Those who are pro-life, does it bother you that McCain...

[Linda...inOwasso]

Doesn't bother me a bit. I agree with McCain. In cases of rape and/or incest... I support a woman's right to choose.

[LaMere Academy]

believes there is an exception concerning rape or incest? I know pro-lifers are very excited about Palin, but the fact is, is that you are voting for McCain for president along with voting for his view concerning abortion. Does this bother anyone?

 

No I totally agree about rape and incest myself. I know good can come from that, but personally if I was raped I don't think I could carry that child and I don't think anyone else should HAVE to. Now, if you're just being foolish and your become pregnant I think it's wrong to have an abortion. But yes, I agree with his exceptions and always have thought that way.

*ETA my dh just reminded me that mother's health would be another legitimate reason in our opinion. Of course most mom's I know would risk their health for their babies.

[hsmamainva]

Just wait till there is a war you don't agree with and God forbid you have sons of drafting age. Lots of people all over the world die everyday from starvation, war, and natural disasters. I never hear the thundering outcry to help these people. Where is the vocal/active outrage at the Darfur? Or those still suffering in Burma? My father worked with CCF and Save the Children for years, and never did they get as much attention/money/sponsership nor media time as the anti-abortion message. So is life only precious while in the womb, but easily thrown away once born?

 

Excellent post!!! :iagree:

[Debbie in OR]

What makes you think he'd stick with his new leaf?

 

Because his record clearly shows he has voted pro-life for a long time now. And NARAL has this to say....

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

 

McCain scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record

 

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position. Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

[Mom to Aly]

I did a little reading up on the issue of abortion. Here's what I found:

 

1. Overall, legality of abortion does NOT affect the percent of abortions that occur in a country, it only affects the number of SAFE abortions that occur.

 

2. The countries with low rates of abortions are the countries where abortion is legal and safe, but more importantly, where conctraception is cheap and universal (funded by universal health care).

 

If you want the number of abortions to drop in the US, then do whatever it takes to get birth control subsidized and freely available. Support programs that teach people how to use it and de-stigmatize its use.

 

At this point, with all we know about human nature we have two choices:

 

1. We can tackle the problem head on with methods that work, ie universal access to birth control.

 

2. We can pretend to tackle the problem while really only caring that our religious values become everyone's religious values.

 

:iagree: I not only agree, I think the is the best and most sensible post I have seen in regards to this issue since I have been on these boards! Bravo, Jennifer!!!

[G&KMCKee]

Do you think he would be better as president?

I don't!

[Trivium Academy]

No. (I choose not to discuss this in detail.)

 

There are some issues that are more important in my mind than others, but the time to debate abortion and it's legal ramifications is when that issue is prevalent. Right now, our economic status is the leading concern on my mind.

[Mom to Aly]

I have had several days of no politics, but I have to break it tonight! Choosing McCain for president, you are not just continuing a tradition of deaths in war, you are also continuing:

 

the death penalty (which makes NO sense--you are saying no one has the right to decide to take a life, except God--but you think it is alright to end a criminal's life?).

 

lifting restrictions on guns, which has been shown to increase gun related deaths tremendously.

 

increase production of nuclear weapons, and increase military spending, despite the fact that we have enough nuclear weapons to blow the entire world up several hundred times.

 

decreasing social programs for the elderly and disabled, which are necessary for their health and well being.

 

decreasing aid to other nations in need of sanitary aid, water cleansing and food supplies, as we funnel that money into military spending.

 

And the list goes on. And that does not include any "secret invasions" we wouldn't be told about, until much, much later.

[Mrs Mungo]

He's so flippin' liberal that I'd be a POW before voting for him. W had some service, which is better than no service. A CINC should have some working knowledge of his largest and most important role.

 

I voted for Kerry but I really had to make myself to do it so I sort of know how you feel.

 

W served in the Texas ANG and copped out of most of his service...during Vietnam. That doesn't count.

 

I do prefer my politicans to have military experience but it's not going to be the only thing that gets my vote and it is clearly not the only thing for you, either. I was just following the logic train, not trying to nitpick. ;)

[Kimber]

I don't agree with most wars, and as a child I have laid awake at night at times crying for the children of Africa that suffer. I am still haunted by what they're going through. I send them money on occasion, and my dh and I give through our church to help those who are less fortunate. Our pastor actually worked as a missionary in the area of Chad, so he is intimately familiar with some of the problems there and has a heart for their suffering.

 

In fact I see abortion and genocide to be very close. According to wikipedia, genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

 

Millions of children, defined and grouped by the fact that they are unwanted and unvalued as people are being systematically, deliberately, and legally destroyed. I think it is a sad sad state of affairs that our country has gotten this far.

 

And as a matter of fact, I have three sons and I also have 5 nephews. One is of drafting age. I also have an uncle who has been in a wheel chair since Vietnam where he was shot in the head. I give to the vets. As a matter of fact, as a conservative person, I give to the police too and sometimes people on the street.

 

I already care about the war and suffering, and I put my money where my mouth is. I already care about all life. And I care about the millions of babies that are unwanted because they are an inconvenience.

 

My vote is all I have and I use it to try and at least limit the abuse against the little children that so many don't think are important enough to live.

 

Liberals and pro-choice people are not the only ones that care about all of these other issues. I just don't think it's the governments responsibility to take care of everyone. It's our responsibility to take care of each other.

 

Federal government, IMO, should focus on roads, national issues of welfare--including wars and protecting the lives of the citizens, national disaster relief, and other issues that involve co-ordinating between states for the greater common good.

 

Our government has become a living breathing entity that exists almost solely for its own growth. Our freedoms to live as we choose are slowly being stripped away. But it seems like this is okay with the majority as long as we have the right to choose to abort. Abortions are alright, but not owning a gun. It doesn't make sense at all.

 

And btw, Churchill was a war monger. Sometimes there good to have around.

[DB in NJ]

believes there is an exception concerning rape or incest? I know pro-lifers are very excited about Palin, but the fact is, is that you are voting for McCain for president along with voting for his view concerning abortion. Does this bother anyone?

 

The way I see it, Roe v. Wade is settled law, and I don't see it being overturned. The only area of concern would be Supreme Court appointments, but even at that, I don't like to see abortion used as a litmus test for appointees.

 

When it comes to the abortion issue, my feelings line up much more closely with McCain's than Obama's. I mean, at least McCain is in the ballpark; Obama is not even on the same planet! :D

[Peek a Boo]

To answer the OP--

If I had a choice only between McCain and Obama, even McCain's stance on rape/incest is leaps and bounds above Obama's views.

But I'm voting Constitution Party this time around.

 

Well, he's only recently decided that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He held for years that it should *not* be overturned but he wasn't winning that way. What makes you think he'd stick with his new leaf?

 

BINGO!! He may have a 0% NARAL record, but his statements aren't as pro-life as I'd like to see. which [among other similar issues] is why i'm not voting for either of them :D

 

 

Given the choice of McCain vs. Obama, which candidate do think has viewpoints that are the most troublesome to the pro-lifer's?

 

LOL! you would think that would be a no-brainer if someone has decided to vote for only a "viable" candidate [no third party] and wants a pro-life view. duh.

 

 

Well...we went to war with them, when they didn't do anything to us (despite what the country was told at the time), so that does make it intentional.

 

If we weren't bombing their country, they'd still be alive.

 

...they would? under one of the Top Ten Worst Dictators in the world? that's quite an assumption.

 

I can respect that, but ... then all lives are sacred -- not just the lives of the unborn.

 

Anywhere from 100,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the Iraq war (no one knows the true number).

 

If innocent lives are what we're looking to save -- be they unborn or born -- I see a definite contradiction.

 

 

millions vs hundreds of thousands? no comparison.

 

 

All life is valuable. People are going to be killed, in ANY stage of life, no MATTER who is president. There will be more, and spread over a wider area, with a war-monger as president. *shrugs*. There are so many things wrong in this country, I find it sad that SO many voters are hyperfocusing on one issue, and dooming the rest of us to deal with the many other issues for a longer time because of one issue, which will NOT even change because of their vote.

 

again -- you SHRUG at 40 MILLION lives being killed for convenience.

and i think someone else mentioned it, but I much prefer the ways the other parties want to fix those other issues more than the Democratic party's ideas.

I don't like the Republican party's ideas too much either, but if I had to vote for one of the two, it would be Republican. Thank God I can vote third party :D

 

I did a little reading up on the issue of abortion. Here's what I found:

 

If you want the number of abortions to drop in the US, then do whatever it takes to get birth control subsidized and freely available. Support programs that teach people how to use it and de-stigmatize its use.

 

At this point, with all we know about human nature we have two choices:

 

1. We can tackle the problem head on with methods that work, ie universal access to birth control.

 

2. We can pretend to tackle the problem while really only caring that our religious values become everyone's religious values.

 

....or we can tackle the problem as a HUMAN rights issue w/o discriminating against someone based on their stage of development.

 

I addressed that in the ectogenesis thread.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53976

 

Not all of us merely want to see a reduction in the number of abortions --we see a much deeper issue w/ how humans are treated, period. Using methods of contraception that cause the death of humans is immoral for a lot of people, and that's without even bringing religion into it.

 

Yeah, I'm sure free access to lots of contraception and programs would "work."

Slavery "worked" too.

Making an unethical decision "work" isn't the issue.

You don't have to be religious to realize there's a huge HUMAN RIGHTS issue in allowing humans to be killed on demand for convenience w/no legal consequence or due process.

 

There is a qualitative and quantitative difference between John McCain's service to our country and John Kerry's.

 

 

yup.

Basing a decision on "his service" doesn't necessarily mean "I'm voting for him because he served, period" but most likely because of the WAY he served or other factors that arose during the service. There are plenty of soldiers that i wouldn't elect to City Council, much less President. being a soldier is great, but it doesn't make one infallible :) It does, however, offer opportunities to see some facets of character under fire. For me, McCain's service isn't enough to show the kind of character I'd like to see in a President.

 

 

 

 

Just wait till there is a war you don't agree with and God forbid you have sons of drafting age. Lots of people all over the world die everyday from starvation, war, and natural disasters. I never hear the thundering outcry to help these people. Where is the vocal/active outrage at the Darfur? Or those still suffering in Burma? My father worked with CCF and Save the Children for years, and never did they get as much attention/money/sponsership nor media time as the anti-abortion message. So is life only precious while in the womb, but easily thrown away once born?

 

I totally agree with you about the draft issue. Absolutely against it.

 

abortion vs foreign aid?

when MOST of the foreign aid problems stem from political problems in those countries? when we send money and food and supplies over there only to be commandeered by the powers that be, or stored in warehouses a la Oil for Food?

To assume that money spent on one issue equates unconcern for another issue is simply wrong --logically and morally.

 

That's like saying that pro-choice people only care about babies that are already born and are content throwing away the lives of babies in utero. is that what YOU think?

 

Since i know that many who defend abortion do NOT think that way, it would not be intellectually honest of me to spin the argument that way in a generalization. Unless someone specifically says they DO believe humans in utero are disposable. And people have said that.

 

and to top it off, Save the Children and CCF have other countries involved helping that cause --how many other countries are fighting for legislative issues protecting the unborn in America? It gets more media and money because it's a local issue that we CAN effect change on and we CAN see the results. But are you saying that if one gives more money/ attention to one issue then they don't care about other issues? I hope not, but it IS how you phrased your statement.

[Plucky]

Then vote for Obama. I'm voting for McCain because I don't believe most of your opinions above are facts. I'm against gun control for honest citizens. Period. I'm also for funding the military.

 

I'm for universal health care but I haven't figured out a way to fund it. We cannot just imitate Canada. We allow very liberal immigration and have a lot of illegal immigrants. Canada severely limits their immigration and that alone helps in not bankrupting their health care.

 

We cannot begin to fix things with a current broken system. The things you believe I do not and I am not ashamed of it. I believe Obama promises everything but I don't believe he can actually carry it through.

[Peek a Boo]

Liberals and pro-choice people are not the only ones that care about all of these other issues. I just don't think it's the governments responsibility to take care of everyone. It's our responsibility to take care of each other.

 

Federal government, IMO, should focus on roads, national issues of welfare--including wars and protecting the lives of the citizens, national disaster relief, and other issues that involve co-ordinating between states for the greater common good.

 

Our government has become a living breathing entity that exists almost solely for its own growth. Our freedoms to live as we choose are slowly being stripped away. But it seems like this is okay with the majority as long as we have the right to choose to abort. Abortions are alright, but not owning a gun. It doesn't make sense at all.

 

that's me too.

[Plucky]

Can you post some links to this? I know that birth control was handed out to us like candy and I know many, many people who had abortions, some in my family. I'm definitely for birth control, but I haven't read anything above like you are stating.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm against gun control for honest citizens. Period. I'm also for funding the military.

 

I'm for universal health care but I haven't figured out a way to fund it. We cannot just imitate Canada. We allow very liberal immigration and have a lot of illegal immigrants. Canada severely limits their immigration and that alone helps in not bankrupting their health care.

 

We cannot begin to fix things with a current broken system. The things you believe I do not and I am not ashamed of it. I believe Obama promises everything but I don't believe he can actually carry it through.

 

ya know, Denmark has a system lots of people like, and it's funded by 5 million people.

 

I say let those who want a gvt healthcare system fund it, and let the rest of us opt out --both in funding and in participating. I'll bet you could get 5 million people in the US to participate --all the Democrats, no? Practically half the population? That should be PLENTY! People's wages being garnished voluntarily sounds just fine to me.

[Mrs Mungo]

Then vote for Obama. I'm voting for McCain because I don't believe most of your opinions above are facts. I'm against gun control for honest citizens. Period. I'm also for funding the military.

 

Go back and read some of Fourmother's posts on this matter. How people from urban areas view gun control is *not the same* as most of the nation. All Obama has said is that *it should be a local issue.* I agree with him and have said the same here. There will always be states and cities trying to overstep their bounds, that is what the court system is *for*.

 

Obama is not against funding the military. My husband and I have poured over every word said by both candidates and checked voting records. Again, my husband has been in the military 14 years, has two combat tours and he's voting *for the first time ever* so that he can vote for Obama. I realize not all veterans are voting Obama and that's fine, but let's not pretend it's because Obama is going to let the soldiers go to war unprepared.

[Plucky]

Go back and read some of Fourmother's posts on this matter. How people from urban areas view gun control is *not the same* as most of the nation. All Obama has said is that *it should be a local issue.* I agree with him and have said the same here. There will always be states and cities trying to overstep their bounds, that is what the court system is *for*.

 

Obama is not against funding the military. My husband and I have poured over every word said by both candidates and checked voting records. Again, my husband has been in the military 14 years, has two combat tours and he's voting *for the first time ever* so that he can vote for Obama. I realize not all veterans are voting Obama and that's fine, but let's not pretend it's because Obama is going to let the soldiers go to war unprepared.

 

I was responding to MomtoAly's post. I never said anything about Obama and soldiers being unprepared. MtoA railed against McCain and for Obama based on some assumptions. I voiced a different opinion.

 

And no I don't think all veterans by any shot are voting Obama. I'm not and neither is my veteran dh.

