All Comments (15)

I think to find out what people truly think about abortion, you have to discuss the 4 groups of voters. Republicans have the Social Conservatives and the Classical Liberals. Democrats have the Liberal Activists and the Reform Liberals.

The Reform Liberals and the Social Conservatives are often the ones that worry about the common good. They are the ones who are more likely to involve themselves in volunteer work, and donate more of their money as well. They also are more approving of government assistance to the less fortunate.

The Liberal Activists are the ones that concern themselves with euthanasia, abortion, environmentalism and sexual liberality. The libertarians concern themselves with property rights, low taxes, deregulation.

I group them together this way because largely Liberal Activists are wealthy enough and derive income from sources that don't really depend on economics. Teachers, Bureaucrats, wage earning skilled professionals. The libertarians who believe in free market capitalism and social Darwinism.

Now here is the kicker. To the liberal activists, the libertarians are the favourable swing votes who the party could make room for in the big tent of the democratic party. It is the social conservatives who are the scum. This is because the libertarians don't really give a damn about sexuality, the sick, or the unborn.

So for all the people out here who say "Republicans don't give a damn about the poor" you should keep in mind that those Republicans are the ones that the Democrats court first to win the presidential election. They are all together in one toxic stew of selfishness, concerned with their property and their lifestyles and not with the common good.

For abortion, I will simply say this. The human foetus is alive because cells divide and it grows. The human foetus does not change species as it develops. Therefore it is alive and human. Let's not let superstition cloud things.

The simple fact of the matter is that people can generally convince themselves that some human life is not valuable. The modern humanism of activist liberals and libertarians is a monstrous corruption of humanism which says that human life is valuable when it is at its peak in health and intellectual power.

True humanism holds that the life the poor, the suffering, the insane, the imprisoned, and the vulnerable is to be treasured, consoled and helped.

So what needs to happen is that the Reform Liberals and the Social Conservatives need to jettison their poisonous halves and form a coalition. Unfortunately, due to the Red and Blue factionalism the beliefs of these factions have been poisoned by their political partners. They would have a much more coherent, logical, and positive party platform if they worked together.

Sullivan arena home

Sullivan arena home

"Repbulicans are strongly against all social problems that are needed to support this would be babies."

Load of crap that statement. Smelly too.

Debates about abotion rights seem to start at third (instead of first) base these days. They are shaped by marketing language instead of exploring ideas.
It just amazes me how the term 'pro-life' slipped into common parlance. Is there a pro-death group standing in the wings?
Now we have the 'least among us' to consider. Apparently we are doing so without ever having discussed when, exactly, a fertized egg becomes one of "us"

Deciding when life begins and ends is an extemely complex question scientifically and ethically.
Making the decsision by simple declaration destroys our ability to deal with consequent issues, like abortion and end-of-life decisions,
in a rational way.
The jumping to third base appraoch also obliterates consideration for others among 'us'.
What about the fate of the unwanted children among 'us', for example? Life isn't just something that happens between conception and birth.

Life that can't be viewed in a few separate slides. It is a continuum, consiting of interconnecting parts. Abortion can never be understood or properly disucssed if it's separated from the rest of the human life experience.

To be 'pro-life' is a handy catch phrase. It doesn't even begin to embrace life in its entirety.

Let's go back to first base and talk about life, all of life, then.

Just as "pro-abortion" should not be used synonymously with "pro-choice", so "pro-life" should not be considered indicative of a universal concern about life.
Most of those who are most vociferously "pro-life" are also pro-preemptive war, pro-torture, pro-detention without recourse, pro-hand gun and assault weapon proliferation, pro-unfettered greed, and pro-selfishness.
A complete list of these so-called "pro-lifers" would fill this page, but, without naming names, one need only to look to most conservative church leaders, the Bush Administration, and their Republican rubber-stampers in Congress.

To be "pro-life", one would have to be against the death penalty, war and any dangerous pastime. Why don't the anti-abortion folks simply call themselves "anti-abortion", to properly describe themselves?

