So that’s a shitty example. And it was his only example too. Huh. Funny.
I did notice, in the book description on your link “In the tradition of Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s national bestseller A National Party No More, which critiqued the Democratic party’s move to the far left …”.
It’s the same dynamic on both sides of the aisle.
If they cut the pro-lifer vote from their base, where are they going to get their numbers from? There just aren’t enough economic Ayn Randians to win elections for them.
To be honest, I haven’t read exactly what Zell Miller thinks pushed him out of the Democratic party. Given that there still are prominent pro-life Democrats, I am initially skeptical that Miller’s exit shows that the Democratic position on abortion is a loser in the long term.
On the other hand, Miller’s claim taken broadly is probably correct in a lot of ways. For example, there are a lot fewer Democrats openly in support of Jim Crow and racial segregation today than there were when Miller was in short pants.
Well it’s equally unclear whether it was abortion specifically that pushed Whitman out.
Republicans are victims of their own success to some extent. They were able to generate a lot of pro-life sentiment with notions of partial birth abortions and shit like that and then they passed the partial birth abortion ban and a lot of people figured that we had eliminated the most extreme abuses. Then, buoyed by their success on partial birth abortions, the pro-lifers decided the next logical progression was getting rid of the rape and incest exceptions to federal funding of abortions. Now they were the the face of extremism.
Most people are in the middle on the abortion issue and they want to get rid of the edges.
THAT is the problem with the Republican party. Their coalition produices too many unelectable candidates.
If Obama did nothing else, he brought together the black and gay community to a small degree. He brought together the black and hispanic community to a larger degree. The Democratic coalition tends to produce liberal but entirely electable candidates.
As a Georgian, I need to point out to you that Miller’s nickname in Georgia politics is “Zig-zag Zell” Miller. he takes whatever tack he thinks will win him an advantage politically. There’s no reason to think his move to the Republicans was anything other than business as usual for Zell.
Speaking of beating a drum, this bit of glurge has been posted a lot lately:
http://www.thefulltimegirl.com/2012/10/15/life-on-earth/
I think it’s a dumb question and a poor analogy.
So there’s a fetal heartbeat. Okay.
People being kept alive by machines have heartbeats. If they’re brain dead, what sort of life is it?
My friend’s niece gave birth to a girl with just a bit of brain stem but no brain. She had a heartbeat and lung function but none of the 5 senses. It was like trying to interact with a doll, as he told me. She lasted a year and a half in that condition, but what kind of life was that?
'The Pubs who rant about abortion never seem to consider that there could be severe defects in the womb and that there’s more to quality of life than a heartbeat.
No need to cover for your brethren Omg.
I’m sorry, but you guys are horribly wrong if you think dropping abortion will help. Every single person I know who votes Republican does so because they are pro life, and they’ve flat out told me this. I think you guys on this board vastly overestimate the number of financial conservatives. Republican and Christian are practically considered synonymous in most of the red states. And the two things every cites is the party’s anti-SSM and pro-life stance.
The people in the middle of the abortion issue are idiotic and incoherent then. The anti-rape/incest exception stance is logically and morally inconsistent.
I don’t know whether pro-lifers embody that contradiction because they don’t have a well thought-out stance on that issue or they’re aware that it makes them look like assholes. And I don’t care. I personally find the position that it’s okay to kill babies only if the mother meets the maximum societal standards of sympathy to be internalized slut-shaming. Why do children rape/incest have less of a right to live than ones born into more stable homes? Should we kill orphans who score low on IQ tests or had their bodies ravaged by fetal alcohol syndrome?
To me the position of a typical pro-lifer is much more vile than Mourdock and Donnelly’s stance.
Despite what most pro-lifers might say when comparing abortion to murder, I think most of them believe abortion is very wrong but not on the level with murder. Otherwise they would oppose it even in cases of rape- but most don’t. It becomes logically consistent if you assume that while they think abortion is wrong, they think it’s more wrong to force a rape victim to bear her rapist’s child.
This is a constant anti-abortion strawman.
I know very, very few pro-choice people who say a fetus/embryo/unborn isn’t ALIVE.
It’s just not a PERSON.
Why the hell not?
Even if it’s not a crime on the level of murder, where does the child’s rights come into play? Assault isn’t on the level of murder either, but I wouldn’t and shouldn’t get a reduced jail sentence for beating up a kid if they have a history of juvenile delinquency and/or autism. Nor if I beat up the kid because my grandparents just died or I lost my job or I learned I had a case of terminal cancer.
Because the “child’s” rights don’t trump those of the mother, who is unequivocally a person and citizen and sentient being. Outlawing abortion is tantamount to enslaving every woman who becomes pregnant, forcing them to endure physical, financial, and psychological hardship - and why? Because it offends your religious sensibilities to allow them to do otherwise.
Err, I agree. I’m just saying that the ‘no exceptions except for the life of the mother’ pro-lifers are viewed as vile and hopeless dinosaurs while the ‘and also if rape/incest was involved!’ pro-lifers are viewed as reasonable. And I claim that the logic is completely backwards.
It’s a reflection of our society’s twisted sexual politics rather than a logically coherent stance.
I think OMG is right. Democrats do keep bringing up abortion and Republicans try to avoid the subject. And for the obvious reasons discussed in the OP. The Democrats realize many Republicans have both pro-life and pro-choice supporters and by asking these Republicans what their position is on abortion, the Democrats know the Republican will be forced to alienate some of their supporters. That’s just good politics.
Agreed. Being upset with the Democrats because they keep bringing up some unpopular opinions/stances/policies of their Republican opponents is ridiculous on its face.
Little Nemo, I really feel like you are my doppleganger sometimes on these boards. Pretty much everything I’ve ever seen you write I agree with (other than labeling myself a moderate Republican, which is probably just tautology).
Well, I’m a New York Republican. In Texas terms that makes me a Democrat.
Here is a discussion group (on Fox, of course) which claims that Romney lost in part because single women are so interested in abortion and birth control that they don’t care about other things.
Rush Limbaugh said that Republicans need to “start our own abortion industry” to get women’s vote.