"Many people think of him as a moderate," she said. "But when it comes out that he doesn't want to change this extreme, right-wing Republican platform, the word 'moderate' is going to disappear from any description of McCain."

Another spot where the 'Maverick' is revealed as McSame.

This is an excellent "wedge issue" for McCain, where "Mr. Straight Talk" is shown to be the political whore he really is. He has to appeal to the GOP base, which is not even half the electoral pie. He's lucky, in that his opponent will be a black man in a country that is as racialist as this one. But that just might be enough for him to prevail.

Go Obama!

I wonder if this means that Senator Craig will also be taking a wider stance on abortion?

He's lost his bearings.

Bearings?

What bearings?

McPuss.

What a fucking clown.

If you are against abortion you can't have "exceptions". According to these monkeys it's the ending a "childs" life that is the issue.

Of course on the other hand these are the same fucking morons who are all for the death penalty and invading countries that have done no harm to the US.

Dems, if you are for abortion you can't have "exceptions".

Of course on the other hand these are the same fucking morons who are against the death penalty.

"Of course on the other hand these are the same fucking morons who are against the death penalty."

that's because we don't see a blob of cells as being human. Big difference in philosophy. Your's is based upon following a bunch of pagan shit packed into a book read by a free loading shitbag who calls himself "holy"

Dems, if you are for abortion you can't have "exceptions".

Gotta Love it!

McCAin will further harm his own reputation by being bullied by the right wing nuts to abandon his desire to change the Republican platform. His ambition will cause him to go along with the extremists on the right and at the same time insure his defeat. Gotta love it. He's stuck in a catch 22 and the REpublicans are going to nominate him.

I don't get it. If you believe abortion equals killing a human then why would you make an exception under any condition?

If someone agrees with McCain on that please explain because it makes no sense to me at all.

If someone agrees with McCain on that please explain because it makes no sense to me at all.
~JH


What is your position given a situation where a continued pregnancy would result in the death to the pregnant woman?

"If someone agrees with McCain on that please explain because it makes no sense to me at all."

I feel sorry for any woman married to you. I suspect that if men risked their lives in childbirth, or if they could become pregnant by rape their opinions would be far different.

"What is your position given a situation where a continued pregnancy would result in the death to the pregnant woman"

I don't really see what that has to do with anything but since you asked I guess I could see a situation where both the mother and fetus were at risk and the doc has to choose between the two. I would think, that if you believe the fetus is a human life with rights, and the mother's life is at risk but the fetus is healthy and would be birth successfully that you would not kill the fetus. Whatever happens to the mother happens. Nature takes it's course.

Now if they the doc determined they were both going to die without intervention then it's the doc's call on what the best procedure would be to preserve one of the two lives that are in jeopardy.

"I feel sorry for any woman married to you. I suspect that if men risked their lives in childbirth, or if they could become pregnant by rape their opinions would be far different."

Look, none of it makes sense to me anyway. I'm not a woman so I can't have an abortion and I got the doc to disconnect the wiring in the ballroom so I don't have to worry about putting anyone in a position where they might have to get an abortion.

My point is, if you are going to ban abortion then isn't it based on the principle that the fetus is a human life with the same rights as any other human? If so then how can you make an exception in the case of rape? Is that fetus somehow different than one that was conceived by a woman who intended to happen?

I guess that if you do take the arrogant step of banning abortion then exceptions would diminish the feeling of moral superiority that opponents of abortion like to pretend they have. The poor woman's living children might have a different take, she herself might fear that she will be repulsed by the fruit of violent rape but, what the hell, some right wing preacher with a TV ministry told his flock what to think and, by God, they will obey him and vote for right wing lunatics who will use abortion to build coalition with corporate interests who profit from wars.
If any woman feels abortion is immoral or that it is murder then they should not have an abortion.
Sometimes the simplest answers are by far the best.

I don't really see what that has to do with anything

You don't, it is one of the three reasons offered. I guess you missed it..


Whatever happens to the mother happens. Nature takes it's course.

Why bother with medicine at all than?

Nature will take it's course. It can be argued it will make the human race stronger only the strong survive.

then isn't it based on the principle that the fetus is a human life

No actually when it becomes a human is one of the most hashed out dilemmas'. Viability is to many the determining factor.

Danni, that's why I qualified my original question by saying, if anyone agrees with McCain on it.

My guess is that most people are going to fall in one of two camps, either allow women the choice or make it for them. I don't think McCain is going to get much traction with his stance from either group.

Is that fetus somehow different than one that was conceived by a woman who intended to happen?

Me thinks you have it now.

A woman has choice. Clearly and definable rape is not choice.

My guess is that most people are going to fall in one of two camps, either allow women the choice or make it for them.


By 'make it for them' I conclude forced birth.

Zap, first off do you agree with McCain on this stance?

"Why bother with medicine at all than?"
You see no difference between medicine and ending a human life, if that is what you view a fetus to be?

