posted on June 28, 2004 12:06:55 PM newThe Empty Cradle Will Rock
How abortion is costing the Democrats voters--literally.
BY LARRY L. EASTLAND
Monday, June 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
More than 40 million legal abortions have been performed and documented in the 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion legal. The debate remains focused on the legality and morality of abortion. What's largely ignored is a factual analysis of the political consequences of 40 million abortions. Consider:
• There were 12,274,368 in the Voting Age Population of 205,815,000 missing from the 2000 presidential election, because of abortions from 1973-82.
• In this year's election, there will be 18,336,576 in the Voting Age Population missing because of abortions between 1972 and 1986.
• In the 2008 election, 24,408,960 in the Voting Age Population will be missing because of abortions between 1973-90.
These numbers will not change. They are based on individual choices made--aggregated nationally--as long as 30 years ago. Look inside these numbers at where the political impact is felt most. Do Democrats realize that millions of Missing Voters--due to the abortion policies they advocate--gave George W. Bush the margin of victory in 2000?
The number of abortions accumulate in size and political impact as the years roll along. Like an avalanche that picks up speed, mass, and power as it thunders down a mountain, the number of Missing Voters from abortion changes the landscape of politics. The absence of the missing voters may not be noticed, but that doesn't mean its political impact disappears. As seen during a famine, what no longer exists becomes as relevant as what does.
Let's begin with the obvious: Children born in any given year arrive at voting age in 18 years; conversely, children not born in a given year are "Missing Voters" 18 years later. Permanently so, unless someone discovers a way to give birth to a teenager in a nine-month gestation period. This table gives the number of Missing Voters from abortion and election years affected:
The question arises: Who would these Missing Voters have been if they had reached voting age? What would their values have been? How would they have voted? What impact would they have had on the great debates in America, including the abortion debate? Here's what we know from several generations of social science research about children:
• They tend to absorb the values of their parents.
• They tend to have the same political views as their family (parents, siblings, immediate relatives) and share common views on political causes.
• They tend to develop the same lifestyle as their family.
I remember the guy at my 30th high school class reunion who looked over the people there and remarked, "I can't believe I came in person, while everyone else sent their parents!"
With these factors in mind, the internationally respected survey research firm Wirthlin Worldwide was commissioned to ask 2,000 respondents in a stratified random sample of adults the following question: "As far as you know, has anyone close to you had an abortion?" The emphasis here was on "close to you" in order to bring to mind only those people inside the respondents' circle of socio-demographically homogeneous family and friends.
Of the 2,000 respondents, 636 responded "yes." The various socio-demographic characteristics of these respondents were then imposed on the abortion statistics (Table 1, above), with a special emphasis on the 2000 and 2004 general elections to see what impact they likely would have made had the Missing Voters been present to vote in those two elections.
There were 105,405,100 votes cast for president in the 2000 general election, representing 51.2% of the Voting Age Population. The Missing Voters would have been 6,033,097 based on that portion of the 51.2% represented by (at their lower voting level) 18-24 year olds. This means that Missing Voters would have been 4.48% of all actual voters in 2000.
Given the extremely close result in 2000, these voters could have been a crucial factor in the outcome. This is borne out when viewed by political party as defined in the Wirthlin survey.
There is a significant difference between Republicans with someone close to them who have had an abortion, and Democrats with someone close to them who have had an abortion:
This tells us:
• Republicans have fewer abortions than their proportion of the population, Democrats have more than their proportion of the population. Democrats account for 30% more abortions than Republicans (49% vs. 35%).
• The more ideologically Democratic the voters are (self-identified liberals), the more abortions they have. The more ideologically Republican the voters are (self-identified conservatives), the fewer abortions they have.
This isn't particularly surprising given the core constituencies of both political parties. But translating percentages into numbers for the purpose of evaluating their impact on politics makes the importance of these numbers real. It's one thing to quote percentages and statistics, it's quite another to look at actual human beings. For example:
• There are 19,748,000 Democrats who are not with us today. (49.37 percent of 40 million).
• There are 13,900,000 Republican who are not with us today. (34.75 percent of 40 million).
• By comparison, then, the Democrats have lost 5,848,000 more voters than the Republicans have.
