America's Debate > Child's Play in a tightening race.

Google

Sponsored Links

Paladin Elspeth

Oct 17 2012, 12:19 AM

QUOTE(net2007)

Of the two electable candidates I think Romney stands the best chance of reducing that government interference at least in more areas than Obama. It's not politics I agree with across the board but it's the best I can hope for. I wish things were different though.

If you were a woman of reproductive age you might think differently about it. In the state of Michigan, for instance, the Republican legislature has made it illegal for a woman who has passed her twentieth week of pregnancy to get an abortion--no exceptions. So TFB if you are an adolescent who took a little too long to tell your mother that Daddy raped you. But it also means the high probability of a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.

If elected, Romney will likely nominate two people for Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. If he feels in a religiously conservative mood at the time, these two will probably be the determining factor in overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.

And isn't that ultimately government interference in one of the most personal ways possible?

net2007

Oct 17 2012, 01:02 AM

Paladin Elspeth

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 16 2012, 08:19 PM)

QUOTE(net2007)

Of the two electable candidates I think Romney stands the best chance of reducing that government interference at least in more areas than Obama. It's not politics I agree with across the board but it's the best I can hope for. I wish things were different though.

If you were a woman of reproductive age you might think differently about it. In the state of Michigan, for instance, the Republican legislature has made it illegal for a woman who has passed her twentieth week of pregnancy to get an abortion--no exceptions. So TFB if you are an adolescent who took a little too long to tell your mother that Daddy raped you. But it also means the high probability of a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.

If elected, Romney will likely nominate two people for Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. If he feels in a religiously conservative mood at the time, these two will probably be the determining factor in overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.

And isn't that ultimately government interference in one of the most personal ways possible?

I guess it is interference especially from a woman's perspective. My girlfriend Elizabeth sounds a bit like what your describing, and although she agrees with me on Abortion right down to the details, she's very big hearted and very pro woman's rights and I understand why, my personal opinion on abortion is moderate too. I think that abortions should be allowed for any woman if their health is in danger or in a case of rape. As far as what they should be allowed to do otherwise im personally conflicted about. I don't like to see abortions happen if a woman keeps getting pregnant and just can't handle the responsibility. People need to be more responsible than that so at the very least I think their should be some guidelines that prevent abortion from becoming a convenient way out.

I don't think I agree with a post 20 week limit if it's across the board with no exceptions. However I don't think this will ever be a law that has any dominance in this county with a Republican in office.

akaCG

Oct 17 2012, 01:44 PM

QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 16 2012, 06:41 PM)

...
The only upside for unaligned political spectators with a Romney upset is that the rhetoric will shift. Instead of everything being POTUS's fault, whether or not there's a logical connection..........nothing will be POTUS's fault.

Whose rhetoric do you envision shifting in such dramatic fashion if Romney wins?

The MSM's? You think that they would suddenly adopt a "Nothing is POTUS's fault" attitude toward negative (or less satisfactory than promised) domestic and international events/developments on Romney's watch? Really?

The Romney administration's? You think that Romney would still, as late as the fourth year of his Presidency, be blaming his predecessor for any negative (or less satisfactory than promised) domestic and/or international events/developments? Really? Can you point to any Presidents other than Obama who have done that?

Mrs. Pigpen

Oct 17 2012, 04:34 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 17 2012, 09:44 AM)

The Romney administration's? You think that Romney would still, as late as the fourth year of his Presidency, be blaming his predecessor for any negative (or less satisfactory than promised) domestic and/or international events/developments? Really? Can you point to any Presidents other than Obama who have done that?

Um, yeah. It doesn't even require more than a second's worth of thought. Bush blamed Clinton for DPRK's nuclear arsenal. That was in 2006, 5+ years after he was elected. I'm sure there are more examples but that's off the top of my head.

Dingo

Oct 17 2012, 04:36 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 17 2012, 06:44 AM)

The Romney administration's? You think that Romney would still, as late as the fourth year of his Presidency, be blaming his predecessor for any negative

Absolutely he would, even if it wasn't true. How do you think an ambition driven serial liar operates? And of course in the case of the GWB engineered financial collapse and the obstructionist 'throw America under the bus for political advantage' republican congress it is clearly obviously true and will continue to be true if Obama wins another term. If you were interested in truth rather than promoting partisan ideology that would be obvious.

QUOTE

Can you point to any Presidents other than Obama who have done that?

Certainly, try 6 years. This is an obviously republican site but a fact is a fact.

QUOTE

FDR blames Hoover for the country still being in the dumps. Remember, this is 1938! FDR was entering his sixth year and the economy had tanked again during his second term

AuthorMusician

Oct 17 2012, 04:40 PM

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 16 2012, 09:02 PM)

Paladin Elspeth

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 16 2012, 08:19 PM)

QUOTE(net2007)

Of the two electable candidates I think Romney stands the best chance of reducing that government interference at least in more areas than Obama. It's not politics I agree with across the board but it's the best I can hope for. I wish things were different though.

If you were a woman of reproductive age you might think differently about it. In the state of Michigan, for instance, the Republican legislature has made it illegal for a woman who has passed her twentieth week of pregnancy to get an abortion--no exceptions. So TFB if you are an adolescent who took a little too long to tell your mother that Daddy raped you. But it also means the high probability of a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.

If elected, Romney will likely nominate two people for Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. If he feels in a religiously conservative mood at the time, these two will probably be the determining factor in overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.

And isn't that ultimately government interference in one of the most personal ways possible?

I guess it is interference especially from a woman's perspective. My girlfriend Elizabeth sounds a bit like what your describing, and although she agrees with me on Abortion right down to the details, she's very big hearted and very pro woman's rights and I understand why, my personal opinion on abortion is moderate too. I think that abortions should be allowed for any woman if their health is in danger or in a case of rape. As far as what they should be allowed to do otherwise im personally conflicted about. I don't like to see abortions happen if a woman keeps getting pregnant and just can't handle the responsibility. People need to be more responsible than that so at the very least I think their should be some guidelines that prevent abortion from becoming a convenient way out.

I don't think I agree with a post 20 week limit if it's across the board with no exceptions. However I don't think this will ever be a law that has any dominance in this county with a Republican in office.

So if a woman shows irresponsibility by having an abortion, or multiple abortions, what makes you think that she's responsible enough to raise children? Also, what do you think this woman's attitude would be toward her children that she didn't want in the first place? Is there some sort of magic in making abortion illegal that would foster responsibility? Another very strong possibility is that the woman took all the precautions but still got pregnant, and therefore was responsible. It's just that contraception let her down, since what we have now isn't 100%.

But be that as it may, so sorry some young woman got all on your case for wearing a sticker that apparently advertised your political stance. You're making a sweeping generalization from one or maybe a handful of incidents about the left wing of politics, which is often easy to do. I guess I don't care if you want to believe most or all liberals are hotheaded maniacs itching for a fight, but I do want to point out that government is trying to get its nose into women's business.

It just doesn't seem logical that Republicans, who keep saying smaller government, would be into this sort of heavy-handed control over a specific part of the population. There also seems to be no thinking through of the problem either. What, do they want to increase the number of people, the percentage of the population, that depends upon government checks? That's exactly what's going to happen if abortion is further restricted or outlawed altogether. The population will grow; more jobs will need to be created, more housing built, more food grown and so forth.

I believe strongly that if you're against abortion, by all means, don't get one. You and I can't due to biology, eh? However, men can put pressure on women to get abortions, or not get abortions, so there's at least the possibility of having flesh in this fight.

Why do you want the government making these life-changing decisions for citizens? Why do you want to make these decisions for people you've never met and probably won't ever meet?

Whatever, this is why women get all uppity about men wanting to force them into something they don't want.

Meanwhile, Ryan is still a little prick.

Dingo

Oct 17 2012, 04:56 PM

If "female responsibility" is the key expression and abortion is considered an enabler of irresponsibility then the natural accompaniment to a forced birth approach would be required sterilization to prevent further irresponsibility. A woman choosing the abortion route certainly has its negatives but it sure beats the alternatives.

Paladin Elspeth

Oct 17 2012, 08:40 PM

QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 17 2012, 12:56 PM)

If "female responsibility" is the key expression and abortion is considered an enabler of irresponsibility then the natural accompaniment to a forced birth approach would be required sterilization to prevent further irresponsibility. A woman choosing the abortion route certainly has its negatives but it sure beats the alternatives.

Exactly. If she can't handle the idea of becoming a mother, what kind of a responsible person would she be at parenting? And mandatory sterilization has taken place in this country in the past.

It takes two to cause a pregnancy. When the male involved is an irresponsible person (And yes, men can be exceedingly irresponsible in these cases--it isn't all on the woman!) and is a predator or an abuser, think of the scenario that develops around an unwanted pregnancy. Beating a woman until she miscarries has happened all too often. A man being proud about having many children, but who neglects or abuses them is another.

Not all women have the luxury of choosing when and with whom they have sexual intercourse.

It is so idyllic to think that all babies would be born into the world into situations where they are wanted and where the parents can and do care for them with the needed resources to raise a child these days. We have the law (the governmnent!) that "interferes" (as some think) in abuse/neglect situations, but under a Romney/Ryan plan there would be fewer people in the public sector to look out for disadvantaged children who are living in risky situations. For children with special needs, there are no guarantees that the "safety net" which is in place now to ensure that these children will get what they need to sustain and enhance their quality of life will still be there. Slash the deficit! These people expect the government to help them! They have no right to expect anything! They need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, ad nauseam. But by all means, beef up the Pentagon budget...

Are there enough caring people these days to take these children off the hands of people who do not want children or who are not capable of giving babies the care that they might want to give them?

And what about the 12-year-old whose body is still growing who is forced to carry a pregnancy that is not only a threat to her mental/emotional status, but who also stands to not be able to conceive in the future when she might WANT a child by someone who is worthy of her love and trust?

I don't think it is responsible of government, be it state or national, to dictate to females of reproductive age that they MUST carry a pregnancy to term regardless of the circumstances.

Dingo

Oct 18 2012, 07:06 AM

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 17 2012, 01:40 PM)

I don't think it is responsible of government, be it state or national, to dictate to females of reproductive age that they MUST carry a pregnancy to term regardless of the circumstances.

I agree.

Ted

Oct 18 2012, 07:27 PM

Questions For Debate....

1. Has the left wing lost touch with some of the values they hold in high regard such as being accepting or tolerant?

Well I agree with Amlord. Both sides can be nasty but the far left will often paint anyone right of center as a monster/radical/bigot etc of one type or another

2. Is campaign negativity going to effect President Obama's chances at getting reelected?

Yes its hurting him right now. As even liberal Kirsten Powers of the Daily Beast has said, they painted Romney so negatively before the debates, that the reality that 70 Million people saw in the first debate, of a far more reasonable and competent man, has hurt the Obama story line badly.

3. Could we be looking at an upset here? I know that it's still early but I'm seeing a major shift in support right now toward Romney.
Yes. Even in debate 2 Obama could not successfully paint Romney as a liar who would tax the middle class. And Romney kept going back to the abysmal Obama record and lack of a plan for the next 4 years. Even the lead Obama had with women is narrowing. People will no longer buy promises from Obama - not after 4 years of broken promises.

4. What can president Obama do to redirect the momentum here?
Not much since he has no real substance in his plans. He will continue to attack Romney in the hope that he can win as “the devil we know”.

Paladin Elspeth

Oct 18 2012, 11:23 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 18 2012, 03:27 PM)

Questions For Debate....

1. Has the left wing lost touch with some of the values they hold in high regard such as being accepting or tolerant?

Well I agree with Amlord. Both sides can be nasty but the far left will often paint anyone right of center as a monster/radical/bigot etc of one type or another

2. Is campaign negativity going to effect President Obama's chances at getting reelected?

Yes its hurting him right now. As even liberal Kirsten Powers of the Daily Beast has said, they painted Romney so negatively before the debates, that the reality that 70 Million people saw in the first debate, of a far more reasonable and competent man, has hurt the Obama story line badly.

3. Could we be looking at an upset here? I know that it's still early but I'm seeing a major shift in support right now toward Romney.
Yes. Even in debate 2 Obama could not successfully paint Romney as a liar who would tax the middle class. And Romney kept going back to the abysmal Obama record and lack of a plan for the next 4 years. Even the lead Obama had with women is narrowing. People will no longer buy promises from Obama - not after 4 years of broken promises.

4. What can president Obama do to redirect the momentum here?
Not much since he has no real substance in his plans. He will continue to attack Romney in the hope that he can win as “the devil we know”.

1) I think that any group that has been consistently maligned for being to the left of a group that is going further right with every election cycle gets testy and wants to fight back. This is a human trait. Sorry you guys can't prove that we aren't human.

2) Campaign negativity is a two-way street. What the public did see was a Republican nominee who likes to bully and demand, and who showed no respect whatsoever for the President. He should be careful what he wishes for, for he can expect to get the same un-deferential treatment should he win the White House, because his behavior is definitely lowering that bar. Both parties will experience the effect of a negative campaign.

3) An "upset" is possible. I have never said otherwise on this forum; rather, I have cautioned people about placing too much credence in polls. While Obama has not painted Romney as a consistent liar, Romney did have his contention that Obama did not identify the Libyan attacks as an act of terror decisively contradicted by the journalist Candy Crowley who served as moderator. She later said that it took a long time for the investigation, but she never backed off her assertion that Obama had identified it as such in his Rose Garden speech the day after it happened the way Romney alleged. And I can provide a link to the film footage of Obama standing with Hillary Clinton in the Rose Garden if anyone still has any doubts. Romney was either misinformed or he lied. Take your pick.

Obama made an important point about Romney's economic plan when he asked Romney if he would accept a plan involving trillions of dollars from someone without details. He said that Romney probably wouldn't go for it, then he looked at the audience and said, "Neither should you." This was an important point. Why should we just trust Romney any more than trusting another politician? We do see a slow recovery under the Obama administration, and we have seen his policies (the ones that can get past the Boehner House and a Senate where Mitch McConnell has been out to make Obama a one-term President since Inauguration Night 2009), so we have some expectation of how he is going to proceed in the next four years.

On the other hand, Romney is first going to have a tax cut for all Americans (to justify continuing the tax cuts for the wealthiest), then not going to have tax increases but have some of the loopholes closed, without identifying any of the loopholes he would close.

Romney is for the Ryan Plan. He says that older people already on Social Security and Medicare won't be affected. But he's going to change it somehow to a voucher system (I think he calls it something else). And he's going to get rid of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, which was largely adopted from Romney's Massachusetts health care plan), but he is going to keep the idea of nobody being refused health insurance on the basis of pre-existing health conditions.

Romney is against abortion. This has changed since he was governor of Massachusetts. He agrees with the 2012 Republican platform that says "no abortions," and yet he makes the exceptions of women who are raped, victims of incest, and whose lives might be in danger carrying the pregnancies to term, which puts him at odds with the Vice Presidential nominee AND the Republican platform. So which is it, Governor?

I could go on, but for the sake of the readers here, I will not. I sure preferred the Mitt Romney who ran as a Republican progressive against Ted Kennedy, who didn't think that the government should have an overweening interest in the private lives of its citizens.

Suffice it to say that there is a lot that hasn't been said in these "debates" that the people of America should know before they make their decisions on not only the Presidential candidates, but all those candidates who hope to represent their interests in government.

So I understand the "tu quoque" nature of this thread. Yes, there are jerks in both major parties and also in the little parties that also want to be taken seriously and receive the majority of votes. But "the lefties do it too" is really not reason enough to consider invalid the positions they hold to improve the lives of everyday, rank-and-file Americans.

net2007

Oct 19 2012, 12:32 AM

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 17 2012, 04:40 PM)

QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 17 2012, 12:56 PM)

If "female responsibility" is the key expression and abortion is considered an enabler of irresponsibility then the natural accompaniment to a forced birth approach would be required sterilization to prevent further irresponsibility. A woman choosing the abortion route certainly has its negatives but it sure beats the alternatives.

Exactly. If she can't handle the idea of becoming a mother, what kind of a responsible person would she be at parenting? And mandatory sterilization has taken place in this country in the past.

It takes two to cause a pregnancy. When the male involved is an irresponsible person (And yes, men can be exceedingly irresponsible in these cases--it isn't all on the woman!) and is a predator or an abuser, think of the scenario that develops around an unwanted pregnancy. Beating a woman until she miscarries has happened all too often. A man being proud about having many children, but who neglects or abuses them is another.

Not all women have the luxury of choosing when and with whom they have sexual intercourse.

It is so idyllic to think that all babies would be born into the world into situations where they are wanted and where the parents can and do care for them with the needed resources to raise a child these days. We have the law (the governmnent!) that "interferes" (as some think) in abuse/neglect situations, but under a Romney/Ryan plan there would be fewer people in the public sector to look out for disadvantaged children who are living in risky situations. For children with special needs, there are no guarantees that the "safety net" which is in place now to ensure that these children will get what they need to sustain and enhance their quality of life will still be there. Slash the deficit! These people expect the government to help them! They have no right to expect anything! They need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, ad nauseam. But by all means, beef up the Pentagon budget...

Are there enough caring people these days to take these children off the hands of people who do not want children or who are not capable of giving babies the care that they might want to give them?

And what about the 12-year-old whose body is still growing who is forced to carry a pregnancy that is not only a threat to her mental/emotional status, but who also stands to not be able to conceive in the future when she might WANT a child by someone who is worthy of her love and trust?

I don't think it is responsible of government, be it state or national, to dictate to females of reproductive age that they MUST carry a pregnancy to term regardless of the circumstances.

You just went from Abortion to the pentagon budget. Grrr I mean had we cut money on big bail outs we could have put that money into developing better rehabilitation programs for women who are troubled yet decide to have the baby, right? Women are important and deserve rights, you don't have to convince most people of that. I agree with you on health dangers being reasons for abortion, or perhaps cases of rape. As for the rest of it I think the rights of a new life to get a chance to live is every bit as important. Life is important, and yes I realize some people are screwed up and wont treat a child right but sometimes those children actually end up growing into individuals who strive to do just the opposite because of that negative experience.

If I was having a baby with my quite liberal girlfriend and it was unplanned, then we decided it was too much to handle, I don't think either one of us would want to abort it. Right's are great PE, equal rights are even better though. The problem of healthy babies on the way with parents who aren't ready has one very simple solution in adoption. Either that or make the preparations necessary to be able to handle the new responsibility.

The woman I'm dating has such a big heart that she decided that despite her biological father leaving just after her son was born and not being ready for it, she did everything in her power to do what she had to do. I look up to her like I never have for another person. I understand that not everyone can do that but there is adoption, and measures in place to remove a child from an unhealthy environment. Programs like that should be improved to help the situation in my opinion. That would be a good use for taxpayer money I think.

Paladin Elspeth

Oct 19 2012, 12:47 AM

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 18 2012, 08:32 PM)

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 17 2012, 04:40 PM)

QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 17 2012, 12:56 PM)

If "female responsibility" is the key expression and abortion is considered an enabler of irresponsibility then the natural accompaniment to a forced birth approach would be required sterilization to prevent further irresponsibility. A woman choosing the abortion route certainly has its negatives but it sure beats the alternatives.

Exactly. If she can't handle the idea of becoming a mother, what kind of a responsible person would she be at parenting? And mandatory sterilization has taken place in this country in the past.

It takes two to cause a pregnancy. When the male involved is an irresponsible person (And yes, men can be exceedingly irresponsible in these cases--it isn't all on the woman!) and is a predator or an abuser, think of the scenario that develops around an unwanted pregnancy. Beating a woman until she miscarries has happened all too often. A man being proud about having many children, but who neglects or abuses them is another.

Not all women have the luxury of choosing when and with whom they have sexual intercourse.

It is so idyllic to think that all babies would be born into the world into situations where they are wanted and where the parents can and do care for them with the needed resources to raise a child these days. We have the law (the governmnent!) that "interferes" (as some think) in abuse/neglect situations, but under a Romney/Ryan plan there would be fewer people in the public sector to look out for disadvantaged children who are living in risky situations. For children with special needs, there are no guarantees that the "safety net" which is in place now to ensure that these children will get what they need to sustain and enhance their quality of life will still be there. Slash the deficit! These people expect the government to help them! They have no right to expect anything! They need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, ad nauseam. But by all means, beef up the Pentagon budget...

Are there enough caring people these days to take these children off the hands of people who do not want children or who are not capable of giving babies the care that they might want to give them?

And what about the 12-year-old whose body is still growing who is forced to carry a pregnancy that is not only a threat to her mental/emotional status, but who also stands to not be able to conceive in the future when she might WANT a child by someone who is worthy of her love and trust?

I don't think it is responsible of government, be it state or national, to dictate to females of reproductive age that they MUST carry a pregnancy to term regardless of the circumstances.

You just went from Abortion to the pentagon budget. Grrr I mean had we cut money on big bail outs we could have put that money into developing better rehabilitation programs for women who are troubled yet decide to have the baby, right? Women are important and deserve rights, you don't have to convince most people of that. I agree with you on health dangers being reasons for abortion, or perhaps cases of rape. As for the rest of it I think the rights of a new life to get a chance to live is every bit as important. Life is important, and yes I realize some people are screwed up and wont treat a child right but sometimes those children actually end up growing into individuals who strive to do just the opposite because of that negative experience.

If I was having a baby with my quite liberal girlfriend and it was unplanned, then we decided it was too much to handle, I don't think either one of us would want to abort it. Right's are great PE, equal rights are even better though. The problem of healthy babies on the way with parents who aren't ready has one very simple solution in adoption. Either that or make the preparations necessary to be able to handle the new responsibility.

The woman I'm dating has such a big heart that she decided that despite her biological father leaving just after her son was born and not being ready for it, she did everything in her power to do what she had to do. I look up to her like I never have for another person. I understand that not everyone can do that but there is adoption, and measures in place to remove a child from an unhealthy environment. Programs like that should be improved to help the situation in my opinion. That would be a good use for taxpayer money I think.

Your girlfriend sounds like a terrific woman. I have never had an abortion. My daughter had a baby at age 15. We took her and her beloved to Virginia and got them married, where it was legal and the young man would not be prosecuted for statutory rape. None of us ever pressured my daughter to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore, I feel it is fair to say that you are preaching to the choir. They have had a rough life, but they dearly love their daughter who turned 3 this month, and we love our only grandchild.

It doesn't happen that way for everybody.

I also believe that it is none of my business to tell another female what to do with her pregnancy. And yet there are people who are working in many if not all states to place so many restrictions and regulations on women (24-hour waiting periods) and abortion clinics (more stringent regulations than in some hospitals!) to stop women from exercising their right to reproductive choice as verified by the U.S. Supreme Court. If these people don't want to have abortions, then they shouldn't have them. But what right do they have to impose their wishes on other women?

Additionally, Romney has been saying that single parents should get married. He is imposing his religion and his values on people. Not all people who make a baby together are suited to be marriage partners OR parents in a co-parenting situation. Obviously, Curmudgeon and I and the young man's parents all felt that marriage was the right thing in this circumstance, because our daughter and their son love each other very much. But marriages are not the solution for other parents, or potential parents.

And not every "bundle of joy" turns out with 10 fingers, 10 toes, a fully-developed brain or internal organs inside its little body. Some are born with AIDS, or addicted to crack, or with a partial brain, or with any number of physical disorders that require lengthy hospital stays, surgeries and therapies that can bankrupt financially-strapped parents. To require the people to carry to term infants with disabilities without "safety nets" to give them a chance at providing what they need is irresponsible.

If we do not provide for the least of us in this society, what the hell are we doing trying to beef-up an already bloated Pentagon budget so we can kill people halfway across the world?

vsrenard

Oct 19 2012, 01:13 AM

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 18 2012, 05:32 PM)

You just went from Abortion to the pentagon budget. Grrr I mean had we cut money on big bail outs we could have put that money into developing better rehabilitation programs for women who are troubled yet decide to have the baby, right? Women are important and deserve rights, you don't have to convince most people of that. I agree with you on health dangers being reasons for abortion, or perhaps cases of rape. As for the rest of it I think the rights of a new life to get a chance to live is every bit as important. Life is important, and yes I realize some people are screwed up and wont treat a child right but sometimes those children actually end up growing into individuals who strive to do just the opposite because of that negative experience.

If I was having a baby with my quite liberal girlfriend and it was unplanned, then we decided it was too much to handle, I don't think either one of us would want to abort it. Right's are great PE, equal rights are even better though. The problem of healthy babies on the way with parents who aren't ready has one very simple solution in adoption. Either that or make the preparations necessary to be able to handle the new responsibility.

The woman I'm dating has such a big heart that she decided that despite her biological father leaving just after her son was born and not being ready for it, she did everything in her power to do what she had to do. I look up to her like I never have for another person. I understand that not everyone can do that but there is adoption, and measures in place to remove a child from an unhealthy environment. Programs like that should be improved to help the situation in my opinion. That would be a good use for taxpayer money I think.

1. Not everyone agrees that a zygote/embryo/fetus is equal to an adult woman. Certainly the zygote/embryo/fetus does not have the same rights as a born child.

2. Not everyone agrees that abortion is always regrettable, at least no more so than any other invasive procedure.

3. Carrying a child to term and giving it out for adoption is not a choice many women want to make. If you don't view the zygote/embryo/fetus as a separate entity deserving of rights, then this mentality is not a problem.

4. I would like to see a justification for disallowing government funding of a legal procedure that does not invoke faith-based beliefs.

Mrs. Pigpen

Oct 19 2012, 01:18 AM

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 18 2012, 08:32 PM)

Grrr I mean had we cut money on big bail outs we could have put that money into developing better rehabilitation programs for women who are troubled yet decide to have the baby, right?

Without the bailouts, we would have seen a wholesale collapse in 2008 when everyone lost faith in the financial sector. If that had happened, those women (along with everyone else) would be in a more desperate situation and money for rehab programs would not be forthcoming. Yes, it is an irony that the people who created the situation got a bailout for ineptitude but it is what it is. Right now the government is spending enough to keep 41 percent of the economy afloat, to avoid something along the lines of what is happening in Greece. It won't fix anything, but we're at a slow steady sustained decline rather than a severed femoral artery.

Always interesting to me when people assert that the fetus/embryo should be a protected life...except for fetuses that are the result of rape. They aren't included, but fetal life (embryo life, whatnot) is otherwise so all important. In the last location I resided, there were very few abortions, and the highschool had the honor of having the highest rate of teen pregnancy of any highschool in the nation. The government paid for childcare and as a result many seniors were on their third baby before graduation. The infants filled up the childcare facilities and military members (and other working people) had to put their name on a waiting list while the teens were placed at the top. Though certainly super "supportive" of teen mothers I don't think this was a good way to solve the problem (obviously not, as mentioned it topped the charts for teen births).

net2007

Oct 19 2012, 05:13 AM

vsrenard

QUOTE(vsrenard @ Oct 18 2012, 09:13 PM)

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 18 2012, 05:32 PM)

You just went from Abortion to the pentagon budget. Grrr I mean had we cut money on big bail outs we could have put that money into developing better rehabilitation programs for women who are troubled yet decide to have the baby, right? Women are important and deserve rights, you don't have to convince most people of that. I agree with you on health dangers being reasons for abortion, or perhaps cases of rape. As for the rest of it I think the rights of a new life to get a chance to live is every bit as important. Life is important, and yes I realize some people are screwed up and wont treat a child right but sometimes those children actually end up growing into individuals who strive to do just the opposite because of that negative experience.

If I was having a baby with my quite liberal girlfriend and it was unplanned, then we decided it was too much to handle, I don't think either one of us would want to abort it. Right's are great PE, equal rights are even better though. The problem of healthy babies on the way with parents who aren't ready has one very simple solution in adoption. Either that or make the preparations necessary to be able to handle the new responsibility.

The woman I'm dating has such a big heart that she decided that despite her biological father leaving just after her son was born and not being ready for it, she did everything in her power to do what she had to do. I look up to her like I never have for another person. I understand that not everyone can do that but there is adoption, and measures in place to remove a child from an unhealthy environment. Programs like that should be improved to help the situation in my opinion. That would be a good use for taxpayer money I think.

1. Not everyone agrees that a zygote/embryo/fetus is equal to an adult woman. Certainly the zygote/embryo/fetus does not have the same rights as a born child.

2. Not everyone agrees that abortion is always regrettable, at least no more so than any other invasive procedure.

3. Carrying a child to term and giving it out for adoption is not a choice many women want to make. If you don't view the zygote/embryo/fetus as a separate entity deserving of rights, then this mentality is not a problem.

4. I would like to see a justification for disallowing government funding of a legal procedure that does not invoke faith-based beliefs.

I want to talk about the 1st point you made. Obviously a fetus is not equal to an adult woman in a literal sense, I'm pretty sure a fetus weighs less.

As far as the rights go I think you lack a little sight by considering the present state of the fetus and not the potential state of the life to come, and reserving the rights for that. You probably look at it like this.... A zygote/embryo/fetus does not have the cognitive ability or the emotional development of a full grown adult, but for that matter neither does a child. Point is that some see it differently than YOU. In that destroying something that has the potential of becoming something great, or in some cases not so great, is unfortunate at the very least.

I know not everyone agrees vsrenard, take a look at my signature and apply it to politics. This quote was about a man realizing that he was in a situation beyond his control so he tried to make the best of the situation in little ways that matter. The character Sarah was so strongly opinionated and driven to fix everything that she didn't realize that what she was doing wasn't solving the problems they were facing. She exhausted herself in a fruitless effort and didn't realize until the end that the solution was much more simple then she had made out.

So what's the point? Ive been on the fence about whether or not my interest in debating politics is going to be fruitful for me at this point. Ive become far less emotionally involved on issues I often don't have the answers for. Frankly I don't think most people who debate do have these answers and I've seen many people who debate who have an inability to communicate their opinion because their emotions get the better of them. So not everyone believes the same thing and they never will. At this point I'm content to not let these things erk me.

Did you notice that my opening post and videos were much about pointing out idiotic behavior? Having beliefs is fine, I have them but at this point my focus has become less on enforcing my beliefs and more on trying to connect with people in a real way. I view child like adults as part of the problem so I point them out.

At the very least that's where Im headed, which is a healthier place for me, but I still have my cocky and childish moments too. I did connect with one Obama supporter when I went to the Romney Rally. It's the last video I posted in the opening post where me and an older woman talked while most other people pointed fingers. It was pretty cool.

Not that you've been pointing fingers, but I like to state my intentions here now and then.

Paladin Elspeth

QUOTE

Your girlfriend sounds like a terrific woman. I have never had an abortion. My daughter had a baby at age 15. We took her and her beloved to Virginia and got them married, where it was legal and the young man would not be prosecuted for statutory rape. None of us ever pressured my daughter to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore, I feel it is fair to say that you are preaching to the choir. They have had a rough life, but they dearly love their daughter who turned 3 this month, and we love our only grandchild.

It doesn't happen that way for everybody.

I also believe that it is none of my business to tell another female what to do with her pregnancy. And yet there are people who are working in many if not all states to place so many restrictions and regulations on women (24-hour waiting periods) and abortion clinics (more stringent regulations than in some hospitals!) to stop women from exercising their right to reproductive choice as verified by the U.S. Supreme Court. If these people don't want to have abortions, then they shouldn't have them. But what right do they have to impose their wishes on other women?

Additionally, Romney has been saying that single parents should get married. He is imposing his religion and his values on people. Not all people who make a baby together are suited to be marriage partners OR parents in a co-parenting situation. Obviously, Curmudgeon and I and the young man's parents all felt that marriage was the right thing in this circumstance, because our daughter and their son love each other very much. But marriages are not the solution for other parents, or potential parents.

And not every "bundle of joy" turns out with 10 fingers, 10 toes, a fully-developed brain or internal organs inside its little body. Some are born with AIDS, or addicted to crack, or with a partial brain, or with any number of physical disorders that require lengthy hospital stays, surgeries and therapies that can bankrupt financially-strapped parents. To require the people to carry to term infants with disabilities without "safety nets" to give them a chance at providing what they need is irresponsible.

If we do not provide for the least of us in this society, what the hell are we doing trying to beef-up an already bloated Pentagon budget so we can kill people halfway across the world?

When you said...

If these people don't want to have abortions, then they shouldn't have them. But what right do they have to impose their wishes on other women?

I understand where your coming from but I'm sure you understand that some people view this as murder, which wouldn't be a right of any woman. I don't go to that extreme but I do think it's an unfortunate event that prevents a new life from ever getting started. I don't think it should be done unless their is a very good reason for it. So I'm moderate on this not extreme to one end or the other.

You mentioned that Romney has been saying that single parents should get married, and is imposing his religion and his values on people. You don't actually think his personal opinion on that is going to be enforced do you? Why do you think he's trying to impose that onto others?

Just sticking to him thinking that single parents should get married, is he actually trying to impose it or is that his opinion? Personally I take that with a grain of salt.

Your daughter sounds like a strong young woman for sticking that out BTW, it must make you proud.

And yes My Lizzy is terrific

I'm head over heals.

Paladin Elspeth

Oct 19 2012, 05:32 AM

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 01:13 AM)

Paladin Elspeth

QUOTE

Your girlfriend sounds like a terrific woman. I have never had an abortion. My daughter had a baby at age 15. We took her and her beloved to Virginia and got them married, where it was legal and the young man would not be prosecuted for statutory rape. None of us ever pressured my daughter to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore, I feel it is fair to say that you are preaching to the choir. They have had a rough life, but they dearly love their daughter who turned 3 this month, and we love our only grandchild.

It doesn't happen that way for everybody.

I also believe that it is none of my business to tell another female what to do with her pregnancy. And yet there are people who are working in many if not all states to place so many restrictions and regulations on women (24-hour waiting periods) and abortion clinics (more stringent regulations than in some hospitals!) to stop women from exercising their right to reproductive choice as verified by the U.S. Supreme Court. If these people don't want to have abortions, then they shouldn't have them. But what right do they have to impose their wishes on other women?

Additionally, Romney has been saying that single parents should get married. He is imposing his religion and his values on people. Not all people who make a baby together are suited to be marriage partners OR parents in a co-parenting situation. Obviously, Curmudgeon and I and the young man's parents all felt that marriage was the right thing in this circumstance, because our daughter and their son love each other very much. But marriages are not the solution for other parents, or potential parents.

And not every "bundle of joy" turns out with 10 fingers, 10 toes, a fully-developed brain or internal organs inside its little body. Some are born with AIDS, or addicted to crack, or with a partial brain, or with any number of physical disorders that require lengthy hospital stays, surgeries and therapies that can bankrupt financially-strapped parents. To require the people to carry to term infants with disabilities without "safety nets" to give them a chance at providing what they need is irresponsible.

If we do not provide for the least of us in this society, what the hell are we doing trying to beef-up an already bloated Pentagon budget so we can kill people halfway across the world?

When you said...

If these people don't want to have abortions, then they shouldn't have them. But what right do they have to impose their wishes on other women?

I understand where your coming from but I'm sure you understand that some people view this as murder, which wouldn't be a right of any woman. I don't go to that extreme but I do think it's an unfortunate event that prevents a new life from ever getting started. I don't think it should be done unless their is a very good reason for it. So I'm moderate on this not extreme to one end or the other.

You mentioned that Romney has been saying that single parents should get married, and is imposing his religion and his values on people. You don't actually think his personal opinion on that is going to be enforced do you? Why do you think he's trying to impose that onto others?

Just sticking to him thinking that single parents should get married, is he actually trying to impose it or is that his opinion? Personally I take that with a grain of salt.

Your daughter sounds like a strong young woman for sticking that out BTW, it must make you proud.

And yes My Lizzy is terrific

I'm head over heals.

I am acutely aware that some people view this as murder, mostly on religious grounds. But if you check the Bible, you do not see any place specifically where the killing of a fetus is viewed as murder. If anything, it is depicted in the Old Testament as depriving the father (not the mother) of a piece of property, more or less. I think it's in Deuteronomy, but I'm not sure.

EDIT: Here is a good link to what the Old Testament says about miscarriages/abortions: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm

QUOTE

Genesis 38:24 Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to be human beings, one would have expected her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that he was the man responsible for Tamar's pregnancy.)

If the fetuses that she was carrying are not to be regarded as living human beings at the end of her first trimester of pregnancy, then causing their death would not be a great moral concern.

However, if the twin fetuses are to be considered as human persons, then it seems strange that they would be considered of such little value as to allow them to be killed for the alleged sin of the woman carrying them. In this latter case, we see another example of a theme that runs through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation: that it is acceptable to kill or otherwise punish innocent persons for the sins or crimes of others -- the pregnant woman in this case.

An alternate interpretation is that innocent persons were often punished for the sins of one member of the family. See Joshua 7:21, Daniel 3:28-19, and Daniel 6:24). So it would be normal to give little concern to the fetuses.

This is why there are statutes on the books in many states in our country that say that a baby becomes a "living" human being when s/he takes her/his first breath. Before then, the unborn baby/fetus is viewed as a potential life.

Some people are so fanatical about the whole situation that some legislation in a couple of southern states has been attempted to investigate miscarriages lest they are something deliberately undertaken by a pregnant woman. Now mind you, they might not know, let alone give a rat's *a-r-s-e* about the woman concerned UNTIL it comes to their attention that she was pregnant and that the pregnancy might have been terminated through some action of the woman.

That is rank interference in the guise of piety. That should not be the motivation: to inject more religiosity into our secular government.

As far as married parents go, I personally believe in the marriage contract and in households with two parents when raising children. But I am not stating it ex-cathedra or as another moral authority, whomever it is. I think Governor Romney is accustomed to doing this sort of thing as a Mormon Elder and Bishop, and it makes me feel a little squeamish to think that he might presume that he is bringing his religious authority into the highest-level secular position.

Thank you for the kind words about my daughter. Curmudgeon and I are indeed proud of her and rooting for the success of the little family.

net2007

Oct 19 2012, 05:53 AM

To refocus here a bit for a sec, I'm not sure the left is taking Romney's chances of winning nearly as serious as they should if they don't want him in. I'll vote for him and hope he makes it but I want to extend this out to any Obama supporter who is still presuming the best....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...ollege_map.html

Obama/Biden (201) :: Toss Ups (131) :: Romney/Ryan (206)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...rs__115825.html

QUOTE

After a lifetime of meticulous planning, relentless self-discipline, and a potent brew of hard work and good fortune, Mitt Romney has the presidency nearly within reach.

The pursuit of that ultimate political prize, which he first caught whiff of when his father chased it more than four decades ago, has been Romney's sole vocation over the last half-dozen years.

He has pursued it with rare vigor, slogging through a nomadic existence of takeout meals, countless handshakes and canned speeches.

Over that time, there have been more than a few moments when his quest seemed like it might come to an unceremonious end. But the political destiny Mitt Romney has been working toward for so long has never been more attainable than it is now with just 19 days left till the election.

One last thing before I head to bed, the 47% thing that's been the primary focus of the Obama campaign in advertisements, and in debate has lost it's effect. There's only so much you can focus on a retracted quote. Not trying to be snarky but I really don't think it's working anymore.

Dingo

Oct 19 2012, 06:39 AM

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 18 2012, 10:13 PM)

As far as the rights go I think you lack a little sight by considering the present state of the fetus and not the potential state of the life to come, and reserving the rights for that.

I understand that our present state of medical technology makes cloning a human being from a single live cell a possibility. That turns the whole argument of "potential state of the life to come" on its head I would think.

LoneWisdom

Oct 19 2012, 07:06 AM

Getting in the weeds here and my understanding of the purpose of the Bible will probably be very different from theologians and many on

. Just giving some Biblical reference for the pro-life side here, not trying to make a case. No attempt was made to put the verses in context with the narrative of the era, the writers, the context of the chapters, the speakers, or the intended audience. Just presenting verses showing a couple of viewpoints. There are several others.

Exodus 21 NIV

QUOTE

²²"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely^{(Or she has a miscarriage)} but there is no serious injury (to the woman), the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. ²³But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, ²⁴eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

^{(super-scripted)} note was from the site.
(bold) I added for emphasis. I don't believe they were talking about the child here, but this would have probably been considered accidental, not deliberate. There probably wouldn't have been adequate medical knowledge to save the child, unlike today.

QUOTE

"Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

vsrenard

Oct 19 2012, 08:18 AM

For those who are interested in a compelling fiction read in the abortion area, I recommend Neal Shusterman's "Unwind."

net2007 I don't care if people share my views or not. What I care about is the law. If it is not science dictating when a 'potential' baby has rights, but religion, then I have a problem. I think I am a potential best-selling author, but I don't get to spend money on that basis. My niece, who is a great of my life, has every potential to be a great scholar. Let's say she has the potential to be a Nobel Prize winner. Does that mean her folks get to put the prize money in an account for her? Obviously not.

I have no problem with individuals acting on potential greatness. The govt has no business doing so.

No offense to any JC+ people here, but I'm not concerned with what the Bible says. Neither am I concerned with the religious texts I grew up reading. I care about the law, and its secular basis. I care that rights given to all of us are not based on a belief of sin, heaven, hell, karma or reincarnation.

EDIT: Spelling

LoneWisdom

Oct 19 2012, 10:03 AM

QUOTE(vsrenard)

If it is not science dictating when a 'potential' baby has rights

I'm not sure science will ever be able to tell us that. Physical intervention notwithstanding, I'm afraid it's always going to fall on the individual to make that decision, law or no law. The mother will always be the one deciding if her 'potential' baby has rights or not. It will always be her choice to make.

QUOTE

but I'm not concerned with what the Bible says. Neither am I concerned with the religious texts I grew up reading. I care about the law, and its secular basis. I care that rights given to all of us are not based on a belief of sin, heaven, hell, karma or reincarnation.

Rights were never based on those things. The old laws written about in the texts were used to ensure their survival, using whatever methods they could at the time, which included heavy emphasis on religion, and we're still dealing with its remains.

Our need for laws are different today, with less emphasis on survival, but more emphasis on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We're also not as susceptible to being manipulated using the old methods, even though people still feel the need to try. Their happiness seems to depend on it.

I really don't think people can change how they feel about what they see others doing. Humans are covered with buttons that are easily pushed, but we've come a long way. Most of the free don't get crucified for heresy these days, and we're skeptical when someone claims their definition of immoral behavior causes natural disasters.

Mrs. Pigpen

Oct 19 2012, 10:42 AM

QUOTE(vsrenard @ Oct 19 2012, 04:18 AM)

No offense to any JC+ people here, but I'm not concerned with what the Bible says.

You aren't concerned with what the Bible says? You don't routinely engage in animal ritual sacrifice? I have my altar in the backyard. Neighbors think it's a fire pit. Every once in a while, I throw a kid in there if God tells me to (like Abraham with Isaac) usually an angel tells me to stop, though, so no harm no foul...also flog my kids a lot (knowing that if I beat them with the rod I will save their souls).

The rape exception that the majority of self-described 'pro-life' people seem to advocate would indicate to me that there is less concern about the actual 'potential person' than the woman's behavior. If she objected to the sex, the embryo/fetus is disposable, but if she acquiesced it is so important that (even at the lowest level of development) it supercedes her right to self-autonomy. This is legally problematic for reasons that should be pretty obvious. That's without even delving into the practical aspects of enforcement (the fact that most of the best types of birth control available today have the potential to be abortificants topping the list).

Dingo

Oct 19 2012, 11:09 AM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 19 2012, 03:42 AM)

The rape exception that the majority of 'pro-life' people seem to advocate would indicate to me that there is less concern about the actual 'potential person' than the woman's behavior. If she objected to the sex, the embryo/fetus is disposable, but if she acquiesced it is so important it supercedes her right to self-autonomy.

Yeah, I think "if you want to play you've got to pay" has been the big driver of the forced birth movement. If concern for the life of the "unborn child" was their principal focus then they would be leading the charge to give women access to birth control devices and accompanying education like Planned Parenthood does. In fact it is just the opposite.

AuthorMusician

Oct 19 2012, 11:37 AM

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 01:53 AM)

One last thing before I head to bed, the 47% thing that's been the primary focus of the Obama campaign in advertisements, and in debate has lost it's effect. There's only so much you can focus on a retracted quote. Not trying to be snarky but I really don't think it's working anymore.

That's probably true, having been replaced by Romney's horrible misrepresentation of what President Obama said in the Rose Garden right after the Libya killings. Romney wrapped himself around the lie promoted by the right so much that he actually believed in it strongly enough to think he had President Obama against the ropes.

But then this little thing called the truth came up and exposed the vehemently expressed lie. Jon Stewart popularized it, and onward the early voting goes.

Abortion and the Pentagon budget aside, I don't think the country will go with Romney now, not in the states where it counts. He is too easily influenced by far right-wing propaganda, aka, lies. There's one more debate to go, and maybe this season these debates will have an important impact on voters just making up their minds.

Heh, and the attempt at turning Romney's vague plans for the economy on President Obama probably aren't working either. Romney literally pulled a number out of his butt and tried to run with that. Man, can the electorate be that stupid? I don't think so, but then we may be talking about information-challenged undecided voters.

net2007

Oct 19 2012, 11:15 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 19 2012, 07:37 AM)

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 01:53 AM)

One last thing before I head to bed, the 47% thing that's been the primary focus of the Obama campaign in advertisements, and in debate has lost it's effect. There's only so much you can focus on a retracted quote. Not trying to be snarky but I really don't think it's working anymore.

That's probably true, having been replaced by Romney's horrible misrepresentation of what President Obama said in the Rose Garden right after the Libya killings. Romney wrapped himself around the lie promoted by the right so much that he actually believed in it strongly enough to think he had President Obama against the ropes.

But then this little thing called the truth came up and exposed the vehemently expressed lie. Jon Stewart popularized it, and onward the early voting goes.

Abortion and the Pentagon budget aside, I don't think the country will go with Romney now, not in the states where it counts. He is too easily influenced by far right-wing propaganda, aka, lies. There's one more debate to go, and maybe this season these debates will have an important impact on voters just making up their minds.

Heh, and the attempt at turning Romney's vague plans for the economy on President Obama probably aren't working either. Romney literally pulled a number out of his butt and tried to run with that. Man, can the electorate be that stupid? I don't think so, but then we may be talking about information-challenged undecided voters.

Well I saw that the 47% quote was losing it's effect before the second debate, which on Romney's part wasn't all that great. Jon Stewart is funny but IMO he has a political agenda that is left leaning, probably being the reason you mentioned him and liberals love him. Not to mention that I've watched his show and can see the motive behind his political pun's dating back to the Bush administration. Problem with listening to him is that he is focused on 10- 20 second public gafs or humorous moments often pulled out of context in the name of comedy, more so in his case then the politicians he focuses on. If he were a politician he'd be worse at pulling things out of context than Obama and Romney combined.

On another note you ask if the electorate can be that stupid, however how much do you consider the mischaracterization of Romney on Obama's part? Can we be that stupid to elect Obama again? You see it works both ways, and from my perspective Obama has had his chance and his misdirection is equal or greater to Romney's, that being said he's the one that's been president. Im thinking he knows he hasn't lived up to his promises and feels his chances are better if he focuses on Romney. In Romney's case he does that to help his chances of getting elected, which isn't good, however he isn't the one who's been president for four years, so I think the mischaracterization is hurting Obama more and the polls show it.

LoneWisdom

Oct 20 2012, 12:15 AM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician)

That's probably true, having been replaced by Romney's horrible misrepresentation of what President Obama said in the Rose Garden right after the Libya killings. Romney wrapped himself around the lie promoted by the right so much that he actually believed in it strongly enough to think he had President Obama against the ropes.

