Democrats & Liberals: Archives

As a woman it offends me when people say we’re forced into having babies!?!
That suggests we have no brains and still have not figured out where babies come from!

I’m a christian. I’m also a left-leaning moderate. Church and state should be separated. Bringing church into state creates a religious government that’s not inclusive or a democracy. Heck, christianity is not inclusive. Read the bible… you’ll see. Bringing state into the church detracts from the church’s mission…to spread the gospel.

Let the government govern….let the church spread the good news and work on people’s heart…one heart at a time. Mixing the two is bad for both. We are a secular government. Leave it at that. As Thomas Jefferson has said before; The truth doesn’t need the government. If it is truth, it will stand the tests of time and prevail.

It’s time the “Focus on the Family” folks got back to Christ’s mission and out of politics.

God Bless America

Traci, he was referring to the FREC’s stance against abortion, not females intelligence. Also, possibly to their stance on bringing those embryo’s to term and put them up for adoption. Now that is a good one, literally true. But, how would they propose to force parents of frozen embryo’s to term.

You want to see women insulted? Ask yourself if women with frozen embryo’s want to be forced by laws to bring ALL of those embryo’s to term and put the darlings up for abortion? Now, that is insulting courtesy of the FREC’s.

Well said, Tom. Being a Buddhist, FREC’s are no end of concern to me as they make inroads into government.

I know what he was referring to and that is not the point!

Abortion having to be an option in itself verifies that women are not intelligent enough to be responsible!

Don’t get me wrong I’m not a flaming anti-abortionist or anything- I just hate programs/laws and what-have-ya of any sort that allows you to repeatedly be an idiot!

Like the woman who is sobbing that her babies daddy is a crack addict……DUH you knew that when he was smoking crack while you were sleeping with him……for the first 3 kids at that!!!

I know I’m likely to hear the rape senario also……which is a tough one I’ll admit….but that is a very small percentage, and most of our laws leave out a very small percentage. Take for example …seatbelt laws, a very small percentage of people die because they were wearing a seatbelt in an accident. They are not even compensated in these situations but still the law went forward.

Tom, you wrote “Heck, christianity is not inclusive. Read the Bible…you’ll see.”

I agree with you on the importance of keeping a sharp separation between church and state. I also agree on the danger posed to our democracy when folks like Dobson try to break down such a separation.

The only point I would make here is that we must be careful not to speak of “Christianity” as if everybody agrees on what it means to be Christian. My Christian upbringing leads me to loathe those like Dobson who spend their time fighting on issues like abortion and virtually ignore issues of social justice and poverty that have been given much more biblical and historical emphasis. Or how they are so ready to proclaim that God is on their side. Or how they uncritically support one political party rather than even-handedly evaluating candidates based on a full range of moral issues. Or how they fail to understand that people can validly support either republicans or democrats based on deeply held religious beliefs.

I believe that the Christian tradition can (and, in my view, should) be defined and understood as an inclusive, compassionate movement with social justice as one of its primary focuses. I guess my point overall is that the enemy here isn’t “Christianity,” but the extreme right-wing wackos who would use it (or, better, twist it) to impose their worldview on others.

Traci - by your statement, I cannot figure out if you are trying to agree with Paul’s post, or if you just found one thing to disagree on and focused entirely on that.

With that said, I totally agree with Paul and I think this is the best evaluation of the whole Senate fiasco that has been presented so far. These 14 moderates should be commended for not allowing the extremists on either side to control this issue. Thanks for a great post Paul!

Traci,

I think the point you’re making is the emphasize the importance of personal responsibility in dealing with issues like abortion. I would agree. In fact, I think that we democrats often fail to pay enough attention to the importance of that side of the issue. At the same time, however, I think there are also issues of social responsibility involved. For instance, how society’s failure to provide adequate sexual education actually increases the risk for unwanted pregnancies amongst teens. As such, there is a broader social issue of whether society should limit a woman’s options if she is faced with an unwanted pregnancy. That is not to say that the pregnancy is society’s “fault.” But it would also be foolish to ignore the role of things like poverty, lack of access to contraception, etc.

I would also add here that, personally, I think abortion is an immense tragedy whenever one occurs. I simply don’t think that the solution is to outlaw abortion. Didn’t work when it was illegal, for one thing. I believe that what we need to do is to address all of the issues — addressing both social and personal resonsibilities — to decrease the frequency of abortions as much as possible. And, actually, I think there’s a lot of common ground here between republicans and democrats. But the cynic in me is unsure that some politicians would really want to vote for a law to really work on this and risk giving up what they see as a political “winner.”

