Tom Ridge for V.P.-- No Way
Okay, I have to admit that McCain's comments about Tom Ridge were, shall we say, a little surprising. I think, however, when the time comes, John McCain will pick a pro-life running mate.
Why?
Because a majority in the Republican Party are pro-life and pro-family.
If McCain picked someone like Ridge, he certainly wouldn't be pulling any pro-abortion supporters from the Dems and he would bring in very few pro-abortion voters among independents. The advantage to him is to pick a pro-life running mate. Ridge is very strong on national security but McCain himself isn't a slouch in this area. A pro-life running mate wouldn't have to be an activist in the movement but certainly would have to be someone holding what would be considered a real pro-life record.
And I mean real. The MSM likes to annoint politicians with the pro-life label when their record isn't 100 percent in the camp of NARAL and Planned Parenthood. For example, I couldn't believe my eyes the other day when I saw a news story that dubbed as pro-life Virginia Democratic Governor Tim Kaine. I thought, "Since when and in what universe?!"
McCain would have to pick someone like a Pawlenty or Palin or Jindal who would add to the ticket and show a genuine commitment to the pro-life cause.
To do otherwise would be the death knell for this campaign.
6 comments:
The abortion issue isn't so much a "value" as it is a sociological conundrum that the Republicans turned into a wedge issue in order to capture a particular single-issue sector of the electorate.
Everybody is pro-life. Legal abortion bans do not stop abortions but create black markets..... historically demonstrable, not a theory.
The government regulates abortion as a medical procedure to high degree. In keeping with both the Liberal and Libertarian values of the Nation, and in view of the fact that the American People do not believe the State should control a womb, nor do they think it can, they center the decision between the citizen and the legal medical practitioner.
That's really as good as it gets...... nobody from the government is going to force anybody to have an abortion, and if we have good, socially responsible government, conditions leading to abortions will be addressed through government programs.
Again..... the Republicans can't stop abortions from happening, and they will never be able to have a simple cross-the-board legal ban without the blowback of re-creating a black-market.
It's cynical wedge issue intended to manipulate you.
There is no perfect fix. Government deals with Public Policy, not moral absolutes.
I'm not even sure where to start.
First, "everyone" is not pro-life.
Second, a "black market" would exist but not anywhere to the degree or extent pro-abortion groups claim.
Third, the government DOES NOT regulate abortion to ANY degree, let alone a high degree.
Fourth, the pro-life issue is not about "regulating" the womb. It is the firm belief that a unborn living human being exists in that womb and that he or she has the same right to life as you or I.
Fifth, government programs have failed to address the reasons why women have abortions. Of the 1.2 million abortions a year, half are repeat abortions, less than two percent of all abortions are for rape, incest or the life of the mother. Less than ten percent (closer to seven or eight percent) of all abortions are for fetal disability. The rest are because of other reasons such as a woman feels she cannot afford the child or she doesn't have support at home.
Sixth, I'm no one's pawn. This is not a cynical wedge issue and I've been involved in this issue for far too long to be manipulated by any politicians.
And last, yes, government deals with public policy issues but it also has a responsiblity and obligation to address and legislate on moral issues.
There is such a thing as an illegal abortion, and there are regulations regarding how (medical standards) abortions are performed.
And I wonder why you think a black market emerge wouldn't emerge to service all those abortions that would become illegal by an absolute ban.
The laws that emerged regarding legal abortion emerged because there was a underground butcher shop..... if you force it underground, you can't even get the statistics you just quoted which would cripple even more the potential for the implementation effective measures.
The absolutist political positions (and I mean absolute anti-abortion and absolute feminist positions) undermine rationale approaches.
It is simply ironic, in my opinion, that a political party that is so ideologically adamant that the Government should not interfere with individual rights (property rights) and that the "government is the problem" and too intrusive, should think that the government can really regulate a woman's womb.
Abortion as a birth control method is morally wrong. There really should be no reason for those conditions to occur in an advanced, wealthy society like ours......
What's going wrong, and how would a total ban on abortion, vice regulation solve the problem?
Yes, there have been and still are illegal abortions. And no, legal abortions are not regulated like other medical procedures. The government actually regulates abortion less. Abortion clinic oversight is expected to come from state medical boards. They generally get involved after a complaint is lodged. No one inspects abortion clinics.
The reason is that groups like Planned Parenthood and NOW argue that regulations interfere with access. States must pass regulations that specifically apply to abortion clinics. And each time they try, PPFA and NOW are up in arms about it.
When Roe was handed down, the back-alley "butchers" were given the legal right to hang a sign out front.
Today, because the industry sees so little regulation, women can-- and do-- die from a legal abortions.
Making abortions illegal would make the doctors, not the women, the responsible party. Currently, because of the legality of abortion, little is done to meet the needs of women who need help-- other than to tell them they need an abortion.
