• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How come there aren't any candidates who are neutral on abortion?

manlymatt83

Lifer
Oct 14, 2005
10,030
41
91
Obama: pro-choice
McCain: pro-life

How come no one is ever pro-choice pro-life? As in, instead of focusing on whether abortions should occur or not, and working to change those laws, work on changing the attitude of america so perhaps it doesn't happen as often (perhaps because people don't put themselves in that situation in the first place, or because they value the life more and choose a different decision?)
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,903
1,242
126
Actually most of us who believe that the Constitution grants an implied right of privacy (the foundation of Roe v. Wade) are uneasy with the whole concept of abortion and would greatly prefer to limit abortions as much as possible. This was accomplished to a large extent under Clinton and would also be the case under Obama, assuming he abandons such foolishness as government indoctrination of chastity as a legitamite government policy.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Well I'd assume most everybody supports reducing unintended pregnancies, even if it isn't an integral part of their stance on abortion.

But I know Obama has come out and said that, while he supports a woman's choice, he also thinks we should do more to make sure that an abortion isn't a woman's only option.

WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let?s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you?re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

WARREN: Have you ?

OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I?m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I?m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don?t think women make these decisions casually. I think they ? they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be ? and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I?ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?

OBAMA: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother?s health. From the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. One of the things that I?ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then ? and you are consistent in that belief, then I can?t argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.

What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions. And as an example of that, one of the things that I?ve talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services that they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That can make a genuine difference.
(ignore the cop-out at the beginning) :p

Democrats also tend to support sex education and cheap/free contraceptives, whereas Republicans just tell teens not to have sex and hope for the best.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,385
3,516
126
It's near impossible not to take a position on this issue. A candidate will constantly be asked.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: manlymatt83
Obama: pro-choice
McCain: pro-life

How come no one is ever pro-choice pro-life? As in, instead of focusing on whether abortions should occur or not, and working to change those laws, work on changing the attitude of america so perhaps it doesn't happen as often (perhaps because people don't put themselves in that situation in the first place, or because they value the life more and choose a different decision?)
Almost everyone who is pro-choice already takes that position, e.g.

"Abortion should be legal, and rare" - Clinton (emphasis his)

It's only the extremists like Palin that say that a woman should be forced to bear a rapist's child, or should die in childbirth.
 

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,974
54
91
You can't be a candidate and be neutral because it's an issue within your power. In the end you HAVE to say yes or no.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
TheFlyingpig has nailed the issue.

Fact, the prolife position is a decidedly minority issue, meaning its politically dead in terms of any legislative passage. It simply ain't going to happen. Its a third rail of American politics, touch the legislative of issue of repeal of Roe v Wade and you die
in any district in the land. Even pro lifers understand that they are way behind the eight ball.

But lots of pro lifers in the land, and lots of pro life votes to be captured. And there in lies the rub and the dilemma, how to promise prolifers everything, while giving them nothing. give GWB&co four gold stars, McCain Palin only three, and the democrats at best one.

Does it really matter, pro lifers will never prevail, Its just a matter of who they take their frustration out on. Lip service the recommended course.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Originally posted by: Thump553
Actually most of us who believe that the Constitution grants an implied right of privacy (the foundation of Roe v. Wade) are uneasy with the whole concept of abortion and would greatly prefer to limit abortions as much as possible. This was accomplished to a large extent under Clinton and would also be the case under Obama, assuming he abandons such foolishness as government indoctrination of chastity as a legitamite government policy.
Unfortunately--in reality--as a simple economic matter--as a nation we would be far, far better off if we had MORE abortions. Consider the huge amount of tax dollars that are needed to support children who are born into poverty. Also, many of those poor children will grow up to become criminals, further increasing the burden to society. Moreover, a great many men who do not want to be illegitimate fathers would be better off, too, as would would-be teenage mothers and fathers.

We just need to get passed the religious lunacy that we've all been indoctrinated with and then we could make a few strides towards improving our nation's economic problems.

 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Favoring the repeal of Roe and Casey, in order to push the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs, is a neutral position.
 

ScottyB

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2002
6,677
1
0
Pro-choice is the middle ground. Pro-abortion would be the opposite of the pro-life crowd.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,397
9,243
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Favoring the repeal of Roe and Casey, in order to push the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs, is a neutral position.
No, it isn't, because that would reverse the court opinions of the inherent right to privacy in the Constitution that those decisions rely upon.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Originally posted by: manlymatt83
Obama: pro-choice
McCain: pro-life

How come no one is ever pro-choice pro-life? As in, instead of focusing on whether abortions should occur or not, and working to change those laws, work on changing the attitude of america so perhaps it doesn't happen as often (perhaps because people don't put themselves in that situation in the first place, or because they value the life more and choose a different decision?)
Almost everyone who is pro-choice already takes that position, e.g.

"Abortion should be legal, and rare" - Clinton (emphasis his)

It's only the extremists like Palin that say that a woman should be forced to bear a rapist's child, or should die in childbirth.
Proof?

 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
How come? Two words: "wedge issue".

Go one way and you lose the other. Go neutral and you lose both. Choosing a side a no-brainer.


 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: winnar111
Favoring the repeal of Roe and Casey, in order to push the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs, is a neutral position.
No, it isn't, because that would reverse the court opinions of the inherent right to privacy in the Constitution that those decisions rely upon.
Yes, it is. The equation of a right to 'privacy', if it exists, and whatever it is, with the right to an abortion is a figment of Harry Blackmun's imagination.

The right to privacy was established 8 years before Roe v. Wade.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,181
609
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: winnar111
Favoring the repeal of Roe and Casey, in order to push the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs, is a neutral position.
No, it isn't, because that would reverse the court opinions of the inherent right to privacy in the Constitution that those decisions rely upon.
Yes, it is. The equation of a right to 'privacy', if it exists, and whatever it is, with the right to an abortion is a figment of Harry Blackmun's imagination.

The right to privacy was established 8 years before Roe v. Wade.
So what's the problem? :confused:
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: winnar111
Favoring the repeal of Roe and Casey, in order to push the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs, is a neutral position.
No, it isn't, because that would reverse the court opinions of the inherent right to privacy in the Constitution that those decisions rely upon.
Yes, it is. The equation of a right to 'privacy', if it exists, and whatever it is, with the right to an abortion is a figment of Harry Blackmun's imagination.

The right to privacy was established 8 years before Roe v. Wade.
So what's the problem? :confused:
The problem is that the false link between the two is utter garbage. Maintaining that bogus argument is distinctly not a neutral position.

I never really understood why Planned Parenthood cared so much about South Dakota.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,181
609
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: winnar111
Favoring the repeal of Roe and Casey, in order to push the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs, is a neutral position.
No, it isn't, because that would reverse the court opinions of the inherent right to privacy in the Constitution that those decisions rely upon.
Yes, it is. The equation of a right to 'privacy', if it exists, and whatever it is, with the right to an abortion is a figment of Harry Blackmun's imagination.

The right to privacy was established 8 years before Roe v. Wade.
So what's the problem? :confused:
The problem is that the false link between the two is utter garbage. Maintaining that bogus argument is distinctly not a neutral position.

I never really understood why Planned Parenthood cared so much about South Dakota.
Using precedent for an argument isn't "neutral." Ok...
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: winnar111
The problem is that the false link between the two is utter garbage. Maintaining that bogus argument is distinctly not a neutral position.

I never really understood why Planned Parenthood cared so much about South Dakota.
Using precedent for an argument isn't "neutral." Ok...
Was segregation neutral in 1950?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY