Filed under: Author - ACG, Politics, Rebuttal, Talking Points | Tags: Election 2008
I just saw this post, accusing the New York Times of fear mongering by posting opinion pieces arguing that John McCain wants to end abortion and prosecute women who obtain abortions. The poster states that McCain doesn’t want to outlaw abortion, he just wants to “repeal Roe v. Wade,” thus returning the issue to the states.
Of course, the poster neglects that, once that’s done, McCain wants to continue the “fight for life,” portraying himself as the point-man in a crusade to eventually end abortion. The original poster, then, is noting a distinction in means without a difference in ends. I’m not persuaded of the importance of the line being drawn.
Voters should remember that while McCain would not prosecute a woman himself, if his plan were enacted, he wouldn’t have to: the several states and overzealous congresspersons, aided by a supplicant Supreme Court, would be happy to do it with his tacit approval.
No Comments Yet so far
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> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Stopping most abortions is not an extreme position. In fact it’s a fairly centrist position. If liberals prefer to hold the line on the right to murder the unborn at a whim, they are in the minority.
The smarter position would be to limit abortions by amending Roe v. Wade rather than keeping the floodgates open.
Comment by Progressive Conservative May 5, 2008 @ 10:02 pmCan’t amend a Supreme Court case, but don’t tell Justice Kennedy that.
It’s a sad truth that not many Americans have *read* or understand what the Roe right is, and I think you may be in that group (albeit not American). Roe, pre-Gonzales, allowed a right to choice unrestricted up until the third trimester, but allowed serious regulation in the second trimester. Roe, post-Gonzales, allows most any regulation in the second trimester, regardless of health consequences for the mother, and a ban in the third trimester. That’s not “most” abortions.
Comment by Ames May 5, 2008 @ 10:12 pmRoe, post-Gonzales, allows most any regulation in the second trimester, regardless of health consequences for the mother, and a ban in the third trimester. That’s not “most” abortions.
‘Most’ abortions occur in the first trimester, which is still left untouched. In fact, something like 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester…so I have to say that reading Roe v Wade should have been your start, not your finish.
Comment by Progressive Conservative May 5, 2008 @ 11:04 pmAnd polls show time and again that Americans are fine with first trimester abortions.
Comment by Ames May 5, 2008 @ 11:05 pm