Originally posted by: blackangst1
I never understood the fear of calling abortion what it is: abortion. We use words like "Right to Choose". "Reproductive Choice". Call it what it is! The only real difference between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is abortion! "Reproductive Rights"? What a crock of SHIT. Reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED! Lets call it what it is: Termination rights!
Anyway. I dont even know why this is an issue. A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers.
Originally posted by: naddicott
Supreme court appointments are the #1 reason why voting for the other party out of spite is an extreme form of political suicide this time around. Yes, we could probably survive 4 years of McCain's brand of conservative lawmaking, taking a bitter pill for the upside of campaign finance reform and reduced earmarking (maybe), but the impact of a few new conservative minded justices replacing the last remaining moderate/liberal justices would last much longer than the next 4 years. Bottom line, if the Republicans pull this one off this cycle, they'll have a de-facto victory on most of the big constitutional/rights fights that the two parties have sparred over the last half-century.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I never understood the fear of calling abortion what it is: abortion. We use words like "Right to Choose". "Reproductive Choice". Call it what it is! The only real difference between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is abortion! "Reproductive Rights"? What a crock of SHIT. Reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED! Lets call it what it is: Termination rights!
Anyway. I dont even know why this is an issue. A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers.
I never understood the fear of calling a ban on abortion what it is: forced morality. We use words like "Right to Life", "Pro Abortion". Call it what it is! What a crock of SHIT. Right to life means having control over your life. Let's call it what it is: "You do what we tell you when we tell you"!
See how easy it is to make a counter argument to a position that shouldn't be anything other than a decision made by a mother, father, their physician and anyone that they feel needs to be consulted?
I would never, ever advocate an abortion of any child but I also realize that I don't want government guiding my choices in life and or in death so I should stay off of the slope before it gets even slipperier.
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: naddicott
Supreme court appointments are the #1 reason why voting for the other party out of spite is an extreme form of political suicide this time around. Yes, we could probably survive 4 years of McCain's brand of conservative lawmaking, taking a bitter pill for the upside of campaign finance reform and reduced earmarking (maybe), but the impact of a few new conservative minded justices replacing the last remaining moderate/liberal justices would last much longer than the next 4 years. Bottom line, if the Republicans pull this one off this cycle, they'll have a de-facto victory on most of the big constitutional/rights fights that the two parties have sparred over the last half-century.
Oh for heaven's sake, don't they teach history anymore? The record of GOP presidents appointing "conservative-minded" justices is decidedly mixed, at best. Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy were all GOP picks. Even Harry Blackmun, who wrote Roe v. Wade, was appointed by Eisenhower! There's no telling what a maverick like McCain would do with his appointment power.
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Two questions on that stance:
1) What's your position on drug legalization?
2) Does the gov't have the right to prohibit certain physical punishments ('child abuse') of children by their parents?
Originally posted by: Robor
Gotta love the men in this thread who are in favor of laws that would force their moral outlook on women. :roll:
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: naddicott
Supreme court appointments are the #1 reason why voting for the other party out of spite is an extreme form of political suicide this time around. Yes, we could probably survive 4 years of McCain's brand of conservative lawmaking, taking a bitter pill for the upside of campaign finance reform and reduced earmarking (maybe), but the impact of a few new conservative minded justices replacing the last remaining moderate/liberal justices would last much longer than the next 4 years. Bottom line, if the Republicans pull this one off this cycle, they'll have a de-facto victory on most of the big constitutional/rights fights that the two parties have sparred over the last half-century.
Oh for heaven's sake, don't they teach history anymore? The record of GOP presidents appointing "conservative-minded" justices is decidedly mixed, at best. Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy were all GOP picks. Even Harry Blackmun, who wrote Roe v. Wade, was appointed by Eisenhower! There's no telling what a maverick like McCain would do with his appointment power.
Apparently you missed this
Originally posted by: Robor
2. The gov't already has laws against child abuse and a child =/= a fetus.
Originally posted by: Robor
Gotta love the men in this thread who are in favor of laws that would force their moral outlook on women. :roll:
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Robor
Gotta love the men in this thread who are in favor of laws that would force their moral outlook on women. :roll:
Why? Lots of non-parents tell parents they can't discipline Junior with cigarette burns, non-drinkers tell drinkers they can't drive drunk, non-bankers tell bankers they can't falsify security records, and on and on and on. Law is nothing more than morality codified. Are you in favor of no laws?
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Robor
Apparently you missed this
A campaign pledge! Well, I can certainly take that to the bank! :roll: I'm still waiting on (Bill) Clinton's middle-class tax cut, promised at the '92 debates.
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Robor
2. The gov't already has laws against child abuse and a child =/= a fetus.
And a toddler isn't an adult, but killing either is murder.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Robor
Gotta love the men in this thread who are in favor of laws that would force their moral outlook on women. :roll:
Give me a break. This isnt a sex issue, but a life issue. That is like saying women shouldnt have a say in creating laws against murder if a murder is committed by a man.
