Pro-lifers, why are you voting for McCain? [Archive]

Lakai

10-18-2008, 06:30 PM

The gut reaction is: if you're pro-life, you vote Republican. In most instances that would help your cause, but that doesn't seem to be the case in this election.

Why? Because Obama actually has a plan to reduce abortions (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kmiec17-2008oct17,0,2107469.story), McCain does not.

McCain just wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. At the debate he claimed to be a federalist, meaning that he would want the choice to have abortions to go from women to the state legislatures. It would still be a choice, there would still be states that choose to allow abortions, but the only difference would be that now people who have no business in the matter (e.i. men,) would have a say in the decision.

Obama wants to reduce the number of abortions by women through sex education. By educating women on how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, you can reduce the number of abortions much more that by outlawing it in some states. If certain states still allow abortions, women would still be able to have them. The only abortions prevented under this scenario are those where women (girls more likely) don't know of any way to get to or find an abortion clinic.

Instead of making it trickier for parts of the country to get to abortion clinics, why not have a program that reduces unwanted pregnancies nationwide? That way the number of abortions would be reduced across the country.

So the question is what would a pro-lifer gain by voting for McCain?

Vox Imperatoris

10-18-2008, 06:38 PM

Least Original User Name Ever

10-18-2008, 08:00 PM

Frylock

10-18-2008, 08:02 PM

Caveat lector

10-18-2008, 08:30 PM

I've posted this elsewhere, but primarily it is because that it is only by the election of the correct senators and presidents that Row v Wade can be over turned. However, the work of reducing abortions can be done by many other people and agencies. Such programs can still be instituted by congress, by the states, by private organizations, etc.

Also, if it is at the state level it there still a chance, even if it is a small one, of restricting abortion.

I also do not agree with your statement that men have no business in the matter. It is a human life that is being ended and thus anyone who is human has business in the matter. If I did not believe it was a human life I could possibly accept that men have no business in the matter, but as I do not believe this I do not accept that.

Also, as I understand it, I think Roe v. Wade is bad a bad judgment and is bad for this country. It is a poison in the veins of our political system that prevents good candidates from being nominated or elected on the national level.

Finally, Senator Obama does not seem to favor any restrictions on abortions what so ever and this is troubling to me as he also does not seem to want to state when he thinks life begins. If he has I'll happily be wrong on this as I'd love to know it. Surely a someone becomes a person sometime before birth even if it's not at conception and not having any feedback on when he thinks this might be troubles me.

To be honest I want to vote for Obama. I really do. I like his health care program better. I'm just generally fed up with the republicans and I think the McCain has gone insane with the whole terrorist thing and the ACORN brouhaha. However, as I think abortion ends a human life, I think that millions of people have been killed since Roe and millions more will be in the future so I have to do what I can to end abortion.

In the end I really might end up voting for him. Its not impossible, but right now I'm not. Its something I actually agonize over. Which seems silly to me as it's just one vote out of millions, but darn it its my vote and I want to get it right.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

10-18-2008, 08:32 PM

Vox Imperatoris

10-18-2008, 09:22 PM

Funny, I think it should be up to the person having the baby.
Alright then, vote that way in your state.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

Der Trihs

10-18-2008, 09:45 PM

Seems to me it's all about harassing poor women and invading their privacy.Exactly. The "pro-lifers" don't care that Obama has a plan to reduce abortions, because they don't actually care about abortion. They just care about tyrannizing and abusing women. Sure, they SAY otherwise; but whenever they have the opportunity to choose between reducing abortions and hurting women, they choose the latter.

eleanorigby

10-18-2008, 09:46 PM

It seems to me that pro-Life is not so much about reducing the number of abortions (though that's obviously important) as it is about making sure abortion is formally recognized, in law, as unacceptable in American culture.

-FrL-

I don't disagree with this, but what I have trouble swallowing is this naive notion that if abortion became illegal, that it would "go away" somehow. And what happens to a woman who is "caught"? Is she then imprisoned? What if she has other kids? What if her husband is the one to perform the abortion? Do they both go to jail? Whither then their kids? It doesn't sound very well thought out to me.

I also cannot reconcile the dichotomy of "I'm against abortion and want only abstinence education taught." You'd think that anti-abortion (I find "pro-life" very misleading) folks would be adamant about sex ed in schools and support Planned Parenthood. They tend not to do so, in general.

Where are all these babies to go and who is to raise them? Foundling hospitals?
:confused:

As a pragmatist, I don't see Roe v Wade being overturned by anyone at any time in the near future. Since I am pro-choice, I am untroubled by this. But I would like to see the number of abortions drop via viable sex ed, genetic testing, decrease in rape and incest etc. IMO it would be better if abortion stayed legal, but we reduced the need for it.

Chronos

10-19-2008, 12:17 AM

I also do not agree with your statement that men have no business in the matter. It is a human life that is being ended and thus anyone who is human has business in the matter.This is a pet peeve of mine: "Human life" is irrelevant. Human life is not in any way sacred; an excised cancer tumor is human life, and nobody has any problem with incinerating it as medical waste. Nor does it matter when life begins. What is sacred is the life of a person, and so the real question is when personhood begins.

Lakai

10-19-2008, 12:39 AM

I've posted this elsewhere, but primarily it is because that it is only by the election of the correct senators and presidents that Row v Wade can be over turned. However, the work of reducing abortions can be done by many other people and agencies. Such programs can still be instituted by congress, by the states, by private organizations, etc.

Also, if it is at the state level it there still a chance, even if it is a small one, of restricting abortion.

I also do not agree with your statement that men have no business in the matter. It is a human life that is being ended and thus anyone who is human has business in the matter. If I did not believe it was a human life I could possibly accept that men have no business in the matter, but as I do not believe this I do not accept that.

Also, as I understand it, I think Roe v. Wade is bad a bad judgment and is bad for this country. It is a poison in the veins of our political system that prevents good candidates from being nominated or elected on the national level.

I see now. Someone else can teach sex ed, but only a president can appoint judges to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Still, outlawing abortions (like eleanorigby mentions) won't stop people from getting abortions. A culture that promotes sex education over sexual ignorance would do a much better job. That way, whether it's legal or illegal, less women would be placed in a position to make such a decision.

Finally, Senator Obama does not seem to favor any restrictions on abortions what so ever and this is troubling to me as he also does not seem to want to state when he thinks life begins. If he has I'll happily be wrong on this as I'd love to know it. Surely a someone becomes a person sometime before birth even if it's not at conception and not having any feedback on when he thinks this might be troubles me.

He favors restriction for partial birth and he doesn't know when life begins. (http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm)

Ronald C. Semone

10-19-2008, 08:17 AM

I am anti-abortion, but the whole abortion issue to me is such a minor, unimportant issue when one considers all the important questions facing the country that I can not imagine myself voting for or against a candidate because of his or her views on abortion. I don't really care what Obama or McCain think about abortion. It is not important. Tell me what they think about national defense, immigration, tax policy, etc.

Revenant Threshold

10-19-2008, 08:22 AM

It seems to me that pro-Life is not so much about reducing the number of abortions (though that's obviously important) as it is about making sure abortion is formally recognized, in law, as unacceptable in American culture. It seems to me that the general idea is that one follows from the other. That abortion being outlawed and recognised as a bad thing is important, but that that would hopefully also decrease the number of abortions is also important.

Stratocaster

10-19-2008, 09:58 AM

Kinthalis

10-19-2008, 10:12 AM

Senator Obama would not even support the bill in Illinois, the "Born Alive" bill, that protected the life of a baby born live after a botched abortion, correct? God almighty, if pro-life values are important to you, what the hell do you do with that little fact? Words fail me, that is so beyond the pale, so slavishly committed to pro-choice orthodoxy.