These Missing Americans--and particularly the millions of Missing Voters--when compounded over time are of enormous political consequence:
Let's look at the 2000 election to see what those 6,033,097 Missing Voters meant to its outcome. What would these Missing Voters have meant to the election in Florida?
In the actual popular vote for president in the 2000 general election in Florida, George W. Bush was declared the winner by 537 votes. But if the 260,962 Missing Voters of Florida had been present to vote, Al Gore would have won by 45,366 votes. Missing Voters--through decisions made in the 1970s and early 1980s, encouraged and emboldened by the feminist movement at the height of its power--altered the outcome of the U.S. presidency a generation later, in a way proponents of legal abortion could not have imagined.
Examining these results through a partisan political lens, the Democrats have given the Republicans a decided advantage in electoral politics, one that grows with each election. Moreover, it is an advantage that they can never regain. Even if abortion were declared illegal today, and every single person complied with the decision, the advantage would continue to grow until the 2020 election, and would stay at that level throughout the voting lifetime of most Americans living today.
The next question is: What do these numbers tell us about the 2004 election? If we use the seven closest states from the 2000 election as our guide, we can see what these Missing Voters would do to the vote in each state. This is important because most analysts today believe that the 2004 election is likely to be a replay of the 2000 election, except with an incumbent Republican president this time. Given the usual advantages of incumbency, the swing of marginal states from 2000--shoring up Republican victories and tipping the scales from Democrat to Republican in Democratic states--may very well determine the popular and electoral outcome in 2004.
The popular vote in these seven states, with 63 electoral votes in 2000, was less than 1% apart between the two candidates. By adding the votes of the Missing Voters, Democrats could have picked up Florida, and solidified their vote in the other six states (where election challenges could certainly have been seriously considered). The Democrats could have increased their popular and electoral count beyond the scrutiny of the courts and "the court of public opinion."
This table shows the actual vote from 2000, then shows what the change would be in 2004 with all else remaining the same, except that the Missing Voters were added. Numbers in parentheses are 2004 electoral votes.
A similar scenario can be constructed for the U.S. Senate races this fall. The Republican advantages are real: more Democrats (19) are up than Republicans (15), more Democrats are retiring than Republicans (and from advantageous states for Republicans), and Republicans usually do better in a presidential election year. Generally accepted "givens" are:
• Incumbents typically win. In fact, 96% of incumbent U. S. Senators win re-election. The McCain-Feingold legislation will not change this. No legislation passed in the name of reform--including the 1974 post-Watergate campaign finance reform legislation--has ever increased the challenger advantage or lessened the incumbent advantage, no matter what the intended goal.
• In open-seat contests, the party vacating the position cannot "hand over" the seat to the new party nominee. Traditional factors are far more important, such as a strong candidate, solid organization, appealing issues and sound finance. Still, long-term party allegiance is a major factor.
Consequently, the impact of Missing Voters could be considerable in states where the electorate is evenly divided between the two parties over a period of elections. Consider the open seats whose incumbents have chosen not to run for re-election. The following figures represent all votes cast in those states in 1996 and 2000 in the last two presidential year general elections for candidates to Congress--a traditional bellwether for predicting base federal candidate vote.
If voting patterns in the past two presidential elections (combined) hold true for 2004, then five of these states should be an advantage for the GOP: Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Conversely, three states would lean Democratic: Georgia, Illinois and Louisiana.
What do the Missing Voters take away from the Democrats in each state?
Most major reporting and analyzing institutions would rate each of the open seats, with the possible exception of Illinois, as "too close to call" at this stage of the campaign. When election time comes, these Missing Voters will be missed. The most expensive campaign a candidate will ever run, the adage goes, is the one he or she loses. For half of these candidates, this will be that most expensive campaign.
Abortion has caused missing Democrats--and missing liberals. For advocates so fundamentally committed to changing the face of conservative America, liberals have been remarkably blind to the fact that every day the abortions they advocate dramatically decrease their power to do so. Imagine the number of followers that their abortion policies eliminate who, over the next several decades, would have emerged as the new liberal thinkers, voters, adherents, fund-raisers and workers for their cause.
Look at the results:
• Six out of 10 Americans call themselves conservatives. Only a quarter of them are having abortions.
• A little more than one-third of Americans call themselves liberals. More than four in 10 are having abortions.
• This means that liberals are having one third more abortions than conservatives.
By combining party and ideology, an even sharper contrast comes into focus:
Liberal Democrats are having both more abortions--and more abortions as a percentage of their ideological and political group--than either of the other groupings.
As liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and supporters through events, fund-raisers, direct mail and every other form of communication available, they achieve results minuscule in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from their own abortion policies. It is a grim irony lost on them, for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.
Ebayauctionguy, I'm surprised that you care about shoring up the Democratic voting base!
Better solution....
Since most abortions are performed because the poor democrats can't afford children, I propose that you wealthy Republican dudes start sharing your wealth! The abortion rate will decrease and Aha! Democrats will increase. We might also take a lesson from Catholic policy and require that democrats marry only democrats...increasing our flock even more!!! Hahaha
posted on June 28, 2004 02:13:46 PM newThe debate remains focused on the legality and morality of abortion. What's largely ignored is a factual analysis of the political consequences of 40 million abortions. Consider:
• There were 12,274,368 ......because of abortions from 1973-82.
• In this year's election, there will be 18,336,576......because of abortions between 1972 and 1986.
• In the 2008 election, 24,408,960.....because of abortions between 1973-90.
The thing I find most intriguing about this is how faulty the math is.
Then we get to follow it up with some good old fashioned faulty logic....
• They tend to develop the same lifestyle as their family.
I think there are more than enough homosexuals in our society to dispell that one out of hand.
But Wait! This one is a giggler...
• Six out of 10 Americans call themselves conservatives. Only a quarter of them are having abortions.
OK - so 60% are conservative, 25% of them have had an abortion... this would represent 15% of the population
[i[ • A little more than one-third of Americans call themselves liberals. More than four in 10 are having abortions.[/i]
Lets go with 35% as liberal.... I'll go with 4.5 or 45% (notice the precise numbers for conservatives and soft for liberals) who have had abortions for an overall percentage of about.... hmmm 14.85 percent.
This gives us a total percentage of of nearly 30% of Americans who have had an abortion. Now this seems like kind of a weird number. Afterall, aren't 50% of Americans also men? Nowhere in here have they stated that these numbers are based on women. It gets even better when you remember that these numbers are not based on first person accounts.
With these factors in mind, the internationally respected survey research firm Wirthlin Worldwide was commissioned to ask 2,000 respondents in a stratified random sample of adults the following question: "As far as you know, has anyone close to you had an abortion?" The emphasis here was on "close to you" in order to bring to mind only those people inside the respondents' circle of socio-demographically homogeneous family and friends.
Apparently these results are a result of polling friends of those who had abortions. The next logical question is, when they were figuring out the political leanings, was that also according to the friend?
Hey boss.... this one says cousin Marge had an abortion and considering that cousin Marge smokes and drinks and thought Kennedy was kinda cute, why she must be a li'bral. Chalk another liberal abortion
Oh wait... they said "demographically homogeneous", in other words... Jane is conservative so all of her and family must be conservative....
EAG - Did you really post an article that found it's basis in bad math, hearsay and one rather stupid assumption?
Thanks for the giggles.........
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 28, 2004 06:22:55 PM new
I like your idea, Helen. Isn't this abortion thing worn out yet? Between discussing abortions and gay rights, isn't there anything else to talk about? Hey, here's one: Me on a camel. Have at it.
The worse thing I ever rode in my life. I have no clue how the desert folk do it! STINKY!
Yes, democrats should only marry democrats and they should have little democrat children. Before you know it (since poor folk are mainly democrat and you know how they reproduce. Isn't that what the right always says?) the world will be properly populated.
Cheryl
[ edited by cblev65252 on Jun 28, 2004 06:24 PM ]
posted on June 28, 2004 07:34:56 PM new
As long as abortions are legal they will never go away. Now imagine they want to legalize partial birth abortions. It's a crime. I know the're many in here that agree with abortion but look in the mirror. Did you mother think of abortion?
