Republicans need to STFU about abortion [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Republicans need to STFU about abortion


Sporaticus
10-24-2012, 04:38
The media love this kind of thing:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/indiana-senate-candidate-draws-fire-for-rape-comments/

Cavalry Doc
10-24-2012, 04:44
Isn't it something like 51 to 41% favoring pro-life in the latest gallop poll?

I'm not anti abortion, but I am strongly against someone getting a tax payer subsidized abortion.

Hmmm. Wonder if the polls broke it down by state.

Sporaticus
10-24-2012, 04:48
I'm against abortion, but when these guys get up there saying stuff like, the media love to play on it. Cut down to a several second sound byte, it sounds ridiculous. It will be used to take attention away from democrat problems. My local CBS affiliate has run that clip twice already, and will every thirty minutes, and no mention of the emails that reveal Obama knew about Benghazi.

Diesel McBadass
10-24-2012, 07:42
Liberals have to stop being so bent out of shape about their "right" o kill unborn babies when there too stupid to use birth control

Paul7
10-24-2012, 08:02
The media love this kind of thing:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/indiana-senate-candidate-draws-fire-for-rape-comments/

If you were the product of a rape, would you want to be killed in the womb? Two crimes don't make a right.

John Rambo
10-24-2012, 08:13
Yes, they sure do need to shut up about abortion.

Most people, and I do mean MOST people, aren't rabid anti-abortionists. They may believe in it, or may not believe in it. But most aren't swayed by, "LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION BECAUSE GAWD INTENDED IT! ITS A SIN! THINK OF THE FETI!" in a positive direction.

Gundude
10-24-2012, 08:22
If you were the product of a rape, would you want to be killed in the womb? Two crimes don't make a right.Abortion isn't a crime. If you were the victim of rape, would you want to be forced to bear your attacker's child? Two wrongs don't make a right.

jeanderson
10-24-2012, 08:27
The only reason this is even talked about at this point is that the left is out of bullets. They have tried very hard to tear down Romney and the Republicans and this is all they have. Pathetic.

Diesel McBadass
10-24-2012, 08:28
I wondered why some people have tried to make this the abortion election, It seems abortion has more single issue voters than any other issue.

michael_b
10-24-2012, 09:10
Abortion isn't a crime. If you were the victim of rape, would you want to be forced to bear your attacker's child? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes and put it up for adoption. Much better solution than adding murder to a rape- IMO.


-On mobile

series1811
10-24-2012, 09:15
Abortion isn't a crime. If you were the victim of rape, would you want to be forced to bear your attacker's child? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Slavery wasn't a crime, either, at one point in our history. We evolve, and our opinion of what it acceptable behavior changes as we become more civilized.

Do you really think abortions will be still being conducted one hundred years from now?

Do you think future generations will look at it the way we look at the Nazis now, and ask the same questions we asked of the German people today: How could you have just gone along with that?

Genocide, no matter how effective, and or convienent, is rarely the correct answer.

Gundude
10-24-2012, 09:17
Yes and put it up for adoption. Much better solution than adding murder to a rape- IMO.


-On mobileIt's not murder, because it's not a crime. Who are you to force somebody else to have a baby?

Diesel McBadass
10-24-2012, 09:20
Most people will say make exemptions in mothers safety, rape/incest cases. Very few pro life people say that it should be forced. Most abortion were trying to ban is idiots who dont want to spend 9 bucks a month on the pill or wrap it before tapping it. Stupid should hurt

Gundude
10-24-2012, 09:26
Slavery wasn't a crime, either, at one point in our history. We evolve, and our opinion of what it acceptable behavior changes as we become more civilized.

Do you really think abortions will be still being conducted one hundred years from now?Of course they will. More efficiently and without the stigma.

Do you think future generations will look at it the way we look at the Nazis now, and ask the same questions we asked of the German people today: How could you have just gone along with that?

Genocide, no matter how effective, and or convienent, is rarely the correct answer.Genocide, murder, do definitions of words not even matter to you?

Do you really think it'll ever again be acceptable in this nation to forcefully impregnate a woman and then force her to carry the baby to term?

series1811
10-24-2012, 09:27
It's not murder, because it's not a crime. Who are you to force somebody else to have a baby?

I honor the law (in that although I believe abortion to be murder, I would not use deadly force to stop someone from committing it, so I am a German, too.). That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or stop thinking it is murder, or stop thinking that someone who commits it is a murderer.

Do you remember hearing about doctors still being taught about the Hippocratic Oath until Roe v. Wade came out?


Hippocratic Oath (1595)


Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this path and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely. may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Gundude
10-24-2012, 09:30
Most people will say make exemptions in mothers safety, rape/incest cases. Very few pro life people say that it should be forced. Most abortion were trying to ban is idiots who dont want to spend 9 bucks a month on the pill or wrap it before tapping it. Stupid should hurtA lot of pro-choice people will even agree with that.

This thread is about the rape case though. Once the pro-lifers don't make accommodations for rape, their whole position becomes untenable.

series1811
10-24-2012, 09:34
A lot of pro-choice people will even agree with that.

This thread is about the rape case though. Once the pro-lifers don't make accommodations for rape, their whole position becomes untenable.

Okay. You want to prove you are the reasonable voice, here?

Is a partial birth abortion, of a healthy baby that is seconds away from coming into the world as a human being, who is already thinking and reacting to his/her environment, and who has ninety percent of its body already out of themother, being murdered when a steel rod is jabbed into its brain and stirred until it's heart stops?

Just wondering where you draw the line.

Diesel McBadass
10-24-2012, 09:38
I don't see how partial birth abortion is legal, its disgusting, i see early abortion of just a few cells as okay morally but a developed person is murder.

P99er
10-24-2012, 09:54
This thread is about the rape case though.

No it's not. It's about politicians making statements that give the press ammunition against their party. Notice the OP's second post. He mentions how the media use it for democrats advantage, and I am assuming to push the "war on women" angle.

Romney has already issued a statement distancing himself from the guy who said it. I'd be surprised if Romney didn't ask him to quit the race.

kirgi08
10-24-2012, 10:04
:popcorn:

Gundude
10-24-2012, 10:05
Okay. You want to prove you are the reasonable voice, here?

Is a partial birth abortion, of a healthy baby that is seconds away from coming into the world as a human being, who is already thinking and reacting to his/her environment, and who has ninety percent of its body already out of themother, being murdered when a steel rod is jabbed into its brain and stirred until it's heart stops?

Just wondering where you draw the line.If it's legal, then no it's not murder. Murder is specifically the unlawful taking of life, and no use of the word for emotional effect can change that.

Obviously that baby is being killed, just the same (IMO) as if it was just a few cells, but it's not being murdered. If it's done with the full informed consent of the mother, I'm OK with that.

I can respect the following opinions:
If you haven't decided to abort the baby by a certain point, you lose that option.
If the sex which conceived that baby was consensual and having that baby won't put your life in danger, you don't have that option.
I don't personally agree with them, but they are respectable opinions. Forcing a woman to carry a baby which was itself forced upon her is simply barbaric. Yes, more barbaric than aborting that baby. Obviously it's not fair to the baby, but forcing her to have it isn't fair for the woman, and when one person is inside another person, the person on the outside gets preference in calls like that.

Chuck TX
10-24-2012, 10:06
Pro-choice is to some folks what the RKBA is to many others. That's why it's a winner for Dems. There are quite a few folks who vote heavily based on their own perception of gub intrusion.

Personally, I'd like less gub all around. However, certain issues make it painfully obvious how we got to this point. Many people want less and more intrusion at the same time. What we generally wind up with is more, period.

jlavallee
10-24-2012, 10:07
Republicans think it is only OK to kill when we're on an imperalistic mission to "protect America's interests" and then it's justified.

Seriously though. Both sides need to stop feeling like they have a right to tell others how to live. I see the logic in wanting to stop abortion but again, a mother has rights too. It really does come back to not being about protecting rights but forcing your beliefs on someone else.

Guss
10-24-2012, 10:11
Isn't it something like 51 to 41% favoring pro-life in the latest gallop poll?

I'm not anti abortion, but I am strongly against someone getting a tax payer subsidized abortion.

Hmmm. Wonder if the polls broke it down by state.
If people were really pro-life, they wouldn't just be pro-birth, they would be willing to pay taxes to sustain lives.

jlavallee
10-24-2012, 10:20
If people were really pro-life, they wouldn't just be pro-birth, they would be willing to pay taxes to sustain lives.

It is wrong to steal from someone for any reason. I refuse to believe I should pay to raise someone else's child and I also shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's birth control or abortion.

sbhaven
10-24-2012, 10:53
Isn't it something like 51 to 41% favoring pro-life in the latest gallop poll?

Here's the Gallup polling info...
Abortion Is Threshold Issue for One in Six U.S. Voters
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157886/abortion-threshold-issue-one-six-voters.aspx
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qesy_3_m-0-5_s4julj5rg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/nzuek7lcz0yywecmirzwkg.gif

There is also this info which shows that the issue of abortion is way down the list of things that are important to people. Economy is number one, MSM/Democrats loves getting the GOP tangled up in the abortion issue since it diverts the discussion away from the economy.
Economy Is Dominant Issue for Americans as Election Nears
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158267/economy-dominant-issue-americans-election-nears.aspx

Abortion and the Gender Gap: the Numbers
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314640/abortion-and-gender-gap-numbers-ramesh-ponnuru#

series1811
10-24-2012, 12:02
It is wrong to steal from someone for any reason. I refuse to believe I should pay to raise someone else's child and I also shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's birth control or abortion.

In the liberal world, yes. When irresponsible people get pregnant in the liberal world, responsible people are required to pay for:

A. Abortion of the child
B. Raising the child

There are no other options in liberal land, like being responsible.

And, yes, it is not fair that someone raped has to make that decision. It's also not fair for someone raped to not be able to go shoot her rapist in the head the next day, either.

Like I said. Pro-life people realize we have to live with abortion in this country right now. Pro-Abortion people just need to learn to live with the fact that we believe abortion is genocide. Nobody's mind is getting changed.

CigarandScotch
10-24-2012, 13:24
I have mixed feelings on abortion, and agree with many of the valid points both for and against it. But I agree that the Republicans always hang themselves politically by making it an issue at election time. I can think of lots of things that are more important, both for my family and the country in general. I consider it a worthless discussion and a ridiculous distraction from the true issues of running the country.

Gundude
10-24-2012, 13:30
In the liberal world, yes. When irresponsible people get pregnant in the liberal world, responsible people are required to pay for:

A. Abortion of the child
B. Raising the child

There are no other options in liberal land, like being responsible.

And, yes, it is not fair that someone raped has to make that decision. It's also not fair for someone raped to not be able to go shoot her rapist in the head the next day, either.

Like I said. Pro-life people realize we have to live with abortion in this country right now. Pro-Abortion people just need to learn to live with the fact that we believe abortion is genocide. Nobody's mind is getting changed.The bonehead in the OP article is talking about banning abortion, not refusing to pay for it.

Pro-abortion people are happy to live with the fact that you believe it's genocide. Not so happy with you trying to ban it.

countrygun
10-24-2012, 13:36
Stepping back from arguing the issue itself and looking at the thread title, I find it to be a misnomer.

So far, in this election I have seen the Democrats ATTACK with the issue of "Womens right to choose" a whole lot more than I have seen Republicans argue "Right to life". The majority of the time it is a Republican RESPONDING to a Democrat. The Dems bring the issue up a lot more, then the Republican RESPONSE gets the publicity.

Gundude
10-24-2012, 13:46
Stepping back from arguing the issue itself and looking at the thread title, I find it to be a misnomer.

So far, in this election I have seen the Democrats ATTACK with the issue of "Womens right to choose" a whole lot more than I have seen Republicans argue "Right to life". The majority of the time it is a Republican RESPONDING to a Democrat. The Dems bring the issue up a lot more, then the Republican RESPONSE gets the publicity.It's the Democrats' fault yet again. What a surprise. :upeyes:

Amazing how they can force Republicans to say such idiotic things. Must've learned it the same place they learned how to force Republicans to run up spectacular deficits and create enormous new government departments.

CigarandScotch
10-24-2012, 14:52
It's the Democrats' fault yet again. What a surprise. :upeyes:

Amazing how they can force Republicans to say such idiotic things. Must've learned it the same place they learned how to force Republicans to run up spectacular deficits and create enormous new government departments.

And don't forget that the economy is Bush's fault and we're racist if we don't vote for Obunghole. :upeyes:

Ruble Noon
10-24-2012, 15:27
Where do these idiots come from? You people cuss someone that will vote third party yet you defend a retard like this, a retard that will cost the republicans more votes than all third party's combined.

Legitimate rape Aiken
Gods will rape Murcock
:upeyes:

There is no wonder that the republican war on women plays to women with morons like this spouting off.

Ruble Noon
10-24-2012, 15:28
Stepping back from arguing the issue itself and looking at the thread title, I find it to be a misnomer.

So far, in this election I have seen the Democrats ATTACK with the issue of "Womens right to choose" a whole lot more than I have seen Republicans argue "Right to life". The majority of the time it is a Republican RESPONDING to a Democrat. The Dems bring the issue up a lot more, then the Republican RESPONSE gets the publicity.

That just shows how stupid the republicans are for taking the bait.

countrygun
10-24-2012, 15:32
Where do these idiots come from? You people cuss someone that will vote third party yet you defend a retard like this, a retard that will cost the republicans more votes than all third party's combined.

Legitimate rape Aiken
Gods will rape Murcock
:upeyes:

There is no wonder that the republican war on women plays to women with morons like this spouting off.

Lyndon LaRouche is third party candidate so you've put yourself in good company. You painted yourself with your own generalization

Bren
10-24-2012, 15:37
At this point, abortion is poison for Republicans like gun control is for democrats, so it would be best to avoid the discussion.

beforeobamabans
10-24-2012, 15:42
God and pro-life are winning positions for Mourdock in Indiana.

series1811
10-24-2012, 15:44
Well, if nothing else, these posts and threads show why the abortion issue just never goes to bed.

It's just not the kind of issue either side is wiling to compromise on much; so each attempts to force their point of view upon the rest of society, while vehemently denying same.

Ruble Noon
10-24-2012, 15:46
Lyndon LaRouche is third party candidate so you've put yourself in good company. You painted yourself with your own generalization

So you believe that legitimate rape is Gods will?

Ruble Noon
10-24-2012, 15:49
God and pro-life are winning positions for Mourdock in Indiana.

Donnelly is ahead of Mourdock

countrygun
10-24-2012, 15:58
So you believe that legitimate rape is Gods will?

No, i don't think the term "third party" neccessarly means that it is automatically refering to a candidate who is better than the Republican or Democrat.

beforeobamabans
10-24-2012, 16:10
Donnelly is ahead of Mourdock

Don't believe it.

Gundude
10-24-2012, 16:27
Well, if nothing else, these posts and threads show why the abortion issue just never goes to bed.

It's just not the kind of issue either side is wiling to compromise on much; so each attempts to force their point of view upon the rest of society, while vehemently denying same.How is not banning something an attempt to force one's point of view?

English
10-24-2012, 16:32
In the liberal world, yes. When irresponsible people get pregnant in the liberal world, responsible people are required to pay for:

A. Abortion of the child
B. Raising the child

There are no other options in liberal land, like being responsible.

And, yes, it is not fair that someone raped has to make that decision. It's also not fair for someone raped to not be able to go shoot her rapist in the head the next day, either.

Like I said. Pro-life people realize we have to live with abortion in this country right now. Pro-Abortion people just need to learn to live with the fact that we believe abortion is genocide. Nobody's mind is getting changed.

We keep hearing this argument about people being responsible as though it liberals who are not responsible about using contraception. In fact those people don't have any significant political views beyond the idea that the state should support them. People with the concern, intelligence and interest to be real liberals, no matter how stupid that makes them politically are most unlikely to be stupid enough to use abortion as a form of contraception. The ones who are so stupid are the last people you want to be forced to become parents for children they do not want. The cost per such a person and their children on the state is enormous. Free abortion and free contracetion is much cheaper. I don't want to pay for other people' contraception, or abortions but it is by far the lesser evil for someone who is concerned with minimizing the cost of the government.

But the point of this thread was not wether abortion is right or wrong or a better economic deal for the state. The point was that the Republicans are giving away votes by the stance they take. The Obama catastrophe has driven many people away from liberal politics and liberal economic ideas. Many of those who would on that basis be voting republican are likely to be tipped back into voting democrat by wht they see as the republican support for the barbaric ideas of the pro life movement which are contrary to the concept of a free state.

Does anyone remember the concern of the founding fathers that the USA should be a republic and not a democracy? This wish to impose sectarian idea about abortion onto others is a perfect example of the danger of democracy. If they could do it, they would do it. All their talk about not forcing women to carry a rapist's child or preventing a woman from having an abortion if carrying to term would endanger her life is so much slick talk with no truth. They are ideologues who are prepared to lie to gain their ends. If they could ban all abortions regardless of circumstances, they would do so.

Incidentally, I am not suggesting that series1811 is such a person. I think his position is mainly reasonable but that he has been taken in by the ideologues running the campaign.

English

countrygun
10-24-2012, 16:36
That just shows how stupid the republicans are for taking the bait.

You may have something there, The democrats are smart about that NONE of them are trying to defend Obama's record when it's questioned.

jlavallee
10-24-2012, 16:37
No, i don't think the term "third party" neccessarly means that it is automatically refering to a candidate who is better than the Republican or Democrat.

Well that is pretty obvious. However, the two major parties have completely insane platforms that in reality aren't that different anymore. Republicans used to at least talk of smaller government and fiscal responsibility while Democrats used to talk of civil liberties and opposition to needless war but that is in the past with only the worst of both platforms remaining today.

While a third party is not a sign of a good platform, searching within them is now the only option for finding something within reason.

beforeobamabans
10-24-2012, 16:40
the barbaric ideas of the pro life movement which are contrary to the concept of a free state.

Does anyone remember the concern of the founding fathers

English
:wow: Pro-life barbaric? An Englishman instructing us on the concerns of the Founding Fathers? Here's what I remember:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Note that LIFE is one of the inalienable rights, which of course come from God.

Also note that this quote is from our Declaration of Independence from a certain barbaric monarchy.

Gunnut 45/454
10-24-2012, 16:43
Sporaticus
As long as you can get the Liberals to STFU/ stop pushing for Gay rights/Marriage! Until then no go!:rofl:

countrygun
10-24-2012, 16:44
Well that is pretty obvious. However, the two major parties have completely insane platforms that in reality aren't that different anymore. Republicans used to at least talk of smaller government and fiscal responsibility while Democrats used to talk of civil liberties and opposition to needless war but that is in the past with only the worst of both platforms remaining today.

While a third party is not a sign of a good platform, searching within them is now the only option for finding something within reason.

I actually agree with the first paragraph but I am afraid the solution in the second is doomed.Just look at the reality of the results of a third party in this election. You have to have a significant number of Americans looking to a third party and that isn't going to happen. Sorry but we are a "Coke vs Pepsi" Country politically and too many people find something else unconsiderable.

More changes can be made, inside the recognized Republican party, by supporting rational, electable candidates in the primaries that know how to get the platform changed through using their support as a bargaining chip, than can be realized by the threat of a third party that never amounts to a serious threat.

stevelyn
10-24-2012, 16:52
Isn't it something like 51 to 41% favoring pro-life in the latest gallop poll?

I'm not anti abortion, but I am strongly against someone getting a tax payer subsidized abortion.

Hmmm. Wonder if the polls broke it down by state.


Same here. I don't have a problem with abortion. I think that there should be more of them, but if you are getting them it should be on your dime, not mine.

jlavallee
10-24-2012, 17:38
I actually agree with the first paragraph but I am afraid the solution in the second is doomed.Just look at the reality of the results of a third party in this election. You have to have a significant number of Americans looking to a third party and that isn't going to happen. Sorry but we are a "Coke vs Pepsi" Country politically and too many people find something else unconsiderable.

More changes can be made, inside the recognized Republican party, by supporting rational, electable candidates in the primaries that know how to get the platform changed through using their support as a bargaining chip, than can be realized by the threat of a third party that never amounts to a serious threat.

Nope, the Republican party is far worse now than it ever was. There is nothing left in their platform and the rule changes forces through this year assure more of the same. The Republican party sealed it's fate and confirmed they are nothing more than big government of a different type than the Democrats. The defination of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result.

The GOP party line voter obviously doesn't give a damn about important issues but wants the votes of people that do so they use the lesser evil BS line. There is nothing left in the GOP platform that is positive.

I suspect the problem is this: What you think are rational choices are actually bat **** insane.

countrygun
10-24-2012, 17:45
Nope, the Republican party is far worse now than it ever was. There is nothing left in their platform and the rule changes forces through this year assure more of the same. The Republican party sealed it's fate and confirmed they are nothing more than big government of a different type than the Democrats. The defination of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result.

The GOP party line voter obviously doesn't give a damn about important issues but wants the votes of people that do so they use the lesser evil BS line. There is nothing left in the GOP platform that is positive.

I suspect the problem is this: What you think are rational choices are actually bat **** insane.

Well, if getting government out of the way of business isn't an improvement to you, I would say that you have lost perspective.

jlavallee
10-24-2012, 18:00
Well, if getting government out of the way of business isn't an improvement to you, I would say that you have lost perspective.

:rofl: Yes, the GOP is all about small government while the people like mittens are bought and paid for and engage in corporatism. Are you for real? Do you actually believe the stuff that spews from your keyboard?:rofl:

countrygun
10-24-2012, 18:04
:rofl: Yes, the GOP is all about small government while the people like mittens are bought and paid for and engage in corporatism. Are you for real? Do you actually believe the stuff that spews from your keyboard?:rofl:

Do you really think that corporations and business are bad for America?

That is the problem with a lot of the paulbots, they have been drinking the lefts kool-aid too long.

Makes them sound a lot like the OWS types "blame corporations"

Gundude
10-24-2012, 18:06
Do you really think that corporations and business are bad for America?

That is the problem with a lot of the paulbots, they have been drinking the lefts kool-aid too long.

Makes them sound a lot like the OWS types "blame corporations"Corporations and businesses aren't bad for America.

When government allows itself to be owned by corporations and businesses though, that's bad for America.

countrygun
10-24-2012, 18:11
Corporations and businesses aren't bad for America.

When government allows itself to be owned by corporations and businesses though, that's bad for America.

Why?

Jefferson though US BUSINESS interests were worth using the military to protect.

Gundude
10-24-2012, 18:25
Why?

Jefferson though US BUSINESS interests were worth using the military to protect.In reality the biggest threat to US businesses are other US businesses, or even sometimes just regular people trying to be self-sufficient. Witness the raids on family farms. Obama didn't start that. It's not a Democrat thing.

When regulations are implemented at the behest of businesses to maintain a competitive advantage that the market would otherwise not support, that's bad for America, because it comes at the expense of other US businesses and citizens.

jlavallee
10-24-2012, 19:19
Why?


See, that right there. :rofl:

Seriously man, stop taking whatever you're taking.

Sporaticus
10-24-2012, 19:21
I don't care if the republicans answer a simple question about abortion: support it, yes or no.

It's when they get into these idiotic specifics is when they give the left ammo, and allow the focus to be taken off the democrats, and on to something they themselves said.

If they cannot give a simple 'yes I do', or 'no I don't' answer, STFU. Whenever that bimbo with the media keeps pushing for elaboration, she is digging for a soundbyte they can use against not only you, but your entire party and the guy at the top. STFU.

countrygun
10-24-2012, 19:27
See, that right there. :rofl:

Seriously man, stop taking whatever you're taking.

Just what material thing do you own that wasn't made by a corporation?

IF you have any money invested for your future how much of it has been invested in corporations?

The gas in your car comes from a corporation, the electricity in your home comes over wires made by a corporation,

Yes they are "evil":upeyes:

Gundude
10-25-2012, 10:05
How is not banning something an attempt to force one's point of view?
Anyone? :dunno:

How are pro-choice people trying to "force their point of view" on society by not wanting abortion banned?

Isn't preventing others from doing what you think is wrong the very definition of forcing your point of view on society?

series1811
10-25-2012, 10:22
How is not banning something an attempt to force one's point of view?

"while vehemently denying same"

See, I was right.

Gundude
10-25-2012, 10:28
"while vehemently denying same"

See, I was right.Uh, no, to be right you have to show how they're forcing their views.

G29Reload
10-25-2012, 11:36
I don't care if the republicans answer a simple question about abortion: support it, yes or no.


The truth is, its irrelevant. The POTUS actually has very little to do with the topic. ITs all the states, local statutes and the Supreme Ct.

EVen with the Justie picks, what are they gonna do? Does anyone know how hard it is to overturn precedent?

Red herring. In the dems case a chance to NOT talk about their failed economy.

English
10-25-2012, 13:53
:wow: Pro-life barbaric? An Englishman instructing us on the concerns of the Founding Fathers? Here's what I remember:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Note that LIFE is one of the inalienable rights, which of course come from God.

Also note that this quote is from our Declaration of Independence from a certain barbaric monarchy.

You make the strange mistake of thinking that becuse you are American you have some special ability to comment on freedom which is denied to othe nationalities.

1) In saying that pro life was barbric, I was describing the feelings of many thinking people who might otherwise vote republican. If you care to look, that was the topic of the thread. You, of course, have the right to believe whatever you choose and to suffer the consequences or gain the benefits thereof. Others have the right to say your belief is stupid, misguided, unmindful of reality or of uninteded consequences. Since the split between those for and against abortion is about 50:50 neither side can be said to be representative of the USA but your side seeks to impose its belief on the other. Quite a proportion on both sides believe their opinin on the matter with considerable strength of conviction. It is not unreasonable for many in the pro abortion camp to think the anti abortion camp is barbaric, just as many in the anti abortion camp think the pro abortion camp is barbaric. There is nothing in this that requires some special knowledge open only to Americans - it is very simple.

The statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" has two major problems for your interpretation. The first is that it refers to "men". From that we can assume it means adult men and probably adult women, though female emancipation came rather later. What we cannot assume is that it refered to the unborn at whatever stage of development. As Justice Antonin Scalia says, "Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion." Neither does it support restrictions on abortion.

The second is the unalienable rights issue. This statement was put together by a committee and only some of them were Christians though most, I believe, were theists. It comes, as you say from the Declaration of Independence and not from the Constitution and so does not have legal standing. Although they said it came from the Creator, note the lack of the word "God", that is no evidence that it did come from the Creator. It had taken the blood and lives of men to rid themselves of Kings who declared themselves the anointed of God on Earth and so above all criticism by their people. God had not managed that in thousands of years when such monarchy was the norm. Jefferson t least was at pains to point out the obvious. The Constitution was the work of men and not of God. The framers of the Constitution took considerable pains, not to remove America from God or religion but to separate god and religion from the process of government. You might not like this but it was so, and it was so because they or their recent forefathers had witnessed the evil that was done, regardless of the name it came under, by combining religion with the state.

Stupid should hurt and the English were stupid in their treatment of their American colony which became the core of the USA. They deserved to loose it, but bear in mind that more people wished to remain part of England than wished for independence. The War of Independence had two sides to it and the angels were not entirely on the side of the Americans. Nor were the devils entirely on the side of the English. Many Americans saw a route to power in independence and were prepared to take great risks to gain it. I am not complaining of that - it is human nature for some to be so - but don't think it was all virtue against evil.

English

Kentak
10-25-2012, 19:04
If you were the product of a rape, would you want to be killed in the womb? Two crimes don't make a right.

And if your 13yo daughter was made pregnant by a demented, brutish, thug rapist, should her only lawful alternative be to carry the rapist's child to term and give birth? With all the attendant financial, emotional, and physical costs, including medical risks? Under current law, and as her parent, would you allow her any say in that decision?

Even if you actually would force her to carry the child to term as a matter of your personal belief, is the consequence of that belief one that should be forced on everyone by LAW?

The belief that a fertilized egg has the same sacred or spiritual status as a born person, and should therefore be given legal protection from conception is a religious belief. One that is not at all shared by everyone.

What gives a religious person the right to use government to force others to observe their faith? Isn't that what we condemn other faiths, such as Muslims, for trying to do?

Some faiths believe that using birth control is against God's plan. Fine, so observe that belief in your personal life, but it would be wrong and against all American concepts of personal liberty to make access to birth control illegal for all others regardless of their faiths.

Would you want your parents to have used birth control to prevent your conception? Of course, no one is going to answer "yes" to that question. Is that a reason to outlaw birth control?

Actually, what is your answer to the above question?

countrygun
10-25-2012, 19:12
And if your 13yo daughter was made pregnant by a demented, brutish, thug rapist, should her only lawful alternative be to carry the rapist's child to term and give birth? With all the attendant financial, emotional, and physical costs, including medical risks? Under current law, and as her parent, would you allow her any say in that decision?

Even if you actually would force her to carry the child to term as a matter of your personal belief, is the consequence of that belief one that should be forced on everyone by LAW?

The belief that a fertilized egg has the same sacred or spiritual status as a born person, and should therefore be given legal protection from conception is a religious belief. One that is not at all shared by everyone.

What gives a religious person the right to use government to force others to observe their faith? Isn't that what we condemn other faiths, such as Muslims, for trying to do?

Some faiths believe that using birth control is against God's plan. Fine, so observe that belief in your personal life, but it would be wrong and against all American concepts of personal liberty to make access to birth control illegal for all others regardless of their faiths.

Would you want your parents to have used birth control to prevent your conception? Of course, no one is going to answer "yes" to that question. Is that a reason to outlaw birth control?

Actually, what is your answer to the above question?

Not that I am against abortion in that case but you are on a wrong track.

Why do certain other Countries allow "honor killings" and we don't? Do you think that we have some "superiority" maybe genetically, or is it because the religion our laws come from and that shaped our ethos is different from that in countries where a daughter can be killed for "shaming" the family.

Don't be so quick to condemn religious influences on our legal system. Perspective. Besides you have made a good enough practical case.

Kentak
10-25-2012, 20:27
Is your argument that because some of these other cultures are more severe and successful in imposing religious beliefs on their people thru theocratic law, it's okay for us to do it a little bit?

It's not barbaric to prevent a girl or woman from terminating the unwanted product of a rape because of, essentially, a religious belief about the sanctity of life from conception--one that she may not share?

I am not making any blanket condemnation of "religious influences" on our legal system. If there are religious influences that support a legal system that honors rights of free citizens and limits the undue intrusion of government into the lives of rights-respecting citizens, that's great.

Could you give some example of where you believe religious influence has had a positive effect on our legal system?

countrygun
10-25-2012, 20:41
Is your argument that because some of these other cultures are more severe and successful in imposing religious beliefs on their people thru theocratic law, it's okay for us to do it a little bit?

It's not barbaric to prevent a girl or woman from terminating the unwanted product of a rape because of, essentially, a religious belief about the sanctity of life from conception--one that she may not share?

I am not making any blanket condemnation of "religious influences" on our legal system. If there are religious influences that support a legal system that honors rights of free citizens and limits the undue intrusion of government into the lives of rights-respecting citizens, that's great.

Could you give some example of where you believe religious influence has had a positive effect on our legal system?

Our entire legal system was originally influenced by our culture which is a reflection of our beliefs which came from a common religion. It is impossible to seperate them. For instance why do we have laws against stealing, the Native American culture didn't, just a punishment if you were caught in the act. It is a different moral code and that code is based on religious beliefs. Our moral code did not just spring up out of thin air.

dbcooper
10-26-2012, 06:09
Before the next election they need to all get together and agree on one standard answer for any question on abortion.

Something like :

I personally don't believe abortion is the right thing however it is the law of the land, and short of an ammendment to the Constitution which has no chance of happening, it will remain so. Now would anyone like to ask a question that is relevant?

Paul7
10-26-2012, 07:03
And if your 13yo daughter was made pregnant by a demented, brutish, thug rapist, should her only lawful alternative be to carry the rapist's child to term and give birth? With all the attendant financial, emotional, and physical costs, including medical risks? Under current law, and as her parent, would you allow her any say in that decision?

Even if you actually would force her to carry the child to term as a matter of your personal belief, is the consequence of that belief one that should be forced on everyone by LAW?

The belief that a fertilized egg has the same sacred or spiritual status as a born person, and should therefore be given legal protection from conception is a religious belief. One that is not at all shared by everyone.

What gives a religious person the right to use government to force others to observe their faith? Isn't that what we condemn other faiths, such as Muslims, for trying to do?

Some faiths believe that using birth control is against God's plan. Fine, so observe that belief in your personal life, but it would be wrong and against all American concepts of personal liberty to make access to birth control illegal for all others regardless of their faiths.

Would you want your parents to have used birth control to prevent your conception? Of course, no one is going to answer "yes" to that question. Is that a reason to outlaw birth control?

Actually, what is your answer to the above question?

I would want my grandchild carried to term and placed for adoption. His conception would have been no fault of his, the rapist deserves the death penalty, not the unborn child.

This whole issue is a red herring, very few abortions involve rape.

Paul7
10-26-2012, 07:06
You make the strange mistake of thinking that becuse you are American you have some special ability to comment on freedom which is denied to othe nationalities.

1) In saying that pro life was barbric, I was describing the feelings of many thinking people who might otherwise vote republican. If you care to look, that was the topic of the thread. You, of course, have the right to believe whatever you choose and to suffer the consequences or gain the benefits thereof. Others have the right to say your belief is stupid, misguided, unmindful of reality or of uninteded consequences. Since the split between those for and against abortion is about 50:50 neither side can be said to be representative of the USA but your side seeks to impose its belief on the other. Quite a proportion on both sides believe their opinin on the matter with considerable strength of conviction. It is not unreasonable for many in the pro abortion camp to think the anti abortion camp is barbaric, just as many in the anti abortion camp think the pro abortion camp is barbaric. There is nothing in this that requires some special knowledge open only to Americans - it is very simple.

The statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" has two major problems for your interpretation. The first is that it refers to "men". From that we can assume it means adult men and probably adult women, though female emancipation came rather later. What we cannot assume is that it refered to the unborn at whatever stage of development. As Justice Antonin Scalia says, "Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion." Neither does it support restrictions on abortion.

The second is the unalienable rights issue. This statement was put together by a committee and only some of them were Christians though most, I believe, were theists. It comes, as you say from the Declaration of Independence and not from the Constitution and so does not have legal standing. Although they said it came from the Creator, note the lack of the word "God", that is no evidence that it did come from the Creator. It had taken the blood and lives of men to rid themselves of Kings who declared themselves the anointed of God on Earth and so above all criticism by their people. God had not managed that in thousands of years when such monarchy was the norm. Jefferson t least was at pains to point out the obvious. The Constitution was the work of men and not of God. The framers of the Constitution took considerable pains, not to remove America from God or religion but to separate god and religion from the process of government. You might not like this but it was so, and it was so because they or their recent forefathers had witnessed the evil that was done, regardless of the name it came under, by combining religion with the state.

Stupid should hurt and the English were stupid in their treatment of their American colony which became the core of the USA. They deserved to loose it, but bear in mind that more people wished to remain part of England than wished for independence. The War of Independence had two sides to it and the angels were not entirely on the side of the Americans. Nor were the devils entirely on the side of the English. Many Americans saw a route to power in independence and were prepared to take great risks to gain it. I am not complaining of that - it is human nature for some to be so - but don't think it was all virtue against evil.

English

I would agree with you English, from my understanding about one third of the American colonists were pro-British, a third were for the Revolution, and the rest didn't care. Truly the victors write the history books, the US Revolution is seen as 'good', and the Southern attempt at secession is seen as 'bad'.

IMHO the American revolution was God's will, but I don't think Canada, Australia or NZ have suffered because they didn't have a violent separation from England.

series1811
10-26-2012, 07:08
Uh, no, to be right you have to show how they're forcing their views.

But, we all know the people that their forcing their views on. You just don't want to admit they are people.

And, you have to twist the law horribly to support your view. As I pointed out in response to one of the other DUers posts. In New York, a pretty liberal state,if I abort a woman's baby, even with her permission, or she does it herself, it's classified as murder, but if a doctor does it at her direction, it's nothing.

You can't make that make sense, or you one of the other propents would have already given the explanation that makes it make sense.

I'll admit, I don't know the exact answer to what to do about unwanted pregancies. And, we are pretty far from being able to have reasonable conversation about that in this country.

But, you will never convince me that genocide is the answer to that problem.

beforeobamabans
10-26-2012, 16:07
you make the strange mistake of thinking that becuse you are american you have some special ability to comment on freedom which is denied to othe nationalities.

It's no mistake. It's called 'American Exceptionalism'. No, i don't expect you to understand.


1) in saying that pro life was barbric, i was describing the feelings of many thinking people who might otherwise vote republican. If you care to look, that was the topic of the thread. You, of course, have the right to believe whatever you choose and to suffer the consequences or gain the benefits thereof. Others have the right to say your belief is stupid, misguided, unmindful of reality or of uninteded consequences. Since the split between those for and against abortion is about 50:50 neither side can be said to be representative of the usa but your side seeks to impose its belief on the other. Quite a proportion on both sides believe their opinin on the matter with considerable strength of conviction. It is not unreasonable for many in the pro abortion camp to think the anti abortion camp is barbaric, just as many in the anti abortion camp think the pro abortion camp is barbaric. There is nothing in this that requires some special knowledge open only to americans - it is very simple.

There is only one side that kills a living human being. It is obvious to anyone with the slightest sense of morality which side commits barbarism. It is incredibly ironic that you accuse "my side" of attempting to impose our beliefs on the pro-killers when in fact, they have imposed their beliefs on me.


the statement, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has two major problems for your interpretation. The first is that it refers to "men". From that we can assume it means adult men and probably adult women, though female emancipation came rather later. What we cannot assume is that it refered to the unborn at whatever stage of development. As justice antonin scalia says, "abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the constitution prevented restrictions on abortion." neither does it support restrictions on abortion.

Like the pronoun "he", men can be used as a generic pronoun. You're really reaching here.


the second is the unalienable rights issue. This statement was put together by a committee and only some of them were christians though most, i believe, were theists. It comes, as you say from the declaration of independence and not from the constitution and so does not have legal standing. Although they said it came from the creator, note the lack of the word "god", that is no evidence that it did come from the creator. It had taken the blood and lives of men to rid themselves of kings who declared themselves the anointed of god on earth and so above all criticism by their people. God had not managed that in thousands of years when such monarchy was the norm. Jefferson t least was at pains to point out the obvious. The constitution was the work of men and not of god. The framers of the constitution took considerable pains, not to remove america from god or religion but to separate god and religion from the process of government. You might not like this but it was so, and it was so because they or their recent forefathers had witnessed the evil that was done, regardless of the name it came under, by combining religion with the state.

First, i responded to your comment about the thinking of our founding fathers, not the constitution. Does the D of I not count? Jefferson is generally credited with its composition. Sure, others had input but to say it was written by committee misrepresents it's origins. As far as your quibble about Creator and God, i think the grog is getting to you.

stupid should hurt and the english were stupid in their treatment of their american colony which became the core of the usa. They deserved to loose it, but bear in mind that more people wished to remain part of england than wished for independence. The war of independence had two sides to it and the angels were not entirely on the side of the americans. Nor were the devils entirely on the side of the english. Many americans saw a route to power in independence and were prepared to take great risks to gain it. I am not complaining of that - it is human nature for some to be so - but don't think it was all virtue against evil.

Where men are involved, it is impossible for any enterprise to be all virtue. But if you were to ask the founding fathers if they thought a practice whereby the head of a live baby is delivered, then reamed with a skewer until mortally wounded, then fully delivered and declared a "legal" procedure, I imagine they would protest. It has become a bit of a cliche to compare the currently legal practice of killing live in-utero babies to slavery but i believe the comparison holds because they both sanction state authorized brutality and murder of other human beings. Like slavery, many of us hope and pray for the day when america will live up to its ideals and outlaw this barbaric practice.

englishSo, no, I do not agree with the OP that Republicans (or anyone) should shut up about abortion. It would be nice though, if pro-life candidates could express themselves without stumbling over issues like rape and God's intentions. b/o/b

Gundude
10-26-2012, 16:22
But, we all know the people that their forcing their views on. You just don't want to admit they are people.

And, you have to twist the law horribly to support your view. As I pointed out in response to one of the other DUers posts. In New York, a pretty liberal state,if I abort a woman's baby, even with her permission, or she does it herself, it's classified as murder, but if a doctor does it at her direction, it's nothing.

You can't make that make sense, or you one of the other propents would have already given the explanation that makes it make sense.

I'll admit, I don't know the exact answer to what to do about unwanted pregancies. And, we are pretty far from being able to have reasonable conversation about that in this country.

But, you will never convince me that genocide is the answer to that problem.So if it wasn't genocide it wouldn't be as much of a problem for you?

Because it's not genocide, you know. Using scary words without regard to their definitions is just something liberals do to make themselves sound more dramatic.

English
10-27-2012, 10:38
In the "quote" following, black text is my original, more or less since English is spelt with a lower case "E", blue is beforetheobamans' responses and red is my responses to those responses. I assume that beforetheobamans has not changed my text on purpose but that his copying software has removed numerous capital letters from my text.
Originally Posted by english View Post
you make the strange mistake of thinking that becuse you are american you have some special ability to comment on freedom which is denied to othe nationalities.

It's no mistake. It's called 'American Exceptionalism'. No, i don't expect you to understand.

American exceptionalism is a creed, and it has much to be said for it. That does not make it a fact.

1) in saying that pro life was barbric, i was describing the feelings of many thinking people who might otherwise vote republican. If you care to look, that was the topic of the thread. You, of course, have the right to believe whatever you choose and to suffer the consequences or gain the benefits thereof. Others have the right to say your belief is stupid, misguided, unmindful of reality or of uninteded consequences. Since the split between those for and against abortion is about 50:50 neither side can be said to be representative of the usa but your side seeks to impose its belief on the other. Quite a proportion on both sides believe their opinin on the matter with considerable strength of conviction. It is not unreasonable for many in the pro abortion camp to think the anti abortion camp is barbaric, just as many in the anti abortion camp think the pro abortion camp is barbaric. There is nothing in this that requires some special knowledge open only to americans - it is very simple.

There is only one side that kills a living human being. It is obvious to anyone with the slightest sense of morality which side commits barbarism. It is incredibly ironic that you accuse "my side" of attempting to impose our beliefs on the pro-killers when in fact, they have imposed their beliefs on me.

The debate, as always, is about at what point humanity can be said to begin. There is no definitive answer to this question since there are a number of answers that depend on the basis of decision - consciousness, survivability, understanding of death, being able to make predictions of likely future outcomes and respond with fear or withdrawal, a living cell with a full complement of functional genes, mitochondria and so on, an implanted egg, a foetus showing a notochord, a foetus showing movement, and so on.

As for imposing beliefs, my side does not try to impose an abortion on someone who does not want one. Your side wishes to impose the unavailability of abortion on every one, whether they want one or not. All we seek to impose on you is that you should not impose your irrational religious beliefs on us.


the statement, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has two major problems for your interpretation. The first is that it refers to "men". From that we can assume it means adult men and probably adult women, though female emancipation came rather later. What we cannot assume is that it refered to the unborn at whatever stage of development. As justice antonin scalia says, "abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the constitution prevented restrictions on abortion." neither does it support restrictions on abortion.

Like the pronoun "he", men can be used as a generic pronoun. You're really reaching here.

Unfortunately, it is you who is reaching. Of course the pronoun "he" can be used to refer to men and women as "men" can be used to mean both women and men or even the human race, but I defy you to find examples from normal speech where "he" means any sex or age of human from conception to death. What matters is not what words might be twisted to mean, but what was meant by them when they were written. The framers of the Constitution were thinking about how men could rule themselves without falling into some form of tyrrany. Only adults take part in such a process and the Constituion is concerned with more important matters than abortion.

the second is the unalienable rights issue. This statement was put together by a committee and only some of them were christians though most, i believe, were theists. It comes, as you say from the declaration of independence and not from the constitution and so does not have legal standing. Although they said it came from the creator, note the lack of the word "god", that is no evidence that it did come from the creator. It had taken the blood and lives of men to rid themselves of kings who declared themselves the anointed of god on earth and so above all criticism by their people. God had not managed that in thousands of years when such monarchy was the norm. Jefferson t least was at pains to point out the obvious. The constitution was the work of men and not of god. The framers of the constitution took considerable pains, not to remove america from god or religion but to separate god and religion from the process of government. You might not like this but it was so, and it was so because they or their recent forefathers had witnessed the evil that was done, regardless of the name it came under, by combining religion with the state.

First, i responded to your comment about the thinking of our founding fathers, not the constitution. Does the D of I not count? Jefferson is generally credited with its composition. Sure, others had input but to say it was written by committee misrepresents it's origins. As far as your quibble about Creator and God, i think the grog is getting to you.

How strange that you feel it necessary to suggest that I drink to excess. The occasional half glass of wine is my limit.

The second ammendment is an excellent example of writing by committee. Apart from some member of the team with a bee in his bonnet about the undoubted need for militias, why would they have confused the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms with the need for militias in one sentence without including the other needs for the RKBA?

Even now, with the benefit of an understanding of evolution and a good idea of the creation of the first living organisms, it is very hard to describe many things without using language which implies the existence of a creator. Apart from that, they might well all have had such beliefs, but they took care to keep them out of the Constitution. The Constution is the basis of US law. The Declaration of Independence was a rallying cry and not the basis of law.

stupid should hurt and the english were stupid in their treatment of their american colony which became the core of the usa. They deserved to loose it, but bear in mind that more people wished to remain part of england than wished for independence. The war of independence had two sides to it and the angels were not entirely on the side of the americans. Nor were the devils entirely on the side of the english. Many americans saw a route to power in independence and were prepared to take great risks to gain it. I am not complaining of that - it is human nature for some to be so - but don't think it was all virtue against evil.

Where men are involved, it is impossible for any enterprise to be all virtue. But if you were to ask the founding fathers if they thought a practice whereby the head of a live baby is delivered, then reamed with a skewer until mortally wounded, then fully delivered and declared a "legal" procedure, I imagine they would protest. It has become a bit of a cliche to compare the currently legal practice of killing live in-utero babies to slavery but i believe the comparison holds because they both sanction state authorized brutality and murder of other human beings. Like slavery, many of us hope and pray for the day when america will live up to its ideals and outlaw this barbaric practice.


I have never supported partial birth abortion - it is disgusting, but it is a practic that has grown up because of the irrational nature of laws about abortion and the loophole that is presented by "justified abortion". Such abortions are carried out rarely and are done for medical reasons rather than because a woman does not want a child. I presume mother and child are anaesthetized at the time and so the child feels no pain, but you present it as though the conscious baby just has a skewer driven into its head. You are creating a straw man with this issue and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so! Either you have been duped by the ideologues or you are seeking to dupe others.
english


So, no, I do not agree with the OP that Republicans (or anyone) should shut up about abortion. It would be nice though, if pro-life candidates could express themselves without stumbling over issues like rape and God's intentions. b/o/b

I am afraid these strange ideas about pregnacies occuring only when God wants them to and that women are able to control whether or not they become pregnant from rape are just an indication of the level of ignorance of so many in the extremes of the pro-life movement. In this case I suspect the extremes are quite a large proportion. Ideas such as those require a hinterland of nonsensical ideas and a large number of people repeating them! This is not just some rogue Senator but a large part of the movement.

English