2012 Presidential Election -Who are you voting for?

[waas]

Exactly, I disagree with forced conceptions. So, if no one forced her to conceive, then she should not be able to kill her unborn child. If she was not forced to concieve, then the govt is not forcing her to carry by denying the right to kill the unborn child. She brought that on herself (with help of course).

The English is not strong with this one. You openly contradicted yourself when you made that post. There's no getting around it.

Anyways, I tend to swing a lot on this issue.

 

[mac]

The English is not strong with this one. You openly contradicted yourself when you made that post. There's no getting around it.

Anyways, I tend to swing a lot on this issue.

No, I didn't. There's a subtle ethical difference between not allowing one to kill and forcing them to carry a child.

 

[waas]

No, I didn't. There's a subtle ethical difference between not allowing one to kill and forcing them to carry a child.

Okay then, explain to me what that difference is.

 

[mac]

Okay then, explain to me what that difference is.

The govt is not forcing her to carry because the govt is not complicent in the conception. She and her partner are solely responsible for that and not allowing her to kill the unborn child does not shift the responsibility of the pregnancy to the govt. She, in fact, is the one that is forcing herself to gestate a child as she is the only one with the full responsibility for avoiding pregnancy. The partner is also responsible, but to a lesser extent, since he is not bearing the consequence.

 

[waas]

The govt is not forcing her to carry because the govt is not complicent in the conception. She and her partner are solely responsible for that and not allowing her to kill the unborn child does not shift the responsibility of the pregnancy to the govt. She, in fact, is the one that is forcing herself to gestate a child as she is the only one with the full responsibility for avoiding pregnancy. The partner is also responsible, but to a lesser extent, since he is not bearing the consequence.

That's a pretty messed up way of looking at this. Because the government isn't responsible for the pregnancy, is the reason why they shouldn't get involved. The government shouldn't have the power to make, what is classified as a medical condition, for a woman. It's common sense here, no big political phenomenon or vocabulary; it's as simple as not letting the government get so powerful it has control over our bodies. In essence, this isn't Mary Joe killing her neighbor Ted, it's preventing a life from ever existing.

 

[mac]

That's a pretty messed up way of looking at this. Because the government isn't responsible for the pregnancy, is the reason why they shouldn't get involved. The government shouldn't have the power to make, what is classified as a medical condition, for a woman. It's common sense here, no big political phenomenon or vocabulary; it's as simple as not letting the government get so powerful it has control over our bodies. In essence, this isn't Mary Joe killing her neighbor Ted, it's preventing a life from ever existing.

It's not "messed up" it's reality. The state has every right to prohibit the killing of a human, no matter where it is located. This isn't about getting a toenail removed, this is a procedure that kills a human.

There are many instances now where the state can and does legaly take control of your body. This is not unique, and it's not limited to gender.

 

[Robert A Whit]

This could be fixed by the congress creating a law that defines the unborn as humans and providing each human with the same protection with the right to be born. There is no medical reason, not that medical should be the definer in this case, that the unborn child can't be born. I realize when in very rare conditions the mothers life could be at stake, her life has to come first. At my advanced age of 74, I have never heard of any woman who would die due to carrying her child. States in fact recognize the unborn as a person when others, say ... shoot the woman and in the process kill her child. The killer can be tried for murder in those states. Congress is doing wrong by not settleing this in law.

 

[Pinkie]

This could be fixed by the congress creating a law that defines the unborn as humans and providing each human with the same protection with the right to be born.

No, it couldn't. The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision (apart from a subsequent Supreme Court decision) is by an amendment to the constitution.

The decisions of the Supreme Court are the last word.

 

[mac]

No, it couldn't. The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision (apart from a subsequent Supreme Court decision) is by an amendment to the constitution.

The decisions of the Supreme Court are the last word.

In this particular case, this is not true. The ruling says that if personhood is defined then protections against abortion would start at the point defined. But then, that would be in compliance with the decision, not overturning it.

 

[mac]

But anyways....this is not the abortion forum....

 

[Pinkie]

In this particular case, this is not true. The ruling says that if personhood is defined then protections against abortion would start at the point defined. But then, that would be in compliance with the decision, not overturning it.

Mac, I just don't know what you meant by this.

 

[Pinkie]

But anyways....this is not the abortion forum....

True. I'm (very unhappily) voting for Obama, in case you wanted to know.

 

[waas]

It's not "messed up" it's reality. The state has every right to prohibit the killing of a human, no matter where it is located. This isn't about getting a toenail removed, this is a procedure that kills a human.

There are many instances now where the state can and does legaly take control of your body. This is not unique, and it's not limited to gender.

Does it's very existence make it correct? The state has done a lot of things that can be considered unfavorable: The target killing outside a mosque that resulted in excess loss of life, the decision to not extend a minimum wage to those who needed it, deregulation of the private sector allowing W.R. Grace to illegally dump carcinogens. Are you a-okay with those as well? Even more, is it not perverse that the state has every right to prevent you from killing, while you remain unable to prevent it from doing the same?

Also, the government hasn't prohibited abortion. I am for Roe v. Wade as a compromise, but nothing more.

 

[Robert A Whit]

No, it couldn't. The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision (apart from a subsequent Supreme Court decision) is by an amendment to the constitution.

The decisions of the Supreme Court are the last word.

The Supreme court did not define human beings. The ruling was about privacy. And as to amendment, sure that works for me.

 

[Pinkie]

The Supreme court did not define human beings. The ruling was about privacy. And as to amendment, sure that works for me.

Good to know you approve of our constitution, Robert. BTW, who are you voting for?

 

[Robert A Whit]

Why Obama's Speech Fell Short
By Ron Fournier | National Journal – Thu, Sep 6, 2012....

..Obama More Flexible on Medicare Than Rhetoric Suggests

Convention Pitches Spotlight Contrast Between Party Approaches
Two Conventions Down, No Signs of Quick Help for the Jobless
Why Obama's Great Speech Fell Short
.....With a poet’s pacing, President Obama assured anxious Americans that “our problems can be solved” with his gauzy agenda for more jobs, lower deficits, and leadership they can trust. It was a great speech – and yet, it fell short.

Obama still has work to do with the vision thing. Convincing voters that he has a credible, practical plan to turn the nation around is a process, not a speech.

 

[Robert A Whit]

Good to know you approve of our constitution, Robert. BTW, who are you voting for?

I am happy to tell you my vote is for Mitt Romney. Yup, the constitution is a tried and true document.

 

[Robert A Whit]

Pinky, since you are not happy with Obama, take another look at Mitt Romney. First he has proven he can govern. He has proved he can turn economical issues around. He took MA from massive debt to surplus in under 4 years. Romney does not run all over blaming the other guys either. Think it over please.

 

[Pinkie]

Pinky, since you are not happy with Obama, take another look at Mitt Romney. First he has proven he can govern. He has proved he can turn economical issues around. He took MA from massive debt to surplus in under 4 years. Romney does not run all over blaming the other guys either. Think it over please.

Sorry, no. I was done after he picked Ryan as his VP.

If only the GOP had chosen a moderate.......I'd be thrilled to dump Obama. But I'm not risking women's health, etc., to do it.

 

[Robert A Whit]

Sorry, no. I was done after he picked Ryan as his VP.

If only the GOP had chosen a moderate.......I'd be thrilled to dump Obama. But I'm not risking women's health, etc., to do it.

Pinky, Ryan nor Romney are the congress. Ryan is no threat to women's health. Much more important is we must repair the damage so people will be able to have a job. People are hurting. Do not be fooled by the reported 8.1 rate. Many millions gave up looking for a job. Millions more are independent contractors who do not get counted as unemployed and are seriously hurting. I am on commission and sell homes. Believe me, were you paying my bills, you would not want Obama. He has wasted 4 years and has not solved the basic problem of what went wrong so that so may of us lost billions or trillions in net worth when housing collapsed. I bet you lost a bundle. Obama is losing democrats who understand the economy. But again, Ryan can't harm womens rights. If he tried, the courts would stop him.