 

To say Democrats and democrat voters aren't for gun control I think is misleading. They are the ones that keep trying to pass laws as such. As long as they do not enforce current laws there is no reason to start passing new ones.

[Peek a Boo]

Go back and read some of Fourmother's posts on this matter. How people from urban areas view gun control is *not the same* as most of the nation. All Obama has said is that *it should be a local issue.* I agree with him and have said the same here. There will always be states and cities trying to overstep their bounds, that is what the court system is *for*.

 

i don't believe localities should have the right to infringe the Constitution.

 

banning guns infringes the second amendment.

 

If localities in urban areas wanted slavery to be resurrected that shouldn't be allowed either.

 

Go after criminals, not the Constitution.

[Plucky]

ya know, Denmark has a system lots of people like, and it's funded by 5 million people.

 

I say let those who want a gvt healthcare system fund it, and let the rest of us opt out --both in funding and in participating. I'll bet you could get 5 million people in the US to participate --all the Democrats, no? Practically half the population? That should be PLENTY! People's wages being garnished voluntarily sounds just fine to me.

 

I have to disagree here. I've come around to believing in universal healthcare. I just don't know how in the world we can manage it here. California tried it and it failed. Right now I don't think anyone can do anything with 600 billion going to bailouts and I blame both parties equally for 60 years of irresponsibility for this nonsense.

[Peek a Boo]

I have to disagree here. I've come around to believing in universal healthcare.

 

My biggest problem with Universal Healthcare is it doesn't allow Absolute Freedom.

 

If you can't fail completely, you're not completely free.

 

America was started as a nation where the individual had a direct say in how much they had the gvt involved. I'd like to see us get BACK to that. let those who want gvt involvement fund those programs.

Let the rest of us be free of them.

[Mom to Aly]

Then vote for Obama. I'm voting for McCain because I don't believe most of your opinions above are facts. I'm against gun control for honest citizens. Period. I'm also for funding the military.

 

I'm for universal health care but I haven't figured out a way to fund it. We cannot just imitate Canada. We allow very liberal immigration and have a lot of illegal immigrants. Canada severely limits their immigration and that alone helps in not bankrupting their health care.

 

We cannot begin to fix things with a current broken system. The things you believe I do not and I am not ashamed of it. I believe Obama promises everything but I don't believe he can actually carry it through.

 

 

And exactly how are you going to decide who is an honest citizen when allowing for your gun control???

 

You say Obama promises everything but you don't believe he can actually carry it through? Reagan created a deficit the likes of which this country had never seen--the first Bush increased it, and I guess we shouldn't bring up the, "read my lips, I will not increase taxes" bit--Bill Clinton not only erased it, he left us in the black in excess of $500 billion dollars; now Bush will leave us in a deficit of $490 billion dollars; that makes a total expenditure of nearly ONE TRILLION DOLLARS--all while creating a war on false information; destroying our image worldwide; invading two countries without following the normal guidelines a president is supposed to; killing who knows how many innocent people in Iraq, and, yes, they do count, even if they had a leader Bush wanted to bring down so daddy would be proud; invoking torture methods which violate every measure of humanity we have had for the last I don't know how long; taking away human rights that we would condemn any other country in the world for even considering withholding from others; invoking presidential priviledge for anything that might reveal a little of what he has been doing regarding lying about a war, torture, plus so much more, and getting away with it, when Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair!!! Bush has ruined our economy, to the point that unemployment is at an all time high, well, actually, I guess I don't have to say anything about the economy, everyone knows what is going on, and the fault lies with Bush, his fake war, and how he has run our government into the ground. I'd love to see anyone try to say differently. And 8 years ago I would have said that McCain would have been better. 2 years ago I would have said he would have been better. But he has turned tail and turned political stances lately, and that scares me, and makes me think it will be more of the same, and this country cannot survive more of the same.

 

I think our only chance, at this point, is Obama. And I think he is intelligent, will chose a good cabinet, I think Biden is wonderful, fiscally sound and conservative, and I think together they can turn things around, with a ton of work, and get us back on the right track. I don't agree with everyone of their policies. But out of the choices right now, I see them as our only hope.

[Greta]

The difference is in intention. Those civilians were not killed intentionally. All those babies were. One is morally culpable, the other is not.

 

That is such a cop-out. You can't drop bombs on a city and then say "oh, well, we only meant to kill the soldiers, we aren't responsible for all the civilians who got killed." Give me a break.

 

And why can't the argument work in reverse? Couldn't a woman say she didn't INTEND to kill a fetus, she just wanted it removed from her womb, and it isn't her fault it died in the process?

[sunshine]

"oops, i accidentally blew up 200,000 civilians. oh well." quote

 

I know, this was posted a long time ago, but it bothers me in the way that it is so mocking.

 

I don't know any President of the USA who has blown up 200,000 people.

I dont' know of any President who has single handedly put us in a war.

 

I do know of a terroist dictator that killed over 200,000 of his own people then hid in a hole

 

I do know of a Democratic Congress that voted to go to war with this same country

[sunshine]

And exactly how are you going to decide who is an honest citizen when allowing for your gun control???

