Dems Without a Prayer!!

[Edward]

The Democratic Party, generally regarded as more liberal, has unsurprisingly come to be identified with the pro-choice cause; however, the actual relationship between the Democratic Party and the right to abortion is not as simple as party formulations might suggest. Initially, the right to abortion was championed by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court and opposed by a Democratic President (Carter). It was only during the Reagan presidency, when the Republican Party adopted a strong and proselytizing “traditional family values” position, that the various elements of the Democratic Party coalesced around the right to abortion as a central party principle.

To this day, on the issue of abortion alone, the Democratic Party has taken a position that is very clear; abortion should be legal, rare, and laws proscribing abortion should be consistent with Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade articulated a standard which weighed the right of a woman to choose against the right of the unborn child. What Roe did was to set a standard by which a law could be judged as legitimate. This standard is the trimester standard, in the last trimester the state can proscribe abortion. That is prohibit it, making such exceptions as it sees fit, but in the first trimester a woman's right to choice should not be infringed by the state. Democrats do not support elective abortions, we support choice in general. We do not pretend to have the power to discern the intent of a woman, or the outcome of her pregnancy so the law being fair must ignore that outcome whenever it is prudent to do so. Time and again the abortion issue has been used as a wedge against the Democratic party, when the reality is that the party does not support abortion, instead we support traditional family values with individual liberty being favored wherever possible. No matter what Republicans accuse us of we are the ones who 1) support adoption through providing adoption incentives, 2) while allowing a woman to choose whenever possible. The Republican party on the other hand seems to consistently say, "who cares about the rights of the woman, if she doesn't want to have the baby, who gives a damn, she isn't free to decide to do with her body what she wants, she will do as we tell her, we don't need to bother to offer her incentives to make the right choice when we can force her to make the right choice." This is where the difference is between Democrats and Republicans. It isn't in who favors abortion and who opposes abortion. It is the difference between those who love individual liberty and those who cast their votes with the single object of forcing others to do their will.

But ignoring the issues, we must distill from the issues the values of the Democratic Party. What is it we value the most as a Party? Liberty, and individual choice, responsibility and accountability for without liberty there is no choice, and without choice there is no responsibility and without responsibility there can be no accountability. Relative to abortion, this is without liberty, there can be no right to have an abortion, without the right to an abortion no choice can be made, if there is no freedom of choice there can be no personal responsibility for the choice which was made was not a personal choice, and therefore the person was not responsibility for making the choice. If the person was not responsibility for making the choice the person cannot be accountable. An extreme example, if a person is required to have an abortion by the Chinese government, there was no liberty, therefore there was no choice, and if there was no choice the person wasn't responsibility for the abortion, and if the person wasn't responsibility for the abortion the person isn't accountable for the abortion. To proscribe abortion the state takes away the accountability of the person, and therefore takes away their responsibility to make that choice, and when they do so they take away their right to choose, and by that they deprive the person of their liberty. For liberty is in choice, not in thought. So ideologically speaking Democrats are the exact opposite of Republicans. At one time the roles were reversed and the Republicans were in favor of individual liberty, and smaller government, and less taxes, etc but in today's climate it favors more government control over schools, abortion, same-sex marriage, right to die, etc.

This is a sad day for the Republican party because the principles of the party are lost in the haze of the platform of the party which is inconsistent with the principles it has previously adhered to. Now, the platform seems to mean more than the principles and this will cause it problems. Why did President Bush first oppose the Democratic sponsored Department of Homeland Security but flip-flopped (as he liked to accuse Kerry of doing) on this issue when he realized that supporting it would be favorable to his position as President. It seems that President Bush has succeeded in keeping the fact that he isn't the one responsible for DHS secret, but that it is the Democrats who are responsible for that. Interesting.

Democrats oppose abortion. Democrats support choice. That's the difference between the parties on abortion. But ignoring such wedge issues let's focus on other lesser known issues if you will. I would be interested in seeing the reason Pale Rider has for the inconsistent position of the Republican party.

 

[theim]

To this day, on the issue of abortion alone, the Democratic Party has taken a position that is very clear; abortion should be legal, rare, and laws proscribing abortion should be consistent with Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade articulated a standard which weighed the right of a woman to choose against the right of the unborn child. What Roe did was to set a standard by which a law could be judged as legitimate. This standard is the trimester standard, in the last trimester the state can proscribe abortion. That is prohibit it, making such exceptions as it sees fit, but in the first trimester a woman's right to choice should not be infringed by the state. Democrats do not support elective abortions, we support choice in general. We do not pretend to have the power to discern the intent of a woman, or the outcome of her pregnancy so the law being fair must ignore that outcome whenever it is prudent to do so. Time and again the abortion issue has been used as a wedge against the Democratic party, when the reality is that the party does not support abortion, instead we support traditional family values with individual liberty being favored wherever possible. No matter what Republicans accuse us of we are the ones who 1) support adoption through providing adoption incentives, 2) while allowing a woman to choose whenever possible. The Republican party on the other hand seems to consistently say, "who cares about the rights of the woman, if she doesn't want to have the baby, who gives a damn, she isn't free to decide to do with her body what she wants, she will do as we tell her, we don't need to bother to offer her incentives to make the right choice when we can force her to make the right choice." This is where the difference is between Democrats and Republicans. It isn't in who favors abortion and who opposes abortion. It is the difference between those who love individual liberty and those who cast their votes with the single object of forcing others to do their will.

But ignoring the issues, we must distill from the issues the values of the Democratic Party. What is it we value the most as a Party? Liberty, and individual choice, responsibility and accountability for without liberty there is no choice, and without choice there is no responsibility and without responsibility there can be no accountability. Relative to abortion, this is without liberty, there can be no right to have an abortion, without the right to an abortion no choice can be made, if there is no freedom of choice there can be no personal responsibility for the choice which was made was not a personal choice, and therefore the person was not responsibility for making the choice. If the person was not responsibility for making the choice the person cannot be accountable. An extreme example, if a person is required to have an abortion by the Chinese government, there was no liberty, therefore there was no choice, and if there was no choice the person wasn't responsibility for the abortion, and if the person wasn't responsibility for the abortion the person isn't accountable for the abortion. To proscribe abortion the state takes away the accountability of the person, and therefore takes away their responsibility to make that choice, and when they do so they take away their right to choose, and by that they deprive the person of their liberty. For liberty is in choice, not in thought. So ideologically speaking Democrats are the exact opposite of Republicans. At one time the roles were reversed and the Republicans were in favor of individual liberty, and smaller government, and less taxes, etc but in today's climate it favors more government control over schools, abortion, same-sex marriage, right to die, etc.

This is a sad day for the Republican party because the principles of the party are lost in the haze of the platform of the party which is inconsistent with the principles it has previously adhered to. Now, the platform seems to mean more than the principles and this will cause it problems. Why did President Bush first oppose the Democratic sponsored Department of Homeland Security but flip-flopped (as he liked to accuse Kerry of doing) on this issue when he realized that supporting it would be favorable to his position as President. It seems that President Bush has succeeded in keeping the fact that he isn't the one responsible for DHS secret, but that it is the Democrats who are responsible for that. Interesting.

Democrats oppose abortion. Democrats support choice. That's the difference between the parties on abortion. But ignoring such wedge issues let's focus on other lesser known issues if you will. I would be interested in seeing the reason Pale Rider has for the inconsistent position of the Republican party.

lol. If Dems are so for choice, why don't they want me to choose whether or not I get a private SS acount? Why not let kids choose which school they want to go to? Dems are for keeping people weened on the teet of government with endless handouts. Keep the proles in line.

As for Pale Rider, you must ot have been here long, or you would seen his anti-GW rant on the issue of immigration.

 

[musicman]

Hello, Edward.

I'm afraid "safe, legal, and rare" doesn't withstand rationality. If abortion is not - in and of itself - morally reprehensible, who cares whether it's rare or not? If one can say, with absolute unerring certainty, at which microsecond a blob of undifferentiated tissue becomes a human life, then scoop it out, enjoy a light lunch, and get TF on with your day. "Safe and rare" is feel-good, hypocritical nonsense. But, then, it WAS coined by the premier author of feel-good, hypocritical nonsense - Bill Clinton.

 

[Bonnie]

Hello, Edward.

I'm afraid "safe, legal, and rare" doesn't withstand rationality. If abortion is not - in and of itself - morally reprehensible, who cares whether it's rare or not? If one can say, with absolute unerring certainty, at which microsecond a blob of undifferentiated tissue becomes a human life, then scoop it out, enjoy a light lunch, and get TF on with your day. "Safe and rare" is feel-good, hypocritical nonsense. But, then, it WAS coined by the premier author of feel-good, hypocritical nonsense - Bill Clinton.

Absolutely MM!!! Edward and others who claim to be against the act of abortion, but in their forever fair mindedness cannot in good faith prohibit abortion, they are committing the worst hyposcrisy.

