Abortion gambit

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by sch2383, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You wanna buy a new White Pointy Hat? We're having a big sale late Friday night at the burning!!!
  2. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Hell, he could have Billy, Franklin, and Otto Graham all whispering the answers in his ear, and he'd still come up with "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and "The Lord is a shoving leopard."
  3. Bob Morocco

    Bob Morocco Member+

    Aug 11, 2003
    Billings, MT
    I think they're called the constitutional party and right now our house is split 50-49 with one still to be decided because the constitutional party guy won by two votes but two people were barred from voting who shouldn't have been and they're going to vote for the Democrat, the courts will decide.

    If there are state ballot initiatives to ban abortion in the midterm elections then candidates will have to take sides, or be called on it, and while the far right will be energized the left and center will be too. If Democrats brought up a constitutional ban on abortion for the sake of debate would far right republicans turn on their base and squash debate, or go with their "morals"? If they prevent debate that could be used against them to weaken their base. If it goes anywhere the majority of Americans who oppose it would come out against the Republicans. Using the GOP's incredible hypocracy or their unpopular "moral" beliefs against them makes sense.
  4. Pauncho

    Pauncho Member+

    Mar 2, 1999
    Bexley, Ohio
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Dubbyah got four more years, and only one Supreme Court Justice is under 65. Griswold v. Connecticut, the foundation of Roe v.Wade, is on life support. When it goes, the Republicans are in a lot of trouble unless they can shift focus. They want the social right riled up about the 20 states where abortion is still safe and legal (the practical meaning of which is abortion is only unavailable to poor women in red states), rather than suburban soccer moms who didn't get riled up about abortion rights being taken away as long as it was just theory and not right now, right here. The way to keep the issue alive alive and in their court is a doomed drive for a Constitutional amendment to prevent blue states from permitting abortions. As long as the hard social right is fighting for something they want but can't have, they will stay focused on electing Rs, instead of noticing the Rs don't really represent them on economic issues.
  5. Section106

    Section106 Member

    May 1, 2003
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't know all the ins and outs of this issue, or entirely understand the legalese but I think it is a great idea for the Dems to start firing on the Reeps over their "Morals".

    I watched Hardball the other night, the "Passion of the Right" episode where Chris had a right-winger from the Southern Baptist Church, the head of a group fighting poverty in America, and John Meacham from Newsweek on to discuss Bush and the possibiltiy of banning abortions. The right-wing Southern Baptist wanted to talk in fiery rhetoric about how abortions were an abomination and how Bush was leading the fight to stop all abortion in America because of his belief in the "culture of life". The no-poverty guy wanted to talk in real terms about the causes of and the remedies for abortion. Meachum didn't add much.

    The no-poverty guy was the one that actually made sense. Poverty is a cause of many of our social ills and, according to no-poverty guy, abortion is one consequence. He stated that when there are fewer poor in America there are fewer abortions. I read somewhere that there were fewer abortions under Bill Clinton than there are now under GWB because of the increase in poverty. This example is striking. To me this means that results matter more than words, or to put it in another way, "Faith without works is dead".

    I think it not only ethically necessary but politically prudent to engage this country in a real debate about the consequences of the Reep's economic policies. Dems need to show the real link between more poverty in America under GWB and the rise in abortions. It is my opinion that most of these so-called moral value voters are really more concerned with paying fewer taxes then they are with moral values. I know plenty of people who talk a good game but really vote Reep because they want to be rich and they think voting Reep is going to get them there.

    For the good of the country I think that we Dems should engage the Reeps in real debate and offer real solutions. For example, have the right-to-lifers offered any real alternatives to abortion? I haven't heard any. Isn't sex education high on their list of no-no's? Why don't we talk about social programs that seek to support would-be single mothers and offer real economic help or a national adoption initiative that provides free medical care and economic support to any women that signs up? How many right-to-lifers have adopted babies instead of letting them be aborted? If this is such an abomination that must be eradicated then surely we as a nation can agree to a solution that protects the freedoms offered by our Constitution while protecting the sanctity of life. I doubt any Reep out there would want to actually spend tax money on helping pregnant women in trouble. Most are too busy praying loudly from the street corners to actually help someone in a crisis. Dems should get back to fighting the good fight to make our society and world a better place and stop letting the Reeps frame every argument. We need to show this nation in tangible ways what moral values really are.

Share This Page