Religion Could Kill The GOP

[theal3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_188354.html

Steve Schmidt, McCain Campaign Manager said that.

IMHO the party is falling apart and only the Right remains.

"If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," Schmidt declared. "And in a free country, a political party cannot be viable in the long term if it is seen as a sectarian party."

[LisaM22]

yep, the religious right fanatics took over the party, they let it happen, they need to clean house, the majority of Americans will never support a theocracy, they may as well give it up

[bagerroness]

Originally Posted by theal3

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_188354.html

Steve Schmidt, McCain Campaign Manager said that.

IMHO the party is falling apart and only the Right remains.

"If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," Schmidt declared. "And in a free country, a political party cannot be viable in the long term if it is seen as a sectarian party."

At first I thought this could be a serious topic.. then I saw Huffington post which is so insignificant to any type of scholarly discussion.

[Details]

It's just the religion - it's the fact that it's the extreme versions of a few religions. If you look at the polls, most religious people actually are pro-choice, incredibly few support the Republican party line of no abortions ever (with requisite mocking of "health of the mother"). Most religious people are not into sticking their noses into other people's private lives, making laws that force people of other religions to obey some people's concept of Christianity. Judge not - a great many people live by that, follow the rules for themselves without needing to force others to do likewise, without being so positive they know God's mind that they can tell others what is absolutely right and wrong.

It's not religion that kills the GOP, it's the fact that they adopt such an extreme version of religion.

[Susan43]

Originally Posted by theal3

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_188354.html

Steve Schmidt, McCain Campaign Manager said that.

IMHO the party is falling apart and only the Right remains.

"If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," Schmidt declared. "And in a free country, a political party cannot be viable in the long term if it is seen as a sectarian party."

Steve Schmidt has a gay sister. So he knows from the inside (so to speak) how much the policies of the right can hurt a member of his own family.

I also found it interesting that he brought up Terri Schiavo. IMO the congress went nuts when they interferred with a personal family decision AND interferred with FL state law. I think it gave the country a good look at what could happen if we allowed a theocracy. I read he called it disasterous for the GOP and I think he's right. How can the party say they are for states rights when they not only interferred with FL rights AND sued to overturn OR death with dignity laws.

I think it's going to be very interesting to see if the right boils him in oil. LOL

[theal3]

Originally Posted by bagerroness

At first I thought this could be a serious topic.. then I saw Huffington post which is so insignificant to any type of scholarly discussion.

It's a credible source, HP, is and hosts all kinds of authors/reporters.
This author is a very credible writer:
Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is a graduate of Dartmouth College.

I don't agree with everything I read in Politico.com, a conservative, but credible site. It is a serious topic and it's been written about elsewhere, too. This was his report on what he observed.

[Details]

Originally Posted by Susan43

Steve Schmidt has a gay sister. So he knows from the inside (so to speak) how much the policies of the right can hurt a member of his own family.

I also found it interesting that he brought up Terri Schiavo. IMO the congress went nuts when they interferred with a personal family decision AND interferred with FL state law. I think it gave the country a good look at what could happen if we allowed a theocracy. I read he called it disasterous for the GOP and I think he's right. How can the party say they are for states rights when they not only interferred with FL rights AND sued to overturn OR death with dignity laws.

I think it's going to be very interesting to see if the right boils him in oil. LOL

With more and more of the right deciding it's time to speak out about the excesses of the extremes, they may soon not have enough people to boil the oil.

[theal3]

Originally Posted by Details

With more and more of the right deciding it's time to speak out about the excesses of the extremes, they may soon not have enough people to boil the oil.

And extremes on either side are not mainstream or main street. Consider how many moderate Dems in 2006 and more in 2008 who took seats by FRight Republicans -- and Obama won like 6 or 8 Red states that went for Bush two times in 2000 and 2004. Demographics by region and age are changing. And while there are organizations farther left than the party itself they are not entrenched in the part, like the RW church types of the Republican Party. The Dems remain a party of many many faiths and non-faiths, unlike the Republicans, where there seems to be a litmus test for being included or running for office.

