Cynical Nation

Well, according to Pat Buchanan in a 9/12 editorial, there are now four justices ready to overturn Roe: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. He doesn't say that a vote for McCain would mean that Roe would be overturned, but he does warn (melodramatically?) that an Obama victory would most likely mean that Stevens and possibly Ginsburg would be replaced with like minded justices and that would end any hope of overthrowing Roe.

Buchanan recognizes that many justices appointed by Republican Presidents have upheld Roe. That doesn't, however, mean that Roe could not be overturned with one or two more appointments.

So there are both Republican and Democrats who are, in your words, wolf crying on this issue.

Given that Roe changed abortion law for 35 years and counting, reversing Roe could change abortion law again for years and years as well. It would be a big deal for people who care about this issue if the court shifted in that way.

Obviously you don't take abortion rights seriously enough.

The nerve of some people putting things like tax policy, gun rights and drilling here to reduce our dependence on foreign oil over something as essential as Roe v Wade!

Oh wait a minute!

If Roe WERE overturned, all THAT would do would be to send the abortion issue back to the individual states....where it belongs.

I'll save BW the trouble..."But McCain opposes ESC research!

Oh wait!

No he doesn't.

But the reality is that there are many important issues out there, and I come down in the McCain camp on more of them than

LOL. What are the other "issues" that make you to pick McCain? Care to elaborate? Just curious.

I've done it many times on these posts, BW.

I've done it many times on these posts, BW.

Not really. You have posted pieces here and there (on taxes) but nothing putting all the issues together. Seriously, based on what issues is McCain your preference (beyond taxes)? Is there anything else?

Tax and abortion policies are very closely related, in the following sense. The middle class & rich receive the most immediate benefit from lower taxes, and they can afford to travel to another state or country in the event abortion services are required and not available in their immediate area. Most abortion policy only affects the poor in any meaningful way, since those of even modest means will always have alternatives. Individual Republicans may or may not be pro-life, but watching out for your personal financial interest is a no-brainer. Democrats just tend to feel more guilty about screwing over the poor.

Because it's not just about abortion. The Palin/Religious right definition of conception is sperm-meets-egg. If destroying a fertilized egg is murder, then up to 40% of "fetuses" are "murdered" every month, because that's about the percentage of fertilized eggs that never implant for one reason or another. Do you have an ectopic pregnancy? Tough titties, lady, you have to die from a burst tube, even though there's no chance that embryo can ever become a baby. Taken to its most absurd extreme, you start investigating every miscarriage for evidence of a crime (riding a horse? Skiing? Drinking a glass of wine before you knew you were pregnant?) and arguably, inspecting used tampons for evidence of "fertilized eggs." The implications of this "fertilized egg = human" argument are huge, and the people who have been using TEH BAYBEEEEZZZZZ as a cudgel against women for the last three decades haven't even thought it through.

As for one-issue voters, Barry, have your listened to yourself about guns lately?

JILL!

Wow, you haven't been arrested by the Bush Gestapo yet? I seem to recall that during your Cocoa Klatches for old Howard Dean in 2004 you were expecting same at any time.

How frustrating, huh?

You are not in a position to comment on anyone's idiosynchrosies, my dear lady.

If you want to discuss extreme abortion positions, try explaining how Obama supported allowing aborted fetuses born alive to die without medical care while in the Illinois senate in 2003?

I caution you not to employ his argument that it the law might have infringed on R v.W as it did not (at his insistence).

Your ball, Jill.

By the way, I am pro-choice.

I love these folks who announce that they are pro-choice, but who vote with the party that wants to deny women the choice and then who proceed to mock anyone who is a "one-issue" voter on the side of choice, while leaving alone those in their party who are one-issue on the side of life (and even try to defend someone like Palin who opposes the option of abortion even in the case of rape or incest).

It's been reported that McCain wanted Tom Ridge, whose experience is more varied than Palin's and who might have helped McCain win an important swing state, but that Ridge could not be considered because he was pro-choice.

Yet the staunch pro-choicers in the Republican Party accept this, while the same time they get all worked up over the folks who agree with them on this issue.

Why? Well it seems to me that the pro-choice Republicans have decided that there are more important issues for them, which is fine, but don't act like it's important information that you're pro-choice if you continue to support people who oppose your view.

On the other hand, it's comforting to know that there is a someone out there who gets to decide who can comment on other's idiosyncrosies and who can not. I often wonder.. am I in position to comment or am I not? So I'm sure glad that Mal's on the case. :)

"Well it seems to me that the pro-choice Republicans have decided that there are more important issues for them, which is fine, but don't act like it's important information that you're pro-choice if you continue to support people who oppose your view." (PE)


Uhhh, your presuming, erroneously so, that "pro-choice/pro-abortion MEANS pro-Roe, which is NOT at all true.

Many people support abortion rights and vehemently oppose Roe as "bad law," because it IS "bad law."

Overturning Roe v Wade WOULD NOT outlaw abortion ANYWHERE.

The issue would simply go back to the individual states - where it belongs.

