Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
McCain: Pro-choice VP a possibility
Although he’s already on shaky ground with conservative Republicans, John McCain told the Weekly Standard yesterday that he won’t rule out the possibility of choosing a pro-choice running mate:
“I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party,” McCain said. “And I also feel that–and I’m not trying to equivocate here–that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out.”
Even though the pro-life stance is a fundamental tenet of the Republican Party, McCain said “that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice.”
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top93 Comments to “McCain: Pro-choice VP a possibility”
Two words: President Obama
Report comment to moderator
McCain knows that he has us. We are so afraid of Obama that we will vote for him anyhow. Actually, the president doesn’t affect the abortion question except in Supreme Court appointees. Most of the bad guys in black robes were appointed by Republicans just trying to get along.
I don’t like Bush,
I don’t like McCain,
I’m afraid of Obama.
I didn’t say this elsewhere, but we may finally be rid of Edwards. It’s a shame for how it happened.
Report comment to moderator
That the McCain camp would float this proposal I suggest speaks volumes on how they perceive the election.
It suggests as Chas notes that McCain believes he will hold the conservatives but further that McCain appears to be basing his campaign strategy on how to win the center.
Which suggests that McCain knows that he has still not won the center, a point which is apparently borne our in the polls.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I’d rather have Romney because he knows business.
Let’s not forget that McCain took 16% of the middle of the road Dems away from Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Just when I started to think he was turning conservative…
Well, I guess I will vote for Bob Barr,at least he will secure personal liberties for us all. Furthermore, I would rather vote for someone who takes tough positions rather than a sellout.
Report comment to moderator
I’m shocked.
Shocked.
/sarcasm off/
Report comment to moderator
I had all but ruled out voting for John McCain. Choosing a pro-abortion running mate would seal the deal. Nobody who approves of killing pre-born baby gets my vote.
That McCain would sell the Republican birthright for a mess of pottage should turn us all against him. (I’m not sure the allusion works, but that’s what it feels like.)
Report comment to moderator
“I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party, and I also feel that — and I’m not trying to equivocate here — that Americans want us to work together.” –John McCain
I don’t think he understands what the word equivocate means. He might not have been trying to do it, but he sure did it.
If something is important or a fundamental, then you don’t abandon it or compromise on it.
And how does a pro-life person work together with a pro-abortion person? Agree to abort only half as many babies? Agree to abort only half the baby? Agree to only half-abort the baby?
There’s no working together. Either you want babies to die, or you don’t.
Report comment to moderator
# 2 Chas,
I don’t like Bush,
I don’t like McCain,
I’m afraid of Obama.
In spite of that, I was going to vote for McCain. If he picks a pro-abortion candidate however, I probably will not vote for a presidential candidate at all since that would mean also voting for the pro-abort VP pick and I could not do that in good conscience.
Report comment to moderator
I think this would seal his doom. For me, there are only two reasons to vote for McCain, and his running mate will determine whether he gets my vote. The two reasons: keep Obama out, and put a good VP in place to run in four years.
I don’t trust McCain, don’t want him as my president. I won’t vote for him, unless he chooses a good VP. I think a large number of Christians are in the same boat. That he is even contemplating this confirms that even if he chooses a good running mate, the man still cannot be trusted. Is that really what he wants to tell us?
Report comment to moderator
KBells: Short, to the point and dead on. (no pun intended)
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 4,
and we can see the impact this has had on the polls (see various analyses of the electoral college numbers).
But of course we can also see what impact this will have on certain portions of the conservative voters.
This does seem to be a Scylla and Charybdis problem for McCain.
Report comment to moderator
Not to be morbid, but McCain may not finish his four year term. Hence his choice of VP should be seen as his choice of a successor. Whoever he picks, the person should be treated like a presidential candidate.
Report comment to moderator
I’m still hoping Romney gets the VP slot, but I’ll still vote for McCain even if he picks Ridge. The VP doesn’t pick SCOTUS justices, for one, and Obama’s own VP choice is guaranteed to be worse than Ridge.
Report comment to moderator
“Chas for president
He ain’t as bad as those guys.”
Report comment to moderator
Lynn’s concurrent abortion thread reveals a challenge that anti-abortion-rights folks don’t talk about and McCain can exploit to reach out to moderates.
Evangelicals are employing the rhetoric of visceral disgust in going after the bloody business rather than the language of ethical principle. To whit: they talk as if there’s a moral difference between alternative abortion procedures and the specific location of fetal expiration during abortion. Their purpose isn’t to illuminate the ethics of personhood, but to characterize people who defend abortion rights as cruel and inhumane.
My point isn’t to dispute abortion again here, but to point out that by accusing secularists of remorselessness, evangelicals have given Republican politicians a way to escape the dominance of evangelicals. McCain can remain an orthodox, pro-life conservative while simultaneously defending the humanity and kind feelings of moderates who support the right to choose.
The best way he can do that is to pick a VP who will declare he is “personally” pro-life but believes that Americans who support limited abortion rights are honorable, warm-hearted folks who have a different opinion about a woman’s rights. That will have a profound effect on moderate voters on both the conscious and unconscious levels. These voters will feel that these Republicans won’t suddenly accuse them of being accomplices to murder.
A move like that will force the Christian right to put forth arguments that abortion really is murder — something that hardly anybody believes.
Report comment to moderator
KyleA @ #7 nails it with his selling of the Republican birthright allusion. However, McRINO sold out long ago. A Ridge or Lieberman as VP means I’ll vote 3rd party; I only wish we had a real choice like “None of the above.” Maybe CHAS has the right idea – write ourselves in.
Report comment to moderator
First of all, I often criticize WMB for selectively reporting news that favors McCain and denigrates Obama. So to be fair, I must give kudos for reporting some very bad news on McCain.
I agree with the general sentiment here. McCain picking a pro-choice running mate would lose him the election. It would destroy his evangelical base. People who have made what amounts to a religious vow never to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would be stuck. Some of them would rationalize their McCain vote, but a significant percentage would vote third party or stay home.
It’s exactly why his advisors won’t let him do it. I read a NYTimes article the other day about McCain being notoriously disorganized in his positions. He’ll speak off the cuff in favor of something that his campaign has come out against (like saying that inflating your tires is actually a good idea after his campaign launched an attack on that issue). I’d be willing to bet that this incident is one of those remarks that will get buried by his campaign.
I do not think he’ll choose a pro-choice VP.
But this doesn’t help evangelicals out of their quandary. If McCain is willing to consider a pro-choice VP even during a hotly contested election, would he not be willing to consider a pro-choice justice?
And thus falls one of the strongest “candidate of last resort” arguments evangelicals are making.
But Chas’s reaction at #2 is still a telling commentary on the kind of campaign the Right has been running. They know you won’t get excited about McCain, but if they can get you afraid of Obama (because he’s a secret Muslim, or the anti-Christ, or a socialist, or anti-white), then they don’t need to sway you. Your own irrational fears will do that.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s get this straight. Not voting for McCain is a vote for Obama. So don’t be silly or so prideful to elect that whack job who is the closest thing to the AntiChrist going. Fear pride and ego will kill you every time.
Your kidding right KBELLS? Obama is losing to McCain every day. Once the facts come out about Obama he will be toast. The left didn’t vet him at all and hos history is interesting to say the least. You cannot be a Marxist, a tax and spend crack dealer / user who is a tied up very deeply with Chicago political criminals who have made Obama a multi millionaire on a state senators salary and get elected president of this country. At least not yet.
McCain needs to forget Romney and Ridge and be the Maverick he is. Neither will help his campaign one iota. He needs to pick a woman governor – like the fine one form Alaska who is pro life, a capitalist, a conservative, a drill drill driller, a woman – all the things McCain is not. He also needs to announce that he is only running for one term thus insuring that a woman will be the next president after him. If he picks her and makes his one term announcement, he will win in a landslide.
Report comment to moderator
I join Outkast in that I would not vote Dem or third party because my goal is not only to put McCain in but to defeat Obama, but after reading the posts here, it would appear that Mr. McCain had better NOT pick Tom Ridge. People do think of the “one bullet away” (or natural death of a president) when considering the VP.
I saw a news piece where people who are fans of the Left Behind series were shown the commercial against Obama and they didn’t see the anti-Christ stuff in it. Those people had no irrational fears, but you can keep believing that. Maybe it’ll help when Obama is defeated. You leftists will have something to blame so you won’t have to consider why your guy was rejected.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know this woman governor Llama talks about, but she sounds good.
If McCain picks Bloomberg, I may go on vacation that week. It would keep me from making an impossible choice.
NJL, I posted some time ago, I think this “Antichrist” business is counter productive. When the “Man of Sin” comes, he will be smarter than this empty suit.
HRW’s point at #13 may sound morbid, but he has a point. In any case, the VP is the natural candidate for succession.
Report comment to moderator
All I can say is LOL.
And Obama as anti-Christ is hilarious. Personally I think the anti-C will begin as a very religious sort. Wolf in sheep’s clothing and all of that.
Report comment to moderator
“But this doesn’t help evangelicals out of their quandary. If McCain is willing to consider a pro-choice VP even during a hotly contested election, would he not be willing to consider a pro-choice justice?”
I’ve been saying that for a while people. Mr. 72-year-old one term McCain with an unpopular war to maintain and an absolute crazed anti-Russia policy is going to waste absolutely ZERO political capital fighting with the judiciary committee. If you like Anthony Kennedy, you’re going to LOVE a McCain appointed supreme court. Have fun with that.
P.S.- I think he’s shock-jocking you all so you’ll breathe a sigh of relief when he picks Romney (who at least pretends to be on your side).
Romney on the other hand, also unlikely to go to the mat for conservative justices.
Report comment to moderator
Nearly every presidential candidate since FDR was considered to be the anti-Christ by somebody. But Obama does use a lot of religious language.
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
Llama is just displaying how long it’s been since he has followed the news! Sarah Palin just ended her political career. She’s engrossed in a massive political abuse of powers scandal, and even the far right news in her state is calling for her head. Her name is basically mud at the moment. The longshot chance that McCain would choose her is officially over.
What is AWESOME about that, is she was the Alaska GOP’s fall back if Ted Stevens got indicted! Mark Begich should start picking out curtains for his new DC office!
Report comment to moderator
Llama is just displaying how long it’s been since he has followed the news!
1951?
Report comment to moderator
Outkast:
NJLawyer:
So you would cast your vote for a man willing to appoint pro-choice justices? A man likely to pass the mantle (either through death or retirement) to his pro-choice VP? In other words, you would let your vote be directly responsible for perpetuating the murder of millions of babies?
NJLawyer:
That is refreshing to hear. If you have a link to that news report, I’d like to watch or read that myself.
Report comment to moderator
llama post 19,
well I do thinbk that perhaps your comment here:
“Your kidding right KBELLS? Obama is losing to McCain every day”
is not supported by the evidence in the polls, or the evidence in the elctoral college line up.
Even WMB admitted as much in Red State Bluse State discussion.
But keep whistiling in the dark!
Report comment to moderator
So KBells goes for Obama who voted three times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, while McCain had the good sense to vote in favor of a similar one in the Senate. I strongly oppose McCain’s favoring the Pro-Choice position but have no qualms voting for him. He is on record stating that he wants to appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito, while we know that Obama will try to appoint died in the wool liberal to the court.
Report comment to moderator
I’m with Kbells and others on this one:
If McCain chooses a pro-death running mate, he has lost my vote.
Because that tells me he is a liar – and also shows exactly what he will actually do when it comes to choosing supreme court justices, which is the ONLY reason I would ever consider voting for him at this point, anyway.
Better that true Americans (however many still exist in the country) be shocked and galvanized into action by a Marxist-Leninist anti-American regime under Obama, the Messiah of the Left, then slowly cooked like a frog in a pan of water being gradually brought to a boil.
If McCain chooses a pro-Death running mate, it is the Constitution Party for me.
Report comment to moderator
He might want to appoint another Alito, Peter. But in the end he’ll “do what best for the American people,” “embrace a nominee who is going to bring people together,” “work with his friends across the isle,” and appoint another “personally I’m pro-life but…” judge. Just like he’s told to do.
By the time they actually confirm his cabinet appointments, John McCain is not going to want to spend any more of the last tenth of his life on nominations. He knows he has a very short time to leave a legacy, and “the guy who got Alito on the bench” isn’t going to be it!
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt:
But McCain is also on the record saying this:
And given McCain’s penchant for flipping positions on key issues in order to gain political support, do you really trust that his position on Supreme Court appointees will be the same in three years that it was this year?
Same question to you, Drill. Why wait for McCain to pick a pro-choice VP? Isn’t his willingness to do so enough evidence that the issue is not very important to him?
Luke raises a great point in #23 and #31. Appointing pro-life justices in the face of a solid Democratic majority would take enormous political will. McCain has demonstrated with this comment on his VP choice that the issue is not important enough to him that he would undertake the huge political fight necessary to get pro-life judges appointed.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt, I am in NO WAY saying I will vote for Obama or even that I will not vote for McCain. But I think enough people will stay home to put Obama over if McCain does this. My comment was a prediction not an endorsement.
Report comment to moderator
JJF asks: “Why wait for McCain to pick a pro-choice VP? Isn’t his willingness to do so enough evidence that the issue is not very important to him? ”
That is a good question. However, I think that McCain may simply be playing a very delicate game, wooing moderates with his ‘independence’ by stating he is willing to consider a pro-death running mate.
But if he actually picks a pro-life running mate, that tells me this (stating a ‘willingness’ to pick a pro-death running mate) is just a political ploy to gain votes from the amoral apathetic non-committeds. Not a ploy I particularly admire, but one that makes sense in a pragmatic kind of way.
If he picks a pro-Death running mate, however it tells me that there is no question that he is indeed a first-class liar and a fraud; that we would have no chance of having a pro-life pro-child person put on the supreme court.
Report comment to moderator
So if he lies to you about his position on abortion, he’s a “first-class liar and a fraud.” If he lies to other people, he’s a pragmatist.
???
Report comment to moderator
JJF
Appointed judges, snort. McCain will go all gang of 14 again if he gets elected.
Report comment to moderator
And you’ve got a classic liar’s paradox here, Drill. Even in your “best case scenario,” if McCain is willing to lie to someone else to get their support, how can you trust that he hasn’t done the same to you?
In fact, his shifting views on key Republican positions — immigration, the Bush tax cuts, the role of the religious right, torture, electronic surveillance, offshore drilling, the list goes on — suggests the same lack of dedication to principles that would allow him to tell voters whatever they want to hear.
list of McCain flip-flops
Report comment to moderator
Like,
Your boy Oboma now has exactly the same stance on the Russian attack on Georgia s McCain had a week ago. The only we we have found out is that Obama is not ready to be in charge of his children’s sand box much less this nations security.
His inexperience is plain for all to see. he should go on TV and just say = what ever McCain says but remember I said it first.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Luke
Report comment to moderator
I like Tom Ridge, but he is pro-choice –
Romney is in a cult, whether you understand that cult or not -
Between Ridge, and Romney there is no choice – as a Believer how can I vote for either one as a V.P.? I CAN’T – one believes its a choice to kill a child, the other believes the Book of Mormon is more important than the Bible.
It’s the hard choices that Believers are now having to make. We see the world changing so fast we can’t keep up with the news, (I read news off and on ALL DAY)
We have our HOPE in the LORD Jesus Christ, we can’t let this election rule where Christ above in the Heavens knows all about this mess. I won’t vote if either one of these men are chosen, I can’t, my walk with the LORD would be ruined, I would be SHAMED, and I would be a traitor to my LORD and Savior -
Report comment to moderator
I will not vote for McCain either if he picks a pro-”choice” VP. I’ll barely vote for him if he picks a pro-life VP. He does equivocate, but then Obama is enthusiastically pushing the envelope on these same issues.
I’d rather have an equivocator, I guess, than a cheerleading Organizer.
But I can’t in good conscience vote McCain if the VP isn’t pro-life, too.
Guess I’d go third party. (Not excited about that, either…)
Report comment to moderator
The left would like to to think they have Gov Palin in some hot water but it is all accusations at this point and she will easily be cleared. The left still wants to bring up Bush on charges for blowing up the WTC too. Pay no attention to them. She just has some bad looking circumstances and aides that need to explain themsleves.
So far the only thing that she can be accused of is that she wanted apolice officer fired for driving his kids in huis patrol car while he was drunk and shooting a mamma mosse out of season. When his boss declined to fire him for these offenses, she fired the boss. The patrolman in question was her brother in law who was being divorced by her sister at the time and there was a nasty fight over the children. She certainly didn’t have sex with everyone involved as a lefty would have done
Gov. Palin will be cleared of all charges sicne her brother in law was guilty of his crimes and they both know it.
But there are others “like’ her as I originally said who who would be much better VP’s for McCain than Romney or Ridge.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Even even your tank riding man posing as a Dyke was ahead by 19 points at this time. Obama hasn’t even had his past revealed, America doesn’t know a thing about him yet, and he is even with McCain in one poll, slightly behind in one and slightly ahead in another. He is toast and your leadership that swills you slop knows it too.
It is so bad for Obama, Hillary will be put into nomination at the convention and she just might win. She certainly is a much better candidate than your current Marxist or your past traitors, sexual predatorsand assorted whack jobs the left puts up as candidates.
Lefties need to do a better job at vetting their presidential candidates.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
I disagree with your reviews, but I respect your integrity in this matter of VP picks.
Report comment to moderator
If McCain’s VP is “pro-choice,” I will vote for the Constitution Party’s candidate.
I checked them out a couple of times in the last couple of elections, and while I don’t agree 100%, they are my only alternative because I don’t think Bob Barr is pro-life any more.
**************************************************
Please consider the Constitution Party if you cannot vote for a “pro-choice” ticket instead of not voting at all.
**************************************************
Report comment to moderator
Even though the pro-life stance is a fundamental tenet of the Republican Party, McCain said “that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice.”
No, we don’t exclude people from the party, but shouldn’t we exclude them from leadership in the party if they deny a “fundamental tenet”?
Report comment to moderator
Like any campaigning politician, McCain is throwing out a trial balloon to judge reaction. Based on the response from polls, pundits and the public he will determine if he can “chance” a particular candidate for VP.
He is doing what is called a “cost-benefits analysis.” If he gains 2 votes by pro-choice independents (independents will be ones who are going to decided the election) and lose only 1 pro-life vote in the process, picking Ridge would be a politically expedient move.
The same goes for choosing Romney. If he can gain more votes from economic conservatives than he will lose from religious conservatives, it would be a “good” choice as well.
McCain’s staff is feverishly working the fringes calculating every possible angle. Obama’s people are doing the same.
Judging by the overall reaction McCain is getting by the talking heads and polls, it seems that abortion has become a tired issue. (Not for me and others on this blog, but across the board with the American public.)
I think he’ll lose more votes than what he would gain, but it is a strategy that his advisors feel he has to entertain in light of how close this election may be.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you CoyoteBlue -
Report comment to moderator
Very encouraging news in this thread.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: That is a stupid post.
It is not lying to say that you would consider something that you do not then do.
I consider a lot of things, like I consider whether I should tell my wife that I ran over her lemon cucumber plant with my tractor when she is off for a week cooking for a camp full of foster children (victims of abuse).
I consider it and then reject it ultimately because I managed to dig the thing out of the dirt, prop it up, water it, kiss it, talk to it and tell it I am sorry, and it perks right up and does just fine, so that when she comes home it is as good as new, and maybe even better, due to my extra tender loving care.
So your point, to me, is stupid. Sorry. But it just is.
If McCain is just floating the thing (picking a pro Death VP) as a political ploy, guess what?
No children will die because of that.
But if McCain actually PICKS a pro-Death VP, childen will die – because he has shown himself to be a friend of the pro-aborts and will undoubtably select pro-death supreme court justices, whether or not the pro-Death VP ever becomes President or not.
How hard is THAT to figure out? One way, the lives of children will be saved (or could be saved). The other way the lives of children will not be saved (or may not be saved).
Report comment to moderator
They are not children any more than dog fetuses are puppies.
And Drill, if you have your way, the lives of women will be taken. They will, in some cases be kidnapped and then murdered by the state. And they are people.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: The post I called ’stupid’ was your #35, not your #37, which is more nuanced.
This would be the ultimate litmus test for me with McCain – if he selects a pro-life VP, he is saying that he is serious about being pro-life in his appointments and selections, as best as I can determine. If not, he is not serious about it and he loses my vote.
The alternative (practically) is Obama who will definitely mean that more children are murdered and more repressive measures are enacted to silence those who dare to dissent.
However, there is the analogy of the frog in the pan of water that I used before. If the frog figures out that you are trying to boil him alive because you turn up the heat too fast, he will jump out.
So Obama may just be the equivalent of the Left turning up the heat too fast – in its eagerness to destroy America and waste our heritage and enslave us, it will overreach.
And then maybe there will be a reaction that will bury the Left for a very long time. As it deserves to be buried, after the horrorshows it engineered in the twentieth century. And now is attempting to repeat, most obviously in the abortion butcher shops across the land, but in all other areas as well.
Report comment to moderator
Catholics United are welcoming the new abortion lingo in the Democratic platform:
“Catholics United welcomes the Democratic Party’s new platform language as the seed of a practical and effective plan to significantly reduce abortions in the United States. . . . we believe faithful Catholics will appreciate this development as a positive step toward abortion policy Americans of diverse ideological and religious backgrounds can unite behind. For far too long, extremists on both sides of the political spectrum have used the abortion issue to divide voters, often at the expense of other pressing concerns. By focusing on the root causes of abortion . . . ”
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: What? I don’t have a clue what you are talking about – “The lives of women will be taken by the state?”
The abortion industry feeds on women and children in their most confused and helpless states.
A woman who agrees to kill her child is either a monster (very few are) or a very confused and hurting person (most are).
The abortion industry and its kept politicans like Obama (and people who support them either by their vote or in any other way) encourage rape, encourage child abuse, and practice murder in its worst form. It is the industry itself and its enabling political goons that should be held responsible for what it does – not its victims.
Ah. I just saw your statement – ‘they (children) are not children anymore than dog fetuses are puppies.’
That, then, is it in a nutshell.
What an absolutely chillingly amoral and hellish statement for a human being to make.
And so the Nazis said that the Jews were not people. They were sub-human. Stalin and his henchmen – the Kulaks were not people, they were sub-human. The Khmer Rouge – their victims were not people – they were something less than people.
I am not sure that there is any point of human contact left with a person who makes – and really believes – such a statement. I hope you do not actually believe it, but suspect, given the times and the amoral state of the culture, that you do.
Report comment to moderator
llama post 43,
you may in fact be correct.
But of course, if it is bad for Obama, by definition it is worse for McCain!
Right now the probable electoral vote count for Obama is about 300:
http://www.fivethrityeight.com/
McCain has to fight back from his present position to gain the needed votes.
So far he does not seem to have made progress on this.
Report comment to moderator
metanonia post 47 wouild appear to be the most insightful comment on what is going on here.
McCain is looking for an edge.
By the nature of his coalition, McCain is in a position where appealing to one portion of the coalition is likely displease another.
Since McCain needs the center, it would appear he is exploring which choices give him the largest portion of the center while risking the least amount of his base.
I do believe that this is Scylla and Charybdis.
Report comment to moderator
DRILL: And so the Nazis said that the Jews were not people.
Actually, the Untermensch was still a Mensch with all the measurable points of identification of a person, such as personality, reason, skill, memory, history, and emotion. By nature, the Untermensch could seem similar to an Ayrian, but Jews were morally degenerate, harmful, and destructive of German destiny, regardless of their achievements. They were an abomination, like Amelekites, Philistines, Jebusites, etc.
Nazi anti-semitism has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion, as the human fetus is no kind of Mensch — unter or über, seeming or real. the fetus is pre-mensch, so to speak.
Report comment to moderator
Drill (#34):
But it is lying to say that you would consider something that you would never really consider.
You said this:
If it is just a ploy, and McCain’s willingness to pick a pro-choice candidate is only ‘willingness’ (with scare-quotes), then McCain lied to moderates when he said he would consider something he, in your interpretation, had no intention of considering.
You yourself acknowledge there’s something shady about it:
I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your idea that lying to moderates “makes sense in a pragmatic kind of way,” by lying to conservatives makes him “indeed a first-class liar and a fraud.”
Of course there is the possibility that McCain really would consider a pro-choice VP. But this is obviously problematic for evangelicals, and why (I strongly suspect) you framed his statement as merely a ploy.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia (#51):
This reasoning always makes me leery. Historically, this has been the excuse every time a disempowered group was oppressed by the empowered. Native Americans were “not fully human”: they were savages, more like wild beasts than men, really. Blacks were “not fully human”: they were 3/5ths human at best, but everyone understood them to be closer to intelligent monkeys. Jews were “not fully human”: entire genetics programs went into demonstrating their lesser lineage.
And now the unborn are “not fully human.” Convenient, given that we would like to be able to kill them without remorse.
Logically those examples do not prove that the unborn are human. But they ought to make any humane person very suspicious of the “it’s not really human” excuse as applied to something debatably human.
I’ll start from there. Debatably human. I do not know when human life begins. No one does. I do not believe it begins at conception, but I certainly believe it begins before first breath. The eight-month old unborn baby is distinctively human in shape, displays mental activity, feels pain, and could survive outside the womb. So at some unknown point from conception to birth, human life is created. We don’t know when. Let’s start from there.
Philosopher Peter Kreeft breaks the logic down perfectly. I’ll paraphrase his argument. There are two possibilities about the state of the fetus at any given moment: (1) it is a human person, (2) it is not a human person. And there are two possibilities about the state of our knowledge of the fetus at any given moment: (A) we know what the fetus is, (B) we do not know what the fetus is.
This gives us four possible states:
(1A): The fetus is a human person, and we know that.
(1B): The fetus is a human person, but we do not know that.
(2A): The fetus is not a human person, and we know that it is not.
(2B): The fetus is not a human person, but we don’t know that.
In case 1A, abortion would be first degree murder. We would be intentionally killing what we know is a human person.
In case 1B, abortion would be manslaughter. It would be like demolishing a building without checking to make sure everyone was out. You didn’t know there were people inside, but you didn’t know there weren’t and still you went ahead and blew it. You are morally and criminally responsible for their deaths.
In case 2B, abortion is still criminal negligence. It turns out the building had no people in it after all, but you should have checked and did not.
Only in case 2A, where we are sure the fetus is not a human being, is abortion ethical. But we do not possess that certain knowledge, not individually, not scientifically, not as a society. In other words, case 2A is inaccessible to us.
That leaves us with only three cases, in all of which abortion is unethical. As a society concerned with protecting human life, we ought at a minimum to outlaw abortion beyond the first trimester.
Report comment to moderator
On the initial posting ( I know, there have been many trains of thought going and here I am going all the way back) I just want to say that if McCain picks a pro-baby killer, it will finalize his defeat.
Report comment to moderator
A pro-abortion Republican might as well call himself a Democrat. And if McCain picks one, my vote will go 3rd party. (And no, I will not be voting for Obama, I will be voting my conscience. This could very well be the year a 3rd party candidate gets elected.)
Report comment to moderator
PeterL: I’d be interested in your analysis as to how it would be possible for a 3rd party candidate to win. I can’t see it being possible in this world, in this life.
Seriously, care to lay out your logic on that one? At best I would see a third party getting 10-12% of the vote. More than enough to get Obama the nod.
Report comment to moderator
JJF–
The difference between abortion and any of the degrees of murder or manslaughter is that in the latter we have a dead person and then investigate the guilty mind to assess the degree of culpability. Reckless drivers aren’t charged with manslaughter unless someone dies, even though someone could have, or nearly did die. Similarly, attempts can’t be prosecuted as murder, no matter how monstrous and shocking.
Everyone agrees what a person is. A substantial number of admirable and reasonable people doubt that a fetus is a person. This means that, even if you get a majority of SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade, you still have to get a unanimous jury verdict, and if you consistently can’t, then anti-abortion laws can still be unconstitutional based on the common-law tradition that crimes are acts that elicit universal opprobrium.
There is reasonable doubt about whether a fetus is a person. In your analogy to murder prosecution, that doubt is like the reasonable doubt over whether a supposed victim is actually dead.
Report comment to moderator
And now the unborn are “not fully human.” Convenient . . .
Human fetuses are genetically human. That means completely human. However, fetuses are designed by nature not to be persons for a long, long time. This is the necessary antecedent to personhood, the trick of evolution which enables humans to become persons, homo sapiens sapiens.
Report comment to moderator
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
wack job wack job wack job wack job wack job
Sorry for the interruption folks. I was just refilling Llama’s vocabulary so he can continue posting for another week on here.
Report comment to moderator
Find your fuzzy pink slippers, try and relax, it’s gonna be ok -
Report comment to moderator
anlir 65
Report comment to moderator
I am in agreement with Peter L in 61
Wrong Way McCain (you know he crashed a lot, and was a lousy pilot) is not for us!
BARR in 2008!
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
It’s a trick of evolution for a human fetus to “become” a person? Run that by me again, please, and this time, care to explain it? I think it’s a trick with words, myself, and not a very clever one.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s not give in to fear (that the Democrat will be elected) and vote Republican, if the Republican is not vote-worthy.
See how easy this can be?
I believe there will be quite a few Christians who will be voting for Chuck Baldwin/Constitution Party.
This is from the Constitution Party website:
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
Doesn’t that sound like what most conservative Christians advocate for?
Someone more suitable for president than either Obama or McCain should be elected. Christians can make it happen. Or not.
Report comment to moderator
You people do not have the critical maturity to play with deontology. YOu can’t just frame an analogy:
Nazi : Jews :: People I don’t like : People I do like
Grow up.
This thread is no longer about McCain. I’m out.
Report comment to moderator
CherlyD post 69,
but of course at root is what is meant by a person.
From the perspective of the legal system, personhood appears to be granted in stages based on development, with abortion in particular legal effectively until fetus viability outside the womb, subject of course to the health and life of the mother,
So to have a clear discussion here it would seem we need your definition of a person.
We can stipulate that a fertilized egg is alive.
We can stipulate if you like that a fertilzied egg is human.
I note that a skin cell meets these requirements as well and the SCNT process can apaprently enable any skin cell to become an embryo.
So how do you define your concept of “person”?
Report comment to moderator
I am sorry to see this thread drop off the front page.
Scroop Moth (#64):
Musing (#72):
You both offer a key clarification. When I say “human being” I don’t mean merely “genetically human.” I mean “a human person possessing the rights which ought to be afforded to all human persons.”
Scroop (#63):
Kreeft’s analysis does cover exactly this. If you know it is human and you kill it, that’s murder. If you don’t know it’s human and you kill it, that’s manslaughter.
You are mostly right that reckless driving and attempted murder are not prosecuted as murder. I say “mostly” because you seem to downplay attempted murder, which is actually a very serious crime. But I don’t think it applies to the abortion argument. Attempted murder would be knowing that the fetus is human, trying to kill it, and failing. So let’s scratch that one and stick with your example of reckless driving.
First, Kreeft and I are talking not about how to prosecute, but about the moral status. So let’s instead say “reckless driving is not morally equivalent to murder.” Granted. But it is still both still criminal and unethical. And you can imagine that reckless driving through a school playground, where children might be, is quite a serious offense. That’s a better abortion analogy — not just reckless driving down a lonely stretch of highway, but reckless driving in a place where children, if there are in fact any there, would certainly be killed.
And that’s the force of Kreeft’s argument. He grants that you don’t know there are children there. But you don’t know there aren’t, and you’re recklessly driving through a place where children might be. And if there were children there, you would certainly kill them.
So the argument is not “all abortion is murder.” Rather, it is that all abortion is criminal and unethical, except in the case that you possess certain knowledge that the aborted fetus is not human.
Report comment to moderator
#70 THESELITTLEONES: Christians alone cannot make it happen. There aren’t enough of us.
Because of the two party system we are stuck with, a vote for a third party at this time is a wasted vote. Any candidate has to win wide spread support.
Christians are only only one slice of the conservative bloc. And the liberal Christian bloc is growing exponentially among the younger generation.
Both candidates know that they have to appeal to a broad middle. Which is why Obama has had a “moderate” epiphany and why he is willing to lose the religious right. He can win in the middle.
Because McCain can’t win with just the religious right (although he absolutely can’t win without it) he is forced to broaden his middle base as well.
The left and right spectrums are pretty even in percentages. It’s the middle that’s going to decide the race.
Obama will win with a left to right of center majority coalition. McCain will win with a right to left of center majority.
As Walter Cronkite would say, “And that’s the way it is.”
Report comment to moderator
Scroop (#64):
Sorry to double-post on you, but you raise a number of good objections I want to answer.
Ok. Granted.
I do not doubt this. I know some people I admire and find quite reasonable who doubt that the fetus is a person.
But think about it from the other end, too. A substantial number of admirable and reasonable people think that the fetus is a person.
Imagine a situation where people are gathered around a fetus curled up in the middle of the table. For practical reasons, it would be more convenient if the fetus would die. All of the people present are equally reasonable, equally ethical, but they can’t reach a consensus — is it human or not?
I would argue that the only ethical response in that scenario is to not kill the fetus. Reasonable and ethical people can’t reach a consensus, but this may be a human being we’re talking about. And if it is, killing it for convenience would be monstrous. (I looked at planned parenthood stats — convenience is the reason for the vast majority of U.S. abortions. Let’s deal with health & life of the mother separately as special cases.)
You may be right. I am making a somewhat abstract argument about abortion’s moral status, not about how or whether it can be prosecuted.
I would say not reasonable doubt over whether the victim is dead, but reasonable doubt over whether he is a victim. More analogous, perhaps, to a war crimes trial for someone who ordered bombs dropped on a hospital which may or may not have been evacuated. If there were victims, there’s no doubt they’re dead. The question is whether there were victims.
This “trial by jury” argument is actually a very strong argument, and one I hadn’t considered, that anti-abortion legislation in America is doomed to failure. But it does not impact abortion’s morality, which is the subject of my own argument.
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 73,
but of course this is an important statement:
““a human person possessing the rights which ought to be afforded to all human persons.” ”
One of the observations in law is that it does not appear that one person can compel another to sustain them. Examples are: I can not compel you to give me a kidney.
So if the fetus is not viable on its own, it would appear, and the supreme court seems to concur, that the fetus does not yet have full rights which ought to be afforded to all human persons.
Likewise if a skin cell can become a person, why should it not be afforded these rights.
My sense is that your attempt at a clear distinction does not seem to stand up under scurtiny.
So I guess clarification on:
1) independent viability
2) relationship of the fetus to other entities which could in principal become human
needs to be considered.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, JJF, the difference between McCain and Obama on justices is that Obama WILL put in pro-choice justices, while McCain MAY put in pro-choice justices. Can’t say my choice just didn’t get worse, but I still have a shot with McCain. (Who woulda thunk that Souter would turn out the way he did? Ya never know! But McCain has said he’s choose another Alito or Roberts, and you know where I stand on them.)
Obama wouldn’t even give an aborted baby a shot if the baby survived the abortion. I know what I WON’T get with Obama.
And just so you know, in your hypothetical where you have people around a table that has a “fetus” on it — you’re wrong. Once outside the mother’s body, that “fetus” is a PERSON with constitutional rights.
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 73,
now this is an interesting suggestion:
“And that’s the force of Kreeft’s argument. He grants that you don’t know there are children there. But you don’t know there aren’t, and you’re recklessly driving through a place where children might be. And if there were children there, you would certainly kill them.”
But of course a skin cell might become a human using SCNT. Since it “might” be human why does it not also deserve special protection?
Report comment to moderator
Ah, good. This thread is not yet lost and forgotten.
NJLawyer (#77):
Thanks for the clarification. My example wasn’t meant to suggest otherwise. It was just a “thought experiment” of sorts meant to illustrate my point about the ethics of deciding under uncertainty.
Musing:
I’ll deal with the easier objection first. I am not arguing that we must protect the the fetus as something with the potential to later become a human person. I am saying we must protect the fetus as something which may or may not be a human person right now.
If it could be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that a fetus becomes a human person at 22 weeks and not sooner, I see no ethical problem in destroying it at 15 weeks.
My point (and Kreeft’s) is that it is unethical and criminal to destroy something that, at the moment you are destroying it, may in fact be a human person. You don’t know whether it is or it isn’t, but in that case you are ethically obliged not to destroy it.
This, to my mind, is your more weighty objection:
Would you accept, then, that if the fetus were viable on its own, then it has full rights which ought to be afforded to all human persons. Let’s say we could theoretically agree on a definition of “viable.” Any fetus meeting that definition ought to be protected as a human person. Agreed?
But what of those non-viable fetuses that must, in fact, depend on the mother to sustain them. If she no longer wishes to sustain them, can she be compelled?
Your analogy is a good one — you cannot compel me to give you my kidney. But there are significant differences. Most notably, you are not my child, my legal responsibility.
Of course a mother can’t be compelled to donate her kidney to her child. On the other hand, a mother can be compelled to give her children food and water, even at significant inconvenience to her lifestyle. If she fails to do so, she can face jail time for neglect. The mother’s wish not to be bothered with looking after children does not give her the right to deny them things essential to life.
I argue that if the fetus is — or even may be but we don’t know — a human person, the same standard ought to apply. The mother can in fact be justly compelled to provide her baby with things essential to life.
But I’d be interested in your thoughts (or anyone’s) on why a mother can’t be forced to donate a kidney, but can be forced to provide food and water. What are the differences? And which one is abortion more like — denying a kidney or denying food and water?
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 79,
so I have no problem with your statement:
“I’ll deal with the easier objection first. I am not arguing that we must protect the the fetus as something with the potential to later become a human person. I am saying we must protect the fetus as something which may or may not be a human person right now.”
I am merely asking what distinguishes it as human and the answer seemed to be that it might be and second, since a skin cell under SCNT might be human as well, why it did not deserve protection.
I am happy with your model. I am merely asking for you to generalize it.
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 79,
now your observation here:
“Would you accept, then, that if the fetus were viable on its own, then it has full rights which ought to be afforded to all human persons. Let’s say we could theoretically agree on a definition of “viable.” Any fetus meeting that definition ought to be protected as a human person. Agreed?”
is indeed germane.
In fact one of the challenges to the present Roe vs. Wade ruling is that fetus viability is being proven earlier and earlier.
I can even posit that eventually a womb will not be needed at all. I can also posit that any skin cell can be used to make a fetus.
And now where does this lead you?
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 79,
and of course your analogy:
“But what of those non-viable fetuses that must, in fact, depend on the mother to sustain them. If she no longer wishes to sustain them, can she be compelled?
Your analogy is a good one — you cannot compel me to give you my kidney. But there are significant differences. Most notably, you are not my child, my legal responsibility. ”
falls apart in the kidney example as well: we can not compell a parent to donate a kidney to a child even if the child is the parent’s legal responsiblity.
I believe the viability argument and the kidney analogy still hold.
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 79,
interesitngly I agree with you here:
“I argue that if the fetus is — or even may be but we don’t know — a human person, the same standard ought to apply.”
I just argue that this standard is not the same as the full human standard.
My personal model is that we have a continuum of potential and viability:
1) a fertilized egg is not viable on its own, and it is pure human potential with no actualization
2) a baby is in the generla case viable on its own, and has achieved actualization as a baby
3) before perhaps 20 weeks, a fetus is not viable on its own, and has only partially actualized as a baby
Which leads me to a continuum argument with viability wisely, I suggest, chosen as a key criteria. A shadow understanding, however, is that the acutalization of the baby was increasing over time.
So I have no problem at all with birth control.
I have no problem at all with emergency contraception.
I have no problem at all with early abortions.
I am increasingly uneasy with abortion as the child develops.
I generally do not accept the construct of infantacide, although there are always extreme cases and I would hate to guess how I might have to respond in some of them.
