McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform

[princess_ballet]

I'm not sure I see the quandry here. McCain has never wanted to make abortion illegal. He wants to reverse Roe V Wade in such a way that it doesn't make abortion illegal but rather that it makes it a state issue which means he would have no control over the matter.

If McCain was pro-life he would be insisting on the defense of the dignity of the unborn person at the federal level rather than trying to obscure the issue making it 50 times more difficult to make illegal.

If the Republican Party was sincerely interested in ending abortion one would assume that there would have been something done during GWB's first term, when the GOP held the White House, both the House and the Senate and had installed a new Chief Justice of the Supreme court.

Their failure to act on this matter when the GOP was in control of all three branches of the government severely damages their credibility.

I am seeing politics as usual rather than the GOP with the moral high ground

I don't know why this is such hard concept for people to understand but, I will say it one more time...


The ONLY way abortion could be made illegal is if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It would then go to the states, where most states have made abortion illegal. Other than that, it would take a constitutional amendment (and if you read the constitution, you'll see that that isn't so easy).

Thats how our system works! Its shared problems between the federal government and the states. This is how it works.

Any questions?

 

[MrJim]

Goood Morning, MrJim. Perhaps you know. If I don't vote for President but vote for the rest, does my vote count? Or do they throw my ballot out?

-Peace-

Only what is voted for is counted...unless something has seriously changed...consider than in many dictatorships voting is forced; we are not forced here (yet) so if you only want to vote for a councilman you're not obligated to vote for every critter on the list.

 

[Tigg]

Only what is voted for is counted...unless something has seriously changed...consider than in many dictatorships voting is forced; we are not forced here (yet) so if you only want to vote for a councilman you're not obligated to vote for every critter on the list.

I thank you. I lived out of country for a while and because of circumstances that weren't earth shattering but would take to long to explain, wasn't allowed to vote. So upon my return, I have voted ever since minus one year. I value being able to vote so much. A true blessing and privilege.

Love that "critter" as I think many are just that!
Again, my thanks.

-Peace-

 

[Lisa0315]

Thoughts?

I say we tie up all the politicians and send them down the river
and then we get some 'REAL CHOICES'...

Sorry, this whole election years stinks BAD.

I agree!

 

[Antigone]

I wish they would just give the power back to the states to decide.

I'm surprised McCain hasn't taken that road instead. You'd think that as a republican he would stick to the age-old GOP adage of decentralisation of the federal goverment and giving more power to the states.

Instead, he courts the moderate vote and alienates the conservative votes. My guess is that right now, he's guessing most conservatives will stick to the GOP for a lack of alternative (some might cross to the Constitution Party, but I suspect most will consider this a waste of their vote), whereas moderate voters could potentially vote Democrat instead.

 

[Tigg]

I don't know why this is such hard concept for people to understand but, I will say it one more time...


The ONLY way abortion could be made illegal is if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It would then go to the states, where most states have made abortion illegal. Other than that, it would take a constitutional amendment (and if you read the constitution, you'll see that that isn't so easy).

Thats how our system works! Its shared problems between the federal government and the states. This is how it works.

Any questions?

No.

All up to the Supremes, huh. And vicariously those who Bush can appoint who might overturn, and then to have them accepted....

-Peace-

 

[D'Ann]

Yuppers... I agree with Warrior Angel and PassthePeace1 and Princess Ballet...

When I vote, I'm writing in President Reagan... I can't stand any of the candidates. They all are a bunch of hot air. Sorry... I just am tired of not having a strong candidate across the board.

 

[fated]

It is a moral obligation to cast ones vote in the most effectual way possible to decrease or minimize evil as much as possible.

 

[MrJim]

It is a moral obligation to cast ones vote in the most effectual way possible to decrease or minimize evil as much as possible.

So you're saying Papa Ben would want me to choose between abortionist #1 or abortionist #2?

Even the CCC #2311 implies there is room for conscientous objection to the civil authority~at least seems reasonable that if there is no truthfully valid candidate the best choice is "none of the above"

 

[Globalnomad]

Can someone enlighten me?

I always thought the Republican platform was to overturn Roe v. Wade, thus throwing the issue back to States - which, as Geocajun correctly points out, makes it MORE difficult to outlaw abortion.

Now the article linked in the OP clearly says that the Republican platform is to outlaw abortion with no exeptions.

So which one is it?

 

[fated]

It's one of only two options available to strongly reduce abortions in the US.

