Thursday, November 13, 2008

Defending Social Conservatives

In the days following a presidential election, both sides turn introspective and attempt to chart the future path of their political party. In 2004, conservative pundits started writing books like Painting the Map Red and started gloating about the influence of “values voters,” while liberals wrote books like What’s the Matter with Kansas? and griped about flyover country. The same phenomenon can be seen in 2008—both sides are frantically trying to determine what this election tells us about the political future of the nation.

Apparently, the lessons of this election are the exact opposites of the ones learned from 2004. Liberal strategists are plotting ways to paint the map permanently blue, while conservatives wonder what’s the matter with Pennsylvania and worry that they’ll be consigned to eternal minority status.

Most of this analysis is a harmless overreaction to recent events and won’t have much influence. But there is one idea, popular among many conservatives, that is potentially destructive. This view cites the Republican party’s emphasis on social issues as a reason for its unpopularity among voters.

This line of reasoning goes that social conservatives might make up about a third (give or take a few percentage points) of the electorate, but you need 51% to win and pandering to those scary social conservatives drive away moderate voters, which are necessary for victory. According to proponents of this view (David Frum is one; David Brooks is another), conservatives should propose more moderate, work-towards-the-center policies, such as accepting abortion and fighting climate change, which would, in theory, appeal to educated, upper-middle class voters.

I’m not sure what would happen to the social conservatives under this model; I think that the idea is that they would have to face up to reality and keep voting Republican.

This idea is completely divorced from reality. One of the most noticeable features about post election theorizing is the idea that anything that didn’t take place within the last two years never happened, which might explain how values voters went from cornerstones of the GOP’s success in 2004 to a millstone around the GOP’s neck in 2008. Do demographics really change so fast that embracing a certain group could be essential for victory in one election but actually harmful in the next?

Apparently so, according the many GOP moderates. But even if we accept that these instant demographic shifts as plausible, there really isn’t much evidence that the GOP’s social attitudes are driving away voters in great numbers.

Exit polls are dubious at best—they failed to predict the correct results in 2000 or 2004, and were significantly off in 2008 as well. But no matter how bad they are, pundits seem to accept their results as gospel, so we’ll work with them. They didn’t show Obama winning because the public was uneasy about a potential theocracy—for the most part, Obama voters cited the economy and a desire for change as their primary reasons for voting Democrat. Social issues didn’t depress the Republican vote—in fact, given the fact that McCain won primarily socially conservative Southern states, it might have prevented an Obama landslide.

Moving beyond exit polls, actual Republican voters spoke by voting down pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani. For years, Democrats have attempted to mollify pro-lifers by supporting “safe, legal, and rare” abortions (without much success). There is little evidence that Republican opposition to abortion costs them many votes—on the contrary, it is the party’s attitudes on the economy and the war that lost the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Given the fact that there isn’t much evidence that appealing to social conservatives hurts Republicans with moderates, why do so many Republicans propose jettisoning this group? There is not, of course, only one answer, but I think much of the solution lies in the fact that many of those most vocal against social conservatives represent either the fiscal conservative or neocon wings of the party. President Bush’s fiscal and foreign relations policies have been incredibly damaging to the GOP’s reputation. Social conservatives are an insular group, and don’t have many defenders. This means that they form a perfect target for those within the conservative movement who don’t wish to admit that so many of the policies they endorsed are miserable failures.

60 Comments:

At November 14, 2008 at 7:18 AM , Blogger Bob said...

Democrats didn't win because of anything they stood for. They won because of Republican mistakes.
Republicans lost this election because Social conservatives voters abandoned the GOP.
Social conservatives should take responsibility for this loss. The American people lost confidence in the GOP's ability to govern because of misplaced priorities and ethical scandals. The Party should've focused on core kitchen table issues that impact voters' lives. Instead of cutting spending, cleaning up lobbying rules, reforming immigration laws, or balancing the budget. The social extremists have taken our Party off track. They're largely to blame for what happened in this election.
The GOP spent the last several years catering to social extremists. But social conservative leaders will always bully and threaten instead of working for the Party's future
They're an unreliable foundation who can't be trusted for long term support.
Offshore Drilling YES

Drill in ANWR YES

Appoint Constitutional Justices YES

Socialized health care NO

Gun ownership rights YES

Homosexual marriage Who cares?

