On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote: [quote]
People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy.
Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy?
Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution.
Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule.
Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
A fetus is a glob of cells. 'Life' by itself is not valuable without consciousness and reason. Life is a state shared by plants, animals, and bacteria in your poo.
To be clear on my stance I think that abortion is wrong and shouldn't be allowed but if we do make it not legal people are still going to get abortions and instead do it in an unsafe and would endanger their lives for an abortion in back ally doctor rooms and try to do it on their own. It would be a worse situation if we made it not legal now so to speak. I would however wish that it would be restricted to case's of rape, incest. and medical reasons to save the life of the mother
Also Romney is the worst republican candidate that I've ever seen. The fact that this race is close is a joke. the fact that he has a chance to win is a bigger joke.
On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote: Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening.
People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy.
Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy?
Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution.
Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule.
Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Thats not a valid comparison at all. By being an organ donar or not doesn't directly but instead indirectly effect the chance that you can save someone else's life. By choseing abortion you are directly making the effort to end the chance that a person has to live.
If someone was hooked up to your bloodstream and needed to stay attached to continue living, you have no obligation to continue sustaining them. Forcing you to keep sustaining them would be a violation of your rights. Yes, unplugging them ends their chance to live, but it's not your responsibility to keep them alive at cost to you in the first place.
Yes it is. You have (should have) a moral and civil duty to your fellow man and citizen that you won't directly take part in an action that kills them. yes the person could tell you that its okay for you to unplug them but by this they have consented to some degree for you to do it. An unborn child can't say or make known their wish's in any way and therefore shoudn't be held to the same standard as a fully grown adult.
Wrong. If there was a person dying on your front lawn, it's not your legal responsibility to attempt to save their lives. It might be the morally right thing to do, but government should not compel you to do so barring extraneous circumstances (the fact that you are a doctor and agreed to do so in return for medical training, for example).
On October 25 2012 12:26 Sermokala wrote: Would it be any difference to you if it was a child that was connected to you in this analogy? would it make a difference to you if it was your own child that would die if you disconnected yourself from them and were the reason that they died?
It would make the act despicable, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to stay connected.
Similarly, it's despicable not to donate a kidney to save the life of your child, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to make that donation.
You didn't cause that person to be in a situation to be dieing on your front lawn and if you did then you have a whole new field of things to consider about it. It may fall under good Samaritan laws depending on where you are if you don't try and save that persons life.
And your analogy fails again because in that situation where your child or anyone needs an organ transplant to survive you are not making an active choice to cause the death of someone you are causing it though indirect negligence at the worst. By choseing not to donate your organ the person is going to die not by you not donating your organ to that person.
I hoped that last part made sense to you as it did to me
This. The mother has sex, which can result in a pregnancy. People need to take responsibility for their actions.
I should bare no responsibility for some dying man in my lawn. I did not do anything to contribute to his condition.
This analogy is really poor and doesn't encompass the whole situation.
I agree that our sex ed needs to be better. People need to understand contraceptives are not 100% effective.
Taking action a (having sex) while knowing that consequence p (pregnancy) is possible does not imply consent to right violation x (invasion of bodily autonomy) occurring. If you want to argue that it does, then you need to be prepared to accept that if you support gun rights, you imply that you are OK with being shot because an increase in gun proliferation increases the risk of gun violence in that particular area.
On October 25 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote: See? Conservatives want big government after all.
On social issues, generally yes.
The though of government spending a portion of your tax dollars on things you don't agree with is unbearably abhorrent, but you have no problems letting them forbid women from receiving certain medical procedures that have no bearing in your life whatsoever.
Standard.
Well, personally I'm pro-choice but I don't see the pro-life argument as 'wrong' either. The state I live in (MA) will never outlaw abortion or revert the legality of same-sex marriage. But if the bible belt states feel otherwise I see no reason to impose my own cultural beliefs on them.
Because they're attempting to impose their absolutist, inflexible belief upon women, even those who impregnated by rape.
Well if they want to impose that at the national level I'm certainly against it. But if a state I don't live in makes that decision then its none of my business.
