We may see a shift in the US political landscape.

[Guest]

(Please dont bother rearguing the merits and demerits of Abotion Rights themselves.)

A key portion of the Republican base only cares far more about 2 "social" issues than than about economic issue stances - abortions and guns. Of a more secondary concern they do see the deficiet as bad but they arent all that excited which economic plan is used to attain fiscal responsibility.

This group obviously wasnt enough to get Bush elected, but there is no way he would have been elected with out them. Many people voted for him mainly because they only cared about packing the court to change abortion laws.

I suspect they may now finnaly realize the Republicans(and Democrats)have been playing them.
Abortion arguing has become a large industry itself. An industry that doesnt want to die itself and one that make huge abounts of money for both parties.



Anyway it may be a bit fanicful to think this, but imagine how great it would be if other important but less emotional issues(I know that event issues like war and terrorism DO effect elections) actually effected elections.

[Drasca]

Hence, the arguement to eliminate lawyers begins...

[Doc]

The abortion issue is a decoy. A "lookie here boy!" tactic. While the public and the media are busy paying attention to the ultimate distraction, other forces will be at work in future quaqmires like Iran or maybe Korea II.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

[Occhidiangela]

I suspect they may now finnaly realize the Republicans(and Democrats)have been playing them.  Abortion arguing has become a large industry itself. An industry that doesnt want to die itself and one that make huge abounts of money for both parties. Anyway it may be a bit fanicful to think this, but imagine how great it would be if other important but less emotional issues(I know that event issues like war and terrorism DO effect elections) actually effected elections.
[right][snapback]90970[/snapback][/right]

Yes indeed, the Dems and Reps have been milking rumors, shibolleths, and ideology for some time. The sexual revolution's chickens come home to roost, yet again.

As far back as the Reagan years, I was appalled by how the Republican Party, and other Conservatives who could not find ommon cause with Democrats, allowed the issue of abortion to become a central political issue, particularly at the national level.

I have always felt it belonged at the state level.

One problem with banning abortion, ironically enough, is that it induces big government, which Conservatives have generally been against. (What the current Republicans have been doing is another thing entirely.)

Thanks to the imperfection of humans, both male and female, prohibition of abortion increases the need for an entire bureaucracy to exist, CPS. Children born to indifferent and incompetent parents, single or otherwise, become functional wards of the state. This gives CPS a reason to exist, and to perpetuate its own existence. Children are the responsibility of parents, and if our society is to dig itself out of its current mess, the empowerment of parents is where the resources should be expended. The decision to become a parent needs to be underetaken soberly. Leave the romance out of it, it's a commitment like nothing else.

The abuses that CPS inflicts on families is an intrusion of the State (capital letter) into the family and the Citizen. Such a tool is not designed for strengthening the family, the core social unit of a healthy society, it is a tool aimed at replacing parents, and as it has turned out particularly fathers, with the State.

We fought a long war against the supremacy of the State over the Citizen, called the Cold War. While doing so, American society was systematically infiltrated at home and betrayed by any number of our own, misguided citizens and political leaders.

The roots of abortion becoming a central political issue, rather than being left to states and individuals to decide for themselves, is in my opinion a fusion of Socialism, Statism, and Feminism gone astray from its roots. (Empowerment. PS: I am Pro Choice.) The choice to assign enemy status to the male as a core ideological assumption is a negative aim, but it continues to this day in some feminist circles, and certainly in our courts in custody cases.

The variously successful efforts to replace the imperfect human, male, with a presumably less fallible "State Institution" to "empower" the imperfect human, female, fundamentally creates more time spent in court, empowerment of the State and thus disempowerment of individuals, both male and female, and more resources going to lawyers who are empowered to prey on imperfect humans, male and female, for profit.

Abortion: as a political issue, I see it as a red herring, a bit of misdirection masking the core sickness our society has developed for nearly two generations, the attempt to replace the family with the State.

I find William Bennet's recent remarks (for which he is catching considerable heat) immensely funny for all the wrong reasons. I am laughing at him for his clumsy fall into the trap of discussing hypotheticals in a society that censors open debate and discussion. Until we can openly and objectively discuss the scabs we as a society keep picking at the edges of, the undercurrents of mistrust and mutual aversion will keep on flowing.

To answer Drasca: Shakespeare's comment about lawyers is not the appropriate line in this conversation. A line from Twelfth Night is more appropos, with a twist, IMO.

"Many's the good hanging prevented a bad marriage" is the original line.

My twist on it, which will doubtless offend all and sundry, is:

"Many's the good abortion prevented the birth of another damned fool."

It's a pity we can't make abortion retroactive now and again . . . so be it.

Occhi

[Minionman]

Abortion arguing has become a large industry itself. An industry that doesnt want to die itself and one that make huge abounts of money for both parties.
Anyway it may be a bit fanicful to think this, but imagine how great it would be if other important but less emotional issues(I know that event issues like war and terrorism DO effect elections) actually effected elections.
[right][snapback]90970[/snapback][/right]

No kidding.


I wonder what would happen if next few elections no one was ever allowed to say anything about abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, or any other such issue. Would certainly leaave a lot of free time to fill up with whatever the next big 2 side screamer of an issue is.

[Guest]

Huh?


Abortion is an issue that a core group of people vote for on each side.
Because it inspires such loyalty from those voters its percieved in both parties interest that the issue remains as is.


Stop trollingt the conspiricy theories already.

[Guest]

Gay marriage isnt quite the same. Namely because there are actual laws being made about it catering to both sides.

Abortion law on the other hand has been rather static for 20 years yet still dominates Presidential elections.

[Nystul]

Social conservatism goes well beyond abortion and gun control. Such people will not go back to the Democratic Party; it will have to come back to them. You've said so yourself in previous posts, and you are kidding yourself if you believe anything has changed in the last 11 months.

Don't get me wrong, though. The "majority" in this country is hardly a lock, and with things not exactly going smoothly the Democrats could have a fairly successful election if any of their strategists have half a brain. But if they are going to run on an economic agenda, they need to have focus on that agenda and they need to be able to communicate effectively how they would make things better, and they are going to need to be able to account for their plans financially without proposing a raise in taxes....

[kandrathe]

A key portion of the Republican base only cares far more about 2 "social" issues than than about economic issue stances

Let me just start off by disputing this first part as a gross over-generalization. I will qualify first by stating that I'm neither Republican, nor Democrat so hopefully a little more objective. Groups can be myopic with certain issues, but individuals have detailed, sometimes intelligent, and varied opinions no matter what their flavor. I know and discuss politics with thousands of people and I've found very very few that are so narrowly focused. A single issue might be a reason to prefer choosing a "George Bush" over an "Arlen Spectre", but again, very very few would choose an anti-abortion David Duke, over a Pro-choice Arlen Spectre. The press keeps trying to find that elusive "they" to schedule an interview, but there is no organized pro-gun, anti-abortion, Republican "they" out there. Just millions of people with millions of opinions.

There are many continuum's of political thought, not black and white divides. For instance, to what degree should the government be an instrument in furthering social progress? There are countless similiar questions in which each of us assess what we believe the governments role (local, State, Federal) should be to best serve it's purpose.

How about job growth, international relations, military force, civil protection, infrastructure development, education, protecting the environment, investment in science and technology? I'm in the camp that generally believes the Federal government should do the minimum necessary to fulfill it's constitutional mandate.

P.S. And, for Occhi; It is a tad unfair to condemn a child to death for having stupid parents. Hang the fools, not their families.

[Any1]

I know and discuss politics with thousands of people and I've found very very few that are so narrowly focused. 
[right][snapback]91025[/snapback][/right]

I haven't talked to "thousands" of people, but my experience has been just the opposite. Most people are very myopic when it comes to issues that their elected officials should care about.

I'm in the camp that generally believes the Federal government should do the minimum necessary to fulfill it's constitutional mandate.
[right][snapback]91025[/snapback][/right]

Agreed.

P.S.  And, for Occhi;  It is a tad unfair to condemn a child to death for having stupid parents.  Hang the fools, not their families.
[right][snapback]91025[/snapback][/right]

Some might argue that a first trimester fetus isn't really a "child" yet.

[kandrathe]

I'm sorry your experiences were so shallow.

For many years I fancied myself more of a Republican, and was pretty involved in local and state caucases. I was even an alternate one year to represent my State at the RNC. I always resented that very first litmus test question, "What is your stance on abortion?" Not that they asked it, but that it was the FIRST question. But... The local and state republican caucus is not representative of *all* republican opinion in my state, and certainly not representative of a growing political majority of fiscal conservative, limited government, personal liberty individuals I have met. And, the other part is that as a part of my job, I get the opportunity to do projects for all levels of government and frequently indirectly rub shoulders with the politically famous and notorius.

...
Some might argue that a first trimester fetus isn't really a "child" yet.
[right][snapback]91033[/snapback][/right]

Ah, the "crux" of the issue. I'll abide by Ghostiger's wish not to devolve into a debate of substance. But, in my opinion Congress's shirked role for all these years has been to clarify in Constitutional law when a person becomes a person, and who gets what rights when. That is a proper role for the Senate and House debate, and very important to clarify before we set out into the new worlds of cybernetics, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering. I'm not in the "Every sperm is sacred" camp, but I know as a father of two boys that a baby is a fully developed organism very early in pregnancy. But, who is qualified to decide when it is a lump of excess tissue, and when it is a new human life to be protected by law? Here in farm country, we don't legislate "corn picking" day. We let the farmers decide when it's ripe. Technically, I would expect some developmental factors to be determinents such as a beating heart or brain activity.

Specifically to Occhi's (albeit tongue in cheek) statement... It is a fallacious in my opinion, because you could just as easily extend execution of any child then beyond birth. If poor stupid people raise social refuse for children and killing them in the womb is a solution, then why not kill them at 2 or 3 years of age? At any age? I ask this rhetorically, to allow you to ponder the role of law in society, and again, not to engage in any debate of substance on the issue of abortion.

The law of the land is that the woman gets to choose, right or wrong, what happens to that child while it is inside her. If you outlaw 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion then women will still seek refuge in places that will allow them. If you write into law any form of proscribed activity, there will be outlaw havens that allow it. The decisions here that Congress and our societies MUST make are to me the heart of defining the morality of our society. I am a libertarian, not an anarchist so I believe the government has a role in making a moral coda of laws that enable a harmonius society. This moral compass has guided humanity in making decisions about slavery, womens sufferage, civil rights, torture, and any plethora of freedoms all of us take for granted.

[Chaerophon]

I'm in the camp that generally believes the Federal government should do the minimum necessary to fulfill it's constitutional mandate.

Just a quick point: who thinks otherwise? Do you really believe that welfare liberals advocate their agenda simply because they like government? No, they, too, feel that the normative elements of the constitution demand that the government take a certain role in the welfare of the citizenry.

[Any1]

I'm sorry your experiences were so shallow. 
[right][snapback]91039[/snapback][/right]

I haven't had meaningful one on one conversations with "thousands" of people in my whole life (almost 40), maybe hundreds. I believe my experience is more typical, not necessarily "shallow".

I am a libertarian, not an anarchist so I believe the government has a role in making a moral coda of laws that enable a harmonius society.  This moral compass has guided humanity in making decisions about slavery, womens sufferage, civil rights, torture, and any plethora of freedoms all of us take for granted.
[right][snapback]91039[/snapback][/right]

We completely differ on this point. By allowing the legislation of morality, we open the door for ideologues to hijack our government under its banner. Historically, communitarianism is the arch-enemy of personal liberty.

[Nystul]

By allowing the legislation of morality, we open the door for ideologues to hijack our government under its banner.  Historically, communitarianism is the arch-enemy of personal liberty.
[right][snapback]91047[/snapback][/right]

So then, you do not believe criminal law should exist? Or you do not believe government should exist in general? If a government says it is not OK to kill someone the day after child birth, but it is OK to kill them the day before, is that not just as much a moral judgment as if they set the date to 2 years after birth, or the day after conception? What if it's an immigrant instead of a citizen? What if it's a frog instead of a human being? If government is to be able to protect individual liberties, there must be a concensus on something as fundamental as what qualifies someone as an individual to be protected. And that is known as a moral judgment.

[Any1]

So then, you do not believe criminal law should exist?  Or you do not believe government should exist in general?  If a government says it is not OK to kill someone the day after child birth, but it is OK to kill them the day before, is that not just as much a moral judgment as if they set the date to 2 years after birth, or the day after conception?  What if it's an immigrant instead of a citizen?  What if it's a frog instead of a human being?  If government is to be able to protect individual liberties, there must be a concensus on something as fundamental as what qualifies someone as an individual to be protected.  And that is known as a moral judgment.
[right][snapback]91051[/snapback][/right]

Criminal law has nothing to do with morality.

