Obama says the "A" word

[Red Dawn]

Thinking that state legislatures are only full of old white men is a true sign of your ingorance. We can assume then you will be voting for Palin because she is the only major candidate with a uterus ?

Please practice reading comprehension.

I said state legislatures are dominated by white men.

Personal choices about one's reproductive biology should not be subject to a 51% majority of a few dozen people in a state legislature.

 

[dilloduck]

Please practice reading comprehension.

I said state legislatures are dominated by white men.

Personal choices about one's reproductive biology should not be subject to a 51% majority of a few dozen people in a state legislature.

Legislators are beholding to those that elect them. ESPECIALLY in state legislatures. Your vote and influence is HIGHEST at the local level. These 'white men' that you hate have to suck up to women to get elected just like every other candidate.

 

[Jon]

Right, it only makes it illegal for women who live in the bible belt...

IT doesn't belong to the STATES because it's a denial of a constitutional right. Not that you understand what that is... unless of course, it guarantees you guns, but whatever....

at least you're no longer pretending you ever supported Hillary.

Show me where it says in the constitution that you can kill babies, and I'll show you where it says you're a dumbfuck.

I guess I am going to have to find my bank statement where I donated to Hillary and show you, just to shut you the **** up.

I believe she even holds to preventing abortions even when the birth threatens the life of the mother.

Because you don't listen to what she says.

Decisions about personal privacy and control over one's own body and reproductive organs does not belong in the hands of a few dozen old white men who dominate state legislatures. It belongs in the hands of women.

Again, the fact that a woman can single-handedly decide the fate of a child that was conceived with a man's help is disgusting. It's different in the case of rape and incest, absolutely then can a woman make that decision. But just because she doesn't want to go through pregnancy, that's something she should have decided before she took off her pants.

 

[Gunny]

No, it's striking first on an religious issue the right has used for a wedge issue for many years. and sadly their ignorant legions of followers believed them. Oh, and right, your side never spreads falsities and lies.

The only way to beat the right is to fight them on the issues they will bring forward. They can't talk about the economy, international relations or other real political issues, so they choose the religious points.

I believe she even holds to preventing abortions even when the birth threatens the life of the mother. Hell, even the Catholic church isn't that radical.

No, jsanders is correct. Roe v Wade is an issue of the Federal government overstepping its bounds and usurping the rights of the states.

That has nothing to do with religion. What you REALLY mean to say is the only way to beat "the right" is to employ fearmongering as a base tactic.

Should Roe v Wade be overturned, it simply puts the matter back in the hands of the individual states where it belongs. Claiming it does anything else is just wrong, period.

Trying to invoke the "Christian" card just fits into the aforementioned tactic of fearmongering.

 

[Gunny]

Maybe technically vaild but the attempt is to scare women voters into thinking the GOP ticket intends to take away their "freedom to abort".
Did you here ANYTHING at all it the convention regarding the overturning of Roe V Wade ?

No, but they had to work that fear in somehow.

 

[Gunny]

Maybe technically vaild but the attempt is to scare women voters into thinking the GOP ticket intends to take away their "freedom to abort".

It's a scare tactic when the VP designate is saying just that?




Source: Eagle Forum 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire Jul 31, 2006

I don't see where she says she is going to take away anyone's right to do anything. I see that she does not condone abortion. Where's taht liberal tolerance for others being allowed to have and express their own opinions?

This same game gets played out in every thread just about, all over this board, every day. Believing something is neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive to running out and forcing others to live according to your beliefs, and the left is just as guilty as the right of attempting to do just that.

The pro choice crowd and SCOTUS are currently forcing the pro-life crowd to live with legisaltion from the bench that infringes on the latter's fundamental beliefs, are they not?

Why is it the pro-choice crowd is afraid to actually give the people a choice?

The real kicker here, IMO, is if were not for drooling extremists on BOTH sides, this wouldn't even be a legal issue.

 

[Chris]

Maybe technically vaild but the attempt is to scare women voters into thinking the GOP ticket intends to take away their "freedom to abort".

I don't see where she says she is going to take away anyone's right to do anything. I see that she does not condone abortion. Where's taht liberal tolerance for others being allowed to have and express their own opinions?

This same game gets played out in every thread just about, all over this board, every day. Believing something is neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive to running out and forcing others to live according to your beliefs, and the left is just as guilty as the right of attempting to do just that.

The pro choice crowd and SCOTUS are currently forcing the pro-life crowd to live with legisaltion from the bench that infringes on the latter's fundamental beliefs, are they not?

Why is it the pro-choice crowd is afraid to actually give the people a choice?

The real kicker here, IMO, is if were not for drooling extremists on BOTH sides, this wouldn't even be a legal issue.

Women have a choice now.

Overturning Roe vs Wade will take away that choice.

 

[Silence]

for those you believe that it should be turned back over to the state allow me to point out the obvious:

Prior to Roe v. Wade

Image:Map of US abortion laws pre-1973.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

30 states made abortion illegal
1 state legal in case of rape
1 legal in case of danger to woman's health
15 states legal in case of rape, incest or health of woman
3 legal upon request

so you see Roe v. Wade IS necessary so that the STATES don't infringe on the rights of women to decide what they do with their own bodies. It's a privacy issue not a medical or moral one.

edited cuz I can't count.. no wonder I'm voting for Obama...even I don't know how many states we have

 

[Gunny]

Women have a choice now.

Overturning Roe vs Wade will take away that choice.

How many times and ways does it have to be explained that you are incorrect, oh ignorant one?

Overturning Roe v Wade puts the issue back to the states. Nothing more nor less.

Get a clue.

 

[Gunny]

for those you believe that it should be turned back over to the state allow me to point out the obvious:

Prior to Roe v. Wade

Image:Map of US abortion laws pre-1973.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

31 states made abortion illegal
1 state legal in case of rape
1 legal in case of danger to woman's health
15 states legal in case of rape, incest or health of woman
3 legal upon request

so you see Roe v. Wade IS necessary so that the STATES don't infringe on the rights of women to decide what they do with their own bodies. It's a privacy issue not a medical or moral one.

The obvious fallacy to your example is the date. This is NOT 1973.

Roe v Wade is NOT necessary. It is in fact in direct violation of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Nor is it a matter of privacy. Is it NOT a morality-base dlaw that says I can't go next door and put a bullet in my neightbor's head? Yes. Is that NOT law dictated by society's morals?

The people of each state should have a right to choose. A right you wish to give individually to women but deny to the people themselves.

 

[Silence]

How many times and ways does it have to be explained that you are incorrect, oh ignorant one?

Overturning Roe v Wade puts the issue back to the states. Nothing more nor less.

Get a clue.

Gunny take a look at the information I just provided. Prior to Roe v. Wade EVERY state that allowed abortion did so with restrictions except three and those three are on the outter most reaches of the country.

What would happen to those girls and women with limited resources that couldn't afford to travel to states where abortion was accessible?

overturning Roe v. Wade and placing it back in the hands of the states effectively strips a woman's right to choose unless she has the funds to gain access to legal abortions in a state has not banned them.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny take a look at the information I just provided. Prior to Roe v. Wade EVERY state that allowed abortion did so with restrictions except three and those three are on the outter most reaches of the country.

What would happen to those girls and women with limited resources that couldn't afford to travel to states where abortion was accessible?

overturning Roe v. Wade and placing it back in the hands of the states effectively strips a woman's right to choose unless she has the funds to gain access to legal abortions in a state has not banned them.

I did look at it and responded to it.

 

[Caligirl]

The pro choice crowd and SCOTUS are currently forcing the pro-life crowd to live with legisaltion from the bench that infringes on the latter's fundamental beliefs, are they not?

Why is it the pro-choice crowd is afraid to actually give the people a choice?

Surely it should be a matter of parental choice, not population choice.

But I agree that the abortion ads are scare tactics, also believe that the democratic agenda will do more (than the republican) to reduce abortions due to reducing poverty.

 

[Gunny]

Surely it should be a matter of parental choice, not population choice.

But I agree that the abortion ads are scare tactics, also believe that the democratic agenda will do more (than the republican) to reduce abortions due to reducing poverty.

Agreed. It should not be a legal issue at all.

 

[Silence]

The obvious fallacy to your example is the date. This is NOT 1973.

perhaps you re right, perhaps people are more sophisticated now and perhaps states wouldn't automatically outlaw abortion immediately. I unfortunately, as a woman, am not willing to gamble on what if. I want Roe v. Wade upheld.

Roe v Wade is NOT necessary. It is in fact in direct violation of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

But Roe v. Wade is about upholding the 14th Amendment, which states were ruled to have violated by outlawing abortion. Are the states rights under the 10th Amendment more important than the citizens rights under the 14th? States still have the right to place restrictions on abortions they just can't outlaw them altogether. Seems like a fair compromise to me.

Nor is it a matter of privacy. Is it NOT a morality-base dlaw that says I can't go next door and put a bullet in my neightbor's head? Yes. Is that NOT law dictated by society's morals?

using the example you gave is comparing apples to oranges Gunny. Walking into your neighbors house isn't equal to terminating a pregnancy. and it's not based on morals either. the law that prevents you from doing that, it's based on the idea that if people could just walk up and shoot people this society would be in chaos and madness. That law is in place for the safety and welfare of ALL citizens and feutuses (sp?) don't become citizen's until they are born.

The people of each state should have a right to choose. A right you wish to give individually to women but deny to the people themselves.

are women not the ones who need this right? are men faced with the choice of abortion on a physical and personal level? I don't deny people anything but I don't want the State dictating to me when and under what circumstances I can terminate a pregnancy, even if I were to have never exercised my right to choose I'd still want it there for other women who need it.

I'm enjoy our exchange by the way!

 

[dilloduck]

are men faced with the choice of abortion on a physical and personal level?

Yes.

 

[MartaK]

How about the "sambo" word" and the "***** word"? See this:
Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is ?Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean.? | The LA Progressive

 

[Silence]

Yes.

please elaborate dillo. especially on the physical aspect.

 

[Ravi]

How about the "sambo" word" and the "***** word"? See this:
Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is ?Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean.? | The LA Progressive

That was a riot. Maybe that's why McCain needs to keep her from talking to the press...she'd probably slip and call Obama "sambo" on national tv.

 

[dilloduck]

please elaborate dillo. especially on the physical aspect.

She did not get pregnant by herself. What if the man wants a family with the woman and the abortion goes horribly wrong ?