Quote:
Originally Posted by USANick7
I would argue that the "abortion" issue is fundamental. We actually had a very thorough discussion on this topic on another thread.
To say that the "abortion" issue stems from the Christian side of the party is to pay a compliment; since the argument against abortion is based on science, legality, logic, morality, etc. where as the pro-choice argument is based on subterfuge.
I am willing to bet (although I admittedly don't know yet) that you don't truly support abortion as it is logically defined; but rather support it by its false presentation as a defense of individual liberty.
Not to mention, that opposing something because it comes from the "Christian" side doesn't tell us much except that you possess a prejudice against the "Christian" side. In which case it begs the question, is a policy position "bad" because it derives its grounding or support from the Christian world view?
As far as the 2 parties argument...can you demonstrate how a multi party system would work better practically? I am forever hearing about the vices of a two party system, yet seldom if ever do I observe a practical application of a multi party system that I would prefer. I might also add that we ARE a multi party system. People have DEMOCRATICALLY chosen to throw their support behind 2 parties, so how can you claim that our system "undermines" the democratic process, when it is the democratic process which has chosen it?
Unless of course you are arguing against the "winner take all" system is the problem, and would instead prefer we assign seats in congress or respective legislatures according to proportion of votes. In which case you would not so much vote for an individual candidate but a party. Of course now you are no longer voting for the individual as much as you are the party, and you have taken the regional consideration out of the process and are now merely voting for a representative at large, there by somewhat undermining Federalist principles.
|
Well stated, as are several of your other posts on the matter, particularly the ones
Here, I admire your reasoning and rhetoric. However, I know the audience here and I have a rough ideal of the prevailing morals that dominate this forum. With that in mind I have no desire to offend you or anyone else here and I am aware that my opinions will be viewed as morally questionable at best and inflammatory at worst, so I would quietly ask to agree to disagree and sit quietly in disagreement while acknowledging your points as valid. Subsequently I have no desire to debate, and little skill at argument as well, rather you (and TR) asked and I answered, although I imagine the preceding post was somewhat unsatisfactory, ahem, my bad.