Wow. You've got your mind so made up that you are just eating up the shit being shoveled down your throat by republicans, aren't you?

The reason he did not support the bill was because there was ALREADY a law in the books that provided for the support of life for a baby born alive after a failed abortion. The rest of the law dealt with issues that might have weakened abortion rights.

In other words it was composed in the proud tradition of "We'll try to sneak in legislation for our cause under the guise of something that would seem so reprehensible to the ignorant masses that our opposition will think twice about voting against it" that is so prevalent in our country. And you have so clearly illustrated why this keeps being done. The masses remain ignorant.

Stratocaster

10-19-2008, 10:23 AM

Wow. You've got your mind so made up that you are just eating up the shit being shoveled down your throat by republicans, aren't you?

The reason he did not support the bill was because there was ALREADY a law in the books that provided for the support of life for a baby born alive after a failed abortion. The rest of the law dealt with issues that might have weakened abortion rights.

In other words it was composed in the proud tradition of "We'll try to sneak in legislation for our cause under the guise of something that would seem so reprehensible to the ignorant masses that our opposition will think twice about voting against it" that is so prevalent in our country. And you have so clearly illustrated why this keeps being done. The masses remain ignorant.Right, now I'm enlightened. Thanks so much. Here a link for you (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-blurs-facts-born-alive/story.aspx?guid=%7B65B55C0D-A1F0-452E-8633-9AFAA0FDC601%7D&dist=hppr):During last night's debate, Senator Obama did his best to obfuscate the facts on his record on legislation in Illinois that sought to protect babies that survive abortion. Senator Obama continues to proclaim the lie that Illinois law already protected babies born alive during abortions.

He ignores a letter dated July 17, 2000 in which Illinois Attorney General Ryan reported that the Illinois Department of Public Health found there was 'no basis for legal action' to protect babies that survive abortion.

On March 30, 2001, Obama spoke from the floor of the Illinois legislature, saying that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act placed an undue burden on doctors to keep a child alive. The fact remains that those who opposed the bill were unwilling to prevent infanticide.

Senator Obama took the opportunity last night to continue to blur his radical abortion views. He has a long record of opposing any legislation that protects innocent life -- opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion and voting four times against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The senator, in 2003, even voted against an identical version that passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate and on which the pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality.Bolding added. So, did all the Dem Senators who voted for an identical bill ignore the parts that weakened abortion rights? This is silly. Anyone who seriously offers Obama as a pro-life alternative is delusional. Seriously, it is to laugh.

gonzomax

10-19-2008, 11:46 AM

The repubs trashed the economy horribly. That will result in a lot more abortions. People will not be able to afford kids and accidents happen.

Sitnam

10-19-2008, 12:13 PM

Stratocaster, the bane of your position is unbiased fact checking websites like Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html)

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
Bolding mine.

What does 'pro-life alternative' mean and who argued for that?

Stratocaster

10-19-2008, 12:43 PM

Actually, I had already seen that site, and I think they did a good job. It's clear that Obama lied about why he opposed the bill, changing his tune multiple times when his campaign's position was no longer tenable (read your cite). Bottom line, I don't think Obama wants infants to die. I believe he wants to protect abortion rights, and demonstrate his commitment to such a cause, even to the extent that he will not for a moment take even a slight risk that such rights would be affected, not even to protect an infant. If the bill was superfluous (there's no agreement it was), still, why not vote for it? Because he is so committed to pro-choice orthodoxy.

And "pro-life alternative," isn't that the reason for this thread? Why vote for that guy, when this guy is a better alternative, and all that?

Sitnam

10-19-2008, 03:00 PM

... If the bill was superfluous (there's no agreement it was), still, why not vote for it? Because he is so committed to pro-choice orthodoxy.

And "pro-life alternative," isn't that the reason for this thread? Why vote for that guy, when this guy is a better alternative, and all that?

No one argued Obama isn't pro-choice, the argument is one of pragmatism. While still championing the rights of mothers to decide for themselves, Obama is clearly a candidate that would press harder for the measures limiting unwanted pregnencies (sex ed, etc.) in the first place while McCain's federalist leanings would push to allow some states to overturn of Roe V. Wade but certainly would not prevent mothers from crossing state lines for abortions or doing them illegally.

In that context the OP is asking why wouldn't pro-lifers want Obama instead of McCain.

gonzomax

10-19-2008, 03:29 PM

http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html The antis think that outlawing abortion will stop it. It just does not work that way. When I was young abortion was a dirty underground process which was very dangerous to the woman. We have laws against drugs and you can get them anyplace in America. Like prohibition proved, you can not legislate morality. The drug problems are comparable to the prohibition era. People getting shot taking over territory, police and political graft rampant. Why would any one want that?

Stratocaster

10-19-2008, 03:31 PM

No one argued Obama isn't pro-choice, the argument is one of pragmatism. While still championing the rights of mothers to decide for themselves, Obama is clearly a candidate that would press harder for the measures limiting unwanted pregnencies (sex ed, etc.) in the first place while McCain's federalist leanings would push to allow some states to overturn of Roe V. Wade but certainly would not prevent mothers from crossing state lines for abortions or doing them illegally.

In that context the OP is asking why wouldn't pro-lifers want Obama instead of McCain.Yes, and I question Obama's commitment to reducing abortions. His rhetoric is not at all consistent with his record, ISTM. A person who would not go so far as to vote for the "Born Alive" bill (or whatever it happened to be called in IL) has drawn a line in the sand. That's my point. His commitment to protecting unborn life is, well, non-existent. By the way, that's a hell of plan for reducing abortions he has. Can't miss.

I don't see any more important element to reducing abortions than the make-up of the court. That has been the tipping point thus far. I'm quite certain I know what kind of justices Obama will appoint. I'll take McCain, thank you, for abortion decisions in particular, but for all matters.

Caveat lector

10-19-2008, 03:41 PM

This is a pet peeve of mine: "Human life" is irrelevant. Human life is not in any way sacred; an excised cancer tumor is human life, and nobody has any problem with incinerating it as medical waste. Nor does it matter when life begins. What is sacred is the life of a person, and so the real question is when personhood begins.

I think what we have here is a disagreement of the meaning of terms. I would not say a tumor is human life any more that I would say a kidney has. I'd say it belongs/belonged to a being that possesses human life but does not have any in of its self.

If I am correctly understanding your use of the word 'person' then I think would be correct to substitute 'person' or 'personhood' for 'human life' in both mine and the majority of anti-abortion arguments.

So, assuming I understand your use of the word 'personhood', I would state that personhood begins at conception.

Sitnam

10-19-2008, 04:55 PM

Yes, and I question Obama's commitment to reducing abortions.
Yup, Obama likes abortions. :rolleyes:

I don't see any more important element to reducing abortions than the make-up of the court. That has been the tipping point thus far. I'm quite certain I know what kind of justices Obama will appoint. I'll take McCain, thank you, for abortion decisions in particular, but for all matters.
I would hope that both candidates would elect SCJ's that decide based on the Constitution and not their personal feelings, I would hope also that both would elect lower judges that obeyed the written law, regardless of personal feelings. Obama is an expert on Constitutional law. McCain saw a documentary on it once. Both candidates want the same thing (less dead babies) but only one acknowledges the complexity of the issue.

Stratocaster

10-19-2008, 06:03 PM

Yup, Obama likes abortions. :rolleyes: Right 'cause that's what I said. :rolleyes:I would hope that both candidates would elect SCJ's that decide based on the Constitution and not their personal feelings, I would hope also that both would elect lower judges that obeyed the written law, regardless of personal feelings. Obama is an expert on Constitutional law. McCain saw a documentary on it once. Both candidates want the same thing (less dead babies) but only one acknowledges the complexity of the issue.Obama can say whatever he wants regarding his preferences, but his record is not consistent with his heartwarming rhetoric. He is beholden to his base and on this issue, he has never, ever deviated.

