The ones I posted about 5 times over 2 threads debating chrysostom and nicholsmom. NM knows what I'm talking about.
Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
The ones I posted about 5 times over 2 threads debating chrysostom and nicholsmom. NM knows what I'm talking about.
WandererInFog
New member
If you don't feel like re-stating them, could you give links to the threads in question?
Sure. And sorry for the quick last post. I wasn't trying to be flippant. Just a quick drive-by while multi-tasking. I'll find the posts and post them here.
cm :chicken:
Here are the stats, WiF.
<O
</O
</O
</O<O</O<!-- / message -->
<O
</O<O
</O<Ochrysostom said:<Ochrysostom said:
Sounds really good. This sounded good, too:
Republican Party platform, 1984, under the section entitled "Our Constitutional System": <O
"The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannotbe infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendmentto the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the FourteenthAmendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose the use of publicrevenues for abortion and will eliminate funding for organizations whichadvocate or support abortions. We commend the efforts of those individualsand religious and private organizations that are providing positive alternativesto abortion by meeting the physical, emotional, and financial needs of pregnantwomen and offering adoption services where needed.
We applaud President Reagan's fine record of judicial appointments, andwe reaffirm our support for the appointment of judges at all levels of thejudiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocenthuman life."<O
From the year that statement showed in their platform (1984) through 1992 (4 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush I...that's 8 years of Republican leadership), the abortion rates were: <O
So, chrysostom, are the words in the Republican Party platform meaningful at all?
- 1984 - 1,557,200
- 1985 - 1,588,600
- 1986 - 1,574,000
- 1987 - 1,559,100
- 1988 - 1,590,800
- 1989 - 1,566,900
- 1990 - 1,608,600
- 1991 - 1,556,510
- 1992 - 1,528,930 <O
Why should we believe their platform now?
</O<O</O<!-- / message -->
The Graphite
New member
Must... spread... rep...
WandererInFog
New member
Who ever argued that having a Republican President would, in and of itself, have direct, immediate impact on abortion rates?
The Graphite
New member
:doh:
Not quite sure what to say to this. How long should we deal with Republican presidents in and of themselves having neither a direct nor ANY positive impact on the abortion rates? Are we supposed to assume that they'll finally adhere to their platform, even though they never have? When do we believe the facts instead of relying on false hope?
WandererInFog
New member
The only major, direct impact which a President can have on the entire issue of abortion is making changes to the courts. Until the court reaches a point where it has at least five judges willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, this is not something that will have any sort of immediate impact.
Also, the statistics that chickenman is presenting are misleading, as they display only the aggregate number of abortions, rather than the rate either in relation to the number of women of childbearing age (15-44) or in relation the number of live births. The decline in both of those actually started in the mid 80's.
See: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html
WandererInFog
New member
You mean facts like the ones your statistics omit?
My stats came from johnstonsarchive.net, also. No ratios of deaths to specific segments. Just total number of butchered kids per year.
Slaughtered boys and girls are slaughtered boys and girls, whether it be 100 or 1,000,000. And either way you cut it, the Republican Party has done nothing to stop the blood flood.
WandererInFog
New member
But without presenting all of the relevant statistics you paint a completely misleading picture of when the decline actually began.
The Graphite
New member
I wouldn't say it's true, however, that Republican presidents have no major impact on abortion rates. I can think of one major example.
Namely 1973, when a Republican-dominated Supreme Court ruled in favor of the fraudulent Roe case, the decision itself being written by a Republican judge, as well. So, the Republican presidents who appointed those judges did ultimately have a tremendous impact on abortion rates. And those rates rose under Republican presidents in the 1970s, and remained steady under the Republican presidents in the 80s and early 90s even though "the number of women of childbearing age (15-44)" and "the number of live births" declined during that time (thanks WIF).
(Of course, Roe v. Wade was 6 years after abortion was legalized in Colorado, signed into law by a Republican governor named Love.
Vote Republican! We need more Republican judges! :up:
Namely 1973, when a Republican-dominated Supreme Court ruled in favor of the fraudulent Roe case, the decision itself being written by a Republican judge, as well. So, the Republican presidents who appointed those judges did ultimately have a tremendous impact on abortion rates. And those rates rose under Republican presidents in the 1970s, and remained steady under the Republican presidents in the 80s and early 90s even though "the number of women of childbearing age (15-44)" and "the number of live births" declined during that time (thanks WIF).
(Of course, Roe v. Wade was 6 years after abortion was legalized in Colorado, signed into law by a Republican governor named Love.
Vote Republican! We need more Republican judges! :up:
WandererInFog
New member
You do realize that prior to the 1980's the Republicans were a generally a liberal/progressive party, right? While there were conservatives within the Republican Party, they didn't really exercise any significant influence until Reagan's presidential campaign.
Also, Just to make sure I'm being clear it isn't the number of women of childbearing age that declined or the number of live births, it was the ratio of abortions to women of childbearing age and the ratio of abortions to live births which began their decline in the mid 1980s.
The Graphite
New member
Oh, they were liberal/progressives back then... as opposed to today's Republicans.
Back then, Blackmun wrote that if the personhood of the unborn were recognized, the entire case for legal abortion would be overturned.
Today, we're trying to elect a Republican who acknowledges the personhood of the unborn, and yet in the same breath advocates funding their killing and using them in science experiments.
Great progress! (Straight downward toward hell, that is...) Vote Republican! :devil:
WandererInFog
New member
Well, yes. If you actually studied history you'd find very quickly that modern Republicans are vastly more conservative than their counterparts 50 or 100 years ago with the exact opposite being true of the Democrats.
The Graphite
New member
Which explains why they're now acknowledging the personhood of the unborn but still advocating funding their killing and performing medical experiments on them. Exactly!
When you can explain to me how voting for a non-viable candidate doesn't help the worse of two evils then I'll accept this as valid. Until then I will maintain that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Obama's new favorite quote of the day...
"The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Resting in Him,
Clete
The Graphite
New member
Clete, you're still stuck in this fallacious, imaginary notion that there is even such a thing as a "non-viable candidate."
Do you know what a non-viable candidate is? All candidates that lose on election day. Before that, every candidate is viable, because the only thing that will determine any one's success or failure is how many votes they get.
The only thing evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. And if you do nothing to stand up for the right man for the job, just because you assume the other millions of people will also be too afraid to vote for him, is that an example of courage or... something else? When you vote for the man you know is wrong for the job, just because you are afraid that everyone else will vote for him.... just like they're all afraid that you'll vote for the wrong man, too.... is that an example of personal courage? Or something else?
Non-viable nonsense. You presume to know an unwritten future based on fear, because everyone is afraid of what everyone else will do. Can't you see what a crazy illusion that is?
Again, I ask you, Clete... What are you afraid of? What are you so worried about, that you would give your vote to a man whom you know wants to keep abortion legal?
- Status