John McCain has taken a firm stand on one issue, from which he has never wavered. John McCain: forced birth advocate since 1983.
Please share widely!
Don’t Have Sex
Reality-based commentary on politics.
Unlike torture, FISA, the Iraq War, the Bush tax cuts, and campaign finance reform, McCain has not tried to benefit by being on both sides of this issue. Unfortunately, his undeserved reputation as a moderate and as the maverickiest maverick who ever lived keeps people from knowing that he’s on the side that regards childbirth as as a legitimate punishment for women having sex.
it’s punishment for women who have been raped. but that’s fair, isn’t it?
Laurel – can you cite where McCain has opposed the Morning After pill? Or contraception?
Where in the world did Laurel say McCain opposes the Morning After Pill, or Contraception? And how many rapists do you know who take the time to put on a condom, anyway?
<
p>Let’s not confuse the conversation: Laurel wasn’t talking about condoms and monthly pills and patches, she was talking about cold, hard rape and the occasional long-term side effect of pregnancy. It won’t come as a shocker to many, but often times women aren’t all that thrilled about mothering the offspring of their rapist.
<
p>Laurel was talking about abortion and the fact that (I’ll take her word for it) McCain doesn’t even support abortion in cases where the unwillingly impregnated woman was raped. I’d hazard a guess and say that such a position is on the very fringe of this country’s political spectrum. It’s also something that permanently violates a woman’s core civil rights.
<
p>NYTimes, January, 2000.
… less coherent stance for him to take. When you make an exception like that, the abortion stance ceases to be an assertion of the value of life and instead becomes an assertion on the behavior that resulted in pregnancy – not the abortion. If he wants to take a stand on abortion, then take a stand on abortion.
<
p>Of course, many people make this mistake, but it’s especially true of those who want to have their cake and eat it too.
so you’re saying that mccain doesn’t value life then? because as mr lynne says below, you’re either pro-life or you’re not. what’s mccain got against a poor fetus that was created through violence? is he saying that some people are to be more valued than others simply by virtue of how they were conceived? besides rape babies, what other class of human embryos does mccain think can be aborted? but more importantly, if mccain isn’t really pro-life, what is his reason for being anti-choice? pandering? weak ego? what?
There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life. I think people recognize that there’s a moral element to that. They also believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves and there is a privacy element to making those decisions.
With the statement I posted?
<
p>Oops. My bad. That was a quote from Mr. Obama. Yeah, you could say contradictory I suppose.
although i didn’t know the source, i knew your quote wasn’t from mccain. he could never muster use of a word like “appendage”. as for obama’s comments, he was reiterating what he saw as the different strains of philosophy surrounding the abortion issue. he was not making a personal statement. nice attempt at gotcha, though gary. keep it up, and you’ll get me yet. practice makes perfect! đŸ˜€ but reall, why the need to run from mccain’s illogic? why not just admit the truth: mccain’s policy on abortion makes no sense if, as he says, he values life. personally, i think it’s just been an easy pander point for him.
Why not admit ‘the obvious’? Gee, I don’t know, maybe it’s because I don’t really care.
<
p>Divide the population into it’s outliers: one side supporting choice up ’til minutes before delivery; the other side decrying abortion from the instant of conception. Both, bathed in pure logical consistency. Each, a fraction of the population. Both, zelots calling the other side zelots.
<
p>In between, views that vary with inconsistent position for late term abortions, abortion in the case of incest/rape, parental notifications, etc… None necessarily consistent, but nonetheless views widely held. McCain’s position is inconsistent; Obama’s apparently is also.
<
p>Me. I simply don’t care. In the middle of a hot abortion argument, I’ll head for the snacks. There are issues that don’t resonate. Abortion is one of them.
how many posts have you written in this thread to prove just how much you don’t care, lol!
… the fact that this exception pivots on the sexual behavior of those involved in the conception, combined with the fact that many (most?… wonder if there has ever been a poll) pro-lifers experience cognitive dissonance when contemplating what a woman’s punishment should be for the act of having an abortion belie that, for many pro-lifers, the underlying impetus is really the control of sexual behavior.