Calling it reproductive rights is putting a shine on a turd, that turd being abortion.
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Robor
Gotta love the men in this thread who are in favor of laws that would force their moral outlook on women. :roll:
Why? Lots of non-parents tell parents they can't discipline Junior with cigarette burns, non-drinkers tell drinkers they can't drive drunk, non-bankers tell bankers they can't falsify security records, and on and on and on. Law is nothing more than morality codified. Are you in favor of no laws?
Some laws may have a base in morality but just because A is wrong doesn't mean B is too.
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Robor
Gotta love the men in this thread who are in favor of laws that would force their moral outlook on women. :roll:
Give me a break. This isnt a sex issue, but a life issue. That is like saying women shouldnt have a say in creating laws against murder if a murder is committed by a man.
Calling it reproductive rights is putting a shine on a turd, that turd being abortion.
I don't think I've ever used the term 'reproductive rights' and a woman aborting a fetus is not murder so why bring it up?
Perhaps, but Blackangst still has it 180 degrees backwards when he suggests the debate is really pro-abortion vs. pro-life. Like so many people, while I personally dislike abortion, I nonetheless support each woman's right to make her own choices. I am therefore NOT pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice.Originally posted by: Genx87
Give me a break. This isnt a sex issue, but a life issue. That is like saying women shouldnt have a say in creating laws against murder if a murder is committed by a man.
Calling it reproductive rights is putting a shine on a turd, that turd being abortion.
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Robor
Gotta love the men in this thread who are in favor of laws that would force their moral outlook on women. :roll:
Why? Lots of non-parents tell parents they can't discipline Junior with cigarette burns, non-drinkers tell drinkers they can't drive drunk, non-bankers tell bankers they can't falsify security records, and on and on and on. Law is nothing more than morality codified. Are you in favor of no laws?
Some laws may have a base in morality but just because A is wrong doesn't mean B is too.
Where are you going with that non-sequitor?
WTF is wrong with the people in this forum recently? Are all of the posts I'm reading somehow magically not appearing for anyone else? No one can place anything in context anymore. :roll:Originally posted by: Tab
As for the baby killer comment I would like to think you're more mature than that.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Robor
I don't think I've ever used the term 'reproductive rights' and a woman aborting a fetus is not murder so why bring it up?
That depends on who you talk to and at what stage of growth the fetus is. I definately feel late 3rd trimester partial birth abortions are the same as murder. Pulling a viable fetus out of the vagina but keeping its head in the canal where you tear open a hole and suck its brains out? What happens if the head is delievered? Suddenly it is a baby and deserves rights? All because of a few inches? Hogwash.
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Robor
I don't think I've ever used the term 'reproductive rights' and a woman aborting a fetus is not murder so why bring it up?
That depends on who you talk to and at what stage of growth the fetus is. I definately feel late 3rd trimester partial birth abortions are the same as murder. Pulling a viable fetus out of the vagina but keeping its head in the canal where you tear open a hole and suck its brains out? What happens if the head is delievered? Suddenly it is a baby and deserves rights? All because of a few inches? Hogwash.
That's definitely not what I'm talking about in my 'pro choice' opinion. Are partial birth abortions even legal in the US?
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Perhaps, but Blackangst still has it 180 degrees backwards when he suggests the debate is really pro-abortion vs. pro-life. Like so many people, while I personally dislike abortion, I nonetheless support each woman's right to make her own choices. I am therefore NOT pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice.
Similarly, the phrase "pro-life" is in most cases a misnomer since there is no general agenda to promote life -- anti-war, anti-capital punishment, feed the hungry, free health care (or even free prenatal care), etc. -- but rather a focus on stopping abortions. Therefore, it is more accurate to frame that position as anti-abortion. It always struck me as a bit strange that they hide from that label, preferring instead to mask their true agenda behind the "pro-life" euphemism. Are they ashamed to oppose abortion or just pro-deception?
It really depends on one's rationale for choosing a candidate. You're right if one picks candidates based on their stated positions on a specific set of issues. There are other reasons to prefer one candidate over another, however. I rarely weigh popular issues that heavily because I don't put much stock in political positions, especially campaign posturing, nor do I frankly think specific issues are that important to the big picture. (Even the President is only one person in a cast of hundreds, albeit a very influential one.) I am much more concerned about candidates' character and integrity, believing that an honorable person will more generally do the right thing than a scoundrel who will sell out to the highest bidder.Originally posted by: Isaiah
I'm always confused when people on either "side" say they will switch to McCain if their candidate doesn't win. The different between Obama Hillary is very small compared to McCain or the current administration. I've been a Hillary supporter, however I can't think of anything that would make me vote for McCain over Obama in the general election.