|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
And Ceausescu's Romania; when they prohibited abortion, the rate of live births went up to such an extent that people simply abandoned excess babies, hence the infamous Romanian orphanages.
Actually that's not strictly true - the birth rate went up in the year or two after Decree 770 of 1966, but thereafter, from the late 60s/early 70s started to fall so that certainly by the 80s the birth rate was as low as it had been prior to 1966 when the decree was enacted. What massively increased was not the live birth rate, but the number of illegal abortions (and the maternal death rate). Many of the children who were abandoned were handicapped due to surviving botched illegal abortions. I'd thoroughly recommend Gail Kligman's "The Politics of Duplicity: Controlling Reproduction in Ceausescu's Romania" as an excellent - and very chilling - study of the realities of the impact of making abortion illegal.
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
Thanks. Someone from my church works in one of said orphanages as a carer/missionary. I know a little about the situation from talking to her, but that was several years ago, so I may not remember exactly. Most of the children in her orphanage are mentally (or occasionally physically) disabled.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
New Yorker writes:
Alas, I am acquainted with many politicians who say they will do x or believe x and then don't do it or act on their belief. But, abortion will not disappear under a pro-abortion Obama presidency. Abortion may be addressed under a pro-life McCain presidency.
While McCain gives the right focus-group approved answer re: abortion, he has offered not a single proposal, not a single piece of legislation, not a single action he would take to reduce abortion. He has gone on the record saying that it would not be a litmus test for the Supreme Court, so you're not going to see Roe overturned. So his "pro-life policy" would seem to be precisely the same as three decades of so-called pro-life Republicans before him-- point your finger at those nasty girls entering the free clinic, click your tongue and say "tsk tsk" and then look the other way.
Meanwhile, Obama has gone on the record with several specific, concrete things he would do to reduce the rate of abortion, including a ban on late term (not just partial birth) abortions. If you go to the CDC website and look at the rates of abortion year by year, you will see that the only significant reduction in the rate of abortion we've seen in the US occurred during the Clinton administration, most likely due to his economic policies, policies that Obama shares.
Add that to the other things Josephine mentioned-- the ways that Obama is pro-life across the board-- honoring the lives of the born, not just the unborn, through things like effective education, accessible and affordable health care, child care, etc.-- and I would not be so quick to determine McCain is the "pro life" candidate.
[ 20. October 2008, 16:32: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Hi there - I came across this in a blog.
quote:
Speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, on July 17, 2007, today’s Democratic nominee for president was loudly cheered by the largest abortion provider in America when he declared: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." The FIRST THING he would do . . . that’s quite a testimony to his political priorities. What is the Freedom of Choice Act?
The Freedom of Choice Act would Eliminate:
• State abortion reporting requirements in ALL 50 states
It would render null and void:
• Laws in 44 states requiring parental notification when minors request abortions
• Laws in 40 states laws restricting late-term abortions
• Laws in 46 states providing conscience protection for individual health care providers
• Laws in 27 states providing conscience protection for institutions
• Laws in 38 states banning partial-birth abortions
The bill would abolish all restrictions on government funding for abortions. Once signed into law, therefore – as the Democratic nominee for president has promised to do – all restrictions on abortions would be eliminated and they would be funded by taxpayers, like it or not. Doctors and nurses would risk losing their jobs if they refuse to cooperate.
In the light of the above discussion could someone inform me, as a Brit, just how accurate this is and what it means.
Luigi
[ 20. October 2008, 18:27: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
At least in theory, there is no Constitutional basis for the Federal government overruling the states on those issues. But given how much power the Federal government has managed to seize, through misuse of, inter alia, the interstate commerce clause, I wouldn't put it passed them to manage to implement such laws.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Hi there - I came across this in a blog.
...
In the light of the above discussion could someone inform me, as a Brit, just how accurate this is and what it means.
It doesn't mean much at all. My understanding is that federal law, to the extent that it exists, takes precedence over state law in the event of a conflict. What counts as a conflict is not always apparent, however. For example, if a federal law says that abortions must be allowed in the first trimester, and a state law states that a minor must obtain parental consent before having an abortion, it is not a foregone conclusion that the two laws "conflict."
But none of this is particularly relevant as a practical matter. Obama has already expressed his desire to focus on matters that lesson the incidence of abortions. For example, he favors ready availability of contraceptives. This is likely what conservaties will be in a tizzy about during his presidency (assuming he wins).
