McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform

[fated]

I disagree, there will come a time, when Judges realize that they cannot make up rights or dismiss them as they please, which is what happened with Roe v. Wade. This moment is likely when Roe v. Wade is overturned.

You can see some of the effects as privacy issues are raised in the supreme court, and the government actually has lots of rights to dictate laws against specific behaviors which affect the public.

Most people would agree that using abortion as a sex screening tool deteriorates society in an unambiguous way.

Which candidate would surely uphold a ban on abortion used as a sex screening tool?
Which would likely not?

 

[PetersKeys]

Well, wanting to get rid of most abortions is better than not wanting to get rid of ANY abortions.

Not the best, but then neither are the candidates.

Wouldn't it best for Catholics NOT to vote instead of voting and violating their moral precepts and their church. The Church rejects the "lesser of 2 evils" theory.

Voting is important, but not as so far as violating your moral convictions, Holy Scripture, and the Churches doctrine.

 

[Lisa0315]

Wouldn't it best for Catholics NOT to vote instead of voting and violating their moral precepts and their church. The Church rejects the "lesser of 2 evils" theory.

Voting is important, but not as so far as violating your moral convictions, Holy Scripture, and the Churches doctrine.

Yes, but we do have another option. We can write in a candidate and still fulfil our duty to our country. Mike Huckabee got 12% of the vote here in North Carolina because of write-ins.

Lisa

 

[Davidnic]

One thing that always proves to be true to me in these discussions, is that I can watch "pro-lifers" bend their desires in order to justify their voting republican.

Suggestion for you D'Ann - read up on the "95/10" plan. Also read up about pro-life democrats. We're growing in numbers. There are many states which will make it impossible to make abortion illegal under the McCain plan. What is needed is a plan which makes the lives of the unborn as protected as the lives of the born, and the republicans are just using pro-lifers to hurt the poor by making themselves richer by dangling the pro-life carrot and not doing anything else. Time to wake up. Republicans aren't pro-life.

I think there are some good points here. As a Republican one thing that is becoming clearer is that Pro-life is being used as a wedge issue in order to create a divide and keep voters loyal to a party. The Democrats do this too. Both ends don't want the problem solved as parties. But some individuals might want to reduce the number of abortions in an honest effort.

So the questions is how does a voter:

Identify an individual who will do that?
Do it while not supporting an evil to get it accomplished?

It is becoming clear that neither party "as a whole" or "at the top" wants this issue to end. So the only option is to strictly investigate the individuals we are voting for to see if we can discern their intentions and their wills to stand against their parties.

As far as writing in a vote...I do not see that as a waste. If we continue to vote for a "lesser of two evils" we will always be presented with two evils.

We can not vote for a lesser evil since it is still an evil. If the Catholic vote wrote in their vote then that would be a pretty big eye opener. Pro-life Democrats are growing in number and influence and it is something to watch and be aware of...but to really make solid pro-life votes we need to do a great deal of research and personal investigation into our candidates both Democrat and Republican.

 

[InTheCloud]

curious, do you apply the same standard to murder of the born?

Last time I checked, murder was a States issue too. The Feds rarely see murder cases.

 

[Lisa0315]

I think there are some good points here. As a Republican one thing that is becoming clearer is that Pro-life is being used as a wedge issue in order to create a divide and keep voters loyal to a party. The Democrats do this too. Both ends don't want the problem solved as parties. But some individuals might want to reduce the number of abortions in an honest effort.

So the questions is how does a voter:

Identify an individual who will do that?
Do it while not supporting an evil to get it accomplished?

It is becoming clear that neither party "as a whole" or "at the top" wants this issue to end. So the only option is to strictly investigate the individuals we are voting for to see if we can discern their intentions and their wills to stand against their parties.

As far as writing in a vote...I do not see that as a waste. If we continue to vote for a "lesser of two evils" we will always be presented with two evils.

We can not vote for a lesser evil since it is still an evil. If the Catholic vote wrote in their vote then that would be a pretty big eye opener. Pro-life Democrats are growing in number and influence and it is something to watch and be aware of...but to really make solid pro-life votes we need to do a great deal of research and personal investigation into our candidates both Democrat and Republican.

Well, I know this much...McCain voted FOR the ban on partial birth abortions. Clinton voted against, and Obama did not vote. He just said "Present" when his name was called. The last is a political tactic that is supposed to not alienate voters on either side. To me, it is cowardice.

I may write in Jesus Christ.

Lisa

 

[fated]

Let us assume that John McCain, in actuallity believes that:
ABORTION IS ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE EVIL.

