This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
They pretty much can repeal it threw reconciliation. If the dems can pass it on reconciliation the Republicans can repeal it and will given half the chance.You assume the Republicans will look at the last four years and play fair with the Dems. The Tea-party won't let them.Or they can just do away with the Filibuster in this one case. Romney can broadly interpret the Health care law the same way Obama has(forcing Catholics to buy others birth control)& wave whoever he wants. Congress may Pass a Law but if the President doesn't enforce it then what good is it?
Not to worry -- it will be repealed one way or another: either patriotic Americans will repeal it or God himself will repeal it (as an effect of allowing the USA to collapse).
There are numerous countries with far more socialistic forms of health care (such as out and out socialized medicine as we find in Britain, France, Canada, and Cuba). I mean shoot, there isn't even a public option, for crying out loud. Apparently the Almighty has not struck those countries down, for reasons that I am sure are known only to Ilion.
I don't get your point Victor?If the Republicans take the Whitehouse & the Senate then the Healthcare bill is toast.Even if they just take the Whitehouse and knock off a seat or two in the Senate they can pressure Dem Senators in Red States since 2014 will be around the corner.They can sabotage the implementing of the Healthcare bill.As long as there are activist partisans breathing down their necks and threatening to run Tea Party candidates in the primaries they will know this is issue number one.Further more Mormon Dude will have broad power in waving and or slowing it's progress & might even be able to kill it by default.People accept Socialist medicine because they are told they will get something for free. But there is a price to pay for it that Americans won't put up with.
This entire discussion is moot, because Romney is not going to win the election and the Democrats are going to retain control in the Senate. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., "Obamacare") will remain the Law of the Land.
Bob, while I think Obama has the better chance of winning I don't think it is anything close to a sure deal. I would go with most gamblers on this one - Obama with 60% chance and Romney with 40%. Ohio and Iowa are very close right now, Florida now leans Romney as well as Virginia and North Carolina. He has made a good lead in Colorado, he is within 2 points in Wisconsin (where I am from) just 6 months after Walker won a recall election. Not to mention, Minnesota and Pennsylvania went from "Obama" to "leans Obama" (he has no chance of getting MN but he even gained ground in more liberal states including California). The model from the University of Colorado which has predicted every election winner since 1980 predicts a 70% chance of a Romney win. What most can agree on is that Obama, for being an incumbent, is in trouble. Do I think he has the higher probability, yup. But I wouldn't feel comfortable being confident of his re-election.
I would add one thing. I'm not the biggest fan of Romney, but no matter what you think of him he has made a much stronger case than Obama. His resume demonstrates he is capable of actually working with democrats, getting a budget, and making cuts. Obama has barely anything to go on when he was a senator and hasn't shown a real ability to work with the other side at all while adding the biggest deficit we have ever seen. In the mean-time, he has seemed more like Bush. Rather than sticking with his promise during the Hillary debates, it took 3 years to start bringing our troops home. He extended the Bush tax cuts, when he said he would give larger taxes to those making above $250,000 per year. And, he has no problem with bail-outs even borrowing from China - in one case borrowing from China to help out Greece.
Wishful thinking on your part, Daniel. Whereas Romney may be up a point or two in national polls, he is undeniably behind in most battleground states. and the only reason he is up at all at the national level is because of lopsided support for him in the South (where there are relatively few electoral votes). Remove the South from the equation, and Obama is way out front. Also, toss out the known-to-be-biased Fox News Rasmussen polls (which historically have been skewed toward Republicans by as much as 4 percent), and the predicted electoral vote tally is Obama 303, Romney 235. See: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct25-noras.htmlNo spin here, folks. This is "Just the facts, Ma'am."
Me, I'm rooting for an electoral vote tie. Let the thing go to the House. The constitution is silent on who the House has to vote for - they can toss aside both candidates, and put forward a consensus figure that the whole country could rally behind. Bloomberg, maybe?
