.. Buck said during Tuesday’s gubernatorial debate was the most bizarre thing yet. He said he agreed with Clinton that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. He said he supported the pro-choice position, but he was against people who were “pro-abortion”….people who promoted abortion….he neglected to name who these mythical people are because they don’t exist….
dwyer, coloradopols.com, Fri Oct 15, 2010
I demand a source.
This is an affront to common sense voters everywhere in Colorado and there is no way Buck said abortion should be safe legal and rare
“safe legal and rare” on google yields 14, 800 results – and none of them mention Buck except Dwyer, which doesn’t appear on the google yet.
“safe legal and rare” is exactly what I believe.
IN fact, as a pragmatist, I believe incremental legislation that makes abortion more rare is a good thing and do not understand when the so called “pro life” anti-abortion exrtremists are so all or nothing about it.
To them it should be safe, illegal and nonexistent. I would think that when legislation is proposed, or research or advanced medical procedure and technology, could make abortions less common, they do no support it. It’s all or nothing in their view and incremental elimination is just useless.
I don’t understand that.
Incremental improvement should be welcomed and encouraged. If the incremental improvement does not prevent the eventual goal of zero abortions, it should be encouraged. Surely 50% opf last year’s number is better than whatever the number was last year. And 50% of that would be better the next year.
But I refuse to believe Buck,Mr. I-still-support-personhood-in-concept-no-exception-for-rape-no-comment-on-62 Buck, would be so practical and fair as to acknowledge safe, legal and rare is a good way to think of the subject.
Buck isn’t running for governor.
I get the backing away (full speed reverse) on 62.
I understand most of the other egregious Buckpedaling. But I don’t believe for one second that Buck could be this reasonable and practical. NFW.
But was making a distinction between what he said was a prochoice position, as expressed in Clinton’s well known phrasing, and what he would term pro-abortion. He said he couldn’t vote to confirm those with pro-abortion positions, but that prochoice view wouldn’t be an automatic disqualification.
It still sounds too reasonable.
I heard him say it. But you can go digging on the video archives if you want.
But that’s the whole point, he’s making an attempt to sound reasonable now, now that he’s out of the primary, when he couldn’t.
So it was a Buckpedal/clarification of how he would vote for judges? But only that, right?
Waiting periods, targeted regulation of abortion providers, and state-mandated counselling are obstacles to abortion access. Is this what you’re referring to?
Are you referring to the schism between the pro-life groups who have chipped away at access to the point where ~90% of US counties have no abortion provider versus the ones who view chipping away as a weak attempt and favor personhood type all out bans?
What should make abortion rare is preventing unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Remedying the social shortcomings that lead to these should be where the effort is.
Birth control and biology edcation available and taught to everyone.
Family planning that informs people about the consequence of unwanted pregnancy.
But every time any of this is brought up- the anti abortion crowd goes nuts.