by John Deering for MSNBC and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette...
I've also decided Glenn McCoy is my favorite political cartoonist. As I peruse the funnies each week for this post, I'm always drawn to his as either very funny or very baaad. I'd likely post McCoy every Sunday but choose others for diversity's sake. See 2 of McCoy's zingers this week on page 2.
by Glenn McCoy...
by Glenn McCoy...
Head of Hamas! Okay, that was hilarious.Posted by: mk at April 20, 2008 7:28 AM
Please please please correct me where I am wrong... What does this have to do with being pro-life? How are these comics part of the "pro-life pulse"?Posted by: Greg at April 20, 2008 9:45 AM
I think the issue is funny, not necessarily pro life. Tho the Obama one has a link because Obama is NOT pro life.Posted by: Anonymous at April 20, 2008 10:04 AM
Hmmm, Greg...I have found myself asking that question a few times about the threads on here.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 10:06 AM
The above anonymous was me.Posted by: Andy at April 20, 2008 10:06 AM
More...The Democratic platform in 2004 included pro choice as one of it's planks. (for the connection on the Deering one), and Jimmah Carter 1) is a democrat and 2) is kind of a switch hitter on pro-choice/pro-life: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/nov/05110707.html
Posted by: Andy
at April 20, 2008 10:18 AM
Sometimes you have to read between the lines.
Andy that makes no sense... It's as if I started a blog on the topic of war, and then post anything I want about President Bush's immigration policy, because he is the one behind the Iraq war...
You may think it is funny, but what about the pro-life democrats that read Jill Stanek? I would think that many would no longer wish to participate in the pro-life discussion when they saw how many cracks at their party we take...Posted by: Greg at April 20, 2008 10:21 AM
I agree with you on that! I mean, I'm not a Democrat, but this is a pro-life website...not a Republican website. I do think it alienates many pro-life people who aren't necessarily Christian/Republican.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 10:26 AM
Once again Andy, you pretend like the Carter comic has anything to do with the issue over abortion.
And with regards to your argument about the Democratic position, why must this be seen as an argument between the GOP and the Democrats? Correct me if I assume wrong of course... But there are plenty of politicians on either side that break the stereotype. Pro-choice republicans and pro-life democrats... Why are we so black and white on this?Posted by: Greg at April 20, 2008 10:28 AM
"I do think it alienates many pro-life people who aren't necessarily Christian/Republican."
then that begs the question, where/who are the non-christian/democrat pro-lifers?
anybody who votes for a Democrat is a pro-abort. the Democrat platform is 100% pro-abort. you can't have it both ways.Posted by: jasper at April 20, 2008 10:56 AM
@Jasper: Ta-da!Posted by: Rae at April 20, 2008 11:09 AM
Until the Democrat party stops supporting abortion as their party platform, there is no such thing as a pro-life democrat. If one votes for the Democrat party, they are pro-abort. There is no such thing as a pro-life democrat.Posted by: jasper at April 20, 2008 11:17 AM
@Jasper: Then you sir, are a fool. Jim Oberstar of Duluth is a PL Democrat in Minnesota. Yes, there are PL Democrats, you just have to look for them and you can't just vote for any ol' Democrat. So no, you will not be voting for a "pro-abort" if you specifically vote for a PL Democrat.
PiP's a PL Democrat, I'm a PL Democrat, I'm sure there are others, but I don't personally know them so I can't say for sure.
I will not be voting for Hillary or Obama (who ever gets the nomination) in November. If I have to, I'll write in "Stephen T. Colbert" instead, because I don't like McCain enough to vote for him.Posted by: Rae at April 20, 2008 11:20 AM
"I will not be voting for Hillary or Obama (who ever gets the nomination) in November."
Then you are a pro-abort my dear, you cannot have it both ways. You are supporting a platform of pro-abortion. sorry.Posted by: jasper at April 20, 2008 11:23 AM
@Jasper: I said I will NOT be voting for Hillary or Obama. Can you not read?Posted by: Rae at April 20, 2008 11:26 AM
Oh, I missed that, sorry.Posted by: jasper at April 20, 2008 11:29 AM
I think you can be a registered Democrat and be a pro-lifer, however, I think if you were to run for political office at any level you would not get the permission of the Democratic Party to run as a pro-life Democratic candidate on any ballot. Therefore how could any pro-life Democrat ever vote for any Democrat? Is that what you are saying? Are there any pro-life Democrats in office anywhere? If so, are they marginalized as pariahs in the Democratic Party?
Perhaps Jill could post the life positions of all Democrats and Republicans running for office in each state or at least provide links to websites that already do this. In Arizona we have www.AZPolicy.org.
I must say this. There are pro-choice Republicans, although they be few. Look at Guiliani.
So, the odds of being a pro-life Republican far outweigh the odds of being a pro-life Democrat.
Having said that, the vast majority of pro-lifers on this site, including me, would never vote for a pro-choice Republican. I dissed Giuliani on a post way back in April of 2007 and predicted his demise when he was winning in the polls and everyone thought he would win the nomination. In fact, while my first choice was Huckabee, I predicted that McCain would be running against a Hillary/Obama ticket with McCain ultimately winning the presidency. I think there's still a chance that McCain will pick Huckabee as a VP running mate and I think that Hillary will be the Presidential nominee with Obama as the VP. This is the only move that can reconcile the divide in the Democratic party, satisfy the voracious lust for power of Hillary, and satisfy the demands of the Moveon.org ultra-leftists as they will be told they'll just have to wait 8 years for BO as Prez.
So, the minute Republicans turn their platform into a pro-choice platform we abandon them and Republican politicians understand this.
As a majority of (not all) gays, atheists, African-Americans, Hispanics, and unions form the base of the Democratic party, the majority of pro-lifers comprise the base of the Republican Party. So, at this juncture in our political history we cannot, in general, dissassociate ourselves as pro-lifers from the Republican Party and our position on the sanctity of life.Posted by: HisMan at April 20, 2008 11:55 AM
"Therefore how could any pro-life Democrat ever vote for any Democrat? Is that what you are saying?"
yes, the Democrat party platform is so hostile, so cruel to the unborn and the message of respecting life, I just don't understand how someone who is pro-life could support such a party. I suppose a pro-lifer could support a democrat but they are just perpetuating the slaughter of innocent unborn children.
The democrat party has no plans to change their stand on abortion, or even reconsider or debate it amongst themselves. For pro-choice republicans, I don't vote for them or give them any consideration.Posted by: jasper at April 20, 2008 12:09 PM
Well, continue to keep alienating PL Democrats then Jasper. The PC Dem's will keep laughing at you because you don't accept PL Democrats as "legitimate" pro-lifers..so there will continue to be a division. We won't ever win with these "you have to believe everything I believe" types of attitudes. It just won't happen and you can pretend like it will to your heart's content, but it still won't.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 12:35 PM
What pro-life Democrats do you vote for in your state because I know of no pro-life Democrats on the national scene?
Do you think you can be pro-life and vote for a pro-choice Democrat?
I'm trying to understand.Posted by: HisMan at April 20, 2008 12:38 PM
I don't vote Democrat, HisMan...but I'm sure there are some PL Democrats who vote for other PL Democrats. Pip is a pro-life Democrat. I guess it all depends on whether or not you are a one-issue voter or not. I don't think being a one-issue voter is a smart thing to do but to each his own I guess. Let's say there was a PL politician who believed in other things you don't, and actively pursued those by trying to make them law. Would you REALLY vote for this person just because they were pro-life?
But I think we're getting away from what Greg was trying to say with his first comment. How does knocking people constantly who are Democrats and non-Christians help save unborn babies exactly?
My answer would be: I don't really think it does...it doesn't encourage a united front against abortion. It divides, and divided we fall.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 12:46 PM
Then you are a pro-abort my dear, you cannot have it both ways. You are supporting a platform of pro-abortion. sorry.
Posted by: jasper at April 20, 2008 11:23 AM
...And if you vote for McCain - the man who endorses the slaughter of the poor, ensouled snowflake babies - you are nothing but filthy pro-abort scum.
Jesus weeps every time a snoflake baby dies.Posted by: Laura at April 20, 2008 1:18 PM
"How does knocking people constantly who are Democrats and non-Christians help save unborn babies exactly?"
How does keeping silent and cowering to pro-aborts save unborn babies?
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves" (Proverbs 31)Posted by: jasper at April 20, 2008 2:32 PM
Defeating legalized abortion is fundamental to the survival of our country because it is a direct frontal assault against God.
This is why abortion is my litmus test for any politician and mightily dwarfs any other issue we now face.
Sans legalized abortion being repealed, people will understand this when they wake up one morning to find out that San Francisco, LA, Las Vegas, New York City and Miami have been nuked by terrorists.
We pro-lifers realize that their is a connection between the continued shedding of innocent blood and whether or not God eventually lifts His hand of protection over our country.Posted by: HisMan at April 20, 2008 3:05 PM
Defeating legalized abortion is fundamental to the survival of our country because it is a direct frontal assault against God.
This is why abortion is my litmus test for any politician and mightily dwarfs any other issue we now face.
Sans legalized abortion being repealed, people will understand this when they wake up one morning to find out that San Francisco, LA, Las Vegas, New York City and Miami have been nuked by terrorists.
We pro-lifers realize that their is a connection between the continued shedding of innocent blood and whether or not God eventually lifts His hand of protection over our country.Posted by: HisMan at April 20, 2008 3:05 PM
First of all, i would encourage you to research Democrats for Life of America. For starters, check out Wikipedia:
If you knew enough about them, you would know that strictly only endorse democratic candidates who are considered pro-life. There are actually quite a few DFL in office currently. (Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, and Bob Casey included).
Secondly, it is nothing short of ignorance to use the term "pro-abort" when not appropriate. Someone who is pro-abortion would fight for abortion even if abortion were not seen by anyone as needed to solve the crisis of unwanted or unexpected pregnancies. There is a logical difference between those who are pro-abortion and those who are pro-choice. They do not mean the same thing. Please stop making the pro-life movement look ignorant. Thank you.Posted by: Greg at April 20, 2008 3:17 PM
What could being pro-choice lead to?Posted by: HisMan at April 20, 2008 3:48 PM
How does keeping silent and cowering to pro-aborts save unborn babies?
Umm, yeah, caust that's what I meant. Only not really. But whatever, you have missed the point.
"If you knew enough about them, you would know that strictly only endorse democratic candidates who are considered pro-life. There are actually quite a few DFL in office currently. (Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, and Bob Casey included)."
Nonsense. "pro-life" Bob Casey is supporting pro-infanticide Barack Obama. This group should not be trusted.
"Secondly, it is nothing short of ignorance to use the term "pro-abort" when not appropriate. Someone who is pro-abortion would fight for abortion even if abortion were not seen by anyone as needed to solve the crisis of unwanted or unexpected pregnancies. There is a logical difference between those who are pro-abortion and those who are pro-choice. They do not mean the same thing. Please stop making the pro-life movement look ignorant. Thank you."
Pro-choice? what an awful, awful lie. I'm pro-gun rights but I choose not to own a gun, can I call myself pro-choice too? "pro-choice" is a euphemism designed by evil people to cover up for the legalized slaughter of unborn children. Pro-lifers my never, never accept the pro-choice lie.Posted by: jasper at April 20, 2008 4:18 PM
well i was definitely unaware of Casey's endorsement, but it definitely does not take away from the fact the legitimacy and power of the pro-life democrats.
"Pro-choice? what an awful, awful lie. I'm pro-gun rights but I choose not to own a gun, can I call myself pro-choice too? "pro-choice" is a euphemism designed by evil people to cover up for the legalized slaughter of unborn children. Pro-lifers my never, never accept the pro-choice lie."
Jasper, thank you for proving my point. This time I need you to actually read what I am saying and see that I am not against you, but rather that I am on your side. Picture the following two individuals:
The first one has the best of intentions, but through ignorance does not recognize the sacredness of life in the womb within the earlier stages of pregnancy, and does actually want to help mothers who cannot care for her child. and so he/she believes in what is today called "a woman's right to choose."
The second one is a racist, who believes that the minority community in his/her town ought to be exterminated over a period of time in order that he/she may live as he/she wills, and so they believe in not only keeping abortion legal, but also increasing the number of abortions throughout the minority community through their lies and their socially marginalizing governmental policies.
Can you not tell the difference between these two people? One is mistaken and in error, and although contributing to evil, doing so ignorantly. The other is directly involved with the greatest of evil intentions. Can you see this?
Jasper, we have all been blessed by our Creator with logic, and the ability to determine between those who believe abortion is an unnecessary evil, those who believe it is a necessary evil, and those who believe it is a necessary good. The third is called pro-abortion, the second is called pro-choice, and the first is with whom we stand - those that are pro-life...Posted by: Greg at April 20, 2008 6:03 PM
We knw it was coming...
Apparently, if you don't vote for the Republican, our country will be nuked by terrorists:
"Sans legalized abortion being repealed, people will understand this when they wake up one morning to find out that San Francisco, LA, Las Vegas, New York City and Miami have been nuked by terrorists.
We pro-lifers realize that their is a connection between the continued shedding of innocent blood and whether or not God eventually lifts His hand of protection over our country.
Posted by: HisMan at April 20, 2008 3:05 PM"Posted by: Laura at April 20, 2008 6:39 PM
Posted by: HisMan at April 20, 2008 3:05 PM"
So, if we vote for McCain - the man who advocates the wanton slaughter of the sweet ensouled snowflake babies - VEGAS GETS NUKED?!
What about the Luxor? Does the Luxor survive?
Will there still be a $1 breakfast buffet?
By the way, why do all the FUN cities get nuked?Posted by: Laura at April 20, 2008 6:48 PM
"but it definitely does not take away from the fact the legitimacy and power of the pro-life democrats."
Democrats for life have NO power within their party, none. If they were really concerned about protecting unborn children, they would not be part of a party that supports the legalization of killing unborn children.
I disagree with your premise that the first one has the "best of intentions" and "does actually want to help mothers".
If they really did want to help mothers, they would support CPC's and not planned parenthood. They continue to support planned parenthood and barbaric acts like partial birth abortion to this day.
...and, As I said, I am pro-guns rights. I don't need to white-wash it by saying I am pro-choice.Posted by: jasper at April 20, 2008 7:26 PM
Be nice. Jasper is referring to a quote by Mother Teresa..."The fruits of abortion is nuclear war"...
While it might not quite be a "punishment", but the fruits I believe that she means, we will become so depraved as a society that life will become meaningless...and war won't be far behind.
But if you subscribe to the bible, which I know you don't, there are plenty of examples where God's wrath does wreak havoc on a few towns and villages.
Plus, at the rate society is going, it's just a matter of time till we morally self implode.
Which reminds me of the song...
"In heaven there is no beer...that's why I drink it here..."Posted by: mk at April 20, 2008 7:33 PM
I think I'm going to be not commenting on here for a while. I'm just feeling very much like if you're not Christian, and you're not a Republican, that you're a pro-abort, or you're not a legitimate pro-lifer. That's not how I want to be represented in the pro-life movement. Even though I am Catholic and a Republican, I feel that this site is not really about being compassionate to other viewpoints if they don't fit in this tiny box that you all think they should. I also don't see how some of the issues that are in threads here even relate to abortion..it just seems to me to be an attack on anything that doesn't fit in line with what many people here believe. And people aren't even open to maybe realizing that there ARE other ideas out there that aren't "evil" or "bad." So...I think it's time for me to take a break. Anybody who wants to chat with me in the meantime can look me up on facebook.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 7:42 PM
And this from the Chicago Tribune and Hillary...
On Bosnia snipers...
was either quite refreshing or completely appalling, depending on your politics, when Hillary Clinton admitted during Wednesday night's debate that her stories about coming under sniper fire when visiting Bosnia had been false.
"I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case," she said. "It just didn't jibe with what I . . . knew to be the truth."
As one who was appalled, the word "just" jumped out at me in this tangle of candidate-speak: She was "just" lying? She knew the truth but "just" decided to tell a fib?Posted by: mk at April 20, 2008 7:57 PM
If you have been able to put up with being pro life and hearing the pro choice side attack you, surely you can put up with those on the other side of the religious debate...
Not commenting doesn't solve anything. Who will represent your point of view. They're not on right now, but Rae and PIP are pro life and liberal. And PIP does it sans religion.
Mary is not "religious" and either is Hippie. I think you're just having a rough time because they aren't posting right now.
Of course you can be pro life and democrat. The two *bleeps* running for president aside, it's time you and others like you took the democratic party back!
Don't give up. And don't take what everyone says so hard. Please?Posted by: mk at April 20, 2008 8:01 PM
@Elizabeth: If you want to take a break, I can introduce you to a really lovely PL group on Facebook that I often peruse (ok...obsessively check). It's a great group and everything is debated fairly logically and rationally. One of the admins is a conservative girl from San Francisco, and she's great. The other admin is this really cool Mormon guy from Virginia who never uses religion in his arguments, he's actually one of the ones that convinced me to pop over to the "other side" (lol) because honestly, I couldn't refute his arguments. :)Posted by: Rae at April 20, 2008 8:07 PM
You've been cheating on me...! lol
I'd like to pop over there too. Send me the web address?Posted by: mk at April 20, 2008 8:14 PM
Rae, could you send me an invite to the group you're talking about on fb?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 20, 2008 8:18 PM
@MK and Bobby: Okay, I invited you both via facebook, but Bobby, it seems as though you're already invited to the group. :)Posted by: Rae at April 20, 2008 8:29 PM
Re the "inevitable that we'd win the election"...
I agree - all other arguments aside, it shows the relative weakness of Hillary and Obama - after 8 years of Bush Jr., and it's not a shoo-in that they'd beat a pro-war candidate? Have to laugh...Posted by: Doug at April 20, 2008 8:36 PM
Rae could you send me the link for the facebook group? I'd like to check it out.Posted by: StudentFL at April 20, 2008 8:36 PM
The problem with the idea of pro-life Democrats is that the leadership of the Democratic Party in America is strongly pro-abortion, and is, in fact, the most powerful pro-abortion organization in the country.
Pro-life Democrats can and have been elected, but electing a pro-life Democrat has its pluses and minuses. A truly pro-life Democrat will support pro-life causes, but at the same time, his or her membership in a legislature will increase the power of the Democratic Party leadership, which is, as I said, very strongly pro-abortion.
The second problem with pro-life Democrats is that many of them are questionably pro-life. Take Bobby Casey, Jr, for example. His record on abortion is mixed, at best. Two times now he has voted to force American taxpayers to fund foreign abortions. And of course the latest outrage is that Bobby Casey has strongly come out in support of the campaign of Barack Obama, a candidate who is more pro-abortion than Planned Parenthood. Not only is Casey supporting Obama, but as a resident of Pennsylvania I can tell you that Casey made a campaign commercial for Obama in which he urges the people of PA to vote for Obama for the sake of "change".
I'm not saying that to be pro-life you need to be a Republican. But I am definitely saying that it doesn't make a lot of sense to be pro-life and a Democrat, considering the current leadership of the Democratic Party. Unless you pro-life Democrats are trying to overthrow the Howard Deans, the Chuck Schumers, and the Ted Kennedys of your party and replace them with pro-lifers, I'm not sure what the heck you think you're doing.Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 20, 2008 8:52 PM
There's the address for MK and Bobby too if they need it. :)Posted by: Rae at April 20, 2008 8:55 PM
I will think about it MK...I mean, I'm not a Democrat because my beliefs don't really fit with their's...but I just can't wrap my brain around the sentiment that Democrats can't really be pro-life or aren't legitimate enough. That just seems discriminatory to me...and I think it hurts the PL movement as a whole. I just feel overwhelmed and disheartened by some of the other people who comment on this site who are just, for lack of a better word, "extreme" IMO.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 9:48 PM
Elizabeth, it's perfectly possible for individual Democrats to be pro-life, but the Democratic Party currently has strongly pro-abortion leaders. That's the problem. If the leadership changes, it will make a lot more sense to be a pro-life Democrat.Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 20, 2008 9:56 PM
In order to do that though, John, don't you think it's important to welcome PL Democrats as much as possible instead of trying to say they aren't really PL?Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 10:08 PM
I wouldnt necessarily count on leadership change suddenly changing people's minds, its likely theyll just think the party is headed in a "wrong" direction, just as people think Bush has sent Republicans, and America in general, in the "wrong" direction.
In case you're wondering, wrong is in quotations because it is entirely subjective :)
Ah Alison, fond memories of debating in that group and SAWRTC before I started debating here instead, not to mention the chunk of my life college stuff, school, and deciding to start my own blog took up, on top of reading and friends, lolPosted by: Dan at April 20, 2008 10:08 PM
@Dan: I really like PL much better than SAWRTC. SAWRTC is really catty now.Posted by: Rae at April 20, 2008 10:20 PM
Is it? I havent been there for awhile. I've popped in and out, but havent really been on long enough to talk to anyone, though its doubtful many, if any, remember me at this point, lol.
Seems like it's been DEAD lately too, no one on at all hours like there used to be, chatting on the wall bout cereal mascot religions or combatting trolls and/or spam, or just random chaos.Posted by: Dan at April 20, 2008 10:27 PM
I just feel overwhelmed and disheartened by some of the other people who comment on this site who are just, for lack of a better word, "extreme" IMO.
You mean the one's that don't agree with you? The one's that are passionate about their beliefs that aren't yours? Oh, now I get it. You can preach about how everyone needs to accept that you are attracted to black men, and it frustrates you to no end that people look at you "strangely" and say rude comments to you about your daughter.
Elizabeth, I think you're a very bright and articulate young lady. I LOVE most of your comments. It's just that if you expect people to accept you, your beliefs, your way of life, your comments, etc....how about passing along the same respect to others as well? You've gotta give to get, Elizabeth.
Your arguments and comments are valid, and you are entitled to have them. Everyone here also is, as long as they don't attack the person. Even the "extreme" people (who, by the way, are the one's that you REALLY don't agree with) also have arguments and comments that are valid. We're all different.
I also don't see how some of the issues that are in threads here even relate to abortion..
Trust me....they're ALL related!!!
Posted by: JLM
at April 20, 2008 10:33 PM
You mean the one's that don't agree with you? The one's that are passionate about their beliefs that aren't yours? Oh, now I get it.
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa...I never said that people aren't allowed to have beliefs that aren't mine. But trying to say that someone isn't legitimately pro-life because they don't fit someone else's "standard" of what pro-life "should" be IS discriminatory and DOES NOT help the pro-life movement IN ANY WAY. And by standard I mean the fact that people don't think there are really any pro-life Dem's.
You can preach about how everyone needs to accept that you are attracted to black men, and it frustrates you to no end that people look at you "strangely" and say rude comments to you about your daughter.
Huh?!!! ignorance frustrates me JLM..and your's is showing through BEAUTIFULLY!
I never said everyone needed to accept that I am attracted to black men. They don't have to..but at the end of the day..they just look racist and stupid. But if they're okay with that, more power to em'.
And you're RIGHT! NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY S*IT TO ME ABOUT MY DAUGHTER BEING HALF-BLACK. Am I saying they have to raise a bi-racial child? HELL NO! But don't say rude s*it to me about raising my BEAUTIFUL daughter.
Wow, if I wasn't leaving before, I sure as hell am now. Thanks, JLM.
OH, and p.s. The EXTREME people were the one's I am talking about..you know, the ones who don't open their eyes and see that there is more than one way of looking at things and just spout off at the mouth...I'm sure you're familiar...Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 10:46 PM
"Hmmm, Greg...I have found myself asking that question a few times about the threads on here."
Well Elizabeth, there's pro-life and then there's pro-evil. Obama is pro-evil and therefore a threat to the pro-life movement. That's why it's relevant.
I don't get these. I'm sorry I've been too busy getting fresh air and sunlight to keep up with current events.
Ah you kids and your politics. : )Posted by: Jess at April 20, 2008 10:49 PM
I'm sorry if I came off a little extreme. I was wrong to say pro-life democrats are not really pro-life. I took a look the their website, it seems as though they are really trying to push some good pro-life legislation.
"The other admin is this really cool Mormon guy from Virginia who never uses religion in his arguments, he's actually one of the ones that convinced me to pop over to the "other side" (lol) because honestly, I couldn't refute his arguments. "
Geez, thanks Rae, what a friend you are. After all the hrs some of the pro-lifers here spent trying to convert you....Posted by: jasper at April 20, 2008 10:52 PM
If you think I meant extreme as in the ones who just don't agree with me...you're kidding yourself there, JLM. I love it when people disagree with me...it's what makes life interesting. But discriminating and being overly rude about things is extreme and doesn't help what we're trying to accomplish.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 10:52 PM
Jasper, 10:52 p.m.
Thanks..that makes me feel better. :)Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 10:54 PM
"You can preach about how everyone needs to accept that you are attracted to black men"
I think she's attracted to men in general. I don't think she sees black men like some accessory. And jasper I'm still unconverted! No one ever tries to convert me anymore. Is this a good thing?Posted by: Jess at April 20, 2008 10:55 PM
I think she's attracted to men in general. I don't think she sees black men like some accessory.
What? Like a purse you mean? Lol.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 10:56 PM
Talking about seeing things in a tiny box...WHOA! you TOTALLY missed the point of my post! TOTALLY!!! Take off the "every one is trying to offend me glasses"...PLEASE! that's NOT AT ALL where I was going in that post. In no way, shape or form.Posted by: JLM at April 20, 2008 10:57 PM
I don't get these. I'm sorry I've been too busy getting fresh air and sunlight to keep up with current events.
Hehe...me too..I went to the park and slid down the slides a gazillion times. :)Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 10:57 PM
@Jasper: Don't worry, you guys helped a lot too. I think had you guys not "worn me down", my buddy on Facebook wouldn't have been able to make the "final kill".Posted by: Rae at April 20, 2008 11:00 PM
Rae wanna convert back? We have cats over here.Posted by: Jess at April 20, 2008 11:01 PM
No, I really didn't JLM. You're trying to say that I need to give acceptance to get acceptance. And I do. What, did you think I was talking about you in my initial comment about people being extreme? Hello! I wasn't! I do not see the point in discriminating against Democrats and saying that they aren't really pro-life because they're a Democrat. And, if you've read the previous comments on here...the people who were doing that were Jasper and HisMan I believe. Jasper has since been to the Democrats for Life website and said he was a little harsh in his comments. I have no problem with this.
When people realize they are generalizing and being discriminatory and dividing the pro-life movement by doing so it is a good thing. When they don't, it just hurts the PL movement as a whole. And I was just pointing it out for people to recognize that discrimination helps no one.
And for the record, what exactly could you have meant about my "preaching" about being attracted to black men and how people treat my daughter and I? What? That I shouldn't be offended? That it shouldn't bother me? Cause I made that choice..I should just be okay with people being ignorant? It's wrong for me to expect more of people in this freaking day and age?
I said something similar bout her being welcome to come back over anytime to no avail, always worth a shot though ;)Posted by: Dan at April 20, 2008 11:06 PM
@Jess: I can't have a kitty in my apartment because my land lord is teh evilz.Posted by: Rae at April 20, 2008 11:07 PM
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa...I never said that people aren't allowed to have beliefs that aren't mine. But trying to say that someone isn't legitimately pro-life because they don't fit someone else's "standard" of what pro-life "should" be IS discriminatory and DOES NOT help the pro-life movement IN ANY WAY. And by standard I mean the fact that people don't think there are really any pro-life Dem's.
Yeah, right. That's why you posted the whole "good-bye" song & dance that's here over on the evolution poll thread, too.
btw...I agree with you about PL Dem's. There ARE some really good one's. I hope they change their party for the good. Is probably going to be tough, though...because they are in the minority on their side.Posted by: JLM at April 20, 2008 11:08 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about the conversion thing, they've simply gone to more subtle approaches I think ;)
I don't feel like I'm actively pursued per se either, but I know there are those here who would love to have me on board/reclaim me for the movement :PPosted by: Dan at April 20, 2008 11:08 PM
Lol kittehs can eets teh landlordz?Posted by: Jess at April 20, 2008 11:11 PM
Yeah, right. That's why you posted the whole "good-bye" song & dance that's here over on the evolution poll thread, too.
Well, JLM..those were actually the only 2 threads I was commenting on at the moment I'm pretty sure..so that's why I did it.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 11:13 PM
@Jess: I wiiiiiiiiiiish. Kiiiiittuh. Mraow.Posted by: Rae at April 20, 2008 11:15 PM
I also don't see how some of the issues that are in threads here even relate to abortion..it just seems to me to be an attack on anything that doesn't fit in line with what many people here believe.
I suppose I posted it there too because I don't really see how evolution relates to abortion either. That could have been it. Because I don't. I'm not a conspiracy theorist in that way. I don't think everything that I don't agree with comes back to babies being killed. Sorry.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 11:18 PM
I guess it goes back to pro-life=Christian, conservatives republicans and pro-choice=atheist/pagan, liberal democrats.Posted by: Jess at April 20, 2008 11:20 PM
I guess it goes back to pro-life=Christian, conservatives republicans and pro-choice=atheist/pagan, liberal democrats.
Yep..guess so..how sad.
Oh well..I'm out for a bit. I'll take some time to breathe and get some studying done..maybe I'll come back after finals who knows?!! I'll probably become a lurker...Posted by: Elizabeth at April 20, 2008 11:45 PM
"You can preach about how everyone needs to accept that you are attracted to black men"
Elizabeth and I don't get along AT ALL, but I have NEVER heard her say anything like that.
It sounds like the "black men" issue is all yours, otherwise you never would have made that up.Posted by: Laura at April 21, 2008 12:36 AM
"The other admin is this really cool Mormon guy from Virginia who never uses religion in his arguments, he's actually one of the ones that convinced me to pop over to the "other side""
Yea, better watch out for those religons Rae, you can't trust anything if it comes from them.
"I also don't see how some of the issues that are in threads here even relate to abortion..it just seems to me to be an attack on anything that doesn't fit in line with what many people here believe."
"I guess it goes back to pro-life=Christian, conservatives republicans and pro-choice=atheist/pagan, liberal democrats.
Yep..guess so..how sad."
who says every post has to do with abortion? Is there a rule book? you're sounding like a cry baby.. who is attacking who exactly? Are we running over to their homes and beating them up?
We were just having a conversation, you convinced me that I that was wrong up above and I re-thought my position. You don't hear me whining.....
Posted by: jasper
at April 21, 2008 12:49 AM
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.
~ Deuteronomy 30:19, NIV translation.
Incidentally, this is the verse abortion proponents often cite to try to say God is pro-"choice."
The vegetarian god says" I set before you a double bacon cheeseburger and a bean burrito. Now choose the burrito that you may have a healthier life".
He's pro-choice too?Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2008 4:57 AM
""The other admin is this really cool Mormon guy from Virginia who never uses religion in his arguments, he's actually one of the ones that convinced me to pop over to the "other side""
Yea, better watch out for those religons Rae, you can't trust anything if it comes from them."
@Jasper: What the heck...?Posted by: Rae at April 21, 2008 7:46 AM
Anyone who thinks you can't be an ACTIVE right-to-lifer and a Democrat needs to visit Pittsburgh.
Also read about the abortion policies of former Governor Bob Casey, Senior (D-Pa). (Not Senator Bob Casey, Junior (D-Pa)).Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 9:02 AM
I'm really not trying to sound like a "cry-baby" or whatever. I'm just stating that I don't see how dividing the PL movement through bashing others is the way to go.Posted by: Elizabeth at April 21, 2008 9:17 AM
you were making it sound as if religion is included in the argument, it is not valid or untrue.....it's ok, no biggie.Posted by: jasper at April 21, 2008 9:19 AM
Yeah I love it how some pro-lifers don't want to cross borders to convince people from all walks of life to be on the PL side, but then still think that saying "who needs you" and then simply voting for pro-life candidates will make the difference. Wow, guys. We've been making tons of progress!Posted by: prettyinpink at April 21, 2008 10:07 AM
"I'm really not trying to sound like a "cry-baby" or whatever. I'm just stating that I don't see how dividing the PL movement through bashing others is the way to go."