He has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. He co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill he mentioned to Planned Parenthood, saying, "the first thing I'd do as president" is sign this act. NOW's website lauds this bill, which would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws." He refused to support a bill that assigned rights to a child born after a botched abortion--he wouldn't go that far! And then he lied and spun his reasons for why he didn't support, none of which even makes sense.

He has never supported a pro-life agenda, not even to the extent now suggested, and I don't believe he ever will. If someone suggests pre-abortion counseling to guide women to non-abortion alternatives, the base will go insane, and he will not, he will NOT stand up to them. He never, ever has.

That's why this premise is a laugher. On this particular issue, it's like saying Hitler was the more pro-Jewish politician in Germany in the 30's. It's simply laughable to suggest that Obama is a better pro-life alternative than McCain, a man who has received a zero rating from Planned Parenthood, and a man who has voted to install pro-life policy. That's all. I'm not shocked that Obama is pro-choice. I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I'm simply pointing out how ludicrous the premise of this thread is.

And Obama's expertise on constitutional law will undoubtedly lead to justices who can sense rights where none are actually described, unlike McCain appointees who will obstinately insist that there be actual, y'know, words to support their opinions. I can't wait. :rolleyes:

gonzomax

10-19-2008, 06:16 PM

I am not completely pro-life, but I support McCain on this issue because it should be a state problem. The federal government should neither demand the allowance of nor prohibit abortion.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html It was an ugly time when it was up to the states. Abortions will happen. You can not stop it . You can drive it underground to an unsafe and dangerous methodology. But it will not go away.

JThunder

10-19-2008, 06:20 PM

I don't disagree with this, but what I have trouble swallowing is this naive notion that if abortion became illegal, that it would "go away" somehow.Right, which is why no pro-lifer that I know of would ever make such a claim... no moreso than outlawing rape and murder has caused those heinous acts to disappear.

lavenderviolet

10-19-2008, 06:21 PM

For those of you who say that one shouldn't make abortion illegal because some people would surely break the law, can you think of one law that IS universally followed by everyone and never broken?

There will always be some people out there who decide to break any law you make, but that doesn't mean all laws are invalid.
Heck, there are women out there who kill their born infants or even older children (like the recent Casey Anthony situation evidently). That doesn't mean we should move to legalize infanticide.

Unfortunately, the national level Democratic party has sent the message for years that they do not welcome pro-lifers (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff_pro-life_left.html). At least I've never been told by a Republican that I am out to "abuse" or "tyrannize" women just because I actually do believe that abortion is a tragic situation and actually want it to end.

Chronos

10-19-2008, 06:40 PM

If I am correctly understanding your use of the word 'person' then I think would be correct to substitute 'person' or 'personhood' for 'human life' in both mine and the majority of anti-abortion arguments.

So, assuming I understand your use of the word 'personhood', I would state that personhood begins at conception.It is an important distinction, though. It's easy to prove that a zygote is alive, and likewise easy to prove that it's human, and some folks think that, having proven that, the argument is over, but it's not. There are even things which indisputably act as independent, self-sustaing organisms which are human but not persons: HeLa cell cultures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa), for instance, are so self-sustaining that they end up being a major nuissance contaminant in biology labs.

It works both ways, too: Although it does not seem to have happened yet, we might someday encounter a person that isn't human (an alien or an AI, for instance). When and if that happens, that entity would still be deserving of the rights of personhood, despite not being human and possibly not even being alive.

Now, all that said, one can certainly claim that personhood begins at conception. I just think it's important that people are clear that that's what they mean.

Lakai

10-19-2008, 06:43 PM

If the bill was superfluous (there's no agreement it was), still, why not vote for it? Because he is so committed to pro-choice orthodoxy.

He refused to support a bill that assigned rights to a child born after a botched abortion--he wouldn't go that far! And then he lied and spun his reasons for why he didn't support, none of which even makes sense.

He did not support a bill that assigned rights to a child born after a botched abortion because a child already had those rights. The bill would have only further decreased the right for women to choose.

I understand he is pro-choice, and supports pro-choice policies. What I don't get is how you are equating that with allowing more abortions than McCain.

He supports a woman's right to choose. He does not support more abortions. Even though you say you never said that, it is implied through your arguments. Otherwise, if you can admit Obama does not want more abortions, then how can you conclude that:

He has never supported a pro-life agenda, not even to the extent now suggested, and I don't believe he ever will. If someone suggests pre-abortion counseling to guide women to non-abortion alternatives, the base will go insane, and he will not, he will NOT stand up to them. He never, ever has.

You obviously believe Obama is not committed to controlling abortions. This isn't the case. He stated several time that he wants to reduce the number of abortions women have through sex education. He also supports restrictions on late term abortions.

McCain, while I can concede he is committed to reducing abortions, he has no plan that would make that happen. All overruling Roe v. Wade would accomplish is that it would make abortions clinics harder to find. Even outlawing abortion would not prevent it from happening. Educating women on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies would prevent more abortions than overruling Roe v. Wade ever could.

Caveat lector

10-19-2008, 07:54 PM

It is an important distinction, though. It's easy to prove that a zygote is alive, and likewise easy to prove that it's human, and some folks think that, having proven that, the argument is over, but it's not. There are even things which indisputably act as independent, self-sustaing organisms which are human but not persons: HeLa cell cultures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa), for instance, are so self-sustaining that they end up being a major nuissance contaminant in biology labs.

It works both ways, too: Although it does not seem to have happened yet, we might someday encounter a person that isn't human (an alien or an AI, for instance). When and if that happens, that entity would still be deserving of the rights of personhood, despite not being human and possibly not even being alive.

Now, all that said, one can certainly claim that personhood begins at conception. I just think it's important that people are clear that that's what they mean.

Right. The distinction is indeed important. However, I have the feeling that to those making the argument showing something is both alive and human is to say that thing is a person. However, as I have, of course, not spoken to them I can't say for sure.

After having read the article (which was very interesting btw*) I would classify HeLa cell cultures as having a human origin, but not being a human as one cannot be a human without personhood, which they do not have.

Also, I agree that non-human persons would be deserving of the rights of personhood, but I doubt those typically pondering the ethics of abortion consider this as they focus on the more immediate problem of the ethics of the current situation with abortion and what to do about it.

*Not to hijack by how exactly do HeLa cells manage to contaminate so much? The article seemed to leave that out. Are they used in many experiments? Hard to sterilize off equipment?

Cat Fight

10-19-2008, 08:02 PM

Sitnam

10-19-2008, 08:20 PM

That's why this premise is a laugher. On this particular issue, it's like saying Hitler was the more pro-Jewish politician in Germany in the 30's. It's simply laughable to suggest that Obama is a better pro-life alternative than McCain, a man who has received a zero rating from Planned Parenthood, and a man who has voted to install pro-life policy. That's all. I'm not shocked that Obama is pro-choice. I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I'm simply pointing out how ludicrous the premise of this thread is.
One would think that Pro-life proponents would first go through extraordinary lengths to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. As if by making abortion illegal the child will suddenly become wanted.

And Obama's expertise on constitutional law will undoubtedly lead to justices who can sense rights where none are actually described, unlike McCain appointees who will obstinately insist that there be actual, y'know, words to support their opinions. I can't wait. :rolleyes:
You believe the Constitution DOESN'T protect your privacy and personal rights? That gonverment should interfere in your biology? I find it absolutely incredible that the side of the political spectrum that supports gun rights doesn't support a womans right to choose what she wants done to her body.

Stratocaster

10-20-2008, 03:12 AM

He did not support a bill that assigned rights to a child born after a botched abortion because a child already had those rights. The bill would have only further decreased the right for women to choose.Then why did he say he would have signed the bill ultimately passed?You obviously believe Obama is not committed to controlling abortions. This isn't the case. He stated several time that he wants to reduce the number of abortions women have through sex education. He also supports restrictions on late term abortions.

McCain, while I can concede he is committed to reducing abortions, he has no plan that would make that happen. All overruling Roe v. Wade would accomplish is that it would make abortions clinics harder to find. Even outlawing abortion would not prevent it from happening. Educating women on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies would prevent more abortions than overruling Roe v. Wade ever could.McCain has actually voted for pro-life legislation. Obama has talked about wanting to reduce abortions, something completely inconsistent with his actions. He has lied about his motives in the born alive bill. I don't believe him.

Der Trihs

10-20-2008, 05:53 AM

So, assuming I understand your use of the word 'personhood', I would state that personhood begins at conception.All that does is devalue the term "person". Call it a zygote, call it a persona, call it whatever; it's still a mindless blob of tissue. If that's a "person", then being a person is something of little value.

At least I've never been told by a Republican that I am out to "abuse" or "tyrannize" women just because I actually do believe that abortion is a tragic situation and actually want it to end.Of course not; the Republicans want you to HELP them abuse and tyrannize women.

You believe the Constitution DOESN'T protect your privacy and personal rights? That gonverment should interfere in your biology? I find it absolutely incredible that the side of the political spectrum that supports gun rights doesn't support a womans right to choose what she wants done to her body.The right wing is all about tyranny, malice and cruelty. They like anything that hurts or kills or oppresses; they hate anything that brings freedom or happiness or saves lives. They love guns and dogmatism and wars and executions; they hate privacy and control over one's body and intellectual freedom and diplomacy and sex ( and any other form of pleasure that don't involve hurting people ).

Opposing abortion and supporting guns are perfectly consistent, because these people like hurting people, and because they hate freedom. And gun rights don't protect freedom; they just con people into ignoring important rights.

Boozahol Squid, P.I.

10-20-2008, 07:35 AM

All that does is devalue the term "person". Call it a zygote, call it a persona, call it whatever; it's still a mindless blob of tissue. If that's a "person", then being a person is something of little value.

If a person created a living will stating that they don't want to be taken off life support, even in the event of upper brain death, are you okay with overruling that directive once their cerebrum has stopped functioning?

Sitnam

10-20-2008, 09:35 AM

Opposing abortion and supporting guns are perfectly consistent, because these people like hurting people, and because they hate freedom. And gun rights don't protect freedom; they just con people into ignoring important rights.
If the Right's motive is truly to hurt people and they consider an unborn child in any stage of development a person, they would support abortion. No, I think they are inconsistent because the world is easier to handle if it's black and white, a view you are more than comfortable with as well.

Bricker

10-20-2008, 09:42 AM

(on edit) Already addressed above better than I could have, so I deleted mine.

Bricker

10-20-2008, 09:45 AM

The reason he did not support the bill was because there was ALREADY a law in the books that provided for the support of life for a baby born alive after a failed abortion.

What law was that? Specifically?

Bricker

10-20-2008, 10:03 AM

All overruling Roe v. Wade would accomplish is that it would make abortions clinics harder to find. Even outlawing abortion would not prevent it from happening. Educating women on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies would prevent more abortions than overruling Roe v. Wade ever could.

How about this: overruling Roe v. Wade would be the right thing to do.

Not in the sense of "We should permit abortion" or "We should forbid abortion" -- we can argue about the wisdom of either claim -- but because it's unwise to read the federal Constitution as making such a specific, specialized guarantee of a right when no such words appear in it. It's unwise to continue a process where unelected federal judges can create substantive new law; where five justices decided for the whole country what the law would be.

In our system, the people, through their legislators, should MAKE law. The judges should interpret existing law. Obviously interpretation doesn't have a bright-line border, but the idea that the Constitution says, "No restrictions on abortion in the first trimester..." -- the idea that this specific time limit on this specific medical procedure is a matter of Constitutional guarantee -- is insane.

So when we argue about abortion at a state level, we're arguing about what our legislators should create as wise abortion policy. THAT is what it means to be a nation governed by the people - ourselves. When we argue about overturning Roe v. Wade, we're arguing about judicial philosophy and the amount of power we should vest in our judiciary.

Unfortunately, many (most?) people don't understand or care about the distinction. To their minds, overturning Roe is synonymous with ending abortion; sustaining Roe with protecting abortion rights. But a principled observer can easily say --- as more than a few do -- "I favor overturning Roe as bad law, but I favor supporting abortion rights."

Hey -- if you really want the Constitution to protect abortion rights, then there's a way to amend it democratically. Do that -- don't short-circuit three-fourths of the states and a majority of Congress with five unelected justices.

Mr. Moto

10-20-2008, 11:10 AM

Let me make a point please.

It may be true that Obama has a plan to reduce abortions through education. But if we go by his rhetoric on this subject, then we must also conclude that he also has a plan to, through his support of the Freedom of Choice Act, overturn every state restriction of abortion before the stage of viability, including those found consistent with Roe in the past. This would include religious exceptions for providers and certain counseling requirements, including those concerning Down's syndrome. It would also repeal the restriction of federal funding, and the ban on partial-birth abortions.

This isn't a moderate view on the subject. Obama has his flag firmly in one camp here, and that includes measures that an otherwise pro-choice America don't necessarily favor, like federal funding for abortions and the aforementioned partial birth procedures. So I think a case can easily be made that he's the most abortion-friendly candidate in recent history, and however he might want to put the debate behind us, some of these extreme views would only serve to inflame it further.

puddleglum

10-20-2008, 01:07 PM

Frylock

10-20-2008, 02:13 PM

They want to kill children so they can lead their selfish lives unencumbered with any distractions from innocent and needy children. Spend any time around liberals and their hatred of children is readily apparent.

:eek:

:dubious:

:(

:mad:

My friends--liberals and parents, every one--will get a kick out of reading this ridiculous comment. You're not doing your side of the political spectrum any favors uttering stupid crackpot bullshit like this.

-FrL-

Boozahol Squid, P.I.

10-20-2008, 02:15 PM

:eek:

:dubious:

:(

:mad:

My friends--liberals and parents, every one--will get a kick out of reading this ridiculous comment. You're not doing your side of the political spectrum any favors uttering stupid crackpot bullshit like this.

-FrL-

It looks like the pro-life side on the SDMB has its own Der Trihs. :dubious: Hooray.

Bricker

10-20-2008, 02:16 PM

Jayn_Newell

10-20-2008, 02:33 PM

:eek:

:dubious:

:(

:mad:

My friends--liberals and parents, every one--will get a kick out of reading this ridiculous comment. You're not doing your side of the political spectrum any favors uttering stupid crackpot bullshit like this.

-FrL-Once they get over the initial headache, anyways. Bring some Advil :smack:

Magiver

10-20-2008, 03:04 PM

Drain Bead

10-20-2008, 03:07 PM

The plain facts are that sexual education does not reduce pregnancies. So Obama's plans are just a feint to fool gullible people who are not as pro-abortion as he is. If McCain is elected and Roe v Wade is overturned abortions will not go away, but they will be reduced. If Obama gets his way abortions will be legal in every state for any reason. Taxpayer money will be used to fund abortions here and abroad. He is the most pro-abortion candidate ever nominated.
All this is readily apparent from even a cursory examination of the candidates records. All the rhetoric about wanting to reduce abortion is just political cover for their real motives. Most liberals are selfish people who think of children as nuisances. They want to kill children so they can lead their selfish lives unencumbered with any distractions from innocent and needy children. Spend any time around liberals and their hatred of children is readily apparent.

