Republicans should give up on abortion.

[Zarn]

I think they should be allowed to be married.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

[pbrower2a]

That's an interesting idea.  I'm not sure how far Hispanic votes can take the Republican Party if they're still hemorrhaging votes in the suburbs.  If we stick with a social message, I'd expect to keep losing in the suburbs and gain everywhere near the border.  So that'll keep Texas, Arizona, and Florida safe while tilting New Mexico and California slightly more towards us.  Meanwhile, we'll continue getting killed in Northern California, so I'm not sure targeting Hispanics would get us very far.  Nevada and Colorado would likely drift further Democratic.  Asians are just not a significant enough group to target, obviously.  I really think the only way to fight back is have a long term urban plan.  We're at rock bottom in cities across the country and fighting for those votes will help us across the country.  Suburbs are starting to be more like their core cities, so that'll help there too.  The problem with pushing the socially conservative platform is that the target, while obviously powerful, is very limited.  They are strong only in one region and that region is not enough to win with.  We need a much more broadened platform that is viable in the entire nation.  Like I said before, it's controversial to push these ambiguous positions that can't be "right" all the time.  Returning our message and governing style to responsible can only do good things.

Hispanics, especially Mexican-Americans, probably got burned worse than any other ethnic group in the real estate meltdown because they are the people most likely to buy houses at any level of income. They were often caught with upside-down mortgages. That's probably why Nevada and New Mexico went so heavily for Obama so swiftly; the Republican leadership still believed that those states were up for grabs. (So did I -- but now we know). To the extent that they associate the GOP with the housing bubble of recent years and its implosion, they are going to be slow to forgive. Don't assume that because they are Catholic that they will join the GOP on one issue (abortion). 

Mexican-Americans tend to be more conservative than white Anglo Americans on sex and crime (why do you think that the prosecution of the Nevada OJ case tried to pack the jury with Latinos?)... but that won't be enough to make conservatives out of them, at least for now.

Conservatism will revive; it may end up a defense of Obama-era reforms against radical assaults, much as 1960's conservatism was a defense of the New Deal instead of an attempt to dismantle it. (Recent conservatism has included an effort to dismantle the New Deal and Great Society, and even aspects of the Progressive era... which implies its failure).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Mexican-Americans tend to be more conservative than white Anglo Americans on sex and crime (why do you think that the prosecution of the Nevada OJ case tried to pack the jury with Latinos?)... but that won't be enough to make conservatives out of them, at least for now.

     Good point, though I'd like to mention that there is another really obvious reason that they would want to pack the jury with Latinos.

[Person Man]

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

[Zarn]

Yeah, I'm not assimilated yet.

I was only born in the US.

[Person Man]

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

[Mint]

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

This is something which is commonly forgotten. Of course if the GOP took a moderate stance on economics (or played up other elements of their agenda) and really reached out they could probably steal away 50% or greater of the Hispanic vote over the long haul. Bush managed to do that to a limited extent through his expansion of programs and the war on terror but the GOP needs to go beyond that.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

This is why I think we need to uphold Roe v. Wade. Why have it legal in one place and not in another? It just causes too many problems.

[Zarn]

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.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

This is why I think we need to uphold Roe v. Wade. Why have it legal in one place and not in another? It just causes too many problems.

Why do you say "we"? I do not "need" to uphold Roe versus Wade, nor do I think the same as you do. Further, you entirely disregarded my other points. I said that it went both ways, but you are acting as if pro lifers cannot use that argument too.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

This is why I think we need to uphold Roe v. Wade. Why have it legal in one place and not in another? It just causes too many problems.

Why do you say "we"? I do not "need" to uphold Roe versus Wade, nor do I think the same as you do. Further, you entirely disregarded my other points. I said that it went both ways, but you are acting as if pro lifers cannot use that argument too.

Dude, we get that you aren't like me. You think the GOP needs to be pro-life and march arm in arm with all the fetuses till we ban all killing of them. Until someone can actually PROVE life begins at CONCEPTION, we shouldn't ban it anywhere. Don't like abortion? Fine! Don't chose to do it, but don't try to patrol other's lives who chose to do it. It is none of my concern.

Of course it can go both ways, but your thought process seems silly. Who is going to go across state lines to choose life? Are people going to come to homes and forcibly kill fetuses if the state is a pro-choice state?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

This is why I think we need to uphold Roe v. Wade. Why have it legal in one place and not in another? It just causes too many problems.

Why do you say "we"? I do not "need" to uphold Roe versus Wade, nor do I think the same as you do. Further, you entirely disregarded my other points. I said that it went both ways, but you are acting as if pro lifers cannot use that argument too.