 

 

we could not control the criminals with or without gun control. They will get guns. They will shoot you and each other because they will not say "oh wait, it is against the law to have a gun, so I will rob someone with a stick today"

this isn't gonna happen in the real world

 

We would not have chance without being able to defend ourselves.

[Peek a Boo]

And exactly how are you going to decide who is an honest citizen when allowing for your gun control???

 

In our legal system, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Are you saying Obama believes the opposite? Are you saying that the Constitution only applies to those whom the GOVERNMENT deems "worthy"?

 

as i mentioned --go after the criminals, but don't go after the Constitution.

 

if you think Biden is conservative then that just shows how far left you are ;) I'm guessing you like being that far left tho, so you won't take it as an offense...:D

 

eta: {{and i agree w/ you about Bush for the most part....}}

[Plucky]

I think people that are law abiding citizens should be able to own guns.

 

I think it's great you are happy about Obama. Don't discount someone else's viewpoint. I do not see things your way. I don't. I've been watching the Democratic Congress in action. If I was going to be lured back to voting for a democrat then they would have been the ones to do it. They have not.

 

I'm very concerned that a vote for a Democrat will cause our country to slip farther and farther left. That is not where I want to go. I'm all for a moderate stance. I am an ex-Democrat and an ex-Republican. I want everyone to have access to affordable health care. I'm afraid for our economy. I am against partial-birth abortion and want to make abortion less necessary and less attractive to women. I'm against gun bans.

 

Those are my issues and I haven't been convinced that Obama is the answer for me.

[Vida Winter]

believes there is an exception concerning rape or incest? I know pro-lifers are very excited about Palin, but the fact is, is that you are voting for McCain for president along with voting for his view concerning abortion. Does this bother anyone?

 

You know, as far as reality goes, it is McCain vs Obama, and in that respect, it is a very clear decision who is the more pro-life candidate. And, although abortion is a very important issue to me, it is not the only one on which I base my vote. When all issues are considered, McCain is a very worth candidate; Obama on the other hand, is my worst nightmare.

 

~Dana

[Plucky]

My biggest problem with Universal Healthcare is it doesn't allow Absolute Freedom.

 

If you can't fail completely, you're not completely free.

 

America was started as a nation where the individual had a direct say in how much they had the gvt involved. I'd like to see us get BACK to that. let those who want gvt involvement fund those programs.

Let the rest of us be free of them.

 

I'd be happy with just affordable health care for people. I don't think people should suffer with health care issues just because they cannot afford it. I don't think having more money or a good job with excellent benefits makes one more worthy of good health care. I think this is the America I want to live in.

 

This is something I've been researching and talking about with lots of people and only recently have I switched to this opinion.

 

I understand about freedom and I want people to work hard and not expect government to take care of them all the time. People will always take advantage. I want Americans, especially kids and elderly, to not go hungry and have access to good health care.

 

I don't know how this will come about. I'm not even sure it's possible right now. I think though if we can bail out the big guys at the tune of 600 billion I won't begrudge someone wanting health care.

[Mom to Aly]

"oops, i accidentally blew up 200,000 civilians. oh well." quote

 

I know, this was posted a long time ago, but it bothers me in the way that it is so mocking.

 

I don't know any President of the USA who has blown up 200,000 people.

I dont' know of any President who has single handedly put us in a war.

 

I do know of a terroist dictator that killed over 200,000 of his own people then hid in a hole

 

I do know of a Democratic Congress that voted to go to war with this same country

 

Bush put us into a war--under his command, with fabricated information, he ordered troops to invade Iraq, violating UN treaties, violating section eight of the Constitution that says only Congress has the power to declare war, when we were under no direct and immediate threat, he sent troops in, and single handedly put us in a war. And, considering the number of people killed in Iraq is supposed to be well over the 100,000 the US gov't tries to estimate, and much closer to the 600,000 reported by other sources, I'd say we do know of a president of the USA that has blown up 200,000 people.

 

And, when we sent bombers over that dropped bombs on hospitals and schools, schools with small children, and we knew ahead of time what these buildings were, and that they were civilian territories, but our president had us drop bombs on them anyway, what would you say about him?

 

And when you talk of a terrorist dictator who killed over 200,000 people--that would mean that, without being legally elected by a majority of the people in his country, he took power anyway. He then fattened his own pockets, and the pockets of his friends, while the poor in the country went without and did worse, as did so many others, while he looked the other way. His country failed and floundered, while he lived it up, and he lied about how everything was going. He attacked whomever he liked, lying about why, and refusing to answer questions about it when asked, making up more lies and getting rid of people to cover his tracks. He ignored the UN, thinking he was above them. He made himself untouchable.

 

Hmmm, now why does that sound frighteningly familiar?

 

Make sure you click on the above link to blast my rep--I'm used to it :D.

[asta]

Well...we went to war with them, when they didn't do anything to us (despite what the country was told at the time), so that does make it intentional.

 

If we weren't bombing their country, they'd still be alive.

 

Oh, read some history.

 

And that's just the Kurds; it doesn't include sect on sect slaughter under Saddam.

 

The source is Human Rights Watch, not some one's talking points.

 

 

asta

[GreenKitty]

Neither of the presidential candidates are as pro-life as I would like them to be so I am voting for the one closest to it.