And again, this isn't about "regulating" a woman's womb. This is about ensuring the right to life for a distinctively unique individual who, once dead, will never come back.
One of the saddest things I ever read was a comment made by a woman who had just aborted using RU486. She aborted in the toilet at an abortion facility participating in the U.S. trials. As a reporter stood by, the woman said she was sorry to her child and asked that her child come back to her someday when she was ready.
The truth was that child, that particular child died and will never come back. He or she was unique and irreplaceable.
We have failed, as a society, to provide real solutions and real answers for women. The groups meeting these needs are pro-life and pro-family groups. That's just not enough.
For example, college students who find themselves pregnant have no support at their universities. Abortion is what is often recommended.
But for the student who wants to keep her child, what about child-care, parenting classes, help for housing? It's not there. One group trying to fix this is Feminists for Life but such work take tremendous efforts, energy and money. A non-profit group that receives no government funding has limited resources and can't do it by itself.
However, a group like Planned Parenthood that posted a billion dollars both this year and last year in its annual report, receives over 330 million a year from government grants. They could do more than pass out condoms and fight abortion regulations. For years, PPFA affilitates did not offer adoption services. Even today, not many of them do. In the late nineties, only one PPFA affiliate offered adoption services on site. If a mother wanted to have her child and place it for adoption, PPFA affiliates had to scramble and, even on occasion, recommend crisis pregnancy centers because they did not have the infrastucture to assist.
This needs to change.
As for the politics-- the Democratic Party abandoned this issue a long time ago. As a result, pro-life Democrats still exist but they vote as Republicans. I know many of them. As much as they may agree with the Democratic Party on a variety of issues in other areas, they will not vote for a Democrat who is not pro-life. The Democratic Party rarely puts pro-life candidates out there so these people vote Republican consistently.
President Reagan used to be a Democrat and became a Republican. He was probably the greatest influence in this. He firmly believed in the right to life. Many pro-life Democrats ended up voting for him and have "stayed" with the Republicans since.
the extreme ideologies at play, it should very well be a Liberal issue ( I believe the juxtaposition of Liberalism and Conservatism as opposites is a political contrivance.).
I think a lot more should be done.... it is a legitimate social issue....
I don't think much more focus on the problem as a matter of crime-and-punishment is going to be beneficial. Italy has problems with there legal stance. And I don't think the reprecussions of a total National ban on abortion has been thought through as pragmatic Public Policy.
Understanding that some poor people have abortions...... some people who are drug and alcohol addicts too. But abortion really became an issue when it met the White middle and upper class..... and to a large degree, it is that economic group that form the majority of citizens that do no wish to see an all out ban, and prefer how the issue is being handled currently....... the majority of Americans have already made up their minds about abortion as a political issue, and those are in favor of the status quo. That is why the Republicans could not do anything about it even had they truly wanted to.
While moral absolutes can be applied, they become far more fractured and ambiguous when they meet the ambiguities of universal public policy.
Some say simply that abortion is murder...... even if one makes that absolute equation, look at what happens to something as clearly socially taboo as murder when it becomes a legal issue: murder
Murder is a Public Policy issue replete with caveats, consideration of special circumstances, variations on "degree" and type to be sorted out in the court of law....
So, should we assume that a woman who has an abortion is guilty of first degree murder, we already know that the legal ban on murder does not stop murder, so we now have a population of women who are facing the death penalty or life in prison for their crime.
Imagine the situation in which we would have to prosecute parents who send their daughters abroad to obtain an abortion, for they are now complicit in murder.
Also, there would have to be some provisions made for the State to incarcerate a pregnant woman who in some ways reveals intent to abort the pregnancy, because the State would be compelled to intervene in order to prevent the murder...... and I would assume the woman would also be vulnerable to prosecution for attempted murder and/or child abuse under some circumstance...... all this in the same way the State intervenes in conditions of child abuse.
The the social repercussions, are in my opinion, untenable. There would be backlash and more bantering of extremist ideology vice pragmatic solutions that actual curtail the practice.
I found this.... it looks interesting: link
So the abortion issue is a conundrum and someone who murders a human being is pro-life? Your reasoning is a conundrum! Remember that pregnancy is not a disease. It lasts for a definite time period, approximately nine months, and then is no more. But what you have in the end is the birth of the human life which has been growing since conception. And in that end, after birth, everyone is alive. The mother and the baby. When it comes to abortion on demand, it does not matter what you call yourself: a medical doctor or a thug. When you murder a human being, it is wrong, no matter where it occurs. As for the government, it should be protectiing its people, not allowing a class of people to be exterminated. Go vote for your democratic candidate. I am sure they enjoy your riddles.
Post a Comment