 

[Pinkie]

Pinky, Ryan nor Romney are the congress. Ryan is no threat to women's health. Much more important is we must repair the damage so people will be able to have a job. People are hurting. Do not be fooled by the reported 8.1 rate. Many millions gave up looking for a job. Millions more are independent contractors who do not get counted as unemployed and are seriously hurting. I am on commission and sell homes. Believe me, were you paying my bills, you would not want Obama. He has wasted 4 years and has not solved the basic problem of what went wrong so that so may of us lost billions or trillions in net worth when housing collapsed. I bet you lost a bundle. Obama is losing democrats who understand the economy. But again, Ryan can't harm womens rights. If he tried, the courts would stop him.

It's likely the next president will get to choose 3, maybe 4 Supreme Court Justices, Robert (because there are sitting Justices who are or will be over 70 by the end of the next term). I may or may not agree with you about the economy (yes, I think Obama has done an abysmal job but no, I don't think Romney's approach would be better), but I certainly do think Romney is far more likely than Obama to nominate men and women to the Supreme Court who are hostile to women's rights.

But I meant what I said: if the GOP had run a more moderate candidate, I'd be happily campaigning for that person now. IMO, they missed a huge opportunity.

 

[Robert A Whit]

It's likely the next president will get to choose 3, maybe 4 Supreme Court Justices, Robert (because there are sitting Justices who are or will be over 70 by the end of the next term). I may or may not agree with you about the economy (yes, I think Obama has done an abysmal job but no, I don't think Romney's approach would be better), but I certainly do think Romney is far more likely than Obama to nominate men and women to the Supreme Court who are hostile to women's rights.

But I meant what I said: if the GOP had run a more moderate candidate, I'd be happily campaigning for that person now. IMO, they missed a huge opportunity.

Supreme Court Justices for the most part do not create new laws. Their goal is to figure out laws now carried out. I know of no anti women laws on the books.

We have far too meny women supporting republicans for me to accept the bogus claim our party is anti women. Bear in mind we fight for the right of the unborn too. Many are minorities and many girl babies get killed off. They are so innocent in all of this. Somebody must fight for them. Sadly democrats won't fight for them. Romney knows HOW to repair this sick economy. I wish you supported not just women's rights, but also mens rights. Even my kids need your support. They will wind up being sucker punched in the guts over you and me reckless support for the man who is deeply in love with debts. Obama's kids will also suffer. Wonder why he ignores their problems in the future? Matter of fact, seems you are accusing the USSC of being the enemy of women's rights. I view rights as being for all people, not merely for women.

What do you mean by attacking the USSC? Do you actually want Justices who have a narrow point of view?

We men get ignored in this election. I suppose we are chopped liver.

 

[Pinkie]

Supreme Court Justices for the most part do not create new laws. Their goal is to figure out laws now carried out. I know of no anti women laws on the books.

We have far too meny women supporting republicans for me to accept the bogus claim our party is anti women. Bear in mind we fight for the right of the unborn too. Many are minorities and many girl babies get killed off. They are so innocent in all of this. Somebody must fight for them. Sadly democrats won't fight for them. Romney knows HOW to repair this sick economy. I wish you supported not just women's rights, but also mens rights. Even my kids need your support. They will wind up being sucker punched in the guts over you and me reckless support for the man who is deeply in love with debts. Obama's kids will also suffer. Wonder why he ignores their problems in the future? Matter of fact, seems you are accusing the USSC of being the enemy of women's rights. I view rights as being for all people, not merely for women.

What do you mean by attacking the USSC? Do you actually want Justices who have a narrow point of view?

We men get ignored in this election. I suppose we are chopped liver.

As it happens, I don't think this is a zero sum game. Men are not better off if women's rights are ignored or violated.

 

[Robert A Whit]

As it happens, I don't think this is a zero sum game. Men are not better off if women's rights are ignored or violated.

True. Now, what women rights are ignored or will be? Are womens rights different than mens rights?

 

[Pinkie]

True. Now, what women rights are ignored or will be? Are womens rights different than mens rights?

Robert, I'm pro-choice. I really don't want to discuss that here, k?

There's a separate forum on DP for abortion debates.