Being Pro-CHOICE is not the same as being pro-ABORTION. It's a slander that's been accepted and perpetuated since Roe v. Wade gave women the right to their own bodies. Be that as it may, I believe that MOST Americans would be willing to find a middle ground and my suggestion would be -

1st trimester - abortion on demand.

2nd trimester - abortion would be avialable only if the woman's health is endangered (including her mental stability)

3rd trimester - abortion would be legal ONLY in instances where the womans LIFE is at risk.

I would think that these guidelines would be acceptable to most reasonable people. It does take into consideration the issue of a woman's right to choose during the first trimester but accedes a certain amount of her autonomy in the second and third trimesters, for the sake of societal cohesion.

Politicians argue about what they know nothing of.

America has turned their backs on American foster children and orphans.

America does not care about unwanted children and they want American's to have more unwanted children, they just want to tell other people what to do.

My experience, I am an adult orphan grown up in America with the truth.

Patrick

It would be nice to get away from calling the pro choice position 'Pro Abortion'. Being 'pro abortion' asserts that every conception should be terminated and that's repugnant.

Choosing to end a pregnancy is complicated and personal. It would be equally nice to take the politics out of it.

A reasonable stance is abortion on demand up to the third trimester. Thereafter, only if a serious developmental defect is detected, or a threat to the mother's life.
To consider that a clump of cells with no functioning brain is anything more than a POTENTIAL human being (as is an unfertilized egg), and has a soul is absolute nonsense!

The Republicans have no interest in outlawing abortion. It is a key wedge issue that they trot out every 4 years to convince the masses to vote against their own interests.

Mark you should support Planned Parenthood more, they prevent more abortions than any other group. Start advocating for the following and I guarantee a precipitous drop in abortions in the USA:

1. Make contraception more easily available
2. Give young people better sex education
3. Get men to take responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
4. Create new birth control methods
5. make the USA friendlier to young peole

"The leaders of NARAL and Planned Parenthood endorse violence as a way to achieve their ends."

Say what???? I have never, ever seen a call from NARAL or PP to espouse violence. Period. In fact, when they provide escort services for women seeking abortions, they are specifically instructed NOT to engage the protesters, no matter how ugly or violent they get. Show me ONE instance of NARAL or PP calling for a violent protest. ONE INSTANCE. Whereas I could name several instances of anti-abortion violence - and this would be after we ruled out Eric Rudolph.

Mark - everything that you say about the Democrats and the "pro-life" position can be said about Republicans and the "pro-choice" position. When was the last time that a pro-choice Republican spoke at the national convention about issues of choice. (I know that Rudi Guiliani spoke in 2004, but it was not about abortion rights.) What would happen if Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe gave a speech in prime time about protecting a woman's right to choose? They'd probably be booed off the stage.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama have stated that the main goal should be reducing the number of abortions in America. It should be safe, legal, and rare.

The main question is not "should abortion be legal", but "does the Government have a compelling interest in ensuring that all pregnancies result in a successful birth?" If so, how far are the American taxpayers willing to go to ensure that all births are brought to term and result in a healthy child? Are pro-life politicians willing to raise taxes to provide women with pre-natal care? Are they willing to raise taxes to ensure that the children are taken care of once they are born, by expanding SCHIP, AFDC, Head Start, etc.? And also, if the Government is willing to make abortion illegal once again, what will be the punishment for a woman who aborts? Or the doctor who performs the procedure? If you want a good example of what this would be like, look at Guatemala or El Salvador.

The whole debate is flawed. Many in right wing have substantially more resources and could go elsewhere to get an abortion for a young daughter just starting out in life. John McCain said himself back in 2000 that if his young daughter were to get pregnant they would all sit down and have a family meeting and it would ultimately be his daughter's decision. Whoops, McCain must have been tired at the time because he just answered truthfully. He against abortion for other people but would give his daughter a pass. Nuff said on that issue.

Here's another problem. Repbulicans are strongly against all social problems that are needed to support this would be babies. Can't have it both ways but of course conservatives are preach idealism on this issue while advocating true conservatism on social fiscal matters. The two don't mix.