I am a pregnant liberal, and I do not approve of this message.

Mr. Moto

10-20-2008, 03:11 PM

What utter garbage.

I have to agree. I'd prefer to ignore that entirely, but I'd hate to have that misinterpreted as agreement.

Lakai

10-20-2008, 03:27 PM

How about this: overruling Roe v. Wade would be the right thing to do.

Sure, but doesn't saving babies sort of trump that goal? If Obama can save more unborn children than McCain, then who cares about getting the law right?

Mr. Moto

10-20-2008, 03:42 PM

If Obama can save more unborn children than McCain, then who cares about getting the law right?

Huh?

I don't know whether you've noticed, but as a society we have little control over the billions of discrete decisions made by people every day. What little influence we have comes from societal norms, some social welfare programs, some economic forces and taxation, and the rather blunt and crude instrument called the law. Now, the law isn't a particularly elegant tool - it makes few distinctions about individual cases and is in general one size fits all. Given this limitation, it is crucial that that law is "got right."

Got it?

Caveat lector

10-20-2008, 05:16 PM

All the rhetoric about wanting to reduce abortion is just political cover for their real motives. Most liberals are selfish people who think of children as nuisances. They want to kill children so they can lead their selfish lives unencumbered with any distractions from innocent and needy children. Spend any time around liberals and their hatred of children is readily apparent.

Look I'm about as anti-abortion as they come to the point where I have to go calm myself down if I think about it to much, but this is way off. Remember the vast majority of people who favor having abortion as an option don't see what is being killed as a person. Now I think they are incredibly and tragically mistaken, but I really don't think most pro-choice people hate children.

Now are there people who get abortions for what seem to me like selfish reasons? Yes, but I really don't think the understand what they are doing.

Also are there people who are okay with abortion even if it can be shown its a person be killed? Yes, but I've only seen that position twice in my life and both times were in fairly obscure books of medical ethics and so I doubt any sizable percentage of people hold that view.

And to say that all Liberals think this way is even further off. One can be Liberal and pro-life. My father comes to mind. You can't even mention Republicans or their policies around him and he is very pro-life.

Bricker

10-20-2008, 05:26 PM

Sure, but doesn't saving babies sort of trump that goal? If Obama can save more unborn children than McCain, then who cares about getting the law right?

There are several reasons this is not correct. The eminently practical: Obama goes away in four or eight years; the laws remain. Better to get the laws right.

That assumes, of course, that we even accept the general notion that Obama's approach will "save babies" over McCain's.

Ensign Edison

10-20-2008, 06:10 PM

Also are there people who are okay with abortion even if it can be shown its a person be killed? Yes, but I've only seen that position twice in my life and both times were in fairly obscure books of medical ethics and so I doubt any sizable percentage of people hold that view.

This is an aside, but...A good portion of certain kinds of extremely radical leftists in fact believe that if abortion is okay in any case, it's okay in every case, including for use as birth control. I've personally witnessed conversations between hardcore feminists who agreed that abortion is killing and still felt it was acceptable. I wouldn't say it's a sizable percentage of people, but there is a dedicated minority base within a fringe of political thought which does consider itself pro-abortion (and not just pro-choice), and rejects the typical Democratic 'necessary tragedy' party line.

Sitnam

10-20-2008, 09:01 PM

If you all are just going to find fringe arguments from opposing sides to prove insurmountable orthodoxy and not bother to find common ground why post here?

Shout at a wall.

Ensign Edison

10-20-2008, 11:20 PM

If you all are just going to find fringe arguments from opposing sides to prove insurmountable orthodoxy and not bother to find common ground why post here?

Shout at a wall.

Er...was this directed at me?

gonzomax

10-20-2008, 11:22 PM

The plain facts are that sexual education does not reduce pregnancies. So Obama's plans are just a feint to fool gullible people who are not as pro-abortion as he is. If McCain is elected and Roe v Wade is overturned abortions will not go away, but they will be reduced. If Obama gets his way abortions will be legal in every state for any reason. Taxpayer money will be used to fund abortions here and abroad. He is the most pro-abortion candidate ever nominated.
All this is readily apparent from even a cursory examination of the candidates records. All the rhetoric about wanting to reduce abortion is just political cover for their real motives. Most liberals are selfish people who think of children as nuisances. They want to kill children so they can lead their selfish lives unencumbered with any distractions from innocent and needy children. Spend any time around liberals and their hatred of children is readily apparent.

You should seek help. I never heard such garbage .
The term is pro choice for a reason. Many do not agree that abortion is murder. What makes you believe that you should decide for them. Who are you?
Are there any liberals on this board encumbered with children. I have a kid and I am a liberal. I must be the only liberal with a kid. But just think, next generation you win. All the liberals will be gone because they kill their children.

tomndebb

10-21-2008, 08:18 AM

TWEEEET!

If everyone now has gotten the bile out of their systems, let's drop all the generic attacks on one's opponents as stupid or malevolent or evil or dishonest, etc.

For an abortion discussion, this thread has attracted a number of actually well considered and reasonable posts from both sides. The shit flinging was inevitable, of course, but it has now been flung.

If anyone needs to make those sort of inflammatory statements, open a separate thread in the BBQ Pit (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=5). They do not belong here.

[ /Moderating ]

JThunder

10-21-2008, 08:41 AM

Many do not agree that abortion is murder. What makes you believe that you should decide for them. Who are you?
Well, there was a time that many people did not believe that blacks were fully human. Was it right for other people to decide that blacks were worthy of protection?
`

JThunder

10-21-2008, 08:44 AM

I've personally witnessed conversations between hardcore feminists who agreed that abortion is killing and still felt it was acceptable.
Judith Jarvis Thompson and Eileen McDonagh (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689), for example.

Slacker

10-21-2008, 08:47 AM

Haven't the statistics bore out that it doesn't really matter what a president believes about abortion? The abortion rate went up and down under Clinton (mostly down IIRC), and up and down during the Bush years. As someone mentioned above, it's apparently more closely tied to the state of the economy than anything the man in the White House believes.

Lakai

10-21-2008, 12:20 PM

Huh?

I don't know whether you've noticed, but as a society we have little control over the billions of discrete decisions made by people every day. What little influence we have comes from societal norms, some social welfare programs, some economic forces and taxation, and the rather blunt and crude instrument called the law. Now, the law isn't a particularly elegant tool - it makes few distinctions about individual cases and is in general one size fits all. Given this limitation, it is crucial that that law is "got right."

Got it?

No.

The law is a useful tool for somethings, but as I pointed out before, outlawing abortions won't prevent more abortions than educating women will. What I don't "get" is why would someone who is pro-life prefer to change the law rather than promote sex education as a way of stopping abortions.

I understand getting the law right for the sake of the legal system. That is a worthwhile goal, but we are talking about the goal of preventing abortions here. At least that is what I made the OP about, assuming that a pro-lifer's goal is to prevent abortions. So, which candidate would actually prevent more abortions?

I'm not saying there are no good reasons to overturn Roe v. Wade. My main point is that sex education would prevent more abortions than overturning Roe v. Wade would.

There are several reasons this is not correct. The eminently practical: Obama goes away in four or eight years; the laws remain. Better to get the laws right.

That assumes, of course, that we even accept the general notion that Obama's approach will "save babies" over McCain's.

I've never read Roe v. Wade, so I can't sincerely argue about whether it is good law or not. If you want to vote for McCain because you want the law fixed then go ahead.

What I am trying to say is that outlawing abortions won't stop more abortions than increasing sex education will. So if you want to vote for who will prevent more abortions, then Obama might be a better choice.

