Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?
It is important, both as a matter of integrity and as a witness to the world, to interact respectfully with others and their ideas. So if a Christian, or another person, believes unborn life should be protected from abortion, and born life protected from starvation, I think we should welcome such thoughts. Stated this simply, what's to argue? When translated into public policy, it gets complicated. Which works best: protecting life from starvation via government aid, private charity, or capitalism? Most people would agree that it's a very complicated mix of all three. It also depends on who your parents are, where you live in the world, and whether we are talking short term or long term solutions.
- Here's the flaw: "government aid and private charity" come from "capitalism." There is no other source. You have presented a Marxist argument based upon Marxist reasoning. You might as well pitch phrenology as the basis for chosing career if you're looking to get a response to this kind of reasoning. Rob Smith 18:00, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
To the unsigned original poster, false dichotomy, by the way. Republicans are hardly capitalists in the pure sense. DanH 18:01, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
- Is there any good reason this "article" shouldn't be deleted? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
- Well, there are plenty of other debates, but do I personally care if you delete it? Meh. Aziraphale 20:32, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I personally support Democrats for Life of America and have admired them for years. If not for their influence back in 2009-2010, Democrats would have passed ObamaCare within a few months. Republicans had no votes to stop anything. Democrats by uniting could pass anything they wanted, they had what is known as a Supermajority. Bart Stupak rallied 40 Pro-Life Democrats in the House to stop the healthcare bill dead in its tracks unless a pro-life amendment, the Stupak amendment, was passed to the bill. The pro-life Democrats walled up the bill for months on end, insisting that the bill not fund abortion. Pelosi tried to play chicken with them, and finally conceded she didn't have the votes. In November 2009, she met with Stupak, and agreed to let him have a vote on his amendment, which passed, and the bill went to the Senate.
However, the Democratic Party double-crossed the pro-life Democrats. Rather than passing the House bill with its new pro-life amendment, the Senate under Reid risked the entire healthcare reform process and created a whole new bill to reinsert the abortion agenda, to ultimately attempt the risky process of reconciliation. While the House had numerous pro-life Democrats, the Senate had only a small showing like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Bob Casey Jr. Nelson tried to introduce the Stupak amendment to the Senate bill as the Nelson amendment but it was defeated. With the bill on the verge of passing, Nelson agreed to vote for it on condition stricter language on abortion be added, and then Reid threw in bonuses for his state on Medicare that got criticized as the "Cornhusker Kickback". Nelson claimed he never asked for them and only wanted to protect children, but Republicans vilified Nelson and Landrieu for their votes.
Stupak at the very end, desperate to pass healthcare reform, and having done all he could to attach a pro-life amendment, was getting attacked by both Republicans and Democrats. He made a fatal decision to trust Obama on an executive order, essentially a promise by the president not to fund abortions with the bill. Half the pro-life Democrats sided with Stupak and voted for the bill. The other half continued to refuse it in the House, insisting on the Stupak amendment. However, it was ultimately only because of their efforts that the bill got delayed from June 2009 - March 2010, otherwise it would have passed quickly. They should be considered heroes, but the Republican Party demonized them in 2010 to acquire their seats - even those who ended up voting against the final bill. --Joshua Zambrano 04:47, 5 September 2012 (EDT)