I agree Elizabeth, I came off extreme up above.Posted by: jasper at April 21, 2008 10:09 AM
Is this the same former governor Casey that was denied the right to speak at a Democrat convention because of his pro-life views? Are these the same Democrats who view themselves as such bastions of tolerance? Why doesn't the "big tent" standard that was expected to Republicans not demanded of Democrats as well?Posted by: Mary at April 21, 2008 10:21 AM
Mary, you wrote: "Is this the same former governor Casey that was denied the right to speak at a Democrat convention because of his pro-life views?"
" ... Why doesn't the "big tent" standard that was expected to Republicans not demanded of Democrats as well? "
Could it be because the Democratic National Committee knows that a majority of Americans are pro-choice? A LARGE majority.Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 11:09 AM
The Republican National Committee knows it too.Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 11:22 AM
Without the pro-choice Republicans, the GOP would be a permanent minority.Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 11:23 AM
The picture of Carter is insulting and offensive.Posted by: TexasRed at April 21, 2008 11:28 AM
PIP 10:07: Yeah I love it how some pro-lifers don't want to cross borders to convince people from all walks of life to be on the PL side, but then still think that saying "who needs you" and then simply voting for pro-life candidates will make the difference. Wow, guys. We've been making tons of progress!
What borders do you mean?Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2008 11:50 AM
I think pip is referring to party lines.Posted by: Dan at April 21, 2008 12:25 PM
"you were making it sound as if religion is included in the argument, it is not valid or untrue.....it's ok, no biggie."
@Jasper: *eyeroll* I became PL before I started going back to Church, so at the time I became PL, I preferred arguments that had nothing to do with religion. Even as I go to church, I *still* prefer arguments that leave God out of it because that way we're able to have our message more readily acceptable by those who don't believe in God.Posted by: Rae at April 21, 2008 12:28 PM
I think pip is referring to party lines.Posted by: Dan at April 21, 2008 12:36 PM
You didn't address my question. The Democrat Party presents itself as this great bastion of tolerance. Therefore it should be first and foremost in promoting and encouraging a diversity of ideas, especially in their own ranks. They should be the ones demanding that all viewpoints be presented and should oppose silencing anyone because they have a differing viewpoint.
This silencing of Bob Casey was the height of intolerance SOMG, in case you didn't notice. Instead of excusing it you should be condemning it.
Really? Is that why Ronald Reagan, who opposed abortion and made no secret of it, won 2 elections, both landslides?Posted by: Mary at April 21, 2008 2:02 PM
Lighten up. When haven't political cartoons insulted and offended someone?Posted by: Anonymous at April 21, 2008 2:05 PM
Lighten up. When haven't political cartoons insulted and offended someone?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 21, 2008 2:05 PM
There is nothing 'light' about that kind of cruelty.
Party lines mostly. There's also the inevitable "homosexuals represent all that is morally wrong with the country, therefore responsible for abortion." Wow, that makes homosexuals feel good about being pro-life. Or there is alienating people who like science, who are athiest, muslim, are liberal or secularists, or even have different ideas on the kinds of methods that would be more effective for the PL side. That is how it seems on this blog at times, anyways.Posted by: prettyinpink at April 21, 2008 3:16 PM
PIP: 3:16: There's no easy answer. You'll get as many different answers about abortion as there are people, so I don't think we can generalize. We are hearing the most opinionated of both sides on this blog. I think we all feel alienated from time to time.Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2008 4:00 PM
Then you haven't seen some of the political cartoons I have. I've certainly never seen them flatter anyone.Posted by: Mary at April 21, 2008 4:43 PM
Mary, you wrote, sarcastically: "Is that [the large pro-choice American majority] why Ronald Reagan, who opposed abortion and made no secret of it, won 2 elections, both landslides?"
LOL! A block of wood could have won a landslide against Jimmy Carter. Remember "stagflation"? Remember the "malaise"? Remember how America was humiliated by the Iran hostage crisis? Remember how Teddy Kennedy divided the Democrats and savaged Carter before the Democratic primary? Remember how Carter alienated college-age voters, who had been his base, by re-instating registration for the draft, and thereby drove us anti-militarists into the arms of John B. Anderson?
Also, the Supreme Court was still 7-2 in support of Roe vs Wade at that time. AND the Democrats still had their forty-year majority lock on the House of Representatives. No one was seriously worried about being denied abortion rights. The pro-choice majority was, and has always been, complacent.
And 1984? Give me a break. Walter Mondale was Carter's Vice-President! And he had a boring personality EVEN for a former senator. By nominating him the Democratic Party basically chose to throw the election.
Neither of Reagan's victories (nor GHW Bush's victory after him) had anything to do with abortion.Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 5:19 PM
Rae, PIP & Elizabeth (if you're lurking):
From my standpoint, and I think a few others on this blog as well, (although I can only speak for myself) it's like this:
I feel that God has been taken out of so many things in this world. Slowly but surely, bit by bit, He is being either pushed aside or taken out of things completely. In my opinion, when God is taken out of something, a void is put in its place. It's the void that evil fills. There's either good or evil. In my beliefs, there is no in-between.
So I see either God in things, or evil in things. I see the problems worldwide getting worse and worse as many turn their backs on God and decide to follow their fleshly desires instead. I can see greed increasing on a daily basis as well.
Therefore, I believe that the best way to turn the tide is to try to put God back into the hearts and minds of all. This is how I see real change happening. I believe that only God can change hearts and minds. I, alone, am not capable of doing that.
We, as pro-lifers, IMO, are like snowflakes. Not one is the same. There are no "guidelines or rules" to vocalizing a pro-life position, other that believing that taking of innocent life of another human being is wrong, and abortion is taking the life of another human being.
I believe that diversity is one of our greatest strengths. No two pro-choicers are alike either. Every individual is "reached" in a completely different way.
I was e-mailed this today, and I think it fits here:
The year 1983 summoned forth two splendid examples of moral imperfection: Rep. Daniel Crane (R-Ill) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass). Both were censured by the House for sexual misconduct with 17-year-old pages.
The nation got a glimmer of their philosophical differences when Crane admitted tearfully that he "broke the laws of God and man." He cast a vote for his own censure and faced the House as the Speaker announced the tally.
Studds, in contrast, defended the relationship with his page as "mutual and voluntary" and said the relationship didn't warrant the "attention and action" of the House. Studds listened to the verdict from the Speaker with his back to the House.
Do they both deserve equal censure? Of course. But there's one consolation for Crane. His philosophy (of an objective moral order promulgated by God in man's nature) teaches that there is one thing worse than sin. That is denial of sin, which makes forgiveness impossible.
Thomas F. Roeser in the Chicago Sun-Times
The Bible wants nothing to do with moral relativism, and that is why some critics have singled out faithful Christians and Jews for particular scorn. These critics know that the objective moral standards defended by millions of faithful believers stand in the way of uprooting God from our nation. Just as the people of Nehemiah's time confessed their sins and were restored, so we must ask the Lord to forgive us and heal our land.
Adapted from Men of Integrity Devotional Bible with devotions from the editors of Men of Integrity, a publication of Christianity Today International (Tyndale, 2002), entry for April 17.
Anyway, that's what I think. I just thought it was a good time to share that.Posted by: JLM at April 21, 2008 6:20 PM
I was hardly sarcastic, I was asking you a question concerning an historical event.
You are the one who spoke of the PC majority among Americans SOMG and the GOP needing a PC majority to survive, and when I pointed out the fact Reagan and Bush's PL stand did nothing to prevent the two Reagan landslides, oh, and the Bush victory as well,(thanks for reminding me) you accuse me of sarcasm and do nothing to disprove my point. Complacent majority? Yeah, right. Always have a ready made excuse don't you SOMG?
Honest question: do you think everything the Republican party stands for is God in things? If not, which ones do not? Do you think everything the Democratic party stands for is evil? If not, which ones are God in things?Posted by: prettyinpink at April 21, 2008 6:30 PM
Honestly, PIP...I don't believe that everything the Republican party stands for is God in things, nor do I beleive that everything the Democratic party stands for is evil. It's like going into a church and saying that everyone sitting there is a Christian. I'd be a fool to believe that!
And PIP, I'm not really into politics much. I'm not fond of any of the candidates at this point, but alot can change between now & November. I do watch the debates, and it's usually one thing that one of them will say that will turn me off like a t.v. After that...I'm done with them. I go in watching the debates with an open mind, but usually come out of it closed-minded!
When I was younger, I used to vote for the person with the most presidential-sounding name. I've come a long way since then, but I still have a long way to go!!!Posted by: JLM at April 21, 2008 6:47 PM
Mary, your question certainly was sarcastically phrased, but more importantly it cited Reagan's victories as evidence against the pro-choice majority.
I gave you better explanations for both those victories.
The fact is that while right-to-life groups helped him with funding early in his campaign, Reagan won the general elections IN SPITE OF his right-to-lifism, not because of it. No one took it seriously because of the Supreme Court and the Democratic lock on the legislative branch.
Are you old enough to remember the elections of 1980 and 1984, and the public attitude towards abortion at that time? The "free-love" generation that came of age in the 60's was still sexually active and right-to-lifism was viewed by most Americans as someone else's religious quirk.
Pat Robertson also ran for President in 1979 on a right-to-life ticket. Opposition to abortion was the main point of his campaign. Why do you think he did so badly?
You wrote: "Complacent majority? Yeah, right. "
Why shouldn't the pro-choice majority be complacent? For most of its lifetime abortion rights have been protected by the Supreme Court as constitutional rights. If you were designing a recipe for complacency, that would be it.Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 6:57 PM
Mary, you also wrote: "You are the one who spoke of ... the GOP needing a PC majority to survive"
No I didn't; you should read (or write) more carefully. I spoke of the GOP needing pro-choice Republicans to avoid being a permanent minority party. And they do.Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 7:10 PM
I don't know when you developed the tender sensibilities that caused you to view pointing out historical fact as sarcasm.
You argued the GOP needed a PC majority. I was pointing out the fact that opposing abortion did nothing to hurt either Reagan or Bush, even though they were running against candidates who very openly supported abortion. No one could claim their profound ignorance on where any of these candidates stood.
Pat Robertson? John Anderson also ran, openly supporting abortion and "freedom of choice in federally funded abortions" i.e., the taxpayer foots the bill. Why didn't he win big time?
While we're walking down memory lane, I recall when "pro-abortion" became "pro-choice". This was prior to 1980. You know why SOMG? Because the American public was becoming uncomfortable with abortion. A prominent news magazine, either Time or Newsweek, ran an article about the "abortion backlash". Of course this was all a plot by the Catholic Church, you know, those boogeymen selected by the founders of NARAL to blame for all their problems. One did not get the impression from this article that the "majority" was all that complacent.Posted by: Mary at April 21, 2008 7:18 PM
Same difference.Posted by: Mary at April 21, 2008 7:21 PM
Mary, you wrote: "I don't know when you developed the tender sensibilities that caused you to view pointing out historical fact as sarcasm."
Why do you bother to deny that your question was sarcastically phrased? Anyone can scroll up and SEE that it was sarcastically phrased.
But I'll reproduce it anyway: You wrote:
"Is that ["that" means the pro-choice majority] why Ronald Reagan, who opposed abortion and made no secret of it, won 2 elections, both landslides?" This is obviously a sarcastic question and it's silly to pretend it's not.
You wrote: "You argued the GOP needed a PC majority. "
No I didn't. See above. Read more carefully.
"John Anderson also ran, openly supporting abortion and "freedom of choice in federally funded abortions" i.e., the taxpayer foots the bill. Why didn't he win big time?"
He did better than any previous independent candidate. Independent candidates never win.
And by the way, the taxpayer SAVES money when abortion is federally funded. You pay LOWER taxes because of federally-funded (or state-funded) abortion. Government-funded abortions for indigent women save more money than they cost.
You wrote: "A prominent news magazine, either Time or Newsweek, ran an article about the "abortion backlash"."
Did the magazine claim that a majority of Americans were right-to-lifers? "Abortion backlash" sounds like an article about a small but growing right-to-life movement. Of course without the text there's no way to tell.
You wrote: "I recall when "pro-abortion" became "pro-choice". This was prior to 1980. You know why SOMG? Because the American public was becoming uncomfortable with abortion. "
Squeamishness about abortion does not equal right-to-lifism. The majority was (and is) MORE squeamish about forcing pregnant women to grow pregnancies they don't want and give birth against their wills.Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 8:35 PM
This is getting laughable. If you take offense at a question concerning an historical event, so be it.
"Without PC Republicans the Republican Party would be a permanent minority". I interpret that to mean the GOP would need a PC majority to remain relevant and in power.
Independent candidates never win? Well, that explains Pat Robertson, as well as John Anderson not winning, right SOMG?
The magazine talked of a "backlash". This is strange considering the "majority" supposedly supported abortion. Squeamishness about abortion does not equal right to lifism? Why the squeamishness SOMG? Why would abortion make anyone squeamish? There was a PA majority so there was no problem, right? Why would a supposedly small minority of PL people be of any concern to anyone?
About taxpayer funded abortion. Your side always argued that killing off the poor is a good way to save money.Posted by: Mary at April 21, 2008 9:02 PM
Mary, you quoted me and wrote: "Without PC Republicans the Republican Party would be a permanent minority". You went on "I interpret that to mean the GOP would need a PC majority to remain relevant and in power. "
You do? That's funny because it's not what it says.
Maybe it'll be easier for you to understand if I rephrase it to : Without SOME pro-choice Republicans the GOP would be a permanent minority party. I never meant to suggest that the GOP needs a majority of its members to be pro-choice, just some of them. The right-to-life Republicans alone are not numerous enough to make a national majority and (probably) never will be.
You wrote: "Independent candidates never win? Well, that explains Pat Robertson, as well as John Anderson not winning, "
Robertson did badly even for an independent. Anderson did well for an independent.
And Robertson made abortion his main issue. For Anderson pro-choice was just one of his issues. More of his supporters were thinking about his opposition to the draft than about his support of abortion rights.
You wrote: "Why would abortion make anyone squeamish? "
Because it kills a human being. All homicide is disturbing and justifiable homicide (abortion) is still homicide. Dead human bodies, however small, are disgusting and frightening to most people who see them or imagine them except for those few who are either fascinated by them or used to them.
That's not a good enough reason to force a pregnant woman to sustain life and give birth against her will.
You wrote: "About taxpayer funded abortion. Your side always argued that killing off the poor is a good way to save money. "
I didn't say it was a GOOD way. That's a different question. But when we were talking about Jon Anderson YOU described his position as "the taxpayer foots the bill" which suggests that you think government-funded abortions cost taxpayers money when in fact they save taxpayers money so I felt compelled to correct you as a matter of keeping the discussion faithful to the facts.
"The taxpayer enjoys the savings" would be a more accurate description of Anderson's position on government-funded abortion. Whether or not you support that position, whether or not saving money for the taxpayers that way is "good" is another question but you may as well describe the position correctly when you criticize it.Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 10:08 PM
I don't know how many different ways one can interpret the phrase "without PC Republicans the Republican Party would be a permanent minority".
If you meant "some" you should have said so, though I fail to see what difference this word makes.
SOMG, you suggest Pat Robertson did badly because of his PL stand(6:57PM) But PC John Anderson lost because Independents never win. How interesting that PL Pat loses because of his PL stand and PC John loses because independents never win.
So that's why Americans were squeamish? Tell me SOMG, are you one of those people used to and fascinated by these small dead human bodies?
The point is if the vast majority of the American people have always supported abortion then there was never a reason to be concerned about a "backlash", right?
Concerning John Anderson. "Federally funded" abortion means the taxpayer foots the bill, period. The government doesn't fund a thing. I've noticed that supporting the poor is "taxpayer funded". Providing abortion is "federally funded". The taxpayer enjoys a savings? In other words, kill the poor off good and early and it might save money in the long run. I've worked with these women over the years SOMG and I'll tell you a little secret. Some didn't bother with birth control because abortion was "free". Others went on to produce babies and collect welfare, you only postponed it a year or two, maybe. Put simply, those that wanted babies kept on having them, those that didn't want them didn't bother with birth control. But then this shouldn't surprise you since all you do is abort these women and return them to the same poverty, abuse, and desperate cicumstances. So what have you done to save the taxpayers any money?
Mary, you wrote: "The point is if the vast majority of the American people have always supported abortion then there was never a reason to be concerned about a "backlash", right?"
To me the word "backlash" suggests a small, growing movement AGAINST majority opinion. This accurately describes the right-to-life movement in the 1970s and 80s.
You wrote: ""Federally funded" abortion means the taxpayer foots the bill, period. "
No, that's not ALL it means. The taxpayer also enjoys the savings generated by the abortions. And the savings are bigger than the bill--a lot bigger.
How much more are you willing to pay the tax man, in order to cover the cost of NOT paying for abortions for indigent women who want them? That includes labor and delivery which the woman endures against her will and which she cannot afford to pay for, so the taxpayers do.
You wrote: "Some didn't bother with birth control because abortion was "free".
You're right that this must be included in any analysis of the cost benefits of taxpayer-funded abortion. But I bet it's not a very big effect. Most women, including indigent ones, prefer to avoid having abortions. Who looks forward to going to the gynecologist and having a stranger put a plastic tube in your vagina? Certainly the "free-abortion so no birth-control" effect is not big enough to counterbalance the enormous cost difference between abortion and full-term childbirth.
You wrote: "Others went on to produce babies and collect welfare, you only postponed it a year or two, maybe. "
On the other hand, maybe without taxpayer-funded abortion she'd have MORE kids and collect MORE welfare. (and cost the taxpayers MORE money for labor and delivery care she cannot afford to pay for.)Posted by: SoMG at April 22, 2008 12:16 AM
If the vast majority of the American people truly supported abortion then the PL movement would have been of little concern. Also SOMG, the PL movement was well established in the 70's.
Women don't want to bother having abortions? Don't make me laugh SOMG. You wouldn't believe the number of women I encountered who were "shocked" they became pregnant after a year of sexual activity and no contraception. Of course they had abortions. I also well recall the concern over repeat abortions and the use of abortion for birth control. This was not what the PC movement anticipated happening.
You can play all the word games you want but it boils down to the fact that it was the taxpayers who foot the bill for abortion. If the poverty persists and the woman only continues to have children, then where has the money to the taxpayer been saved? Why in 1993 was Ron Weddington telling then president elect Clinton that abortion was needed to eliminate the poor? Shouldn't poverty have been eliminated by this time?
Face it SOMG, abortion does nothing to eliminate poverty or it would be virutally non-existent by now.Posted by: Mary at April 22, 2008 7:35 AM
abortion does nothing to eliminate poverty or it would be virtually non-existent by now.
Hey Mary. Gotta disagree there - not all poverty is related to having kids, so no.Posted by: Doug at April 22, 2008 8:33 AM
My point exactly. Pro-life people have long maintained abortion would not solve the problem of poverty. People like SOMG and Ron Weddington seem to think otherwise. Hopefully he/she reads your post.Posted by: Mary at April 22, 2008 8:38 AM
Nobody is saying that "abortion will solvepoverty, Mary. That said, having less kids definitely makes a huge financial difference to many people.Posted by: Doug at April 22, 2008 8:42 AM
Hey Janet, I think it was you who was wishing for the "Preview" feature.... There are sites where you can see what it'll look like, as here:Posted by: Doug at April 22, 2008 8:44 AM
Cool, that's neat Doug.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 22, 2008 9:03 AM
Like I said, tell that to Ron Weddington who argued Roe v Wade to the Supreme Court. From what I've seen and heard over the years, he wasn't alone in his opinion that abortion was necessary to eliminate the poor, as well as the uneducated and "imperfect". Eliminate the victims and you eliminate the problem, right?Posted by: Mary at April 22, 2008 9:10 AM
Mary, I don't know whether that's what he really felt or not, but abortion still wouldn't get rid of all poverty.Posted by: Doug at April 22, 2008 9:18 AM
Doug: 8:44: Hey Janet, I think it was you who was wishing for the "Preview" feature.... There are sites where you can see what it'll look like, as here:...
Hey Doug, Thanks for thinking of me! I'll have to try it!. God knows, I need "preview"!Posted by: Janet at April 22, 2008 10:45 AM
Exactly the argument the pro-life movement made from day one.
Weddington's urged the use of abortion "to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country".
Draw your own conclusions.Posted by: Mary at April 22, 2008 11:11 AM
Exactly the argument the pro-life movement made from day one.
Mary, well - nobody was really saying that poverty could be eliminated, period, anyway.
I think what you are referring to Weddington saying was in a letter to Clinton, not anything to do with Roe versus Wade. His view was that millions of people were having kids they couldn't afford.
"Could either of you have gone to law school and achieved anything close to what you have if you had three or four or more children before you were 20?" he asked. "No! You waited until you were established and in your 30's to have one child. That is what sensible people do."Posted by: Doug at April 22, 2008 11:22 AM
One of the emotional appeals of the leaders of the abortion movement was to poverty and abortion as a remedy for it. Check out "Aborting America" by Dr.Bernard Nathanson.
I know this had nothing to do with Roe v Wade, I said he was one of the attorneys to argue it. This letter to Clinton with the above mentioned quote was to urge getting RU486 on the market despite concerns about its safety.
By the way Doug, my sister and her husband had 3 children by the time she was 22. She finished nursing school, and her husband finished law school. Not to mention the 23 year old tech I work with who has four children. She not only trained to be a surgical tech but is now returning to nursing school. So yes, contrary to this statement by Weddington, people can achieve despite having their children early. I also find that statement by Weddington concerning "sensible" people a bit patronizing.
Mary, agreed that it's patronizing. I'm not "defending" him - he sounds like a good bit of a wingnut to me (there are those on both sides).
Your sister and her husband - the exception that proves the rule?
Nathanson - poverty can be prevented or helped by not having as many kids, sometimes, but there is no overall "remedy" for it like that, not by abortion or by anything else for that matter. It's an individual thing, quite a bit, whether or not abortion is legal, whether or not a person has kids, has an abortion, etc.Posted by: Doug at April 22, 2008 12:35 PM
No, but I seriously doubt my sister and her husband were alone in their accomplishment or even an exception. The point is people do accomplish despite odds against them, whether its early parenthood, disability, personal tragedy, or any other number of factors.
I'll try another example, the skier Jill Kinmont who was paralyzed from the shoulders down. She went on to obtain a teaching degree despite every obstacle thrown at her and went on to a teaching career.
I think I make my point Doug.
Concerning Nathanson, thank you. The argument was just that, that not having children or preventing their birth would prevent or minimize poverty. This mentality was promoted and played on. That Nathanson knew that abortion was no remedy to poverty is hardly surprising. He also knew women were not dying by the thousands of illegal abortion, but that didn't stop him and his cohorts in the abortion movement from promoting this lie.Posted by: Mary at April 22, 2008 1:10 PM
The argument was just that, that not having children or preventing their birth would prevent or minimize poverty.
Mary, it really depends on just what is meant. Often, having no kids or less kids can indeed prevent poverty. That it does not "always" do so doesn't change anything there.
This mentality was promoted and played on. That Nathanson knew that abortion was no remedy to poverty is hardly surprising. He also knew women were not dying by the thousands of illegal abortion, but that didn't stop him and his cohorts in the abortion movement from promoting this lie.
Saying "no remedy" is not correct, though. We could argue about the frequency, but just as it's not always a remedy, so is it certainly not never a remedy.
It does sound like "dying by the thousands" was a lie, if that was really what was said.
I also agree that people can accomplish against the "odds." But in no way does that mean that increasing the odds against one is going to be a good thing, necessarily.Posted by: Doug at April 22, 2008 1:19 PM
Yes the abortion movement did indeed promote the lie that women were dying by the thousands, I believe the number they stated was 10,000. Dr. Nathanson and his cohorts were well aware this was a lie, they were the ones who made it up.
Concerning "remedy". Abortion was promoted as a remedy, you yourself admit it can be viewed as such. The abortion leadership promoted this mentality on a massive scale. People sincerely saw abortion as a means to end or at very least greatly ease poverty and I'm surprised to hear when people still do, though they fail to explain why we have poverty. Like you said, its because there are numerous reasons and the problem is complex.
We live in a society that prefers simplistic answers.
I can't agree that increasing the odds is always a bad thing. Some people work harder, have more determination, and excel because they have obstacles to overcome. I don't always think that having life too easy is the best thing.Posted by: Mary at April 22, 2008 1:37 PM
Mary: We live in a society that prefers simplistic answers.
Ha! Ten-Four on that, Sister.
I can't agree that increasing the odds is always a bad thing. Some people work harder, have more determination, and excel because they have obstacles to overcome. I don't always think that having life too easy is the best thing.
Didn't say "always." I do think people are "made to struggle" to some extent, and that we benefit from it, as far as being happy throughout life.Posted by: Doug at April 22, 2008 1:43 PM
I'm back. Mary, you wrote: "Also SOMG, the PL movement was well established in the 70's."
But it was not, and never has been, a majority. And in the 70s it was not even a large minority.
You wrote: "Women don't want to bother having abortions? Don't make me laugh SOMG. "
You think women enjoy abortions? This has not been my experience. I can't remember even ONE patient who enjoyed her abortion or desired to have another one afterwards.
You wrote: "You can play all the word games you want but it boils down to the fact that it was the taxpayers who foot the bill for abortion."
Once again: the taxpayers also enjoy the savings generated by the abortions. Without taxpayer-funded abortions for indigent women, the taxpayer would have to pay for labor and delivery care for the indigent women. That would cost the taxpayer MORE than the abortions--many times more. The net result of taxpayer-funded abortion is a big saving for the taxpayer.
I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. By footing the bill for abortion, the taxpayers are able to avoid footing a BIGGER bill (labor and delivery care).
You seem to be deliberately trying to make yourself seem stupider than you are. You really don't need to do this.
You wrote: "If the poverty persists and the woman only continues to have children, then where has the money to the taxpayer been saved?"
Without the taxpayer-funded abortion the indigent woman would have MORE children, and that would cost the taxpayer MORE. How many times do I have to explain this to you?
You wrote: "Face it SOMG, abortion does nothing to eliminate poverty or it would be virutally non-existent by now."
Abortion REDUCES poverty. It causes there to be LESS poverty than there would be without abortion. I don't think anyone ever argued that it would ELIMINATE ALL poverty all by itself. I certainly have never made this argument.Posted by: SoMG at April 23, 2008 10:25 AM
Mary, you also wrote: "This letter to Clinton with the above mentioned quote was to urge getting RU486 on the market despite concerns about its safety."
I have to correct you again here: When mifepristone (aka RU-486) was approved in the USA it already had a substantial proven history of safety and efficacy in Europe and Asia. There was no legitimate concern about its safety, just a lot of hysteria from right-to-life groups.Posted by: SoMG at April 23, 2008 10:41 AM
I didn't say they were a majority, I said they were established. Again I ask, what was the concern about a "backlash" if the majority of Americans supported abortion?
I didn't say women enjoyed abortion. I said there are women who use it as a form of birth control or don't bother with birth control because abortion is available. That's been my experience. By 2001 almost half of all abortions were repeat. Why do you suppose that was the case SOMG?
SOMG, the problems of poverty are considerably more complex (credit: Doug) and will not be remedied by abortion. So long as the poverty exists the taxpayer will foot the bill. Do you know how many times I've seen these aborted young girls and women become pregnant within a year or two of a "taxpayer expense saving" abortion and go to term? I remember one that was pregnant again within 6 weeks of her abortion! I can't understand why YOU have such a hard time comprehending the fact there is no simplistic solution to the problems of poverty and expense to the taxpayer and so long as the poverty persists, so long as you send the woman back to her poverty, dependency, or abuse after her abortion, you have done nothing to solve any problems or save any money.
Is that why there are 7 reported deaths from use of this drug? I must correct you SOMG. The approval of RU486 was pushed through for political reasons, not because of any proven track record.
SOMG, if abortion reduces poverty, then 35 years of abortion should make poverty a rarity, shouldn't it?Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2008 11:50 AM
if abortion reduces poverty, then 35 years of abortion should make poverty a rarity, shouldn't it?
Sigh. No, Mary, not necessarily.Posted by: Doug at April 23, 2008 11:55 AM
Mary, you wrote: "By 2001 almost half of all abortions were repeat. "
Where did you get this piece of information? Document please. I don't believe it without evidence. It runs contrary to my experience.
Also, it depends what you mean by a "repeat". Suppose a woman had an abortion ten years ago and she has another one today. Are you calling that a "repeat"? Or do you mean specifically someone who had an abortion less than nine months ago having another one today? Clarify and document, please.
You wrote: "I can't understand why YOU have such a hard time comprehending the fact there is no simplistic solution to the problems of poverty"
On the contrary, I DO understand this. I agree with it. I have never claimed that abortion SOLVES or ELIMINATES poverty, only that it REDUCES it. You are using what we philosophy majors call a "straw man" argument--pretending I claim something I don't in fact claim, because you know you cannot argue successfully against what I actually say.
You wrote: "So long as you send the woman back to her poverty, dependency, or abuse after her abortion, you have done nothing to solve any problems or save any money."
We have solved the problem of her undesired pregnancy. If she has another undesired pregnancy later, that's a DIFFERENT problem, which we can also solve. Her poverty, dependence, and abuse are problems for her social worker (or maybe her family doc) to solve.
You wrote: "SOMG, if abortion reduces poverty, then 35 years of abortion should make poverty a rarity, shouldn't it?"
No. That's another straw man. I'm not even claiming that poverty is less common today than it was before abortion was legalized. For all I know it may be MORE common than it was. I claim only that poverty is LESS COMMON TODAY THAN IT WOULD BE IF ABORTION WERE STILL ILLEGAL.
You wrote: "Is that ["that" means the safety record of mifepristone] why there are 7 reported deaths from use of this drug? "
Allow me to point out that this is another sarcastically-phrased question. But I don't mind! Be as sarcastic as you like, it doesn't bother me.
Seven deaths is an extremely small number of deaths. It means that death from mifepristone is RARE. No one and no medical regimen is immune to rare events. With the number of times RU-486 has been used, and the overfunded efforts by right-to-life organizations to discredit it, I'm surprised the number isn't larger. 70 documented deaths would still be rare.
You wrote: "The approval of RU486 was pushed through for political reasons, not because of any proven track record. "
RU-486 was DELAYED by political reasons as well. Without the political influence of right-to-lifers, RU-486 might well have been clinically tested in the USA, submitted to the FDA, and approved, all during the presidency of GHW Bush.
I would say in the end it was pushed through for BOTH political reasons AND because of the track record. Without the proven track record it would have been much more difficult, perhaps impossible, for even the Clinton administration to get it through the FDA. At the very least, without the track record the FDA would have insisted on the same clinical trials it requires for all new drugs. (All new single-use drugs, that is. Drugs intended for regular or frequent use have to go through a more rigorous set of trials, naturally.)
By the way, the whole RU-486 thing ended up being a lot less important than it was made out to be by both sides. Medical (non-surgical) abortion was already becoming available in the USA using methotrexate (which has been around for decades, and is taken REGULARLY by rhumatoid-arthritis patients), instead of mifepristone. I myself co-authored a paper that helped bring methotrexate abortion into the mainstream. Even without mifepristone (RU-486) non-surgical abortion would be just as widely available, and just as popular, as it is today.Posted by: SoMG at April 23, 2008 1:51 PM
OK, then abortion does not make any difference in the rate of poverty and does little to alleviate the problem.Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2008 2:13 PM
Mary: Wrong. If I may quote from my own post: "Poverty is LESS COMMON TODAY THAN IT WOULD BE IF ABORTION WERE STILL ILLEGAL."
How MUCH less common is debatable.Posted by: SoMG at April 23, 2008 2:39 PM
The CDC report was issued Dec. 2000. The article I was referring to was printed in 2001.
Anyway according to the CDC abortion statistics 45.5% of abortions for the year 1997 reported have one, two, three, or more previous abortions.
What do I mean by "repeat"? Let me make this simple SOMG, it means she had one or more prior abortions to the one she's having now. Please don't ask me what "is" is.
SOMG. You claim abortion reduces poverty. OK, we've had 35 years of abortion. Show me the reduction in poverty.
You "solved" the woman's problem of a pregnancy, but you've done nothing to eliminate her poverty or that of her family. She and her family are still in poverty and the taxpayer is still shelling out. Tell me how her poverty has been reduced. This is her social worker's problem? Well its yours and mine too since we pay taxes.
"I'm not even claiming that poverty is less common today than before it was before abortion was legalized. For all I know it may be more common than it was. I claim on that poverty is LESS COMMON TODAY THAN IT WOULD BE IF ABORTION WERE STILL ILLEGAL." SOMG, that statement is a mass of contradictions.
Another sarcastic phrased question? LOL. Your sensibilities are entirely too delicate.
Seven deaths is small. What an interesting double standard. Wasn't it you folks howling like banshees over the death of 1 Indiana teenager alleged to have died of an illegal abortion? But when seven women die from RU486, that's irrelevant.
SOMG, how could RTLers have so much political influence to stop RU486? We're vastly outnumbered by the vast majority of the American people, remember?
As for the supposed stringent standards of the FDA and Clinton not likely to get this drug approved without a good track record, dream on. How many drugs have been approved only to have it later determined they had dangerous, even fatal side effects?Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2008 3:06 PM
Great. Now please, the statitics showing a correlation between poverty reduction and abortion and the extent to which poverty has been reduced.Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2008 3:10 PM
Mary, you wrote: "Let me make this simple SOMG, it [repeat abortion] means she had one or more prior abortions to the one she's having now."
If that's what you mean, then my reply is: So what? If it's been more than nine months between her abortions, then they prevented labor and delivery costs and saved the taxpayers money (assuming she's indigent. If she's not indigent, then they saved HER money.)
You wrote: "You claim abortion reduces poverty. OK, we've had 35 years of abortion. Show me the reduction in poverty."
Once again, since you seem to have trouble reading my posts EVEN WHEN YOU QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM THEM, I'll repeat what I posted before:
I'm not even claiming that poverty is less common today than it was before abortion was legalized. For all I know it may be more common than it was. I claim only that poverty is LESS COMMON TODAY THAN IT WOULD BE IF ABORTION WERE STILL ILLEGAL.
In response to this, you wrote: "SOMG, that statement is a mass of contradictions. "
No it isn't. Not even one self-contradiction in it. You really do need to read more carefully.
All I'm saying is, without legal abortion, there would be more poverty TODAY than there actually is TODAY. I'm not saying anything at all about how much poverty there was 35 years ago, or at any previous time, or whether there is more or less poverty now than there used to be. Get it? I'm only talking about how much poverty there is TODAY as compared to how much there WOULD BE TODAY if abortion were illegal. I don't see how I can make this any more clear.
You wrote: "SOMG, how could RTLers have so much political influence to stop RU486? "
Because George HW Bush was in their pocket (having sold out to them and changed his position in order to run with Reagan, and having received substantial campaign money from them during his own presidential campaign), and the executive branch decides which proposed clinical drug trials get funded. Everyone knew GHW Bush's government would not fund trials of RU-486. I don't think anyone even bothered to submit a proposal.
You wrote: "Seven deaths is small. "
The technical term is RARE.
You continued: "What an interesting double standard. Wasn't it you folks howling like banshees over the death of 1 Indiana teenager alleged to have died of an illegal abortion? "
If I thought illegal abortion would only kill ONE patient (or even as many as seven patients), then it wouldn't bother me as much--I'd have one fewer objection to right-to-lifism than I do. Unfortunately patient deaths from illegal abortion are not rare worldwide. (see for instance http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694816/fulltext)
South Africa liberalized its abortion laws in l997, and maternal deaths from unsafe abortion have plummeted by 90 percent.
Personally, I think that if abortion were to become illegal everywhere in the USA, the resulting black market would probably be relatively benign, as black markets go. I think enough well-trained, properly skilled illegal abortionists would go on doing them, and covertly training others, to keep it benign. Also, our emergency rooms (which is where women with life-threatening complications would go) are pretty good at keeping patients alive. Furthermore, the availability of misoprostol would mitigate the damaging effects of the black market, as it currently does in the Third World. (Misoprostol-only abortion is a lot safer than surgical abortion performed by an incompetent.)
But this is mere speculation on my part. The black market could turn out to be very bad, especially in poor, rural parts of the country, with all kinds of incompetent untrained weirdos trying to do illegal abortions or to abort their own pregnancies themselves.
It would be better not to have to find out.
You wrote: "As for the supposed stringent standards of the FDA and Clinton not likely to get this drug approved without a good track record, dream on. How many drugs have been approved only to have it later determined they had dangerous, even fatal side effects?"
The FDA is very rigorous, very careful about approving new drugs. I used to work for a drug-development company whose business was to invent new drugs and get them approved by the FDA and I know, generating the clinical data necessary to satisfy those folks is not easy or cheap or quick.
Besides, the FDA under Clinton specifically announced that their choice to waive the requirement for clinical trials in the USA was based on the track record in Europe and Asia. The decision was to accept clinical data from Europe in lieu of data from the USA. I remember reading the announcement at the time. Do you think they were lying about it?Posted by: SoMG at April 23, 2008 5:32 PM
Maybe it'll be clearer if instead of saying "abortion reduces poverty" I say this: Right-to-life policies increase poverty (and taxes).Posted by: SoMG at April 23, 2008 6:34 PM
Mary, you wrote something else I want to respond to : "How many drugs have been approved only to have it later determined they had dangerous, even fatal side effects?"
The mission of the FDA is very difficult. To determine which chemical compounds are safe and beneficial, and which are not--that is a very difficult task which cannot be accomplished perfectly.Posted by: SoMG at April 23, 2008 7:04 PM
You wanted documentation of repeat abortions and I gave it to you.
SOMG, your statement is a mass of contradictions. Let me see, you don't claim poverty is less common now than it was before legal abortion. Poverty may be more common for all you know, but it is LESS COMMON TODAY THAN IT WOULD BE IF ABORTION WERE STILL ILLEGAL.
Whatever. I have no trouble reading your posts, its making sense out of them that can be a problem sometimes.
But I would still like to see the statistics that support your claim in you 10:25am post that abortion reduces poverty and it causes there to
be less poverty than there would be without abortion.
George Bush sold out to RTLers because of Reagan? Remember SOMG, you claimed Reagan was a shoo-in after Carter, Mondale was no competition, that's why Reagan won according to you.(4/21 5:19PM). PL people had no influence in those elections or Bush's at all (4/21 5:19PM). So why would Bush have to "sell out" to run with him. RTL people were totally irrelevant, I believe you said not even a large minority, and vastly outnumbered by the PC majority.
Concerning illegal abortion, are you aware the early leader of the abortion movement were forced to lie and inflate statistics of illegal abortion deaths? Why was that necessary if women were truly dying in high numbers from illegal abortion? In fact they were not, I believe Dr. Nathanson said the deaths were less than 200. That wasn't going to generate much sympathy and support for legal abortion.
The death rate had been steadily decreasing for years mostly due to antibiotic and IV therapy. Also, most illegal abortions were done in doctor's offices by doctors who knew they had to be extremely careful and were. I knew women who had them done in doctor's offices. I don't foresee any massive surge in death anywhere if abortion was again illegal.
You are far more charitable concerning the FDA than I am. How long were hormones on the market before a study showed their potential danger to women? It was necessary to discontinue the study. Oral diabetic drugs have not had the best track record, and who can forget DES? This drug was administered to women over a 30 year period before it was determined to cause genital malformation and virulent cancers in the children of the women who took the drug.
Do I think the FDA was lying? I think they succumbed to political pressure.
Accidentally posted that before finishing the link or putting my name in. It might just be easier to google the" Clinton RU486 files" to find a series of article on this subject.Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2008 7:16 PM
You wrote: "George Bush sold out to RTLers because of Reagan? Remember SOMG, you claimed Reagan was a shoo-in after Carter, Mondale was no competition, that's why Reagan won according to you.(4/21 5:19PM). PL people had no influence in those elections or Bush's at all (4/21 5:19PM). So why would Bush have to "sell out" to run with him. "
Sorry to say this but that's a dumb question. The answer is, because otherwise Reagan would have chosen a different running mate.
You wrote: "You are far more charitable concerning the FDA than I am."
Yes, the closer I have come to the FDA, the more respect I have developed for them. What they do is very difficult, and I think they do it surprisingly well given how difficult it is.
You wrote: "How long were hormones on the market before a study showed their potential danger to women? It was necessary to discontinue the study. Oral diabetic drugs have not had the best track record, and who can forget DES? "
You are talking about ancient history. Why don't you also mention thalidomide.
You wrote: "I think they [the FDA] succumbed to political pressure. "
Yes, the decision to accept French clinical data rather than requiring the data to be generated in the USA may have been political. It was also correct. Spending federal money to reproduce the French data in the USA would have been a waste of money (and time).
Why would it have mattered where George Bush stood on abortion if abortion wasn't even an issue, which according to you it was not.
Hardly ancient history SOMG. That hormonal study was fairly recent. How long has HRT been in use? Since the mid 60's. Why did it take so long to conduct a study that finally showed the risks? Also, oral diabetic meds are hardly ancient history. DES was used from 1940 to 1970 before its horrific side effects were discovered.
There are also serious concerns about aspartame, aka nutrisweet, which is also FDA approved.
Thalidiomide was never approved for use by the FDA and I don't believe was ever approved for use in this country.
I hope you googled the Clinton RU486 files. A couple of quotes,
"The Judicial Watch Report also claims that pressure from the Clinton Administration led the FDA to circumvent the standard requirements for certifying the drug as "safe and effective" in order to rush to abortion regimen to market".
"The manufacture of RU486 was at the Hua Lian Pharmaceutical Company in China that not only failed its first FDA safety inspection but was not in compliance with safety requirements at the time the FDA approved the plant for production of RU486 on August 15, 2000."
This is the plant later implicated for producing tainted drugs.
You were saying something about how rigorous and very careful the FDA is?
Please google Clinton RU486 files and read the reports yourself. What I've quoted is only the tip of the iceberg.
No, it would be easier if you would provide sources for your claim that abortion reduces poverty.
So you acknowledge that FDA approval is no guarantee of safety and could mean the FDA may have approved RU486 only to discover its dangers down the road, you know like DES and hormone replacement therapy?
You wrote: "Why would it have mattered where George Bush stood on abortion if abortion wasn't even an issue, which according to you it was not."
It mattered to Ronald Reagan. If Bush had not switched his position on abortion and professed right-to-lifism, Reagan would have chosen someone else as his running mate. (Didn't I already explain that?)
You wrote: "So you acknowledge that FDA approval is no guarantee of safety and could mean the FDA may have approved RU486 only to discover its dangers down the road, you know like DES and hormone replacement therapy?"
Sure, as I said, the FDA's mission cannot be accomplished perfectly. If you have a side-effect that doesn't show up in clinical trials the FDA won't find it until it does show up. That's not as you say "no guarantee of safety"; it's an IMPERFECT guarantee of safety. Which is all there ever is, or could be.
YOU need to acknowledge the fact that at the time when Clinton's FDA approved RU-486, however politically corrupted their decision process may have been, there was no serious doubt in the medical community worldwide about its safety or efficacy, hysterical rhetoric from right-to-lifers whose real concerns had nothing to do with patient safety anyway notwithstanding. That is as I recall how this conversation about the FDA started.
Requiring the data from abroad to be reproduced in clinical trials in the USA would have been wasteful of time and money, a Kafkaesque exercise in form for form's sake. What could we possibly have discovered by redoing the clinical trials, which involve relatively few subjects, that would not already have been observed in the much larger populations of users in Europe and Asia?Posted by: SoMG at April 24, 2008 12:15 AM
Mary: OK, then abortion does not make any difference in the rate of poverty and does little to alleviate the problem.
Why in the world would you say that? In no way does that necessarily follow.
Huge declines in poverty wouldn't make it a "rarity," necessarily, because there are so many cases to begin with.Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 8:59 AM
Please, some sources and statistics showing a correlation between legal abortion and a reduction in poverty.Posted by: Mary at April 24, 2008 3:51 PM
What you haven't explained is why it would matter at all if abortion was the total non- issue you claim it was and the PL movement was just a bothersome minority. As I recall Bush wasn't too enthused about Reagan's economic policies either. Also when Bush ran for president why didn't he switch back to his PC stand? Again according to you abortion was not an issue and the overwhelming majority of Americans supported it.
The FDA makes what you acknowledge is a politically corrupt decision and even allows a factory in China that was not in compliance with safety requirements to produce RU486 under unsafe conditions. A factory later found to be producing tainted drugs. Big surprise there.
Again I ask SOMG, were you saying something about how rigorous and very careful the FDA is?
Mary, you wrote: "What you haven't explained is why it would matter at all if abortion was the total non- issue you claim it was and the PL movement was just a bothersome minority. "
Yes I have explained this. For the third time, if GHW Bush had not changed his position and professed right-to-lifism, Reagan would have chosen a different running mate.
"As I recall Bush wasn't too enthused about Reagan's economic policies either. "
Not at first, no. He invented the term "Voodoo economics." But he flip-flopped on that too in order to run with Reagan.
"Also when Bush ran for president why didn't he switch back to his PC stand?"
Flip-flop AGAIN? What would that have gotten him? No one would have taken him seriously. Besides, he was counting on raising campaign money from the cabal of wealthy right-to-lifers with whom he had an inside connection from his association with Reagan.
"The FDA makes what you acknowledge is a politically corrupt decision..."
Also a medically correct, long-overdue decision. See above.
"... and even allows a factory in China that was not in compliance with safety requirements to produce RU486 under unsafe conditions. A factory later found to be producing tainted drugs. Big surprise there."
Just to keep the record straight, the Chinese factory that produces RU-486 is more than an hour's drive away from the one that had the tainted drug scandal. But I agree, we should not locate the drug industry in China. Not enough oversight there.
"Again I ask SOMG, were you saying something about how rigorous and very careful the FDA is?"
Yes, in my experience. Generating the data necessary to satisfy them is a difficult and costly endeavor.Posted by: SoMG at April 24, 2008 5:10 PM
What difference would it make if Bush "flip-flopped again? Who would care? This was a non-issue, right? Since the majority of Americans were PC, all the better. I know Bush switched to become the running mate but why would this be necessary when abortion is a non-issue? Why would Reagan care? Also, as VP, who would know or care where he stood on an issue Americans didn't care about?
Check your record again SOMG. It was the Hualian drug company in China, the sole manufacturer of RU486, at the "center of a nationwide drug scandal". In fact you need only check Jill's blog for the posting on January 31, 2008.
Generating the data to satisfy them is a difficult and costly endeavor. Right. That's why they can make a politically corrupted decision(your words) and permit drugs to be manufactured in a plant that does not meet their own(FDA) safety standards. Even you acknowledge drugs should not be manufactured in China. Not enough oversight. So why did our ever rigorous and very careful FDA permit this? Can we say "political corruption"?Posted by: Mary at April 24, 2008 5:36 PM
Mary, you wrote: "I know Bush switched to become the running mate but why would this be necessary when abortion is a non-issue? Why would Reagan care? "
Reagan's campaign was heavily funded by a small cabal of ultra-wealthy right-to-lifers. If he had chosen a pro-choice running mate, that would have been a fart in the face to these donors. You don't fart in the face of your big-money sponsors if you're serious about running for President.
