[mike777]

han, on Feb 7 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

I think you are asking why is the divide still so red hot and divisive 35/40 years after Roe vs Wade.

Roe vs Wade is a court case that found abortion legal based on rights ( I think privacy rights but someone could double check). It is not a law passed by Congress or the states.

Abortion rules, legal or illegal or those yet to be determined rules (and there are many) are set by unelected judges rather than by elected politicians. This is really the crux of the issue.

You have a highly controversial issue that is ultimately being settled in the courts by unelected judges rather than through some forced political compromise through elections.

Almost 40 years later judges are still deciding the abortion rules, and new ones keep coming up, rather than elections that would force some compromise.

Yes there would always be controversy but elections to force compromise on issues lessen the passion. In this case the passion grows rather than lessens.

[Winstonm]

han, on Feb 7 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

han, on Feb 7 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

Mostly, Han, it's because the world at large vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average American and underestimates the apathy. Much easier to be told how and what to think than to actually think for oneself - if you even care about such things.

Sounds nice but I don't believe the intelligence of average Americans is much lower than that of the average worlder, if at all smaller.

Just being cynical - the more accurate reason is because the U.S. is not far enough removed in history from its Victorian morality roots.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

han, on Feb 7 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

han, on Feb 7 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

Mostly, Han, it's because the world at large vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average American and underestimates the apathy. Much easier to be told how and what to think than to actually think for oneself - if you even care about such things.

Sounds nice but I don't believe the intelligence of average Americans is much lower than that of the average worlder, if at all smaller.

Just being cynical - the more accurate reason is because the U.S. is not far enough removed in history from its Victorian morality roots.

I knew it was all some English Queen's fault,,,darn her.

[han]

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

han, on Feb 7 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

I think you are asking why is the divide still so red hot and divisive 35/40 years after Roe vs Wade.

Roe vs Wade is a court case that found abortion legal based on rights ( I think privacy rights but someone could double check). It is not a law passed by Congress or the states.

Abortion rules, legal or illegal or those yet to be determined rules (and there are many) are set by unelected judges rather than by elected politicians. This is really the crux of the issue.

You have a highly controversial issue that is ultimately being settled in the courts by unelected judges rather than through some forced political compromise through elections.

Almost 40 years later judges are still deciding the abortion rules, and new ones keep coming up, rather than elections that would force some compromise.

Yes there would always be controversy but elections to force compromise on issues lessen the passion. In this case the passion grows rather than lessens.

Yes yes, but why is it so controversial?

[TimG]

luke warm, on Feb 7 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

concerning the rest of the list you provided, which do you disagree with?

I was not trying to offer an opinion on any of those issues, simply listing some of McCain's positions that appear to be in conflict with the Democratic party line.

[Al_U_Card]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

Isn't the first thought that enters your head "That's ridiculous, why would we invade Canada?"

We have the largest proven oil (tar sands) reserves in the world?

[mike777]

han, on Feb 7 2008, 08:12 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

han, on Feb 7 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

I think you are asking why is the divide still so red hot and divisive 35/40 years after Roe vs Wade.

Roe vs Wade is a court case that found abortion legal based on rights ( I think privacy rights but someone could double check). It is not a law passed by Congress or the states.

Abortion rules, legal or illegal or those yet to be determined rules (and there are many) are set by unelected judges rather than by elected politicians. This is really the crux of the issue.

You have a highly controversial issue that is ultimately being settled in the courts by unelected judges rather than through some forced political compromise through elections.

Almost 40 years later judges are still deciding the abortion rules, and new ones keep coming up, rather than elections that would force some compromise.

Yes there would always be controversy but elections to force compromise on issues lessen the passion. In this case the passion grows rather than lessens.

Yes yes, but why is it so controversial?

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial or OTOH are you asking why others would deny women complete 100% reproduction rights is controversial? Or are asking why something in between might be controversial?

I do not know why but people seem to care about one side of the issue, killing unborn babies or the other side, denying women full reproduction rights and control over their body and whatever cells/genes are inside it.

And all of this is decided by unelected judges.

[TimG]

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial

Given the number of people that believe abortion is killing babies, I'm surprised it's not more controversial.

[PassedOut]

On the plus side of the ledger, it seems that the US will be out of the torture business as soon as the next president takes office: A President Who Tortured.

McCain knows (from personal experience) that torture is always unacceptable. And the democratic candidates understand that same principle, even without having undergone torture themselves.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Feb 7 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

You might have said "as a Democrat who agrees with lots of Republican positions" or "as a centrist Democrat". I took your "as a Democrat" to mean something more along the lines of "as one who tends to agree with the Democratic party line".

I am a registered as a Democrat, and I refer to myself as a Democrat. Therefore, I am a Democrat. This definition is complete, and has legal meaning. For example, I can vote in a closed Democratic caucus. Nobody asks what my positions are prior to letting me through the door.

I didn't think that required clarification. My mistake.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Feb 8 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

TimG, on Feb 7 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

You might have said "as a Democrat who agrees with lots of Republican positions" or "as a centrist Democrat".  I took your "as a Democrat" to mean something more along the lines of "as one who tends to agree with the Democratic party line".

I am a registered as a Democrat, and I refer to myself as a Democrat. Therefore, I am a Democrat. This definition is complete, and has legal meaning. For example, I can vote in a closed Democratic caucus. Nobody asks what my positions are prior to letting me through the door.

I didn't think that required clarification. My mistake.

That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Feb 8 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

TimG, on Feb 7 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

You might have said "as a Democrat who agrees with lots of Republican positions" or "as a centrist Democrat".  I took your "as a Democrat" to mean something more along the lines of "as one who tends to agree with the Democratic party line".

I am a registered as a Democrat

Therefore you are a Democrat. Wow I'm glad I could clear up that confusing situation.

[kenberg]

All this discussion of what it means to be a Democrat brings to mind an old issue. As a child in Minnesota in the 1940-50s, most everyone's father that I knew belonged to a union and for the most part they voted Dem. It was Hubert Humphrey country. As the neighborhood weirdo I grew up to become a mathematician (to the great puzzlement of my father) and I am perhaps out of touch, but when I am with people who remind me of my father I find they mostly vote Republican.

It seems to me today that both parties may again be be undergoing a change of personality. I am thinking, in both cases, this might be all to the good.

[han]

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial ...

No, I was asking why abortion is controversial, it seems to me that killing babies is not a controversial topic.

More precisely, why is abortion such a dangerous topic in the US elections but not so much elsewhere (maybe it is in some other countries too, I don't know).

[hrothgar]

han, on Feb 8 2008, 08:51 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial ...

No, I was asking why abortion is controversial, it seems to me that killing babies is not a controversial topic.

More precisely, why is abortion such a dangerous topic in the US elections but not so much elsewhere (maybe it is in some other countries too, I don't know).

The US is an outlier in any number of ways

1. We're pretty much the only large developed economy that takes religion seriously

2. We're pretty much the only large developed democracy that maintains the death penalty

3. We're pretty much the only large developed economy that considers Evolution controversial

4. We're still fighting over abortion (However, the Economist ran an interesting article a couple monthes back about the renew process for abortion access bills in the UK)

Personally, I think that item one is driving a lot of other behaviours

[jtfanclub]

kenberg, on Feb 8 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

It seems to me today that both parties may again be be undergoing a change of personality. I am thinking, in both cases, this might be all to the good.

It's weird, ain't it? In 1988 or so, there were one group of Republicans, and Democrats were just 'everything left over'.

Now there's at least 3 groups of Republicans...
1. Fox News Republicans, always for war, never saw a spending increase or tax cut they didn't like, pro Federal power (such as warrantless wiretapping and Gitmo torture). Talk a lot about abortion, but don't seem to actually care about it. Pro gun control. Generally against 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants. Example: Guilliani.

2. Religious Right Republicans. Care a lot more about flag burning and banning abortion outright than they do about other issues. Very anti Federal power, heavily anti gun control. Believe in tax cuts but not spending increases. Very against 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants. Example: Huckabee.

3. Financial security Republicans. Against tax cuts unless combined with spending cuts. Believe strongly in cutting spending and balancing the budget. Very anti Federal power, but go either way on state level gun control and the war. Pro 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants. Consider abortion a 'states rights' issue. Example: McCain.

For a while, #2 seemed solidly in charge, then #1. Now McCain's winning, and he's decidedly #3. 3's love him, 2's will vote for him but aren't sending in money, and 1's would rather see a Democrat win.

Democrats actually have a platform now, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It mostly involves a bigger, more powerful Federal government (federalized health care, Pro Choice regardless of state, increased gun control) but unenforcable restrictions against it (no warrantless searches, no torture).

I'm in favor of smaller federal government, period. I don't mind mandating that businesses give their employees health care, but I don't want it run by the feds. I'm against warrantless searches and torture, but also against gun control. I think NAFTA is insane, but so is the 'war on drugs', particularly on marijuana. The candidates I was closest to in the election were Bill Richardson and Ron Paul, in that order.

If I were to try to split the Democrats into groups, I'd have trouble finding examples. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and John Edwards all had the same basic viewpoint. Guys like Joe Biden and Bill Richardson couldn't get enough votes to qualify as a group.

[kenberg]

han, on Feb 8 2008, 12:51 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial ...

No, I was asking why abortion is controversial, it seems to me that killing babies is not a controversial topic.

More precisely, why is abortion such a dangerous topic in the US elections but not so much elsewhere (maybe it is in some other countries too, I don't know).

I confess I don't really know what European practice is, either country by country or overall. Let me suggest an extreme possibility: If a mother is put in jail for, say, twenty years for killing a baby one week after birth but is able to abort one week before the expected birth with no explanation required I, myself, would find that a bit weird. Assuming that this is not European policy (is it?) then I would also assume that they have somehow worked out some sort of compromise system. Is this so?


As Mike has said, part of the issue here is that the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to decide these matters for us and tell us that their authority lies within the Constitution. You don't have to be a Fundamentalist for this to make you a little uneasy, even if you feel, as I do, that decisions about abortion should be largely left to the pregnant woman.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Feb 8 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

If a mother is put in jail for, say, twenty years for killing a baby one week after birth but is able to abort one week before the expected birth with no explanation required I, myself, would find that a bit weird. Assuming that this is not European policy (is it?) then I would also assume that they have somehow worked out some sort of compromise system. Is this so?

In general, the later the stage of the pregnancy the more difficult it is to get abortion. I think in most countries it becomes very difficult after the 20th week.

It is controversial in some European countries, in general the catholic ones. In Netherlands the abortion law was made less liberal with the formation of the present government because a religious party was require to secure the government's parliamentary majority.

A mother killing (or removing if you like) a fetus one week before the expected birth would not happen because she wouldn't be able to do it by herself. I would expect the surgeon getting a prison term but significantly less than the homocide rate. I could easily be wrong. It is a somewhat hypothetical case.

FWIW I feel quite uncomfortable by abortion but weighting all the cons and pros I think it's most practical to leave the decision to the pregnant woman.

[TimG]

helene_t, on Feb 8 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

A mother killing (or removing if you like) a fetus one week before the expected birth would not happen because she wouldn't be able to do it by herself. I would expect the surgeon getting a prison term but significantly less than the homicide rate. I could easily be wrong. It is a somewhat hypothetical case.

What about 2 weeks? 3 weeks? 2 months? 3 months?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Roe vs Wade is a court case that found abortion legal based on rights ( I think privacy rights but someone could double check). It is not a law passed by Congress or the states.

Abortion rules, legal or illegal or those yet to be determined rules (and there are many) are set by unelected judges rather than by elected politicians. This is really the crux of the issue.

You have a highly controversial issue that is ultimately being settled in the courts by unelected judges rather than through some forced political compromise through elections.

I simply have to challenge these comments.

First of all, Roe Vs Wade did not find that abortion was legal. The Supreme Court, in Roe vs Wade found that the federal and state abortions laws at that time - statutes that had already been written by elected representatives - were unconstitutional.

The abortion laws were statutory, meaning they were legislative laws, thus created by e-l-e-c-t-e-d representatives. The legality of these statutes was challenged and eventually the Supreme Court agreed to hear it in Roe vs Wade.

That's the way this Republic is supposed to work. Statutory laws are written by elected representatives and then the judicial system determines the legality of the laws. But to say that abortion was legalized by unelected judges is false - those judges simply ruled on the legality of laws as written by elected representatives.

This does not mean the Supreme Court is perfect - one of the gross embarassments in U.S. history was the Supreme Court finding in favor of the seperate but equal doctrine, thus legalizing racial segregation.

But Roe vs Wade is not in this category of embarrassing S.C. moments. And to claim that unelected judges make abortion law is misleading.