Republicans should give up on abortion.

[Person Man]

If it was as easy as knowing that life began at conception, this issue would have never come up....but this issue is far more complicated than that....because you are not only defining when life begins, but what actually constitutes life. That's my big gripe with the Catholic Church on abortion. Sure, we need a consistent life ethic, but what would defining human life as any self-replicating human DNA structure do to the value of human life. I personally don't want to think that we are human only because we consist of a chemical reaction, albeit long and complex. I guess this is why creationism is still going strong (though its no longer a majority position)...and this reason is that people don't want to think of themselves of just DNA being shot around with no ryhme or reason. However, I can say that evolutionary biology is discriptive and not perscriptive and therefore does not debase human life or human spirituality or human relationships with God. This is because we can say that we are more than just our history and prehistory. However, with the notion that life begins at conception...we are making a value judgment based solely on discriptive principles...a very morally perilous path.

[Person Man]

If it was as easy as knowing that life began at conception, this issue would have never come up....but this issue is far more complicated than that....because you are not only defining when life begins, but what actually constitutes life. That's my big gripe with the Catholic Church on abortion. Sure, we need a consistent life ethic, but what would defining human life as any self-replicating human DNA structure do to the value of human life. I personally don't want to think that we are human only because we consist of a chemical reaction, albeit long and complex. I guess this is why creationism is still going strong (though its no longer a majority position)...and this reason is that people don't want to think of themselves of just DNA being shot around with no ryhme or reason. However, I can say that evolutionary biology is discriptive and not perscriptive and therefore does not debase human life or human spirituality or human relationships with God. This is because we can say that we are more than just our history and prehistory. However, with the notion that life begins at conception...we are making a value judgment based solely on discriptive principles...a very morally perilous path.

Mate, you raise some really good points here however I don't have time at the moment to respond. I'll come back to it later this evening. My post above was actually a fraction of a much larger discussion I had with someone via PM, explaining my views. It was far too long to repeat here, so I cut out that bit above. I tend to try to avoid abortion debates on here because it takes a long time to outline exactly what I believe and why (including issues that aren't abortion, but impact on it - such as improving educational opportunities for teenage mothers).

Well, you are getting on another issue...and idea that there is a way to prevent bad socialogical outcomes without damaging the value of human life or civil liberties... I mean, abortion is a problem....I mean, its a surgery...for starters...and it is kinda a blurred line between when respecting human life would promote the value of life and when it would be debased... you're on the right track, though....and I say that I generally do follow Catholic philosophy and theology..but apparently come to different results. 

[Person Man]

If it weren't for the abortion issue, I might never have become such a staunch Republican - so don't count on my vote to give up on human life.

That being said, I'm an aggressive supporter of opening our Party up to people who disagree with me on this one issue but agree on others.

I personally think that the Republicans are in the right for wanting to restrict abortion. As a Dem, I would gladly trade the Republicans the repeal of Roe v. Wade in exchange for them giving up on restricting gay marriage. Not that that would ever happen, though.

Hmm... where do we sign?

Gays and lesbians *should* be the most opposed to abortion. (and some are)  If genetic tests ever became available to determine which children were pre-disposed to becoming homosexual, I fear that millions more babies would be slaughtered.

Then again, who would care if someone is gay or straight...and if there were accurate genetic testing, don't you think that they would deal with the sexual orientation of the child during the tweaking of that child in whatever embryonic genetic therapy that is developed?

[Person Man]

Though...let's go through this exit poll. What does it tell you?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#SDI01p1

Apparently, our generation IS pro-choice...

[Person Man]

but I thought young people didn't go to the polls...either way, abortion will probably be settled through technology and sociology than any new law...

[Person Man]

Interestingly on the UCSD campus where I go to school.

A 1991 poll showed 77% say "yes" to whether abortion should be legal or not. By 2002 this number had dropped to 70%.

I think the main reasons for this swing if anything were the widespread availability of contraceptives, condoms and the coming of the pill.

Also interestingly during this time the amount of people who identified as "conservative" actually fell from 19% to 15%. While those who identify as far left increased from 2% to 3% and those who identify as liberal increased from 33% to 36%. The amount that identified as "moderate" stayed static at 46%

...you also got to remember that 1991 was a peak of pro-choice activism in this country and 2002 was a peak of religious right influence in this country.

[Person Man]

Yes...because we should have the right to carry disease and to bash our civilization and brightest minds every chance we get...

Ingrateful Luddism... pass it on... ... I mean, if you don't like science, you can go live in Chad or the Congo.

[Person Man]

Yes...because we should have the right to carry disease and to bash our civilization and brightest minds every chance we get...

Ingrateful Luddism... pass it on... ... I mean, if you don't like science, you can go live in Chad or the Congo.

Chad and the Congo might seem like paradises of humanity relative to the sick world you dream of.

or the world ndly (quoting Justice White's Concurrance in Griswold) world that you dream of, for that matter....where burning books is valued more than reading them....face it...if it were for people like you, humanity would still be living in caves.

EDIT: Seriously though, there should be laws prohibiting the genetic counseling that would discriminate based on child's future gender, sexual orientation or race. There should also be administrative regulations and public health care coverage of genetic counseling/therapy as well. Every child should have the best chance at life that their parents can provide them....and this doesn't mean abortion, either. What it does mean is that we are going to have the same technology as they did in Gattica, but we will make sure as many of our children as possible will have access to this technology.

[Person Man]

Well, Republicans should lighten up on abortion. For now, it should fade into the background. Maybe if we get a big lead in congress sometime, and have a Republican President, we can bring it up again. But for now, it is only alienating important voters.

Smart.