Another possibility: Reagan might have wanted a right-to-life running mate because he actually believed in right-to-lifism personally. His concern for the unborn, unlike that of GHW Bush, may have been genuine. Who knows?
You wrote, sarcastically(!), "Generating the data to satisfy them [the FDA] is a difficult and costly endeavor. Right. "
It is. As I told you before, I earned my living for several years doing drug-development research for a company that interacted continuously with the FDA and sought their approval for several new drugs, and I know. RU-486 was a special case.
You wrote: "That's why they can make a politically corrupted decision(your words) and permit drugs to be manufactured in a plant that does not meet their own(FDA) safety standards. Even you acknowledge drugs should not be manufactured in China. Not enough oversight. So why did our ever rigorous and very careful FDA permit this? Can we say "political corruption"? "
So what more do you want from me? I've already agreed with you that the FDA's decision to approve RU-486 was reached by a politically corrupt process--one might say a Clintonesque process--and (probably) would not have been reached as quickly under a different President or with a different drug. I especially disagree with the decision to use "Section H", the special fast track to approval which had been designed and written into FDA policy in order to make new anti-AIDS drugs available to dying AIDS patients quickly.
YOU need to admit that the decision was medically correct and long overdue--by that time, after more than a decade of widespread use in Europe and Asia, there was no serious doubt in the medical community about the safety and efficacy of the RU-486/misoprostol early-abortion regimen, and no legitimate medical reason for excluding it from the USA any longer.Posted by: SoMG at April 24, 2008 7:52 PM
Exactly who were these ultra wealthy right to lifers who contributed to Reagan? Were they anywhere near as wealthy as Warren Buffet, the world's second richest man who gave about 3.1 billion to the foundation of his late wife, Susan Thompson Buffet, which already had 270 million in assets? This foundation has been a quiet voice in the area of population control. It has made substantial donations to such supporters of abortion as The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, National Abortion Rights Action League, and Planned Parenthood. The foundation has also given money for the development of RU486.
I was sarcastic again!? Well, fie on me.
RU486 was not a special case, it was as you said, politically corrupt.
No SOMG, I need not admit anything. If RU486 was as safe as you said, then there was no need for polical corruption or permitting it to be manufactured under unsafe conditions in a country where there is minimal oversight.
You wrote: "Exactly who were these ultra wealthy right to lifers who contributed to Reagan?"
You want names? OK, off the top of my head, the Scaife family, Joe Coors, that Irish guy who founded Domino's Pizza and used to give money to Operation Rescue (I forget his name), Jerry Falwell (and other televangelists whose names slip my mind but there were several of them) William F. Buckley and his family. Oh and Richard Vigurie. Is that enough for now?
You wrote: "If RU486 was as safe as you said, then there was no need for polical corruption..."
That's how it would be in a perfect world, if all the decision-makers were completely rational. Of course, in a perfect world with completely rational decision-makers, RU-486 would have been tested and approved in the USA during the presidency of GHW Bush.
You wrote "... or permitting it to be manufactured under unsafe conditions in a country where there is minimal oversight."
That's not by any means unique to RU-486. Too many of our drugs and chemicals are manufactured in China under questionable oversight and some of us worry about this late at night. It's a general problem.
You wrote: "No SOMG, I need not admit anything. "
Does that mean you deny the fact that we had more than a decade of widespread experience in Europe and Asia when the FDA approved RU-486? That's a matter of record. Or do you deny that because of this experience there was no serious doubt in the medical community about the safety and efficacy of the RU-486/misoprostol regimen? That's a matter of record too.Posted by: SoMG at April 24, 2008 11:40 PM
Well it doesn't sound like your side has to scrape pennies, the foundation of the widow of the world's second wealthiest man contributes heavily to your cause.
Wait SOMG, Clinton supported RU486 and according to you the American people support abortion by a vast majority. No matter what GHW Bush did, Clinton could simply get the process going. Why the need for what you describe as a "politically corrupt" decision. Don't you think that great advocate, as well as sexual abuser, of women, Bill Clinton, would have demanded only the most stringent standards to guarantee the safety of women? Why were the violations of FDA standards overlooked at the Chinese pharmaceutical? If this involved other drugs then corruption is involved in those situations as well. So much for FDA standards.
SOMG, how long was HRT therapy used and considered safe? Wasn't it 35+ years? How long was DES used and considered safe? I believe it was 30 years, Didn't the medical community determine these "therapies" were safe? Thalidomide was used for 5 years in Europe before anyone could figure out its devastating effects on unborn children. Oh yes, women were assured it was safe.
A decade plus of use in Europe, the people who gave us thalidiomide, is all the assurance you need of a drug's safety?
Like I said SOMG, I need not admit anything.
Mary, you wrote: "Well it doesn't sound like your side has to scrape pennies, the foundation of the widow of the world's second wealthiest man contributes heavily to your cause. "
I wasn't COMPLAINING about the small cabal of ultra-wealthy right-to-lifers, I was just answering your question about why Reagan required a right-to-lifer for a running mate. Sure, both sides have rich supporters.
"Wait SOMG, Clinton supported RU486 and according to you the American people support abortion by a vast majority."
The American people support abortion RIGHTS. I would say by a LARGE majority, not a "vast" one. And the large majority is unfortunately passive and complacent. They vote on other issues.
You wrote: "No matter what GHW Bush did, Clinton could simply get the process going. "
Yes, that's what I would have done in his place. As I think I already said.
"Why the need for what you describe as a "politically corrupt" decision.
Well, if Clinton hadn't rushed RU486 through, GWB would have found a way to delay it and we still wouldn't allow it in this country. In that case we'd all be doing non-surgical abortions with methotrexate instead, which is better anyway because it protects your patient from tubal preganacy, which RU-486 does not. I agree, there was no objective need for Clinton to rush RU486 through the way he did. Eventually it would be approved. He wanted to take credit for bringing it into the USA.
And anyway it was Clinton. OF COURSE he did it in a corrupt and underhanded way. That's who he was, how he did things.
You wrote: "Don't you think that great advocate, as well as sexual abuser, of women, Bill Clinton, would have demanded only the most stringent standards to guarantee the safety of women? "
Once again, there was no serious question in the medical community about the safety of women. I ask you again, what extra guarantee of safety would repeating the clinical trials (SMALL number of patients followed over a SHORT time) have provided that we didn't already have from experience (A LARGE number of patients followed over a LONGER time)?
You mentioned some past failures (it's a credit to our testing/oversight process that there are so few of them and that we have adapted to them as quickly as we have) and you asked: "A decade plus of use in Europe ... is all the assurance you need of a drug's safety?"
Europe AND Asia. A decade plus of widespread use is a lot MORE testing than most new drugs get before going to market. Typically safety and efficacy are determined by means of clinical trials, which are (obviously) much smaller and of shorter duration than the long, population-wide experience we had with RU-486.
If you think ten years of population-wide use isn't enough, then how long a track record WOULD you require before approving a new drug for market in the USA? Thirty years? Forty years? A human lifetime? It sounds like if it were up to you we would NEVER get to enjoy the benefits of newly-invented drugs. That would cause more harm overall than any undetected side effects. Failures and past learning-experiences notwithstanding, new drugs save and improve more lives than they take, a lot more.
I tell you again, if RU-486 had been treated NORMALLY, like ANY other new drug intended for occasional use (as opposed to regular use, like HRT), it would have been tested and approved for use in the USA during the presidency of GHW Bush. When Clinton came the process in this case was already corrupted and biased AGAINST approval by the intrusion of ideological/political considerations into what ought be a medically-driven and scientifically-driven process, through GHW Bush beforehand and his brain-fried son afterwards.Posted by: SoMG at April 25, 2008 8:57 PM
If Clinton hadn't rushed through RU486, GWB would have found a way to delay it. Really? So Clinton was a prophet? He could see 7 years into the future, Clinton began his presidency in 1993, and know GWB would block the passage of RU486? Clinton was corrupt and underhanded. How interesting you seem to have little problem with this. What about the FDA SOMG, what was their excuse?
Please SOMG, there was no serious question about HRT or DES either where the safety of women was concerned. These were also a large number of patients followed over a long time, 30+ years. It took that long to finally determine there were complications.
What do I think about drugs and their safety? I think the American public should never trust the "safety" assurances by the FDA and should look into alternative medicine and treatments. I think the American public should thoroughly investigate any medications they have been prescribed or buy over the counter, and never mindlessly accept any assurances of "safety" by their doctors or the FDA.
We have RU486, brought to this country by a "politically corrupt" decison made by a president you admit is corrupt and underhanded who you acknowledge "rushed" through RU486 to make certain he got credit for it. We also have the FDA permitting the manufacture of RU486 in a pharmaceutical factory in China that didn't meet FDA safety standards and has been found to be in the center of a major drug scandal for producing tainted drugs.
Now if that isn't reassuring to the American public of how trusting they should be concerning the ethics of the FDA and the safety of the drugs it approves, I don't know what is.
Now THAT is sarcasm SOMG.
Posted by: Mary at April 25, 2008 10:10 PM
Mary, you wrote: "Please SOMG, there was no serious question about HRT or DES either where the safety of women was concerned. These were also a large number of patients followed over a long time, 30+ years. It took that long to finally determine there were complications."
So if it were up to you would you keep ALL new medications off the market in order to protect the public from another HRT or DES problem? Would we not be allowed to prescribe Sinemet for Parkinson's Disease patients if it were up to you? Would we still be using ether for general anaesthesia? How far back does it go? Would we still be treating syphillis with mercury salts and wounds with picric acid because antibiotics MIGHT turn out to have bad side effects?
You wrote: "I think the American public should never trust the "safety" assurances by the FDA and should look into alternative medicine and treatments."
Look into them how? How should "the American public" go about figuring out which alternatives are more or less safe and effective than the prescribed medication?
You wrote: "I think the American public should thoroughly investigate any medications they have been prescribed...."
Investigate how? Should the patients conduct clinical trials themselves?
You wrote: "... and never mindlessly accept any assurances of "safety" by their doctors or the FDA."
So if you had a heart attack and your docter prescribed coumadin in order to reduce your risk of having another one, would you take it or wouldn't you?
No I would not keep all new medications off the market. I would have the FDA do their job, which is protecting the American public objectively and stringently by not allowing itself to make politically corrupt decisions to satisfy the ego of a corrupt and underhanded president out to make a name for himself.
SOMG we have the internet. Its a wealth of information about drugs, their benefits and side effects, as well as medical disorders and their various types of treatment, conventional and alternative. For this reason the American public can do their own investigating and need not blindly accept the assurances of the "safety" of anything.
If I was post heart attack, had atrial fibrillation, had heart valve replacements, or a coronary stent I would not have a problem with taking coumadin. There are contraindications to its use and I would make certain those do not affect me. I would also research the drug and be as knowledgable of it as possible. I would also want to know if newer and better anticoagulants are coming on the market. I would also check into alternative therapies and their use and effectiveness. The internet is a wealth of information and there would be no excuse at all for me not to thoroughly inform myself or to blindly accept someone's assurances of the "safety" of the drug.Posted by: Mary at April 26, 2008 9:18 AM
And where does the information on the internet come from?
From experts doing research. Like the FDA.Posted by: SoMG at April 26, 2008 5:37 PM
Check again. Info also comes from the pharmaceuticals that produce the drugs, pharmacists, doctors, and alternative therapy providers. One can also find the studies that determined that drugs judged "safe" by the FDA in fact had been found to be dangerous, even fatal.
The FDA doesn't produce or dispense the drugs, it tests and approves them. Unfortunately it also allows itself to be corrupted by underhanded and corrupt presidents.
Please, some sources and statistics showing a correlation between legal abortion and a reduction in poverty.
Mary, I'd say it's self-evident. For a given person or couple, having kids will usually mean less money left over, a lower standard of living, less disposable income, being closer to the poverty line or under it, etc., versus not having kids.
Have some people escaped poverty by not having kids? Certainly.Posted by: Doug at April 26, 2008 9:25 PM
Self evident or an assumption?
I think its all in how people manage their money and their lives and has nothing to do with the number of children they do or don't have.Posted by: Mary at April 26, 2008 9:35 PM
Mary, you wrote: "SOMG we have the internet. Its (sic) a wealth of information about drugs, their benefits and side effects, as well as medical disorders and their various types of treatment, conventional and alternative. For this reason the American public can do their own investigating and need not blindly accept the assurances of the "safety" of anything."
Mary, how should the public go about distinguishing true facts from all the bullshit that pollutes the internet? Anyone can CLAIM that their anticoagulant is better than coumadin. How would you EVALUATE that claim if you saw it on the internet? ANSWER: you'd ask your doctor (Unless you yourself have been trained to find, read, and evaluate clinical trials).
There is an especially large amount of bullshit posted on the internet by right-to-life propagandists about RU-486. The claim that it isn't proven safe (so far as ANYTHING can be proven safe) by more than a million successful uses, the absurd suggestion that seven patient deaths is a large or worrisome number of deaths. All bullshit, deliberately designed to deceive the "American public".
And it isn't limited to RU-486. There's the well-documented lie that induced abortion causes subsequent breast cancer. The lie that surgical abortion (done legally by a properly-trained provider) damages future fertility. The lie that abortion increases the likelihood of subsequent mental illness. How should the public distinguish the legitimate science from the bullshit?
Here's an idea: How about we train a community of the best-educated people, teach them how to distinguish legitimate science from bullshit, and charge them with the task of keeping up with medical innovation and pay them to follow and evaluate the research the public is not qualified to do or to understand? Let's call them....oh I don't know...let's call them DOCTORS. Let's call the community the MEDICAL community. Does that sound like a reasonable plan? (Sarcasm).
You wrote: "No I would not keep all new medications off the market. I would have the FDA do their job,"
That would not protect the public from occasional disasters, or from problems that don't show up in clinical trials. Sooner or later you would be responsible for a disaster.
In the end there are only two choices: either you halt all medical innovation or you put up with occasional disasters. There is no PERFECT testing process for new drugs (or new medical procedures).
I remind you again, as a matter of historical fact, by the time Clinton's FDA approved RU-486 it had been tested (by use abroad) many times more than new drugs typically get tested before approval in the USA. It was overtested, not undertested. If the approval process had not already been corrupted by right-to-lifism, it would have been tested and approved during the presidency of GHW Bush.Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2008 3:15 PM
The American people aren't quite as stupid as you think SOMG. BS on the internet? What about the BS we hear from our doctors(remember DES, in use 30 years, and HRT in use 35+ years, not to mention any other number of drugs with serious side effects), the media, you name it.
While you rant and rave about what you consider to be "lies", of course you're totally unbiased, you make yourself sound patronizing. The American people must be protected, the American people can't think for themselves, certain things must be censored to protect the American people. The American people are totally incapable of researching.
Doctors? Are you suggesting the American people should blindly follow the dictates of doctors? I learn much by researching what alternative doctors have to say. So which ones do we listen to SOMG, the alternative doctors or the medical establishment doctors? Do you think maybe, just maybe, the American people could decide this for themselves?
I happen to think vegetarianism is a crock. Do I get as emotional as you because there is info on the internet I may not agree with and people will read it? I say go for it. Unlike you, I don't view the American people as children who should mindlessly follow the dictates of "experts".
By having the FDA do their job SOMG I mean they would not allow themselves to be corrupted by an underhanded and politically corrupt president out to make a name for himself. They would never permit the manufacture of drugs in a factory that does not meet their own safety standards.
