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?
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.
Because Roe v. Wade invalidates laws which generally criminalize abortion. Duh.
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.
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:
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.
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.
I’m not sure what you mean by “involve” so I can’t answer that question. Every political movement “involves” pragmatism at some level.
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?
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.
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.
I think I understand your question now. I think you meant “rationale” not “rational”
Absolutely.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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’
To be fair, the ‘ban abortions; focus on sex ed’ viewpoint isn’t one that comes up often in these discussions. And there are groups that oppose not only abortion, but comprehensive sex ed/contraception–to varying degrees-as well (The Roman Catholic Church falls into this category). While I respect and understand those viewpoints, I wouldn’t support having them codified into law.
Unfortunately, people like you aren’t in the vocal majority, so you tend to get ignored for those with louder voices