If someone could present a case as to why outlawing abortion in certain states would prevent more abortions than sex education would, then I will gracefully concede this argument.

tomndebb

10-21-2008, 12:35 PM

My main point is that sex education would prevent more abortions than overturning Roe v. Wade would. Just out of curiosity, (and maybe this needs a separate thread), has anyone actually documented a reduction in pregnancies that could be tied to sex education?

As an analogy, even before recent financial difficulties for school systems, a lot of those systems had begun getting out of the driver education business on the grounds that there was no evidence that it reduced teen accidents. I am not arguing that sex education is not a good idea; I am only asking whether any evidence has been presented to demonstrate the reality of sex ed reducing pregnancies (or STDs).

Caveat lector

10-21-2008, 01:58 PM

Many do not agree that abortion is murder. What makes you believe that you should decide for them. Who are you?

I see that this already has been replied to, but I''m going to stick in my own as well. I think it comes down to the same fundamental question that pretty much all abortion debates come down to: When does one become a person? I submit that one has a moral obligation to intercede to stop actions that cause the loss of human life*. However, if there is not human life then the grounds for intercession are less firm, but are not necessarily absent. So therefore the fact that Person A thinks personhood begins later than Person B does not mean that Person B should say nothing. In fact I would say that Person B must say something because they believe human life is present.

I present this analogy to illiterate my point. It's not perfect so forgive me. If there are two hunters in the woods and the first is about to fire at something that the second believes to be a human being then the second has a moral obligation to object despite the fact first hunter disagrees.

The debate therefore then comes down to when personhood begins. In my opinion this is the heart of the debate and all the rest is just window dressing.

*To me personhood is necessary for human life and so I use the terms interchangeably in this context.

ruadh

10-22-2008, 01:10 AM

Just out of curiosity, (and maybe this needs a separate thread), has anyone actually documented a reduction in pregnancies that could be tied to sex education?

I'm not sure how easy it is to prove a link, but it is very well documented that the Netherlands, with an extensive sex education program, has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world. It also has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world despite a very liberal abortion regime.

Mr. Moto

10-22-2008, 10:31 AM

I'm not sure how easy it is to prove a link, but it is very well documented that the Netherlands, with an extensive sex education program, has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world. It also has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world despite a very liberal abortion regime.

The Netherlands is also very different in terms of demographics from the United States. Just right off the bat - African-Americans and Latinos are large minority groups in the United States that have higher teen pregnancy rates than the larger population. They don't make up comparable parts of the Dutch population at all.

I'm not saying we can't learn something from the Dutch, but we are a different country and solutions we come up with have to fit in here.

Lakai

10-22-2008, 10:55 AM

The Netherlands is also very different in terms of demographics from the United States. Just right off the bat - African-Americans and Latinos are large minority groups in the United States that have higher teen pregnancy rates than the larger population. They don't make up comparable parts of the Dutch population at all.

I'm not saying we can't learn something from the Dutch, but we are a different country and solutions we come up with have to fit in here.

You need to be more clear about what you're saying. I'm reading this as increasing the African-American and Latino population in the Netherlands would create higher teen pregnancies. Or that somehow sex education works for the Dutch but won't work for African-Americans and Latinos.

I'm sure you meant something else.

Chronos

10-22-2008, 03:14 PM

I would suspect that it comes down to socioeconomic factors: Blacks and Latinos in the US tend to be poor and live in inner cities. Likely, if you looked at the statistics for poor inner-city whites, they'd be similar to those for inner-city minorities, and the statistics for affluent suburban minorities would be similar to those for affluent suburban whites. If so, this would indicate that the Netherlands have done a better job than the US at addressing the problems associated with inner-city poverty, and that we should perhaps follow their economic example.

Mr. Moto

10-22-2008, 04:06 PM

You need to be more clear about what you're saying. I'm reading this as increasing the African-American and Latino population in the Netherlands would create higher teen pregnancies. Or that somehow sex education works for the Dutch but won't work for African-Americans and Latinos.

I'm sure you meant something else.

1. We also have sex education in this country in most places I do not know how much this differs from the Dutch approach, but I'm willing to bet there are differences.
2. We do not resemble the Dutch in many demographic respects.
3. The differences between the sex education programs plus the differing population make a direct comparison more difficult. I was just pointing that out.

Der Trihs

10-22-2008, 04:58 PM

Here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html) a relevant news story I just happened upon, from 2007.

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

The data also suggested that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more widely available, said Sharon Camp, chief executive of the Guttmacher Institute.

In Eastern Europe, where contraceptive choices have broadened since the fall of Communism, the study found that abortion rates have decreased by 50 percent, although they are still relatively high compared with those in Western Europe.

elfkin477

10-23-2008, 10:37 PM

Obama wants to reduce the number of abortions by women through sex education. By educating women on how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, you can reduce the number of abortions much more that by outlawing it in some states. We had a comprehensive sex-ed course as 1/2 of our health class, discussing all the terrible STDS, and various methods of birth control like the pill, condoms, sponges etc and how you use them properly, and we went through all the stats on teen pregnancy. My high school required you pass health class in 10th grade in order to graduate. Two people, Nichole and Tim, did not, and were forced to graduate in December because they hadn't retaken the class in 11th or 12th grade. Subtracting the two of them there were 74 people in my graduating class, half female. Of those 37 girls who had passed that health class in 10th grade, 4 got pregnant the summer between 11th and 12th grade and had their babies. (who knows if anyone had an abortion). That means they all got pregnant well after taking sex ed. Fortunately, all four were able to finish high school on time.

How much higher than 10% teen pregnancy rates do abstinence only sex ed school districts have?

I'm sure it will have some positive effect, but not the level people seem to think it will. Some of the enthusastic demands for sex ed programs to solve the entire problem seem to ignore that a great many teenagers are prone to ignoring the information and taking risks anyway - it's part of the problem with not having the part of your brain that weighs risk properly fully develop until your mid-20s. I liked our program, but even if it was installed in every school in the country there would still be a deplorable number of abortions every year.

ruadh

11-02-2008, 03:46 AM

The Netherlands is also very different in terms of demographics from the United States. Just right off the bat - African-Americans and Latinos are large minority groups in the United States that have higher teen pregnancy rates than the larger population. They don't make up comparable parts of the Dutch population at all.

I'm not saying we can't learn something from the Dutch, but we are a different country and solutions we come up with have to fit in here.

Actually the Dutch do have a similar issue. Their abortion rate is significantly higher among immigrant groups than among the indigenous population.

firstname

11-02-2008, 07:28 AM

1. We also have sex education in this country in most places I do not know how much this differs from the Dutch approach, but I'm willing to bet there are differences.

My money says that when 1/3 of schools are using Abstinence only, as their main method of sex education, its not all that surprising it doesn't do much to stop pregnancies.

From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education
which cites this pdf http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/Sex-Education-in-the-U-S-Policy-and-Politics.pdf

brazil84

11-02-2008, 07:37 AM

Slacker

11-02-2008, 08:09 AM

I'm not a pro-lifer, but come on give me a break. Obviously if you are a pro-lifer you want to elect a president who is more likely to appoint conservative judges to the supreme court.

If you see abortion as a modern-day holocaust, then obviously you are not going to be very impressed by a candidate who is pro-choice but claims to have a plan to reduce the number of abortions by 5 or 10 percent.

Duh.
It's not that obvious to me. Say you wanted to save money on gas, and one man told you he could improve your car's efficiency by 5 or 10 percent by airing up the tires properly, teaching you better driving habits, and providing regular tuneups. Another man says he can eliminate your gas bill entirely by replacing your car with a flying unicorn.