Increase death tax NO

Increase taxes NO

Cut Gvt. spending YES

Bailouts NO

English the official language YES

Increase capital gains tax NO

Abortions I don’t care

Vouchers for education YES

Alternative energy YES

ID for voters YES

Affirmative Action NO

Death penalty YES

Illegal Immigration NO

Privatization of Social Security YES

Embryonic stem cell research NO

Assisted suicide NO

Global Warming LOL, what a joke

Congressmen follow same rules as everyone YES

Fairness doctrine NO

 
At November 14, 2008 at 8:52 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

Bob, I notice you've shifted your position with respect to Bailouts. Were you not at once an advocate of it?

Oddly enough, despite your pointed comments aimed at me in the past (such that you pegged me as too hardcore a conservative), I agree with most of your rundown.

I do find it a bit odd that you don't care about Abortions yet you are against embryonic stem cell research. My position on them is that I do not support Federal Funding for either.

The exceptions I take with your rundown are:

Alternative energy YES

There is nothing prohibiting the exploration of Alternative energy at present (save some moratoriums on building Nuclear Power Plants). While I am supportive of tax breaks to spur these industries, I do NOT support subsidies for them.

Vouchers for education YES

Vouchers NO. Tuition Tax Credits YES.

ID for Voters YES

I support an ID requirement but do not support a National ID card.

 
At November 14, 2008 at 9:20 AM , Blogger Bob said...

yes for Bank bail outs, no for corporate bail outs ... such as General Motors etc.
Big difference. But the book is still open on that as well.
You know when you let a company like GM go down that will effect a hell of a lot more people and companies than just GM.
You have to think about all the other companies that supply GM, the radio mfgs, the tire mfgs, and so on and on.
And how about the people that works in the 1000’s of car showrooms and the people that own the Car agencies. We are talking about millions of people. And then the whole thing snowballs.

It's not a cut and dry decision. It would be very easy to just say, the hell with them they didn't make a good car so let them go.
And we’ll pay in higher unemployment, and we’ll pay in lost economic production and reduced consumer spending on the pat of all who lose their jobs. It would be a huge and painful waste of currently existing labor and manufacturing capacity to just let such a huge enterprise collapse.
So like I said, the book is still open.
I think that maybe we need to help GM anyway we can. Not for the executives, but for the employees. I do not believe we can stand any more job losses. There is not enough job openings to put these job losses into. Way too many job losses.

 
At November 14, 2008 at 9:26 AM , Blogger Bob said...

You said..."I do find it a bit odd that you don't care about Abortions yet you are against embryonic stem cell research"

You are right...I made a mistake on that.
I guess I was typing to fast.

I am not against Abortions, but I'd rather call it Pro-Choice.
I fully support the right for Women to choose for them selves.

 
At November 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM , Blogger Z-man said...

It seems funny that we social conservatives have to defend ourselves all the time, seems we were here first.

 
At November 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM , Blogger Z-man said...

bob: "The Party should've focused on core kitchen table issues that impact people's lives."

What are you talking about? They did. With the exception of Bob Schieffer bringing up the subject in the last debate abortion hardly came up as a campaign issue at all. In fact I've been blogging about this lately given Obama's extreme record on abortion. It's not just with abortion though, this rift between fiscal and social conservatives was really highlighted well in the case of Terri Schiavo. Since David Brookes name was brought up here he saw it as a contradiction at the time that Christian conservatives tried everything to save her life yet they're always preaching the next life is better, not snarky maybe but typical for the FCs. Daniel is absolutely right, blame rests squarely with these neocons who messed up on Iraq and other issues.