Obama seems to strongly perfer consensus to confrontation. I expect that he will try to build consensus. I also expect that the Washington political establishment -- both Dem and Republican -- will seek to maximize conflict.
The foul polarizing redistricting that we have undergone in recent years has created a political environment where elected officials are better served by half the country hating the other half. So these red-flag issues that never actually do anything other than inflame passions are the grist for reelection of our foul political class.
I imagine that Obama will do all that he can to bring the country together, and the self-centered airheads who control the Hill will ensure that he fails. So the abortion rights debate will never actually happen, but the country will reap all the division as if it had, and get no benefit of reaching a conclusion. It's all perfectly clear -- I can't imagine why you are confused...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Hi there - I came across this in a blog.
In situations as highly charged as these, I recommend reading the bill for yourself. It's not too long at all and it can be found here.
It looks like it takes a great deal of assumption, interpolation, and guess-work to get what you read in that blog out of the text of this bill, from what I understand.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
So Biden is saying elect Obama so we can have an international crisis? If Obama will cause a crisis shouldn't one vote for the other guy?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So Biden is saying elect Obama so we can have an international crisis? If Obama will cause a crisis shouldn't one vote for the other guy?
The crisis is already upon us. I'd rather a prez face up to that than pretend that the status quo is operating smoothly.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
So we elect John McCain instead and let him initiate the crisis, possibly by declaring war on Iran, which he's said he'd consider?
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
So we elect John McCain instead and let him initiate the crisis, possibly by declaring war on Iran, which he's said he'd consider?
He's not only considered it, he's sung about it.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So Biden is saying elect Obama so we can have an international crisis? If Obama will cause a crisis shouldn't one vote for the other guy?
Now you are just being silly. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So Biden is saying elect Obama so we can have an international crisis? If Obama will cause a crisis shouldn't one vote for the other guy?
I know you can read, so I don't understand why you don't do it. Here is what Biden is saying, in simple, declarative sentences: There will be a crisis. It will test the president. Obama will be that man. He will make unpopular decisions. He will need those rich Democrats' support.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So Biden is saying elect Obama so we can have an international crisis? If Obama will cause a crisis shouldn't one vote for the other guy?
I know you can read, so I don't understand why you don't do it. Here is what Biden is saying, in simple, declarative sentences: There will be a crisis. It will test the president. Obama will be that man. He will make unpopular decisions. He will need those rich Democrats' support.
No, Ruth. You should read more carefully. Biden said that there will be a crisis to test Obama's mettle. Well, we know McCain's mettle. Vote McCain and no crisis. Voila.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
You keep saying that. I don't think Biden means what I think you mean.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I believe the point Biden is saying is that the crisis will be such as to test anybody's mettle, regardless of DmplnJeff feels about whether their mettle has already been tested. He believes Obama is the best person to have as president during said crisis. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So Biden is saying elect Obama so we can have an international crisis? If Obama will cause a crisis shouldn't one vote for the other guy?
I know you can read, so I don't understand why you don't do it. Here is what Biden is saying, in simple, declarative sentences: There will be a crisis. It will test the president. Obama will be that man. He will make unpopular decisions. He will need those rich Democrats' support.
No, Ruth. You should read more carefully. Biden said that there will be a crisis to test Obama's mettle. Well, we know McCain's mettle. Vote McCain and no crisis. Voila.
we know his bad judgement and tendency to rush into things
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
...Well, we know McCain's mettle.
And we can predict the result of his mettle: 24-hour carpet bombing from 65,000 feet.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But we can be tranquil and thankfill and proud
For man's been endowed with the mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day
Someone will set the spark off, and we will all be blown away.
Which is the warmonger, McCain, or Obama? Is the world getting more hair-triggery, or less hair-triggery? I want the calm guy at the button, not the shrieker. Just me, I'm sure.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Hey, New Yorker, would you mind answering the questions I asked you earlier? Here's the post:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Suppose, in an alternate universe, a la Turtledove, that Obama and McCain were the exact same men with the exact same political views except that Obama were pro-life and McCain were pro-abortion.
New Yorker, here's the problem I have with what you said here: you need to unpack the words a little bit. When someone says that Obama is pro-abortion, what, exactly, does that mean? When someone says that McCain is pro-life, what, exactly, does that mean?
By pro-life, do you mean "wants abortion to be illegal" or do you mean "wants to make the greatest decrease possible in the number of abortions"? Or something else?