You are correct, Steve. So long as abortion can be used as a HOT TOPIC for politics, it will remain as it is. Personally for me, abortion is a non-issue politically. It should be between a woman and her doctor and no one else. Republicans have become the party of “sticking their noses into everyone’s lives” and unfortunately, the Democrats are being too wishy-washy and allowing it to happen.

Ravyne~
I’m sorry I wasn’t aware I had to make sure you had me figured out!
Quit being catty and post your damn opinion without worrying about me.

“The only point I would make here is that we must be careful not to speak of “Christianity” as if everybody agrees on what it means to be Christian.”

Steve Westby,

Let me be the first to give my definition of Christianity.
Christ-like, or to live one’s life like Christ, with all that would entail.
I don’t think it could be much simpler than that.

This is an extremely dangerous trend, and the “nuclear option” was to have been the Big Confrontation in the war to impose a theocracy upon U.S.

I think this is, indeed, the fear of many people today, including a growing number of moderates. Contrary to what talk radio would have you believe, few people object to the beliefs of fundamentalists. It’s when they try to force their fundamentalist views on others that we very reluctantly begin to fear a kind of emerging religion-based fascism.

I hope this is overstated and slightly paranoid. The term theocracy, after all, has a taste of hyperbole. But listening to even mainstream Republicans castigate the moderates in their ranks makes me worry that we’re further along such a path than many believe. Those on the right need to realize that this isn’t a partisan sporting event or about, as they say, the principle of an up or down vote. It’s about the growing fear that our society is mutating into something quite fearsome, a place where people have fewer and fewer liberties. I think the Republican moderates recognize this and would like to turn it back, but can it actually be turned back in our age of rabid partisanship?

Reed,

I am sorry to say this, but I fear that we have very nearly passed the threshold of political sanity in this country. I do fear the “Rightous Crusade”, that hopes to take over this country and mold it in their own image.
In my definition of Christian above, I cannot include the likes of Mr. Dobson, who wants this country defined in his image. He would seem to be the least Christ-like of all the “Christian” leadership in this country. Unfortunately, he also has a platform to speak very loudly from.

This discussion has been interesting. However, I see we have failed to acknowledge the fundamental issue here: Do we as a Nation wish to placate the minority which is uneducated, unthinking, and superstitious, or, do we as a Nation strive for the best-of-the-best in our human nature. The Framers of our constitution understood that those of greater intellectual ability should be empowered to make the critical decisions of the Nation…. Our Framers invisioned a government which is democratic not populist…. Republican voters in 2004 averaged 2 years less education than those who voted Democratic… this is no surprise… For nearly 200 years, the best and the brightest were reverenced in this country; now, the worst and most stupid are reverence by the Republican right. It is a decidely dark moment in our history as a nation that flat-earthers should have the power to dictate superstition over science vis-a-vis creationism in our schools… the radical, irresponsible, religious right in the United States should be permanently silenced—this is not a violation of free speech, but, rather, a recognition that while each citizen may have a point of view, not all points of view are valide nor worthy of consideration.

the radical, irresponsible, religious right in the United States should be permanently silenced

Sorry, but that’s rot. It’s about as frightening as the radical right itself. I don’t want to keep them from speaking. I just don’t want them to tell me what I should think, and I don’t want my liberties stripped from me based on their notions of morality.

I am actually interested in watching the US turn into the Inquisition mainly because I live overseas. It would be fascinating to watch. Think of it!!! Neighbors spying on Neighbors. People disappearing from the streets. Guantanamo in the middle of New York. It would be beautiful.

Quit being catty and post your damn opinion without worrying about me.

Oh, the irony.

Anyway, to the subject of the article: I don’t see the fight over judicial filibusters as a religious battle. The proponents of the nuclear option have stated repeatedly and clearly that this is about preserving the integrity of the Senate and respecting the presidential power of judicial nomination. When you read in all this religious subterfuge, you are tacitly accusing these guys of conspiracy and deception, which seems a little rude. Does anyone have evidence that the filibuster debacle is based on a fight to impose theocracy upon the US?

