What is Tim Kaine’s position on abortion? He stated it forthrightly at Saturday’s debates:
Kaine, the lieutenant governor, promised on Saturday that he would veto legislation banning abortion, saying, “We don’t need to criminalize the health-care decisions of women and their doctors.” However, abortion requires a balancing act by the Democrat.
Kaine says he personally opposes the pregnancy-ending procedure because of his Catholic faith, and — like Kilgore — favors restrictions on abortions for teenagers and prohibitions on rare, late-term abortions. He has vowed, as governor, to enforce laws allowing abortion.
In short, he thinks abortion is a bad thing (don’t we all?), and will work to keep them to a minimum, while making sure that they remain legal. So it’s clear that if the new makeup of the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, Kaine wouldn’t permit Virginia to ban abortion. Lest there be any question,
With one new Supreme Court nominee and a retirement surely coming soon, what’s Jerry Kilgore’s position?
Kilgore was vague on whether he would sign legislation banning abortion if the matter is turned back to the states by the Supreme Court, from which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who supports abortion rights, is retiring.
[…]
“I think it’s speculative,” Kilgore, a former attorney general, told journalists. “We don’t even know who the president is going to nominate. There are no cases in the pipeline at this point. That’s total speculation.”
Asked if Kilgore supports overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, [spokesman J. Tucker] Martin replied that his candidate is “pro-life” and would allow abortion in cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of a woman.
So, we have Kilgore refusing to answer because it’s “speculative.” Everything about the future is speculative. Until a psychic wins the lottery, we’ll know that to be true. When the dentist asks me what day of the week would be good in two freaking years, I respond “whenever — I could easily be dead by then.”) Presumably, next year’s budget is also “speculative,” because we don’t know what the economy will be doing then, yet Kilgore is handing out ponies left and right. We can safely classify this answer as a dodge.
But with his spokesman saying that Kilgore supports abortion in cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of a woman, presumably Kilgore would not be willing to flat-out outlaw abortion. Is that right? Because I can’t tell.
It’s not just me who can’t tell — the eagerly-pro-life Family Foundation of Virginia is scratching their collective head, too:
The conservative Family Foundation, which does not endorse candidates, found neither answer particularly attractive.
“I’m not sure either candidate gave an answer that will resonate with the majority of Virginians who are pro-life,” said executive director Victoria Cobb.
And Cobb, who based her knowledge of the debates on news reports, said she was disappointed that Kilgore was not clearer.
I wonder what sort of punishment that Kilgore envisions for those who have an abortion. If a 14-year-old-girl becomes pregnant, discovers it at four weeks, and she drinks poison to end the pregnancy…then what? Death sentence? Life in prison? Twenty years behind bars? How should we best go about further ruining the lives of our children?
“In short, he thinks abortion is a bad thing (don’t we all?)”
Then why isn’t it outlawed? It isn’t outlawed because the Supreme Court took away our ability to democratically outlaw it. Would you support outlawing abortion if the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and gave the issue back to the states?
If no, why not? Because as you said everyone knows it’s a “bad thing.”
It isn’t outlawed because the Supreme Court took away our ability to democratically outlaw it.
No. The SCOTUS is a part of our democracy. I’m an avowed opponent of youth curfews, but I’d never argue that the courts “took away our ability to democratically outlaw them.” The judicial branch of our democracy has spoken.
Would you support outlawing abortion if the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and gave the issue back to the states?
Nope.
If no, why not? Because as you said everyone knows it’s a “bad thing.”
I think that brain surgery is a bad thing. It’s icky and horrible to look at and shouldn’t ever be necessary. It’s extremely expensive, and can easily bankrupt a family unlucky enough to need it. But I don’t propose that it be illegal, because it’s better than the alternative.
One of these days, I’m going to get together a bunch of people for a surgery protest. We’ll all stand around on street corners, holding up huge signs with pictures of distended spleens and gunshot wounds to the gut. We’ll all chant and sing, and demand that this disgusting practice be brought to an end.
Another election year, another debate about abortion. If the right wingers
get Roe v. Wade overturned (which would outrage a large majority of the Country)
then what in the hell will they scream about next?
About a year ago, at a local County Fair ( I was forced to attend for my job)
I was talking to a member of the “Valley Farmily Forum”, because he asked me
to sign a petition or something in regards to restricting abortion, and I simple stated “Yea wouldn’t it be nice if no one had an abortion because they
were educated about safe sex, and understood the personal responsibility
and consequences of sexual activity.” I also mentioned that a
disporportional number of aboritons come from a norrow demographic, and
that regarless of your views on abortion, agressive attempts should be
made to educatate and inform these individuals so they don’t find themselves
in a situation where they might need an abortion..Ok you get the idea.
The guy from the Family Forum immediatley went into this programmed
tirade about how he was againts the promotion of sex in school
(AKA Sex Educaiton I guess) and that such discussions only lead to
more sex..yada yada yada..you get the picture…I just threw my hands up
in the air and walked off. There is no room for intelligent debate with these
people, they live for the fight..
I’ve come to believe these people have a irrational love of fetuses, unfortuanly this same love and compassiong enerally doesn’t extend to the resulting child…
“I think that brain surgery is a bad thing. It’s icky and horrible to look at and shouldn’t ever be necessary. It’s extremely expensive, and can easily bankrupt a family unlucky enough to need it. But I don’t propose that it be illegal, because it’s better than the alternative.”
Sorry, that’s one of the most fallacious analogies I’ve ever heard. You’d do better to drop it completely. On the other hand, I’m sure there would be great progress on the pro-life side if the pro-choice side decided to make arguments comparing abortion to brain surgery (or house construction, which could just as easily fit the same description).
