Actually, you are correct on the last point. I meant to say: “if they were equally eager to spend society’s money on food and housing for the poor.”
Oh the second, the difference is that there are no liberal single-issue voters.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Regards,
Shodan
I find it interesting that you find the truth to be so amusing.
So you’d vote for someone whose platform included banning abortions?
I wouldn’t base my vote entirely on it. Let’s say I had these candidates to choose from:
A: Ban abortion, control guns, raise minimum wage, enact tough global warming countermeasures, reduce military spending.
B: Keep abortion legal, no gun control, no raise to minimum wage, thinks global warming is a hoax, raise military spending.
I’d vote for A and hope that he’s stymied in his effort to ban abortion.
Cool. Then, to counter:
A: Ban abortion, control guns, raise minimum wage, enact tough global warming countermeasures, reduce military spending.
B: Keep abortion legal, no gun control, repeal income taxes, no minimum wage, drastically reduce the role of federal government.
I’d vote for B. And I am about as anti-abortion as it gets. With choice this extreme, there are no “single issue” voters. Not liberal and not conservative.
Thankfully, a choice like that would never materialize. If you were to draw a Venn diagram of anti-abortion people and pro gun control people, there would be virtually no intersection. I’m just saying that you don’t see liberal politicians running on social issues because their voters don’t vote solely on them the way that conservative voters do.
I was referring to the first two points, hence my disclaimer. I should have made that clear. Are you saying that most conservatives are genuinely concerned with the death of a fetus and want that child brought into the world so that more orphanages may be constructed? I have only heard objections to the killing of the fetus at church, from politicians, from Rush Limbaugh, and from message board right-wing-shills. I have never ever heard that sentiment in everyday conversation with conservatives. I have heard that, since a percentage of abortions are performed on poor and minority women, at least there’ll be fewer of “those” kind around. A Dickensian sentiment regarding the surplus population from an unlikely source, but I hear it a lot.
The most common reaction I hear from conservatives is a general traditionalist resentment against casual sex, of the “having you cake and eating it, too” variety. These (liberal, lazy, radical, minority, rock’n’roll/ rap/ hip-hop-listening, interracial-dating) youngsters think they can “get away” with having sex, do they?
Regarding politicians pandering to voters by preying on their guilt/control issues, what difference does it make if Liberal politicians are equally sleazy? Are you saying that since all politicians are unethical and manipulative, it’s a wash? That’s sort of a weak argument intellectually, or should I say, pseudointellectually.
You’re as “single issue” about abortion as I am.
As I said, I don’t base my vote on it. But since I only vote for Democrats, it never becomes an issue for me.
Yes, you do. You wouldn’t vote for someone who would ban abortions, except in a very extreme case.
Anti-abortionists are genuinely concerned with the death of the fetus. The notion that they want the child to be born “so that” more orphanages can be built is silly.
You may be suffering from selective memory. At any rate, it hardly matters - the argument that you never heard it from anybody except those that you heard it from is not terribly convincing of anything.
Unless you can come up with some kind of real evidence, I am going to have to decline to believe in your caricatures.
I’m saying that BobLibDem’s summary of the primary reason conservative politicians oppose abortion is as ridiculous as his other assertion that there are no single-issue liberal voters. And therefore your idea that it was either accurate or concise is equally silly.
Regards,
Shodan
BobLibDem, we’re on the same side on the abortion issue, and having seen your posts in other threads, we seem to be on the same side on a lot of issues. But I just want to express a comment on this one particular point.
From what I could tell from a quick glance at the linked article, a baby was born prematurely but otherwise alive and fine to a mother who clearly wanted the child and was intending to carry to term, and heroic efforts were made to ensure its survival. This was morally the right thing to do (and no doubt legally mandatory), so the cost is irrelevant.