Don't give me this crap about RTL's corrupting the approval process. You already admitted this was done by an underhanded and corrupt president out to make a name for himself.Posted by: Mary at April 27, 2008 4:36 PM
Some friendly advice. There isn't a better source of information on drugs than your nearest pharmacist. Many a doctor has asked me to call one for information.Posted by: Mary at April 27, 2008 4:40 PM
Mary, you wrote: "While you rant and rave about what you consider to be "lies", of course you're totally unbiased, you make yourself sound patronizing. "
Excuse me. The lies I mentioned are not merely "what I consider to be lies", they are WELL-DOCUMENTED lies, objectively shown by measured clinical data to be lies and acknowledged by virtually the entire medical community (which includes pharmacologists and some principled right-to-lifers like Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop). This is fact, not opinion. If it makes me sound patronizing to mention it, well, more knowledgable people USUALLY sound patronizing when they talk to less knowledgable people, and people who believe medical "information" from right-to-life propaganda sites (like Jill's) OUGHT to be patronized.
You put the following words in my mouth: "Certain things must be censored to protect the American people." Excuse me--I have never advocated CENSORING anything, neither here on Jill's web site or anywhere else.
You put the following words in my mouth: "The American people are totally incapable of researching."
Of researching medical questions, yes, they are, not "totally" incapable, but nearly enough. How many Americans know what a dose-response curve is? How many Americans know what a "control" is and what purpose it serves in an experiment? How many Americans know what "standard deviation" means and when it's important? How many Americans know what a "95% confidence-interval" is? How many Americans know what an "odds ratio" is? How many Americans can inspect a manufacturing site and determine whether "Good Manufacturing Protocols" are being followed? How many of the American people know what conclusions can legitimately be drawn from animal studies? How many Americans know the different possible elimination routes for a drug in the human body--and what the implications of the elimination route are for determining counterindications and dosages? How many of the American people know which sorts of drugs can be administered orally or IM or IP and which need to be administered IV? How many American people understand the tests which are used to measure mutagenicity? How many Americans know which medical journals are trustworthy and which are pay-to-publish rags?
Look at you--you are evidently a health professional of some kind and you didn't even know what RARE means until I told you--you mentioned seven patient deaths from RU486 as if that were something we ought to worry about.Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2008 6:27 PM
You wrote: "Don't give me this crap about RTL's corrupting the approval process. You already admitted this was done by an underhanded and corrupt president out to make a name for himself. "
I keep telling you, if the process hadn't been corrupted and biased by right-to-lifism through GHW Bush, RU486 would have been approved BEFORE Clinton came to office like any other safe, effective, marketable new occasional-use drug discovered in 1981 and we wouldn't be having this (now repetative) argument. Many other new drugs were approved with much less use-experience to base an opinion on. Orders of magnitude less use-experience than we had with RU-486 at the time it was approved. There's only one reason the RU-486 battle was still around for Clinton to fight, and that reason is not a medical one.Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2008 7:48 PM
Quit making excuses will you? Bill Clinton had the power and time to get the process rolling, the FDA had no excuse to abandon safety standards. There was no need to "rush" this drug or accept substandard safety conditions in a pharmaceutical in China. Bill Clinton and the FDA's corruption(your words) is not excused by the alleged corruption of RTL forces, which you have maintained were only a small growing movement against the PC majority during the presidency of GHW Bush who wasn't really PL and was not put into office because of his PL beliefs.
YOU are the one who said this was a politically corrupt decision made by an underhanded and corrupt president out to make a name for himself.
Your words SOMG, not mine.
Also a correct decision.Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2008 8:24 PM
You just don't realize how patronizing you are do you SOMG? My goodness, how can Americans have brains enough to know this or that? Let's train a community of the best educated people to help them distinguish BS from science that these brainless Americans can always turn to. Apparently you don't like the idea of Americans looking at or drawing any conclusions from what doesn't meet with your approval do you SOMG? That's what I mean by advocating censorship.
SOMG I'm well aware of what "rare" means. Its your side that isn't. They're the ones who went ballistic when a teenager died of an alleged "illegal abortion", even though no medical evidence existed to support this claim. Apparently they didn't consider "1" rare. Maybe you should inform them that it is.
Then there was no need for corruption or underhandedness(your words) or to settle for substandard condtitions in a Chinese factory, right?Posted by: Mary at April 27, 2008 8:54 PM
You wrote: "GHW Bush ... wasn't really PL ..."
Are you saying you think he was? Do you believe he sincerely changed his position just when Reagan was going to choose his running mate by cooincidence? I bet you think Mitt Romney is a sincere right-to-life convert too.
You wrote: "and was not put into office because of his PL beliefs." Partly he was. At first, his willingness to profess right-to-lifism allowed Reagan to pick him, and that put him in office. For his own presidency he depended on the support of a relatively small group of wealthy right-to-life donors to fund and organize for him. Also, the "rank and file" of the GOP was increasingly dominated by right-to-lifers. Remember how they cheered Pat Buchanan's speech at the Convention? Once GHWBush converted for Reagan he was pretty much their bought man. The only thing I can recall him ever doing that might have offended them is appointing David Souter to the Supreme Court, which he did as a favor to his friend, former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH).Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2008 9:04 PM
Your post on 4/21 5:19PM
Neither of Reagan's victories (nor GHW Bush's victory after him) had anything to do with abortion.
You can't have it both ways SOMG.Posted by: Mary at April 27, 2008 9:22 PM
This is an interesting question, you wrote: "Then there was no need for corruption or underhandedness(your words) or to settle for substandard condtitions in a Chinese factory, right?"
Not to sound Clintonian but the answer to this depends on your definition of "need". If Clinton hadn't done things in his Clintonian way, we still wouldn't have RU486 in the USA. Would this matter? As I have explained, methotrexate does the same thing (from the clinician's point of view) and we'd have non-surgical abortion anyway. We'd be pointlessly outlawing medical use of a substance, which makes the American people less free. We'd be laughed at in the world medical community. It really only matters if you believe in rational policy for its own sake, as an ideal.Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2008 9:23 PM
In your words Clinton did this to make a name for himself. There was no other reason for anything underhanded or corrupt, or for the FDA to permit production in a pharmaceutical that did not meet their own safety standards. Outlawing a substance that made Americans less free? Please. Exactly how were Americans less free prior to RU486? Also as you say there was methotrexate. Since, according to you non-surgical abortions were going on anyway, why the rush?
Posted by: Mary
at April 27, 2008 9:45 PM
What I believe in SOMG is the FDA putting the safety of the American public first and foremost, and not compromising standards to satisfy the ego of an American president.
Their ability to raise campaign money, and, increasingly, to generate fanatical support from the GOP rank and file depended on right-to-lifism. I never meant to deny that. I do deny that the fact that he won the general election was indicative of majority opinion on the issue of abortion rights. I think a lot of voters voted for him in spite of disagreeing with him about abortion because abortion wasn't a very important issue to them. The Cold War, the economy, America's perceived strength in the world, perceived and actual corruption of the Democrat-controlled Congress--those are the issues that motivated the American majority to vote in Reagan and GHWBush. Abortion was VERY important to the minority that funded them, sure, but not to the majority who voted for them in the end. If all the passively pro-choice Reagan/Bush supporters had voted for the Democrat instead, the Democrat would have won, every time.
You wrote: "Exactly how were Americans less free prior to RU486? "
They didn't have the option of taking RU486. Now they do. That's a new freedom. Not a very big or important one perhaps but every freedom is a benefit in itself if you believe in maximizing human chemical freedom for its own sake as I do. RU486 could (you never know) turn out in the end to be valuable for other purposes than abortion. But you're right there was no need for Clinton to do what he did, because of methotrexate it makes very little difference in anyone's life (including the lives of the unborn babies) and is worth celebrating only to those who prize freedom and knowledge for their own sake and support rational government policy as an ideal in itself.Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2008 10:19 PM
You said methotrexate was already available and in use. They didn't need the option RU486. Taking another chemical is a new freedom?
Valuable for reasons other than abortion? Please. That was the ploy used to get it into the country. So far I haven't heard about any miracle cures or treatments the American public was told several years ago were waiting in the wings once RU486 was legalized. Have you?
SOMG, you acknowledge this drug was not necessary but refer to this as rational government policy? I don't see anything rational about "rushing" through an unnecessary drug, producing it under unsafe and otherwise unacceptable conditions and passing it on to an unsuspecting public.
You wrote: "What I believe in SOMG is the FDA putting the safety of the American public first and foremost, and not compromising standards to satisfy the ego of an American president."
I agree with you. That includes, ideally, not allowing a President's right-to-lifism to influence the outcome or slow things down (an impossible goal, since the President's appointees distribute research grants). And it includes not ignoring the enormous body of data from abroad.Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2008 10:47 PM
RU486 COULD be valuable for reasons other than abortions. There are tumors that respond to anti-estrogens. Why not tumors that respond to anti-progestins like RU486? It's not at all implausible if you know anything about cancer.
Yes, in this case there was a right answer and a wrong answer. The ideal of rational policy requires approval of RU486 as safe and effective for two reasons: 1. it really IS safe and effective and 2. it has been shown to be so. That's rational policy for its own sake.Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2008 10:55 PM
You said without a PC majority the Republicans were and will (probably) remain a minority. The RTL movement wasn't even a large minority when Reagan campaigned. Why did Reagan and Bush have to concern themselves with this minority? Certainly there were other issues as you said so there would be other very generous donors.
Didn't PC candidates receive generous donations as well from abortion supporters?
By the way, don't you remember in 1990 when abortion advocates thundered that abortion supporters would storm the voting booths like the hordes of Ghengis Khan and give the boot to all PL politicians? It was after the Casey decision. To hear abortion advocates tell it people were breaking down the doors of NARAL and NOW to get in. The media obediently played along. Our local paper considered it a newsworthy event that the local chapter of NOW gained ten new members. A local PC gathering drew 100 people, out of a population of several thousand, though to hear our newpaper and the organizers tell it, people were hanging from the rafters. PL politicians were scared into switching to PC, and lost. One such race was for the governor of Ohio.
It turned into a huge goose egg. There was a deafening silence after election day. Even TV commentator, I believe it was Lesley Stahl acknowledged that being PC did not seem to help the politicians very much. Abortion advocates were reduced to saying how "happy" they were to do "almost as well" as PLs. I just bet they were. Where were all these PC voters SOMG?
... and not compromising safety to inflate the ego of an underhanded and corrupt president.Posted by: Mary at April 27, 2008 11:45 PM
These claims were made several years ago, I believe it was also supposed to treat Cushing's Disease, and if there was any truth to them RU486 could have been used for treatment without being approved for abortion. It was a ploy.
Unless of course it has been used to effectively treat chronic or fatal diseases. So far I haven't heard anything.
You wrote: "You said without a PC majority the Republicans were and will (probably) remain a minority. "
No I didn't. I said that without SOME PC voters the Republicans were and will (probably) remain a minority. (If you don't understand the difference between those two, read them again over and over until you do.)
You wrote: " Why did Reagan and Bush have to concern themselves with this minority? "
ANSWER: $$$. And later, exceptional zeal for organizing as well.
You asked: "being PC did not seem to help the politicians very much. Where were all these PC voters SOMG?"
Maybe they realized, as some of the feminists did not, that the Casey decision made very little difference for abortion rights in the USA and that their abortion rights were still quite safe?
Have you noticed that some feminists have a tendency to exaggerate? I take no responsibility for what they say. There's SOME bullshit on both sides.Posted by: SoMG at April 28, 2008 12:04 AM
Another thing about the right-to-life Republican minority in the 1980s: They were exceptionally good at using new communications technologies (such as computerized mailing lists, that was a new thing then) to organize and motivate voters and donors. They had considerable advantage over Democrats and pro-choice groups in this area.Posted by: SoMG at April 28, 2008 12:38 AM
Excuse the typo,
You said "without the PC republicans the GOP would be a permanent minority".
Stuff your patronizing comment SOMG.
Like I said SOMG there were other issues and other very generous donors. Why didn't the PC Republicans make generous donations and keep Reagan/Bush out of the PL camp? I would suspect PC Republicans donated also. Why wouldn't donors stipulate that Reagan/Bush not be beholden to the PL minority when the majority of Americans supposedly support abortion? Why weren't Reagan/Bush beholden to the PC Republicans who donated? Certainly if the majority of Americans supported abortion this would be the wise move.
I'm curious, do you have any idea how much wealthy PCers, including the majority of the Hollywood crowd, donated to the Democrats in these races?
Doesn't wash SOMG. Supposedly there were all the complacent PC voters out there ready to pounce. There was certainly no lack of fanfare and media trumpetblasting. Abortion advocates were howling like banshees about Casey. This went on a good year or so. Politicians were scared enough to switch their stands. So where were all these formerly complacent voters that even you claim existed? Why weren't they out in force to wipe out PL politicians once and for all?
Posted by: Mary at April 28, 2008 1:10 AM
Oh, and RTL Republican minority were the only ones with access to this technology? Why didn't PC republicans go after PC supporters in their own party, since they were the suppposed majority? Certainly the PC groups and Democrats had access to the same technology. Why weren't they going after the large "complacent" PC majority?Posted by: Mary at April 28, 2008 1:21 AM
You wrote: "Oh, and RTL Republican minority were the only ones with access to this technology? "
They made much better use of it much sooner. I don't know why, but they did. Google Richard Vigurie.
You wrote: "Why weren't they out in force to wipe out PL politicians once and for all? "
Because abortion isn't very important to them. I keep telling you this. It may not become important to them until their OWN abortion rights become compromised. That means, the pro-choice majority could remain passive (ie decide their votes on other issues) until Roe/Wade were overturned AND a federal law against abortion passed. You'd need a right-to-life majority in the Senate of at least 60 votes to pass the federal law.
I don't think any of this is very likely--I think we will pass the Freedom of Choice Act. If Obama doesn't get to sign it, whoever follows McCain will.Posted by: SoMG at April 28, 2008 2:03 AM
You asked "Why weren't Reagan/Bush beholden to the PC Republicans who donated? "
The PC Republican donors were less concerned with abortion as a high-priority issue than the right-to-life Republican donors. The PC Republican voters and donors didn't require agreement on this issue from their candidate. (If they had they wouldn't have supported Reagan, obviously.)
Why didn't they? I would say, because no one seriously feared for abortion rights, and they still don't. And they're probably right not to. I know more about this stuff than most people and I do not seriously fear for abortion rights in the USA. What's the very worst that could happen? Even if Roe/Wade gets overturned outright and the Supreme Court allows the states and the federal government complete liberty to make their own abortion laws, the very best the right-to-lifers can hope to do is to add the cost of a bus trip or conceivably an airline ticket to the overall cost of an abortion, maybe even add the cost of a couple of days stay in a hotel for some people. I guess you'd add in the expense of a couple of days off from work. In the end abortion would still be available to everyone who could afford to travel and several times cheaper overall than the labor and delivery it prevents. In order to accomplish anything more than that--to seriously make government attempt to force women not to have abortions--you'd need the wherewithal to pass a federal law against abortion--that means a filibuster-proof majority (60+) in the Senate AND a supportive president at the same time, or else a veto proof majority (67 per cent) in both houses of Congress. Or else you'd have to get controlling majorities in all the states and outlaw abortion state by state. None of these three alternatives is at all likely at least in my lifetime, statistically speaking. So I would be very surprised if abortion were ever criminalized or made unavailable across the USA, or if women of the USA were forced to travel abroad again for their abortions, or to turn to criminal providers, or to attempt to self-abort, except possibly among the very poor. I suppose I can imagine small intermittant black markets in misoprostol springing up in states which prohibited abortion among some very poor communities whose members are too poor to travel but that's all.
This is all assuming, of course, that we don't settle this once and for all by passing the Freedom of Choice Act and there's a good chance pro-choicers will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate after 2008. And both Democrat presidential candidates are co-sponsors. We'll have to wait and see. As I said, if Obama doesn't get to sign it whoever follows McCain probably will.
Unfortunately, I think in the end this election will depend on whether rural white "racialists" of Pennsylvania and Ohio (the states that actually get to decide who wins) succeed in their mission to stop any black man from ever being President. The white-power people are very strong there and the Republicans could nominate Hannibal Lector as their candidate; as long as he's white those guys--we're talking about rural guys who shoot a racoon in the woods and cook it for family dinner, now--will vote, donate, and self-organize in support of him against Barak Obama. When I remember my own experience of Pennsylvania--learning to ask patients in the emergency room whether they preferred "race-matched" health care providers and mark it on their charts--I wonder if those two states are as secure for the Democrats as the gamblers at Intrade.com seem to think. McCain could win, which would be more dangerous to our fiscal solvency and to the corresponding value of our currency than to abortion rights anyway.Posted by: SoMG at April 28, 2008 5:08 AM
I told you that argument, I should say excuse, doesn't wash. If the PC "majority" was truly a force, where were they?
