john mace hits the nail on the head. its just the political party which subscribes to these ideas that have thier members catogorized as left wing right wing and points inbetween. Vote your heart and your head…not your bullshit party lines.
Moderator’s Note: By means of arcane Moderatorial powers the above post has been moved from page 10 of the Possibility != Existence thread.
I wonder if this one issue fits even that. It implies that there is a linear progression of wanting government control, and the government granting basic protection of life would be an absolute for some alleged conservatives. Absolute ‘Yes’ for an innocent life and an absolute ‘No’ for a guilty one. The only thing it proves is that some other belief system is operating over and above the liberal/conservative and libertarian/authoritarian ones. That one, whatever it happens to be, should be the defining one.
I know that it isn’t in practice, but it would be kind of nice…
Face: I agree that the two major parties are hopeless, and I understand your wonderment at the illogical nature of how they select their party platforms.
But having recognized that, why do you insist on identifying yourself with one of the two majors or not at all? Why not look at the Libertarians or the Greens (Socialists in environmental clothing).
By insisting that the two parties are the only viable solution, you ensure that this country will always be led by the lesser of two evils, and the lesser really is only the lesser because the lesser has been out of power for a while. In my personal opinion, they are equally evil because they are both for big government in their own way. I guess you’ll just have to keep picking your poison and feel guilty about your selections as you leave the voting booth.
“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kang.” – Homer Simpson
I’m not sure I understand your post. Do you mean the abortion issue?
There are some issues which can go either way even if you have a consistent party which has a rule to guide their platform. For example, the basic Libertarian rule is non-aggression. So, if your premise is that life begins at conception, the libertarian philosophy dictates protection of the innocent fetus from aggression and an outright ban on abortion. BUT, if your premse is that the fetus is not a human, then libertarian philosophy dictates protection of the mother from aggression and an absolute right to abortions (no tax money, of course).
So, depending on your starting point, the rule works differently. This isn’t a case of another, overarching rule or moral norm over and above party rules. This is a case where your starting premise, whether determined scientifically or religiously (and both can go both ways) dictates where you go, and individual common party members can disagree.
Face:
Topo has a point. You might for more consistency outside the 2 major parties. In fact, I used to like it when Jesse Jackson was in the running (a Democrat, yes, but outside the mainstream largely). I disagreed with almost everything he said, but at least his positions were more or less self consistent. I think you’ll find Dems and Reps taking stances often for political expediency. With the Reps there is often a religious (Christian) basis. Not sure where the Dems get there start-- something along the lines of seeking “social justice”, whatever that is.
I don’t insist upon the 2 party system. I consider myself an independent and believe more people should do the same.
My point exactly. You can show all the legal loopholes you wish to demonstrate the point that a woman’s legal right to an abortion can be safeguarded, but that becomes a moot point if the actual availability of abortion to women isn’t guaranteed. And there’s been plenty of legislation at both the state and the federal level that’s restricted the availability of abortion to women - the Hyde Amendment being one of the first and biggest.
Abortion wasn’t legal in the US until 1973. Among other things, it meant that doctors couldn’t be trained to perform abortions at medical school. Once abortion was made legal, would it not have made sense for the federal government to cover at least part of the costs of training doctors? How about providing funding for clinics to open up? Instead, the Hyde Amendment prevented the government from doing so, and left it up to the individual states to decide how (or if) to provide funding to cover abortions.
Sure, you can justify such a move on the “states’ rights” platform, but that begs the question of whether states’ rights take precedence over women’s rights. (IMHO, “states’ rights” is just a cover used to dodge the real issue at hand. Like abortion. Or, say, slavery.)
As an afterthought: Let’s take a look at how successful a “states’ rights” approach has been at providing abortion funding for low-income women above and beyond cases of rape, incest, or medical threats to life.
Only three states voluntarily provide such funding.
Fifteen states provide funding, but only under court order.
Five states have challenges pending.
That leaves 27 states who provide funding for abortion only in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s life (except for MS and SD, which provide only for abortion to save the mother’s life).
I’ve been trying to find anything that provides data on clinics or hospitals in each state that provide abortion services with no luck. Same for data on what portion of the cost the state picks up for an abortion. I’m certainly not assuming that even NY, HI, or WA provide 100% funding for abortions.
The point, however, remains the same - legal loopholes safeguarding the right to abortion on an abstract level do nothing for women who have to plan the time off to travel for hours to get an abortion they want or need but can barely afford. Getting the time off wouldn’t even be an employer/employee issue if there were one or more abortion clinics in every county of the US. State funding alone can’t guarantee that - federal funding is also necessary.
The point is not they are considered conservative because they are anti-abortion, but it just so happens that the majority (90%? 95%? 99%?) of anti-abortion crowd hold positions in other socioeconomical issues in line with conservatives.