By pro-abortion, do you mean "wants abortions to be rather more frequent than they are now" or "wants abortions to be legal"? Or something else?
Further, have you considered the possibility that it's easy for a candidate to say they want abortion to be illegal, and then do absolutely nothing to change the status quo? In fact, for six years, there was a pro-life Republican in the White House, and Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. Exactly what did these Republican pro-life politicians do to make abortions illegal?
If they didn't make abortions illegal then, how, exactly, does it further the cause of making abortions illegal to vote for pro-life Republicans?
In addition, have you considered the possibility that there may be ardently pro-life people who think that it's more important to direct resources towards practical steps to reduce the number of abortions right now, rather than tilt at the windmill of overturning Roe v. Wade?
Which is more important, to say you want to overturn Roe v. Wade, or to actually save lives?
What if someone believes that Obama's social and economic policies will do far more to reduce the number of abortions than McCain's pro-life policies? If they believe that, then would you agree that, the preservation of the lives of innocent unborn being such a basic issue, they must, in that case, vote for Obama?
Or is the preservation of the lives of innocent unborn not the real issue after all?
Thanks!
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
New Yorker,
Both Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are pro-abortion in some circumstances - circumstances that could permit a continuing large number of abortions.
It seems to me that, if you vote for them rather than for Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden, you will still have some powerful explaining to do on Judgment Day.
Now that you have read this post you will not be able to say, "I did not know".
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Alas, I am acquainted with many politicians who say they will do x or believe x and then don't do it or act on their belief. But, abortion will not disappear under a pro-abortion Obama presidency. Abortion may be addressed under a pro-life McCain presidency.
Nothing would happen to abortion under a McCain presidency. Abortion would not disappear under a pro-life Sarah Palin presidency if she were to ban it entirely.
On the other hand an Obama presidency would almost certainly lower the abortion rate by attacking the demand side - providing easy access to contraception and much better sex education.
quote:
Given all the hijinks ACORN is up to around the country, I suppose my cat should be registered to vote. I'll attend to that right now!
Would you care to provide actual evidence that ACORN is up to any hijinks?
FWIW, yes you could fill your cat's name (or even Mickey Mouse) in on an ACORN voter registration form, and ACORN would be legally obliged to process it in most states. (Including the one in which Mickey Mouse was submitted). But unless your cat both stood up to the scrutiny of the State (not ACORN who check and flag but this has no legal standing) and unless your cat had ID (which is a whole other issue).
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just been watching CNN in the UK (Larry King), with the strapline "Obama's lead narrowing". I was a bit puzzled by the strapline, to be honest.
Here is the BBC summary page. You can see the overall popular vote position from four major polls.
Appreciating the electoral college arguments, I can't see much to keep up Republican spirits in any of this. A lot can happen in two weeks, I suppose.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Josephine -
At the end of the day, it is most important to eliminate abortion. Of course, one has to provide proper care for expectant mothers and to stimulate conditions that decrease the demand for abortion. However, the fundamental issue is a respect for all life and the appreciation of the simple basic fact that unborn babies are babies and are human beings entitled to the full protection of the law. Maybe McCain is not going to make abortion his number one issue, but Obama will certainly always have the protection of infanticide, as I would call it, in his mind. The judges that McCain would appoint would be more inclined to overturn Roe and extend full protection to unborn babies. So of course we have to care for children once they are born, but let's make sure they are not killed first.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Josephine -
At the end of the day, it is most important to eliminate abortion. Of course, one has to provide proper care for expectant mothers and to stimulate conditions that decrease the demand for abortion. However, the fundamental issue is a respect for all life and the appreciation of the simple basic fact that unborn babies are babies and are human beings entitled to the full protection of the law. Maybe McCain is not going to make abortion his number one issue, but Obama will certainly always have the protection of infanticide, as I would call it, in his mind. The judges that McCain would appoint would be more inclined to overturn Roe and extend full protection to unborn babies. So of course we have to care for children once they are born, but let's make sure they are not killed first.
Firstly I'll refer you to the "30-year low" thread in DH, which shows that the abortion rate is falling in the U.S.A. (sadly, not in the U.K.). That must represent good news.