First, I gave two other independent odds analysis - gamblers odds and the Colorado University model. I don't think that is what it is called, but I don't have the ambition to look up the two leading professors right now. The model however does take into account states and the electoral map. Secondly, Rasmussen and Pew Research Center were the two most accurate pollsters in the 2008 election. Thus far this year, Rasmusssen has been far more "conservative" (in a non-political sense) than Gallup. Third, I am not just looking at Rasmussen. In Ohio, Fox has Obama with a +3 lead, CBS with a +5 (yeah right), and Rasmussen as a tie. The average among most polls is Obama with a plus 2.1 (that includes Rasmussen and is consistent with the site you gave). In Wisconsin Obama averages just slightly over +2 among the main polls, including Rasmussen, Marquette University (which only has Obama at +1), etc. During the Walker election, Marquette was off by several points against Walker. In Colorado, Romney has the average lead, and if you take out the outlier of Public Policy Polling he has an even greater average lead. In Florida he has an average of +2.So, I fail to see the "slam dunk" that you are providing here by averaging out the polls, even the more liberal ones. Like I said, I am going with the gamblers here with Obama having a 60% chance. That isn't a slam dunk though, by any means. 4 years ago they had Obama at 90% chance of victory. Here is the beloved and super lefty Huffington Post on the Gambler's predictions. LinkAlso, I did get the ambition to look it up - Colorado Model
As far as the tie - that's probably not going to happen. And if it is, I am guessing the the House is not going to go against the Romney primary victories. Assuming the House stays Republican (a high chance), Romney will be our President and Biden will be VP. That may be what our country needs though. Though, the right constantly accuses Romney of being a liberal and the left accusing him of being very conservative. Perhaps he is the right fit after all. Now Bob, you aren't actually voting Obama are you? As a Catholic? Are you kidding?
By the way, the updated model in September from the link I gave provided an even stronger Romney win. UpdatedMy only point is that it isn't the slam dunk you claim it is. Romney could very well win this. Obama, as an incumbent, shouldn't even be in this bad of a position right now.
"Now Bob, you aren't actually voting Obama are you? As a Catholic? Are you kidding?"Keeping in mind that I am, like Joe Sheffer, a "Middle of the Road Extremist", I am voting for Obama because I am a Catholic. Romney is the antithesis of everything the Church stands for, whereas Obama is the antithesis of only some things - and the less-important things, at that. Plus, Romney is a member of (let's not mince words here) a non-Christian cult. A vote for Romney is a vote to send millions into the hands of Mormonism due to the increased respectability it will get. I would sooner vote for a gnu than a Mormon.(I know the constitution says there shall be no religious test - but that's only for the government. As a voter, I have the right (and perhaps the obligation) to apply whatever test I deem appropriate.)
And the House would not necessarily vote for Romney. Each state only gets one vote. So the individual state representations will all have to come to a consensus candidate for their particular state. The outcome could be quite unpredictable.
Bob, there are potentially 2 supreme court justices at stake in this election. Do you really think Romney's Mormonism is a higher ethical issue than the potential probability of supreme court justices? Secondly, did Jesus promote the religion of the Samaritans by telling a story about one? Do we really promote Mormonism by voting for Romney? Such consequentialist views don't seem to pan out for me. I think Romeny would do more of "the right thing" than Obama whether he is a Mormon or not. I would rather have his mormonism than Obama's Christianity - that one hurts our cause more. Let alone the fact that Obama has brought us into larger debt than any president before him, passed a health care bill that sucks 17.3% out of our economy (and was considered a raising of a tax), and has the Catholic bishops (the keepers of the Catholic doctrine) writing long articles against his policies faster than we post these comments.
I kind of hope we have a tie so you and I can discuss this. I really don't see the slightest chance of the House voting against the guy who got the most Republican votes during primaries.
^ If of course the house stays Republican. The state coverage for House Republicans would be greater than particular individual states that are more divided. Romney would still win. Especially at the thought of two Republican house voters dividing their positions and thereby giving democrats the edge.
Actually, you're probably right about the House. I just looked it up, and there are 17 states with majority Democratic representations and 33 with majority republican. So Romney would likely win in the House, even if several Republican-controlled legislations jumped ship. But more interesting is that the Senate selects the Vice President, and the Democratic-controlled Senate would likely choose Biden (out of spite, if for no other reason). Just imagine a Romney/Biden administration! Now that would be one for the books!
That's what I was saying earlier! I almost wouldn't mind that. Our society is so split and so much "partisan" politics, it might be good for us to have something like that (even if the VP doesn't get that much power). Just the same though, Romney has proven he could manage without having a majority senate etc. I don't think Obama has - we still don't have a budget. Just think of the differences between Clinton and Obama in relation to loosing the house. It is quite mind-numbing how Obama has been considering how he campaigned in '08.
