• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrat litmus test on abortion?

joG said:
You are so mean!
Click to expand...

My wife is Catholic. I have to, quite often, explain to her things about her own religion. It annoys me. For instance, she loves to watch all of those ghost hunter shows. And believes in ghosts. Then I have to explain to her that it's the position of Catholicism that there are no ghosts, only demons masquerading as such.
 
jmotivator said:
This is the closest to a fair argument made by Pro-Choice, but it still falls short if you have the position that the unborn are innocent human beings as deserving of life as any other person.

To arrive at the position you described above you must first assume that the unborn are not human, or that not all innocent humans a deserving of life. The former is not a scientific position, and the second is immoral. I fail to see a third way.
Click to expand...

Right-wing social engineering is the purity test in the RNC platform. The Senate class 1 elections in 2018 are the next edition of the GOP 'legitimate rape' party .
 
nota bene said:
Two weeks ago Tom Perez made the following statement, which is being interpreted by Democrats and others, according to The Atlantic, as a “call for ideological purity on abortion”:

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said, adding that “every candidate who runs as a Democrat should” share the “Democratic Party’s position on women’s fundamental rights.”

I first read about this issue and Perez’s statement at Townhall.com. This morning I searched through the first seven Google pages and until the links were dated February, finding only an article from Fox but not any from the other “Big Three.” Many conservative and pro-life sites did pick up on the remarks.

From The Atlantic:

Is There Any Room in the 'Big Tent' for Pro-Life Democrats?

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently said the party is “strongly pro-choice,” but remains a “big-tent party,” while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said “of course” it’s possible to be “pro-life” and a Democrat, and have the support of the Democratic Party. Tom Perez, the chair of the Democratic National committee, meanwhile is facing harsh criticism within the party for remarks widely interpreted as saying that Democrats who oppose abortion were not welcome in the party.

The DNC’s message on abortion may alienate red-state Democrats at a time when the party is trying to expand its reach into conservative parts of the country it may need to win over if it wants to reclaim the White House and Congress. And moderate Democrats representing red states [including Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Joe Donnelly of Indiana] are distancing themselves from Perez’s remarks. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...emocrats-abortion-sanders-perez-party/524394/

From the Washington Examiner:

Life came at Tom Perez fast last week. In less than 24 hours, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee went from welcoming a diversity of opinions on abortion to demanding absolute ideological purity on the issue for any candidate running as a Democrat.
"Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health," Perez said in a statement. "That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state." Who got to Tom?: After endorsing anti-abortion candidate, DNC Chair Tom Perez says party's pro-abortion stance 'not negotiable'
http://www.philly.com/philly/column...s/20170428_Pro-lifers_abortion_Democrats.html

I’ve been surprised that no one has begun a thread on this, so here is mine. If you are pro-choice, do you agree with what DNC Chair Perez says? Do you support a litmus test on abortion?
Click to expand...

Are there any pro-choice republicans in Congress?
 
NIMBY said:
Right-wing social engineering is the purity test in the RNC platform. The Senate class 1 elections in 2018 are the next edition of the GOP 'legitimate rape' party .
Click to expand...

We all have our bad apples. Democrats put a rapist in the White House.
 
jmotivator said:
We all have our bad apples. Democrats put a rapist in the White House.
Click to expand...

***** grabbing and voyeur of teenage beauty pageant contestants is a far cry from being a rapist. Do you have proof?
 
year2late said:
***** grabbing and voyeur of teenage beauty pageant contestants is a far cry from being a rapist. Do you have proof?
Click to expand...

Obviously I was talking about Bill "Put some ice on that" Clinton. But there is also Ted "Leave her to die" Kennedy who has the distinction of ACTUALLY colluding with the Russians in a US election.
 
joG said:
I don't know about other folks, but voting pro-choice a Catholic excommunicates herself. That means in essence that you cannot vote Democrat and be a believing Catholic. This is true of most of the major Christian churches. So the Demicrats are quite consistent by fudging their position in the hope of finding a few Catholics ignorant of canonical code.
Click to expand...

Not actually true, but if it makes you feel better about yourself...

Pope Forbids Catholics from Voting for Hillary Clinton
 
nota bene said:
And the topic is pro-life Democrats, not support of born children or welfare. Please don't hijack my thread.
Click to expand...

What about pro-choice Republicans? No concern for them?
 
rocket88 said:
What about pro-choice Republicans? No concern for them?
Click to expand...

