@Twotoplace: And that does not mean that when the life of the child and the life of the mother are in conflict that there is no exception to the rule. The mother also has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. When these two are in conflict, most prolife people would say that you should save the life of the mother. I beleive this is consistent with Roman Catholic teaching. So what you are proposing is that the GOP platform is more strict than most every other pro-life entity or person.

 

I believe the platform does not address the exceptions, leaving that for the states to define. It assumes the right to protect the life of the mother but does not address the exceptions of rape or incest.

 

This is what I found in the Washington Post from 2012:

 

According to a plank adopted by a 112-member Republican committee meeting here, an “unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life that cannot be infringed.” The platform also calls for legislation recognizing the rights of unborn children under the 14th Amendment.

 

That language would appear to be incompatible with exceptions when pregnancies result from rape or incest. But the draft does not specifically address the issue of exceptions, and party leaders here said that the issue is too complex to be addressed in what is intended to be a broad statement of party principle, and that it should be left up to states in a federal system.

 

“We have a general plank in there that affirms our belief in the God-given right to life and that governments are instituted to protect that,” said Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, chairman of the platform committee. “The specifics are largely left up to the states.”

 

He added that the platform is intended to be a timeless document that should not be influenced by current events about “who said what.”

 

So, if the GOP platform included the two exceptions in addition to the life of the mother, would you support it?

 

If you read the 2016 platform statement, what do you disagree with? I believe that the vast majority of Americans are far closer to the GOP position than the Dem position. The exceptions are such a small percentage of pregnancies that to reject the GOP platform based on that, while accepting a position that provides for the killing of babies for almost any justification is beyond reason.

@Twotoplace: And that does not mean that when the life of the child and the life of the mother are in conflict that there is no exception to the rule. The mother also has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. When these two are in conflict, most prolife people would say that you should save the life of the mother. I beleive this is consistent with Roman Catholic teaching. So what you are proposing is that the GOP platform is more strict than most every other pro-life entity or person.

 

I believe the platform does not address the exceptions, leaving that for the states to define. It assumes the right to protect the life of the mother but does not address the exceptions of rape or incest.

 

This is what I found in the Washington Post from 2012:

 

According to a plank adopted by a 112-member Republican committee meeting here, an “unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life that cannot be infringed.” The platform also calls for legislation recognizing the rights of unborn children under the 14th Amendment.

 

That language would appear to be incompatible with exceptions when pregnancies result from rape or incest. But the draft does not specifically address the issue of exceptions, and party leaders here said that the issue is too complex to be addressed in what is intended to be a broad statement of party principle, and that it should be left up to states in a federal system.

 

“We have a general plank in there that affirms our belief in the God-given right to life and that governments are instituted to protect that,” said Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, chairman of the platform committee. “The specifics are largely left up to the states.”

 

He added that the platform is intended to be a timeless document that should not be influenced by current events about “who said what.”

 

So, if the GOP platform included the two exceptions in addition to the life of the mother, would you support it?

 

If you read the 2016 platform statement, what do you disagree with? I believe that the vast majority of Americans are far closer to the GOP position than the Dem position. The exceptions are such a small percentage of pregnancies that to reject the GOP platform based on that, while accepting a position that provides for the killing of babies for almost any justification is beyond reason.

 

You would have to show me some polling on that.

@Twotoplace: And that does not mean that when the life of the child and the life of the mother are in conflict that there is no exception to the rule. The mother also has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. When these two are in conflict, most prolife people would say that you should save the life of the mother. I beleive this is consistent with Roman Catholic teaching. So what you are proposing is that the GOP platform is more strict than most every other pro-life entity or person.

 

I believe the platform does not address the exceptions, leaving that for the states to define. It assumes the right to protect the life of the mother but does not address the exceptions of rape or incest.

 

This is what I found in the Washington Post from 2012:

 

According to a plank adopted by a 112-member Republican committee meeting here, an “unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life that cannot be infringed.” The platform also calls for legislation recognizing the rights of unborn children under the 14th Amendment.

 

That language would appear to be incompatible with exceptions when pregnancies result from rape or incest. But the draft does not specifically address the issue of exceptions, and party leaders here said that the issue is too complex to be addressed in what is intended to be a broad statement of party principle, and that it should be left up to states in a federal system.

 

“We have a general plank in there that affirms our belief in the God-given right to life and that governments are instituted to protect that,” said Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, chairman of the platform committee. “The specifics are largely left up to the states.”

 

He added that the platform is intended to be a timeless document that should not be influenced by current events about “who said what.”

