It wasn't just, "oh, we need people, let's create a religious movement."
Roe v. Wade was 1973. In reaction to it, the religious right began to coalesce around the movement (well, not just Roe, but Roe was the easy target. Remember, early 70's = reacting to the hippies, the 'free love', the crazy music, the sex, the lack of prim hats and white gloves.)
Jerry Falwell went on a big tour in 1976 and founded the Moral Majority in 1979... just in time to flex his political muscle in favor of RR.
Why the Republicans, and not the Democrats? Now, others might have theories about this, but the one I hold dear is that most of these religious conservatives were White Southerners, completely pissed off at the Democratic party over the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and casting about to move to the Republican party in reaction to that.
Now, my sense has always been that 'mainstream' Republicans have thought that they could keep this particular wing of the party 'under control'... and that this control has been fading more and more every election cycle.
a couple things to ad to this. Before Roe and even in the 70s the big "social" issue was divorce. Along comes Reagan who was divorced so the they switched their focus to abortion.
As late as the 1970s the Southern Baptist Convention was pro-choice.
Why the social agenda? Because the real agenda is wealth accumulation in as few hands as possible but this agenda is untenable to your average American voter. So you've got to throw up some pretty window dressing like We hate the Gayz and Your Fetus Belongs to Me and 10 Commandments for All Y'all, etc to get the peeps on board. It's so fucking obvious.
All. Of. This.
Does anyone think that Mitt Romney personally gives a crap about abortion or gay marriage or even illegal immigration? Or Newt Gingrich? Or the majority of the Republican party leaders? Of course not. They don't put gay marriage referenda on the ballot because they deeply believe the people should speak on gay marriage. They do it to get people fired up and get them to come out to vote, and hey while you're here voting against gays or illegals, vote for Republicans for Congress too!
It's a political tool, and it's a mighty effective one.
ITA
There are a lot of studies out there about how R politicians talk a big game on "social" issues, but don't actually do anything about it when they get the power, because they realize that they have to talk the talk, but not necessarily walk the walk, to get the votes.
Isn't that what everybody's been saying that Paul Ryan does? Talk the talk because he has to, but that he's not a "true believer" in the social conservative line?
Wait a minute, haven't we had multiple discussions accusing a number of people of putting economic policy ahead of gay rights? Granted, I don't believe for a second that most of these Republicans actaully feel this way, but to many out there the right to life is very much a civil rights issue much like gay rights is a civil rights issue to the left.
Yes, we have; and I still don't understand it. Right to life is a religious issue. There is no quantifiable evidence that life begins at conception, there is no across-the-board standard for this, and it's a very subjective issue. To insist on one viewpoint, which is grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition, as law in the face of millions of people who think otherwise is in and of itself a civil rights issue, imo.
You may not understand it, but that is how some people think. and since they do think that way, they have every right to focus on such an issue over say, the economy.
Having said that, like I said in my pp, I don't believe for a second that these politicians really believe this....but they do want the votes of those that do.
It is really sad and disheartening to hear so may people saying "Oh, well, we know they proposed 1,000 anti-abortion laws in the last two years, but we don't think they really believe any of that stuff. They just have to pay lip service, blah blah blah. LOOK--fiscal policy!!!!!!" Wake.the.fuck.up. When people tell you who they are, believe them.
And ditto to pretty much all of sbp's post. The social conservatives are the tail wagging the dog right now, and it's disappointing to see so many supporting their hatred and bigotry in favor of (failed) economic policy.
ETA: @2v--yes we have had many of those conversations, and yes they are choosing "economic policy" over civil rights. It's their choice, I suppose, but I wish they'd at least be honest and admit that is precisely what they are doing. How does being anti-choice = being for civil rights? Forcing women to have children that they may not even want or be able to care for does not support civil rights in any way, shape or form. In fact, if any of those fetus' turn out to be gay, then the very same group who viewed their forced existence as a civil rights issue will argue vehemently that they should now be denied their civil rights. How does that make sense?
It is really sad and disheartening to hear so may people saying "Oh, well, we know they proposed 1,000 anti-abortion laws in the last two years, but we don't think they really believe any of that stuff. They just have to pay lip service, blah blah blah. LOOK--fiscal policy!!!!!!" Wake.the.fuck.up. When people tell you who they are, believe them.
And ditto to pretty much all of sbp's post. The social conservatives are the tail wagging the dog right now, and it's disappointing to see so many supporting their hatred and bigotry in favor of (failed) economic policy.
ETA: @2v--yes we have had many of those conversations, and yes they are choosing "economic policy" over civil rights. It's their choice, I suppose, but I wish they'd at least be honest and admit that is precisely what they are doing. How does being anti-choice = being for civil rights? Forcing women to have children that they may not even want or be able to care for does not support civil rights in any way, shape or form. In fact, if any of those fetus' turn out to be gay, then the very same group who viewed their forced existence as a civil rights issue will argue vehemently that they should now be denied their civil rights. How does that make sense?
Because "anti-choice" believes the right to life trumps. That thinking of course gets sticky when we're dealing with two lives.
Forcing women to have children that they may not even want or be able to care for does not support civil rights in any way, shape or form. In fact, if any of those fetus' turn out to be gay, then the very same group who viewed their forced existence as a civil rights issue will argue vehemently that they should now be denied their civil rights. How does that make sense?
They shouldn't have had sex and gotten pregnant in the first place if they didn't want children. And you can't "turn out" to be gay, you choose to be gay. They should just not choose gayness and then they can have their civil rights.
WHAT is how they think? They think they have the right to impose JudeoChristian values on the entire country, you mean? Despite the lack of any kind of objective, definitive stance on conception and life?
Their beliefs on when the life of a separate human being begins.
And wrt to the need for an objective, definitive stance on when a human being begins its life ? It seems to me that even if we had that objective stance and we could no longer point fingers on religious extremism, people would still want to keep abortion legal.
WHAT is how they think? They think they have the right to impose JudeoChristian values on the entire country, you mean? Despite the lack of any kind of objective, definitive stance on conception and life?
Their beliefs on when the life of a separate human being begins.
And wrt to the need for an objective, definitive stance on when a human being begins its life ? It seems to me that even if we had that objective stance and we could no longer point fingers on religious extremism, people would still want to keep abortion legal.
I think you're probably right. Because it goes back to the whole post by sbp that making abortion illegal necessarily infringes on the constitutional rights of a woman. If you consider the fetus to be a person with full rights, that means that the woman is necessarily NOT a person, or at least not a full person under the law.
It is really sad and disheartening to hear so may people saying "Oh, well, we know they proposed 1,000 anti-abortion laws in the last two years, but we don't think they really believe any of that stuff. They just have to pay lip service, blah blah blah. LOOK--fiscal policy!!!!!!" Wake.the.fuck.up. When people tell you who they are, believe them.
It is true that this is happening now, but yeah, I still don't think Roe v Wade will ever get overturned.
I don't understand the viewpoint that states that one's religious beliefs are sufficient to legislate nationwide. And I won't ever understand it, in this country.
And like bq, I'd like people to be up-front about it. If economic policy is more important to someone than civil rights, I wish they'd just own it instead of throwing out bullshit about "towing the party line" and "running as a fiscal conservative." It's smoke and mirrors, and it's dishonest.
I'm not asking you to understand it. I'm just telling you that it is what it is so to speak. But you seem to have ignored the point that an objective stance that proves when life begins (vs. religion) wouldn't matter so I'm not sure why people even bother bringing that argument up.
And I know Queen Cynic can't help herself, but you wish politicians would stop the BS and not be dishonest? LMAO.
I hear what you're saying, 2V, but it still makes no sense to me. If they believe that this is a civil rights issue and that life is sacred and to be protected at all costs, then how can they also believe in wars and the death penalty? Why is the life only valuable prior to birth but, after birth, they are against any sort of social safety net to support both the mother and the life that they fought so hard to force into being?
I hear what you're saying, 2V, but it still makes no sense to me. If they believe that this is a civil rights issue and that life is sacred and to be protected at all costs, then how can they also believe in wars and the death penalty? Why is the life only valuable prior to birth but, after birth, they are against any sort of social safety net to support both the mother and the life that they fought so hard to force into being?
Well, we have had numerous discussions about this contradiction for some pro-lifers. However, I think that a large percentage of pro-lifers are also anti-death penalty and aren't thrilled with war.
WHAT is how they think? They think they have the right to impose JudeoChristian values on the entire country, you mean? Despite the lack of any kind of objective, definitive stance on conception and life?
Their beliefs on when the life of a separate human being begins.
And wrt to the need for an objective, definitive stance on when a human being begins its life ? It seems to me that even if we had that objective stance and we could no longer point fingers on religious extremism, people would still want to keep abortion legal.
yup I would. I'm not sure my view on the matter is typical though. I believe that bodily autonomy trumps "life". The use of your body by another is always voluntary, even if that use might be what they need to live. So the whole person/life/etc debate is really irrelevant to me. As long as it's a parasite incable of surviving on its own, the mother has the right to evict regardless of the impact on the "life" of the fetus.
I have no idea how many pro-choice people would actually agree with that though.
mx--I think you misunderstood me. I understand how someone can think that forcing a person to carry a fetus to term = fighting for the fetus' civil rights. I do not understand why they only care about the civil rights while in utero. What about the civil rights of the mother? What about the civil rights of the child after birth, or if they turn out to be gay? They just don't seem to care once the child is born, which makes me wonder why they are so interested in forcing women to give birth. If you see my last response to 2V, I think you can see that I am genuinely seeking understanding on what I perceive to be the inconsistencies in the pro-life/anti-choice stance, not to throw flames.
I find it very hard to understand how someone justifies voting for the continued discrimination against GLBTs. There would be a national outcry if the R candidate said that minorities should not be able to marry, or that inter-racial marriage should be outlawed but, when it comes to the gays, it's perfectly fine to hold that view. It is the same thing and, IMO, it is indefensible to support it, let alone to vote for it. However, I do wish they would at least admit that that is precisely the choice they are making instead of tying themselves up in knots trying to justify it.
Finally, believe me, I have plenty of outrage about how women are treated around the globe. That is an issue very dear to me. I view the war on women in this country as the stepping stones to that type of treatment for us here at home, which is part of why it pisses me off so badly. I also don't think the fact that women elsewhere have it worse should preclude us from fighting for our rights at home. We can care about both, right?
I'm not asking you to understand it. I'm just telling you that it is what it is so to speak. But you seem to have ignored the point that an objective stance that proves when life begins (vs. religion) wouldn't matter so I'm not sure why people even bother bringing that argument up.
People keep bringing it up because it does matter when we're discussing legislation in a secular government. If your only proof is religious, then that's not a good enough basis for the laws of this country, especially ones that would curtail the rights of women.
I know that won't change the mindset of believers, that they think it's murder, but people who keep mentioning it are hoping it changes whether they believe that's an appropriate basis on which to legislate. Or at a minimum we hope that courts will feel that way.
And back to Roe, I don't think it's as safe as you think. It wouldn't take much of a change to SCOTUS to put it in jeopardy. A huge proportion of the crazy anti-choice legislation passes with the specific intent to challenge Roe. I do believe the challenge will go before SCOTUS at some point, and that's what makes the makeup of the court so important.
Post by jillboston on Aug 21, 2012 15:26:51 GMT -5
I have heard 3 different arguments from Republicans (all males - I do not presume that Republican women feel the same way) as to why abortion and the continued existence of Roe v. Wade's precedence is not threatened. 1. BIL #1 15 years ago - I don't care if abortions happen, I just don't want to pay for them. I argued to no avail that that was NOT the position of his party. 2. BIL#2- - 2 years ago - I support a woman's right to choose. Me - none of your Presidential candidates the last 30 years have. 3. Friend - 2 weeks ago - abortion is not a huge issue. Me - women in a number of different states have little to no access due to the changes in state laws. Him - they can just drive to another state.
I for one am thrilled that this issue is finally being brougth to the forefront because I believe that most Americans have very little idea what the Republican position on abortion and birth control actually is.
The document, crafted Monday in a subcommittee meeting of the Republican Party's official platform committee in Tampa, is being closely guarded by party officials but was provided to CNN by a Republican source here
So it's all very hush hush and being "closely guarded" and then a republican "insider" just hands it over to CNN - of all the media outlets? It's hard for me to buy.
So, Rs will harm the rights of all or not? I am really confused with all the chest thumping of the last week about the evils of Paul Ryan only to find page 3 of this thread.
I'm not asking you to understand it. I'm just telling you that it is what it is so to speak. But you seem to have ignored the point that an objective stance that proves when life begins (vs. religion) wouldn't matter so I'm not sure why people even bother bringing that argument up.
People keep bringing it up because it does matter when we're discussing legislation in a secular government. If your only proof is religious, then that's not a good enough basis for the laws of this country, especially ones that would curtail the rights of women.
I get that Sibil. But I do still find bringing it up to be somewhat disingenuous since, when it comes down to it, it wouldn't really matter even if science was behind religion.
I really would like to understand how it became set in stone that limited federal government, balanced budgets and low taxes went hand in hand with being pro-life.
How is this a thing? And I know "the religious right hijacked the party" is the accepted answer - but that's really it? When did this happen? Why? They have NOTHING to do with each other. There is no logical connection. Why must they go hand in hand?
ETA: i really do not in any way want this to devolve back into "why we make the choices we do in voting" convo. DO NOT.
The same reason Salafism became the major sect in Saudi Arabia. Political expediency. The GOP needed a reliable base, and the religious right was willing to give them one, so long as they worked the platform the RR wanted.
You know, if Romney was really a leader, he would lead the Republican party out of this nonsense. He said yesterday he supports abortion in the case of rape, and once he's nominated, he will be the official leader of the GOP. He should take a stand.
yup I would. I'm not sure my view on the matter is typical though. I believe that bodily autonomy trumps "life". The use of your body by another is always voluntary, even if that use might be what they need to live. So the whole person/life/etc debate is really irrelevant to me. As long as it's a parasite incable of surviving on its own, the mother has the right to evict regardless of the impact on the "life" of the fetus.
I have no idea how many pro-choice people would actually agree with that though.
I really would like to understand how it became set in stone that limited federal government, balanced budgets and low taxes went hand in hand with being pro-life.
How is this a thing? And I know "the religious right hijacked the party" is the accepted answer - but that's really it? When did this happen? Why? They have NOTHING to do with each other. There is no logical connection. Why must they go hand in hand?
Is this really any different from asking the question whether the opposite fiscal views of the Democratic Party has any logical connection with the pro-choice view?
There are fiscal, social and foreign policy views on both sides. Maybe there should be a connection?, but I never thought any of those categories had to somehow connect with the others. Aren't they supposed to be separate and distinct? And if they are supposed to be separate and distinct, then it seems to make sense that one side would pick one party and the other side would pick the opposite party, no?
My thoughts are that of course a zygote and a fetus are "human." Whether or not they are imbued with their own unique soul at the moment of conception? Not sure. To me it is human cells, human tissue, a potential human being... who nonetheless is a parasite seeking nourishment from a living, breathing, independent human being with her own legal rights and status to survive. And that's enough for me.
I really would like to understand how it became set in stone that limited federal government, balanced budgets and low taxes went hand in hand with being pro-life.
How is this a thing? And I know "the religious right hijacked the party" is the accepted answer - but that's really it? When did this happen? Why? They have NOTHING to do with each other. There is no logical connection. Why must they go hand in hand?
Is this really any different from asking the question whether the opposite fiscal views of the Democratic Party has any logical connection with the pro-choice view?
There are fiscal, social and foreign policy views on both sides. Maybe there should be a connection?, but I never thought any of those categories had to somehow connect with the others. Aren't they supposed to be separate and distinct? And if they are supposed to be separate and distinct, then it seems to make sense that one side would pick one party and the other side would pick the opposite party, no?
I guess that's fair enough. It's just frustrating that a national party has something like this as an indelible part of their platform when I don't see any connection to what i think of as the underlying philosphy of the party (limited federal government).
Is this really any different from asking the question whether the opposite fiscal views of the Democratic Party has any logical connection with the pro-choice view?
There are fiscal, social and foreign policy views on both sides. Maybe there should be a connection?, but I never thought any of those categories had to somehow connect with the others. Aren't they supposed to be separate and distinct? And if they are supposed to be separate and distinct, then it seems to make sense that one side would pick one party and the other side would pick the opposite party, no?
I guess that's fair enough. It's just frustrating that a national party has something like this as an indelible part of their platform when I don't see any connection to what i think of as the underlying philosphy of the party (limited federal government).
Conservatism is the thread linking it all together. Traditionalism, status quo, some may even say some reactionary attitudes and policies. There's a reason they're called socially "conservative" beliefs, and fiscally "conservative" beliefs.
Honest question. Why does the life of the fetus outweigh the life of the mother? I think I respect the pro-life position more when it excludes rape and incest, but I do not understand the life of the mother. I have heard people say that as a family they have decided that if the mother or child's life is in danger they have decided to save the child. Fine. That is the decision you made. But what if there was legislation that said that you HAD to choose the life of the mother despite what your personal wants were? Why has it been decided that one life is more important than the other? And who gets to make that determination?
You're not supposed to choose, accordeing to the Catholic Church.
The moral object of a direct abortion is the killing of an innocent human person. The fact that another innocent person's life can be saved by killing the younger of the two persons does not change the prenatal from innocent to guilty, nor does it change the fact that the intentionally chosen act is intrinsically directed toward the proximate end of killing that prenatal.
If you can save 100 innocent lives by directly taking one innocent life, the killing of that one person is nevertheless murder. The good end of saving 100 lives does not justify reaching that end by means of an intrinsically evil act of murder. Similarly, the direct killing of the prenatal in order to save the mother's life remains an act of murder. The intentionally chosen act has not changed. The circumstance that the mother's life cannot be saved does not change the act; it is the same exterior act, with the same proximate end, the killing of the innocent prenatal.
Some commentators speak as if the intentionally chosen act has no moral meaning apart from the intention of the will directing that act to a particular end. This position is contrary to the clear and definitive teaching of the Magisterium on the basic principles of morality.
And, this is where we cross into separation of church and state area. My religion does not promote the ideas expressed above. It finds that a fetus is potential life and you don't save potential life over actual life. It is infuriating to me that politicians and some religious leaders are trying to legislate their beliefs on me. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people have to do it. Let me follow my beliefs and you follow yours ... pretty sure the gist of that is some where in the Constitution. What is there to amend?