toldailytopic: If you voted for Obama, do you regret it?

[Town Heretic]

I disagree with both chrys and Barbarian in their approaches.

The problem with the argument by both is that without an active legislative effort or case before the Supreme Court, neither Democrat or Republican president will effect any change.

Where the divide starts is where the particular president stands on ideology. Is he actively searching for pro-choice or pro-abortion judges? (chrys is right on this.)

I don't believe he is in his larger notion that the Court can be seeded with justices willing to negate precedent. It's both a principled and self serving position, the reliance on precedent. Absent it, the Court becomes nothing more or less than a tool of the legislature. And it was a largely conservative appointed Court that gave us Roe.

Chrys would have you believe the problem is that those conservative appointments were skewed by Democrats. I don't know that conservatives have the unified voice he assumes (see: McCain and many others with differing standards relating to abortion) but given the democratic party represents a political philosophy, to attempt to destroy that larger thing instead of attempting to reach agreement on the one issue seems to me a fool's errand.

Is he affirming support for any current state-level legislation? Does he make promises to pro-aborts, whether individuals or organizations? Or does he affirm publicly his support for the sanctity of life, the need to create abortion alternatives? What is his voting record on these issues?

Reagan affirmed. He had a landslide. What happened to the issue? I think the legislature alone will settle the matter and then only in reflection of the larger public sentiment. And I think a steady effort has demonstrably produced a sea change in that regard that will eventually win out.

Re: Barbarian

That's how I read him and what I thought he meant, anna. :e4e:

 

[kmoney]

I don't believe he is in his larger notion that the Court can be seeded with justices willing to negate precedent. It's both a principled and self serving position, the reliance on precedent. Absent it, the Court becomes nothing more or less than a tool of the legislature. And it was a largely conservative appointed Court that gave us Roe.

Chrys would have you believe the problem is that those conservative appointments were skewed by Democrats. I don't know that conservatives have the unified voice he assumes (see: McCain and many others with differing standards relating to abortion) but given the democratic party represents a political philosophy, to attempt to destroy that larger thing instead of attempting to reach agreement on the one issue seems to me a fool's errand.


Reagan affirmed. He had a landslide. What happened to the issue? I think the legislature alone will settle the matter and then only in reflection of the larger public sentiment. And I think a steady effort has demonstrably produced a sea change in that regard that will eventually win out.

Re: Barbarian

That's how I read him and what I thought he meant, anna. :e4e:

:up: I don't see courts overturning it. A constitutional amendment seems to be only way.

 

[annabenedetti]

I don't believe he is in his larger notion that the Court can be seeded with justices willing to negate precedent.

Obviously I don't have the background that you do, but I do agree with him that judges are important. And just as important at the circuit and appeals level. Progressives who appoint progressive judges are expecting progressive judicial action. Same for conservatives.

Reagan affirmed. He had a landslide. What happened to the issue? I think the legislature alone will settle the matter and then only in reflection of the larger public sentiment.

But Barbarian would say that a vote for Reagan was a vote for a baby killer. He himself voted for Alan Keyes, who himself made allowances for voting for the same sort of candidate which Barbarian tells us is a baby-killer.

 

[chrysostom]

:up: I don't see courts overturning it. A constitutional amendment seems to be only way.

do you see that it only takes 34 democrats to block an amendment
and
they currently have not problem coming up with 41 to block conservative judges

do you know what I am talking about?

 

[Town Heretic]

do you see that it only takes 34 democrats to block an amendment
and
they currently have not problem coming up with 41 to block conservative judges

do you know what I am talking about?

You keep missing the point: the Court has a great deal of established precedent here on point. It isn't going to move the issue significantly and won't reverse field. Doing that would, as I've set out, undermine it's own authority and transform it into nothing more than an additional and unelected Congress. Not going to happen. And you aren't going to "destroy" the Democratic party over the one issue. The party exists because of broader, philosophical differences applied across a host of issues. And our electorate is divided pretty evenly. Better and more realistic to move toward the amendment and seeking a unified vision of human dignity and right. That battle is winnable.