"social extremists"

I also blogged quite recently who exactly are these people who get to define certain buzzwords like "extremist"? Opposition to abortion, even if it's not in the majority constitutes at least a very respectable minority, not all of them are evangelical Christians btw, many are blue-collar Catholics. Opposition to gay marriage is often cited as another example of social extremism yet most of the country is with them on this one at least. You really have to nail down this defintion of extremism.

 
At November 14, 2008 at 11:05 AM , Blogger Z-man said...

There is another analysis here to explain why Daniel's premise is right, that social conservatives don't really cost people elections. Reagan was staunchly pro-life and in one election he won 49 out of 50 states! I propose there is a sizeable group of people in this country that isn't that committed on abortion one way or the other, perhaps they are personally opposed to abortion in some sense but people on the other side who care most about the issue are those who plan on having one themselves sometime in their own life. Now you will say that's poorly put not to mention unfair, nobody plans a thing of this sort so let me put it another way, those who want it as an option to exercise someday should they feel the need arise. Now the first group, they may not agree with the social conservatives but the abortion issue doesn't really bother them, they're not that into it, they probably would never have one themselves but that's just them. So if my theory is right then social conservatives can't do that much harm in the first place. Put another way the first group might technically agree with at least some part of the Official Pro-Choice Position but it's not important enough for them to vote against a pro-life candidate.

 
At November 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM , Anonymous disgusted said...

Democrats didn’t win so much as Republicans lost.
The election was a negative referendum on President Bush and the Republican Congress, specifically their mismanagement of Iraq, their ethical problems, and their inability to balance the federal budget or refrain from trying to distract Americans..
What we witnessed last week was the final stage of the Conservative party as we knew it.
While Conservatives are currently spending countless hours justifying how and why we lost. To them it is unimaginable that we lost because the bulk of America no longer gave their ideology credence to continue. yet, they fail to understand that Obama did not impact the people just because he was black or new. He attracted young and old Americans that were sick of the cultural wars, race wars and a repressive ideology that ignored the fact that our country was crumbling before our eyes. He brought waht he called change to the table, something that we republicans or should I say Conservatives never do. For example I see the abortion issue here on this board and all over the blogs as well. Well let me tell you that half of America is peo choice, yes, like it or not they are. Abortion has no business to even be on the Conservatives platform. It's to hot an issue and should not be a political one.
If our own party can't agree on it then where the heck are we. We defeat our selves with that one issue alone.
If we are to advance our party and even think about regainging power and the white house then we MUST bring our own party together.
So, the only way for conservatives to win is to bring our selves into the modern times. Get off some of the outdated principles and look into the future. And then mabe we can regain the white house.

 
At November 14, 2008 at 12:04 PM , Blogger Matt Rose said...

disgusted said...
Democrats didn’t win so much as Republicans lost.


I would very much agree with him or her.

 
At November 14, 2008 at 2:04 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob said "I'm not agianst abortions. I'd rather call it pro-choice."
Why would you rather call it pro-choice? Because abortion sounds too bad? I think its stupid to call abortion pro choice. It really isn't the mother's decision to take the life of a innocent child.

 
At November 14, 2008 at 3:37 PM , Blogger Bob said...

Anonymous said... said...
"Why would you rather call it pro-choice? Because abortion sounds too bad? I think its stupid to call abortion pro choice. It really isn't the mother's decision to take the life of a innocent child."

I don't give a FLYING CRAP what you think
Anonymous One!

Afraid to use your name? Tell us what you really think, Miss Holier than thou

 
At November 14, 2008 at 3:58 PM , Blogger Bob said...

The COWARD said..Because abortion sounds too bad? I think its stupid to call abortion pro choice.

Well I'm NOT afraid to call it abortion.
abortion
abortion
abortion
abortion
Feel better now, Anonymous Coward?

 
At November 14, 2008 at 5:27 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoa, calm down, there, bob. No need to get so mad. Don't you think it is taking the life of an innocent child? If not, what do you think think it is?
-The Anonomous COWARD

 
At November 14, 2008 at 6:12 PM , Anonymous BOB said...

