Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
The problem is that FR is by no means representative of the country at large. If it were, Peroutka probably would be the president-elect.
"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."
Generally available 39
Available, but under stricter limits 38
Should not be permitted 22
Don't know/No answer 1
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2003. N=814 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (total sample).
Only "Generally available" is a ROE option.
If you have to ask a stupid irrational question, you will get what you asked for.
I am not going to answer that question.
Not because I don't have a appropriate answer, but because the question is nothing but flame baiting, non-germain and ridiculous.
As are most all your statements.
We have no common ground here. Your positioning is indefensible without diving into the rhetorical mosh pit.
The typical liberal Republican strawman.
Liberal Republicans never change hearts and minds. The reality is that they teach others their compromising ways that only serve to continue the practice of abortion.
True... but FR was what was being discussed in this exchange, not the country at large.
Have any of your clients ever actually won an election?
Dear narses,
Great post.
Let's repeat it for those who might have missed it the first time:
* * *
"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."
Generally available 39
Available, but under stricter limits 38
Should not be permitted 22
Don't know/No answer 1
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2003. N=814 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (total sample).
Only "Generally available" is a ROE option.
* * *
Looks like 60% of the population, in this poll, prefer greater restrictions or a ban on abortion.
Unfortunately, Roe prevents and stricter limits on abortion at all.
Looks like Roe is getting in the way of 60% of the people of the United States!
Imagine that! ;-)
sitetest
I think those who serve the abortion mega-business are the nutjobs.
Your posts are irrational.
Try to focus.
Dear Cold Heat,
"This is why Roe evolved and why it will remain as settled law."
Please explain how Roe "evolved."
That may be difficult, as your assertion that Roe "evolved" is fictional.
The laws of most states outlawed abortions in the vast majority of cases in January, 1973. A number of states in the 1960s and early 1970s had liberalized their abortion laws, but by 1973, that movement was petering out.
Roe didn't "evolve." Roe was created ex nihilio and imposed on the nation.
Roe invalidated every single restriction on abortion in every single state of the United States.
Even now, the courts have permitted only the slightest of impositions on the license to abortion on demand.
The courts have permitted, in some cases, that minors may be required to notify their parents that they are to procure an abortion.
The courts have permitted, in limited cases, short waiting periods.
The courts have permitted, in limited cases, required informed consent.
That's about it.
The courts, so far, have not even permitted a ban on infanticide, labled "partial birth abortion."
Currently, the legal regime for abortion is the most extreme of virtually any in the Western world. Go look up the abortion laws in European countries. We trash them, and deservedly so, for many things. But in Britain, late term abortions are generally banned, and they are contemplating moving the cut off point to earlier in pregnancy. In Germany, women are required to undergo significant counseling before acquiring the credential required to have an abortion.
Our abortion laws (or lack thereof) are the most extreme in the Western world. And that is because of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. As long as these stand, we can't even outlaw infanticide.
Conversely, reversing Roe is not the same as decreeing via judicial fiat that abortion is to be banned in all circumstances.
Reversing Roe returns us to the status quo ante bellum.
Reversing Roe permits the issue to once again be hashed out in the political process.
Are you against permitting abortion to be subject to regulation through state and federal laws, passed by state legislatures and the Congress? If you do oppose permitting abortion to be the subject of legislation, how does that make you different from Kate Michaelman?
Why are you (and Kate Michaelman) so afraid of the political process? Perhaps you fear that the people may approve of significant restrictions on abortion?
sitetest
How many of your clients support abortion?
Unlike DU and the Democrats in general, failure to conform on this issue isn't cause for expulsion. The reason you see pro-choice Republicans here debating is because the pro-life founder of this site allows them to do so freely, without fear of reprisals.
Interesting that you'd cite that as an example of how pro-life intolerance alienates fellow Republicans.
"Your positioning is indefensible"
Since you are the one name calling, I find your attitude odd. Since you are the one here expressing support for the Impeached Ex President's views on abortion, I find it even more odd that you call me names and refuse to answer my civil question.
BUT, if I'm out of line, I'd like to know where.
Therefore:
Sitetest,
More than once, when I have been out of line, you have been honest enough to say so. I invite your critique of my exchange with Cold Heat. I agree, in advance, to accept your analysis as definitive. You have no direct obligation to get involved here, but I'd appriciate it, if you choose to.
I'm sure all of Europe is much further down the road to hell than we are. Whereas we allow abortions, they probably mandate it! Well for sure, they subsidize it with taxpayer dollars.
America is always 20 - 30 years behind Europe in moral decline.
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2003. N=814 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (total sample).
Only "Generally available" is a ROE option.
* * *
Looks like 60% of the population, in this poll, prefer greater restrictions or a ban on abortion.
I know you aren't going to like me pointing this out, but you could also interpret that to say that 77% of the population supports legalized abortion, while only 22% think it should be illegal.
See post 1392. I look forward to your response.
:-) Must be the public school math.
I suggest you rework that problem. If you put the parsed (in favor but) question together with (in favor), it is 39+38=77 to 22% against.
I hope I clarified that.
Dear JeffAtlanta,
"And only 'Should not be permitted' is a pro-life option."
That is at one end of the continuum.
On the other hand, even "stricter limits" are not permitted under Roe. The fact is that 60% or more of the people support abortion laws which are more restrictive than Roe v. Wade permits.
The Supreme Court ruled even that Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban was unconstitutional because it violated Roe.
Overturning Roe does not get us to a universal ban on abortions.
It merely returns the question to the realm of politics, to legislatures, to voters, to hash out what the laws will be. That is where the question belongs.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.