Who Is The Real Pro-choice?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351463027' post='2499268']
Perhaps I agree with you lil red

except when my posts are long, then i disagree. I get to post as long as I want, fool (I keep wanting to use ironic vulgarity here but have to contain myself )

this is my blog and you're all just commentators
[/quote]

haha well, i don't remember the last time one of your posts was quite that long, or rambling.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1351462795' post='2499265']
tl;dr....dude, this isn't your blog. learning to sum up your point a little more concisely would work in your favor.
[/quote]

I tried.....

[Anomaly]

[quote]But there are no benefits to a Romney victory here. The election has already been lost by the pro-life cause. Romney winning only solidifies eight years of a Republican political machine that at best ignores but at worst subverts the pro-life movement.[/quote]
That is the point. You are conceding to a Party that will most likely subvert prolife issues ad they have always, because in your fantastical projection, you fear the only Party that gives clout and support to any prolife action we've had may be as negative as the party who has been the negative agent.

I am impressed that you know the minds and plans of ALL the National politicians to be so sure that NO One will submitt any sort if Personhood Bill or make Abortion under Obamacare a State Choice instead of a Federal Mandate.

Are you aware that Florida has Amendment Six on our ballot this year to make government funded abortion a part if our State Constitution. The Democrats are against it, because its limiting Fed control, it undermines the Democrat victory, and the are ideologically opposed to the issue.

Romney, like Paul, cold see the political advantage of making controversial issues decide by the State level because there's less backlash in a National level. Your projection of of what negatives Romney might do demonstrate a spiteful negativity because you're upset about being in the shirt side of inside political games and have let it blind you to the realities and hope in the bigger picture.

[Aloysius]

obviously there will be people who will try to bring up abortion legislation. but without the explicit support of President Romney, it's unlikely that the Republican leadership in congress will support it. Without the support of the party leadership, it is very difficult to get things done. you just don't have enough committed pro-life Republicans to overcome a hostile party leadership, and the party leadership will follow the Republican President's lead on the issues. no matter who wins, there will be unique challenges to trying to get any good things through the house and the senate. Romney is an absolutely pro-choice person who does not want any abortion related legislation to reach his desk, and there are enough Republican members of congress who do not want to stick their necks out on this issue... they'll push the party leadership to allow them to get a few symbolic things brought up in the congress and those are the things the leadership will go for, so that they'll have something to point to in their next re-election campaign; but without the support of President Romney, you're not going to see the Republican Leadership help sponsor or get these things passed... it's an uphill battle either way; with President Obama in power it will be easier to get the Republican Leadership on board because it looks good politically to be fighting Obama, but you'll then have to overcome Obama and his veto... either way it's an uphill battle.

I'm not an idiot. I have been participating directly in the process for a while now and with various political activities on the inside, not directly in DC (but I personally know people who have done the work in DC and have talked with them at length about various things) and the fact is there are pros and cons to either side, and your analysis that reduces it simply to "if the Republican Party is in power the pro-life movement is better off" is simplistic at best, and incredibly naive at worst. It completely fails to ignore the complexity of how things actually work in Congress, you are analyzing from the standpoint of a pawn on the chessboard, which is what the entire pro-life movement tends to analyze things from which is why the Republican leadership generally feels that they can easily manipulate them.

not to mention that the work the Romney Campaign has begun to centralize power in the National Committee and the various State Committees will make it harder for Republicans with strong pro-life or conservative views to run successfully for nominations within the Republican Party. The National Committee and the State Committees hold tremendous influence over those nomination processes, and we have to continue the fight there as well.

[Aloysius]

And I will say this: it's not that it's entirely impossible that good things could come out of a Romney presidency, or that there isn't a way to work the system with Romney in power to make good things happen. I believe this is why Rand Paul has been campaigning for Romney--he hopes to be able to leverage his support for Romney to help him get some good things brought up and passed in the Senate. There is a line of reasoning there and I don't begrudge anyone for following that strategy, but to act like a Romney Presidency is just peaches and cream to make it more likely to get pro-life legislation done is to paint a picture with rose-colored glasses. There will be big challenges to getting good things done under a Romney Presidency just like there is under the Obama presidency; what I fear most is that the Romney Presidency will aid in the placation of the pro-life movement into thinking they're accomplishing something when in point of fact they are not. (e.g. the "gender-selective abortion ban" that does absolutely nothing but placate the pro-life movement by making it look like something pro-life is being passed)

[Anomaly]

I never said it would be peaches and cream if Romney is elected. He isn't very conservative in my opinion. He's the most conservative that can be elected given the majority opinion of the voting public.

I'm my naive either. Wholesale political change does not come from the top down. We both know that. Paul knows that. Of course Romney will want to be a two term president. I think it's a little silly to think he or Obama are trying to be President for life.

Pro life abortion issues are never going to come from the Democratic Party. They don't have to be initiated by the President. Presidents can veto a bill or work against it, which Dems have done. I see a significant difference between active antagonistic ideology vs a possible speculative fear of lack of support or maybe antagonism. What you label as boring utilitarianism or naïveté or playing the role of pawn, I call rational and hopeful realism. It may not be as cook, or make me look like a cutting edge intellectual, but I'm happy with that and be liver it's the best moral and realistic course of action along with the best likelihood of a good outcome.

