Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you.
Get updates from Catholic and Enjoying It! delivered straight to your inbox
Senate Democrats Pushing Bill to Wipe Out Every Single Pro-Life Law on Abortion
If by “pushing,” you mean introducing the bill 7 months ago and then not doing anything, then yes, they’re pushing this bill. If by “pushing” you mean pushing, then they don’t seem to really be doing anything.
jroberts beat me to the punch by a second. The bill has not even been scheduled for a subcommittee hearing. It has not been whipped by the Democratic caucus. I guess I could search for bills introduced by a Republican and play the same game. But headlines like here help in our continued polarization of politics.
Both parties get entirely too much credit / blame for purely symbolic, donor-exciting non-actions like this. Similar non-actions, like voting 40 times to repeal the PPACA, or giving a speech about reforming immigration (while deporting more immigrants than any of your predecessors) should be judged as what they are – meaningless gestures that serve no real purpose other than fundraising. At best, these non-actions are harmless; at worst, these non-actions serve to help distract from the actual things that congress does.
The genocide has become the MAIN reason for being Democrat.
Well, would you have Moloch go hungry?
This is the democrat version of the republican “We’re voting to repeal Obamacare!” It’s just political theatre to entertain the True Believers.
This of course, doesn’t make it any less evil to support or even suggest such a law, but still, let’s remember what this is. We Americans in the TV and Internet age have trouble telling the difference between reality and ‘Entertainment.’ I’m pretty sure this is the second.
Yeah, Mark! Don’t you get it? There’s nothing wrong with promoting genocide and pandering to your genocidal constituents if you’re only doing it for their money and support! Jeesh, you are SUCH a shameless Republican sycophant!!!
Who said there’s nothing wrong with it? It’s important to keep in mind what they’re actually doing (shamelessly engaging in purely symbolic acts in order to pander to their constituents) as opposed to what they’re pretending to do (pushing any sort of bill). Surely there enough things that democrats have actually done to justify being mad at them, without having to worry about purely meaningless crap like that.
Well, if you agree that there *is* something wrong with championing genocide for cheap political reasons, then surely you understand why Mark would not want to vote for the party that does so. This legislation is symbolic, all right — symbolic of the Democratic Party’s core values, and symbolic of the Party’s unworthiness of any Catholic’s vote.
(Disclaimer: Condemnation of Democratic Party should in no way be interpreted as support, endorsement, or approval of GOP. Thank you!)
“Championing”? On those issues which I support, I demand a little bit more from my champions than a completely meaningless act. Do you also think Republicans are champions of the pro-life cause, that Obama is a champion of the pro-immigrant cause, or that the Broncos are champions of pro football?
You know what “champion” used to mean, right? A champion fought for you in a trial by combat. This quite possibly meant dying and/or killing. Pretending to sponsor a bill that you have no intention of trying to pass, and would probably be unenforceable even if you did pass it is in no way analogous to standing in for someone in a trial by combat. It’s a completely empty act.
ETA: Don’t get me wrong. I too find empty pandering disgusting. But I hate empty pandering because I hate dishonesty, and not because I mistakenly think empty pandering amounts to “pushing” or “championing” anything.
Sorry if my choice of words threw you off. Replace “championing” above with — take your pick — “promoting,” or “endorsing,” or “pretending to be all giddy about” … and the point still stands.
In what world are “championing” and “pretending to be giddy” interchangeable?
The distinction between what our officials actually champion or push, and what they merely endorse or pretend to be giddy about, is vitally important. It’s, e.g., the difference between a President who says that immigration is good for America (Obama) and one who is more aggressive about deportations than any other president (again, Obama). I would go so far as to say that voter indifference towards that distinction is one of the biggest problems facing our political system. Concrete actions are the only things politicians deserve credit or blame for.
Fine, if you’re cool with politicians who get their money and support from those who hold genocide as their top value, so be it. If you’re OK with politicians who sing the praises of baby-killing, even if for purely cynical reasons, be my guest.
If I had to choose between someone who engaged in completely hollow gestures like this, and one who actually did bad things, I would take the cynical panderer every single time. Likewise, if I had to choose between someone who engaged in hollow gestures on issues I agree with, and one who actually did good things, I would take the latter every single time.
The Democratic party doesn’t actively support abortion rights as a party platform? I thought it did.
I don’t know what that has to do with the article linked here.
Then you’re the only one. Mark says this is why he won’t vote Democrat. FdS chimes in. You retort. Back and forth. You finally say that you’d take this (apparently something you dismiss as mere cynical pandering) over actually doing something wrong. In my book, as well as some others, actively advocating abortion, which is what those in this story assume is their party’s platform, is bad. Or put it another way, if this is just pandering, it’s doing so with the knowledge that abortion rights is a major Democrat platform, hence the pandering (assuming that’s all it is). Hence doing something bad as a party.
The article was about a party platform? I thought it was about a bill that no one is trying to pass. Maybe one of us didn’t read the link.
And concrete action outweighs the platform. I don’t give Republicans credit for putting pro-life statements in their platforms.
Yes, it was about a group of Democrats appealing to the base of what constitutes a major platform of the Democratic party. And yes, concrete action outweighs platforms, which is why beyond words, it’s obvious through the Democratic legislation and political activities that they put their money where their mouths are when it comes to advocating the right to abortion. Just admit it. The Republicans may not do much when it comes to fighting abortion rights, but the Democrats have long made advocating and pushing for abortion rights unhindered a major part of their priorities. Why are you having a hard time admitting what everyone knows – and what the Democratic party proudly proclaims?
I’m not denying it. I’m just saying this isn’t an example of them “pushing” or “championing” anything, or of putting their money where their mouths are, or of making anything a priority, or of actually doing anything at all.
It’s an example of them pandering to a greater platform. If the platform wasn’t there, would this even have been a logical ploy? This only makes sense as a cynical tactic if the overall emphasis of the party is what it is. After all, if it was actually non-abortion rights, what would this do? The point. Hence, the post in the first place.
BTW, all this is assuming that effort in this story was just a ploy without serious intention to achieve something. Which hasn’t been demonstrated beyond being stated.
Weird. This stupid bill was introduced 7 months ago and has no chance of even being voted on in the Democratic controlled Senate. But it was recently highlighted by the right wing dissident site pewsitter and now we’re talking about it?
I’m not on the geno-side either , but neither on the side of the ends justify being mean to nation build.
Do you prefer Nero or Diocletian?
But to return to the critical issue, all but a few aborts think they are killing a person. Yes, it is horrible, but “they know not what they do” in most cases. It only makes the sin less than mortal without reducing the gravity. (the original Star Trek’s Horda comes to mind. NO KILL I).
Kreeft once observed most would prefer to be tortured rather than to be the torturer. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and no shortage of the GOP (ask Blair and Gingrich) knew torture and other war crimes were grave sins. I.e full knowledge. Yet they, and many Catholics gave full consent of the will. Mortal sin.
If one is going to lose their soul, would not Roeder be the better model? He did stop some abortions, and there are fewer abortionists than Al Queda #2s. Abortion could be ended in 2 weeks if abortionists were thought of the way Muslims currently are by the Catholic personalities, and they did not fear to act.
Along that line, many who advocated torture insisted they weren’t really advocating torture, merely water boarding. All in all, a preference on which evil to begrudgingly tolerate because the other is worse, or simply throw up the hands and pick some other option no matter how doomed.
never voted democrat, never will.