What history and stats would those be?
The ones I posted about 5 times over 2 threads debating chrysostom and nicholsmom. NM knows what I'm talking about.
What history and stats would those be?
The ones I posted about 5 times over 2 threads debating chrysostom and nicholsmom. NM knows what I'm talking about.
If you don't feel like re-stating them, could you give links to the threads in question?
<O</OFrom 1960 to 2005, there have been an average of 1,021,075 abortions per year.Ps82 said:I can't say that I totally disagree ... I just don't think it the workable plan... because the liberals would totally win ... and then to you and I all hell would be loosed.
The average annual rate from 1970 through 2005 is 1,303,755.
The average annual rate from 1980 through 2005 is 1,445,708.
Seems like all hell has already been loosed.
Peaking out at over 1.6 million abortions in 1990, there has been an average annual decrease in abortions of 1.89% annually (through 2005, I don't have the latest stats). Get this: during those 15 years, the largest annual drops occurred during the Clinton (major pro-abortionist) years.
So if we go by history, compromising pro-lifers should actually vote Democrat if they want to affect change by voting for one of the Big Two.
<O</O<O</O<!-- / message -->chrysostom said:This is from the 2004 Republican Party Platform<O</Ochrysostom said:“As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of
Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual
right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the
Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth
Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have
legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform
abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund
organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who
respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.”
Sounds really good. This sounded good, too:
Republican Party platform, 1984, under the section entitled "Our Constitutional System": <O</O
"The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannotbe infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendmentto the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the FourteenthAmendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose the use of publicrevenues for abortion and will eliminate funding for organizations whichadvocate or support abortions. We commend the efforts of those individualsand religious and private organizations that are providing positive alternativesto abortion by meeting the physical, emotional, and financial needs of pregnantwomen and offering adoption services where needed.
We applaud President Reagan's fine record of judicial appointments, andwe reaffirm our support for the appointment of judges at all levels of thejudiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocenthuman life."<O</O
From the year that statement showed in their platform (1984) through 1992 (4 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush I...that's 8 years of Republican leadership), the abortion rates were: <O></O>
So, chrysostom, are the words in the Republican Party platform meaningful at all?
- 1984 - 1,557,200
- 1985 - 1,588,600
- 1986 - 1,574,000
- 1987 - 1,559,100
- 1988 - 1,590,800
- 1989 - 1,566,900
- 1990 - 1,608,600
- 1991 - 1,556,510
- 1992 - 1,528,930 <O</O
Why should we believe their platform now?
So, chrysostom, are the words in the Republican Party platform meaningful at all?
Why should we believe their platform now?
Who ever argued that having a Republican President would, in and of itself, have direct, immediate impact on abortion rates?
Who ever argued that having a Republican President would, in and of itself, have direct, immediate impact on abortion rates?
:doh:
:doh:
The facts don't matter all that much to some people, sadly.
The only major, direct impact which a President can have on the entire issue of abortion is making changes to the courts. Until the court reaches a point where it has at least five judges willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, this is not something that will have any sort of immediate impact.
Also, the statistics that chickenman is presenting are misleading, as they display only the aggregate number of abortions, rather than the rate either in relation to the number of women of childbearing age (15-44) or in relation the number of live births. The decline in both of those actually started in the mid 80's.
See: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html
My stats came from johnstonsarchive.net, also. No ratios of deaths to specific segments. Just total number of butchered kids per year.
I wouldn't say it's true, however, that Republican presidents have no major impact on abortion rates. I can think of one major example.
Namely 1973, when a Republican-dominated Supreme Court ruled in favor of the fraudulent Roe case, the decision itself being written by a Republican judge, as well. So, the Republican presidents who appointed those judges did ultimately have a tremendous impact on abortion rates. And those rates rose under Republican presidents in the 1970s, and remained steady under the Republican presidents in the 80s and early 90s even though "the number of women of childbearing age (15-44)" and "the number of live births" declined during that time (thanks WIF).
Oh, they were liberal/progressives back then... as opposed to today's Republicans.You do realize that prior to the 1980's the Republicans were a generally a liberal/progressive party, right? While there were conservatives within the Republican Party, they didn't really exercise any significant influence until Reagan's presidential campaign.
Oh, they were liberal/progressives back then... as opposed to today's Republicans.
When you can explain to me how voting for a non-viable candidate doesn't help the worse of two evils then I'll accept this as valid. Until then I will maintain that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.This is the attitude that is losing the war.
The Democrat congressmen are dragging this country into socialism.
The Republican congressmen are willing to compromise in order to lose as little ground as possible.
Where is the conservative party that will fight for morality, small government and personal responsibility?
Where is the conservative party that will drag this country toward conservatism?
They are MIA because Christians are voting for Republicans instead of conservatives.
Clete, you're still stuck in this fallacious, imaginary notion that there is even such a thing as a "non-viable candidate."When you can explain to me how voting for a non-viable candidate doesn't help the worse of two evils then I'll accept this as valid. Until then I will maintain that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Obama's new favorite quote of the day...
"The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Resting in Him,
Clete