How does a pro-life VP help McCain win?
A pro-life VP allows McCain to focus on independent voters.
If McCain picks a pro-choice VP, he’ll be spending a large portion of his time trying to appeal to conservatives who are suddenly suspicious of him again. That disrupts his message and clouds his focus.
The easy way for McCain to OWN the base, is to pick a pro-life conservative VP (like Pawlenty, Romney or Palin).
From there McCain can adjust his message to focus on independents. His focus won’t be on placating the base but on energizing them.
The idea of moving to the center with a VP pick is foolish anyway. Independents don’t care about who McCain picks as VP. They care what he says and does.
When McCain picks a pro-life VP, most conservatives will allow him to reach out to independents on other issues.
It’s pretty clear that McCain is in a place where he can set to rest all his troubles with the base. Or he can make a pick that independents will ignore and that conservatives will be discouraged by.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“Why should McCain pick a pro-life VP?”
Because the killing of innocent children is an abomination.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Good point, Doug
August 20th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Why doesn’t Sam Brownback ever get mentioned? To me, he’s a great choice for Veep.
Mitt, T-Paw, Sam Brownback, Palin, etc… We have great choices folks!
August 20th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
This is what gets me about you pro-lifers. You imply that McCain has to choose a pro-life VP to mollify the base, and that independents are only concerned with what McCain says, and not his VP. That’s a double-standard if there ever was one.
Why can’t YOU just concern yourself with what McCain says (25 year pro-life record, pro-life presidency, etc) and ignore the VP? I’ll tell you why: because it always has to be “your way or the highway”.
I think McCain should do whatever he wants. It seems to be working for him pretty well so far.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Kavon, did you happen to get my email request?
Thanks ahead of time, if you did!
August 20th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
MWS, I’m focusing on the pragmatic reason in this post. The moderates on the board aren’t just suggesting McCain pick a morally unqualified VP. They’re suggesting he pick from VPs who would hurt his campaign.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
the lieberman thing was a ruse, to cut into obama’s coverage and hype the friday 29th rally in ohio.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Michael #5,
I did my friend. Sorry to not get back to you sooner.
I gotcha covered! Although, you may still beat me to it.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I find it interesting that conservative pro-lifers assume that many moderate independents (not to mention the 35% of the Republican party that is pro-choice) don’t care if their views on abortion and other social issues are represented, and that they can consistently be wooed on other issues.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
#4, well said. So what if the Vice President is pro-choice? I wasn’t aware that the Vice President appoints Supreme Court justices.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Patrick,
“This is what gets me about you pro-lifers. You imply that McCain has to choose a pro-life VP to mollify the base…Why can’t YOU just concern yourself with what McCain says (25 year pro-life record, pro-life presidency, etc) and ignore the VP? I’ll tell you why: because it always has to be “your way or the highway”.
Because the issue is non-negotiable. I also would not support McCain if he chose a nominee who favored slavery.
When you consider abortion the intentional taking of human life, it’s kina’ hard not to take it seriously. And if McCain picks a pro-choice, VP, he is telling the base, he doesn’t take it seriously.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
CBS/NYT also has a new national poll with Obama up by 3. That pollster has consistently low-balled Republican numbers for years.
It’s close baby. Real close.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Doug,
I also agree with your political calculus as well, and realize that was the point. I just threw out my first reaction upon reading the headline.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
#1 What’s an abomination is calling zygotes “innocent children.”
Orwell, anyone?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
You are in a very small minority then. About 90% of the electorate chooses to “negotiate” at least a little bit on the abortion issue, by making exceptions for things like incest, rape, life of the mother, etc.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Big S,
“I find it interesting that conservative pro-lifers assume that many moderate independents (not to mention the 35% of the Republican party that is pro-choice) don’t care if their views on abortion and other social issues are represented, and that they can consistently be wooed on other issues.”
Okay, if McCain split the baby and picked a pro-abort VP, what message would that send to all those pro-abort Republicans and moderates?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Metro,
“#1 What’s an abomination is calling zygotes “innocent children.”
Orwell, anyone?”
No. What’s Orwellian is giving human beings scientific-sounding names in an attempt to de-humanize them in people’s mind, and justify their killing.
Of course, you were the one who contending that NOT using birth control was a “war on sex.” Your unintended ironies are truly striking.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
We can’t continue to have a mass-slaughter of our future generations and expect to remain a strong country.
—
As for the “why care about the abortion views of the VP”? Well, then why care about the views of anyone but the nominee on anything?
In reality, we need to care about the views of the Veep because the VP can act as an extremely high-level advisor on issues, as well as being the heir apparent for the party’s nomination in eight - or, as the case may be with Mccain - four years.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
First of all, very few people are pro-abortion, they’re pro-choice. The message to pro-choice and moderate Republicans and independents would be that they’re still welcome in the party.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Big S,
“The message to pro-choice and moderate Republicans and independents would be that they’re still welcome in the party.”
Okay, does “welcome in the party” mean? We’ll take their votes? Was there any doubt about that? Or do you mean something more….
August 20th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Romney’s latter-day conversion to being “pro-life” will not satisfy most pro-lifers I know. Other than that, your logic is sound.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
So the scientific term for a single fertilized, undifferentiated egg is now Orwellian? Jeez.
Question: If a woman intentionally takes an action that prevents a zygote from developing, is she responsible for killing a human being?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
The reason why it matters is because many Republicans are single-issue voters, and independents are not. If you go pro-choice, you piss off single-issue voters. If you go pro-life, you haven’t pissed off pro-choice independents enough to get them to vote Obama.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
In case you haven’t noticed, those votes are starting to go elsewhere.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Of course they are welcome in the party - they are welcome to join a party and express their views - but they need to be mindful that the vast majority of the party disagrees with their pro-choice stance.
And, if you have to go beyond that, you can, but not by picking a pro-choicer to be the next standard bearer of the GOP.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Big S, it’s not an assumption just reality.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305456,00.html
“About 4 in 10 (39 percent) think that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy is simply unwanted, while half (50 percent) say it should be illegal.”
You folks in favor of convenience abortions are in the minority.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Big S,
And all those years, since 1976, pro-choice and moderate Republicans abandoned the ticket, because their abortion views weren’t represented, thereby denying the Republican candidate the…oh wait. It’s a simple fact that any pro-choicers who identify as Republicans do not consider the abortion issue a deal breaker. Their are a good deal of pro-lifers who identify as Republicans who do consider the abortion issue a deal-breaker. Pandering to the former group, while ignoring the latter group, is colossal stupidity. Now it’s true enough that moderates and pro-choicers ought to be appealed to, in various ways, by the Republican nominee. They should be appealed to insofar as you do not irrevocably alienate the “non-negotiables”. Thus, there are at least 5 speakers at the GOP convention who are pro-choice, and this doesn’t even include folks I don’t know much about.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
How much of this talk is just to keep his name in the media?
-
August 20th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Not everyone thinks Romney is a pro-life Veep. I do, so thanks for putting it that way, Doug.
Some people feel that by him keeping the campaign promises he made and not changing the status quo in Massachusetts (appointing pro-choice judge, allowing Planned Parenthood a seat on an economic board within the new healthcare system, etc.) while he was Governor equates to him not really embracing the pro-life movement. Admittedly, it is a very, very fine line to walk. Romney keeping his campaign promises THEN I feel is a good indicator he would keep his campaign promises NOW.
That said, McCain will never, ever OWN the base. We (the base) are all a lot more scared by Obama than we are cheered by McCain. But I also believe that anyone who did OWN (Thompson, Romney, etc.) the Republican base this year would be OWNED by the Democrats in the general election.
Oh, well…
August 20th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Nice job obfuscating. It all depends how you define “convenience.” Both the mental health and birth defect exceptions tend to attract majority support - and that’s even in the poll you selected to cite.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
If McCain picks a VP candidate to appease social conservatives instead of picking the best VP candidate then his message to independents and some Democrats, some Republicans and libertarians is that their voice(s) do/does not count. The Republican party, independents, libertarians and some Dems who vote for McCain will choose to vote for him because of his experience, energy issues, foreign policy economic and national security policies.
However, McCain may very well scare off independents, some Dems, some Republicans and libertarians because the foregoing groups and individuals in those groups do not want the government to be based on religion.
If the best candidate for VP happens to be pro-life then so be it. However, my belief is that our best VP candidates are not per se pro-life.
We could debate religious philosophy for the rest of our lives, but when the government tells a woman that she cannot have an abortion when her life is at immediate risk or if she was raped or in cases of incest then a mass majority of people in this country have a problem with that.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I should also note that in the poll you cited the Republican respondents were virtually deadlocked when asked if abortion should be allowed if the mother’s mental heath is at risk: 39% Yes 42% No. These “pro-life” voters are not as pro-life as anti-abortion activists would like to believe.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
#31 Tom,
Who is telling a woman she can’t have an abortion if her life is at immediate risk or if she was raped (or incest)? I’m certainly not.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
He should select a pro-life vp because it is consistent with one of his fundamental principles - that human rights begin at conception.
Today, 5% of probable voters are leaning and 10% are undecided. Regardless of the issues, those people will make up their mind because they come to some level of certainty about a candidate’s character. (It is this process that is moving voters right now. McCain is becoming more tangible/reliable and Obama less so.)
For McCain to choose a running mate with a substantial difference in such a moral issue would cause those undecideds dissonance, and the human brain resists making affirmative decisions when it is dissonant.
So, I expect McCain to choose a running mate that reaffirms and solidifies in voters mind who he is and how he makes decisions. To be considered a maverick because you stick to your principles is admirable. To be unpredictable is just a barrier to pulling the lever.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Scroll down for info regarding HRC as VP (yikes)-
http://www.thenextright.com/soren-dayton/bipartisan-vp-thoughts
August 20th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Looking further into the poll:
10% of self-identified pro-lifers think that abortion should be legal if a pregnancy is unwanted, 26% think it’s OK if the baby has a fatal birth defect, 30% think it’s OK if the mother’s mental health is at risk, 42% if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, and 53% if the mother’s life is at risk. Self-identified pro-choicers also seem to be confused.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Big S,
Polls have shown that the majority of Americans would outlaw about 80% of aboritons. When the question is put specifically, such as “Should abortion be legal after the first tri-mester, should abortion be legal as a form of birth control, for rape and incest, etc…..”
Yes, most people describe themselves as “pro-choice,” but when the issues are specifically placed before them, most people would outlaw most abortions.
That’s why the media doesn’t like to talk about what the legal status quo is on abortion. A lot of folks really don’t know. So Abortion, Inc. hides behind euphemisms like “reproductive freedom, reproductive health,” etc….
Calling abortion “reproductive freedom,” as if somehow NOT being allowed to kill your child impinges on your freedom to reproduce is truly Orwellian.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
“Both the mental health and birth defect exceptions tend to attract majority support”
…those are medical reasons, not conveneience reasons.
“I can’t afford it”, “I don’t want any more kids”, “I don’t want kids yet”, “I don’t want my partner/husband/parents/family to find out”, “My husband doesn’t want more kids”
Those are the reasons that account for the HUGE majority of abortions, and are all reasosn of conveneience.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
ACT BLOG,
I read your blog today about signs pointing to Romney for VP. I agree with you but you mentioned he came in 2nd. According to AP, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC–Romney came in 3rd with 243 and Mike Huckabee in 2nd with 284.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
#38
What about “I don’t think I can withstand the mental stress associated with having a child right now”? Is that a convenience issue or a medical issue?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
The moderates in our party are well-represented on here and I’m glad. It prevents us from being an echo chamber like most other political blogs.
That said I think the moderates are delusional if they think more pro-choicers care about abortion than pro-lifers.
The fact is the vast majority of voters voting on abortion are pro-life. Most pro-choice voters don’t have strong convictions about the issue.
In swing states, the pro-life position is a winner for Republicans.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
#40
Definitely a convenience issue. Those children could certainly be given up for adoption.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
This is why arguments about abortion lead nowhere. The country is split 50-50 and no one is going to change their mind about the issue. So what is the point of arguing over it?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Most Americans are self-described as “pro-choice” - and most oppose overturning Roe.
But this doesn’t stem from some broad support for abortion-on-demand, but rather a misconception over what most pro-lifers support, and exactly what Roe gaurentees.
When asked just their position, American’s are pro-choice by a small margin. When asked in detail when they would support abortions, a large majority follow the usual pro-life position.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
#44, I think that’s why social conservatives have little problem getting elected in states that are supposed 55-60% pro-choice.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
#45
What about the social liberals, like Kathleen Sebelius, who have no problem getting elected in very socially conservative states? Perhaps we should revisit your pet poll again:
Are all of those 5% commenters at race42008?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I saw this on an Evangelical blog. I thought I’d share it.
Question: How do we know that Obama isn’t the Antichrist?
Answer: That would be above his pay grade.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
During today’s conference call, when asked whether McCain could pick a pro-choice vice presidential nominee, Giuliani said, “Well, any choice you make for vice president has pros and cons, that’ll be true for Senator Obama and Senator McCain. It would seem to me that the Republican Party is not, as far as I can tell, and I have traveled to thousands of places last year, a one-issue party. And that would just be one issue among many that would have to be evaluated by the party. But I believe the party will support Senator McCain’s choice.”
“You certainly want to give yourself the best chance to win. I know from talking to John McCain about this, not just now but in the past, when we both used to think about choosing a vice president when we were opponents, that our main criteria would be a person who would allow us to sleep at night, knowing that we had selected someone who could immediately be president of the United States. If that person happens to be, among other things, pro-choice, the party will support that.” He then said the Republican party would remain committed to ending abortion no matter who the running mate is.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Yeah, about Romney - he was second by a considerable margin when he dropped out. It was only through Huckabee staying in (and ticking off many Republicans in the process) that he passed Romney in the delegate count.
And, I beleive, though you would have to check this (deffinately true through super tuesday) - but I think Romney maintained his lead in the popular vote.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I just can’t stomic a McCain /Romney ticket. I’m sorry can’t vote for it. Romney is too liberal for me. If Barak Obama picks Tim Kaine I will vote for a Obama /Kaine ticket because Tim Kaine is Pro-Life. If Barak picks somone else that is Pro-Choice then I would vote for either Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin.
I would really like to vote for McCain but I just can’t vote for Romney.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
There is a petition people can sign at a site http://www.catholics4mccain.org
August 20th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
“Romney is too liberal for me”
- pro-life
- pro-family
- pro-growth
- pro-military
exactly which of those positiosn is too liberal for you?
August 20th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
The Two Republican Guys on Hardballs thinks it will be Ridge.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
great post. Sound reasoning and hopefully something McCain has thought about.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
..to which my answer will be dropping my support for McCain for President.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Act, you are a snake oil salesman.
- pro-life — like when Romney was attending a Planned Parenthood fundraiser.
- pro-family — like when Romney was wishing everyone a happy gay pride weekend.
- pro-growth — like when Romney was raising fees.
- pro-military — like when Romney was equating his sons campaigning for him to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Romney didn’t get a primetime speaking slot because McCain thinks Romney is a phony, self-serving a$$. I just hope that Romney gets shown the door of the party after the election.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
You can listen to Rudy Giuliani’s first conference call on behalf of the McCain campaign by clicking here.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
MSNBC has been plugging Ridge for VP on Matthews program.
According to actuarial tables, McCain has a 38% chance of dieing in office. That is if he is average. None of us know if he is ‘more likely’ or ‘less likely’ than average.
The fact is that a pro-choice President has a pretty high chance of becoming the President . Its much more of a risk than I would be able to take. So, that’s a huge reason that we must have a pro-life VP candidate.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Don’t you support Mr. tax-and-spend, set murderers loose on the population Mike Huckabee?
Romney changed positions on abortion. This is known. He has always been for traditional marriage and against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Raising fees? Yeah, he did - when the cost of doing something goes up, so does the fee for it. He raised fees on services that the government provided - some of which hadn’t been raised in a decade. We can also talk about the difference between a fee and a tax, if you want to - but then I think we also need to bring in the trippling of the budget under Huckabee - which I don’t think is a place you probably want to go.
Now, his son’s military service - a poorly worded statement, but only someone who clearly has an agenda against Romney would bring it up. Do you deny that civic participation is just as important as military service?
And, in any case, we don’t even have a service requirement to be President - much less to be the son of a President.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Atlanta actuarial firm: McCain has 8.4 “healthy” years left, and Obama has 21.9
An Atlanta actuarial firm says both presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama “can reasonably be expected to serve two full terms in good health.”
August 20th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
J. Withrow #50,
Tim Kaine is NOT PRO-LIFE!!! He holds exactly the same position as John Kerry.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
“Romney didn’t get a primetime speaking slot because McCain thinks Romney is a phony, self-serving a$$. ”
Oh yeah - Romney drops out early to allow McCain to start a national campaign early, then works his butt off fundraising and pushing for McCain on TV and radio, and at events - compare that to Huckabee who played the sore loser role, stayed in even though he had no hope, and who signed up for TV contracts - which he is now using to bash Romney, trying to get his biggest primary competition out of the way so he can be the frontrunner in four years.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Romney didn’t drop out early. He dropped out after it was clear he wasn’t going to win. That said, I agree with the rest of your paragraph.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
#60, there is nothing contradictory between your actuarial posting and mine. We just expressed them different ways. THe fact is that there is a 38% chance he will die in office. You are welcome to put it forth some other way if you like, but nevertheless, that’s what the tables show.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“He dropped out after it was clear he wasn’t going to win”
I agree with this - but he did drop out before it was statistically impossible to win, so he chose to drop out before he had to.