This issue is not about stripping free speech rights based on a notion of morality. Rather, we are considering the free speech rights of those who speak what is patently untrue with the intent to injure others. When Bill Frist states on the the Senate floor that the brain of Terri Schiavo was a functioning brain, it is a patently false statement, and a knowingly false statement made with the intent of injuring others. He is, clearly, advocating old-wives-tales over objective, scientific knowlege which he should know to be true. The fact that Bill Frist offered a diagnosis on the Senate floor without having any objective data upon which to base his diagnosis and hence, violating his oath as a scientist, it is only further evidence of his intent to defraud the American people. Simply stated, where there is no cerebral cortex, there is no consciousness. This is fact. Mr Frist does not have a 1st Amendment right to state the patently false. It is the equivalent to crying “fire” in a theatre where there is no fire. Again, the 1st Amendement provides for the protection of speech where there is a valid difference of option. However, it does not provide protection for knowingly false statements. Hence, the law of frauds, libel, and slander. Further, the jurisprudence of the US does not provide a protection for insincerely held beliefs…

The proponents of the nuclear option have stated repeatedly and clearly that this is about preserving the integrity of the Senate and respecting the presidential power of judicial nomination.

What we do know is that integrity of the Senate has long depended on the president conferring with members of both parties about potential nominees. It has also long depended on Senate traditions such as blue slipping to keep many of the most controversial nominees from entering the process. So, it’s quite clear that the “integrity of the Senate” has little to do with the power struggle. If it did, then minority rights and Senate etiquette would receive as much attention today as they did when Democrats controlled the Senate. So, if we’re clear that this isn’t really about the integrity of the Senate (and, in fact, ignores most of Senate history), then it must be about something else. It’s the something else that worries.

Sorry, this whole issue is religous. The proponents of the nuclear option are dedicated to a pre-scientific mentality in the United States senate and judiciary. The persons nominated by the Bush administration for judicial positions have all demonstrated their view that objective truth — science — should be subjudgated to religous dogma and that objective fact should be ignored. The Framers were persons of science. The question of God was not an issue. The Framers understood religion to be cancerous in a civil society. They understood God was not a white guy, old, and with a long, white beard. They understood that religion was a cancer on civil society. It was the great lesson of European society from over 1000 years. Finally, it should be clearly stated: belief in God does not require one to be ignorant nor irrational. A true understanding of God opens up the infinite possibilities and probablities; it does limit them. God is infinite… God is not a southern bigot….

While I think it’s great that this blow to the theocrats came, I think we need to do a lot more work to remove the elements of theocracy that have already become intrenched in our government. To whit, this wonderful example from my state constitution’s clause on freedom of religion:

“That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

True, Reed, but I used “and” to connect the claim with “respecting the presidential power of judicial nomination” which, when a nomination makes it to the Senate floor, according to past behavior, usually should result in an up or down vote, thus completing the advice and consent of the Senate and preserving what these folks see as the institution’s integrity. By the time a nomination makes it to the floor, the decision as to whether a candidate should be considered has been completed and affirmed.

Nonetheless, I prefer to take people at their word.

To clarify: Priscilla Owen, for example, certainly has a radical stance on abortion (as it applies to her position as a judge sworn to uphold the law of the land), but she may very well have been nominated for her positions on other issues.

A former lawyer for the oil and gas industry, she reflexively favors manufacturers over consumers, employers over workers and insurers over sick people.

and

Justice Owen has also shown a disturbing lack of sensitivity to judicial ethics. She has raised large amounts of campaign contributions from corporations and law firms, and then declined to recuse herself when those contributors have had cases before her. And as a judicial candidate, she publicly endorsed a pro-business political action committee that was raising money to influence the rulings of the Texas Supreme Court.

These could be a greater influence on her nomination than her stance on abortion. And her stance on abortion and support of her for it may simply be political expediency.

The same with Janice Brown. She has more instances of being against entitlements and excessively pro-business than any religious zealotry.

Conservatism is more than “moral values” though this may be what the media focuses on.

Have any of their proponents in the Senate explicitly stated that they support these judges in the hopes of furthering theocracy in America? Concern is one thing, but this article seems to state it as fact.

