Republicans should give up on abortion.

[retromike22]

Even though I'm a liberal Democrat, I find it more interesting to figure out how a party out of power can get back into the game.  I've been trying to figure out how the Republicans can come back on a national level, and I think I have one of the answers. (I hope I don't get stoned by the other liberals for this)

I think the Republicans should give up on abortion.  I'm using this 2003 CBS poll <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml">Strong Support for Abortion Rights</a> which asks if abortion should be generally available, available but with stricter limits, or not permitted.   It asks by party, and the results are very interesting.

29% of Republicans believe that Abortion should be generally available.
41% of Republicans believe that it should be available but with stricter limits.
ONLY 28% of Republicans believe that it should be not permitted.

So.... 70% of Republicans believe that abortion should be available.

I think if they shifted their official party position on abortion to a pro-choice view, they would be able to recieve much more votes from fiscal midwest conservatives and also western libertarians.

And for those who believe that this will doom the Republican party because the 28% of them who don't want to permit abortions will not vote (the social base)...... the poll shows that 21% of DEMOCRATS believe that abortion should not be permitted.  But they still vote Democrat.... possibly because they view the party's stance on fiscal and economic issues to be more important. Which is what the Republicans should do.

It completely confuses me that Republicans feel the need to legislate people's personal lives (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), while simultaneously advocating a limited government.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I agree with you, but many will argue we have to advocate life in order to retain that part of our base. I do agree that running around emphasizing it all the time doesn't win many votes. We can keep it as our official party position without painting "I BELIEVE IN LIFE" on our chests all the time.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I agree with you, but many will argue we have to advocate life in order to retain that part of our base. I do agree that running around emphasizing it all the time doesn't win many votes. We can keep it as our official party position without painting "I BELIEVE IN LIFE" on our chests all the time.

     The Democrats gave up on gun control & kept their control over urban areas. As long as the Republicans let it slide into obscurity rather than publically disown the pro-life position, it shouldn't be too damaging among the religious right.

[Smid]

Your stats suggest that there is only one percent difference between those opposed to aboriton and those in favour of complete access to abortion, within the Republican Party. According to your figures here, 69% of Republicans are opposed to unrestricted access to abortion. Why would the party want to change its position when so many party members would be opposed to that? Additionally, your justification for removing this plank is that the 29% would not leave the party, just as the 21% of Democrats didn't leave the Democratic party for the same reason, however this works both ways - if people don't change their vote based on the party's opposition to abortion, dropping this opposition would therefore not attract voters.

Personally, I think a stance on abortion is a moral issue and therefore should not be a policy plank of any party, but rather left to the conscience of each member of the party. This opinion applies as much to the Democratic Party as it does to the Republican Party as your figures suggest that 21% of Democrats oppose their party's stance on abortion.

[Psychic Octopus]

Socially conservatives always lose in the end, as new generations come along and change the order of things. In fact, stuff like abortion restrictions and denying Gays the right to marry may be seen like segregation is now, extremely far right conservatism. I don't thinks it's far right, but it may be seen as such in let's say, 2080.

[Smid]

You're quite right - successive generations often swing against the mistakes of the past.

There was a case in England back in the 18th Century in which the captain of a slave ship threw a large number of slaves overboard to drown. The captain wasn't charged with murder but rather insurance fraud because he then made a claim against the "goods" that he'd lost at sea. I personally think that in another 200 years, abortion will be seen in a similar light - that something that was once not considered human by that time will be.

There are a couple of comments that were made in court at the time that were particularly disturbing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's the wikipedia on the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_Massacre

In this, I see a similarity with abortion where the argument stems from the point at which life/humanity is in existance. I think that eventually science will demonstrate that life begins at conception and that from that point there is a unique individual, and therefore I see a similarity with the slave trade in that now there is no question of the humanity of the slaves, whereas at the time this was disputed.

[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.

[Smid]

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).

EDIT: I initially wasn't planning on it, but I think I will post the full PM I sent where I discussed it (or at least the relevant portion of the PM - it was a frank discussion with someone on here where we were outlining our contrary opinions with respect for each other. There isn't anything in here where I criticised what he believes, I just sort of set out what I believe). I didn't fully address your point about life being more than a mix of chemicals, although interestingly enough I did touch on that exact point (and in agreement with you).

Quite frankly, when it comes to other issues that impact on the abortion rate (not talking about legality here), I think that of the steps that can be realistically taken, there is nothing more drastic or worse than abortion itself. So before anyone thinks that I'm not conservative because I am fine with teaching about contraceptives in sex ed classes, I would rather have 1,000,000 teenagers learn how to use a condom correctly than to have a single one of those teenagers go out, become pregnant and have an abortion. In fact, reading what I've just written, I don't have a problem with teaching teenagers how to use contraceptives anyway - presumably they will at some point in their life anyway. Sex ed, contraceptives and abstinence raise a separate issue - and at the risk of sending this thread off on a tangent, my position on that is that sex creates an emotional bond as well as a physical one and that in the same way as schools try to warn students about the risks associated with drugs, tobacco and alcohol, they should warn them about participating in sexual activity if they're not prepared to risk whatever consequences that may arise. There is plenty of peer pressure these days to have sex - I don't think it is inappropriate for teachers to discuss abstaining from sex in the same way they discuss abstaining from other behaviours. Since that is probably somewhat contraversial, and since I'd rather not be the cause of two divergent debates in this thread, if you want to discuss that one further, I'm happy to talk about it via PM.

[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. 

[Lief 🗽]

Abortion is actually one of the few "social" issues that the American public isn't getting that much more liberal on, compared to gay issues, marijuana legalization, etc.

[Smid]

As for abortion, you probably wouldn't be surprised (given my PM score) that I am pro-life. Before you bring it up, I too am puzzled by people who bomb abortion clinics referring to themselves as pro-life when they are clearly pro-death in such cases (and I think that their views are an abomination). I am also opposed to the death sentence. While I think it's the state's right to impose punishments on crime, I personally am opposed to it and think that it is barbarity.

My opinion on abortion is this - at the point where you have separate DNA you have a separate individual (although conjoined twins show that the reverse preposition is not true - a separate individual does not necessarily imply separate DNA). Obviously this occurs at conception, and is the reason I believe that life begins at conception, rather than at another particular date. Of course, other people disagree with me on that point, that's just what I personally believe.

If life begins at conception and that means there is a unique individual, they also should have rights and those rights should be defended. If someone doesn't believe life begins at this point, there's obviously no reason for them to agree with me on abortion (in other words, I'm not trying to convince you of my position, nor debate you on this, I'm trying to explain to you what I believe so you can see that I have reached these conclusions through my own thought rather than a blind following of what people have just told me).

There was a case in England back in the 18th Century in which the captain of a slave ship threw a large number of slaves overboard to drown. The captain wasn't charged with murder but rather insurance fraud because he then made a claim against the "goods" that he'd lost at sea. I personally think that in another 200 years, abortion will be seen in a similar light - that something that was once not considered human by that time will be.

There are a couple of comments that were made in court at the time that were particularly disturbing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's the wikipedia on the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_Massacre

In this, I see a similarity with abortion where the argument stems from the point at which life/humanity is in existance. I think that eventually science will demonstrate that life begins at conception and that from that point there is a unique individual, and therefore I see a similarity with the slave trade in that now there is no question of the humanity of the slaves, whereas at the time this was disputed.

Of course, abortion in the instance where a pregnant woman's life is at risk is an entirely different circumstance - I see that as being no different from triage. When there is an horrific disaster and there are many victims, emergency services workers realise that to save the life of one victim may cause the death of another and to attempt to save both may cause the death of both. To save one (and have the other die) is not murder, it's triage.

On the other hand, of course I don't want to see the situation arise where women need to engage in the risky practice of backyard abortion. This would be deadly. As such, society needs to drastically improve the way we treat people, especially single mothers, who seem to be over-represented in abortion statistics. When women don't feel a stigma attached to being an unwed mother, they are less likely to feel pressured into having an abortion.

