Barak Obama Speech @ DNC

[kevin]

"Right, our leaders are supposed to be supremely accountable at the end of the day to the people. He must embody the beliefs of everyone, because he's the one government official elected to represent all the people, all the time."

---AKA, how on earth is that possible? if that was true, there wouldn't be a democratic or republican party. cate, you're argument is certainly logical in theory, but how do you in practice take everyone's beliefs into consideration, especially on a topic like that? and if you simply have a president who bases law on the opinions of the majority, why have a president? just use surveys. the president is a leader too, not just a pawn (or is supposed to be). and once again i feel like you're equating the severity of the abortion debate with something like the president choosing his favorite color as the national color. it's just 2 different ballparks. i can make the argument that if i was in power within the Nazi party, it would be my duty as a representative of the people to support the killing of the jews, even though i don't think that's right. the fact is kerry has an opinion on abortion (he thinks it's a choice = clearly not murder) and he's supporting legislation that rhymes with that. his stating that "oh, wait, i still wouldn't do it myself" is maybe, just maybe (i know i know this is the conspiracy theorist in me talking) trying to not alienate the right wing. i think you are looking at him as a lot more altruistic than he really is (my opinion). but the bottom line is, he's essentially publicly said to the world, "the church is wrong, I'm right". and if (getting back to that example i used before) i put on my uniform (that i hope to get soon) and stood up at the anti-american rally and said "I'm right, this country is wrong" on a fundamental issue, do i have any right to be included in the military community? i hope not.

by the way, cate, arent you proud of me for not having made any "your father" references yet?! im such a well-mannered boy.

 

[Cate]

You are. You're being a very good boy. And I'd like you to note that I've remained a lady.

That having been said - you're full of it! (Kidding, of course). I think you're looking at Kerry as more mercenary than he really is (my opinion). But I suspect that's not something that's going to change with a little bit of spirited debate. Yes, politicians are, by their nature, political, but if we go around ascribing evil, self-serving motives to everything they do, we'll never get anything accomplished. In this case, I think that Kerry does actually believe in his stance on abortion - that he wouldn't do it or want his daughters to do it, but that he can't outlaw it. And you can't throw out the idea of medical abortions, because that's part of the legislation and court rulings at hand - outlaw abortion, and you've outlawed abortion; degrees of medical necessity are debatable, so you've got to take them into consideration when drafting legislation. But we're getting dangerously close to debating abortion, which, it has been pointed out, isn't a great idea.

This is simply one of the areas where one decides to vote or not vote for Kerry. There are a people who feel the way you do, that abortion is murder, full stop, and that having a moderate view on it is akin to being a Nazi (oversimplification, I realize). Then there are people who feel that abortion isn't nearly so cut and dried and that having a conservative view on it is akin to violating a woman's civil rights (again, oversimplification). For the discussion at hand, those two groups are really the definition of pro-life and pro-choice, respectively, and in this case, the pro-lifers aren't going to vote for Kerry.

A politician can't, of course, take everyone's opinions into consideration when he leads. But I think that in a democracy, he has to be willing to back off and let the people govern themselves. It is not his job to dictate right and wrong, because the point of a democracy is that the people can decide right and wrong for themselves. You disagree because you think that abortion is on equal footing with genocide, and I'm not going to be able to talk you out of that. But you can recognize that the debate is ongoing, and that the people need to be able to decide for themselves how much influence the government can hold over them.

