• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Palin attacks Obama on abortion.

I am thinking that Palin already has the women who agree with her about abortion in the bag. She doesn't seem to understand that most women don't agree with her on that issue.
 
(sigh)

Again, if someone sticks to their views about abortion despite those views being unpopular, then if you like them their "steadfast", but if you don't like them they're "on the fringe" and "disconnected from the public".

I don't think Palin particularly cares how popular her views on abortion is. Bad for the elections, perhaps, but surely if you think you're correct, you shouldn't change your views just because they're unpopular.

After all, skeptics too are small minority, and that hardly means we should change our views merely becaue they're not popular.
 
Skeptic said:
(sigh)I don't think Palin particularly cares how popular her views on abortion is. Bad for the elections, perhaps, but surely if you think you're correct, you shouldn't change your views just because they're unpopular.
Click to expand...


No one in this thread has suggested she change her views. They've only stated that they think it is a mistake to campaign on them.
 
As I understand it, a small majority across the country is in favor of perhaps further "restrictions" on abortion (without having any concept of slippery slopes, perhaps), but the majority is definitely against an across-the-board ban.

Not that such a ban would take place even should Roe be overturned; in that case it would fall back to the states, where we would revert to an "illegal here, legal there" situation.

And again a possible challenge on basis that poor women, stuck in "anti" states without the means to travel, would be disenfranchised.....

Palin is a firebrand for the "base", but the base isn't going to win McCain the election.
 
Skeptic said:
(sigh)

Again, if someone sticks to their views about abortion despite those views being unpopular, then if you like them their "steadfast", but if you don't like them they're "on the fringe" and "disconnected from the public".
Click to expand...
Whoever it is you're quoting / sighing about, it's not from this thread nor the article cited. Are you commenting on Palin's criticism of Obama?
 
RandFan said:
Bad tactic IMO.

And of course I disagree with her stance completely.
Click to expand...


At least it's a real issue. I would much rather hear candidates debate abortion than listen to their surrogates argue about whose preacher is craziest.

A lot of Democrats misunderstand why Republicans sometimes push the abortion issue. Polls show that there are more "pro-choice" people than "pro-life" people. (I have always hated both of those terms.) It would seem, based on that, that even anti abortion Republicans would soft pedal their stances for fear of offending voters. What that overlooks is the fact that abortion is a common single issue vote for conservatives. There are people who are otherwise liberal or inclined toward the Democrats, but who absolutely refuse, under any circumstances, to vote for a candidate who supports abortion. Meanwhile, despite the bumper stickers that say "I'm pro choice and I vote", there are very few votes on the other side. Most of the people who have those bumper stickers would be Democratic voters anyway.
 
Skeptic said:
... Bad for the elections, perhaps, ....
Click to expand...

And she is doing what again? Advertising shampoo? Oh no that is right, she is attacking her opponent in an ELECTION campaign.
I mean really, what is with all these posts and threads of yours suggesting people shouldn't express any opinions about the election?
 
Last edited:
The GOP candidate would bring up abortion? In a presidential election year?!!!

Meh :rolleyes:
 
I actually think it's a good tactic--at least here in Missouri. Most of my family is Catholic, and if the abortion issue is talked about enough, it's tough for them not to vote based on that. Up until now, I was beginning to think Obama might get a lot of their votes, but if Palin makes this more of an issue, she'll likely win some votes here.
 
While the facts of Obama's position are exaggerated, and while I am pro-choice, abortion generally is the one issue on which a McCain vote is legitimate for those to whom the solid pro-life position is their top priority.

Roe v. Wade essentially gave us the "religious right" as a national political force. They are entitled to their position, and there are principled pro-lifers who are every bit as much anti-war and opposed to the death penalty. There are also principled pro-lifers who do provide aid to pregnant teenagers and assistance with adoption and other alternatives. That is good and laudable work to be doing.

Among Catholics, I wonder why there is not a tension between positions taken by the church on the issue of choice/life and the positions of the church on poverty, war, and social justice. But that is for individual Catholics to sort out for themselves.

It is certainly a welcome change from the association game, and an issue on which there is a legitimate difference between the candidates and their parties.
 
Bikewer said:
As I understand it, a small majority across the country is in favor of perhaps further "restrictions" on abortion (without having any concept of slippery slopes, perhaps), but the majority is definitely against an across-the-board ban.
Click to expand...

I thought the Slippery Slope Fallacy was just that.. a fallacy.
 
jberryhill said:
Among Catholics, I wonder why there is not a tension between positions taken by the church on the issue of choice/life and the positions of the church on poverty, war, and social justice. But that is for individual Catholics to sort out for themselves.
Click to expand...

This is a good question that I have been wondering about. Why does the Catholic church put out things saying how a Catholic CANNOT morally vote for a pro-choice candidate, yet they seem to be pretty quiet on war mongering candidates, or non-anti-poverty candidates.

And funny, for a group that is so supposedly pro-life, even ranting (and I mean ranting) about "euthanasia," as if that is something that is actively pursued by anyone (even Kavorkian is assisted _suicide_, and not really euthanasia, at least as a veterinarian would consider it), they certainly hedge when it comes to the death penalty. Yeah, they kind of frown on it, but won't come out and take a solid stand. Why not? Because most anti-abortion candidates are also pro-death penalty? Man, who to vote for then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom