November 20, 2005

The Con Game

Posted by Adam Graham in : Abortion

From The Boston Globe we have word that Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) in between serving as Chairman of the House Government Reform (and Baseball) Committee has some choice words about overturning Roe v. Wade:

The Republican lawmaker who helped guide the GOP to an expanded majority in the House three years ago warned yesterday that a Supreme Court ruling overturning a woman’s legal right to an abortion — a possibility if the high court shifts further to the right — could hurt his party’s political prospects and cause a ‘’sea change” in suburban voting habits.

Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee through the 2002 election, said that if the Supreme Court threw out Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established that abortion rights were protected by the Constitution, ”you’re going to have a lot of very nervous suburban candidates.”

Well, Rep. Davis has a bit of a problem and its common with a lot of Republicans. People like the NRA, pro-lifers, fiscal conservatives, and tax cutters work to get Republicans elected. Yet, there’s a wing of the party that would much rather offend their friends rather than the people who will never support them.

I don’t think that people view abortion as this sacrosanct thing that liberals do. Its viewed as a negative thing in society, even by many who support it and the percentage of people supporting the pro-life position is growing.

Also, if pro-choice is such a huge majority position, why don’t all you “pretend pro-lifers” out there simply join the pro-choice bandwagon if Roe’s overturned, then you’ll be nice and safe. Just don’t count on the support of pro-lifers. You can’t be everything to everyone, so make your choice.

Abortion

Share and Enjoy:

Comments (11)

11 Comments

Comment by Michael [Visitor]

I don’t think that people view abortion as this sacrosanct thing that liberals do. Its viewed as a negative thing in society, even by many who support it and the percentage of people supporting the pro-life position is growing.

Adam

Abortion saddened and offends my sensibilities. However, I can no more prove when a fetus becomes a human than you can prove the existence of God. It is a personal matter best left to the individual. When it comes to issues of morality we need less government intervention , not more .
Comment by Andrea Graham [Member]

Proving when a fetus is human is simple: when does it have the genetic imprint of a human versus the genetic imprint of a frog? Hint: (Despite appearances, it has the genetic imprint of a human at conception, it never has the imprint of a frog, not even when it resembles one)

And we do need less federal government intervention on morality. That’s why we need to overturn Roe V. Wade, so the states will again have the freedom to choose. Then we can vote on these issues like a democracy–at the polls and with our feet if we vote with the minority.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]

But “pretend pro-lifers” haven’t run for office saying that. They’ve advocated the pro-life position, but now want to back off, because they’ve been lying and deceiving people to obtain their support.
Comment by Michael [Visitor]

Proving when a fetus is human is simple: when does it have the genetic imprint of a human versus the genetic imprint of a frog?
andrea

Sure It is a human fetus. The question is when does it become a viable human. There is no consensus. If there were we wouldn’t be rehashing the same aspects of this debate.

I would prefer that abortion not be the central factor which differentiates the two largest political parties.

Adam. Keep in mind that the far left is constantly saying the Democratic party is becoming Republican light.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]

I don’t think it is “THEE” factor, I think it is “A Factor” along with other things.

Sure It is a human fetus. The question is when does it become a viable human. There is no consensus. If there were we wouldn’t be rehashing the same aspects of this debate.

First of all, if there’s no consensus:

1) It should be decided by people in the serveral states.
2) Its not something in the Constiution that forbids states from legislating on abortion which is the central point of Roe.

I would also say the issue of viability is not as important as the issue of personhood. The only non-arbitrary time to list as the beginning of life is fertilization because that’s when life scientifically defined begins. If viability is a test of humanity, we’re on the road to Auschwitz.

Get this out of the national political sphere and it becomes a lot more manageable. Let Massachusetts make the laws it wants and Idaho make the law it wants and nothing gets shoved down any state’s throat unless there’s consensus by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States. Until then, let the states decide.
Comment by Andrea Graham [Member]

I have to agree with Adam. The fact that a child won’t be able to survive outside the womb for several more weeks or months is not a justification for murder. Now, if termination were the *only* way to prevent the death of both mother and baby, like with a tubal pregnancy for instance, that is another story, but to save the life of the mother when she is in immediate danger of dying, is the only time I would think it permissible, morally.

In terms of government policy, however, I think the matter should be left up to the states to decide. That’s the most fair way and it *is* what the founding fathers had in mind, too.
Comment by Michael [Visitor]

The only non-arbitrary time to list as the beginning of life is fertilization because that’s when life scientifically defined begins. If viability is a test of humanity, we’re on the road to Auschwitz.
Adam

I had hopes to avoid this old line of reasoning . But since you insist , give me a time when you feel a fetus should be protected as a citizen ? Would it be day 2 ?
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]

Yes, absolutely.
Comment by Soccer Mom [Visitor]

Does this mean Tom Davis has been faking it all along when he votes pro-life? Here are his ratings:

Abortion Issues

2004 Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 91 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 10 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Representative Davis supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 94 percent in 2001-2002.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]

First of all, what you’re dealing with in Rep. Davis’ voting record are issues that are on the periphery of the abortion tragedy. 91% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Most votes Congress deal with late term abortions or funding issues.

Second point, even if Davis’ record is “pro-life”, he doesn’t want pro-lifers to win. What he wants is to get their votes, while still keep 90+% of abortions legal.
Comment by Soccer Mom [Visitor]

I would prefer to know where Tom Davis stands and then see him vote accordingly. I don’t like being lied to or manipulated on such an important issue.