The Vice President would have a fair bit of power in that scenario, since it's predicated on the Democrats holding onto the Senate. Romney would have to get Biden's active (not just passive) cooperation on absolutely anything he'd like to get through congress - including Supreme Court nominations!The more I think about it, I hope it really does happen. It would probably be good for the USA (even if it would be a disaster in terms of a Mormon being in the White House - a thought that literally turns my stomach).
Bob, I also think it might be good for us. I agree. Though, at the same time, I think you forget that Romney really has proven he could work with democrats and still get things done. Now seriously Bob, with your church suing the Obama administration (more precisely, the keepers of the Catholic doctrine suing Obama administration) as well as Obama's constant promotion of abortion (something the Catholic church is strongly against) you really think Romney's Mormonism is devastating compared to Obama's Christianity? You really want justices like Scalia replaced with others like Kaegan? Cause that is a real possibility with another Obama term. Mormon trends didn't increase in Mass. with Romney serving as governor. Evangelical Christian trends haven't increased in Wisconsin with Walker being governor. In fact, evangelical Christian trends took a hit with George Bush as President. Maybe it's not a bad thing to have a Mormom President. Just the same, while I strongly disagree with Mormonism I look at this in two ways: first, I can promote a guy who I think will do more of the right thing (Jesus didn't promote Samaritans who were part of the wrong religion and worshiped at the wrong place by healing them and using them in his stories), second; Mormons are amazing with their money, and perhaps we need someone who is going to be more responsible rather than borrowing from China to help bail out Greece.Look, if your not in a swing state, then it really doesn't bother me. For me personally, to permit wrong and evil (like Roe. V. Wade), I need an equally important reason to do so. In relation to abortion, I don't see the other issues on equal ground. So, an Obama vote, based on the Mexico City policy alone, turns my stomach. In relation to the original post. I find it quite odd that so many act like Romney is a GOP establishment candidate who is anti-all-socialistic-ideas. Sure, he runs on the GOP platform. Still, he has passed his own state based national health care law, which Obama said was used to draft ObamaCare (70 pages vs. 2000+ pages). Yet, at the same time he points out, quite accurately, that the way ObamaCare was done did not help the problem between insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, it made the problems worse. Wouldn't we rather have a guy who is going to reform major socialistic programs like medicare and social security (so people my age can take advantage someday)rather than settle for a Health Care overall that makes insurance and pharmaceutical prices worse while robbing 17% of our economy? Bob, if you would rather have Romney/Biden because it would be good for the U.S. then I argue that you would rather have Romney - he has worked with democrats and he is only candidate that is accused of being a crazy liberal by conservatives and a radical conservative by liberals. He may be just what we need.
Daniel,If there's one thing I absolutely cannot stand, it's single issue voting. And as for your being surprised at a Catholic voting for Obama, are you not aware that every single poll shows a majority of Catholics supporting him? All of them.(And no, please don't demand sources. I heard this on C-SPAN radio about a week - 10 days ago.)
Bob, that is awesome that you listen to C-SPAN radio. I believe you. In fact I saw some statistics today that supported that claim - I believe it was by Pew Research. However, Obama could have the majority of all Catholics who go to church on every Sunday but that wouldn't make him the friend of the Catholic church or Catholic doctrine, especially when the keepers of that doctrine (the Bishops) are suing his administration. In terms of single issue voting: I am not a single issue voter. I get to vote on many issues during primaries! Even so, I would still vote for Romney over Obama if I rated all issues as equal - he has actually passed budgets, he has actually worked on bi-partisan basis, he wants to reform social programs rather than replacing them with massive health care overalls that drain our economy, he knows the importance of universal health care while recognizing difficulties in ObamaCare, he is against abortion while maintaining it the case of rape, he will appoint constitutionalist or originalist judges rather than "living constitutionalists," he will maintain religious liberties while looking for real issues to solve in social programs etc etc etc. I could go on and on.Even so, there is a difference between single issue voting and "deal breakers" or trump card voting. For example, would you fault an African American for only voting for candidates that supported Civil Rights? If Obama were to come out tomorrow with a new policy that advocates murdering those who dissent with his administration by Marshall law do you still think he would have 49% support? If he came out tomorrow and supported infanticide till the age 2 he would easily loose 20 points overnight, and probably another 10-20 pts by the election. Would you still vote for him if he advocated such things? If not, does that make you a single issue voter?Most everyone has particular standards that are "deal breakers" in relation to life issues and human rights issues. Both Romney or Obama would loose most of their support if they advocated racism, infanticide, martial law murder, etc. I just think we should be consistent with those standards in relation to the lives of the unborn, and so does the Catholic church. Does that make me a single issue voter?
