Can a Christian also be a Democrat?

[Salus]

Modern Democrats have, for the most part, always been and will continue to always be pro-choice. Yes, I know their are a few pro-life Democrats but they are an anomaly so let's not include them for the moment. Anyway, back to this argument. Democrats currently are blocking Miguel Estrada from the federal bench in part, due to his conservative leanings and his stances on the major topics like abortion. Democrats almost always vote against a partial-birth abortion ban. So when it comes to pro-life, Democrats have a very, very poor track reoord.

In my opinion, I do not believe that a Christian can co-exist as a Democrat, who has been created out of the modern Democrat party doctrine. There are just too many discrepancies between what a Christian should be doing and what a Democrat does. Therefore, having said that, do you think it is possible to be a Chrisitian and a Democrat at the same time?

[J. J. Ramsey]

Salus:
In my opinion, I do not believe that a Christian can co-exist as a Democrat, who has been created out of the modern Democrat party doctrine. There are just too many discrepancies between what a Christian should be doing and what a Democrat does. Therefore, having said that, do you think it is possible to be a Chrisitian and a Democrat at the same time?

Yes. For one, "Democrat" is a very roughly defined, even vague, position. It's not all, or even mostly about abortion. A lot of it is about social programs and trying to do the right thing (or should that be left thing?) for the lower classes. You can always pick and choose which positions of the typical Democratic platform to endorse.

[Salus]

Okay, I can agree with that. But the fact remains that a Christian who, even if they distance themselves from the pro-choice leg of the party platform, aligns themself with a party that stands in the way of changing the laws and creating a more pro-life friendly country.

[Captain Ochre]

Backing a political party is going to involve sacrificing some principle to advance another principle--unless you invent your own party (then good luck getting others to agree with you on every point.
By and large, Repubs and Dems and the same big goals: Peace, prosperity, blah blah blah. They have different means of achieving those ends.
For the Dems, the down & outers need a boost from the rest of us.
For the Repubs, tough love is the best remedy for many down-and-outers (naturally I'm sketching generalities furiously!).
For Dems, helping the poor is a government responsibility.
For Repubs, helping the poor is an individual responsibility.

Now, on the more opinionated segement, :bonk:
of course the dems are wrong in their means of achieving their sought-after goals. The social programs tend to produce dem voters who have a strong dependency on government (almost a pusher-junkie relationship).
Oh, well. Out of time, so this post will end up a tad unbalanced.

[Lizard]

Captain Ochre:
Backing a political party is going to involve sacrificing some principle to advance another principle--unless you invent your own party (then good luck getting others to agree with you on every point.
By and large, Repubs and Dems and the same big goals: Peace, prosperity, blah blah blah. They have different means of achieving those ends.
For the Dems, the down & outers need a boost from the rest of us.
For the Repubs, tough love is the best remedy for many down-and-outers (naturally I'm sketching generalities furiously!).
For Dems, helping the poor is a government responsibility.
For Repubs, helping the poor is an individual responsibility.

Now, on the more opinionated segement, :bonk:
of course the dems are wrong in their means of achieving their sought-after goals. The social programs tend to produce dem voters who have a strong dependency on government (almost a pusher-junkie relationship).
Oh, well. Out of time, so this post will end up a tad unbalanced.

I agree with the Capt. The major differences between the parties is means, not ends. And that very few people are in 100% agreement with the party that they support. I have problems with both major parties, but I always try to vote for the best person for the job (unfortunately, the best person for the job rarely runs for office :hrm: )

[GrayPilgrim]

Faramir:


I agree with the Capt. The major differences between the parties is means, not ends. And that very few people are in 100% agreement with the party that they support. I have problems with both major parties, but I always try to vote for the best person for the job (unfortunately, the best person for the job rarely runs for office :hrm: )

Yup! my problem is that once they get into office they vote as a block on important issues. For instance, Sen Bird (sp?) of WV said in reference to the impeachment and prosecution of Clinton, "I think what he did rises to the level of high criems and misdemanors, but I wont vote for it" (rough quote). Why? he wopuldhave lost presitge and position in the Democratic Caucus.

GP

[Lizard]

GrayPilgrim:


Yup! my problem is that once they get into office they vote as a block on important issues. For instance, Sen Bird (sp?) of WV said in reference to the impeachment and prosecution of Clinton, "I think what he did rises to the level of high criems and misdemanors, but I wont vote for it" (rough quote). Why? he wopuldhave lost presitge and position in the Democratic Caucus.