The whole episode was political posturing and pandering. None of the participants deserve a pass. Voters should demand more maturity out of both candidates, and the moderator. Not a good moment for America. The President was correct to be offended by Romney's staged press conference in an attempt to appear on an equal footing, but it should have stopped there. The Rose Garden speech was Presidential, but after that, the administration's handling of this tragedy deserved to be challenged. Being able to claim you used the words "Acts of terrorism" generically in a prepared speech doesn't absolve the administration's labeling or handling of the events.

Both candidates attempted to dress each other down on stage. None of it was respectful. The moderator needed to have stayed out of it. Being quick to fact check Romney on stage and siding with the President, and then with the Governor for the administration's use of the internet video was improper, confrontational, and disrespectful of the candidate, and it displayed bias. This isn't about being able to search for key word patterns. The President making reference to a transcript on stage showed premeditation, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and give him credit for properly preparing for the issue to come up during the debate. Bullying, being defensive, aloof, dismissive, or snarky are characteristics both candidates should avoid. I believe America deserves better.

*changed press release to press conference

net2007

Oct 20 2012, 02:58 AM

QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 19 2012, 08:15 PM)

QUOTE(AuthorMusician)

That's probably true, having been replaced by Romney's horrible misrepresentation of what President Obama said in the Rose Garden right after the Libya killings. Romney wrapped himself around the lie promoted by the right so much that he actually believed in it strongly enough to think he had President Obama against the ropes.

The whole episode was political posturing and pandering. None of the participants deserve a pass. Voters should demand more maturity out of both candidates, and the moderator. Not a good moment for America. The President was correct to be offended by Romney's staged press conference in an attempt to appear on an equal footing, but it should have stopped there. The Rose Garden speech was Presidential, but after that, the administration's handling of this tragedy deserved to be challenged. Being able to claim you used the words "Acts of terrorism" generically in a prepared speech doesn't absolve the administration's labeling or handling of the events.

Both candidates attempted to dress each other down on stage. None of it was respectful. The moderator needed to have stayed out of it. Being quick to fact check Romney on stage and siding with the President, and then with the Governor for the administration's use of the internet video was improper, confrontational, and disrespectful of the candidate, and it displayed bias. This isn't about being able to search for key word patterns. The President making reference to a transcript on stage showed premeditation, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and give him credit for properly preparing for the issue to come up during the debate. Bullying, being defensive, aloof, dismissive, or snarky are characteristics both candidates should avoid. I believe America deserves better.

*changed press release to press conference

Exactly!

Paladin Elspeth

Oct 20 2012, 03:17 AM

QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 19 2012, 03:06 AM)

Getting in the weeds here and my understanding of the purpose of the Bible will probably be very different from theologians and many on

. Just giving some Biblical reference for the pro-life side here, not trying to make a case. No attempt was made to put the verses in context with the narrative of the era, the writers, the context of the chapters, the speakers, or the intended audience. Just presenting verses showing a couple of viewpoints. There are several others.

Exodus 21 NIV

QUOTE

²²"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely^{(Or she has a miscarriage)} but there is no serious injury (to the woman), the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. ²³But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, ²⁴eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

^{(super-scripted)} note was from the site.
(bold) I added for emphasis. I don't believe they were talking about the child here, but this would have probably been considered accidental, not deliberate. There probably wouldn't have been adequate medical knowledge to save the child, unlike today.

QUOTE

"Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

Then God knew that the child wasn't going to be aborted, right? So the child had supernatural protection. Would a woman who had her pregnancy terminated actually be able to thwart God's plan? Wouldn't God know that the fetus or embryo would not come into being then? Are you suggesting that this passage you cited is on a par with what the founder of Christianity said in the four Gospels?

It really doesn't help the argument. This is not the forum in which to argue religion; but I felt it important to point out that "holy writ" is not consistent about how potential life is dealt with, nor can people claim with 100% certainty that they are God's agents when they would force women to carry pregnancies to term, regardless.

Our government is not supposed to be the extension of ANY religion.

net2007

Oct 20 2012, 03:57 AM

QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 19 2012, 02:39 AM)

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 18 2012, 10:13 PM)

As far as the rights go I think you lack a little sight by considering the present state of the fetus and not the potential state of the life to come, and reserving the rights for that.

I understand that our present state of medical technology makes cloning a human being from a single live cell a possibility. That turns the whole argument of "potential state of the life to come" on its head I would think.

In that case the clone would have life potential as well. Cloning is not cheating nature entirely, you'd have an exact genetic copy of another person but by an early age the cloned person would be developing in different ways than the cell donor. Life experiences account for the other half of what makes a person unique so personally I look at a clone like an identical twin born at a different time.

Im a supporter of stem cell research as well but I think we should keep looking for different ways to extract them like we have been.

Not to get too off track.

Paladin Elspeth

QUOTE

I understand where your coming from but I'm sure you understand that some people view this as murder, which wouldn't be a right of any woman. I don't go to that extreme but I do think it's an unfortunate event that prevents a new life from ever getting started. I don't think it should be done unless their is a very good reason for it. So I'm moderate on this not extreme to one end or the other.

You mentioned that Romney has been saying that single parents should get married, and is imposing his religion and his values on people. You don't actually think his personal opinion on that is going to be enforced do you? Why do you think he's trying to impose that onto others?

Just sticking to him thinking that single parents should get married, is he actually trying to impose it or is that his opinion? Personally I take that with a grain of salt.

Your daughter sounds like a strong young woman for sticking that out BTW, it must make you proud.

And yes My Lizzy is terrific

I'm head over heals.

I am acutely aware that some people view this as murder, mostly on religious grounds. But if you check the Bible, you do not see any place specifically where the killing of a fetus is viewed as murder. If anything, it is depicted in the Old Testament as depriving the father (not the mother) of a piece of property, more or less. I think it's in Deuteronomy, but I'm not sure.

EDIT: Here is a good link to what the Old Testament says about miscarriages/abortions: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm

QUOTE

Genesis 38:24 Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to be human beings, one would have expected her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that he was the man responsible for Tamar's pregnancy.)

If the fetuses that she was carrying are not to be regarded as living human beings at the end of her first trimester of pregnancy, then causing their death would not be a great moral concern.

However, if the twin fetuses are to be considered as human persons, then it seems strange that they would be considered of such little value as to allow them to be killed for the alleged sin of the woman carrying them. In this latter case, we see another example of a theme that runs through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation: that it is acceptable to kill or otherwise punish innocent persons for the sins or crimes of others -- the pregnant woman in this case.

An alternate interpretation is that innocent persons were often punished for the sins of one member of the family. See Joshua 7:21, Daniel 3:28-19, and Daniel 6:24). So it would be normal to give little concern to the fetuses.

This is why there are statutes on the books in many states in our country that say that a baby becomes a "living" human being when s/he takes her/his first breath. Before then, the unborn baby/fetus is viewed as a potential life.

Some people are so fanatical about the whole situation that some legislation in a couple of southern states has been attempted to investigate miscarriages lest they are something deliberately undertaken by a pregnant woman. Now mind you, they might not know, let alone give a rat's *a-r-s-e* about the woman concerned UNTIL it comes to their attention that she was pregnant and that the pregnancy might have been terminated through some action of the woman.

That is rank interference in the guise of piety. That should not be the motivation: to inject more religiosity into our secular government.

As far as married parents go, I personally believe in the marriage contract and in households with two parents when raising children. But I am not stating it ex-cathedra or as another moral authority, whomever it is. I think Governor Romney is accustomed to doing this sort of thing as a Mormon Elder and Bishop, and it makes me feel a little squeamish to think that he might presume that he is bringing his religious authority into the highest-level secular position.

Thank you for the kind words about my daughter. Curmudgeon and I are indeed proud of her and rooting for the success of the little family.

I don't know where some of the more religious get their beliefs from but for me it's my own morals that give me some of my compassion for life in general, and some of those morals I do share with very religious men and women. At this point I've gone from Atheist, to Agnostic, to on the fence. What get's to me is that almost everyone shares a great deal of morals with those who believe in God whether or not they personally believe, yet there is this war against church and state that at times gets ridiculous. Like changing our currency for example, or some people believing "under God" should be removed entirely from The Pledge of Allegiance. At the core of this is intolerance for Religion by the secular, although I do support kids being able to choose whether or not they say under God.

That's true tolerance IMO, the respect for those who believe something different. People don't want to say under God fine, if they don't like what's written on a dollar bill, then don't read it. This is yet another reason I don't warm up to the left entirely, even when I was flat out atheist I thought these things were stupid. Today I don't know if there is a God or not and my opinion is the same. Secular progressives display intolerance just the same as any other political group, even if it's hidden under what they call rational and sane thinking. Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee say they believe in God, and that was never a reason for me not to support them, even when I was 100% atheist

I believe church and state should be separate in many respects since religious views vary, but they never will be completely separate no matter what happens. That's because the government isn't amoral as some people I've talked to claim. I had a long debate about how many of our laws have their roots in issues of morality some of which are shared by very religious individuals. That feeling that murder is wrong, and the laws surrounding that is a good example.

Abortion is a sticker subject where you have two sets of morals clashing, but not everyone who doesn't support abortion believes in God.

LoneWisdom

Oct 20 2012, 05:57 AM

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)

Then God knew that the child wasn't going to be aborted, right? So the child had supernatural protection. Would a woman who had her pregnancy terminated actually be able to thwart God's plan? Wouldn't God know that the fetus or embryo would not come into being then?

Since we can only go by our feelings about the truth of such issues, it would be up to the belief of the reader. Our belief in preordination would actually be irrelevant to the argument. Each of us have the unalienable right of free will. Each of us make our own choices, and we have to live with the choices made by others. Sometimes our choices influence the choices of others and vice versa.

QUOTE

Are you suggesting that this passage you cited is on a par with what the founder of Christianity said in the four Gospels?

No. Pro-life groups use preordination to claim the baby has a right to life in order to change the law. Defense of the unborn is a strong issue with some. Others just don't want to be funding the abortion, similar to some not wanting to fund the killing of others in war or the use of the death penalty. The law is supposed to protect the rights of all covered by it. We are probably at an impasse. The best argument for those not wanting to fund abortion is that it wasn't a role delegated to government, to fund abortion. The legality of abortion is a separate issue with similar arguments.

I believe the founder of Christianity was more interested in how we treated one another. He would probably be trying to give her comfort and be saddened by her despair, no matter if it was the result of a choice she had made or not. He would promote self-reflection. The laws we write would be our free will issues, based on compromises and agreements. He would leave that up to us to decide, with the choices they cause.

QUOTE

It really doesn't help the argument. This is not the forum in which to argue religion; but I felt it important to point out that "holy writ" is not consistent about how potential life is dealt with, nor can people claim with 100% certainty that they are God's agents when they would force women to carry pregnancies to term, regardless.

I agree. I believe the purpose of the book is more of a mirror, trying to help us understand our nature. When you use the term 'forcing them,' which argument are you making? The legal, funding, or both? There is a difference. Most of the arguments I've read you making have been about the legal one. Neither the legal nor the funding forces someone to carry. I understand this slips into economic hardships and safety issues as well. Does the mother have the right to 'force' others to fund or perform an abortion?

QUOTE

Our government is not supposed to be the extension of ANY religion.

Once again, I agree. I was trying to show the difference in views. People make choices all the time. It really isn't up to others to make those choices for them. I would hope those having to make choices that require the assistance of another consider that other person's right to choose also. Sometimes people argue that one person's right to choose gives them the right to force participation by others.

AuthorMusician

Oct 20 2012, 11:13 AM

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 07:15 PM)

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 19 2012, 07:37 AM)

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 01:53 AM)

One last thing before I head to bed, the 47% thing that's been the primary focus of the Obama campaign in advertisements, and in debate has lost it's effect. There's only so much you can focus on a retracted quote. Not trying to be snarky but I really don't think it's working anymore.

That's probably true, having been replaced by Romney's horrible misrepresentation of what President Obama said in the Rose Garden right after the Libya killings. Romney wrapped himself around the lie promoted by the right so much that he actually believed in it strongly enough to think he had President Obama against the ropes.

But then this little thing called the truth came up and exposed the vehemently expressed lie. Jon Stewart popularized it, and onward the early voting goes.

Abortion and the Pentagon budget aside, I don't think the country will go with Romney now, not in the states where it counts. He is too easily influenced by far right-wing propaganda, aka, lies. There's one more debate to go, and maybe this season these debates will have an important impact on voters just making up their minds.

Heh, and the attempt at turning Romney's vague plans for the economy on President Obama probably aren't working either. Romney literally pulled a number out of his butt and tried to run with that. Man, can the electorate be that stupid? I don't think so, but then we may be talking about information-challenged undecided voters.

Well I saw that the 47% quote was losing it's effect before the second debate, which on Romney's part wasn't all that great. Jon Stewart is funny but IMO he has a political agenda that is left leaning, probably being the reason you mentioned him and liberals love him. Not to mention that I've watched his show and can see the motive behind his political pun's dating back to the Bush administration. Problem with listening to him is that he is focused on 10- 20 second public gafs or humorous moments often pulled out of context in the name of comedy, more so in his case then the politicians he focuses on. If he were a politician he'd be worse at pulling things out of context than Obama and Romney combined.

On another note you ask if the electorate can be that stupid, however how much do you consider the mischaracterization of Romney on Obama's part? Can we be that stupid to elect Obama again? You see it works both ways, and from my perspective Obama has had his chance and his misdirection is equal or greater to Romney's, that being said he's the one that's been president. Im thinking he knows he hasn't lived up to his promises and feels his chances are better if he focuses on Romney. In Romney's case he does that to help his chances of getting elected, which isn't good, however he isn't the one who's been president for four years, so I think the mischaracterization is hurting Obama more and the polls show it.

And I see things differently. Oh well, we'll see who's vision is more accurate to the outcome of this election.

It really doesn't matter when you claim to have detected the loss of impact about the 47%. Things have moved on, and people are now voting.

You are aware that Stewart & Co. are in the business to make jokes about anyone who does or says something joke-worthy, right? Or maybe not. It was been true that Republicans have provided way more material than Democrats for a really long time. It has kept the comedians in chocolates, but The Daily Show has also ripped Democrats when the jokes worked.

The point is to not defend Stewart but to remind you that he has a strong socializing influence on situations. When Romney made that huge blunder, it got more air time than was expected.

Actually, the polls aren't showing anything right now other than Obama is still beating Romney. Be that as it may, there's only one poll that counts, and that happens on Election Day. I've already contributed to that poll, whereas I can't say the same for any of the other polls.

Furthermore, you can't misjudge a guy who actually does the things claimed. Romney stepped in a pile of poo all by himself, and President Obama invited him to please proceed, Governor. It was a shining moment when the Republican candidate for POTUS parroted a lie promoted by the right-wing propaganda machine. While the 47% thing can be written off as a poor way of describing his campaign, this blunder reflects strongly on the man's mental powers.

There were a lot of other subtle things that Romney did during that performance, the entire debate, that reflected on who he is. More is to come.

Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, a mental condition in which you say one thing while doing another and pretending that there is no contradiction. Eh, it's late in the game, and that won't be a game-changer, but it is funny.

Meanwhile, it is true the President Obama has a record of performance on the job, whereas Romney has very little to go on than his time as governor and success at collecting piles of money while not doing a whole lot of anything that most people consider work. He worked the deals, as Trump would put it. If anything, the Romney campaign has been successful at turning this glaring weakness around into being a positive for a lot of people.

So, is the electorate going to hire this unknown walking contradiction or stick with a known entity? I think the latter. However, I do have to slow-clap the Romney campaign out of this election season. Nice try.

AuthorMusician

Oct 20 2012, 11:14 AM

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 07:15 PM)

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 19 2012, 07:37 AM)

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 01:53 AM)

One last thing before I head to bed, the 47% thing that's been the primary focus of the Obama campaign in advertisements, and in debate has lost it's effect. There's only so much you can focus on a retracted quote. Not trying to be snarky but I really don't think it's working anymore.

That's probably true, having been replaced by Romney's horrible misrepresentation of what President Obama said in the Rose Garden right after the Libya killings. Romney wrapped himself around the lie promoted by the right so much that he actually believed in it strongly enough to think he had President Obama against the ropes.

But then this little thing called the truth came up and exposed the vehemently expressed lie. Jon Stewart popularized it, and onward the early voting goes.

Abortion and the Pentagon budget aside, I don't think the country will go with Romney now, not in the states where it counts. He is too easily influenced by far right-wing propaganda, aka, lies. There's one more debate to go, and maybe this season these debates will have an important impact on voters just making up their minds.

Heh, and the attempt at turning Romney's vague plans for the economy on President Obama probably aren't working either. Romney literally pulled a number out of his butt and tried to run with that. Man, can the electorate be that stupid? I don't think so, but then we may be talking about information-challenged undecided voters.

Well I saw that the 47% quote was losing it's effect before the second debate, which on Romney's part wasn't all that great. Jon Stewart is funny but IMO he has a political agenda that is left leaning, probably being the reason you mentioned him and liberals love him. Not to mention that I've watched his show and can see the motive behind his political pun's dating back to the Bush administration. Problem with listening to him is that he is focused on 10- 20 second public gafs or humorous moments often pulled out of context in the name of comedy, more so in his case then the politicians he focuses on. If he were a politician he'd be worse at pulling things out of context than Obama and Romney combined.

On another note you ask if the electorate can be that stupid, however how much do you consider the mischaracterization of Romney on Obama's part? Can we be that stupid to elect Obama again? You see it works both ways, and from my perspective Obama has had his chance and his misdirection is equal or greater to Romney's, that being said he's the one that's been president. Im thinking he knows he hasn't lived up to his promises and feels his chances are better if he focuses on Romney. In Romney's case he does that to help his chances of getting elected, which isn't good, however he isn't the one who's been president for four years, so I think the mischaracterization is hurting Obama more and the polls show it.

And I see things differently. Oh well, we'll see who's vision is more accurate to the outcome of this election.

It really doesn't matter when you claim to have detected the loss of impact about the 47%. Things have moved on, and people are now voting.

You are aware that Stewart & Co. are in the business to make jokes about anyone who does or says something joke-worthy, right? Or maybe not. It was been true that Republicans have provided way more material than Democrats for a really long time. It has kept the comedians in chocolates, but The Daily Show has also ripped Democrats when the jokes worked.

The point is to not defend Stewart but to remind you that he has a strong socializing influence on situations. When Romney made that huge blunder, it got more air time than was expected.

Actually, the polls aren't showing anything right now other than Obama is still beating Romney. Be that as it may, there's only one poll that counts, and that happens on Election Day. I've already contributed to that poll, whereas I can't say the same for any of the other polls.

Furthermore, you can't misjudge a guy who actually does the things claimed. Romney stepped in a pile of poo all by himself, and President Obama invited him to please proceed, Governor. It was a shining moment when the Republican candidate for POTUS parroted a lie promoted by the right-wing propaganda machine. While the 47% thing can be written off as a poor way of describing his campaign, this blunder reflects strongly on the man's mental powers.

There were a lot of other subtle things that Romney did during that performance, the entire debate, that reflected on who he is. More is to come.

Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, a mental condition in which you say one thing while doing another and pretending that there is no contradiction. Eh, it's late in the game, and that won't be a game-changer, but it is funny.

Meanwhile, it is true the President Obama has a record of performance on the job, whereas Romney has very little to go on than his time as governor and success at collecting piles of money while not doing a whole lot of anything that most people consider work. He worked the deals, as Trump would put it. If anything, the Romney campaign has been successful at turning this glaring weakness around into being a positive for a lot of people.

So, is the electorate going to hire this unknown walking contradiction or stick with a known entity? I think the latter. However, I do have to slow-clap the Romney campaign out of this election season. Nice try.

Dingo

Oct 20 2012, 03:15 PM

QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 04:15 PM)

On another note you ask if the electorate can be that stupid, however how much do you consider the mischaracterization of Romney on Obama's part?

What mischaracterization?

akaCG

Oct 20 2012, 03:24 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM)

...
Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...
...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem

Paladin Elspeth

Oct 20 2012, 05:01 PM

QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 20 2012, 01:57 AM)

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)

Then God knew that the child wasn't going to be aborted, right? So the child had supernatural protection. Would a woman who had her pregnancy terminated actually be able to thwart God's plan? Wouldn't God know that the fetus or embryo would not come into being then?

Since we can only go by our feelings about the truth of such issues, it would be up to the belief of the reader. Our belief in preordination would actually be irrelevant to the argument. Each of us have the unalienable right of free will. Each of us make our own choices, and we have to live with the choices made by others. Sometimes our choices influence the choices of others and vice versa.[highlighting mine]

Yes, our choices do influence the choices of others. The question is whether the choice of a woman to make a decision that stands to affect the rest of her life should be infringed upon, threatened, and possibly eliminated by others who don't know her, don't know her circumstances, but think they can make value judgments and make the secular government force her to become a parent, or to bear yet another child. Freedom is freedom. Restriction is restriction. According to present laws, women have the right to use contraception (so do men) and also to terminate pregnancies. Anti-choice people are using a multi-pronged approach vis-a-vis waiting periods, stringent (even draconian) regulations for abortion clinics, and cutting back the time window to 20 weeks for women who seek abortions, through state legislation.

QUOTE(LoneWisdom)

Pro-life groups use preordination to claim the baby has a right to life in order to change the law. Defense of the unborn is a strong issue with some. Others just don't want to be funding the abortion, similar to some not wanting to fund the killing of others in war or the use of the death penalty. The law is supposed to protect the rights of all covered by it. We are probably at an impasse. The best argument for those not wanting to fund abortion is that it wasn't a role delegated to government, to fund abortion. The legality of abortion is a separate issue with similar arguments.

Except for one thing, LoneWisdom: ABORTION ISN'T FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. What these anti-choice people are doing is way beyond that.

QUOTE

I believe the founder of Christianity was more interested in how we treated one another. He would probably be trying to give her comfort and be saddened by her despair, no matter if it was the result of a choice she had made or not. He would promote self-reflection.

In that we agree. But would he consign her to bear the child of a rapist, or a child that could jeopardize her own life? The fact is, he said NOTHING that is contained in the Bible about it. However, it is abundantly clear in that rule book that people are to help, not hurt, other people who are in poverty or pain.

QUOTE

The laws we write would be our free will issues, based on compromises and agreements. He would leave that up to us to decide, with the choices they cause.

I highlighted the pertinent part. When you talk about free will, are you referring to all people, or just those who claim the moral high ground and want to impose their values on others?

QUOTE

When you use the term 'forcing them,' which argument are you making? The legal, funding, or both? There is a difference. Most of the arguments I've read you making have been about the legal one. Neither the legal nor the funding forces someone to carry. I understand this slips into economic hardships and safety issues as well. Does the mother have the right to 'force' others to fund or perform an abortion?

The government is not funding 3% of Planned Parenthood's operations which involves performing abortions. That is a smokescreen that the Republicans in the House of Representatives has been using to mollify the Right to Life contingent of their supporters. They keep writing bills that the government cannot fund abortions, and the government doesn't! It's an egregious waste of time, and I question the efficacy of any Congressperson who does this while Americans continue to suffer from unemployment and poverty. It's grandstanding, pure and simple.

Our government should stay out of it, period. No government funding, and no restriction of a medical procedure that is the business of a female and her health provider.

A woman cannot "force" any doctor to perform an abortion. I think it would be rather difficult to hold a gun to the doctor's head while lying on your back with your feet up in stirrups. You are definitely not in control when you're in that position!

QUOTE

Once again, I was trying to show the difference in views. People make choices all the time. It really isn't up to others to make those choices for them. I would hope those having to make choices that require the assistance of another consider that other person's right to choose also. Sometimes people argue that one person's right to choose gives them the right to force participation by others.

We have a formerly secularly-owned and managed hospital in town that was taken over by the Sisters of Mercy corporation. Abortions are no longer performed there. It is obvious that one side (and it isn't the pro-choice one) claims the right to refuse choice to the other side, regardless of what the individual gynecologists/obstetricians personally think about the procedure.

We should all be able to make our own choices. There are people who are denying the choices of others based on their own values, not the values of the women involved. That is wrong. This stands to affect all women of reproductive age, from the girl who has just had her first menstrual period to the woman who is in the active throes of menopause.

******************************************

Now, to give it relevance to this particular thread:

Romney has most recently taken the verbal position that he opposes abortion unless the conception is the result of rape or incest, or unless the life and health of the woman are at risk.

This same Romney said that if there were legislation that overturned Roe v. Wade, he would sign it. And he made no stipulations in that statement.

This is why I believe that no matter what some would say about all politicians being liars, or beholden to special interests, or not keeping their promises, and so it really doesn't matter who gets elected, it's the "same old same old," there are some very real, worrisome implications to a little over half of the American population if Barack Obama does NOT get re-elected.

AuthorMusician

Oct 20 2012, 06:27 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 20 2012, 11:24 AM)

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM)

...
Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...
...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem

Ah, so President Obama borrowed the term. It's still funny, and he has a bigger audience. The 47% bit has had its run and is now tired old trash. Everyone knows what Romney thinks about the little people out there who fight his wars that he is always in favor of, just not to the point of making any real sacrifice for them. Oh well, we've known that since rich people, even relatively rich, hired men to go to war for them during the Civil War.

At this point it goes without saying. That's not good news for the Romney campaign. The 47% thing has gone into the electorate's subconscious, and when the pens make their marks (chads punched out, touch screens touched), it'll drift to the surface. I'm wondering now where the women's vote will go, whether the current polls are accurate when giving Romney a slight edge in places like Colorado. My feeling is that he'll take this state with a paper thin margin, so chalk nine up for Mitt.

But then, there are margins of error . . .

Curmudgeon

Oct 20 2012, 06:54 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 20 2012, 11:24 AM)

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM)

...Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem

So, if I understand you correctly, President Barack Obama was wrong for using a single word that was coined by someone else without providing full documentation of the etymology of the word. Hey, it worked for a Republican in Michigan who ran on a campaign of "Vote for the Nerd." Very few voters took the time to look up the definition, learn that it was a word coined and used once by Dr. Seuss which then fell into popular use as an insult.

Could you imagine how cluttered our speeches and conversations would be if every single word was linked back, as yours was, to an ad for Mother Jones magazine?

But hey, it was also linked to Rosemary Woods, Richard Nixon's secretary who had the full resources of a recording system almost as sophisticated as Wal-Mart security. The 47% remark was apparently recorded on a cell phone that was smuggled past the Secret Service. (If I was writing the novel, I would have to place it in the hands of a trusted friend of the family who had been at the residence several days before and left a turned off phone taped behind a toilet tank.) I know that some cell phones are sophisticated, and can be used adroitly by teenagers. I recall that on Election Night eight years ago, I was carrying a cell phone which I was told could take photographs, access the Internet, etc. I still have troubles remembering that it is a push to talk walkie talkie; and if I push too often, it hangs up on the other person. I have yet to take a photograph and e-mail it to Walgreens to be developed.

So the only real link to Rosemary Woods seems to be that a paranoid potentially corrupt Republican candidate may have been caught by a recording device saying what he actually thought!

Paladin Elspeth

Oct 20 2012, 07:22 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 20 2012, 11:24 AM)

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM)

...
Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...
...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem

I wonder if there is a President or candidate in history who HASN'T borrowed or stolen a line from somebody else...And if not, there are speech writers.

But regarding your comparison of a 2-minute gap in the surreptitious smart phone taping of Romney's Boca Raton fundraising dinner statements to Rosemary Woods' 18 minutes of missing tapes of all White House conversations, it's really irrelevant, because it's what we heard on the tapes, not what we didn't hear, that got the politicians into trouble.

AuthorMusician

Oct 20 2012, 08:53 PM

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 20 2012, 03:22 PM)

QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 20 2012, 11:24 AM)

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM)

...
Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...
...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem

I wonder if there is a President or candidate in history who HASN'T borrowed or stolen a line from somebody else...And if not, there are speech writers.

But regarding your comparison of a 2-minute gap in the surreptitious smart phone taping of Romney's Boca Raton fundraising dinner statements to Rosemary Woods' 18 minutes of missing tapes of all White House conversations, it's really irrelevant, because it's what we heard on the tapes, not what we didn't hear, that got the politicians into trouble.

I don't think akaCG was criticizing President Obama as much as pointing out the error of my ways. That's fine, I'm really accustomed to it and take no offense at being corrected. Constant niggling at nits irritates me, but so far so good. I'll remain satisfied for being right on the big things, such as who is going to take Colorado this season. Problem is, I have no idea. This state likes to swing. If yard signs mean anything, Romney's a shoe-in.

We have no yard signs. We don't advertise our political affiliations for the neighbors, being as it's none of their bee's wax. Yet, some of them like to let the roaming thieves know that there are lots of salable items in the house, just research how to disable the advertised security systems. We keep the property looking natural (rough) and drive old vehicles. Even got a red X during the evacuation days. Dang, no red letter A? I guess that could be taken as Auspicious. Nope, not yet but getting there.