away from with great zeal.

The term you use in the quote above is kind of mysterious to me, because the pro-choice Republican voter is by definition in the left hand, political realm.  What other realm does that voter enter?
And God's realm of the left is indeed a mishmash.  Although you may opine that pro-life democrats can no longer remain democrats, there are pro-life democrats voting in elections as a way of exerting influence.  I'm equally sure there are immigration reform Republicans who desire a pathway to citizenship for all the migrants in our country including but not exclusive to DACA, as a way of exerting influence. 

At the end of the day, a society dominated by the edges of its cultural trends in the category of noise and funk still is made up mostly of people in and around the middle.

Dave Benke

Do you leave the right-hand kingdom when you enter the voting booth?

Short answer - in the most important way, yes.  God's Kingdom of the Left does not contain the Gospel. 

For example, was/is a vote for Joe Biden blasphemy?  If someone votes/voted for Joe Biden, should that person be excommunicated from the Church?  Have you told people from the pulpit or from inside the sanctuary that if they vote for Joe Biden they are blaspheming the living God?  That would be the full-out pastoral responsibility in one view of the Two Realms.  And many pastors in the Protestant tradition do so because of their view of God's Two Realms. 

Historically, Lutherans have not done so and have instead spoken, taught, discussed positions on issues and urged parishioners to know the issues and vote appropriately, but not gone so far as to dismiss anyone from the congregation who voted for X as opposed to Y.  Are there Biden voters in your congregation?  There are Trump voters in mine.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 21, 2021, 12:53:14 PM
So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter

I hear what you're saying, Peter.  The issue in an inter-Lutheran online forum is that people may also enter the forum who think very little of Donald Trump, and may believe that although they are pro-life, they are also pro life as it translates to pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, pro universal pre-kindergarten, anti-death penalty and other items that the Republican/Trump party pushes away from with great zeal.

The term you use in the quote above is kind of mysterious to me, because the pro-choice Republican voter is by definition in the left hand, political realm.  What other realm does that voter enter?
And God's realm of the left is indeed a mishmash.  Although you may opine that pro-life democrats can no longer remain democrats, there are pro-life democrats voting in elections as a way of exerting influence.  I'm equally sure there are immigration reform Republicans who desire a pathway to citizenship for all the migrants in our country including but not exclusive to DACA, as a way of exerting influence. 

At the end of the day, a society dominated by the edges of its cultural trends in the category of noise and funk still is made up mostly of people in and around the middle.

Dave Benke

Do you leave the right-hand kingdom when you enter the voting booth?

Short answer - in the most important way, yes.  God's Kingdom of the Left does not contain the Gospel. 

For example, was/is a vote for Joe Biden blasphemy?  If someone votes/voted for Joe Biden, should that person be excommunicated from the Church?  Have you told people from the pulpit or from inside the sanctuary that if they vote for Joe Biden they are blaspheming the living God?  That would be the full-out pastoral responsibility in one view of the Two Realms.  And many pastors in the Protestant tradition do so because of their view of God's Two Realms. 

Historically, Lutherans have not done so and have instead spoken, taught, discussed positions on issues and urged parishioners to know the issues and vote appropriately, but not gone so far as to dismiss anyone from the congregation who voted for X as opposed to Y.  Are there Biden voters in your congregation?  There are Trump voters in mine.

Dave Benke

Did/do you tell them that they supported an obscene buffoon?  From the pulpit or from inside the sanctuary?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 21, 2021, 12:59:35 PM
Pastor Bohler persists:
Are you equally puzzled why supposedly decent Democrats put up with the obscene, adulterous, tax-dodging (used underwear as charity?) buffoon who used the Oval Office to get sexual favors from young interns?
Me:
Out of office, not running for anything now, paid the price of impeachment for his action.

Pastor Bohler:
Who uses his former office to make millions (how much did the Clintons get on the Haiti rescue fund again?)?
Me:
Not illegal and your assessment of a "Haiti rescue fund" needs attribution, not to mention the little matter of proof.

Pastor Bohler:
Why don't you devote as much time and effort into criticizing him as you do President Trump?  Oh, THAT'S different -- because he is on your side, politically.
Me:
See above. Out of office, not running for anything. And all alleged crimes and/or misdemeanors are not equal. Furthermore, if you are truly miffed and outraged by the actions of the Clintons, why are not not equally so about the actions of your guy, a man who is still running for office?
You giving the Ex a pass on all those things? Yes or no?
Oh, wait! I forgot. It doesn't matter because the Ex panders to the pro-life by playing around with court appointments.
Got any other issues, other than your hatred of the Clintons (out of office for many years now) and - I repeat - not running for anything?
And finally: I am no longer in the pulpit; and for 54 years of active, public ministry, which included preaching in many settings; I carefully avoided anything which could ever have been considered supporting or denouncing a candidate. Had I been in the pulpit in 2016, I believe I would have altered that position and told people that a vote for the now Ex (not Republicans, but the Ex) was a vote for evil and endangered our land and our constitution.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 21, 2021, 01:02:49 PM
So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter

I hear what you're saying, Peter.  The issue in an inter-Lutheran online forum is that people may also enter the forum who think very little of Donald Trump, and may believe that although they are pro-life, they are also pro life as it translates to pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, pro universal pre-kindergarten, anti-death penalty and other items that the Republican/Trump party pushes away from with great zeal.

The term you use in the quote above is kind of mysterious to me, because the pro-choice Republican voter is by definition in the left hand, political realm.  What other realm does that voter enter?
And God's realm of the left is indeed a mishmash.  Although you may opine that pro-life democrats can no longer remain democrats, there are pro-life democrats voting in elections as a way of exerting influence.  I'm equally sure there are immigration reform Republicans who desire a pathway to citizenship for all the migrants in our country including but not exclusive to DACA, as a way of exerting influence. 

At the end of the day, a society dominated by the edges of its cultural trends in the category of noise and funk still is made up mostly of people in and around the middle.

Dave Benke

Do you leave the right-hand kingdom when you enter the voting booth?

Short answer - in the most important way, yes.  God's Kingdom of the Left does not contain the Gospel. 

For example, was/is a vote for Joe Biden blasphemy?  If someone votes/voted for Joe Biden, should that person be excommunicated from the Church?  Have you told people from the pulpit or from inside the sanctuary that if they vote for Joe Biden they are blaspheming the living God?  That would be the full-out pastoral responsibility in one view of the Two Realms.  And many pastors in the Protestant tradition do so because of their view of God's Two Realms. 

Historically, Lutherans have not done so and have instead spoken, taught, discussed positions on issues and urged parishioners to know the issues and vote appropriately, but not gone so far as to dismiss anyone from the congregation who voted for X as opposed to Y.  Are there Biden voters in your congregation?  There are Trump voters in mine.

Dave Benke

Did/do you tell them that they supported an obscene buffoon?  From the pulpit or from inside the sanctuary?

I'm interested in your answers and position, SW.  Yours was the question about the right and left realms.  It seems to me you're leaning toward mixing the two.  That would be a big mistake.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 21, 2021, 01:28:55 PM
Pastor Bohler persists:
Are you equally puzzled why supposedly decent Democrats put up with the obscene, adulterous, tax-dodging (used underwear as charity?) buffoon who used the Oval Office to get sexual favors from young interns?
Me:
Out of office, not running for anything now, paid the price of impeachment for his action....



Trump also is/has: a) out of office; b) not running for anything now; c) paid the price of impeachment.  Try again, Rev. Austin.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: RDPreus on October 21, 2021, 01:31:10 PM
Things like immigration law, universal healthcare, and universal pre-K are political issues on which Christians will disagree.  I believe a lax policy on illegal immigration, government controlled healthcare, and universal pre-K education are bad policy, that is, they do harm.  Since I believe the government should do no harm, I oppose such policies on moral grounds.  Rev. Benke and I share the same moral beliefs.  He, for moral reasons, favors what I, for moral reasons oppose.  This is a good argument for us preachers to leave such matters as immigration, government controlled health care, and universal pre-K out of our preaching.  But the deliberate killing of an unborn baby is a different matter.  This is why I don't believe that we should ever vote for any "pro-choice" candidate regardless of who else is on the ticket.  While I disagree with Rev. Benke on immigration, health care, pre-K education, and perhaps many other things, I would not attack his position on these issues as unchristian.  I would, however, argue that a pro-choice position on abortion is incompatible with the faith that we share.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 21, 2021, 01:33:49 PM
So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter

I hear what you're saying, Peter.  The issue in an inter-Lutheran online forum is that people may also enter the forum who think very little of Donald Trump, and may believe that although they are pro-life, they are also pro life as it translates to pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, pro universal pre-kindergarten, anti-death penalty and other items that the Republican/Trump party pushes away from with great zeal.

The term you use in the quote above is kind of mysterious to me, because the pro-choice Republican voter is by definition in the left hand, political realm.  What other realm does that voter enter?
And God's realm of the left is indeed a mishmash.  Although you may opine that pro-life democrats can no longer remain democrats, there are pro-life democrats voting in elections as a way of exerting influence.  I'm equally sure there are immigration reform Republicans who desire a pathway to citizenship for all the migrants in our country including but not exclusive to DACA, as a way of exerting influence. 

At the end of the day, a society dominated by the edges of its cultural trends in the category of noise and funk still is made up mostly of people in and around the middle.

Dave Benke

Do you leave the right-hand kingdom when you enter the voting booth?

Short answer - in the most important way, yes.  God's Kingdom of the Left does not contain the Gospel. 

For example, was/is a vote for Joe Biden blasphemy?  If someone votes/voted for Joe Biden, should that person be excommunicated from the Church?  Have you told people from the pulpit or from inside the sanctuary that if they vote for Joe Biden they are blaspheming the living God?  That would be the full-out pastoral responsibility in one view of the Two Realms.  And many pastors in the Protestant tradition do so because of their view of God's Two Realms. 

Historically, Lutherans have not done so and have instead spoken, taught, discussed positions on issues and urged parishioners to know the issues and vote appropriately, but not gone so far as to dismiss anyone from the congregation who voted for X as opposed to Y.  Are there Biden voters in your congregation?  There are Trump voters in mine.

Dave Benke

Did/do you tell them that they supported an obscene buffoon?  From the pulpit or from inside the sanctuary?

I'm interested in your answers and position, SW.  Yours was the question about the right and left realms.  It seems to me you're leaning toward mixing the two.  That would be a big mistake.

Dave Benke

And I am interested in your answers, Dr. Benke.  Yours was the statement that Trump was an Obscene Buffoon.  It seems to me that you are thereby leaning toward saying those who voted for him support obscenity and buffoonery.  That would be a mistake.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 21, 2021, 01:34:41 PM
Things like immigration law, universal healthcare, and universal pre-K are political issues on which Christians will disagree.  I believe a lax policy on illegal immigration, government controlled healthcare, and universal pre-K education are bad policy, that is, they do harm.  Since I believe the government should do no harm, I oppose such policies on moral grounds.  Rev. Benke and I share the same moral beliefs.  He, for moral reasons, favors what I, for moral reasons oppose.  This is a good argument for us preachers to leave such matters as immigration, government controlled health care, and universal pre-K out of our preaching.  But the deliberate killing of an unborn baby is a different matter.  This is why I don't believe that we should ever vote for any "pro-choice" candidate regardless of who else is on the ticket.  While I disagree with Rev. Benke on immigration, health care, pre-K education, and perhaps many other things, I would not attack his position on these issues as unchristian.  I would, however, argue that a pro-choice position on abortion is incompatible with the faith that we share.

Ditto.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 21, 2021, 01:41:02 PM
So a pro-choice Republican voter advances the pro-life cause in the left hand, political realm far more than a pro-life Democrat voter

I hear what you're saying, Peter.  The issue in an inter-Lutheran online forum is that people may also enter the forum who think very little of Donald Trump, and may believe that although they are pro-life, they are also pro life as it translates to pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, pro universal pre-kindergarten, anti-death penalty and other items that the Republican/Trump party pushes away from with great zeal.

The term you use in the quote above is kind of mysterious to me, because the pro-choice Republican voter is by definition in the left hand, political realm.  What other realm does that voter enter?
And God's realm of the left is indeed a mishmash.  Although you may opine that pro-life democrats can no longer remain democrats, there are pro-life democrats voting in elections as a way of exerting influence.  I'm equally sure there are immigration reform Republicans who desire a pathway to citizenship for all the migrants in our country including but not exclusive to DACA, as a way of exerting influence. 

At the end of the day, a society dominated by the edges of its cultural trends in the category of noise and funk still is made up mostly of people in and around the middle.

Dave Benke
I'm saying pro-choice people are happy to have pro-life Democrats vote for their candidates. And pro-life people are happy to have pro-choice Republicans vote for their candidates. It isn't the personality, deeply held beliefs, education, eloquence, etc. that ultimately matters about a congressman. What counts is his vote. That's it.

Take it to a different issue. Right now Sen. Manchin is balking about a bill nearly every other Democrat favors. If he votes with the Republicans with all kinds of reservations and misgivings about party loyalty, nobody cares; he voted with the Republicans. If he changes his mind and votes with the Democrats, again, with call kinds of reservations and misgivings, nobody cares. What matters is that he voted for the bill. The misgivings and reservations can be duly noted for the record and then flushed down the toilet. That is the nature of votes. The discussion and debate on the floor exists to changes minds and ultimately, perhaps, the vote count.

I made this point in an FL article a while back. In congress, you can only vote yea or nay. Shall x be legal or illegal? You can't put it to a vote like, "With what degree of angst shall we permit or do x?" The people with lots of enthusiasm and zeal for x and the people with all kinds of fears and anxieties about x while voting for x count exactly, interchangeably the same.

So, if I'm a big money donor to the GOP because I'm a conservative, I consider Manchin on my team right now even though he wears the other uniform. I might even send him money. Don't cave! And if I'm a hard core leftist, I'm all about pro-lifers who vote Democrat. They're on my team. Let them be (irrelevantly) pro-life. I'm not interested in their ideas, I'm interested in their votes.

On the matter of whether abortion should be legal, pro-life Democrats say it should be legal in the only way their voice counts, and pro-choice Republicans say it should be illegal with the only voice that counts. It is all about ranking the importance of issues and seeing things in context. The NYT would have called itself pro-American in the 1930's. That was delusional. They were, as we now know, "useful idiots" who served the Soviets' purposes.

I have all kinds of reasons to be pro-immigration, although I understand and sympathize with the objections. But nobody in the pro-immigration camp thinks of me as their ally. Why not? Because I vote for anti-immigration candidates pretty reliably. Immigration isn't high on my list of important issues. So if pro-immigration is the most important issue to you, I cannot blame you for considering me your political enemy no matter how much I might personally see things your way on that one issue.

I think it is disingenuous to be pro-life but to weigh it against other considerations. Pro-life on the matter of abortion means thinking abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being. There really is no other plausible, non-science-fiction reason to be against abortion. It would be obscene and buffoonish in the extreme to compare the importance of that to the need for universal pre-k education or immigration reform. Even making the comparison is silly. It is like being an abolitionist who votes against Lincoln because of differences on trade policy and tariffs; you might be right about tariffs, but you are a fool if you think you are really an abolitionist in any meaningful sense. It is an out of order approach to what it central, crucial, and non-negotiable and what is peripheral, debatable, or less important. 
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 21, 2021, 02:19:06 PM
I think it is disingenuous to be pro-life but to weigh it against other considerations. Pro-life on the matter of abortion means thinking abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being. There really is no other plausible, non-science-fiction reason to be against abortion. It would be obscene and buffoonish in the extreme to compare the importance of that to the need for universal pre-k education or immigration reform. Even making the comparison is silly. It is like being an abolitionist who votes against Lincoln because of differences on trade policy and tariffs; you might be right about tariffs, but you are a fool if you think you are really an abolitionist in any meaningful sense. It is an out of order approach to what it central, crucial, and non-negotiable and what is peripheral, debatable, or less important.

Thanks, Peter, for taking the time to write in response.  You're welcome to the opinion you've presented in the snippet of your response I've quoted.  And I think it's important that you articulate it in a public forum.  My experience is that many people hold a variety of opinions as important and internally rank them.  Then, in God's realm of the left, they make their choices on candidates based on their evaluation.  I'm one of those people.  The top of my list is pro-life.  But there are many other issues of importance to me as well.  You can state "it is an out of order approach" and peripheralize all issues but the one issue.   You can eliminate the option of having other considerations as "disingenuous" from your perspective. 

Many Christian people will continue to make their decisions however on a variety of issues of importance to them based on the issues and the quality of the leaders they're voting for or against. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 21, 2021, 02:46:14 PM
I think it is disingenuous to be pro-life but to weigh it against other considerations. Pro-life on the matter of abortion means thinking abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being. There really is no other plausible, non-science-fiction reason to be against abortion. It would be obscene and buffoonish in the extreme to compare the importance of that to the need for universal pre-k education or immigration reform. Even making the comparison is silly. It is like being an abolitionist who votes against Lincoln because of differences on trade policy and tariffs; you might be right about tariffs, but you are a fool if you think you are really an abolitionist in any meaningful sense. It is an out of order approach to what it central, crucial, and non-negotiable and what is peripheral, debatable, or less important.

Thanks, Peter, for taking the time to write in response.  You're welcome to the opinion you've presented in the snippet of your response I've quoted.  And I think it's important that you articulate it in a public forum.  My experience is that many people hold a variety of opinions as important and internally rank them.  Then, in God's realm of the left, they make their choices on candidates based on their evaluation.  I'm one of those people.  The top of my list is pro-life.  But there are many other issues of importance to me as well.  You can state "it is an out of order approach" and peripheralize all issues but the one issue.   You can eliminate the option of having other considerations as "disingenuous" from your perspective. 

Many Christian people will continue to make their decisions however on a variety of issues of importance to them based on the issues and the quality of the leaders they're voting for or against. 

Dave Benke
I do the same as you; consider many issue to be important, rank them, and then choose candidates who will advance those issues. Every abortion is literally a matter of life or death for an innocent person. No amount of universal pre-k and affordable housing programs can outweigh the importance of that. In my case, I'm for lower taxes and school choice; those issues matter to me. But they aren't so fundamental as life or death. Again, the only real comparison to abortion in American legal history is the pro-choice position on slavery that dehumanized some people out of convenience to others. It would be disingenuous to claim to be an abolitionist Democrat in 1860, and it is disingenuous to claim to be a pro-life Democrat in 2021.