GP

Not always. Zell Miller, the Dem. from GA is more Republican than some Republicans.

However, he is the exception to the rule. In fact I voted agasint him becasue I thought that he would vote the Dem. block.

[Socrates]

--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject: Will the Democratic Party be Abortion's Final Victim?
Source: Wall St. Journal; January 20, 2003

Will the Democratic Party be Abortion's Final Victim?
By Peggy Noonan

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. She is a former speechwriter for President Reagan and her most recent book is "When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan."]

It is now 30 years since the Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade vision, blew down the barriers to abortion on demand, using as the essential rationale a constitutional right of privacy that the court had discovered less than eight years earlier. Since 1973 roughly 40 million abortions--that seems to be the generally accepted number--have been performed in America, and 40 million children banished from life.

Forty million. There isn't a country in the world with an army that big. Many don't have a population that big. Among the 40 million were, as romantics like to point out, a Leonardo, a Dr. Salk, the man who'd make the rocket to Mars and perhaps the first American pope. But there were men and women among the 40 million who would have grown up to be destructive too, and cruel. It seems realistic to assume the 40 million would have included your average mix of heroes, villains and those undistinguished by recognizable gifts.

But actually I wonder about that. It has seemed to me over the years that so many of the 40 million were the children of bright or educated or affluent parents, lucky young people and, in the way of things, might likely have gone on to--well, we might have lost more curers of cancer than we know. In any case, whatever these individuals would have become, they were all unique, blessed. They all deserved the same thing, life, and all suffered the same fate.

Looked at in this way, abortion might seem not a completely private choice but one that has had a profound public impact on our country. If you want to be cold and actuarial about it, you can note that in the next five to 10 years tens of millions of baby boomers will retire, and their futures would be more secure if they were benefiting from the financial support of the missing 40 million, many of whom would be paying into Social Security right now. But they're gone, so they can't help.

If you want to be less actuarial than cultural in your thinking, it's hard to believe that we don't all know, down deep, that abortion has not made our country a gentler place. I believe we haven't begun to appreciate the effect on our children and their developing understanding of life that they are told every day, on television and in magazines, in advertisements and news stories, that we allow the killing of children. It's not good for them to know that, not good for them to be told over and over that they live in a place where life is not necessarily respected and inconvenient life can be whisked away. Knowledge like that has a chilling effect on the soul.

I think, as many do, that Roe v. Wade was as big a travesty as the Supreme Court decision on Dred Scott, which in 1857 declared that descendants of slaves could not become U.S. citizens. All Americans would now see that decision as terribly wrong, but back then the Court had spoken and Dred Scott was forced to continue to live in slavery. I think also that if the legal status of abortion, a long-settled issue that was inevitably forced into play by the cultural revolution of the '60s and the rise of the women's movement, had to be redecided, it should have been done politically, not judicially. That it was not, that a huge and radical change in law was forced on the entire country by black-robed fiat, caused avoidable and continuing unrest. It has contributed more than any decision in my lifetime to the national breakdown of faith in our institutions.

If it had been left up to the states, New York, California and other places would have legal abortion (as they already did in 1973). Utah, Louisiana and other places would have voted pro-life. The outcome would have been mixed and the argument would have continued, but not with quite the same citizen-hating-citizen level of intensity or quite the damage to our trust in the law and the law givers.

The pro-life movement isn't going to go away. It will fight on until the day our country ends if that day comes. And it is making progress. Two recent polls, which the mainline media largely ignored, are revealing of that progress. A Wirthlin poll released last week reported 68% of respondents support "restoring legal protection for unborn children," and almost the same number said they would favor future Supreme Court nominees who supported protections. That poll was commissioned by pro-life groups, but then came a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll in which 70% of respondents said partial-birth abortion should be outlawed, 78% backed a mandatory 24-hour waiting period for all abortions, 73% supported parental consent for girls under 18 seeking abortions, and 88% said they favor a law directing doctors to inform patients of alternatives to abortion before it is performed. These data suggest the country may be slowly but surely turning, and looking at the question in a new way, and inching closer back to the old idea that abortion is tragedy, tragic for the baby and tragic for us. It is no good, we know it, it is avoidable, there are options, such as hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans eager to adopt.

