People who consider yourselves fiscal conservatives:

[joshstrike]

Why are you against abortion? If you want to reduce state spending, welfare, social services, etc. ...then why come out against abortion as a form of emergency contraception? Really, why shouldn't we mandate abortions for anyone not making enough to support a child? Why should you and I have to support other peoples' children, to pay for their stupid choices, (or else live in a country overrun by violent, impoverished street kids like Brazil or most other Catholic countries that ban abortion), just because some people are too poor to support their own kids and too stupid to stop from getting pregnant? Isn't that a form of socialism? Isn't that taking money from people like you and I according to our ability, and giving it to others according to their need? Allowing people to have babies they can't afford constitutes a progressive tax on the rich!

Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd like to hear some honest responses from the right. This is one of the things that has always made me consider Republicans to be hypocrites.

[WannaBe_80z]

Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Ban all forms of abortion so they have to go through the pain(and beauty...right?) of being pregnant and child birth. Then take them away and go feed the homeless with them...

[Loyal Rogue]

Abortion has nothing to do with Republicans' actual beliefs.
It is just a clever political tool to fool Christians into voting for them, just like Gay marriage.
Almost every Christ follower I've met has agreed 100% with everything else that the Democratic party stands for except for those two issues... and in many cases that's enough to force them to vote Republican and the Repub strategists know it and have written the playbook around that fact.
If you want to see how a "pro-lifer" really feels about human life, watch how they treat their fellow human being after it's born.

[gerbick]

All the better tax more people, my dear...

[joshstrike]

It is just a clever political tool to fool Christians into voting for them, just like Gay marriage.

You know, I've suspected that was the case for a long time, because the fundamentalist hysterias are so disjointed from the Republicans' overall small-government socioeconomic platform. But the cynicism of their decision to meld those two is just staggering. Liberals might be soft in the head at times, but at least there's some coherence and sincerity to their arguments. At least it's derived from some kind of an ethos.

But then, I could turn the question around and ask, if Democrats like taxing people so much, and treasure the unwashed masses so, how come they're in favor of abortion?

I've just never understood how these arguments got flipped.

[el-Ignoramus]

IMHO Josh, dems are not in favor of abortion as a mean of ending a life, but as a mean of stopping a disaster at it's tracks, like a terminally ill foetus or a disfunctional family or a non existent one altogether, plus it's more bout the freedom of choice

But there has to be a limit, you can't have an abortion if it's after a certain number of weeks or in a certain development stage, or at least that's what I understand

[Frets]

This is the thing. Some people aren't fit to have children for whatever reason. Meanwhile there are huge waiting lists to adopt babies in this country. So much so that people (And I'm not talking Madonna) pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt children I know a couple who paid $50,000 for a russian orphan because the states waiting list for a baby is 10 years long.

I've yet to see a religious right group encourage adoption for the biological mother or for recipient families. Instead they play the shame card for all they can.

Meanwhile, conservative ideology has worked it's way into the psyche of young women who would rather have a child even if they know they are not prepared to care for it properly. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've heard "Well atleast i had it" as a justification to an unwanted pregnancy that resulted in an unwanted child.

[el-Ignoramus]

Frets it's a very thin line between people putting up their needy children for adoption to give them a chance of a better life and those who will have women popping out babies as fast as a Ford Production Line for profit, where does that line start and where does it end?

I still understand and emphasize with those who can't have children, but then again, how many sick, ill ridden, drug affected and worse babies will be brought to that world, pardon my analogy but it's going to be the burlap sack and bottom of the rivers to those unwanted kids, the last puppy syndrome.

[Loyal Rogue]

But then, I could turn the question around and ask, if Democrats like taxing people so much, and treasure the unwashed masses so, how come they're in favor of abortion?

The fundamental flaw in the above statement is assuming that any Democrat is in favor of abortion.
I seriously doubt that anyone in their right mind is in favor of abortion.
An abortion is something that nobody wishes for or views favorably.
The pro-choice position is based on favoring the rights of a woman over her own body versus the rights of the government over her body.

[joshstrike]

The Chinese government...they could be said to be in favor of abortion, right?

I guess I didn't mean that Dem's are in favor of it. I meant they abhor it but accept it. Or whatever you call it when someone tries to publicly justify something they secretly don't have a problem with, while pretending to feel just as terrible about it as they think everyone else does.

I think we should make a standing offer of $15,000 and a free procedure to any woman willing to get an abortion and have her tubes tied. You know what that would do for the literacy and graduation rate in this country in ten years? But I don't get why the mealy-mouthed Dems won't just come out and say something like that. They drank the Jesus kool aid or somethin?

[gerbick]

Actually, the only flaw i see is that the liberals (I hate that term, but it's actually more accurate than Democrat) are more pro-abortion than the conservatives (rather than saying Republican).

Them mix-up of American politics and policies with the aforementioned Chinese government is totally different. 265 million+ versus 1 billion+ and what's going on there historically policy-wise really kills that as an apples to apples comparison. To deflect further would dilute your statements.

Being pro-choice nor pro-life doesn't necessarily slot you into a party. But it can force you into a label.

Seeing the Democrats described as drinking the Jesus-juice is... rather odd from my point of view. I always put the Christian coalition and the "god vote" with the Republicans... I mean, we just had 8 years of a president that "God" wanted for president (paraphrase) and now we have a muslim president (wholly inaccurate).

[cancerinform]

Abortion has nothing to do with Republicans' actual beliefs.
It is just a clever political tool to fool Christians into voting for them, just like Gay marriage.
Almost every Christ follower I've met has agreed 100% with everything else that the Democratic party stands for except for those two issues... and in many cases that's enough to force them to vote Republican and the Repub strategists know it and have written the playbook around that fact.
If you want to see how a "pro-lifer" really feels about human life, watch how they treat their fellow human being after it's born.

Agreed!
Abortion like all the other religious crap is a means of the republicans to distract voters from the actual goal of republicans: to strengthen the corporations and destroy the unions. If people vote for republicans only based on who will gain, there would be about 2% voters. That is why republicans are so illogical.

[FlashLackey]

Why are you against abortion? If you want to reduce state spending, welfare, social services, etc. ...then why come out against abortion as a form of emergency contraception? Really, why shouldn't we mandate abortions for anyone not making enough to support a child? Why should you and I have to support other peoples' children, to pay for their stupid choices, (or else live in a country overrun by violent, impoverished street kids like Brazil or most other Catholic countries that ban abortion), just because some people are too poor to support their own kids and too stupid to stop from getting pregnant? Isn't that a form of socialism? Isn't that taking money from people like you and I according to our ability, and giving it to others according to their need? Allowing people to have babies they can't afford constitutes a progressive tax on the rich!

Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd like to hear some honest responses from the right. This is one of the things that has always made me consider Republicans to be hypocrites.

Your question is flawed right out of the gate. There is nothing about being fiscally conservative that suggests that a person is for or against abortion. So, to ask why fiscal conservatives are against abortion is to mistakenly assume that they are.

Additionally, being fiscally conservative doesn't mean that a person is against anything and everything that costs our society. It means that a person is for the reduction of government spending. 'Reduction' as in not the elimination of and 'government' as in not the acts of citizens. The general reason for having the term "fiscal conservative" is to distinguish from "social conservative" which is a reference to social positions like abortion.

All of that said, I think that the reason there is a correlation between people who are fiscally conservative and against abortion is that those people put a premium on the freedoms fought for and defined by our founding fathers. Excessive government spending limits freedom by burdening our economy, effectively forcing citizens to work for the state and removing the ability of individuals to spend money that they earned. Abortion limits freedom by ending the life of a US citizen who has the constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The fundamental flaw in the above statement is assuming that any Democrat is in favor of abortion.
I seriously doubt that anyone in their right mind is in favor of abortion.
An abortion is something that nobody wishes for or views favorably.
The pro-choice position is based on favoring the rights of a woman over her own body versus the rights of the government over her body.

The pro-choice position is against the rights of the body inside the woman.

I agree that many Democrats are also against abortion either entirely or in the way that you say just in not viewing it favorably. However, there are some that view it very positively. I read an article not too long ago by some progressive who thought that abortion is comparable to the cure for polio and that commercials should be made celebrating it.

Abortion has nothing to do with Republicans' actual beliefs.

If Republicans believe that abortion should be illegal, how do they not actually believe that?

It is just a clever political tool to fool Christians into voting for them, just like Gay marriage.

Are there no Republican Christians?

Almost every Christ follower I've met has agreed 100% with everything else that the Democratic party stands for except for those two issues...

There are many goals that both parties feel that they stand for (peace, prosperity, etc.). They just disagree over how to obtain them.

It's not difficult to find liberals who hold bigoted views toward religion. So, that is probably a turn-off for a lot of religious people to join the Democratic party (in addition to abortion, gay marriage, interpreting all religious references and symbols to mean establishing a state church, etc.).

Agreed!
Abortion like all the other religious crap is a means of the republicans to distract voters from the actual goal of republicans: to strengthen the corporations and destroy the unions. If people vote for republicans only based on who will gain, there would be about 2% voters. That is why republicans are so illogical.

I think your claim is illogical since strengthening corporations almost always helps people and unions usually harm more people than they help.

[Loyal Rogue]

Abortion limits freedom by ending the life of a US citizen who has the constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Really? At what point does a single cell turn into a legal US citizen?
Likewise, at what point do those rights of the unborn become greater than and eliminate the rights of the already born US citizen over her own body?

The pro-choice position is against the rights of the body inside the woman.

Then by that logic the pro-life position is against the rights of the woman?

However, there are some that view it very positively. I read an article not too long ago by some progressive who thought that abortion is comparable to the cure for polio and that commercials should be made celebrating it.

Likewise I have read articles by conservatives that celebrated facism, Hitler, and white power... so your point is?

If Republicans believe that abortion should be illegal, how do they not actually believe that?

I was referring to Republican politicians, pundits, and political strategists who use it as a tool, not those that have been tooled.

Are there no Republican Christians?

I guess that really depends on the definition of being a Christian?
Can one be considered a Christian if they just label themself so without actually following Christ's teachings?