Now the practical bit: If, after Roe v Wade has been reversed, and it becomes (I presume) an offence across all 50 states to procure, obtain or carry out an abortion, what are you going to do about those who carry out abortions, arrange them and the women who have them? What do Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin propose to do?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If Roe v Wade is overturned, that doesn't mean abortion will be made illegal across the USA -- just that the states will resume jurisdiction. Which means basically that people capable of driving across state lines to the nearest abortion-legal state will be able to have an abortion; women of insufficient means to do this will not be able to do so.
If somehow abortion is, in fact, made illegal across the USA, the situation will be the same, only you will have to drive to Canada or Mexico (or fly somewhere offshore). Doctors will flock to border cities in C & M and set up abortion clinics. Airlines will set up "abortion special" packages to small Caribbean islands with lax abortion laws.
In short it will be the poor women who are left without the option. Coincidentally, it's poor people whom the Republican Party seems to care the least for already, judging by their record on human and social services.
How that will actually play out in the lives of inner-city poor people, especially with the GOP cutting back even more on social services to these people in order to deliver largesse to the military-industrial complex, is anybody's guess.
Me, I think it's more pro-life to obviate abortion than criminalize it. Which is one reason (among many many others) I'm voting for Obama.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So Biden is saying
quote:
"This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."
"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."
I wonder what kind of unpopular decisions he anticipates?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
I wonder what kind of unpopular decisions he anticipates?
From the audience he's addressing, perhaps not being able to move as quickly on democrat issues as some in his party might like? To me it seems a tremendously good sign that Obama is getting people ready for a rough ride. It shows he's realistic and honest.
I decided Obama was A Very Good Thing after reading about his priorities if he wins:
quote:
[Audience member:] "There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order?"
It went to McCain first, who punted, saying he'd do all three at once in a garbled jumble of an answer.
Here's Obama:
Energy we have to deal with today ... [energy discussion] ... So that would be priority number one.
Health care is priority number two ...
Hallelujah, he gets it! But that's not going to sit well with everyone in his party.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The foul polarizing redistricting that we have undergone in recent years has created a political environment where elected officials are better served by half the country hating the other half. So these red-flag issues that never actually do anything other than inflame passions are the grist for reelection of our foul political class.
Absolutely. Which is also why the Republicans, despite 6-8 years of power, some years near absolute, did little or nothing substantial about abortion. If they actually gave social conservatives what they wanted on the issue, they'd end up have little to attract them with in the next election cycle.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
At the end of the day, it is most important to eliminate abortion. .... However, the fundamental issue is a respect for all life and the appreciation of the simple basic fact that unborn babies are babies and are human beings entitled to the full protection of the law.
Thanks, New Yorker. But you didn't really answer my question. Or, rather, you seem to have given two contradictory answers.
I just want to know which you consider more important, to reduce the rate of abortion as far as is possible this side of the Second Coming? Or to ensure that unborn babies have the full protection of the law?
In other words, let's imagine a hypothetical time after Roe v Wade is overturned, and different states have different laws regarding abortion. We've got two candidates running for President. Both were state governors previously.
Let's imagine that Candidate A's state kept abortion legal, but while Candidate A was in office, various policy changes, educational efforts, etc., resulted in the rate of abortion in Candidate A's state dropping by 70%. Candidate A does not believe that an unborn child should have full legal protections, but Candidate A wants to replicate the policies of his state around the nation.
Let's imagine that Candidate B's state made abortion illegal. In Candidate B's state, unborn children have full legal protection. But according to the most reliable health statistics available, the number of women in Candidate B's state who had abortions actually went up by 5%. They didn't all get the abortion in-state; some of them drove to adjacent states for their abortions, others went to doctors who did abortions quietly and illegally (and very expensively), some of them took abortifacent herbs or went to back-alley abortionists.
Which of these hypothetical candidates would you vote for? And why?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
If [the Republicans] actually gave social conservatives what they wanted on the issue, they'd end up have little to attract them with in the next election cycle.
Precisely. An unobtainable carrot -- keep the teeming masses voting for you by mouthing all the right words while doing very little about their pet issues. Enough to keep them on the hook, but not enough to actually solve the problems they're interested in.
When Bush Sr. had his personal revelation and about-face about legalized abortion I knew the GOP was playing this one cynically. Opened me eyes, it done did.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
beza
Shipmate
# 10581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The foul polarizing redistricting that we have undergone in recent years has created a political environment where elected officials are better served by half the country hating the other half. So these red-flag issues that never actually do anything other than inflame passions are the grist for reelection of our foul political class.
