(no subject)

[seekingferret]

Per NPR's transcript of the RNC chairman debate:

Mr. REINCE PRIEBUS (Candidate for Chairman of Republican National Committee): If you're pro-abortion, pro-stimulus, pro-GM bailout, pro-AIG, well, you know, guess what? You might not be a Republican.

Uh... guess it's confirmed. I'm probably not a Republican. But wait, there's more.

Mr. STEELE: But we cannot be a party that sits back with a litmus test and excludes. And the national chairman cannot go into a state and say, you're less Republican than you are; therefore, I will not talk with you and only talk with you.

Mr. STEELE: That is not the Republican Party I joined at 17 years old.

Oh wait... It seems I am a Republican. But not, as previously claimed, a Rudy Giuliani Republican. I appear to be a Michael Steele Republican. Whodathunk?

Uh... I don't know how to influence the vote for RNC chair, but I find myself really wishing there were more voices like Mr. Steele in my party.

Comments

[thaurfea]

...you're pro-abortion?

[seekingferret]

With certain caveats, absolutely. There is no question whatsoever in Jewish law that if the mother's life is in danger, abortion is not only permitted but required. Other cases can sometimes be more ambiguous, but in general if a woman needs a reason to have an abortion, a reason can be found under Jewish law. And my absolute conviction is that my religious beliefs are the place to go for guidance on the issue of abortion.

I'm not so enthusiastically pro-AIG bailout, but I was reluctantly in favor of the GM bailout and the stimulus.

[zandperl]

in general if a woman needs a reason to have an abortion, a reason can be found under Jewish law.

I'm curious, do you have any easy-to-read sources on this? I was under the impression that except if the pregnant woman's^* life was in danger, that Jewish law was against abortion.

^* FWIW as a pro-choice advocate, I prefer the phrase "pregnant woman" to "mother", since the woman does not become a mother until and unless there is a live birth. Unless of course we're referring to a woman's second or subsequent children.

[seekingferret]

Unfortunately, I don't. This is what I mean about it being more ambiguous. The reason why a reason can generally be found is that the Rabbis (and bear in mind I am speaking about Modern Orthodoxy here. There are Jewish groups that have more hardline perspective on abortion, like the typical Chasidic approach. There are also Jewish groups like Reform Judaism that sanction abortion generally without any caveat) have crafted a law that is actually more like an absence of law. It interprets vague exceptions in millenia-old legal codes in the broadest way possible. And what enables them to do it is the fact that they haven't codified the specifics. Nobody ever set down "If the woman gets a toothache, we'll rule that her health is in danger so she can have an abortion," but nonetheless that sort of ruling happens.

[thaurfea]

Yeah, I mean, I get that. I am absolutely in favor of being able to get an abortion if you need one, but that's more pro-choice than pro-abortion. I don't know, maybe I'm too hung up on the words, but I consider myself anti-abortion even though I'm pro-choice. It would be nice, imo, if no one ever needed to have an abortion. But since they do, they should be available.

[zandperl]

I'm curious, would the difference then between what you call "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" be how one interprets "if you need one"? I feel it is important that women be able to obtain safe and legal abortions at will, because I do not trust any third part to make the decision for her.

For example, I feel women should be able to obtain abortions when they are raped, but due to the under-reporting of rapes I do not feel it is reasonable to require proof of rape for abortions. I also feel women should be able to obtain early-term abortions if their other forms of birth control fail - the birth control pill has a 0.1% chance of failure (that is, of 1,000 women using the combined Pill correctly for a year, only 1 will become pregnant) but if it does fail you won't know until an abortion is required.

I self-identify as being pro-choice, but I can see where others might call me pro-abortion and I only find that label slightly misleading (I doubt any would misinterpret that label to mean that I'm saying everyone should be forced into having abortions).

[zandperl]

So then, what does make one a Republican?

[thaurfea]

Disliking big government?

[seekingferret]

Nah. That's just a ridiculous platitude.

[thaurfea]

So...what? Republicans actually secretly do like big government?

[seekingferret]

Well, sometimes, of course. "Big government" doesn't actually mean anything. It's a stick to swing against your opponents. Republicans tend to think that government was chartered to perform certain tasks the individual states would not be well-equipped to handle, just as the Democrats do. For example, the Constitution provides for the federal government to lead American defense efforts, and Republicans certainly believe in having a government big enough to defend the country, in general. The Party is not isolationist the way some other conservative factions are.

[seekingferret]

Well, as Michael Steele said, that's a complicated question. It's the party of hardcore libertarians. It's also the party of social conservatives who oppose most of what the hardcore libertarians stand for. It's a party that has some room for gays like the Log Cabin Republicans, yet at the same time is full of members with undisguised homophobia.

Being a Republican is about believing that, by and large, the Republican agenda is better suited to serving the government in the long run. It doesn't mean you agree with everything the Republicans put on their platform. There is, as Steele says, no litmus test to join the party.

I tend to support Republican policy when it leans libertarian, but not always. I tend to support Republican policy when it favors limitations on government spending, though I don't think all government spending is bad (And I think some of these bailouts were the lesser of two evils). I tend to support Republican foreign policy in general, but that doesn't mean I don't think Republican presidents have mishandled a number of situations.