[Person Man]

Well, Republicans should lighten up on abortion. For now, it should fade into the background. Maybe if we get a big lead in congress sometime, and have a Republican President, we can bring it up again. But for now, it is only alienating important voters.

Very interesting considering one of the images in your signature. Then again, I guess I should consider the other image in your signature and understand that opportunism is fairly common... 

Burn...

[Person Man]

I mean, even folks to your right don't think its a good idea to push abortion when you don't have the credibility on issues that are of more immediate import.

[Person Man]

Well, just do what the Ds have done on gun control. Still have it in the platform, but have a big tent on the issue and don't bring it up as often.

[Person Man]

Well, just do what the Ds have done on gun control. Still have it in the platform, but have a big tent on the issue and don't bring it up as often.

I've stated enough times that I don't mind Pro Choice Republicans. I worked my ass off for one in 2004. However, I'm not going to just shut up about the issue/"don't bring it up as often" when I feel that it needs to be discussed.

...just be wise about it, alright... You're a smart guy..so you should know when it is most important to bring it up....and you can also take the advice from Smid and not try to demonize the opposition on the issue.

[Person Man]

I know...but you have been quite hateful when dealing with some pro-choicers on this site....they were probably hateful...or at least offensive, too... but we all have to agree to stop.

[Person Man]

I know...but you have been quite hateful when dealing with some pro-choicers on this site....they were probably hateful...or at least offensive, too... but we all have to agree to stop.

I haven't been "hateful." I speak up for what I believe. I may get "combative" when certain Pro Choicers get condescending and arrogant, tell me that I'm backwards, etc.

We just have to be civil, that's all.

[Person Man]

(Speaking only from my experience here)

I consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I would not say 'pro-life'. To me, the pro-life movement is not something that I would want to be associated with, despite the fact that I mostly agree with them. I believe that their problem is that the have become too militant, too fringe, too 'out-there'. They are dominated by religious fundamentalists who bring up God almost every other word. The more I hear a pro-lifer talk, the more I want to run as far away from them as possible. Their current tactics will never get them where they want to go, as basically, they have a massive PR problem.

If the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is to be successful, they must separate themselves from their religious arguments. They can still have them, but that must not be the message that they focus on most. I find that the most effective thing is that a pro-lifer can do is to appeal to emotion. Use images and videos of abortions instead of droning on about God. Show them what abortions are like. Show them images of the dead fetuses. Show them why they should be illegal.

It's the old author's rule: SHOW, don't tell.

Oddly enough, I agree that focusing just on the religious aspect turns people off but I'm also some who wants us to steer clear of using images of aborted fetuses during public demonstration. I agree with the point and I hate how many Pro Choicers complain about how "wrong" the images are, as if it's the fault of a Pro Lifer. However, I think there's a time and a place for that sort of stuff. They're inappropriate in demonstrations but I do believe that they should be shared with people privately.

Thank you, Phil...that sounds really smart. I mean, I wouldn't expect anyone to campaign against gay marriage by showing pictures of butt sex....would you?

So, yeah...vile demonstrations of aborted fetuses are pretty bad...almost as bad as turning your leaders into full-time priests. What I would do if I were an anti-abortionist would be to focus on the objective short-fallings of abortion in terms of the ethical problems it would create and how you could still get the benefits of the pro-choice movement while still be able to prosecute abortion doctors.

[Person Man]

(Speaking only from my experience here)

I consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I would not say 'pro-life'. To me, the pro-life movement is not something that I would want to be associated with, despite the fact that I mostly agree with them. I believe that their problem is that the have become too militant, too fringe, too 'out-there'. They are dominated by religious fundamentalists who bring up God almost every other word. The more I hear a pro-lifer talk, the more I want to run as far away from them as possible. Their current tactics will never get them where they want to go, as basically, they have a massive PR problem.

If the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is to be successful, they must separate themselves from their religious arguments. They can still have them, but that must not be the message that they focus on most. I find that the most effective thing is that a pro-lifer can do is to appeal to emotion. Use images and videos of abortions instead of droning on about God. Show them what abortions are like. Show them images of the dead fetuses. Show them why they should be illegal.

It's the old author's rule: SHOW, don't tell.

That's a wonderful point.  Marrying the pro-life argument to religion means that areligious people will inevitably turned off.  Really, if anything, the pro-life argument is a merging of philosophy and science in attempt to settle when life wins.  The pro-choice movement is always going to be noticeably more arbitrary, even if there is no right answer.  But bringing in God this and the Bible that causes the pro-life people to project an arbitrary aura themselves, undermining perhaps the more logical parts of the argument

Palin being the image of pro-life (giving birth to a son she'd knew would be handicapped0 wasn't what turned most people off from her, but it's what got a lot of people super energized.  Palin denying cases of rape and incest probably did turn some people off though.

...and that's what could be a moral hazard with the anti-abortion movement. It is trying to arbitrize one of the most complicated mysteries in the universe....not that the pro-choice movement does, its just that it basis our bio-ethical code on a very basic and flimsy idea. Be afraid. Be very afraid. We simply can't allow this issue to ever be settled. It never has been settled...ever.

[Person Man]

Can I just piss and crap on a random person since Phil among others are being dicks?

[Person Man]

Also, as Latinos assimilate, they usually become more mainstream on things like abortion.

[Person Man]

Well...according to pew, Hispanics are no more socially conservatives as whites by the 3rd generation...and there are socially conservative whites.

[Person Man]

Well...according to pew, Hispanics are no more socially conservatives as whites by the 3rd generation...and there are socially conservative whites.

You are assuming not being socially conservative means one is pro-choice.

Well...to a certain extent...yes.