By the way, I am truly interested to see a reason why you think Romney's Mormonism is "stomach churning" vs. Obama's "Christianity," especially in relation to Catholic doctrine, the church, and religious liberties.
Seriously though Bob, do you really want justices like Scalia replaced with justices like Ginsberg or Kaegan? I mean, from a purely objective viewpoint of our constitution alone, I cannot imagine how you would want such a thing, unless you are a "living constitutionalist." Are you?
>I would sooner vote for a gnu than a Mormon.Gee Bob & you implied there was something shameful or hateful about me pointing out Obama has a Muslim name.....;-)Naw this is too easy....I'm gonna give you a break brother but I trust my point is made.(Be honest Bob if Romney where a Pro-life Progressive liberal you would be all over him. Just as I would vote for the "United Church of Christ" guy with the Muslim name if he where a Pro-life fiscal conservative in a heart beat.)
BTW Obama is if nothing else an anti-Catholic bigot & an enemy of the Catholic people and their civil rights.
>>Obama is if nothing else an anti-Catholic bigot & an enemy of the Catholic people and their civil rights.huh?
BTW Bob I'm just playing with ya. Vote according to your best prudent judgment.@ZachYou heard me.
Actually, I am a "Living Constitutionalist. I couldn't care less what a handful of 18th Century wealthy white protestant landowners felt when it comes to the majority of 21st Century issues. Well, that might be hyperbole, but I certainly don't want a bunch of dead guys making all our decisions.And as for life issues, you're kidding yourself. Romney himself said recently that it wasn't on his radar screen.(By the way, my not-a-robot word is brilliant! "buycot" If such a word doesn't exist, it should!)
Bob, your hyperbole may apply (however flawed) to originalists but not constitutionalists. I'm hoping you know the difference. A a constitutionalist looks straight at what the text says and applies it today. There is some "interpretation" based on intention, but not as much. In other words, it is not the dead guys telling us what to do in every situation, it is us taking the framework and applying it to modern issues (hence the reason for calling it a "constitution"). Then there are originalists - they take the meaning based on what it meant at the time (reading all intention and particular ideas) and then try to interpret the constitution to have the same meaning today. So, neither one is about "dead guys" making our decisions. A living constitution is not actually a constitution - it could change for anything. Even so, I would rather have someone like Jefferson or Franklin giving guidance to making decisions than Ginsberg or Kaegan. Yes, Romney is not making Pro-Life an issue, especially in a campaign where he wants to stay focused on the economy. However, Romney had the support of Mary Ann Glendon, an ambassador of the Holy See (and several other ambassadors as well). Also, Ann Fox of Mass. Right to Life. Romney vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill, over the counter morning after pill, and other legislation that tried to change definition of when life begins. If you think he will help put in there a living constitutionalist you have another things coming. Even more so, for his VP he nominated perhaps the most pro-life guy (and a Catholic) in all of congress. If you really think Ryan would have accepted such a nomination without commitment to pro-life justices then your not very informed.
Bob, for someone who seems to enjoy taking a "middle way" in so many areas of inquiry, and for someone who seems to take so much time thinking through various issues to give reasonable response, you certainly seem like a liberal ideologue. I'm not trying to name call here or disrespect you. I have enjoyed watching your posts on these boards for years now. Just the same, this is somewhat confusing. How can you as a Catholic that has a particular view of "The Church" and "Catholic doctrine" seem to undermine it in arguments against Romney or for Obama? I mean, the keepers of Catholic doctrine are suing Obama's administration! Does that mean nothing to you? Or are you a "but Catholic" (my dad's term)? I'm a Catholic BUT I don't agree with their views on contraception. I'm a Catholic BUT I don't agree with their views on abortion or conscience voting.
^I worded something weird. I mean, that it is surprising that you seem like a liberal ideologue when you take the middle and reasonable way in so many other issues in a very intelligent way. Just the same, to say that you want Obama because you are a Catholic seems entirely incoherent. I think, perhaps, my difficulty has to do with interpretation: the difference between Vatican II Catholics and Pope John Paul II Catholics.
So Bob, as a Catholic, can you give a reason to vote for Obama that supersedes the Catholic doctrine on sanctity of all human life?