This thread is about the Democrats and whether their "tent" is large enough to hold pro-life Democrats.
 
minnie616 said:
It is a generalization but than again so it the OP.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes--so comparable. :roll:

The OP is about The Atlantic's article. Do you think, Minnie, that the Democrat Party is a big enough tent to hold pro-life Democrats, or should there be a litmus test for membership?
 
nota bene said:
This thread is about the Democrats and whether their "tent" is large enough to hold pro-life Democrats.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. But with all your "concern" for pro-life Dems, one might think that you'd at least acknowledge that the GOP has their own problems on that issue.

Or would you never acknowledge that anything could possibly be wrong there?
 
nota bene said:
Oh, yes--so comparable. :roll:

The OP is about The Atlantic's article. Do you think, Minnie, that the Democrat Party is a big enough tent to hold pro-life Democrats, or should there be a litmus test for membership?
Click to expand...

Of course it is and in fact it does.

In fact in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s most Catholics supported the Demoratic party and its platform.

From Wiki:

Before the 1960s, Catholics were seen as staunch Democrats. The Democratic Party ran Al Smith, the first Catholic presidential candidate by a major party, in 1928, and, except when the ticket was headed by a Southern candidate, has nominated a Catholic for president or vice president in every election since 1960 except for 1988 (where a Greek Orthodox, Michael Dukakis, was the presidential nominee).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Of course it is and in fact it does.

In fact in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s most Catholics supported the Demoratic party and its platform.

From Wiki:
Click to expand...

Too late to edit:


President Kenny was a member of Democratic Party in the 1960s.


From Wiki:

1930s
Historian John McGreevey notes, "Priests across the country in the 1930s encouraged their parishioners to join unions, and some like Pittsburgh's Monsignor Charles Rice, Detroit's Frederick Siedenberg, and Buffalo's Monsignor John P.Boland, served on regional labor boards and played key roles in workplace negotiations." The Catholic Worker Movement and Dorothy Day grew out of the same impetuses to put Catholic social teaching into action.

Catholic Conference on Industrial Problems

Catholic Conference on Industrial Problems
The Catholic Conference on Industrial Problems (1923–1937) was conceived by Fr. Raymond McGowan as a way of bringing together Catholic leaders in the fields of theology, labor, and business, with a view to promoting awareness and discussion of Catholic social teaching. Its first meeting was held in Milwaukee. While it was the venue for important discussions during its existence, its demise was due partly by lack of participation by business executives who perceived the dominant tone of the group as anti-business.


Before the 1960s, Catholics were seen as staunch Democrats.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_politics_in_the_United_States
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
This thread is about the Democrats and whether their "tent" is large enough to hold pro-life Democrats.
Click to expand...


Of course the "tent" is big enough.

Some Pro life people forget that pro choice people support choice.
 
nota bene said:
Two weeks ago Tom Perez made the following statement, which is being interpreted by Democrats and others, according to The Atlantic, as a “call for ideological purity on abortion”:

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said, adding that “every candidate who runs as a Democrat should” share the “Democratic Party’s position on women’s fundamental rights.”

I first read about this issue and Perez’s statement at Townhall.com. This morning I searched through the first seven Google pages and until the links were dated February, finding only an article from Fox but not any from the other “Big Three.” Many conservative and pro-life sites did pick up on the remarks.

From The Atlantic:

Is There Any Room in the 'Big Tent' for Pro-Life Democrats?

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently said the party is “strongly pro-choice,” but remains a “big-tent party,” while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said “of course” it’s possible to be “pro-life” and a Democrat, and have the support of the Democratic Party. Tom Perez, the chair of the Democratic National committee, meanwhile is facing harsh criticism within the party for remarks widely interpreted as saying that Democrats who oppose abortion were not welcome in the party.

The DNC’s message on abortion may alienate red-state Democrats at a time when the party is trying to expand its reach into conservative parts of the country it may need to win over if it wants to reclaim the White House and Congress. And moderate Democrats representing red states [including Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Joe Donnelly of Indiana] are distancing themselves from Perez’s remarks. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...emocrats-abortion-sanders-perez-party/524394/

From the Washington Examiner:

Life came at Tom Perez fast last week. In less than 24 hours, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee went from welcoming a diversity of opinions on abortion to demanding absolute ideological purity on the issue for any candidate running as a Democrat.
"Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health," Perez said in a statement. "That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state." Who got to Tom?: After endorsing anti-abortion candidate, DNC Chair Tom Perez says party's pro-abortion stance 'not negotiable'
http://www.philly.com/philly/column...s/20170428_Pro-lifers_abortion_Democrats.html

I’ve been surprised that no one has begun a thread on this, so here is mine. If you are pro-choice, do you agree with what DNC Chair Perez says? Do you support a litmus test on abortion?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this has any relevance about abortion.

