GOP platform calls for constitutional abortion ban

[Chica Yeyé 41]

The Republican party of "less government" only wants less government intrusion when it comes to their wallets and guns. When it comes to morals, no one gets more intruding than them. Ironically, no one also gets more hypocritical than them.

Brother SRVT is ---as Dean says---- of right thinking.

[dalegg 143]

I think there is a part of the party that would like a lesser emphasis on issues of abortion and gay marriage. But on the other hand, there is a part of the party who support the Republican party only because of their positions on social issues.

Yeah, it's largely a regional split. Northeastern and Left Coast Republicans tend to be socially liberal (relatively speaking) while more fiscally conservative. It's the GOP in the south that ruins the party, quite frankly.

That's the part of the party who are actually libertarian but too afraid to vote libertarian for fear that a vote against Republicans is a vote for Democrats. We're not as brave as the Green Party.

[joelunchbox 0]

Maybe someone could explain to me how the party of less government in our lives, wants government in the middle of our personal lives?

Hypocrites. What do they do for people who see abortion as their only option? My guess is that they throw them a dollar out of the window of their Hummer as they wait for the light to change.

[jundp 191]

I think there is a part of the party that would like a lesser emphasis on issues of abortion and gay marriage. But on the other hand, there is a part of the party who support the Republican party only because of their positions on social issues.

Yeah, it's largely a regional split. Northeastern and Left Coast Republicans tend to be socially liberal (relatively speaking) while more fiscally conservative. It's the GOP in the south that ruins the party, quite frankly.

That's the part of the party who are actually libertarian but too afraid to vote libertarian for fear that a vote against Republicans is a vote for Democrats. We're not as brave as the Green Party.

Dalegg, I had to read this three times to grasp it Clearly I haven't had enough coffee!

I would say by this definition I fall more into the Republican category as a West Coaster. Or a conservative Democrat. I've always had a hard time pinpointing exactly which party I belong to because my values don't mesh well with either Dem or Republican.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I would say by this definition I fall more into the Republican category as a West Coaster.

[HAL 9000 96]

If we really stick to literal translations of what the Party Platforms say in writing, most of us couldn't be pinned down as being more favorable to one party or the other. Now when people get into the mix in implementing these platforms is when more practical definitions arise.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Honestly I am annoyed by the fact that people think that I think the only reason murder or theft is wrong here is because of the bible. Which is not what I said at all.

Well I think where the religion creeps into your argument is that you appear to be saying that abortion is a black and white issue and more or less indistinguishable premeditated murder, theft or robbery.

It scarcely needs to be pointed out that a lot of the time murder isn't "murder" - hence we have all manner of laws (and crimes) pertaining to the destruction of human life - whether it be premedidated murder, manslaughter, accidental death, temporary insanity or what have you...

Murder and theft are wrong, not simply because the Bible says so - but because those acts have a tangibly destabilizing effect on society, and its in society's ultimate self-interest to seek redress for offences against the common good.

Abortion is a separate issue because it asks different questions - the ethical issues involved are also different.

[chri'stina 190]

Maybe someone could explain to me how the party of less government in our lives, wants government in the middle of our personal lives?

Hypocrites. What do they do for people who see abortion as their only option? My guess is that they throw them a dollar out of the window of their Hummer as they wait for the light to change.

I'll try to explain why they may want to do that...

They believe the unborn baby deserves rights irregardless of whether it can survive on it's own outside the womb, it's still considered a separate person even if it relies on the mother's body for growing. So it becomes an issue of human rights. And sometimes even if someone doesn't want someone to tell them not to do something, they can't do it because it violates human rights.

I bet people were saying the same thing to Lincoln when he wanted to end slavery, he was getting too involved in their lives.

When I said earlier that I can understand more in the case of a mother who might die if she doesn't abort(that is very rare), I mean I can understand the decision being made but that doesn't mean I don't think it's killing that life. I know one life is being ended for another to go on, but it wouldn't just be a piece of the mother's body that was gotten rid of. I am not going to harshly judge that b/c I can't imagine that situation. But to me, it's one life that is ending and one is being chosen over another.

[HAL 9000 96]

Maybe someone could explain to me how the party of less government in our lives, wants government in the middle of our personal lives?

Hypocrites. What do they do for people who see abortion as their only option? My guess is that they throw them a dollar out of the window of their Hummer as they wait for the light to change.

I'll try to explain why they may want to do that...

They believe the unborn baby deserves rights irregardless of whether it can survive on it's own outside the womb, it's still considered a separate person even if it relies on the mother's body for growing. So it becomes an issue of human rights. And sometimes even if someone doesn't want someone to tell them not to do something, they can't do it because it violates human rights.

I bet people were saying the same thing to Lincoln when he wanted to end slavery, he was getting too involved in their lives.

When I said earlier that I can understand more in the case of a mother who might die if she doesn't abort(that is very rare), I mean I can understand the decision being made but that doesn't mean I don't think it's killing that life. I know one life is being ended for another to go on, but it wouldn't just be a piece of the mother's body that was gotten rid of. I am not going to harshly judge that b/c I can't imagine that situation. But to me, it's one life that is ending and one is being chosen over another.

Therein lies yet another misconception: an unborn baby is by definition only considered a baby in the sense a "postnatal baby is a baby" when biologically viable- survivability. Before that its considered a fetus and previous to that, an embryo.

Using slippery slopes is not a good way of equating a perspective to fact.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I just can't fathom the idea of a woman being forced to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want - with only "you should have thought of that before" as comfort.

It does raise other questions as well - whether there will be a criminal investigation if a woman miscarries (if someone suspects she didn't want the child), or if having an abortion will become a jailable offence for the woman.

Certainly I don't think making the practice illegal will get rid of the demand, so clearly some sort of punishment would have to be foisted on those people who go through with it...