[Socrates]

Romney's a long way from ideal (he's a Rockefeller Republican rather than a real conservative), but the hard cold reality that either Romney or Obama will be the winner of this particular election.

I have yet to see one thing to convince me that we will be better off in any way after four more years of Obama (in which he will likely push further to the left, without re-election to worry about). I cringe to think of the leftist activist yes-men he will likely nominate to the Supreme Court.

[Aloysius]

I only said it's dull utilitarianism to hold to a position that condemns those who choose an option other than choosing the lesser of two evils. I am perfectly okay with the idea of choosing the better over the worse candidate, but Mitt Romney has not met my qualifications for doing so. if you hold that you are morally OBLIGATED to choose a lesser-of-two evils option (thereby condemning the option of choosing someone better even if they have little chance of succeeding), then you are a dull utilitarian. If you simply utilize the strategy but acknowledge that it is not morally obligatory to use that strategy, you're much less so in my opinion, because you recognize the moral value in fighting losing battles.

I know they don't have to be initiated by a president. But the difficulty there will be in trying to get something through under a Romney Presidency rivals the difficulty there would be trying to get something through under an Obama presidency, it's just a different kind of difficulty. Party leadership plays a big role in congress, especially considering how many congressmen go lockstep with them; a President generally has his party's leadership in the bag so that his own party is unlikely to put something up that he doesn't want to come across his desk; add that to the fact that there are a ton of lukewarm Repubs on life issues and plenty that are actually pro-choice to varying degrees, it's not going to be any easier under a Romney presidency than it is under an Obama presidency to get life issues put through congress.

As regards to Supreme Court Nominations; anyone who thinks the status quo won't be maintained on the court under either president hasn't really been paying attention the supreme court nominations for a couple decades. the two justices must likely to come up for replacement in the next four years were, correct me if I'm wrong, the pro-choice justices nominated by Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, right? I guarantee you Romney will replace them with equivalents if he gets the chance. And Scalia's not going to retire under Obama, he'd stick out four more years, I'd be money on that.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Aloysius

[Socrates]

I don't hold that it is immoral to vote third-party, only that it will be foolish in dull, practical reality.

I hold no illusions about Romney being a great pro-life president; only that he will do far less damage than Obama. I don't think he has strong convictions on the matter one way or the other; he can be pressured by the base, and will avoid the excesses of Obama and his war on religious freedom.

[url="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=99859"]http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=99859[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26087"]http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26087[/url]

While GOP nominees to the SCOTUS have been a mixed bag, those nominated by Dems have been uniformly horrendous, and I see no reason to expect that Obama will buck that trend in his second term.

Obama is the greater evil no matter which way you slice it.

[Aloysius]

When you account for who they've been replacing each time, they're far less a "mixed bag" and far more a clear strategy of maintaining the status quo. Same for the democrats' nominees.

I feel like I've laid out pretty well why I don't think Obama is a greater evil than Romney's subversions, but good luck, I hope I'm wrong about Romney.

[Socrates]

Dems continually push the status quo further left.

[Anomaly]

But the difficulty there will be in trying to get something through under a Romney Presidency rivals the difficulty there would be trying to get something through under an Obama presidency, it's just a different kind of difficulty.


Only in an unrealistically negative projection. I(In my opinion). I understand you see the game at a different level, but insight may be misleading. Yours is still an argument about speculating on unlikely change in behavior.

And as far as the utilitarianism label. In the strict definition, it's when the end justifies the means. In this scenario, it's the reasonable consideration if likely outcome when evaluating actions. It's the same as choosing the lesser of two evils. It's choosing the most likely of two goods.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1351472457' post='2499361']
Dems continually push the status quo further left.
[/quote]


Lol

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1351444683' post='2499131']


I question what you are willing to settle for. You are making an argument that real life and Catholic life are incompatible. Plus tell me one Catholic on this board who has stated that Obama will have his/her vote? Because I haven't seen anybody with a militant tag talk about how amesome our current president is.
[/quote]

*Cough* Or other honorable mentions who fight the good fight without the official tag...

[kujo]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351445934' post='2499151']

I just don't get it. I really don't. I've always thought I was a pretty rational guy. I'm losing friends left and right. Most of my family hates being around me.

The end.
[/quote]

The way you behave on political threads, I can see why.

[dUSt]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351517901' post='2499601']

The way you behave on political threads, I can see why.
[/quote]
Eat doo doo dumb face.

[MIKolbe]

[size=8][font=trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif]THAT'S IT!![/font][/size]

[size=8][font=trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif]I'M VOTING FOR ROMNEY NOW!!!!![/font][/size]

[Aloysius]

but are you sure your vote for Romney will be counted for Romney? I've been told that a vote for x is actually a vote for y.

[MIKolbe]

OKOKOK

I am going to write in a vote for Marion Barry.

Clearly THAT would go to Romney.

[Nihil Obstat]

I still think everybody should write in Andrew Napolitano.