Biden talks abortion

Pocono Joe

And it looks like his reoccurring bout with Foot-In-Mouth Disease might have cost Obama the Catholic vote. (Still awaiting the minor Palin gaffe, that inevitably will happen at some point, which will be blown into cosmic proportions by the traditional media.)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/09/19/joe_biden_loses_barack_obama_the_catholic_vote

alastair

Eh? Let's not pretend that US Catholics pay any greater heed to their hierarchy than the Irish do. The Democratic ticket's position on abortion access has always run counter to the Catholic Church's doctrine. That doesn't stop Catholic women taking advantage of abortion, and won't stop them voting for the ticket that supports abortion provision, if that's their position too.

Biden hasn't lost anyone's vote by holding a consistent policy position. Where's the gaffe?

Dinner

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And it looks like his reoccurring bout with Foot-In-Mouth Disease might have cost Obama the Catholic vote. (Still awaiting the minor Palin gaffe, that inevitably will happen at some point, which will be blown into cosmic proportions by the traditional media.)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/09/19/joe_biden_loses_barack_obama_the_catholic_vote

Where's the gaffe? And why reoccuring?

Just seems like he has an opinion about abortion that the bishops don't like, but then again they don't like a lot of things.


(On a side note 'pro-abortion'? Now there's a loaded statement if ever I saw one :pac:)

Bubs101

In fairness, I don't think the Catholic vote was the democrats to win. Palin is one of those nutjob catholics

brianthebard

Pocono Joe wrote: »

What's with all the bizarre and relentless fascination with Sarah PalinJoe Biden? You do realize she he is only the Republican Dems VP pick... it's McCain Obama who's running for President against Obama McCain, right?

I believe this is the correct and proper answer, judging by past instances.

alastair

Bubs101 wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think the Catholic vote was the democrats to win. Palin is one of those nutjob catholics

Palin opted out of Catholicism years ago. Biden is still a practising Catholic. The Democratic party do okay out of Catholic voters.

is_that_so

Arabel wrote: »

Where's the gaffe? And why reoccuring?

Just seems like he has an opinion about abortion that the bishops don't like, but then again they don't like a lot of things.


(On a side note 'pro-abortion'? Now there's a loaded statement if ever I saw one :pac:)

He's gaffe prone and tends to speak off the cuff. The recurring comment I suspect refers to that and not just this case. The recent "Hillary would have been better than me" is a good example. In this case he quoted or rather misquoted the Catholic Church position on abortion.

alastair

is_that_so wrote: »

In this case he quoted or rather misquoted the Catholic Church position on abortion.

No he didn't. He said that there had been debate within the Church - citing Thomas Aquinas' position as an example.

is_that_so

alastair wrote: »

No he didn't. He said that there had been debate within the Church - citing Thomas Aquinas' position as an example.

Just because lay members of a Church differ from the official stance does not make for a "debate within a Church".
The Church's official position on abortion brooks no debate, therefore he misrepresented it. So I can see where the Catholic Church, rightly or wrongly is coming from.
As for Thomas Aquinas I can't say I'd quote a 13th century philosopher on this one.

alastair

is_that_so wrote: »

Just because lay members of a Church differ from the official stance does not make for a "debate within a Church".
The Church's official position on abortion brooks no debate, therefore he misrepresented it. So I can see where the Catholic Church, rightly or wrongly is coming from.
As for Thomas Aquinas I can't say I'd quote a 13th century philosopher on this one.

Here's what he said:

“There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia [sic]," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia [sic]," he said there was no--it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception.”

Now the Catholic Church's position has shifted over the years - the current Hierarchy doctrine is a relatively recent one in the context of Church history, and not one that is universally accepted within the Church.

Biden was clear on the current doctrinal position. He was also clear on his personal moral position - which tallys with current doctrinal position.

is_that_so

Yes I watched it as well and my point stands. Personally I don't really care what he had to say on the topic but a little bit of thought on how he would answer it could have saved him a whole load of bother.

The "gaffe" such as it is, invited the Catholic Church to correct the "fact" and comment negatively on him, thus potentially sending large numbers of voters away from the Dems.