In other words, sure, 100% less abortion sounds a lot better than 5% or 10% less, but it's never going to happen. I voted for the person who has realistic plans to address the problem.

brazil84

11-02-2008, 08:30 AM

It's not that obvious to me. Say you wanted to save money on gas, and one man told you he could improve your car's efficiency by 5 or 10 percent by airing up the tires properly, teaching you better driving habits, and providing regular tuneups. Another man says he can eliminate your gas bill entirely by replacing your car with a flying unicorn.

In other words, sure, 100% less abortion sounds a lot better than 5% or 10% less, but it's never going to happen. I voted for the person who has realistic plans to address the problem.

I see two problems with your analogy. First, for me (and most Americans), saving money on gas is more of a pragmatic concern than a moral concern. I don't see burning gas in the same moral light as I see killing babies. I don't get upset when I see a NASCAR race, i.e. when I see people burning gas for entertainment purposes. On the other hand, if NASCAR cars ran by burning babies, then I (and most other people) would oppose NASCAR pretty strongly.

(Keep in mind that to most pro-lifers, abortion really is on the same moral level as killing babies.)

Second, I would guess that most pro-lifers really believe that they have a realistic chance of getting Roe v. Wade overturned. It's not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy like flying unicorns.

By comparison, I have a family member who dislikes Obama and sides with McCain but told me she is still voting for Obama because of the abortion issue. Specifically out of a concern for Roe v. Wade. Is this family member voting in a ridiculous, unreasonable way?

Lakai

11-02-2008, 12:41 PM

Second, I would guess that most pro-lifers really believe that they have a realistic chance of getting Roe v. Wade overturned. It's not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy like flying unicorns.

The goal of pro-lifers is to stop abortions. Not just to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The argument here is that overturning Roe v. Wade won't stop more abortions than sex eduction will.

Now you can argue that this isn't true, but don't say it is obvious that someone who is against abortions should vote for a candidate who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. It's not so obvious when you realize that overturning Roe v. Wade won't do much to stop abortions.

brazil84

11-02-2008, 12:51 PM

The goal of pro-lifers is to stop abortions. Not just to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The argument here is that overturning Roe v. Wade won't stop more abortions than sex eduction will.

Now you can argue that this isn't true, but don't say it is obvious that someone who is against abortions should vote for a candidate who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. It's not so obvious when you realize that overturning Roe v. Wade won't do much to stop abortions.[/QUOTE]

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that one Roe v. Wade is (hypothetically) overturned, the pro-lifers will rejoice and consider their work done. I'm sure that's not true.

To pro-lifers, overturning Roe v. Wade is a necessary and important first step towards accomplishing their goals.

Lakai

11-02-2008, 12:59 PM

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that one Roe v. Wade is (hypothetically) overturned, the pro-lifers will rejoice and consider their work done. I'm sure that's not true.

To pro-lifers, overturning Roe v. Wade is a necessary and important first step towards accomplishing their goals.

I don't see any pro-life candidates (much less McCain) suggesting anything more than overturning Roe v. Wade. Obama is the first politician that I've seen who has come out with a realistic plan to reduce abortions.

brazil84

11-02-2008, 02:07 PM

I don't see any pro-life candidates (much less McCain) suggesting anything more than overturning Roe v. Wade.

Do you seriously think that the pro-lifers will call it quits once Roe v. Wade is (hypothetically) overturned?

Lakai

11-02-2008, 06:15 PM

Do you seriously think that the pro-lifers will call it quits once Roe v. Wade is (hypothetically) overturned?

I think their candidates will. I don't know of any pro-life politician who advocates anything more than overturning Roe v. Wade. To be fair there is also abstinence education, but that works just as well as overturning Roe v. Wade in preventing abortions.

After Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortions don't go down, I think a lot of people will realize that their efforts have been wasted. Given the evangelicals' distaste for sex education, I don't know what they will consider next.

Why is overturning Roe v. Wade a necessary step in the battle to prevent abortions? How many abortions to you imagine it will prevent? Abortion will never be outlawed throughout the whole country. There will always be places in America where women can go to get abortions. What do you imagine overturning Roe v. Wade will do?

brazil84

11-02-2008, 07:47 PM

I think their candidates will.

So what? The question you asked in the OP is why pro-lifers would vote for McCain. The answer is pretty simple. You may not like it, but there it is.

Why is overturning Roe v. Wade a necessary step in the battle to prevent abortions?

Because Roe v. Wade invalidates laws which generally criminalize abortion. Duh.

How many abortions to you imagine it will prevent? Abortion will never be outlawed throughout the whole country.

I don't think you can rule out that possibility so easily. 100 years ago, it would have been pretty difficult to predict the political climate in America today.

And anyway, as I alluded to before, pro-lifers probably tend to see this as more of a moral issue than a pragmatic issue. To them, abortion is murder and needs to be outlawed, even though abortions will still take place.

GIGObuster

11-02-2008, 07:56 PM

I don't see any pro-life candidates (much less McCain) suggesting anything more than overturning Roe v. Wade. Obama is the first politician that I've seen who has come out with a realistic plan to reduce abortions.
That is because they do not want you to know that at the state level extreme conservatives already do not have to do anything else to then have the extreme laws in the state books take effect once Roe is overturned, and some times the draconian laws of the states are not the old ones:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092602833_pf.html
In the 1980s, when abortion was severely limited in then-West Germany, border guards sometimes required German women returning from foreign trips to undergo vaginal examinations to make sure that they hadn't illegally terminated a pregnancy while they were abroad. According to news stories and other accounts, the guards would stop young women and ask them about drugs, then look for evidence of abortion, such as sanitary pads or nightgowns, in their cars, and eventually force them to undergo a medical examination -- as West German law empowered them to do.

Sounds like a nightmare of a police state, doesn't it? Like something that could never happen in this day and age -- and certainly not in the United States? But depending upon the outcome of this presidential election, it could happen here. This is how.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposes abortion, believing that life begins at conception. Imagine that he's elected to the White House and, not long after, one of the aging Supreme Court justices dies or resigns. President McCain appoints a suitably conservative replacement, and a complaisant or cowed Senate confirms the nomination. Then, an ambitious district attorney in Alabama, Delaware or any one of more than a dozen other states with old abortion laws still on the books or a new, untested abortion restriction prosecutes a local clinic for performing the procedure. (Legal scholars pretty much agree that laws from before Roe v. Wade can be revived.) The clinic goes to federal court; after appeals, the case goes to the Supreme Court, which votes 5-4 to overturn Roe. And we're back to the '60s .

Well, that wouldn't be so bad, you may think. Some states (or even cities and counties) will offer abortion, and others won't. Women will just have to go to New York or someplace else if they want or need to end a pregnancy. A lot of states had pretty liberal laws in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Even Georgia, one of the two states involved in that case, allowed some abortions for the health of the mother.

But it's not 1972. The climate then was one of growing sympathy for women seeking abortion, triggered in part by stories of those who sought one after realizing that their children would be deformed by the anti-morning-sickness drug thalidomide. Social liberalism was rising; religions weren't much engaged in politics. Today, the politics of abortion have changed. In addition to old laws that would spring back up should Roe be reversed, the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute lists four states -- Louisiana, Missisippi, North and South Dakota -- as having trigger laws explicitly aimed at making abortion criminal upon Roe' s demise, and seven others that have committed to acting to the extent that the court may allow.

The trigger laws are much harsher than the pre- Roe laws; Louisiana's, for instance, would allow abortion only in case of a threat to the mother's life or to a life-sustaining organ. In 1972, roughly 40 percent of the women who got abortions in the United States did so outside their state of residence. There are now more than a million abortions a year. Can you imagine how many women will travel elsewhere if their home states prohibit abortion unless the mother's life is at risk?