With so many marriages that have no children and can't have them why not let them adopt rather than abort. These babies can even be used in a same sex unions but to destroy them is terrible. You think beheading is horrible then think of Partial Birth Abortion....
posted on June 28, 2004 07:51:08 PM new
::With so many marriages that have no children and can't have them why not let them adopt rather than abort.>>
I don't think there is anything stopping these people from adopting Libra. There are thousands of children out there that want to be adopted. Why do these people get to pick and choose at the expense of someone that does not want to go thru pregnancy with a child that they cannot or do not want to raise?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 28, 2004 08:30:40 PM new
" Why do these people get to pick and choose at the expense of someone that does not want to go thru pregnancy with a child that they cannot or do not want to raise? "
Then they shouldn't get pregnant plain and simple. Yes Simple. There are ways that you can have sex and not get pregnant. But protection is not the way of life in the US, abortions are readily available. Did that unborn fetus ask to be aborted. Don't they deserve a chance at life? Americans are complaining that 800 military have been killed in Iraq, how many fetus' have been aborted.
Of course Rape is different as that can't be stopped.
posted on June 28, 2004 09:58:24 PM new
I've always wondered what wolrld people live in that "well, they shouldn't have gotten pregnant" rolls so easily off their tongue. I gues they were never young and impulsive, never had birth control fail, they have only had well planned pregnancies, oh yeah... and Eddie Haskel lives down the street.
Accidents happen and no one has the right to tell the 16 year old who had sex for the first time with her boyfriend that her sentence is nine months of pregnancy, and an extra year of school or the college student that everything needs to be put on hold or the crazed house wife trying to make the money stretch that instead of making it four ways, it's gotta go five now because not only has public opinion decided that she has to have this kid, they have also decided that she deserves no help in raising it because she is the one who decided to have it.... oh wait... she didn't decide to have it... they made her have it.... but that is irrellevent right?
I think conservatives are going to have to make up their min on this one beofre they should continue. If you think the government should demand that every child be born, how do you reconcile that with your belief that the government then accepts no responsiblility once they are?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 28, 2004 10:18:13 PM new
I believe if your going to play then you have to pay.
So it is alright to abort fetuses but not kill people. What is the difference. We will never agree on this because you think abortion is fine. If you say no to that because of 16 year olds or crazed housewives there is something wrong.
Go play, if you get pregnant then we will end it with an abortion. Easy as that. Well then what happens if that abortion leads to the death of the women during surgery then what. (of course sue the doctor}.
For the crazed housewife. Isn't it easier on the body and probably cheaper to have their tubes tied or the husband have a vasectomy?
We will never agree on this subject as we haven't on many of the other ones. I don't find that hard to believe.
posted on June 29, 2004 12:16:28 AM new
Libra says,"I believe if your going to play then you have to pay.
So it is alright to abort fetuses but not kill people. What is the difference. We will never agree on this because you think abortion is fine. If you say no to that because of 16 year olds or crazed housewives there is something wrong.
Go play, if you get pregnant then we will end it with an abortion. Easy as that. Well then what happens if that abortion leads to the death of the women during surgery then what. (of course sue the doctor}.
For the crazed housewife. Isn't it easier on the body and probably cheaper to have their tubes tied or the husband have a vasectomy?
We will never agree on this subject as we haven't on many of the other ones. I don't find that hard to believe. ""
I love the line about "if you'RE going to play then you have to pay"
Tell that to the 11 or 12 year old who's pregnant by daddy or Uncle Bob!
AND WHO PAYS! Have you ever in your tiny narrow little mind thought of the baby born to the 11 year old (and do you REALLY think only 16 tear olds and "crazed housewives" have abortions???)
Libra, what the hell is a "crazed housewife"???
If a baby is unwanted it's unwanted and I bet there's plenty of babies who, if they had a choice, would rather not be born with fetal alcohol syndrome, crack addicted or just plain unwanted. And, these children are NOT adopted and I, through my taxes, pay for their care.
AND, there's more deaths from abortions when it's ILLEGAL than legal.
And yes, childless couples COULD adopt but rather than take care of the children ALREADY here they just need to have their own flesh and blood because they're too special to just take any old NEEDY child.
