• 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?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,379
25,149
136
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?)
Virtually every single pro-choice Democratic candidate is exactly what you describe. They have signed onto Clinton's idea of abortion being 'safe, legal, and rare'.

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
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.
agreeing with this.
 

nixium

Senior member
Aug 25, 2008
919
3
76
No rational human favors abortion *in general*.

However, pro-choicers think it is best left for the individual to decide based on her personal circumstances.

The pro-life plank would do better to listen to your advise. Instead of aggressively, obnoxiously, and sometimes violently trying to enforce their moral views using the government, they should work from the bottom up; namely, provide a support structure as an alternative for abortion, through programs and education.

Unfortunately, they've decided to let themselves be manipulated by power hungry politicians, who do jack shit for their 'cause' once elected. The pro-choice plank has been playing defence for nearly 40 years now. Even if Roe vs. Wade gets overturned, it's only going to be a matter of time before all the confusion about 'Abortion states' and 'Banned states', as well as the movement of abortion underground, will force legalization throughout.

In a way, I hope R vs W is overturned because that might end this topic once for all.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
Cuz then you alienate all voters, the pro-lifers and the pro-baby killers
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Prolife does not mean you want to ban abortion... I am prolife. I hate abortion. I wouldn't even go near the subject ( because there are much more worthy things that need attention) as president. There is no political advantage nor a real chance at changing anything. So in that sense, I guess I would be politically neutral to abortion as a legislative issue
 

midway

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
301
0
0
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?)
There are. They are called pro-choice candidates.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
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?)
Maybe they all got aborted already?
 

midway

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
301
0
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
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?
That's a horrible argument, segregation wasn't voluntary.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
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.
Why should abortions be rare?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,941
1,274
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.

I assume you are referring to Griswold v. Connecticut, a case overturning a CT law that forbade contraception advice (in the 1960s, no less). That case alluded to the right to privacy, but was not decided on those grounds. Roe v. Wade's legal underpinnings are firmly based upon the right to privacy. There is no way to overturn Roe v. Wade without abrogating the right to privacy. In these days of so-called Homeland Security, and the current Bush administration's practices and abuses, that would be a very bad idea to any freedom loving Americans.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Originally posted by: Thump553
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.

I assume you are referring to Griswold v. Connecticut, a case overturning a CT law that forbade contraception advice (in the 1960s, no less). That case alluded to the right to privacy, but was not decided on those grounds. Roe v. Wade's legal underpinnings are firmly based upon the right to privacy. There is no way to overturn Roe v. Wade without abrogating the right to privacy. In these days of so-called Homeland Security, and the current Bush administration's practices and abuses, that would be a very bad idea to any freedom loving Americans.
Ah, I'm pretty sure the right to privacy was established as of Griswold v. Connecticut. Even wikipedia asserts that.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
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?)
It's not really possible to be neutral to something so horrific.
 

manlymatt83

Lifer
Oct 14, 2005
10,031
41
91
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
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.
What about the men who wouldn't mind being fathers but because of the way society is never have any influence in the matter?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Originally posted by: nixium
No rational human favors abortion *in general*
Are you certain of that? I, and presumably many other atheists and agnostics, favor abortion in many situations, especially in cases of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Originally posted by: manlymatt83

What about the men who wouldn't mind being fathers but because of the way society is never have any influence in the matter?
Unfortunately for them, it's wrong to enslave women and force them to have children for you. They're free to adopt or to become fathers to infants that other men didn't want, i suppose.
 

manlymatt83

Lifer
Oct 14, 2005
10,031
41
91
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: manlymatt83

What about the men who wouldn't mind being fathers but because of the way society is never have any influence in the matter?
Unfortunately for them, it's wrong to enslave women and force them to have children for you. They're free to adopt or to become fathers to infants that other men didn't want, i suppose.
What about mental damage to a father? That isn't enslaving?
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
These discussions never work, because eventually everyone who is pro-choice ends up being labeled as "completely immoral" by others who are so full of self-righteousness that they cannot accept any other viewpoint but their own.

It's always entertaining that many of these same individuals refuse to support measures that would lower the amount of abortions caused, such as more complete sex education or better health-care and daycare services for single moms. They believe in the sanctity of life, right until the moment a child is born, then that mother/child is on their own. It's ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, the decision to get an abortion is best decided by the individuals involved. We should all just keep our damn noses out of their lives.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Originally posted by: manlymatt83

What about mental damage to a father? That isn't enslaving?
No. Such men need to grow a pair and abandon their Christian Taliban mentalities.

I suspect that in reality, the number of men who end up being fathers who don't want to be fathers and who would welcome "paper abortions for men" more than dwarfs the number of men who want to be fathers but then suffer after the would-be mother aborts. That argument is just a non-starter.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: manlymatt83

What about mental damage to a father? That isn't enslaving?
No. Such men need to grow a pair and abandon their Christian Taliban mentalities.

I suspect that in reality, the number of men who end up being fathers who don't want to be fathers and who would welcome "paper abortions for men" more than dwarfs the number of men who want to be fathers but then suffer after the would-be mother aborts. That argument is just a non-starter.
Oh, I see. So if the woman wants to abort, it's her free choice. If the man doesn't want to abort, he needs to grow a pair.
 

manlymatt83

Lifer
Oct 14, 2005
10,031
41
91
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: manlymatt83

What about mental damage to a father? That isn't enslaving?
No. Such men need to grow a pair and abandon their Christian Taliban mentalities

I suspect that in reality, the number of men who end up being fathers who don't want to be fathers and who would welcome "paper abortions for men" more than dwarfs the number of men who want to be fathers but then suffer after the would-be mother aborts. That argument is just a non-starter.
Oh, I see. So if the woman wants to abort, it's her free choice. If the man doesn't want to abort, he needs to grow a pair.
hmmm, funny how that works.

And why must EVERYTHING that isn't 100% pro-choice be tied to religion? What about the guy who doesn't even consider himself religious, but still thinks that life begins at conception, and thinks it sucks that they have no say in a woman's choice to abort (not even the legal right to be allowed to give an opinion, let alone influence the decision), but must pay child support for a woman who decides to complete a pregnancy? How about this for a quick read.

What about those guys that are pro-choice, but THEIR choice is pro-life. What happens then?

(and yes, you may say "he should have thought about that before", or "tough for him", but many women change their "choice" overnight).


 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Originally posted by: manlymatt83
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: manlymatt83

What about mental damage to a father? That isn't enslaving?
No. Such men need to grow a pair and abandon their Christian Taliban mentalities

I suspect that in reality, the number of men who end up being fathers who don't want to be fathers and who would welcome "paper abortions for men" more than dwarfs the number of men who want to be fathers but then suffer after the would-be mother aborts. That argument is just a non-starter.
Oh, I see. So if the woman wants to abort, it's her free choice. If the man doesn't want to abort, he needs to grow a pair.
hmmm, funny how that works.

And why must EVERYTHING that isn't 100% pro-choice be tied to religion? What about the guy who doesn't even consider himself religious, but still thinks that life begins at conception, and thinks it sucks that they have no say in a woman's choice to abort (not even the legal right to be allowed to give an opinion, let alone influence the decision), but must pay child support for a woman who decides to complete a pregnancy? How about this for a quick read.

What about those guys that are pro-choice, but THEIR choice is pro-life. What happens then?

(and yes, you may say "he should have thought about that before", or "tough for him", but many women change their "choice" overnight).
The simple answer is that pro-choice isn't really pro-choice, just like pro-life isn't really pro-life. They're in favor of some choices, just like we're in favor of saving some lives, namely the innocent. That's why the terms should be pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
 

manlymatt83

Lifer
Oct 14, 2005
10,031
41
91
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: manlymatt83
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: manlymatt83

What about mental damage to a father? That isn't enslaving?
No. Such men need to grow a pair and abandon their Christian Taliban mentalities

I suspect that in reality, the number of men who end up being fathers who don't want to be fathers and who would welcome "paper abortions for men" more than dwarfs the number of men who want to be fathers but then suffer after the would-be mother aborts. That argument is just a non-starter.
Oh, I see. So if the woman wants to abort, it's her free choice. If the man doesn't want to abort, he needs to grow a pair.
hmmm, funny how that works.

And why must EVERYTHING that isn't 100% pro-choice be tied to religion? What about the guy who doesn't even consider himself religious, but still thinks that life begins at conception, and thinks it sucks that they have no say in a woman's choice to abort (not even the legal right to be allowed to give an opinion, let alone influence the decision), but must pay child support for a woman who decides to complete a pregnancy? How about this for a quick read.

What about those guys that are pro-choice, but THEIR choice is pro-life. What happens then?

(and yes, you may say "he should have thought about that before", or "tough for him", but many women change their "choice" overnight).
The simple answer is that pro-choice isn't really pro-choice, just like pro-life isn't really pro-life. They're in favor of some choices, just like we're in favor of saving some lives, namely the innocent. That's why the terms should be pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
Makes sense
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY