make no mistake, this issue is VERY important and the president has MUCH to say and do about it. look how short Obama’s tenure has been and yet he has already issued executive orders that will release monies to overseas abortion providers. yet many of my Christian friends have lied to themselves and said “it doesn’t matter.” it matters very much….

I wish very much that some prominent Dem candidate would be pro-life, but i don’t ever remember seeing that (do you?)….

make no mistake, this issue is VERY important and the president has MUCH to say and do about it. look how short Obama’s tenure has been and yet he has already issued executive orders that will release monies to overseas abortion providers. yet many of my Christian friends have lied to themselves and said “it doesn’t matter.” it matters very much….

I wish very much that some prominent Dem candidate would be pro-life, but i don’t ever remember seeing that (do you?)….

2. Bush, Jr. said the same thing as McCain (both pro-life), but Bush was even less promising on pro-life campaign promises. Bush repeatedly said “no litmus test” on judges. His appointee, Alito, is widely believed to have a judicial philosophy that will lead him against Roe v. Wade and has voted pro-life in other abortion-related decisions. “No litmus test” became pro-life judges; Bush said he was pro-life and a pro-life person will likely appoint pro-life judges when given the power to do that.

3. When we’re voting, it’s not just for a “Republican” president or a “Democrat” president. We’re voting for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Extrapolating to say that they’ll do the same thing as Eisenhower and Nixon in appointing judges (when abortion was probably completely off their radar given the history of its prohibition), especially after the change in how nomination is done after Bork, is probably outweighed by the evidence in item #2.

4. Aaron, a liberal position (in the classical sense) could very easily couple free-market positions (e.g. no welfare state) with granting individual rights. The question is which individual’s rights (does the child have rights or just the mother)? In the event the unborn child is recognized as fully human, even a very strict libertarian will leave room for government to protect the lives of its citizens (in this case, unborn children) from murderers and punish criminals accordingly. On most issues (though far from all with “big government conservatism”), the Republicans are liberals in the classical meaning of the word (minimal government intervention, rights of individuals).

2. Bush, Jr. said the same thing as McCain (both pro-life), but Bush was even less promising on pro-life campaign promises. Bush repeatedly said “no litmus test” on judges. His appointee, Alito, is widely believed to have a judicial philosophy that will lead him against Roe v. Wade and has voted pro-life in other abortion-related decisions. “No litmus test” became pro-life judges; Bush said he was pro-life and a pro-life person will likely appoint pro-life judges when given the power to do that.

3. When we’re voting, it’s not just for a “Republican” president or a “Democrat” president. We’re voting for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Extrapolating to say that they’ll do the same thing as Eisenhower and Nixon in appointing judges (when abortion was probably completely off their radar given the history of its prohibition), especially after the change in how nomination is done after Bork, is probably outweighed by the evidence in item #2.

4. Aaron, a liberal position (in the classical sense) could very easily couple free-market positions (e.g. no welfare state) with granting individual rights. The question is which individual’s rights (does the child have rights or just the mother)? In the event the unborn child is recognized as fully human, even a very strict libertarian will leave room for government to protect the lives of its citizens (in this case, unborn children) from murderers and punish criminals accordingly. On most issues (though far from all with “big government conservatism”), the Republicans are liberals in the classical meaning of the word (minimal government intervention, rights of individuals).

1. Anyone who votes Republican with the belief that GOP appointments to the SC will overturn Roe v. Wade should read about Stare Decisis. It is one of the principles that the Court views as a foundation for all decisions. Almost every Federal Judge (on the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts) clearly and unequivocally rejects the notion that the Supreme Court would EVER revisit a previous case and rule the opposite way. This would delegitimate all prior Court decisions and make any other opinion up for grabs if the justices change. The Court is supposed to be apolitical (the reason for lifetime appointments) and as such if it allowed decisions to be switched because of new appointments to the bench it would serve to politicize (to an even greater degree) the Court.

Regardless of whether you agree with the decision, Roe v. Wade is a clear and decisive decision interpreting the constitution to give women the right to have an abortion. The only way to change that law is with a constitutional amendment. And if that is the goal the President is the least important political position to do it. And more importantly as long as Abortion remains a partisan issue a constitutional amendment is out of the question.

2. On the subject of abortion, Pro-Life is the liberal position, Pro-Choice is the conservative position. I know for most who have grown up observing the American political system this seems counter intuitive because the democrats are Pro-Choice and the GOP is Pro-Life. But actually, Pro-Life is the position that advocates a bigger tax burden, increased government involvement in citizens lives, would require extensions of welfare, health care, and other gov’t service (for the unborn). The most conservative position on Abortion would technically be for the gov’t to be completely hands off on the subject, in other words, Pro-Choice. There are a number of policy oriented journals that have commented on this apparent contradiction (for both parties). How each party’s position on abortion is in conflict with the rest of their platform. For instance, how can the Republicans support lowering the age an individual gains his/her rights under the law (from birth to conception) without coupling it with an extension of welfare and adoption law extensions to include those new citizens (the unborn) in basic protections? The same logic applies to why both parties commonly point out the hypocrisy in the other party’s position on the death penalty and abortion.

1. Anyone who votes Republican with the belief that GOP appointments to the SC will overturn Roe v. Wade should read about Stare Decisis. It is one of the principles that the Court views as a foundation for all decisions. Almost every Federal Judge (on the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts) clearly and unequivocally rejects the notion that the Supreme Court would EVER revisit a previous case and rule the opposite way. This would delegitimate all prior Court decisions and make any other opinion up for grabs if the justices change. The Court is supposed to be apolitical (the reason for lifetime appointments) and as such if it allowed decisions to be switched because of new appointments to the bench it would serve to politicize (to an even greater degree) the Court.

Regardless of whether you agree with the decision, Roe v. Wade is a clear and decisive decision interpreting the constitution to give women the right to have an abortion. The only way to change that law is with a constitutional amendment. And if that is the goal the President is the least important political position to do it. And more importantly as long as Abortion remains a partisan issue a constitutional amendment is out of the question.

2. On the subject of abortion, Pro-Life is the liberal position, Pro-Choice is the conservative position. I know for most who have grown up observing the American political system this seems counter intuitive because the democrats are Pro-Choice and the GOP is Pro-Life. But actually, Pro-Life is the position that advocates a bigger tax burden, increased government involvement in citizens lives, would require extensions of welfare, health care, and other gov’t service (for the unborn). The most conservative position on Abortion would technically be for the gov’t to be completely hands off on the subject, in other words, Pro-Choice. There are a number of policy oriented journals that have commented on this apparent contradiction (for both parties). How each party’s position on abortion is in conflict with the rest of their platform. For instance, how can the Republicans support lowering the age an individual gains his/her rights under the law (from birth to conception) without coupling it with an extension of welfare and adoption law extensions to include those new citizens (the unborn) in basic protections? The same logic applies to why both parties commonly point out the hypocrisy in the other party’s position on the death penalty and abortion.