How many have you, LIbra, adopted????
AND, if abortion was ruled illegal ONLY the RICH will be able to fly to Europe, have a nice clean abortion and be home in time for bridge on Monday!
And isn't this what Republicans want...to control the poor but do anything THEY want?
And for all those control freaks who vote Republican because they have an anti-choice platform...HAVE YOU NOTICED WE STILL HAVE ABORTION!?????
AND LIBRA no one in their right mind thinks abortion is "fine" but it is just plain WRONG to try to control what a woman does with her own body!
posted on June 29, 2004 12:42:04 AM new
Now as usual crowfarm you haven't read previous posts. I guess you call that selective reading. I didn't say crazed housewives Fenix started it. Before you post be sure you read everything not just the parts you want. I did also say in my previous posts Of course Rape is different as that can't be stopped. I don't usually bold but you crowfarm have a problem with reading. I think you have selective reading. You select what you want and leave the rest alone.
Yes and you said that "its just plain WRONG to try to control what a woman does with her own body!" Tell that to the unborn fetus.
Can't adopt them if the women have abortions so there are no statistics. The only statistics are the ones where american couples are now going overseas to adopt foreign children. I know you don't have any thank goodness.....pitty that poor child.
It takes one to know one crowfarm. My tiny little mind as you call it has done some fantastic things in my life time and one thing is I usually don't criticize anyone or call people names. I had some pretty good upbringing.
Well at least your doing something good with your tax money.
One more thing be sure and critize all my miss spelled words. Your good at that...
posted on June 29, 2004 03:17:36 AM new
Slightly off topic - but I suspect overseas adoptions are so popular because the U.S. adoption rules are so screwed up. I had a friend who couldn't adopt a baby in the U.S. because the combined age of herself (she was in her early 30s at the time) and her husband was too high. Also, I know that there are situations where a birth parent can come back and "claim" the adopted child after it has lived with the adopted parents for years.
On the abortion topic - I identify more with pro-life than pro-choice. But yet I seem to see it a little differently than most people. I'm not particularly concerned with losing future voters of any party. My concern has always been with the souls of the people having and giving abortions.
Concerning the legality, I think abortions should continue to be legal unless there would come a time when there is a clear mandate (not just a small majority) among U.S. citizens that it should be otherwise.
posted on June 29, 2004 08:22:34 AM new
Crowfarm....
::Libra, what the hell is a "crazed housewife"??? ::
Just for clarification... I used the term first, Libra simply referred to it in her post. I was referring to the woman at home struggling to make the money coming in stretch to pay the bills, feed and care for her family of four who suddenly discovers that there may be a fifth on the way.
Libra -
I notice that you keep bringing up these poor childless couples that are forced to go overseast o find children but continually ignore when I bring up the number of children that are available for adoption here but are passed over because they are not exactly what these women want.
Many of these couples are adopting because the women waited too long to start a family. They lead exactly the life they wanted to live without regards and then when they decide they want kids they still feel that they have the right to have exactly what they want, when they want it. For some reason you think that they are supposed to inspire compassion and an overwhelming desire for other women to put their lives on hold and do something that they have no desire to do just so that someone that has done exactly what she wanted can once again, get what she wants. Why is that?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 29, 2004 08:50:55 AM new
Most couples want newborns and with the abortion rate in the US there are none to adopt. Of course there are older ones, children who have gone from foster care to foster care and now are too old to adopt because they are set in their ways. What I mean by that is it is hard to bring an adult child into a home and try and change the values of that child to conform with the values of the new family. On paper it sounds good but in real life it is difficult.
I am not arguing that what I am saying with the abortion rate so high there are no babies any more. I also agree it is difficult for a 16 year old to raise a child because they are children themselves. They want to have their child adopted but then they want say in how the adopted parents raise that child. I.E. I think it was Date line that had the program on adoptions. Or it was one of those news programs.
I also think in an adoption when the child is at an age where they understand adoption they should be told. When they become of age then if they wish find their real mother or father. It is always a plus when you have extended families.
posted on June 29, 2004 09:10:58 AM new
::Most couples want newborns and with the abortion rate in the US there are none to adopt.::
And for some reason you think these people should have exactly what the want at the expense of women that do not want to go thru pregnancy and childbirth as well as at the expense of other children that are seeking adoption.
