Comments on: Pro-Life Moves in Unexpected Places

By: Sam Rocha

Sam Rocha — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:07:30 +0000

Saying that any argument is better than none is also a terrible argument. It’s like saying that rancid fruit is better than going hungry–even if it may make you violently ill. In fact I did make an argument, it was that yours was poor. Here it is in more detail:

1. Making poor arguments leads to very unfruitful discourse.

ergo

2. One ought to try and make good ones. That way, discourse can be productive and meaningful.

3. Example: “Why not run as an independent? Simple answer – they align themselves with a group with this platform for power and greed.” is a rather bad claim that, without major clarifications and justification (which is what it is lacking), cannot lead to much of anything (productive, that is)

By: Thom

Thom — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:51:30 +0000

Did I say it was any less violent? Actually, I said it’s the same thing, and should be regarded as yet another manifestation of violence.

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:59:10 +0000

A violent mindset and outlook is the disease from which the abortion “symptoms” come. Just because abortion happens in the privacy of a "clinic" by "medical professionals" makes it no less violent than the entirety of American bombing campaigns, including the use of nuclear weapons in WWII.

By: Thom

Thom — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:36:53 +0000

A violent mindset and outlook is the disease from which the bombing “symptoms” come.

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:33:37 +0000

You see though, the difference. It is not in a platform of the people you’re referencing to bomb people. Defending the country and freedom is in there. Sure the end result may be open to interpretation, but indiscriminate killing is not an official line item.

By: Thom

Thom — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:31:32 +0000

The same reason others aligned themselves with a group that had a “main focus to use our money to provide…” more bombs. (You can’t ignore them, as much as you’d like to, because what if those women are pregant?!)

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:21:55 +0000

That has to be one of the poorest arguments I’ve read.

At least it’s an argument. I didn’t see one from you?

Why if these people uphold pro-life standards and are to be admired, did they choose to align themselves with a group that had a main focus to use our money to provide “free” abortions on demand?

By: Thom

Thom — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:40:35 +0000

…not to mention daft, for the Republicans are in the same boat.

By: Sam Rocha

Sam Rocha — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:49:52 +0000

“Why not run as an independent? Simple answer – they align themselves with a group with this platform for power and greed.”

That has to be one of the poorest arguments I’ve read.

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:22:54 +0000

Fine. We’ve clarified points. I have no choice but to question those that align themselves with a group with such a platform.

Why not run as an independent? Simple answer – they align themselves with a group with this platform for power and greed.

By: Policraticus

Policraticus — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:20:33 +0000

You missed my point. No, I really didn't. These are good things, no doubt. Then you should have said so originally. But this wasn't your point or intention. However, in the big picture these people freely choose to be a part of and support the overarching goals of the Democratic party. You cannot discount that. I don't.

By: Random Rant on the Catholic Blogosphere « Vox Nova

Random Rant on the Catholic Blogosphere « Vox Nova — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:07:36 +0000

[...] life at any of its stages is always welcomed and a reason for rejoicing. I will not fall into the same trap that conservatives sometimes fall into when Democrats make a move that protect life and cannot recognize it as a victory for the pro-life [...]