Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

[lynnvinc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by estesbob
Let me make sure I understand this…the Republican party wants to annihilate all life on earth.? That’s the way it read to me, too.

That’s correct. It’s as correct as saying that a woman having an abortion wants to murder a child.

They may deny to the hilt that they are in favor of policies that kill people (they may character assassinate the scientists and environmentalists that point it out to them), just as the woman denies that it is a human being in her womb or that she is killing it (no matter how many anti-abortionists outside the clinic tell her otherwise), but that doesn’t erase the fact that these people are involved in promoting death and killing people.

 

[seekerz]

It may be invisible to some maybe, but Care Net for instance, which has one of the largest networks of pregnancy centers has had over 1 million calls, texts, emails etc. since 2003. So people must know Care Net and other organizations out there exist.

If PP can have a single organization that everyone recognizes and knows, what’s stopping the pro-life movement?

 

[rlg94086]

You’re talking about legality and I’m talking about reasons people have abortion. Two separate issues, but *you *talk about delusional.

We don’t allow murder to be legal and only focus on the reasons and trying to prevent people from making the choice to murder. Murder is illegal.

How is abortion different? We can still look at the reasons people have abortions, but it should also be illegal. We can continue to look at the reasons someone would want to kill their unborn child, but we need to make it illegal to do so.

The answer to my question about how abortion is different, for a liberal, is that they don’t see it as a grave evil similar to murder, pedophilia, genocide, slavery, etc. Because of that, the women choosing to abort also don’t see it as a grave evil. Liberals have convinced them that it is just a piece of tissue, that it is their body and their choice. THAT is the problem. Treat it like the evil it is, and you will go a lot further in helping to reduce it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

All people, whether they can afford a child or not, have sex in circumstances when they shouldn’t. That is, sadly, a universal propensity of human nature with which we are all intimately familiar. We can dismiss it or face it - either way children get conceived and if we’re going to make *them *our business, we have to be willing to take action to help the parents.

Telling people without means to not have children, is pointless and self defeating, if the intention is to prevent or reduce abortion.

It is the liberal secular culture which has promoted contraception which people think they can rely on so they don’t get pregnant, that hasn’t worked and legal abortion has become a type of contraception for many.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s correct. It’s as correct as saying that a woman having an abortion wants to murder a child.

No, it’s not the same thing. A woman choosing to abort her unborn child is directly choosing to kill an unborn human being. Your logic is seriously flawed.

I’m sure you are well meaning when it comes to environmental issues, but I assure you that Republicans love the earth, as well. Many of us are even environmentalists. However, we don’t all agree on the level of regulations, the impact level of some environmental issues, etc. There is no intent for the planet to be destroyed or for people to die.

 

[_Abyssinia]

If PP can have a single organization that everyone recognizes and knows, what’s stopping the pro-life movement?

Planned Parenthood is one organization. Pregnancy centers etc. are not all under one organization, but not everybody has to know them by name to know they exist and the statistics on Care Net that I provided shows that people know such organizations exist. Outreach to pregnant women is important, but the aim of the pro life movement is for reversal of roe vs wade and that can not be done by the Democrat Party which is funded by the abortion lobby.

 

[seekerz]

Outreach to pregnant women is important, but the aim of the pro life movement is for reversal of roe vs wade

Talk about circular discussions, that was my original observation: the priority placed on the legal strategy (which so far has gotten us nowhere and which is unlikely to significantly reduce abortion IMHO); as opposed to adopting a broad strategy of tackling the root causes politically, and the individual cases in a coordinated and targeted manner.

 

[rlg94086]

Talk about circular discussions, that was my original observation: the priority placed on the legal strategy (which so far has gotten us nowhere and which is unlikely to significantly reduce abortion IMHO); as opposed to adopting a broad strategy of tackling the root causes politically, and the individual cases in a coordinated and targeted manner.

Walking and chewing gum is possible (i.e. you are setting up a false dichotomy). Keeping the murder of innocents legal is irrational. You can still take a broad strategy of tackling root causes, but there is no reason to support a pro-choice approach with grave evil, such as this.

 

[estesbob]

Talk about circular discussions, that was my original observation: the priority placed on the legal strategy (which so far has gotten us nowhere and which is unlikely to significantly reduce abortion IMHO); as opposed to adopting a broad strategy of tackling the root causes politically, and the individual cases in a coordinated and targeted manner.

We can do both everybody should be able to agree that we won’t limit abortion by voting for those who have vowed to protect it

 

[seekerz]

It is the liberal secular culture which has promoted contraception which people think they can rely on so they don’t get pregnant, that hasn’t worked and legal abortion has become a type of contraception for many.

I wasn’t referring specifically to contraception. I’m simply saying it is unrealistic to say to wide swathes of society that until they can afford children they shouldn’t have any. Some families spend a generation or more in poverty.

From where I sit, all we seem to be saying to people is don’t (don’t: have sex if you can’t afford kids/use contraception/have abortions). All good don’ts but where’s the access to moral alternatives or better ways of doing things, for those who lack them? This is why I see lack of a unified, coordinated approach to family reproductive health as a major, major deficiency of the pro-life movement.

No society can be run on rules alone - there has to be access to what should be done instead of breaking the rules. Which is why Christianity is not based on legalism but on loving action.

 

[seekerz]

We can do both everybody should be able to agree that we won’t limit abortion by voting for those who have vowed to protect it

What they vow is immaterial, if what they do promotes it. Politicians have about as much restraining effect on abortion as my umbrella has on rain clouds.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You don’t understand, Republicans want to kill babies in the womb by allowing toxins in the environment, and refusing to reduce them.

Oh? Name the toxins that are killing babies and the Republicans who specifically act to increase those toxins in the environment. Responsible sources now, if you please, verified by responsible scientists.

Now, you are aware, are you not, that there are a lot of toxins, including deadly ones, in the environment that are not created by man? Lots of deadly diseases, too.

And what about the toxins outgassing in the car you drive, from your new microwave that has plastic in it, from your new tv, from your new carpet even from your new clothing, from almost everything in your new home? Are those Republican plots too?

And remember, it was not the Repubs who mandated that we light our houses with mercury-vapor bulbs. It was your guys. Hard to find a worse toxin than mercury. Well, then there are the heavy metals in the batteries your guys want us to operate our cars with. Toxic, especially when they catch fire.

Bogus environmentalism is as toxic or worse than the things it purports to correct.

 

[rlg94086]

We can do both everybody should be able to agree that we won’t limit abortion by voting for those who have vowed to protect it

 

[seekerz]

Walking and chewing gum is possible (i.e. you are setting up a false dichotomy). Keeping the murder of innocents legal is irrational. You can still take a broad strategy of tackling root causes, but there is no reason to support a pro-choice approach with grave evil, such as this.

Which part of my dichotomy is false? Supporting a strategy unlikely to bear fruit at the expense of one more likely to? I do not support a pro-choice approach, so you must be talking to someone else…

 

[estesbob]

What they vow is immaterial, if what they do promotes it. Politicians have about as much restraining effect on abortion as my umbrella has on rain clouds.

So its ok to vote to support evil if one is convinced evil cant be stopped?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Talk about circular discussions, that was my original observation: the priority placed on the legal strategy (which so far has gotten us nowhere and which is unlikely to significantly reduce abortion IMHO); as opposed to adopting a broad strategy of tackling the root causes politically, and the individual cases in a coordinated and targeted manner.

Legislative trends in the last 25 years:



dailykos.com/story/2011/06/24/988070/-Louisiana-adds-to-this-years-huge-spike-in-anti-abortion-legislation

These pro life laws had little to no support from Democrats.

Peer reviewed scholarly article in* State Politics and Policy Quarterly * which compiled data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute from nearly every state between 1985 and 2005 has found pro life state laws has led to decline in the number of abortions:

• The number of abortions that were performed consistently increased throughout the 1970s and the 1980s (Brener et al. 2002). However, between 1990 and 2005, the number of legal abortions declined by 22.22 percent (Gamble et al. 2008; Koonin, Smith, and Ramick 1993). A number of different reasons for this decline are possible. However, one factor that played a role was the increased amount of anti-abortion legislation that was passed at the state level. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decisions in both Webster and Casey and the electoral success of anti-abortion candidates at the state level resulted in a substantial increase in the number of restrictions on abortion.
  
  By 2005, more states had adopted parental involvement laws and informed consent requirements (NARAL 1992, 2005). A comprehensive series of regressions provides evidence that these laws are correlated with declines in in-state abortion rates and ratios. Furthermore, a series of natural experiments provides even more evidence about the effects of these restrictions on abortion. States where judges nullified anti-abortion legislation were compared to states where anti-abortion legislation went into effect.
  
  The results indicate that enforced laws result in significantly larger in-state abortion declines than nullified laws. Other regression results indicated that various types of legislation had disparate and predictable effects on different subsets of the population. For instance, parental involvement laws have a large effect on the abortion rate for minors and virtually no effect on the abortion rate for adults. These results provide further evidence that anti-abortion legislation results in declines in the number of abortions that take place within the boundaries of a given state.*

spa.sagepub.com/content/11/1/28.full.pdf+html

2008 analysis found state parental involvement laws contributed to nearly 50% decline of abortions performed in minors between 1985 and 1999.

How can you say the legal route has gotten nowhere?

BTW Democrat attorney Dennis Herrera and Democrat Malia Cohen in San Francisco and Democrat city leader Christine Quinn in New York have taken aim at pregnancy centers. That is low.

 

[seekerz]

So its ok to vote to support evil if one is convinced evil cant be stopped?

It’s okay to choose between two candidates if their support of abortion is equivalent. If in addition, you see not real effect they could have on it, then even less reason to be a one-issue voter.

 

[rlg94086]

Which part of my dichotomy is false? Supporting a strategy unlikely to bear fruit at the expense of one more likely to? I do not support a pro-choice approach, so you must be talking to someone else…

I already explained. Both can and should be done. It is a false dichotomy because it is not an either/or, as you’ve presented it.

You do support a pro-choice approach, by supporting pro-choice politicians and opposing those who are working to make a grave evil illegal.

 

[seekerz]

Legislative trends in the last 25 years:

http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/6/Picture2-2.png

dailykos.com/story/2011/06/24/988070/-Louisiana-adds-to-this-years-huge-spike-in-anti-abortion-legislation

Peer reviewed scholarly article in* State Politics and Policy Quarterly * which compiled data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute from nearly every state between 1985 and 2005 has found pro life state laws has led to decline in the number of abortions:

• The number of abortions that were performed consistently increased throughout the 1970s and the 1980s (Brener et al. 2002). However, between 1990 and 2005, the number of legal abortions declined by 22.22 percent (Gamble et al. 2008; Koonin, Smith, and Ramick 1993). A number of different reasons for this decline are possible. However, one factor that played a role was the increased amount of anti-abortion legislation that was passed at the state level. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decisions in both Webster and Casey and the electoral success of anti-abortion candidates at the state level resulted in a substantial increase in the number of restrictions on abortion.
  
  By 2005, more states had adopted parental involvement laws and informed consent requirements (NARAL 1992, 2005). A comprehensive series of regressions provides evidence that these laws are correlated with declines in in-state abortion rates and ratios. Furthermore, a series of natural experiments provides even more evidence about the effects of these restrictions on abortion. States where judges nullified anti-abortion legislation were compared to states where anti-abortion legislation went into effect.
  
  The results indicate that enforced laws result in significantly larger in-state abortion declines than nullified laws. Other regression results indicated that various types of legislation had disparate and predictable effects on different subsets of the population. For instance, parental involvement laws have a large effect on the abortion rate for minors and virtually no effect on the abortion rate for adults. These results provide further evidence that anti-abortion legislation results in declines in the number of abortions that take place within the boundaries of a given state.*

spa.sagepub.com/content/11/1/28.full.pdf+html

How can you say the legal route has gotten nowhere?

BTW Democrat attorney Dennis Herrera in San Francisco and Democrat city leader Christine Quinn in New York have taken aim at pregnancy centers. That is low.

I could ask much about these statistics… but my take home thought is this: “declines in the number of abortions that take place * within the boundaries* of a given state.” (emphasis mine)

 

[seekerz]

I already explained. Both can and should be done. It is a false dichotomy because it is not an either/or, as you’ve presented it.

You do support a pro-choice approach, by supporting pro-choice politicians and opposing those who are working to make a grave evil illegal.

You keep doing this little thing that irks me: jumping in at the end of a discussion with another poster and generalizing my answer. Go back and read my exchange with Abyssinia if you’re interested…