No

 
At November 14, 2008 at 6:15 PM , Anonymous Bob said...

Anonydolt, anonydork, anonyneuter, anonymook, anonyoufilthymotherF@#$%&*@#$%&*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
At November 14, 2008 at 6:21 PM , Blogger Bob said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At November 14, 2008 at 6:22 PM , Blogger Bob said...

Anonymous, I know who you are and I think you are a chicken shit little jerk off with "conservatives" principles.

Get it?

 
At November 15, 2008 at 5:04 AM , Anonymous Slice said...

i believe in abortion (pro choice) and the death penalty

i guess that makes me an independent

 
At November 15, 2008 at 7:13 AM , Blogger Myself said...

An abortion is nothing to be ashamed of. However, saying you are pro-choice and with the next breath saying you would never get an abortion is shaming those who have.

I hate that. “I’m pro-choice, but I would never get an abortion.” Or, “I’m pro-choice, but I would never want my girlfriend to have an abortion.” Or, “Abortion is never a good thing, but we need to protect a woman’s right to choose.”

 
At November 15, 2008 at 7:17 AM , Blogger Myself said...

I am pro-choice because it is a woman's right to choose. I would not have an abortion myself but i do not look down on others who would. Nobody knows what one person is going through, there could be a lot of reasons why someone would need an abortion and even if there isn't a good reason it should still be their choice. The only person who is in the position to decide if going through with a pregnancy is right is the mother.

 
At November 15, 2008 at 8:34 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Myself said, "abortion is nothing to be ashamed of"

It isn't? Murdering is not anything to be ashamed of? It is not the choice of a mother to decide if her child lives or not. It is not her life she's deciding. It's the life of a human being.

 
At November 15, 2008 at 8:36 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

And Bob, you said you don't think abortin is taking the life of an innocent child. You still haven't answered my question: What is it then?

 
At November 15, 2008 at 10:46 AM , Blogger Bob said...

Look, Missy, Don't screw around with me and don't talk to me like I'm on trial, who the hell do you think your are?
You can take your principles and So shove your nonsense where the sun don't shine. ...
I'm not one of your flunkies who you can talk like that to. You can check out my blog to see what I think about you

 
At November 15, 2008 at 11:30 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know why you won't answer my question: you can't.

 
At November 15, 2008 at 11:51 AM , Blogger Myself said...

Personally, I am pro-choice. Not pro-abortion.. but pro-choice. I believe that a woman should have the right to decide. Of course, abortion should not be taken lightly
Its the womans right to choose not the goverments and not any mans
The goverment shouldnt be able to say what a woman can and cant do with her body and nobody should judge her for that

 
At November 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM , Blogger Z-man said...

disgusted said: "What we witnessed last week was the final stage of the Conservative party as we know it."

Not really. Now I've been studying politics my whole life and one law I've come up with I call the 1/2 and 1/2 principle. Basically it states that no political party has permanent power and that's because we are so polarized as a country. Go through the years and you'll see what I mean.

myself said: "An abortion is nothing to be ashamed of."

Which is why I don't go out with pro-abortion women.

 
At November 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM , Blogger Z-man said...

myself said: "The government shouldn't be able to say what a woman can and can't do with her body."

Funny but this argument applies more to prostitution and secondly in the case of a male fetus that would make a woman into a hermie.

 
At November 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, but it's we're not just talking about her body - we're also talking about a baby. A human being. That baby has the right to live. Nobody should be allowed to take it away. Don't you agree that a woman is taking the life of a human?

 
At November 15, 2008 at 12:10 PM , Blogger Z-man said...

It's human feticide, no other way around it.

bob said: "Anonydolt, anonydork, anonyneuter, anonymook, anonyyoufilthymotherF@#$%&*@#$%"

(next comes the projectile vomiting)

myself said: "Personally I am pro-choice. Not pro-abortion...but pro-choice."