Originally Posted by Details

It's just the religion - it's the fact that it's the extreme versions of a few religions. If you look at the polls, most religious people actually are pro-choice, incredibly few support the Republican party line of no abortions ever (with requisite mocking of "health of the mother"). Most religious people are not into sticking their noses into other people's private lives, making laws that force people of other religions to obey some people's concept of Christianity. Judge not - a great many people live by that, follow the rules for themselves without needing to force others to do likewise, without being so positive they know God's mind that they can tell others what is absolutely right and wrong.

It's not religion that kills the GOP, it's the fact that they adopt such an extreme version of religion.

Goodness, with no links or other sources, I would say you forgot your "IMO". And, as for "Judge not"......I would encourage one to research the original text for what Christ meant and was referring to in that one verse. And, if a great many people live by that, I would imagine they also live by other great verses found in the Holy Scriptures, such as:


Prov. 3:21 - My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight...

John 7:24 - Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Jer. 22:3 - Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness...

Phil. 1:10 - so that you may be able to discern [judge] what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ...

1Cor. 6:2-3 - Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

JMO, of course.

[Brentwood]

The extreme Muslim religious groups are taking over governments in the Middle East, resulting in laws of extreme religious doctrine and condemnation of all other religions. I see the same mindset with the far rw religious extremists who have taken over the Republican party. I do not get how they think that they are the only ones that have the line on God (and believe all others who do not believe as they do are going to hell).

I wish the Republicans would take their party back from the far right-winger religious extremists.

[Susan43]

Originally Posted by Reaper

The Schiavo situation was ugly.

As we've talked about many times, the GOP has no idea what they stand for anymore. If they do choose to let religion define them it will sound the party death knoll. They are close to the edge now and lack any kind of clear definition.

Folks like Rush and Coulter are not helping their image either. I do think there will be a party split off within a couple years. The more moderate Repubs are going to have to distance themselves in order to survive and remain viable. It's going to take strong leadership for them to regain any creditability. JMHO on it.

It was ugly. I watched all the testimony and was sooooo impressed by the Rep from FL Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She was just dynamite. And there isn't a judge in the world that I respect more then Judge Greer the FL judge that oversaw the case. He is an elected, Repub, Baptist judge that followed the law. He made me very proud of our judicial system.

And I agree with you about the credibility. As I look at the lineup on the right I can't imagine who could lead the party. There isn't one that I've seen so far I think can sway enough people to win the presidency.

But I'll tell you one thing, they need to stop looking like the party of no.

Originally Posted by Brentwood

The extreme Muslim religious groups are taking over governments in the Middle East, resulting in laws of extreme religious doctrine and condemnation of all other religions. I see the same mindset with the far rw religious extremists who have taken over the Republican party. I do not get how they think that they are the only ones that have the line on God (and believe all others who do not believe as they do are going to hell).

I wish the Republicans would take their party back from the far right-winger religious extremists.

Are the far rw religious extremists who have taken over the Republican party and think they are the only ones that have the line on God and believe all others who do not believe as they do are going to hell, specific people? I guess you are talking about high-up people who have the power and clout to take over the party? Who exactly are they?

[Details]

Originally Posted by Patriot

Goodness, with no links or other sources, I would say you forgot your "IMO". And, as for "Judge not"......I would encourage one to research the original text for what Christ meant and was referring to in that one verse. And, if a great many people live by that, I would imagine they also live by other great verses found in the Holy Scriptures, such as:


Prov. 3:21 - My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight...

John 7:24 - Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Jer. 22:3 - Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness...

Phil. 1:10 - so that you may be able to discern [judge] what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ...

1Cor. 6:2-3 - Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

JMO, of course.

Even were we a theocracy (we were formed to be the opposite), not one of those verses says anything about us judging others. The saints, angels, the Lord - but the only forms of judgment that are used there are talking about using your own judgment in your own affairs - not enforcing by law your judgment on others.

Originally Posted by Details

Even were we a theocracy (we were formed to be the opposite), not one of those verses says anything about us judging others. The saints, angels, the Lord - but the only forms of judgment that are used there are talking about using your own judgment in your own affairs - not enforcing by law your judgment on others.

You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of Scripture and the denial that those verses are not exhortations to the people to judge.

And as far as "enforcing by law" - the law is nothing but judgement. It's only a matter of whose judgement rules.

[Susan43]

Originally Posted by Patriot

Are the far rw religious extremists who have taken over the Republican party and think they are the only ones that have the line on God and believe all others who do not believe as they do are going to hell, specific people? I guess you are talking about high-up people who have the power and clout to take over the party? Who exactly are they?

They are the people that follow Tony Perkins, James Dobson, and ministers like that. For pete's sake there are websites all over the place if you are really interested. They are real people. They have tried to get intelligent design in science classes, they actually got a book put out at the Grand Canyon that says the canyon was created by the flood. They successfully stopped the morning after pill for several years. They are real people that want the rest of us to follow their tenets. Personally, I don't care what they believe, they are free to believe anything they like, but IMO they don't have the right to think that I should live by their teachings. My relationship with God is my own business and your relationship is yours and certainly none of mine.

Part of the problem on the right that I see, is my opinion on this is pretty much mainstream, believe it or not. And the religious right is entering primaries and knocking off moderate Repubs. Then the more extreme Repub loses because he is too extreme. This is what is going to happen in PA if the right isn't careful. Sen Spector has worked hard for the state of PA and he has been re-elected with plenty of dems and independents voting for him. It appears that the party is going to challenge him in the primary and Spector will probably lose. If that happens I can guarantee that we Dems will pick up the seat. This is why it matters how the party gets itself together.

(snip)

Originally Posted by Susan43

They are the people that follow Tony Perkins, James Dobson, and ministers like that. For pete's sake there are websites all over the place if you are really interested.

For pete's sake, I find it odd that these people are so powerful that they have "taken over the Republican party", yet no one can even name them. Generalizations and vague references have never impressed me.

[Details]

Originally Posted by Patriot

Are the far rw religious extremists who have taken over the Republican party and think they are the only ones that have the line on God and believe all others who do not believe as they do are going to hell, specific people? I guess you are talking about high-up people who have the power and clout to take over the party? Who exactly are they?

Don't know who they are - does it matter? The effects are what matters. The extremist abortion plank, for instance - abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, period - no exception for rape, health of mother, status of fetus, nothing. If I am raped, the fetus sufficiently malformed that it will never survive, and I have medical complications that could kill me, the Republican party platform would rather see me die giving birth to a dead baby than live. That's EXTREME. And that's the party platform. Someone with power and clout won't let it be modified.

How am I supposed to know who it is - might be some small group, might be a bunch of people - it really does not matter in the least - the results do.

The republican party is imploding. The theocrats/religious fundamentalists in the party are not liked by the rest who realized how destructive religious fundamentalism is proving to be for them. The party is gradually splitting in 2 parts.

Originally Posted by Reaper

Here's a good indicator on the GOPs abortion stance:


Republican Party on Abortion

Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals. (Sep 2004)
Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.(Sep 2004)
Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment. (Aug 2000)
Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action. (Aug 2000)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Republica...y.htm#Abortion

< Bolding on # 2, # 3 mine >

I think # 3 says it all and # 2 isn't far behind. JMHO of course. Also check out the other topic links at the site. It spells out exactly what the partys stance is including the right to prosecute anyone practicing abortion and defines the right to life ammendment. This is direct from the 2004 party platform.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Rep...Abortion.htm#5

Thanks for the link, Reaper. I've been looking around the site. Who exactly runs it and what is their authority to speak for the Republican party? It doesn't seem like an official site of the Republican party, but still looking.

I do know the stance of the party, but the claims that were made here, as facts, were that most religious people are pro-choice, that few support the Republican stance, that the party stance is 'no abortions ever' and mock the "health of the mother" and that religious people make laws that force people of other religions to obey some people's concept of Christianity. There were no sources to prove any of that, but wasn't labeled as opinion, which is what I took issue with.

I did find this on your link:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Rep...y_Abortion.htm

and I can't find where it says "no abortions ever", nor can I find any mocking of "the health of the mother".

[daniel green]

Originally Posted by Susan43

Steve Schmidt has a gay sister. So he knows from the inside (so to speak) how much the policies of the right can hurt a member of his own family.

snipped

Interesting. I did not know that.

And yet he took on the 2004 campaign based on voting against equal rights for marriage.

Well, better late than never that he's come around to understanding the issue.

Originally Posted by Reaper

Hi Patriot. Check the link below. It's spelled out pretty clearly and is from the official GOP 2004 Platform. Source is sighted.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Rep...y_Abortion.htm


There is one more about Nebraska law ( it was overturned in the Supreme Court ) that was overturned because there was no clause in it for any type of emergency abortion. I'll see if I can get that link for you.

- In April 2000, the Supreme Court rejected a Nebraska law banning partial birth abortions.
- In June 2000, the Court said that the Nebraska ban was unconstitutional because it had no exceptions and barred second trimester abortions.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_Abortion.htm

Thanks, Reaper. The first link is giving me a "page not displayed", but I am checking out the second. Thanks again.

[theal3]

Originally Posted by Len

The republican party is imploding. The theocrats/religious fundamentalists in the party are not liked by the rest who realized how destructive religious fundamentalism is proving to be for them. The party is gradually splitting in 2 parts.

Very true, with all those seats lost in 2006 and 2008 and then the Presidency.....their former leaders have gone on to more lucrative careers, in broadcasting, lobbying, heads of boards or Corps.; back into law, or retired. They didn't keep a stable of race horses inline, so to speak or are looking to their 2nd and 3rd strings. What's that saying: I didn't leave the Republican Party, the party left me.

[Baroness]

The religious extremist have even taken their own adoration of the unborn and turned it into a religious principle.

Fact---there are more references to the "breath of life" in the Bible that infer that the first breath ensouls the newly born than that a fetus is a person with a soul.

"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7).

added to that are the verses from Exodus that require a life for a life, but do not require a life for an unborn child

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

The Anti-choice crowd relies on one ambiguous biblical reference:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Ummmmmm Jehovah is supposed to be an omniscient god---they claim he knows everything---past, future and present.

Jehovah said he had been cultivating this prophet before he was born, which does not mean that the prophet was ensouled before he was born.

The religious right, and the Catholic Church has seized on the abortion debate IMO---because their underlying goal is to control sexuality.

Kate

[Susan43]

Originally Posted by daniel green

Interesting. I did not know that.

And yet he took on the 2004 campaign based on voting against equal rights for marriage.

Well, better late than never that he's come around to understanding the issue.

It's a little amazing how many conservatives have gay relatives and yet support the party that condemns them. I just think it's political expediency. Gingrich has a lesbian sister, Cheney, of course has a lesbian daughter and now Schmidt.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...y-marriage/?hp

I think they understand the issue, but votes trump principles IMO and the theocons are against gay marriage.

[Details]

Originally Posted by Patriot

Nor, without any credible, cited sources to back up this incredulous claim that "the Republican party platform would rather see me die giving birth to a dead baby than live" does this post matter in the least. JMO.

That is the Republican party platform - they have it every Presidential election, and in the last several, that is precisely what it said. You really don't know what your own platform says?

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#5

No exceptions for rape, incest, no questions of the health nor status of the fetus, no exceptions for the health nor life of the mother - they want an amendment that says any unborn child - from the time has a right to life that CANNOT BE INFRINGED. As pro-life politicians make clear, as McCain made clear - that means, no "health of the mother" exceptions - McCain made it pretty clear he thought those mere cop-outs on the part of the selfish mother to be.

No exceptions - not even if I'm raped, will die giving birth to a deformed baby that will not survive. No exceptions. That's my status in the Republican party. That's an extremist religious stance. Opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide and any withdrawl of care from a person who is unable to speak for themselves is in there as well - they learned nothing from Terri Schiavo.


Mocking the "health of the mother" - that was McCain, in the debates. He was asked outright about this - and he put "health of the mother" in air quotes and explained that was too easy an excuse. I had two potentially fatal diseases due to pregnancy. I've had one of my sisters nearly die. Another sister has a cracked tailbone - and we weren't anything severe - pregnancy has a not insignificant chance of causing damage to the health of the mother, and a small but real chance of causing death. But to McCain, all this is just an excuse deserving of air quotes and a smirk, to be dismissed, never written into law because it's not worth worrying about.

[theal3]

Originally Posted by Baroness

The religious extremist have even taken their own adoration of the unborn and turned it into a religious principle.

Fact---there are more references to the "breath of life" in the Bible that infer that the first breath ensouls the newly born than that a fetus is a person with a soul.

"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7).

added to that are the verses from Exodus that require a life for a life, but do not require a life for an unborn child

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

The Anti-choice crowd relies on one ambiguous biblical reference:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Ummmmmm Jehovah is supposed to be an omniscient god---they claim he knows everything---past, future and present.

Jehovah said he had been cultivating this prophet before he was born, which does not mean that the prophet was ensouled before he was born.

The religious right, and the Catholic Church has seized on the abortion debate IMO---because their underlying goal is to control sexuality.

Kate

Kudos, exactly. And in order for their congregations to grow and prosper they need lots of "members" i.e. kids to endoctrinate. For that women are not =; must be controlled etc. Yes, it's about sexual control; procreation control to support the church. It's near MiddleAges/Midevil, to me. I swear one of those entities is gonna' orw ould favor bringing back chastity belts. RvWade is over 30 years old. And I say if you are Pro-Life then don't have an abortion and take care of your own children and teens etc. and go ahead and base that belief on your scripture.

But other people are not based your scripture and read it differently. The Bible has many metaphores and was written by men, long after Jesus died, at least the New Testament. And the Old Testament is similar to other religion's holy books written eons before Christianity. Communication for centuries was by word of mouth: like Indian's, stories, lore, only the powerful had the info, the rulers had it and later only the Catholic Church, for centuries. Handwritten bibles my monks were the only written word, until the printing press in the like the 16th century. Then all hell broke loose: and many off shoot religions were formed: age of reformation. Then the break with Catholics and the formation of the Church of England: and all this with religion and Kings and Queens.

America said: no more kings and queens and politics mixed with religion. Why does the GOP, or the "right" want to go back to that system of govt: a theocracy? I say enjoy a Nation where you can practice or not any religion. Let's not have holy wars and crusades in America. We are better than that. IMHO.

[Details]

Originally Posted by Baroness

The religious extremist have even taken their own adoration of the unborn and turned it into a religious principle.

Fact---there are more references to the "breath of life" in the Bible that infer that the first breath ensouls the newly born than that a fetus is a person with a soul.

"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7).

added to that are the verses from Exodus that require a life for a life, but do not require a life for an unborn child

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

The Anti-choice crowd relies on one ambiguous biblical reference:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Ummmmmm Jehovah is supposed to be an omniscient god---they claim he knows everything---past, future and present.

Jehovah said he had been cultivating this prophet before he was born, which does not mean that the prophet was ensouled before he was born.

The religious right, and the Catholic Church has seized on the abortion debate IMO---because their underlying goal is to control sexuality.

Kate

Yep - I know priests and pastors who believe this is the correct interpretation. I've read at least two bits in the bible where they split the difference between causing harm to a pregnant woman that causes an abortion, and causing harm to a child. The Republican party isn't just going with religion over science, isn't just going with one religion's perspective, but is going with an extreme version of one religion's perspective. And most Americans don't agree - even many pro-lifers would agree with exceptions for the health of the mother, many agree with exceptions for rape, and incest.

(snip)

Originally Posted by Baroness

The Anti-choice crowd relies on one ambiguous biblical reference:

Hardly. And if you think rhetoric like "anti-choice" will help your cause, you're mistaken IMO. I suppose the same label can be slapped on the pro abortion crowd, since they are equally "anti-choice".

(snip)

Originally Posted by Details

they want an amendment that says any unborn child - from the time has a right to life that CANNOT BE INFRINGED.

Imagine that. Protecting life, just as the Constitution guarantees. Especially the most innocent and vulnerable life. What a concept.

As for the rest, I didn't read any further. If you continue to claim that the Republican party platform is that "they'd rather see you die giving birth to a dead baby than live", you are beyond reasonable discussion IMO.

(snip)

Originally Posted by Details

I've read at least two bits in the bible where they split the difference between causing harm to a pregnant woman that causes an abortion, and causing harm to a child

LOL. Personally, I'd recommend the Bible as a whole, rather than "two bits". JMO.

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by Patriot

(snip)

Hardly. And if you think rhetoric like "anti-choice" will help your cause, you're mistaken IMO. I suppose the same label can be slapped on the pro abortion crowd, since they are equally "anti-choice".

Pro choice is just what it implies. A woman can choose to give birth and keep it, give birth and put it up for adoption, or terminate the pregnancy.

It's high time we let women choose for themselves. Based on their own situations and needs. Sure, in a perfect world every child would be adopted and loved. But we all know that is not happening.

I am sick to death of hearing that a child born to an unloving parent/parents and into a poor environment will be sooooo much better off than if it was never born at all. Its time to stop with this religious rhetoric and face facts. While I dont condone abortion as birth control, it is a fact of life. Women dont get pregnant on their own and if she is making a legimate attempt to not get pregnant and does, she should be afforded a safe means to terminate the pregnancy if desired. JMO

[Jumbo1]

Originally Posted by Susan43

It's a little amazing how many conservatives have gay relatives and yet support the party that condemns them. I just think it's political expediency. Gingrich has a lesbian sister, Cheney, of course has a lesbian daughter and now Schmidt.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...y-marriage/?hp

I think they understand the issue, but votes trump principles IMO and the theocons are against gay marriage.

I don't think they really care about gay marriage or abortion, they just use it to stir up their base & get the churches involved in partisan sermons around election time...IMO.

(snip)

Originally Posted by Vortex

Pro choice is just what it implies.

And "pro life" is just what it implies. And no misleading rhetoric renaming it "anti choice" will change that.

And it's high time we gave a voice to the innocent life that currently has no voice, instead of just giving a voice to "women to choose for themselves". There is no themselves once they have created another life. IMO.

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by Patriot

(snip)

And "pro life" is just what it implies. And no misleading rhetoric renaming it "anti choice" will change that.

And it's high time we gave a voice to the innocent life that currently has no voice, instead of just giving a voice to "women to choose for themselves". There is no themselves once they have created another life. IMO.

Are you up for adopting "innocent lives" that women give up for adoption? I'm not, and not many I know are. Its easy to speak for others and say "have your child - it's an innocent life and deserves a chance." But who is there when it's abused and neglected later in life? You? The system? Hardly - it goes unnoticed, abandoned and neglected most of the time. JMO

[theal3]

Originally Posted by Patriot

(snip)

Imagine that. Protecting life, just as the Constitution guarantees. Especially the most innocent and vulnerable life. What a concept.

As for the rest, I didn't read any further. If you continue to claim that the Republican party platform is that "they'd rather see you die giving birth to a dead baby than live", you are beyond reasonable discussion IMO.