Dude, we get that you aren't like me. You think the GOP needs to be pro-life and march arm in arm with all the fetuses till we ban all killing of them. Until someone can actually PROVE life begins at CONCEPTION, we shouldn't ban it anywhere. Don't like abortion? Fine! Don't chose to do it, but don't try to patrol other's lives who chose to do it. It is none of my concern.

Of course it can go both ways, but your thought process seems silly. Who is going to go across state lines to choose life? Are people going to come to homes and forcibly kill fetuses if the state is a pro-choice state?

It has been "proven" for a long time already. You merely are acting as though it is not, to justify your pro choice abortion stance.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

This is why I think we need to uphold Roe v. Wade. Why have it legal in one place and not in another? It just causes too many problems.

Why do you say "we"? I do not "need" to uphold Roe versus Wade, nor do I think the same as you do. Further, you entirely disregarded my other points. I said that it went both ways, but you are acting as if pro lifers cannot use that argument too.

Dude, we get that you aren't like me. You think the GOP needs to be pro-life and march arm in arm with all the fetuses till we ban all killing of them. Until someone can actually PROVE life begins at CONCEPTION, we shouldn't ban it anywhere. Don't like abortion? Fine! Don't chose to do it, but don't try to patrol other's lives who chose to do it. It is none of my concern.

Of course it can go both ways, but your thought process seems silly. Who is going to go across state lines to choose life? Are people going to come to homes and forcibly kill fetuses if the state is a pro-choice state?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

This is why I think we need to uphold Roe v. Wade. Why have it legal in one place and not in another? It just causes too many problems.

Why do you say "we"? I do not "need" to uphold Roe versus Wade, nor do I think the same as you do. Further, you entirely disregarded my other points. I said that it went both ways, but you are acting as if pro lifers cannot use that argument too.

Dude, we get that you aren't like me. You think the GOP needs to be pro-life and march arm in arm with all the fetuses till we ban all killing of them. Until someone can actually PROVE life begins at CONCEPTION, we shouldn't ban it anywhere. Don't like abortion? Fine! Don't chose to do it, but don't try to patrol other's lives who chose to do it. It is none of my concern.

Of course it can go both ways, but your thought process seems silly. Who is going to go across state lines to choose life? Are people going to come to homes and forcibly kill fetuses if the state is a pro-choice state?

It has been "proven" for a long time already. You merely are acting as though it is not, to justify your pro choice abortion stance.

It has? I wrote a research paper on it last year for my law writing class, and I never found a case that stated that life began at conception. Feel free to correct me if I was wrong.

[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.

[Zarn]

I'm not socially conservative and am pro-life.

I consider it protecting a right.

[muon2]

Demographics change.

Anyway, this thread, like other threads, is pretty sad. Let's see what I can do to help.

The only reason I'm registered Republican rather than Libertarian is that the Libertarian party is Pro-choice. My argument is not religious or spiritual, but scientific.

The religious argument does not apply to all people, inlcuding many religious people. It is a clear hindrance to the cause.

I believe everyone has the right to life. That's why I even oppose capital punishment. To me, no other right has power over it.

I feel the biggest obstacle; however, is that people simply see this as a women's issue. As long as that label remains, it will never again become a popular argument. I have been accused of sexism for my stance, despite the fact that I'm pissed off at the wage imbalance between the sexes, I encourage both women and men to not let anyone make them feel inferior, and I call people out on blantant sexist comments (no matter their sex).

This is good observation. If you'd like to think about a legal and scientific argument consider this. Casey v Planned Parenthood largely replaced Roe v Wade as the law of the land and it recognized that there is a point where the state has an interest in protecting life. However, it does not draw that line cleanly in terms of modern science, but relies on viability which was in line with scientific views from the 1960's that gave rise to Roe.

Conception as the start of life presents challenges for science in some ways. There is the problem of identical twins, where a second human come not from the unique combination of conception, but from cells detaching from the original embryo some days after conception. I'm sure no one would argue that either twin is anything other than fully human. The potential for cloning only exacerbates this dilemma. In spiritual terms I would say that we humans cannot know when one gets a soul.

In science and law the best measure of the end of life is the irrevocable cessation of heart and brain function. We use it routinely throughout the country. Logically one cannot have the cessation of heart and brain function until it starts, so this could be used a rational starting point for a scientific and legal definition. It can be used to establish where the state's compelling interest begins as well, and is somewhat more independent than a gender-based view of the surgical procedure.