Why do people say the GOP platform opposes abortion without exception?

Amelia

Rookie
Feb 14, 2011
21,830
5,453
0
Packerland!
I must be looking in the wrong place. I see things such as the GOP platform calling for a ban on sex-selective abortions. If the platform calls for a ban on all abortions then why specially single out sex-selective abortions? I see the platform also calls for the protection of fetuses which are developed to the point of being able to feel pain.

I'm not sure I'm finding the language which so outraged people that they compared it to Todd Akin's comment about legitimate rape.

I would appreciate someone helping me out with the passage or passages which were deemed so objectionable.

TIA.
 
"Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."
 
Isn't roe vs wade settled law?

Isn't it true that it could only be changed by a constitutional amendment?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
From the GOP platform:

The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form – and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

G.O.P. Platform « White House 2012
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
Context would say that the GOP is not calling for a no-exception ban on abortion.


Context such as this: "We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions ..."
 
Context would say that the GOP is not calling for a no-exception ban on abortion.


Context such as this: "We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions ..."

we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.

There are no exceptions noted

No allowances for rape or the mothers health
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
Context would say that the GOP is not calling for a no-exception ban on abortion.


Context such as this: "We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions ..."

we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.

There are no exceptions noted

No allowances for rape or the mothers health



I can see that as one way to interpret the opening sentence of that section. That is why we keep reading past the first sentence if we want to be fully informed on a subject. The context provided by the rest of the section shows that either the authors of the first sentence didn't intend it in the way people are reading it, or they know they couldn't pass what people are reading into the first sentence.
 
What am I supposed to do when I agree with Democrats on many social issues and republicans on fiscal issues? It amazes me there is no in between candidate yet that values freedom of choice across the board. Here is why I, a registered republican, believe that abortion should be up to the woman: A woman should be able to do what ever she wants with her own body. PERIOD. An unborn baby DEPENDS on a womans body to support it until it is born. A woman is not a baby factory. She is a living person. Don't get me wrong, I highly condemn abortion in circumstances other than rape. I think that an unwanted pregnancy is one of the most irresponsible things possible, because it is so easily preventable, but I do not feel I have the right to make that claim on a woman's body to tell her what to do with it. The republican party is so reliant on religious groups for votes and it really pisses me off.
 
Last edited:
Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

If the 14th Amendment were to be interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to the ‘unborn,’ then no abortion could be conducted, not for rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s life.

No exceptions.

Needless to say this would create a Constitutional crisis, which is why the Court would never make such an inane ruling, or allow a law authorizing the same to stand. Both the ‘unborn’ and mother would have ‘equal’ equal rights.

The passage is also gibberish, making no legal sense whatsoever.
 
Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

If the 14th Amendment were to be interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to the ‘unborn,’ then no abortion could be conducted, not for rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s life.

No exceptions.

Needless to say this would create a Constitutional crisis, which is why the Court would never make such an inane ruling, or allow a law authorizing the same to stand. Both the ‘unborn’ and mother would have ‘equal’ equal rights.

The passage is also gibberish, making no legal sense whatsoever.


"The passage is also gibberish, making no legal sense whatsoever."

All the more reason not to jump to conclusions about what it means and to look to the paragraphs which follow to explain the intent of the authors.
 
What am I supposed to do when I agree with Democrats on many social issues and republicans on fiscal issues? It amazes me there is no in between candidate yet that values freedom of choice across the board. Here is why I, a registered republican, believe that abortion should be up to the woman: A woman should be able to do what ever she wants with her own body. PERIOD. An unborn baby DEPENDS on a womans body to support it until it is born. A woman is not a baby factory. She is a living person. Don't get me wrong, I highly condemn abortion in circumstances other than rape. I think that an unwanted pregnancy is one of the most irresponsible things possible, because it is so easily preventable, but I do not feel I have the right to make that claim on a woman's body to tell her what to do with it. The republican party is so reliant on religious groups for votes and it really pisses me off.

You are that rarity of rarities: an actual, original, true republican.

You belong in a museum, or something.

My only recommendation, however impossible it may seem, is to work to take control of your party again. You need to put the social conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, and radical rightists in the backseat and keep them there.

Good luck, America needs you back.
 
Paul Ryan, at one point, opposed abortion without exception, but Romney was pro-choice, so *shrug*

Their official position and the platform is abortion bad except when it's not :p

The official position of the Democrats is that taxpayers should pay for abortions up to the time of birth, which is more extreme?
 
Paul Ryan, at one point, opposed abortion without exception, but Romney was pro-choice, so *shrug*

Their official position and the platform is abortion bad except when it's not :p

The official position of the Democrats is that taxpayers should pay for abortions up to the time of birth, which is more extreme?

Link?

Don't people read anymore?

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012
 
The official position of the Democrats is that taxpayers should pay for abortions up to the time of birth, which is more extreme?

Link?

Don't people read anymore?

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012
Wheres the "up until the time of birth" part?
 

Don't people read anymore?

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012
Wheres the "up until the time of birth" part?

Seriously? Did you not read this part?

We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.
 
Don't people read anymore?

Wheres the "up until the time of birth" part?

Seriously? Did you not read this part?

We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.

Im not reading that as "we want to give women the right to have an abortion until the kid pops out". I have never heard any democratic representative advocate for abortion until birth.
 
Isn't roe vs wade settled law?

Isn't it true that it could only be changed by a constitutional amendment?

No, it can be changed by another Supreme Court decision. Future, unrelated Court decisions might weaken the right of privacy so that a future Court might decide it is no longer a Constitutional issue and the states should decide. Or a future Court might decide that the potential of a fertilized egg to become a person is legally equivalent to being a person and on that basis extend Constitutional protections to the fetus,even to the zygote, and prohibit abortions unless the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top