I blogged about this very recently in fact. Philosophically speaking it is impossible for man, being a rational creature to knowingly fight for something evil, ERGO the feminists must see some positive social benefit in it to fight so hard for it ERGO they are pro-abortion. This has to be the case otherwise that'd make them a bunch of freaks.

 
At November 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM , Blogger Mary Mary Quite Contrary said...

I think that the pro-life movement seeks to force their moral beliefs on others - grounded in their own religion or personal philosophy. The pro-choice movement doesn't make claims on the morality of abortion - I say to leave that as an individual choice for every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy. If they feel abortion is wrong and they want to give their child up for adoption, or keep it, I can support their decision. Pro-life people say Abortion is wrong period!
I am pro-choice because I don't think there is any reason why a woman should have to face all the consequences from something she did not do alone. If a guy can get a woman pregnant and then run away, there is no reason why she should be the one responsible for everything.
Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions from happening, it will only stop them from being safe.
Bringing an unwanted child into the world is irresponsible. That’s why I say that I am I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I believe that every woman should decide what to do with her own body without restrictions placed on her by a strongly religious or political government that ironically preaches the 200 year old doctrine of the separation of church and state.
I respect other people’s beliefs. I don’t necessarily agree with or understand them, so don’t impose them on me. My belief doesn’t impose on you.
I don’t want or need anyone making decisions for me. I’m a well-educated, mentally-competent human being. I don’t appreciate the government or anyone else thinking for me!!
Women are more than just baby-makers that men and or the Government can dictate to.

 
At November 15, 2008 at 3:43 PM , Blogger Mary Mary Quite Contrary said...

Look, the bottom line is, as long as you guys hold conferences calling American women and their doctors a bunch of murderers, and congratulating yourselves on your supposedly greater concern for life than the folks on the pro choice side, you'll never understand this issue. Women's rights are at the center of this issue. You guys have spent years trying to ignore them and focus your theological discussions about life. It hasn't worked, and it won't work.
Until you guys start living in the 21st Century and accept the sexual and feminist revolutions, your concerns about abortion will never go beyond preaching .

 
At November 15, 2008 at 4:03 PM , Blogger Bob said...

Z-man said...

(next comes the projectile vomiting)


That was as DUMB and as classless as your post.
What what else can we expect from the Soapbox gang?

 
At November 16, 2008 at 5:42 AM , Blogger My Left View said...

Dear Feminist freaks, Moralist freaks, Pro-life supporters and whoever else fits the bill;

Happy Roe vs. Wade day!
Frankly, I find it difficult to be diplomatic about this subject. It makes me very angry. I can see no pros to the idea behind your pro-life philosophy.
Pro-choice is without a doubt the only fair belief for women the world over. Pro-choice isn’t dictating that all women should have an abortion like some pro-lifers seem to believe, it simply is what it states – a choice, a decision a woman should be allowed to have no matter her circumstances, income, religious beliefs, or what have you. It is one of the precious few matters women in the U.S. have absolute control over in this day and age. Women have abortions for a wide variety of reasons and we should not be discriminated against or have our rights taken away because you don’t agree with it. We are an overpopulated country filled with ignorant people and if abortion prevents more ignorance from spreading, then there’s another plus mark on our board. Women are not baby-making machines and if we don’t want to be mothers then we shouldn’t have to be. If I am raped on the street and get pregnant by that rape, I don’t want some anonymous figure telling me that I should NOT have an abortion because of your beliefs. I have my own, thank you. One of the last remaining benefits of living in this country is that, I, as a woman am entitled to decide if I want to be a mother or not. Hell, if I get pregnant, I might give it up for adoption – preferably to a lovely gay couple who want a child and can provide a safe and loving home for him/her, but that’s my choice, not yours. Do you know how many unwanted babies there are in this country? Should I be forced to have a child because you think I should? NO! Did you ever consider what would happen if abortions were made illegal in the U.S. again? Women would still get abortions, but they’d be unsafe because they might very well be performed by uncertified doctors, and would probably take place in hazardous conditions – they don’t call it a back alley abortion for nothing. Thousands of women died when abortion was illegal. Don’t you think the sacrifice they were willing to make – in a time where anything remotely sexually deviant was considered taboo – is proof enough of how important legalized abortion really and truly is to our country? If a woman is willing to die in order to have an abortion? Ultimately, I think it would benefit both of our parties if sex education were made more readily available in schools. The younger the children are when we introduce the idea to them, the more apt they’ll be to pick up the knowledge and utilize it to the best of their ability. That way, there would be far less abortions because people would know the proper way to use birth control which would prevent accidental pregnancy. Win-win, right? Well, let’s hope so. But, just so you know, I will stomp you down if you get in my way - whether it's by picketing, rioting, debate or ass-kicking. Could we just get it thru the heads of the religious nutbars that this is a matter for the pregnant woman, AND NO ONE ELSE ? THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
Choice, thoughts, and decisions are what separate humans from animals. Please don’t make me become an animal because you disagree with me. If I don’t bother you, please grant me the courtesy of not bothering me.
So now I'll be labeled a heathen or an atheistor what ever, but I don't care. that is better than being called a religious right wing nut and a hypocrite. Religious beliefs must be kept out of gov.law, as all of us don't believe in that bull.
Pro-choicely Yours.

