Focusing on one issue in one issue
It is interesting that those constantly telling pro-lifers that politics is about more than one issue are now the same ones telling pro-lifers to focus on just one aspect of the pro-life issue when considering Rudy.
Do they really think pro-lifers are so stupid as to think the sole influence presidents wield on the abortion issue is judicial appointments, or are they that stupid?
[October 11 cartoon by Michael Ramirez is courtesy of Townhall.com]
Oct.12, 2007 8:22 am |
Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
You are aware that abortion doesn’t even register as one of the top 10 issues voters care about?
Iraq & Afghanistan, the economy, healthcare, outsourcing, immigration, the environment, energy, terrorism, education, and a host of regional/local concerns are just bigger issues.
it does tip the scales.
I agree with you, Laura.
My guess is that as the elections loom closer on the horizon, abortion will be a bigger hot potato, that is, if Giuiliani gets the nomination. His pro-choice position is such a major departure from the traditional Republican platform.
His pro-choice position is such a major departure from the traditional Republican platform.
Posted by: carder at October 12, 2007 10:18 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I live in the land of Aaaaahrnold the Pro-Choice Republican Governator. People are more than happy to throw the abortion issue under the bus when more important issues are on the docket.
Only people who are self-interested care about other issues. Anyone who can vote is not in danger of being attacked with a suction machine, so maybe that’s why they care about other issues when clearly abortion, which is literal life or death, should take center stage.
I am glad to be in a movement that is completely others-interested. People that fast and pray for babies and women they’ll never meet are the type of people that should make policy decisions for the nation, not the “What’s in it for me?” folk.
Jacque, I agree. Even my friends who obtained their abortions could care less about keeping it legal.
In other words, they are pro nothing. They are “pro me, me, me!!!”
Only people who are self-interested care about other issues. Anyone who can vote is not in danger of being attacked with a suction machine, so maybe that’s why they care about other issues when clearly abortion, which is literal life or death, should take center stage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The war, healthcare and the environment aren’t life or death issues?
Abortion just isn’t a big deal to most people.
———————————————-
RASMUSSEN REPORT:
Corruption, Economy, Security Are Top Issues to Most Voters; And They Still Trust Democrats More
Monday,
September 24, 2007
More than three fourths of voters (78%) expect the issue of Government Ethics and Corruption to have a Very Important impact on their vote. Another 18% regard it as at least Somewhat Important, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll of Election 2008 Issues.
That’s even more voters than gave the issue top priority in our August poll (74%). As they did then, but now by a slightly bigger margin, voters trust Democrats more (40%) than Republicans (28%) to deal with corruption. Thirty-one percent (31%) state no partisan preference, however
Abortion kills a guarenteed 4,400 humans a day. While other issues are important, no other issue has the “life or death” magnitude that abortion has. No other “issue” is more deserving of our full, if not exclusive attention.
Because people care more about their own comfort than about mass murder doesn’t justify mass murder. After all, people supported Hitler because he brought economic recovery for them- (and then he slaughtered 6 million human beings). In fact, Hitler supporters advocated this “final solution” because they perceived that it made their lives better.
Pro-lifers are so because they care about other people more than themselves. Only such people should be allowed to shape our political landscape.
I don’t think that people don’t care. I feel that some just feel powerless to stop it. I know plenty of people who aren’t RTLfers, and they will tell you that abortion is murder in a “New York Minute.” They just so happen to have an opinion. Even post abortive women know it’s murder, but they don’t want to talk about the fact that they are murderers. Can’t say I blame them there.
Pro-lifers are so because they care about other people more than themselves. Only such people should be allowed to shape our political landscape.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 12, 2007 11:17 AM
********************************************************* Jacque, right. I don’t believe that I’d want to be torn limb from limb any more than I would want to be kidnapped, raped at gun point, or stabbed and murdered.
Again, those who support legal abortion need to understand our position from our point of view. If abortion is murder like we say it is, then it should trump all other issues. Suppose a candidate supported terrorism. Would you say “well, I don’t like his stance on terrorism, but I do agree with his stance on school lunches.” Or what if a candidate supported slavery? Would it be that much of a stretch to say that you would only vote for someone who is not pro-slavery? From the PL position, abortion is worse than slavery. My point is that it should not shock those who support legal abortion when they hear pro-lifers say that all they care about in the election is abortion and nothing else. They may not agree with it, fine, but at least understand where we are coming from.
Abortion IS murder. It’s a simple concept that PCers can’t grasp. It is so simple. If a woman continued a pregnancy, she will give birth to a baby. If she aborts her pregnancy, she becomes the mother of a dead baby. BTW, fetus is Latin for “little one.” ….Little one what? A wart?
That’s exactly how I looked at it when I was a prochoicer and that’s why I didn’t have a problem with prolifers. At the time, I disagreed with them, but I respected them.
Ouch. Read the last paragraph. I think you guys may be a little out of touch:
Conservative activists fear war dwarfing social agenda
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff | April 7, 2007
WASHINGTON — Social conservatives seeking to ban abortion and same-sex marriage are worried that their agenda is increasingly being overshadowed by the war in Iraq, making it more difficult for their voices to be heard in Congress and the presidential campaign than at any time in more than a decade.
While conservative social issues were widely considered pivotal in President Bush’s victory in 2004, social conservatives say they fear the 2008 elections will be decided by an event out of their control — the war — and dominated by Republican presidential candidates who are faithful to the party line on Iraq but less supportive on gay rights, abortion, and end-of-life issues.
Ken Blackwell , a Republican who ran unsuccessfully for governor of Ohio last year, said conservatives will have a hard time pushing their agenda to the forefront of the presidential campaign until the war retreats as an issue.
“I don’t think we have to win the war by the next election. But I think we have to make more Americans believe the war is being prosecuted competently, and for a reason,” said Blackwell, who recently joined the Family Research Council as senior fellow for family empowerment.
“If the public attention is that the war is being prosecuted in an incompetent, clumsy, or incoherent fashion, it becomes a greater challenge to focus attention” on matters such as abortion, stem cell research, and gay rights, he said.
Tony Perkins , president of the Family Research Council, was even more gloomy in his prognosis, saying Republicans appear to have strayed from the conservative social agenda.
“The way the presidential campaign is shaping up, it looks like a continuation of November’s elections,” when Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress, Perkins said. “It was a disaster for Republicans because they had lost their way on [conservative social] issues.”
So far, Iraq has dominated the presidential campaign in both parties. A poll released Thursday by Diageo/ The Hotline indicated that Iraq was by far the single most important issues to voters, with 30 percent of all respondents — 21 percent of Republicans, 38 percent of Democrats, and 32 percent of independents — naming their opposition to the war as the most critical issue facing the United States today. The issue was far ahead of healthcare, the economy, immigration, terrorism, and the environment, all of which scored in the low single digits on the importance scale.
Another 4 percent of all voters (including 6 percent of Republicans, 2 percent of Democrats, and 4 percent of independents) call their support of the war the most important issue.
Social issues ranked lowest. Religious and family issues were the most important for only 2 percent. Opposition to abortion rights was first for less than 1 percent. And same-sex marriage — pro or con — was first for less than 1 percent.
I think all of the candidates will prosecute the war in the exact same fashion. They will do what the generals say because they know that any other course is political suicide.
The big difference will be the media spin.
I think the Dems would like to be in office when we win so they can take credit for ending the war “their” way.
The Republicans likewise.
I was against the war in Iraq from the outset, but now that we are there, the American public will demand victory.
No president will be able to duck that responsibilty.
There’s no victory to be had in this war. There’s people who hate us, and after we kill them new people will take their places. Fighting terrorism is like shooting zombies or playing whack a mole.
Fighting terrorism is a fight against an idea. Right on, JK.
Fighting terrorism is a fight against an idea. Right on, JK.
Posted by: prettyinpink at October 12, 2007 4:16 PM
Too true.
from another thread …………….
over and over,
I keep running into this same myopic-mentality: to win a war … we need a military victory. Just as Reagan’s ‘war on cancer’ was a shrill and empty promise, so is the War in Iraq. Is the only device to mobilize political-efforts called ‘war’? Is there a built-in need for visible victims … the more photogenic the gore, the better?
Don’t we really prolong the carnage because we insist on it – makes our sacrifice appear worthwhile). We fear death or injury and so insist on guns (for protection) … same deal – huh?
John, from that other thread:
LBJ’s “War on Poverty” ended up with a higher percentage of Americans below the poverty line than before it. Agreed that the Iraq war ain’t going too well.
And how about that “No child left behind” deal from Bush Jr? My wife’s a teacher….
And of course the “War on Drugs” — how we doin’ on that one? ; )
Doug
Abortion IS murder.
Wrong again, Heather. It’s the law that determines it, not your likes and dislikes.
Doug
well, I don’t like his stance on terrorism, but I do agree with his stance on school lunches
Ha! Go, Bobby… I love it.
Doug
Doug, abortion is murder.
Doug, abortion is murder.
Heather, then by your logic black is white, hard is soft, and straight up is over-under-sideways-down. Okay by me – we have legal abortion and women are free to make their best choice as far as continuing pregnancies or ending them.
Doug
I was against the war in Iraq from the outset, but now that we are there, the American public will demand victory. No president will be able to duck that responsibilty.
Hippie, maybe not – I could see a Vietnam type deal where the US doesn’t win.
IMO the Sunnis and the Shiites are gonna have to fight it out. They’ve been against each other for a long, long time, and we’re just wasting our time. If anything, I support partitioning Iraq. Let the Kurds have their deal – they’re doing fine already.
I doubt the Sunnis and shiites could leave each other alone, and so they fight it out.
Doug
Doug, abortion is murder.
Doug, abortion is murder.
Nope, certainly not in the US, anyway.
Doug