Reflections of a pro-life Democrat

[Dan Fienen]

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:

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.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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).

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.)

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?

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

[Donald_Kirchner]

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_speckhard]

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.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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_speckhard]

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. 

[Donald_Kirchner]

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.

[DeHall1]

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?

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

[David Garner]

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.

[David Garner]

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.

[Matt Hummel]

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.