On October 25 2012 13:06 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote: + Show Spoiler +
It feels like economic growth and prosperity is against Obama's agenda. Spreading the wealth so everything is "fair" for others looking into starting a small business is just plain dumb. Obama believes that the government has the ability to resolve our problems whileRomney believes in private enterprises and has distrust in government intervention. Obama favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.
Its so irritating to hear Obama say the rich need to be taxed a little bit more to spread the wealth around. Unemployment is only bad because banks don't lend as much since 2008's crisis, trillions of dollars are just sitting around doing nothing within banks and there's idle workers. If you aren't building anything than your SCVs and the workers inside your barrackses and factories will be idle and not getting pay checks.
Those are just my 2 cents, Obama is going to drag this recession on for another 4 years.
Anyone whose political ideology revolves around "distrust" is the sort of person who thinks putting up a giant douchey banner is going to change anything, say anything meaningful, or be otherwise justified in any manner. Thanks for the oversized picture though, I enjoy seeing reminders of Midwest highway politics.
Pretty cool animation of every election/caucus/whatever in the last 150 years.
As far as the abortion issue goes, I think that sex education is probably the most important way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. In BC, at least for me, I was taught about human reproduction in school in grade ~3/4 (basics), in-depth(grades 8/9), as in spending ~8-10 hours over two weeks just talking about sex. I get this feeling from news stories that this is opposed or disliked in the USA in certain areas which baffles me.
On contraceptives. I personally don't like the idea of anyone having to subsidize condoms and the like. I do, however, fully support funding for emergency contraceptives for women.
My personal philosophy is that although life technically begins at conception (A unique set of DNA is created and the cells can begin to reproduce), It is not reasonable to risk the life of the mother over it. The mother should have full control over the choice to abort the fetus in the first trimester and anonymous clinics should be available for them to do so without question. Beyond that, if the mother's life is at risk, abort the fetus or, if possible, prematurely deliver it. In all cases though, until the fetus is out of the body, mother's life first. There is no reason to force people who want/need an abortion to do so in an unsafe manner or travel outside the country for care.
On October 25 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote: See? Conservatives want big government after all.
On social issues, generally yes.
The though of government spending a portion of your tax dollars on things you don't agree with is unbearably abhorrent, but you have no problems letting them forbid women from receiving certain medical procedures that have no bearing in your life whatsoever.
Standard.
Well, personally I'm pro-choice but I don't see the pro-life argument as 'wrong' either. The state I live in (MA) will never outlaw abortion or revert the legality of same-sex marriage. But if the bible belt states feel otherwise I see no reason to impose my own cultural beliefs on them.
Because they're attempting to impose their absolutist, inflexible belief upon women, even those who impregnated by rape.
Well if they want to impose that at the national level I'm certainly against it. But if a state I don't live in makes that decision then its none of my business.
Exactly. If somebody lives on the other side of an arbitrary line, it's all good.
It feels like economic growth and prosperity is against Obama's agenda. Spreading the wealth so everything is "fair" for others looking into starting a small business is just plain dumb. Obama believes that the government has the ability to resolve our problems while Romney believes in private enterprises and has distrust in government intervention. Obama favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.
Its so irritating to hear Obama say the rich need to be taxed a little bit more to spread the wealth around. Unemployment is only bad because banks don't lend as much since 2008's crisis, trillions of dollars are just sitting around doing nothing within banks and there's idle workers. If you aren't building anything than your SCVs and the workers inside your barrackses and factories will be idle and not getting pay checks.
Those are just my 2 cents, Obama is going to drag this recession on for another 4 years.
We aren't in a recession anymore. That ended a while ago. The free market has demonstrably proven to not always be stable. That is the entire basis for Keynesian economics. Your conclusion about why unemployment is bad is also completely unfounded.
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote: [quote]
Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution.
Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule.
Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
A fetus is a glob of cells. 'Life' by itself is not valuable without consciousness and reason. Life is a state shared by plants, animals, and bacteria in your poo.
Do you know for a fact that fetus's don't have some low form of these things? A human brain doesn't just turn on like a light bulb it has to grow out its biochemical electrical reactions. Heck a form of consciousness and reasoning is it kicking in the womb and a form of reason would have to be it crying the first time it sees light and is breathing on its own for the first time. These things have no reason to think that they magically happen because of birth but instead happen inside the womb and are made apparent when they come out of it.