Daniel,I don't know how long you've been following this blog, but I have repeatedly argued most forcefully that some issues have no business being a political issue. I have strong views on life, and equally strong views that they have no place in politics - and I refuse to give them a place. I make my decision solely on who I believe will do a better job in the position. I don't tell anyone else how to vote, and don't care for anyone else telling me how I should vote (or that I am right or wrong to vote in a particular way).By the way, under our electoral college system, my vote for president will no effect whatsoever, no matter which way I vote. My state is blue, blue, blue. The street I live on has about 30-35 Obama lawn signs and maybe three for Romney (but I think two are on the same lawn). As I drive around, every tenth car has an Obama sticker, and I can't recall the last time I saw an in-state car with a Romney sticker. I don't have a television, so I can't tell you anything about what's on TV, as far as ads go.
Bob, I am not telling you how to vote and I already stated above about how I could care less if you are not in a swing state. I wrote,"Look, if your not in a swing state, then it really doesn't bother me."I was more trying to figure out why, as such a dedicated Catholic you would vote in such a way. I haven't really gotten a satisfying answer. In relation to your remark on life not having a place in politics (which was very Biden-esque). I really don't see that as much a reason if you really do believe the Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of life. You didn't answer my question earlier. Would you still vote for Obama if he promoted and would work for infanticide till the age of 2? If not, then how do you justify giving infants a "trump" or "deal breaker" vote vs. the unborn?Look, go ahead and vote for Obama. I am not telling you otherwise. I simply think you are being inconsistent as a Catholic by doing so. Like I said earlier, if you are not in a swing state then it really doesn't bother me.
Anytime anybody for any reason ties faith to a particular political party, that's just wrong. At least in this country. Paul Ryan is a Catholic. So is Daniel Berrigan. A "dedicated" Catholic can vote in whatever manner he deems appropriate.The main reason I absolutely hate people turning abortion into a political issue (which it has no business being) is that, as you yourself said, it becomes a show-stopper. All conversation is hijacked by this one issue. Any considerations about the economy, the environment, education, research, infrastructure, offshoring of jobs, foreign policy... whatever, is stopped in its tracks. Your constant bringing up of Supreme Court justices makes me suspect you'd have a litmus test for nominees - what is their position on Roe v. Wade. Well, there are a whole lot of other issues that justices have to decide on. I actually agree with Kagan and Sotomayor on a majority of the issues, and disagree with Alito and Scalia on most. I would far prefer to have justices like the first two nominated in the next four years. In fact, the prospect of Supreme Court nominations is my number one reason for supporting Obama.
First, the fact that I hold certain issues as "deal breakers" doesn't mean I have hijacked the conversation - especially when I have taken time to show why such issues are "deal breakers" if I am consistent with my beliefs. Not only have I given comparable reasons for my positions here, but I have also asked you particular questions to see if you are consistent in your view (like in relation to infanticide). You haven't responded. Not that you have to, but still. Second, the fact that I find certain issues should be addressed politically doesn't mean I think they are limited to a particular political party or to politics itself. "The main reason I absolutely hate people turning abortion into a political issue (which it has no business being)"Frankly, this is incoherent. First, you cannot have it both ways. If it should not be a political issue then even your boy Obama is in the wrong (he has made a bigger issue out of it in this election season than Romney). Second, if abortion cannot be a political issue based on fundamental ethical principles which our laws are based on (like the principle of non-maleficence) then you are going to eliminate a lot of other issues you hold dear. If even the smallest medical decisions are up for legal scrutiny (I work as a Chaplain in a hospital), and many of our laws are based on policies from our policy makers, then abortion is no exception. On Roe V. Wade - I think the reasons for the Roe V. Wade decision are completely flawed based on our laws including Civil Rights Laws. So yes, I would hope that a supreme court justice could see that obvious inconsistency - the fact that someone may not be able to absolutely prove that the unborn are human persons, when they may be human persons, does not give us the right to permit terminating them. The principle of non-maleficence eliminates that idea. If I am hunting and I see a rattle in a bush, and it might be a human person, should I be permitted to shoot? So yes, I hope a supreme court justice could see that obvious difficulty, the same type of inconsistency used for unequal rights for human beings since we discovered this world. Would you want to make sure a supreme court justice is consistent in Civil Rights? Or would that no matter to you? My point is that such issues are deal breakers. Would you support a justice that was ok with ruling for infanticide till 2? Would you still vote for Obama if he promoted infanticide till 2? Or would you get frustrated with such "single issue voters" because they are "show stoppers" who cannot discuss other major issues?