Jared is correct. We need to do more to remove the theocratic viruses in our country. We begin by providing truly scientific education in our science classrooms. We need to teach our young people to question the mythologies of religion, to demand objective truth… we need to challenge them to find a God who is not white, old, and with a long white beard… we must compassionately correct the minority who hold to that which is objectively untrue… Finally, we must return the irresponsibly, radical religous right to classrooms where they will find rational truth… until such time, they and their primitive ideologies should be ignored…

Randall:

It’s Jarin, not Jared. And while I do think that elements of theocracy need to be removed from our government, I would not go so far as you and condemn the religion itself as nothing but a primitive ideology. I’ve seen some very beautiful expressions of the Christian religion, not least the Quakers who take the bible as part of a collective and ongoing testament of personal faith and revelation. And while I think that many of the current “fundamentalists”… more correctly, neo-puritans or christian supremicists… are following a very shallow and negative interpretation of the christian religion, I really would have no problem at all with them continuing to do so as long as they did not try to impose the tenets of that interpretation on others through governmental force.

Jarin, apologies for mis-typing your name. Allow me to be clear here: Religion is not the problem; the problem is religion that is unable to develop itself in light of science and the understanding of human condition…. I am a Catholic theologian… I do not think religion is bad… however, there is no theological nor moral basis for condemning evolution, there is no theolgoical nor moral basis for condeming stem cell research; we must keep in mind that the radical religous right in the USA DOES NOT HAVE a theological basis for its complaints…. rather, its complaints are predicated on its personal discomfort with reality… The appropriate reponse: Grow up….

Randall:

I misunderstood your meaning. In that case, we are in full agreement with regard to the radical religious right.

Jarin,

I do think the language you cite is over the top and potentially dangerous. But the rest of the same paragraph seems to be far from theocratic. Part of it states, “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

Joseph, You write:

…when a nomination makes it to the Senate floor, according to past behavior, usually should result in an up or down vote, thus completing the advice and consent of the Senate and preserving what these folks see as the institution’s integrity.

Yes, but my point is that looking at the process only from the point of the Senate floor fails to take into consideration the whole picture. If the Republicans change the preliminary process, then the rest of the process should also be subject to change, I would argue. I’m sure that the Republican senators know this but I rather doubt your average citizen is familiar with the arcane details of how it’s been done in the past.

she publicly endorsed a pro-business political action committee that was raising money to influence the rulings of the Texas Supreme Court.

Well, I certainly agree that her being, let’s say, “pro-business” helps endear her to a certain part of the Republican party. No doubt, it’s exactly this hybrid of being appealing to the religious right as well as the plutocratic right that makes her so attractive to a political party that relies on both groups.

Randall, You wrote:

This is fact. Mr Frist does not have a 1st Amendment right to state the patently false.

Few people distain Dr. Frist as much as I, but I know of no law keeping him from uttering this nonsense. I very much doubt anyone could prove he was engaged in fraud, libel or slander. Being ignorant just isn’t against the law (unless the good doctor was actually practicing medicine at the time and was responsible for that patient). And that’s proabably a good thing since our penal system isn’t ready to imprison everyone (including myself, no doubt) that has expressed a really stupid opinion.

Sorry for this overlong post.

Jarin: I thought from the begginging, we were generally in agreement…. Most importantly, I thought from the beginning we could have a good discussion… I am an old man… the WWW is not that familiar to me; tell me how we continue our discussion outside this blog… I would rather enjoy an e-mail dialog without worrying about broader exposure; I think further discussion could be contructive….. please consider my web-page: geocities.com/fivereflections

Dear Mr. Reed: Mr Frist stated on the Senate floor he was making a medical diagnosis… he was not saying, I “personally believe” such and such… he came to the floor of the Senate and stated, I am a doctor and here is my diagnosis. There is a difference. Bill Frist made a pseudo-scientific statement contrary to fact… there is a standard by which persons in science, including Mr Frist, are obliged to comply… in the alternative, they must disassociate themselves from the scientific field… Mr Frist proved himself unable to comply with the scientific standard which requires him to have competency in the area of medical expertise to which he speaks and that he makes a diagnosis based on fact and not political popularity. He ignored any of the relevant scientific data…the CT scans of Terri Schiavo showed that Ms Schiavo lacked a cerebral cortex… her skull was essentially nothing more than water… that is what spinal fluid is, water….

Reed:

Yet all of that is rendered meaningless if the government can impose a duty upon its citizens to practice Christian precepts above those of their own conscience, while giving lip-service to freedom of religion and sovereignty of conscience.

Randall:

I will email you. Thank you for the invitation.

I fear the future…

How could we have been so wrong for such a long time in these United States. I’m glad we’re finally enlightened.

