Sensible Political Policy for Republicans

The Republican Party could capture many more woman voters if they adopted a policy that reflects what voters want instead of what individuals want to impose on everyone else.

Many Americans have a personal credo that says life begins at conception. The main difference between the two main parties is that one wants to make that personal credo public policy, while the other is willing to say I will leave the individual decision up to the people actually involved, on a case by case basis.

If the Republican leadership were willing to make a stand they would gain countless votes from independents. They would also gain votes from Democrats who may like republican economic policy.

A political policy of 'Life begins 30 days after conception' would make all the difference in the world. Obviously this would not jive with many people's personal beliefs but as a political party policy it could compete with the Democrats. It would cut back on the number of abortions. It would swing more votes to the Republican party than the number of regular Republican voters who would decide not to vote.

The Republican party is working it's way into a historical footnote*. It needs to make bold choices on Social policy if it is to remain a relevant political option.


Thoughts?

(please make your thoughts politically based and not religious based)

Regards,
Rjay

rjay said:

The Republican Party could capture many more woman voters if they adopted a policy that reflects what voters want instead of what individuals want to impose on everyone else.

Many Americans have a personal credo that says life begins at conception. The main difference between the two main parties is that one wants to make that personal credo public policy, while the other is willing to say I will leave the individual decision up to the people actually involved, on a case by case basis.

If the Republican leadership were willing to make a stand they would gain countless votes from independents. They would also gain votes from Democrats who may like republican economic policy.

A political policy of 'Life begins 30 days after conception' would make all the difference in the world. Obviously this would not jive with many people's personal beliefs but as a political party policy it could compete with the Democrats. It would cut back on the number of abortions. It would swing more votes to the Republican party than the number of regular Republican voters who would decide not to vote.

The Republican party is working it's way into a historical footnote*. It needs to make bold choices on Social policy if it is to remain a relevant political option.


Thoughts?

(please make your thoughts politically based and not religious based)

Regards,
Rjay

Click to expand...

Well .. since no one's responded to you, I'll give you a few clues.

Earlier this year a Gallup Poll (yes, Gina, here such a reference is relevant) presented that when given a choice between pro-life and pro-choice, most Americans chose pro-life, and the results of this poll are found as a separate thread here in the abortion forum.

It doesn't matter that some people have a "personal" policy of when a human begins to live. What matters here is that science has declared beyond any rational conjecture that a human begins to live at conception, and this declaration, a consensus of the hard sciences of anthropology, phylogeny, biology, genetics-DNA, organism-life, embryology, etc., a consensus that occurred a few years after Roe v. Wade and is now about 35 years old and standing stronger each day.

So your unethical pander of suggesting that the Republicans say that a human begins to live 30 days after conception is simply scientifically wrong, and obviously so.

The Republicans have the "when does a human begin to live?" part correct right now.

That you might think the Republicans would get more voters by stating something obviously wrong is a sad commentary of how politicking has trained us to think.

So, no, the Republicans aren't working their way to becoming an historical footnote because of this issue.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats will soon be on the scrapheap of history because they have journeyed so far to the ends of the political spectrum economically-fiscally as well as socially that the vast majority of Americans must hold their nose just to vote for a Repub or a Dem, leaving a wide spot at the center of the political spectrum for a new centrist-based political party that will instantly dominate.

rjay said:

The Republican Party could capture many more woman voters if they adopted a policy that reflects what voters want instead of what individuals want to impose on everyone else.

Many Americans have a personal credo that says life begins at conception. The main difference between the two main parties is that one wants to make that personal credo public policy, while the other is willing to say I will leave the individual decision up to the people actually involved, on a case by case basis.

If the Republican leadership were willing to make a stand they would gain countless votes from independents. They would also gain votes from Democrats who may like republican economic policy.

A political policy of 'Life begins 30 days after conception' would make all the difference in the world. Obviously this would not jive with many people's personal beliefs but as a political party policy it could compete with the Democrats. It would cut back on the number of abortions. It would swing more votes to the Republican party than the number of regular Republican voters who would decide not to vote.