As for the standard "pro life doesn't just mean abortion" shtick-- true, but beside the point. There are other kinds of slavery, too, besides the race-based slavery of the old South-- wage slavery, slavery to addiction, and so forth. But it would be pure obfuscation to claim to be anti-slavery in a political discussion in 1860 in a way that broadens the definition of slavery so as to consider slavers to the ranks of the anti-slavery cause just because they're for other kinds of liberation from other kinds of slavery. And it obfuscation and nothing else to claim to be part of the pro-life cause while voting for Democrats because of their position on the death penalty and socialized medical care. As Brian so often points out, hunger is a real and important thing, but you don't throw a sandwich to a drowning man. First things first. First, recognize the sanctity of life and defend it from wanton, deliberate destruction. Then, and only then, be concerned with whether that life can identify its shapes and colors before kindergarten.

     
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 21, 2021, 02:56:50 PM
Peter:
Every abortion is literally a matter of life or death for an innocent person.
Me:
And there is the problem again. The world, or at least a large segment of it, does not believe that the minute a sperm hits an egg you have an innocent person. Not gonna argue that here, just want to note that in decades of discussions, you have not convincingly made your case for that.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 21, 2021, 03:14:11 PM
Peter:
Every abortion is literally a matter of life or death for an innocent person.
Me:
And there is the problem again. The world, or at least a large segment of it, does not believe that the minute a sperm hits an egg you have an innocent person. Not gonna argue that here, just want to note that in decades of discussions, you have not convincingly made your case for that.
Put it this way. At conception, whatever you think it is is biologically, morally, and anthropologically the exact same as a wanted baby. Whether or not the mother wants it does not affect the essence (humanity, fetushood?) of the thing she wants or does not want.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 21, 2021, 03:36:56 PM
Peter:
Every abortion is literally a matter of life or death for an innocent person.
Me:
And there is the problem again. The world, or at least a large segment of it, does not believe that the minute a sperm hits an egg you have an innocent person. Not gonna argue that here, just want to note that in decades of discussions, you have not convincingly made your case for that.
Put it this way. At conception, whatever you think it is is biologically, morally, and anthropologically the exact same as a wanted baby. Whether or not the mother wants it does not affect the essence (humanity, fetushood?) of the thing she wants or does not want.


What if the conception takes place in a petri dish?


Oh, and as good Lutherans, we do not believe that anyone is innocent. Original sin, y'know.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: pearson on October 21, 2021, 04:09:05 PM

The world, or at least a large segment of it, does not believe that the minute a sperm hits an egg you have an innocent person.


I wonder how you acquired the knowledge that this is the case.

And I'm not aware of very many abortions that occur "the minute a sperm hits an egg."

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 21, 2021, 04:26:19 PM
Peter:
Every abortion is literally a matter of life or death for an innocent person.
Me:
And there is the problem again. The world, or at least a large segment of it, does not believe that the minute a sperm hits an egg you have an innocent person. Not gonna argue that here, just want to note that in decades of discussions, you have not convincingly made your case for that.
Put it this way. At conception, whatever you think it is is biologically, morally, and anthropologically the exact same as a wanted baby. Whether or not the mother wants it does not affect the essence (humanity, fetushood?) of the thing she wants or does not want.


What if the conception takes place in a petri dish?


Oh, and as good Lutherans, we do not believe that anyone is innocent. Original sin, y'know.
You aren’t a good Lutheran because you go out of your way not to call a thing what it is but to obfuscate. Nevertheless, I trust sane readers to know in what sense I meant innocent.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 21, 2021, 04:33:07 PM
This speaks to a point Peter made upstream, upending his point to some degree (from a recent Pew Research article but with survey from 2019):  Sizable minorities of Republicans and Democrats said in a 2019 survey that they did not agree with the dominant position on abortion policy of the party they identify with or lean toward. About one-third of Republicans or GOP leaners said they did not agree with their party on abortion (35%). This includes about one-in-ten (12%) who said they agreed with the Democratic Party on abortion and 23% who said they did not agree with either party. Among Democrats and those who lean toward that party, 29% did not agree with their party on abortion, including 7% who said they agreed with the GOP and 22% who said they didn’t agree with either party. These views also vary to some degree within party by age and education.  Ergo there are apparently plenty of pro-life Democrats.

Here's the link to the entire survey from this past summer:  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/17/key-facts-about-the-abortion-debate-in-america/.

The overall percentages are roughly the same - 60% approve of abortion in most/all cases, and 40%ish say wrong in all/most cases. 

Since this is actually pertinent to the thread topic, it seems relevant to the dialog we've been having.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 21, 2021, 04:34:54 PM
Peter:
Every abortion is literally a matter of life or death for an innocent person.
Me:
And there is the problem again. The world, or at least a large segment of it, does not believe that the minute a sperm hits an egg you have an innocent person. Not gonna argue that here, just want to note that in decades of discussions, you have not convincingly made your case for that.

And the world, or at least a large segment of it, believed that slaves were not truly, equally human.  So what?  Do you defend that thinking too?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: David Garner on October 21, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Oh, and as good Lutherans, we do not believe that anyone is innocent. Original sin, y'know.
You aren’t a good Lutheran because you go out of your way not to call a thing what it is but to obfuscate. Nevertheless, I trust sane readers to know in what sense I meant innocent.

Which is good news for Pastor Stoffregen, since his logic necessarily entails that it is not sin to kill him.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 21, 2021, 05:11:55 PM
This speaks to a point Peter made upstream, upending his point to some degree (from a recent Pew Research article but with survey from 2019):  Sizable minorities of Republicans and Democrats said in a 2019 survey that they did not agree with the dominant position on abortion policy of the party they identify with or lean toward. About one-third of Republicans or GOP leaners said they did not agree with their party on abortion (35%). This includes about one-in-ten (12%) who said they agreed with the Democratic Party on abortion and 23% who said they did not agree with either party. Among Democrats and those who lean toward that party, 29% did not agree with their party on abortion, including 7% who said they agreed with the GOP and 22% who said they didn’t agree with either party. These views also vary to some degree within party by age and education.  Ergo there are apparently plenty of pro-life Democrats.

Here's the link to the entire survey from this past summer:  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/17/key-facts-about-the-abortion-debate-in-america/.

The overall percentages are roughly the same - 60% approve of abortion in most/all cases, and 40%ish say wrong in all/most cases. 

Since this is actually pertinent to the thread topic, it seems relevant to the dialog we've been having.

Dave Benke
But the opinion poll only counts when it comes to votes. This is why Trump made such inroads with social conservatives who otherwise would have to hold their nose to vote for him or vote third party. He actually advanced conservative positions. That’s why people voted for him or voted against him. If we elected Sanders president and he enacted socialist policies, it wouldn’t matter in the slightest whether everyone who voted for him supported those policies. Their only contribution was voting for Sanders or for his opponent. Free-enterprise Capitalists for Sanders would be akin to pro-life Democrats.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 21, 2021, 06:02:36 PM
This speaks to a point Peter made upstream, upending his point to some degree (from a recent Pew Research article but with survey from 2019):  Sizable minorities of Republicans and Democrats said in a 2019 survey that they did not agree with the dominant position on abortion policy of the party they identify with or lean toward. About one-third of Republicans or GOP leaners said they did not agree with their party on abortion (35%). This includes about one-in-ten (12%) who said they agreed with the Democratic Party on abortion and 23% who said they did not agree with either party. Among Democrats and those who lean toward that party, 29% did not agree with their party on abortion, including 7% who said they agreed with the GOP and 22% who said they didn’t agree with either party. These views also vary to some degree within party by age and education.  Ergo there are apparently plenty of pro-life Democrats.

Here's the link to the entire survey from this past summer:  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/17/key-facts-about-the-abortion-debate-in-america/.

The overall percentages are roughly the same - 60% approve of abortion in most/all cases, and 40%ish say wrong in all/most cases. 

Since this is actually pertinent to the thread topic, it seems relevant to the dialog we've been having.

Dave Benke
But the opinion poll only counts when it comes to votes. This is why Trump made such inroads with social conservatives who otherwise would have to hold their nose to vote for him or vote third party. He actually advanced conservative positions. That’s why people voted for him or voted against him. If we elected Sanders president and he enacted socialist policies, it wouldn’t matter in the slightest whether everyone who voted for him supported those policies. Their only contribution was voting for Sanders or for his opponent. Free-enterprise Capitalists for Sanders would be akin to pro-life Democrats.

That's a way to look at it.  I actually don't think the opinion poll only counts when it comes to votes.  We take our little 15 person polls here to see what some group thinks about some issue.  That's a good thing to know absent an election, even for those of us in positions of spiritual leadership. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 21, 2021, 07:27:26 PM
In what sense does an opinion poll make a difference when it contradicts the actual vote? If Biden is at 40% approval does that mean his boneheaded decrees aren’t binding? The poll that mattered happened last November. Polls today are mere noise.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Randy Bosch on October 21, 2021, 08:02:43 PM
"Truth has nothing to do with the number of people it convinces."  Paul Claudel
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 21, 2021, 08:50:33 PM
There's a new term: "christo-fascist abortion legislation."

"In another video, a protester screams through a megaphone that she 'loves sacrificing children.'"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/f-your-god-antifa-protesters-disrupt-pro-life-prayer-vigil-on-texas-college-campus
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 21, 2021, 09:33:24 PM
In what sense does an opinion poll make a difference when it contradicts the actual vote? If Biden is at 40% approval does that mean his boneheaded decrees aren’t binding? The poll that mattered happened last November. Polls today are mere noise.

Ask the Pew Research people.  I don't think they conduct their polls for the sole reason of tracking the "actual vote."  They're researching what people believe, or at least what they say they believe to them at the time they say it to them.  How that translates into votes is another thing. 

The polls have been saying for probably five years that people are dropping out of church, that the "nones" are on the rise.  Are those polls noisy junk to be ignored? 

You keep stretching in these posts to I guess make your points.  The Pew polls show that there are plenty of pro-life Democrats out there.  As far as I'm concerned, they're right.  And as far as I'm concerned those people can have a salutary effect on various elections in their party on a variety of issues including the issue of life.  As they say, your mileage may vary, but in this case, the Pew is sitting with me.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 21, 2021, 10:33:45 PM
In what sense does an opinion poll make a difference when it contradicts the actual vote? If Biden is at 40% approval does that mean his boneheaded decrees aren’t binding? The poll that mattered happened last November. Polls today are mere noise.

Ask the Pew Research people.  I don't think they conduct their polls for the sole reason of tracking the "actual vote."  They're researching what people believe, or at least what they say they believe to them at the time they say it to them.  How that translates into votes is another thing. 

The polls have been saying for probably five years that people are dropping out of church, that the "nones" are on the rise.  Are those polls noisy junk to be ignored? 

You keep stretching in these posts to I guess make your points.  The Pew polls show that there are plenty of pro-life Democrats out there.  As far as I'm concerned, they're right.  And as far as I'm concerned those people can have a salutary effect on various elections in their party on a variety of issues including the issue of life.  As they say, your mileage may vary, but in this case, the Pew is sitting with me.

Dave Benke

If there are truly "plenty" of pro-life Democrats out there, then they are doing a very poor job of impacting their party.  It keeps drifting, more and more, to the absolute pro-choice position.  You'd think that if there were truly so many pro-life Democrats out there, that they would at least give some pause to party leaders and their insistence on abortion.  But they don't.  Hence, I think Rev. Speckhard is correct that such claims are but empty noise.  Or put another way, how has your being a registered Democrat slowed (let alone stopped) New York from being so pro-abortion -- you know, like cheering when the most egregious legislation was passed a couple of years ago?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 21, 2021, 10:35:02 PM
In what sense does an opinion poll make a difference when it contradicts the actual vote? If Biden is at 40% approval does that mean his boneheaded decrees aren’t binding? The poll that mattered happened last November. Polls today are mere noise.

Ask the Pew Research people.  I don't think they conduct their polls for the sole reason of tracking the "actual vote."  They're researching what people believe, or at least what they say they believe to them at the time they say it to them.  How that translates into votes is another thing. 

The polls have been saying for probably five years that people are dropping out of church, that the "nones" are on the rise.  Are those polls noisy junk to be ignored? 

You keep stretching in these posts to I guess make your points.  The Pew polls show that there are plenty of pro-life Democrats out there.  As far as I'm concerned, they're right.  And as far as I'm concerned those people can have a salutary effect on various elections in their party on a variety of issues including the issue of life.  As they say, your mileage may vary, but in this case, the Pew is sitting with me.

Dave Benke
Anyone who has paid attention to church knows that attendance has been declining. The Pew Research polls have zero effect on how many people come to church. And I do not doubt that there are many pro-life Democrats out there. I just think they are kidding themselves by saying they are pro-life when their votes knowably and demonstrably advance the pro-choice cause.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 22, 2021, 10:32:25 AM
In what sense does an opinion poll make a difference when it contradicts the actual vote? If Biden is at 40% approval does that mean his boneheaded decrees aren’t binding? The poll that mattered happened last November. Polls today are mere noise.

Ask the Pew Research people.  I don't think they conduct their polls for the sole reason of tracking the "actual vote."  They're researching what people believe, or at least what they say they believe to them at the time they say it to them.  How that translates into votes is another thing. 

The polls have been saying for probably five years that people are dropping out of church, that the "nones" are on the rise.  Are those polls noisy junk to be ignored? 

You keep stretching in these posts to I guess make your points.  The Pew polls show that there are plenty of pro-life Democrats out there.  As far as I'm concerned, they're right.  And as far as I'm concerned those people can have a salutary effect on various elections in their party on a variety of issues including the issue of life.  As they say, your mileage may vary, but in this case, the Pew is sitting with me.

Dave Benke
Anyone who has paid attention to church knows that attendance has been declining. The Pew Research polls have zero effect on how many people come to church. And I do not doubt that there are many pro-life Democrats out there. I just think they are kidding themselves by saying they are pro-life when their votes knowably and demonstrably advance the pro-choice cause.

I don't share your aversion to poll-taking, Peter.  Pew Research polls don't need my endorsement.  However, the poll was on attitudes toward abortion and political affiliation.  Since it demonstrates that there is significant crossover on political parties when it comes to those who are anti-abortion, it doesn't seem to fit the narrative you're driving toward, which is that pro-life people who are Democrats are political wastrels.  Therefore either the poll is a wastrel, which is part of your response, or the pro-life Democrats haven't yet understood the value of the Republican party which is in your opinion basically exists for two reasons - anti-abortion and small government. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: John_Hannah on October 22, 2021, 10:43:51 AM
In what sense does an opinion poll make a difference when it contradicts the actual vote? If Biden is at 40% approval does that mean his boneheaded decrees aren’t binding? The poll that mattered happened last November. Polls today are mere noise.

Ask the Pew Research people.  I don't think they conduct their polls for the sole reason of tracking the "actual vote."  They're researching what people believe, or at least what they say they believe to them at the time they say it to them.  How that translates into votes is another thing. 

The polls have been saying for probably five years that people are dropping out of church, that the "nones" are on the rise.  Are those polls noisy junk to be ignored? 

You keep stretching in these posts to I guess make your points.  The Pew polls show that there are plenty of pro-life Democrats out there.  As far as I'm concerned, they're right.  And as far as I'm concerned those people can have a salutary effect on various elections in their party on a variety of issues including the issue of life.  As they say, your mileage may vary, but in this case, the Pew is sitting with me.

Dave Benke
Anyone who has paid attention to church knows that attendance has been declining. The Pew Research polls have zero effect on how many people come to church. And I do not doubt that there are many pro-life Democrats out there. I just think they are kidding themselves by saying they are pro-life when their votes knowably and demonstrably advance the pro-choice cause.

I don't share your aversion to poll-taking, Peter.  Pew Research polls don't need my endorsement.  However, the poll was on attitudes toward abortion and political affiliation.  Since it demonstrates that there is significant crossover on political parties when it comes to those who are anti-abortion, it doesn't seem to fit the narrative you're driving toward, which is that pro-life people who are Democrats are political wastrels.  Therefore either the poll is a wastrel, which is part of your response, or the pro-life Democrats haven't yet understood the value of the Republican party which is in your opinion basically exists for two reasons - anti-abortion and small government. 

Dave Benke

When either party--Democratic or Republican--can absolutely guarantee the end of abortion, that alone will get my vote. In the meantime the position on abortion will be one of many issues that I will weigh.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 22, 2021, 11:11:48 AM
You’re missing the entire point. I do not doubt the existence of pro-life Democrat voters. Many of them. Millions. The point is, their votes do not advance the pro-life cause but instead do the opposite, because the DNC is 100% pro-choice all the way through at every level. And that is knowable in advance of their casting any votes.

Whether it is the Hyde Amendment, state legislation restricting abortion, judges amenable to pro-life legal reasoning, or any other abortion-related issue you can think of, the elected Democrat politicians invariably push the pro-choice side and the GOP politicians push the pro-life side. It wasn’t always so neatly divided, but it is today. That is just reality. So being pro-life but voting for the policy makers who you already know are going to push the pro-choice agenda is, well, less than helpful to the pro-life cause.

If you can point to pro-life political victories championed by the Democrat office-holders all these pro-life Democrats voted for, perhaps I’ll rethink. Pointing to a poll that says many Democrats are pro-life doesn’t address my point at all. They might consider themselves pro-life, but the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: John_Hannah on October 22, 2021, 11:26:31 AM
"the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life"

Republican votes or Democratic votes? Seems to be true of both.  48 years later.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Michael Slusser on October 22, 2021, 11:31:05 AM

If you can point to pro-life political victories championed by the Democrat office-holders all these pro-life Democrats voted for, perhaps I’ll rethink. Pointing to a poll that says many Democrats are pro-life doesn’t address my point at all. They might consider themselves pro-life, but the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life.
If I'm not mistaken, the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that insurance would cover prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care for expectant mothers, and did not fund abortions, was generally supported by Democrats, while the other party and its president tried their hardest to destroy it.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 22, 2021, 11:45:35 AM

If you can point to pro-life political victories championed by the Democrat office-holders all these pro-life Democrats voted for, perhaps I’ll rethink. Pointing to a poll that says many Democrats are pro-life doesn’t address my point at all. They might consider themselves pro-life, but the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life.
If I'm not mistaken, the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that insurance would cover prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care for expectant mothers, and did not fund abortions, was generally supported by Democrats, while the other party and its president tried their hardest to destroy it.

Peace,
Michael
So your example is Obamacare, which encompasses a lot more than abortion, but does touch on it. When the nitty-gritty details were being fought over, which side was seeking to ensure no abortions were covered and which side was seeking to define abortion as reproductive health? You might as well every congressional budget is an example, because the Hyde Amendment prevents abortions from being funded and other provisions help babies. But one side insists on the Hyde Amendment and the other side tries to get rid of it. Essentially you’re giving pro-choice Democrats credit for losing a legislative fight to pro-life Republicans about abortion funding when the overall bill was being crafted, and then pointing to that as a reason for pro-lifers to vote for pro-choice Democrats.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Michael Slusser on October 22, 2021, 12:02:46 PM

If you can point to pro-life political victories championed by the Democrat office-holders all these pro-life Democrats voted for, perhaps I’ll rethink. Pointing to a poll that says many Democrats are pro-life doesn’t address my point at all. They might consider themselves pro-life, but the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life.
If I'm not mistaken, the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that insurance would cover prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care for expectant mothers, and did not fund abortions, was generally supported by Democrats, while the other party and its president tried their hardest to destroy it.

Peace,
Michael
So your example is Obamacare, which encompasses a lot more than abortion, but does touch on it. When the nitty-gritty details were being fought over, which side was seeking to ensure no abortions were covered and which side was seeking to define abortion as reproductive health? You might as well every congressional budget is an example, because the Hyde Amendment prevents abortions from being funded and other provisions help babies. But one side insists on the Hyde Amendment and the other side tries to get rid of it. Essentially you’re giving pro-choice Democrats credit for losing a legislative fight to pro-life Republicans about abortion funding when the overall bill was being crafted, and then pointing to that as a reason for pro-lifers to vote for pro-choice Democrats.
And who fought to deprive expectant mothers of coverage for prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care, along with coverage for their children's medical conditions? We had four years of attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 22, 2021, 12:16:09 PM

If you can point to pro-life political victories championed by the Democrat office-holders all these pro-life Democrats voted for, perhaps I’ll rethink. Pointing to a poll that says many Democrats are pro-life doesn’t address my point at all. They might consider themselves pro-life, but the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life.
If I'm not mistaken, the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that insurance would cover prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care for expectant mothers, and did not fund abortions, was generally supported by Democrats, while the other party and its president tried their hardest to destroy it.

Peace,
Michael
So your example is Obamacare, which encompasses a lot more than abortion, but does touch on it. When the nitty-gritty details were being fought over, which side was seeking to ensure no abortions were covered and which side was seeking to define abortion as reproductive health? You might as well every congressional budget is an example, because the Hyde Amendment prevents abortions from being funded and other provisions help babies. But one side insists on the Hyde Amendment and the other side tries to get rid of it. Essentially you’re giving pro-choice Democrats credit for losing a legislative fight to pro-life Republicans about abortion funding when the overall bill was being crafted, and then pointing to that as a reason for pro-lifers to vote for pro-choice Democrats.
And who fought to deprive expectant mothers of coverage for prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care, along with coverage for their children's medical conditions? We had four years of attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act.
Nobody sought to remove those provisions from the Act. People did fight to get abortion services guaranteed. Treating political disagreement over the entire question of socialized medicine as though it were a dispute over whether the unborn have a right to life is absurd.

In your line of reasoning, socialism is always good because those who oppose it are dehumanizing those who would benefit from it.

One good way to unravel things and isolate an issue is to look at what advocacy groups supports. Every group devoted specifically to ensuring abortion rights and access (preferably subsidized) unfailingly supports Democrats. That should give you a clue as to which side of the abortion debate any votes for Democrats actually help. It doesn’t matter whether the person casting the vote is pro-life. His vote is manifestly pro-choice.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 22, 2021, 12:41:36 PM

If you can point to pro-life political victories championed by the Democrat office-holders all these pro-life Democrats voted for, perhaps I’ll rethink. Pointing to a poll that says many Democrats are pro-life doesn’t address my point at all. They might consider themselves pro-life, but the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life.
If I'm not mistaken, the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that insurance would cover prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care for expectant mothers, and did not fund abortions, was generally supported by Democrats, while the other party and its president tried their hardest to destroy it.

Peace,
Michael
So your example is Obamacare, which encompasses a lot more than abortion, but does touch on it. When the nitty-gritty details were being fought over, which side was seeking to ensure no abortions were covered and which side was seeking to define abortion as reproductive health? You might as well every congressional budget is an example, because the Hyde Amendment prevents abortions from being funded and other provisions help babies. But one side insists on the Hyde Amendment and the other side tries to get rid of it. Essentially you’re giving pro-choice Democrats credit for losing a legislative fight to pro-life Republicans about abortion funding when the overall bill was being crafted, and then pointing to that as a reason for pro-lifers to vote for pro-choice Democrats.
And who fought to deprive expectant mothers of coverage for prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care, along with coverage for their children's medical conditions? We had four years of attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act.
Nobody sought to remove those provisions from the Act. People did fight to get abortion services guaranteed. Treating political disagreement over the entire question of socialized medicine as though it were a dispute over whether the unborn have a right to life is absurd.

In your line of reasoning, socialism is always good because those who oppose it are dehumanizing those who would benefit from it.

One good way to unravel things and isolate an issue is to look at what advocacy groups supports. Every group devoted specifically to ensuring abortion rights and access (preferably subsidized) unfailingly supports Democrats. That should give you a clue as to which side of the abortion debate any votes for Democrats actually help. It doesn’t matter whether the person casting the vote is pro-life. His vote is manifestly pro-choice.

You have avoided the question of socialized medicine in your responses, Peter, as something that can and should be considered as in the category of life and death.  Having buried any number of people underserved and in uncovered positions as far as medical care, that's an area that could absolutely connect to the right to life.  And tons of people (we won't go into the percentages by poll since you'll just dismiss them anyway) do connect the two, many of whom are I would think Democrats who are pro-life.  In your estimation, then, the reason it can't go into that category is because it might be considered "socialism" or "government subsidy," which are inherently Democratic and therefore anti-life.  It seems a circular argumentation designed to support the true truth you've arrived at which is that no one who is pro-life can remain a Democrat.

Dave Benke

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: JEdwards on October 22, 2021, 12:51:05 PM
So your example is Obamacare, which encompasses a lot more than abortion, but does touch on it. When the nitty-gritty details were being fought over, which side was seeking to ensure no abortions were covered and which side was seeking to define abortion as reproductive health?
Representative Bart Stupak and Senator Ben Nelson, both Democrats, were very active in trying to amend the bill to exclude funding for abortion.  Of course they were supported by many Republicans, but they had more leverage because they were Democrats who were generally supportive of the goals of the bill, and their votes were in play. 

Peace,
Jon
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 22, 2021, 01:37:54 PM

If you can point to pro-life political victories championed by the Democrat office-holders all these pro-life Democrats voted for, perhaps I’ll rethink. Pointing to a poll that says many Democrats are pro-life doesn’t address my point at all. They might consider themselves pro-life, but the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life.
If I'm not mistaken, the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that insurance would cover prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care for expectant mothers, and did not fund abortions, was generally supported by Democrats, while the other party and its president tried their hardest to destroy it.

Peace,
Michael
So your example is Obamacare, which encompasses a lot more than abortion, but does touch on it. When the nitty-gritty details were being fought over, which side was seeking to ensure no abortions were covered and which side was seeking to define abortion as reproductive health? You might as well every congressional budget is an example, because the Hyde Amendment prevents abortions from being funded and other provisions help babies. But one side insists on the Hyde Amendment and the other side tries to get rid of it. Essentially you’re giving pro-choice Democrats credit for losing a legislative fight to pro-life Republicans about abortion funding when the overall bill was being crafted, and then pointing to that as a reason for pro-lifers to vote for pro-choice Democrats.
And who fought to deprive expectant mothers of coverage for prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care, along with coverage for their children's medical conditions? We had four years of attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act.
Nobody sought to remove those provisions from the Act. People did fight to get abortion services guaranteed. Treating political disagreement over the entire question of socialized medicine as though it were a dispute over whether the unborn have a right to life is absurd.

In your line of reasoning, socialism is always good because those who oppose it are dehumanizing those who would benefit from it.

One good way to unravel things and isolate an issue is to look at what advocacy groups supports. Every group devoted specifically to ensuring abortion rights and access (preferably subsidized) unfailingly supports Democrats. That should give you a clue as to which side of the abortion debate any votes for Democrats actually help. It doesn’t matter whether the person casting the vote is pro-life. His vote is manifestly pro-choice.

You have avoided the question of socialized medicine in your responses, Peter, as something that can and should be considered as in the category of life and death.  Having buried any number of people underserved and in uncovered positions as far as medical care, that's an area that could absolutely connect to the right to life.  And tons of people (we won't go into the percentages by poll since you'll just dismiss them anyway) do connect the two, many of whom are I would think Democrats who are pro-life.  In your estimation, then, the reason it can't go into that category is because it might be considered "socialism" or "government subsidy," which are inherently Democratic and therefore anti-life.  It seems a circular argumentation designed to support the true truth you've arrived at which is that no one who is pro-life can remain a Democrat.

Dave Benke

Dave Benke
Not at all. I said the logic of using the partisan support/resistance to Obamacare as an example of what I asked for, one inescapably has to conclude that socialism is the only truly pro-life position. You’re turning that around as though I said everything socialist is bad.

You’re avoiding the obvious point. Every single group out there that is dedicated to ensuring abortion rights, access, and funding endorses the Democrats. Wholeheartedly, and without fail. Why do you suppose that is? The people on both sides of the debate who have dedicated their lives to this topic can easily see which party today advances whose side.

The Planned Parenthoods of the world are rooting you on in this discussion— yes, support for Democrats is the truly pro-life position! Please vote for them! Because they see you as an ally of legal abortion in the only way that really matters politically, which is how you vote. Every hard core pro-choicer out there knows that pro-lifers who vote Democrat are their allies and pro-choicers who vote Republican are traitors to their cause.

You want to put legal abortion into a larger category of government action that helps people. That is obfuscation by mere feigned ignorance. Again, the abolitionist movement is the closest and best parallel. There is no nuance to it, there are two opposing, irreconcilable sides, and the political lines have been drawn and clarified over the course of decades. You know that your votes helps the pro-choice side and hurts the pro-life side. Or at least, everybody who passionately cares about either side knows that.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 22, 2021, 01:40:28 PM
When either party--Democratic or Republican--can absolutely guarantee the end of abortion, that alone will get my vote. In the meantime the position on abortion will be one of many issues that I will weigh.


There will never be an end to abortions. Sometimes they are necessary to save the life of the mother.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 22, 2021, 01:47:26 PM

If you can point to pro-life political victories championed by the Democrat office-holders all these pro-life Democrats voted for, perhaps I’ll rethink. Pointing to a poll that says many Democrats are pro-life doesn’t address my point at all. They might consider themselves pro-life, but the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life.
If I'm not mistaken, the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that insurance would cover prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care for expectant mothers, and did not fund abortions, was generally supported by Democrats, while the other party and its president tried their hardest to destroy it.

Peace,
Michael
So your example is Obamacare, which encompasses a lot more than abortion, but does touch on it. When the nitty-gritty details were being fought over, which side was seeking to ensure no abortions were covered and which side was seeking to define abortion as reproductive health? You might as well every congressional budget is an example, because the Hyde Amendment prevents abortions from being funded and other provisions help babies. But one side insists on the Hyde Amendment and the other side tries to get rid of it. Essentially you’re giving pro-choice Democrats credit for losing a legislative fight to pro-life Republicans about abortion funding when the overall bill was being crafted, and then pointing to that as a reason for pro-lifers to vote for pro-choice Democrats.
And who fought to deprive expectant mothers of coverage for prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care, along with coverage for their children's medical conditions? We had four years of attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act.
Nobody sought to remove those provisions from the Act. People did fight to get abortion services guaranteed. Treating political disagreement over the entire question of socialized medicine as though it were a dispute over whether the unborn have a right to life is absurd.

In your line of reasoning, socialism is always good because those who oppose it are dehumanizing those who would benefit from it.

One good way to unravel things and isolate an issue is to look at what advocacy groups supports. Every group devoted specifically to ensuring abortion rights and access (preferably subsidized) unfailingly supports Democrats. That should give you a clue as to which side of the abortion debate any votes for Democrats actually help. It doesn’t matter whether the person casting the vote is pro-life. His vote is manifestly pro-choice.

You have avoided the question of socialized medicine in your responses, Peter, as something that can and should be considered as in the category of life and death.  Having buried any number of people underserved and in uncovered positions as far as medical care, that's an area that could absolutely connect to the right to life.  And tons of people (we won't go into the percentages by poll since you'll just dismiss them anyway) do connect the two, many of whom are I would think Democrats who are pro-life.  In your estimation, then, the reason it can't go into that category is because it might be considered "socialism" or "government subsidy," which are inherently Democratic and therefore anti-life.  It seems a circular argumentation designed to support the true truth you've arrived at which is that no one who is pro-life can remain a Democrat.

Dave Benke

Dave Benke
Not at all. I said the logic of using the partisan support/resistance to Obamacare as an example of what I asked for, one inescapably has to conclude that socialism is the only truly pro-life position. You’re turning that around as though I said everything socialist is bad.

You’re avoiding the obvious point. Every single group out there that is dedicated to ensuring abortion rights, access, and funding endorses the Democrats. Wholeheartedly, and without fail. Why do you suppose that is? The people on both sides of the debate who have dedicated their lives to this topic can easily see which party today advances whose side.

The Planned Parenthoods of the world are rooting you on in this discussion— yes, support for Democrats is the truly pro-life position! Please vote for them! Because they see you as an ally of legal abortion in the only way that really matters politically, which is how you vote. Every hard core pro-choicer out there knows that pro-lifers who vote Democrat are their allies and pro-choicers who vote Republican are traitors to their cause.

You want to put legal abortion into a larger category of government action that helps people. That is obfuscation by mere feigned ignorance. Again, the abolitionist movement is the closest and best parallel. There is no nuance to it, there are two opposing, irreconcilable sides, and the political lines have been drawn and clarified over the course of decades. You know that your votes helps the pro-choice side and hurts the pro-life side. Or at least, everybody who passionately cares about either side knows that.

I disagree with you.   I hate to say it, in a discussion group, but  -  'nuff said.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 22, 2021, 01:54:28 PM
Yes, and everyone dodges the matter of the "pro-life" factions constantly proclaiming that everyone on the pro-choice side is a "baby killer," advocates infanticide, and is evil and immorally wanton about what they do.
Those of us who have dealt with women considering abortions and often choosing to have one - a decision we sometimes support, sometimes do not -  resent the labeling.
BTW, I suspect that, unlike the situation several decades ago, few women approach their pastor or a pastor for counsel on the matter.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 22, 2021, 01:56:24 PM

If you can point to pro-life political victories championed by the Democrat office-holders all these pro-life Democrats voted for, perhaps I’ll rethink. Pointing to a poll that says many Democrats are pro-life doesn’t address my point at all. They might consider themselves pro-life, but the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life.
If I'm not mistaken, the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that insurance would cover prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care for expectant mothers, and did not fund abortions, was generally supported by Democrats, while the other party and its president tried their hardest to destroy it.

Peace,
Michael
So your example is Obamacare, which encompasses a lot more than abortion, but does touch on it. When the nitty-gritty details were being fought over, which side was seeking to ensure no abortions were covered and which side was seeking to define abortion as reproductive health? You might as well every congressional budget is an example, because the Hyde Amendment prevents abortions from being funded and other provisions help babies. But one side insists on the Hyde Amendment and the other side tries to get rid of it. Essentially you’re giving pro-choice Democrats credit for losing a legislative fight to pro-life Republicans about abortion funding when the overall bill was being crafted, and then pointing to that as a reason for pro-lifers to vote for pro-choice Democrats.
And who fought to deprive expectant mothers of coverage for prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care, along with coverage for their children's medical conditions? We had four years of attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act.
Nobody sought to remove those provisions from the Act. People did fight to get abortion services guaranteed. Treating political disagreement over the entire question of socialized medicine as though it were a dispute over whether the unborn have a right to life is absurd.

In your line of reasoning, socialism is always good because those who oppose it are dehumanizing those who would benefit from it.

One good way to unravel things and isolate an issue is to look at what advocacy groups supports. Every group devoted specifically to ensuring abortion rights and access (preferably subsidized) unfailingly supports Democrats. That should give you a clue as to which side of the abortion debate any votes for Democrats actually help. It doesn’t matter whether the person casting the vote is pro-life. His vote is manifestly pro-choice.

You have avoided the question of socialized medicine in your responses, Peter, as something that can and should be considered as in the category of life and death.  Having buried any number of people underserved and in uncovered positions as far as medical care, that's an area that could absolutely connect to the right to life.  And tons of people (we won't go into the percentages by poll since you'll just dismiss them anyway) do connect the two, many of whom are I would think Democrats who are pro-life.  In your estimation, then, the reason it can't go into that category is because it might be considered "socialism" or "government subsidy," which are inherently Democratic and therefore anti-life.  It seems a circular argumentation designed to support the true truth you've arrived at which is that no one who is pro-life can remain a Democrat.

Dave Benke

Dave Benke
Not at all. I said the logic of using the partisan support/resistance to Obamacare as an example of what I asked for, one inescapably has to conclude that socialism is the only truly pro-life position. You’re turning that around as though I said everything socialist is bad.

You’re avoiding the obvious point. Every single group out there that is dedicated to ensuring abortion rights, access, and funding endorses the Democrats. Wholeheartedly, and without fail. Why do you suppose that is? The people on both sides of the debate who have dedicated their lives to this topic can easily see which party today advances whose side.

The Planned Parenthoods of the world are rooting you on in this discussion— yes, support for Democrats is the truly pro-life position! Please vote for them! Because they see you as an ally of legal abortion in the only way that really matters politically, which is how you vote. Every hard core pro-choicer out there knows that pro-lifers who vote Democrat are their allies and pro-choicers who vote Republican are traitors to their cause.

You want to put legal abortion into a larger category of government action that helps people. That is obfuscation by mere feigned ignorance. Again, the abolitionist movement is the closest and best parallel. There is no nuance to it, there are two opposing, irreconcilable sides, and the political lines have been drawn and clarified over the course of decades. You know that your votes helps the pro-choice side and hurts the pro-life side. Or at least, everybody who passionately cares about either side knows that.

I disagree with you.   I hate to say it, in a discussion group, but  -  'nuff said.

Dave Benke
Okay, maybe you don’t know which side of abortion debate your vote for Democrats really helps. Sad and not quite believable, but so be it. It’s your vote, and it is a pro-choice vote.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 22, 2021, 01:59:45 PM
When either party--Democratic or Republican--can absolutely guarantee the end of abortion, that alone will get my vote. In the meantime the position on abortion will be one of many issues that I will weigh.


There will never be an end to abortions. Sometimes they are necessary to save the life of the mother.
There will never be an end to theft, either, and sometimes it is necessary to save the life of a starving child. It should still be illegal.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 22, 2021, 02:08:01 PM
When either party--Democratic or Republican--can absolutely guarantee the end of abortion, that alone will get my vote. In the meantime the position on abortion will be one of many issues that I will weigh.


There will never be an end to abortions. Sometimes they are necessary to save the life of the mother.
Can you point to a pro-life organization that in their literature and statements would deny an abortion to a woman when it would be necessary to save her life? Please show us who holds that absolutist position that abortion to save the life of the mother should still be outlawed? Of all the people who have posted in these pages against liberal abortion laws, can you show one who has stated that abortion should not be done if it is necessary to save the life of the mother?


Sometimes in life it can be a matter of kill or be killed. Sometimes people are being threatened with deadly violence and the only reasonable way to preserve their lives is to kill the agresser - self defence, or defence of others. Now, whould murder be legalized for the sake of those cases where the use of deadly force is necessary to preserve life? Laws can certainly be crafted that allow for such extraordinary circumstances without legalizing such actions under any and all circumstances.

Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 22, 2021, 02:12:02 PM
Yes, and everyone dodges the matter of the "pro-life" factions constantly proclaiming that everyone on the pro-choice side is a "baby killer," advocates infanticide, and is evil and immorally wanton about what they do.
Those of us who have dealt with women considering abortions and often choosing to have one - a decision we sometimes support, sometimes do not -  resent the labeling.
BTW, I suspect that, unlike the situation several decades ago, few women approach their pastor or a pastor for counsel on the matter.
Give everyone who chooses abortion understanding, sympathy, and support, even if we not agree with their decision. Still it is their decision.


Someone decides not to be vaccinated, they are simply fools who deserve no understanding, sympathy, or support and their decision should be made illegal and they should face sever consequences.



Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 22, 2021, 02:17:42 PM
Pastor Fienen, every situation is not an equal parallel with every other situation.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 22, 2021, 02:43:01 PM
Pastor Fienen, every situation is not an equal parallel with every other situation.
And, naturally, you in your wisdom determine what is parallel and what is not. People and things that you disapprove of are inherently bad, nobody should sympathize with those people. Those with whom you sympathize, every reasonable and loving person will equally sympathize with them.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 22, 2021, 04:00:50 PM
When either party--Democratic or Republican--can absolutely guarantee the end of abortion, that alone will get my vote. In the meantime the position on abortion will be one of many issues that I will weigh.


There will never be an end to abortions. Sometimes they are necessary to save the life of the mother.
Can you point to a pro-life organization that in their literature and statements would deny an abortion to a woman when it would be necessary to save her life? Please show us who holds that absolutist position that abortion to save the life of the mother should still be outlawed? Of all the people who have posted in these pages against liberal abortion laws, can you show one who has stated that abortion should not be done if it is necessary to save the life of the mother?


Sometimes in life it can be a matter of kill or be killed. Sometimes people are being threatened with deadly violence and the only reasonable way to preserve their lives is to kill the agresser - self defence, or defence of others. Now, whould murder be legalized for the sake of those cases where the use of deadly force is necessary to preserve life? Laws can certainly be crafted that allow for such extraordinary circumstances without legalizing such actions under any and all circumstances.


See the post I responded to. John clearly wants an "end to abortions."
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 22, 2021, 04:11:57 PM
When either party--Democratic or Republican--can absolutely guarantee the end of abortion, that alone will get my vote. In the meantime the position on abortion will be one of many issues that I will weigh.


There will never be an end to abortions. Sometimes they are necessary to save the life of the mother.
Can you point to a pro-life organization that in their literature and statements would deny an abortion to a woman when it would be necessary to save her life? Please show us who holds that absolutist position that abortion to save the life of the mother should still be outlawed? Of all the people who have posted in these pages against liberal abortion laws, can you show one who has stated that abortion should not be done if it is necessary to save the life of the mother?


Sometimes in life it can be a matter of kill or be killed. Sometimes people are being threatened with deadly violence and the only reasonable way to preserve their lives is to kill the agresser - self defence, or defence of others. Now, whould murder be legalized for the sake of those cases where the use of deadly force is necessary to preserve life? Laws can certainly be crafted that allow for such extraordinary circumstances without legalizing such actions under any and all circumstances.


See the post I responded to. John clearly wants an "end to abortions."
Presumably, almost everyone wants that. The political issue is legal abortions. That’s the government’s proper realm— to say x is allowable but y is not allowable. Government isn’t everything. Churches need to teach on the sanctity of life, not enforce laws. Families need to provide care for their children. Charities and other organizations need to assist. But while not everything, government is something, and should make laws that prevent people from being killed. National Right to Life is very much about laws. Lutherans for Life has very little to do with laws and everything to do with teaching on life according to God’s Word.

Quite independently of how many abortions actually happen, simple justice and respect for life demands that they be illegal (barring, of course, those rare circumstances when carrying the child to term would likely kill the mother). Rape will always be a thing. Legal rape should never be a thing, and no matter how many nuances and shades/degrees people can find between what is rape and what isn’t,  we all know that considered merely as such, rape should be illegal. And so should abortion.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 22, 2021, 05:56:06 PM

If you can point to pro-life political victories championed by the Democrat office-holders all these pro-life Democrats voted for, perhaps I’ll rethink. Pointing to a poll that says many Democrats are pro-life doesn’t address my point at all. They might consider themselves pro-life, but the effect of their votes is not in any way pro-life.
If I'm not mistaken, the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that insurance would cover prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care for expectant mothers, and did not fund abortions, was generally supported by Democrats, while the other party and its president tried their hardest to destroy it.

Peace,
Michael
So your example is Obamacare, which encompasses a lot more than abortion, but does touch on it. When the nitty-gritty details were being fought over, which side was seeking to ensure no abortions were covered and which side was seeking to define abortion as reproductive health? You might as well every congressional budget is an example, because the Hyde Amendment prevents abortions from being funded and other provisions help babies. But one side insists on the Hyde Amendment and the other side tries to get rid of it. Essentially you’re giving pro-choice Democrats credit for losing a legislative fight to pro-life Republicans about abortion funding when the overall bill was being crafted, and then pointing to that as a reason for pro-lifers to vote for pro-choice Democrats.
And who fought to deprive expectant mothers of coverage for prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal care, along with coverage for their children's medical conditions? We had four years of attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act.
Nobody sought to remove those provisions from the Act. People did fight to get abortion services guaranteed. Treating political disagreement over the entire question of socialized medicine as though it were a dispute over whether the unborn have a right to life is absurd.

In your line of reasoning, socialism is always good because those who oppose it are dehumanizing those who would benefit from it.

One good way to unravel things and isolate an issue is to look at what advocacy groups supports. Every group devoted specifically to ensuring abortion rights and access (preferably subsidized) unfailingly supports Democrats. That should give you a clue as to which side of the abortion debate any votes for Democrats actually help. It doesn’t matter whether the person casting the vote is pro-life. His vote is manifestly pro-choice.

You have avoided the question of socialized medicine in your responses, Peter, as something that can and should be considered as in the category of life and death.  Having buried any number of people underserved and in uncovered positions as far as medical care, that's an area that could absolutely connect to the right to life.  And tons of people (we won't go into the percentages by poll since you'll just dismiss them anyway) do connect the two, many of whom are I would think Democrats who are pro-life.  In your estimation, then, the reason it can't go into that category is because it might be considered "socialism" or "government subsidy," which are inherently Democratic and therefore anti-life.  It seems a circular argumentation designed to support the true truth you've arrived at which is that no one who is pro-life can remain a Democrat.

Dave Benke

Dave Benke
Not at all. I said the logic of using the partisan support/resistance to Obamacare as an example of what I asked for, one inescapably has to conclude that socialism is the only truly pro-life position. You’re turning that around as though I said everything socialist is bad.

You’re avoiding the obvious point. Every single group out there that is dedicated to ensuring abortion rights, access, and funding endorses the Democrats. Wholeheartedly, and without fail. Why do you suppose that is? The people on both sides of the debate who have dedicated their lives to this topic can easily see which party today advances whose side.

The Planned Parenthoods of the world are rooting you on in this discussion— yes, support for Democrats is the truly pro-life position! Please vote for them! Because they see you as an ally of legal abortion in the only way that really matters politically, which is how you vote. Every hard core pro-choicer out there knows that pro-lifers who vote Democrat are their allies and pro-choicers who vote Republican are traitors to their cause.

You want to put legal abortion into a larger category of government action that helps people. That is obfuscation by mere feigned ignorance. Again, the abolitionist movement is the closest and best parallel. There is no nuance to it, there are two opposing, irreconcilable sides, and the political lines have been drawn and clarified over the course of decades. You know that your votes helps the pro-choice side and hurts the pro-life side. Or at least, everybody who passionately cares about either side knows that.

I disagree with you.   I hate to say it, in a discussion group, but  -  'nuff said.

Dave Benke
Okay, maybe you don’t know which side of abortion debate your vote for Democrats really helps. Sad and not quite believable, but so be it. It’s your vote, and it is a pro-choice vote.

Your last sentence is accurate.  It is my vote.  So I'm a registered Democrat.  The logic you have given thus far is that all registered Democrats vote the Democratic party line. 
Same for Republicans in your estimation.  You're wrong in both cases, if the results are to be believed, and we disregard My Pillow Mike as a crackpot at the elite level.

 My vote, I can say confidently, does not follow the party line/ticket and pretty much never has.  And I think that's true of maybe tens of millions of those registered in the two parties in each election cycle. 

I could switch parties.  At present, the Republican party not existing outside of Trump, that's not going to happen.  And I think it will take awhile for the Republican party to disengage.  But even if I were to switch parties, I would still vote in an independent way, and not the party line/ticket.

If you had said Democrats have no standing before God based on their platform, that might have made some sense to me.  At the same time, the Republicans had no platform the last time through and really can't because the person running it doesn't work that way.  But that's not the direction you took it.  The direction you took it was votes and Democrats, with the assumption that the anti-life candidate would be the one the registered Democrat would be basically forced to vote for. 

Every legislative decision, especially at the local and state level, does not concern abortion.  The Democrats I have voted for have been those I deemed able in a host of other legislative matters.  But from what you have stated, my vote for them at the local level as a Democrat for a Democrat was anti-life.  I reject that illogic.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 22, 2021, 06:26:56 PM
I have not commented at all on your party registration. I have been clear all along I’m talking about votes for Democrat politicians by pro-life Democrats. If you’re voting for pro-life candidates who will legislate/govern along pro-life lines, Republicans are your only genuine option these days. If you’re doing so as a registered Democrat, fine, more power to you. My point all along, one that I suspect is obvious to you, is that when you vote for a Democrat (regardless of how you register) in the general election, your vote advances the pro-choice side even if you are personally pro-life.

I might say I support Trump but do not support the coarsening of politics. That is true. But if keeping coarseness out of politics was my stated priority, you’d point out that my vote accomplishes the opposite of what I say my intent is. And you’d be right. Every vote is for a hodgepodge of interests, so you’re always supporting some things you don’t really want to support. I think comparing abortion as an issue to things like universal pre-k or expansion of Obamacare or whatever is simply a failure to accord things their proper order of importance. It is a false equivalency, again, like claiming to be an abolitionist in 1860 but voting against the Republicans for reasons of important legalities regarding the railroads. Actual abolitionists would not consider such a person one of their number. 
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: JEdwards on October 22, 2021, 06:49:39 PM
The fact that Candidate Lincoln was on record in 1860 as opposing full abolition suggests that life is seldom that black and white.

Peace,
Jon
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 22, 2021, 08:04:19 PM
Presumably, almost everyone wants that. The political issue is legal abortions. That’s the government’s proper realm— to say x is allowable but y is not allowable. Government isn’t everything. Churches need to teach on the sanctity of life, not enforce laws. Families need to provide care for their children. Charities and other organizations need to assist. But while not everything, government is something, and should make laws that prevent people from being killed. National Right to Life is very much about laws. Lutherans for Life has very little to do with laws and everything to do with teaching on life according to God’s Word.


 I agree. Churches should teach about the sanctity of life. Ideally, believers would never engage in behaviors that result in unwanted pregnancies; and thus, they would have no need for abortions.


I was invited to be part of a discussion dealing with sex education in the jr high school. The administration stated that their goal was to eliminate pregnancies at the jr high level. I suggested (somewhat facetiously,) that's easy: sterilize all the students. No one will get pregnant. I then commented that along with a negative goal like no pregnancies; they need to look at what positive outcomes they want their sex ed program to produce. One might be: to increase the student's chances of life-long happy marriages. A question I ask confirmation students when we are about to look at the sixth commandment is: "How many of you want to have a life-long, happy marriage?" Then we talk about things they can do (or not do) now that increase their chances of reaching that goal.

Quote
Quite independently of how many abortions actually happen, simple justice and respect for life demands that they be illegal (barring, of course, those rare circumstances when carrying the child to term would likely kill the mother). Rape will always be a thing. Legal rape should never be a thing, and no matter how many nuances and shades/degrees people can find between what is rape and what isn’t,  we all know that considered merely as such, rape should be illegal. And so should abortion.


Simple respect for life demands that we trust people to make good choices about their lives. Why should the church care about abortions when we believe that our members would never seek to have an abortion? How would we know if believers would make the proper choices if they aren't given a choice? Keep abortions legal. Work at helping people make better choices in regards to their sex lives. Work at preventing unwanted pregnancies by proper sex education, including the proper use of contraceptives. Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.


If we don't believe that people can make such proper choices without legislating their choices, then simple logic would say that we need to make gun purchases illegal because some people who buy guns make very bad choices that results in the loss of human life.


If you believe that gun owners can make responsible choices regarding their guns and human life; you should be able to believe that women can also make responsible choices regarding their own bodies and the child growing within them.


Nearly everyone in my circle of close friends agree that we are pro-choice and anti-abortion. I believe that our ELCA's Social Statement on Abortion spells out that position quite well.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: D. Engebretson on October 22, 2021, 08:37:48 PM
Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.

This part of your response troubled me.  Help people to "want a child should there be a pregnancy."  And the answer, in essence, is that to help people "want a child" that is already developing we first and foremost need to make sure that we remove financial challenges in the person's life.  If they are financially secure, then they would "want" the child and not abort it.  Would this really help people to "want" a child, at least in a healthy and responsible way?  I think this touches on the heart of what it means to be a parent.  If the undeveloped child in the womb is seen as a potential financial liability you have problems far beyond the economic. I was raised by a single parent until I was age 12, when my mother remarried.  At the time of conception my mother was unmarried and did not marry my birth father.  Actually, I never knew him. We struggled economically and my mother struggled in other ways.  But her commitment to me as a parent never wavered.  As far as I know she "wanted" me apart from any economic assurances.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 22, 2021, 09:25:51 PM
I have not commented at all on your party registration. I have been clear all along I’m talking about votes for Democrat politicians by pro-life Democrats. If you’re voting for pro-life candidates who will legislate/govern along pro-life lines, Republicans are your only genuine option these days. If you’re doing so as a registered Democrat, fine, more power to you. My point all along, one that I suspect is obvious to you, is that when you vote for a Democrat (regardless of how you register) in the general election, your vote advances the pro-choice side even if you are personally pro-life.

I might say I support Trump but do not support the coarsening of politics. That is true. But if keeping coarseness out of politics was my stated priority, you’d point out that my vote accomplishes the opposite of what I say my intent is. And you’d be right. Every vote is for a hodgepodge of interests, so you’re always supporting some things you don’t really want to support. I think comparing abortion as an issue to things like universal pre-k or expansion of Obamacare or whatever is simply a failure to accord things their proper order of importance. It is a false equivalency, again, like claiming to be an abolitionist in 1860 but voting against the Republicans for reasons of important legalities regarding the railroads. Actual abolitionists would not consider such a person one of their number.

This is not the argument you made.  You made the argument that it's registered Democrats voting that demonstrates their anti-life stance.  There are tons of democrats
a) who vote for people who represent pro-life positions in other parties or write-in candidates
b) who vote for democrats who represent pro-life positions
c) who vote for democrats in local and regional and state elections

You've now added that you're talking about "general elections."  Are you talking about the many and various levels of elections?  In many to most cases, there is no abortion issue immediately at stake.  Maybe that's here in NY, but I would think it applies to other states on both sides of the issue.  So the other important issues do matter, and if the Democrat is the better candidate, only serve to indicate that candidate does fight for universal health care or health benefits at the local, state or national level, for instance, which a supermajority of people find very important.  This isn't a matter of comparison.  It's a matter of looking at the issues at various levels and determining a vote based on what's possible in terms of legislation.  Your attempt to push all elections into the two categories - pro-life and everything else - misses the boat.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 22, 2021, 09:58:36 PM
I have not commented at all on your party registration. I have been clear all along I’m talking about votes for Democrat politicians by pro-life Democrats. If you’re voting for pro-life candidates who will legislate/govern along pro-life lines, Republicans are your only genuine option these days. If you’re doing so as a registered Democrat, fine, more power to you. My point all along, one that I suspect is obvious to you, is that when you vote for a Democrat (regardless of how you register) in the general election, your vote advances the pro-choice side even if you are personally pro-life.