 

:iagree:

[GreenKitty]

My biggest problem with Universal Healthcare is it doesn't allow Absolute Freedom.

 

If you can't fail completely, you're not completely free.

America was started as a nation where the individual had a direct say in how much they had the gvt involved. I'd like to see us get BACK to that. let those who want gvt involvement fund those programs.

Let the rest of us be free of them.

 

 

Well said!

 

:iagree:

[Erica in PA]

Can you post some links to this? I know that birth control was handed out to us like candy and I know many, many people who had abortions, some in my family. I'm definitely for birth control, but I haven't read anything above like you are stating.

 

Yes, I would like to see sources for this information. The part about universal healthcare that pays for contraception being central to lowering the abortion rate... that makes me suspicious as to this data's source.

 

Erica

[Jenny in Atl]

Oh, read some history.

 

And that's just the Kurds; it doesn't include sect on sect slaughter under Saddam.

 

The source is Human Rights Watch, not some one's talking points.

 

 

asta

 

Yes, the same Saddam we supported and helped to keep in power. We sent them weapons during the Iran Iraq war. We knew full well who we were dealing with. He was a fine dictator in our eyes until he started messing with "our" oil (Kuwait).

[Peek a Boo]

Bush put us into a war--under his command, with fabricated information, he ordered troops to invade Iraq, violating UN treaties, violating section eight of the Constitution that says only Congress has the power to declare war, when we were under no direct and immediate threat, he sent troops in, and single handedly put us in a war.

 

 

And when you talk of a terrorist dictator who killed over 200,000 people--that would mean that, without being legally elected by a majority of the people in his country, he took power anyway. He then fattened his own pockets, and the pockets of his friends, while the poor in the country went without and did worse, as did so many others, while he looked the other way. His country failed and floundered, while he lived it up, and he lied about how everything was going. He attacked whomever he liked, lying about why, and refusing to answer questions about it when asked, making up more lies and getting rid of people to cover his tracks. He ignored the UN, thinking he was above them. He made himself untouchable.

 

Hmmm, now why does that sound frighteningly familiar?

 

Make sure you click on the above link to blast my rep--I'm used to it :D.

 

with fabricated info.... that other intelligence communities agreed with at the time.

 

According to Art 1Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress allowed the action.

"Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

 

 

According to Article 2, Section 2, The President is now overseeing that Resolution as Commander in Chief.

 

Congress controls the purse strings. there can be no war w/o the explicit allowance of Congress. There was a vote to pull out of Iraq. Only THREE Congressmen voted against it. And Obama wasn't one of them. This war fiasco is NOT a single-handed operation. Congress can stop it anytime they want.

 

And there hasn't even been anything brought up in the UN about the legality of the war. We could veto it of course, but it hasn't even been brought up as a matter of record. It's been challenged in the US courts too.

 

If you want to allege an illegal action, it would make Congress complicit in funding that illegal action.

 

========

 

Bush WAS legally elected --our elections are decided by the Electoral College, not "the majority of the people." the only thing the Law did was stop issuing recount after recount after recount.

 

The same UN that is supposed to be helping countries? The same UN that was caught up in the Oil for Food scandal? Yeah, ignoring the UN actually becomes a positive thing in my book.

 

i do agree that most of our political leaders --in both the Legislative and Executive branches -- are looking like dictators.

 

and I do agree that anytime we enter a war, innocent civilians die. I'm sure Clinton and Obama could explain why that is. And makes Bush simply one of many that has killed innocent civilians.

[Peek a Boo]

Yes, the same Saddam we supported and helped to keep in power. We sent them weapons during the Iran Iraq war. We knew full well who we were dealing with. He was a fine dictator in our eyes until he started messing with "our" oil (Kuwait).

 

you mean we sent him WMD? Which is why we, uh, KNEW he had them?

;)

 

there's a difference between a "fine dictator" and one who crosses the line AND happens to be one we can deal with militarily.

 

But methinks we are drifting into deletable thread territory......

I'm kinda liking the low-star rating --it draws people in to see what the train wreck is all about. :D

[Peek a Boo]

I'd be happy with just affordable health care for people. I don't think people should suffer with health care issues just because they cannot afford it. I don't think having more money or a good job with excellent benefits makes one more worthy of good health care. I think this is the America I want to live in.

 

This is something I've been researching and talking about with lots of people and only recently have I switched to this opinion.

 

I understand about freedom and I want people to work hard and not expect government to take care of them all the time. People will always take advantage. I want Americans, especially kids and elderly, to not go hungry and have access to good health care.

 

I don't know how this will come about. I'm not even sure it's possible right now. I think though if we can bail out the big guys at the tune of 600 billion I won't begrudge someone wanting health care.

 

yeah, I've been involved in this type of discussion for a few years now too :)

i agree with you for the most part.

i agree people should have the opportunity to enter a gvt-run program. I just insist that people be given the freedom to opt out both in funding it and participating in it.

[RebeccaC]

The way I see it, Roe v. Wade is settled law, and I don't see it being overturned. The only area of concern would be Supreme Court appointments, but even at that, I don't like to see abortion used as a litmus test for appointees.

 

When it comes to the abortion issue, my feelings line up much more closely with McCain's than Obama. I mean, at least McCain is in the ballpark; Obama is not even on the same planet! :D

 

 

Once Dred Scott v. Sandford was law but it is no more and so it will be with Roe v. Wade. The reason being is that both laws were unjust, both were the suppression of one group of people by another. Then it was slave owner against the enslaved and now it is the born against the unborn. I do not know when but at some point in time Roe v. Wade will be struck down. None of the abolitionist knew when slavery would end but that did not stop them and they certainly did not stop because there were some settled laws about slavery on the books, including Dred Scott v. Sandford in this nation and others in England. They knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they were doing was right and they were willing to pay the price and wait it out.

 

My boys saw Wilberforce and without my saying a word they both said slavery is like abortion and we want to be like Wilberforce. My boys are active in the pro-life movement because they want to be and they have no problem standing in silent protest. In fact y'all might be surprised at how many teens and young 20s stand in silent protest around the nation against abortion. There are more kids with red tape over their mouths that say life standing in protest than there are kids of the same age standing for abortion. That says a lot, maybe our generation didn't have the stomach for it but there are tens of thousands of kids now who do have the stomach for overturning Roe v. Wade. I am in awe of their resolve and do what I can to support them.

[Mx5]

Just wait till there is a war you don't agree with and God forbid you have sons of drafting age. Lots of people all over the world die everyday from starvation, war, and natural disasters. I never hear the thundering outcry to help these people. Where is the vocal/active outrage at the Darfur? Or those still suffering in Burma? My father worked with CCF and Save the Children for years, and never did they get as much attention/money/sponsership nor media time as the anti-abortion message. So is life only precious while in the womb, but easily thrown away once born?

 

Why is it assumed that is someone is pro-life, that they only care for unborn? Or that they are pro-war? Or Republican? Or conservative? Or that they don't know about or care about Darfur? Burma? (fill in the country with atrocities)? To judge half the US population who are against abortion as being like this is quite a generalization. It's not either / or. These ideals are not mutually exclusive.

[Cindy in FL.]

Yes, but not as much as Obama's thinking that a baby is punishment.

 

Cindy

[Heather in Neverland]

Do you need to tell me something? Is something in the works? :D

 

Well let's just say we are working on it. If we have our say we will move back maybe next May??? PRAY FOR US!!! :D

[Greta]

Why is it assumed that is someone is pro-life, that they only care for unborn? Or that they are pro-war? Or Republican? Or conservative? Or that they don't know about or care about Darfur? Burma? (fill in the country with atrocities)? To judge half the US population who are against abortion as being like this is quite a generalization. It's not either / or. These ideals are not mutually exclusive.

 

Stereotypes run both ways. Just see the post below about Obama's view that babies are a punishment.

 

As for myself, I have a very dear friend who is pro-life, anti-war, anti-death penalty, and liberal. My Mom is pro-life and anti-war and anti-death penalty, but apolitical. But everyone else I know who is pro-life, and that's quite a few people, are also pro-war and conservative. I'm not saying that justifies the assumption that anyone who is pro-life is pro-war, but it happens so often that it does make one wonder.

[xxxxxxxx]

I feel as if I vote for the lesser of the 2 evils than actually voting for someone I truly agree with 100%.

 

 

Neither of the presidential candidates are as pro-life as I would like them to be so I am voting for the one closest to it.

 

:iagree:

[Mx5]

Stereotypes run both ways. Just see the post below about Obama's view that babies are a punishment.

 

As for myself, I have a very dear friend who is pro-life, anti-war, anti-death penalty, and liberal. My Mom is pro-life and anti-war and anti-death penalty, but apolitical. But everyone else I know who is pro-life, and that's quite a few people, are also pro-war and conservative. I'm not saying that justifies the assumption that anyone who is pro-life is pro-war, but it happens so often that it does make one wonder.

 

Even among your own circle of friends & family, you know of pro-lifers who don't fit the assumptive mode. Bottom line for me is that there are so many people who seem to think that in order for one to be prolife, he/she must only care for the unborn and doesn't know about or care about other atrocities mentioned. It bothers me because not only is it a glaring generality, to which human kind seems to be prone regardless of one's political affiliation, but that it is not true.

[Greta]

Even among your own circle of friends & family, you know of pro-lifers who don't fit the assumptive mode.

 

Yes, absolutely! And in fact, I'll tell you that it was that friend (combined with some changing spiritual beliefs of my own) who really opened my mind to some of the pro-life arguments. But I have experienced many more pro-lifers who do fit the assumptive mode, and do leave one with the impression that they care about fetuses but not so much about living, breathing people. I'm sorry, but when you've had people yelling in your face about the evils of abortion one minute, and gleefully talking about wiping all the Arabs off the face of the planet the next, it kinda makes you think that "pro-life" is a misnomer! And when some people take such an extreme stance on abortion that they think it shouldn't be allowed even when the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy, how can one not think that they must care more about the fetus than the woman?

 

It bothers me because not only is it a glaring generality, to which human kind seems to be prone regardless of one's political affiliation, but that it is not true.

 

I understand, and I'm really not trying to say the stereotype is justified. But there are *some* pro-lifers that fit the stereotype, and I think perhaps they're the noisy ones.

[PiCO]

Once Dred Scott v. Sandford was law but it is no more and so it will be with Roe v. Wade.

 

If I believed this I would never be able to vote Republican. Fortunately, I don't believe Roe v. Wade will ever be repealed. (I also think it's inaccurate to equate Dred Scott v. Sandford with Roe v. Wade, but I'm going to leave that alone.)

 

I am pro-life in that I believe women should not have abortions, but I am also realistic. Women have been terminating pregnancies and commiting infanticide since the beginning of time. They will not stop just because of the law... I believe illegal abortions are much worse than legal ones.

 

I believe abortions will stop when they are rendered unnecessary through medical advances.

[RebeccaC]

If I believed this I would never be able to vote Republican. Fortunately, I don't believe Roe v. Wade will ever be repealed. (I also think it's inaccurate to equate Dred Scott v. Sandford with Roe v. Wade, but I'm going to leave that alone.)

 

I am pro-life in that I believe women should not have abortions, but I am also realistic. Women have been terminating pregnancies and committing infanticide since the beginning of time. They will not stop just because of the law... I believe illegal abortions are much worse than legal ones.

 

I believe abortions will stop when they are rendered unnecessary through medical advances.

 

I guess if we follow your realistic logic we should say and think that folks have been owning other humans since time began and therefore we should once again legalise slavery. Chicago is one of the largest hubs for trafficking child sex trade slavery in the US. If we made slavery legal we could regulate the industry and tax it and of course monitor the women and children sold into the trade and...... Illegal slavery is worst than legal slavery and it is true illegal abortions can be worse than legal ones that is however not justification for either.

 

We all believe what we want to believe. There was once the thought/belief that technology would end slavery around the world it has not. Medical advances might end abortion but I think it will be a generation of young people who say enough is enough and change the laws so that abortion is legal only to save the physical life of the mother with everything being done to save the child too.

[Melissa in CA]

Gee, I was in college in the 80's and did not hear much talk of abortions. No one that I know of got pregnant in my very large high school, and I know kids were having "sex". I think people read the statistics the way that will support their views.

 

I graduated high school in 1982 and can recall only one full-term pregnancy during my four years there, and this particular girl left school and did independent study. I have a girlfriend who has had SEVERAL abortions...several! It's like birth control for her. Makes my stomach turn. I have another girlfriend who had an abortion in 12th grade and only her, I, and the Dr. know about it...her parents were never informed. She is now the mother of five. Another girlfriend of mine had an abortion as well, and ended up marrying the man who got her pregnant. They are now the parents of three children and GREATLY regret their decision to abort their first child. Greatly.

 

Fast forward to today in California schools.... pregnant teenagers are EVERYWHERE!!!!! It is not uncommon to have a 16 year old attending highschool pregnant with her 2nd child! I don't know if this means that less teens are getting abortions, or just that more kids are having s*x! I am thinking it is the latter. Our current culture is obsessed with it (s*x). You cannot even watch a fast food commercial without the promoting of it.

 

I honestly don't think Roe vs. Wade being overturned is going to help fix the moral wrongs in our society...though I highly agree that it should be over turned. There is no excuse for the SELFISH killing of innocent babies...none. If you don't want the consequence of your actions...there are many who would love to adopt it. (Rape, I know is a far more difficult issue...I am talking about willing s*xual encounters and their possible consequences) I think our problems go much deeper than Roe vs. Wade and are far more complex. But I think Roe vs. Wade was perhaps a beginning to our current moral decline. Those who yell about war deaths, yet are adamantly Pro-Choice and seemingly have no problem with the millions of innocent babies killed, make me crazy. What kind of logic is that? :confused: [eta: No, I am not pro-war. I dislike war. I would like our troops home. But lives lost in war are different than a woman intentionally killing her baby, for usually no other reason than that she doesn't want it.]

 

But, back to the original posters question. Does McCain's semi "Pro-Life' position bother me. Yes, but not as much as everything Obama stands for does. I cannot even fathom hearing the words "Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States!" Cmon people!...truly? :001_huh: It sends shivers down my spine. Will I vote for McCain? Yes. Do I think he is perfect? Not even close. In fact I can honestly say that I don't trust ANY politician. I think they all lie through their teeth in any way that best helps them. I don't put my complete trust in any of them. None. I will vote my conscience and my morals, but beyond that the only One I can fully trust is God. Thankfully, regardless of who is president, God is on His thrown and ruling the nations. Unfortunately for immoral America, He rules justly. We WILL get what we deserve...and I don't think it's going to be pretty.

 

Just my opinion.

[j.griff]

Even among your own circle of friends & family, you know of pro-lifers who don't fit the assumptive mode. Bottom line for me is that there are so many people who seem to think that in order for one to be prolife, he/she must only care for the unborn and doesn't know about or care about other atrocities mentioned. It bothers me because not only is it a glaring generality, to which human kind seems to be prone regardless of one's political affiliation, but that it is not true.

 

:001_smile:

So, would you say, that in YOUR experience, many people make that assumption? Just as others have experience that leads them to make that assumption?