Reflections of a pro-life Democrat

[Tom Eckstein]

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.

[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.

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

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[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.

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

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[Charles Austin]

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?

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[Charles Austin]

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.

[Dave Benke]

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

[Steven W Bohler]

I see the moderator (I am assuming Rev. Johnson) is again protecting Rev. Austin.  Deleting others' posts but leaving his.  Nice.

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[Dave Benke]

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

[peter_speckhard]

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.