Can his political position be justified by prudence?
Can he justify his position, because he understands that these dramatic situations will cause rash judgments frequently among health care workers and women, that punitive coercion, and political law, may, in many cases cause more severe social harm than good?
Especially in today's culture?
Instead believing that these other root causes must be solved by other punitive measures (rape and incest) and medical advances (risk of death)?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I'm sick and freaking tired of this issue. Partially because SO many people cast their vote, a vote that determines our national policy on war, economics, healthcare, poverty, justice, etc. based solely on an issue that isn't going to change. Also, partially, because my views put me at a point where neither side, pro-life or pro-choice, would claim me. Both pretty much violently denounce me. Lastly, i hate it because 90% of people with a strong opinion on it (both sides) base their opinion primarily on emotional grounds to the degree that it is beyond impossible to even have a discussion on it, since everyone is so completely sure thier opponents are the devil.

 

[MrJim]

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?

My point was that it was said it was a moral obligation to vote in the sense that even if two unethical demons were the candidates then a vote would still be required. I note the CCC in that if there is a way out of serving in something as serious as military for conscience's sake then probably a vote wouldn't be required where there is no true choice.

The write-in thing I suppose would be an alternate option...

 

[fated]

The Second Vatican Council taught us that “all citizens are to bear in mind that it is both their right and duty to use their free vote to promote the common good ” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, no. 75).

http://www.theleaven.com/localvote090106.htm

It looks like being lazy and emotional so that you ignore what you consider a difficult decision is not generally considered a valid reason. It is not, after all, much of a surprise when people don't vote in the US.

 

[Fantine]

I don't like national platforms of any stripe as a rule.

Why do Democrats have to agree with ALL of their party's platform to get party support?

Why do Republicans, for that matter?

I think that candidates should be able to support most of their party's platform, in conscience, but if they disagree with a few issues, what does it matter?

Most of the laws restricting abortions have had to survive court challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court before being implemented. If a law is crafted in such a way that it is likely to pass the courts and, perhaps, push them a little to the righ ton the issue, then it's a good expenditure of time and effort.

If it is obviously not going to pass court muster, then other tactics need to be tried.

What McCain apparently supported about abortion in 2001 and 2007 is close to the American consensus on abortion, even if it's not close to the Catholic consensus. He wants to get a critical mass of votes, just like the Democrats.

 

[SolomonVII]

A few facts about the Roe V Wade decision as regards to politics.

The decision came about in 1973, during the presidency of Richard Nixon (R)

Concurring opinions were:
Chief Justice Burger, presiding. Appointed by President Eisenhower (R)
Justice Douglas, appointed by President Roosevelt (D)
Justice Brennan, appointed by President Eisenhower (R)
Justice Stewart, appointed by President Eisenhower (R)
Justice Marshall, appointed by President Johnson (D)
Justice Blackmun, Appointed by President Nixon (R)
Justice Powell, appointed by President Nixon (R)

Seven concurring judges, five appointed by Republicans and two appointed by Democrats.

Dissenting opinions were:
Justice White, appointed by President Kennedy (D)
Justice Renquist, appointed by President Nixon (R)

Two dissenting judges, one appointed by a Republican, One by a Democrat.

The current U.S. Supreme court (that has refused to revisit Roe V. Wade) is made up of:

Chief Justice Roberts, presiding. Appointed by President G.W. Bush (R)
Justice Stephens, appointed by President Ford (R)
Justice Scalia, appointed by President Reagan (R)
Justice Souter, appointed by President G. H. Bush (R)
Justice Thomas, appointed by President G.H. Bush (R)
Justice Ginsberg, appointed by President Clinton (D)
Justice Breyer, appointed by President Clinton (D)
Justice Alito, appointed by President G.W. Bush


There are seven judges currently serving who were appointed by Republicans, and two judges appointed by a Democrat.

It would appear that the Republican leadership really have no interest in overturning Roe V. Wade.

LH75,
(Registered Republican in Nebraska, the reddest of the red states)

Conservatism was a spent force in America before Reagan. From the New Deal until the talk about the moral majority, Republicans and Democrats were not so much divided into conservative and liberal camps, but liberalism was on the ascendancy under both of the parties.

It was Reagan who really began to define the Republican Party with the forces of conservatism, and laign the Republicans with the evangelicals for whom abortion was a major issue.

And even Reagan was a little liberal on the issue.

Be that as it may, because the evangelicals are so aligned with the Republicans, this will always be an issue for that party. For the Democrats, pro-life will be very much an uphill battle and a fringe for any so inclined.

 

[Psalms34]

Hey, what do yah know, I typed in John McCain in the tags search box [bottom of page] and this is one of two threads on McCain that existed. So hope you don’t mind me asking this question since it was in the OP.

If they do such a thing as make an exception on abortion regarding incest, rape and danger to the mother (which statistically is very rare), would you speculate that the reports of rapes will increase dramatically if in fact such laws are one day passed? I mean who is to say, right? if one is going to murder, what is a lie on top of that to get the ball rolling?

Also, if this is an attempt by McCain to put such decisions in state hands (though I doubt any action at all will be taken), could this not trigger serious division among the states? such as like what was seen just before the civil war? I mean if it is really a constitutional right regarding life and liberty, morally wrong to do, and your daughters, girlfriend or wife could simply go over the state line and get a human life taken piece by piece from the womb, would that not cause ruffled feathers between the states?

These are always two questions that come to mind when I hear these things. Just though I’d share them and see what sort of reply comes of it here.

 

[Lisa0315]

Hey, what do yah know, I typed in John McCain in the tags search box [bottom of page] and this is one of two threads on McCain that existed. So hope you don’t mind me asking this question since it was in the OP.

If they do such a thing as make an exception on abortion regarding incest, rape and danger to the mother (which statistically is very rare), would you speculate that the reports of rapes will increase dramatically if in fact such laws are one day passed? I mean who is to say, right? if one is going to murder, what is a lie on top of that to get the ball rolling?

Also, if this is an attempt by McCain to put such decisions in state hands (though I doubt any action at all will be taken), could this not trigger serious division among the states? such as like what was seen just before the civil war? I mean if it is really a constitutional right regarding life and liberty, morally wrong to do, and your daughters, girlfriend or wife could simply go over the state line and get a human life taken piece by piece from the womb, would that not cause ruffled feathers between the states?

These are always two questions that come to mind when I hear these things. Just though I’d share them and see what sort of reply comes of it here.

Never thought of that...If someone really wanted an abortion, what would a little charge of rape be if they are prepared to murder their unborn child...

The world is so evil today. Lord, Come Quickly!

Lisa

 

[longhair75]

Friend SolomanVII

Be that as it may, because the evangelicals are so aligned with the Republicans, this will always be an issue for that party. For the Democrats, pro-life will be very much an uphill battle and a fringe for any so inclined.

But, as Republicans, why are we giving our leadership a pass on this issue? If Republican politicians run on a pro-life platform, should we not have reason to assume that they will actually work to pass pro-life legislation? In the recent presidential elections, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices is a large issue. When will we see the Supremem court perform as promised?

Or, is it still just politics as usual?

 

[fated]

It takes a while to go through Supreme Court Justices and then it takes a while to get a case to court. As is the case, here, many would like to try the current court... but it takes a while...

 

[thereselittleflower]

Because McCain's position is the slippery slope. People of character do not change their positions. If he changes his mind, I am changing mine.

So if Hillary were to change her mind on abortion and suddenly flipped to your side, you wouldn't vote for her because she changed her mind?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hey, what do yah know, I typed in John McCain in the tags search box [bottom of page] and this is one of two threads on McCain that existed. So hope you don’t mind me asking this question since it was in the OP.

If they do such a thing as make an exception on abortion regarding incest, rape and danger to the mother (which statistically is very rare), would you speculate that the reports of rapes will increase dramatically if in fact such laws are one day passed? I mean who is to say, right? if one is going to murder, what is a lie on top of that to get the ball rolling?

Also, if this is an attempt by McCain to put such decisions in state hands (though I doubt any action at all will be taken), could this not trigger serious division among the states? such as like what was seen just before the civil war? I mean if it is really a constitutional right regarding life and liberty, morally wrong to do, and your daughters, girlfriend or wife could simply go over the state line and get a human life taken piece by piece from the womb, would that not cause ruffled feathers between the states?

These are always two questions that come to mind when I hear these things. Just though I’d share them and see what sort of reply comes of it here.

It would depend on how the law was crafted - rape and incest are crimes - can one simply make a claim of such a crime with no proof or no substantiation?

Health of the mother is a medical issue - there would need to be some proof - that one would be easier to misuse.

But this is a big step back from where we are now.

 

[thereselittleflower]

The Second Vatican Council taught us that “all citizens are to bear in mind that it is both their right and duty to use their free vote to promote the common good ” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, no. 75).

http://www.theleaven.com/localvote090106.htm

It looks like being lazy and emotional so that you ignore what you consider a difficult decision is not generally considered a valid reason. It is not, after all, much of a surprise when people don't vote in the US.

Voting is not a matter of faith and morals. There is no obligation to vote to be in right standing with the Church.


When one is faced with no valid choice, then no one is forced to choose between evils when it comes to voting.

Some will feel that they do well when they vote for someone else other than the Demoratic or Republican ticket, but that is the same as not voting, for it is a throw-away vote.

If one chooses to not vote in protest, that is their "vote". If enough people don't vote, then a message is sent.

We should not sit in judgement of another in matters of voting or not voting.

 

[fated]

Voting is not a matter of faith and morals. There is no obligation to vote to be in right standing with the Church.


When one is faced with no valid choice, then no one is forced to choose between evils when it comes to voting.

Some will feel that they do well when they vote for someone else other than the Demoratic or Republican ticket, but that is the same as not voting, for it is a throw-away vote.

If one chooses to not vote in protest, that is their "vote". If enough people don't vote, then a message is sent.

We should not sit in judgement of another in matters of voting or not voting.

I'm not sure that that is true, or rather, perhaps I think you have some tenuous understanding of the moral obligation to vote... And I hardly think that not voting is going to send anyone a message in this country...