It is interesting reading through the postings so far on this topic. It seems as though there is, at the very least, a faint animosity towards American evangelism. This is partly earned by the current government’s power grab and general dictation of policy based on theological concerns. However, I believe it is a little early to assume that a threocracy is in any way imminent; big business will not stand to be dictated by anything other than themselves, regardless of whether it is god or the devil. Our country is dedicated to profit, and this is and shall remain (at least in the near and intermediate future) the status quo. Christianity is merely the latest drug to be peddled to the masses (somewhat ironic considering the place Christianity has had in the western world the past 2,000 years or so). Futher, I’m not sure there is an inherent difference between marketing Coke and Jesus; you can probably make just as much money on both. If a theocracy is ever to become the ruling method in this country, capitalism will be the first to go.

I know what he was referring to and that is not the point!

Of course not, Traci. It’s much easier to villify your opponent when you make up his side of the argument.

Abortion having to be an option in itself verifies that women are not intelligent enough to be responsible!

Yikes!!! That’s crazy logic.

By having the government enforce a woman’s maternity, you’re taking ALL responsibility away from her and giving it to the federal government.

If you want people to be responsible, you have to give them responsibility - and accept the choices they make. You don’t have to agree their choice, and you can try to convince them (not coerce them) to change their mind, but you have to respect their choice.

Your position dehumanizes women and treats them as government mandated baby factories. You may feel comfortable having the government force you to raise the progeny of rape and incest, but I think most people would disagree.

the radical, irresponsible, religious right in the United States should be permanently silenced—this is not a violation of free speech, but, rather, a recognition that while each citizen may have a point of view, not all points of view are valide nor worthy of consideration.

How can you arbitrarilly declare that these people being silenced would not not be a violation of free speech and,

By who’s decree would points of view be declared valid or worthy of consideration

AP~
Re-read the post sir! I spoke of no stance on whether or not abortion should be legal/illegal, I personally don’t care- just stating my opinion.

Sorry Traci, I was responding to that one sentence. Upon re-reading it, I now have no idea what you’re talking about.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not a flaming anti-abortionist or anything- I just hate programs/laws and what-have-ya of any sort that allows you to repeatedly be an idiot!

So you’re going to legislate against idiocy? Some people are just idiots.

Here’s my new measuring stick for society: Should America stand by and allow our idiots to suffer in their idiocy? Do we give them the counseling, tools, and opportunity to shed their idiocy? Or do we embrace and protect our idiots as God gave them to us and accept their idiocy?

How we answer will say a lot about our values as Americans.

Randall,

In your post of May 25, 8:37 PM you make a very disturbing reference to the fact that the less educated are less entitled to govern and you seem to imply that this group gravitates to the Republican right. You use a phrase “the worst and most stupid” in describing a group of human beings which I believe to be in very bad taste.

Your May 25, 9:52 PM post suggests that science is always more reliable than faith. I suggest that faith does not necessarily exclude fact and/or scientific support. Should the framework of the government be based on science to the exclusion of faith or, should a proportionate combination be best. Emotion cannot be taken out of the equation.

This a direct quote from your May 25, 10:05 PM post

Finally, we must return the irresponsibly, radical religous right to classrooms where they will find rational truth… until such time, they and their primitive ideologies should be ignored…

This I find to be a suggestion that we suppress or rather reformulate religious freedom. Also you have declared any and all of those on the religious right to be irresponsible, primitive and ignored. Interesting for an obviously well educated individual. “Returning the religious right to classrooms where they will find rational truth”. I for one think that to be potentially an extremely inflamatory, demeaning proposal.

AP~
Saying that you hate something and creating a movement to legislate on it are two different things! Or what I was lead to believe anyways.

Yet all of that is rendered meaningless if the government can impose a duty upon its citizens to practice Christian precepts above those of their own conscience, while giving lip-service to freedom of religion and sovereignty of conscience.

Jarin, I agree with that statement. The question is where the dividing line is. I concede that the langauge you posted is worrisome, but I don’t want to jump the gun and cry “theocracy” every time Christianity is mentioned, especially not if it’s mostly legal window-dressing. If you do that, then people start to ignore you when the real theocracy raises its head. Still, I think it’s great you’re keeping track and communicating this kind of legal language. I found it very enlightening. Thanks.

If a theocracy is ever to become the ruling method in this country, capitalism will be the first to go.

ant,

I don’t think this is true at all. I know of very few conflicts between those who seem to wish the U.S. would be a “Christian nation” and capitalists. Christ Himself may have thought little of the rich, but how often do you hear that from any segment of the Christian far right?

The danger is that the GOP will pick judges, in the words of one anonymous blogger, “who are going to keep picking away at our liberties until we’re all just empty husks, our brains and bank accounts owned by global corporations and our bodies and souls by the George W. Orwell Church of Evangelical Nationalism, formerly known as the U.S. federal government.”

If there were a conflict between tyranny and capitalism, then the China phenomenon would not exist.

Just to clarify, I have no problem with capitalism per se. I think it’s a fine system within certain legal limits. I just don’t see it conflicting very much with some kind of neo-theocracy.

Randall says:
Do we as a Nation wish to placate the minority which is uneducated, unthinking, and superstitious, or, do we as a Nation strive for the best-of-the-best in our human nature …

Republican voters in 2004 averaged 2 years less education than those who voted Democratic… this is no surprise…

So if I only have a B.S. in an engineering field compared to your PhD in whatever, then I am uneducated, and unthinking. If I profess to being a Chistian, then I am superstitious.

You should check out a site by some men with more education then you since you value school time so much. http://www.reasons.org/

Our Framers invisioned a government which is democratic not populist….

Our Framers were elitist that didn’t even allow the common people to vote for a President, that came later. Technically speaking they still don’t.

Our Framers were also the “superstitious” type, which you could tell by the words the wrote. Words like “..endowed by their Creator” Creator did not mean some fore-farther monkey.

This is not “life.”

Yes it is, otherwise the slippery slope leads to a world I wouldn’t want to be a part of.

Pregnant women must be forced into childbirth.

Wouldn’t you rather the child live than die? I’m pro-choice… you have the choice to have sex or not and you have the choice to either raise the baby or give it up for adoption. Killing the child is never the right choice.

Eric,

Here’s the problem. Many people simply do not equate a fertilized egg or newly emerging fetus, which in a small cluster of cells, with a human child. Those who do believe this tend to believe that those cells are endowed by God with a human soul from conception, which is why there’s this link with religion.

No one in the U.S., as in China, forces people into abortion. Should people who hold strong religious beliefs force other people to carry a fertilized egg to term? Even if no one forced another person to have sex, which is an incredibly strong impulse in the human species, should a person be forced to concede that a fertilized egg is an actual human being?

And, if this is such strong belief, then what of all the fertilized eggs in fertility clinics? Are they children? Must they all be brought to term?

These are difficult questions and the answers will depend on your belief system. But we’ve got to recognize that a society that’s based on freedom of religion needs to be very careful about how it interprets and enforces such moral strictures.

I have other concerns about abortion: the life-long guilt or regret some people suffer, the sense of “what if,” the concern about the religious questions. These are real for some people and should not be belittled by the left. My own sense of this is that people should come together to try to reduce not only abortions but the reasons people wind up in situations where they feel they must have them. If we did this as a nation, we could find a great deal of common ground and perhaps end much of the animosity on this subject.

What needs to happen is that a nationwide support system of adoptive parents and pregnant women who do not wish to raise the child can come together. Money can be given by either the adoptive parents, a combination of parents and government or parents and their insurance providers, to help pay for the medical expenses of the development and birth of that child. I agree with the first President Bush about abortion being limited to rape, incest and the actual physical health of the mother. In the first two instances I’d encourage the adoption route but wouldn’t restrict the procedure outright. That’s where I’ve compromised, by the way.

That’s where I’ve compromised, by the way.

Thanks for the response, Eric. This isn’t only about compromise, of course. It’s also about the rule of law and freedom of religion. Even if abortion became illegal everywhere in the U.S., it wouldn’t stop anyone of even middle class means from going to another country for the procedure. (Very few developed nations make abortion illegal.) It just isn’t a battle to be won in courts by trying to nominate the judges most willing (recklessly, I’d say) to invade a person’s life and privacy. It’s a battle for hearts and minds.