Any more knowledge of when a fetus becomes a person could have thunderously good implications on how a brain works and how we can grow separate chemical-organic based computers instead of synthetic silicon based ones.
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote: [quote]
Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution.
Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule.
Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
A fetus is a glob of cells. 'Life' by itself is not valuable without consciousness and reason. Life is a state shared by plants, animals, and bacteria in your poo.
A grown human being is a glob of cells. When does a human gain conciousness and reason? Newborns can't reason (if they can, then they could have reasoned in the womb as well).
On October 25 2012 11:20 nevermindthebollocks wrote: Hey check this out. When you get away from fox news and get an unbiased view of who is better this is the result
single digits in almost every country for romney sounds about right
Looks like Pakistan didn't like the way Obama pronounced their country's name.
Or you know, the extrajudicial killing of their citizens with aerial drones.
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote: [quote]
People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy.
Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy?
Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution.
Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule.
Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I am arguing that a child is a person. The issue is simple. You believe a child is the same as a fetus. Please outline reason why this is so. Arguing that a fetus is a person because my moral beliefs are that a fetus is a person is circular reasoning.
The reason it's important is this. You're not only arguing that a fetus is the same as a child, but doing so within the context of a raped woman trying to terminate her pregnancy. If your position isn't even rooted in reason as a bare minimum, then the raped woman's rights to terminate her pregnancy are worth far more.
Wrong. If there was a person dying on your front lawn, it's not your legal responsibility to attempt to save their lives. It might be the morally right thing to do, but government should not compel you to do so barring extraneous circumstances (the fact that you are a doctor and agreed to do so in return for medical training, for example).
It would make the act despicable, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to stay connected.
Similarly, it's despicable not to donate a kidney to save the life of your child, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to make that donation.
While true in the criminal sense, Courts have made it pretty clear that nearly anything creates a duty to save a dying person in the civil world.
Not at cost to yourself. We don't require people to rush into burning buildings to save others.
No, but you are required to do certain things when people are in distress. Such as you would be expected to call the fire department if you see a fire in an occupied house.
On October 25 2012 13:11 Sermokala wrote: To be clear on my stance I think that abortion is wrong and shouldn't be allowed but if we do make it not legal people are still going to get abortions and instead do it in an unsafe and would endanger their lives for an abortion in back ally doctor rooms and try to do it on their own. It would be a worse situation if we made it not legal now so to speak. I would however wish that it would be restricted to case's of rape, incest. and medical reasons to save the life of the mother
Also Romney is the worst republican candidate that I've ever seen. The fact that this race is close is a joke. the fact that he has a chance to win is a bigger joke.
I see. Well that changes things a bit I guess. I still disagree, but not nearly so vehemently. I'm against abortion once the fetus reaches a certain age (late), but before that point there is no reasonable moral justification that I can see that is based on the baby's rights.
It feels like economic growth and prosperity is against Obama's agenda. Spreading the wealth so everything is "fair" for others looking into starting a small business is just plain dumb. Obama believes that the government has the ability to resolve our problems while Romney believes in private enterprises and has distrust in government intervention. Obama favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.
Its so irritating to hear Obama say the rich need to be taxed a little bit more to spread the wealth around. Unemployment is only bad because banks don't lend as much since 2008's crisis, trillions of dollars are just sitting around doing nothing within banks and there's idle workers. If you aren't building anything than your SCVs and the workers inside your barrackses and factories will be idle and not getting pay checks.
Those are just my 2 cents, Obama is going to drag this recession on for another 4 years.
We aren't in a recession anymore. That ended a while ago. The free market has demonstrably proven to not always be stable. That is the entire basis for Keynesian economics. Your conclusion about why unemployment is bad is also completely unfounded.
Drove past a "For Sale" sign on a bale of hay out in somebody's yard this afternoon, not sure I agree with the bolded part at all. Times are tough.
On October 25 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote: See? Conservatives want big government after all.
On social issues, generally yes.
The though of government spending a portion of your tax dollars on things you don't agree with is unbearably abhorrent, but you have no problems letting them forbid women from receiving certain medical procedures that have no bearing in your life whatsoever.
Standard.
Well, personally I'm pro-choice but I don't see the pro-life argument as 'wrong' either. The state I live in (MA) will never outlaw abortion or revert the legality of same-sex marriage. But if the bible belt states feel otherwise I see no reason to impose my own cultural beliefs on them.
The abortion issue is not one of cultural beliefs. It's health care. It's a basic human right. You're not imposing yourself on anybody by being pro-choice, you're choosing to not allow others to impose their beliefs onto you and your body. Saying you want to leave a basic right up to the states is a cop-out. Some states wanted slavery, but that doesn't mean the federal government shouldn't protect African Americans because certain states voted for it.
AGAIN.
Abortion is not a "basic right".
You WANT it to be a basic right. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT ONE!!!!
On October 25 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote: See? Conservatives want big government after all.
On social issues, generally yes.
The though of government spending a portion of your tax dollars on things you don't agree with is unbearably abhorrent, but you have no problems letting them forbid women from receiving certain medical procedures that have no bearing in your life whatsoever.
Standard.
Well, personally I'm pro-choice but I don't see the pro-life argument as 'wrong' either. The state I live in (MA) will never outlaw abortion or revert the legality of same-sex marriage. But if the bible belt states feel otherwise I see no reason to impose my own cultural beliefs on them.
Because they're attempting to impose their absolutist, inflexible belief upon women, even those who impregnated by rape.
Well if they want to impose that at the national level I'm certainly against it. But if a state I don't live in makes that decision then its none of my business.
Exactly. If somebody lives on the other side of an arbitrary line, it's all good.
Pretty much. State lines are official government lines after all.
I don't see why different states shouldn't be able to create laws based on their own cultural norms / beliefs.
On October 25 2012 13:11 Sermokala wrote: To be clear on my stance I think that abortion is wrong and shouldn't be allowed but if we do make it not legal people are still going to get abortions and instead do it in an unsafe and would endanger their lives for an abortion in back ally doctor rooms and try to do it on their own. It would be a worse situation if we made it not legal now so to speak. I would however wish that it would be restricted to case's of rape, incest. and medical reasons to save the life of the mother
Also Romney is the worst republican candidate that I've ever seen. The fact that this race is close is a joke. the fact that he has a chance to win is a bigger joke.
I see. Well that changes things a bit I guess. I still disagree, but not nearly so vehemently. I'm against abortion once the fetus reaches a certain age (late), but before that point there is no reasonable moral justification that I can see that is based on the baby's rights.
You do realize that the "exception" stance is the one that a vast majority of social conservatives proscribe to, don't you? The "abortion is wrong all the time" is actually a very small minority stance.
On October 25 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote: See? Conservatives want big government after all.
On social issues, generally yes.
The though of government spending a portion of your tax dollars on things you don't agree with is unbearably abhorrent, but you have no problems letting them forbid women from receiving certain medical procedures that have no bearing in your life whatsoever.
Standard.
Well, personally I'm pro-choice but I don't see the pro-life argument as 'wrong' either. The state I live in (MA) will never outlaw abortion or revert the legality of same-sex marriage. But if the bible belt states feel otherwise I see no reason to impose my own cultural beliefs on them.
The abortion issue is not one of cultural beliefs. It's health care. It's a basic human right. You're not imposing yourself on anybody by being pro-choice, you're choosing to not allow others to impose their beliefs onto you and your body. Saying you want to leave a basic right up to the states is a cop-out. Some states wanted slavery, but that doesn't mean the federal government shouldn't protect African Americans because certain states voted for it.
AGAIN.
Abortion is not a "basic right".
You WANT it to be a basic right. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT ONE!!!!
The right to bodily autonomy/security is most definitely a right, and taking away the ability for a woman to choose is infringing on that right.
EPT![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yFiR45zcQjo/UIiwvQ4JClI/AAAAAAAAALU/a795jMbW66o/s1600/obama+funny.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/_63592042_worldservicepoll_464_obama_embargoed23102012.gif)
