How pro choice are democrats?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by HyperX13, Sep 7, 2012.

  1. HyperX13, Sep 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2012

    HyperX13 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #1
    It seems democrats are pro choice on abortion, but what about your choice to go to school of your choice, drink soda of your choice, choose to be in the union? Look at video of DNC delegates on that

     
  2. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #2
    Neither major political party in the U.S. is inherently 'pro-liberty' which is the core of what you're trying to show here. Each party wants to control your lives, dictate how you live, what you eat, what you drink, how you run your business, and so on and so forth. They only disagree as to HOW and WHAT elements of your life they want to control. People's views on liberty tend not to be based on any deeply-seeded belief in liberty as a general principle, but rather politically. The 'sheeple' decide which liberties they value, and which they want the government to trample based seemingly almost entirely on what their party leaders work into the party platform.

    That being said, it's also important to realize that there are pro-liberty positions on both sides of issues like abortion. The pro-choice position is obvious, but I consider myself a very pro-liberty individual (there are VERY few ways in which I want government to dictate our lives other than upholding basic laws) and I am distinctly anti-abortion. Since I draw the distinction that the child to be aborted is actually a human being, a human being with all the rights and liberties that come along with... starting first with the right to life. As such, the woman's right to choose what happens to her body is rendered moot and irrelevant as her specific choice would end the life of another person.

    Sometimes in life, things aren't black and white... but generally a society that's more focused on liberty and less eager to try and control other members of said society... would be a very positive change.
     
  3. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    How pro life are republicans if they support the death penalty, don't support universal health care, don't support food stamps to feed poor children, don't support abortions to save a mother's life...

    Oh, wait. Maybe instead of semantics we could talk about actual issues.
     
  4. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #4
    That's always been something that I couldn't figure out too. How can you be pro-killing one set of people and anti-others?

    That said, I don't know any person out there that is anti-health care and feeding kids.
     
  5. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    Wait, are you saying not all republicans are opposed to food stamps and school lunches for poor children? Is it also possible that not all democrats support restrictions on soda size?
     
  7. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #7

    I'm one who always believes its best to understand your opponent and represent their viewpoints accurately instead of belittling them. With all due respect, I don't think either of you are making that effort. I, for instance, am anti-death-penalty... but I certainly understand the reasoning behind the other side of the equation.

    Republicans don't equate one innocent life to one life guilty of a major crime like murder. Agree or not, it's reasonable and not necessarily hypocritical.

    Republicans don't feel that universal health care will do as good as a job caring for people as a competitive free market will. Agree or not, it's reasonable and not necessarily hypocritical.

    Republicans believe that food stamps do more damage than good, propagating the welfare state, expanding society's sense of 'entitlement' and over time making society less capable to care for itself... resulting in a solution worse than the original problem. Agree or not, it's reasonable and not necessarily hypocritical.

    Feeding poor people? Republicans are against feeding poor people? That might be the most ridiculous comment I've heard in a while. For the record, just because you don't believe government should be doing something... doesn't mean you don't want it done.


    Indeed.
     
  8. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #8
    Very, very, very, very well said.

    Part of the problem in this country is that we demonize anyone with an opposing viewpoint. People are, by and large, reasonable folks and I think most want to do what is best for the country overall. Some of us just disagree on how to get to the same end result. Doesn't make either side "wrong", as generally the right answer is somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

    Good post though.
     
  9. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #9

    The fact is that policies on welfare are about priorities. Not about believing in helping poor people or not - that's the lie in your rant.

    Republicans very often put helping the poor lower down in priority that Democrats. Hence the very real perception of them being less caring for the poor.
     
  10. HyperX13 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #10
    Republicans donate more to local programs, both in terms of time and goods (cash, etc). As a catholic I am opposed to death penalty as well. Universal health care is a joke and will cost much more and be much worse.
     
  11. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #11
    I think you may have missed the very point I was trying to make.
    If Democrats think that welfare helps the poor, and Republicans think that welfare hurts the poor, how can you possibly use a Republican's non-support of welfare as evidence of them not caring about the poor as much as Democrats?

