Conservatives and Liberals--what is the real dividing line?

Question

Look at the last 2 presidents, and their veto record. Both were in only one area: Abortion. (If Clinton had any other vetos, I don't remember them)
What really divides this country is those who respect life and those who believe personal control is more important than life. It is the backbone from which most other policy positions seem to spring.
When I was growing up, just as I was entering school, Roe v. Wade was decided. I followed political and national events from a very early age, and I can tell you that the chasm over this issue has continued to grow more volatile over the course of my life.
Back in the day, there were few differences between Democrats and Republicans; they could come together on many issues. Now they seem to be polar opposites on everything. And I think you can put it all on that pivotal court decision as beginning the polarization we have today.

GEEEZ....ok, let me tack this on.

What are your thoughts?

It is the thought process behind the question....I'm looking for people's thoughts on the idea that Abortion is THE dividing line between Liberals and Conservatives. I don't get this flack when I do the same thing about movies.

Answer 1

You don't have your facts straight about Clinton and abortion. Clinton vetoed a partial-birth abortion law because he said it would never pass the Supreme Court due to it not protecting the life of the mother. He ask for that one change and stated he was against it.

The republicans left that part in knowing they could paint him as pro-abortion when he vetoed. And look at ppl like you who don't know the whole story. You fell for it.

Btw, the rest of that story is that Bush did sign the partial-birth ban and guess what happened? It went to the Supreme Court and was declared unconstitutional. Why? The S.Court said it did not protect the life of the mother.

Now come on... I don't mind a good debate but would like it to be based on factual, honest premises. If you wanted to debate abortion versus choice, we could have done that but it blows your argument when you use false assumptions... I'm actually trying to help you here, ok.

EDIT ADDED: btw, don't feel bad. A lot of ppl fall for only the bits and pieces of issues that they see on the news. And actually, it seems to be more difficult than it should be to get all the facts on a story nowadays.

Answer 2

I think that there have always been hot button issues... abortion is a key one... and deciding exactly "what is life"... which is really where are argument is formed...

but take WWII... you would think that "hey, everyone can agree Hitler was a bad man"... but in fact, there were many conservatives who wanted to stop the war... and didn't want to go to Germany in the first place... and it really sounded much like the Democrats do today... take that as you will...

but I think that there have always been dividing lines.. they change, but I think they are there... but, I also think that there are periods that have more "political harmony" than others... now seems to be a time of great disharmony, but far from the worst, which was probably during the Civil War... things are far from being that bad...

Answer 3

it is far from just that.

Higher educated people who are democrats see the bigger pictue.....

Republicans can only frame very narrow debates or rather like you are doing boiling it down to abortion when it is a much much bigger issue.


this is what i responded to aborition in another question.....this was in regards that the questioner called someone a pro abortion and didn't understand why the other person claimed to be pro choice.

The issue is not just about abortion.

You calling it pro abortion is framing a very very limted debate and framing a larger issue into one thing abortion.

the real issue is much larger than you allow yourself to see....


The issue of abortion is only one strand in the larger issues of privacy and choice.....
if you can not grasp or accept this then there is no need to continue as you will no longer be an objective person to all information available......

I will speak for myself but i think most on my side will agree.....

1) Abortion is legal because of Roe vs Wade and Griswold vs Conneticut.

In these case it was concluded that although the framers did not explicilty state a right to privacy it was implicit in the language and goals of the admendments ........the right to privacy against government intrusion or legislation.


you must understand that the cases were not that it is legal to abort or that the constititoun gaurantees abortion....

2) Roe was about choices that should remain private....

the choice included abortion but not limted to it.
# the choice to use contraception
Griswold was about the state of Conneticut not allowing the use of condoms between married couples.
# the choice of who you chose as your partner

Remember that there were laws against interacial marriage and sex, law against being homosexual.

# the choice in how to have sex.
there was also laws that did not permit sodomy.
sodomy also included oral.

# the choice of when to have kids, how many or even if.

this is what your arguing against.
this is what you cant come to terms with.
this is what you want the government to legislate.


The courts ruled that there are things sooo private that the government has no buisness legilating....

abortion is only one strand in a larger issue.

to break one strand or weaken one part is to threaten all other privacy.....
Government has no right to intrude

so the issue is really about choice...............

you have been now informed, you have no excuse to miss speak agian.

Answer 4

I suppose it is going again to discovering one subject to hold their hats and to "turn out" they're larger then. The ironic factor approximately the Rep being conserative and the Dem being liberal is that once the events had been first created the Dem wherein regarded those who had human rights on the for frot and could of been regarded the Conseratives in their time and the Rep wherein those bringing new recommendations and suggesting difference to the fame quoe. If our politicains could be extra interested to delivering the pest great of existence viable for all american citizens yong and ancient; risch and Poor, Christian, Jew, Musllums, Hindue ect and people who don't train any religion, it could no longer topic what "get together" they belonged to. Pick a "first rate" character is plenty of labor that demands to begin lengthy befor election time. Need to study every ones beyond balloting and or activies. It scares me to listen to individuals say they only have constantly been rep or Dem and cross in a vote that manner. Voting is a responsiblity no longer only a correct. We have the responsiblity to be knowledgeable approximately those who find themselves canidates and vote hence. THis is the one manner we've got desire of having a politican who wil do what's exceptional for the complete no longer only a few in a specified intrest institution.

Answer 5

Ya know, its funny that the dems support abortion, but oppose the death penalty. Reps oppose abortion and support the death penalty. Could it be that the republicans are more in favor of Christian values, while the democrats favor freedom of choice and that gap is growing? I'd be willing to bet that "gap" your refering to was actually starting to grow during the 60's when war opposition, and civil rights became huge issues. Keep in mind that Most of our politicians now, were young adults or children in the 60's

Answer 6

Hey, Toddo! You look familiar, ....

In "The Federal Courts, Politics, and the Rule of Law," by John C. Hughes (1995) it says:

In the contemporary political context, those who fear conformity have tended to describe themselves as liberal and have tended to applaud judicial "protection" of human rights. Those who fear diversity have tended to call themselves conservatives and have been appalled by judicial "usurpation" of the majority's discretion to form the kind of community it finds most conducive to its own happiness. The former tends to approve of the expansive theories of constitutional interpretation, ... while the latter tends to prefer the restrained theories of judicial review. These alignments are neither perfect nor inevitable, but the debate has surely been shrill.

Answer 7

The real dividing line is money. I think as campaign finance reaches new heights the two major parties will grow in their opposition to one another.

Answer 8

Don't forget about gays. You also didn't have gays openly shoving their sexual preference into the public arena and trying to get married when R vs. W was decided.

Answer 9

My opinion iis that one is for larger government and the other is for smaller government.

Answer 10

Is this a question or statement?