It matters not what the our political parties/government thinks or does about their opinions are actions regarding abortion. Republican and Democrat Pro-life's opinions are pretty much meaningless in the grander scheme of things. If abortion became illegal today - abortions will go on.
 
minnie616 said:
Of course the "tent" is big enough.

Some Pro life people forget that pro choice people support choice.
Click to expand...

So you're going to offer up historical recitation and ignore the OP. The DNC Chair, Tom Perez, has said that being pro-choice is "non-negotiable." This isn't the 50's, '60's, '70's, '80's, '90's; it's the second decade of the 21st century. Tom Perez said what he did ten days ago. He clearly doesn't think the "tent" is big enough.

Lis Smith: Democrats Can't 'Purify Ourselves Into Oblivion' | Mediaite

Commentary - Chicago Tribune

Here are two more links from the past ten days of 2017.
 
nota bene said:
So you're going to offer up historical recitation and ignore the OP. The DNC Chair, Tom Perez, has said that being pro-choice is "non-negotiable." This isn't the 50's, '60's, '70's, '80's, '90's; it's the second decade of the 21st century. Tom Perez said what he did ten days ago. He clearly doesn't think the "tent" is big enough.

Lis Smith: Democrats Can't 'Purify Ourselves Into Oblivion' | Mediaite

Commentary - Chicago Tribune

Here are two more links from the past ten days of 2017.
Click to expand...

I don't care what he said.

The democratic "tent" has always been big enough and should remain so.

Your Chicago commentary link has these commentaries. Which one do you want me to read?
Commentary
Every Republican who voted for the AHCA must be held accountable


Paul Waldman
Here at the Plum Line, we write a lot about the mechanics of politics — the processes of governing, the interplay of political forces, the back-and-forth between citizens and lawmakers, and so on. We do that because it's interesting and because it winds up affecting all our lives. But there are...
With a push from Trump, House Republicans pass Obamacare overhaul


Donald Trump is a lazy president

Steve Chapman
Donald Trump has many worrisome, regrettable and even deplorable traits. But after studying him for the past two years, I have concluded he has an overlooked quality that cancels out many of his bad ones. Say what you will, the man is lazy. This is a discovery that should gladden people of all...


Joe Walsh's tweets about Jimmy Kimmel's baby shed light on health care debate

Eric Zorn
Former Congressman Joe Walsh was acting very presidential Tuesday afternoon. By which I mean he was impulsively tweeting venomous, half-baked thoughts — in this case his reaction to late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel's monologue Monday about his newborn son's dramatic battle for life at Children's...

Video: Jimmy Kimmel opens up about baby's birth


Selling the Thompson Center is a win for everyone

Michael Hoffman
As the acting director of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services, I lead the catch-all agency charged with everything from managing our state's property and vehicles to our state employee benefits and personnel systems. Under that purview falls the management of the James R. Thompson...
James R. Thompson Center through the years
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
Sorry about that; site crashed, and I didn't realize I'd been taken a page back. Here you go: Democrats are making a big mistake by excluding abortion opponents - Chicago Tribune

You could, of course, have used its search function and just typed in "Tom Perez."
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link.

I agree the " tent" is plenty big enough for pro lifers.

As I said pro choice includes all choices.
I am glad that Tom Perez admitted he was wrong and admitted there was no litmus test after all.

From the liked article:

Under pressure from abortion rights groups, Perez quickly walked back his support for Mello and said that being pro-choice was "not negotiable" for Democrats. That reversal was in turn rebuked by a chorus of high-ranking Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.). In the end, Perez walked back his walk-back, announcing there was no litmus test after all.
Click to expand...
 
nota bene said:
Sorry about that; site crashed, and I didn't realize I'd been taken a page back. Here you go: Democrats are making a big mistake by excluding abortion opponents - Chicago Tribune

You could, of course, have used its search function and just typed in "Tom Perez."
Click to expand...
I personally oppose abortion.

I am prochoice.

The two mesh as long as you do not want to push your personal ideology into the health care decisions of another person.

I became deeply entrenched in this way of thinking when I had multiple complications in what should have been an easy pregnancy.I was off nearly 6 months. I was expecting to work within 2 weeks of delivery. I was off 2 months before that!!