And of course the easiest way to minimize these difficult and complex questions is encourage the use of contraception. The embryo which does not occur can never be aborted.
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 79,
when you say:
“But I’d be interested in your thoughts (or anyone’s) on why a mother can’t be forced to donate a kidney, but can be forced to provide food and water. What are the differences? And which one is abortion more like — denying a kidney or denying food and water?”
the difference of course is that one person can not be compelled to jepordize their helath and potentially their life just to help another.
This appears to be pretty well established AND seems to be embedded in the supreme court requirmeent for allowing abortions to protect the life and health of the mother.
Merely providing food or shelter, by contrast, does not itself provide a risk to the life or health of the mother (or father) and society has indeed concluded that parent can be compelled to provide it OR be forced to give up their child.
Interstingly we also require pet owners to provide food and water to their pets. Providing food and water does not seem to match the legal standard for kidneys for example.
Report comment to moderator
I am more likely to support a pro-giving birth (using sensible birth control and decision-making) and pro-adoption candidate than an “Anti-Abortion” candidate.
Report comment to moderator
JJF –When your philosopher uses juridical rhetoric to sort out possible cases, he then must follow juridical conventions to reach a valid conclusion. He can bring charges corresponding to the possible mental states of the accused, but he’s got to prosecute and allow a defense. Inability to prosecute is a problem. For murder, you have to produce a corpse, and it has to be a person. For sure. The burden isn’t on the defendant to prove she knew her victim could not have been a person.
What surprises me about your arguments is the implied concession that abortion might not be murder, though still unethical. Is that your position? You might not want to answer!
Ironically, the Bible itself offers a legal precedent somewhat like our example of reckless driving through a playground — the case of the men who negligently brawl near a pregnant woman and knock against her, causing a miscarriage (read: abortion). According to Exodus, 21:22-25 the fetus is excluded from the protection of the law of personal injury. The offender is subject to the father’s demand for property damages, as awarded by a judge. Explicitly, the fetus is property, not a person. If however the woman suffers injury, the offender is subject to the punishment of the law of personal injury.
I do have an analysis for your take on the analogy to reckless driving, if you want to pursue it.
Report comment to moderator
Scoop moth post 86,
your observation:
“According to Exodus, 21:22-25 the fetus is excluded from the protection of the law of personal injury.”
always is an inconvenient argument to enter into a religiously focused discussion on abortion.
Report comment to moderator
The specific quote from Exodus is:
Exodus 21:22-24 [NIV]:
22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
It seems that the argument here is that the fetus itself is not protected under injury law but that actual injuries to the woman would be.
There is of course the on going question of applicability of Mosaic law today which perhaps needs to be addressed.
But to the best of my knowledge, this appears to be the clearest and perhaps only specific discussion of the legal status of the fetus in the Bible (do note the word legal).
Report comment to moderator
scoop moth post 86,
and your analysis of the analogy with reckless driving?
Report comment to moderator
Musing —
Reckless driving is actually not analogous to abortion because abortion is deliberate and has calculated consequences. Abortion is either premeditated murder or it is innocent. JJF is giving a philosophical, not a practical possibility. The participants in abortion don’t proceed if they think the fetus “might be” a person. They positively think that it isn’t. Theoretically JJF can speculate on the possibility that people don’t know whether the fetus is a person. In practice, they have reasons to think the fetus is not a person and no reason to think it is a person.
We sanction reckless conduct because we know that it can result in criminal harm. Therefore, driving a car in a playground is a criminal offense, particularly if children are present. Prosecutors would probably even try to call it assault with intent to murder. On the other hand, driving a dune buggy through a field of jack rabbits may be just as heedless, but not an act that we know can result in criminal harm.
Theoretically, we could be wrong, and responsible for our lack of philosophical certainty. But the law can’t hold people to unreasonable standards. A deer hunter can’t be held responsible for slaying Diana, nor a butcher for butchering a sacred totem. How can we know a fetus is a person? If this knowledge is intuited or given by religious revelation, then some will know and others won’t.
Further, if JJF speculates that abortion may be a crime other than homicide (say the crime of abortion), then what is the state’s rationale for prohibiting it? Abortion is either a personal injury or it is not criminal conduct. If it is a personal injury, it’s murder.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, thanks for highlighting the peskiness of the Exodus text. I wonder if you’ve ever heard evangelicals discuss it — as opposed to running away and hiding from it?
Evangelicals consistently translate the Hebrew idiom “her fruit departs from her” as birth, a meaning which is impossibly awkward in context and ignores the commonness of miscarriage, but at least NIV is honest enough to acknowledge miscarriage as a possible rendering, if not their preferred rendering. For the purpose of argument, the mere possibility of this meaning is a very bad thing for those who want to argue that the Bible defines the fetus as a person. Maybe, at least maybe, it doesn’t!
Report comment to moderator
Scoop moth post 91,
generaly when I have heard it discussed it reminds me of nothing so much as tap dancing.
As I understand the traditional Jewish perspective, the fetus is not granted person hood until birth, much as is suggested by the Exodus passage.
Report comment to moderator
Scoop moth post 90,
my sense is JJF is shown to be inconsistent simply based on the kidney example.
Until viability, the fetus does not have the right to demand potential risk to life and health by the mother.
Since the risk of abortion is less than the risk of pregnancy, until viability this would argue that the rights of the woman always are superior, at least until the fetus can be viable on its own outside of the mother, after which presumably the fetus should perhaps be allowed to got through birth and be offerred up for adoption.
Now of course several forces are in place to make this more and more interesting:
1) the time of viability keeps decreasing: however, under traditional concepts it appears that there is a developmental wall at perhaps 20 weeks or so.
2) what happens when we can develop a fetus outside of a womb
In short, this fields is fraught with ambiguities and unkowns. To pretend that there are rigorous objective models one can use here strikes me as ignoring the realities of the situation.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!