QUESTION: Who will give first on Abortion - Republicans or Democrats?

[Joe Republc]

So who's going to give up something first on abortion -- Republicans or Democrats?

One side has had a pro-life plank, the other a pro-choice plank, for a long time.

My two cents -- the Dems lose more votes than they gain by identifying themselves so tightly with abortion rights. I'm not expecting to ever see the Democrats go so far as a pro-life plank, but at least they need to drop their current abortion stance.

Your thoughts?

-- Joe

[GSlob]

Well, Joe, I understand that you are not going to have an abortion under any circumstances. I am proud of you.

[Grey Ghost II]

Republicans always give on this issue. The fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by the US Senate by a vote of 97 to 3, tells me the Republicans won't win on this issue for a very long time. Imagine being embarrassed (like most Republicans are) for wanting to save the lives of unborn children?

[kcar]

Roe vs Wade will be overturned within two decades, with restrictions to be decided by states rather than the Feds. Democrats won't not get a boon from this historic cessation in hostilities - they'll have already gone the path of the Whigs. The opposition party to the Republicans will come from within the Replublican party, and will probably be called Conservtives.

[mozarky2]

I can't see the Dims caving on abortion. The contributions from the Big Abortion lobby are the lifeblood of the Dims...they can't live without it.
Gutless 'pubbies, on the other hand...

[chitownfreeper]

I'm not sure they lose more votes than they gain that way.

The pro-lifers are going to vote Republican no matter what (unless Bush totally screws us over the next four years). Most people probably think it should be legal. The Dems would be smart to pander to their base - they're less forgiving than we are.

The only reason that the hard Left voted for Kerry is that they hated Bush so much. They pretty much hated Kerry, too. Trust me, my neighborhood is teeming with them.

Kerry is no more loved in the most liberal areas of Chicago than he is here. I don't think they can go any farther Right.

[MNJohnnie]

The problem is Repbs do not understand that our system of Govt is EVOLUTUIONARY not REVOLUTIONARY. Dims understand about getting what you can NOW and coming back to fight for the next step. The result is when a certain segment of Repbs, usually definded as paleocons, do not get EVERYTHING they want RIGHT now they throw a hissy fit and stay home on election day thus getting 100% of what they LOATH.

However, the Dims position is SO extremeist (Abortion on demands, when ever she want it for anyone of any age who wants one at any time during the pregnancy paid for by the Govt) that ultimately they will have to give SOMEThing up along the way.

[hinckley buzzard]

Pro-abortion absolutism has been a consistent net loser for the 'rats. Partial birth abortion has cost them credibility with the lukewarm middle. People with no real pro-life passion are nonetheless repulsed by it.

The 'rats have to do something to regain momentum; having no core values or loyalties, they will be willing to sacrifice any constituency they think will lighten the load. If the abortionistas of NOW and PPF should be perceived as a net weakness, they will be flipped off. What saves them now is the money they generate.

I don't expect any of these varmints to go down without a fight, however. None of them care about the party, any more than the party cares about them, and they could have an ugly internecine bloodletting.

Republicans have pretty much hit the sweet spot on life issues, and I see no reason for them to consider changing.

[AntiGuv]

The days of Roe v Wade are numbered - but abortion will remain legal in most of the states I think.

BTW, if Roe is overturned abortion would in very short order become illegal in 17 states that still have abortion bans on the books: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

So, the post-Roe battle would be enjoined immediately (even apart from whatever new bills get introduced) and a lot of people will quickly see/hear the impact. Should be interesting to see how things unfold afterward.

[thoughtomator]

The GOP of course. The GOP overall is ambivalent about abortion, and for the Democrats it is a sacrament... you'd have an easier time getting Catholics to change their opinion on baptism.

[hatfieldmccoy]

Hmmm... the euphemisms say it all--if the baby is wanted it is a baby if he/she is not wanted they are a fetus....

[Noachian]

The Dems want to move to the "center" for pragmatic reasons, but can't lose their liberal base.

The pubbies already have the abortion high ground, but won't push their advantage as the Dems would have. Pubbies are weird that way.

Both know that Roe is a thorn that has to be gotten rid of, so both will not attempt to overturn Roe.

But both Dems and pubbies will gradually water it down until Roe is meaningless, thereby saving their resepctive bases and getting rid of a problem neither side wants.

[Cedar]

All I know is if the Republicans drop pro-life from their platform, I'll not be voting Republican.

I'll go for a pro-life independent, regardless of their having a slim chance of winning.

Never would I give my vote to a pro-abortion individual.

[Grassontop]

I could never figure out how a man or woman could support abortion. Whether they be demonrats or republicans, I just don't understand why they would support such a black abyss cold hearted murder on an infant that can't defend itself! God knew these babies in the womb even before they were born, but then I have to remember that the devil is trying to take away from God for his being kicked out of heaven!

[lara]

Exactly. No way are they going to give up that money. Abortion is a huge business. I'm sure that didn't have any influence on Catholic, altar boy, pro-life and pro-partial birth abortion, Kerry, though.

[mandingo republican]

Tbe Demo cat will never let go of legally sanctioned baby killing - it is their purpose in life - they need to sacrifice the unborn for their mentally retarted version of progress and social justice and helping the "people of color' - it is their religion. Banning abortion to a democrat is the equivalent to Pagan Roman the pagan gods falling to Christianity.

[Fishtalk]

The days of Roe v Wade are numbered - but abortion will remain legal in most of the states I think.

Who knows what will happen in the future? Though I agree. This society's not ready to ban abortion, either state wide of federally.

However, the social tide is definitely changing and by me, the Pubs are doing the right thing.

That rider put into the recent budget was a start. FYI, this is the rider that will not allow federal funds to be denied health care providers that will not do abortions. Catholic high schools and universities is an example of this.

It was before this election that the pubs inserted the provision about advising potential abortion candidates about the pro-life and adoptive choices. Only now the dems are screaming about insuring that "advising" about abortion be required.

The point is, it is via the pocketbook that abortion will be mostly quelled. Heck, using that interesting rider about non-denial of federal funds it's entirely possible the big HMO's will begin to deny abortion coverage if they don't already. They can simply point to the budget provisions that "condones" non-denial of federal funds when abortions are not provided as congressional inputed endorsement of non-coverage for abortion.

When think about it, why should elective, non-medical abortion be paid for by all HMO subscribers? You'll never convince me that anyone getting pregnant in this day and age was either beyond careless at an age at least old enough to get pregnant, or explicitly planned.

I'm willing to give the pubs time on this issue. The WORST thing they can do is go gangbusters to make abortion illegal. Do like the Dems do, make abortion a bad word, make people who are not pro-life the enemy. Seems pretty simple compared to the Dems making gentle Ken Starr an enemy. Making those opposed to pro-life a bad guy should be a piece of cake.

[Richard Kimball]

Most people probably think it should be legal.

I don't think this is true. Here's my take:

First, while there are certainly women who want abortion on demand, much of the hierarchy of the Democrats are most concerned with keeping "those people" from reproducing. This is also true of Planned Parenthood, which tends to have abortion clinics in areas with a lot of "those people." So, the first thing to remember is that the argument they use to justify abortion is, at best, only partially true.

Second, NARAL and Planned Parenthood spend a lot of time spinning. Planned Parenthood, for example, spun off the Alan Guttmacher Institute, so they'd have "independent research" to back up whatever techniques they were using. Independent surveys have generally shown that most people believe abortion should be illegal in most cases. It's reported to be the opposite, because NARAL and PP use sleight of hand to make the surveys seem to say the opposite. The first technique they use is listing anyone who believes abortion should be legal under any circumstances, including the classic, "rape, incest and to save the life of the mother" as being pro-abortion. Look for this key phrase from the old media, "Most Americans agree that abortion should be legal in some circumstances." They also insert a vaguely worded statement, and ask whether the individual agrees. Here's the question, yes, I've been surveyed, and this is exactly how they worded it: "If a woman and her doctor agree, a woman should have access to all health care choices, including pregnancy termination. Agree or disagree?" They don't use the term abortion, lump it in with other health care choices, and imply a medical reason for the desire to "end the pregnancy."

When dealing with politicians, NARAL, PP, and the other pro-aborts use an entirely different tactic. If a politician believes there should be any restrictions on abortion, including parental notification or partial birth abortion, they're listed as "anti-choice."

The best studies I've seen say that close to 50% of voters don't care one way or the other, and that talking about abortion at all turns them off of a candidate. About 30% will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and about 20% will not vote for a pro-life candidate. Most politicians hate having to deal with abortion at all, and far prefer the traditional method of getting elected, which is promising pork to the voters back home.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

I agree that the GOP has got to keep pro-life issues on the platform, and I used to feel exactly the same way you do re: voting -- I'd never vote pro-choice no matter what. But now, I will vote for a Republican who might be somewhat soft on this issue if it means having the pro-life party in power. If I vote for an independent who is pro life over a moderate Republican, but that one independent gives the dems the majority on the committees that oversee floor votes, etc., then I'm defeating my purpose. We've got to think strategically.

[Safrguns]

I have absolutely no faith in the republican party putting an end to the abomination of abortion. Specter's apparent survival as chairman elect puts the final nail in that coffin. However, I do know that this nation is currently under God's judgement because of abortion, and I do have faith that He is going to do something about it... And when God steps into the ring, He always wins. Yes... the liberals will be forced to cave on this. But it will be clear to the whole world that it will be by God's hand.