How come you neo-con types never call a spade a spade? You are all for taking a life when it comes to handing out death sentences for every defendant under the sun (are you listening Texas and Virginia) but bring up euthanasia or abortion and you people come out of the woodwork saying “Oh no, we can’t do that”, What gives? We do practice “Freedom of Religion”, here in the U.S., yeah, as long as your religion doesn’t offend mine. Oh, and by the way, if you beleive in Christ and have taken him to be your “Holy Savior”, you are for all intents and purposes a “Christian”. It isn’t a playground, with the children sitting around saying “My God can beat up your God”. Religion is a two way street, you practice yours and I will practice mine. Oh, as long as we are on subject, “How come I have never heard once, not even one time the mention of the word “LOVE” from either camp in the ongoing battle over “Gay Marriage”? Isn’t that what it should be about? Afterall, I don’t give two hoots about what you do with that pickle, goat, or mate, in your bedroom, where do I get off even being in there? Moreover,don’t I have bigger and better things to worry about? Where’s Osama comes to Mind.

Well personally, I think all of you are missing the point. (ducking!!!). I think the gang of 14 just proved that bipartisenship is not dead. If I would have been in the US Senate I would have been one of the 14 just to thumb my nose at the left and the right at the same time!! Now when do you get to do that!!

Craig

Posted by: Reed Sanders
I think the Republican moderates recognize this and would like to turn it back, but can it actually be turned back in our age of rabid partisanship?

Well, they have to decide whether they are true conservatives or parrots for latter-day Cotton Mathers. I’m kinda waiting for Jesus to come back and start feeding, clothing, healing, and throwing the moneychangers out of the temple.
Go figure!

Posted by: Wayne at May 26 - all of it.

Amen, brother.

What needs to happen is that a nationwide support system of adoptive parents and pregnant women who do not wish to raise the child can come together.

Excellent idea, Eric. And the cool thing about it is, you don’t need to make abortion illegal to accomplish our common goal of making abortion unnecessary.

If I would have been in the US Senate I would have been one of the 14 just to thumb my nose at the left and the right at the same time!!

Craig, you also would have just lost RNC funding for your re-election bid, lost your seat on important committees, and galvanized powerful and pervasive GOP interests with plenty of cash against you. And you can expect to have some well-funded Republican competition for your seat. Good luck.

BTW, I just want to say I really do admire those guys and gals. I hope you like-minded Republicans put your money where you say your politics are, and make sure their re-election bids are well-financed.

And here’s Christine Todd Whitmans moderate PAC. She’s got a lot of information on mobilizing support for conservative centrists. If you like what McCain, Snowe, Gramm, and those guys did, let ‘em know.

Wayne:

Oh, as long as we are on subject, “How come I have never heard once, not even one time the mention of the word “LOVE” from either camp in the ongoing battle over “Gay Marriage”? Isn’t that what it should be about?

I don’t know who you’ve been listening to, but it tends to be mentioned quite frequently by those supporting gay marriage in my experience. I know I’ve mentioned it before, though possibly not on this site. Usually, it gets summarily dismissed by the other side, since they claim either that a) marriage is about children, not “selfish” love between two individuals, and/or b) love between members of the same sex is not really love, it’s lust.

Jarin:

“I don’t know who you’ve been listening to, but it tends to be mentioned quite frequently by those supporting gay marriage in my experience. I know I’ve mentioned it before, though possibly not on this site. Usually, it gets summarily dismissed by the other side, since they claim either that a) marriage is about children, not “selfish” love between two individuals, and/or b) love between members of the same sex is not really love, it’s lust.”

Question 1: Should a heterosexual couple who are physically incapable of bearing children (for whatever reason) not have sex? Afterall, marriage is about children, not about “selfish” love between two individuals, and/or b) love between members of the same sex is not really love, it’s lust?

Just wondering,
Wayne

In the 90’s, those not in power feared the rampant socialism taking over the country.
Today its the evil religious people who are feared by those not in power.
Half the country sleeps when their party is in power and only pays attention when they are not.
How wonderful it would be if the WHOLE country would just wake-up!

Question 1: Should a heterosexual couple who are physically incapable of bearing children (for whatever reason) not have sex? Afterall, marriage is about children, not about “selfish” love between two individuals, and/or b) love between members of the same sex is not really love, it’s lust?

Just wondering,
Wayne

Heh… I’ve asked that question, or variants of it, more times than I care to recall. The response is usually some form of “oh, well, that’s different since at least those couples are modeled after those who are biologically able to have children, and could in theory provide a ‘proper’ environment for rearing adopted children in a family with one parent of each gender.” At which point I ask what about those straight couples who do not choose to have children at all, but are married. I haven’t heard a real answer to that one yet.