Edward when you make something legal and you support the legalization of say abortion you are sanctioning it as well and so is the government. Is murder wrong or not? You can't have it both ways that is intellectually dishonest.
Today, legalized abortion is the law of the land because the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that its recently created constitutional right to privacy conveniently also included a new constitutional right to abortion which was the back door used and might I add a very weak foundation for. If you look in the Constitution, however, you will find no general “right to privacy” any more than you will find a right to abortion.... and for good reason: It’s not there. The framers assumed no general or even specific right to privacy because, to state the obvious, criminal acts can very easily be committed in privacy. Criminal codes are full of such examples — from murder to incest to rape etc.

 

[Mr. P]

I've never been a hard core Democrat nor Republican for that matter.
In other words, if a party is wrong in my opinion, I say so. No blind loyalty.

I have to agree with what Edward says regarding abortion. Come on folks,
it is the will of the people. It's been 30+ years since Roe v Wade. The public at large has no problem with the concept of choice with limits.

Make no mistake here...this does not mean I support abortions. I know that's the typical argument for my position, so forget it. Take it as is, I support choice, it may not be my choice nor yours, it is an individual choice.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

To this day, on the issue of abortion alone, the Democratic Party has taken a position that is very clear; abortion should be legal, rare, and laws proscribing abortion should be consistent with Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade articulated a standard which weighed the right of a woman to choose against the right of the unborn child. What Roe did was to set a standard by which a law could be judged as legitimate. This standard is the trimester standard, in the last trimester the state can proscribe abortion. That is prohibit it, making such exceptions as it sees fit, but in the first trimester a woman's right to choice should not be infringed by the state. Democrats do not support elective abortions, we support choice in general. We do not pretend to have the power to discern the intent of a woman, or the outcome of her pregnancy so the law being fair must ignore that outcome whenever it is prudent to do so. Time and again the abortion issue has been used as a wedge against the Democratic party, when the reality is that the party does not support abortion, instead we support traditional family values with individual liberty being favored wherever possible. No matter what Republicans accuse us of we are the ones who 1) support adoption through providing adoption incentives, 2) while allowing a woman to choose whenever possible. The Republican party on the other hand seems to consistently say, "who cares about the rights of the woman, if she doesn't want to have the baby, who gives a damn, she isn't free to decide to do with her body what she wants, she will do as we tell her, we don't need to bother to offer her incentives to make the right choice when we can force her to make the right choice." This is where the difference is between Democrats and Republicans. It isn't in who favors abortion and who opposes abortion. It is the difference between those who love individual liberty and those who cast their votes with the single object of forcing others to do their will.

But ignoring the issues, we must distill from the issues the values of the Democratic Party. What is it we value the most as a Party? Liberty, and individual choice, responsibility and accountability for without liberty there is no choice, and without choice there is no responsibility and without responsibility there can be no accountability. Relative to abortion, this is without liberty, there can be no right to have an abortion, without the right to an abortion no choice can be made, if there is no freedom of choice there can be no personal responsibility for the choice which was made was not a personal choice, and therefore the person was not responsibility for making the choice. If the person was not responsibility for making the choice the person cannot be accountable. An extreme example, if a person is required to have an abortion by the Chinese government, there was no liberty, therefore there was no choice, and if there was no choice the person wasn't responsibility for the abortion, and if the person wasn't responsibility for the abortion the person isn't accountable for the abortion. To proscribe abortion the state takes away the accountability of the person, and therefore takes away their responsibility to make that choice, and when they do so they take away their right to choose, and by that they deprive the person of their liberty. For liberty is in choice, not in thought. So ideologically speaking Democrats are the exact opposite of Republicans. At one time the roles were reversed and the Republicans were in favor of individual liberty, and smaller government, and less taxes, etc but in today's climate it favors more government control over schools, abortion, same-sex marriage, right to die, etc.

This is a sad day for the Republican party because the principles of the party are lost in the haze of the platform of the party which is inconsistent with the principles it has previously adhered to. Now, the platform seems to mean more than the principles and this will cause it problems. Why did President Bush first oppose the Democratic sponsored Department of Homeland Security but flip-flopped (as he liked to accuse Kerry of doing) on this issue when he realized that supporting it would be favorable to his position as President. It seems that President Bush has succeeded in keeping the fact that he isn't the one responsible for DHS secret, but that it is the Democrats who are responsible for that. Interesting.

Democrats oppose abortion. Democrats support choice. That's the difference between the parties on abortion. But ignoring such wedge issues let's focus on other lesser known issues if you will. I would be interested in seeing the reason Pale Rider has for the inconsistent position of the Republican party.