 

[kevin]

im certainly not going to argue that last statement. people have a right to vote according to their beliefs and they will. hence my argument back in that other thread when AKA implied that everyone who votes to ban gay marriage apparently hates gays. i think you are looking at this issue on a broader scale than what i initially intended. it was involving kerry himself. and while i concede that i might be looking at kerry as being more malicious than he is, im not sold on that....pro-choicers have been using that "i wouldnt do it and i think it might be wrong, but let's let them decide" argument since Roe v Wade (actually the real legalization of abortion came from a different ruling than R v W, but it's not as well known)....and it's often been intended to win support of teetering conservatives. the problem with that is, you're arguing the argument with the argument. "let's let them choose since we can't decide whether they should be able to choose or not"- huh? ok. you are arguing about kerry's motives from a purely secular view (which i obviously can't fault you for)....however, i'm arguing from a catholic view, which he is. and it's completely different. once again, with the gravity of the abortion issue, there is no compromise, and if you say, "well the laws shouldn't decide", well then you are simply washing your hands. if clinton stands up for abortion publicly, it's different because he's not catholic. kerry has every right to believe what he wants, but as a public figure head, he has an obligation to his religion when it comes to fundamental laws (and this is virtually impossible to see from a secular viewpoint). neglecting this duty is why several churches have denied him communion (not because, as cnn would of course say "they are being all high and mighty and not looking at their own flaws"). if you are unwilling to take on that duty, then you shouldn't be there. you can't have your cake and eat it too. if i apply to a job and they say "well, as long as you teach A,B,C that is contradictory to your beliefs, then the job is yours" and i take that job- i've sold out. personally, i think kerry is playing the catholic card for votes more than anything....but hey, that's my opinion.

"And you can't throw out the idea of medical abortions, because that's part of the legislation and court rulings at hand - outlaw abortion, and you've outlawed abortion; degrees of medical necessity are debatable, so you've got to take them into consideration when drafting legislation."
---Yes! that's the problem. by throwing out, i mean that those cases are separate. however, these medical cases are quite obvious (the PHYSICAL welfare of the mother, ie not emotional, is in serious jeopardy) and hence separate from the overwhelming majority of cases that have nothing to do with this. the problem i have with the pro-choice movement is that they've tried to lump all these cases TOGETHER. in the case of the church, abortion is considered not morally culpable in cases where the mother's life is in danger. as i said before, the cases of this compared to the total number is absurd. how do you enact legislation saying that all abortions are ok because .001% of those cases might be medical types (im still not arguing here whether abortion is right or wrong, im just pointing out the logic)? that's like me saying we should drop a bunch of nukes on pakistan cause we know osama is hiding there somewhere (disclaimer: i really dont know where he is, and if i did, i'd be sure to call the osama hotline number).

 

[akamifeldman]

AKA, how on earth is that possible?

I dunno what country you live in buddy, but I'm pretty sure that one of the things that the United States was founded on is the fact that our leaders must be held accountable to their subjects, the people. That's all I'm trying to get across, and you know that's what I meant all along.

You two are keeping the abortion thing pretty civil, but ya'll know what happens when it strays...and I ain't gonna be part of it this time. :icon_tong

 

[American_Ace]

whoa, you guys read all that?

 

[VetteMuscle427]

whoa, you guys read all that?

yeah, I dont have the attention span to read all of that... keep it short guys... I'm to lazy to read deep.

 

[Cate]

As far as Christian religions go, Catholicism is one of the oldest (I don't know about the oldest; I might have some Greek Orthodox folks on my back about that). But it's, like, way old, and it's gone through a whole lot of developments and changes, the most recent, of course, being the Second Vatican Council. Up until Vatican II, the way to say Mass was with the priest's back to the congregation, Mass was said in Latin, and eating fish on Friday was a sin. After it, all of these, as well as many other things, changed. Now I'm not saying that abortion is anywhere close to as simple as eating fish on Fridays. But I am saying that, although the vast majority of canon law stays the same, the Church is a living one and recognizes the need to adapt. I don't think it will ever accept abortion outright, but we have no way of knowing that its attitude won't shift.

Also, I don't know if you're Catholic, but I don't know a single Catholic who accepts every single aspect of church law unquestioningly. That's not faith; that's blind faith, and our church tells us it's not a good thing. The Catholic church believes that life if precious from birth to natural death; it does not attach sin to a pro-choice vote. A friend of mine went to confession a few difficult months after his girlfriend had an abortion (against his wishes). The priest told him that if it's what she wanted, he couldn't have prevented it, and that they should just pray for her. Our role in the abortion issue is one of support, not judgment. Nor is it ours to judge Kerry for trying to reconcile his own personal beliefs with the beliefs of his church - which is something that all Catholics have done at one point or another.

 

[kevin]

"As far as Christian religions go, Catholicism is one of the oldest (I don't know about the oldest; I might have some Greek Orthodox folks on my back about that). But it's, like, way old, and it's gone through a whole lot of developments and changes, the most recent, of course, being the Second Vatican Council. Up until Vatican II, the way to say Mass was with the priest's back to the congregation, Mass was said in Latin, and eating fish on Friday was a sin. After it, all of these, as well as many other things, changed. Now I'm not saying that abortion is anywhere close to as simple as eating fish on Fridays. But I am saying that, although the vast majority of canon law stays the same, the Church is a living one and recognizes the need to adapt. I don't think it will ever accept abortion outright, but we have no way of knowing that its attitude won't shift."
-------you kind of already adressed my argument here....they aren't the same, not even close. the church has NEVER "adapted" it's fundamental laws...part of the reason it's so criticized today. comparing saying the mass in latin to abortion...why even bring it up? so let me break the suspense..."we have no way of knowing that its attitude won't shift"..wrong- look up "infallible statements" in the catholic church.

in your second paragraph you're speaking from a "new age" idea of judgement. who ever said we can't judge people? we do it every day, whether you like it or not. we have no right to judge people's salvation or condemnation...that's God's place (im speaking from a catholic point of view), but that doesn't mean we can't judge people's actions...as a matter of fact we should judge...both our own and others (in that order). your mention of blind faith is certainly true- however, that implies that you don't accept things without using your own reasoning...ie, if you've done that you really havent made a choice, which is bad. as for the example of your friend, that argument doesn't seem logical to me (maybe i'm missing something). the church wouldn't assign fault to your friend because the abortion was "against his wishes"...how is a pro-choice vote equivalent to "against his wishes"...in fact they are quite the opposite (hence there IS fault attached to a pro-choice vote). now certainly one can say, "well, i didn't vote for his pro-choice stance but for his stance on education"- well that's another issue (separate argument i won't get into).

"Our role in the abortion issue is one of support, not judgment."
---i think that also is false. catholicism teaches charity first, which is a very valid point you make. hence why it is immoral to chastise or belittle people of a certain group (homosexuals- hence my disgust that the media even to this day ignorantly equates catholicism with gay-hating)....however, popular culture ("new age" religion, if you will) has jumped all over that to pigeon-hole that into "you can't judge"...WRONG!! unbeknownst to the secular world, judgement and charity do go hand and hand....see the life of Christ. so naturally, i disagree with your last statement.
however, getting back specifically to the original topic. look at that first statement by kerry again. "i believe abortion is wrong, but i believe it's up to the woman to decide" (once again, he's not the first to use this). forget all the church perspective things for a second....i still just dont comprehend this argument. keeping in mind the fundamental issue at hand (murder or not murder), where is there a middle ground? if you believe abortion is destroying a human life, then you clearly can't think that it should be a choice....that's no different in any way than me (as the chancellor i think) of germany saying "i believe that killing jews is wrong, but i think it's up to the Nazi party to decide for themselves"...obviously, that's absurd. ok, so he doesn't think abortion is destroying a human life (pro-choice viewpoint)....then WHAT IS WRONG WITH ABORTION THAT HE WOULD SAY IT'S BAD? i just don't get this....where is the middle ground. it's either destroying human life or not.

vettemuscle...sorry these posts are long, but it's tough to make it short on topics like this. perhaps if i interjected a joke somewhere for you?

AKA :actually, i really didn't understand what you meant.