Republicans and Abortion (Page 2)

Understood.  But if you honestly think the tens of millions of fetuses aborted over the last 40 years all would have had wonderful loving homes provided to them, I would have to disagree.  Statistics are important.  There are lots of angels out there willing to adopt the most unwanted children...crack-addicted babies, babies with fetal alcohol syndrome, profound disabilities, etc.  But are there enough?  I'd love to see the numbers.  I don't think they'd be out there.  

Unwanted pregnancies will not receive the nurturing in the womb that intended pregnancies will garner.  trigal mentioned earlier we all have issues/problems.  To some extent that's true, but looking at the matter from a statistical vantage point, it is true that more intended pregnancies equates to less of those issues/problems.  That's an incredible positive for society.

I am glad women have a choice.  I truly believe we as a society are better off because they have a choice...and I'm glad the majority agrees on this issue.  A higher % of pregnancies carried to term are wanted and loved today, compared with pre-Roe v Wade days.  That's good for our country.

In reply to the OP'er, I'm a fairly conservative Republican as well.  Certainly fiscally conservative with some socially liberal tendencies.  In my opinion, the Republican party needs to get the hel! out of Abortion and Gay Marriage.  Let me address gay marriage first.  This is an interesting issue in Iowa because we had 5 Supreme Court justices essentially legislate from the bench and made gay marriage legal.  I was surprised this held but the state has not put it to vote yet.  I hope this doesn't come across as racist, but in my opinion, gay marriage today is the similar to the civil rights movements of the 60s.  Let me be clear, I know these are not the same, just similar.  Can you imagine a society today that would not let every person vote that met the legal requirements involved?  I think in 10 years we will look back to the 2012 election and say, Iowa and Delaware and a few other states had it right.

Now on to abortion.  It's a challenging topic to debate.  I'm pro life, but I have to concede, as a Republican, that it is too hot of an issue to stand my ground on in the political arena.  Republicans have come across as intrusive, obstructive and controlling when it comes to abortion.  I know this is not the intent, but it certainly has become the result.  Republicans will continue to lose elections when 80% of single women vote Democrat and 55% of all women do as well.  We will not make any further gains in the House, Senate, and certainly not the White House, with stats like this.

One of the main issues in the Pro-life vs Pro-choice debate is that these to positions are not on opposite sides.  Pro Choice is not the opposite of Pro Life.  I used to be one of those Pro-lifers that was really good at turning a pro-choice person into a "Pro-Abortionist".  It's not a fair argument because how can someone really be "pro-abortion".  Unfortunately, being pro-life is often equated to being anti-women's rights.  I truly don't believe this is right.  Most pro lifers that I know are more concerned about the child to be born than the rights of the woman carrying that child.  This may seem insensitive but I know there are people out there who feel like they are defending the defenseless when it comes to abortion.

Should women have the right to choose what they do to their body?  I believe so.  I just wish it did not result in the loss of a life of an unborn child. 

Like I said, abortion is a challenging topic to debate.

The crime facet is just one aspect of the benefits of a society in which women control what happens with and in their bodies.  (in my opinion of course)

In my opinion, having a child is a very important event.  It must be taken extremely seriously.  It's like a "simultaneous turning of the nuclear keys" important.  I'm not a big fan of the "oops, oh well" philosophy.  In my line of thinking, (the emphasis on planning as opposed to "God's will fatalism") I recognize I'm a bit extreme.  I believe in planning for a child.  I'm not a fan of irresponsible people procreating.  I'm even less of a fan of irresponsible people parenting.  That said, I'm all for adoption when it means a less loving and less responsible birth parent gives up their child.  If it can be adopted, wonderful.  

There are kids out there ready to be adopted.  There are foster kids everywhere.  Do folks out there typically want to adopt older children or children with profound disabilities and/or limitations?  No.  

More on-topic, the GOP will continue to lose national elections because of the virtual impossibility of nominating a pro-choice candidate.  Social conservatism is dying.  Young adults are on average more liberal than their parents.  Every year the GOP is losing ground.  I will say Romney used a good strategy on the topic though.  He was pro-choice to get elected in Massachusetts.  He than went hardcore pro-life to get the GOP nomination reminding folks he'd be happy to overturn Roe v. Wade...but then he came back more moderate in the general election touting exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother...also let folks know he wouldn't try to overturn roe v wade.  Folks didn't fall for it...especially women.

Great post, and I agree big-time!

So you think Romney lost the election because of the abortion issue?  No way!

Pinning an entire election on one issue would be foolish.  I didn't say that.  Was it a component?  Oh heck yeah.  I'm pretty sure I said Romney did the best he could politically.  The strategy was smart...harder core pro-life in the GOP primary, then move towards the middle in the general election.  The point is, being pro-life is not a positive politically nation-wide.  It just isn't.  In this election, the GOP tried its darnedest to make the economy the central feature, and the Democrats pushed the social issues.  In the end, women greatly preferred Obama to Romney.  Were social issues a factor?  Yup.  Will they continue to be important in future elections?  Yes. 

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  I voted democratic because personal liberties should not be taken away by a political party that preaches "small government" and proceeds to tell me how to run my life according to a church doctrine.  So in my little corner of the world, the election was based on gay rights and the freedom to choose what happens to my body.

If the GOP was less religious and were interested in granting freedoms instead of basing their doctrine on one religion I would be a Republican.  Trust me, I'm just as furious about watching people on food stamps buy Redbull while tweeting from their iphones as anyone else.  I hate the fact that my ex was milking unemployment for a year, playing video games.  I hate how the government throws money at problems instead of really looking for a solution.