 

So, if the GOP platform included the two exceptions in addition to the life of the mother, would you support it?

 

If you read the 2016 platform statement, what do you disagree with? I believe that the vast majority of Americans are far closer to the GOP position than the Dem position. The exceptions are such a small percentage of pregnancies that to reject the GOP platform based on that, while accepting a position that provides for the killing of babies for almost any justification is beyond reason.

You can parse the language all night, but it's clear to me that the GOP abortion plank contains no exceptions. (If not, then why did NBC ask Trump the question about exceptions, and why did Trump respond as he did?)

 

If both parties were to soften their planks on abortion, that would probably be a good idea. But that ain't how the game is played.

You would have to show me some polling on that.

 

Would you agree that the majority of Americans are closer to the GOP platform?

 

Polls can be funny business. If you ask, "Does a woman who has been raped have the right to abort the infant?", many will say yes. But if you ask that same person if it is wrong to abort a preborn infant at 23 weeks, it is likely they will say it is wrong.

 

If they see an ultrasound of that baby, even more will say it is wrong. I think many more people would protect the life of the unborn. There is a trend among young people right now that shows they are more in support of the prolife position than ten or fifteen years ago.

You can parse the language all night, but it's clear to me that the GOP abortion plank contains no exceptions. (If not, then why did NBC ask Trump the question about exceptions, and why did Trump respond as he did?)

 

If both parties were to soften their planks on abortion, that would probably be a good idea. But that ain't how the game is played.

 

Because the left, whether in the media or in politics, is not interested in accurately representing the GOP platform. The way you phrase something can have a big influence on the implications of what it said.

 

NBC's interest is to have a story and to make Trump look bad (unfortunately, this is not hard to do). They want to pit Trump against other Republicans. That is win-win for the left. It creates a story and it further isolates Trump.

 

They also want to portray the Republicans as "extreme." So the left claims the GOP isn't for any exceptions, even the life of the mother. This is false. But the purpose is to make Republicans seem unsympathetic.

 

Why don't they ask Hillary if she thinks tax payers should pay for partial birth abortions? That is her stance, apparently, since, she believes in no restriction on abortion and she believes the government should provide it.

 

The truth is, the Dem platform is way to the left of the average American on the issue of abortion. The Republican platform is closer to the average American. Many Americans are uncomfortable with situations involving rape, incest, and the risk of the life of the mother. So are many Republicans. That's why they did not specify that in the platform. They just expressed the underlying principle for protecting life and left the details of those exceptional cases to the states. This was the statement of the Republican party rep as noted by the Washington Post in 2012. I'm not making it up.

 

Bottom line, the left does not mind misrepresenting the GOP platform in order to discredit it with as many people as possible. And they want to make Trump look bad.

I loathe the horror of abortion. I'll continue to pray for its end and search for candidates that feel the same way I do...

 

But I'm done pretending the GOP platform on abortion absolves them of their complicity in horrors around the world and here at home. Feed that line to someone else.

 

I do greatly appreciate what you say in the first paragraph, Getslow.

 

And I am in agreement that unjust policies and unjust actions taken, both by an individual and/or with the consent of the group are accountable to the Almighty. I am not exempt from that, either, and I do not offer blanket support for any party or individual. No one is above error and no one is above rebuke and correction.

 

I do remind everyone that the OP was about the dissatisfaction of many prolife Democrats with the direction the party is going with regard to abortion.

I do greatly appreciate what you say in the first paragraph, Getslow.

 

And I am in agreement that unjust policies and unjust actions taken, both by an individual and/or with the consent of the group are accountable to the Almighty. I am not exempt from that, either, and I do not offer blanket support for any party or individual. No one is above error and no one is above rebuke and correction.

 

I do remind everyone that the OP was about the dissatisfaction of many prolife Democrats with the direction the party is going with regard to abortion.

 

And that's perfectly fair. Like I said at the beginning, I'm far from at ease with it. My goal wasn't to have a go at anyone's own conscience.

 

I could have more to say, but Star Trek is about to start in this theater.

You can parse the language all night, but it's clear to me that the GOP abortion plank contains no exceptions. (If not, then why did NBC ask Trump the question about exceptions, and why did Trump respond as he did?)

 

If both parties were to soften their planks on abortion, that would probably be a good idea. But that ain't how the game is played.

 

You already knew that the GOP Platform makes a general statement in support of the protection of life while leaving the "parsing" of exceptions up to the states and the legislature.