And yes, I agree with Geocajun that it might make it more difficult to outlaw abortion, but that approach uses dead babies as "incentives" or "investments" to
improve the chances of a complete ban. Which will nonetheless be ineffective for some time. It seems interim steps to decrease abortion significantly would also be highly moral, though they might put off the ultimate conclusion of the just societies.

 

[fated]

So you're saying Papa Ben would want me to choose between abortionist #1 or abortionist #2?

Even the CCC #2311 implies there is room for conscientous objection to the civil authority~at least seems reasonable that if there is no truthfully valid candidate the best choice is "none of the above"

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108
What are you talking about?

 

[fated]

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108
Which doesn't say much about voting.

And yes, you are to vote to save children. Not theoretical future children (though there might be a moral loophole here), but those who will be or are being killed.

 

[D'Ann]

It is a moral obligation to cast ones vote in the most effectual way possible to decrease or minimize evil as much as possible.

Oh, I understand that and that is the precise reason that I am thinking of writing in Reagan when I vote. I'm protesting, which is a moral obligation to do when we are facing the crap that we are facing on this election.

This whole situation is evil because we have NO good candidates... We need good candidates to step up to the plate. So... yes, I will be voting, but I'm writing in my vote because I can't bring myself to vote for the idiots that are running at the moment and that is my true moral conviction and obligation. Thanks

 

[MrJim]

Oh, I understand that and that is the precise reason that I am thinking of writing in Reagan when I vote. I'm protesting, which is a moral obligation to do when we are facing the crap that we are facing on this election.

This whole situation is evil because we have NO good candidates... We need good candidates to step up to the plate. So... yes, I will be voting, but I'm writing in my vote because I can't bring myself to vote for the idiots that are running at the moment and that is my true moral conviction and obligation. Thanks

 

[fated]

Unless there is a large number of people going to do this, it is going to be ineffectual and a waste of votes, therefore, I call the morality of this action into question.

Your obligation is to minimize evil. So, if you assert civil disobedience then we should discuss who is the candidate you would otherwise consider the lesser of two evils and determine what makes them so evil that you could never vote for them.

 

[D'Ann]

Well.. actually, in retrospect, I'll probably vote for John McCain... but reluctantly.

All I can say is that I hope and pray that in the next election, we have a good man or woman running for President that grabs our heart and is someone that is worthy of that position.

 

[Ave Maria]

No, I voted for Bush in the last election soley on the issue of abortion and will vote for McCain soley on that issue also.

So, for now my vote is for McCain, but if he slides on abortion then I vote for Obama.

Why? McCain would still be against abortion in most cases while Obama would be for abortion in most cases. I'm seriously confused here.

 

[WarriorAngel]

We can still write in Ron Brown...?

 

[fated]

Seriously, if Senator Obama had a plan to eradicate racism, which is based in ignorance, we might have a serious match up. However, I doubt he has any plan, or could even sell such a plan... that would seriously match the magnitude of the abortion issue.


Certainly, also, the Republican party could be convinced to pass such a plan, if it existed, as well.

If it was an autocracy, it is possible that the education system could adapt within, a generation or so, by educating the general under-served populace, and, by doing so, eradicating any basis for the "ignorant" stereotyping. Racism would then die out of its own accord. This is essentially the stalled process we're in now.

The goal, being integration of the particular culture. In a democracy, you'd expect it to take longer. Although, if one could harness pop media and corporate money in a way that was non-detrimental, you could see similar results.

The first step would be to utilize existing research to determine a discernment process for which "new" or "conventional" teaching and tutoring techniques would be most effective if introduced. There is plenty out there and lots of research. Start pilot programs. Review. Propagate*. Review. Inundate. Review. Initial stages could include saving public money for the later stages.

It would be expensive. After the inundation, the system would be reviewed and money should be tapered off, as you would expect states to recapture control of their own schools, thus, allowing the schools to better acclimate to their own settings.

Comprehensive approach includes qualifying adults for college as well.

That is my assault on racism plan. Take it. Leave it. Split it.

Of course, that would be pro-life. I expect we'll see this occur to some extent anyway, as "No Child Left Behind*" is coming to head, and some early pilot programs are paying off big time.

*One could conclude that the propagation step is where we are right now. Encouraging propagation (taking the "culture" from one school to a similar school) would speed the current system, and while slow, would certainly vindicate the "No Child Left Behind" program, as long there was relief from the too thorough testing, and unfortunately taxing and unrealistic penalties.

This could be considered a significant loophole. I don't particularly think that simply having a black president, while significant in an of itself, is going to do nearly as much good as a couple of good pro-life justices.