 
At November 16, 2008 at 7:01 AM , Blogger knowitall said...

They won because they had the mainstream media illuminati in total bias for them and their socialist ways.

 
At November 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM , Blogger Z-man said...

mary mary quite contrary said: "The pro-choice movement doesn't make claims on the morality of abortion."

That's moral agnosticism or a (preferred) inability to come to ultimate moral conclusions, it goes well beyond relativism and degrades man's intelligence by saying he doesn't have the reasoning power to judge acts like feticide.

"I say to leave that as an individual choice for every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy."

Then why are the choicers so adamantly against informed consent laws? because they're really pro-abortion that's why.

 
At November 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM , Blogger Z-man said...

bob said: "Z-man said...(next comes the projectile vomiting). That was as DUMB and as classless as your post."

I agree since I was forced to use your quote in the first place.

 
At November 16, 2008 at 12:34 PM , Blogger Z-man said...

mary mary quite contrary said: "Women's rights are at the center of this issue. You guys have spent years trying to ignore them and focus your theological discussion about life."

Religion has nothing to do with it, you're the one imbuing the debate with a theological significance (the pro-choice record always has the same skips).

 
At November 16, 2008 at 12:36 PM , Anonymous A Guest said...

This is a very touchy subject. But i have to put my two cents in the jar. I'm pro choice all the way. I mean it's really the mother's choice not society. If everyone would mind their own business this world would be a lot better place. Everytime I've talked about this with people they always state "What if that kid in the abortion is the next Einstein." Well my opinion is what if that kid was the next Hitler or the next Ted Bundy. What if that was the person that would of made the next big bomb that could and might wipe out the world. Where im trying to go is we don't know how the kid would be. People just say the good stuff to try and get people to feel bad about it all but really its a double edged sword. There's no possible way for us to know whether or not it could be a good thing or a bad thing. Not only that but I'd rather have people go to a sterile enviroment and have an abortion rather then having people in alley ways with hangers doing it. Not only that but at least it's not a total waste. I don't really see any difference in using aborted fetuses for stem cells research and a person donating organs. At least it's going to help someone down the line. And i garuntee you all think yea I would never do it but I want you to answer that question when you just got out of a wreck and you have a broken neck or back. Would you still preach about it or would you swallow your pride and save your life? But like I said if people would mind their own business the world would be a better place. Seperate religion from everything. Thats all pro life is. It just supported by religious people.

 
At November 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM , Blogger Z-man said...

my left view: "I can see no pros to the idea behind your pro-life philosophy."

you're here aren't you?