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee protecting "life," or liberty or the pursuit of happiness? I think that's in the Declaration of Independence written years before to overthrow a KING and a theocracy, it took over 10 year for the Constitution and it's not mentioned. This "reason" the right always claims about the Constitution is so wrong. It's must be only taught in private schools, or home schools. IMHO

[invreporter1105]

Originally Posted by Vortex

Are you up for adopting "innocent lives" that women give up for adoption? I'm not, and not many I know are. Its easy to speak for others and say "have your child - it's an innocent life and deserves a chance." But who is there when it's abused and neglected later in life? You? The system? Hardly - it goes unnoticed, abandoned and neglected most of the time. JMO

Then maybe it's time to toughen our laws on abuse and neglect, initiate one-on-one counseling for children in our school systems, hold parents accountable by conducting random home inspections. Yeah, that sounds pretty extreme, but the effects of abuse/neglect are pretty extreme as well.

[Jumbo1]

Originally Posted by Vortex

Are you up for adopting "innocent lives" that women give up for adoption? I'm not, and not many I know are. Its easy to speak for others and say "have your child - it's an innocent life and deserves a chance." But who is there when it's abused and neglected later in life? You? The system? Hardly - it goes unnoticed, abandoned and neglected most of the time. JMO

Yes, it's common knowledge there are no foster kids in this country...especially special needs children?

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by invreporter1105

Then maybe it's time to toughen our laws on abuse and neglect, initiate one-on-one counseling for children in our school systems, hold parents accountable by conducting random home inspections. Yeah, that sounds pretty extreme, but the effects of abuse/neglect are pretty extreme as well.

I agree with you, but I doubt it will come to fruition. As always, money will be the issue in hiring qualified people to carry out these missions.

I hate to sound so cold. I am not for abortion as birth control. But that is my personal opinion. I believe if a woman is making an honest attempt to not get pregnant and does - she should be afforded a safe out. Like I said before, in a perfect world all children would be loved and cared for. But this is not a perfect world. And I find it ludicrous to believe in this fairy tale that every pregnancy is a gift from God and should go full term. And I am amazed to find that some think a life of neglect and abuse is better than not being born at all. JMO

[theal3]

Originally Posted by Vortex

I agree with you, but I doubt it will come to fruition. As always, money will be the issue in hiring qualified people to carry out these missions.

I hate to sound so cold. I am not for abortion as birth control. But that is my personal opinion. I believe if a woman is making an honest attempt to not get pregnant and does - she should be afforded a safe out. Like I said before, in a perfect world all children would be loved and cared for. But this is not a perfect world. And I find it ludicrous to believe in this fairy tale that every pregnancy is a gift from God and should go full term. And I am amazed to find that some think a life of neglect and abuse is better than not being born at all. JMO

Post of the day. You nailed it. No one is FOR abortion, just want it be a legal, private choice between a female and her doctor, or parents, or spouse or live partner. Pro Choice is the secular way to go. The ProLifers can still assemble and control their own children, and people in their churches or communities. But this is the 21s Century, not Puritan days.

[Details]

Originally Posted by Patriot

(snip)

Imagine that. Protecting life, just as the Constitution guarantees. Especially the most innocent and vulnerable life. What a concept.

As for the rest, I didn't read any further. If you continue to claim that the Republican party platform is that "they'd rather see you die giving birth to a dead baby than live", you are beyond reasonable discussion IMO.

That is the platform. That is what types of laws the Republican party tries to pass. Thank goodness the Supreme Court has struck them down so far - when laws are passed that do not allow exceptions for the health of the mother - and they have been - by Republican dominated states - the Supreme Court strikes them down. Like it or not, that is the Republican platform - no abortion, no exceptions. Protect the fetus (at least while in the womb - once out, it's on it's own), protect it's life - don't protect the mother's. An extreme view - but that is what they are doing.