I am so confused.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I get confused by Republicans/Conservatives, I always hear "less governement" but there was Palin yesterday calling for a FEDERAL ban on gay marriage, they want to get involve din abortion, etc.

Can someone 'splain this to me ? Or is it just a case of "the judiciary and the governement should stay out of our lives except when we want to further our own agenda" ? Is it really that simple ?

yes

and they are for less government only when it's convenient.
 
why? isn't that life just as innocent as any other?

In the case of rape or incest, the woman is "less guilty" than she would be had she committed the crime of having sex for non-reproductive reasons. Thus, she may not need to be punished by being forced to bear the child.

I know that sounds harsh, but after reading probably thousands of posts on dozens of forums about this issue, I'm convinced that the problem isn't the abortion, but the sex. A huge majority of people who oppose abortion are also opposed to things that prevent pregnancy. They are also against things that would help the child post-birth, so IMO it's logical that it's the sex, not the "life" that the real issue is. People treat the child as a sentence for a crime, rather than a child. I have a problem with that.

IMO, if you're against abortion, don't have one. It's beyond me why people get so worked up over whether poor people should be allowed to make their own life decisions. And I say "poor people" because if anyone thinks an abortion ban is going to affect anyone making over $100k a year with Canada so close, they're in denial. Wealthy people will always have access to abortion.


and they are for less government only when it's convenient.

Conservatives are in favor of smaller government as it applies to economics (i.e. less regulation of big business), but in favor of bigger government when it comes to social issues (i.e. drug laws, reproductive rights, etc).

Liberals are the opposite.

If you really want someone who is in favor of small government across the board, you're talking about Libertarians. Anybody else wants some government involvement in one form or another.
 
In the case of rape or incest, the woman is "less guilty" than she would be had she committed the crime of having sex for non-reproductive reasons. Thus, she may not need to be punished by being forced to bear the child.


But the whole "rape or incest" thing is such a pandering to make them look reasonable. Because not one of them that I've ever seen can cough up a plan where this would work. Do we wait for a conviction? Do we put the women in a room with bright lights and make them tell? No one can tell me how this would work, yet they all trot it out to make themselves appear to give a shit about the woman.

At least Palin's honest when she says she doesn't even support abortion rights for rape and incest victims.
 
Conservatives are in favor of smaller government as it applies to economics (i.e. less regulation of big business), but in favor of bigger government when it comes to social issues (i.e. drug laws, reproductive rights, etc).

Liberals are the opposite.

If you really want someone who is in favor of small government across the board, you're talking about Libertarians. Anybody else wants some government involvement in one form or another.



That's not true - liberals are in favor of "small government" on social issues in as much as they want more social freedoms, but liberals are in favor of big government programs in areas such as social welfare, education, scientific research....

it is accurate to say that conservatives want more economic freedom and more social regulation, and liberals are vice versa, but that's different than the size of government.
 
But the whole "rape or incest" thing is such a pandering to make them look reasonable. Because not one of them that I've ever seen can cough up a plan where this would work. Do we wait for a conviction? Do we put the women in a room with bright lights and make them tell? No one can tell me how this would work, yet they all trot it out to make themselves appear to give a shit about the woman.

At least Palin's honest when she says she doesn't even support abortion rights for rape and incest victims.
good point - let's wait for the 18 month long trial to conclude with a guilty verdict, and then allow the woman to get an abortion.

oh wait.

basically, if the abortion ban allowed an exception for rape (and the abortion to occur before the end of the trial), it would be a terrible incentive for women to falsely accuse men of rape.
 
it is accurate to say that conservatives want more economic freedom

Except when it comes to massive Federal bankrolling of failed deregulation policies, then they're as good a socialist as any......
 
it is accurate to say that conservatives want more economic freedom and more social regulation, and liberals are vice versa, but that's different than the size of government.

People routinely use "big" and "small" to refer to the level of government involvement in something.
 
Yes, but while liberals want more social freedoms, they do not want "small government" on social issues, but massive government agencies and spending.
 
Yes, but while liberals want more social freedoms, they do not want "small government" on social issues, but massive government agencies and spending.

Conservatives want massive government agencies and spending too. They just want the spending to be on different agencies than liberals do. :wink:

But I think we're starting to threadjack now...
 
To answer the second one, I do not think you have any kids Pfan (I am not sure)...but for me, having two children....it is extremely hard to think abortion as another "issue", I just can not compare this with economy issues, foreign policy, etc. I just can't.
There are some great comments here, thanks to all.

I think that's interesting because I don't have kids and this is one of those issues where I think such things do come into play. On the other hand, take my parents, who have multiple children and they are both staunchly pro-choice. At the same time, they see it as a less important issue than the ones you mentioned so I think even among people with children you will get a spectrum of responses.
 
I think that's interesting because I don't have kids and this is one of those issues where I think such things do come into play. On the other hand, take my parents, who have multiple children and they are both staunchly pro-choice. At the same time, they see it as a less important issue than the ones you mentioned so I think even among people with children you will get a spectrum of responses.

I have 3 kids, this issue isn't in my Top 10, possibly not even Top 20.

There's so much more to worry about at home, within the US and in the world at large. But that's just me.
 
basically, if the abortion ban allowed an exception for rape... it would be a terrible incentive for women to falsely accuse men of rape.

That's exactly what Norma McCorvey now claims she did in the early 70's. Lied that her pregnancy was a result of rape.

Who is Norma McCorvey? Well, she's probably better known as Sarah Roe of Roe v Wade.

She also now supports the overturning of Roe v Wade.
 
That's exactly what Norma McCorvey now claims she did in the early 70's. Lied that her pregnancy was a result of rape.

Who is Norma McCorvey? Well, she's probably better known as Sarah Roe of Roe v Wade.

She also now supports the overturning of Roe v Wade.

Good job she's not on the Supreme court then eh ?

So it's ok to change your mind on an issue once you have some perspective ? Good, just be sure to apply that consistently then.
 
Knowing what I know, if my wife were to become deathly ill because of the pregnancy, I would without question choose the potential of life with her the mother

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.


And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

YouTube - Barack Obama Rick Warren Abortion Question

YouTube - McCain at Rick Warren's: "I will be a Pro-Life President"
 
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.


And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Are you saying that we can't make a logical or personal opinion because of a few lines from the Bible? :scratch:

Seriously? :scratch: :scratch:

Are we not allowed to have logical or personal opinions about the following quotes from the Bible?

1). "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
--1 Tim. 2:11-14

2). Exodus 31:13-15
Six days my work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

3). He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the lord.

Deuteronomy 23:1

4). When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

5). Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

6). Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.



Come on.
 
Interesting topic and discussion. I tend to get very passionate about the issue, and it's not easy for me to talk about calmly (as purpleoscar can attest, since he bore the brunt of some of my "passion" in the last debate thread), so it's probably good that I didn't come in until later. ;)

I am pro-choice but honestly don't know if I could ever have an abortion myself. The important distinction is that I do not want anyone else making that decision for me. I can only hope (and do what I can to try and prevent it from happening) that I never have to be in that position.

I can tell people how I feel about the subject, but I can't tell someone how they should vote. I can try to persuade, but when it's about something the other person is just as passionate about, all you can do is gather the facts, and vote with your conscience.

So to you Carlos, I say: :hug:

And to tag onto the comments from Utoo and folks with children, my mom, the mother of two, is a retired OB nurse and is very conservative. She's also pro-choice. So there you go.
 
I cannot imagine in this day and age that late-term abortion is EVER necessary to protect the life of the mother. If she can undergo a procedure to kill her unborn child, then she can also undergo either inducement of labor or a C-section to deliver the child and let it live. I don't buy the "health of the mother" hogwash, it just doesn't fly in this age of advanced medical techniques.
 
retired OB nurse and is very conservative. She's also pro-choice. So there you go.

I used to work for a doctor who worked with a pathologist when he was a student. It was his job to put the aborted babies back together to make sure all of the parts were there. He said that without a doubt a baby is being killed, but he was still pro-choice - go figure. I can't imagine seeing what he saw and thinking that it's okay to kill a child just because it's in-utero.
 
I cannot imagine in this day and age that late-term abortion is EVER necessary to protect the life of the mother. If she can undergo a procedure to kill her unborn child, then she can also undergo either inducement of labor or a C-section to deliver the child and let it live. I don't buy the "health of the mother" hogwash, it just doesn't fly in this age of advanced medical techniques.

Do you have any medical training ?
 
I know this hasn't been brought up in this thread, but I think it relates to the discussion:

I think if you have seen some of the kids that come into my office, chewing at their orthotic devices meant to keep them safe/healthy, screaming at the touch of their own parents at times, tied to a wheelchair (and I literally mean tied) and requiring round the clock care of a nurse like I have, the opinions of most people on abortion (not in cases of rape or incest) would change very quickly.
I know because mine did.

Having a severely handicapped child is torturous for both you, and more importantly, the child. It's not something I would wish on anyone, and I think if someone were up for the challenge, then they should be able to do so. If someone wants to avoid the massive heartache of growing a child who they know will never be a complete human being, then that is their choice to make and I will fully support them in that.
 
Perhaps he felt the government should not have control over a woman's body.

He said that because he didn't want his daughters having a baby if they got pregnant as a teenager.

I've had five children and not one of them was part of my body. They were their own person from the very beginning, just living inside me. I had no right to make the decision to take their life.
 
I know this hasn't been brought up in this thread, but I think it relates to the discussion:

I think if you have seen some of the kids that come into my office, chewing at their orthotic devices meant to keep them safe/healthy, screaming at the touch of their own parents at times, tied to a wheelchair (and I literally mean tied) and requiring round the clock care of a nurse like I have, the opinions of most people on abortion (not in cases of rape or incest) would change very quickly.
I know because mine did.

Having a severely handicapped child is torturous for both you, and more importantly, the child. It's not something I would wish on anyone, and I think if someone were up for the challenge, then they should be able to do so. If someone wants to avoid the massive heartache of growing a child who they know will never be a complete human being, then that is their choice to make and I will fully support them in that.

So it's okay to take the life of a child because they aren't perfect? When will the gas chambers open up?
 
So it's okay to take the life of a child because they aren't perfect? When will the gas chambers open up?

I didn't say it was a government mandate. If you had read the last paragraph you would see that it was a decision to be left up to the parents. If they felt they could raise such a child, then I'd support them. If they didn't, I'd support them as well.

Perhaps it's because you feel that government needs to lay a hand in abortion that you read my post wrong. :hmm:

Thanks for Godwinning.
 
I didn't say it was a government mandate. If you had read the last paragraph you would see that it was a decision to be left up to the parents. If they felt they could raise such a child, then I'd support them. If they didn't, I'd support them as well.

Perhaps it's because you feel that government needs to lay a hand in abortion that you read my post wrong. :hmm:

Thanks for Godwinning.

I think abortion needs to be illegal. All other murder is illegal. Anymore animals have more rights than children do. Abortion has caused such a devaluing of human life. I was just stunned when I read that up to 95% of babies that are diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted! It is just so sad to see what this world is becoming.
 
Back
Top Bottom