Yes, the primary reason he did so was because he didn’t want to drag out a race that would have been very hard to win, and he wanted to give the GOP the opportunity to start a national campaign earlier than the DNC.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
J. Withrow , are you a troll? You must be, as this is the third time you have mentioned voting for the Democrats today.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
He fakes being a Republican, until Romney is mentioned as VP, then he goes ‘ape’ on us.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
64, That’s interesting, do you have a link?
August 20th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
J Whithrow is a troll of the first order - yet he is tolerated. Wonder why?
August 20th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Act:
You need to get over your Huckahang-up.
McCain probably has more respect for Huckabee staying in and fighting it out to the end. Although some McCain staffers were a little irritated, nothing bad was said by McCain, only expressions of respect.
Compare that with the McCain staffer statements that Romney is just in it for Romney (even while Romney was kissing McCain’s butt hard).
Besides, your primary fight has long been over. The VP fight has long been over, except for the delusional… Romney and Huckabee lost both fights. If you are fighting about 2012 now, you only prove the point about Romney’s overriding self-interest and the character of his followers.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I’m not for Huck or Romney…I’m for Palin or Pawlenty, but CBL does have a point.
All the Dems have to do to not get so-cons to vote is to have commericals with you-tube videos of Romney saying “I’d do better than Ted Kenney”, attending a pro-choice fundraiser, and encouraging the gay parade.” Yep, we’d be doomed. The so-cons would stay home and vote for Barr (I know some who are doing so). Without so-cons, we couldn’t win. I’m suprised that no one mentions Huck for VP since he got the most pro-life endorsements. All this talk about Obama and his supporting the killing of babies after botched abortions. SInce, Huck is not liked by fiscal conservatives, I’m for Palin or Pawlenty (The 2 P’s)
August 20th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
you can say what you want - but no one who supports Huckabee has a right to criticize Romney on not being “conservative enough”
August 20th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Act-blog is being even battier than usual in this thread.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Act-blog presumably hates that Rudy has been in a gay pride parade, but has no problem with the fact that Romney’s campaign passed out fliers at one wishing everyone a happy gay pride day — while he was running for governor in 2002.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Act-blog presumably hates that Rudy is pro-gun control, but has no problem with Mitt being in favor of the assault weapons ban.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Alex, this one?
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o139/blueollie/blogphotos/GayRomneyGayPrideFlyerPink5.jpg
August 20th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Ak, You are absolutely right!!!! Who are you for? I’m for Palin or Pawlenty and I wouldn’t mind Brownback, Thune and possibley Huckabee.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Act-blog, is it okay with you that Mitt said that he liked mandates?
August 20th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Steve, who is AK? Do you mean me?
August 20th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
That’s the one, Kristofer!
August 20th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Act, give up the ghost, Romney is dead. He had his chance to buy the Republican nomination, we were not selling.
The one-term liberal wonder from Massachusetts should retire from politics with grace and go do the corporate board thing (where no one cares how phony he is).
August 20th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I don’t see there being many pro-choicers who are going to think ” Well I didn’t like McCain, but now that he picked a pro-choicers there’s a slight chance that we might get a better president if he died so I’m going for him now” However, I see quite a few SoCons thinking ” He picked a pro-choicer so he must not be very serious about life” and dropping support of him. A pro-choice pick might be a good political pick depending on who it was, but imo not becuase it was pro-choice.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
btw, Sarah Palin said the schedule (time slots) for speaking at the convention has not been set. Maybe Mitt is in prime time, and maybe Jindal is the VP?
http://www.fortmilltimes.com/124/story/262412.html
August 20th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
#52 Pro Life? Huh!! How about his healthcare plan when he was governor of Massachuesetts were a girl without parental notification can obtain a abortion for only $50 and also said in 2002 he will protect a woman right chose no matter what. In 1994 running for Seniter running against Ted Kennedy said he will be more Pro-Choice than Ted Kennedy..
Pro Famly? You gotta be kidding!! Supported Gay marrige while being Governor of Massachusetts. The reason we are have gay maarage shoved down our throats all over the country.
Putting Pro Abortion and pro gay maarrriage judges on the bench while Governor of Massachusetts.
The list goes on.check out http://www.massresistance.org/romney/
August 20th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
#82, you are correct John Mark, those of us pro-choicers tend to me more mature.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
83 - Or maybe, since Jindal is speaking “after the VP” (sure) and Rudy — Rudy (what on Earth)!? — is the keynoter, which Jindal was the frontrunner for, they’re going to do a little switch-a-roo and make Rudy the VP. Lieberman, meanwhile, was a stalking horse for a pro-choice VP and everyone’s gonna be relieved that it’s Rudy and not the Lieb.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
85 - More pragmatic, for sure.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
But you have to get inside the mind of someone that thinks that a zygote is a human. If I thought that McCain supported a genocide-supporter, I wouldn’t vote for him either. But then again, do we want to be beholden to people that think that zygotes are humans? McCain doesn’t play that game.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
JW: I will answer for “act”: Those big, bad courts made him sign the law. The big meany judges broke his line-item veto pen. They made him put Planned Parenthood on an advisory board.
(Translation: Romney never was pro-life or he is the biggest wus in the world.)
August 20th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Alex, this is Rudy when he accepts the nomination. http://neorepublica.com/media/blogs/republica/giulianidress1.bmp
August 20th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Rudy would be way better than Lieberman. At least Rudy has come out in favor of good judges, which is really all that matter when it comes to a president’s position on abortion. If only he would have come out against Roe.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
#68 - yes, here it is: start at age 72, and add numbers through 79
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html
August 20th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
90 - They want a woman on the ticket badly!
August 20th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
#93, all the Clinton supporters will come over.
btw, to all those Romney supporters who want to know why we dislike his so much, and why internal McCain polling shows Romney as VP with some push back. Here is why we all are luke-warm to him. This was the Romney campaign.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-01-15_romney_attack_sc_2.jpg
August 20th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I don’t know about you all, but one reason I don’t want a Romney Veep is because I’m sick of talking about him. Why are some people on this site so fixated on a former 1 term Governor of a liberal New England state?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Romney is a wuss because he obeyed what the courts ruled?
Do you want to see the complete breakdown of law and order in this country?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
“But then again, do we want to be beholden to people that think that zygotes are humans? McCain doesn’t play that game.”
McCain stated zygotes were human. So yeah he does play that game - how far and what he sincerely believes is up for debate - personally I think he’s an honest person.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Here’s an important quote by Rudy from today’s conference call that I hadn’t yet posted:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Act-blog, are you going to reply to my 74, 75, 78?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
McCain stated zygotes were human. So yeah he does play that game - how far and what he sincerely believes is up for debate - personally I think he’s an honest person.
He’s said that they’re lives. Of course they’re lives. But McCain has given no indication that he’s some zealot that can’t see the difference between a full-grown man and a zygote.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Aron, are you trying to tell us Rudy will be VP?
They do look good together, don’t they? http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070606rudy.jpg
Is Rudy accaptable to any anti-choice bloggers on this site?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
“I don’t know about you all, but one reason I don’t want a Romney Veep is because I’m sick of talking about him. Why are some people on this site so fixated on a former 1 term Governor of a liberal New England state?”
Well, firstly, he has proven himself to be an incredible executive. Show me a person in this country who’s governing and management capabilities are as strong and as well known as Romney’s. Secondly, during the primary, he was one of maybe two or three candidates who really stood up for Reagan Conservatism. He was the Reagan Conservative in the race.
As for the future, yeah, Jindal and Palin are Conservative, as are others, but when you compare their resumes with Romney’s - they just seem to come up short.
—
“btw, to all those Romney supporters who want to know why we dislike his so much”
…because he opposed your guy in the primary. We know. That is the same reason that Romney suppoters don’t like Huckabee - because he played the “more christian” card, or McCain - because he lied about Romney’s record on the Iraq War.
Primaries are ugly. But it seems to me that most of the opposition to Romney as Veep is personal - he’s plastic, he’s self-serving, his religion, etc.
When you look at oppositon from Romney supporters to other Veep candidates, its not personal, its political. Giuliani and Ridge are pro-choice. Palin and Jindal don’t have enough experience.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Kristofer - I’m pro-life, and Rudy is more than acceptable to me.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Lucy, you rock!
August 20th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“#82, you are correct John Mark, those of us pro-choicers tend to me more mature.”
No, I would say this goes for any issue. If a candidate picks someone who is opposed to him on an issue, then he sends a message to the supporters of that issue that he really doesn’t care about that issue, and he’s going to lose a significant number of those votes. Hardly anybody on the other side is going to be motivated to vote for him because there’s a slight chance that someone that agrees with them might be become president. And the message that he’s doesn’t care about the issue also isn’t going to motivate anybody on the other side to vote for him, because that’s just going to make him look phony. So in the end the candidate loses more votes than he gains.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
101 - McCain looks like a doof in that picture.
Act-blog, please reply to my 74, 75, 78.
Act-blog, please reply to my 74, 75, 78.
Act-blog, please reply to my 74, 75, 78.
Act-blog, please reply to my 74, 75, 78.
Act-blog, please reply to my 74, 75, 78.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
100, When he asked when life begins and has legal rights, he answered at conception - that’s pretty clear. Aren’t you always arguing that McCain is pro-life so that’s why we should be okay if he picks a pro-choicer? Why are you now arguing that’s he not pro-life.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
100, When he asked when life begins and has legal rights, he answered at conception - that’s pretty clear. Aren’t you always arguing that McCain is pro-life so that’s why we should be okay if he picks a pro-choicer? Why are you now arguing that’s he not pro-life.
He is pro-life. He’s very pro-life. But one can be pro-life without pervertedly trying to equate a zygote with a grown man.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
#106, how is this?
http://blackliberal.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/mccain_rudyhug533.jpg
August 20th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
“Act-blog presumably hates that Rudy has been in a gay pride parade, but has no problem with the fact that Romney’s campaign passed out fliers at one wishing everyone a happy gay pride day — while he was running for governor in 2002.”
My problem never came from Giuliani going to a Gay Pride Parade, or from him living with Gay Men, it came from his support for abortion, and his opposition to strong measures to protect the traditional family.
If Rudy, like Romney, were a strong, pro-life, pro-family individual, then I would have had no problem with his attendence at the event.
—
“Act-blog presumably hates that Rudy is pro-gun control, but has no problem with Mitt being in favor of the assault weapons ban.”
I have no position on the assault weapons ban, but its things like suing gun makers, etc. that I have a problem with.
—
“Act-blog, is it okay with you that Mitt said that he liked mandates?”
Sure, in fact, mandates may be the only way to ever solve the problem - since, without them, there are too many people (mainly younger males who are healthy), who figure that they don’t need to buy insurence - even if they can afford it. Its freeriders like that who create many problems.
Do you have a problem with seatbelt mandates? How about car insurence mandates?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I cannot help but find it odd that McCain’s credentials with the pro-life community tend to be considered somewhat suspect even though he has a consistent 20+ year pro-life voting record; yet Romney’s pro-life credentials are taken as a given even though his rather short record is sketchy and contradictory. If Romney’s word on this matter is good enough for the pro-life activists, why isn’t McCain’s? Why is there this constant suspicion? I just find this all rather odd. I really think it all hinges on the pronouncements of self-appointed “insider activists” rather than any true grass-roots rank and file.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
108, Obviously if one is pro-life from the moment of conception, it’s because you think that the Zygote and on up is much more than just a cluster of cells.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“Is Rudy accaptable to any anti-choice bloggers on this site?”
If “anti-choice” is your euphemism for being against child-killing, then I guess your question applies to me.
No, Rudy is not acceptable to me. On a personal level, I find the guy extremely likeable and charismatic. But I could no more support him than I could someone who supported slavery.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
110 - Yes, I do have a problem with seatbelt and car insurance mandates, but that’s another issue.
My problem never came from Giuliani going to a Gay Pride Parade, or from him living with Gay Men, it came from his support for abortion, and his opposition to strong measures to protect the traditional family. If Rudy, like Romney, were a strong, pro-life, pro-family individual, then I would have had no problem with his attendence at the event.
What “strong measure to protect the traditional family” does Rudy oppose? The FMA? You know that the FMA is never going to happen, right? Rudy’s even f’ing said that he’d support the FMA if judges overturned/ignored DOMA — something I disagree with strongly.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Watching Republicans torture themselves on this issue makes me wonder how the party managed to keep that “three legged stool” of conservatism functioning so long, particularly on the social aspect. Some of the most bitter arguments in my former office were between the social conservative Republicans and the economic conservatives that could give a flip on legislating social morality, abortion etc. One of my county’s more successful politicians ran and won on a limited government platform of all sorts. Government out of your pocket, your business, your bedroom and your body.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Chris - because, three things:
1) While Romney was pro-choice, he owned up to the fact, admitted he had been wrong, admittd that he had changed, etc. McCain - despite having his own dark spots, has never done anything of the sort.
2) There is some preception - rightly - that McCain has been, at least in the past, hostile to the pro-life movement and its leaders. “Agents of Intolerence” isn’t the way to gain trust from the Conservative Christian community.
3) Romney has made social issues and Conservative a key part of his campaign from the start. McCain, on the other hand, ran as a maverick, willing to split with the base, etc. Only since the late part of the primaries, when he thought he could use it against Romney, did McCain show much interest in talking about things like abortion.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Hey ACT BLOG,
Since you are “so about the courts making Romney do something” than why do you bash Huckabee for saying “The courts and congress made me fix our budgett”. Yeah, I forgot–you don’t look at Romney’s real record but only focus on the records of Rudy, Huck, Thompson, Paul and every other conservative besides Romney.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
“Is Rudy acceptable to any ‘anti-choice’ bloggers on this site?”
I’m a staunch Catholic (very much against abortion) and I voted for Rudy in the primary.
BTW this whole “pro-choice” and “pro-life” thing is BS. Everyone is pro-choice and pro-life. It should be for-abortion and against-abortion.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
111, I tend to agree with you ( I’m a staunch SoCon, and supported McCain.). However, there are reasons why some are more skeptical of McCain than Romney. Romney had a clear and public change on the issue. McCain stated support for Roe for a short period in 1999 and then retracted the support without explanation. Since I think McCain is more honest than dishonest, I think he may have had a short period of pandering and that his life long opposition to Roe is probably his honest position. Also when Romney became pro-life he became slightly more so than McCain in that he opposed ESCR.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Alex,
“He’s said that they’re lives. Of course they’re lives. But McCain has given no indication that he’s some zealot that can’t see the difference between a full-grown man and a zygote.”
I can see a difference between a toddler girl and a “full grown man.” That doesn’t make the toddler girl any less human or alive, or any less deserving of human rights. Do you think someone has to be a “full grown man” to be afforded the right to live? If not, why did you make that your contrast? The implication of your statement is that if someone is different than a “full-grown man” they are somehow less human.
Also, I noted above that you don’t believe that zygotes are human. To what species do you think they belong? And at what point does this species mutate into the human species? Does this trans-species mutation occur in the womb or out of it? Perhaps magically in the birth canal?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Rudy is acceptable to me because of his commitment on judges.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
“What “strong measure to protect the traditional family” does Rudy oppose? The FMA? You know that the FMA is never going to happen, right?”
You seem to think that the - current - practicality of something is a meausure of its worthiness of being supported. I think if that was true, slavery would still be legal, and women still wouldn’t be able to vote. Sometimes you win a fight, sometimes you lose it, but you should never give up your principles on the issues.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
#94 - Kris - show me those McCain internals you eluded to.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
“BTW this whole “pro-choice” and “pro-life” thing is BS. Everyone is pro-choice and pro-life. It should be for-abortion and against-abortion.”
Agreed, actually it should be pro-legalized abortion, and anti-legalized abortion.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
116 - McCain was never f’ing pro-choice. You’re an idiot. I can see why Kavon’s on his last nerve about you. You’re utterly lying and acting as a troll. Your complaint with McCain is that he won’t come out and repent his supposed misgivings for you? Get lost.
Jerry Falwell was an agent of intolerance. He blamed gays and feminists for 9/11. As Christopher Hitchens said: “if only there were a Hell for him to go to!” — he made his living off of spitting upon those weaker, poorer, and less fortunate than he was.
Oh dear! Not splitting with the base! Oh no!
August 20th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Act Blog,
You said, “2) There is some preception - rightly - that McCain has been, at least in the past, hostile to the pro-life movement and its leaders. “Agents of Intolerence” isn’t the way to gain trust from the Conservative Christian community.”
It doesn’t help that a Romney supporter and advisor from Michigan, Michael Brown, said “Huckabee and his supporters are the Taliban wing of the party.” And that Romney supporters basically say Huck supporters are bigots because they wouldn’t vote for him. Your number 2 statement actually seems better to Christians than what Romney supporters did. I’m not a Huck fan, but I do think that calling them bigots is not fair, because otherwise I would be a bigot because I didn’t vote for him. I thought he was a slick salesman. I voted for Thompson and am upset with him to since he endorsed McCain right after SC. I am also upset because by him staying in, it made a clear path for McCain.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
If only he would have come out against Roe.
John Mark,
While it’s admittedly too subtle an acknowledgement for the liking of most pro-lifers, Rudy has, nevertheless recognized Roe as having been wrongly decided, but believes that, because it’s a 35-year-old, reaffirmed precedent, it shouldn’t necessarily be overturned. Giuliani, though, has gone as far as to say that it’d be OK if Roe were to be overturned, and left to the states to decide. He support the Hyde Amendment, the ban on partial birth abortions, the Mexico City policy and parental notification.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I can see a difference between a toddler girl and a “full grown man.”
I don’t, as far as rights are concerned.
That doesn’t make the toddler girl any less human or alive, or any less deserving of human rights. Do you think someone has to be a “full grown man” to be afforded the right to live? If not, why did you make that your contrast? The implication of your statement is that if someone is different than a “full-grown man” they are somehow less human. Also, I noted above that you don’t believe that zygotes are human. To what species do you think they belong? And at what point does this species mutate into the human species? Does this trans-species mutation occur in the womb or out of it? Perhaps magically in the birth canal?
Physical autonomy is the key. One would obviously not merely say “autonomy”, as we don’t give toddlers the same rights as we do full-grown men. In the same lieu, we don’t give zygotes the same rights as we do either.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
#94 - and the problem with the talking points were what? Are candidates not alloweed to point out differences in positions? What a bunch of babies!
August 20th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
You seem to think that the - current - practicality of something is a meausure of its worthiness of being supported. I think if that was true, slavery would still be legal, and women still wouldn’t be able to vote. Sometimes you win a fight, sometimes you lose it, but you should never give up your principles on the issues.
The difference, of course, being that the people supporting the FMA are the same type of people — tradition-minded, anti-psychology, anti-science, anti-equality — that supported slavery and opposed the 19th Amendment. Check the polls over the last thirty years: the anti-marriage-equality crowd is losing ground and will continue to lose ground, as people are educated more and more about the real nature of homosexuality — that it’s inhumanly cruel to deny gays the rights that heterosexuals enjoy.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Alex,
So at what point does a human being have a right to live? You also never answered my question as to what species a zygote belongs, or when whatever that species is mutates into a human being.
Have you ever known a human being to give birth to anything but a human being?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
#131:
According to the Weekly World News, a woman gave birth to the Loch Ness Monster.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
#108 - Well duhhhhh! We all can tell a baby from a grown man too, but that doesn’t mean we get to kill them. Your logic is absolutely failing you tonight and you’re being a real butt hole, as you are many times.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
ACT:
1) What are McCain’s dark spots re the life issue that he has not “owned up to”? McCain’s record has been pretty consistent over 20+ years. Romney’s has not been.
2) McCain’s “agents of intolerence” comment was directed at a couple or three specific individuals, not at the pro-life community in general or at pro-life advocates. I strongly suspect that his description of such as a result of issues (and particularly of style) other than the life issue.
3) Again, McCain’s 20+ year voting record in Congress is pretty consistently conservative Republican. He was not an “independent” during the Reagan era I might add. I cannot say the same for Romney.
McCain was not my first choice for the nomination this time around, btw. But, I personally know many of these activists group leaders; they didn’t like McCain because he has never cow-towed to them, so they sort of invented “Romeny the solid three-dimensional conservative” out of very sketchy evidence and lack of consistency. Under other circumstances they would have thrashed Romeny.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I have a question for everyone…..since John McCain appears to be basing his VP choice on Obama’s VP choice, does you VO choice change based on who Obama selects? For me….
Hillary - I would select Rudy (McCain could get away with it)
Bayh/Kaine - I would select Sarah Palin
Biden - I would select John Kasich
August 20th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
does you VP*
August 20th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
So at what point does a human being have a right to live? You also never answered my question as to what species a zygote belongs, or when whatever that species is mutates into a human being. Have you ever known a human being to give birth to anything but a human being?
Of course it’s of the species homo sapiens. That doesn’t mean that it’s a physically autonomous being. If we’re going to measure something by its potential, let’s just kill everyone now, since we’re all going to die eventually. We have to measure something by its actuality, not what it’s going to be: a toddler will one day be a full-grown man, but we don’t let a toddler apply for a driver’s license. At the same time, a zygote will one day be a toddler, but we don’t give it Constitutional rights.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Jonathan,
“According to the Weekly World News, a woman gave birth to the Loch Ness Monster.”
That must be the source of Alex’s information!
August 20th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
127, Rudy had a great advisory staff on judges, (the best) made a great speech to the FedSoc, and even supported originalism. Because of this I was leaning towards voting for him if he got the nomination. However, his refusal to come out against Roe, was and is a stumbling block for me when it comes to supporting him.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Hillary—Huckabee (Just because it would be a sweet Arkansas rivalry and fun to see how the state votes)
Bayh—Pawlenty (Both blue-collar appeal and borring so good match-up)
Kaine—Palin (both need experience so it wouldn’t look bad for either Mac or Obama)
Biden—Kasich for sure.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
That must be the source of Alex’s information!
Any time you’re ready to give a real rebuttal…
August 20th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Alex,
“At the same time, a zygote will one day be a toddler, but we don’t give it Constitutional rights.”
So what are you saying, that the right to live is granted by men?
And what the hell does “physically autonomous being” mean? That you don’t need ANYBODY? I think that would apply to Rambo, Chuck Norris, and nobody else. Is an infant- who relies on her parents to feed her- “a physically autonomous being”? How about grade school kids? Do you think they could grow their own food and provide their own shelter? Crap, what about the doughy middle manager? Could he live without McDonalds or Wal-Mart?
We’re ALL dependent on others, to a greater or lesser degree. We’re social creatures. That doesn’t give me the right to kill any of my dependents.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Alex,
“Of course it’s of the species homo sapiens.”
Does this mean that you have done an about face, and admit that human beings conceive other human beings? I’m confused on your stance regarding trans-special reproduction.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Hillary- Rudy (the campaign that should have happened)
Bayh- Pawlenty (MN and IN have roughly the same amount of EV)
Kaine- Cantor (The Virginia Battle Royal)
Biden- Rudy (after Biden’s remark I want to see Hizzoner kick his ass)
August 20th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
So I have heard this line a couple of thousand times (as you probably have), but McCain made a small change and caught himself. Will his VP be a “she”.
Watch the video; http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/08/20/vp-questions-hound-mccain/
August 20th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“Physical autonomy is the key.” So are you saying that when a child can live outside the womb is when they have rights?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
#144, oh yeah, I forgot about that Biden line. ooohhh…
August 20th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
So what are you saying, that the right to live is granted by men?
Where on Earth did you get that from? Constitutional rights aren’t assumed to be granted by men.
And what the hell does “physically autonomous being” mean? That you don’t need ANYBODY?
Um, no. It means that you can live without being attached to your mother.
I think that would apply to Rambo, Chuck Norris, and nobody else. Is an infant- who relies on her parents to feed her- “a physically autonomous being”? How about grade school kids? Do you think they could grow their own food and provide their own shelter? Crap, what about the doughy middle manager? Could he live without McDonalds or Wal-Mart?
Gee, well, then unless everyone can provide absolutely everything for themselves, let’s eliminate all distinctions whatsoever. :eyeroll:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
145, If its recent I bet he thought he better add that since the media made a deal about Obama only mentioning “he”.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
#116 - ACT has been acting a whole lot better in this thread, and most threads. If anyone was deserving banning, I think it would be you.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
#149, it was today.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Does this mean that you have done an about face, and admit that human beings conceive other human beings? I’m confused on your stance regarding trans-special reproduction.
Oh, good grief, stop with the word games. This is so f’ing disingenuous.
So are you saying that when a child can live outside the womb is when they have rights?
That has always been my position, yes: in favor of abortion rights until physical autonomy is possible.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
IllinoisGuy, Act-Blog POSTED 116…
August 20th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
What about the ability to live outside of the woman, but totally dependent upon her, or others that she turns the baby over to, do to make a child more valuable. There’s no change in the Baby’s ability to live on its own, only on WHERE it can live.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Personally I’ve seen logic ( not proof) to the position that life should be protected at the moment of consciousness. But I see no logic to your position.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
People cant we all get along?
We ALL can find things about Huck and Romney we dislike.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Rudy said that a “strict constructionist” Supreme Court justice could uphold Roe v. Wade. That means he believes in the “penumbra” of privacy rights that is supposedly implicit in the Constitution - which is so baseless that even a 1L Con Law student can rip it apart. I MAY be convinced to vote for someone who is pro-choice but understands that Roe is bad law. But if you support the foundation of Roe like Guiliani then you have no business being in any position that could possibly have a hand in selecting judges.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Along with every other candidate.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
157, To be fair to Rudy he didn’t support upholding Roe on it being good reasoning, but on it being long standing precedent. However, the result regarding Roe would be the same, which is why I would have trouble supporting Guiliani
August 20th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Alex,
So being “attached” to the mother strips a living human being of their human rights?
Seems kinda’ arbitrary to me. An umbilical cord drains a person of their right to live? Can you justify that notion?
How about a zygote who is not yet attached?
August 20th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Alex,
To further clarify- since you make “attachment” the signifying element which eliminates the right to live- you must believe that it is okay to kill a born baby before the cord is cut?
August 20th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Alex,
“Oh, good grief, stop with the word games. This is so f’ing disingenuous.”
Not at all. You said zygotes aren’t human. I say they are. It is an important distinction I think, when it comes to “human rights.” I asked you what species you think zygotes are, you hide behind the latin term for “human” and think that I am playing word games?
August 20th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
92, I don’t think you can add probabilities up like that.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Why are you counting Romney as pro-life, Doug? Because he found it politically expedient to become pro-life 24 months ago?
In all honesty I’ve never understood why the abortion issue is to key to some people; it’s almost the be-all, end-all issue for some voters. Personally, I am pro-choice but have consistently voted for pro-life candidates. I just don’t find the issue that important, especially when it comes to a position that will absolutely NO influence on the abortion issue whatsoever.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
John Mark, that’s exactly what you do. The number beside the 72 is the likelihood of dieing that particular year, then the number beside 73, the likelihoold of dieing during that year, etc.
So since a person grows older each year, that is exactly the way you would use that table.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I would prefer to use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion. It seems to me that the term pro-choice waters down the act. If we were to say the whole thing when taking polls, and ask are they for the choice of the mother to kill the unborn child, I doubt if you’d get quite as many people claiming they are pro-choice.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
165, But probabilities don’t add up, they more multiply. Take a coin flip, for example, each time you flip it there’s a 50% chance that it will land on heads once. Now if you flip it twice, there’s not a 100% chance that it’s going to land on heads once, rather there’s is a 75% chance that one time it’s going to land on head’s, because you possibilities are: HH, TT, HT, TH, only one in four involve not landing on heads once so there’s a 75% chance that you’re going to land on head’s once. Now just flip HT for life and you can see that you can’t add up the probability for life either.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
There is nothing pro-life abot two men having sex. I equate homosexuality with abortion. Although there is no killing of an innocent life, there is the fact that you are disallowing life from even having the possibility to exist when you have sex with the same sex. When homosexuals make the CHOICE to be gay they are infact preventing LIFE.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I fully understand that John Mark. That’s not the way this table works. You don’t have to believe me. But I can guarantee I know what I’m talking about. I took a course in statistics and probabilities in college and I’ve worked with it during much of my working career.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
GOAT, are you trying to make gays scapeGOATs for abortion?
“I equate homosexuality with abortion”.
I am guessing most of us married men on this site have either used birth control or the rhythm method, and I am not sure why we would be accused of being killers.
I am pro-choice, but I do understand the pro-life belief, but you are crossing the line when you want to extend rights to sperm.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
“fully understand that John Mark. That’s not the way this table works. You don’t have to believe me. But I can guarantee I know what I’m talking about. I took a course in statistics and probabilities in college and I’ve worked with it during much of my working career.”
Well, maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying then, because if you add up the death probability from between 98 and 100 you come up with over 100%.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Btw, what has happened in previous flips has absolutely 0 influence on what will happen on subsequent flips..nada…not that its pertinent to this discussion, because this table doesn’t work that way.
There is another way that table can be used that does involve multiplication, but it is more complex to explain.