In reviewing John McCain’s statements on abortion, it strikes me: we dont actually know what his position is.
How is that possible? He’s stated very clearly that he’s pro-life. “I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies.”
But what does that mean? In the past he’s said he supported a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion. That was what was in the 2004 Republican platform and there’s no indication that will change.
However, on his website he merely says he supports overturning Roe v. Wade. Those are very different things. Overturning Roe v. Wade would send the issue to the states, meaning some states could ban abortion and other would keep it legal.
Indeed, on the website he says, “once the question is returned the states” the fight would continue to change public opinion. “These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level.”
Those are two extremely different positions: one says leave abortion to the states, the other says, ban abortions nationally.
Which is it?
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted August 21, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Nice try. McCain’s position is clearly pro-life — whether it’s overturning Roe or a Human Life Amendment. The real issue is how it contrasts with Obama’s position. His is to keep 1.3 million abortions a year legal, to force us to pay for them with our tax money, and to overturn all pro-life laws across the nation such as parental notification and partial-birth abortion bans. And let’s not forget how Obama supports infanticide — refusing medical care for newborns. More at LifeNews.com.
posted August 21, 2008 at 12:48 pm
If McClain chooses a pro-choice V.P. then the question is do we dare elect a seventy-ywo year old to the office of President.
posted August 21, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Don’t forget–a constitutional amendment also returns the issue to the states… a little process called ratification.
posted August 21, 2008 at 7:00 pm
John McDepends want to force us to spend tax money on war, murder, torture, and racism. He is pro choice and has flip flopped recently because he took a poll. The religious biggots eat up his dirty depends like the morons they are.
posted August 22, 2008 at 11:15 am
Living as I do in a city where abortion clinics were bombed, doctors were shot, an anti-abortionist was convicted of sexual abuse on minors, and anti-abortionists exhibit posters of aborted fetuses for all the children to see, I keep wondering how anyone associated with this movement can refer to themselves as “pro-life”. It’s not that I advocate abortion; it’s that I believe in a woman’s right to choose (within reasonable limits) whether to proceed with the pregnancy or to terminate it. I also believe that women who are considering abortion should be educated about the psychological risk they are taking before they decide whether to go forward with the procedure. To me, Roe v. Wade ended a long, dark era in our history when women were sometimes forced into back-room botched abortions because their families feared the social stigma of an unwed mother. Or because they were raped and afraid to tell anyone. Or, sent away to visit Aunt Martha until the baby came, only to give the baby up for adoption (many adoption centers sold the babies).
One problem is our culture, which castigates women who become pregnant out of wedlock, no matter which path they choose, whether or not they are victims of rape or incest, while ignoring the role of boys and men in the pregnancy, or even giving the male involved a figurative pat on the back for their sexual prowess.
Children (girls and boys) need to be educated early about the consequences of their sexual activity, in the home as well as in “health” classes. Some will ignore the warnings and suffer the consequences, but women will continue to bear the larger burden because they are the ones who carry and give birth to the child.
Also, there is a segment of our population who are narcissistic in their sexual behavior and can only satisfy particular urges through pornography, dominance or outright rape.
posted August 23, 2008 at 6:42 am
What is so amazing is how so many, who claim to be intelligent and educated, by some of our finer educational institutions no less, can be so naive to think that a politician will tell the truth in an election year.
McCain is a politician who will do or say whatever he has to to get the votes he needs to win, then he is going to do whatever he pleases once he gets elected.
We need to remember that honesty and politician are mutually exclusive concepts. We also need to remember that warmonger and pro-life are also mutually exclusive. We need also to remember that republican and social justice are mutually exclusive as well. To vote for McCain because he says he is pro-life is absurdity. To support McCain because he claims to be pro-life is idiotic. McCain is a republican, like so many who have gone before.
Let him who has an ear listen and beware.
posted August 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE PRESIDENT’S STANCE ON ABORTION.
ALTHOUGH MCCAIN MAY NOT HAVE A SUPER-CLEAR STANCE (PER YOUR ARTICLE), O’BAMA’S STANCE IS DEFINITELY KNOWN.
O’BAMA CLEARLY DOES NOT SEEM TO RESPECT THE LIFE OF A FETUS HIS/HER MOTHER, AS THE FETUS IS TRULY ONE WITH HER– WHETHER SHE CHOOSES ACCEPT IT OR NOT.
NO MATTER WHAT, WE ALL NEED TO GET OUT AND VOTE AS TO SUPPORT THAT CANDIDATE WHICH WE SUPPORT THE MOST.