(The scope of) The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and the number one right is property rights.

But why should the Republican party march in lock step the way Democrats do? I’m a solid Republican, but I’m also not a Christian (thus gay marriage doesn’t bother me) and believe there’s a 3-5 week window before a fetus is alive (I don’t believe in automatic ensoulment) so I support Civil Unions and first trimester abortions.
Rob Taylor on January 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM

You don’t have to be a Christian to have “gay” marriage “bother” you.
Same-sex marriage is a travesty and the destructor of traditional marriage and families, not to mention providing a sanctioned place for the spread of STDs, including HIV and AIDS.
Look all around you for proof.

Re: “3-5 week window before a fetus is alive”? Says who? Based on what evidence?
Because everything I’ve ever read, seen or heard shows that life begins with conception.

I’m against late and second term abortion, but because i don’t believe in automatic ensoulment I just don’t think aborting a 1-week old fetus is the same as aborting a baby that can survive outside the womb. This shouldn’t mean I have to join the ‘Blue Dog” Democrats because some people can’t bare the thought of sharing the same candidate as me.

Rob Taylor on January 30, 2009 at 12:34 AM

One doesn’t have to believe in “automatic ensoulment” to believe that killing even a 1-week old fetus is murder and that that fetus is already a (potential) person.

That being said, why don’t you keep your pro-abortion views to yourself and join the Party’s party in all other respects instead of expecting them to acknowledge and conform to your personal pro-abortion views?

I’m against late and second term abortion, but because i don’t believe in automatic ensoulment I just don’t think aborting a 1-week old fetus is the same as aborting a baby that can survive outside the womb. This shouldn’t mean I have to join the ‘Blue Dog” Democrats because some people can’t bare the thought of sharing the same candidate as me.

Ditto. I’m 24 and the ideas of fiscal responsibility, limited government and individual freedom are the main draw to this party. Dogmatic views on gay-marriage and (to a lesser extent) abortion don’t seem to jibe with individual freedom and I think that’s the case for a lot of people our age.
Call us RINOs or whatever you want, but there should be room for us at the table. that is unless you want us to go elsewhere.

Trent1289 on January 29, 2009 at 4:34 PM

How do you exercise your individual freedoms if the government allows you to be murder in your mothers womb?

And yes people that murders babies are evil. Planned Parent hood is ever bit as evil has Hilter’s Nazi party. Did Hitler kill 40 plus million children?

I believe there is room in the party for those who do not share my views on life, however, I think we can have a reasoned discussion about the issue. How about a small government idea, no tax money goes to subsidize abortions.

How about exposing Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, for what she was — a racist eugenist who thought white people were more valuable than people of color. That is an image that would help to recruit blacks and hispanics.

We have much to work on. Our last big idea was defeating communism, once we did that, we have been searching for a message. Time is short. We need to roll our sleeves up and get out with a positive message.

I think the message is going to be smaller government and less spending, but there is room in that message for choosing life without running people off.

{o.o}

I do not think that anyone is asking social conservatives to change their views on abortion or any other issue, just to not make those issues a litmus test for Republican candidates. Many feel that the Republican party can broaden its appeal by focusing on fiscal conservatism and strong national defense if only it can avoid chasing away so many voters with what are perceived as intolerant overly religious planks.

tommylotto on January 29, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Not to pick nits, but if “no one is asking social conservatives to change their views on abortion, or any other issue,” then why do you think the Republicans must “avoid chasing away so many voters with what are perceived as intolerant, overly religious planks?” It sounds like you do indeed want them to change their views, or at least shut up about them. And, of course, the social conservatives are not inclined to offer fervent support to people that think they’re embarrassments who should just be quiet and vote.

Squaring this circle is no easy task. The Republican coalition is a fragmented after a political defeat – so much for those who thought a good drubbing at the polls was just the ticket to bring the party closer together. I find it useful to consider the opposing side on these social issues, to learn they don’t have the problem of social and fiscal liberals fighting each other for control of the party. They were united by the lust for power, their hatred of Bush, and the brutally simple philosophy that a powerful central government can settle all problems through wise leadership.

We often find ourselves wondering why notably religious constituencies, such as blacks or Hispanics, vote overwhelmingly Democrat when their religious beliefs should compel them to flee in the opposite direction. Worship of the State unites them: they believe liberal policy is a moral imperative, not the most efficient way to run a sound economy. We can only win them back with a similarly unified, moral case for conservatism, and the social conservatives are an indispensable part of such an effort. High taxes, a debased common culture, the devaluing of human life, open hostility to the traditional family, oppressive regulation, political corruption, and government support for the bizarre religion of environmentalism are all part of the same unhealthy system, which must be fought in total, not piecemeal. Trying to nibble away at one component of the liberal behemoth never works very well, because the Left always aborts the attempt by asserting the importance of another part – you can’t have lower taxes because we need that money to save the environment, you can’t embrace traditional values because that would turn back the clock to the Fifties, when they had segregation.

