Jump to content

GOP to oppose ALL abortions


Lord Dark Helmet
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now my own grandmother has decided not to vote republican this year. Republicans must really hate women. Now they don't want any woman to vote for them. No woman wants to be in a situatin where they will be forced to keep a baby by a rapist. Except maybe Sarah Palin.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/poli..._campdig31.html

GOP to oppose all abortions

The Republican Party platform will reassert the party's opposition to abortion. Again, it will not allow for exceptions in cases of rape...

ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Republican Party platform will reassert the party's opposition to abortion. Again, it will not allow for exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, even though Sen. John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee, has long called for such exceptions.

The party is set to approve the platform Monday without the exceptions. On Friday, McCain named a running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who opposes any exception for abortion.

McCain argued strongly in 2000 for the platform to include the exceptions. He affirmed that position as recently as May, in an interview with Glamour magazine to appear in its October issue.

"My position has always been: exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother," he said. Asked if he would encourage the party to include them in the platform, McCain said, "Yes."

It is clear the platform will not contain those exceptions.

"It is out of the platform," said Connie Mackey, a lobbyist for the Family Research Council. "We were told early on that the platform is going to be pro-life and that any differences the senator has with it are his own."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Now my own grandmother has decided not to vote republican this year. Republicans must really hate women. Now they don't want any woman to vote for them. No woman wants to be in a situatin where they will be forced to keep a baby by a rapist. Except maybe Sarah Palin.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/poli..._campdig31.html

GOP to oppose all abortions

The Republican Party platform will reassert the party's opposition to abortion. Again, it will not allow for exceptions in cases of rape...

ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Republican Party platform will reassert the party's opposition to abortion. Again, it will not allow for exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, even though Sen. John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee, has long called for such exceptions.

The party is set to approve the platform Monday without the exceptions. On Friday, McCain named a running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who opposes any exception for abortion.

McCain argued strongly in 2000 for the platform to include the exceptions. He affirmed that position as recently as May, in an interview with Glamour magazine to appear in its October issue.

"My position has always been: exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother," he said. Asked if he would encourage the party to include them in the platform, McCain said, "Yes."

It is clear the platform will not contain those exceptions.

"It is out of the platform," said Connie Mackey, a lobbyist for the Family Research Council. "We were told early on that the platform is going to be pro-life and that any differences the senator has with it are his own."

Poor John McCain. It looks like he's being pushed around by the hardcore conservatives.

He looks very weak now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats the deal with this line ??

"It is out of the platform," said Connie Mackey, a lobbyist for the Family Research Council. "We were told early on that the platform is going to be pro-life and that any differences the senator has with it are his own."

I thought the purpose of the convention was to push John McCain, not the anti-abortion at all costs agenda.

They are pushing their agenda in spite of John McCain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly my stance on it as well

Yep that's pretty much he common sense stance that should be taken and shows even an issue like this is not just black and white. I certainly will never condone abortion as a method of birth control.

Adoption will always be the better option in those cases as there are alot of couple unable to have children that would glady take care of a child from an unwanted pregnancy.

But abortion should not be illegal either as that would just create a black market for abortions that would threaten the mother.

Possibly have some type of incentives for unwanted pregenancies to go to full term and have the baby go for adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tsk tsk tsk. I for one support early-term abortions for rape, incest, or if the woman is known to have a high risk if she were to continue with the pregnancy. It would only be applicable in the first trimester.

I'm a moral conservative.

agree, but you know i want the father to have some rights, since i dont feel its fair that if i get a girl pregnant that she wants to abort it, then its aborted. i would want to keep my kid, and i know some feel the opposite way. i feel fathers should have some sort of say in the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree, but you know i want the father to have some rights, since i dont feel its fair that if i get a girl pregnant that she wants to abort it, then its aborted. i would want to keep my kid, and i know some feel the opposite way. i feel fathers should have some sort of say in the matter.

I'm against voluntary abortion. The only cases where I think it should be allowed, is if it's the three cases I mentioned above... in which case the father shouldn't have a right to say anything (whether it's incest, rape, or health concerns.).

A woman can't just have casual sex all she wants then voluntarily goes in to have an abortion because she happened to become pregnant, and she doesn't want a baby. She made the choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against voluntary abortion. The only cases where I think it should be allowed, is if it's the three cases I mentioned above... in which case the father shouldn't have a right to say anything (whether it's incest, rape, or health concerns.).

A woman can't just have casual sex all she wants then voluntarily goes in to have an abortion because she happened to become pregnant, and she doesn't want a baby. She made the choices.

Well, actually, she can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be the case under my laws. Bad choices and lack of self-discipline shouldn't be a viable reason to terminate babies' lives. You chose to take the risk of pregnancy.

