posted
I seem to recall more than one pro-life poster saying that they would vote for a pro-life candidate in all or nearly all circumstances, even if they agreed with the pro-choice candidate on most other issues. Being the bored and cynical person I am, I was wondering if this would be at all useful for my own political goals. So...
Imagine a candidate or party with two main issues of equal importance.
1. Making all abortions illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life. (This would be an easier sell than no abortions period.)
2. The complete repeal of all current drug laws, with the new standard being that all legal adults may possess, purchase, sell (to other adults), distribute (to other adults), ingest, and be under the influence of any drug. This would include THC, caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, MDMA, heroin, PCP, diphenhydramine, etc.
Both these positions would be sincerely held. Would you vote for the candidate and/or party?
Edit: Why or why not?
Second edit: one class of drugs that would be regulated would be antibiotics. The reasoning behind this is that a person who uses most drugs helps or harms only himself, but a person who uses antibiotics unnecessarily can have a negative effect upon others.
posted
I'd vote for a pro-life lesbian socialist before I'd vote for a Republican who wanted to preserve abortion on demand.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean by pro-life? I know until I was about 30 I thought that term applied to those who opposed abortion, but it finally got into my stubborn head that the only real pro-lifers out there are people who oppose the death penalty AND abortion. I don't think there are any candidates who are really pro-life, why can't there just be a death party and a life party? Innocence and guilt are too subjective in human eyes, that distinction is reserved for God.
posted
BrianM, to condemn people who are against killing of innocent babies because they happen to support executing a mass murderer is hardly fair.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's the usual reason I vote republican, but the death penalty is not a foolproof system. My ultimate party choice would be to have a party that did not allow abortion or the death penalty. Must I invoke Sir Blackstone? What do you tell to the family of an innocent person executed? That their sacrafice was worth it because it made people fear the government more??? No sinner is beyond redemption, and I think I will soon believe 100% that murder of any means regardless the sinner (remember, we have *all* sinned) is not any worse or better than another.
posted
I would not vote for that candidate, since I would disagree with their drug policy, and I feel that it could do serious harm to our society. However, I would not ever vote for a pro abortion candidate either. If I had to I would vote for a 3rd party candidate, or do a write in.
As for the death penalty, I am against it in almost all cases. The only situations are cases where the person has committed many murders, the courts are 100% sure he/she committed the crime, and the person is still a threat to society.
For example I have seen serial killers say (in interviews) that if they got out of prison they would kill again. People who have no respect for life are a continued threat to other prisoners, guards, and the general public (in the case of an escape). Another example would be someone like Hitler. Everyone knows exactly what he did...plus he would be a continued threat as there are nuts who would try to get him out of prison to allow him to continue his killing. Saddam would be another example.
In these kinds of cases the death penalty is a sort of defense...to protect people from the person. I don't agree with using death as a punishment...or as a deterrent.
That being said, unlike abortion I will not refuse to vote for someone because they agree with the death penalty in its current form. The majority of Americans are pro death penalty...so it is not surprising that few agree with me.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
TMedina, we should probably chat sometime. As someone who shares similar beliefs to yours, it might be enlightening to discuss the issues. I'm living in Kansas, and my current social circles are heavily ANTI-CHOICE conservatives. Ya know, the debate just goes in circles after a while That, or I'm just tired of debating the issues, and it'd be a relief to discuss them.
Oh, and on the topic of the thread: I'm all for freedom of choice. That doesn't mean I love abortion or that I eat babies on the holidays. I'm a guy who has no place seriously telling women what to do on the issue.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lupus, why do you disagree with their drug policy? Do you feel that current anti-drug policies are working?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and very, very rare. I don't think sending women back to the back-alley abortionists and coat hangers is a particularly pro-life thing to do. And I don't trust politicians who claim to be against abortion but say they would allow it in cases of rape or incest. I can guarantee that the red tape to get one of those exceptional abortions would be so thick that by the time the woman got through all of it, the baby would be a year old. And I do not believe that a woman should be forced against her will to carry such a pregnancy (from rape or incest) to term.
Secondly, I do not support the idea that all drugs should be legalized.