I’m not pro-life, and I believe in medical privacy, but I don’t think unmarried people should have sex because it is basically always rape – non-consensual sexual intercourse. There is no consent because official and informed consent to sex is a marriage license and saying “I do” and being pronounced married by the state. Rape is one person controlling the reproductive choice of another person, subjecting them to procreating with someone they don’t want to. Rape does that, but so does unmarried sex when the woman is allowed to control the reproduction of the man, who did not properly consent to reproduce. Abortion is therefore like rape. Laws against both are laws against sexual behavior.
“but I don’t think unmarried people should have sex because it is basically always rape” –
<
p>um, no it’s not.
<
p>”There is no consent because official and informed consent to sex is a marriage license and saying “I do” and being pronounced married by the state”
<
p>um, I think if I ask someone “want to have sex?” and they say “yes” – that seems to cover it for most people …..
<
p>This post is just so wrong on just so many levels.
when they just agree to have sex without establishing official informed consent, they basically agree to mutually rape each other. But because it is mutual rape and both parties are equally culpable and equally victims, it is called fornication, not rape, which is reserved for instances of non-consensual intercourse where one party forces the other.
<
p>Consent has to be “informed consent” to be legally meaningful, and with fornication there is no information or knowledge of whether either partner intends to commit, and no witnesses to the consent, and no official binding license that the partners can count on.
This is a pretty telling post,
John“they”.<
p>”official and informed consent to sex is a marriage license and saying “I do” and being pronounced married by the state” — so you’ve never heard of spousal rape, or don’t believe it really exists, or something.
<
p>”I don’t think unmarried people should have sex because it is basically always rape – non-consensual sexual intercourse.” Do you even know the definition of consent? Here’s a clue: the state is not responsible under any circumstances for you consenting to have sex. Sexual consent is between two (or more) adults.
<
p>”Rape is one person controlling the reproductive choice of another person” Again, I suggest you consult your dictionary. Reproductive choice doesn’t even enter the matter. By your definition, it’s not rape if the rapist puts on a condom or goes after your post-menopausal grandmother.
<
p>”unmarried sex [subjects someone to procreating with someone they don’t want to] when the woman is allowed to control the reproduction of the man, who did not properly consent to reproduce” Reproductive consent is completely separate from sexual consent. Sure, under most circumstances, sex is a part of the reproductive process, but you can consent to one without the other (see: condoms; also see: artificial insemination).
<
p>Man, I thought the egg-and-sperm stuff was wacky,
John“they”, but this post… wow.Marital rape indeed ought to be a crime, just like rape, because the consent to be married is an on-going consent, where abuse and other behaviors allow either party to end the marriage. So the abuse of rape ends the marriage. That happens in principle the moment the party decides that the marriage is over due to that fault of the other spouse, even though the divorce might not be official for many months.
<
p>Here’s some info on marital rape for you, in case you were born yesterday:
<
p>Reproductive consent should not be separate from sexual consent. They should both be given at the same time, with witnesses, etc. And they should never be thought of as separate, that is totally ridiculous and wrong. A man always consents (to the extent that consent is possible without the information that a marriage would provide) to children when he consents to sex, but a woman doesn’t. Hence, my opposition to legal abortion, as it creates a situation like rape. (oh, and condoms or age don’t change anything, intercourse is intercourse and there is always a chance of pregnancy.
“condoms or age don’t change anything”
<
p>Tell that to two 80 somethings married for 60 years. They should be more careful!
<
p>and further evidence we’ve uncovered a wormhole here with time-travel and blogging from the 1500’s…….
<
p>Oh yeah, that brings up interesting pictures in my mind.
<
p>Eeks!
<
p>Stop Feeding the “They”!
is moral repugnance at the idea of human fetuses being ripped apart
It’s a pander to the majority of people who feel it is unfair to force a woman to give birth to a baby conceived in rape. Alan Keyes already tested out the “not even in cases of rape” position against Obama in 2004 and it made him seem rather stern and unreasonable. Sometimes balancing competing principles requires compromising on principles, but it doesn’t mean that either principle is wrong, only that they sometimes require compromise.
… is that the exception implies that the fetus of a rapist isn’t a potential life deserving of the same moral concerns as any other fetus. It is therefore inconsistent to describe oneself as concerned for the life of the fetus and include an exception for rape or incest, unless one really does believe the moral value of those other ‘potential lives’ really is less.
Isn’t it reasonable, if inconsistent, to believe that a life is valuable, but must be balanced by the life of the mother?
<
p>Seriously, if you were informed that a live delivery would kill your spouse, would you sacrifice her life for the hope of a live birth?
<
p>I’m willing to bet that most people would opt for the life of the mother.
<
p>Now, if you were informed that a live delivery would serverely injure your spouse, would you sacrifice her life for the hope of a live birth?
<
p>I’m willing to bet that most people would opt for the health of the mother.
<
p>Now, if you were informed that a live delivery of a child born of rape would remind your spouse of the rape for the rest of her life, would you sacrifice her life for the hope of a live birth?
<
p>I’m willing to bet that many, if not most, people would opt for the abortion.
<
p>Inconsistent? Sure. What’s the problem. You a zealot choice guy, is that it? Abortion should be a choice up to the last day before delivery?
The Republican party’s official position is that abortion is murder.
<
p>Under that position, a policy allowing abortion to save the life of the mother could be made out, but your other two scenarios should not be allowed.
<
p>When is it allowable to kill person A “just” to spare person B an injury? Never.
<
p>When is it allowable to kill person A in order to spare person B some emotional distress? Never.
<
p>No, if you go with the Republican “abortion = murder” plank, you cannot argue for either of these scenarios.
… “believe that a life is valuable, but must be balanced by the life of the mother?”, but the particulars in how one makes the value judgments in any particular case is open for debate.
<
p>Your bringing up of the ‘life threatened spouse’ is a new element. Such balances are, for lack of a better term, easier because it is closer to an apples to apples value judgment (life vs life).
<
p>I’m a zealot logic guy. The question you bring up is ‘reduced’ from ‘life vs. life’ to ‘quality of life vs actual life’. Certainly these are legitimate questions. When one makes the case for the exception of rape or incest what one is de facto doing is making such a value judgment such that the ‘bad’ of having to bring a rapists baby to term outweighs the ‘good’ ‘value’ of the ‘life’ of the fetus. This, as you point out, seems inconsistent the preached values of the ‘inviolability of innocent life’. When someone asserts values that they don’t really follow, it is very reasonable and legitimate to question if they really hold those values in the first place.
<
p>I agree that most people would opt for the abortion, and I also think that pointing out that pro-lifers who allow for exceptions don’t really hold the values they assert about the ‘value’ of human life. When the foundation of your assertions falls down, as in this case, it requires revision or dismissal.
Any logically consistent position is, almost by definition, morally repugnant because the reconcilaition of two absolute and mutually exclusive rights does not lend itself to logic.
<
p>The logically consistent urge that 100% of abortions, from the moment of conception to the moment of birth, are infanticide, OR, that 0% of abortions are infanticide, because a fetus isn’t a person until born. Anything in between– that is to say, any posotion that acknowledges that an infant has an emerging right to exist, and that women have the right to control their own selves– is an arbitrary, illogical, compromise position.
The issue is that the logical application of a moral paradigm one might assert and apply could result in needing to classify pregnancies as an ‘all or nothing’ proposition, but not all moral paradigm’s necessarily result in such a proposition. A hypothetical ‘compromise’ position needn’t necessarily be illogical. It’s more likely that such compromises merely represent differing moral premises resulting in a different moral paradigm that, when applied logically, does not result in an ‘all or nothing’ proposition on pregnancies.
<
p>What I think happens is that the rhetoric used in the debate tends to be framed with premises that revolve around concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘life’. I would assert that these types of premises tend to result in moral models that in turn, tend to result in such ‘all or nothing’ propositions.
<
p>Of course it can (and often does) happen that one’s ethical impulses are at odds with the logical result of the application of a set of moral premises. When that happens, one need not ‘give up on the application of logic’ to reconcile the inconsistency. One must revisit the premises that logically result in assertions at odds with our moral instincts and revise them. The goal is to understand the moral precepts that describe our moral instincts accurately. This is important to do because you wouldn’t want to make assertions of moral precepts that don’t actually hold up your values. Thats a miscommunication born of self-misunderstanding.
<
p>My point in the bringing up the incest and rape exceptions is that this is a perfect illustration of this phenomenon. Simply put, I can’t accept an ‘innocent life is invaluable’ premise if you allow for the exception because the application of the premise does not lead to a result consistent with the exception. If the result is what you want to assert is backed up with ‘whys’ that don’t really work, you have to revise our thinking or admit that the assertion isn’t ‘reasonable’ (in a literal sense of the term). If I disagree with a precept and someone wants to convince me that I’m wrong, they have to play by the rules of reason or admit that they haven’t ‘proven’ anything. More often than not such reasonable debate ultimately leads to an understanding of differing premises. You fight such a debate with no weapons whatsoever if you disagree with your own premises.
<
p>Of course if we want to continue in an ‘unreasonable’ debate then that’s a different kettle of fish,… but I’d rather not. Furthermore, if one gives up on trying to accurately describe the reasoning and chooses to ‘live with’ the inconsistencies, then one is being unreasonable. In my book that’s a forfeit because if your going to assert something about someone else’s rights to their own body, you better have good reasons.
<
p>As shown in the video I linked to earlier, the application of the moral precepts being asserted should result in women going to jail. When the interviewees’ instincts reject that notion, they should be reevaluating their premises.
<
p>If the truth is that most people don’t believe in the 100% or 0% all-or-nothing propositions about a fetus or a pregnancy then a new vocabulary of premises needs to be asserted. Until then the debate is happening in wrong (and ultimately unproductive) terrain.
It’s not a person until the day it’s born.
The idea that something intrinsic to the baby changes based on its location. It is not a human life while inside the mother, but becomes one upon exit from the womb, issuance of a birth certificate, etc. The concept has no philosophical or moral merit whatsoever. It is like something the Bush admin would concoct- “enemy combatants” versus “prisoners of war” – loopholing one’s way out of respect for human beings based on legal minutia.
The umbilical cord is a pretty important difference methinks.
on feeding tubes and/or bretahing tubes, is no longer a person?
Where does the difference lie?
Because the aborted fetus is still in utero, and, unlike the person with tubes, etc., is not a fully-developed, out-of-the womb person.
I think, and the Bible backs this up, a zygote (a fertilized egg) is a blueprint for life, and an embryo is the house being built to that blueprint, but as soon as blood starts flowing around week five, then it is alive, and the house is the home to that life. The bible clearly states that life is in the blood. And it’s the autonomy of circulating its own blood that is the self-will to live. Death occurs when the heart stops beating (traditionally – now sometimes a heart be restarted).
<
p>This means that unimplanted embryos are not alive and destroying them is not killing a life. But after week 5, there is a will to live.
There is a difference between someone being required to accept the consequences of their own actions and forcing them to accept the consequences of someone else’s criminal act. In these cases, the woman is an innocent victim, and her rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness must be given priority over concern for the suffering and death of the unborn child. Otherwise the state becomes an accomplice in her rape. We live with inconsistencies like this all the time. For instance, what happens to the rights of “collateral” victims in a “just war” (not that we’re involved in one now, but WWII could qualify)? Fetuses aborted as a result of rape or incest fall into a similar category.
You can’t really assert that “the state becomes an accomplice in her rape.” At best you might be able to assert that the state becomes an accomplice in making her live with the consequences of a rape. I agree with your overall point that we balance rights, values, and consequences all the time.
<
p>I just feel compelled to point out that when there is an abortion exception to rape or incest, it is symptomatic of a set of values that doesn’t respect the innocent lives of fetus as much as other considerations that have more to do with quality of life than life itself. Fine… thats a value judgment. The problem is that this is inconsistent with most pro-life reasoning and asserted values. As such, allowing such an exception renders as suspect any assertions that the protection innocent life as one of the highest values we should espouse to. Ergo hypocrisy.
<
p>Pro-lifers oftentimes bring up the idea that some women who have abortions do so just because its more convenient for them than having the baby. They judge this as morally reprehensible. But when in the next breath they allow an exception for rape, isn’t protecting the rape victim from having to ‘be reminded’ of rape because of the child (which they wouldn’t neccessarily be ‘forced’ to keep btw) just another kind of ‘convenience?
Farnkoff’s correct, the rape isn’t just the one violent act and then its over, that is just the beginning. The rape continues for as long as the victim is forced to succumb to the rapist’s control of the victim’s reproduction.
<
p>Forcing someone to have a baby with you is the rape, and the state would be complicit in that if they didn’t allow the victim to get an abortion (male victims too). Even if they give the baby up for adoption, they still have been forced to have a baby with the rapist, which is totally not fair.
Here’s the scenario:
<
p>Joe goes out to the bar and gets intoxicated. Jane goes to the bar and sips fruit juice. They go back to Joe’s place, and Jane gets pregnant.
<
p>Now, legally [in some/many/most/all ?!] states, Jane raped Joe because they’re both adults, Joe was under the influence, and Jane was not. Date rape is rape.
<
p>Now, the victim of the rape is Joe, but the person pregnant is Jane. Under this case, what happens if Joe wants Jane to get an abortion? Where should the state line up under your logic? Furthermore, if she decides to have the baby, does Joe “owe” the baby anything in terms of child support? Why or why not?
First of all, I don’t think taking advantage of a drunk person counts as rape. Other drugs might be “date-rape” drugs, but I think alcohol is just alcohol and doesn’t change consent.
<
p>In principle, if Joe thinks he was raped last night, he should be able to report the rape the next day and she should be arrested and forced to take emergency contraception to prevent a pregnancy. That’s obvious justice, just like if a woman is raped.
<
p>In principle, a man shouldn’t owe child support to illegitimate children, but that was deemed to be permanently unfair to the child, and in principle, people shouldn’t have illegitimate children.
<
p>In practice, we will do everything the way we do it now, with paternity tests and child support and rapist Jane having Joe’s baby if she wants to, and Joe paying child support.
Most anti-abortion activists would never include this rape/incest exception, and only do so as a concession to political reality.
<
p>The more zealous they are, the less likely they are to approve of that concession.
<
p>The same is true, in reverse, of the more zealous pro-choice activists, who abide no abortion restruction of any kind, no matter how late in the pregnancy, or how young the woman.
<
p>These people, on both sides, prolong and poison the abortion debate, and have little interest in resolution.
<
p>I don’t think this amounts to as much of a gotcha as you seem to think.
I would guess that there are basically two zealot issues. The first is that there exist zealots who refuse to reexamine their premises when they run into logical problems. This is just a case of ‘unreasonableness’. They need to agree on the terms of the debate and ‘reason’ is a mandatory one IMHO.
<
p>The other issue is the ‘problem’ of logically consistent ‘zealots’. I don’t have a problem with them as much, because they express a genuine disagreement, consistent all the way down to the ‘root whys’ of their assertions. If you’re going to sway anyone like that you need to forget about the ‘top’ issue being debated and concentrate on the ‘base’ premises that hold up their model. This is possible, but is more ‘abstract’ or at least ‘removed’ from the ‘original’ debate and thus tends not to be addressed inadequately by typical debate participants who, after all, are brought to the debate by the central ‘top’ disagreement that they’d probably rather concentrate on. Getting beyond that is an extended, protracted exercise… one that may still result in a ‘genuine disagreement’. Pope JP was consistent on abortion and was such a ‘zealot’ on the issue. If you were to really try and convince him to change his mind on abortion, you’d really have to concentrate on his premises about the bible and his religion to have any chance of success (good luck!). This is why I tend to dismiss assertions based on biblical or religious assertions. Such assertions, almost axiomatically, eventually hinge on premises that are at best, relativistic, and at worst, faith-based and reason free.
JP would likely have considered your basic NARAL zealot to be hopelessly amoral, in the sense that you adopt a position that assumes, as mplo did above, that a fetus is a nothing, based on premises that are, at best, purely ideological and reason-free.
<
p>This is why abortion debate is fruitless and silly. The only beneficiaries of abortion debate are political parties, which get to use it for oogey-boogey fundraising.
<
p>This is also the reason that the political solution, if one can ever be found, must be one that will be an outrage to JP and to mplo.
<
p>The impediment to a political solution is the Roe decision and its progeny, which is why I will not weep when they are finally overturned, opening the way to a political resolution of the issue that will finally get people to STFU about it already.
<
p>It always comes down to Bootleggers and Baptists.
<
p>Only in this instance, both sides are bootleggers (seeking political cash) and both sides are Baptists (moralizing for women’s right or moralizing for the unborn).
The Bootleggers and Baptists principal is also the reason the Greyhound vote will likely fail: The one side has its Baptists, animal rights advocates, but they lack the monied interest who’ll benefit if the Tracks are closed. They’re missing their bootleggers.
that banned hunting with traps?
<
p>Was there a hidden bootlegger? That seemed baptist-intensive.
When neither side has a monied interest or both sides have (i.e. multiple liquor license for retail stores), then it’s a crap shoot.
<
p>I do recall however on that leg-hold trap question there was more at stake than leg-hold traps but I can’t now recall the specifics.
… is the problem then addressing the rhetoric is necessary. That’s what I’ve done in my own small way here. I do think its necessary because even in a world where RvW gets overturned and the political compromise you describe is achieved, I don’t think anyone’s reasoning will change so I don’t think anyone will “STFU about it already”. Banning third trimester procedures doesn’t seem to make protesting an abortion clinic any less appealing for those that would do so anyway.
Political resolution removes the issue from the political landscape.
<
p>Sure there will be people on both suides who don’t let it go. There are always people at the fringe. But if there is a political resolution, these people are truly marginalized. Their ability to scare-monger (Forced birth! Coat hangers! Baby Murderers! Infanticide!) is dissipated. The issue loses its political juice, and political parties and candidates troll on, looking for some other source of red meat to feed their need for cash.
<
p>
McCain is playing dumb, saying that he didn’t know that his big TX fundraiser, Clayton Williams, had spread jollity with that “joke” during a 90s campaign run. After just now “learning” about Willliams’ rape lust, McCain reportedly first canceled the Williams fundraiser, then said it had been only postponed, not cancelled. The latest is that the fundraiser is back on schedule, sans Williams but keeping the cash he’s raised.
<
p>And here I thought McCain knew all about how to do “a Google“. Note to John: knowing how isn’t the same as knowing why and when.
is a primary right but since impeachment is apparently off the table we still have to make it through August without nuking Iran and having martial law and all that jazz.
<
p>Our own right wing extraordinare Jay Severin has coined the name St Juan McAmnesty in reference to McCain so “left” vs “right” traditional party lines have become blurry to say the least. Also how in God’s earth does one explain people like Joe Lieberman. And why do all of the anti-war, commie pinko types totally ignore the Bush plan to give up American sovereignty in order to form the North American Union. That would kind of put a small dent in the false patriotism the right so loves to shove down the throats of 911 truth members such as Mark Dice.
<
p>I am going to leave you with my last link and my story of my vehement angry emails to every Army recruiting station found on the internet on the North Shore when some asshole recruiter called my 20 year old daughter on her brand new cell phone knowing where and what she was taking in community college. I blasted them with all of the depleted uranium links I could find plus the how did you know a new cell phone number and all of her other information. No child left unrecruited meant just that.
http://judicial-inc.biz/Draft_…
Way past time to stop being nice with these people.
I wondered what you meant, so I actually went to your link with an open mind. Only to find your definition:
<
p>
<
p>Your website goes on and on for pages about George Tenet and the rest of the “World Jewry” but in the spirit of “light is the best disinfectant” I’ll leave it there.
<
p>Just wanted to register my disgust.
Rather than continue heated debates that don’t advance the argument any further than it has gone since the 1970s, a much better strategy is to find the common ground that everyone can work for. Reading Paul Begalia and James Carvlle’s book a couple years ago I came across the 95-10 Initiative to reduce the abortion rate by 95% over 10 years. Are the numbers unrealistically ambitious? Yes, but I think the legislation it spawned, the Pregnant Women Support Act is very worthwhile.
<
p>It has a lot of common sense items in there like federally funding day care centers on college campuses (since most abortions are done on college aged women), fully funding WIC, making permanent the adoption tax credit and requiring SCHIP to cover pregnant women, and give grants to help states implement safe haven laws. There is enough in there to piss off extremists on both sides, but it is all stuff the vast majority of us in the middle can get behind. If we do the things in this bill then we won’t have a need for most of the abortions that are performed, and then it wont matter if they are legal or not.
Do you know if he has been presented with it and how he responded? I agree that reasonable people on both sides of the divide can agree that reducing the need for abortion is a good thing. The problem is that it often requires such measures as solid sex education for young people, and family planning methods such as condom dispersal and use. The GOP has been attacking the teaching of realistic sex ed and family planning methods pretty relentlessly for some time now, and McCain seems to stand firm on the GOP plant here. That is the point of this whole diary.
