Rep need a new stance here [W:110]

[RLWSNOOK]

I am pro-life. My belief is life begins at conception.

But I do not understand how and why republicans can not support pro choice. It is a religious belief in my view, we really don't know via science when life actually starts.

Republicans have lost a lot support from women, and others because of their unwillingness to except there are other beliefs out there.

I understand republicans are pro-life, but why can't we be for freedom of religion? Freedom of religion says we should be pro-choice. (While I don't agree with that choice I am not one to judge people for the beliefs they have).

 

[MaggieD]

I am pro-life. My belief is life begins at conception.

But I do not understand how and why republicans can not support pro choice. It is a religious belief in my view, we really don't know via science when life actually starts.

Republicans have lost a lot support from women, and others because of their unwillingness to except there are other beliefs out there.

I understand republicans are pro-life, but why can't we be for freedom of religion? Freedom of religion says we should be pro-choice. (While I don't agree with that choice I am not one to judge people for the beliefs they have).

In my opinion, Republican candidates should always answer the question, "Are you for or against abortion?" with...

I support the Supreme Court decision on abortion as the law of the land.

If asked what their personal feelings are, they should answer:

My thoughts on abortion are private.

 

[Tigger]

It's not necessarily about religion for all of us. For people like ME it's about personal responsibility and the necessity to deal with the consequences of choices that you make.

Very few sexually active individuals in the United States are not aware that the potential for pregnancy (the creation of life) exists anytime that you engage in vaginal intercourse. That's why they take precautions for the most part... condoms, oral contraceptives, etc.... What they fail to realize, or at least to take into account is that these precautions are not fool-proof. The only 100% guaranteed method for avoiding pregnancy is abstinance. ahing other than that provides the potential (no matter how small) for the creation of a human life.

The problem that people like me have is with the idea that we are anti-choice. We're pro-choice. In our minds the choice was made at the moment that two consenting adults CHOSE to willingly and knowingly engage in a sexual act which has the potential to create a human life. At that moment both individuals CHOSE to engage in the act, knowing (in almost all cases) that the potential existed to create a human life. Having made those choices, the two individuals should now be required to deal with the consequences of those decisions. Including the fact that they have created a new human being through a willful and consentual act.

That's why most of us are in favor of women having an option when the act which created the life was NOT consentual.

 

[JayDubya]

It is a religious belief in my view, we really don't know via science when life actually starts.

Factually incorrect.

 

[joko104]

Thru the early 80s, Republicans and their leadership intensely opposed the religious rightwing gaining a foothold in the party or any "social issues" in platforms. Overall, their opinion was that government should stay out of people's personal lives - and overall the small and less powerful the government the better. Being Republican meant 1.) strong defense 2.) relative military isolationism except against Communism and 3.) conservative economics.

Pat Robertson, the televangelist ran as Republican candidate for President and like Ron Paul focused on getting people to the caucuses and as convention delegates, nearly capturing a majority in the Texas State Republican convention and raising havoc across the South and Midwest. Since the ongoing fight would destroy the Republican Party, a compact was formed. Since the evangelicals are more determined, they ultimately won control.

 

[joko104]

It's not necessarily about religion for all of us. For people like ME it's about personal responsibility and the necessity to deal with the consequences of choices that you make.

Very few sexually active individuals in the United States are not aware that the potential for pregnancy (the creation of life) exists anytime that you engage in vaginal intercourse. That's why they take precautions for the most part... condoms, oral contraceptives, etc.... What they fail to realize, or at least to take into account is that these precautions are not fool-proof. The only 100% guaranteed method for avoiding pregnancy is abstinance. ahing other than that provides the potential (no matter how small) for the creation of a human life.

The problem that people like me have is with the idea that we are anti-choice. We're pro-choice. In our minds the choice was made at the moment that two consenting adults CHOSE to willingly and knowingly engage in a sexual act which has the potential to create a human life. At that moment both individuals CHOSE to engage in the act, knowing (in almost all cases) that the potential existed to create a human life. Having made those choices, the two individuals should now be required to deal with the consequences of those decisions. Including the fact that they have created a new human being through a willful and consentual act.

That's why most of us are in favor of women having an option when the act which created the life was NOT consentual.

Yes, some people like you believe a woman should always tell her husband "no!" if he wants to have sex with her. Obviously that'd be ok with you.

 

[JayDubya]

In my opinion, Republican candidates should always answer the question, "Are you for or against abortion?" with...

"I support the Supreme Court decision on abortion as the law of the land."

Any literate candidate for federal office of any party who respects their oath of office should always answer the question "Are you for or against abortion?" with:

"As a prospective federal politician, what I think about abortion is irrelevant, as the Constitution says nothing about abortion, and thus the matter should be left to the states. I will do what I can to appoint justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, as regardless of my personal feelings on abortion, that decision could only come from a corrupt or incompetent court."

Done.

Simple.

You don't have to define any specific matters of policy, you don't let anyone sidetrack you into ideological corners or gotcha you with exception nonsense about rape or anything else. You specifically identify the problem (Roe), why it was wrong (easy to do, since honest pro-abortion folks will also concede Roe is nonsense on stilts), and what you're going to do about it (in the absence of a constitutional amendment, each state has the lawful authority to decide to to permit or criminalize the practice).

 

[Paul Austin]

Im not a Republican, so it aint my place to say, but I think the GOP needs to rally around the tenth amendment, for their salvation.

Why?

Instantly you have the constitutional conservatives on board (if the GOP is genuine) & by devolving some powers you'd have the small government fiscal conservatives in your corner too.

But anyone can preach to the choir, right?

However the tenth is also good for dealing with all those thorny social issues.

Everytime the Dems lobbed a social grenade they could bat it away with the tenth.

"As supporters of freedom & liberty we feel that its up to the people of each state to decide"

& even if a rogue Republican stepped off message (how many times did that happen this year?), they could simply answer.

"Thats his personal opinion, not party policy, as supporters of freedom & liberty we feel its up to the people of each state to decide, & like the good senator, we would provide them with the opportunity to voice their opinions at state level"

You could even appeal to those demographics youve struggled with by pointing out, this way, that youre giving them a voice, a chance to put their side, on the issues that matter to them, to the people of the state, where a majority would decide.

It would allow GOP states to campaign on GOP issues, which would go down with the party faithfull, without stepping on the toes of minorities in other states.

A much more palatable position for the independents, & swing voters, without alienating the core vote.

But hey, Im not a Republican, so none of my bussiness.

 

[RepublicanMcDuc]

If someone believes that elective abortion is the unjustified taking of innocent human life, then it is very hard for that person to accept that it isn't an issue in which the government has a role. That is why you see such a a rejection of the "live and let" attitude" by so many on this issue. Pro-life people see it as an issue that is fundamentally different from most other choices. It isn't because pro-lifers want to control women. That isn't part of the motivation.

The same goes for hardcore animal rights people and a few others. There just aren't as many of those types, so it isn't an issue, yet.

Oh, and I agree that GOP needs to work on this issue to a certain extent (though I am not pro-choice so there are limits to what I would be ok with), but it can't suddenly do a 180 and not suffer severely at the ballot box for it, so a more thoughtful approach is required.

 

[Mycroft]

I am pro-life. My belief is life begins at conception.

But I do not understand how and why republicans can not support pro choice. It is a religious belief in my view, we really don't know via science when life actually starts.

Republicans have lost a lot support from women, and others because of their unwillingness to except there are other beliefs out there.

I understand republicans are pro-life, but why can't we be for freedom of religion? Freedom of religion says we should be pro-choice. (While I don't agree with that choice I am not one to judge people for the beliefs they have).

I'm not religious, so could you explain and justify the highlighted statement? I don't understand what you mean.

Anyway, I have to disagree with you about why Republicans lost a lot of support from women. I'd say it's because the Democrats successfully, but incorrectly, painted the Republicans as being "anti-women". This includes, but is not limited, to abortion.

Now, I can understand if you are focused on the abortion issue, but as someone who is not a Republican I tend to look at the whole picture. You should try it sometime.

 

[MaggieD]

"As a prospective federal politician, what I think about abortion is irrelevant, as the Constitution says nothing about abortion, and thus the matter should be left to the states. I will do what I can to appoint justices to overturn Roe, as regardless of my personal feelings on abortion, that decision could only come from a corrupt or incompetent court."

Yeah, that'll do it. Not.

 

[Tigger]

Yes, some people like you believe a woman should always tell her husband "no!" if he wants to have sex with her. Obviously that'd be ok with you.

Not in the least. That's almost entirely opposite of what I believe, to be totally honest with you.

However, I am against the idea of casual sex, outside of a committed relationship where the potential for dealing with these sort of consequences has been discussed and agreed upon ahead of time. My current girlfriend and I waited more than six months into our relationship before we had sex. We sat down and discussed our feelings on the relationship, children, and the idea of potentially becoming parents before we ever went into the bedroom. At this time we would prefer not to become parents, and are taking appropriate precautions, but we have agreed upon what we will do IF those precautions do not work; and it is NOT seeking an abortion.

 

[Fisher]

I do not think one needs to change their argument if they disagree with something on principle. You either stand on principle or you don't; and if you do, damn be the consequences because you know you are true to your heart. This may shock some of you to hear, but democracy isn't about winning==it is about having a voice.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I am pro-life. My belief is life begins at conception.

But I do not understand how and why republicans can not support pro choice. It is a religious belief in my view, we really don't know via science when life actually starts.

Republicans have lost a lot support from women, and others because of their unwillingness to except there are other beliefs out there.

I understand republicans are pro-life, but why can't we be for freedom of religion? Freedom of religion says we should be pro-choice. (While I don't agree with that choice I am not one to judge people for the beliefs they have).

Once you get that pesky morality out of the way, abortion is a legal and elective procedure, much like a nose job, face lift or fat removal. Few really argue that all elective procedures should be gov't funded because those lacking personal wealth can not have "access" to them.

 

[JayDubya]

Yeah, that'll do it. Not.

That "does it" quite well. That is the pro-Constitution position on the federal level; it is simply an assertion of the 10th Amendment, and an accurate assessment of the Supreme Court's misdeed. It aligns very well with anti-abortion goals, but even pro-abortion candidates / officials should still respect the Constitution they swear to follow and try to uphold its integrity.


As I said, however, every politician who is both literate and respects their oath of office should...

Those are sadly rare.

If you support the status quo post-Roe, you support tyranny and oppose the rule of law, end of story. That is an absolute dealbreaker as a federal politician; your personal opinion on whether or not abortion should be legal ought to be irrelevant - if you are so illiterate or so corrupt that you will pretend the federal government has authority in this matter, you're absolute scum not worthy of the job.

 

[RLWSNOOK]

I'm not religious, so could you explain and justify the highlighted statement? I don't understand what you mean.

Anyway, I have to disagree with you about why Republicans lost a lot of support from women. I'd say it's because the Democrats successfully, but incorrectly, painted the Republicans as being "anti-women". This includes, but is not limited, to abortion.

Now, I can understand if you are focused on the abortion issue, but as someone who is not a Republican I tend to look at the whole picture. You should try it sometime.

Once you get that pesky morality out of the way, abortion is a legal and elective procedure, much like a nose job, face lift or fat removal. Few really argue that all elective procedures should be gov't funded because those lacking personal wealth can not have "access" to them.

Two things.

The declaration of independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life is the question here... When does it start, as if it is at conception it is the government duty to protect it.

But my belief (and I feel beliefs if they are not based in science but are religious in this stance...) is that life begins at conception. However I believe others do not believe that life begins at conception. Otherwise I have to assume they don't believe in the declaration of independence.

So religion or your beliefs are what I believe guide people to be pro-life or pro choice. Because of that I feel it is (as a pro-life individual) not right to deny the right to that belief (religious as it is not based in science on either side I feel).

 

[Henrin]

Factually incorrect.

Yeah, but pro-choice people need to believe that we don't actually know.

 

[JayDubya]

But my belief (and I feel beliefs if they are not based in science but are religious in this stance...) is that life begins at conception.

Happily, your belief aligns with scientific fact and objective reality. In other words, you need not call it belief, simply fact.

However I believe others do not believe that life begins at conception.

Their "belief" is not valid. It is simply an error, at odds with objective reality. This is like not "believing" in gravity.

Otherwise I have to assume they don't believe in the declaration of independence.

This would be an accurate assumption. Many DO NOT believe in equality. Many DO NOT believe in ANY natural human rights, let alone a natural right to life.

 

[JayDubya]

Yeah, but pro-choice people need to believe that we don't actually know.

Indeed. This misinformation furthers the mass delusion their masters wish to promote.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Two things.

The declaration of independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life is the question here... When does it start, as if it is at conception it is the government duty to protect it.

But my belief (and I feel beliefs if they are not based in science but are religious in this stance...) is that life begins at conception. However I believe others do not believe that life begins at conception. Otherwise I have to assume they don't believe in the declaration of independence.

So religion or your beliefs are what I believe guide people to be pro-life or pro choice. Because of that I feel it is (as a pro-life individual) not right to deny the right to that belief (religious as it is not based in science on either side I feel).

Read the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision which describes (but does not clearly define) when the unborn becomes a "person" that has protected rights.

 

[JayDubya]

In my opinion, Republican candidates should always answer the question, "Are you for or against abortion?" with...
"I support the Supreme Court decision on abortion as the law of the land.'

Just to be absolutely clear on this, to call Roe "the law of the land" is to confirm that there is no rule of law in this land.

You cannot read the Constitution, then read Roe, and then claim that Roe is comprehensible, compatible with, or in any way based upon the United States Constitution.


Blackmun's text is nakedly a fiat of judicial activism, absent reason or justification.

 

[MaggieD]

Just to be absolutely clear on this, to call Roe "the law of the land" is to confirm that there is no rule of law in this land.

You cannot read the Constitution, then read Roe, and then claim that Roe is comprehensible, compatible with, or in any way based upon the United States Constitution.


Blackmun's text is nakedly a fiat of judicial activism, absent reason or justification.

If you believe in the rule of law, then you must accept the SCOTUS decision. It's as simple as that.

 

[JayDubya]

If you believe in the rule of law, then you must accept the SCOTUS decision. It's as simple as that.

If you believe in the rule of law - the United States Constitution - you must reject acts of judicial activism by the Supreme Court. It's as simple as that.


If you accept the notion that judicial activism on the part of the Supreme Court is valid, we have no rule of law, we have no constitution, just a meaningless piece of paper that no one, especially those charged with the task of protecting it, bothers to follow.

 

[wolfman24]

In my opinion, Republican candidates should always answer the question, "Are you for or against abortion?" with...



If asked what their personal feelings are, they should answer:

Can I get a big AMEN to that brothers and sisters. AAAAAMMMMEEEENNNNN


And that will be fine so long as they agree to do the same for the pro choice crowd

 

[wolfman24]

Two things.

The declaration of independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life is the question here... When does it start, as if it is at conception it is the government duty to protect it.

But my belief (and I feel beliefs if they are not based in science but are religious in this stance...) is that life begins at conception. However I believe others do not believe that life begins at conception. Otherwise I have to assume they don't believe in the declaration of independence.

So religion or your beliefs are what I believe guide people to be pro-life or pro choice. Because of that I feel it is (as a pro-life individual) not right to deny the right to that belief (religious as it is not based in science on either side I feel).

Well put.