"We are an overpopulated country..."

so the cat's out of the eugenic bag, you really are pro-abortion aren't you?

"...filled with ignorant people"

typical elitism

"If I am raped on the street"

again 1% of all abortions, the real issue is abortion-on-demand as always, another skip in the record

"Thousands of women died when abortion was illegal."

As the former co-founder of NARAL ex-abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson in his Aborting America (Doubleday-1979) admitted these numbers were grossly inflated when in a typical year it might be 38. Also he points out the late Lawrence Lader was the brains behind the early anti-Catholic strategy of making abortion into a Catholic issue, giving it a theological thrust that would turn people off. Good luck finding this book in your average library though, there are censorious librarians around who shall remain nameless, they know who they are.

 
At November 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM , Blogger Matt Rose said...

I am for any WOMAN making a choice that suits her. I am for anybody who chooses to live their very best life. I am for PEACE on Earth good will toward all. I am not inclined to tell a women what she can and cannot do because I feel one way. Nor do I wish any women to impose their beliefs, hang-ups, psychosis and or superior attitudes on me.
There is supposed to be a seperation on church & state!

 
At November 16, 2008 at 12:52 PM , Blogger Z-man said...

a guest said: "it's really the mother's choice not society"

mother did you say? watch those typos!

"I don't really see any difference in using aborted fetuses for stem cells and a person donating organs."

Funny you should bring that up, not that long ago, in recent memory in fact the topic of using the organs of aborted fetuses for medical research, trafficking in fetal body parts was in the news, at least O'Reilly talked about it, but I think it all had a too shall we say Mengelian touch to it so let's focus on the embryos instead.

"That's all pro-life is. It's just supported by religious people."

You people are just obsessed with religion imo.

 
At November 16, 2008 at 12:56 PM , Blogger Z-man said...

matt rose said: "I am for any WOMAN making a choice that suits her."

& I'm all for not going out with her, that's my choice after all and I've even heard pro-choice men say the same thing, dunno, something very unsexy about it all.

"There is supposed to be a separation on church and state."

& keep my tax dollars out of the bedroom please.

 
At November 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM , Blogger Matt Rose said...

Z- Man, you are all over the place.. You can't spin abortion rights. You either rabidly believe that abortion is cold-blooded murder, or you don't believe the government has the right to decide what women do with their own bodies.

 
At November 16, 2008 at 1:03 PM , Blogger Z-man said...

I'm all over the map because it's such a multi-faceted issue and it's a body within a body btw. Interesting how liberals are not pro-choice on other issues, guns, smoking, school vouchers, tran-fats but that's another blog. My library session is almost at an end so until tomorrow. (Danny your blog gets a hell of alot of traffic, I'm jealous!)

 
At November 16, 2008 at 7:02 PM , Anonymous T R said...

Bob, I've noticed you still can't answered my question.

 
At November 17, 2008 at 3:12 AM , Blogger Bob said...

NOT can't but WON'T.
I don't talk to people that are Anonymous (tr)
tr my ass!

 
At November 17, 2008 at 3:18 AM , Blogger Bob said...

T R said...
Bob, I've noticed you still can't answered my question.


t r (LMAO), your posts are like your autograph, you're not fooling me.
you're questions are always the same, it's like a picture of you.
Don't you realize how stupid it is?
Maybe when you use our REAL name, I will answer you.

 
At November 17, 2008 at 6:18 AM , Blogger Bob said...

No I changed my mind...who cares about what questions you asked? I'm not going to answer you and play you STUPID childish games, So go play in traffic!

You and your buddie are a pain in the ASS.
I’m so flippin’ tired and sick of these snotty, self-righteous people, (Blech),who play games.

 
At November 17, 2008 at 10:37 AM , Anonymous Strom Thurmond said...

bob you are the childish one... Resorting to name calling like a pocked marked cocaine addictted teenager from some conservative institution such as Yale...

 
At November 17, 2008 at 1:38 PM , Blogger Z-man said...

Go to www.not-the-left.blogspot.com
for two brand new fresh episodes of the abortion debate, this is too easy.

 
At November 17, 2008 at 2:04 PM , Blogger Bob said...

Z-man said...
Go to www.not-the-left.blogspot.com



I don't think I will, you can play games with HER, I won't!

 
At November 17, 2008 at 2:36 PM , Blogger My Left View said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At November 17, 2008 at 2:45 PM , Blogger My Left View said...

As someone who supports choice, I also support a woman's right to have a baby as well as her right to not have one. I therefore favor programs that encourage adoption and make adoption easier so as to provide alternatives to expectant mothers. A woman shouldn't have to get an abortion in order to keep her job. So I support President Clinton on the Family Leave Law that was enacted. Pro choice isn't the same as pro abortion. It means choice to either have or not have children.

There are people here who believe abortion is murder. I'm not one of them. As a society, we make choices of life and death all the time. For example, we let people in Africa starve to death all the time. Is that murder? I think it's comes closer to murder than abortion. But they aren't Americans you might say. So what. Is life determined by geographical location? As long as we let people starve to death or die in hospitals because of lack of money to pay for medical treatment, don't try to tell me abortion is murder.
You can be whatever you want. Nobody has the right to impose their morals on me. A woman should be able to control her own body. Abortion must be kept legal, especially for all the rape and incest pregnancies. If abortion is outlawed women will be forced to go to back-alley abortion clinics. I want a choice, when it comes to my health and my body, to me it’s that plain and simple.
Hell, if I get pregnant, I might give it up for adoption – preferably to a lovely gay couple who want a child and can provide a safe and loving home for him/her, BUT that’s my choice, not yours
I cannot nor do I want to convince you to share my convictions. That is my opinion about abortions.

 
At November 17, 2008 at 4:02 PM , Anonymous T R said...

bob said "you're questions are always the same, it's like a picture of you."
Maybe that's because you won't answer my question.

Bob, I think you are just making excuses so you don't have to answer my question.

 
At November 17, 2008 at 5:22 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There are people here who believe abortion is murder. I'm not one of them."

Why don't you think it's murder? Isn't it killing a innocent human?

 
At November 17, 2008 at 5:22 PM , Anonymous T R said...

"There are people here who believe abortion is murder. I'm not one of them."

Why don't you think it's murder? Isn't it killing a innocent human?

 
At November 18, 2008 at 7:19 AM , Blogger Z-man said...

Question and for the moment this might be an extreme theoretical example. Let's say overnight by some miracle everyone became pro-life, even doctors were unwilling to perform them, would you then have the government force doctors to perform abortions on women who want them? Don't laugh, this is exactly NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's position. So what do all the anti-informed choicers have to say on this? A followup, how far into the pregnancy are you willing to go? Let's say 24 weeks which is quite common, by what alchemy does the fetus get human personhood at the stroke of midnight let's say but not 2 or 3 days before the exact moment of the 24th week? Also, if you're morally opposed to abortions after say 12 or so weeks why go to a clinic that proudly advertises them to the 24th? Pro-choice is largely about emotion, logic doesn't reign supreme here.

 
At November 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM , Anonymous T R said...

So, Bob, did I win this argument? You seem unable to respond to me.

 
At November 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM , Blogger Z-man said...

Overall I really hate this term "pro-choice", even if I didn't feel the way I do I find it's not very useful. Whenever people use it all it tells me is your political views on abortion and these ain't in any sharp detail either as we've seen (still waiting for answers to my innocent questions). Pro-choice is just the most rational thing to say when you're outnumbered at some Manhattan cocktail party, it sounds good but it doesn't nail down your personal views on abortion. Also many liberals who are pro-choice are hardly pro-choice about anything else, it's...we need to come up with something else.

 
At November 29, 2008 at 1:17 PM , Blogger knowitall said...

I agree, there needs to be another term, because that one bothers me too. Almost as much as the lies the left-wing illuminati tell.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home