Suffrage the little children

November 16, 2012 § 4 Comments

Those of you who have argued that womens’ suffrage has no practical effect on abortion law really need to think again.

Abortion controversies ultimately intersect with privacy concerns. For millions of women, candidates grasping for a rationale to ban abortion in cases of rape looked like the ultimate invasion of privacy.

[…]

Exit polling by The Associated Press showed women voters going for Sen. McCaskill by a 3-2 margin, while men supported the two about equally.

One practical effect women’s suffrage obviously has right here and now is that it requires candidates who want to win to support the Three Exceptions.  In other words, it requires anti-abortion candidates to not actually be anti-abortion.

§ 4 Responses to Suffrage the little children

  • tz2026 says:

    Why are we electing senators anyway? Income Tax, elect Senators, Prohibit Alcohol (an earlier “war on drugs”), and force the states to allow women to vote were all from that WW1 big government era.

    Women could vote in some states before, Wyoming was the first after the civil war. Utah granted, rescinded, regranted. Idaho in 1896. Somehow I don’t see that granting suffrage to the fierce, tough, pioneer women to be a threat. OTOH, to grant it to any person of either sex on a coast (including the great lakes) is ill advised.

    I’m for subsidiarity. And secession – you don’t stay together when your children are threatened.

    How many of the women would really vote for the candidate if they supported the exception? How many men wouldn’t? Or are they more interested in getting out of child-support. (Some things would change if men could only be required to pay the market rate of abortion instead of 18 years of thousands).

  • Zippy says:

    tz2026:
    Somehow I don’t see that granting suffrage to the fierce, tough, pioneer women to be a threat. OTOH, to grant it to any person of either sex on a coast (including the great lakes) is ill advised.

    Another problem is that even if it were conceivable to “go back” in some way to some previous configuration, there is no way to follow the same path backward as forward. In other words, the future is always uncharted territory. Obvious I guess, though I thought I had something interesting to say when I started to comment.

    In the other thread though the suggestion was made several times that women’s suffrage and the state of abortion law are not connected. Reality begs to differ, even if we are just looking at present day voting patterns.

  • […] actual voting patterns of women most certainly have an impact on abortion law.  I’ve already made the point that it is women’s actual voting patterns specifically which make it nearly impossible for a […]

  • […] Dalrock is right that Christians for the most part formally and materially cooperate with feminism, and tend to think that opposition to abortion and a few other things makes one “not a feminist” or “a good kind of feminist”.  In reality virtually everyone has been subject to feminist indoctrination (as a subset of liberal indoctrination), to the point where feminist orthodoxy is utterly pervasive and dissent from it is treated as contemptible heresy.  Opposition to abortion is for most an unprincipled exception to feminism, not a rejection of feminism. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Suffrage the little children at Zippy Catholic.

meta