I might say I support Trump but do not support the coarsening of politics. That is true. But if keeping coarseness out of politics was my stated priority, you’d point out that my vote accomplishes the opposite of what I say my intent is. And you’d be right. Every vote is for a hodgepodge of interests, so you’re always supporting some things you don’t really want to support. I think comparing abortion as an issue to things like universal pre-k or expansion of Obamacare or whatever is simply a failure to accord things their proper order of importance. It is a false equivalency, again, like claiming to be an abolitionist in 1860 but voting against the Republicans for reasons of important legalities regarding the railroads. Actual abolitionists would not consider such a person one of their number.

This is not the argument you made.  You made the argument that it's registered Democrats voting that demonstrates their anti-life stance.  There are tons of democrats
a) who vote for people who represent pro-life positions in other parties or write-in candidates
b) who vote for democrats who represent pro-life positions
c) who vote for democrats in local and regional and state elections

You've now added that you're talking about "general elections."  Are you talking about the many and various levels of elections?  In many to most cases, there is no abortion issue immediately at stake.  Maybe that's here in NY, but I would think it applies to other states on both sides of the issue.  So the other important issues do matter, and if the Democrat is the better candidate, only serve to indicate that candidate does fight for universal health care or health benefits at the local, state or national level, for instance, which a supermajority of people find very important.  This isn't a matter of comparison.  It's a matter of looking at the issues at various levels and determining a vote based on what's possible in terms of legislation.  Your attempt to push all elections into the two categories - pro-life and everything else - misses the boat.

Dave Benke
Nonsense. Go back and read the thread. Nobody who wasn’t trying to weasel his way around the issue could conclude that I have argued anything other than that votes for Democrats advance the pro-choice position. If pro-life Democrats are voting Republican, fine. And if it is a primary between people of the American party, the point is moot. But if you really are that confused, let me clarify for you: when pro-life voters who are Democrats vote for Democrats over Republicans, the effect of their vote is to advance the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause. Thus, people who consider abortion to be murder do not consider such “pro-life” voters to be allies to their cause. They are soldiers in the pro-choice army whether they think so or want to be or not.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 22, 2021, 10:08:30 PM
The fact that Candidate Lincoln was on record in 1860 as opposing full abolition suggests that life is seldom that black and white.

Peace,
Jon
Ah yes, the necessities of politics and official positions. People aren’t that dense. If you wanted an end to slavery, you voted for Lincoln. If you feared an end to slavery, you voted against Lincoln. If some voters didn’t quite get that, it wasn’t because the election was too nuanced and insufficiently black and white. The abolitionists celebrated Lincoln’s win. The slave owners lamented his win. Because they weren’t stupid, no matter what the official statements said. And today, everyone who is passionately pro-choice celebrates the election of Democrats and fears the election of Republicans. Sure, there may have been some abolitionists who voted for the Democrats in 1860. Equally confused are anti-abortion people voting for Democrats today. 
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 23, 2021, 01:44:15 AM
Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.

This part of your response troubled me.  Help people to "want a child should there be a pregnancy."  And the answer, in essence, is that to help people "want a child" that is already developing we first and foremost need to make sure that we remove financial challenges in the person's life.  If they are financially secure, then they would "want" the child and not abort it.  Would this really help people to "want" a child, at least in a healthy and responsible way?  I think this touches on the heart of what it means to be a parent.  If the undeveloped child in the womb is seen as a potential financial liability you have problems far beyond the economic. I was raised by a single parent until I was age 12, when my mother remarried.  At the time of conception my mother was unmarried and did not marry my birth father.  Actually, I never knew him. We struggled economically and my mother struggled in other ways.  But her commitment to me as a parent never wavered.  As far as I know she "wanted" me apart from any economic assurances.


That isn’t the case with all single women who become pregnant. Finances are a major concern; and not just for new parents, but for any married couples. As I recall finances are the major reason for marital discord and divorces.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: David Garner on October 23, 2021, 09:21:13 AM
Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.

This part of your response troubled me.  Help people to "want a child should there be a pregnancy."  And the answer, in essence, is that to help people "want a child" that is already developing we first and foremost need to make sure that we remove financial challenges in the person's life.  If they are financially secure, then they would "want" the child and not abort it.  Would this really help people to "want" a child, at least in a healthy and responsible way?  I think this touches on the heart of what it means to be a parent.  If the undeveloped child in the womb is seen as a potential financial liability you have problems far beyond the economic. I was raised by a single parent until I was age 12, when my mother remarried.  At the time of conception my mother was unmarried and did not marry my birth father.  Actually, I never knew him. We struggled economically and my mother struggled in other ways.  But her commitment to me as a parent never wavered.  As far as I know she "wanted" me apart from any economic assurances.


That isn’t the case with all single women who become pregnant. Finances are a major concern; and not just for new parents, but for any married couples. As I recall finances are the major reason for marital discord and divorces.

Perhaps money isn’t the real issue. After all, St. Paul never said “love of money is the root of all virtue.”
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: D. Engebretson on October 23, 2021, 09:36:29 AM
Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.

This part of your response troubled me.  Help people to "want a child should there be a pregnancy."  And the answer, in essence, is that to help people "want a child" that is already developing we first and foremost need to make sure that we remove financial challenges in the person's life.  If they are financially secure, then they would "want" the child and not abort it.  Would this really help people to "want" a child, at least in a healthy and responsible way?  I think this touches on the heart of what it means to be a parent.  If the undeveloped child in the womb is seen as a potential financial liability you have problems far beyond the economic. I was raised by a single parent until I was age 12, when my mother remarried.  At the time of conception my mother was unmarried and did not marry my birth father.  Actually, I never knew him. We struggled economically and my mother struggled in other ways.  But her commitment to me as a parent never wavered.  As far as I know she "wanted" me apart from any economic assurances.


That isn’t the case with all single women who become pregnant. Finances are a major concern; and not just for new parents, but for any married couples. As I recall finances are the major reason for marital discord and divorces.

Money can buy a certain sense of security and comfort.  But, again, it will not make an effective and loving parent that truly "wants" a child, even an unexpected child.  We can provide all of the safety-net provisions for young mothers and still end up with broken homes, damaged relationships, and abused children.  A self-centered and narcissistic world is incapable of "wanting" anything for anyone other than for personal gratification.  The "real issue" as Mr. Garner intimates, is somewhere else....
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 23, 2021, 11:44:18 AM
I have not commented at all on your party registration. I have been clear all along I’m talking about votes for Democrat politicians by pro-life Democrats. If you’re voting for pro-life candidates who will legislate/govern along pro-life lines, Republicans are your only genuine option these days. If you’re doing so as a registered Democrat, fine, more power to you. My point all along, one that I suspect is obvious to you, is that when you vote for a Democrat (regardless of how you register) in the general election, your vote advances the pro-choice side even if you are personally pro-life.

I might say I support Trump but do not support the coarsening of politics. That is true. But if keeping coarseness out of politics was my stated priority, you’d point out that my vote accomplishes the opposite of what I say my intent is. And you’d be right. Every vote is for a hodgepodge of interests, so you’re always supporting some things you don’t really want to support. I think comparing abortion as an issue to things like universal pre-k or expansion of Obamacare or whatever is simply a failure to accord things their proper order of importance. It is a false equivalency, again, like claiming to be an abolitionist in 1860 but voting against the Republicans for reasons of important legalities regarding the railroads. Actual abolitionists would not consider such a person one of their number.

This is not the argument you made.  You made the argument that it's registered Democrats voting that demonstrates their anti-life stance.  There are tons of democrats
a) who vote for people who represent pro-life positions in other parties or write-in candidates
b) who vote for democrats who represent pro-life positions
c) who vote for democrats in local and regional and state elections

You've now added that you're talking about "general elections."  Are you talking about the many and various levels of elections?  In many to most cases, there is no abortion issue immediately at stake.  Maybe that's here in NY, but I would think it applies to other states on both sides of the issue.  So the other important issues do matter, and if the Democrat is the better candidate, only serve to indicate that candidate does fight for universal health care or health benefits at the local, state or national level, for instance, which a supermajority of people find very important.  This isn't a matter of comparison.  It's a matter of looking at the issues at various levels and determining a vote based on what's possible in terms of legislation.  Your attempt to push all elections into the two categories - pro-life and everything else - misses the boat.

Dave Benke
Nonsense. Go back and read the thread. Nobody who wasn’t trying to weasel his way around the issue could conclude that I have argued anything other than that votes for Democrats advance the pro-choice position. If pro-life Democrats are voting Republican, fine. And if it is a primary between people of the American party, the point is moot. But if you really are that confused, let me clarify for you: when pro-life voters who are Democrats vote for Democrats over Republicans, the effect of their vote is to advance the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause. Thus, people who consider abortion to be murder do not consider such “pro-life” voters to be allies to their cause. They are soldiers in the pro-choice army whether they think so or want to be or not.

I continue to disagree for many reasons.

However, the position you hold is absolute to you.  Given what you've written, is it then sinful
a) to vote for a Democrat over a Republican?
b) to be registered as a Democrat, since to be registered as one gives the impression of alliance with pro-choice positions?

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 23, 2021, 12:32:35 PM

First, I stipulate that in situations where there is significant medical evidence that continuing the pregnancy poses a significant threat to the life of the mother, I could accept that in such situations abortion can be a morally responsible choice. I note that such situations are relatively rare and constitute only a small portion of the abortions performed in the US.

Simple respect for life demands that we trust people to make good choices about their lives. Why should the church care about abortions when we believe that our members would never seek to have an abortion? How would we know if believers would make the proper choices if they aren't given a choice?


I'm trying to decide if Brian is being disingenuous or simply naïve.


Quote
Simple respect for life demands that we trust people to make good choices about their lives.


What does respect for life have to do with trusting that people will make good choices? Perhaps respect for people would suggest that we simply trust people, but respect for life?


Quote
Why should the church care about abortions when we believe that our members would never seek to have an abortion?


Again, how naïve are we supposed to be? People sin, good people sin. It dare not go without saying that good Christian people will make good Christian choices. Sometimes even good Christian people will make sinful choices and need to have that called to their attention. In any case, I see part of our mission as churches is to instruct and guide people in making good choices. Even people who I respect as moral, responsible people may not always think their choices through to recognize all the implications of their choices. God's Law as set out in the Bible is, among other things, a guide to what living a good life should look like.

That is also a function of the civil laws under which we live? These laws give guidance as to what we as a society have decided is not conducive to living good lives in our society. Where there is no law, was as a society make no judgement as to whether the actions are good or not.



Quote
How would we know if believers would make the proper choices if they aren't given a choice?


Naïve or disingenuous? People always have and make choices. Back when abortions were illegal, did that illegality preclude people from making the choice to have an abortion? In any case, how do we, as a church prevent people from making choices by teaching that most abortions (see my stipulation above) is sinful? Nor do we in the church have coercive or police powers to keep people from exercising their choices?


Keep abortions legal. Work at helping people make better choices in regards to their sex lives. Work at preventing unwanted pregnancies by proper sex education, including the proper use of contraceptives. Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.


All of that laundry list of social welfare suggestions are probably good things, a few I could quibble about or question how they are usually actually done. They may help alleviate some of the reasons for the abortions that are performed. In general improving the conditions in which families live are good, and necessary if we want to reduce abortions.


But i still disagree with the premise that Brian states at the beginning of this section. There is absolutely no reason why keeping abortion legal is necessary in order to accomplish the social welfare conditions that his suggestions would promote. We can and arguably should do all that whether or not abortion is legal.


There is a difference between alleviating conditions that could induce parents to reject and abort an unborn child and helping parents want the child to begin with. Economics is not, contrary to what Brian seems to be implying, the only factor. Parental leave and opportunities to bond with the child after he/she has been born have little to do with killing the child before it is born.

If we don't believe that people can make such proper choices without legislating their choices, then simple logic would say that we need to make gun purchases illegal because some people who buy guns make very bad choices that results in the loss of human life. If you believe that gun owners can make responsible choices regarding their guns and human life; you should be able to believe that women can also make responsible choices regarding their own bodies and the child growing within them.


As a matter of fact there is a considerable amount of legislation regulating gun purchase choices. But this is not a good comparison. People choose to purchase a gun for a wide variety of purposes, many of which do not involve ending a human life. The choice to obtain an abortion always results in the ending of human life. No choice to obtain an abortion results a live baby at the end.


What would you consider to be a morally responsible choice to obtain an abortion other than the stipulated situation where continuing the pregnancy involve a significant possibility of medical danger to the mother's life? By opposing legislation and apparently opposing the church making statements about abortion are you indicating an indifference to the ending of life by abortion?


Nearly everyone in my circle of close friends agree that we are pro-choice and anti-abortion. I believe that our ELCA's Social Statement on Abortion spells out that position quite well.


Apparently your circle of close friends serves as your echo chamber bubble protecting you from having to consider other ways of looking at this issue or other opinions. How cozy and safe for you. Apparently it also allows you to simply dismiss alternative opinions.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 23, 2021, 01:03:44 PM
I have not commented at all on your party registration. I have been clear all along I’m talking about votes for Democrat politicians by pro-life Democrats. If you’re voting for pro-life candidates who will legislate/govern along pro-life lines, Republicans are your only genuine option these days. If you’re doing so as a registered Democrat, fine, more power to you. My point all along, one that I suspect is obvious to you, is that when you vote for a Democrat (regardless of how you register) in the general election, your vote advances the pro-choice side even if you are personally pro-life.

I might say I support Trump but do not support the coarsening of politics. That is true. But if keeping coarseness out of politics was my stated priority, you’d point out that my vote accomplishes the opposite of what I say my intent is. And you’d be right. Every vote is for a hodgepodge of interests, so you’re always supporting some things you don’t really want to support. I think comparing abortion as an issue to things like universal pre-k or expansion of Obamacare or whatever is simply a failure to accord things their proper order of importance. It is a false equivalency, again, like claiming to be an abolitionist in 1860 but voting against the Republicans for reasons of important legalities regarding the railroads. Actual abolitionists would not consider such a person one of their number.

This is not the argument you made.  You made the argument that it's registered Democrats voting that demonstrates their anti-life stance.  There are tons of democrats
a) who vote for people who represent pro-life positions in other parties or write-in candidates
b) who vote for democrats who represent pro-life positions
c) who vote for democrats in local and regional and state elections

You've now added that you're talking about "general elections."  Are you talking about the many and various levels of elections?  In many to most cases, there is no abortion issue immediately at stake.  Maybe that's here in NY, but I would think it applies to other states on both sides of the issue.  So the other important issues do matter, and if the Democrat is the better candidate, only serve to indicate that candidate does fight for universal health care or health benefits at the local, state or national level, for instance, which a supermajority of people find very important.  This isn't a matter of comparison.  It's a matter of looking at the issues at various levels and determining a vote based on what's possible in terms of legislation.  Your attempt to push all elections into the two categories - pro-life and everything else - misses the boat.

Dave Benke
Nonsense. Go back and read the thread. Nobody who wasn’t trying to weasel his way around the issue could conclude that I have argued anything other than that votes for Democrats advance the pro-choice position. If pro-life Democrats are voting Republican, fine. And if it is a primary between people of the American party, the point is moot. But if you really are that confused, let me clarify for you: when pro-life voters who are Democrats vote for Democrats over Republicans, the effect of their vote is to advance the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause. Thus, people who consider abortion to be murder do not consider such “pro-life” voters to be allies to their cause. They are soldiers in the pro-choice army whether they think so or want to be or not.

I continue to disagree for many reasons.

However, the position you hold is absolute to you.  Given what you've written, is it then sinful
a) to vote for a Democrat over a Republican?
b) to be registered as a Democrat, since to be registered as one gives the impression of alliance with pro-choice positions?

Dave Benke
Not necessarily, and no.

In some elections, the position really has nothing to do with abortion, or the impact it may have is so slight while the impact on other issues of lesser importance than abortion might be great. So the fact that abortion is a worse societal ill than slavery might be outweighed by other considerations.

As for registration, that is a judgement call on how much it matters to give this or that impression vs. voting in primaries. Many places have open primaries, so registration by party doesn’t mean much.

Legal abortion is worse than state-enforced racism. If you would vote for an avowedly racist candidate (not one who is accused of it but isn’t but one who is open and deliberate about it and has an actual racist platform like Wallace in 68) because other issues in your mind outweigh the unfortunate, overt, and unapologetic racism of the guy you’re voting for, then I can see how you might vote for an avowedly pro-choice candidate.

I think many people would have a hard time accepting it if someone who identified with the Civil Rights Movement tried to justify voting for the Dixiecrats. Why not just stop claiming to be an ally of the Civil Rights Movement? 

Nobody is under any obligation to say they are pro-life. Many people in this board are proudly pro-choice. When it counts, officially, you side with them. They are made happy by the way you vote, and their cause is advanced. Meanwhile, every single pro-life organization in the nation says that our cause is hindered by the people you choose to put in power.

Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 23, 2021, 01:15:23 PM
Pastor Fienen, how many women considering abortion have you met, prayed with, counseled, communed, or otherwise shared the experience? What experiences have your wife or daughter(if you have one) had with friends, co-workers, or children of friends considering whether to terminate a pregnancy? Were these experiences, if any, in the 1960s or early 1970s when abortions were difficult to obtain?
   Were the women involved too young to be a parent, too old for another child, too sick or too tired to rear another child or too poor to support another child. Were they too uneducated (or denied certain kinds of education) to even understand how they got pregnant?
    Adoption? Yes, an alternative, but have you discussed with women the physical, mental and social cost of that alternative?
    I ask because to me much of the posting on this subject by you and others here suggest that you are experientially clueless about the real-life, human aspect of this issue.
    Now if you are locked into THE pro-life formula (sperm+egg=human-being-with-inalienable-right-to-life), then I guess you are allowed to be clueless about the travails of the pregnant woman and the people around her.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 23, 2021, 01:52:47 PM
Pastor Fienen, how many women considering abortion have you met, prayed with, counseled, communed, or otherwise shared the experience? What experiences have your wife or daughter(if you have one) had with friends, co-workers, or children of friends considering whether to terminate a pregnancy? Were these experiences, if any, in the 1960s or early 1970s when abortions were difficult to obtain?
   Were the women involved too young to be a parent, too old for another child, too sick or too tired to rear another child or too poor to support another child. Were they too uneducated (or denied certain kinds of education) to even understand how they got pregnant?
    Adoption? Yes, an alternative, but have you discussed with women the physical, mental and social cost of that alternative?
    I ask because to me much of the posting on this subject by you and others here suggest that you are experientially clueless about the real-life, human aspect of this issue.
    Now if you are locked into THE pro-life formula (sperm+egg=human-being-with-inalienable-right-to-life), then I guess you are allowed to be clueless about the travails of the pregnant woman and the people around her.
So is the formula inconvenient pregnancy=aborted baby, flush the inconvenience an acceptable solution for the real life problems that women face?