So, basically, I don't support the candidate's position on either issue.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I probably wouldn't vote for the candidate with those views, since I don't think one candidate is enough to get pro-life bills passed.
I would take the tradeoff in a minute if some weird choice presented it somehow (i.e., legalize drugs and abortion on demand will be outlawed).
As for the drug policy, I might be open to legalizing some drugs for recreational use, but not allowing just anyone to sell it. I would want some training required, serious liability insurance, and a tax going to rehab.
Plus, what's happening to the tobacco industry would have to be fair game for sellers of other addictive drugs.
posted
Well, Tstorm, what if it was your kid? Do you not have the right because it's her body, even though it's your child, too?
The current abortion policy is unfair to men. If a woman decides to keep the baby, you have no choice but to pay for it. If the woman kills the baby, you have no choice. How dare we as a society tell men to be more involved in their families and then make them all but slaves to a woman's whim. We tell men what terrible people they are for not taking an active role in their families, but we tell them the decision to create the family isn't theirs.
The only decision a man can make is to wear a condom and carefully choose who he sleeps with. That's the message we as a society should really be pushing.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The only decision a man can make is to wear a condom and carefully choose who he sleeps with. That's the message we as a society should really be pushing.
What's wrong with just telling a man he should avoid having sex outside of a monogamous marriage? (not instead of what you said, but in addition to)
posted
*shrug* While I'm anti-abortion, myself, and generally pro-legalization, I wouldn't consider basing my vote on those two relatively marginal and unimportant issues alone.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:...only real pro-lifers out there are people who oppose the death penalty AND abortion.
Because, of course, there is no real moral difference between an innocent baby (which is how many anti-abortion people view it) and a murderer / rapist / molester, etc.
As for innocence and guilt, those are judged by God ultimately, yes. But before that ultimate judgement, we people have to make do.
Who are you to say who a 'real' pro-lifer is? Besides BrianM, I mean.
----------
I would not vote for either candidate, because I think both stances are too extreme and unyielding to be good laws. Even though I have deep problems with the current system governing both questions.
Also, I'd have to find out what that candidate thought on other less abstract issues.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd have serious doubts about the candidate. I'd have to get out my statistics, find out how many people die currently from overdoses, drug-related accidents, and so forth, and try to work out how much that might go up if more people were doing it. Because, contrary to what someone said, drug use does harm more than the user. Don't try that line on anyone who's had a drunk driver kill family members; it's not like driving stoned is any easier. In the end, though, I might decide it was worth it. People always say you can't weigh lives, but sometimes you really have no choice but to try.
I also hear people saying the government shouldn't tell women what to do. But the fact is, the government is here precisely to tell us what to do, and to enforce that telling. Ideally, it should do so as little as possible, but matters of life and death are precisely where most intervention is needed. Let no one kid you: abortion is a matter of life and death. No one has the right to make those choices for the innocent.
Abortion can never be safe, legal, and rare. Nothing anyone might desire, for any common reason, can be safe, legal, and rare. Ambition is not rare. Poverty is not rare. Pressure from other people is not rare. Therefore as long as abortion is safe and legal it will be terrifyingly common. For the sake of the children being killed, it must be made illegal. If it becomes unsafe in the process, all the more reason to be certain the laws are enforced.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I believe that ALL women should be able to choose life: Their life, where they can grow up to an age where they can bring children into the world properly, instead of dropping out of school and ruining their life to support a child they should have had ten years later.
But then again this is my motto on a lot of issues: It should be legal, but you shouldn't do it.
In other words, if "pro-lifers" really wanted to stop abortion, they should be teaching people to use condoms and absitinance. They should be trying to eliminate the NEED for abortion instead of abortion itself.
If you had a time machine, and wanted to stop Hitler from taking power, and get the Versailes treaty makers to ease off Germany, don't assassinate Hitler.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that ALL women should be able to choose life: Their life, where they can grow up to an age where they can bring children into the world properly, instead of dropping out of school and ruining their life to support a child they should have had ten years later.
posted
Tell me how to get people to frickin' listen, ArCHeR, and it might be worth our while. So far, all indications are that teenagers pay virtually no attention to the media campaigns about drugs, sex, and so on--and apparently their parents don't either or are just as inept at conveying the message.
In the meantime, until we figure out how to make it work, we need strict abortion laws. Treating causes instead of symptoms is a good idea, but not very helpful when the symptoms will kill you before the treatment does any good.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, Tstorm, what if it was your kid? Do you not have the right because it's her body, even though it's your child, too?
The current abortion policy is unfair to men. If a woman decides to keep the baby, you have no choice but to pay for it.
I don't like to play the "what if" game. I'll answer all those silly situations the same way: the choice should be available to people in the situation. You may not choose it. I might not get into the situation. It's acceptable to me, however, for the option to be available to other people.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The symptoms aren't killing you, and as far as any medical expert can say, it's not killing anything. The actual abortion isn't what's wrong. It's the fact that people have abortions. IF the fetus is living, it hasn't sinned, so it's going to heaven, right? If it's not alive, then there's no death anyway.
And in a lot of abortion cases, the women DID say no. She HAD to have sex. It's called rape, and I'm pretty sure it's the leading cause of abortion. I don't have the statistics handy.
And I didn't have pre-marital sex. A lot of people haven't. Something's working somewhere. People are getting it. We just need to find out what it was.
Maybe it all has to do with education. Show people the consequences, not just that they shouldn't do it.
The Bible does a great job of the opposite, but it doesn't really go into why you shouldn't do these things besides the standard "if you do, you'll go to hell."
But standing outside abortion clinics and calling the people going there whores isn't going to do anything but traumatize these women.
Another thing anti-abortionists don't seem to get is that there are a lot of VERY valid reasons to have an abortion. Try these on for size:
Rape Emminent death of the mother Suffering of the baby if it's brought to term (prime example: conjoined twins who would die in agony days after the birth)
I would say something about women who can't support the child if it's born, but you'll just say adoption, and I'll just say the adoption system is already overflowing, mainly because the same people who are against abortion are against giving children to a good home simply because the adopting parents are gay.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
It would suck to be me. As much as I may want something to happen or not to happen, as the case may be, the simple fact of the matter remains that it's not my body. I cannot force a woman to endure 9 months of hell and the subsequent physical and emotional turmoil if she doesn't want to participate. Having a child, as many of you know, is a life-altering decision and that's not even touching on the "passing a bowling ball" phase.
No, it's not fair if she decides to have the kid and I don't want to. It's not particularly fair that I am made to support the child when I didn't want a child.
But I knew it was a risk when I slid Tab A into Slot B. Was I wearing a condom? Was she on birth control? Those help skew the numbers, but nothing is 100% effective, short of abstinence. And, if the Christians are right, not even then.
What's that inane phrase my mother used to chant? "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
-Trevor
Edit: And I'm not even touching on the religion issue. Didn't one school of thought assert that nobody is without sin? The sins of the father, etc.
posted
Catholics believe you MUST be baptized, but I'm wondering: what sin can babies have? That they don't believe in God because they can't even understand the concept? My belief is that God judges you based on what you would have done in life. IE: Even if an atheist gets killed when he's 20, if he had survived and repented later in life, he would go to heaven. But I also know I don't know, so I just trust God to send people where they belong.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And in a lot of abortion cases, the women DID say no. She HAD to have sex. It's called rape, and I'm pretty sure it's the leading cause of abortion. I don't have the statistics handy.
WRONG! Even if every rape victim became pregnant, and everyone had an abortion, that would account for less than 35% of abortions (354,670 in 1995, over 1 million abortions per year). Of course, the vast majority of rape victims don't become pregnant, and some who do don't have abortions.
I believe the figure is less than 2% (again from memory). It's sure as hell not the leading cause of abortion. If you actually care about persuading people, you leave yourself open to outright dismissal with such ridiculous claims.
quote:But I knew it was a risk when I slid Tab A into Slot B. Was I wearing a condom? Was she on birth control? Those help skew the numbers, but nothing is 100% effective, short of abstinence. And, if the Christians are right, not even then.