 

[annabenedetti]

And our electorate is divided pretty evenly.

Unfortunately, sometimes when we surround ourselves with like-minded people, we're less aware how many disagree with us. That really hit home when I joined this forum.

Better and more realistic to move toward the amendment and seeking a unified vision of human dignity and right. That battle is winnable.

I have no hope of an amendment at this point in time.

 

[Town Heretic]

Unfortunately, sometimes when we surround ourselves with like-minded people, we're less aware how many disagree with us. That really hit home when I joined this forum.

I tend to agree, but me isn't sure and myself is dead against it. :think:

I have no hope of an amendment at this point in time.

It's more likely than the conversion/destruction of the Democratic party.

 

[annabenedetti]

I tend to agree, but me isn't sure and myself is dead against it. :think:

Kind of like "everyone is crazy except me and thee, and I'm not too sure about thee." :chuckle:

It's more likely than the conversion/destruction of the Democratic party.

I'd say neither is likely. But those who attempt to vote into office the most pro-life people possible should not be labeled as voting for baby-killers. It's not an accurate reading of the situation, and is grossly unfair to those politicians who have given their best effort every time legislation was put forward.

 

[Town Heretic]

Kind of like "everyone is crazy except me and thee, and I'm not too sure about thee." :chuckle:

We couldn't have said it better myself. lain:

I'd say neither is likely.

At present? No. In the long term? I think we will win by amendment.

But attempts to vote into office the most pro-life people possible should not be labeled as voting for baby-killers.

I don't think the practice is sound period, but again, I don't know anyone other than Chrysostom who is using it as an honest expression of their perspective here. The response was meant to paint the hypocrisy of condemning people for advancing what amounts to only a difference of degree while attempting to shroud oneself in the appearance of divergent principle.

It's not an accurate reading of the situation, and is grossly unfair to those politicians who have given their best effort every time legislation was put forward.

That's a bit confusing for me. If a man is for abortion in the case of rape or incest, by way of example, and you know it and you vote for him believing he means to impact the issue and further believing he actually can, how isn't it as valid a criticism as doing the same where the fellow has only a wider allowance?

 

[chrysostom]

It's more likely than the conversion/destruction of the Democratic party.

how do you expect to get an amendment without the conversion/destruction of the Democratic party?

 

[annabenedetti]

That's a bit confusing for me. If a man is for abortion in the case of rape or incest, by way of example, and you know it and you vote for him believing he means to impact the issue and further believing he actually can, how isn't it as valid a criticism as doing the same where the fellow has only a wider allowance?

There is no legislation, to my knowledge, which has not had the loophole for rape and incest. So no candidate has been given the opportunity to vote on it in that sense, and that's why I have a problem with the line of reasoning.

If you had to choose between a president who actively agitates for pro-choice issues, and voted "present" on the partial-birth abortion ban in the Illinois Senate - and a president with a broad and deep history of pro-life votes, who would you vote for?

I know it's rhetorical, but it makes my point. Each step towards life is a step in the right direction. Any advance will be incremental, it's the nature of the beast. So we keep trying, by not making the perfect the enemy of the good.

***Edit: I may have my facts wrong about being the only vote against. I will have to look that one up.

OK, it looks like he voted present. Changing my wording to reflect that.

 

[chrysostom]

would you call Obama a baby killer?

he is not only for partial birth abortion
but
is also okay with killing a baby accidentally born live during this kind of proceedure

 

[Town Heretic]

There is no legislation, to my knowledge, which has not had the loophole for rape and incest. So no candidate has been given the opportunity to vote on it in that sense, and that's why I have a problem with the line of reasoning.

Any legislator can propose legislation. So the only restriction is a man's political courage and underlying principle. Mostly our politicians tend to reflect their constituencies. That's why I say the correction can only begin there.