Yes we can do better about assisting pregnant women facing social and economic difficulties attendant to their pregnancies. We as a society should do better. And no, by and large the pro-life movement is not, NOT characterized by focusing only on keeping babies from being aborted and caring nothing for the welfare of the mothers or the babies once they have been born. That is a baseless accusation perpetuated by those who have never really talked with pro-life people or looked at what pro-life organizations really do. A convenient way to dismiss inconvenient people.


Large scale convenient, legal abortion is an easy solution to what are sometimes difficult situations so long as you decide that inconvenient lives may be disposed with. Convicted mass murders deserve far more consideration, understanding, and sympathy in that world view, than do unborn babies that become disposable, or harvestable and monetized.


I could ask if you have every seen organizations devoted to helping mothers not abort their babies, or actually talked to (rather than talked at or down to) pro-life people, but I remember you have made it a policy not to talk abortion with those who aren't already in agreement with legal abortion, let the chips fall where they may. Much easier that way.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 23, 2021, 02:00:34 PM
Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.

This part of your response troubled me.  Help people to "want a child should there be a pregnancy."  And the answer, in essence, is that to help people "want a child" that is already developing we first and foremost need to make sure that we remove financial challenges in the person's life.  If they are financially secure, then they would "want" the child and not abort it.  Would this really help people to "want" a child, at least in a healthy and responsible way?  I think this touches on the heart of what it means to be a parent.  If the undeveloped child in the womb is seen as a potential financial liability you have problems far beyond the economic. I was raised by a single parent until I was age 12, when my mother remarried.  At the time of conception my mother was unmarried and did not marry my birth father.  Actually, I never knew him. We struggled economically and my mother struggled in other ways.  But her commitment to me as a parent never wavered.  As far as I know she "wanted" me apart from any economic assurances.


That isn’t the case with all single women who become pregnant. Finances are a major concern; and not just for new parents, but for any married couples. As I recall finances are the major reason for marital discord and divorces.

Money can buy a certain sense of security and comfort.  But, again, it will not make an effective and loving parent that truly "wants" a child, even an unexpected child.  We can provide all of the safety-net provisions for young mothers and still end up with broken homes, damaged relationships, and abused children.  A self-centered and narcissistic world is incapable of "wanting" anything for anyone other than for personal gratification.  The "real issue" as Mr. Garner intimates, is somewhere else....


Yes … and no. I've read and seen TV reports on studies that indicate that there is a level of income that is necessary for happiness. People and families below that level are less happy than those above it. (That line varies in different parts of the U.S.) Those same studies show that for those above that line, more money does not make them happier.


Another study indicates that offering bonuses for extra work can have a negative effect. Rather than motivating people to work harder; it can motivate them to cheat. (The VA administrators who lied on reports so that they got their bonuses is an example of this.)


I also remember some celebrity saying: "I've been poor and I've been rich. Rich is better."


Also, part of the discussion on the retirement thread is about income. I can say that we are much less stressed now with a little money in the bank, and where we aren't living paycheck to paycheck, hoping that there won't be any major expenses. When we had to replace our air conditioner earlier this year: a necessity in Yuma - and what is required here is usually more expensive than other places - we didn't have to borrow money to pay for it (like we did the last time).


Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 23, 2021, 02:19:10 PM
Pastor Fienen:
So is the formula inconvenient pregnancy=aborted baby, flush the inconvenience an acceptable solution for the real life problems that women face?
Me:
No, and not responsive to my questions.

Pastor Fienen:
Yes we can do better about assisting pregnant women facing social and economic difficulties attendant to their pregnancies. We as a society should do better. And no, by and large the pro-life movement is not, NOT characterized by focusing only on keeping babies from being aborted and caring nothing for the welfare of the mothers or the babies once they have been born. That is a baseless accusation perpetuated by those who have never really talked with pro-life people or looked at what pro-life organizations really do. A convenient way to dismiss inconvenient people.
Me:
Again, not responsive, and I do not make here the accusation you refute.

Pastor Fienen:
Large scale convenient, legal abortion is an easy solution to what are sometimes difficult situations so long as you decide that inconvenient lives may be disposed with. Convicted mass murders deserve far more consideration, understanding, and sympathy in that world view, than do unborn babies that become disposable, or harvestable and monetized.
Me:
So I take it the answer is that you have had no long-term, varied experience with women considering abortion.

Pastor Fienen:
I could ask if you have every seen organizations devoted to helping mothers not abort their babies, or actually talked to (rather than talked at or down to) pro-life people, but I remember you have made it a policy not to talk abortion with those who aren't already in agreement with legal abortion, let the chips fall where they may. Much easier that way.
Me:
Then ask it. I have.
And Wrong again. That’s not my “policy.” But this modest and limited forum is perhaps the only place where I am not willing to discuss abortion in depth.
 
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Tom Eckstein on October 23, 2021, 02:49:28 PM
Pastor Fienen, how many women considering abortion have you met, prayed with, counseled, communed, or otherwise shared the experience? What experiences have your wife or daughter(if you have one) had with friends, co-workers, or children of friends considering whether to terminate a pregnancy? Were these experiences, if any, in the 1960s or early 1970s when abortions were difficult to obtain?
   Were the women involved too young to be a parent, too old for another child, too sick or too tired to rear another child or too poor to support another child. Were they too uneducated (or denied certain kinds of education) to even understand how they got pregnant?
    Adoption? Yes, an alternative, but have you discussed with women the physical, mental and social cost of that alternative?
    I ask because to me much of the posting on this subject by you and others here suggest that you are experientially clueless about the real-life, human aspect of this issue.
    Now if you are locked into THE pro-life formula (sperm+egg=human-being-with-inalienable-right-to-life), then I guess you are allowed to be clueless about the travails of the pregnant woman and the people around her.

Charles, the vast majority of pro-life people are very well aware of the challenges some women face when pregnant (although, sadly, some women simply deem their child as an inconvenience and would rather maintain their comfortable lifestyle instead of being responsible for their choice to have sex and make the sacrifices that every parent must make for their children).  As a result, the vast majority of pro-life people do many things to help women who are in a crisis pregnancy so that they can keep their child or give her up for adoption.  The vast majority of pro-life people help these women not only during their pregnancy but also after the child is born.

Here is a link to just one of many organizations that help women keep their chilidren - and my daughter, who lives in Fort Wayne where this organization is located, is very active in their ministry:  https://letthemlive.org/ (https://letthemlive.org/)

Having said that, the fact that our nation allows parents to hire someone to dismember their child in the womb simply because she is not wanted and deemed too much of a problem is pure evil - and anyone who supports such a law is supporting pure evil.

Charles, imagine a couple next door to you saying the following about their 2 week old baby:  "Having this baby is more stressful than we imagined and also more costly than we predicted.  With inflation we simply can't afford this baby not too mention our child is keeping us from pursuing our life goals.  So, thank God we live in a nation that allows us to hire someone to kill our child.  Anyone who would question our morality for doing this has no compassion for our situation and is a judgmental Pharisee!"   The same words are spoken very often by those who hire someone to dismember their child in the womb - the only difference is the residential location of the child, and a TEMPORARY residential location at that!
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 23, 2021, 03:47:54 PM
Pastor Eckstein, once again, I have to say that your language in the matter and the thoughts behind that language remain the reasons that I do not discuss abortion here. And I think your speculation on what parents might say indicates that you don’t have a lot of experience dealing with people considering the termination of a pregnancy.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Tom Eckstein on October 23, 2021, 03:54:43 PM
Pastor Eckstein, once again, I have to say that your language in the matter and the thoughts behind that language remain the reasons that I do not discuss abortion here. And I think your speculation on what parents might say indicates that you don’t have a lot of experience dealing with people considering the termination of a pregnancy.

Charles, the reason you don't want to discuss the reality of abortion is that you have no good arguments against an evil law that allows parents to hire someone to dismember their children in the womb or burn them with acid until they're dead.

As for my experience working with parents considering abortion, you have no clue of my ministry in this area after 30+ years being a pastor.  I have and continue to work with people who have a crisis pregnancy - and even though I'm well aware that some of them are facing difficulties in keeping this child, I lovingly make clear to them that killing their child is NOT an option for a Christian (and should not be allowed for ANYONE, Christian or not, in any civilized socieity!).  Our congregation offers help for parents facing a crisis pregnancy as well as helping parents whose children are already born but have legitimate financial needs.

So, go ahead a continue to suggest that pro-life people only care about babies in the womb and not after they're born.  Go ahead and justify your support of a law that allows parents to hire someone to kill their children.  Go ahead and keep on fooling yourself!
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 23, 2021, 03:58:32 PM
Q.E.D.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 23, 2021, 04:04:22 PM
Pastor Eckstein, once again, I have to say that your language in the matter and the thoughts behind that language remain the reasons that I do not discuss abortion here. And I think your speculation on what parents might say indicates that you don’t have a lot of experience dealing with people considering the termination of a pregnancy.

1. And yet you continue to post on the subject.  Every time it comes up.  Without fail.  Despite your repeated assertion that you do not, and will not, discuss it.
2. I would wager that Rev. Eckstein has had more pastoral experience in this than you.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Tom Eckstein on October 23, 2021, 04:09:02 PM
Q.E.D.

And my response to you is also Q.E.D.  You prove my point that you can't even begin to respond to pro-life arguments because you have no response.  You have no way to justify killing innocent children in the womb.  Even though being pregnant can be a challenge, no civilized society (much less a CHRISTIAN) should suggest killing a child as an option.  Instead, we support the mother through her pregnancy and then, if she and the father can't keep the child, we give the child up for adoption.  If you argue that adopting out their child can be emotionally difficult for the parents, that may be.  But their "emotional difficulty" does not trump the child's life!

Simply put, you have no good arguments that support killing a child in the womb simply because he or she is not wanted and would require some amount of sacrifice on the part of the parents.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 23, 2021, 04:13:57 PM
Not necessarily, and no.

In some elections, the position really has nothing to do with abortion, or the impact it may have is so slight while the impact on other issues of lesser importance than abortion might be great. So the fact that abortion is a worse societal ill than slavery might be outweighed by other considerations.


Peter, this demonstrates that either you're backpedaling from a previously held position or you have forgotten what you've written.  Here's what you wrote as clearly from your perspective as you could state it:  when pro-life voters who are Democrats vote for Democrats over Republicans, the effect of their vote is to advance the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause.  There is nothing in that sentence about "nothing to do with abortion" or "slight...impact."  It's clearly stated by you and stated by you in order to be clear.  Any vote for a Democrat over a Republican is an advance of the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause.

So - which is it?

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 23, 2021, 04:23:41 PM
Not necessarily, and no.

In some elections, the position really has nothing to do with abortion, or the impact it may have is so slight while the impact on other issues of lesser importance than abortion might be great. So the fact that abortion is a worse societal ill than slavery might be outweighed by other considerations.


Peter, this demonstrates that either you're backpedaling from a previously held position or you have forgotten what you've written.  Here's what you wrote as clearly from your perspective as you could state it:  when pro-life voters who are Democrats vote for Democrats over Republicans, the effect of their vote is to advance the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause.  There is nothing in that sentence about "nothing to do with abortion" or "slight...impact."  It's clearly stated by you and stated by you in order to be clear.  Any vote for a Democrat over a Republican is an advance of the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause.

So - which is it?

Dave Benke
Dave, your shtick is wearing thin. There is too much evidence out here that you aren’t as stupid as you try to pretend to be to get away with it. I stand by what I have posted and if you truly don’t get it, you’ll just have to not get it. Planned Parenthood and the DNC are thrilled with your dogged determination to equivocate. They know you are their ally even if you haven’t caught on yet.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 23, 2021, 06:37:21 PM
Not necessarily, and no.

In some elections, the position really has nothing to do with abortion, or the impact it may have is so slight while the impact on other issues of lesser importance than abortion might be great. So the fact that abortion is a worse societal ill than slavery might be outweighed by other considerations.


Peter, this demonstrates that either you're backpedaling from a previously held position or you have forgotten what you've written.  Here's what you wrote as clearly from your perspective as you could state it:  when pro-life voters who are Democrats vote for Democrats over Republicans, the effect of their vote is to advance the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause.  There is nothing in that sentence about "nothing to do with abortion" or "slight...impact."  It's clearly stated by you and stated by you in order to be clear.  Any vote for a Democrat over a Republican is an advance of the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause.

So - which is it?

Dave Benke
Dave, your shtick is wearing thin. There is too much evidence out here that you aren’t as stupid as you try to pretend to be to get away with it. I stand by what I have posted and if you truly don’t get it, you’ll just have to not get it. Planned Parenthood and the DNC are thrilled with your dogged determination to equivocate. They know you are their ally even if you haven’t caught on yet.

??  How about answering the question  I asked about what you wrote?   It is asked because you've been equivocating.  The information is in my post registered at 4:13:57 this afternoon.


Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 23, 2021, 11:04:57 PM
Talking with you is tiresome because you demand clarifications for obvious things that go without saying so that you can pinpoint exceptions, then use those exceptions to justify a denial of the basic premise. I stand by the statement in question. For clarification, I’m referring to American politics, not some other country in which a political party may also be called Democrats. When I say Democratic voters, I mean Americans who vote for Democrats in official elections, not merely people who participate in a democratic process by voting. And when I say vote for Democrats, I take for granted the obvious political context of Democrats typically running against Republicans. When I speak about pro-life and pro-choice candidates, it goes without saying among all people who aren’t deliberately being difficult that I mean in elections for offices that have something to do with the topic, not people running for local dog catcher who might be Democrats. And I’m using the terms to refer to the legality of abortion, not whether human life in general is something to be promoted or choice in the abstract is to be desired. You, in Stoffregian fashion, pretend not to know these things so that you can claim my point wasn’t clear or that I’m contradicting myself. It is a tedious game I don’t feel like playing. Again, I stand by my posts. If you don’t get it, you’ll just have to not get it. I would guess you’ve voted for the pro-choice ticket against the pro-life ticket in at least the last four presidential elections, and that you’ll continue your steak in 2024. I would be pleased to be wrong about that guess.

Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 23, 2021, 11:44:58 PM
Peter, tell me exactly how you think Republicans are going to fix your concerns about our current laws regarding abortion. What does the election of a local or state level, or maybe even a national level Republican have to do with that? Is it appointing judges? Is it writing laws?
Do you think that total, complete, unwaverable  “pro life“ candidates can dominate and win?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 24, 2021, 02:08:30 AM
Peter, tell me exactly how you think Republicans are going to fix your concerns about our current laws regarding abortion. What does the election of a local or state level, or maybe even a national level Republican have to do with that? Is it appointing judges? Is it writing laws?
Do you think that total, complete, unwaverable  “pro life“ candidates can dominate and win?


And what is meant by "pro-life"? For many people, it simply means being against abortions on demand. For others "pro-life" also includes universal health care, affordable day-care, paid parental leaves, living wages, etc. I don't find many Republicans willing to push for some things that are pro-life after a child is born.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 24, 2021, 08:16:21 AM
Peter, tell me exactly how you think Republicans are going to fix your concerns about our current laws regarding abortion. What does the election of a local or state level, or maybe even a national level Republican have to do with that? Is it appointing judges? Is it writing laws?
Do you think that total, complete, unwaverable  “pro life“ candidates can dominate and win?
Ask anyone who is passionately pro-choice. They don’t yawn and say, “whatever,” at news of the pro-life candidates I support. It isn’t just appointing judges, though that is a major part. The fiction of a constitutional right to abortion was foisted on the nation by judges, after all, not elected leaders. And it isn’t just the SCOTUS. Judges at every level play a role in shaping the framework of the debate. But apart from judges, policy makers at the state and federal level are important. Ask ten people-lifers and ten Planned Parenthood activists which state assembly is preferable, Texas or California on the issue of abortion, and none of them will be unable to decide or think state legislators are a largely irrelevant factor in the discussion. Funding for abortion clinics, how things are taught in the classroom, and as we’ve seen with Soros-backed local prosecutors, which protestors or crimes ever see a courtroom. It isn’t just a vote on whether abortion should be legal. It is things like where pro-lifers may demonstrate, whether doctors must give pregnant women full information about the life of the baby they’re considering terminating, whether people go to prison or get winked at when they sell aborted body parts on the black market, how fetal stem cells can or cannot be used in labs, and so forth.

So I can’t know every specific. I do know we live in a society in which the right to life is a matter of debate, and I think important that anyone involved in that debate consider the issues knowing that abortion is murder. For most people voting is about the extent of it beyond the circle of people they know.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 24, 2021, 09:55:05 AM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 24, 2021, 11:54:44 AM
Talking with you is tiresome because you demand clarifications for obvious things that go without saying so that you can pinpoint exceptions, then use those exceptions to justify a denial of the basic premise. I stand by the statement in question. For clarification, I’m referring to American politics, not some other country in which a political party may also be called Democrats. When I say Democratic voters, I mean Americans who vote for Democrats in official elections, not merely people who participate in a democratic process by voting. And when I say vote for Democrats, I take for granted the obvious political context of Democrats typically running against Republicans. When I speak about pro-life and pro-choice candidates, it goes without saying among all people who aren’t deliberately being difficult that I mean in elections for offices that have something to do with the topic, not people running for local dog catcher who might be Democrats. And I’m using the terms to refer to the legality of abortion, not whether human life in general is something to be promoted or choice in the abstract is to be desired. You, in Stoffregian fashion, pretend not to know these things so that you can claim my point wasn’t clear or that I’m contradicting myself. It is a tedious game I don’t feel like playing. Again, I stand by my posts. If you don’t get it, you’ll just have to not get it. I would guess you’ve voted for the pro-choice ticket against the pro-life ticket in at least the last four presidential elections, and that you’ll continue your steak in 2024. I would be pleased to be wrong about that guess.

Even with the excessive attributions concerning me and the churlish ending, your post is helpful.  I don't know how or where you put responses online, but they can seem disjointed.  If you say a Democrat who votes for a Democrat always advances the pro-choice agenda, that's just plain wrong, and yet you said it over and over, until you didn't and adjusted your response.  I simply decided to try to follow a full thread of your responses, which led to continued questions.  You "stand by" your posts, which I see now means you stand by the last version of your posts, which was different from the earlier ones.  That's good.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 24, 2021, 02:43:42 PM
I see the moderator (I am assuming Rev. Johnson) is again protecting Rev. Austin.  Deleting others' posts but leaving his.  Nice.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 24, 2021, 02:49:23 PM
Talking with you is tiresome because you demand clarifications for obvious things that go without saying so that you can pinpoint exceptions, then use those exceptions to justify a denial of the basic premise. I stand by the statement in question. For clarification, I’m referring to American politics, not some other country in which a political party may also be called Democrats. When I say Democratic voters, I mean Americans who vote for Democrats in official elections, not merely people who participate in a democratic process by voting. And when I say vote for Democrats, I take for granted the obvious political context of Democrats typically running against Republicans. When I speak about pro-life and pro-choice candidates, it goes without saying among all people who aren’t deliberately being difficult that I mean in elections for offices that have something to do with the topic, not people running for local dog catcher who might be Democrats. And I’m using the terms to refer to the legality of abortion, not whether human life in general is something to be promoted or choice in the abstract is to be desired. You, in Stoffregian fashion, pretend not to know these things so that you can claim my point wasn’t clear or that I’m contradicting myself. It is a tedious game I don’t feel like playing. Again, I stand by my posts. If you don’t get it, you’ll just have to not get it. I would guess you’ve voted for the pro-choice ticket against the pro-life ticket in at least the last four presidential elections, and that you’ll continue your steak in 2024. I would be pleased to be wrong about that guess.

Even with the excessive attributions concerning me and the churlish ending, your post is helpful.  I don't know how or where you put responses online, but they can seem disjointed.  If you say a Democrat who votes for a Democrat always advances the pro-choice agenda, that's just plain wrong, and yet you said it over and over, until you didn't and adjusted your response.  I simply decided to try to follow a full thread of your responses, which led to continued questions.  You "stand by" your posts, which I see now means you stand by the last version of your posts, which was different from the earlier ones.  That's good.

Dave Benke
No, the posts said the same thing, but with several unnecessary objections and demands for clarification. If I said men are bigger than women, then after ten objections I explained what I meant, the final explanation would say the same thing. Votes for Democrats (with a thousand obvious, taken for granted caveats that merit no mention among people interested in the point) are votes that advance the pro-choice position even if the voter and the politician being voted for are pro-life.

This has not always been true. It is true today. Go back thirty-plus years and both Clinton and Gore were pro-lifers until they ran on a national ticket, and they ran against Bush, who was pro-choice until he ran on a national ticket. The issue was not always nearly so completely and neatly partisan. But it is now. Pro-choice Republicans advance the pro-life cause when they vote for the GOP, and pro-life Democrats advance the pro-choice cause when they vote for Democrats.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 24, 2021, 02:58:44 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dave Benke on October 24, 2021, 03:09:46 PM
No, the posts said the same thing, but with several unnecessary objections and demands for clarification.

You're going to stay with that, and I'm going to say the requests for clarification were warranted, and eventually you actually began to clarify. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 24, 2021, 03:13:18 PM
No, the posts said the same thing, but with several unnecessary objections and demands for clarification.

You're going to stay with that, and I'm going to say the requests for clarification were warranted, and eventually you actually began to clarify. 

Dave Benke
Fair enough. Shouldn’t have needed to clarify, but I’m glad you found it helpful.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 24, 2021, 03:22:36 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 24, 2021, 05:36:36 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: The Yak on October 24, 2021, 06:21:15 PM
Q.E.D.

And my response to you is also Q.E.D.  You prove my point that you can't even begin to respond to pro-life arguments because you have no response.  You have no way to justify killing innocent children in the womb.  Even though being pregnant can be a challenge, no civilized society (much less a CHRISTIAN) should suggest killing a child as an option.  Instead, we support the mother through her pregnancy and then, if she and the father can't keep the child, we give the child up for adoption.  If you argue that adopting out their child can be emotionally difficult for the parents, that may be.  But their "emotional difficulty" does not trump the child's life!

Simply put, you have no good arguments that support killing a child in the womb simply because he or she is not wanted and would require some amount of sacrifice on the part of the parents.

Indeed, Tom.  Q.E.D.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 24, 2021, 07:29:11 PM
The interesting question that misses the point is how often we counsel women considering an abortion and what we say. It ignores the teaching aspect of the pastoral office. If the woman has been taught and nurtured in the faith by Christian preaching and teaching, she already knows she isn’t having an abortion when she goes to the pastor unless to ask about some unusual complication of the matter. She needs counsel, aid, emotional support through a difficult time, and in some cases absolution and assurance of God’s grace. But going to the pastor for help deciding whether or not to get an abortion would be something that doesn’t enter it. Just because she has a legal choice doesn’t mean she has a moral choice.

Every year I go over this exact scenario individually in my office with every confirmand, boys and girls. We talk about being sinners, the messed up world, the unforeseen difficulties, etc. and always tell them that I don’t expect it to be them, but it has been known to happen that someone I’ve confirmed calls me for help because she has gotten pregnant or he’s gotten his girlfriend pregnant. When that happens, all the things we talk about in class come into play— repentance and faith, the promise of God’s presence, the need for a church family and community, and so forth. But the world will have an easy way out that problem— pay for an abortion and move on. Christians, however, do not have that option (we cover the rate exceptional circumstances occupying Brian’s mind right now in class), so as a church family we rally to help however we can, if even by helping arrange an adoption. I then have the same discussion again (it is part of a 45 minute one in one discussion) with the parents present. So there are no surprises and no ignorance of the matter. Killing the child is not a Christian solution to a problem pregnancy.

I know my parishioners struggle with many sins. But when I counsel them, it isn’t about whether to commit the sins or not. I’ve counseled many people concerning pornography, for example, but they don’t come to me asking for help deciding whether they should look at pornography. They know the answer to that question already. They’ve been taught right from wrong. They need encouragement, guidance, assurance, and forgiveness to help them on their Christian walk. If they came for help determining whether or not to hire strippers for a party, I would not consider it a success if I talked them out of it. I would consider it a major failure of the preaching a d teaching office that it was a question in my member’s mind.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 24, 2021, 07:48:05 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 24, 2021, 08:30:45 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 24, 2021, 08:36:05 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.


Yes, and so is eating steaks, and bacon, and every other form of meat. Although, killing dogs, horses, cats, or rats for food seems unacceptable. (I used "little toe," because that contains human DNA. Weeds, and livestock do not.)
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Steven W Bohler on October 24, 2021, 08:48:25 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.


Yes, and so is eating steaks, and bacon, and every other form of meat. Although, killing dogs, horses, cats, or rats for food seems unacceptable. (I used "little toe," because that contains human DNA. Weeds, and livestock do not.)

Does your toe possess its own, unique DNA?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 24, 2021, 08:50:05 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.


Yes, and so is eating steaks, and bacon, and every other form of meat. Although, killing dogs, horses, cats, or rats for food seems unacceptable. (I used "little toe," because that contains human DNA. Weeds, and livestock do not.)
A couple come into your office, Brian, she,just had a miscarriage.  What do you say to them? Why should they be so upset? After all what they lost wasn't really human, just some tissue, like loosing a little toe.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 24, 2021, 08:54:18 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.


Yes, and so is eating steaks, and bacon, and every other form of meat. Although, killing dogs, horses, cats, or rats for food seems unacceptable. (I used "little toe," because that contains human DNA. Weeds, and livestock do not.)
A couple come into your office, Brian, she,just had a miscarriage.  What do you say to them? Why should they be so upset? After all what they lost wasn't really human, just some tissue, like loosing a little toe.
That’s one truly obscene byproduct of such glib equivocation. You have to tell one person she just did the equivalent of getting a wart removed and the next person that she has lost a child. Eventually you just give up trying to make sense and start spouting nonsense.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 24, 2021, 10:00:06 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."

Your alleged analogy is just plain stupid. Anyone with a HS level of biology sees the flaws in your argument.

A child in utero is a total organism. A toe is not. Leave the science to the grownups.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 25, 2021, 12:52:04 AM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.


Yes, and so is eating steaks, and bacon, and every other form of meat. Although, killing dogs, horses, cats, or rats for food seems unacceptable. (I used "little toe," because that contains human DNA. Weeds, and livestock do not.)

Does your toe possess its own, unique DNA?


No, my toe has my own DNA; but should I have a hand transplant, or any transplant, the cells in the transplant would have a different DNA than the rest of my body. Those transplanted cells only have "life" (the topic of discussion) because they are attached to my body.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 25, 2021, 01:00:16 AM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."

Your alleged analogy is just plain stupid. Anyone with a HS level of biology sees the flaws in your argument.

A child in utero is a total organism. A toe is not. Leave the science to the grownups.


Not only did I receive an "A" in my college biology class, I had the highest point total in the class. I'm not making an analogy, but illustrating the complexities of talking about "life" - the topic of discussion, according to Peter.


Is my toe alive when attached to my body and dead should it be disconnected?


Consider also Ezekiel 37


4 He said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, Dry bones, hear the Lord’s word! 5 The Lord God proclaims to these bones: I am about to put breath in you, and you will live again. 6 I will put sinews on you, place flesh on you, and cover you with skin. When I put breath in you, and you come to life, you will know that I am the Lord.”


It is clear in these verses that it is having breath that makes the bones live again. It is not bones, sinews, flesh, or even DNA, that determines life in this picture, but breath.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 25, 2021, 08:19:15 AM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 25, 2021, 09:24:33 AM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."

Your alleged analogy is just plain stupid. Anyone with a HS level of biology sees the flaws in your argument.

A child in utero is a total organism. A toe is not. Leave the science to the grownups.


Not only did I receive an "A" in my college biology class, I had the highest point total in the class. I'm not making an analogy, but illustrating the complexities of talking about "life" - the topic of discussion, according to Peter.


Is my toe alive when attached to my body and dead should it be disconnected?


Consider also Ezekiel 37


4 He said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, Dry bones, hear the Lord’s word! 5 The Lord God proclaims to these bones: I am about to put breath in you, and you will live again. 6 I will put sinews on you, place flesh on you, and cover you with skin. When I put breath in you, and you come to life, you will know that I am the Lord.”


It is clear in these verses that it is having breath that makes the bones live again. It is not bones, sinews, flesh, or even DNA, that determines life in this picture, but breath.

You went where? Some pissant Bible college, right?

You took an intro course and scored high on multiple guess. So what?

I have watched you make idiotic statements on various topics where I have a modicum of competency. And so I am going to be like Enrico Fermi who in reading newspapers came to realize that since they wrote with authority but no accuracy on matters where he knew them to be wrong, began to ask why would they be any more correct in other matters.

If I cannot trust you to get right a matter of fact self evident to a HS graduate, why would I believe you on matters like the Scriptures and biblical languages?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 25, 2021, 09:55:21 AM
Political Parties stand for many things and propose many policies and programs. No individual will support everything that their party stands for or reject everything of the opposing party. The decision to support one party and oppose the other will always involve going against their party on certain issues. One simply must decide where one's priorities lie, and if one aligns with one party over the other at times hold their nose as their chosen party supports some things that they personally oppose, or even go against their party on those things.


Thus, pro-life Democrats may support most of what the Democratic Party supports while being in dissent on certain life issues. With pro-life Democratic citizens, that means sometimes supporting candidates whose stance on life issues is opposed to their own because that candidates stance on other issues out weighs that factor. Pro-life Democratic politicians will need to decide whether or not party loyalty demands going against their personal beliefs when the Party supports abortion. In any case, being a pro-life Democrat is neither easy nor comfortable.


Where the Democratic Party has chosen to make its stand is stated in their own words in the section of the 2020 Democratic Platform dealing with abortion:


Quote
2020 Democratic Party Platform on abortion: Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice

Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We will repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides vital preventive and reproductive health care for millions of people, especially low-income people, and people of color, and LGBTQ+ people, including in underserved areas.

Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights. We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify the right to reproductive freedom. We condemn acts of violence, harassment, and intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff. We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful access to reproductive health care services, including those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, income, disability, geography, and other factors. Democrats oppose restrictions on medication abortion care that are inconsistent with the most recent medical and scientific evidence and that do not protect public health.

We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care; medically accurate, LGBTQ+ inclusive, age-appropriate sex education; and the full range of family planning services are all essential to ensuring that people can decide if, when, and how to start a family. We are proud to be the party of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex and requires insurers to cover prescription contraceptives at no cost. These efforts have significantly reduced teen and unintended pregnancies by making it easier to decide whether, when, and how to have a child.

We believe that a person’s health should always come first. Democrats will protect the rights of all people to make personal health care decisions, and will reject the Trump Administration’s use of broad exemptions to allow medical providers, employers, and others to discriminate.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 25, 2021, 06:38:46 PM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 25, 2021, 06:42:04 PM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).
Another response typical of your level of understanding and worthy of the Babylon Bee.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 25, 2021, 06:45:25 PM
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."

Your alleged analogy is just plain stupid. Anyone with a HS level of biology sees the flaws in your argument.

A child in utero is a total organism. A toe is not. Leave the science to the grownups.


Not only did I receive an "A" in my college biology class, I had the highest point total in the class. I'm not making an analogy, but illustrating the complexities of talking about "life" - the topic of discussion, according to Peter.


Is my toe alive when attached to my body and dead should it be disconnected?


Consider also Ezekiel 37


4 He said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, Dry bones, hear the Lord’s word! 5 The Lord God proclaims to these bones: I am about to put breath in you, and you will live again. 6 I will put sinews on you, place flesh on you, and cover you with skin. When I put breath in you, and you come to life, you will know that I am the Lord.”


It is clear in these verses that it is having breath that makes the bones live again. It is not bones, sinews, flesh, or even DNA, that determines life in this picture, but breath.

You went where? Some pissant Bible college, right?


Nope. The biology class was at Concordia Jr. College in Portland. I did attend the Lutheran Bible Institute in Seattle before Concordia. At that time, it wasn't accredited, nor was it a college. They didn't offer any degrees. We mostly studied the Bible. (A few years later, they connected with a college and began offering a degree program; and ended up morphing into Trinity Lutheran College, which recently ceased to exist; but that was long after I had attended.)

Quote
If I cannot trust you to get right a matter of fact self evident to a HS graduate, why would I believe you on matters like the Scriptures and biblical languages?


Please tell me what I didn't get right. Does Ezekiel indicate that life begins when the breath enters the body or not? Is my toe alive when attached to my body or not? Does it die when disconnected from my body or not? Where am I wrong in these statements?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 25, 2021, 06:46:10 PM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).
Another response typical of your level of understanding and worthy of the Babylon Bee.


I keep hoping that you'll come up to my level of understanding.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 25, 2021, 06:59:17 PM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).
Another response typical of your level of understanding and worthy of the Babylon Bee.

I keep hoping that you'll come up to my level of understanding.

Yup! That's what we aspire to do.   ::)    Analogizing a baby in the womb to your little toe. Next you'll be citing Matt 5:30 as support for abortion! Finding an equivalency between butchering an unborn child and butchering cattle.

Lord have mercy!
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 25, 2021, 07:26:21 PM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).
Another response typical of your level of understanding and worthy of the Babylon Bee.


I keep hoping that you'll come up to my level of understanding.
Your hopes might be dashed by your faulty sense of direction.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 25, 2021, 07:52:51 PM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).
Another response typical of your level of understanding and worthy of the Babylon Bee.

I keep hoping that you'll come up to my level of understanding.

Yup! That's what we aspire to do.   ::)    Analogizing a baby in the womb to your little toe. Next you'll be citing Matt 5:30 as support for abortion! Finding an equivalency between butchering an unborn child and butchering cattle.

Lord have mercy!


Peter said the discussion was about life; but you keep snapping back to abortion. What do you want to discuss?


I'd be more likely to bring in Matthew 5:22 when you want to talk about murder.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 25, 2021, 08:02:59 PM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).
Another response typical of your level of understanding and worthy of the Babylon Bee.

I keep hoping that you'll come up to my level of understanding.

Yup! That's what we aspire to do.   ::)    Analogizing a baby in the womb to your little toe. Next you'll be citing Matt 5:30 as support for abortion! Finding an equivalency between butchering an unborn child and butchering cattle.

Lord have mercy!


Peter said the discussion was about life; but you keep snapping back to abortion. What do you want to discuss?


I'd be more likely to bring in Matthew 5:22 when you want to talk about murder.
So you think reflections of a pro-life Democrat was a thread devoted to the distinction between the organic and inorganic generally? Wait, don't answer that. It's too depressing to think about. 
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 25, 2021, 08:48:04 PM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).
Another response typical of your level of understanding and worthy of the Babylon Bee.

I keep hoping that you'll come up to my level of understanding.

Yup! That's what we aspire to do.   ::)    Analogizing a baby in the womb to your little toe. Next you'll be citing Matt 5:30 as support for abortion! Finding an equivalency between butchering an unborn child and butchering cattle.

Lord have mercy!


Peter said the discussion was about life; but you keep snapping back to abortion. What do you want to discuss?

I'd be more likely to bring in Matthew 5:22 when you want to talk about murder.

Peter wanted to talk about life, and you sneered about things that are alive but are okay to butcher and  kill, like toes and cattle and unborn babies in the womb.

Your posts manifest one cynical,  cold ---, Brian.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: DeHall1 on October 25, 2021, 11:14:18 PM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).

Do you know anyone that’s lost a child?  Did you tell them it was like losing a toe?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 26, 2021, 02:30:05 AM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).

Do you know anyone that’s lost a child?  Did you tell them it was like losing a toe?


Yes, I've known parents who have lost children? Even parents when one child caused an accident that killed a sibling. No, it's not like losing a toe.


The topic was "life". What makes something alive? For about the first 20 weeks of a fetus, it is alive because it is attached to the mother; in a similar way my little toe is alive because it is attached to the rest of me. If the fertilized egg (yes, it is living,) but if it does not attach to the mother, it will die. If it is disconnected from the mother through natural or artificial means, it will die. For those 20 weeks, it cannot sustain life for itself separated from the mother.



Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: David Garner on October 26, 2021, 07:26:40 AM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).

Do you know anyone that’s lost a child?  Did you tell them it was like losing a toe?


