OT: US politics talk - who are you voting for and why? - Page 25

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by horoceo on 03 September 2008 - 01:09

Certain aspects of abortion can be regulated at the state level such as allowing late term, or requiring parental notification, or setting up clinic standards.  But for someone that belieives that Roe v. Wade was a flawed legal decision, federal law would have to change.  I asked you about parental notification because imo it's a good yardstick by which to measure if someone has given the matter thoughtful consideration or if they are a kneejerk, abortion-on-demand radical. 

I still don't understand what separation of church and state have to do with the issue.  It's not a religious argument.  It is a matter of whose "rights" you believe need protection.  I personally believe that jamming a pair of scissors into the back of the head, sucking out the brain, and dismembering a viable baby seriously infringes on that baby's right to life, liberty, and its pursuit of happiness.

I don't believe that it is about rights for you.  It's about certain rights.  You just stated that you don't care about fathers' rights or any of the details.  Roe v. Wade discarded "equal protection".  Are you planning a march on Washington for the rights that men lost?  Oh yeah, that's not your concern.


by Blitzen on 03 September 2008 - 02:09

Horoceo, believe what you want about me. When the law says the father needs to be notified prior to the abortion, then I will be the first to support that decision regardless if I agree with it or not.  Until then it's a non issue to me.


by horoceo on 03 September 2008 - 02:09

Blitz,

I have nothing against you.  I just think its funny that the same people who are screaming that a vote for someone who is pro life is a vote to take away individual rights will then turn around and vote in the people that erode true constitutionally protected rights.  It was the liberal supreme court members who took away property rights by ruling that the government has the right to take your property if it can figure out a way to increase its revenue in so doing.  It was also the liberal justices that voted to dismantle the second amendment by allowing municipalities to overrule individuals' rights to keep arms.  Fortunately, they did not prevail.  Now, it's the left that is threatening our first amendment rights under the guise of the "fairness doctrine".  They've become 21st century book burners.

Again, I have nothing against you, but I don't believe you when you say that it's about our rights.  It's only about your pet rights.  Slavery was legal for a time too.  I'll bet you would have been all about defending the farmers' legal rights with no moral judgements.


Two Moons

by Two Moons on 03 September 2008 - 05:09

Not to change the subject but I watched some of the convention tonight,  I have never seen so much BS in my life.

 


Ceph

by Ceph on 03 September 2008 - 09:09

I liked it :)  I thought both speakers did very well.

~Cate


by keepthefaith on 03 September 2008 - 12:09

As someone who is basically pro-choice, I believe the biggest mistake the pro-choice crowd have made with regard to the abortion issue is to not emphasize the responsibility of a couple to minimize the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy. The emphasis has always been on the woman's right to choose.

Although I am pro-choice, when abortion is used essentially as a form of birth control, it is unconscionable. I just wish that there could be a little moderation in the views of the pro-choice crowd. A minor requires parental approval for a host issues and yet when it comes to an abortion the pro-choice crowd feels that it would be a curtailment of her rights if there were parental notification.

I have a certain admiration for Sarah Palin and her husband who have made a conscious decision to have a baby with Downs Syndrome. It is an act of grace, courage and compassion. But I have a problem with Palin and her ilk who would deny another couple the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy under similar circumstances.

 


by Uglydog on 03 September 2008 - 12:09

Slippery Slope..Keep the faith

Practicing Eugenics now?  

What if 'they' want a boy instead of a girl, as they had 3 girls.. Or the child had a heart murmur or other physical defect, maybe cureable,  maybe not.  Then what?

You seek to play GOD...

but what part of "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" do you not understand?


EMTTGT06

by EMTTGT06 on 03 September 2008 - 12:09

John McCain 100% all the way.  And if i here one more thing about his daughter I'm going to puke!  Give me a break, it sucks, but few people wait til they're wed to have sex.  The media acts like she's the freakin devil!  It could happen to anyone!

 

Tyler


by Blitzen on 03 September 2008 - 12:09

Good post, keepthefaith. I'm with you 100%.


BabyEagle4U

by BabyEagle4U on 03 September 2008 - 12:09

Hello everyone !!!  Did anyone watch live ???   Here's a link to see clips  http://catousa.messageforums.net/campaign-for-liberty_f91.html    ya'll have to hear Ron Paul and Jesse Vantura !!  Amazing !!!! 

I downloaded all footage to my C4L Blog Site ... if yall are interested or care. We petitioned BIGTIME for Ron Paul to speak and address McCain on the GOP platform... if it happens it will be today !!!!  I'm going to bed till they page us. See Ya.

 






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top