Condoms and sex ed are important birth control techniques, and I believe the public should fund those initiatives.
<
p>Other important birth control techniques:
* good schools
* good after school programs
* summer jobs
* sense of community and belonging
<
p>These things all bring down teenage pregnancy rates. If reducing the abortion rate is a national priority, then we ought to see more national money supporting quality education, arts & athletics & other additional activities, and support for living wage jobs so that the adults in a community can spend more time actively participating in it.
However, that doesn’t mean that abortion shouldn’t remain legal, and shouldn’t remain a right, as opposed to being a privilege.
I doubt he would, just like I doubt McCain would. The 95-10 Initiative is the brainchild of Democrats for Life, which means those on the far right won’t want to touch it because it’s a Democratic idea, and those on the far left won’t because it came from a pro-life group.
<
p>My point is that while videos like the one above might be helpful to raise money from pro-choice zealots who like to refer to “forced birth candidates,” it does nothing to address to either the reasons women have abortions or prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place. It’s good rhetoric, but it won’t accomplish much.
Karen provided us with tons of proof that McCain isn’t going to support major requirements of a realistic abortion reduction program. If you have a similar claim to make against Obama, shore it up with credible links. Just saying the equivalent of “nuh-uh!” just doesn’t cut it and will not persuade. Do your homework, then come back and show us what you’ve got, if anything.
John McCain has voted against funding for medically accurate sex education.
<
p>McCain voted to terminate the Title X family planning program, which provides millions of women with health care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings.
<
p>John McCain has a 0 rating on any pro-choice scorecard. The scorecards include sex education and birth control issues, not just abortion.
<
p>John McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade.
<
p>Sen. McCain told Chris Matthews, “the rights of the unborn is one of my most important values.”
[Transcript, Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 15, 2008.]
<
p>”If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement.”
[Statement by Sen. McCain read by Sen. Sam Brownback at the March for Life in Washington, DC, January 22, 2008. (accessed January 30, 2008.)
<
p>On the Federal Abortion Ban, Sen. McCain said, “Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.”
Press release, April 18, 2007 (accessed February 4, 2008).
<
p>When asked about whether he supported supplying condoms to Africa to assist in the fight against HIV/AIDS, McCain had the following exchange with a reporter:
Reporter: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.
Reporter: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”
[Adam Nagourney, McCain Stumbles on H.I.V. Prevention, The New York Times, March 16, 2007.]
<
p>Discussing his pro-life voting record, McCain said, “I have many, many votes and it’s been consistent. And I’ve got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all those years… [M]y record is clear. And I think the important thing is you look at people’s voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little… misleading…. As you know I don’t support Roe v. Wade… I thought it was a bad decision, and I think that the decision should be made in the states.”
Transcript, The Full McCain: An Interview, National Review, March 5, 2007.
<
p>I could go on and on and on.
<
p>Here is a fact sheet:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf
The reason that this issue (and others) is so important to bring up is that there are many many people (not you fine folks here on BMG) who don’t really know who John McCain is. Some of them think he is way more moderate than he is. Some of them think he is practically a Democrat. Some of them will vote for him because they do not know his views on issues like this one.
has to reach for democrats to show value in her candidate, you know he’s in big trouble! but then peter is a pro-choice republican, so reaching beyond credulity may be habit?
McCain is no Bill Weld. He’s not even Barry Goldwater.
<
p>His main claim to moderate status seems to be not believing liberals eat Christian babies. It’s hard to point to anything which makes him a social moderate.
Yes, I know there are Democrats that agree with him on this issue and if they choose to vote for them, that is okay. I am afterall Pro-Choice. But I just want to make sure that people know his views and don’t assume what they are or assume that he is a moderate.
Laws dictate legal reality. This should be unsurprising.
But if you try your, “Do you mean to tell me that laws dictate reality?” the next time you get pulled over by a cop I’ll certainly front-page your report of what happens next, if you choose to tell it.
<
p>Looking forward to it!
We are not going to resolve the abortion question here on BMG. No one is going to change my mind and I am not going to change anyone else’s mind.
<
p>Even leaving his stand against abortion aside, McCain has voted more than 20 times against providing access to Birth Control.
<
p>I just want people to know where the candidates stand on the issue. What people do with that information is up to them.