By the way, I know that other issues are really important as well! I just don't see them as deal breakers the way abortion is. If you have one, let me know. I think there are some things Obama is stronger on - I like his promotion of Math and Science teachers for example. I liked how he handled Libya. In the first four years of the President, who made the greatest promise of bipartisanship and "healing" for our nation, we have seen the opposite. He promised to cut the deficit and he added to it more than any other President. Some of that wasn't his fault, but much of it was. We still don't have a balanced budget. Look, I don't blame him for everything and I think some of what he did he had to do. Just the same, Romney's resume is far superior to what Obama has promoted. He has actually cut deficits, balanced budgets, and worked on a bipartisan basis while passing a major national health care bill. Heck, if I kept Romney's name out of that many would call him liberal (and most other conservative candidates did call him that during the primaries). I personally think he is the stronger candidate - and his resume demonstrates such. This doesn't mean I think he is some sort of savior or going to be able to fix everything. I think rough economic times are coming no matter who our President is. Still, I like a guy who has passed national health care, can recognize problems and the need for social programs (like medicaid and social security) while having a resume of fiscal responsibility.
^ By the way. If abortion is taking a human life, as the Catholic church believes, then it should be a deal breaker. Wouldn't you agree? Or should education only be for those that were chosen to live?
"By the way. If abortion is taking a human life, as the Catholic church believes, then it should be a deal breaker. Wouldn't you agree?"I believe I've already answered that. My position is the issue has no place in politics. (I also agree with you that Roe v. Wade is incoherent.) I believe the pro-life movement made a fatal error years ago when they put so much time and effort into attempting to change the law when they should have been focused on changing people's minds and hearts.For instance: As a US Army veteran who's had ample experience with firearms (to include machine guns, hand grenades, and land mines), as well as being a graduate of the NRA's gun safety course, I find no place for them in the home. But I will not worry about changing the law. I will simply keep them out of my own house, and teach my daughters and sons-in-law to do the same.
Bob, I see your asserted position, I just don't think your reasons are consistent. I think I have given good reasons above (like consistency with our own laws etc) for a different position. I've brought up the inconsistency of your position in relation to infanticide several times and you seem to be unwilling to address it. I have worked with Right To Life groups. Many of them look to help through legislative activism, education, and offering or supporting various health services. Now, I am not sure if all right to life groups are as good as the ones here in Wisconsin, but we have lowered our abortion rates further than any neighboring states, and made more progress than most any other state in the union. So, as far as I know, many do try help through changing hearts and minds as well as legislation - which I find as a consistent position. I will agree with you though, the Pro-Life cause has suffered through single party affiliation. They could find more ways to promote other groups like Democrats for life or to educate in ways that people can be democrat and Pro-Life. Have you ever read Bad Religion: How We Have Become a Nation of Heretics by Ross Douthat? Here is the link.Also here is the Democrats for Life website. A very interesting group that wasn't given any place at the DNC. I wish we had more of these kind of guys!
Obama is if nothing else an anti-Catholic bigot & an enemy of the Catholic people and their civil rights.Eh, that seems too reductive. I'd put the blame more with someone like Sebelius, whom you have better reasons to dislike than the President - who, despite his many faults, I very much doubt is actually anti-Catholic.
"you seem to be unwilling to address it"No, I'm not unwilling to address it. It's just that it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The question is purposefully phrased to get a single "gotcha" answer, the (mis)interpretation of which would then be used to twist one's position into an indefensible strawman. And you know this very well. I'm not going to play that game. My position is crystal clear: I am pro-life, but refuse to make that an issue when considering a political candidate.My belief that life issues have no place in politics is about as strong as any belief can get. It just poisons all dialog, and causes every discussion to circle back to that same subject. (Just see how much time and virtual ink we've wasted on it on this website.) I'm done with this thread. I'm starting to repeat myself, and it's gotten boring. See you on some other topic.
Bob, what quality recognized in the doctrine of the sanctity of life does an infant have which the unborn does not have which is promoted or recognized by the Catholic Church? I don't see where you have answered this, so I really don't know how they are different. In fact, even from a secular position I have trouble seeing how they are different except in development, but surely you wouldn't use such a standard to decide what is and is not a political issue, right? Where do you draw the line? When the baby is in the womb it is not a political issue? Or does late term abortions count as a political issue? 2nd trimester?
Why would he do something like this?
Post a Comment