At this point much as I like Biden's easy style, his off the cuff manner just gets him into trouble. IMO he is beginning to pose the same risk to the Dems as Palin may do for the GOP.

The Church position.

irish_bob

alastair wrote: »

Palin opted out of Catholicism years ago. Biden is still a practising Catholic. The Democratic party do okay out of Catholic voters.

okay , the catholic vote while not as staunchly democrat as it used to be still heavily favours the democrats , afterall the republican party has always been the party of the w.a.s.p

Pocono Joe

Yes, Catholics traditionally have voted Democrat in the US. But in recent elections, and recent events, I'm seen 47 million cracks in the cathedral ceiling.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin/2008/09/08/128840.html

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Yes, Catholics traditionally have voted Democrat in the US. But in recent elections, and recent events, I'm seen 47 million cracks in the cathedral ceiling.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin/2008/09/08/128840.html

I'm seeing someone posting alot of crappy links to partisan websites with no substance.

This isn't the fox.com political forum.

Pocono Joe

If that doesn't smack of hypocrisy, I don't know what does? Is it cull the conservatives week here?

signed: About to be banned.

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

If that doesn't smack of hypocrisy, I don't know what does? Is it cull the conservatives week here?

signed: About to be banned.

Unless you can show me where I did the opposite, I don't see hypocrisy.

We have guidelines in this forum. We don't let ANYONE soapbox. I'm more than happy to see political discussion from both sides, as an undecided US voter, I'm going to see both sides.

But we're intelligent people here and I don't want my time wasted with stupid smear campaigns and partisan propaganda websites.

Regarding the guidelines, I'm not happy about either side setting out to malign others by distorting the facts. I've seen too many people come on here and make a smear about either side's candidates, been challenged and ignore it. I'm warning gently for now, but if you want me to set it in stone, I will.

I also don't want to see you start threads with titles designed to malign someone while not informing on the title. That is my only offical sanction on you personally.

Pocono Joe

If you haven't noticed some of the recent threads started with similar, as you state "smear campaigns and partisan propaganda websites," from the other side, then I guess I really am clueless.

Recent Examples:
Palins transparency proposal.
Palin lies about taking Pay Cut !
Palin interview with Hannity
Palin Appoints Cow Lover?

GuanYin wrote: »

I also don't want to see you start threads with titles designed to malign someone while not informing on the title. That is my only offical sanction on you personally.

You make sense there, I understand sarcasm escapes some... MY BAD! Won't happen again.

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

If you haven't noticed some of the recent threads started with similar, as you state "smear campaigns and partisan propaganda websites," from the other side, then I guess I really am clueless.

Recent Examples:
Palins transparency proposal.
Palin lies about taking Pay Cut !
Palin interview with Hannity
Palin Appoints Cow Lover?

That conflicts with my comment in what way?

You make sense there, I understand sarcasm escapes some... MY BAD! Won't happen again.

Not in thread titles

Jack Sheehan

Ha Ha Ha that stupid Biden, he stood up for his views even when it cost him some popularity, what an eejit! I can't see him as VP.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Probably won't matter too much. Most Catholics don't vote on vatican positions.

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

....

Look you are not doing yourself any justice by linking to storys llike the newsmax one.

If it says something like "a U.S. church official at the Vatican told Newsmax on the condition of anonymity". Then it is a BS story and is not an official stance of the Vatican.

Official comments always have a name with them. They may as well be asking a tourist visiting the Vatican for all the weight it carries.

I find the news story very funny though as I have seen others which rebuke the Vatican as "being run by an Ex-Hitler lover" after the Pope criticized Palins comments about Iraq. I've only neglected to post them before because I don't see them as newsworthy.

I am not also about your list of subjects was supposed to prove. They link to reputable news sources, or at least you can find them via that.

But the point to create separate threads on the subjects rather then one huge palin thread is that you can see each subject matter in truth or refuted instead of having to rummage through multiple posts. So I see the list you pointed out as being valid. I also stand down where pointed out what I had mentioned was incorrect.

But I would prefer to be called incorrect and someone point me to the source then have to be called "liberal" like it is a swear word.

CPT. SURF

Looks like people are generally less gullible over here...