It appears that abortion has taken the back burner in this election. It sure was a hot topic 4 years ago. Perhaps it is due to the fact that we are killing innocent women and children in foreign lands. The moral high ground seems to be crumbling away. As a nation can we protect all those that are innocent?
Patchwork Nation Forum » Campaign 2008: Patchwork Nation: Forum
Where has 'Choice' gone in this election?
(9 posts)-
shadowsprite
Member -
DonaldKing
Member
I am going to suggest that the real issue is leadership. After almost eight years of the current Administration we long for someone who has a firm grasp of how to lead the most powerful country in the world. With no disrespect intended, we cannot continue with someone who stands up in front of the press corps and gets that "deer caught in the headlights" look, stammers, offers a humorous line, and evades the question. We have a military that is overextended, an economy that is shakey, an ill-defined foreign policy and an inability to bring a majority together around any domestic issues. As such we appear to the rest of the world as paralyzed, a ship without a rudder, and a lack of moral clarity that hides behind a thin religious veneer. We long for a reasonable leader, who is thoughtful, sincere, perceptive and logical. A leader who brings people together, who guides the country through rough waters with humility but confidence.
My fear is that the current system of producing Presidents does not provide us with this kind of leader. The very qualities that are rewarded by the electoral process---generalities, constantly shifting positions on issues, pragmatism, political posturing, a noticeable absence of truth-telling, making contrasting promises to different audiences---are all ineffective at exercising leadership.
The challenge to us as citizens between now and November is to discern as best we can who can provide the best leadership. Who possesses the strength, insight, and capacity to lead?
Posted 6 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate
-1 -
I think Choice has been a low priority issue this time because after 2000 and 2004, Democrats and Republicans alike are coming to understand that wedge issues ONLY help the party leadership. Whether its abortion, gay marriage, immigration, or any other divisive issue, people are making a strong effort to avoid using these issues to drive voters apart.
Posted 6 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
It will be an issue in the general election as a Democrat will have to help define Mr. McCain vis-a-vis privacy issues, Roe v Wade, and women's issues.
The next president will likely get to appoint three Supreme Court justices. McCain would nominate virtual ayatolahs. Women, liberals, and moderates will know that. It will be the combination of these groups, excepting Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians among the women, who will swing the election to the democrat.
Posted 6 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
Member
Donald King is right in essence. We should be thinking of overall leadership, not single issues. I spent quite some time voting on single issues before I just got sick of helping elect--in a bow to the refined air here I'll just say helping elect less than stellar politicians. No single issue is worth my vote any more.
Well, unless they float an amendment to limit the number of months the primaries and general elections can go on. And on. And on.
And I don't think it's nice to call someone an ayatolah (sic) just because you disagree with him. Plus, there are some quite nice ayatollahs, aren't there?
Posted 6 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdy, thanks for commenting on that Ayatollah (thats the correct spelling btw) comment. I read it and didn't think anything about it until your comment. I am sad that we've reached a point where terms like that (or referring to people as Hitleresque, or Nazis) have become such a standard part of political forums and pundit commentary that it doesn't phase me.
Posted 6 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Dchinni
Member
Just to comment on the first post here. There's little question that abortion is still a big issue for a lot of voters, but going out and talking to people in these communities it seems that the economy may be shaping up to be the big issue. And if it ends up being as big as it seems to be headed right now, it will suck a lot of the oxygen away from other topics.
The economy, plus Iraq, plus governmental "change" (which does seem to be cropping up as an issue) means that abortion, while it is on the minds of some voters may not be "hot topic" in 2008.
Posted 6 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
shadowsprite
MemberI hope abortion doesn't become an issue this year. Republicans and independents are more likely to vote for a Democrat if they aren't focused on their own pro-life stance. They may cross over to the 'dark side' because they are fed up with everything else that has been going on in Washington. I feel that the Democrats have more to offer on some of the other important issues that you have mentioned in your post. Personally, I'd like to see the government spending its time overcoming the big challenges our country faces rather than focusing on changes to Roe vs. Wade.
The abortion issue has become more complicated as medical technology has advanced to the point where babies are saved who in the past would have been considered natural miscarriages. Morally we have to look at both sides of the issue.
Added to the mix is the euthanasia discussion (pull the plug) where medical science is keeping individuals alive past the point where historically they may have been allowed to ‘pass on’ when they were no longer able to care for themselves and wished to meet their maker.
From a religious viewpoint Americans have extremely diverse opinions on the 'what is life' question.
Another political issue related to this is the health care one. Who is going to pay for all the life saving technology that keeps preemies and the elderly alive? Perhaps insurance. But many people have no insurance so who is going to pay for their preemies and elderly to stay alive? Maybe no one.
That leads into the discussion of fairness. Some people in our society are allowed to die because they are poor. Other people are forced to live because they have money or insurance.
Of course we can then wonder how intrusive should the government be in an individual’s health decisions. How many immunizations should the government require children to have in order for them to attend public school? Should the government be involved in administering vaccinations to adults since they could potentially spread disease as much as children do? Is the government giving too much credence to drug companies when making decisions about disease control?
Hinging on this issue is the moral question of whether or not our government should facilitate making vaccines more available to other countries at a minimal cost or should we just immunize our own population? Do we care how many people are dying from these same diseases worldwide?
Everything is interconnected once we start discussing ethics. As a nation we have seen many public figures lose face over a breach in personal ethics so why would we trust them to decide what is right and wrong on a larger scale?
Posted 6 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
MemberWhen I first saw the title of this post the other day, I took "where is choice" to mean, why are there only two parties to choose from? Roe v. Wade is nowhere near the top of my pile, and isn't normally, unless the extremists force it to the top. I'm for keeping it, but my support for it is more like I'm resigned to it (to keep women from the back alley) than I'm really in favor of it. During the Depression, women died from home-built abortions, but that was because they despaired of feeding the kids they already had and simply could not take on another mouth to feed. Nowadays, it seems more of a safety-valve for the inept or unlucky. An uptick in morals and in personal responsibility would be very nice.
Shadowsprite is right about this being part of the larger picture of world wide health. And here, as usual, the US is in a no-win situation. People keep accusing us of being the richest (we are not, have not been for ages) and the only superpower (we are not, have not been for ages) and expecting us to come running to the aid of countries suffering _____ fill in the blank. Then, of course, they resent us for being there. And vaccines and other medicine. Oh, here we go! All we hear is that other countries have cheaper meds. Well, yes, they do, because they ignore patents on medicines that were developed here. And, as the richest, we're supposed to ride around the world innoculating everyone against everything. Mark my words, the instant anyone has any untoward reaction to any vaccine supplied by us, they're going to lawyer up and sue the living daylights out of some American company or the government itself. Whenever Europe needs money, they take it from Microsoft. Same deal with the meds. It's good to be soft-hearted, but we have to go very carefully. Very carefully.
Posted 6 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0
Reply
You must log in to post.