[kandrathe]

...

By allowing the legislation of morality, we open the door for ideologues to hijack our government under its banner.  Historically, communitarianism is the arch-enemy of personal liberty.
[right][snapback]91047[/snapback][/right]

Certainly slippery slopes on either side of enforcing morality or providing no moral compass at all. Too much moral legislation and you condemn the entirity of society, ala Prohibition. However, there is a boundary which we've discussed in the Lounge before on the boundary of personal rights and their extensions onto the rights of others. For me, I see society as a compromise of expectations and norms -- they certainly drift over time, but generally we can agree on particular offenses that should be within the mandate of the state to prohibit, especially clear when they directly interfere with another person, or persons property. We've hashed over topics from prostitution, drugs, sexuality, and in general with these grey area rights I'm more open minded to try to understand both sides of balancing personal freedoms and societal harms. We talk in the world of abstracts, but we live in the world of realities. I might believe and hold the virtue that each able bodied person must stand on their own and struggle to make it in this society, but then I am also humane and would not desire to see poor people freezing or starving to death in our ghetto's. Action is required, and we might disagree on the methods of housing, clothing and feeding people, but we might all agree that it needs to be done.

So as to not de-rail the topic at hand as it pertains to my view of legislating morality in this case we are talking about an act which may or may not curtail an individuals rights. What is nebulous is whether a fetus is a lump of tissue, or if it is an individual.

[Any1]

Certainly slippery slopes on either side of enforcing morality or providing no moral compass at all.  Too much moral legislation and you condemn the entirity of society, ala Prohibition. 
[right][snapback]91054[/snapback][/right]

I agree for most parts. I'm not saying that there is no room in society for morality, far from it. I'm just saying is should not necessarily be legislated by the federal government, and hence be fodder for national politics. If guidelines need to be set for acceptable societal behavior they should probably be set as close to the individual communities as possible (i.e. cities and states). Even in such instances my approach would be as an absolute minimalist, if any.

As far as the whole "when is a person a person" debate goes, we're not going to shed any more light on it here. It's all been said many times before, ad nauseum. :blink:

[Occhidiangela]

If a government says it is not OK to kill someone the day after child birth, but it is OK to kill them the day before, is that not just as much a moral judgment as if they set the date to 2 years after birth, or the day after conception? 

I will not go down that rathole of your straw man, nor your false dillemma, per the spirit of the opening post. PM me if you wish. :)

What if it's an immigrant instead of a citizen?

If said immigrant is crossing our borders illegally, they should be shot at the border as they attempt to cross. If found illegally in the country, deported within 72 hours to home country, or executed. If entering legally, said "life or death sentence" is a matter of due process of law as it is for any citizen, and as such is a non question within the framework of your rhetorical.

What if it's a frog instead of a human being? 

Kill it, cut off the legs, serve the legs at French restaurant; charge $19.95, even though the chicken wings are $9.95 . . . and they taste alike. ;)

If government is to be able to protect individual liberties, there must be a concensus on something as fundamental as what qualifies someone as an individual to be protected.  And that is known as a moral judgment.

[right][snapback]91051[/snapback][/right]

I understand your usage, and I'll suggest that such is known as a legal definition. I tend to feel that "the law" is all too frequently amoral, while others simply feel that "the law is a ass." (sic)

Occhi

[Guest]

Actually read before you quote from now on ok?

I didnt over generalize - I said a "key portion". In closely divided US politics 10% is more than enough to be "key". I really dont know if the number is closer to 5% or 40%, I just know its considered vital group of voters by Carl Rove types. If I had meant a larger number I would have said so.
You should actually pay attention to the words I use before disputing them.

I specifically said these people cared more about abortion than economic issues.
You inserting racism was inteelctually dishonest - for shame.


Also if you dont belive there is core group fanatical against abortion I suggest you are simply uninformed. It centered in Christian radio and evangelical/babtistic churches. Please dont argue the sematic of church groups either - what ever you choose to call them they exist.



And BTW I am neither Republican or Democrat either, not that their is much signifigance to that in this case.

[Guest]

Insightful comment.

Although there are some people on both sides of the issue who take a "better safe than sorry" approach and for fear of a slippery slope later on advocate either wasteful spending or a lack of obviously needed spending.