Better sex education and the use (and teaching of how to correctly use) contraceptives also would lead to a decrease in the need for abortion.

We need to provide education opportunities to young mothers. Often there are no education facilities available to cope with the additional needs of young mothers, such as creches and the availability of child minding/daycare. Without education, young single mothers are left to a lifetime of poverty and improving access to education is an important step in helping them.

I speak from experience in this - around the corner from the church I attended back home was a "school" for women from bad backgrounds. I put school in inverted commas because it was different to most other schools you might encounter, however it was fully accredited by the government as a school. It was solely for young women from bad backgrounds, many had been foster children, about half were teenage mothers, many had been expelled from another school (and of those that hadn't been expelled, many had dropped out after becoming pregnant). The teachers at this school showed understanding and love to the girls there. Our church (an evangelical church) supported this school, and not just by words "oh yes, we support the work you do," the church supported the school in practical ways - we allowed them to use the hall during the week for a creche and provided them with storage space to keep toys and equipment so they wouldn't have to lug all that each day. We also let them use the hall for things like graduation ceremonies and for having dinners in which their hospitality students could showcase their skills - indeed, one girl I knew from there was subsequently awarded a scholarship to one of the top schools of hospitality in the state. She went to church with me, but I think she was one of the very few students who went to church (I mention this because the motivation of our church in helping them was not to "evangalise" the girls, but to provide practical love to the community through service). These girls who had previously been failing or dropping out of high school were now achieving academic results because of the love shown them by their teachers and by the opportunities for them to study (such as the provision of child care) which would have prevented them from studying at a mainstream high school. Unfortunately, facilities such as this are uncommon and their capacity limited (I think this school only had 50-80 young women). If we want to see a decline in the abortion rate, we need to provide these sorts of opportunities to young mothers and we need to show them compassion, not condemnation.

It's probably uncommon to hear a conservative such as me make the sorts of comments that I did in the second half of my rant, and you'd probably agree with that part of what I was saying. I realise that more people disagree with me on abortion than agree with me, and as I said - my reason for telling you this was to try demonstrate that my views on abortion are valid/considered, rather than try to convince you to agree with me.

Hopefully I haven't said anything that causes you offence - I was a little concerned that you'd think that my comments on the slave trade might sound a little judgemental, or that I equate people who believe in abortion as being similar to those who supported the slave trade. The fundamental difference here is that those who supported the slave trade did so because they were lining their pockets with the profits made on the backs of the slaves, whereas most people supporting legalised abortion do so because they see it as providing an opportunity for women. I certainly don't want you to think I was condemning you or trying to invalidate your opinions. Also sorry that this is such a long message.
[/quote]

[memphis]

I don't think it would benefit the GOP to let the abortion issue go. A lot of people vote Republican reflexively and consistantly on that one issue alone.

[Keystone Phil]

I'll give you a call when I decide to give up on something I fundamentally believe in because it would help me just a bit with some voters. Don't expect to hear from me soon. Lou and Grace didn't teach me to just give up because something isn't popular enough.

By the way, this is coming from someone who isn't a single issue voter/has voted for and strongly supported Pro Choice candidates.

[RI]

It would be suicide for them to give up on that issue.

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.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Abortion is actually one of the few "social" issues that the American public isn't getting that much more liberal on, compared to gay issues, marijuana legalization, etc.

opinions on abortion have been fairly static since polling on the issue began. Opinions on gay issues however, have undergone an almost sisemic shift in the last 10-15 years. Imagine how badly Prop 8 would have been defeated 10 or even 5 years ago. I'm ready to predict that a majority of Americans will support same-sex marriage by the year 2030, if not sooner.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

I personally don't believe in abortion, but I don't feel right telling other what to do, because I'm not God. What makes me mad is how a women can go have an abortion without telling the father of that child. I mean it does take two to make that child, so it should take two people to make that decision.

[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...

[phk]

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%

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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...

It tells me that Democratic voters in South Dakota are likelier to show up at the polls if they are young and less aware that South Dakota was going to be in the Republican column no matter what.

[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.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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?

All the more reason to oppose such "genetic therapy".

[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.