Edited August 27, 2008 by Number 6

[HAL 9000 96]

I just can't fathom the idea of a woman being forced to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want - with only "you should have thought of that before" as comfort.

It does raise other questions as well - whether there will be a criminal investigation if a woman miscarries (if someone suspects she didn't want the child), or if having an abortion will become a jailable offence for the woman.

Certainly I don't think making the practice illegal will get rid of the demand, so clearly some sort of punishment would have to be foisted on those people who go through with it...

On the flipside there's the economical impact of decreased funds available for those practitioners currently available to perform the procedure as well as a decrease in spending in the USA due to women traveling outside the country to get the procedures done safely.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I just can't fathom the idea of a woman being forced to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want - with only "you should have thought of that before" as comfort.

It does raise other questions as well - whether there will be a criminal investigation if a woman miscarries (if someone suspects she didn't want the child), or if having an abortion will become a jailable offence for the woman.

Certainly I don't think making the practice illegal will get rid of the demand, so clearly some sort of punishment would have to be foisted on those people who go through with it...

On the flipside there's the economical impact of decreased funds available for those practitioners currently available to perform the procedure as well as a decrease in spending in the USA due to women traveling outside the country to get the procedures done safely.

I think there have been test cases in Ireland where the government has actually sought to prevent a woman from being able to travel to the UK so that she can have an abortion. They lost, I believe, but its a dodgy precedent - to be sure.

I don't really think the economic argument has much merit - given that the 'travel' option would only really be open to adults. Young (teenage) girls (who I suspect make up a big percentage of those seeking abortions) wouldn't have that option.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Number 6

[chri'stina 190]

Maybe someone could explain to me how the party of less government in our lives, wants government in the middle of our personal lives?

Hypocrites. What do they do for people who see abortion as their only option? My guess is that they throw them a dollar out of the window of their Hummer as they wait for the light to change.

I'll try to explain why they may want to do that...

They believe the unborn baby deserves rights irregardless of whether it can survive on it's own outside the womb, it's still considered a separate person even if it relies on the mother's body for growing. So it becomes an issue of human rights. And sometimes even if someone doesn't want someone to tell them not to do something, they can't do it because it violates human rights.

I bet people were saying the same thing to Lincoln when he wanted to end slavery, he was getting too involved in their lives.

When I said earlier that I can understand more in the case of a mother who might die if she doesn't abort(that is very rare), I mean I can understand the decision being made but that doesn't mean I don't think it's killing that life. I know one life is being ended for another to go on, but it wouldn't just be a piece of the mother's body that was gotten rid of. I am not going to harshly judge that b/c I can't imagine that situation. But to me, it's one life that is ending and one is being chosen over another.

Therein lies yet another misconception: an unborn baby is by definition only considered a baby in the sense a "postnatal baby is a baby" when biologically viable- survivability. Before that its considered a fetus and previous to that, an embryo.

Using slippery slopes is not a good way of equating a perspective to fact.

I don't disagree with part of what you are saying. But after having a baby, and seeing ultrasounds, and at 12 weeks which is still the 1st trimester, seeing a little face and body on the screen...it already looks like a baby, it already feels, and makes decisions about where to bounce around inside. To me that means it's a separate person. By 20 weeks he looked even more like a big baby, and made lots of his own decisions, and that is 2nd trimester, when you find out if it's a boy or girl. If people argue the embryo part and it not being a person when it looks kind of blobbish, I won't agree from my moral standpoint but can understand why it's not thought of as a baby yet. The more it looks like a baby, no matter how small, to me it shouldn't matter whether it can fully survive outside of the womb to be given rights. There are babies born that have to go right to incubators and some people stay on machines their whole life, why are they different than a baby using their mom's body to live?

I am trying to talk in a scientific way not just from a moral standpoint. If being able to survive on one's own is the reason people use for when it's a "person", what about those who depend on a machine their entire lives, they aren't "viable" humans on their own and don't have normal functioning, but they have human rights.

If I look at this definition for viable:

(webster)

1: capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>2: capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs>3 a: capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives> b: capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state> c (1): having a reasonable chance of succeeding <a viable candidate> (2): financially sustainable <a viable enterprise>

There are a lot of people who are not capable of existing without medicines or machinery. Why are they different than a fetus in the womb? When a baby is first born, they will also die if no one feeds them. They aren't capable of surviving as a fully independent person. They still can't feed themselves or change their own diapers. They still are fully dependent on another human to take care of them or else they will die. Instead of using my blood as a source of nutrients to grow, they need milk. So those are the kinds of questions I have for the argument of viability.

[HAL 9000 96]

I just can't fathom the idea of a woman being forced to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want - with only "you should have thought of that before" as comfort.

It does raise other questions as well - whether there will be a criminal investigation if a woman miscarries (if someone suspects she didn't want the child), or if having an abortion will become a jailable offence for the woman.

Certainly I don't think making the practice illegal will get rid of the demand, so clearly some sort of punishment would have to be foisted on those people who go through with it...

On the flipside there's the economical impact of decreased funds available for those practitioners currently available to perform the procedure as well as a decrease in spending in the USA due to women traveling outside the country to get the procedures done safely.

I think there have been test cases in Ireland where the government has actually sought to prevent a woman from being able to travel to the UK so that she can have an abortion. They lost, I believe, but its a dodgy precedent - to be sure.

I don't really think the economic argument has much merit - given that the 'travel' option would only really be open to adults. Young (teenage) girls (who I suspect make up a big percentage of those seeking abortions) wouldn't have that option.

Yes that is once again another form of imposition. I don't give much weight to the financial aspect either but I can attest to the reality that the majority of abortions in the US are performed on adult women.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The law doesn't recognise an unborn baby as an autonomous individual.