:: Of course there are older ones, children who have gone from foster care to foster care and now are too old to adopt because they are set in their ways.::
I'm not talking about 16 year olds here Libra - I'm talking about the 4 and5 and 7 year olds that if they were adopted early in the game would never become the 16 year old with multiple foster homes under their belt.
:: also think in an adoption when the child is at an age where they understand adoption they should be told. When they become of age then if they wish find their real mother or father. It is always a plus when you have extended families.::
So now you have decided that not only must a woman give birth to a child that the does not want but that she must also live with the knowledge that this child may be aided by the parents who got exactly what they want in revisting this whole situation upon her later in life.
You seem to have given absolutely no consideration whatsoever to the pregnant women here. Does she get any choices or does she just become the brood mare of the spoiled and infertile?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 29, 2004 09:21 AM ]
posted on June 29, 2004 09:19:43 AM new
I don't know why the Republicans are against abortion especially if what the poster says is true and it's mostly Democrats getting them.
After all, if Deomocrat numbers go down the Republicans could win an election WITHOUT cheating!
posted on June 29, 2004 10:53:27 AM new
I am against abortion because abortion kills innocent babies. Babies that have no chance at life. Again fenix you assume things that aren't my way of thinking. I state my opinion, yes my opinion and then you come in a judge it.
Now I can hear you say what about the soldiers that are being killed in iraq. They chose to join the armed services that is the risk they are taking.
Granted some never thought they would be going to war but that is the chance they took.
Obviously you didn't see that program about young women giving up their children and what they wanted in the adoptive parents. It was a real interesting program. The real mothers chose the parents for their babies and one girl even has visiting rights.
Crowfarm I don't use obscenities so I wish you would refrain from using them when addressing me. It really doesn't sound lady like.
I am giving an opinion here and all you do is question me fenix.
Please read that paragraph that says {b}I think[/b] I didn't say everyone thinks, as we know in this forum.
Your last statement is cruel to a man or a women who cannot bear children. But of course with some of your posts you are cruel. It seems like no one can have a different opinion than yours.
Oh well it is a beautiful day in Wisconsin and it's time to take advantage of it.
posted on June 29, 2004 11:44:59 AM new
::Again fenix you assume things that aren't my way of thinking. I state my opinion, yes my opinion and then you come in a judge it. ::
Such as? If you are ging to toss that out, then please back it up with the example of where I have done this.
Here's an example....
::Now I can hear you say what about the soldiers that are being killed in iraq. They chose to join the armed services that is the risk they are taking.::
There's a huge leap and assumption. When have you EVER heard me bring combat deaths into an abortion arguement? In fact, I would love for you to find a single mention I have made regarding combats deaths in general.
You see Libra - i would NEVER make that leap for one very simple very basic fact. I don't consider the fetus at all in the first trimester of pregnancy. It is not a sustainable life at that point in time, it is a growing organism. At the point at which the fetus becomes capable of self sustaining existance, I feel that abortion is wrong. The mother had the time and opportunity to deal with the situation in a legal, reasonable and rational manner and chose not to. At that point in time I believe that you have accepted a certain degree of responsibility that you should be held answerable to.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 29, 2004 11:54:23 AM new
::Your last statement is cruel to a man or a women who cannot bear children. But of course with some of your posts you are cruel. It seems like no one can have a different opinion than yours::
Was that to me or to Crow? Do you honestly want to start the personal attack game again Libra? I thought I was being civil and we were having an exchange of differing opinions and viewpoints and now you want to go on the attack?
As for my final statement about the spoiled and infertile? There is nothing cruel about it. People that think that they get to have exactly what they want, when they want it, at the expense of others are spoiled. What would you call them? Is there a different word you would use?
::I am giving an opinion here and all you do is question me fenix.:::
Call me kooky, but I think that is why they call them "Discussion Boards"
You seem to want to give your opinions but not be asked for the rational behind them. Much as you give out "facts" but give no basis for them (i.e. - Parochial School Busing)
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 29, 2004 12:02:56 PM new
I think most here know my opinions on abortion....so I won't go into all that again.
