"Religious Right R.I.P.

[CandyMandy]

So what's the platform gonna be for the Repubs in 2012?

From the crystal ball I'm seeing:

1. Getting us out of the Obama depression
2. Getting fuel costs back down from the stratosphere (and removing the "carbon tax" the Democrats passed in 2010 on everyone owning a fuel-burning car).
3. Assisting lsrael in fighting Iran (after Obama refused to)
4. Killing card check once and for all

 

[What the Heck]

This really makes no sense.

Point out who, in this country and 35 years after Roe v Wade, is forced to have an abortion? Unless you can point it out, no one's beliefs are being forced down anyone's throat.

Getting back to "Religious Right R.I.P.:

Goodbye, good riddance, and tell the fabulous Rev. Ted Haggard to take his high heels with him.

Huh? You are redefining the debate without answering the question. Just because no one is forced to have an abortion does not mean that people do not label abortion as a religious issue and thus use the argument that people shouldn't be against it. That was just an example. They use that argument to disparage anyone who may be against it, attempting to make them feel like they should be ashamed for even suggesting that religion should be in our government in any way.

Personally, I am anti-abortion, but also for abortion being legal. If someone I care about wants to have an abortion, I would try to talk them out of it, but if they couldn't be talked out of it I would want them to get the best care they could. I'm not anti-abortion because of my religion, but because I believe it's wrong. Yes, it is possible for people that believe in God to also be able to think for themselves and to be able to have belief's as well.

Unless of course you are one of the Obama worshippers, because it's been shown over and over if you disagree with him you can expect government to be crawling all over you.

 

[DisMN]

First bolded: Wow!

Second bolded: Protecting innocent lives should be everyone's business.

I think you may have misunderstood LuvDuke. I don't think the answer of "I actually don't" was in reply to the first sentence of "So you have no problem with abortion being used as birth control?" but instead was a reply to "You know it happens."

I don't mean to speak for LuvDuke but........

 

[LuvDuke]

First bolded: Wow!

My post was in answer to to your statment: "You know it happens."

No, I really don't know it happens. I have no firsthand knowledge of that and I suspect neither do you.

But it makes for a great talking point.

Btw, I do have have a problem with someone using abortion as birth control, but I'm not so sure how often it happens.

Maybe you can give me and the good people here some hard numbers so we can judge for ourselves.

Second bolded: Protecting innocent lives should be everyone's business.

So, other than talking about the issue and praying, what exactly are you doing to make it your business?

This is the third time I've asked you to explain, specifically, what you're doing to protect the unborn other than talk and prayer.

 

[Chuck S]

For the record, I don''t think abortion should be anyones primary method of birth control, though I'm sure for a few it may seem to work out that way.

Things can happen, other methods could fail. A woman could be assaulted or forced. The pregnancy may not be viable, even if carried to term, because of any number of medical problems. I just don't see how it would be a good thing to force a woman to have a child that was conceived in violence, or a child that has a zero chance of survivial.

And lets not forget that some Birth Control options are at the discretion of a pharmacist, not the doctor. Pharmacies in many states can refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control products, no matter why they were prescribed.

 

[LivelyLissa]

For the record, I don''t think abortion should be anyone primary method of birth control, though I'm sure for a few it may seem to work out that way.

Things can happen, other methods could fail. A woman could be assaulted or forced. The pregnancy may not be viable, even if carried to term, because of any number of medical problems. I just don't see how it would be a good thing to force a woman to have a child that was conceived in violence, or a child that has a zero chance of survivial.

By that line of thought, would you be open to a ban on all abortions with the exception of rape, incest or medical necessity (not including aborting a "flawed" child)?

 

[Mikelly1221]

Specifically, how many have you offered to adopt after the unborn are born?

Or does your concern begin at the moment of conception and end at the moment of birth?

And if you actually do want to stand up for the unborn, are you out there lobbying for prenatal care? Or are you afraid that might raise your taxes?

So how are you standing up for the unborn other than being against abortion?



Specifically, how?

Ok. I've adopted a child with special needs and learning disabilities. I knew there was a strong possibility he would have both based on medical information from the birthparents.

I have donated time and money to two local crisis pregnancy centers, one of which is also an adoption agency. They help mothers with medical care and donate baby items, even if the mother decides not to place her child for adoption.

I believe that my taxes will go up, no matter which way you look at it. I've said over and over that the 95-10 proposal sounds great to me, most of which goes to help mothers and their children.

Any other questions I can help you with? Sorry I didn't answer right away-I just saw your post.

 

[Chuck S]

By that line of thought, would you be open to a ban on all abortions with the exception of rape, incest or medical necessity (not including aborting a "flawed" child)?

No, because I do think there are also personal circumstances that may come into play. Some women are simply not ready or are incapable of being "mothers" and would refuse to give the child up for adoption. You can not force someone to simply give up their child unless there is strong evidence for a court case. By that time, it may be too late. Increasingly we are hearing of parents that abuse or even murder their own children, how many more would we hear of if all women were forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term?

Again, if free will is a fundamental tenet of religion, the mother should be able to exercise her free will for that decision. But I personally don't think "life" begins at conception, not until the child could be viable outside the mothers body. I do support a ban on late term abortions, unless the child has passed away in the womb or the mothers life is jeopardized.

 

[ricktib]

In 2000 93% of the electorate was white, conservative

Make a statement that includes a percentage and 93% of people will believe you.

 

[designermv]

How do Republicans propose that these women who would potentially be stripped of their reproductive choices pay for healthcare? If they have no health insurance, how will they pay the cost of labor, delivery, and pre- and post-natal care? What about health insurance for the children?

And if we became a nation that was simultaneously anti-choice and anti-healthcare, wouldn't our taxes skyrocket due to a massive increase in the number of people seeking care in our nation's emergency rooms?

If I can't tell you what to do with your gun(s), you shouldn't be able to tell me what to do with my uterus.

 

[Mikelly1221]

How do Republicans propose that these women who would potentially be stripped of their reproductive choices pay for healthcare? If they have no health insurance, how will they pay the cost of labor, delivery, and pre- and post-natal care? What about health insurance for the children?

And if we became a nation that was simultaneously anti-choice and anti-healthcare, wouldn't our taxes skyrocket due to a massive increase in the number of people seeking care in our nation's emergency rooms?

If I can't tell you what to do with your gun(s), you shouldn't be able to tell me what to do with my uterus.

There are laws in place to regulate what I can and can't do with my guns. I can't shoot someone with my gun, for example. There are even hunting restrictions telling me where and when and what I can hunt with my gun. So, I'm already told plenty what to do with my gun.

Today, women with little to no resources give birth and raise their families. What do they do now?

 

[jimmiej]

So, other than talking about the issue and praying, what exactly are you doing to make it your business?

This is the third time I've asked you to explain, specifically, what you're doing to protect the unborn other than talk and prayer.

What I do to back up my opinion is none of your business. Suffice it to say I do more than talk & pray about it.

Since I believe abortion stops a life AND is used many times as birth control, it is my duty as an American to speak up for the innocent.

 

[jodifla]

There are laws in place to regulate what I can and can't do with my guns. I can't shoot someone with my gun, for example. There are even hunting restrictions telling me where and when and what I can hunt with my gun. So, I'm already told plenty what to do with my gun.

Today, women with little to no resources give birth and raise their families. What do they do now?

They stay mired and stuck in poverty, and their kids grow up in poverty, and likely stay there. And all the middle class people harp and whine about helping to support other people's children.

The quickest ticket to a life in poverty is having a child before you have a steady means of income.

 

[jodifla]

There are laws in place to regulate what I can and can't do with my guns. I can't shoot someone with my gun, for example. There are even hunting restrictions telling me where and when and what I can hunt with my gun. So, I'm already told plenty what to do with my gun.

Today, women with little to no resources give birth and raise their families. What do they do now?

And re: the gun analogy, there are plenty of laws about abortion as well. But not a ban. So, are you ready to turn over your guns for a total gun BAN?

Fewer innocent people would get killed if their were fewer guns roaming around the U.S.

 

[Goofycampers]

I have not read throught the answers on this thread but I'd like to say that in 4 years I wonder how many of you will feel the same.

 

[rie'smom]

What I don't understand Jon, with all the discussion is why it has to be an all or nothing proposition. What ever happen to MODERATION? No I don't want the government doing every thing for every body but I also don't want the religious right telling me who to sleep with and how many children I should have.

Our country is changing and both parties will either recognize that or die.

In 2000 93% of the electorate was white, conservative
In 2004 it had shrunk to 74% and the numbers are not out yet but 2008 it's projected to be even smaller.

In 2016 for the 1st time in history the white, conservative voter will be a minority, (projected) so regardless to whether or not the Republicans want to change, demographics themselves will force them to change.

Where did you get your statistics? Either the numbers were misquoted or they were misrepresented. The electorate is all of those eligible to vote not just those who do vote.

 

[Mr Man]

This is a very interesting article IMO. It speaks to the 30 years of failed strategies of the Evangelicals to change our culture through the use of legislation.

I know that the Republican base is struggling right now for a sense of who they are, but IMO, if they try and move too far to the right and continue to embrace these evangelical tactics.....they're in for a very long losing streak.

This is my favorite paragraph

"Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?"


http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/11/06/religious_right_rip

Interesting Op-ed piece.

I think R.I.P may be a bit strong though. This bloc of voters is not going to disappear nor change their core beliefs just to get somebody elected (as opposed to, oh I don't know..... )

I do agree that the idea of legislating morality through the govt is a bad idea......history is replete with examples......

Google "Augustus Caesar morality code" for instance. He found it to be easier taking over the known world than making his people a moral people.

As an aside, you may remember him from the early days of Christendom....here is a brief except from a wonderful book......

"And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.".......

hehehe....



Personally, I think we all need to take a deep breath, and stop telling each other how we should be living......then spend more time showing people how to live, by our example.

Oh, but let's continue pushing for lower taxes, smaller govt and strong defense...... we will need them all before the day is done.

JMO

 

[eliza61]

Where did you get your statistics? Either the numbers were misquoted or they were misrepresented. The electorate is all of those eligible to vote not just those who do vote.

ABCnews.com

"Finally there’s race. The country is changing: In 1976, 90 percent of voters were white. That has declined in every presidential election since, to the point where this year white voters slipped under a quarter of the electorate, 74 percent. That’s one reason Obama could lose whites by 12 percentage points yet still win the election."

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=6189129&page=1

These are just exit polls which of course have some ambiguity built in. But the point is, the country is changing and the religious right has to recognize that.

Also watch the video clip from George Stephanopolus (by the numbers) he discuss this very topic of how the Republicans failed to effectively reach out to young voters, African American voters, Hispanic voters and first time voters. All 4 groups went overwhelmingly democratic this year.

 

[Camicar]

How do Republicans propose that these women who would potentially be stripped of their reproductive choices pay for healthcare? If they have no health insurance, how will they pay the cost of labor, delivery, and pre- and post-natal care? What about health insurance for the children?

In my former life as a researcher, I interviewed hundreds of pro-life activists and I can tell you what the religious right pro-life activists from around the country I interviewed would say:

1. You shouldn't be having sex unless you are married AND planning on reproducing. Sex is for procreation, period.
2. You therefore have every opportunity to plan for the costs.
3. If you are a good Christian, then even if there is an oops baby, it's part of god's plan. And since you're a good Christian, then god will reward you and provide you with good insurance and/or enough money to pay for your bills.

HOWEVER:
1. 75-85% of pro-life activists I interviewed said they would 'possibly-probably-likely-absolutely' encourage their 13 year old daughter to have an abortion if she got pregnant. "Well, it's different. I know my daughter and her life would be ruined if she got pregnant at that age."
2. 85-95% of pro-life activisits I interviewed said they would "likely-absolutely" encourage their 13 year old daughter to have an abortion if she had gotten pregnant by a 35 year old black man. "Well, it's different. It's my daughter..."

But you know what? The battleground over abortion is over. They have now moved onto the much more fertile field of homophobia.

 

[rie'smom]

ABCnews.com

"Finally there’s race. The country is changing: In 1976, 90 percent of voters were white. That has declined in every presidential election since, to the point where this year white voters slipped under a quarter of the electorate, 74 percent. That’s one reason Obama could lose whites by 12 percentage points yet still win the election."

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=6189129&page=1

These are just exit polls which of course have some ambiguity built in. But the point is, the country is changing and the religious right has to recognize that.

Also watch the video clip from George Stephanopolus (by the numbers) he discuss this very topic of how the Republicans failed to effectively reach out to young voters, African American voters, Hispanic voters and first time voters. All 4 groups went overwhelmingly democratic this year.

These numbers aren't accurate if they're based on exit polling. It may be too not so much that white voters are declining as it is minorities are voting in larger numbers. The minority numbers are growing therefore the number of minority voters would naturally rise.
In any event, as I stated previously, the electorate is anyone 18 years or older who has registered to vote.