The fact that you would even post it leads me to conclude that your passing remarks that “abortion is a bad thing” are unserious at best.
If it suits you more, try gastric bypass surgery. At best, it’s a surgery for people too lazy to eat right, and at worst, it’s a vanity surgery. (If I’m going to be faux cynical about it.) As I just finished reading about Ellen Ruppel Shell’s excellent “The Hungry Gene,” it’s an unusually-dangerous surgery, with something like 1-2% of people subjected to it dying from the operation itself, or from subsequent complications.
Not only is a really unpleasant surgery, but the effects are even worse. People who have it are left sick for weeks or, more often, months, with terrible nausea, diarrhea, and health problems stemming from the difficulty of balancing such a calorically-restricted diet.
Arguments against it, if I may transfer the anti-abortion arguments, could include: It’s dangerous. Obesity is the consequence for people who can’t control themselves, and they should be made to live with it. Obesity is God’s will, and man has no business altering that. The surgery is unnecessary, since they can get exercise and work the weight off after, say, nine months.
And those arguments against it are generally true — surgery is the worst option. Not getting fat is better. Once fat, spending those nine months losing that weight is better. For some people, living with it may be better. However, many people have come to accept that, for them, surgery is the best option, because it is the least evil. Dying of heart disease or diabetes is a likely outcome for most candidates — those are terrible things to condemn somebody to when there’s another option. Many people who are obese have so much weight because they have an underlying mental or biochemical problem that compels them to eat beyond all reason — surgery can cure this by physically barring them from eating more. Again, it’s a terrible thing to condemn somebody to obesity when they have the option of surgery.
Gastric bypass surgery is a bad thing. But sometimes it’s the least evil thing, and so it remains legal.
The fact that you would even post it leads me to conclude that your passing remarks that “abortion is a bad thing” are unserious at best.
Accusing me of thinking that abortion is a double-plus positive really isn’t going to raise the level of dialog at all. You take what I say at face value, I take what you say face value, and nobody gets called a liar. Isn’t that nicer?
All,
I wont attempt to debate the ethical/moral issues of Roe v. Wade here, but do want to touch on the political.
First and foremost, it is usually rolled out when someone is trying to get elected. Otherwise, many politicians will never give you an unqualified “Yes” or “No” when pressed to answer. (editorial question….why is it many politicians rarely answer questions with unqualified “Yes” or “No” answers?)
Second, it is an easy issue if you want to divide a seemingly united group. If you take 10 lifelong best friends and put them in a room, and force them to state their feelings on the issue and defend it…it could turn into a boxing match.
Waldo, I suggest you stop trying to do an apples to apples with this one, there is no real equal.
I will add this to maybe help you find an ‘apple’ to compare it to. I had a convo one day with someone who was rabidly against abortion. He stated his case and I asked him to sum it up in one sentence. He replied, “it is about saving lives and stopping unnecessary, AVOIDABLE (his emphasis) death”. So I asked him if he was working as hard to make alcohol and tobacco illegal. Each kill far more individuals each year than abortion, and are certainly avoidable. I think he may have answered had he not been holding a wine glass in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Instead he simply turned and walked away.
Legislating morality is nothing more than a flavor of control.
In closing, I generally side with Waldo on most issues, but you really shoved your foot (up to you pelvis) in your mouth with your comments about overweight people. Too lazy to control their eating…..that one cost you a point in my book (I weight about 140 soaking wet…but everyone in my family is not so ‘lucky’). You should apologize for that one.
In closing, I generally side with Waldo on most issues, but you really shoved your foot (up to you pelvis) in your mouth with your comments about overweight people. Too lazy to control their eating…..that one cost you a point in my book (I weight about 140 soaking wet…but everyone in my family is not so ‘lucky’). You should apologize for that one.
Tim, I tried to be pretty clear about that:
Again, to be as clear as I can, I’m pretending take the perspective on obesity that people against choice take on abortion. It’s a metaphor, an illustrative parallel.
Again, I recommend Ellen Ruppel Shell’s “The Hungry Gene: The Inside Story of the Obesity Industry.”
Sorry, old chap. My fault. Guess the qualifier was overshadowed by the bad analogy.
Guess the qualifier was overshadowed by the bad analogy.
I take what I can get. :)
Waldo, from what I’ve read, I think that Tim’s feelings are a bit stronger and more involved when he turns to the subject of abortion. When Tim says “I think abortion is a bad thing (don’t we all),” I think that shows acknowledgement of the complex moral issues abortion forces all of us to consider, no matter what our political or religious background. It would be an easier world for Tim–and democratic politics–if the whole notion of abortion did not exist, if we could conduct campaigns without regard to this ethical morass. But we do–and I think Tim points out an important point: it’s not time to exacerbate the situation by criminalizing the issue. Kilgore’s stand on this issue would lead to filling our prisons with women who seek abortions. It’s a scary idea–it makes me wonder what audience Kilgore is appealing to. Most anti-abortion advocates consider the women who get abortions as victims, not perpetrators. It’s hard to say you celebrate life when you are confining abortion’s victims to a 8×10 cell.
I think that Tim’s feelings are a bit stronger and more involved when he turns to the subject of abortion.
You’re absolutely right — that’s why I linked to the podcast. My “in short” summary of his position really is…well…”short”.
I understand that, particularly with President Bush in office, the popular thing is for candidates to pretend that the world is black and white and that good and evil are clear absolutes. Anything more nuanced is weak or a “flip-flop” or whatever. That, of course, is BS — I think Kaine’s position is probably much closer to most people’s position.
Man, I hate talking about abortion. It’s just none of my business. It annoys me to no end that it’s been made my business by the Republicans in the 70s who discovered that it could be an effective wedge issue if they politicized it.