Parties Seize On Abortion Issues in Midterm Race

[CaseyJones]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/us/politics/parties-seize-on-abortion-issues-in-midterm-race.html


When the Republican National Committee gathers for its winter meeting here on Wednesday, the action will start a few hours late to accommodate anyone who wants to stop first at the March for Life, the annual anti-abortion demonstration on the National Mall. And if they need a lift to the meeting afterward, they can hop on a free shuttle, courtesy of the Republican Party.

“We thought it only fitting for our members to attend the march,” said Reince Priebus, the party chairman.

Abortion is becoming an unexpectedly animating issue in the 2014 midterm elections. Republicans, through state ballot initiatives and legislation in Congress, are using it to stoke enthusiasm among core supporters. Democrats, mindful of how potent the subject has been in recent campaigns like last year’s governor’s race in Virginia, are looking to rally female voters by portraying their conservative opponents as callous on women’s issues.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Because the GOP knows about tact when it comes to women's issues...

[Brett85]

Because the GOP knows about tact when it comes to women's issues...

Abortion certainly is a women's issue, because about 50% of the babies who have been murdered were female.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand should say that its wrong to give money to countries that fund baby-murder.

[Tod]

Here, folks, let's argue about this issue that, while important in and of itself, is also important as a means of taking the discussion away from other important issues such as the growth of government spending and increasing dependence upon handouts...

[Brian4Liberty]

False left right. Only fitting that this comes from the GOP establishment. Other key issues contemplated for front stage: creation vs. evolution, men vs. women, race wars and gay marriage. The war on drugs was discussed, but it was determined to be a one sided issue now, and no longer divisive enough.

[Brian4Liberty]

Who can resist?

http://groundreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/red-herring1.jpg

[Brett85]

Here, folks, let's argue about this issue that, while important in and of itself, is also important as a means of taking the discussion away from other important issues such as the growth of government spending and increasing dependence upon handouts...

If you truly believe that abortion is murder, that it's taken the lives of 55 million innocent human beings, I can't really see how you can say that that issue is less important than government spending and handouts.

[Christian Liberty]

If you truly believe that abortion is murder, that it's taken the lives of 55 million innocent human beings, I can't really see how you can say that that issue is less important than government spending and handouts.

I still agree with you but I'd qualify it a bit.

First of all, I take as a given that government cannot effectively prevent abortion. Not that they shouldn't, but that they can't. Until you change the culture to where people view abortion as a heinous, unspeakable act the way we do, it just won't happen. And jury nullification would be used, which might help the liberty movement in other ways (Getting jury nullifcation more openly on the table) but it would not help prosecute abortionists.

Second of all, I take as a given that if government were eliminated, or at least drastically reduced to a a constitutional level, abortions would be reduced significantly because government would no longer be paying for them, either directly or indirectly.

Third, most Republican politicians are more using abortion as an excuse for government control and police statism than actually caring about protecting the unborn. You can see it with people like Rick Santorum who vote to fund Planned Parenthood even while railing against Ron Paul for saying that homicide a state-level issue.

And finally, if you take the government funding (Which all libertarians agree is wrong) out of the equation, abortion is a form of civilian murder, not government murder. Which does, to some extent, reduce the gravity of the offense at the governmental level, despite the fact that it is still heinous. Its one thing to do nothing and allow murder to occur, its another thing to actually commit murder yourself.

All that being said, I still think abortion is a very important issue, it just doesn't trump every other issue for me like it does for some... because of the logic used above. Even still, I'd never vote for a candidate who endorsed Roe v Wade for President...

[Brett85]

I still agree with you but I'd qualify it a bit.

First of all, I take as a given that government cannot effectively prevent abortion. Not that they shouldn't, but that they can't. Until you change the culture to where people view abortion as a heinous, unspeakable act the way we do, it just won't happen. And jury nullification would be used, which might help the liberty movement in other ways (Getting jury nullifcation more openly on the table) but it would not help prosecute abortionists.

Second of all, I take as a given that if government were eliminated, or at least drastically reduced to a a constitutional level, abortions would be reduced significantly because government would no longer be paying for them, either directly or indirectly.

Third, most Republican politicians are more using abortion as an excuse for government control and police statism than actually caring about protecting the unborn. You can see it with people like Rick Santorum who vote to fund Planned Parenthood even while railing against Ron Paul for saying that homicide a state-level issue.

And finally, if you take the government funding (Which all libertarians agree is wrong) out of the equation, abortion is a form of civilian murder, not government murder. Which does, to some extent, reduce the gravity of the offense at the governmental level, despite the fact that it is still heinous. Its one thing to do nothing and allow murder to occur, its another thing to actually commit murder yourself.

All that being said, I still think abortion is a very important issue, it just doesn't trump every other issue for me like it does for some... because of the logic used above. Even still, I'd never vote for a candidate who endorsed Roe v Wade for President...

I don't necessarily disagree, but I was just saying that I don't think I would ever support a pro choice candidate for any office. I guess there's a possibility that I could support a pro choice libertarian like Peter Schiff, since he at least supports overturning Roe v. Wade. A President Schiff Presidency that resulted in Roe v. Wade being overturned would at least greatly help the pro life cause, even though that wouldn't actually be his intention.

[twomp]

If you truly believe that abortion is murder, that it's taken the lives of 55 million innocent human beings, I can't really see how you can say that that issue is less important than government spending and handouts.

Because no matter how much you pound the same argument into the ground over and over again, roughly 50% of the population will disagree with you no matter what you say. But go ahead and play their game. It's how the GOP is able to nominate "pro-life" people like McCain and Romney. While the rest of the country crumbles to the ground because of issues where you will NEVER be able to convince the other side of.

[Lucille]

You know, just once I would love to see the bases not go for the red meat that the Ruling Class throws out to set us at each other's throats.