G.O.P. Platform on Abortion should be more prominent

Really? Did you read the platform? Or just listen to someone else? I didn't know what it said, but rather than just listen to someone else's report about it, I pulled it up and did a search for "abortion" and "life." The following are some of the results.

From the 2004 Platform:

Perhaps you want to haggle over the definition of "definitive statement," but it seems hard to read this platform and deny what it says.

 

Well said. I too disagree with but understand the "lesser evil" vote. But I also am dismayed that Christians are so viciously opposed to the only party and candidate who actually take their position. It's BACKWARDS.

BTW, as to "lacking any definitive statement", you are correct, however if you look up Bush's official campaign website, his agenda lacks ANY statement on abortion whatsoever. And the blood continues to flow, while we split hairs over two candidates who will do nothing to stop it.

 

Jim, How would you reword these to make them "definitive"? How much stronger could it be?

I think the argument we should be making is that the Republicans' actions will not live up to their statement. But I cannot see anyway to argue that these statements are not "definitive."

 

Me, too.

Larry, is there a reason that you did not provide the link to the quotes? If not, could you?

 

Only my bad memory. I meant to include it and then forgot. Sorry about that.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/Conventions/RNC-2004platform.pdf

I think it represents the "rank and file" of the party. I do not believe that those at the top as as committed as they should be. But judging from the title of this thread, that did not appear to be the topic, so I just commented on what the topic was.

Based on his statements, I think he is pro-life as a whole. But I think he is not doing nearly enough about it. I think he is right to say that we have to change the culture first; but he should use his bully pulpit to do just that. I am very unhappy with his abortion actions in this term.

The fact remains that until the courts change, abortion will not change. (The congress is, as of now, unwilling to make any thing beyond judicial review.) That is why this election is so important. There is only one member of this court who is under 65 and there are three octogenarians (I have always wanted to use that word in a sentence). The next president will have 3 or 4 appointments. If KErry gets them, they will be pro choice appointments. If Bush gets them, they will perhaps be pro life appointments. With Bush, there is at least a chance to change the court. With KErry there is no chance; it will become more solidified against life. That is why I believe we have to take the chance with Bush. I wish there was another legitimate candidate. I wish Peroutka was electable. I would likely vote for him if he were. But he is not, this time around. And we can't give 30 years of the Supreme Court to John Kerry.

 

While the GOP platform does have some pro-life wording in it, the President and the majority of the GOP leadership have not accted in accordance with the platform.

Funding has continued to the abortion providers both here and abroad. Bush has said that he doesn't think we should try to overturn Roe v. Wade, as the nation is not ready. Other than signing the "do nothing" PBA ban, our current GOP administration has done nothing to stop abortions.

Bush has appointed both pro-life and pro-abortion judges, and will continue to do so. He has promised not to use abortion as a litmus test when selecting judges. He has pro-abortion leaders and politicians campaigning for him.

While he may be "pro-life with exceptions", we can all see from those who he surrounds himself with, that the majority of the GOP leadership is pro-aboriton. I would guess that they left the wording in the GOP platform in order to keep they conservative Christian voters happy. The GOP doesn't require it's candidates to abide by the party platform, and untill they do, they platform is simply a bunch of meaningless words.

 

That is certainly an arguable viewpoint, JGrubbs. As I said, I think the argument we should be making is that the Republicans' actions will not live up to their statement. But I cannot see anyway to argue that these statements are not "definitive." However, it was not the discussion here. The discussion here was about what the platform said.

 

JGrubbs,

It is also not entirely correct. The PBA ban was not all he did to fight for life. There is also the Lacy Peterson law.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Speaking of "evils", it was Thomas Jefferson who believed slavery should have been abolished at the country's founding, but also believed it was a "necessary evil" whose time for demise had not yet come. I don't think it's unreasonable to view the abortion topic as today's "necessary evil", that has a lot of work that needs to be done before its demise can be seen. Aside from the emotional and political polarization of the topic, there are certainly more imminent positions that I will be weighing when I choose whom to vote for. Unless someone touts the idea of relaxing current abortion legislation, I don't see abortion being a major enough factor in a candidate's platform.

Joseph is correct. The Lacy Peterson law was, imo, good legislation. As for the PBA ban, I stated at its signing that a lack of a health exception made it challengeable, so when it was challenged, I wasn't a bit surprised. I do wish, however, that our legislators had simply reintroduced the bill with a health exception added. That would have restricted abortion more than it is today. Instead, they chose to leave the abortion practice untouched, a victory for groups like NOW.

 

A flat out statement in favor of banning all abortion would be embarassing to Bush, since he favors abortion in some cases.

 

Not sure what the problem is with that though. Even the very conservative Jerry Falwell says that he favors making abortion illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother's life.

 

There is never, ever a reason for a procured abortion. No person should have to die for another person's crime as in rape and incest. And there is no reason to intentionally kill a baby to save the mother's life -

"In short, a pregnant woman who is faced with the grim reality of impending death short of the use of, e.g., chemotherapy or hysterectomy, may use these and other morally licit medical treatments an procedures for the reasonably grave reason of saving her life, as long as the death of her unborn child is not directly intended as the end (or purpose) of using these procedures, or is the means by which her life is saved, but only allowed or permitted o happen as an accidental by-product of these medical actions, and no other reasonable medical treatment is available. However, the directly intended death of an unborn child by means of procured abortion remains morally indefensible - even to save the life of the mother, or for the best of intentions, or under very difficult circumstances - even in the case of incest or rape.

There is too much at stake to leave the lives of so many millions of innocents - both women and unborn children - up to mere persnal whimsy or political bartering." Rest at www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html .

 

You are correct, the Lacy Peterson law is a victory for life, but it still does nothing about the issue of abortion.

 

What it does about the issue of abortion is it recognizes by law the fetus is a human life in need of protection from harm and murder.

It is not the end of abortion, for sure. But, it is the beginning of the end.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Barbarian observes:
A flat out statement in favor of banning all abortion would be embarassing to Bush, since he favors abortion in some cases.

If it's a child, it doesn't matter what the circumstances are, it's a child, and killing it is wrong. If it's not a human life, then it's a woman doing what she has a right to do.

If the mother likely will die if an abortion is not done, then you must consider which is the less harmful thing to do. In some cases, it would be to abort. In others, a mother might decide to risk death to save the baby.

But rape or incest is not like that.

 

MIsleading at best. Bush allows for abortion in some cases. That is far different than favoring abortion in some cases. Integrity would have demanded that distinction be made in order to give a true statement.

 

A distinction without a difference. Bottom line, Bush would, if it was up to him, permit people to abort babies, if they were concieved in unfortunate ways.

That is indefensible.

 

OK, Larry has provided the link. The fact is that the GOP platform does make a definitive statement against abortion. Another fact, that Larry also points out, is that that is different from actually doing something about it. Unfortunately, the GOP does not use the platform as a guide.

In fact, I couldn't even find it on their official website. There they have their "agenda". I guess they realize that they pay no attention to the platform, so they have a second document that they call the "agenda". It not only does not make a definitive statement, it does not even bring it up. Some pro-life partuy, huh?

No need for doubt or uncertianty. Look on his own official campaign website, and click on "agenda". There, you will find all sorts of ultra-liberal stuff, and NO MENTION of abortion AT ALL.