Absolutely. Which is also why the Republicans, despite 6-8 years of power, some years near absolute, did little or nothing substantial about abortion. If they actually gave social conservatives what they wanted on the issue, they'd end up have little to attract them with in the next election cycle.
Well that isn't strictly true because you can always wield the stick of "the other lot will reverse what we have done", which is exactly what the Conservatives in the UK did over economic policy, tax, defence, trade union reform and (ironically) the EU. Only when Labour convinced the UK's moderate conservatives that they would not reverse Tory policies on many areas did this argument wear thin.
I think the Republicans are cynical in their use of "values" to get their base out, but I don't think their failure to deliver is down to wanting to play the same card again and again, just that money and war take priority. By contrast, the Democrats have failed to fully deliver on many equality issues because they don't want to have to defend them to the electorate, which in its own way is just as cynical.
Posts: 510 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Josephine -
At the end of the day, it is most important to eliminate abortion. Of course, one has to provide proper care for expectant mothers and to stimulate conditions that decrease the demand for abortion. However, the fundamental issue is a respect for all life and the appreciation of the simple basic fact that unborn babies are babies and are human beings entitled to the full protection of the law. Maybe McCain is not going to make abortion his number one issue, but Obama will certainly always have the protection of infanticide, as I would call it, in his mind. The judges that McCain would appoint would be more inclined to overturn Roe and extend full protection to unborn babies. So of course we have to care for children once they are born, but let's make sure they are not killed first.
Firstly I'll refer you to the "30-year low" thread in DH, which shows that the abortion rate is falling in the U.S.A. (sadly, not in the U.K.). That must represent good news.
Now the practical bit: If, after Roe v Wade has been reversed, and it becomes (I presume) an offence across all 50 states to procure, obtain or carry out an abortion, what are you going to do about those who carry out abortions, arrange them and the women who have them? What do Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin propose to do?
Anyone who wants to recriminalise abortion needs to look at the example of Ireland (IIRC the only western country where its still illegal). The Irish case is particularly interesting because Irish sexual mores and attitudes to contraception are now pretty indistinguishable from UK or US ones. In practise the Irish do have abortion, we just have it somewhere else (London). I can't remember the exact statistics but the number of Irishwomen who travel for abortions every year is well into the tens of thousands. I've heard it argued that our abortion rates are comparable with those in other European countries despite the ban. Attempts to stop women travelling abroad or accessing information within Ireland were thrown out by the courts back in the 90s. If Ireland is anything to go by women who live within a few hours drive of the border or can afford to fly will just go abroad, leaving the poor, young and vulnerable to carry the pro-life can.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
At the end of the day, it is most important to eliminate abortion. Of course, one has to provide proper care for expectant mothers and to stimulate conditions that decrease the demand for abortion. However, the fundamental issue is a respect for all life and the appreciation of the simple basic fact that unborn babies are babies and are human beings entitled to the full protection of the law. Maybe McCain is not going to make abortion his number one issue, but Obama will certainly always have the protection of infanticide, as I would call it, in his mind. The judges that McCain would appoint would be more inclined to overturn Roe and extend full protection to unborn babies. So of course we have to care for children once they are born, but let's make sure they are not killed first.
Why in the world would you expect a McCain administration to eliminate abortion or even reduce their numbers? We have 30 years of GOP grandstanding to prove exactly the point already made-- that they have absolutely no intent of doing a darn thing about abortion, since it would throw away their most valuable wedge issue. Even when the GOP controlled the presidency and both houses, they did nothing-- attempted nothing.
History shows us the only significant drop in abortion rates in the US came under a Democratic president with economic policies that favored the poor. If you care about abortion, you should pay attention to those stats. Obama has gone far beyond any other candidate ever, Dem or GOP, in delineating precisely and specifically what he would do to reduce the rate of abortion in the US.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
At the end of the day, it is most important to eliminate abortion. .... However, the fundamental issue is a respect for all life and the appreciation of the simple basic fact that unborn babies are babies and are human beings entitled to the full protection of the law.
Thanks, New Yorker. But you didn't really answer my question. Or, rather, you seem to have given two contradictory answers.
I just want to know which you consider more important, to reduce the rate of abortion as far as is possible this side of the Second Coming? Or to ensure that unborn babies have the full protection of the law?
In other words, let's imagine a hypothetical time after Roe v Wade is overturned, and different states have different laws regarding abortion. We've got two candidates running for President. Both were state governors previously.
Let's imagine that Candidate A's state kept abortion legal, but while Candidate A was in office, various policy changes, educational efforts, etc., resulted in the rate of abortion in Candidate A's state dropping by 70%. Candidate A does not believe that an unborn child should have full legal protections, but Candidate A wants to replicate the policies of his state around the nation.
Let's imagine that Candidate B's state made abortion illegal. In Candidate B's state, unborn children have full legal protection. But according to the most reliable health statistics available, the number of women in Candidate B's state who had abortions actually went up by 5%. They didn't all get the abortion in-state; some of them drove to adjacent states for their abortions, others went to doctors who did abortions quietly and illegally (and very expensively), some of them took abortifacent herbs or went to back-alley abortionists.
Which of these hypothetical candidates would you vote for? And why?
Josephine -
I appreciate your point, but my point is that we are not dealing in some hypothetical situation. We are facing a very real situation with a luke-warm pro-life McCain and a rabid abortion rights Obama. Given the real situation, I and I think any sane person cannot vote for Obama.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I appreciate your point, but my point is that we are not dealing in some hypothetical situation. We are facing a very real situation with a luke-warm pro-life McCain and a rabid abortion rights Obama. Given the real situation, I and I think any sane person cannot vote for Obama.
Then you're saying paying lip service to hating abortion is more important than actually doing something to reduce it. That makes no sense to me, and certainly no sense as a definition of "sane".
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
beza
Shipmate
# 10581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Josephine -
At the end of the day, it is most important to eliminate abortion. Of course, one has to provide proper care for expectant mothers and to stimulate conditions that decrease the demand for abortion. However, the fundamental issue is a respect for all life and the appreciation of the simple basic fact that unborn babies are babies and are human beings entitled to the full protection of the law. Maybe McCain is not going to make abortion his number one issue, but Obama will certainly always have the protection of infanticide, as I would call it, in his mind. The judges that McCain would appoint would be more inclined to overturn Roe and extend full protection to unborn babies. So of course we have to care for children once they are born, but let's make sure they are not killed first.
Firstly I'll refer you to the "30-year low" thread in DH, which shows that the abortion rate is falling in the U.S.A. (sadly, not in the U.K.). That must represent good news.
Now the practical bit: If, after Roe v Wade has been reversed, and it becomes (I presume) an offence across all 50 states to procure, obtain or carry out an abortion, what are you going to do about those who carry out abortions, arrange them and the women who have them? What do Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin propose to do?
Anyone who wants to recriminalise abortion needs to look at the example of Ireland (IIRC the only western country where its still illegal). The Irish case is particularly interesting because Irish sexual mores and attitudes to contraception are now pretty indistinguishable from UK or US ones. In practise the Irish do have abortion, we just have it somewhere else (London). I can't remember the exact statistics but the number of Irishwomen who travel for abortions every year is well into the tens of thousands. I've heard it argued that our abortion rates are comparable with those in other European countries despite the ban. Attempts to stop women travelling abroad or accessing information within Ireland were thrown out by the courts back in the 90s. If Ireland is anything to go by women who live within a few hours drive of the border or can afford to fly will just go abroad, leaving the poor, young and vulnerable to carry the pro-life can.
Living near the border makes no difference since abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland too.
Although the ban may be ineffective for the reasons you outline, there is a difference in many people's minds between the state "sanctioning" something and allowing people do what they want somewhere else.
Posts: 510 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beza:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
If Ireland is anything to go by women who live within a few hours drive of the border or can afford to fly will just go abroad, leaving the poor, young and vulnerable to carry the pro-life can.
Living near the border makes no difference since abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland too.
I believe she meant the US border. The point is that Irish women are willing to go to Britain for abortions, so it's likely that American women will be willing to go to Canada and Mexico for abortions.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I appreciate your point, but my point is that we are not dealing in some hypothetical situation. We are facing a very real situation with a luke-warm pro-life McCain and a rabid abortion rights Obama. Given the real situation, I and I think any sane person cannot vote for Obama.
I gave the hypothetical example because I'm trying to understand what you mean by "pro-life."
It appears that, to you, someone is pro-life if they say that they want abortion to be illegal. Whether they actually do anything to make abortion illegal is irrelevant, and whether the number of abortions goes up or down or stays the same is irrelevant, as long as the person says they want abortion to be illegal.
Which is hardly sane in my book.