"No actually when it becomes a human is one of the most hashed out dilemmas'. Viability is to many the determining factor"

Which is kind of at the heart of my question. The article says nothing about viability. All it says is in cases where the mother's life is at risk. Just because the mother's life is at risk does not mean the fetus is not viable.

I don't think McCain is going to get much traction with his stance from either group.
~JH


Dead on!

He either stands by his beliefs or falls in line.

Or put another way, Lose / Lose.

"A woman has choice. Clearly and definable rape is not choice."

Come to think of it, if McCain is going to make exceptions for rape how does he define rape? What if the woman got trashed at a party and got pregnant? Is that rape according to McCain? What about the recent case where the woman consented and then changed her mind while the sex was occurring? How about a situation where a woman consents but tells the man he has to pull out before he ejaculates but he doesn't? He went past the point of her consent so is that rape?

Would a police report have to be filed for it to be rape? Is so then wouldn't that result in an increase in false rape reports? Would the police have to conduct an investigation to determine woman isn't lying?

What about a case where the husband raped the wife? She would be understandable hesitant to file a police report.

Zap, first off do you agree with McCain on this stance?
~JH

Yes I do, the rest Johnny has been debated for decades and I'm not surprised it not laid out point by point here. If you're at all knowledgeable of the abortion debate this is nothing new brought to the table in this article. The only question the article really asks is what will McCain do regarding the conflict between his beliefs and the party platform.

'Dead on!
He either stands by his beliefs or falls in line.
Or put another way, Lose / Lose."

That's the thing though, what are McCain's beliefs? I can understand where the pro-choice and pro-life crowds come from. Pro-choice saying it's not a human life and the mother can terminate, pro-life saying it is a human life and termination is murder.

What I don't get here is how does McCain come up with this stance that says to me that it is a human life only when the sex was consensual and by the way, the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of the fetus.

That's what I don't get and that's why I stated that I was looking for replies from people who agree with McCain.

"If you're at all knowledgeable of the abortion debate this is nothing new brought to the table in this article. The only question the article really asks is what will McCain do regarding the conflict between his beliefs and the party platform."

I'm not all knowledgeable on the abortion debate. I have a very basic understanding of it which tells me you either believe it is a woman's choice to end a pregnancy early or you believe the fetus is a human life with the associated rights and protections that go along with being so.

McCain's stance seems to me, based on my basic understanding of the issue, to be inconsistent.

What I get from is that McCain doesn't view the developing fetus is a human life, thus it is ok to terminate, however he also doesn't believe that women are responsible enough to make the decision that is best for them so he is trying to put some conditions around that decision for them.

McCain's stance seems to me, based on my basic understanding of the issue, to be inconsistent.



Works for me!

To get a party platform policy changed overnight is difficult. He is just seeing it as a starting point in getting it removed from the platform altogether. You have to chip away slowly at the system to make real change happen (we'd have had socialism in this country 90 years ago if it were that easy...rather they have been chipping away at our society to get us where we are). I'm still not going to vote for him, but I am pleased to see he is making an effort.

I don't think it would hurt him if he ran under this policy. The religious right would be pissed off at him, but they're still going to go and pull the lever for him in November. These voters always vote (it's a duty) and there will be no alternatives but McCain in their republican eyes. On the flip side, it keeps a few more indies intrigued by McCain.

The what-ifs from the loonies who hate government except when it invades women's wombs reminds me of Talmudic scholars. Ever finer points about what is rape and how critical the danger to the woman's life. Far better to be absolutist on the side of a woman's right not to carry a pregnancy to term. Far fewer questions that you don't really want to know the answers to. herm

McCain's gotta stick to his guns or he's toast. Heck, he's toast anyway. But John Wayne McCain can at least go down shootin' rather than wussing out to the far right.

He either stands by his beliefs or falls in line.

Or put another way, Lose / Lose.





He's already flip-flopped on everything else in order to pander to the GOp "conservatives". why would this be different?

Gotta admit, for an old fart, mcBush is remarkably flexible.

"The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life, which cannot be infringed. ... Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions."

That's official GOP policy and that means there are no exceptions. So if women die because they are not allowed to terminate pregnancies that endanger their lives well that's too bad as far as the GOP is concerned.

Any woman who votes Republican is, in effect, voting for a party that takes the same attitude to her life as Jehovah's Witnesses who deny their children life-saving transfusions. Almost everybody thinks Jehovah's Witnesses are batshit crazy in this respect so why not apply the same thinking towards the extremists running the GOP?

The GOP is hardly the Party of nuance. There is no way the dunderheaded rank and file will ever be able to understand that on the issue of abortion there are acceptable middle grounds such as those expressed by McCain.

Are you joking? Its more like you and the kooky Pro Birthers are for the death penalty, against govt funding for spinal bifida babies, and downs babies, for the Iraq war no matter howw many innocent Iraqi children are killed and opposee to teh family leave and medical act. WHOSE THE MORON???? You all have zero moral compass and the term Pro Life is not what comes to mind with likes of you. You only care about life before birth and could givc a shit aout kids after they leave the womb

I had no idea that the GOP platform did not allow for any exceptions. My God, are the Dems that pathetic??? The Dems should be slamming these idiots on this platform. So let me see, if a woman had an abortion because her life is in danger, then I wnat McCain and all you cowardly and gutless right wing law makers to tell the American people what the penalty would be for that doctor and woman. Have the guts in the debates to tell 100 million Americans that a woman in that case would be a criminal and would be sentence to life in jail or death. Let the voters decide on they want

"But John Wayne McCain can at least go down shootin' rather than wussing out to the far right."

Too late for that, he already has on tax cuts for the rich and torture. McCain sold his soul and now wants to ask politely that they change a plank of their platform which is THE plank that brings the Christian Right into the REpublican fold. Ain't going to happen and if it did McBush's chances would further diminish. My bet is that McBush will be eerily silent on the matter unless directly asked and then will make as little as possible of his difference with the right of the Party. then he will lose the election and "miraculously" regain some of his scruples.

I don't understand why the abortion issue is still coming up. We had just about the same amount of abortions last year that we had in 1976 yet we have around a hundred million more people. The trend has been going down steadily not up. Roe v Wade only protects abortions up to the 2nd trimester. Of those abortions that were performed most were done in the 1st trimester. We don't know how many abortions were the result of danger to the mother, incest , rape etc. With more emphasis on education and birth control, abortions will go down even further. There is absolutely no reason for a woman or child to becomce pregnant who doesn't want to and with education this message will finally get out.

The exception of abortion to save momma's life makes sense. The other two really don't make sense....Still, this is politically easy to do. I don't think he has the clout to actually change the platform, but he can run that way and get away with it.


This issue is very simple if you keep in mind that there are TWO lives involved, before you blandly decide to eliminate one of them for the sense of convenience. If there is rape or incest, have the child, but I think it's understandable that momma might not want that child. If she doesn't, adoption procedings should be expedited. She should not have to claim that child in those two cases. She should, however, have the child, as it is not the child's fault it is a product of rape or incest. This isn't confusing at all, is it?

Every election year since I could vote the republicans bring up abortion and their issue causing the religious idiots to come out of the wood work, and you know what, the law has not changed in 30 years.

I always laugh when people get all worked up over this issue and at election time, they are nothing but tools.

The religious right doesn't really care all that much about having abortion outlawed. The issue is a fabulous money raising tool.

All of this "viability" talk is a side issue, IMO. The issue is simple: no OTHER human being has the right to make decisions about MY body. You can't take my blood without my consent, nor can you harvest my organs. If a woman does not to carry an embryo to term, it is not a debate - case closed. It's her body, and she decides.

And please spare me the lecture about "lost, innocent life" - I would be a big proponent of sex education and the use of condoms to prevent pregnancy in the first place. When the righties care about that, AND show come concern for the already-born, I'll believe their wailings about taking care of the helpless.

Midi,


no OTHER human being has the right to make decisions about MY body


What about addictive drugs?

Suicide?

Prostitution?

Midiman,

What about the woman inside the woman? What about her body?

*****Dems, if you are for abortion you can't have "exceptions". .....Sniper****

......so every pregnancy must end in an abortion ??....

.......sniper......you are retarded.......

......the concept of being pro-choice......

......is that the woman CHOOSES what to do with her pregnancy......

**** What about the woman inside the woman? What about her body?

Posted by jonryker ******

.....she will have the same right, to make the same choices, that her mother did.....

...when she is offed.....ummmm, no she won't.

"Still, this is politically easy to do. I don't think he has the clout to actually change the platform, but he can run that way and get away with it."

I'm confused. You say he can run on this stance but then you also say that there should not be an exception for non-consensual sex such as rape/incest.

I'm still waiting to hear from someone who can explain where McCain is coming from on his stance on this issue.

Johnny,

McCane is being his typical opportunist self. He has a chance to be labeled as something other than right-wing, because he has opposed the GOP on several big issues...this is just another one he's trying to look different on.

Because the GOP doesn't agree to these exceptions, they won't adopt his position as a platform. He can still run with his position and ignore them, knowing he has no intention of actually trying to change the GOP platform.

It's a game, but it might work with some weak-minded independents and angry Dems. His abortion position is still to the right of the Dems, so he doesn't risk losing the Right over this issue.

What about addictive drugs?

Suicide?

Prostitution?

Posted by JeffJ


No prob with suicide or prostitution here (although I prefer the latter), to the extent OTHERS are not harmed. Probs with drugs would relate to the negative impact on others. If you can maintain yourself as a drug addict without hurting anyone but yourself, go for it. We already allow it - it's called smoking, and my concern there is for the impact on OTHERS via second-hand smoke.

And as far as the "woman inside the woman", it is the one with voluntary control and independent existence that in FACT makes the call, and that's the way it has to be. I'm not happy about abortion and I wish it weren't necessary, but a person has the right to decide what happens on the outside and the inside of his or her own body.