Monday, September 15, 2008
Pro-life Democrats
Ah yes, I know what some of you are going to say to these guys. "You're in the wrong party. How can you call yourselves pro-life when you support a party that's against your position. If you were real pro-lifers you would leave."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'm a socialist Republican
I read the argument that the Democratic base is more prolife that the party elites. I am not sure that helps me vote the ticket. I am looking for an excuse to vote for Obama. This is not helping.
I don't think the PLD site endorses the ticket anywhere.
For those who think a pro-life Democrat is an absurdity, would you equally say that a pro-choice Republican should leave the party?
Pro-life Democrat politicians are not an impossibility. They would win handily this year as several did in 2006. Taking the pro-life position takes the last lethal weapon from the Republicans. I don't know if that helps with Obama. His relationship to Planned Parenthood is the tightest in history for a presidential candidate; odd for an organization that once openly targeted black people for extinction.
Being Pro-life and Democrat is better than being Pro-choice, of course. It is better to protest from within than do nothing.
Jim Jordan: "... Taking the pro-life position takes the last lethal weapon from the Republicans. ..."
Only if everyone in the nation is content to be fools about all sorts of things.
When the Democrats stop being the Party For Abortion, they'll stop being absolutely morally repulsive.
However, they'll still be the Party For Stupidity -- nearly every position, and sertainly every position on important issues, which is understood by everyone to be a "natural" Democratic Party position can be arrived at merely by being stupid and refusing to learn to stop being stupid.
*Real* stupidity is one thing -- it can't be helped; someone who really is stupid is doing the best he can with his limited mind. However, very few people in this word are really stupid. With most of us, "stupidity" is really ignorance ... and generally compounded by a studied refusal to stop being ignorant.
As a pro-life Dem myself, I can say I agree entirely that the Dem's position on abortion is morally repugnant. But I'm a realist. The probability of Roe vs. Wade being overturned should McCain/Palin win, I'd guess approaches zero. Electing them, by itself, will not do anything to change the law. Two terms of Bush ought to serve as evidence for that.
No, what needs to happen to change the law is first for there to be a cultural change in this country. Until a *strong* majority wake up and see abortion for the outrage that it is, the law will remain unchanged.
I tend to think that most pro-choicers are well intentioned. I know, because I was one. As an atheist, it was rather easy for me to consider a fetus to be nothing more than a lump of cells---living matter, yes, but a human being, no. If one believes that, it's rather easy to be pro-choice. You're not killing a human being, it's more like you're cutting out a tumor. And as long as one considers a fetus to be akin to a tumor, being pro-choice isn't a moral outrage.
Culturally, most of the country, by my estimation, has bought into this distortion. What I cannot understand for the life of me, is when a Christian is pro-choice. Christians believe we humans were created by God, for His purposes, and endowed by Him with a soul. And unless I'm mistaken, no one knows for sure, when in the process God imbues the body with the soul. Since we don't know, we ought to err on the side of caution and not destroy the human life since it might be chock-full of a soul from the moment of conception.
But none of this changes the fact that on most other issues I side with the Dems. Therefore I'm a Dem.
Shackleman, may I extend a warm welcome to you on joining the fray?
Thanks Ilíon for the welcome. I hope I'm up for it. I doubt I can match wits with you, but I'll try to at least make a point or two in the defense of my fellow battered Democratic brethren :-)
You say: However, they'll still be the Party For Stupidity -- nearly every position, and sertainly every position on important issues, which is understood by everyone to be a "natural" Democratic Party position can be arrived at merely by being stupid and refusing to learn to stop being stupid.
I might be stupid, or maybe just ignorant I'll leave it to you to decide, but I'm not refusing to learn. Can you illuminate for me *why* the Dems are the party for the stupid?
When I compare the Dem's positions versus the Repub's against the Beatitudes, I almost always find the Dem's to be more in line with what I understand to be Christ's teachings. Abortion being the gross exception.
I don't want to remain stupid. Show me what I'm missing about the Dem's positions, and I'll be open minded and will entertain them with a genuine attempt to learn. But I do wonder if you might find it easier to change the minds of your opponents if you refrained from using language that could easily be taken to be offensive at most, or propagandizing at least.
Shackleman: "Thanks Ilíon for the welcome. I hope I'm up for it. I doubt I can match wits with you, but I'll try to at least make a point or two in the defense of my fellow battered Democratic brethren :-)"
I really don't think it's that I have such a greater, or faster, wit -- it's that I've been thinking about these things longer. Even a slow person can work out and work his way through great and deep ideas and issues if he sticks at it.
Shackleman: "I might be stupid, or maybe just ignorant I'll leave it to you to decide, but I'm not refusing to learn. Can you illuminate for me *why* the Dems are the party for the stupid?"
That's not what I said. I said that even post-Roe the Democratic Party will "still be the Party For Stupidity" -- which is a very different thing from saying that they are the party for the stupid -- and I explained *why* I said that (you even quoted it): "nearly every position, and [c]ertainly every position on important issues, which is understood by everyone to be a "natural" Democratic Party position can be arrived at merely by being stupid and refusing to learn to stop being stupid.." And then I went on to explain that I was using "stupid" in the imprecise and/or incorrect way that nearly everyone uses the word nearly all the time.
Shackleman: "When I compare the Dem's positions versus the Repub's against the Beatitudes, I almost always find the Dem's to be more in line with what I understand to be Christ's teachings. Abortion being the gross exception."
I think you're conflating apples and oranges, as you "liberal" folk tend to do -- and, amusingly, you're implicitly making the very anti-[modern Democratic Party] argument that the US is a "Christian" nation, whose laws are to be in accord with (someone or other's understanding of) the Gospel. The modern Democratic Party, of course, officially and vociferously rejects such a notion -- but they're more than willing to use "liberal" Christians as "useful fools" (as Lenin's memorable phrase put it in a slightly differnet context).
And, you're treating Democratic Party talking-points about those "wicked/evil" Republicans as though they were true and factual.
And, you're ignoring the reality that the sorts of policies favored by the Democratic Party almost always make worse the matter they claim to be seeking to solve -- on top of generally being unConstitutional (the Republicans are no slackers there, anymore, either). Though, their policy preferences *do* tend to increase and advance the interests of bureaucrats, which surely must not be an all-bad thing.
Shackleman: "Abortion being the gross exception."
And yet, not gross enough to get you to stop supporting them and it. Because, after all, in supporting today's Democratic Party, you *are* supporting "abortion rights" -- no less than someone in the 1830's or so through about 1861 was supporting slavery in supporting the Democratic Party of that day.
Shackleman: "I don't want to remain stupid. Show me what I'm missing about the Dem's positions, and I'll be open minded and will entertain them with a genuine attempt to learn. But I do wonder if you might find it easier to change the minds of your opponents if you refrained from using language that could easily be taken to be offensive at most, or propagandizing at least."
Perhaps "my opponents" ought to try to be more careful in their reading, regardless of the subject matter. Still, changing their minds on politics seems to me generally an even greater undertaking than changing their minds on religion.
As for showing you or anyone else where you're wrong on politics ... well, I have only so much time (and only so much interest in politics). It takes me *hours* to write the things I post -- I take seriously the things to which I respond (this is why I so resent, and react accordingly, when others try to waste my time with obvious distractions and/or irrationality and illogic). My interest in politics is peripheral, my interest in religion is central.
I've posted a few things in some other recent threads related to politics and ecomonics as filtered through the glasses that Democratic Party supporters seem to wear. What I posted was (and will continue to be) ignored -- "liberals" tend to be at least as good as 'atheists' in filtering out what they don't want to know.
Shackleman: "As a pro-life Dem myself, I can say I agree entirely that the Dem's position on abortion is morally repugnant. ... But none of this changes the fact that on most other issues I side with the Dems. Therefore I'm a Dem."
That can change. I'm thinking there is a good chance it may, over time. ;-)
Shackleman: "But I'm a realist. The probability of Roe vs. Wade being overturned should McCain/Palin win, I'd guess approaches zero. Electing them, by itself, will not do anything to change the law. Two terms of Bush ought to serve as evidence for that."
There is so much one could say about this (I essentially agree, by the way), and I know I'll but scratch the surface --
Even disregarding the wickedness, the absolute moral evil, that abortion is, the mind-set that nearly everyone has on this (and which seems to be reflected in what you've said) is a major part of the problem:
1) The Civics 101 mythology about "three co-equal branches of government" is false in at least two ways:
1a) In actual practice -- because most members of Congress (and "progressives" in general) like the current set-up -- we are being governed by a quite extra-Constitutional judicial oligarchy.
1b) The *actual* Constitution does not establish "three co-equal branches of government" -- the Federal courts are, in fact, creatures of Congress. By the term "creatures of Congress" I mean that they -- all of them -- are constitutionally under the jurisdction of Congress and accountable to it; that Congress has authority over the federal courts -- all of them -- and can, at any time and on almost any matter (the exceptions are spelled out in the Constitution), extend or constrict the authority of the federal courts -- all of them -- to even consider the matter, much less issue rulings on it. See: US Constitution, Article III, Section 2
1b.1) To put the issue and the problem into the form of a sound bite: The name of the top US Federal court is not the Supreme Court, but rather, the Supreme Court.
