Uh-Huh. Me neither.
Posted on 07/24/2005 10:42:32 AM PDT by Graybeard58
WASHINGTON -- Democrats need to reach out to voters who oppose abortion rights and promote candidates who share that view, the head of the party said Friday.
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told a group of college Democrats that their party has to change its approach in the debate over abortion.
''I think we need to talk about this issue differently,'' Dean said. ''The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party. I don't know anybody in America who is pro-abortion.''
Dean's approach echoed similar arguments advanced in recent months by former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
''We do have to have a big tent. I do think we need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party,'' Dean said.
Still, he added, ''I think that we must be absolutely firm in being the party of individual freedom and personal freedom, which means that in the end the government doesn't get to decide, we do.''
The effort to attract such voters comes as Senate Democrats are preparing for confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Roberts' views on abortion are being scrutinized.
Dean did not mention the looming confirmation hearings. He discussed the abortion debate after a student questioned why the party was supporting Bob Casey Jr., a Pennsylvania Democrat challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.
The chairman tried to draw a distinction between Casey and Santorum, even though both men oppose abortion rights.
''You have to respect people's positions of conscience,'' Dean said. ''I think Bob Casey's position is a position of conscience.''
Dean, a former Planned Parenthood board member, said the difference between his party and Republicans is that ''we believe a woman has a right to make up their own mind and they believe [House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay should make it up and Rick Santorum should make it up for them.''
John Brabender, a consultant to Santorum's re-election campaign, said Dean's distinctions were meaningless.
''It makes absolutely no sense for Howard Dean to attack Rick Santorum unless he's also attacking Bobby Casey,'' he said.
Name one prominent Democrat who is pro-life. Democrats will not allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention, Republicans put several 'pro-choicers' on prime-time. Meanwhile the GOP has many prominent 'pro-choice' members. Arnold Swartznegger, Rudy Gulliani, Christine Whitman, Gerald Ford, and others like Specter, Snow, Collins. I really can't name one well known Democrat who could be called pro-life.
Don't we believe that government shouldn't decide what we can and cannot do?
You're absolutely right regarding the semantics. DemonicRATs cannot even bring themselves to finish the phrase "woman's right to choose..." so they just put a period of after it. Every time I hear it from a dem I cringe.
Is there such a thing?
.."You have to respect people's positions
of conscience" ...
This is utter double-talk. So, as long as my conscience really tells me it's OK, then the law should allow me to do what I feel is right... including killing my unborn child.
Unfortunately this feel-good babble satisfied his constituents, and makes them feel as if they are the ones being reasonable, open-minded, and tolerant. The fact is that the whatever-you-think-so-long-as-you-leave-me-alone relativism really boils down to the age-old maxim of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
-- Joe
When's the last time attorneys appealed the case of an executed murderer or rapist? The longer these murderers and rapist live, the more money to be had from the government. It doesn't matter that there is no chance of a new trial or reversal. There's money to be taken from the government coffers.
It also doesn't help that most, if not all state and federal prisons housing the convicted rapists and murderers facing execution are operated by people that would lose their jobs if the prisoner population were reduced by executions. I know a few prison guards personally. They talk very conservatively until the subject of reducing prison populations by carrying out executions is put on the table. They start talking in circles at that point. When their livelihood could be jeopardized they sound an awful lot like the ACLU.
Abortion also has vested interests on both sides. It's an issue that gets many "pro-lifers" elected to Congress, but why don't they ever introduce a Constitutional Amendment barring or limiting abortion? Their hands aren't tied. There's no limit to how often amendments can be introduced. Such an amendment could have been introduced every year since Roe v Wade. Why haven't they? Why have there been so many amendments proposed the last couple decades to protect the flag, an object, yet amendments protecting the lives of the unborn are curiously absent? Doesn't that make you wonder?
What Bible do you read? God recognizes governmental powers. Does He not set up kings (and kingdoms) and depose them? Did Jesus not say render unto Ceasar what is Caesars? And that was the the law of the land He was talking about. At His own trial Jesus never argued that the Romans did not have authority to inflict the death penalty, only that He was innocent.
The good doctor must not have looked into his bathroom mirror this morning.
I don't believe that. I know women who have had abortions, my sis in law, for one, who didn't have any pressure to abort. She was married to an abusive alcoholic and she know if she had that child she would not have had the strength or money to get away. In fact, her family and husband pressured her not to have the abortion.
Not saying she was wrong or right, but I do know that not all women are coerced and not all women regret it.
Gen 9:5-6 NSRV
I'm sorry, but you took this passage way out of context. This was a warning for humans not to kill, for you may be killed as well. It is not authority from God to kill other humans. This quote comes into context if you also read the passage:
Jesus says: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist and evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven;"
Mt 5:38-45 NSRV
Jesus was saying that revenge is a hateful act. The death penalty as a hateful act cannot be supported by scriptures in my opinion.
True, I guess I was thinking more at FR. Casey, Jr. would be the first one off the top of my head. I guess the ever welcome Zell, too! LOL!
Uh-Huh. Me neither.
Good point. I guess they know they don't have the votes? Or is it something else? Not really committed? But if it would get them votes don't you think they'd introduce legislation to do just about anything?
I think you have to get rid of abortion by changing minds, not laws. I'm uncomfortable with Roe as law, but also as a law banning abortion.
"I really can't name one well known Democrat who could be called pro-life."
Harry Reid.
I will preface this by saying I am pro-life but I am also pro small government and pro getting the government out of as much as possible.
We have lots of things that are legal that are immoral to someone. Gambling, adultery, birth control and alcohol, to name some of the most popular.
Do we want the government to make laws banning anything someone finds morally wrong?
I would like to see each state have a referendum on abortion. If the majority wants it, it should be legal there. Also, any restrictions can be voted on.
If ya'll welcome pro-life dems to your party, then let them have prime time speaking time at your convention!!!
"Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind." Gen 9:5-6 NSRV
>>This was a warning for humans not to kill, for you may be killed as well. It is not authority from God to kill other humans. >
This is a contorted way to read that passage. If someone kills someone else, they should be killed too. This is seen as just and is backed up again in Romans 13. Your reading of Christ's "eye for an eye" passage into this would make eliminate all law. Why punish a man for theft, just forgive! Christ was speaking of personal forgiveness and not setting down governmental rules.
Just because Jesus did not argue against the death penalty does not mean he supports it. Please cite passages where Jesus is for and against revenge. I think that will help clear up your argument.
Many people support the death penalty because they believe justice has been served. That the crooks 'got what was coming to them.' They believe that if it's only fair that if you kill someone, you should die as well.
God never said life was going to be fair, or all injustices would be righted while you were on Earth. The ability to forgive others for injustices instead of supporting or taking revenge is a core tenet of the Chrisitian faith. I seriously suprises me how many people argue this. I cannot understand why.
I think this is to someone else, I'm not a big Bible quoter.
I'm with you. I don't like abortion or the death penalty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.