Where do you fall politically?

[houseelf]

Wow, what a great (and refreshingly polite) political thread! I must say that I grew up in a very conservative town next to an even more conservative town- Cincinnati. Cinci is known for many cases which came to define different aspects of civil rights law (think Maplethorpe), the Ronald Reagan highway, and deeply enmeshed conservative thinking.

Ah, but I still haven't disclosed my beliefs. Here goes...I'm a former College Republican. Although I continue to be a registered Republican, I'm growing increasingly frustrated with the party and find myself coming around to more liberal ways of thinking, especially in some of the domestic/social arena. I guess that this is a byproduct of working with the public and struggling as a working mom muddling through the system. Nonetheless, I continue to believe in smaller government, conservative foreign diplomacy, and fiscally conservative spending. For the record, I'm apalled at "W's" lack of foreign diplomacy skills.

Privately, I'm incredibly prolife and maintain fairly devout views on the subject. Politically, however, I'm pro-choice because this is not a subject the Government should regulate.

RE: the third party thing. Let me just allude to my experience here in Minnesota: Jesse Ventura. This makes me think twice before believing in the third party system.

Wow, I rarely, if ever, talk politics. In writing this I just realized that politics remain a fairly private subject to me. I do love reading what you all have to say, however. Law school beat all desires to debate anything for me. Rarely do I get worked up about anything regarding politics.

Kelly

[PrincessFiona]

politics

I 'm aformer College Republican.

AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!

As to good old Jessie Ventura....don't consider him being an idiot to be a failure of a third party...he was just an idiot! Consider it a failure on the part of Minnesota's voters to recognize how inadequate he was before voting for him....

kris

I'm a former College Republican.

Privately, I'm incredibly prolife and maintain fairly devout views on the subject.

Kelly

YAY!! HIP HIP HOORAY! (sounds of cheer and applause)

[PrincessFiona]

ThuVan

Somehow, I knew that was coming, ThuVan

Your Monica Lewinsky siggie....holy cow...I snorted I laughed so hard!

kris

I wanted to ask all you up north in Minnesota what you thought of Jesse Ventura. Honestly I never even knew what he was up to but I was curious if it made a difference being from a third party. I only heard him talk on Jay Leno and he actually was very interesting to listen to and he wasn't politically correct in everything he said, which was actually refreshing.

Just curious.....

Robin

[houseelf]

Robin...I think that Jesse's a glory hound and an embarrasment to an otherwise quiet state. If he were more savvy, he could have gone all the way.

Thu Van-- RE: pro choice/pro life issue. I almost wrote a law review article with a buddy of mine on regarding the views of women aged 20-45. While titles like "pro life and pro choice" are convenient, they tend to spur on wide spread debate that make people hysterical and unable to consider alternate points of view. Some preliminary polling shows that regardless of titles or political camps, most women fall somewhere in between on the issue.

This *very* early study revealed that most women absolutely agree with statements that abortion should be the last option considered, not used as birth control. These women felt that except in extreme extenuating circumstances, abortions should be performed in the first trimester. Additionally, some data revealed that even those who titled themselves the "pro life" believed that there are serious rare cases for which abortions are morally acceptable. But the most interesting thing that the majority of women agreed with is that the Government lacked the legal right to regulate the granting of permission to obtain abortions and effectively usurp the relationship between a woman and her doctor.

I'm cringing as I write this because this was an early study and as a former "almost economics" major--the first rule of statistics is that you can make a number say anything. I realize that even talking about this can bring out the most profound emotions in people. I sincerely hope that this post does not offend. I share this research experience because it was absolutely fascinating to me. All of this political bruhaha and yet people actually have so much in common in regards to this topic. The research never got picked up and I never got off my duff to do this project independently with my friend. (She is the brilliant attorney friend of mine who I can lovingly and honestly say drives me insane.) Still I would love for someone else to pick up on this thread and conduct serious unbiased research.

Wow...I haven't uttered the words "prochoice" or "prolife" in any public forum for about a decade. These words have a way of starting an unintended political debate which I have no energy to engage in. Kudos to you all because I must feel really comfortable here.

Kelly

[Auspicious]

While titles like "pro life and pro choice" are convenient, they spur on wide spread debate that make people hysterical and unable to consider alternate points of view. Some preliminary polling shows that regardless of titles or political camps, most women fall somewhere in between.

AMEN!



(wait . . . does that count as hysterical?)

[Rapunzel]

The whole abortion issue is a thorny one and I totally believe Kelly's "preliminary" research on the subject and opinions of women. I think if we look at the issue of abortion as a medical procedure performed on a woman by her doctor then the government has absolutely no right to interfere. That's actually the Libertarian party's stance, btw ( gotta spread the third party agenda as much as possible). Anyway, the issue changes completely, however, if an unborn child is regarded as a being with rights under the law in and of his/herself. Congress is currently set to vote on just such a law (which has been dubbed "Laci and Conner's Law") which would provide for the prosecution of a person who contributed to the death of an unborn child. So, for instance an abusive husband who repeatedly kicked his pregnant wife in the abdomen and thus killed the child she carried would be subject to prosecution for the death resulting from his actions.

I think the opinions on the subject of abortion depend on the way in which individuals think of the procedure either as 1)completely a medical procedure removing tissue and involving patient rights on the part of the mother - although this denies the fact that the baby is not truly a part of the mother's body but is a genetically and even physically (via the placental barrier) a distinctly unique being, 2)the removal of a parasitic being (which recognizes the uniqueness and individuality of the unborn biologically) with the mother having ultimate control over allowing her body to remain an incubator or the "right" to kill the parasitic growth, 3) the killing of a biologically unique and distinct organism whose self-identity does not take affect consciously until several months after leaving the mother's body and thus must be protected by law from harm as a newborn baby would be.

It's an interesting topic and I think my view has significantly been influenced by my own three pregnancies and one miscarriage. Having a twin pregnancy especially added insight into the issue for me. Since I was able to experience two entirely seperate beings with obvious and different personalities. That was also my dangerous pregnancy - it almost killed both of the babies early on and nearly killed me at the end. Additionally, what I experienced in the NICU with my own children and others after the birth of my twins really gave me insight into viability and how that issue relates to how I view the destruction of a fetus.



Jesse Ventura - I think I also agree with Kelly's assessment of the guy. He hurt third party candidates' viability over the short term.

For me the abortion issue is very simple! I believe that after conception the "fetus" is a living life. I have this belief because of my religion. Therefore, whether or not abortion is viewed as a procedure between a doctor and a woman or not, I think the government does have the right to impose a law preventing abortion because in my opinion there is a third party involved, that of a baby that has no choice! The argument of viability is not even a concern to me. Whether or not a baby can survive at 18 weeks is irelavent to me, because after all a baby cannot survive on his or her own even after birth without care. To most people it would be ludicrous to think that after a mother has had a child and then she decides that she does not want it she could legally dispose of the child because that is her choice. Well, I view abortion just a ludicrous.
Don't get me confused with crazy activist that bomb abortion clinics just because of my strong stance on the issue. Apparently those activist have strong opinions about abortion, but obviously not about the sanctity of life. I simply value life, at any stage or age!

[houseelf]

This thread got me a thinkin'--scary, I know. Why do people spend so much time and energy on it when there are so many equally compelling, ethically difficult issues: capital punishment, euthanasia, animal research/rights, affirmative action, gun control, etc. People will vote exclusively for the abortion issue over these equally pervasive issues. Very interesting.

Kelly

[Rapunzel]

Well, Kelly, perhaps abortion is such a compelling issue because it mixes beliefs about life itself, children, the innocent, and religion into the subject. The subject of abortion really wasn't a politically polarizing issue until the swinging 60s (re the "sexual revolution"). Prior to that abortion was only on the political landscape among fringe groups who supported eugenics. Abortion is more compelling emotionally than capital punishment because more people have children and either have experience pregnancy or the pregnancy of a loved one than have had a loved one murdered (thus it beats capital punishment issues because of personal experience of vast amounts of the public). Abortion beats out animal rights because most people really do view the rights of people and possible/potential people as more compelling than those of animals. Affirmitive action loses to abortion because aa does not involve the death of a being. Gun control and euthenasia I would argue DO get as much debate and passion as abortion. The other subjects are NOT as equally compelling nor ethically difficult because they do not directly affect most of the public and do touch on the personal experience of most members of the public regarding religion, pregnancy, and children. That's what I would postulate.

Kelly,
I enjoyed reading your post. As an econ major who took lots of econometrics classes, I am happy to have found a kindred spirit! You are correct that one can "make numbers talk". That is why it so important to have someone doing analysis who knows what the heck they are doing and won't take the easy way out. Because of my background in statistics, I regard newly released medical studies and such with some amount of skepticism. I did research through the Univ school of medicine for a while, and well, I didn't entirely agree with the research methods. I don't think the results were flat out wrong but....maybe didn't tell the whole story.
Anyway, I think that article sounds really interesting. This may be some of my pro-choice bias (and I agree, I don't really like that phrase), but I would like to think that people have some varying opinions on this topic. I don't think it is the clear-cut, black and white issue that both sides promote.