 

Here's a quote from the article on The Blaze that you linked to. The guy quoted is one of the people who helped draft the original statement in 1980. He knows more of what was intended by the GOP Platform than you do:

 

James Bopp, an attorney who helped developed the anti-abortion plank in 1980, said the platform is broad and leaves it to the legislature and public to determine what the exceptions would be.

 

“The Republican Party plank endorsing a Human Life Amendment does not take a position on which version of a Human Life Amendment should eventually be adopted,” Bopp told Life News. “We leave that decision to Congress and the people of the United States at that time. Thus, we do not take a position on which exceptions should be included in a Human Life Amendment.”

There's no middle ground, each party has staked out far left and far right positions. Choose your poison.

 

Rarely a point of view that appeals to a majority--Still believe most are in the middle somewhere on most social issues.

Because the left, whether in the media or in politics, is not interested in accurately representing the GOP platform. The way you phrase something can have a big influence on the implications of what it said.

 

NBC's interest is to have a story and to make Trump look bad (unfortunately, this is not hard to do). They want to pit Trump against other Republicans. That is win-win for the left. It creates a story and it further isolates Trump.

 

They also want to portray the Republicans as "extreme." So the left claims the GOP isn't for any exceptions, even the life of the mother. This is false. But the purpose is to make Republicans seem unsympathetic.

 

Why don't they ask Hillary if she thinks tax payers should pay for partial birth abortions? That is her stance, apparently, since, she believes in no restriction on abortion and she believes the government should provide it.

 

The truth is, the Dem platform is way to the left of the average American on the issue of abortion. The Republican platform is closer to the average American. Many Americans are uncomfortable with situations involving rape, incest, and the risk of the life of the mother. So are many Republicans. That's why they did not specify that in the platform. They just expressed the underlying principle for protecting life and left the details of those exceptional cases to the states. This was the statement of the Republican party rep as noted by the Washington Post in 2012. I'm not making it up.

 

Bottom line, the left does not mind misrepresenting the GOP platform in order to discredit it with as many people as possible. And they want to make Trump look bad.

I think you're going overboard in your defense of the GOP abortion plank. I actually watched about a half-hour of the GOP platform committee debate in '12 (on C-SPAN) regarding whether to soften the party's position on abortion. The hard-liners prevailed.

 

Gallup poll from '15 showed 50% of Americans identified as pro-choice vs. 44% who identified as pro-life. Link below.

 

Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

I think you're going overboard in your defense of the GOP abortion plank. I actually watched about a half-hour of the GOP platform committee debate in '12 (on C-SPAN) regarding whether to soften the party's position on abortion. The hard-liners prevailed.

 

Gallup poll from '15 showed 50% of Americans identified as pro-choice vs. 44% who identified as pro-life. Link below.

 

Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

 

This isn't 2012, it's 2016.

This isn't 2012, it's 2016.

So you're saying the GOP's abortion plank changed significantly between '12 and '16? I don't think it changed at all.

I think you're going overboard in your defense of the GOP abortion plank. I actually watched about a half-hour of the GOP platform committee debate in '12 (on C-SPAN) regarding whether to soften the party's position on abortion. The hard-liners prevailed.

 

Gallup poll from '15 showed 50% of Americans identified as pro-choice vs. 44% who identified as pro-life. Link below.

 

Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

 

Thanks, Twotoplace, for the link to the Gallup statistical study. It is quite interesting. Something I learned, among several things, was that there was an uptick in the prolife position when Barack O'Bama first took office but that upswing has dropped back down to where it was in 2008.

 

There was also a link to an interesting statistical study that show society as a whole has shifted left and has drawn even with those who consider themselves social conservatives. This trend may make it harder on conservatives in future elections.

Edited July 30, 201610 yr by oldgrappler
added info

The problem with making common sense changes on abortion is it means you lose the election. If you're left and you compromise...you're out; if you're right and you compromise...you're out.

The problem with making common sense changes on abortion is it means you lose the election. If you're left and you compromise...you're out; if you're right and you compromise...you're out.

 

This is true, Hellcats. It is because there is so much at stake in this one issue. From the Left, those who are pro-abortion recognize the responsibility it places on the mother and the "cost" of having a child at in opportune times may impose, again on the mother.

 

From the Right, those who are pro-life, while recognizing the hardships inherent in motherhood at any time and especially on single women in less than ideal circumstances, know that the cost to the unborn baby is certain death. Pro-life people side with life for the baby and help for the mother.

 

The choices available each come with a high cost. Therefore, opinions on both sides are held with deep conviction.