Remember the parable of the sons sent out to work in the field? The one said, "No way, Dad, I won't go," but he did. The other said, "Sure thing, Pops," but he didn't. Which one did the will of his father?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Remember the parable of the sons sent out to work in the field? The one said, "No way, Dad, I won't go," but he did. The other said, "Sure thing, Pops," but he didn't. Which one did the will of his father?
Uh, no. We heard this parable not too many Sundays ago. For your comparison to hold up Obama would have to now be working to end abortion. Has he changed his position?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
. . . a rabid abortion rights Obama. Given the real situation, I and I think any sane person cannot vote for Obama.
Given Obama's stated position that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare ," (my italics) and that in the last debate he described himself as not "for abortion," your description of Obama's position strikes me as misleading and inaccurate.
As to the remainder of your quoted remark, I can't discuss it in Purg.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Remember the parable of the sons sent out to work in the field? The one said, "No way, Dad, I won't go," but he did. The other said, "Sure thing, Pops," but he didn't. Which one did the will of his father?
Uh, no. We heard this parable not too many Sundays ago. For your comparison to hold up Obama would have to now be working to end abortion. Has he changed his position?
So you're conceding my point. You don't care about whether the actual number of abortions goes up or down, as long as politicians are willing to say they want abortion to be illegal.
I had suspected that was true of many people in the pro-life camp. But I had thought better of you.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
. . . a rabid abortion rights Obama. Given the real situation, I and I think any sane person cannot vote for Obama.
Given Obama's stated position that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare ," (my italics) and that in the last debate he described himself as not "for abortion," your description of Obama's position strikes me as misleading and inaccurate.
As to the remainder of your quoted remark, I can't discuss it in Purg.
These are politicians, the only sane thing to do is judge them on what they do, not what they say. To me Obama's position just seems to be playing both sides.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
To me Obama's position just seems to be playing both sides.
No it's not: I think it's a logically sound position, and there exist many equivalent statements that politicians routinely make. Here are three examples:
"I personally don't like smoking, but I don't think it should be banned, and I'm going to put in place a large advertising campaign to try and reduce the number of people who smoke."
"I think that owning a second car is bad for the environment, but it shouldn't be banned. However, I'm going to hike taxes on second (and third...) cars to make it as unappealing as possible."
"I think prostitution is morally wrong, but in order to make it safe for those who want to do it, I'm going to put regulation in place to ensure that standards are as high as possible."
I'm sure you could think of others.
[ 21. October 2008, 17:20: Message edited by: davelarge ]
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Remember the parable of the sons sent out to work in the field? The one said, "No way, Dad, I won't go," but he did. The other said, "Sure thing, Pops," but he didn't. Which one did the will of his father?
Uh, no. We heard this parable not too many Sundays ago. For your comparison to hold up Obama would have to now be working to end abortion. Has he changed his position?
So you're conceding my point. You don't care about whether the actual number of abortions goes up or down, as long as politicians are willing to say they want abortion to be illegal.
I had suspected that was true of many people in the pro-life camp. But I had thought better of you.
Josephine -
Please, continue to think the best of me - I certainly think the best of you! Although I think you're supporting the wrong candidate.
As for the question you raise, my position is that I want abortions to be not only rare, but non-existent. I know that may be Utopian, but there it is. In the meantime, I want to decrease the number of abortions; however, I cannot lose sight of the final goal - i.e, no abortions. Since I cannot lose sight of that goal I cannot support Obama. McCain may only pay lip service, but Obama doesn't even do that!
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
New Yorker, you seem to have avoided commenting on all the posts about it before, so I'll bring it up again. Given that Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Ceausescu's Romania (and many others, but let's stick with these three for now) were all rabidly anti-abortion, would those be your choice of government leaders given the option?
Or would you prefer a government that was less anti-abortion, but actually gave a dman about human rights?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
On a different note, what effect will Obama's suspension of his campaign to visit his ill grandmother make? Will it help or hinder? It is certainly not a stunt, as he would not risk the loss of campaigning at this stage unless it was important.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
From over here, European side of the pond, now that Colin Powell has endorsed Obbama, Pallin has turned out to be a neocon plant and the reps could loose the senate the house and the white house, is it possible that the GOP may split.
Are we seeing the beginning of the end of a 2 party system?
I know American politics isn't as party orientated as our system but if candidates from the other side are attracting support from your party its usually a sign of huge internal devision.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
