A good reason to vote for Bush?

Sand

There was a very interesting column in the Irish Times on Friday by David Adams ( sorry, havent found a link ). Basically he highlighted an issue that many of the Bush voters would have considered most important when choosing their President - they certainly placed moral issues above the war on terror.

I actually wasnt aware of this, but US abortion laws apparently go much further than say, British laws , in that it is legal - thought obviously rare - for abortions at any point during the 9 month pregnancy. Apparently Pro-Choice democrat factions want to push the boat out even farther with partial birth abortions where the child is born alive, and then killed - a procedure that Clinton apparently refused to ban repeatedly. Bush has pinned his pro-life badges on by several laws he has passed, whereas Kerry is viewed as being especially pro-choice.

Now, like a lot of people my feelings on abortion are....mixed. Id have considered myself Pro-Choice but Id certainly not be in favour of anything like the current american system or its possible future. I can very easily see how a group of voters would consider what they see as the murder of children for their parents convenience would trump all other issues, such as what the French think of them, how the US budget is holding up, the progress of the war on terror, or even the rights of homosexuals to be married.

Adams considered the position of the Reps on abortion, stem cell research ( theyre not banning it, just not funding it), gay rights and the War on Terror and came down on the side of the Reps on the first two issues, Dems on the third and didnt see any difference on the 4th. Id agree except for the 2nd which I might go Dem with, except I dont consider it very important compared to the first.

Previously I had thought If I was American Id have gone for Kerry - no brainer as the Bush fiscal policy is mad. But now Im not so sure. Considering the demonisation of Bush voters as morons, I was wondering if anyone else could consider voting for Bush on the basis of the above.

[Disclaimer] I know Im risking meltdown by melding two emotive issues, bush and abortion, into the same post. Its not so much about either, its about looking at reasons why people voted Bush that go beyond god, guns and glory. Maybe the democrats need to revise their issues ever so slightly so as not to abandon a sizable proportion of swing voters that might have voted Dem but for a few key emotive issues.[/disclaimer]

Memnoch

unfortunately I agree with the jist of your post, as i'm not sure where I stand on abortion. Because the problem is from a scientific point of view we just don't know what the "threshold is" and when a fetus becomes sentient.

My problems with Bush supporters however who claim they are supporting Bush because they believe all life is sacred is their complete and utter hypocrisy when it comes to the complete and utter disregard the US has shown for life in Iraq, or anywhere else where their military stomps about, making grandiose proclamations of freedom and liberation while installing and supporting puppet regimes.

I even had the choice opportunity to debate with one such bush supporter on irc, who told me that abortion would be considered the single greatest crime of our times, while at the same time talking about how america is bringing democracy to iraq. But when probed further he was happy to say that he thought of iraqi's as savages that needed to be treated like trained monkey's in order to achieve democracy and "liberate" them. This kind of hypocrisy is sickining and self-imposed ignorance.

For one to claim they hold all life as sacred, and then be more than happy to over look indescretions when it suits them. Oh yes but we are saving the iraqi's from saddam?

but these were the very same people who would have been the loudest in voicing their approval of america's installation and support of saddam when he was warring with iran.

And that is why people say that bush supporters are morons. because its not just that they are morons, its that they are utterly selfish, hypocritical and egotistical, perfectly happy to forcefully impose their belief system on others, and yet follow purposeful self ignorance at the same time

sceptre

Memnoch wrote:

For one to claim they hold all life as sacred, and then be more than happy to over look indescretions when it suits them.

Don't forget the death penalty, tossing in the number of executions when Bush was governor of Texas is always relevant to his position on the sacred nature of all life except fingernails.

Sparks

Sand, the points on abortion in the US that the republicans were putting forward are completely wrong and misleading. First off, there is no one single law regarding abortion, it varys from state to state, but none of them permit an abortion right up to birth. And "partial-birth" abortions are an incredibly rare medical procedure, which were only carried out in cases where not aborting the baby would kill the mother. And most of the states have abortion laws that aren't as unrestrictive as the UK's. The US laws all take direction from Roe v. Wade, and that case specifically did not permit unrestrained abortions at any point in the pregnancy.

I know people have problems with abortion for honest reasons; but if you're going to discuss it you have to get the facts correct purely because it can be such an emotive subject.

AngelofFire

Apparently Pro-Choice democrat factions want to push the boat out even farther with partial birth abortions where the child is born alive, and then killed - a procedure that Clinton apparently refused to ban repeatedly. Bush has pinned his pro-life badges on by several laws he has passed, whereas Kerry is viewed as being especially pro-choice.

I would be pro choice, but i completely disagree with partial birth abortions, it is utterly sickening. But a lot of republican governers are calling for laws to be introduced sentencing mothers to death for having an abortion. So much for being pro life.

The Corinthian

Memnoch wrote:

Because the problem is from a scientific point of view we just don't know what the "threshold is" and when a fetus becomes sentient.

Technically a fetus or child is probably not actually sentient until well after birth - 18 months or so, I've read.

OfflerCrocGod

The Corinthian wrote:

Technically a fetus or child is probably not actually sentient until well after birth - 18 months or so, I've read.

Quite, that "soft spot" is where the brain should be. Some of the causes for these late-abortions are things like the youth who is pregnant is trying to hide it or doesn't want their parents to find or can't figure out they are pregnant until late into pregnancy or the costs are just too much for a lower wage mother to pay for immediately, so they have to wait two or three months until they have the cash. Either way Bush would still have been the worst choice

bonkey

AngelofFire wrote:

I would be pro choice, but i completely disagree with partial birth abortions, it is utterly sickening.

Even if its the only option to save the mother's life? Even if its the only option to save the mother's life, with both going to die if its not performed?

Whatever about the general Democrat position, I believe Kerry was right to oppose the banning of this procedure because the ban did not allow for the latter case of the above two situations.

I can't remember where I read it, but someone was pointing out how Kerry was unfairly hammered over his Senate record. Sure, he was far from the pillar of perfection the Dems may have tried to sell him as, but the oversimplification engaged in by the Republicans literally boiled down to "Either you support the basic concept, or you opposed the specific bill - there is no middle ground". Kerry often opposed bills - as many Senators do, because they'd like the fine-print improved, or the fringe-cases re-addressed, or because there is something in there that they disagree with....not because they agree with nothing in there.

I don't think either side had a particularly noble and considerate stance on the issue of abortion...and to be honest I couldn't fault anyone for deciding to back either candidate on those grounds.

On the stem-cell research, I'm somewhat more circumspect. OK...as Sand points out, the Republicans don't want to ban it...they just won't fund it...at the Federal level. At the State level, however....didn't Arnie just approve funding for such research in California? This is what gets me...there isn't a "concerted front" from the Republican party on the issue: with two prominent figures sending contradicting messages, there can't be. That leaves me with the feeling that Bush's stance is based on Bush's beliefs, not on Party policy. I'm not so comfortable with that, personally...especially when he is under no compulsion whatsoever to stick to his election platform. And...for the sake of completeness...I must say I think Kerry's stance was eminently sensible....where only foetuses which would otherwise be destroyed anyway would be used...but would also recognise that he too would have been under the same lack of obligation as Bush is to stick to his election platform position.

jc

Victor

bonkey wrote:

Even if its the only option to save the mother's life? Even if its the only option to save the mother's life, with both going to die if its not performed?

Medically, no such case exists.

Sparks

Victor wrote:

Medically, no such case exists.

One such case is called hydrocephalus (an extreme buildup of fluid in the foetus' head). It results in serious cases in a foetus with a cranial diameter of nearly 20 inches (compared to the usual 7 or 8). The result is a foetus which is either dead or which won't survive (though less serious cases can be delivered and have shunts surgically placed to drain off fluid). A vaginal birth in such a case will kill the mother.

You are right in that there are other procedures that can be used instead of a D&X, but those are procedures that expose the mother to excessive risk. In the words of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. ... an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision.

More details about D&X ("partial birth abortions") procedures here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

Also, the reasons for performing D&Xs are rather instructive:

2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:
-She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
-There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
-The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
-The fetus is dead.
-The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
-The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
-The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

Basicly this is a very, very rare procedure (from figures in Virginia, it was 0.24% of the number of terminations carried out per annum), it's used in cases where the fetus is either dead already or cannot survive, and where the options that don't kill the mother are D&Xs, or invasive surgery like C-sections or hysterectomy.

Makes you wonder why it's banned, doesn't it?

Victor

Sparks wrote:

One such case is called hydrocephalus (an extreme buildup of fluid in the foetus' head). It results in serious cases in a foetus with a cranial diameter of nearly 20 inches (compared to the usual 7 or 8). The result is a foetus which is either dead or which won't survive (though less serious cases can be delivered and have shunts surgically placed to drain off fluid). A vaginal birth in such a case will kill the mother.

Is not medically "abortion" as the intention is to save the mother, not to kill the foetus.

Sparks

Sorry Victor but that's just incorrect. the definition of abortion has nothing to do with the intent behind the operation. But, you are correct, a D&X isn't an abortion - as that link I gave put it when defining D&X:

They are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public.

bonkey

Victor wrote:

Is not medically "abortion" as the intention is to save the mother, not to kill the foetus.

I don't think I referred to it exclusively in terms of abortion, and the Bill Kerry opposed was to ban the procedure in all cases AFAIK....which is what I was referring to, and what I have the problem with

Also...as a matter of interest...where do you get the medical definition of abortion to cover the intent from? I'm asking cause someone provided me a link to a definition saying no such thing some time ago when I alleged what you are doing without backup. Twould be useful to know where to look in future.

jc

Victor

bonkey wrote:

Also...as a matter of interest...where do you get the medical definition of abortion to cover the intent from?

I believe it was (a) news report with quote from Master of Rotunda (b) doctor friend making the comment that saving a more viable life is the ethically correct decision.

When a policeman shoots a bank robber, is it murder?