What the linked example really shows is the lack of intellectual substance to the anti-abortion argument. The message is “lookit the cute baby!” Yes, we know pregnancies lead to babies. The anti-abortion crowd simply sweeps all other issues under the carpet. Including the big ones like at what point any sane person considers a fertilized egg to become a “baby”, the fundamental rights of the mother, and all the medical, emotional, and social issues affecting mother and child.
Which is also why this other observation of yours is extremely relevant:
Whether or not this is universally and literally true, there is a really important element of observational truth in it that is directly relevant here. Several different academic studies have consistently shown marked systematic differences in the thinking patterns of conservative vs. liberal voters. The basic characterization is that conservatives tend to hold black-and-white views on issues, where things are either right or wrong, period, and tend to be intransigent about it. Liberals tend to hold more nuanced and analytical views, and are more likely to be influenced by the facts of a particular situation.
We’ve seen this in this discussion, where the anti-abortion argument is mainly along the lines of “abortion is murder, period – at any time, any stage of gestation, for any reason, end of discussion”. Whereas I think the other side is ready to acknowledge that the stage of gestation is a factor and in late stages like into the third trimester poses ethical issues that have to be traded off against the health and well-being of the mother. I’m OK with having no laws at all governing abortions only because it’s been demonstrated in practice that almost all abortions are first-trimester anyway, and by the third trimester medical ethics plays a major arbitrating role. But not having the intrusion of a legal burden leaves the options open to mother and doctor.
The conservative view admits of no such nuances. I’m sure that if most conservative voters were required to argue a case like Roe v. Wade in court they would simply bring along a cute baby picture as Exhibit “A”, and then rest their case on the grounds that it was self-evident. And this is how they vote. There’s an amazing homogeneity of views on certain trigger issues like abortion, gay rights, and climate change among right-wing politicians to pander to this base.
Wrong.
The point is that the “cute baby” is a human being, with for all we know consciousness and the ability to feel pain, which deserves life and to be protected from harm just like any other human being rather than to be torn apart and discarded for the convenience of the person whose deliberate actions resulted in its creation.
Does it matter to you if the “actions” that “resulted in its creation” were not “deliberate”?
Sure, it the mother needs to deliver a child at whatever gestational age, then the cost isn’t an issue. I only bring up the point to reinforce how conservatives have no problem spending any amount of money to save a fetus but would balk at buying the kid his school lunch ten years down the road.
The point about conservatives seeing things with sharp edges in black and white and no shades of grey is quite astute. There is no reasoning with conservatives on many issues- for them life begins at conception- period. You have an absolute right to buy arms- period. Government spending is always bad- period. America is always right in foreign policy- period. Not only do they think of things in black and white, they surround themselves in echo chambers to reinforce what they already believe. There’s a reason why conservative radio succeeds and liberal radio does not- it’s that conservative and liberal minds are wired entirely differently.
So you’re willing to make an exception when the mother’s life is at risk, and in the case of rape. I’ve heard some other “pro-lifers” explicitly exclude rape as a justification, and others promoting extremist policies that certainly endanger a woman’s life and health. But what really matters here is that your position, just like all the other extremist positions, totally obliterates the human rights of the mother based on an unsubstantiated personal subjective view of when “human life” begins and a totally artificial construct of what constitutes a “person”.
What really matters here is that it takes off the table virtually all of the reasons for which abortions are actually requested and performed. All these extremist positions value above all else the “potential” of the unformed fetus and relegate the mother to the status of a fetal incubator with zero human rights of her own. That’s an uncompromisingly absolutist position by any measure, and certainly as measured by its ability to garner judicial support anywhere in the civilized world.
Half right.
I am all for “human rights” of the mother. But I also am for “human rights” of the kid. And the kid’s right to life overrides the mother’s right to not be inconvenienced.
See above. There is a hierarchy of human rights. Right to life is at the top. You don’t seem to understand that.
I just don’t know how to answer someone who thinks that pregnancy, including from rape, falls into the category of an ‘inconvenience’.