You are only speculating their lack of concern. Quite honestly you don't know do you? The PL "minority" certainly got out and we had no where near the media fawning your side enjoyed.
No SOMG, if the republican PC "majority" had required support on this issue, Reagan would have given it to them or they would have gotten another candidate. But no way did Reagan have to be beholden to PLs, no matter what. If they didn't help him so what? According to you it wouldn't have mattered since his election was a shoo-in, Carter was an idiot, and the majority of the American people were supposedly PC.
In other words SOMG, if your side loses the presidency its only because of those rascally "racialists" and not because the majority did not consider him qualified, right?
One thing about you SOMG, you always have a ready made excuse.
Concerning "white power" people, are you aware that the one of the most powerful Democrats in the Senate is Robert Byrd, Democrat, former Klansman and klan recruiter who vigorously opposed the civil and voting rights acts? Both these acts were passed only because of Republicans. The Democrats, along with Byrd, were too busy filibustering.Posted by: Mary at April 28, 2008 7:05 AM
Mary, you wrote: "No SOMG, if the republican PC "majority" had required support on this issue, Reagan would have given it to them or they would have gotten another candidate. "
I already told you that the PC Reagan voters DIDN'T require his support on the issue of abortion. Don't you remember the Arlen Specter-, Lincoln Chafee-, Warren Rudman- wing of the Party? How enthusiastically they supported Reagan in spite of disagreeing with him about abortion? And I never said a majority of Republicans were PC--just some of them. A minority of Republicans, but a big enough minority that the GOP can't get or hold a national majority without keeping them in the ranks.
You wrote: "In other words SOMG, if your side loses the presidency its only because of those rascally "racialists" and not because the majority did not consider him qualified, right?"
Mary, have you ever lived in Western or Central Pennsylvania? Or in Ohio (other than Columbus and Cleveland and their suburbs)?
And yes of course I am aware of 90-year old Senator Robert C. Byrd's shameful past. He's also very bad about wasteful pork-barrel spending--they name highways and roads after him in West Virginia because he brings in the federal dough to build them. And he uses embarrassing, over-the-top rhetoric on the Senate floor and compares people who don't vote with him to Nazis. I'll be glad when he finally pops off.Posted by: SoMG at April 28, 2008 2:21 PM
I well remember grumbling and efforts by the PC Republicans, as well as those that supported Reagan and then Bush, who wanted the PL plank dropped as they viewed this as a way to gain more support by the "majority" of Americans.
These comments about "racialists" is what got Obama into trouble. Yes I'm aware of people such as you describe, but I'm also of the opinion that Obama is completely unqualified snd I do not agree with his politics and I'm sure any number of people share that opinion, and it has nothing to do with race.
There are people just as adamant about voting one way or another for whatever reason, and yes sometimes its racial, ethnic, religious, party, or gender. Its certainly not unheard of for people of all races, not just white, to vote only for a candidate of the same race, not just the white racialists.
I suspect the race and gender cards will be played.
Maybe this will settle the issue concerning the PL vote once and for all. A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll, prior to the 2004 election found that Americans who describe themselves as PL are nearly three times as likely to describe themselves as single issue voters than PC Americans. 30% of PL Americans are more inclined to vote for a PL candidate as compared to 11% or PC voters who will vote for a PC candidate.
The net result is 13% of PL people vote for the PL candidate only while 6% of the PC voters vote for the PC candidate only.
So where are these majority PC people we hear so much about?
I bring up Byrd since its supposedly Republicans who are racist and are supported by racists.Posted by: Mary at April 28, 2008 3:52 PM
You wrote: "Americans who describe themselves as PL are nearly three times as likely to describe themselves as single issue voters than PC Americans. "
Exactly. Right-to-lifers are a MOTIVATED minority. The American pro-choice majority are more likely to decide their votes based on other issues. Which is what I keep saying.Posted by: SoMG at April 28, 2008 8:22 PM
You didn't say that. You said the PC people are a large majority.
18 years ago the PC leadership predicted that PL politicians would be wiped out in a wave of PC voters storming the voting booths. Never happened.
If McCain is elected, I fear more for the fiscal solvency of the government than for abortion rights.
McCain has given no indication that he intends to do anything other than continue cutting taxes for the super-rich and the hyper-rich and running up the national debt. We cannot afford any more national debt--our currency is already losing its value. Abroad AND here at home. I think we are at a turning point. We desperately need a president who will RAISE taxes and pay the debt, as President Clinton did.
In order to avoid an explosion of legally-mandated (entitlement) government spending during this coming presidential term, the laws which mandate entitlement spending must be changed. I don't think the Democrats in Congress will be inclined to cooperate with John McCain on this.
(Sigh) I miss Ross Perot.Posted by: SoMG at April 28, 2008 9:13 PM
You wrote: "You didn't say that [that right-to-lifers are a MOTIVATED minority]."
Yes I did. That's what I've been saying all along. Read more carefully.
You wrote: "You said the PC people are a large majority. "
Yes. But although they are a large majority, they do not VOTE PC. They decide their votes on other issues. As YOU posted above, members of the right-to-life minority tend to vote based on the abortion issue MORE than members of the pro-choice majority.
You wrote: "I well remember grumbling and efforts by the PC Republicans, as well as those that supported Reagan and then Bush, who wanted the PL plank dropped"
And when Reagan and Bush refused to drop it, those PC Republicans still continued to support them enthusiastically anyway. Why? Because abortion is not very IMPORTANT to PC Republicans.Posted by: SoMG at April 28, 2008 9:24 PM
Regarding the Republican right-to-life plank: Michael Kinsley said it best: http://www.slate.com/id/83960/
I'll quote from his essay (Mary, you should read it CAREFULLY--not the way you usually read--because it's very good):
The official position of the Republican Party is that women who have abortions should be executed. The platform doesn't say this in so many words, but it's not a fanciful interpretation. In fact, it's an unavoidable interpretation.
The platform says: "The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." No exceptions. And: "[W]e endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children." It's the second bit that's the killer.
What is undeniably clear from the abortion language is that the Republican Party stands for the principle that fetuses are "persons" as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. Among other famous provisions, that amendment forbids "any state" to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In other words, according to the Republican platform, the law should treat the abortion of a 1-month-along fetus exactly like the killing of, say, a 5-year-old child. In every state it is considered a rather serious crime for a mother to hire someone to kill her innocent child. In states with a death penalty, this is just the kind of killing—premeditated, commercial, often remorseless, a betrayal of humanity's deepest bond—that qualifies for the death penalty.
So the abortion provisions of the Republican platform would give states a choice: Either execute women who have abortions, along with doctors who perform them, or don't execute other premeditated murderers and their hired gunmen. And there's really no choice because elsewhere in this steamy document the platform is quite enthusiastic about the death penalty, complaining repeatedly that it isn't used nearly enough.
Right-to-life Republicans generally say that while doctors who perform an abortion should be punished, the woman who procures one should be seen as a victim. Not only does this make no sense but under the language the party plans to readopt this year, it would be flatly unconstitutional. Even leaving aside capital punishment, a state could not send one woman to prison for murdering her child, do the same to a doctor who performs an abortion, but let another woman who scheduled an appointment, wrote a check, and had the abortion go free.
The full implications of the platform's abortion language also make a mockery of the GOP's "big tent" efforts to find room for pro-choicers in the party. The '96 platform precedes the abortion passages with some fairly desperate lemons-into-lemonade guff about being the "party of the open door" that sees "diversity of views as a source of strength" and is "committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope, and mutual respect."
Obviously the Republican Party isn't the Communist Party, with an official "line" everyone must follow. Any party in a democracy must appeal to voters who agree with it on some issues and not on others. And an acknowledgement that issues are complex and that reasonable people can disagree is always welcome. But it's a little silly to talk about mutual respect and tolerance in the context of what you define as child murder, then revert to nasty high indignation when discussing, say, the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.
It is simply not coherent to tell believers in abortion rights, "We think you're slaughtering children—and, no, we're not prepared to discuss it—but hey! We don't care. Come on in anyway and try to make yourself feel at home." Moral clarity is the great strength of the extreme pro-life position: Abortion is killing a baby, period. But it's a position that's hard to fake, as the GOP continues to learn.Posted by: SoMG at April 28, 2008 9:51 PM
A poll commissioned by CBS news from October 12-16th 2007 found that 54% of Americans take one of three pro-life positions and 16% want more restrictions on it. It was found that 54% of Americans oppose 98% of all abortions. It was found that only 26% of the public supports abortion in all cases.
Maybe this better explains the voting pattern we see here SOMG. Americans have been becoming more PL over the years. This PC "majority" may very well have been diminishing over the years and may no longer exist.
Where in your posts did you indicate how PC and PL voters tend to vote, by what percentages, your source, and on what issues?
Funny, but when I asked about that big goose egg of 1990, your only response was feminist BS and the complacent PC voters. I recall no sources concerning this "complacency". You said nothing of being aware of the discrepency between how PL and PC voters tend to vote or on what issues.
Certainly PC republicans continued to support Reagan and Bush. But if PL people were so beneficial and abortion was not an issue anyway, why change the plank?Posted by: Mary at April 28, 2008 10:19 PM
Michael Kinsley? Come on SOMG, don't make me laugh. Certainly you can find a considerably less biased source.
Again SOMG, stuff your patronizing comment, sideways.Posted by: Mary at April 28, 2008 10:28 PM
You wrote: "Americans have been becoming more PL over the years."
I agree with you here. Here's the way I remember it (my source is memory, I've been a right-to-lifism watcher for a while) The right-to-life movement has grown from a very-motivated small minority (1970s and 80s) to a very-motivated medium-sized minority, where it has remained more or less steady since the turn of the millenium. The transition from small-minority to medium-sized-minority took place mostly in the 90s. This timing has something to do with the baby-boomers starting to age past reproductive age, and something to do with the emergence into the mainstream ("routine-i-zation") of in utero imaging technology. It (the right-to-life movement) continues to be very effective for campaign fundraising and organization--disproportunately to its actual numbers. At the same time, pro-choicers who remain the (still large) majority have if anything gotten MORE complacent and willing to base their votes on other issues over the decades as their abortion rights have survived (even improved as new abortion options have become available) in spite of all the noise.
You wrote: "54% of Americans take one of three pro-life positions..."
That can mean anything.
"... and 16% want more restrictions on it. "
Only 16% want more restrictions on abortion? Is that what you said??? That's all? That's a very pro-choice response. Why are you bragging about 16%?
You wrote: "It was found that 54% of Americans oppose 98% of all abortions." But what percent of Americans would favor using government force to prevent those abortions that they say they "oppose"? That's the real question, isn't it? "I oppose this abortion" can mean as little to a responder as "I wouldn't choose for myself to have an abortion under those circumstances" or "I wouldn't think highly of a woman who had an abortion under those circumstances". It doesn't necessarily mean the responder wants a law against abortion or against abortion under those circumstances.
Didn't John McCain say he'd support his daughter whatever she decided to do?
Say what you like about Michael Kinsley, he's right about this: The Republican Party Platform logically implies that women who have abortions should be charged with first-degree murder.
You wrote: "It was found that only 26% of the public supports abortion in all cases."
Roe/Wade doesn't permit abortion in all cases either. Neither does the Freedom of Choice Act. "Abortion in all cases" is a right-to-life fraud phrase.
You wrote: "if PL people were so beneficial and abortion was not an issue anyway, why change the plank?"
Ummm.....Because it's extreme and it logically implies that women who have abortions should be executed for first-degree murder, even in cases of rape or incest, and this is embarrassing? (Is that a good reason anymore?)
The 16% is part of the 54% opposing 98% of the abortions. I must say it makes your 26% look pretty dismal by comparison.
I have no idea what John McCain said. His daughter is a grown woman so there would be little he could do. That he would love and support his daughter does not mean he approves, only that he is there for her no matter what.
Roe v Wade ruled that states could restrict abortion only in the last three months of pregnancy and did not limit the reasons as to why a woman can have one.
They wanted it removed because it would call for executions of women having abortions? LOL and eye roll, whatever.Posted by: Mary at April 29, 2008 4:29 PM
Mary, if only 16 percent want more restrictions on abortion, doesn't that imply that 84 percent are pro-choice?Posted by: SoMG at April 29, 2008 6:24 PM
If only 26% of those surveyed say they support abortion with no restrictions, does that mean 74% are pro-life?Posted by: Mary at April 29, 2008 8:25 PM
That's a stupid question. Of course not. It means that 74% are able to think of SOME circumstance in which they would forbid an abortion. Abortion of a normal pregnancy at 39 weeks with no patient's-health necessity or whatever. If those 74% who are against "abortion with no restrictions" are "pro-life", then Roe vs Wade is a "pro-life" decision--it does not allow "abortion with no restrictions" either.
On the other hand, if only 16% of respondants said they want more restrictions on abortion (that was your number, you posted it), then the other 84% must either be satisfied with the status quo (pro-choice) or want LESS restrictions on abortion (more pro-choice). Is there any other way of understanding it? You tell me.Posted by: SoMG at April 29, 2008 11:42 PM
Hardly a stupid question, it was in fact much like yours. Making a sweeping generalization.
Anyway time to clear the mystery up.
Due to the late hour and extremely exhausting workday,and a too long period on the computer, I settled only for a brief summary of the poll and did not look at it myself. My mistake.
The poll is as follows:
26% of those polled support abortion in all cases
16% of those polled support abortion but want it subjected to greater restrictions
34% of those polled support abortion only for rape, incest, and life of the mother
16% of those polled support abortion only to save the mother's life
4% of those polled want no exceptions for abortion of any kind
4% of those polled were uncertain
That makes 54% of those polled supporting some pro-life postition, which you had a question on in an earlier post, as compared to 42% taking a prochoice position with little less than half of them supporting greater restrictions.
The 16% are people who consider themselves pro-choice but still want greater restrictions. It did not involve the people who chose one of the prolife positions as I mistakenly thought it had.
Why didn't they offer the respondents "status quo" as a choice? That's not "abortion with greater restrictions" but it's not "abortion with no restrictions" either.Posted by: SoMG at April 30, 2008 9:56 PM
Perhaps the 26% included "status quo". This group wants abortion permitted in all cases and may well include status quo or no restrictions. The poll didn't specify.Posted by: Mary at April 30, 2008 10:16 PM
No, Mary, abortion with no restrictions is NOT the same as the status quo. Not even in California and New York. As you describe the poll, there was no slot for those who support abortion rights but with some exceptions and don't want any more restrictions on it. Which describes the majority of prochoicers, I'll bet.
But you're right that that particular poll, as you have described it, measured a small right-to-life majority, or anyway a majority who self-identify as right-to-life (how they would respond if they themselves had an unplanned pregnancy, or if they had a 15 year-old daughter and she requested help getting an abortion, is of course still a question. I once knew a Catholic guy who said he only "agreed with" abortion in cases of rape, incest, and to save the mother's life, but when I asked what he would want his girlfriend to do if she got pregnant he said he hoped she'd get an abortion and not tell him about it.)
Anyway, how big was this poll?Posted by: SoMG at April 30, 2008 11:19 PM
I didn't say it was the same. I said the sample may include people who support the status quo as well as those who want no restrictions.
The question was if the respondents support abortion in all cases and 26% did.
Maybe the 16% who want more restrictions are the ones who support rights but with exceptions, i.e. restrictions.
The poll covered 1143 registered voters nationwide.
I'm sure we can all point to anecdotal situations and double standards where both sides of this issue are concerned. I know I certainly can.Posted by: Mary at May 1, 2008 7:56 AM