What's that inane phrase my mother used to chant? "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
That's kind of the pro-life argument, you choose to do it, you took the risk, now deal with the repercussions.
posted
I said I didn't have the figures in front of me, but I remember seeing some sort of pie chart during the presentation of our senior projects last year, which was of 2002 I think. I might be getting my numbers crossed. Either way, the majority of abortions aren't just "I don't want to have a baby." Most of them are "I can't have this baby."
quote:So much for free will.
Why? God will judge you on what you would have chosen to do. If God knows everything, he certainly knows that.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Huh? I honestly don't know what you're talking about... but if you want to know if I support sex-ed (beyond abstinence) then I do... but I really don't know if that has anything to do with what you're talking about.
quote:I said I didn't have the figures in front of me, but I remember seeing some sort of pie chart during the presentation of our senior projects last year, which was of 2002 I think. I might be getting my numbers crossed. Either way, the majority of abortions aren't just "I don't want to have a baby." Most of them are "I can't have this baby."
Not if by "I can't have this baby" you mean rape, incest, life or physical harm to the mother, and/or severe birth defects. This is all the traditional "hard cases," and most of them aren't a very good reason to kill a child anyway.
The rest, even severe economic hardship, equates to "I don't want to have a baby."
You're rape numbers are so far off that all your statistics are untrustworthy.
posted
Hobbes - you can use similar arguments for a lot of things.
However, while I agree that a man being required to support a child he didn't want is wrong although legal, I find the prospect of forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't want to be a far greater wrong.
As to God and pre-destiny.
I would accept that God, being all-knowing and all-seeing, knows all possible outcomes, but if He(?) already knows what _will_ happen, not what is likely to happen, then everything I do is already cast in stone.
Which makes everything a pointless exercise in destiny and pre-determination.
posted
If we allow mothers to kill their fetuses, ergo we should force fathers to decide during the first three months (or whatever the abortion period is) whether or not they will support the baby.
It seems the only *just* thing to do.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Provided we accept that it is, indeed killing.
And I'll grant the fathers _shouldn't_ be required to support the child if he doesn't want to as the "reasonable personal responsibility" clause applies equally to the woman as the man.
Provided, of course, the sex was consentual and there are no other mitigating circumstances.
posted
Between 1%(pro-life claim) and 3%(pro-choice claim) of all abortions are performed because of physical danger to either the mother or the fetus.
Less than 1% are because of rape or incest(both sides agree).
So only 96%-98% of all abortions are preformed for convenience. Only, heh.
quote: Tom-- I'm not sure how the state-approved deaths of thousands of children can be considered a marginal or unimportant issue.
See, I thought the same thing as Tom did, that neither issue alone would swing my vote. For me, it's because my anti-abortion stance stems from reasons of responsibility and accountability, rather than woe because many children are dying.
posted
Frisco, those are the numbers I recall, but I can't find the source. There was a study fairly well accepted by both sides in the 90s, but I can't find it.
posted
Provided we accept that it is, indeed killing.
And I'll grant the fathers _shouldn't_ be required to support the child if he doesn't want to as the "reasonable personal responsibility" clause applies equally to the woman as the man.
Provided, of course, the sex was consentual and there are no other mitigating circumstances.
You kill living organisms. That's different than murder. No one who knows even the smallest amount of science can deny that the fetus is alive.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did people also read the links I pointed to a bit ago in another thread that showed abortions most likely weren't less per capita historically, and that illegal abortions had a significantly higher rate of death/injury to the mother?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I did. Even if those statistics are true, it doesn't affect my position except to say we need education on the dangers of illegal abortions when abortions are outlawed.
posted
Hobbes, basically, you cherry picked a statement by Archer and made a smarmy rejoinder to, even though the answer to that rejoinder was later in the same post by Archer (the "condoms and abstinence" statement). You set up a straw man, as a joke or deliberate mischaracterization, I couldn't tell.
posted
Did I read that right? It looked to me (when I finally managed to get ahold of the presentation--it didn't want to load) like only a tiny fraction of abortions are from the key scenarios pro-choice advocates are so hot to protect abortion for--and then Trevor promptly bowed out.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
That, or I'm just tired of debating the issues, and it'd be a relief to discuss them.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I honestly don't know what you're talking about... but if you want to know if I support sex-ed (beyond abstinence) then I do... but I really don't know if that has anything to do with what you're talking about. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