If you had to choose between a president who actively agitates for pro-choice issues, and was the only person voting against the partial-birth abortion ban (that would be Obama in the IL senate) and a president with a broad and deep history of pro-life votes, who would you vote for?

I wouldn't vote that issue, believing as I do that the President won't determine the outcome and there being a host of issues that I think he will impact. My vote was about a large number of issues and a real concern about his choice for VP, given both his age and the toll that office tends to take on its occupants.

I know it's rhetorical, but it makes my point. Each step towards life is a step in the right direction. Any advance will be incremental, it's the nature of the beast. So we keep trying, by not making the perfect the enemy of the good.

It's an argument.

:e4e:

 

[chrysostom]

I wouldn't vote that issue, believing as I do that the President won't determine the outcome and there being a host of issues that I think he will impact.:

but you still want credit for being against abortion

good for you

 

[Town Heretic]

how do you expect to get an amendment without the conversion/destruction of the Democratic party?

By convincing people, regardless of their political affiliation and overall posture that human dignity and right are the foundation of every meaningful compact. And then I'd advance both a moral and secular argument, one aimed at self interest and principle, as I have here on more than one occasion.

 

[annabenedetti]

Any legislator can propose legislation. So the only restriction is a man's political courage and underlying principle. Mostly our politicians tend to reflect their constituencies. That's why I say the correction can only begin there.

This comes squarely back to my initial statements today that personal ideology is the greatest determinant.

I wouldn't vote that issue, believing as I do that the President won't determine the outcome and there being a host of issues that I think he will impact. My vote was about a large number of issues and a real concern about his choice for VP, given both his age and the toll that office tends to take on its occupants.

Here's where you and I differed in 2008: I researched Obama's personal ideology and public voting record, and determined I could not in good conscience vote for him.

Here's where Barbarian and I differed: he voted for a candidate who had no chance to defeat Obama. In effect, his vote, while a very understandable conscience vote, furthered the opportunities for an anti-life administration by voting for a candidate who had no chance of winning, and who is on record, ironically, as stating that sometimes the vote for a less-than-perfect candidate is acceptable:

I MAKE an exception only for the physical life of the mother. Given the unalienable right to life (i.e., self-preservation) I see no way in principle to avoid making this exception. I would ACCEPT the rape and incest exceptions only as a matter of political necessity if that is the best legislation we could achieve at the time. I see no grounds in principle for making these exceptions, but as a matter of political prudence it would be suicidal for the pro-life movement to reject these people.


​

Here's something interesting: in my quick google search, I came across this scan of a fund-raising letter from Michelle Obama, in which she says:

"Who can we count on to keep the Bush/Ashcroft team from appointing the Supreme Court justice that will vote against Roe v. Wade?"


​

 

[chrysostom]

By convincing people, regardless of their political affiliation and overall posture that human dignity and right are the foundation of every meaningful compact.

how are you doing that?

 

[chrysostom]

Here's where Barbarian and I differed: he voted for a candidate who had no chance to defeat Obama.

only if you take his word for it

 

[bybee]

This comes squarely back to my initial statements today that personal ideology is the greatest determinant.

Here's where you and I differed in 2008: I researched Obama's personal ideology and public voting record, and determined I could not in good conscience vote for him.

Here's where Barbarian and I differed: he voted for a candidate who had no chance to defeat Obama. In effect, his vote, while a very understandable conscience vote, furthered the opportunities for an anti-life administration by voting for a candidate who agreed, ironically, that sometimes the vote for a less-than-perfect candidate was necessary to further the cause.

Here's something interesting: in my quick google search, I came across this scan of a fund-raising letter from Michelle Obama, in which she says:

"Who can we count on to keep the Bush/Ashcroft team from appointing the Supreme Court justice that will vote against Roe v. Wade?"


​

That Michelle Obama is pro-abortion is no surprise. The parameter by which she decides this issue is a woman's personal freedom and right to decide what affects her body and life.
This parameter by itself doesn't take into account the life of an innocent child. And that is what must change.

 

[annabenedetti]

only if you take his word for it

I do.