I think your claim is illogical since strengthening corporations almost always helps people and unions usually harm more people than they help.

That makes no sense whatsoever unless you think that "helping people" means bringing back slave wages, eliminating overtime pay, eliminating weekends/days off/vacations, eliminating any and all worker protections along with every other benefit that unions are responsible for creating in this country.
If you really believe your statement then you have no knowledge of American history regarding unions, corporations, and workers other than what the far-rightwing conservative slanted media feeds you.

[cancerinform]

I think your claim is illogical since strengthening corporations almost always helps people and unions usually harm more people than they help.

Rubbish! What is strengthened is the CEOs bank account and that's all.

[FlashLackey]

Really? At what point does a single cell turn into a legal US citizen?

Our current law says that anyone born in this country is a legal US citizen. However, I believe that the intention of the law written in 1868 was to protect citizenship. Not to define when we should consider an unborn a child a person of worth (abortion was banned).

In my view (and others), a person should be considered a citizen as soon as it is alive and in possession of the unique dna which ultimately defines the biological make-up of the person.

Likewise, at what point do those rights of the unborn become greater than and eliminate the rights of the already born US citizen over her own body?

They don't become greater or eliminate any rights by having a right not to be killed. This is like suggesting that murderers have a right not to be stopped while they are murdering someone because it would interfere with what they want to do with their body (pulling a trigger).

Then by that logic the pro-life position is against the rights of the woman?

Not at all. They just don't have the right to take the life of the person inside them.

Likewise I have read articles by conservatives that celebrated facism, Hitler, and white power... so your point is?

My point was that some liberals think that abortion is positive.

Where have you read articles by conservatives celebrating fascism, Hitler and white power?

I was referring to Republican politicians, pundits, and political strategists who use it as a tool, not those that have been tooled.

So, you believe that none of those people are against abortion personally and that they are all working together?

Do you have any evidence of this?

I guess that really depends on the definition of being a Christian?
Can one be considered a Christian if they just label themself so without actually following Christ's teachings?

Not if they don't genuinely try to follow his teachings. The point of this question?

That makes no sense whatsoever unless you think that "helping people" means bringing back slave wages, eliminating overtime pay, eliminating weekends/days off/vacations, eliminating any and all worker protections along with every other benefit that unions are responsible for creating in this country.
If you really believe your statement then you have no knowledge of American history regarding unions, corporations, and workers other than what the far-rightwing conservative slanted media feeds you.

It's true that, far back in our history, there were points when private citizens needed to form unions to prevent corporations from abusing the monopolies they held on employment. However, in 2009, nobody has one choice for where to work and all of the things that you list are enforced by law. If unions went away, those laws would continue to exist and corporations would still have to compete for labor.

Since the old days that you refer to, unions have grown into monstrosities that do not resemble early unions. They have gone from fighting cartels of employment to creating cartels of labor. They raise prices of goods for everyone. They make companies less competitive, stemming off job creation and economic growth. They protect bad job performance (see US education system). They take away workers individual identities, often using dues for political purposes that the worker may not agree with. They typically don't allow advancement via merit and exceptional work.

[FlashLackey]

Rubbish! What is strengthened is the CEOs bank account and that's all.

So, you don't think it helps the people who own shares in the company when they have greater profits?

Increased corporate profits don't increase tax revenues that are spent (theoretically) for the public?

There is no correlation between new jobs and increased profits?

There is no correlation between lower costs of goods, increased innovation or higher wages and company profits?

[cancerinform]

Those who really profit from shares are the ones who own large quantities of shares. What does it help you when the company has all the power controlling the salaries, the unions destroyed and the company outsourcing jobs. That is what the Republicans are aiming at.

[FlashLackey]

A) A lot of people retire on profits from those shares. So, they must be more substantial to more people than you think.

B) The companies don't have all the power controlling salaries. If they don't pay workers enough, the workers will work somewhere else.

C) What union is destroyed?

D) If unions didn't inflate the cost of labor by using a cartel, there would be less incentive to out-source for cost reasons. If companies out-source for quality reasons, that benefits us.

[cancerinform]

A) A lot of people retire on profits from those shares. So, they must be more substantial to more people than you think.

How safe that is we have seen this year.

B) The companies don't have all the power controlling salaries.

True, because fortunately the Republicans don't have the power any more.

If they don't pay workers enough, the workers will work somewhere else.

Typical Republican thinking: a job is not only about money and there are many jobs where there is no alternative.

C) What union is destroyed?

Fortunately not yet, but the actual goal of Republicans is to do what Thatcher did in England. From my personal experience in California I know a lot of what Republicans like Schwarzenegger have been preventing by veto to strengthen the power of the executive forces.

D) If unions didn't inflate the cost of labor by using a cartel, there would be less incentive to out-source for cost reasons. If companies out-source for quality reasons, that benefits us.

The cost of labor is not high, if you want to have a reasonable living standard not even considering to send your children to College. But millions of $$ for CEOs who even screw up companies. I saw the salaries for CEOs. In Germany the highest salary for a CEO was 10 Million Euros per year (x 1.5 in $$) and that is considered already far inflated. That is pocket money for many CEOs in the US.