2) The "law" in question is not only horribly reasoned, it's unconstitutional:
2a) Courts do not have the authority to "make law."
2b) Contrary to another myth of Civics 101, the US Constitution does not give the courts the power of "judicial review." The US Supreme Court, under John Marshall, arrogated that unConstitutional power to itself via the 1803 Marbury vs Madison decision.
2b.1) Whether the US Supreme Court *should* have the power of "judicial review" is quite a different matter from whether it *does* have that power.
2b.2) And, the continual and creeping usurpation of political power and authority by the courts ought to make one question the wisdom of the belief that the courts *should* have such a power.
2c) And, even if the US Constitution did give the courts the power of "judicial review," that other myth about the "three co-equal branches of government" (were it true) would all by itself indicate that the other branches can tell the Court to shut up and butt-out.
3) By the actual written US Constitution, Congress can void the Roe ruling any time it wishes to do so -- but too many, in both parties, want legalized abortion, but don't want to have to take the political heat which would follow form voting for it. Congresscreatures want the perks of power, but not the concomitant responsibility, they want to be important, they want to have power, but they don't want to be accountable to the voters -- the current set-up of bumping the *real* decisions to some judge or other looks perfect from their selfish perspective. They clearly don't care that it makes a mockery of the Constitution and of self-government as a principle.
========
In a way, one can't help but admire the audacity of the feat Marshall pulled off with the Marbury decision -- in arguing that the Congress had unConstitutionally attempted to give the Supreme Court (i.e. himself, for the other justices were his rubber stamps) slightly more powers than the Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to exercise (*), and in declining and abjuring said powers, he "humbly" set the Supreme Court (i.e. himself) *above* the Congress, and set us on the trajectory which has led the present situation in which the Federal courts act as dictators and we (nearly all of us) imagine that's the way it's supposed to be.
[I urge the reader to read the text of the Marbury decision -- unlike most modern cases, it can be read and understood by those of us not in the lawyerly priesthood.] Consider this statement by Marshall, from the Marbury decision, 1803 Marbury vs Madison decision: "This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act."
It's not my intention to dispute that; I agree with what is written. But, is that really how the modern Federal *courts* operate? Of course it isn't -- the Federal courts are constantly "amending" the Constitution ... and these days, frequently by citing *foreign* laws and court rulings!
Consider this statement: "The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to enquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised."
Consider the self-contradictory deceit of this. He's arrogating to himself a power the US Constitution does not give him, even as he pretends to be declining a power the US Constitution does not give him.
And Jefferson (boo! hiss!) and Madison (Madison!!) let him get away with it because it was politically/partisanly expedient to do so: they didn't want to allow Mr Marbury (a Federalist) to exercise his legally and lawfully granted commission, but instead wanted to give the office to a "Republican" (which is to say, to a "Democrat," for the present Democratic Party was called the "Republican Party" in those days).
The present order of government in the US is based on just that deceit. Is it really any wonder that the judiciary is "out of control?" Is it really any wonder that the judiciary invents "rights" out of moonshine? Is it really any wonder that the judiciary increasingly doesn't even make a pretense of basing their decision on the US Constitution, but rather looks to foreign laws and rulings for their inspirations?
Consider this statement: "This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure."
Is that not *exactly* the situation in which we find ourselves with respect to the Federal courts?
=========
(*) In a nutshell, Marshall's augument might be put this way: that the Supreme Court (i.e. himself) does not have the Constitutional authority to order Mr Madison (Pres. Jefferson's Sec. of State) to deliver to Mr Marbury the commission legally and lawfully granted him by Pres. Adams (to be a justice of the peace in DC), and to which John Marshall himself, acting as Sec. of State, had affixed the Great Seal (while also failing to deliver the commissions); but rather, that the Supreme Court has only the Constitutional authority to order a lower court to order Mr Madison to deliver to Mr Marbury the commission, and assuming that the case had been brought before such a lower court which had failed to make and order such a decision.
See here -- Judicial Review: "The decision in Marbury's case, written by Chief Justice John Marshall (the very same John Marshall who affixed the seal to Marbury's commission--talk about a conflict of interest!) established and justified the power of judicial review. It is the first case read by virtually every first-year law student and is generally considered the greatest of all landmark cases. Marshall strained to reach his result. The plain words of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act indicate that Marbury went to the wrong court or invoked the wrong statute (or both), but Marshall proceeded as if the suit were authorized by Section 13 and then declared the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it purported to expand the Court's original jurisdiction in violation of Article III. Marbury's suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Marshall's decision--brilliant in its conception--allowed the Court to brand Jefferson a violator of civil rights without issuing an order that the President could have ignored."
Wikipedia, on writ of mandamus
===== more later, I hope, concerning the rest of your post =======
Ilíon:" That's not what I said. I said that even post-Roe the Democratic Party will "still be the Party For Stupidity" -- which is a very different thing from saying that they are the party for the stupid -- and I explained *why* I said that (you even quoted it): "nearly every position, and [c]ertainly every position on important issues, which is understood by everyone to be a "natural" Democratic Party position can be arrived at merely by being stupid and refusing to learn to stop being stupid.." And then I went on to explain that I was using "stupid" in the imprecise and/or incorrect way that nearly everyone uses the word nearly all the time."
I agree that I responded in an imprecise way to your imprecise use of the word stupid. That's fair, no? I was being imprecise purposely, to expose the offense that could reasonably (in my estimation) be taken by reasonable people *precisely* because you were using the word imprecisely. "Stupid" is an ugly word with ugly connotation. Especially if used carelessly, which I believe you admit you did. It lowers the discourse, and places your opponent in a position of defense, rather than on an equal footing.
More importantly perhaps though is that even if a position can be arrived at, simply by being stupid, being stupid doesn't make the position wrong. One can be accidentally, or stupidly *right*. I'd rather be right and stupid, than wrong and brilliant.
Ilíon:"I think you're conflating apples and oranges, as you "liberal" folk tend to do -- and, amusingly, you're implicitly making the very anti-[modern Democratic Party] argument that the US is a "Christian" nation, whose laws are to be in accord with (someone or other's understanding of) the Gospel. The modern Democratic Party, of course, officially and vociferously rejects such a notion -- but they're more than willing to use "liberal" Christians as "useful fools" (as Lenin's memorable phrase put it in a slightly differnet context)."
No, I have not said, nor implied, nor believe that the US is a "Christian nation". You took far too much liberty with what I said in order to come away with that conclusion. I was speaking as a Christian to another Christian. As Christians we should be aspiring toward the Beatitudes in *all* aspects of life, politics included. Wouldn't you agree? If you agree, then I'm offering as a potential topic of discussion--Which political party positions most closely reflect the Beatitudes? Unless you're interested in fully engaging that topic with me, I won't completely flesh out my position. But I would repeat that generally speaking, I find the Dem's to more closely align with the Beatitudes. If you don't agree with that, and find it a worthwhile excerise, I'd eagerly look forward to your fleshing that out with me, and receiving from you your dispute of my findings.
Further, your Christian understanding weighs heavily on your politics as evidenced by your saying the Democrats are morally repulsive. I think we can agree that one's religion *always* weighs heavily on one's politics, no? If so, then let's just be honest about it, and agree that Christians would like to see their religion reflected in their politics in general, and in the laws in particular. Is it not a fact, that in a representative Democracy, that if a majority of the elected Representatives were Muslims say, that the laws they would write and enact would reflect favorably on their Islamic teachings and understandings? Of course they would. The same is true of our Congress, as the majority claim to be Christians. It's an unavoidable consequence of having a government for the people *by* the people. So, while the US is not a Christian nation (Constitutionally speaking), we are, at present, mostly represented by Christians in our government, and that has the natural and unavoidable consequence of our laws being favorable to Christian teachings.
Ilíon: "And, you're treating Democratic Party talking-points about those "wicked/evil" Republicans as though they were true and factual.
Again, you assume too much. I have not uttered a single talking point, let alone those that paint Republicans as wicked and evil. I'll give you some artistic license with what I say as a matter of courtesy, but this is quite a straw man you've built and I'd rather you'd comment on what I actually wrote.
Ilíon: "And, you're ignoring the reality that the sorts of policies favored by the Democratic Party almost always make worse the matter they claim to be seeking to solve -- on top of generally being unConstitutional"
I'm not ignoring the reality, but admit I might be ignorant of it. What evidence can you provide to support these statements? (Maybe you provide them in your next post, which I'm anxious to read).
Ilíon: "Perhaps "my opponents" ought to try to be more careful in their reading, regardless of the subject matter."
Fair enough, Mr. Kettle, I'll be more careful going forward.
Ilíon: "I've posted a few things in some other recent threads related to politics and ecomonics as filtered through the glasses that Democratic Party supporters seem to wear. What I posted was (and will continue to be) ignored -- "liberals" tend to be at least as good as 'atheists' in filtering out what they don't want to know."
Sadly, the new blog entries have been coming fast and furious, and I have probably missed much of what you've said.
Looking forward to reading your next post---it may take some time for me to reply.
Post a Comment