To be honest, I’d identify myself as more of a fiscal conservative than a social one, but I can’t help but notice the social cons never seem to demand fiscal conservatives set aside small-government principles as a precondition for political unity. Only the social cons seem expected to swallow their pride and march into the booth to vote, unless of course you think the social cons are just itching to get a prophet-candidate into the Oval Office so they can impose their theocracy.

Its no accident that the Republican debate questions sounded like CCD class discussions, because the moderators knew those topics were divisive to the party and drove voters away.

tommylotto on January 29, 2009 at 6:57 PM

I guess that means we need better moderators. I don’t need my candidate to be sainted, I just need them to not be antagonistic toward my faith.

Conservatism is by definition supporting the values of our founders, such as the “right to life”.

jgapinoy on January 29, 2009 at 3:20 PM

I’d like to see that definition….got a link?

From Wikipedia:

Conservatism is a political and social term whose meaning has changed in different countries and time periods, but which usually indicates support for the status quo or the status quo ante. Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture.

Part of our heritage is The Right To Life.

I wish people would stop with the generalizations. Just because I don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they’re a monster. Liberals are your neighbors and your countryman, not boogymen. Grow up. We can beat them on policy, we don’t need ridiculous ad hominems.

On to the substance of your post. Do you think the average voter supports abortion because they don’t want more voters in the pool? That’s crazy.
Likewise, I think we all agree that the vast majority of aborted children are black. Blacks vote democrat at rates of 9:1 even when The One isn’t on the ballot. Thus, if the law makers only cared about voters, they’d be anti-abortion.

Trent1289 on January 29, 2009 at 6:24 PM

Apologies if I was unclear about this, but the beliefs of individual Democrat voters have nothing to do with the positions of the Democrat party. The mindset of the elite determines everything. If there is a groundswell of anger over the abortion-on-demand zealotry of party among its black constituents, it has not yet registered on the political or cultural Richter scale. After all, they just voted in near-unanimous proportions for a man who supports abortion not just in the womb, but in the hospital storage room.

Suggesting the Democrat’s constituents support abortion-on-demand because they want less voters is silly, and has nothing to do with what I wrote. They support abortion-on-demand for three reasons: because it frees them from responsibility for sexual license, because they sincerely believe restricting abortion rights is an unreasonable restriction of the woman’s personal freedom, and because they absolutely hate the people on the pro-life side. The middle reason is not an unreasonable one, but draconian restrictions of the sort the Democrats endlessly rail against are not on anyone’s radar screen… if the pro-life conservatives got their fondest wish, Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and all those blue states would promptly pass laws to preserve abortion-on-demand.

I’m not especially fierce on the pro-life side myself, I’m just interested in why abortion remains such a hot button issue on both sides. If we cannot debate the motivations of the opposing leadership without being accused of “generalizing,” we won’t have much of a debate, and when it comes to analyzing the American Left, the beliefs of its individual constituents matter much less than the beliefs of its leadership. The modern Left does not see Roe v. Wade as a law to protect the rights of women – they worship it as a law to restrict the rights of pro-life religious wackos.

Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Wow! Way to vent that spleen.

The issue is not what the Democrats are or do, but what the Republicans are — whether there is any room for those who are fiscally conservative but not necessarily socially conservative in the Republican party, or whether the party should drive them to the enemy camp to preserve some idea of moral purity.

I do not think that anyone is asking social conservatives to change their views on abortion or any other issue, just to not make those issues a litmus test for Republican candidates. Many feel that the Republican party can broaden its appeal by focusing on fiscal conservatism and strong national defense if only it can avoid chasing away so many voters with what are perceived as intolerant overly religious planks.

Its no accident that the Republican debate questions sounded like CCD class discussions, because the moderators knew those topics were divisive to the party and drove voters away.

So if it was demonstrated that laws restricting abortion would be effective in the USA you would support them?

neuquenguy on January 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Not necessarily. Once you can show that more laws actually decrease the abortion rate, you still have to demonstrate that more laws is the BEST and MOST EFFECTIVE way to reduce abortion as opposed to free market solutions. But like I said, there is no reason to think that in the first place. It’s wishful thinking to think that you can make something go away by making it illegal. I’m all for reducing abortion, but reducing abortion through bigger government has proven to be a profound failure worldwide. I don’t see any reason for the US to pursue a policy on abortion that hasn’t worked anywhere else.

justfinethanks on January 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM

So if it was demonstrated that laws restricting abortion would be effective in the USA you would support them?

Abortion is the focus of the American social debate, because it is the perfect expression of liberal methodology: the unborn baby can’t vote, and won’t protest or donate money to the liberal’s political opponents. It offers no political power to the liberal, while feminist women have a great deal of it, so it’s no contest.
Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

I wish people would stop with the generalizations. Just because I don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they’re a monster. Liberals are your neighbors and your countryman, not boogymen. Grow up. We can beat them on policy, we don’t need ridiculous ad hominems.

On to the substance of your post. Do you think the average voter supports abortion because they don’t want more voters in the pool? That’s crazy.
Likewise, I think we all agree that the vast majority of aborted children are black. Blacks vote democrat at rates of 9:1 even when The One isn’t on the ballot. Thus, if the law makers only cared about voters, they’d be anti-abortion.

I can understand people arguing against legal protection for the unborn because they do not recognize them as human beings. But the logic you are using applies to many laws we accept, even as conservatives.

neuquenguy on January 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM

If I had reason to believe that making laws against theft wouldn’t actually prevent the robbery rate, I would oppose laws against theft. But that’s not what we see. Stronger laws there generally correlate to less theft. That isn’t the case with abortion. Worldwide, there is no corrlation between the legality of abortion and abortion rate. In fact, countries that restrict abortion, such as Laos, Mexico, and Venezula, consistently have higher abortion rates than us. I agree that we need to end abortion, but there is little evidence to suggest that more restrictions on abortion will actually decrease abortion. If you overturn “Roe vs. Wade” you won’t be protecting the unborn in the slightest. If you improve the economy and education system, you will.

As Rush Limbaugh illustrated with his stimulus plan this week, a liberal will *never* respond to the suggestion that tax cuts stimulate the economy by endorsing tax cuts. Their concern for economic health is entirely based on the conviction they’ll be voted out of office if the voters get too angry over the economy, and on the belief that economic prosperity gives them more money to spend on social causes. The economy is a donkey pulling the government cart, and liberals don’t believe that donkey has a right to life.

Abortion is the focus of the American social debate, because it is the perfect expression of liberal methodology: the unborn baby can’t vote, and won’t protest or donate money to the liberal’s political opponents. It offers no political power to the liberal, while feminist women have a great deal of it, so it’s no contest. The feminist movement may be in tatters post-Bill Clinton, but it was a very powerful force in Democrat politics through the 70s and 80s, perhaps *the* supreme force. Abortion is the sacrament of extreme feminism because it’s the ultimate assertion of the woman’s rights over the man, the child, and society. It is an expression of pure social and political power: the individual woman has no responsibility to the child she carries, her family, or the father of the child, and no responsibility for her own previous actions… and while it seems like an act of individualism, it’s implemented through the most coercive, undemocratic power exerted on the American people since the end of slavery. Roe vs. Wade was the outright denial of state and local rights to participate in the discussion over abortion, cobbled together with the most absurdly tortured legal reasoning, wrapped in laughable nonsense about “penumbras” and “emanations.”

Whatever your feelings about the abortion issue, there’s no doubt it was “settled” in the most undemocratic manner possible, as an exercise of pure political power by an entrenched elite. This is not something that should sit well with *anyone* who considers themselves conservative or libertarian. I’m not a pro-life absolutist myself, but I cheer every victory by the pro-life cause, because conservatives should view generations yet to be born as a treasure to be protected, while liberals see them as a resource to be exploited, or an inconvenience to be avoided.

–So, if you think the point ought to be, say, 20 weeks, why not make the cutoff 18 weeks. Taking it back to conception is way too cautionary. If you applied that logic, no one would leave their beds because they might get hit by a car walking across the street.

–And by the way, then you should never be for the death penalty because there’s never a 100% guarantee in life or law.

I really don’t like how people insinuate that Pro Choice equals anti conservative. When really, I think it takes conservatism to recognize that the government won’t solve the abortion problem. I sincerely hope to live to see a day when the abortion rate drops to zero, but I’m not under the delusion that an even more bloated government will aid in that quest.

justfinethanks on January 29, 2009 at 5:48 PM

I agree with you that the government will not solve the abortion problem, the same way that the government will not solve the murder, theft or child abuse problems. But why would you apply this logic only to the abortion issue?
I can understand people arguing against legal protection for the unborn because they do not recognize them as human beings. But the logic you are using applies to many laws we accept, even as conservatives.

I otherwise lean further to the right than mst of you. I supported New York’s loyalist party and the United American Committee, believe in unrestricted gun ownership except for felons, and think that it is fascism for the state to even be involved in marriage. But by “Conservative” standards I’m some sort of Che loving Democrat because I could give a crap if two dudes “got married” to each other.

I’m a big tenter. I make room for Libertarians as well as Conservatives in the GOP. So-called values voters helped Obama get elected by staying home and in Evangelicals cases voting for the man even though he’s basically a Socialist and then claim me and the Paulnuts and anyone not whining effeminately about gay sex are ruining the GOP? Ironic.