Why haven't our courts and lawmakers made greater progress in protecting the unborn when polls suggest public support is there? Lots of reasons, but one that I think is not sufficiently appreciated is this: Abortion is now the glue that holds the Democratic Party together. Without abortion to keep them together, the Democrats would fly apart into 50 small parties--Dems for free trade, Dems for protectionism; for quotas, for merit. All parties have divisions, the Republicans famously so, but Republicans have general philosophical views that keep them together and supported by groups that share their views. They're all united by, say, hostility to high taxes, but sometimes they have different reasons for opposing tax increases. The Democratic Party, in contrast, has exhausted its great reasons for being, having achieved so many of them during the past 75 years. The Democrats often seem like the Not Republican Party, no more and no less. It is composed not of allied groups in pursuit of the same general principles but warring groups vying for money, power, a louder voice, the elevation of their particular cause.

The one thing they agree on, that holds them together and finances their elections, is abortion. The abortion-rights movement packs huge clout in the party; it can make or break a candidacy with contributions and labor and support. It has such clout that at the 1992 Democratic convention the party wouldn't even let Gov. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, a popular liberal from a state with 23 electoral votes, give an afternoon speech. He was officially a nonperson at his party's convention because he was pro-life. The Republicans, on the other hand, still have arguments over abortion. Whether pro- or anti-, it is understood you are not banned from a convention podium on that basis. The Republicans can still have a conversation, albeit with occasionally loud voices. But better a loud voice than no voice at all.

Democratic officeholders either agree with and fear the clout of the abortion-rights groups or disagree with and fear them. So the pro-abortion forces keep the party together, but they also tie it down. They keep the Democratic Party on the defensive--the lockstep pro-abortion party that won't even back parental notification, the party of unbending orthodoxy that will fight tooth and nail against banning abortions on babies eight months old, babies who look and seem and act exactly like human beings because they are.

No party can long endure, or could possibly flourish, with the unfettered killing of young humans as the thing that holds it together. And so a prediction on this grim anniversary: Someday years from now we will see abortion's final victim, and it will turn out to be the once-great Democratic Party, which was left at the end deformed, bloody and desperately trying to kick away from death, but unable to save itself.

--
Reach 40,000 pro-life leaders and activists with your message.
Contact advertising@prolifeinfo.org

[Socrates]

Yes, there are Pro-life Democrats, and deserve support from Christian voters. But the party machine is doing its best to end any vestiges of pro-life sentiment among its politicians. The Democrat website refuses to have a link to Pro-Life Democrats although it has links to abortionist organisations, yet the Dems hypocritically portray themselves as being "big church" on the Abortion issue.

Also, we've seen another phenomenon which makes me question whether some pro-life dem pollies are just that way out of expedience rather than principle.

A good example is a current Dem Prezzy canditate, Dick Gephardt. For years he voted pro-life because of his Baptist constuency. But when he wanted to climb the ranks, he changed to to becoming a fanatical supporter of prenatal baby butchery, because otherwise there would be no hope of winning major nominations because of the radical feminist clout in the Dems.

[Socrates]

I mean, surely the Democrats support the Republic, and Republicans support democracy?

[GrayPilgrim]

02-20-2003 @ 10:43 PM
Socrates:

I mean, surely the Democrats support the Republic, and Republicans support democracy?

I disagree. Dems support the false premise that the US is a democracy, i.e. each person has a vote, when in reality the US is a representative republic. You can tell that the Dems lean that way by their harangues during the impeechment of Billy Boy. Their rhetoric was "over throw the democratically elected president." When in fact he was elected to office by the Electoral College. When I vote for a Pres, I am really voting to elect a member of the Electoral College, who will then cast his/her vote.

Another way you see Dems support democracy is by their support of voter sponsered referendums. These things are a bane. You have people pooling htier collective ignorance to vote on stuff based on a sound bite by special interests. How else would you get legalized marijuana but by a bunch of Jerry Springer fans voting for it. [Unfortunately Springer is talking about returning to politics. He is talking about running for the US Senate against George Voinovich (former gov. of Ohio). Springer was mayor of Cincinatti until he payed for a prostitute with a personal check, not exaclty the guy I want representing my state.]

GP

[Socrates]

Socrates
--------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, surely the Democrats support the Republic, and Republicans support democracy?
--------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. Dems support the false premise that the US is a democracy, i.e. each person has a vote, when in reality the US is a representative republic. You can tell that the Dems lean that way by their harangues during the impeechment of Billy Boy. Their rhetoric was "over throw the democratically elected president." But the case against him was his immorality and dishonesty, and I think it would have been little different if it were a Republican Prez -- OK, so they may have used rhetoric "overthrow the president appointed by the representatives of the people in the Electoral College". Well, maybe not, because that's so little understood.


When in fact he was elected to office by the Electoral College. When I vote for a Pres, I am really voting to elect a member of the Electoral College, who will then cast his/her vote.But I don't see any push by Dems to overthrow this Electoral College system, and I don't know any Republican who would come out and say that he is against democracy. Even Dubya in his speeches has stressed democratic values.

BTW, the rest of the world laughs that America has such antiquated voting systems, which caused so much bother. Even the Electoral College is a throwback to times when transport was by horse or ship, so it was practical for each state to send representatives to a central place. But it's laughable to maintain this archaic system in an age of jet planes and email.

All the same, I'm thankful for it this time because it resulted in an honest man being elected who defends the weakest members of society: babies in theor mothers' wombs. Far better than that pseudo-intellectual pretentious prat and ecofascist baby-butcher aptly named Gore. And I can now respect Americans again, which I could not while they voted for baby-butcher Wilhelm Klinton.

[dizzle]

02-20-2003 @ 04:31 PM
Faramir:



I agree with the Capt. The major differences between the parties is means, not ends. And that very few people are in 100% agreement with the party that they support. I have problems with both major parties, but I always try to vote for the best person for the job (unfortunately, the best person for the job rarely runs for office :hrm: )

I am probably opening a very ugly can of worms here, but with all due respect to everyone, and my fellow possee member Faramir, the implication seems to be here is that the "ends" is what is important in relation to our politics and our faith, and the "means" is secondary. I am not too comfortable with that. As many of you may know, I have somewhat recently started on a study of the relationship between God and government which has caused me to drift into what I call "theonomy lite" but there is a book by Gary DeMar called "The Ruler of Nations" which deals with what Gary calls God's blueprint for biblical governement, and shows I think pretty persuaviely that the Bible says a great deal about the means, and that means are pretty darned important covenantly and spiritually.

So.... for myself... my family were lifelong Democrats. Diehards. I became a Christian and after about a year became very uncomfortable with the Democratic party, but old family ideas die hard and I became "independant" for years.... and then finally made the jump. I don't agree with everything that the Republicans say and do, but I see it lining up more with the philopshy of the Biblical model... the lesser of two evils, or as Koukl might say, the greater of two goods.

[Pilgrim]

Man, we are called top something higher than partisan politics. You might as well say Christians can not be Republicans because for the most part they are Hawks who have little or no regard for social justice.

I only have to point to Jimmy Carter, a tremendous man of faith and a Southern Baptist who holds to the innerancy of scripture and the unique role of Christ for savlation to show that Democrats can be Christians.

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

For the record, I am a registered Independant and voted the Green Party across the board in the last elections.

[dizzle]

Dear Pilgrim:

I hope you did not misunderstand me... I really did not want to be misunderstood... and I was speaking in broad generalities... and generally speaking the "means" by which the Democratic party wants to effect change, I find to be in conflict with the worldview I find in the Bible. That is not meant as a character slam or a suggestion that disagreement with that calls in question one's faith. But personally, I could no longer be a Democrat becuase of that conviction of mine. The Democrats tend to favor a top-down structure, and I believe the Biblical model for human government is bottom-up.

[Pilgrim]

Sorry for that Dee Dee, I wasn't addressing your post, just the question in general.

But for arguments sake, how do you jive that understanding with a model of a priestly class, the presence of Judges and kings etc. Those all seem like a hierarchical model to me.

Pilgrim

[dizzle]

Dear Pilgrim:

Thank you for clarifying... and with regards to the "classes" you mentioned, I don't see that as relating to the top versus bottom down issue but rather to the idea of separation of human powers, which is a biblical principle. Perhaps I need to be more clear too in what I am referring to, and I am referring to the "amount" of management and autonomy and control that the government at the "federal" (again to use an American reference point) level.

[Pilgrim]

I think I understand, the differences are not qualitative but rather quantitative with no more value ascribed to a particular individual than the next. Right?

[Socrates]

Pilgrim:
I only have to point to Jimmy Carter, a tremendous man of faith and a Southern Baptist who holds to the innerancy of scripture and the unique role of Christ for savlation to show that Democrats can be Christians.As I said, I would never claim that a Christian can't be a Dem (or can't be a Green for that matter despite their essentially evolutionary pantheistic world view), Jimmy Carter is hardly a good example. It's most doubtful that he was a Biblical inerrantist, since he was an evolutionist, had a hissy fit and resigned from the Southern Baptists because they took a Biblical stand against the ordination of women, and unequally yoked himself with pro-abortion humanists such as his VP Mondale. Furthermore, he warmly praised such champions of human rights as Ceaucescu and Castro.

[Pilgrim]

Well, like most men, Mr Carter is a fallen one. Thank God for grace. So if you don't especially like him how about Billy Graham? He's a dem and I doubt many people would question the sincerity of his Christian faith.

[GrayPilgrim]

02-22-2003 @ 01:40 PM
Pilgrim:

Well, like most men, Mr Carter is a fallen one. Thank God for grace. So if you don't especially like him how about Billy Graham? He's a dem and I doubt many people would question the sincerity of his Christian faith.

He's old enough to be a Southern Democrat, that dieing breed of Southerners who are not Republicans only because Lincoln and Sherman were Republicans, but otherwise vote with the Republicans.

[Socrates]

Pilgrim:
Well, like most men, Mr Carter is a fallen one. Thank God for grace. So if you don't especially like him how about Billy Graham? He's a dem and I doubt many people would question the sincerity of his Christian faith.
As I said, it was possible for a Christian to be a Dem. I wouldn't question his faith, just his discernment, which is like that of a dead fish, if he unequally yokes himself with baby butchers like the Dems.

But that's not surprising -- his faith is very anti-intellectual, he rejects creation according to the grammatical-historical interpretation of Genesis, and he could not (or would not) answer the pathetic objections raised by his former colleague turned rabid apostate, the late Chuck Templeton.

And the great Welsh preacher Martyn Lloyd-Jones refused to share a platform with Graham because he would allow Roman Catholic priests and even rank liberals to join him on the platform.

Graham's rallies are losing their effect, because he preaches like Peter to the Jews in Acts 2. This worked very well when the West was like the Jews and had a general respect for the Bible and morality, and all Peter and Billy needed to do was preach that Jesus is savior. Many leading Christians in their 50s would say that they were saved through Billy's preaching.

But in the last few decades, our culture has become more like the Greeks in Athens. In this case, when Paul preached the Resurrection, they scoffed "What is this babbler trying to say?" So Paul had to go right back to creation, preaching on the "Unknown God" who made everything. Our culture is probably even harder than the Greeks, because at least they were willing to listen to Paul, while ours has ACLU bully boys and academics with overt hostility to the slightest vestige of Christianity in public life.

But dear old Billy still preaches as if our culture is like the Jews, and hasn't changed over the last few decades. Then he wonders why his rallies aren't nearly so spectacular.


GrayPilgrim:
He's old enough to be a Southern Democrat, that dieing breed of Southerners who are not Republicans only because Lincoln and Sherman were Republicans, but otherwise vote with the Republicans.And there are a number of old dears who still vote Democrat because of Roosevelt's New Deal.

[Bill K.]

I'll come clean on my bias, I am a Republican, but I have spent a great deal of time in the former Soviet Union and the despotic Middle east, so I have seen what one might call the extremes of government. Nonetheless, here are my GENERAL observations of the two parties:

Republicans see government as a pragmatic necessity.
Democrats see it as a religion and seek to engender worship.

Republicans seek financial freedom.
Democrats seek financial dependancy.

Republicans seek to engender individualism.
Democrats seek a homogenous prolatariat of the masses.

Republicans seek the welfare of the person's spirit in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Democrats seek the welfare of the party and its retention of power.

Republicans are realists.
Democrats are utopian.

Republicans seek those who are willing to take up our Founding Fathers thoughts as their own.
Democrats seek the tractable majority.


For these and other reasons (The Ten Commandments, "thou shalt not steal...), I can not be a Democrat and be a Christian. As for Jimmy Carter... having once had the occasion to read about who he considers his spiritual forefathers, I have come to seriously doubt his membership in the Christian fold. He is a deceiver of great magnitude.

In Christ,
Bill

[Reba]

I dont see see how anyone who calls themself christian can support a group of people who believe killing babies is a right.
Save the seals and kill a child this makes me sick. As is see it if one is not against abortion they are for it and the blood of the innocent is on their hands any support for the democrates is support for abortion.

[Pilgrim]

Modern Democrats have, for the most part, always been and will continue to always be pro-choice. Yes, I know their are a few pro-life Democrats but they are an anomaly so let's not include them for the moment.

Who says they are an anomoly? You? You'll have to back that up with hard numbers or take it back. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you are speaking from intuition rather than fact here.

Take South East Michigan for example. There are a lot of Dems down here because of labor. But most of them are dedicated Christians and pro life as well. For them there are issues of social justice and economics that are very real to them. In fact, those issues directly effect their next pay check so they give them more weight. I think you can see how your blanket statement might not be as accurate as you would think.

In my opinion, I do not believe that a Christian can co-exist as a Democrat, who has been created out of the modern Democrat party doctrine. There are just too many discrepancies between what a Christian should be doing and what a Democrat does.

Hearing that I am comforted that according to James, it's not up to your opinion:

Do not speak evil against one another brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another speaks evil aginst the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge [of it]. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?

You see, it is not up to us to decide who belongs to God. That is God's domain alone. If we try to decide we break the law to love neighbor and God. We fail to love our neighbor by trying to play God over them and we fail to love God by assuming God's throne. Pretty shakey ground to be on wouldn't you agree?

Therefore, having said that, do you think it is possible to be a Chrisitian and a Democrat at the same time?

Yes, I am quite certain that one can be both if for no other reason than I know several.

Now, can one be a democrat and believe exactly the way you do? I doubt it, or at least, one wouldn't want to be. But that is a whole nother thread but it wuold be more about you and politics than it would be about Christianity and politics.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[reasonabledoubt]

I have a question- can Christians refrain from dividing all the people up as either goats or sheep? Isn't that Jesus' job at the end?
I am really astonished that on this board there are so many CHristians who are absolutely certain that their view is correct. They have no room for argument. It must be nice to live in a black and white world. I also have noticed that the few Christians on this Board who actually sound like Jesus did in the Bible- like Pilgrim, for example, (or even Jimmy Carter) are castigated. It seems that to many CHristians "correct" doctrine is far more important than following the example of Christ in the gospels.

[EvoUK]

Democrats almost always vote against a partial-birth abortion ban.

How I wish I could live in this black and white world some christians in here seem to inhabit.

What, specifically, does a partial birth abortion ban intail? The views of many pro-choicers is that partial birth abortions should be highly restricted, and only allowed in the most dire of medical situations when both the lives of the mother and the foetus are in danger (due to there being little difference between a healthy foetus at the time of a partial birth abortion, and a baby outside of the womb at the same stage of developement). Would this ban be making partial birth abortions being illegal regardless of the medical situations, or restricted as most pro-choicers agree they should be?

[ajohnson]

What, specifically, does a partial birth abortion ban intail?

:offtopic:

Seems we have already gone over this, EvoUK. An abortion in the context of any pro-life person is an elective procedure. That is the removal of an otherwise healthy fetus from the womb just because the mother desires this to happen to an unborn human child.

In the same way - a ban on partial birth abortion means to eliminate the, otherwise health, partially birthed (with the exception of the head, the child is external of the birth canal. IOW - the child is dangleing from the mother from the neck down) child, then death to that same child by sucking the babies brains out. This is the ban we pro-lifer are talking about. In the US there is currently no restriction on this type of abortion, in any state.

It makes no difference if it's not performed infrequently - it's the act that is so brutal. (like molesting a child - it makes no difference if it happen once, once is too many)

The views of many pro-choicers is that partial birth abortions should be highly restricted

Restricted?? No it should be banned. If if so many 'pro-choicers' are for restriction - why hasn't any state been successful in banning this procedure? Because the pro-choice groups fight it tooth and nail - in the courts - not the polls - but the courts.

, and only allowed in the most dire of medical situations when both the lives of the mother and the foetus are in danger (due to there being little difference between a healthy foetus at the time of a partial birth abortion, and a baby outside of the womb at the same stage of developement). Would this ban be making partial birth abortions being illegal regardless of the medical situations, or restricted as most pro-choicers agree they should be?

As I mention over and over - we (pro-lifers) are only dealing with ELECTIVE abortion. Not something when the mother's life is in danger. That is a completely different topic.

regards,

Alan

PS - It is much less stressful living in this black and white world - come on over to the bright side EvoUK, and give it a try.

[EvoUK]

An abortion in the context of any pro-life person is an elective procedure.

I am talking specifically about partial birth abortions, not abortions in general.

In the same way - a ban on partial birth abortion means to eliminate the, otherwise health, partially birthed (with the exception of the head, the child is external of the birth canal. IOW - the child is dangleing from the mother from the neck down) child, then death to that same child by sucking the babies brains out. This is the ban we pro-lifer are talking about.

I know perfectly well what a PBA is and how it is performed. I am saying that the average pro-choicer (I couldn’t realistically speak for everyone who calls themselves a pro-choicer) is not for PBAs and normal abortions to be put under the same category- because, as far as we are concerned, they are very different situations.

At the stage of development the foetus is at when a PBA is performed, it can survive outside the womb. Therefore, most of the pro-choice arguments for abortions carried out in the 1st trimester etc don’t apply. This is why many pro-choicers when they consider it think there should be restrictions on PBAs so that they only occur for valid medical reasons. Unless you think both the parent and child dying is a better outcome than saving the parent at the expense of the child which in all likelihood won’t live anyways.

In the US there is currently no restriction on this type of abortion, in any state.

Be specific. Are PBAs carried out as often as 1st trimester abortions? Stats please- because I believe that PBAs are rare- for good reason. They are also dangerous for the mother, as well as being largely unnecessary.

Your statement strongly implies a pregnant woman carrying a healthy foetus can waltz into a clinic during labour and have the child aborted as soon as its head shows. I doubt this is the case.

It makes no difference if it's not performed infrequently - it's the act that is so brutal. (like molesting a child - it makes no difference if it happen once, once is too many)

Most pro-choicers think it should only be carried out for medical reasons. This is a point which most pro-choicers and pro-lifers agree on.

Restricted?? No it should be banned

So you’d rather the mother died and agonising death, taking the baby with her, than abort the child which won’t survive anyway to try to save the life of the mother. Your position doesn’t seem to be a consistent one, considering you appear to value human life.

If if so many 'pro-choicers' are for restriction - why hasn't any state been successful in banning this procedure?

Because restricting it to be used in valid medical situations is vastly different from banning it completely. The latter results in an unnecessary loss of human life.

Because the pro-choice groups fight it tooth and nail - in the courts - not the polls - but the courts.

Given what I’ve mentioned above- I think you should expand on your position a bit.

As I mention over and over - we (pro-lifers) are only dealing with ELECTIVE abortion. Not something when the mother's life is in danger.

Then why aren’t you agreeing with me? I don’t think women should be able to have a PBA without valid medical reasons either.

There’s abortion, and then there’s PBA. Because this isn’t a black and white world- they are different topics with different considerations to take into account.

It is much less stressful living in this black and white world - come on over to the bright side EvoUK, and give it a try.

Sorry- I’m a realist.

[Patroclus]

Life was so nice when this thread was dead. :pat:

[ajohnson]

I am talking specifically about partial birth abortions, not abortions in general.

Me too - I was reiterating when a pro-lifer talks about abortion we are only talking about elective abortions. It seems to me, that whenever 'abortion' is brought up - some pro-choicer (not necessarily you) throws in the "so you want the mothers to die"? routine. It simply isn't true.

So I always state "an otherwise healthy fetus". This means there is no medical reason (mother or child) for an abortion, hence - elective.

I know perfectly well what a PBA is and how it is performed. I am saying that the average pro-choicer (I couldn’t realistically speak for everyone who calls themselves a pro-choicer) is not for PBAs and normal abortions to be put under the same category- because, as far as we are concerned, they are very different situations.

To bad the pro-choicers fight, in the courts, when a state has passed a bill about partial birth abortion.

Here's a web site that has much documentation about PBAs. I know it's the National Right to Life web site - but their links are good. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html

At the stage of development the foetus is at when a PBA is performed, it can survive outside the womb. Therefore, most of the pro-choice arguments for abortions carried out in the 1st trimester etc don’t apply. This is why many pro-choicers when they consider it think there should be restrictions on PBAs so that they only occur for valid medical reasons.

This might be true in your neck of the woods - but in the US - they are not. Or if they are they are very, very, silent.

Unless you think both the parent and child dying is a better outcome than saving the parent at the expense of the child which in all likelihood won’t live anyways.

Already answered - elective, elective, elective.

Be specific. Are PBAs carried out as often as 1st trimester abortions? Stats please- because I believe that PBAs are rare- for good reason. They are also dangerous for the mother, as well as being largely unnecessary.

Already answered - not very often.
[box]
According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (1997), and other sources, it appears that partial-birth abortions are performed 3,000 to 5,000 times annually. (Even those numbers may be low.) Based on published interviews with numerous abortionists, and interviews with Fitzsimmons in 1997, the “vast majority” of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, on healthy babies of healthy mothers

From Here (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/pbafacts.html)

Your statement strongly implies a pregnant woman carrying a healthy foetus can waltz into a clinic during labour and have the child aborted as soon as its head shows. I doubt this is the case.

Doubt all you want - doesn't change the facts.