Rape, incest, and health risk, however, are viable reasons.

I agree in principal but making abortion illegal would simply create an unsafe illegal black market. Make it more difficult to get an abortion, have the mother go through some type of mandatory courses on planned parentoohd and add incentives for adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree, but you know i want the father to have some rights, since i dont feel its fair that if i get a girl pregnant that she wants to abort it, then its aborted. i would want to keep my kid, and i know some feel the opposite way. i feel fathers should have some sort of say in the matter.

So you want the father to have some rights even if the mother's life is in danger or is she was raped by the father? that is the topic being discussed here right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be the case under my laws. Bad choices and lack of self-discipline shouldn't be a viable reason to terminate babies' lives. You chose to take the risk of pregnancy.

Rape, incest, and health risk, however, are viable reasons.

This is essentially how I feel:

Abortion Rights are Pro-Life

by Leonard Peikoff (January 23, 2003)

Thirty years after Roe V. Wade, no one defends the right to abortion in fundamental, moral terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.

Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms "pro-life" and "right to life" to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.

Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase "a woman's right to choose." Does she have the right to choose murder? That's what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.

("Independent" does not mean self-supporting--a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)

"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."

It is only on this base that we can support the woman's political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person--not even her husband--has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom.

There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion--accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health. The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally--but not treated as a murderer.

If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman's body.

If anti-abortionists object that an embryo has the genetic equipment of a human being, remember: so does every cell in the human body.

Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict it's the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo.

Being a parent is a profound responsibility--financial, psychological, moral--across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It's a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that--as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence.

The anti-abortionists' attitude, however, is: "The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness."

Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life."

The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.

Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life--lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.

Made available through the Ayn Rand Institute.

I would never live in a regressive society like womfalcs'. I care too much about freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This screwed up land would be much worse off without abortion.

It's the law that a woman can get one and that's fine by me. Judging by the average journey out into public and the resultant hair-pulling frustration with which most of us have to deal in order to simply acquire one's groceries or gasoline, etc, I'd go so far as to say we need to make abortion not only more available, but legal up until and through, say, the 75th trimester.

Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This screwed up land would be much worse off without abortion.

It's the law that a woman can get one and that's fine by me. Judging by the average journey out into public and the resultant hair-pulling frustration with which most of us have to deal in order to simply acquire one's groceries or gasoline, etc, I'd go so far as to say we need to make abortion not only more available, but legal up until and through, say, the 75th trimester.

Good day.

Absolutely.

I'm support of it any time the mother feels that she is unfit to take care of it for any reason- health, emotionally, or economically. What's more, I'm unwilling to listen to anyone argue against it unless they have either adopted American babies or are highly active in the foster care system. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite, and I have no time for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely.

I'm support of it any time the mother feels that she is unfit to take care of it for any reason- health, emotionally, or economically. What's more, I'm unwilling to listen to anyone argue against it unless they have either adopted American babies or are highly active in the foster care system. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite, and I have no time for you.

I certainly respect that position. I am a believer in pro-choice for only one reason, because keeping it legal means keeping it regulated.

The problem I have, is the whole "life begins at birth" concept. It doesn't. It's pretty obvious when you see a heartbeat, fingers, eyes, mouth etc, that this is a living being. It may be "your" living being because it's inside you, but the damned fetus is alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against voluntary abortion. The only cases where I think it should be allowed, is if it's the three cases I mentioned above... in which case the father shouldn't have a right to say anything (whether it's incest, rape, or health concerns.).

A woman can't just have casual sex all she wants then voluntarily goes in to have an abortion because she happened to become pregnant, and she doesn't want a baby. She made the choices.

and abortion is a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egoist, I'm for freedom, just not true freedom. 100% freedom means you can kill someone else without liability. You can steal, rape, kill, etc. without consequences,

Now, I'm sure you're not for 100% autonomy, but you're for a higher percentage than I. I support liberty, but once you start looking at cases that involve another life, you must be more restrictive. In this case, abortion, you can't take that lightly. You can't just go around having casual sex, taking the risk of impregnation, then abort the pregnancy as you choose afterward. There must be more personal accountability for that innocent and helpless potential life.

I listed the three cases where pregnancy can be terminated in my first post here (only in the first trimester, which gives the woman plenty of time).

If a person chooses to commit harm to oneself, I can't care less. It's their right to do whatever they want as long as no one else is harmed in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is:

murder.

suicide.

anorexia.

pedophilia.

All are sad and disgusting...and choices.

Well, anorexia is a disorder- the decision is not to eat. Pedophilia is also a disorder- the decision is whether or not to act on the urges. Murder... suicide... they are decisions, but most often not made from a sound mind. Not that any of these are pleasant; neither is abortion, but all of them are more complicated than the end decision of yes or no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...