But it does appear to me fenix that the 'left' condones 'unrestricted' abortions while not [usually] supporting the death penalty, being so upset at all the soldiers who are killed in combat and don't want to see animals destroyed. But somehow view this differently when it comes to forming, human life.
I've always wondered what wolrld people live in that "well, they shouldn't have gotten pregnant" rolls so easily off their tongue. I gues they were never young and impulsive, never had birth control fail, they have only had well planned pregnancies. It's that we [not all of us] think people need to take personal responsibility to PREVENT the pregnancies...rather than to destroy live once it has begun. And...if accidents happen, as they will, don't be so quick to use abortion as the only means of dealing with a child you don't want.
fenix - Your personal list of how you'd draw the line on abortions is closer to my 'compromised' way of dealing with this problem. BUT the problem is those who support abortions-on-demand....want absolutely NO restrictions placed on abortions. To me, that drives those of us in the middle to chose to support the extremists on both sides.
posted on June 29, 2004 12:21:25 PM newBut it does appear to me fenix that the 'left' condones 'unrestricted' abortions while not [usually] supporting the death penalty, being so upset at all the soldiers who are killed in combat and don't want to see animals destroyed. But somehow view this differently when it comes to forming, human life.
Linda - Are you trying to say that as a pro choice, pro death penalty, proud meet eating, anti war but accepting of the realities of combat american that I might be denied my "Liberal Card" .
I think part of the problem is that people think there is a single liberal agenda and that if you agree with any singular aspect of it, then you automatically fall into lock step on all of it. They seem to forget that most people examine issues on an individual basis and form their opinions based on personal beliefs and experiences. The people that fall into that lock step line of beliefs are the ones that, frankly, terrify me.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 29, 2004 02:48:37 PM new
fenix - Are you trying to say that as a pro.....
lol...no - I've stated many times I find YOU to be much more moderate 'leftie' than some here.
Although I read how I'm 'defined' here as about as far right as one can get....I don't see myself that way either.
What I think is a problem with this 'forum' that we communicate in ...is unless one gets very detailed in each and every post they make....certain assumptions are made, which are not always correct.
And with so many posting when one responds in 'general' to a discussion, some take it as an individual attack on them. It's that 'painting with a broad brush' we used to mention here.
Like in the case of abortion...you've stated your own 'comfort' line...and I've [before] stated mine. But since the two 'party's' hold an uncompromising position....then we must choose which party's 'side' most closely resembles our position.
posted on June 29, 2004 06:53:06 PM new
It was a gorgeous day here today. Finally some warm weather.
I have to admitt I was in favor of abortion until I saw my first ultra sound and saw the organs that can be seen in early stages. The tiny heart beating with the valves opening up. What a miracle. It didn't seem possible at such an early stage that organs can be seen.
The following URL is ultrasound images from early preganacy.
I am sorry fenix we haven't agreed since the first thread on ethics. I don't know why but you didn't believe that I was ethical and I will tell you I am. I believed in everything I said. I never discriminated against anyone and I never will.
posted on June 29, 2004 07:14:39 PM new
Libra - You and I are the same then, in that way. I once too was pro-choice until my life experience showed me just how abused this system has become. How it is used as a form of birth control by way too many....and how hard it is to see life inside a women, who could survive on it's own, not be allowed to for absolutely no reason other than the woman didn't 'deal' with ending her pregnancy sooner. It's hard to swollow I know...
It always has been and will continue to be a 'hot' issue of discussion.
posted on June 29, 2004 08:19:49 PM new
:: I don't know why but you didn't believe that I was ethical and I will tell you I am.::
Oh good god Libra. I did not accuse you of jack - the whole problem with that thread was that for some reason you took a general comment regarding a hypothetical situation and somehow turned into into a personal attack on you which you then turned around and tried to make a personal attack on me and then my mother. And in all your rage and bluster you never managed to comprehend that we were talking about hypothetical possibilities enabled by the law and ever since then you have seen attacks where they do not exist (i.e. - stating that I jumped all over you by informing you there was 1 n in my name).
Could you pleaase get over it already.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