Most pro-choicers think it should only be carried out for medical reasons. This is a point which most pro-choicers and pro-lifers agree on.

If it were only so, I'd shut-up about PBAs. As I said before - they are very, very, quite here.

So you’d rather the mother died and agonising death, taking the baby with her, than abort the child which won’t survive anyway to try to save the life of the mother. Your position doesn’t seem to be a consistent one, considering you appear to value human life.

As I say in every thread dealing with this subject - elective, elective, elective. Red herring. We are not talking about any abortion where the mother's life is at stake.

Because restricting it to be used in valid medical situations is vastly different from banning it completely. The latter results in an unnecessary loss of human life.

Agree

Given what I’ve mentioned above- I think you should expand on your position a bit.

Nothing to expand on. When states (5) passed a bill making PBA's illegal (except in the case of the case of a medical necessity) the pro-choice groups went to court to have it blocked. They were sucessfull

When our federal government passed the same type of law and President Bush signed it into legislation, the same thing happened...
Here (http://priestsforlife.org/pba/) are the transcripts of the trials that took place to overturn the federal PBA ban.

Then why aren’t you agreeing with me? I don’t think women should be able to have a PBA without valid medical reasons either.

Who said I wasn't? I agree with you - PBAs should be banned except for life saving medical reasons.

There’s abortion, and then there’s PBA. Because this isn’t a black and white world- they are different topics with different considerations to take into account.

I agree - mostly. I'll take exception the the B & W thing.

Regards,

Alan

[EvoUK]

It seems to me, that on this issue at least, we are in agreement. The troubles as I'm sure you're aware, is that each of these groups (pro-life and pro-choice) is governed by a person or group of people who's views are more extreme than the average of their followers. That is why they are in charge.

So whilst it is more logical to place restrictions on things such as PBAs (and again- I'm not getting into elective abortions during the 1st trimester- because I differentiate between abortion and PBA, even if you don't), they may not wish to do that.

Although I'm pro-choice, I am not so rabidly pro-choice that I lose all semblance of rationality. I would quite happily debate any pro-choicer who believes there should be no restriction on PBAs- I wasn't aware that there are so many.

[EvoUK]

Life was so nice when this thread was dead.

As far as the original thread topic is concerned- I don't have much of an opinion or interest- in that respect, I think the thread is dead. It seems to have evolved now... :wink:

[ajohnson]

As far as the original thread topic is concerned- I don't have much of an opinion or interest- in that respect, I think the thread is dead. It seems to have evolved now... :wink:

:lol:

[ajohnson]

It seems to me, that on this issue at least, we are in agreement. The troubles as I'm sure you're aware, is that each of these groups (pro-life and pro-choice) is governed by a person or group of people who's views are more extreme than the average of their followers. That is why they are in charge.

So whilst it is more logical to place restrictions on things such as PBAs (and again- I'm not getting into elective abortions during the 1st trimester- because I differentiate between abortion and PBA, even if you don't), they may not wish to do that.

Although I'm pro-choice, I am not so rabidly pro-choice that I lose all semblance of rationality. I would quite happily debate any pro-choicer who believes there should be no restriction on PBAs- I wasn't aware that there are so many.

We are in agreement. As usual, dialoging with you is refreshing. Ta!

Regards,

Alan

[EvoUK]

:lol:

Sorry- I couldn't resist... :wink:

We are in agreement. As usual, dialoging with you is refreshing. Ta!

And you also!

[Jude3b]

Modern Democrats have, for the most part, always been and will continue to always be pro-choice. Yes, I know their are a few pro-life Democrats but they are an anomaly so let's not include them for the moment. Anyway, back to this argument. Democrats currently are blocking Miguel Estrada from the federal bench in part, due to his conservative leanings and his stances on the major topics like abortion. Democrats almost always vote against a partial-birth abortion ban. So when it comes to pro-life, Democrats have a very, very poor track reoord.

In my opinion, I do not believe that a Christian can co-exist as a Democrat, who has been created out of the modern Democrat party doctrine. There are just too many discrepancies between what a Christian should be doing and what a Democrat does. Therefore, having said that, do you think it is possible to be a Chrisitian and a Democrat at the same time?

The answer should be a great big NO, however there does appear to be some Christian people still in the Democratic party. This has to be out of ignorance or stupidity.

I personally cannot understand how a "so-called Christian" will ever be able to explain being a Democrat to God on judgment day! Obviously "slaying innocent blood" - that is Abortion, really doesn't please God. Innocent blood is on the hands of every Demoncrat out there.