To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles…
William Shakespeare – (from Hamlet 3/1)
From: this Shakespeare site.
From the Associated Press.
Right to Life Says Fred Thompson Can Win
WASHINGTON (AP) — Fred Thompson is the Republican most likely to beat abortion-rights supporter Rudy Giuliani, the National Right to Life Committee said Tuesday, announcing its endorsement of the former Tennessee senator for president…
…By emphasizing Thompson’s political potential — he ranks second behind former New York Mayor Giuliani in national Republican polls — the anti-abortion group played down its own differences with Thompson.
Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner displays many surprising statistics.
The one that I am concerned with here is broadly and messily stated (by me, not by them):
Abortion rates are LOWER during Democratic Presidencies than during Republican ones. Most demostrably because of the increase of social programs and funding for the poorer segments of our nation.
I hate abortion with the best of them, but my question comes in here:
AND which option fits which description –
Are we suffering the slings of fortune when we Elect Republicans or Democrats?
- Republicans give us better interpretation of laws (if they ever end up coming to court) – but do they ever actually pass high-level anti-abortion laws in congress?
- By electing Republicans are we suffering the fortune of low income getting even lower?
- By electing Democrats are we suffering the evilly permissive laws of murder, but actually saving more lives?
OR Which vote is “taking arms…”?
- Fighting against permission to abort or
- Fighting against the poverty that leads to such decisions.
Just a question.