If already had a child at home I was struggling to support and not enough personal resources to manage (like most a abortion recipients) I could have been totally destitute before the baby was even born. People unable to pay their bills get evicted, have water, heat, phones turned off. People who don't pay bills get bad credit. People who have bad credit will have a tough time renting and even getting employed. Can you imagine being pregnant and figuring out whether to pay your phone or water bill??

Hell, I had complications that were caught early because I had readily accessible great health care. What does the woman who choses abortion have? She is usually lower income. So there is a good chance that her insurance (if she has any) is a Medicaid type insurance. So you are very possible relegated to a clinic that you may have to take a few busses to ....ion top of that since it likely a packed clinic......you may find yourself waiting hours for a scheduled appointment. So even early in your pregnancy you are stuck missing shifts when you really are healthy enough to work,

Like I said before. You can be personally antiabortion and prochoice.

But if the be all end all of your political ideology is to stop all abortions by any means necessary (even if they lack an ounce of pragmatism) you will not be happy on the Dem side.

Prochoice

One choice is no.

I choose no.
 
year2late said:
I personally oppose abortion.

I am prochoice.

The two mesh as long as you do not want to push your personal ideology into the health care decisions of another person.

I became deeply entrenched in this way of thinking when I had multiple complications in what should have been an easy pregnancy.I was off nearly 6 months. I was expecting to work within 2 weeks of delivery. I was off 2 months before that!!

If already had a child at home I was struggling to support and not enough personal resources to manage (like most a abortion recipients) I could have been totally destitute before the baby was even born. People unable to pay their bills get evicted, have water, heat, phones turned off. People who don't pay bills get bad credit. People who have bad credit will have a tough time renting and even getting employed. Can you imagine being pregnant and figuring out whether to pay your phone or water bill??

Hell, I had complications that were caught early because I had readily accessible great health care. What does the woman who choses abortion have? She is usually lower income. So there is a good chance that her insurance (if she has any) is a Medicaid type insurance. So you are very possible relegated to a clinic that you may have to take a few busses to ....ion top of that since it likely a packed clinic......you may find yourself waiting hours for a scheduled appointment. So even early in your pregnancy you are stuck missing shifts when you really are healthy enough to work,

Like I said before. You can be personally antiabortion and prochoice.

But if the be all end all of your political ideology is to stop all abortions by any means necessary (even if they lack an ounce of pragmatism) you will not be happy on the Dem side.

Prochoice

One choice is no.

I choose no.
Click to expand...

Thank you again for posting the link to Democrats for Life earlier in the thread. I share their ground.
 
Phys251 said:
First of all, nice typo in the thread title. It's the Democratic party.

Second, I'll be willing to entertain the idea of anti-choice Democrats as soon as Republicans allow for some pro-choicers within their own ranks.
Click to expand...

I enjoy how you have consistently moved the goal posts as soon as your silly challenge was met. The point is Republicans have allowed pro-choice views in the party. Michael Steele, former RNC head, is pro-choice. It is not the dominant position of the party, but it is clearly allowed within its own ranks. So, I expect you will now "entertain" pro-life Democrats in your beloved party?

Man, there is really nothing funnier than a party hack (no matter the party). They are among the most irrational and morally perverted humans on the planet.
 
year2late said:
Like I said before. You can be personally antiabortion and prochoice.
Click to expand...

I think it has to depend on WHY someone is against abortion. I mean, if someone believes abortion is infanticide, then being pro-choice does not make any sense whatsoever. That's really the problem with the whole debate (not in this thread, but regarding abortion in general). For those who believe abortion is indistinguishable from murder, there is really no viable compromise. The problem is that there is fundamental disagreement on when life begins. Roe v Wade does not fix this disagreement. Arguing woman's rights does not fix this disagreement. Nothing really can bridge the gap between these two completely polarizing views. So, it may make sense for you personally to be both against abortion and pro-choice. It does not mean everyone can hold these views simultaneously. It does not mean you are somehow more open minded. It simply means your basis for opposing abortion allows these two views to be held whereas, for many others, that is not the case.
 
ibelsd said:
I enjoy how you have consistently moved the goal posts as soon as your silly challenge was met. The point is Republicans have allowed pro-choice views in the party. Michael Steele, former RNC head, is pro-choice. It is not the dominant position of the party, but it is clearly allowed within its own ranks. So, I expect you will now "entertain" pro-life Democrats in your beloved party?

Man, there is really nothing funnier than a party hack (no matter the party). They are among the most irrational and morally perverted humans on the planet.
Click to expand...

There is some serious irony in that last comment of yours!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom