It's Sarah Palin

Depends on the Republicans. Some Republicans are staunchly pro-choice while others (a majority) are staunchly pro-life. All the variations in between are represented.

If it comes to a vote, I will vote in favor of outlawing all abortions except those where there is clear danger to the mother's life. That's my opinion, and I have a right to vote that way.

That said, I know very well that the majority would not vote with me, at least in my state (Michigan). But I still have the right to vote in favor of my preferences, which is something I'm not sure everyone understands. I get a definite "you don't have a right to this opinion, and you certainly don't have a right to vote in favor of this opinion becoming law" vibe from some of those on the left (not all of them). I do not understand why some people have the right to vote in favor of their opinions and not others.

Excuse me for saying it so bluntly, but this is pure nonsense.

1) The president cannot outlaw abortions, or anything else. He has no judicial powers.

2) The farthest that any serious amount of Republicans want to go is outlawing abortions where the health of the mother is not in serious danger. I don't know of any who want to "outlaw them completely." (They might exist, but they are such an obscure minority as to have no chance whatsoever of their outlook becoming law.)

3) All McCain and/or Palin could do is nominate Supreme Court justices that might take a stricter view of the Constitution and eventually make a ruling that recognizes that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to abortions (which it doesn't). But that would not, in itself, make one single abortion illegal. It would only mean that the issue would be decided by law (as it should be in a democracy), in each state, rather than by fiat decree from a body that is not answerable to the people.

But if that happens, there is absolutely no chance that all states will outlaw abortions. Most would probably put more restrictions on them than now exist, some would stay about the same, and some would put fairly tight restrictions on them. That would entail someone in one of those states going across a state line to get an abortion (not that big of a deal in these days of easy travel).

So there is no way that abortion is going away any time soon. That doesn't prevent those of us who believe that a fetus should be recognized as a legal human being from the time of conception from holding to and arguing for our point of view. That's just part of democracy. But let's face it, those who take a fairly strict stand against abortion (such as I do) are a small minority. We have the right to our opinions, but in a democracy they will never be enacted into law on any large scale.

 

The doctors told my mother her life was at risk with my pregnancy, and recommended abortion. Of course I want to ban all abortions, because what the doctors said was bullshit.

 

I think abortion is a choice best left to the people directly involved, for right or wrong, for better or worse, and that the gub'mint should stay out of.

 

You did end up shooting your mother so he was right.

 

Because we all know an emotional reaction to one single incident a couple of decades ago is a great foundation for public policy.

 

"Missed it by THAT much..."

 

Whereas we, on the other hand, want that proviso left intact, for the very reason you mention.

 

For someone who believes life begins at conception, you basically said the equivalent of:

"Assassins should be legal to obtain everywhere. Making murder illegal I think would cause more problems than it would solve and the social reasons alone, for those that would try and kill people on their own or get killers on the black market if it were illegal, are pretty staggering IMO"

Not all pro-lifers are like that, but many truly believe they are trying to stop murders and the justifications aren't any better to them than saying it was ok to kill your neighbor because they were an inconvenient annoyance.

I am very pro-life...only in the case of the mother's impending death do I think it is acceptable to use abortion...but I also am against making legislation about it beyond what is provable scientifically...where it can be proven that is a living human is where the line should be. Also anyone seeking abortion should be provided all the information so their choice is informed, for their own sanity. There are many cases of women suffering terribly later on for making a hasty decision...no medical procedure should be considered lightly including abortion.

 

Sarah Palin is the most investigated human being on the face of the planet today.

 

Hmmmm...

 

17% =/= 0%
6% =/= 0%
1% =/= 0%

only 0% = 0

Being at risk is not the same as will.

There is a risk that someone from here will punch you in the face if you ever met them in person, but that does not mean they will.

Unless the doctor said "you will die, I am 100% certain of this, because there is not even a 0.000001219% chance you will survive" then your mother had a particularly incomeptant doctor.

If, however, the doctor said "your chances for survival are so slim, if you have this baby, you will die", what they have said is that the chances are slim, not that there is no chance.

With a 17% chance, it means, that on average, for every 100 women, 83 die when they have the baby. Your mother was in the average 17 who survived.

 

Perhaps the doctor was a time traveller who currently posts on WF and TBBS, and was trying to do a Terminator thing.

 

DOOOOOOO EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTT!!!!!!!!

You know you want to.

 

It may be a question of what constitutes inconvenient annoyance (or what constitues more) then perhaps. I don't know. I do think that some of the personal justifications people make for abortion are a bit tenuous and sometimes, just an excuse for crummy behavior, but I try and make it my policy to not let my personal beliefs enter the equation there. No one can know what it is like for the person involved; and in all honesty, for me personally, I don't even feel like I'm in a position to really even comment, as I don't own a uterus.

In the limited ways that I do consider the issue, I guess I see it as a matter of -- if people are set on having abortions, and we're not planning on jailing everyone who tries to have an abortion to stop them, then have them in a way that at least saves the life of the mother. The point is to save lives after all, right? And mathematically even, if life = life, then 2 lives minus 1 life = 1 is greater than 2 minus 2 = 0 lives. Harsh I know, and I wish there were better answers, but as I said, I don't think I'm in a position to comment in any other way.

And in what first hand experiences I have had with abortion, instances where I've accompanied friends for moral support, I've expressed my reservations with their chosen decisions, but I have also tried to be a good friend and supported them in choices that they make. I'm actually quite grateful that I don't have to be faced with these decisions, I don't know how women deal with all of it and keep sane.

 

"Officer, some guy on the internet talked me into it!"

 

We're going to have to pick up the pace here if we really want to get to 1K posts in this thread.

Does anyone here really think that a pro-life VP is going to have any real chance of getting Roe overturned in the face of a Democratic congress and a president with McCain's history on the subject?

 

Does a VP actually do ANYthing?
I can't see her causeing any harm during her term. And if she turns out to be good at the job, I say make her the first PILF!

 

I take this as just sloppy phrasing for "As a result of a McCain/Palin administration, all abortions might become illegal."

I seem to remember that some state legislators did want to make illegal all abortions as a test case, but I could be confusing things. Maybe someone with a better memory than me could come up with it or correct me.

In any event, the main thing that's inhibiting those who think this way is because it would alienate those of us in the middle who see that as a truly radical position.

If you truly think of a fetus as fully human, I don't see it as unreasonable to outlaw all abortions.

A conservative court majority could go much further than that and find a right to life for fetuses that would effectively void any state's abortion laws.

With Ginsburg and Stevens bound to retire, it wouldn't be hard for the next president to get a 5-4 majority.

Scalia, Thomas and Roberts would likely all vote in favor of a fetal right to life. Possibly Alito as well.

Actually, going across state lines would still be a big deal for a lot of people, particularly the poor.

I don't think the VP is so much of a factor, or McCain's history on the subject.

If elected, McCain would likely feel indebted to the evangelical community and throw them the bone of another conservative justice or two.

As for Congress, it hasn't mounted serious opposition to a justice nominee since Clarence Thomas, and hasn't truly managed to derail a nomination since Bork.

 

OF the seven that sit on the bench now, five were Republican nominated/appointed.
Seems to me the bone being thrown here was to the Democrats or else RvW would have already become a thing of the past.

 

There are nine justices on the bench, and seven of them are Republican nominated/appointed.

Roberts- W
Stevens- Ford
Scalia- Reagan
Kennedy-Reagan
Souter- George HW Bush
Thomas - George HW Bush
Ginsburg- Clinton
Breyer - Clinton
Alito- W

The oldest (and thus the most likely to step down soon) are Stevens (88) and Ginsburg (75), and they happen to be the most liberal.

As for the R v. W being history, Souter was more liberal than the Bush 41 administration thought, and O'Connor was willing to recognize some right to abortion IIRC. So was Kennedy.

It's not been a deliberate decision on the part of Republican presidents to put appointees unwilling to overturn Roe.

 

I just read a quote by someone who is chronically unaware of how right they frequently are when their attempts at sarcastic whit are shaven off and the fine grain of truth is polished and revealed:

 

The similarity between the fears expressed here and those expressed about a century and a half ago about how abolitionists might cause the entire nation to take the position that blacks were fully human, in precisely the same way that whites are, is... ironic.

 

I erred, I meant seven of nine. Brainfart.

What I meant was, if the intent were there to stack the deck, as implied by McCain throwing the conservatives a couple of judges, point was outside of the fact that the majority already there are Republican placed, the majority was not relivent to the task of carrying a conservative agenda.
This is of course considering the justices weren't Borked as surely anyone who even had a whiff of changing the vote on them would be shot down in flames.

 

Not really.

1. I'm not saying it in a "Oh Noez!" sort of way, whereas the pro-slavery advocates were. In fact, I don't really fear that ruling at all.

2. It's a factual possibility that as a matter of law, the Supreme Court could so rule. Whereas as a matter of law, people remain to this day free to think that blacks are subhuman.

 

Sarah Palin IS a gift.

Wait till 2012.

 

The typical liberal line that a Republican president were have some kind of litmus test for SCOTUS is repeatedly blown away by history. It just hasn't happened. If anything, Democrats are the ones with real litmus tests on the subject of abortion.

 

Her speech should be good.

Can't wait.

 

It's going to be amazing. Romney just spoke - amazing speech.

 

Did James Dobson tell him he's going to hell for being a Mormon?