The Republican party is working it's way into a historical footnote*. It needs to make bold choices on Social policy if it is to remain a relevant political option.


Thoughts?

(please make your thoughts politically based and not religious based)

Regards,
Rjay

Click to expand...

While I agree that such a thing could earn some peoples respect, because of the simple fact that it would require a lot of backbone and excuse me, a pair of.... you get the idea, the republican party will never do it sadly.

Or the Republican Party can back to their original platform of supporting legal abortion. Opposition to legal abortion is not only incoherent with a "limited government, limited spending" philosophy, but the republicans nearly breaks every party line trying to defend liberty in order to fancy the social(ist) conservative vote.

- Businesses should be free from heavy regulation UNLESS you're an abortion provider!

- The government should have no control over your body UNLESS you're pregnant!

- You can buy medicine online, from another country UNLESS you're buying the abortion pill!

The problem with pro-life versus pro-choice polls is that few people are strictly one way or the other.
If polls go on to ask should abortion be criminalized - the number drops. If trying to force a rape victim to have the child, the percentage falls thru the floor.
Many if not most pro-choicers oppose "partial birth" and late term abortions.

What it seems Republicans are pushing for it to make it a state-by-state issue, which could work well for Republicans. Basically that would force Democrats to be pro-life in Republican areas (and some do just that) and Republicans to be pro-choice in Democratic areas (and some do that too.)

Abortion is a single-issue to only a small percentage of voters. I know many hardcore pro-choice - including myself - voting for Romney, although I agree with Democrats on nearly all "social issues."

I do not believe Romney being elected will change federal abortion laws one iota.

joko104 said:

The problem with pro-life versus pro-choice polls is that few people are strictly one way or the other.
If polls go on to ask should abortion be criminalized - the number drops. If trying to force a rape victim to have the child, the percentage falls thru the floor.
Many if not most pro-choicers oppose "partial birth" and late term abortions.

What it seems Republicans are pushing for it to make it a state-by-state issue, which could work well for Republicans. Basically that would force Democrats to be pro-life in Republican areas (and some do just that) and Republicans to be pro-choice in Democratic areas (and some do that too.)

Abortion is a single-issue to only a small percentage of voters. I know many hardcore pro-choice - including myself - voting for Romney, although I agree with Democrats on nearly all "social issues."

I do not believe Romney being elected will change federal abortion laws one iota.

Click to expand...

It is likely the next president will appoint two supreme court justices. Roe v. Wade would definitely face a challenge from pro-lifers if that is the case.

Ontologuy said:

Well .. since no one's responded to you, I'll give you a few clues.

Earlier this year a Gallup Poll (yes, Gina, here such a reference is relevant) presented that when given a choice between pro-life and pro-choice, most Americans chose pro-life, and the results of this poll are found as a separate thread here in the abortion forum.

It doesn't matter that some people have a "personal" policy of when a human begins to live. What matters here is that science has declared beyond any rational conjecture that a human begins to live at conception, and this declaration, a consensus of the hard sciences of anthropology, phylogeny, biology, genetics-DNA, organism-life, embryology, etc., a consensus that occurred a few years after Roe v. Wade and is now about 35 years old and standing stronger each day.

So your unethical pander of suggesting that the Republicans say that a human begins to live 30 days after conception is simply scientifically wrong, and obviously so.

The Republicans have the "when does a human begin to live?" part correct right now.

That you might think the Republicans would get more voters by stating something obviously wrong is a sad commentary of how politicking has trained us to think.

So, no, the Republicans aren't working their way to becoming an historical footnote because of this issue.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats will soon be on the scrapheap of history because they have journeyed so far to the ends of the political spectrum economically-fiscally as well as socially that the vast majority of Americans must hold their nose just to vote for a Repub or a Dem, leaving a wide spot at the center of the political spectrum for a new centrist-based political party that will instantly dominate.

Click to expand...

Your assertion about "science" is incorrect. No credible scientist or organization would be this foolish. Again I say CREDIBLE. As I have said many times before, the only "definintion" of when human life begins is an inverse of what the NAS has said about when it ends. the 70's report from the NAS stated that human life ends when higher brain functioning stops. So the opposite would apparently be true for its beginning.

This type of "science" is the same kind that use to say the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.

wolfman24 said:

Your assertion about "science" is incorrect. No credible scientist or organization would be this foolish. Again I say CREDIBLE. As I have said many times before, the only "definintion" of when human life begins is an inverse of what the NAS has said about when it ends. the 70's report from the NAS stated that human life ends when higher brain functioning stops. So the opposite would apparently be true for its beginning.

This type of "science" is the same kind that use to say the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.

Click to expand...

I realize that your imaginative creation here is emotionally motivated and thus convenient for you, but it is, nevertheless, you who is the flat-earther.

There are more than six specific hard sciences that stand in consensus agreement, the ones I listed, that a human begins to live at conception, about which there is no rational scientific conjecture.

You've listed nothing of refutation for that.

I can understand where you may imagine that something symetrical is at play here, that if brain death means death then brain life means life.

But your over-simplified utilitarian construct runs afoul of scientific reality .. and I sense you have a considerable problem with assymmetrical realities, such as chaos or quanta.

Regardless, the NAS did not at all say that a human begins to live when the brain is alive.

Thus, until science says otherwise, the scientific method embraced by the hard sciences I presented, that consensus stands unchallenged as to when a human begins to live.

Acceptance is for the best, emotional maturity wise.

Ontologuy said:

I realize that your imaginative creation here is emotionally motivated and thus convenient for you, but it is, nevertheless, you who is the flat-earther.

There are more than six specific hard sciences that stand in consensus agreement, the ones I listed, that a human begins to live at conception, about which there is no rational scientific conjecture.

You've listed nothing of refutation for that.

I can understand where you may imagine that something symetrical is at play here, that if brain death means death then brain life means life.

But your over-simplified utilitarian construct runs afoul of scientific reality .. and I sense you have a considerable problem with assymmetrical realities, such as chaos or quanta.

Regardless, the NAS did not at all say that a human begins to live when the brain is alive.

Thus, until science says otherwise, the scientific method embraced by the hard sciences I presented, that consensus stands unchallenged as to when a human begins to live.

Acceptance is for the best, emotional maturity wise.

Click to expand...

First you misquoted me. I said human life.

Also, I agree that I have not shown you anything but in the same vein neither have you. You said 6 hard sciences (whatever that is), but failed to name them so that someone could check. Nor did you provide any objective, unbaised, verifiable reports regarding your assertions. thus my comment about flat earth. You made the statement about science and gave nothing to support it.

I am under no obligation to respond until your have done so using the types of studies that would prove your point as stated above.

OKgrannie said:

It is likely the next president will appoint two supreme court justices. Roe v. Wade would definitely face a challenge from pro-lifers if that is the case.

Click to expand...

For Ginsburg and Breyer?

I suppose if the republicans get the next 8 years it could really throw the US Supreme Court off balance.

Ontologuy said:

Well .. since no one's responded to you, I'll give you a few clues.
...
The Republicans have the "when does a human begin to live?" part correct right now.
...

Click to expand...

Is it the Republican party's position that a full funeral service should be held for all mis-carriages?

wolfman24 said:

First you misquoted me. I said human life.

Click to expand...

I didn't misquote you, I corrected you.

Those who focus on the nebulous meaningless phrase "human life" do so for sophistry convenience, and they're usually extremist pro-choice.

The correct and accurate question foundational to the abortion issue is "when does a human begin to live?".

The truthful answer is "at conception".

Getting to the heart of the matter with the correct question leads to the germane answer that is fundamental to resolving the abortion issue in the best interest of all concerned.

wolfman24 said:

Also, I agree that I have not shown you anything

Click to expand...

Indeed, that is true.

wolfman24 said:

but in the same vein neither have you.

Click to expand...

No, that's false; you're merely fabricating for obfuscation's sake.

wolfman24 said:

You said 6 hard sciences (whatever that is),

Click to expand...

If you don't know what the commonly known term "hard science" is then you're at a fundamental disadvantage knowledge-wise in being able to talk intelligently on this topic.

I suggest you look up "hard and soft science" on Wiki.

wolfman24 said:

but failed to name them so that someone could check.

Click to expand...

I listed six of the hard sciences in consensus that a human begins to live at conception -- they were right there in the post of mine you first quoted.

You simply missed them.

Go back and read more carefully.

That way you won't appear so blindly ideological.

wolfman24 said:

Nor did you provide any objective, unbaised, verifiable reports regarding your assertions.

Click to expand...

Alluding to the scientific consensus that a human begins to live at conception is quite sufficient.

This is a long-known reality that is high school biology textbook material.

All the details have long ago been presented in this forum and you can simply use the search tool provided to find them.

Taking the time to repost all the details, long ago presented to refute specious pro-choice sophistry, is simply not necessary.

If this is all new to you, then indeed, go back and read the archives in this forum.

wolfman24 said:

thus my comment about flat earth.

Click to expand...

No, the "thus" of your flat-earth comment is about pro-choice oppositional defiant disordered projection.

wolfman24 said:

You made the statement about science and gave nothing to support it.

Click to expand...

You were provided with a list of the sciences and the consensus agreement they reached 35 years ago .. but remain in denial of it for utilitarian pro-choice purposes.

wolfman24 said:

I am under no obligation to respond until your have done so using the types of studies that would prove your point as stated above.

Click to expand...

Indeed, you're oppositionally defiant, unto the last.

So I'm done with you.

rjay said:

Is it the Republican party's position that a full funeral service should be held for all mis-carriages?

Click to expand...

Meaningless obfuscation.

Ontologuy said:

Earlier this year a Gallup Poll (yes, Gina, here such a reference is relevant) presented that when given a choice between pro-life and pro-choice, most Americans chose pro-life, and the results of this poll are found as a separate thread here in the abortion forum.

Click to expand...

And also, earlier this year, when one of the most anti-abortion states in the union was given the option to protect human zygotes, embryos and fetuses, they loudly cried, "NO" on a statewide referendum. Even pro-"lifers" don't want to legally protect the unborn.

It doesn't matter that some people have a "personal" policy of when a human begins to live. What matters here is that science has declared beyond any rational conjecture that a human begins to live at conception, and this declaration, a consensus of the hard sciences of anthropology, phylogeny, biology, genetics-DNA, organism-life, embryology, etc., a consensus that occurred a few years after Roe v. Wade and is now about 35 years old and standing stronger each day.

Click to expand...

Facts alone do not mold a policy. It commonly takes an ideology, which may use a fact or facts, to determine a policy based upon the information provided. So let's say I grant to you, that at the moment of conception, a human being is born. So what? All that you have managed to formulate is that an organism with a set number of chromosomes and has a genome that falls into an identifiable species deserves protection. Not a very convincing argument. Meanwhile, the argument in support for legal abortion is mountainous. Making abortion legal betters public health, aids in family planning, improve's individual standard of living and also does something no pro-"life" law has managed to do; save lives. Whether your zygote is a person or not is irrelevant. That doesn't affect abortion or changes the reality of it to the least.

Most importantly, it doesn't offer a solution to abortion either. Is it any wonder why the legalizations of abortion progresses internationally while society has pushed pro-"lifers" to the sidelines of irrelevancy? Your kind lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the public even before Roe v Wade was conceived!

Ontologuy said:

What matters here is that science has declared beyond any rational conjecture that a human begins to live at conception, and this declaration, a consensus of the hard sciences of anthropology, phylogeny, biology, genetics-DNA, organism-life, embryology, etc., a consensus that occurred a few years after Roe v. Wade and is now about 35 years old and standing stronger each day.

Click to expand...

I would like to read more about this. Can you provide me with some links?

Babylon_Drifter said:

And also, earlier this year, when one of the most anti-abortion states in the union was given the option to protect human zygotes, embryos and fetuses, they loudly cried, "NO" on a statewide referendum. Even pro-"lifers" don't want to legally protect the unborn.

Click to expand...

Give it time .. the Gallup poll clearly puts pro-life in the majority, and change is not a straight-line function, but the direction is clear: back toward the center and an intelligent humane solution to the abortion conflict that will protect the lives of both pre- and post- natals alike.

Give it time ...

Babylon_Drifter said:

Facts alone do not mold a policy. It commonly takes an ideology, which may use a fact or facts, to determine a policy based upon the information provided. So let's say I grant to you, that at the moment of conception, a human being is born. So what? All that you have managed to formulate is that an organism with a set number of chromosomes and has a genome that falls into an identifiable species deserves protection. Not a very convincing argument. Meanwhile, the argument in support for legal abortion is mountainous. Making abortion legal betters public health, aids in family planning, improve's individual standard of living and also does something no pro-"life" law has managed to do; save lives. Whether your zygote is a person or not is irrelevant. That doesn't affect abortion or changes the reality of it to the least.

Click to expand...

The facts, the scientific facts, as they become known by more and more people, most certainly do change policy, as the recent Gallup poll results stemming from a masse realization of those scientific facts does attest, that will most certainly increase the pressure for change .. toward the centrist position of the abortion spectrum.

The fact that a human begins to live at conception is gigantic, as, with the exception of some kinds of utilitarians and a few others who still haven't truly realized what it was that they experienced or did when they supported a woman having an abortion, most people are morally and ethically motivated to seek solutions to problems that do not involve the killing of humans. If the solution is there, we will find it.

And, we will find a solution that works for all, pre- and post- natal alike.

You just have to have faith.

Babylon_Drifter said:

Most importantly, it doesn't offer a solution to abortion either. Is it any wonder why the legalizations of abortion progresses internationally while society has pushed pro-"lifers" to the sidelines of irrelevancy? Your kind lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the public even before Roe v Wade was conceived!

Click to expand...

The only phenomenon you're witnessing there has to do with continued over-population causing scarcer resources and a descent into the lower rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Need where Darwin is alive and well and the utilitarian battle for survival increases ..

.. And that's not progress, that's regression.

Regardless, science will soon deliver the necessary new state-of-the-art conception-prevention pills.

And that combined with the fact that the hearts are not lost at all, with America likely leading the way, will one day return the world to the path of progress in this matter.

You might do well to believe that we can do better.

Simon W. Moon said:

I would like to read more about this. Can you provide me with some links?

Click to expand...

Yes I can .. but that's not my job, but yours.

The matter was long ago settled, logged in our archives for anyone to read .. when they're ready.

So .. you must do your own research, for it is your education that's at stake.

Simply scan the Abortion forum archives here at DP .. you should be able to find them for yourself.

Ontologuy said:

Yes I can .. but that's not my job, but yours.

The matter was long ago settled, logged in our archives for anyone to read .. when they're ready.

So .. you must do your own research, for it is your education that's at stake.

Simply scan the Abortion forum archives here at DP .. you should be able to find them for yourself.

Click to expand...

Uhhhhhhhhhh....excuse me! You think you have to right to make bull**** claims as though they are priori and you don't have to back them up?

Ontologuy said:

Yes I can .. but that's not my job, but yours.
The matter was long ago settled, logged in our archives for anyone to read .. when they're ready.
So .. you must do your own research, for it is your education that's at stake.
Simply scan the Abortion forum archives here at DP .. you should be able to find them for yourself.

Click to expand...

It's been clearly and decisively decided that babies are not humans nor are they alive until their third birthday.
ALL of Science agrees with me.
You are just so totally wrong. All of Science agrees with me. All of it everywhere.

I'd love to show you the evidence to support my position but finding the evidence to support someone else's argument in a debate is your job.
When you're in a debate, you're free to make up any old thing and you opponent has to prove you correct.
That's just how debate works.

or not
idk

Removable Mind said:

Uhhhhhhhhhh....excuse me! You think you have to right to make bull**** claims as though they are priori and you don't have to back them up?

Click to expand...

Your pro-choice posturing, feigning ignorance of all the threads here at DP that presented the details of the scientific reality that a human begins to live at conception, is simply unethical.

You've been here long enough to have read these details.

You just don't like the truth of them.

Simon W. Moon said:

It's been clearly and decisively decided that babies are not humans nor are they alive until their third birthday.
ALL of Science agrees with me.
You are just so totally wrong. All of Science agrees with me. All of it everywhere.

I'd love to show you the evidence to support my position but finding the evidence to support someone else's argument in a debate is your job.
When you're in a debate, you're free to make up any old thing and you opponent has to prove you correct.
That's just how debate works.

or not
idk

Click to expand...

Here you create a form-only comparative employing ludicrous substance .. and you imagine you've made a point. :lol:

But I guess that's easier than doing a little bit of thread searching .. and less painful in its truth-avoidance.

In the process, however, you exhibit foolishness.

Ontologuy said:

Here you create a form-only comparative employing ludicrous substance .. and you imagine you've made a point. :lol:
But I guess that's easier than doing a little bit of thread searching .. and less painful in its truth-avoidance.
In the process, however, you exhibit foolishness.

Click to expand...

I am glad to foolishly think that the person who makes an argument is the one with the obligation to support it.
Somehow, in my little, self-absorbed world, requesting more information about something is different than trying to avoid it.
Ahh, what a fool believes.

Feel free to ignore me now that I have been exposed as a fool with foolish beliefs.

Ontologuy said:

Your pro-choice posturing, feigning ignorance of all the threads here at DP that presented the details of the scientific reality that a human begins to live at conception, is simply unethical.

You've been here long enough to have read these details.

You just don't like the truth of them.

Click to expand...

Look, All Knowing, All Seeing, OminiPotent Ontologuy. There are a lot of people who read forums that don't post. When you make scientific claims then be able to back them up if a poster would like to know where you got your information. Who are you that everybody sees your post and should automatically believe everything you post?

It's not for you to decide on whose been here long enough to have read every thread. That is a sheer rude pompous nonsense attitude.

You make the same scientific claim a thousand times in DP...and a poster or reader has the right to ask you for your source. You just aint that cool or smart.

My pro-life posturing? Bull****!

Why should anybody "BELIEVE YOU"...just take it at your word that you are a walking, talking, scientific encyclopedia.

Removable Mind said:

Look, All Knowing, All Seeing, OminiPotent Ontologuy. There are a lot of people who read forums that don't post. When you make scientific claims then be able to back them up if a poster would like to know where you got your information. Who are you that everybody sees your post and should automatically believe everything you post?

It's not for you to decide on whose been here long enough to have read every thread. That is a sheer rude pompous nonsense attitude.

You make the same scientific claim a thousand times in DP...and a poster or reader has the right to ask you for your source. You just aint that cool or smart.

My pro-life posturing? Bull****!

Why should anybody "BELIEVE YOU"...just take it at your word that you are a walking, talking, scientific encyclopedia.

Click to expand...

:roll:

3k9c1a5u11q7

Ontologuy said:

Here you create a form-only comparative employing ludicrous substance .. and you imagine you've made a point. :lol:

But I guess that's easier than doing a little bit of thread searching .. and less painful in its truth-avoidance.

In the process, however, you exhibit foolishness.

Click to expand...

The truth is that you are bull****ting people and expect everybody to buy everything you say! Now that is the truth!