    That's like saying John McCain believes that expanding military spending year after year and expanding our presence abroad will make us safer, while Ron Paul believes that reducing our military spending year after year and reducing our present abroad will make us safer... therefore John McCain obviously cares a lot more for our safety. Patently absurd. They disagree as to the tactic, not the goal.
     
  12. noteple macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    #12
    Cute video

    Could have been shot at any convention.

    As said in the video. "Maybe there are some contradictions but people are made up of contradictions".

    I'm for Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all sides.
     
  13. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #13
    classicaliberal, I agree exactly with your rebuttal of my post. That was my point. What I said makes about as much sense as HyperX13's original post for this thread. He's making a straw-man argument (not all democrats believe what he says they do), making ridiculous statements (democrats don't want you to drink your soda of choice) and a set of false analogies: that a "choice" on abortion equates to a "choice" stance on school vouchers (assuming that's what he means by choice of schools). He's the one making the argument that it's somehow logically inconsistent to believe that abortion rites are important and that school voucher programs would do more harm than good.
     
  14. niuniu, Sep 7, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2012

    niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #14
    That's a misrepresentation of the actual issue. The actual issue is that both parties support welfare to a certain and differing extent in terms of policy.

    Trying to logically deduce an issue the way you are ended up fallacious and meaningless as you point out, and also a complete distortion of the reality. But I don't want to simply repeat my earlier post so..

    The other problem with what you say (if we were to actually forget tackle the logic) is you would have to make two assumptions

    1 - consensus between all Republicans on an issue, which they don't have so clearly it's an exercise in futility.
    2 - altruism: that Republican motivation for not delivering welfare is to help the poor and not to further their own interests, which few people would believe.

    What is clear and must be restated in no uncertain terms is that the Republican agenda is less motivated in supporting welfare and the poor than the Democrats. No misrepresentation and subsequent logical deduction should be allowed to distort that.

    And of course, some elements do show out and out disregard for the poor.
     
  15. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #15
    This is just not true.
     
  16. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
    #16
    Then why do people who live in countries with universal health care programs outlive us? Why are they healthier than us?
     
  17. applesith macrumors 68030

    applesith

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #17
    Closed counties with strict immigration policies so they don't have exponential increase in those using and not paying for the services.

    The devices, procedures and medicines are mostly developed from other counties who have capitalist systems with monetary incentives to create such things.
     
  18. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #18
  19. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #19
    It's considered a basic courtesy to your fellow PRSI posters to make an effort to provide sources for empirically verifiable claims. Since healthcare costs and outcomes are easily measurable, I assume you can provide detailed data to back up your claim?
     
  20. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #20
    I can vouch for this, even if you are married if you have a costly illness or disability there is a chance you will be barred from immigration.

    If you are applying under a different immigration class (non-family class) it's likely any major health issues will bar you from immigration.
     
  21. Rampant.A.I. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    #21
    You haven't heard the scream-crying over "Obamacare"?
     
  22. ericrwalker macrumors 68030

    ericrwalker

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    #22
    Not just that, but I always wonder if all the murders that happen in Detroit every day are factored into the life expectancy. Every time a teen or a guy in his 20's is shot by some thug that has to put a hit on our average life expectancy. What about car accidents? A lot of countries are smaller and use mass transit, a lot less people die in train accidents than car accidents. I always wondered if those lives are factored in.
     
  23. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #23
    Being opposed to a massive expansion of government reach that includes forcing people to buy into a private industry is not the same thing as being anti-health care.
     
  24. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #24
    You do this in the US now. What makes you think it would be different under UHC?

    Countries with UHC are not devoid of capitalism.

    Can you provide a link to the rules of the canadian system you have experience in?
     
  25. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #25
    They are. Improving child mortality, as an example, will greatly jack up median life expectancy even if people aren't living any longer.
     

Share This Page