I hear that alot.....and I get it, and it's your vote to do with as you choose.  For me, I had to look at a bigger picture than just me.  I thought, and still do, that Romney was a much better choice for fixing the economy.  

Let's face it.....gay rights are coming and abortion being illegal is never coming back.....no matter who is in the white house.  

What part of Romney/Ryan's words and/or actions make you feel comfortable saying that?  You must be familiar with the GOP's stance on both of these issues.  The fall of roe v. wade is always just a few conservative SC justices away.

 In 1996 you had a Supreme Court make-up of 7-2 republican vs. democrat appointments.  In 2010 it was still 5-4 republican vs. democrat.

Did you see Roe v. Wade come crashing down? 

Your argument holds NO water.

Dang, I couldn't find the article I read several weeks prior to the election that discussed just how possible overturning roe v. wade could be.  In the meantime, here's an article with some interesting tid-bits.  If the GOP doesn't make it outright illegal, they'll do anything they can to make it more difficult.  (btw, I still believe they'd have no qualms pushing for overturning roe v. wade)

OK....great.....I'm glad you believe it. (I believe in the tooth fairy)  The FACT is, the Supreme Court make-up has been favorable to overturning Roe V. Wade for years, if you merely look at Republican vs. Democrat appointments....it hasn't happened...and it's not going to.

You can take your tin-foil hat off now.  As with gun-control, that ship  has sailed.....our society has spoken on the issue....the Supreme Court decides what issues to look at, Roe V. Wade is not coming back up.....relax.

I think you need to step back and quit busting his chops.

Even aside from the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade becomes irrelevant if they make it obnoxious and/or dangerous enough that no medical provider will perform them in the U.S., which is part of their goal.

There is not enough support to get it done....forget it.  The Republican adgenda does not live and die with abortion....it just doesn't.

And I'm not busting anyone's chops.....lol......there is no refuting my point....the Supreme Court has had a clear majority of Republican appointments for years....no overturning of R v. W....not going to happen.

The problem with your argument is that it has nothing to do with the Supreme Court's willingness or not.  They simply haven't had a case dealing with it yet - in fact, I can't even remember one going in front of them to accept or reject.  Maybe a legal expert can fill in here, but I'd expect that to happen only if there are competing decisions in multiple U.S. Courts of Appeals.

Also keep in mind that the anti-abortion supporters will quickly drop a case at the appeals level if they think it's at risk of a decision that hurts their cause.

I agree it's unlikely there will be a change, but on a long enough time line it's hard to tell.

It absolutely does.  This is from "wisegeek" but is the clearest explanation I've seen:

"The United States Supreme Court is the ultimate court of last resort. While the cases heard by lower level trial courts and appellate courts can be appealed to state supreme courts and federal appellate courts, no other court looks over the shoulder of the U.S. Supreme Court. The opinions issued by the nine justices on this court are final.

Every year the U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of requests to have the high court hearspecific cases. Experts estimate that roughly 5000 requests are made annually. These requests, called petitions for writs of certiorari, are essentially pleas stating, "please hear my case." Each justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has a number of skilled law clerks working for him or her and these clerks review every petition for writ of certiorari and submit a "cert memo" regarding the writs they review to the justice they are assigned. The judges review the memos and hold a conference to determine which of these cases should go on the court's docket.

The "Rule of Four" controls matters when deciding which issues the high court will hear. If four justices agree that a specific petition for writ of certiorari should be granted, then the case will be placed on the Supreme Court's docket and an order stating that certiorari has been granted will be issued to the petitioner"

I agree.  This is why I voted for W knowing there would be judges appointed. This also made me realize it was never going to be overturned so what the president believes about abortion is not part of my decision making.

I'm going to try to stick with the OP's topic--Republicans and abortion (most of us have, and that's much appreciated).

I am a Republican for a number of reasons (okay, primarily because I signed up as one when I was 18). In terms of elections for people or measures, I vote my conscience. Sometimes my conscience includes my wallet. And that's meant at times voting Democrat, at other times, Republican. I have never voted for a third-party candidate in a Presidential election.

I deeply respect the general position of the Republican party on abortion. I am a pro-lifer for reasons of civil rights. I do believe fetuses are human. In that vein, I do believe the government has the responsibility to defend the rights of these young humans to life, and to a GOOD LIFE. We have a VERY long way to go as a society in providing information and resources regarding sexuality, contraception, general preventive health care and perinatal care, support for children in particularly difficult circumstances after birth.

I would be hesitant to support pro-life stances (though I would not oppose them) in measures or otherwise unless these conditions are met. Pregnancy places a very special burden on women, who certainly do have rights as well, and those rights cannot be blindly imbalanced in favor of either mother or child.

So far, I'm not seeing any Republicans with a comprehensive, responsible, practical plan in this regard.

I *despise* that the Republicans have tied this stance to a fundamentalist Christian agenda.

For similar reasons, I am strongly in support of gay marriage. Guess what--I believe gay people are also humans, entitled to all the same rights any other capable human beings are.

I agree. It has to more than 'don't kill babies' it needs to be 'don't make unwanted babies'

Sadly, in my experience with 3 different women they knew exactly how babies are made and did nothing to prevent it. One of them has had 3 abortions, one had 2 and the third woman didn't have any more abortions but was pregnant again within a year and kept that baby though she still was not ready to be a parent.

It's analagous to the war on drugs.  Keeping people from having unprotected sex is just as difficult as keeping people from buying illegal drugs.  No matter what we do as private citizens (or the government does) will stop either from occurring.  

It's such a difficult issue with no perfect solution.