Abortion Doesn’t Matter
Oh goodness, I’m at it again!
OK, so I like to write provocative titles, sue me!
Hear me out on this one. I was talking with my uncle over the Christmas holiday, 2006, and we were discussing our political positions. I’m a Libertarian, and he’s a conservative Republican. We have many things in common, and a few that we disagree on. When I was younger, I didn’t stand a chance defending my positions against his, mainly because I didn’t really know what I was talking about, and secondarily because I was still learning and therefore hadn’t yet become a Libertarian.
But this Christmas while we were talking, I decided to explain my position on various topics including my support for gay marriage (oh my!) and my support for a VERY limited number of allowable abortions. Anyway, he made a point that has stuck with me ever since. He told me that my position on abortion didn’t matter. I promptly let him know that yes, it DID matter … especially if you are running for President. I was in for an intellectual beat down, but those are always good for me.
You see, what I hadn’t realized was that Presidents have very little to do with abortion. Seriously, not even legislatures can do much, if anything, about it. The issue of abortion is completely controlled by the judiciary. If a Presidential candidate claims he will appoint judges like Thomas and Scalia and others who are constitutional constructionists, then I really don’t need to hear his position on abortion.
WOW, what a revelation! I never had thought of it that way, but it made perfect sense. Unfortunately, the right wing of the Republican party has decided to make this a gigantic issue that a candidate MUST fall in line with (think Mitt Romney), and I think that’s just plain dumb. It’s sort of like asking the candidates if they believe in evolution. TOTALLY POINTLESS! It was a question that was derived to piss off the Christian right, and alienate some of us from the mainstream candidates. Guess what, Chris Matthews … it’s not gonna work. I don’t care if a candidate believes in evolution, I don’t care what his position on abortion is, I don’t care if he’s had a divorce … All I care about is policy … small government, strong defense, and a devotion to freedom. Give me that, and you can be a gay atheist for all I care.
OK, my rant is over :-) Have a nice day =)
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[...] by The Daily Way Published in Law and Justice I read on a weblog that I visit daily on a post about abortion, and I have been typing on this little by little and saving it in my [...]
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Fatal error: Call to undefined function: show_manual_subscription_form() in /nfs/c03/h01/mnt/48320/domains/nathanrice.org/html/wp-content/themes/ElegantBlue/comments.php on line 108
Well, I gotta hand it to you. Your post titles always stick out in my feed reader…
I say we just get a President that can carry an intelligent conversation and not embarrass the country with more stains on interns’ dresses.
Maybe even that’s asking too much.
Or…
Nathan for President! Nathan for President!
Oh goodness no! Although I wouldn’t mind the $400K/year salary
Yes, a little class in the White house would be nice. But again, if there’s a candidate who has some decent reformation ideas, I’m all over that. I just want to see a President, in my lifetime, actually do something to shrink the government. JUST ONE!
That, I fear, is too much to ask.
Makes me appreciate my governor even more.
Whatever y’all do, don’t vote for Romney. I know he’s become a darling of moderates in the last few months, but ask some people who’ve actually lived under his governance. I’m from western Massachusetts, and I can tell you that even most Republicans here recognize what an awful governor he was. His lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey, ran to succeed him, and much of her campaign was spent distancing herself from Romney as much as possible. If you think John Kerry is a ‘flip-flopper’, try Romney.
/rant
Abortion is a difficult issue for me. I absolutely believe that abortions are permissible in cases of danger to the mother’s health or life. Otherwise, however, it becomes muddier. Does a mother’s right to control ‘her own body’ supersede a fetus’ right to live? I don’t think it’s so clear-cut as either side makes it.
I came to the same revelation about the right wing of the GOP 2 years ago. Now I vote what is best for my fellow citizens. Our current 2 party system is a failure, and I usually vote close to independant.
Couple of things:
1) Abortion specifically matters because it goes to how interested the man or woman is in protecting the rights of all people, regardless of how “popular” such a stand might be. I’ll grant you that one’s stance on abortion might have little pragmatic value (they truely can’t change it), but it has huge suggestive value (suggesting what the moral fiber of the person looks like).
2)If, for these reasons, abortion doesn’t matter, then it could reasonably be argued that the presidency doesn’t matter. I say that not in total disagreement with the statement, but simply to point it out.
Matthew,
I’d agree that many Americans place significant value on a potential President’s positions on even the most irrelevant of topics (as I mentioned, evolution). My point was more toward those people (perhaps you as well) … that because a man’s position on abortion serves no practical significance, perhaps it shouldn’t matter all that much to us.
I suppose it could be argued that his position on abortion could very well be indicative of his position on life in general, but it could be equally as valid to say that a man’s total marriages/divorces is indicative of his position on commitment. I guess my beef is that neither of those things really matter all that much when it comes to any practical relevancy. If a man has no power to implement his policy on abortion, does it really matter what his position on it is? What about governors? mayors? city counsel? school board?
Think about it. Would you not vote for a school board member because he’s pro-choice? Me … I really don’t care.
However, I’m open to correction
I think that all of these matters (divorce, abortion, evolution, etc) have a huge bearing on how a man or woman will govern/represent the people.
What would you think about voting for a man (at any level) who thinks that blacks shouldn’t have the right to vote? Certainly he would have no power to change the laws of the land, but doesn’t that say something about his character? Doesn’t it give you some clue as to his worldview?
Just because the issue in question can’t be directly affected, I don’t believe it means the issue is moot.
It is only moot if you — as a voter — don’t think the issue in question is important.
For example: divorce. If in your view of the world, divorce is no real indicator of anything (I mean, after all, isn’t a divorce more common than not?), then the weight of a man’s divorce record will be nil — not because of his power to affect any change to marriage laws, but because of the relative importance you place on one’s view and experience with marriage affecting anything.
Back to the issue at hand: I happen to find the abortion issue relevant for anyone being voted into elected office. If a man or woman will discount the value of an unborn human’s life simply because it’s politically expedient or because he or she honestly believes that some other human being has the right to decide if he or she lives or not — I’d be afraid of what that person would be capable of supporting should there be other elements of society deemed lower classes of human (Jews, blacks, Christians, Muslims, bald guys, ugly people).
Matthew,
Your comment about a man who doesn’t think blacks have the right to vote, really made me think. HEY, that’s twice now you’ve stumped me
However, a man’s racism can reasonably indicate whether or not he is a good man. On the other hand, there are good men who believe that abortion is a right. I think the abortion issue is less of an indicating factor than racism, although I may be wrong.
Also, a man has man has much more of a chance of letting his racism permeate his policy than a pro-choice candidate would have, so the two are a little incomparable.
I’d have to disagree. As a Christian, my faith is important, but I do not require a Presidential candidate to share that faith. Also, the issue of pre-marital sex is important to me, but I would never vote for a candidate who wanted to outlaw it.
I suppose you mean “political importance”, and for that I would agree. If you do not consider an issue politically important, chances are you wouldn’t care about a candidate’s position on it, and vice versa.
So here’s a zinger for ya…
Rudy said that he supports public funding of abortions, but is personally against abortion. He has said that because the courts have made a decision on the issue, he has to abide within that decision. He has also had divorces.
Newt has been divorced multiple times, and is an admitted adulterer.
Romney is a Mormon.
McCain is a quasi-liberal, and simply will not win the primary.
You have to compromise on something. What will it be?
Two thoughts:
1) I know people who could legitimately be called “racist” who I would solidly put in the category of good people. Please note: that in no way means I find their racism tolerable any more than it means you find the pro-abortion stance tolerable of the good people you mentioned. But “good people” doesn’t (shouldn’t) automatically equate to “electable people” or “good governors”
2)As for the field of Republican candidates, I have to say that none of them really suit me. I’m more or less leaning toward some of the lesser knowns (read: snowball chance) like Brownback and Huckabee … I’m even taking a look at the Democratic field for options. But even there, I’m sure I won’t be able to totally back any one of them. I’m not sure what my “prime” issue is, honestly. The fact is — which you make eloquently in posing that question — a compromise must be made.
I came to the same conclusion as you have — abortion views really don’t matter in our elected officials. Back in 2000, I considered myself a staunchly conservative Republican (things have changed for me quite a bit since then), and was thrilled to see President Bush elected and then reelected to office. There was tremendous talk of his potential to influence the issue of abortion, but nothing really ever came of it. After all the hopes and dreams and expectations, the issue simply wasn’t affected by his presidency in any meaningful way.
What DOES matter is that millions of people continually vote for the Republican party (or Democratic, depending on their stance) based purely, or at least predominantly, on that issue alone, while unintentionally giving support to many other unrelated issues within the party platform. I believe both political parties are keenly aware of the opportunity this presents to them.
For example, as long as Republicans are consistently pro-life, and democrats are consistently pro-choice, they are each guaranteed to attract a large chunk of supporters based on that issue alone. It doesn’t matter whether their other issues are in the best interest of those supporters — they are so focused on the abortion issue that they will either convince themselves, often passively, that their party is correct on everything else. After all, any party who agrees with their view on abortion must be an all-around principled and decent party!
The reality of the situation is that most people cannot be neatly placed within one party or the other. There is just too much variation in opinions for independent, critically-thinking people to totally align with either platform. However, many people do exactly that, which tells me that they act simply as followers, who go along with whatever their party tells them. Unfortunately, “their” party is often determined by something like the abortion issue or even the party which they happen to be raised into.
The two-party system creates many ridiculous situations, which often seem to go unnoticed by many people. In the eyes of many, the parties are simply polar opposites, and a person can be either one or the other. In reality, there is no rhyme or reason to the views which a party lumps together into its platform. For example, there is no inherent consistency in a platform which opposes abortion and supports capital punishment. Or in a platform which supports universal healthcare and abortion. Or a platform which advocates gun freedoms and advocates low taxes. These issues are fairly independent of one another. Pretty much any of these views can be mixed-and-matched in a sensible person’s own personal political platform. Political parties attempt to explain their views in such a way as to give consistency to them, but in the end, there is no reason for people not to mix and match between all areas of the political spectrum to suit their views. Deeply emotional wedge issues like abortion are cleverly exploited by each party to attract supporters to their platforms and prevent people from thinking too critically about the full range of issues that lay before them. It is much easier for them to just pick a single issue and then shape their political identity to match the party which corresponds.
Needless to say, my worldview is somewhat cynical and contains vast gray areas. I personally like the idea of having a lot of third parties, but I am not optimistic about them ever presenting an effective challenge to the inherently flawed system we have right now. Hopefully I am shown to be wrong.