Lakai

11-02-2008, 09:59 PM

Because Roe v. Wade invalidates laws which generally criminalize abortion. Duh.

Yes, but will this help stop abortions?

And anyway, as I alluded to before, pro-lifers probably tend to see this as more of a moral issue than a pragmatic issue. To them, abortion is murder and needs to be outlawed, even though abortions will still take place.

So moral issues don't involve pragmatism?

Are you agreeing with your rational or are you just giving reasons (however misguided) of why pro-lifers might favor overturning Roe v. Wade?

I can understand why pro-lifers might want to overturn Roe v. Wade, I'm just saying that it isn't the best course of actions if you want to prevent abortions.

brazil84

11-03-2008, 03:46 AM

Yes, but will this help stop abortions?

My best guess is that it would. But even if not, it's a necessary first step. If you don't understand this argument by now, you probably never will.

I understand your point -- that simply overturning Roe v. Wade alone might very well not reduce the number of abortions. I am skeptical of this claim, but even assuming it's true, it ignores the fact that overturning Roe v. Wade is only a first step for pro-lifers.

Again, if you can't understand this by now, you probably never will.

So moral issues don't involve pragmatism?

I'm not sure what you mean by "involve" so I can't answer that question. Every political movement "involves" pragmatism at some level.

Are you agreeing with your rational or are you just giving reasons (however misguided) of why pro-lifers might favor overturning Roe v. Wade?

I don't understand this question.

Vihaga

11-03-2008, 07:08 AM

Even though I'm pro-choice, I can't say that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a bad thing in the long run- I'd prefer that women's reproductive rights stood on less shaky ground than a supreme court ruling based on personal privacy.

However, I'd still not support overturning it in the short term, because I don't see the Republican (yeah, I know people are pro-life for many reasons in many ways, but I can't address all of them) pro-lifer as making a good faith effort to restrict abortion in an effort to make things better for women OR babies. They say they want to end abortion because life is sacred, while the Republican party's history at supporting those kids and mothers once the baby is born isn't great. "Welfare queen" accusations aren't coming from the Democrats. In addition, they tend to support abstinence-only programs rather than sex ed and wide, easy access to contraception. Do you guys see why this would be terrifying to someone who doesn't want a bunch of unwanted kids around to be abused and neglected?

You don't want abortions, but you also don't want to take the steps necessary to make it remotely practical to eliminate abortion or at least make the consequences of eliminating abortion acceptable. Thus, the impression that I get is that the Republicans are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are on this issue, so it does seem like they're trying to punish women rather than protect children. How do you reconcile this? Are most of you pro-welfare/children's programs?

Caveat lector

11-03-2008, 09:51 AM

You don't want abortions, but you also don't want to take the steps necessary to make it remotely practical to eliminate abortion or at least make the consequences of eliminating abortion acceptable. Thus, the impression that I get is that the Republicans are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are on this issue, so it does seem like they're trying to punish women rather than protect children. How do you reconcile this? Are most of you pro-welfare/children's programs?

Oh I am very much for programs that support the mothers and the children be they governmental or private programs. This includes things like better education, safe public housing, job training, and pre-school/daycare assistance.

Also, can't say for others, but to say I'm republican would be entirely incorrect. I self-identify as conservative, but that is also incorrect in some ways.

It is as I said before up thread. I support such programs, but anyone can start one or be for such things. It does not take a president or senator. It can be done by federal, state, or local governments or even private charities. However, only a president, along with the senate, can appoint judges to get RvW overturned.

Lakai

11-03-2008, 02:43 PM

I don't understand this question.

You sound like you're merely trying to make me understand the rational behind overturning Roe v. Wade, as opposed to making me understand why that rational is correct.

Do you think overturning Roe v. Wade will somehow open the path to a solution for fewer abortions? What kind of solution would that be? More draconian laws? A nationwide ban on abortion?

A nationwide ban is a futile hope. It would never happen in states like New York or California. It would never happen if you consider that roughly half the country supports a woman's right to choose.

If you want go the draconian laws route, I can see your point. Overturning Roe v. Wade would be a stepping stone for harsher laws controlling abortions. If they start checking women at the state border to see if they had abortions, then abortion numbers could go down.

brazil84

11-03-2008, 03:20 PM

You sound like you're merely trying to make me understand the rational behind overturning Roe v. Wade, as opposed to making me understand why that rational is correct.

I think I understand your question now. I think you meant "rationale" not "rational"

Do you think overturning Roe v. Wade will somehow open the path to a solution for fewer abortions? What kind of solution would that be? More draconian laws? A nationwide ban on abortion?

Absolutely.

A nationwide ban is a futile hope. It would never happen in states like New York or California. It would never happen if you consider that roughly half the country supports a woman's right to choose.

Look, if current trends continue, a majority of New York's citizenry will be ultra-orthodox Jews in 50 or 60 years. Would they support a ban on abortion? I have no idea, but it's silly to assume that people will feel the same way in the future as they do now.

Not to mention the fact that the federal government could enact anti-abortion laws, thus trumping any laws in California or New York.

50 or 100 years ago, you could have easily and reasonably claimed (by the same reasoning) that North Carolina would never vote for a black presidential candidate.

Jayn_Newell

11-03-2008, 04:07 PM

Absolutely.You just attempted to answer four questions with one word. Mind elaborating? I've never really understood what overturning Roe v. Wade was supposed to accomplished, or how.

brazil84

11-03-2008, 04:16 PM

You just attempted to answer four questions with one word. Mind elaborating?

Sure. I think that overturning Roe v. Wade would open the door to (1) state laws criminalizing abortion; (2) a federal law criminalizing abortion; (3) federal and state laws preventing people from crossing state lines to obtain abortions; and (4) other mischief.

Is that clear enough? Or do you have other questions?

Chessic Sense

11-03-2008, 04:50 PM

If someone could present a case as to why outlawing abortion in certain states would prevent more abortions than sex education would, then I will gracefully concede this argument.

Ok, I didn't get all the way to the bottom of the thread, so if I repeat something that someone else posted, I apologize. This is the third time you've said something like this and it hurts my brain every time someone says this.

YOU CAN HAVE BOTH. The pro-life movement is NOT the abstinence-only movement. I hate abortions, as everyone does. I just think that once it's got a beating heart and a brain, it's a person. It's my business because it's the fetus' business, and they can't speak for themselves. That has NOTHING to do with religion or whatever other reason people hate condoms.

Your premise is that Obama is better for reducing abortions because he's for sex education, and it's cleary "outlaw it vs. educate it". It's a ridiculously false dichotomy. I don't need to prove that the law would prevent more than sex ed because only a fraction of my fellow pro-lifers think that way.

pmat

11-03-2008, 07:13 PM

The "pro-lifers" don't care that Obama has a plan to reduce abortions, because they don't actually care about abortion. They just care about tyrannizing and abusing women. Sure, they SAY otherwise; but whenever they have the opportunity to choose between reducing abortions and hurting women, they choose the latter.

Wow, I had no idea that that was why I was pro-life. I figured it was because a fetus is technically a human-being and the government, at it's most basic level, should protect the lives of human-beings, even at the pain and inconvenience of a woman. Apparently, I enjoy watching women suffer. I wonder if there's any way to be pro-life, and not delight at the pain and suffering of women. Maybe it's possible for abortion to be illegal and still provide services, like those included in Obama's plan. Maybe it's possible that the majority of woman, who would have otherwise had an abortion, would then voluntarily give birth, and the women who still desire an abortion would have no excuse but the convenience factor and would be prevented from doing so.

But, no. To be pro-life is to be unsympathetic towards all but the fetus. In no circumstances does it ever go any deeper than 'overturn Roe V. Wade'