...John McCain will not challenge the platform to include exceptions for abortions in the case of rape or incest.

Abortion is rarely a medical necessity and is overwhelmingly a termination of an inconvenient pregnancy. If one is raped, it's not the fault of the fetus. It's just more inconvenient a pregnancy than if it were not a product of rape.

Bottom line is if you don't support abortion for convenience, why would you support abortion because, you know, it's really inconvenient?

This is of course not true at the Presidential level, but no pro-choice Republican has won a Presidential primary since George H.W. Bush in 1980.

Ok, your blog is great and I love you to death but that is the stupidest political quote I've read since the primaries ended.

First, correct me if I'm wrong but Reagen won the primary (and the election) in 1980. And, assuming Bush 41 is pro-choice, that means he won the Republican nomination in '88 and (again, correct me if I'm wrong here) '92. After Bush Sr, that leaves exactly two people who've won the Republican Primary - Bob Dole, whose Senate Majority Leader position might have had a wee bit more to do with it than his abortion stance and George Bush JUNIOR who walked into the nomination because his Dad just happened to know the guys who get you that particular job.

I always thought the life/choice debate in America was a giant red herring for so many reasons, but none more so than in Presidential Politics. Take a page from Clinton - it's the economy, stupid. I vote Republican when I'm rich. I vote Democrat when I'm unemployed.

Even in this day and age, pregnancy and childbirth carries with it a significant risk if injury and death for the mother. About 4% when my children were born.

Not to mention the significant impairment that it entails to one's daily routine, and the requirement for special clothes, and so on.

So, you're willing to use the coercive power of the state to force a woman to carry and deliver a child she bears no responsibility for, at significant risk and cost to herself, while bearing none of the burdens or costs?

That's what I call cheap morals. They cost you nothing. All the costs are on someone else.

So, when I said "a primary" I meant "a state's primary", not the whole contest. Second, by 1988, Bush was officially pro-life.

Jay, are you arguing with me, or el Viajero? Because I'm with you; I'm just trying to debunk the notion that the Republican party is more tolerant on choice issues.

It's called the Overton Window. At this point, saying "Roe v. Wade should not be overturned" is the extreme left wing position.

Zifnab,

I'm pretty sure Nick is saying that no pro-choice Republican has won a single primary contest. You're reading primary as nomination; Reagan won the nomination in 1980 but Bush won at least the Iowa caucuses.

I don't know whether Bush changed his position on abortion between 1980 and 1988 to appeal to the right, but if so his sentence is perfectly reasonable.

If the Democratic Party, including its congressional leadership, contains a substantial amount of sympathy for the pro-life cause, shouldn't the Party Platform reflect that nuance and diversity of opinion, instead of being so rigidly pro-choice?

If the Democratic Party, including its congressional leadership, contains a substantial amount of sympathy for the pro-life cause, shouldn't the Party Platform reflect that nuance and diversity of opinion, instead of being so rigidly pro-choice?

Personally, I don't give a crap what the platform says.

I would, however note that as a matter of electoral prospects you have it exactly bass-ackward. Since a majority of the country is pro-choice (though admittedly not as pro-choice as most Democratic politicians), the smart move is for Republicans to move closer to pro-choicers, and not for Democrats to move closer to pro-lifers. Indeed, as the Religious Right gets more and more ridiculous on the positions it takes on social issues, I suspect this will eventually happen.

I've noticed a trend. Ross and NRLC crowd is crowing that Obama opposed an amended version of BAIPA in 2003 in the Illinois Senate which matched exactly one that passed the U.S. Senate in 2001 98-0.

What none of them have explained is why it was worth passing an Illinois law when there was already a federal law on the books. It was exactly the sort of waste of time that should be killed in committee. They care more about symbols then about actually reducing the number of abortions.

And it's the same with this "safe, legal, rare" thing. All sides can agree that we should do more to reduce the need for abortions. But rather than actually work productively to that goal, some of them are more interested in staging a fight over words like "rare".

It's one of the benefits of the classical liberal state that people of different metaphysical views can work together on points of commonality. If everyone agrees that the need for abortion should be curtailed, and nobody is stopping individual Democrats from saying abortion should be rare (it's not like the platform denies abortion should be rare, it just fails to affirm it), then I don't see any problem--except for people who WANT to see a problem.

Since the Republican party will not be relevant in naitonal politics for much longer, does it really matter what their position on abortion is.

A better question is will abortion poltiics work as the U.S. becomes a one party state. What do pro-life advocates do in states like Maryland and Mass. that do not have functional Republican Parties? Are they an example of the future?

Personally, I don't give a crap what the platform says.

Apparently, other Democrats don't agree with you. Dylan Matthews just made a big fuss over the fact that the 2008 platform omits the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation that was present in the 2004 and earlier platforms.

I would, however note that as a matter of electoral prospects you have it exactly bass-ackward.

I wasn't saying anything about eletoral prospects. I was making a point about the disparity between the position described in the Democratic Party platform and the views of Democrats themselves, including the Democratic leadership in Congress.

nobody is stopping individual Democrats from saying abortion should be rare (it's not like the platform denies abortion should be rare, it just fails to affirm it), then I don't see any problem--except for people who WANT to see a problem.

I see. So if the platform also omitted, say, any statement calling for greater acceptance of gay people, you wouldn't see a problem with that, either? After all, "individual Democrats" could still express that view if they wanted to, right? It's not like the platform denies that gay people should be more accepted. So no problem, right?

Actually, the new platform omits any mention of "gay" or "lesbian", so Mixner's hypothetical is not actually hypothetical.

The situation isn't even symmetric, though. Lots of reasonable people don't think there's anything wrong with an abortion before a certain fetal age. No reasonable person thinks discrimination against gays is a good idea.

I can see why this is exactly the sort of issue that would interest Mixner. It stops precisely no abortions, but it's a good excuse to have a meaningless fight over symbols. The dude loves meaningless fights!

I support late-term abortion for Viajero's mother. And Mixner's too.

Frankly, I've never had anyone explain to me why cases of rape or incest should be treated as exceptions.

That's not to speak to the pro-life/pro-choice question as a whole, just that this tiny bit of it never made any sense.

Abortion is rarely a medical necessity and is overwhelmingly a termination of an inconvenient pregnancy. If one is raped, it's not the fault of the fetus. It's just more inconvenient a pregnancy than if it were not a product of rape.

Bottom line is if you don't support abortion for convenience, why would you support abortion because, you know, it's really inconvenient?

I thought you claimed to be some sort of libertarian?

Harvey, didn't you get the memo...in el viejo's world women aren't thinking, breathing, fully realized human beings, they are baby-makers. they are slaves, who have no right to be autonomous over their body. In his world, a fetus has more rights than the woman who is carrying it in her uterus. If women are just slaves, why would they have any right to control their lives or their futures???

Apparently, other Democrats don't agree with you. Dylan Matthews just made a big fuss over the fact that the 2008 platform omits the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation that was present in the 2004 and earlier platforms.

No doubt. To make it more clear, I think parties should get rid of platforms and conventions. They don't mean squat. Just go forward with the campaign and put some ads on the air.

So I think all the crowing about this or that in the platform, by both sides, is silly. When's the last time platforms mattered at all in national policymaking?

Pro-Life people are more likely to be "single-issue voters", particularly on the local level, than Pro-Choice people. So the Democratic Party excepts that in the South, and a few highly religious districts, they'll have to run Pro-Lifers.

Republicans in New England tend to be Pro-Choice fairly often, but they also tend to lose much more.

There are outliers on this, Langevin is a Pro-Life New England Democrat and I believe there's a Pro-Choice Southern Republican, but essentially that's the dynamic. The Democratic Party is not particularly okay with Pro-Lifers. (Hence the Presidential candidates are not merely Pro-Choice, but are instead people who earn constant 100% from NARAL) The party just recognizes Southern voters are less tolerant of Pro-Choicers. Reid was a rare instance of actual tolerance and since gaining a leadership position there's evidence he's weakened on his Pro-Life/Anti-Choice stance.