You are spouting the typical puerile vision of your party - always placing the abortion issue in terms of a simplistic "choice". It sounds good until you realize that the "choice" in this case comes down to the life or death of a baby, not where the "choice" should actually reside in a sane society: the "choice" of the two to have responsible sex. Abortion and all its hideous ramifications has been for years THE delineating issue between the two parties. I don't see how you, as a supposedly religous person, can condone "choosing" death for a viable human being.

And now your party is even supporting "choice for children" where even an underage teenager has the "choice" to abort a baby without any permission from her parents. Where is the "choice" of the parents in this scenario? Do you also support this absolutely insane Democrat stance as well? Are you aware that you are being led step-by-step into a culture of death that absolutely destroys the family and the religious views you claim to believe in? What is happening to "Honor thy father and they mother" when a child can legally ignore her parents? Honoring parents does not exist in a secular/communistic society...ultimately there is no "choice" at all...as the family unit is destroyed. Does this also fit in with your religious beliefs?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I've never been a hard core Democrat nor Republican for that matter.
In other words, if a party is wrong in my opinion, I say so. No blind loyalty.

I have to agree with what Edward says regarding abortion. Come on folks,
it is the will of the people. It's been 30+ years since Roe v Wade. The public at large has no problem with the concept of choice with limits.

Make no mistake here...this does not mean I support abortions. I know that's the typical argument for my position, so forget it. Take it as is, I support choice, it may not be my choice nor yours, it is an individual choice.

Come on folks, it is the will of the people - my ass. Abortion would never have become law if the people had actually voted on the issue. The only way it became law was through judicial activism in the courts.

 

[Mr. P]

Come on folks, it is the will of the people - my ass. Abortion would never have become law if the people had actually voted on the issue. The only way it became law was through judicial activism in the courts.

I'd place my money on a vote. I'd like to see that, really. I don't think the GOP would though..

 

[musicman]

I'd place my money on a vote. I'd like to see that, really. I don't think the GOP would though..

I disagree about the GOP, but I'm with you on everything else. This belongs with the voters (Wish you and I could work up a friendly wager on the outcome; I don't know if that will become a practical undertaking anytime soon, though).

 

[Edward]

Hello, Edward.

I'm afraid "safe, legal, and rare" doesn't withstand rationality. If abortion is not - in and of itself - morally reprehensible, who cares whether it's rare or not? If one can say, with absolute unerring certainty, at which microsecond a blob of undifferentiated tissue becomes a human life, then scoop it out, enjoy a light lunch, and get TF on with your day. "Safe and rare" is feel-good, hypocritical nonsense. But, then, it WAS coined by the premier author of feel-good, hypocritical nonsense - Bill Clinton.

You don't get to legislate based on what is and isn't morally reprehensible. You need to mind your own business. Roe v. Wade doesn't consider whether life begins at conception or at birth or at any time in-between. It offers protection to the unborn regardless of when life begins, but it weighs such protections against the liberties of the mother which are not absolute. No right is absolute, not even the right to life and that includes the unborn child.

Roe affirms that the mere "potentiality of life" is a sufficient state interest in regulating and proscribing abortion. It is you who believes in feel-good, hypocritical nonsense.

Hello, Edward.

I'm afraid "safe, legal, and rare" doesn't withstand rationality. If abortion is not - in and of itself - morally reprehensible, who cares whether it's rare or not? If one can say, with absolute unerring certainty, at which microsecond a blob of undifferentiated tissue becomes a human life, then scoop it out, enjoy a light lunch, and get TF on with your day. "Safe and rare" is feel-good, hypocritical nonsense. But, then, it WAS coined by the premier author of feel-good, hypocritical nonsense - Bill Clinton.

You don't get to legislate based on what is and isn't morally reprehensible. You need to mind your own business. Roe v. Wade doesn't consider whether life begins at conception or at birth or at any time in-between. It offers protection to the unborn regardless of when life begins, but it weighs such protections against the liberties of the mother which are not absolute. No right is absolute, not even the right to life and that includes the unborn child.

Roe affirms that the mere "potentiality of life" is a sufficient state interest in regulating and proscribing abortion. It is you who believes in feel-good, hypocritical nonsense.

"Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term." - Roe v. Wade

There is no talk about when life begins, because the state has an interest in protecting the mere potentiality or possibility of life. People who believe in absolutes rights lack common sense. There is no absolute right to abortion, and there is no absolute right to life. An unborn child's rights must be weighed against those of his mother, and the states interest must be clearly associated with those rights. The Court goes on to say, "For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

Why is this so difficult for Republicans to understand? The more I talk to Republicans the more authoritarian they sound. The more single-minded they become. Such issues as abortion become as simple as, "If I say a woman can't have an abortion she won't have an abortion." While democrats would say, "I will convince the woman to not have an abortion by offering her incentives to have the child and put it up for adoption." Democrats understand that a woman can find many ways to have an abortion, and to even end the life of her child after it is born; Democrats realize that the only way to prevent this is to provide a safe way for a mother to abort the child if she absolutely wants to, we do this at the same time as offering the woman every incentive to have the child. Our order of preference is: 1) the woman has the child and keeps it and raises it in a good family environment, 2) the woman has the child and puts it up for adoption so it can be raised in a good family environment, and 3) that abortion be legal and safe so that a woman doesn't abort her child in a bathroom stall using a clothes hanger.

Democrats do not support abortion in general, we support choice in general. We prefer that the woman makes the right choice but we allow here the freedom to make the wrong choice, to be responsible and accountable. Republicans generally oppose accountability, responsibility and choice. They prefer if the state makes the choice, but the problem with that is that the state is not responsible and accountable for its choices unless it chooses to be.

 

[Edward]

Absolutely MM!!! Edward and others who claim to be against the act of abortion, but in their forever fair mindedness cannot in good faith prohibit abortion, they are committing the worst hyposcrisy.

You got it, I am so hypocritical, but I am not the one who believes that a woman shouldn't have the LIBERTY to make the CHOICE of whether to have an ABORTION or not, that is to be RESPONSIBLE for the CHOICE, and therefore ACCOUNTABLE for her decision. I am not the one who believes that the STATE should make the CHOICE of whether a woman should have an abortion or not, that is to be RESPONSIBLE for the CHOICE, while not being ACCOUNTABLE for its decision.

Edward when you make something legal and you support the legalization of say abortion you are sanctioning it as well and so is the government.

I don't support making abortion legal. I oppose making it illegal. Abortion is associated with fundamental rights. The right to freedom of thought, and the freedom of action. I do not believe that abortion is an absolute right, it is you who believes in absolute rights. Rights are qualified, some are fundamental and others are civil but these rights are all qualified. If you can articulate a good reason why the rights of the unborn child should always take precedence over the rights of the mother, and provide a legitimate reason why the state should be able to enter into that conflict of rights than you may have a solid point but Republicans have failed time and again to formulate such a argument and that is why the Republican-controlled Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade.

Is murder wrong or not? You can't have it both ways that is intellectually dishonest.

First, I don't care what you believe about when life begins. Second, murder is wrong, but people also have freedom of action, which means they have the absolute right to kill you, but that right is qualified by your right to life. It is weighed against your right to life. The viability of the child is the standard by which it must be judged whether the potentiality of life outweighs the right of the mother to choose.

Simply said, the state may prohibit a woman from having an abortion if the unborn child is viable, but even in that instance the right of the state to prohibit an abortion is qualified by the life and health of the mother.

Today, legalized abortion is the law of the land because the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that its recently created constitutional right to privacy conveniently also included a new constitutional right to abortion which was the back door used and might I add a very weak foundation for.

Well you need to take that up with the Republican presidents who appointed the justices who handed down the Roe v. Wade decision because Democrats had little to do with it. Because the "Democratic Party, generally regarded as more liberal, has unsurprisingly come to be identified with the pro-choice cause; however, the actual relationship between the Democratic Party and the right to abortion is not as simple as party formulations might suggest. Initially, the right to abortion was championed by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court and opposed by a Democratic president (Carter)." If you have a problem with Roe v. Wade don't complain to democrats, complain to your own party.

If you look in the Constitution, however, you will find no general “right to privacy” any more than you will find a right to abortion.... and for good reason: It’s not there. The framers assumed no general or even specific right to privacy because, to state the obvious, criminal acts can very easily be committed in privacy. Criminal codes are full of such examples — from murder to incest to rape etc.

The right to privacy exists, it isn't a constitutionally granted right. The ninth amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

There are rights which are based on common sense alone, and are nevertheless rights even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution. Even putting aside the right to privacy, which you seem to contend with, you cannot deny that the right to 1) decide to have an abortion exists, 2) and the right to carry out that abortion exists because freedom of thought and action exist, these rights are inviolable, but qualified. The Supreme Court made it clear that a person has the right to privacy, not because the Constitution says, "Congress shall pass no law abridging the right to privacy," which it does not but because that right is inherent. I dare you to come by my house, look in my window and see what happens to you. I dare you to look at my medical records, and review my health data and see what happens to you. If you can't do it as an individual, you can't do it as a group of individuals. That is, you can't with other people decide that you are going to review my medical records, even if you do it democratically. You have to show a legitimate interest in interfering with my right. Private decisions are not up for public vote. The child not being viable means that it cannot exist outside of its mother, which means that the state has no interest in the child because if the state were to remove the child from the mother's womb the child would die. Simply put, because the state cannot take the child out of the mothers womb and provide for it it cannot make the decision as to whether the mother can or cannot have an abortion. If the state were able to extract the child, place it on artificial life support, feeding, etc and it would live than the state can prohibit the mother from having an abortion because there is a potentiality of life, when it cannot take responsibility for the child it cannot make that decision. An example of this is, a mother beats her two year old daughter to the point of death. Now the state can do something about that because it can take the child from the mother and provide for it. It can make the choice, be responsible, and accountable whereas prior to viability the state has no accountability, no responsibility and therefore no choice.

 

[Edward]

I've never been a hard core Democrat nor Republican for that matter. In other words, if a party is wrong in my opinion, I say so. No blind loyalty.

I have to agree with what Edward says regarding abortion. Come on folks, it is the will of the people. It's been 30+ years since Roe v Wade. The public at large has no problem with the concept of choice with limits.

I know of very few Democrats who support the unqualified absolute right to an abortion, they are numerically similiar to the Republicans who support the unqualified absolute right to life. Both are wrong. Neither right is absolute. The right to have an abortion exists, but it is qualified and limited. Roe v. Wade made it clear that the state must articulate a legitimate interest prior to regulating or proscribing abortion.

Make no mistake here...this does not mean I support abortions. I know that's the typical argument for my position, so forget it. Take it as is, I support choice, it may not be my choice nor yours, it is an individual choice.

This argument I believe is made by those who support unqualified absolute rights, and because they do so they think you must as well. In other words, they confuse their motivations and values with yours. They fail to realize that someone can oppose abortion, support adoption while being pro-choice. I have not personally met a Democrat who believes in unqualified abortion, but I am sure they exist somewhere on the margin of the party just like the absolutist pro-lifers. Most people have enough common sense to realize that no right is absolute.

 

[Bonnie]

Edward...You got it, I am so hypocritical, but I am not the one who believes that a woman shouldn't have the LIBERTY to make the CHOICE of whether to have an ABORTION or not, that is to be RESPONSIBLE for the CHOICE, and therefore ACCOUNTABLE for her decision. I am not the one who believes that the STATE should make the CHOICE of whether a woman should have an abortion or not, that is to be RESPONSIBLE for the CHOICE, while not being ACCOUNTABLE for its decision.

So who is actually held responsible for this Edward?

or this

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Abortion is NOT pro-choice. Infants do not CHOOSE to die, nor should THEY be the one to pay for the act of conception with their life.

 

[Edward]

You are spouting the typical puerile vision of your party - always placing the abortion issue in terms of a simplistic "choice". It sounds good until you realize that the "choice" in this case comes down to the life or death of a baby, not where the "choice" should actually reside in a sane society: the "choice" of the two to have responsible sex.

There you have it. You did not make the choice for them to have sex, therefore you are not responsible for the outcome of that action, and therefore you are not accountable for any decision resulting from that choice. Therefore you don't get to make the decision as to whether the woman is going to have that child. Putting aside the democratic process, simply put, you do not have the right as an individual to decide that the woman is to have the child, unless you are accountable for that choice and responsible for that choice. That is simply, can you take full and complete responsibility and accountability for the unborn child. If the answer is no which is will be if the child is not viable than you don't as an individual have the right to interfere with the making of that choice. Because you were not a participant in the first cause, or the reproductive process also known as sex. Because you weren't the one having sex, you are responsible for two consenting persons having safe or unsafe sex, and therefore are not accountable for that action. Indeed, it comes down to the life or death of a unborn child. But you cannot protect the child, care for that child, nurture that child, or provide that child with any protections under the law until there is potentiality of life. In other words, the only way you could protect that child, nuture that child, and care for that child is through its mother. Which means that the only way you can absolutely protect that child is if imprison the mother, which any law proscribing abortion does. The question that needs to be asked at that point is if you have the right considering that the child could not survive outside of its mother.

Abortion and all its hideous ramifications has been for years THE delineating issue between the two parties. I don't see how you, as a supposedly religous person, can condone "choosing" death for a viable human being.

You would love to make it about me choosing death, but it is not. I don't support choosing death for a viable human being. If the child is viable I agree with Roe which states the state can proscribe abortion. I therefore believe that if the child is viable the state can and should prohibit abortion because it has an interest in protecting the unborn child. What I do not support is proscribing abortion. There are limits to every right, including the right of the mother to have an abortion and the right of the unborn child to live.

And now your party is even supporting "choice for children" where even an underage teenager has the "choice" to abort a baby without any permission from her parents.

Of course, she should ask her father who molested her and her mother who approved of the molestation if she can abort the child. The parents were not part of the choice to have sex so they don't get to make that decision. They won't have to accept the consequences of that choice. They are not the ones who have to carry the child to term, and the ones who risk their lives doing so because of the fragile nature of the young.

Where is the "choice" of the parents in this scenario?

The same place it was when she chose to have sex. Not there. If they chose for her to have sex, and as a result of her having sex she had a child then they have a choice but they don't have a choice if they didn't make the choice to have sex, and if they will not be responsible or accountable for that choice.

Do you also support this absolutely insane Democrat stance as well? Are you aware that you are being led step-by-step into a culture of death that absolutely destroys the family and the religious views you claim to believe in?

The more you speak the more insane you sound. It is becoming all to clear that you cannot discern right from wrong. You have what I like to refer to as gospel hobbies. You ignore any and all common sense, scripture and values and narrowly select what qualifies one to be religious and what qualifies as family values. You have no idea what family values are, and the more I learn about the Republican party the less I like their non-traditional family values stance. What is family values in this situation: 1) that having made the choice to have sex, the child ignoring her parents marries the young man "cleaving unto him," by "leaving her parents," and starting a family of her own. The moment she chose to have sex and got pregnant the family unit as it existed ceased. No longer is she bound to the choices her father and mother makes but is bound to make her own choices and to take responsible. You support parents taking the responsibility in this situation, therefore are again supporting the anti-responsibility, anti-accountability position of the Republican party.

What is happening to "Honor thy father and they mother" when a child can legally ignore her parents? Honoring parents does not exist in a secular/communistic society...ultimately there is no "choice" at all...as the family unit is destroyed. Does this also fit in with your religious beliefs?

I ignore my parents all the time and I do so legally, that is because I am considered an adult. A person who has chosen to have sex is considered an adult because they have made an adult decision, also someone who makes the adult decision to murder someone is considered an adult. They made the choice, they have the responsibility and they are accountable. Their parents are not. Basically for your argument to be right, you would have to support criminal punishment of parents for the crimes of their children. Time and again you show the anti-family, anti-responsibility, and anti-accountability that the Republican party supports. If you do not see how your whole argument about the rights of the parents here flys in the face of the family you are obviously more seriously deluded than I have imagined.

 

[Edward]

So who is actually held responsible for this Edward?

or this

I must assume that you mean "who is actually held accountable for this," since it is obvious that you cannot mean responsible from the context of your question. My answer is simple. The man and woman who chose to have sex, taking responsibility is accountabe for any choice they make. Not you, not I, and not the state. How much clearer do I need to be. If you Bonnie did not make the choice to have unsafe sex, which resulted in conception you are not responsible for that choice, and therefore not accountable. When will you let the people who made the choice take responsibility and accountability for that choice. Why must you support an anti-choice, anti-responsibility and anti-accountability pro-life position. I have met very few people as deluded as yourself. Let me put this simply. The only way you have a say in this matter at the moment the child is conceived is if you had a choice in the actual sexual act. If you are not the woman who made that choice, you have no say until the child is viable. Then you have the right to protect even the mere potentiality of life.

P.S., These pictures while graphic are not shocking, I have seen far worse on television and in the news both printed and broadcast. The nature of the pictures only reaffirm my pro-life position which is not inconsistent with my pro-choice position.

 

[Gunny]

You don't get to legislate based on what is and isn't morally reprehensible. You need to mind your own business. Roe v. Wade doesn't consider whether life begins at conception or at birth or at any time in-between. It offers protection to the unborn regardless of when life begins, but it weighs such protections against the liberties of the mother which are not absolute. No right is absolute, not even the right to life and that includes the unborn child.

Roe affirms that the mere "potentiality of life" is a sufficient state interest in regulating and proscribing abortion. It is you who believes in feel-good, hypocritical nonsense.

Your first paragraph is the "feel-good, hypocritical nonsense." Laws were not written for you literalist morons to pick and choose the words how you feel like and twist them to say what you want; which, has nothing to do with the intent.

I'll not mind my own business when abortion is condoned by the likes of you, and used by irresponsible people who obviously wish to escape the consequences of their actions.

You condone murder of the innocent for what amounts to irresponsible behavior. Real logical.