"It's been reported that McCain wanted Tom Ridge, whose experience is more varied than Palin's and who might have helped McCain win an important swing state, but that Ridge could not be considered because he was pro-choice.

"Yet the staunch pro-choicers in the Republican Party accept this, while the same time they get all worked up over the folks who agree with them on this issue." (PE)


Let’s be fair.

I’m heartened by the Libertarian position (“Get the government OUT”) that most Liberals take on the abortion issue.

I believe it’s extreme (as with everything some degree of regulation is needed), as there’s no logical, rational way to justify aborting a fully-formed child (preemies as young as 21 weeks have survived and flourished outside the womb), so it takes a lot of bending and twisting even for proponents to rationalize abortions beyond the first trimester.

Regardless of THAT, I believe that such a stand demands consistency, as logic ALWAYS demands consistency.

One thing’s certain, all Conservatives and most Liberals (except those who value “punishing the rich,” etc., which is a low single-digit minority even among Liberals) WANT more prosperity for more people and a society in which work consumes an ever greater portion of our lives. Work not only enriches us individually, but it increases overall productivity, while connecting us to others in a common pursuit, even if the sole purpose of that pursuit is to “beat that other team, and get more stuff before they do.”

Given that the vast majority of us want a better (more productive, busier) world, the only question left is how best to get there!

That’s why the Libertarian position on abortion, supported by the likes of Jill, PE and BW is so heartening.

If you think about it, that position SHOULD be everyone’s default position on EVERY issue!

Look at the current credit/mortgage crisis.
Most of it (upwards of 70%) is due to two very significant problems – the outrageous bid by far-Leftists in our government to restrict private sector banking, in other words these nefarious people (Chris Dodd, Barney Franks and Charles Rangel among them) sought to deny CHOICE to commercial enterprises that were looking to do nothing more than make money for themselves and their shareholders.

Government sought through the 1980s and into the 1990s to outlaw sound banking principles like basing loan rates on credit scores (erroneously claiming that such a system had a “disparate impact” on blacks in particular, since many higher income blacks had higher debt to income ratios than many lower income earning whites) and red-lining (the practice of charging higher mortgage interest rates in high foreclosure areas).

These same far-Left loons fought to block the massive reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Bush administration in 2003 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)

AND 2005 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m0).

I’d never thought much about either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, I just assumed that it was a “lender of last resort,” a place for losers.

In reality, that “lender of last resort” deliberately did harm to highly qualified buyers (like us here) by artificially impacting the lending markets by their getting taxpayer (YOU and I) funded loan guarantees from the government at below-market rates.

WHY should qualified loan applicants be denied better rates so that poorer borrowers, bringing more risk into the system can get below-market rates via Fannie and Freddie???

That's DENYING others of COMMERCIAL CHOICE!

In retrospect, Fannie and Freddie SHOULD’VE been disbanded years ago – there’s no reason for government to come in and restrict freedom of choice in commercial markets, where people like all of us good folks here, merely exchange goods and services at market prices.

It’s the same with our current energy policies.

America sits on something like 2.6 TRILLION barrels of oil and yet far-Left kooks have deliberately sought to deny CHOICE (by not allowing companies like Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and Conocco-Phillips to bring all that oil to market.

The problem is that government naturally seeks to expand. It’s its normal momentum to regulate, act and restrict.

That’s why every impulse to restrict government is a wise one.

A more free and open market doesn’t “discriminate” against anyone, despite it being a very nasty place for people without guile, without ravenous ambition and without the ultra-competitive natures required to compete in such scrums, BUT (1) that’s not bad (not even for the non-competitive, after all, that’s how they’ll learn) and (2) such FREEDOM of CHOICE always leads to more prosperity for more people.

I’m pretty much with the likes of PE and Jill on abortion (GET the government OUT), but I think it’s incumbent upon such people to think over their OTHER positions and bring them more in line with that principle.

Neither John McCain or Sarah Palin are pro-choice.

65% of the American people OPPOSE late term abortions.

65% of the American people support first trimester abortion.

Roe v Wade is "BAD LAW" in the same over-reaching way that the 1973 decision that declared Capital Punishment unconstitutional was "BAD LAW," those issues must be decided in the individual states, that is IF you adhere to the U.S. Constitution.

Should Roe be overturned?

In my view, YES.

Would that make, or even help make abortion illegal?

In my view, NO.

The above stats show that overwhelmingly the American people are wise (and not because the vast majority apparently agree with me, though that helps them look smarter in my eyes) and there's absolutely no indication that there would be any post-Roe fervor to try and sway voters to a more anti-abortion position.

I tepidly support FIRST trimester abortion, but I have no problem at all understanding the "sanctity of life" arguments used by opponents.

I DON'T believe in any "sanctity of life."

The Catholic anti-abortion/anti-Capital Punishment stand is, at least, logically consistent and NOT at all "extreme."

That's why while I may disagree on degree with both Palin and McCain and the Catholics, I don't find them nearly as extreme in their views as those who support abortion on demand up to delivery - THAT'S extreme....as in "extremely vile."