It is interesting to see a socially conservative Democrat (such as myself) and a socially liberal Republican (like vrai). You see I believe that voting based on social issues is counterproductive because I believe that little will ever be accomplished on those issues; both sides base their arguments on things that cannot be proved and division runs so deep. Furthermore, abortion will always be here, the only difference is that it will be legal in one case and illegal in another (furthermore, nothing too radical will occur on the issue in the years to come), gays will receive some legal recognition over the years (which I support, I just do not prefer to call it marriage, that term carries to much of a traditional connotation), and the death penalty will be in America for decades to come (70% of the population supports it). Why should we base our votes on things that are not to ever come.
How many democrats
- Thread starter Bustem' Down
- Start date
B
Bruzilla
Guest
rraley said:
I'm guessing at one time the same could be said for women and blacks voting. I think that the abortion issue will be solved once the Supreme Court overturns Roe V Wade and kicks the question to the Congress where it belongs, and the Legislative branch has to come out of hiding on the issue. I think that early abortions will end up being legal across the land and late-term will be illegal.
But if the Democrats have their way, we'll be forever doomed to a maybe yes/maybe no decision based on privacy that means nothing.
Bruzilla said:
Democrats have typically opposed any abortion restriction because they saw one as being the start of a slippery slope to ending all legal abortions; after 2004, there is hope that they are changing that assertion. With a new generation of abortion rights leaders that are opposed to late term abortions and in favor of parental notification laws, I think that the future looks bright for the Democrats in terms of their moderation on the issue.
Makes you wonder why, in a government "of the people, by the people, for the people, the death penalty has been abolished in some states, doesn't it?rraley said:
I actually have some qualms with my abortion views. What I'd prefer is that women behave more responsibly when it comes to sex. I think abortion creates an atmosphere where children are viewed as expendable if they are inconvenient, and it poisons our national attitude.
Abortion, to me, is a simple solution to a problem that cannot be solved - i.e. skeezers who have mindless sex, resulting in unwanted children.
vraiblonde said:
It is 70% nationwide...as such, there is a federal death penalty and a state death penalty in 38 states. Criminal proceedings usually fall under the jurisdiction of the states and as such, the states should make their own decision regarding the application of the death penalty. Come on your a conservative you should get that
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Of course they see it that way...
...that's how they got it to be a right in the first place, the slippery slope.
RR, there is ONE Supreme Court ruling worse than Roe v. Wade and that is Dredd Scott where the argument was Dredd, obviously, couldn't have rights because he was not a man.
...that's how they got it to be a right in the first place, the slippery slope.
RR, there is ONE Supreme Court ruling worse than Roe v. Wade and that is Dredd Scott where the argument was Dredd, obviously, couldn't have rights because he was not a man.
I'd be interested in the percentages of people who are in favor of the death penalty in states that have abolished it - that's what I meant. It's not unusual for courts and politicians to make law that goes directly against the popular opinions of the citizenry.rraley said:It is 70% nationwide...as such, there is a federal death penalty and a state death penalty in 38 states. Criminal proceedings usually fall under the jurisdiction of the states and as such, the states should make their own decision regarding the application of the death penalty. Come on your a conservative you should get that
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I think the only reason that the govrn. hasn't settled the abortion issue, or ever will, is becuase of the votes. It gives sombody something to take sides on. I personally think that it should be a moral issue to be taken up with your councilor, paster, cleric, rabbi or whatever and leave the gov. out. The AMA should step in and ban late term abortion on a basis of ethics to prevent doctors from performing them.
Thanks all for participating, it satified my curiosity. I affiliate myself with no one, sometimes I vote Rep., sometimes Dem, depends on the issues at hand.
Thanks all for participating, it satified my curiosity. I affiliate myself with no one, sometimes I vote Rep., sometimes Dem, depends on the issues at hand.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Bustem' Down said:
That's exactly right. Roe v Wade was a question of whether or not a woman has a right to privacy IRT an abortion. One side said that there was no right to privacy IRT an illegal act, so the point was mute; the other said there was a right to privacy (not a right to an abortion.) The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the privacy issue, while not citing that abortion is illegal, has created decades of an uneasy peace between the two sides, and the Congress has managed to hide behind that decision, rather than expose themselves to criticism, by doing their jobs.
I'm hoping Bush will get that decision reversed, and force the Congress to make a decision so that we don't have to hear this crap every two years.
vraiblonde said:
I definitely agree with this, but I also think that instead of focusing so much on the problem...focus on a solution. Teaching children about sex and possible ramifications of their deeds could help a lot of people from getting into certain predicaments. For some people it is not a simple solution to a problem, and that is why the Dems do not want it gone completely, or messed with at all, citing the "slippery slope" theory...again.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
You know what...
...if Democrats were even remotely bothered by unlimited abortion they would, logically, be way out in front with abstinence programs for minor girls.
They would tout the independence and absolute control over ones life if one were to wait until at least adulthood to start ones sex life.
They would say your schooling and arts and sports are WAY more important than sex as a child.
They would endlessly cite examples of what life is like as a 14 year old mother.
And what do they do?
Distribute condoms.
"Hear, this could totally change all you hopes and dreams. Take two. And don't tell or ask your folks. You're qualified to make this choice. We won't say a word. Don't worry if it doesn't work. You have more choices!"
1,500,000 abortions a year.
800,000 Rawandans got slaughtered a few year back.
We called it genocide.
...if Democrats were even remotely bothered by unlimited abortion they would, logically, be way out in front with abstinence programs for minor girls.
They would tout the independence and absolute control over ones life if one were to wait until at least adulthood to start ones sex life.
They would say your schooling and arts and sports are WAY more important than sex as a child.
They would endlessly cite examples of what life is like as a 14 year old mother.
And what do they do?
Distribute condoms.
"Hear, this could totally change all you hopes and dreams. Take two. And don't tell or ask your folks. You're qualified to make this choice. We won't say a word. Don't worry if it doesn't work. You have more choices!"
1,500,000 abortions a year.
800,000 Rawandans got slaughtered a few year back.
We called it genocide.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
This is the real turning point of the issue. Wheather or not you consider it murder. I don't think they have a clear cut way to decide that and that's what makes the issue so highly debated, everyone has tier own idea of life.Larry Gude said:
I don't have any problem calling it what it is. But you have to think about a woman that could chop her baby up and throw it in the garbage with the rest of the refuse. That is not someone I want raising the future generation.Bustem' Down said:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I have no problem calling it murder, and saying that I support it. Every form of life on Earth has its own mechanisms for "culling the herd", why should human beings be any different? I think it's better to murder an unwanted child before birth than to have to pay to keep it is prison as an adult, or murder it after it's murdered someone else.
I gotta new siggy!! 
Chain729
CageKicker Extraordinaire
ylexot said:
That's how I feel about the issue. Overall, its pretty simple- legally define an "unborn child" one way or the other, and the laws are already in place.
However, considering the way things are going: If a woman is getting an abortion because she can't or isn't willing to keep her pants on, she should have her tubes cut- not tied.
I'm all for the "day after" pill regarding rape victims, but if you're having sex- by choice- and you aren't planning on the possibility of having a kid, you're a fool. Sex makes babies, end discussion.
Personally, we'll just say that playing God with my flesh and blood is a death offense.
For the record, I'm a registered Republican, though I'm much closer to Libertarian in views. I don't believe it should be illegal for me to do something, if it isn't hurting you or anyone else- and I don't care about your "feelings." This "you might offend someone" BS is... well, BS.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Consider...
It's life from conception. A sperm is alive and an egg is alive and they sure as hell are both human. We can't quibble that. Wether it's a next day pill or partial birth abortion, the intent is the same; terminate a human pregnancy.
My objections are rooted in three things:
First, the quibbling with the above reality. We're not talking about botox or having cancer removed yet 'choice' gets thrown around as this all important private right that no one has any business violating or even should care about; like the choice to have some cosmetic prededure. The fact is abortion, the choice to keep or kill your baby, gets to the very essence of who we are as a society and what we value and why.
Second, Roe v. Wade is simply very, very bad law, akin, to me, to Dredd Scott. It is a case of the Supreme Court calling a dog a windmill and that alone should cause everyone deep concern, especially people who we used to think of as liberal; people very interested in the rights of individuals. Dredd Scott was and Roe v. Wade can be used as precedent to justify ANYTHING. If the Constitution stands behind abortion, it can stand behind anything, as it once did slavery.
Third, I object to the logic of people who demand this all important, sacred right and turn around and are scared to death of me exercising my Second Amendment rights. In that same vein these same people act like offing some hatchet murderer is like, well, putting to death an innocent infant. Then they want to make you put out your cigarette, stop drinking, eat tofu and put on your seat belt. We must make you be careful for your own good!
All while insisting an abortion is this benign, none of your bees wax thing.
It's life from conception. A sperm is alive and an egg is alive and they sure as hell are both human. We can't quibble that. Wether it's a next day pill or partial birth abortion, the intent is the same; terminate a human pregnancy.
My objections are rooted in three things:
First, the quibbling with the above reality. We're not talking about botox or having cancer removed yet 'choice' gets thrown around as this all important private right that no one has any business violating or even should care about; like the choice to have some cosmetic prededure. The fact is abortion, the choice to keep or kill your baby, gets to the very essence of who we are as a society and what we value and why.
Second, Roe v. Wade is simply very, very bad law, akin, to me, to Dredd Scott. It is a case of the Supreme Court calling a dog a windmill and that alone should cause everyone deep concern, especially people who we used to think of as liberal; people very interested in the rights of individuals. Dredd Scott was and Roe v. Wade can be used as precedent to justify ANYTHING. If the Constitution stands behind abortion, it can stand behind anything, as it once did slavery.
Third, I object to the logic of people who demand this all important, sacred right and turn around and are scared to death of me exercising my Second Amendment rights. In that same vein these same people act like offing some hatchet murderer is like, well, putting to death an innocent infant. Then they want to make you put out your cigarette, stop drinking, eat tofu and put on your seat belt. We must make you be careful for your own good!
All while insisting an abortion is this benign, none of your bees wax thing.