 

[Bonnie]

I must assume that you mean "who is actually held accountable for this," since it is obvious that you cannot mean responsible from the context of your question. My answer is simple. The man and woman who chose to have sex, taking responsibility is accountabe for any choice they make. Not you, not I, and not the state. How much clearer do I need to be. If you Bonnie did not make the choice to have unsafe sex, which resulted in conception you are not responsible for that choice, and therefore not accountable. When will you let the people who made the choice take responsibility and accountability for that choice. Why must you support an anti-choice, anti-responsibility and anti-accountability pro-life position. I have met very few people as deluded as yourself. Let me put this simply. The only way you have a say in this matter at the moment the child is conceived is if you had a choice in the actual sexual act. If you are not the woman who made that choice, you have no say until the child is viable. Then you have the right to protect even the mere potentiality of life.

P.S., These pictures while graphic are not shocking, I have seen far worse on television and in the news both printed and broadcast. The nature of the pictures only reaffirm my pro-life position which is not inconsistent with my pro-choice position.

So no one is ACCOUNTABLE then Edward! Killing an unborn baby simply because, is taking responsibility for their actions then? In your mind killing a baby is actually being responsible! That's neither civil, nor open minded. Rather sad though.

Ps Those pictures are not meant to be graphic or shocking just demonstrative of reality.

 

[Edward]

Your first paragraph is the "feel-good, hypocritical nonsense." Laws were not written for you literalist morons to pick and choose the words how you feel like and twist them to say what you want; which, has nothing to do with the intent.

I'll not mind my own business when abortion is condoned by the likes of you, and used by irresponsible people who obviously wish to escape the consequences of their actions.

You condone murder of the innocent for what amounts to irresponsible behavior. Real logical.

I do not condone abortion, you condone the act of depriving a person of their liberty. You support the anti-choice position. Any woman who disagrees with you or those who voted with you has my permission and support when she takes up arms against you and those who agree with you to defend herself. She has my permission to shoot your police officers, your judge, your jury, your President and to disobey any of your laws that infringes upon her fundamental rights.

If you want to be responsible for the the behavior, you should be responsible for the bullet which explodes your head when the woman defends herself against your act of trespass against her body. She has as much right to defend herself against you as she does in defending herself against someone who votes that she is required to have an abortion and who seeks to carry it out.

You want to deprive the woman of any responsibility or accountability. Fine, if you don't want the child to be aborted you should be responsible and accountable for your choice. You therefore should provide for the child, care for the child nurture the child, and to do this you need to do it outside of the body of the woman. It is time you people get some common sense knocked into you. You advocate one simple thing: If I tell a woman she can't have an abortion she won't have an abortion, she will do as she is fucking told, carry the child of the state against her will, and if she doesn't not agree with my state-endorsed rape she can go fuck herself, and when she is done carrying our child to term, we might allow her to keep it, but if she doesn't want it then we can accept the consequence of our rape." You do not even realize what you advocate. It is RAPE you advocate. A woman who is forced to carry a child to term that she does not want is being raped. She is being violated, and that is the most disgusting thing imaginable to the human mind, it is as depraved as you are, you are evil incarnate and the ideals you represent are evil. May God look with mercy upon you, and your kind for he loves both the unborn and the woman, and he doesn't like what you are doing to his child in support of another of his children. He supports Democrats who lovingly beseech women to have the child, and to provide support for the woman throughout the pregnancy, he is against your assault against a woman. Evil is evil and I am not afraid to call you on it. Repent of your evil or you will pay for the sins you meet out on a woman. On judgment day God will ask, "why did you rape that woman, why didn't you do as I would do, and love her and help her to make the right choice, why did you instead choose to force her, you are no different then someone who throws a woman to the ground and forces her to have sex. Be gone from my site for rapists will not have part in my kingdom."

 

[Edward]

So no one is ACCOUNTABLE then Edward! Killing an unborn baby simply because, is taking responsibility for their actions then? In your mind killing a baby is actually being responsible! That's neither civil, nor open minded. Rather sad though.

I can see I will not agree with you. I oppose killing the child but I oppose the act of rape even more. You have no right to violate another person. You will answer to God for that. May he have mercy on you. As for me I can see evil for what it is. You are evil.

P.S. There is no way you will get me to support a form of rape even if it means saving a life. It is time that you take responsibility for your choices. It is time that you are accountable for your own actions. It is time that you realize the sins you have committed. I cannot imagine Jesus saying, "hey Jane, guess what, you made the wrong choice, so I am going to force you to have that child and if you don't like it I don't care." Instead I imagine Jesus doing the exact opposite of what you support, "Jane, I love you, I want you to carry this child to term, I beg you to do so, and I will do anything to help you, I will provide you with all the support you need, and I will do so because I love you and care for you. I will take the child if you do not want it Jane, but please Jane, please have this child."