**2012 Election Day thread**

[southsider2k5]

Call it what you want. With the way that the race card gets played here and in general, if the GOP were supporting a policy that saw 350% more black fetuses killed off per capita, versus white fetuses, it would be called genocide by the left wing.

[StrangeSox]

Call it what you want. With the way that the race card gets played here and in general, if the GOP were supporting a policy that saw 350% more black fetuses killed off per capita, versus white fetuses, it would be called genocide by the left wing.

 

It's this kind of obliviousness on minority and women's issues that is hurting the GOP so badly right now.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...ce-card/256072/

 

I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...ce-card/256072/

 

Way to avoid the issue for some more rhetoric. This affects one race on a MUCH larger scale. If we were talking about drug use, prison, or poverty; race becomes a legitimate thing to look at. Because it is abortion, no one mentions it.

[NorthSideSox72]

The census agency estimates that 50 out of 1000 black women ends up having abortions, or about three and a half times the rate of white kids. If the parties stances were reversed in this case, it would be presented very differently.

You're off in la-la land here. And I don't think I've ever said anything like that to you before. Seriously, this is absurd.

 

[StrangeSox]

Nothing makes abortion itself and full, legal access to it racist or, even more laughably, a "genocide." There are numerous socioeconomic factors that tie into abortion statistics, and race always looms large in those discussions. That these factors affect certain minorities more and drive more of them to get abortions says nothing about abortions themselves and certainly does not make any case whatsoever for illegalizing abortion.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, liberals have no morals, no ethics and hate life. Right-wingers fears' for the direction of this country are legitimate and rational, especially over the past three days.

 

Your (and liberals, generally) apathy towards this issue is disheartening. The fact that you don't even question the mothers right signals to me that you view a mother's freedom to correct a mistake as more important than an unborn, yet living, life. I agree with you in the those exception cases like incest, rape or the mother's health. Not in general cases of "I don't want this thing" which even if rare, should not happen IMO.

[StrangeSox]

Your (and liberals, generally) apathy towards this issue is disheartening. The fact that you don't even question the mothers right signals to me that you view a mother's freedom to correct a mistake as more important than an unborn, yet living, life. I agree with you in the those exception cases like incest, rape or the mother's health. Not in general cases of "I don't want this thing" which even if rare, should not happen IMO.

There is no apathy on the part of liberals when it comes to abortion and women's rights.

 

The fact that we've explained, repeatedly, that we simply disagree with what a fetus is and whether it's a human life worthy of moral consideration the same as you or I and that you are ignoring it tells me you're not arguing in good faith.

[southsider2k5]

You're off in la-la land here. And I don't think I've ever said anything like that to you before. Seriously, this is absurd.

 

Like I said, call it what you want. But I have no doubt if the parties were reversed the race card would be played all over this issue.

[Jenksismyhero]

Living in a society where women can't choose what to do with their own bodies is very dangerous as well.

 

So this statement has the fetus in mind? GMAB.

[Jenksismyhero]

Like I said, call it what you want. But I have no doubt if the parties were reversed the race card would be played all over this issue.

 

Kinda like how 93% of one minority voted for the same minority. Imagine if 93% of white people voted for Romney. Everyone's a racist!

[farmteam]

Do you think if the pro-life party would make contraception more available and encourage more sexual education, this might change?

You keep making reasonable points in this thread that are getting overlooked, so I thought I'd highlight this one.

[StrangeSox]

Kinda like how 93% of one minority voted for the same minority. Imagine if 93% of white people voted for Romney. Everyone's a racist!

 

Hey guys you're doing an awesome job of proving my contention that conservatives are completely blind to why minorities don't vote for them.

[StrangeSox]

So this statement has the fetus in mind? GMAB.

 

I don't consider a fetus prior to say 23 weeks to be a human life with the same rights as the woman it's inside of.

[iamshack]

Kinda like how 93% of one minority voted for the same minority. Imagine if 93% of white people voted for Romney. Everyone's a racist!

I think if Romney was the first white candidate to win the Presidency, ever, they probably would have.

[NorthSideSox72]

I haven't staked an opinion on this issue, because honestly, it has always been one that I didn't know where I stand. I can honestly say I have felt the same as people on both sides, at various times. Here are the only things I feel I can say with confidence...

 

1. The key to the issue, really, is whether or not you think an early-stage fetus is a "human life". That is the only true delineator here.

 

2. If you think human life begins at conception or at some point after, but before the limits of legal abortion, than I can completely understand how angry you would feel to know that abortions beyond that limit are occurring. To that person, it is murder.

 

3. If you think human life requires the ability to live outside the womb, than I completely understand your strong belief to protect the rights of women to control they bodies. Makes perfect sense from that perspective.

 

4. I will say this... if you truly believe that life begins at conception... then you cannot possibly be OK with rape exemptions, and probably not incest either. Because in either case, it has become life. If you believe life begins at conception, then the only exception you can possible accept from a moral standpoint is danger to the life of the mother (because then you have two lives in danger and must choose).

 

I know #4 will piss off some people, but, it is the way I see it.

 

[StrangeSox]

I think if Romney was the first white candidate to win the Presidency, ever, they probably would have.

 

John Kerry got 89% of the black vote in 2004. Probably because he's black and not one of the whitest dudes ever. That must be why African Americans don't vote for Republicans.

[cabiness42]

Do you think if the pro-life party would make contraception more available and encourage more sexual education, this might change?

 

I think it would help refocus the issue on to the life of the child and not the rights of women.

[StrangeSox]

I haven't staked an opinion on this issue, because honestly, it has always been one that I didn't know where I stand. I can honestly say I have felt the same as people on both sides, at various times. Here are the only things I feel I can say with confidence...

 

1. The key to the issue, really, is whether or not you think an early-stage fetus is a "human life". That is the only true delineator here.

 

2. If you think human life begins at conception or at some point after, but before the limits of legal abortion, than I can completely understand how angry you would feel to know that abortions beyond that limit are occurring. To that person, it is murder.

 

3. If you think human life requires the ability to live outside the womb, than I completely understand your strong belief to protect the rights of women to control they bodies. Makes perfect sense from that perspective.

 

4. I will say this... if you truly believe that life begins at conception... then you cannot possibly be OK with rape exemptions, and probably not incest either. Because in either case, it has become life. If you believe life begins at conception, then the only exception you can possible accept from a moral standpoint is danger to the life of the mother (because then you have two lives in danger and must choose).

 

I know #4 will piss off some people, but, it is the way I see it.

 

I am 100% with this post.

[StrangeSox]

I think it would help refocus the issue on to the life of the child and not the rights of women.

 

Why shouldn't the rights of women be in the focus?

[cabiness42]

I haven't staked an opinion on this issue, because honestly, it has always been one that I didn't know where I stand. I can honestly say I have felt the same as people on both sides, at various times. Here are the only things I feel I can say with confidence...

 

1. The key to the issue, really, is whether or not you think an early-stage fetus is a "human life". That is the only true delineator here.

 

2. If you think human life begins at conception or at some point after, but before the limits of legal abortion, than I can completely understand how angry you would feel to know that abortions beyond that limit are occurring. To that person, it is murder.

 

3. If you think human life requires the ability to live outside the womb, than I completely understand your strong belief to protect the rights of women to control they bodies. Makes perfect sense from that perspective.

 

4. I will say this... if you truly believe that life begins at conception... then you cannot possibly be OK with rape exemptions, and probably not incest either. Because in either case, it has become life. If you believe life begins at conception, then the only exception you can possible accept from a moral standpoint is danger to the life of the mother (because then you have two lives in danger and must choose).

 

I know #4 will piss off some people, but, it is the way I see it.

 

I see where you are coming from on #4 and I agree with you, but I also think the pro-life movement needs to give up on that battle in order to win the war. You aren't going to get pro-life candidates elected en masse without allowing rape/incest exceptions, so save the lives of the ones that you can for now and see how attitudes change down the road.

[cabiness42]

Why shouldn't the rights of women be in the focus?

 

Because a human being's right to live trumps a woman's right to choose, and lumping abortion in with issues of contraception/sex education makes that point harder to make because in the latter issues a human being's right to live is not at stake and therefore the woman's choice is more important.

[iamshack]

I don't consider a fetus prior to say 23 weeks to be a human life with the same rights as the woman it's inside of.

SS, I have an extraordinary amount of respect for your intellect and your debating prowess. You usually seem to have a very good handle on most issues, and this one is no different.

 

That being said, I just find this scientific/moralistic approach to be a bit grotesque.

 

Look, we all know what nature's course is when a woman becomes impregnated. To attach some sort of timeline to the process in an attempt to make oneself feel better about when it is morally acceptable to artificially end that process seems to be sort of a cop out to me.

 

I've always thought the more authentic approach is to be honest with ourselves about what is really at stake here and admit that creating a life brings an incredible responsibility to those (and many times not those) responsible. It is a tremendously complex decision as to whether or not the parent(s) and/or others have the resources, the ability, the education and maturity to handle such an awesome responsibility.

 

Now I understand that many will say the life of the baby trumps all the other considerations, which is why we have gone down this path of making some sort of psuedo scientific/moralistic judgment as to when life actually begins - because these judgments have the ability to alleviate that conundrum. But that seems to me to really just be pulling the wool over one's eyes in an effort to displace or offset guilt.