Yes, I've known parents who have lost children? Even parents when one child caused an accident that killed a sibling. No, it's not like losing a toe.


The topic was "life". What makes something alive? For about the first 20 weeks of a fetus, it is alive because it is attached to the mother; in a similar way my little toe is alive because it is attached to the rest of me. If the fertilized egg (yes, it is living,) but if it does not attach to the mother, it will die. If it is disconnected from the mother through natural or artificial means, it will die. For those 20 weeks, it cannot sustain life for itself separated from the mother.

You're smarter than this, which is why most of us consider you a sophist.

At some point in time, does your toe become capable of sustaining life as a separate, distinct and whole organism?

At about 20 weeks, does the "fetus" change into something else substantively, or is it the same organism it was for approximately the first 20 weeks?

What you are advocating is killing people based on their age.  You couch it as if it is dependency that is at issue, but the truth is if you remove the "fetus" from its mother at 21 weeks, and do nothing else, the "fetus" will die.  So it isn't dependency that is at issue.  You've simply adopted that arbitrary standard because the Supreme Court was damn fool enough to endorse it and it's what allows you to continue to advocate for the legality of child killing.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: David Garner on October 26, 2021, 07:28:34 AM
What's completely ironic is you are so eager to tout modern "scholarship" about what the Bible means, what its authors believed, etc., but you refuse to question 50 year old science that has CLEARLY been rendered obsolete.  You stubbornly cling to flawed embryology from 1973 to support your political team's high holy sacrament.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 26, 2021, 06:38:37 PM
One of my favorite organizations, Secular Pro-Life, is looking at some signage that knocks holes in the toe argument.

Abort Roe v. Wade
It’s just a clump of words.

Interesting organization. Pro-Life based on real science and biology.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 27, 2021, 03:05:30 AM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).

Do you know anyone that’s lost a child?  Did you tell them it was like losing a toe?


Yes, I've known parents who have lost children? Even parents when one child caused an accident that killed a sibling. No, it's not like losing a toe.


The topic was "life". What makes something alive? For about the first 20 weeks of a fetus, it is alive because it is attached to the mother; in a similar way my little toe is alive because it is attached to the rest of me. If the fertilized egg (yes, it is living,) but if it does not attach to the mother, it will die. If it is disconnected from the mother through natural or artificial means, it will die. For those 20 weeks, it cannot sustain life for itself separated from the mother.

You're smarter than this, which is why most of us consider you a sophist.

At some point in time, does your toe become capable of sustaining life as a separate, distinct and whole organism?

At about 20 weeks, does the "fetus" change into something else substantively, or is it the same organism it was for approximately the first 20 weeks?

What you are advocating is killing people based on their age.  You couch it as if it is dependency that is at issue, but the truth is if you remove the "fetus" from its mother at 21 weeks, and do nothing else, the "fetus" will die.  So it isn't dependency that is at issue.  You've simply adopted that arbitrary standard because the Supreme Court was damn fool enough to endorse it and it's what allows you to continue to advocate for the legality of child killing.


Where have I said anything about killing the life growing in the mother? The discussion is life. I believe that from the beginning of the abortion discussions and decisions, there was a distinction between viable and non-viable. There are at least these two different types of lives of the fetus. "Viability" and "viable" are words used in our Social Statement on Abortion. It defines it: The fetus becomes viable when it is capable of surviving disconnected from the placenta.

They are both used in a summary statement of our church's position:

The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women. On the other hand, this church supports legislation that prohibits abortions that are performed after the fetus is determined to be viable, except when the mother’s life is threatened or when lethal abnormalities indicate the prospective newborn will die very soon.


Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: David Garner on October 27, 2021, 06:56:07 AM
So you say nothing of “killing the life growing in the mother.”

It’s just that you use “viability” (a moving standard and one that makes no logical sense) to set the line for when abortion is allowed.

What does abortion do again?

You’re smarter than this. And your bigger problem is this — we are too.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: D. Engebretson on October 27, 2021, 09:26:41 AM
Where have I said anything about killing the life growing in the mother? The discussion is life. I believe that from the beginning of the abortion discussions and decisions, there was a distinction between viable and non-viable. There are at least these two different types of lives of the fetus. "Viability" and "viable" are words used in our Social Statement on Abortion. It defines it: The fetus becomes viable when it is capable of surviving disconnected from the placenta.

They are both used in a summary statement of our church's position:

The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women. On the other hand, this church supports legislation that prohibits abortions that are performed after the fetus is determined to be viable, except when the mother’s life is threatened or when lethal abnormalities indicate the prospective newborn will die very soon.

I have always thought that such 'definitions' of 'viable' life have broader ramifications than just preborn life.  The terminations of a life can happen if it comes about from a violent, sinful act.  The termination of a life can happen if it has abnormalities that may or may not lead to death.  And adding to the what was stated above, life can be defined as that which is not dependent on anything or anyone else. 

How does any of that differ essentially from terminating a life on the other end of the age spectrum, or anywhere in between?  For some it doesn't.  Assisted a suicide, made so popular by the late Dr. Jack Kavorkian, helped people take their own lives even if they were suffering from non-lethal problems.  Life no longer had 'viability' for the person if there was pain or disability, etc. What about the practices of active euthanasia in some countries?  "Persistent vegetative state" is considered a legitimate reason to terminate a life.  It is no longer viable.  But that line of viability is moveable.  How far can it move before it  becomes murder?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 27, 2021, 09:41:54 AM
Words have a range of meanings and applications. Everyone knows that and manages to communicate without confusion going about their daily lives. If I ask my son to set this on the table and he takes it over to the couch and puts on a book open to the table of contents, I know he is being a smart aleck no matter much he protests that his action was well within the acceptable definitions of the words in my instructions. When it is my son, I can tell him to shape up. When it is a grown man I’ve never met who consistently does the same thing with words in this forum, I can ignore him, refute him, or play his stupid games for a while in order to demonstrate the absurdity of his approach, but those are about the only options.

When the topic is reflections of a pro-life Democrat, nobody is confused as to what the word “life” refers to. Not even Brian. The moronic diversions into severed toes, meat-eating, etc. demonstrates either his inability to understand what is easily understood or his willingness to obfuscate to avoid actual discussion.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 27, 2021, 10:37:29 AM
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).

Do you know anyone that’s lost a child?  Did you tell them it was like losing a toe?


Yes, I've known parents who have lost children? Even parents when one child caused an accident that killed a sibling. No, it's not like losing a toe.


The topic was "life". What makes something alive? For about the first 20 weeks of a fetus, it is alive because it is attached to the mother; in a similar way my little toe is alive because it is attached to the rest of me. If the fertilized egg (yes, it is living,) but if it does not attach to the mother, it will die. If it is disconnected from the mother through natural or artificial means, it will die. For those 20 weeks, it cannot sustain life for itself separated from the mother.

You're smarter than this, which is why most of us consider you a sophist.

At some point in time, does your toe become capable of sustaining life as a separate, distinct and whole organism?

At about 20 weeks, does the "fetus" change into something else substantively, or is it the same organism it was for approximately the first 20 weeks?

What you are advocating is killing people based on their age.  You couch it as if it is dependency that is at issue, but the truth is if you remove the "fetus" from its mother at 21 weeks, and do nothing else, the "fetus" will die.  So it isn't dependency that is at issue.  You've simply adopted that arbitrary standard because the Supreme Court was damn fool enough to endorse it and it's what allows you to continue to advocate for the legality of child killing.


Where have I said anything about killing the life growing in the mother? The discussion is life. I believe that from the beginning of the abortion discussions and decisions, there was a distinction between viable and non-viable. There are at least these two different types of lives of the fetus. "Viability" and "viable" are words used in our Social Statement on Abortion. It defines it: The fetus becomes viable when it is capable of surviving disconnected from the placenta.

They are both used in a summary statement of our church's position:

The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women. On the other hand, this church supports legislation that prohibits abortions that are performed after the fetus is determined to be viable, except when the mother’s life is threatened or when lethal abnormalities indicate the prospective newborn will die very soon.

The ELCA is condemned by its own stance. If a man were convicted of a series of crimes that included a rape leading to impregnating, and found guilty and sentenced to death, the ELCA would bring its resources to bear to fight against the execution of that criminal. But it has no problem whatsoever in killing a child, one of whose parents is a criminal. That is disgustingly hypocritical.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Charles Austin on October 27, 2021, 10:49:11 AM
Father Hummel:
with rather little respect, I suggest that your comments are extremely destructive of our effort to find some kind of inter-Lutheran association here. You left the ELCA and now you are elsewhere. Coming back here to vent your resentment and bile does not help us and I doubt you’re convincing anybody.
Do you enjoy pouring burning oil on our already troubled times?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 27, 2021, 12:15:39 PM
So you say nothing of “killing the life growing in the mother.”

It’s just that you use “viability” (a moving standard and one that makes no logical sense) to set the line for when abortion is allowed.

What does abortion do again?

You’re smarter than this. And your bigger problem is this — we are too.


The recent thread is about "life," not about abortion. Abortion kills a living fetus. Happy now?


A poll I just read indicated that a majority of Americas are in the messy middle of this debate. As I recall the number 50% thought that abortions should be legal, but limited. Fewer thought they should all be illegal or open to anyone who wanted.


I've stated and copied our church's position that an abortion may be a responsible choice for three reasons:
1. to save the life of the mother
2. when the mother had not choice in the pregnancy, i.e., through rape or incest
3. a fetal abnormality that will result in severe suffering and very early death


Do you disagree that an abortion may be a responsible choice in these circumstances?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 27, 2021, 12:22:40 PM
Words have a range of meanings and applications. Everyone knows that and manages to communicate without confusion going about their daily lives. If I ask my son to set this on the table and he takes it over to the couch and puts on a book open to the table of contents, I know he is being a smart aleck no matter much he protests that his action was well within the acceptable interrogations of the words in my instructions. When it is my son, I can tell him to shape up. When it is a grown man I’ve never met who consistently does the same thing with words in this forum, I can ignore him, refute him, or play his stupid games for a while in order to demonstrate the absurdity of his approach, but those are about the only options.

When the topic is reflections of a pro-life Democrat, nobody is confused as to what the word “life” refers to. Not even Brian. The moronic diversions into severed toes, meat-eating, etc. demonstrates either his inability to understand what is easily understood or his willingness to obfuscate to avoid actual discussion.


Yes, there is a lot of confusion about what "life" means in the phrase "pro-life." For many, it seems to mean "pro-birth." They want legislation that forces a pregnant woman to give birth to the child within her. Such "pro-lifers" are not concerned about legislations that would help care for the life of that child after it is born. Some even work against legislation that would provide free child-care, parental leaves, adequate pay (especially for women), etc.


It's also confusing because seldom do "pro-life" folks talk about the life of the mother-to-be. Some present her as a mindless slut who shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place and now she is using "murdering" her child as a method of birth control.


It's clear in the discussions that you don't fall into such a narrow definition of "pro-birth/life" category. You are concerned about the life of the mother and her child. I don't hear that from all pro-lifers.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 27, 2021, 12:29:28 PM
Words have a range of meanings and applications. Everyone knows that and manages to communicate without confusion going about their daily lives. If I ask my son to set this on the table and he takes it over to the couch and puts on a book open to the table of contents, I know he is being a smart aleck no matter much he protests that his action was well within the acceptable interrogations of the words in my instructions. When it is my son, I can tell him to shape up. When it is a grown man I’ve never met who consistently does the same thing with words in this forum, I can ignore him, refute him, or play his stupid games for a while in order to demonstrate the absurdity of his approach, but those are about the only options.

When the topic is reflections of a pro-life Democrat, nobody is confused as to what the word “life” refers to. Not even Brian. The moronic diversions into severed toes, meat-eating, etc. demonstrates either his inability to understand what is easily understood or his willingness to obfuscate to avoid actual discussion.


Yes, there is a lot of confusion about what "life" means in the phrase "pro-life." For many, it seems to mean "pro-birth." They want legislation that forces a pregnant woman to give birth to the child within her. Such "pro-lifers" are not concerned about legislations that would help care for the life of that child after it is born. Some even work against legislation that would provide free child-care, parental leaves, adequate pay (especially for women), etc.


It's also confusing because seldom do "pro-life" folks talk about the life of the mother-to-be. Some present her as a mindless slut who shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place and now she is using "murdering" her child as a method of birth control.


It's clear in the discussions that you don't fall into such a narrow definition of "pro-birth/life" category. You are concerned about the life of the mother and her child. I don't hear that from all pro-lifers.
So you've heard that there exist pro-lifers not on this forum who are mean and don't care about women. Whether that is true or not, it is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact is you just started playing around with the the word "life" in utterly nonsensical ways.
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Pastor Ken Kimball on October 27, 2021, 01:00:49 PM
Father Hummel:
with rather little respect, I suggest that your comments are extremely destructive of our effort to find some kind of inter-Lutheran association here. You left the ELCA and now you are elsewhere. Coming back here to vent your resentment and bile does not help us and I doubt you’re convincing anybody.
Do you enjoy pouring burning oil on our already troubled times?
Trying to run off Father Hummel, Pastor Austin?  Similar to your responses to our Orthodox brethren posting here.   So much for your "ecumenism."   As far as inter-Lutheran, you have followed the same MO towards NALC and LCMC posters.  Similarly towards conservative LCMS folks, including your regular antagonism toward Pastor Speckhard and your thinly veiled (well okay actually pretty open) calls for his removal as moderator.  I suspect I could find (if I wished to waste my time) similar sentiments by you towards Pastor Culler and the Lutheran body to which he belongs. And you haven't been very welcoming to those ELCA pastors and posters of a more traditional or conservative bent, e.g. Pastor Charlton.  It seems to me that you narrowly define "inter-Lutheran" by the main-stream of the shrinking and progressively dominated ELCA.  You do realize there are already such forums for the ELCA on facebook and other places.  If you don't you should check them out--seems they should be more amenable to the positions you assert but don't want to have to defend against those who hold different positions from yourself.  Yes I know there's a thread for this but you keep trying to drive off others (and try to undermine Pastor Speckhard and influence ALPB leadership to remove him as moderator) across a variety of threads.  With Pastor Preuss, though perhaps not as often, I appreciate at least some of your posts, respecting them even if disagreeing, when you actually attempt to make substantive points.  Those posts are in sharp contrast to posts like this response to Father Hummel where you simply resort to bullying and try to drive others off this Forum. 
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 27, 2021, 08:31:02 PM
So you say nothing of “killing the life growing in the mother.”

It’s just that you use “viability” (a moving standard and one that makes no logical sense) to set the line for when abortion is allowed.

What does abortion do again?

You’re smarter than this. And your bigger problem is this — we are too.


The recent thread is about "life," not about abortion. Abortion kills a living fetus. Happy now?


A poll I just read indicated that a majority of Americas are in the messy middle of this debate. As I recall the number 50% thought that abortions should be legal, but limited. Fewer thought they should all be illegal or open to anyone who wanted.


I've stated and copied our church's position that an abortion may be a responsible choice for three reasons:
1. to save the life of the mother
2. when the mother had not choice in the pregnancy, i.e., through rape or incest
3. a fetal abnormality that will result in severe suffering and very early death


Do you disagree that an abortion may be a responsible choice in these circumstances?

1) I have seen sloppy medicine because the OBs can always kill the kid, instead of dealing with the mother’s health issue, so… No

2) I was unaware that we got to kill the children of criminals for the crime/sin of being the children of criminals, so… No

3) I have experienced counseling a family towards Life when the doctors said “horrible defect/early death/all that garbage you spewed. They chose life. Baby’s Apgars were like 8.5 and 9.5. Doctors response? “Oops. We were wrong.” If the ELCA opposes the death penalty because innocent people may be killed, why would anyone support this ? So,… No.

There was a time when pretty much all Americans thought it was OK to own [terrible racial epithet]s as property. Do you REALLY want to argue for morality by majority?
Title: Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 27, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
Father Hummel:
with rather little respect, I suggest that your comments are extremely destructive of our effort to find some kind of inter-Lutheran association here. You left the ELCA and now you are elsewhere. Coming back here to vent your resentment and bile does not help us and I doubt you’re convincing anybody.
Do you enjoy pouring burning oil on our already troubled times?
Trying to run off Father Hummel, Pastor Austin?  Similar to your responses to our Orthodox brethren posting here.   So much for your "ecumenism."   As far as inter-Lutheran, you have followed the same MO towards NALC and LCMC posters.  Similarly towards conservative LCMS folks, including your regular antagonism toward Pastor Speckhard and your thinly veiled (well okay actually pretty open) calls for his removal as moderator.  I suspect I could find (if I wished to waste my time) similar sentiments by you towards Pastor Culler and the Lutheran body to which he belongs. And you haven't been very welcoming to those ELCA pastors and posters of a more traditional or conservative bent, e.g. Pastor Charlton.  It seems to me that you narrowly define "inter-Lutheran" by the main-stream of the shrinking and progressively dominated ELCA.  You do realize there are already such forums for the ELCA on facebook and other places.  If you don't you should check them out--seems they should be more amenable to the positions you assert but don't want to have to defend against those who hold different positions from yourself.  Yes I know there's a thread for this but you keep trying to drive off others (and try to undermine Pastor Speckhard and influence ALPB leadership to remove him as moderator) across a variety of threads.  With Pastor Preuss, though perhaps not as often, I appreciate at least some of your posts, respecting them even if disagreeing, when you actually attempt to make substantive points.  Those posts are in sharp contrast to posts like this response to Father Hummel where you simply resort to bullying and try to drive others off this Forum.

Pastor Kimball,

I thank you for coming to my defense. But the thing about bullies is that they actually have to be strong and scary and be able to threaten effectively. Mr. Austin’s fumings are, in fact, a source of amusement to me and to others. I always know when I have made a point when he refuses to engage the point and show me where I am wrong, and instead basically tells me I’m ugly and my mommy dresses me funny and no one wants me in the schoolyard.

In what way is the ELCA’s stance on capital punishment (with which, as a Catholic, I agree) NOT hypocritical when coupled with the support of the murder of a child conceived as part of a crime that earned the death sentence?

The issue is that he and Brian, and others of their ilk, and their use of fetus, as if it made a metaphysical difference. To deny the full humanity of an unborn child
1) denies basic science.
2) veers towards serious Christological error.

So, reason and faith lead me to by staunchly pro-life