silly question about republican "platform"

knifeandfork · #1 02-15-2005, 01:22 AM

republicans for the most part support capital punishment? republicans are largely prolife?
so does that mean that republicans want to keep the babies alive just long enough to stick a needle in their arms? just curious.

PhatTBoll · #2 02-15-2005, 01:33 AM

Yeah. Just like Democrats want to kill people before they've even done anything to deserve it.

The contradiction runs both ways. Do you really not see that?

bholdr · #3 02-15-2005, 01:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
so does that mean that republicans want to keep the babies alive just long enough to stick a needle in their arms?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Just like Democrats want to kill people before they've even done anything to deserve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

<sigh>
more victims in the war of (mis)contextualization.

knifeandfork · #4 02-15-2005, 02:09 AM

i see your point. i dont necesarily disagree with you either. i chime in on the side of pro choice because of the dangers associated with abortion abolition especially concerning really young women. back alley kind of stuff is no good. i think a viable fetus is a life. if abortion were to be banned it would reduce the number of abortions yes but the increase in complications and deaths of women would skyrocket imho. on the other hand i can never find a reason to justify big brother poisoning/shocking/hanging/shooting someone to death. if i misuse words and sound like an idiot well, i am but just my thoughts.
jason

Matty · #5 02-15-2005, 03:10 AM

Hence why abortion is just about the only issue I can sorta agree with Republicans on.

I just don't understand how either side can be so extreme in their stance on the issue though. Essentially abortion debates ALWAYS come down to "exactly when does life begin?" Conception? Birth?

I think the general consensus is that it is some point between the moment of conception, and the moment of birth. But at what point? And why are so many Americans so ignorant about when during the pregnancy abortion is actually legal? My dad raised me believing that babies could be killed the day before they were to be born.

How anyone can answer that question with any degree of certainty just eludes me. So I think we should err on the side of caution .. not conception, but damn near close.

That's not an issue I'm sure enough of to weigh into my voting decisions though.

PhatTBoll · #6 02-15-2005, 02:54 PM

You completely misunderstood my post. My point wasn't that boiling the democratic platform into a simple contradiction was the right way to go. In fact my point is the exact opposite: there are reasons why large groups of people have a set of beliefs that at first glance seem to be contradictory. To his credit, the OP seems to have understood this and made a thoughtful response.

Here is my take:
The immediate outlawing of abortions would be a disaster for much the same reasons that the OP eventually mentioned. However, the advancement of genetics has made very real the possibility of small-scale eugenics. Very soon (and this may well be happening already) parents will be able to have genetic tests done on their unborn children. Are we really comfortable with allowing parents to abort children because they have down's syndrome? MS? The wrong set of genitalia? Blonde hair instead of brown? In a society that recognizes the right to abortion as fundamental, we have some real questions to wrestle with as genetic analysis of unborn children eventually becomes as common as sonograms.

Richard Tanner · #7 02-15-2005, 03:08 PM

We could "err" on the side of science. That is, a fetus displays all of the qualities of being "alive" at around 5-6 months, so we can outlaw abortion after the fourth month (just to be safe).

Cody

elwoodblues · #8 02-15-2005, 03:19 PM

That's kind of what Roe v. Wade did. Roe v. Wade set forth three different standards depending on the stage of fetal development --- basically the argument was that the state's interest increased as the fetus became more viable. The standard was (roughly):

First Trimester: The state cannot restrict the right to an abortion

Second Trimester: The state may regulate abortion to the extent that the regulation deals with the health/well-being of the mother

Third Trimester (fetal viability): The state may regulate/ban abortions except in the cases where the life/health of the other are at risk

Utah · #9 02-15-2005, 03:40 PM

This seems to be a pretty acceptable ruling on the face of it. However, is that how it is practically applied today?

Given that ruling, how can there be a debate on partial birth abortion?

elwoodblues · #10 02-15-2005, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to be a pretty acceptable ruling on the face of it. However, is that how it is practically applied today?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I don't know the current state of the federal law with regard to abortion --- largely because I think the courts have done much to polarize the debate on the issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Given that ruling, how can there be a debate on partial birth abortion?

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of reasons (I would suspect):
Whether, even if we don't like the practice, there should be FEDERAL regulation (Roe v. Wade was challenging a state law)
Roe v. Wade said that the state CAN proscribe abortions in the third trimester --- whether the state should is still open for discussion.