 

Why don't we just admit that as human beings we have some pretty awesome responsibilities that we have to become better stewards of? This isn't to say we should all go out and get snipped, but honestly, this situation is what it is, and what it isn't, is one where science should be able to make us feel better about looking the other way.

[Jenksismyhero]

I haven't staked an opinion on this issue, because honestly, it has always been one that I didn't know where I stand. I can honestly say I have felt the same as people on both sides, at various times. Here are the only things I feel I can say with confidence...

 

1. The key to the issue, really, is whether or not you think an early-stage fetus is a "human life". That is the only true delineator here.

 

2. If you think human life begins at conception or at some point after, but before the limits of legal abortion, than I can completely understand how angry you would feel to know that abortions beyond that limit are occurring. To that person, it is murder.

 

3. If you think human life requires the ability to live outside the womb, than I completely understand your strong belief to protect the rights of women to control they bodies. Makes perfect sense from that perspective.

 

4. I will say this... if you truly believe that life begins at conception... then you cannot possibly be OK with rape exemptions, and probably not incest either. Because in either case, it has become life. If you believe life begins at conception, then the only exception you can possible accept from a moral standpoint is danger to the life of the mother (because then you have two lives in danger and must choose).

 

I know #4 will piss off some people, but, it is the way I see it.

 

Good post. I'm #2 for sure. I defy anyone to sit in a hospital room with their wife, looking at and seeing their unborn baby ESPECIALLY up to the 20 week mark, and seriously believe it's not a "human life."

 

[iamshack]

I haven't staked an opinion on this issue, because honestly, it has always been one that I didn't know where I stand. I can honestly say I have felt the same as people on both sides, at various times. Here are the only things I feel I can say with confidence...

 

1. The key to the issue, really, is whether or not you think an early-stage fetus is a "human life". That is the only true delineator here.

 

2. If you think human life begins at conception or at some point after, but before the limits of legal abortion, than I can completely understand how angry you would feel to know that abortions beyond that limit are occurring. To that person, it is murder.

 

3. If you think human life requires the ability to live outside the womb, than I completely understand your strong belief to protect the rights of women to control they bodies. Makes perfect sense from that perspective.

 

4. I will say this... if you truly believe that life begins at conception... then you cannot possibly be OK with rape exemptions, and probably not incest either. Because in either case, it has become life. If you believe life begins at conception, then the only exception you can possible accept from a moral standpoint is danger to the life of the mother (because then you have two lives in danger and must choose).

 

I know #4 will piss off some people, but, it is the way I see it.

This is really an example of what I meant in my post...I really think many of those drawing these kind of lines in the sand (in this thread) are pulling the wool over their own eyes.

 

[Jake]

I haven't staked an opinion on this issue, because honestly, it has always been one that I didn't know where I stand. I can honestly say I have felt the same as people on both sides, at various times. Here are the only things I feel I can say with confidence...

 

1. The key to the issue, really, is whether or not you think an early-stage fetus is a "human life". That is the only true delineator here.

 

2. If you think human life begins at conception or at some point after, but before the limits of legal abortion, than I can completely understand how angry you would feel to know that abortions beyond that limit are occurring. To that person, it is murder.

 

3. If you think human life requires the ability to live outside the womb, than I completely understand your strong belief to protect the rights of women to control they bodies. Makes perfect sense from that perspective.

 

4. I will say this... if you truly believe that life begins at conception... then you cannot possibly be OK with rape exemptions, and probably not incest either. Because in either case, it has become life. If you believe life begins at conception, then the only exception you can possible accept from a moral standpoint is danger to the life of the mother (because then you have two lives in danger and must choose).

 

I know #4 will piss off some people, but, it is the way I see it.

 

I agree. I think 4 follows logically from 2. This is why I don't freak out too much about how fervently pro-life folks fight.

 

I think it would help refocus the issue on to the life of the child and not the rights of women.

 

Right. When you're anti-sex, anti-contraception, and anti-abortion....it is much more clearly a seemingly anti-woman stance. Even if you don't achieve an outlawing of abortion, if you increase the access to birth control and are willing to teach more about sex than "don't do it" you will at least help reduce the amount of abortions that happen.

 

In general, I would like to see pro-life folks find different ways to prevent abortion from happening than lobbying politicians for a ban that is highly unlikely at this point. I would also take the damn churches out of it -- it alienates people that don't identify with the churches. It is a moral question certainly, but not a religious one. The Bible does not conceive of abortion (nice wordplay, I know) so saying that the Church is pro-life is mere coincidence and doesn't have much theological backing save the fact that of course the Church would be against murder. It also helps distance the pro-life argument from the more off-putting talking points of abstinence only education, lack of access to birth control, etc.