Anne Rice and abortion

[Widescreen]

http://annerice.com/

She says she's pro-life and pro-Hillary. However, many of her statements don't make any sense.


Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.
Fine.


Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.
I've never read anywhere in the gospels that it's up to the government (and by proxy, it's taxpayers) to do all those wonderful things. I believe that's the church's job.


I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.
Huh? The Democratic Party is not in any way trying to stop abortion. Which Democrat policy is even designed for that? Preventing parental notification of abortions by minors? The Democrats are too far in the pocket of the far left for them to propose any policies that might even suggest a reduction in abortions. The only policy I can think of that might be in the vein of abortion reduction is giving free condoms to everyone who wants them. However, that's also an attempt by the Democrats to usurp parental rights.


I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.
So she's "pro-life" but anti-"anti-abortionists". :confused: Throughout this article, I don't see any criticisms of the "pro-abortion rights" people.


Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs --- on a whole variety of issues --- most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.
I find this whole opinion really strange and contradictory.

I will say that the woman has a lot of courage. She went away from her obviously profitable vampire stuff and now writes exclusively on Christ. That has to have been a sizable financial hit. Now she's advocating a position that will alienate her newer readers. In the article she acknowledges that her position isn't very market-savvy. I applaud her for sticking to her convictions regardless of the likely financial fallout.

[yermom]

like Jesus isn't big business ;)

i can almost see where she is coming from though. banning abortion might stop the legal ones, but until there is some real sex ed. and people start taking responsibility for their actions the problem isn't going away.

[Widescreen]

True. Although "taking responsibility for your actions" isn't really the governments strong suit. So I doubt they're going to be successful influencing that.

[sitzpinkler]

http://annerice.com/
I've never read anywhere in the gospels that it's up to the government (and by proxy, it's taxpayers) to do all those wonderful things. I believe that's the church's job.

I don't really understand what you're questioning here. The republicans try to get the bible involved in government more than anyone else. If you have a certain set of values, wouldn't you try to vote for people who have those same values? I don't see why what the bible says about government getting involved has to do with it.

[yermom]

True. Although "taking responsibility for your actions" isn't really the governments strong suit. So I doubt they're going to be successful influencing that.

yeah, i guess that's more of an indictment on the culture. but it doesn't help that the mindset is that if you get pregnant all you need to do is have an abortion and problem solved

[Widescreen]

I don't really understand what you're questioning here. The republicans try to get the bible involved in government more than anyone else. If you have a certain set of values, wouldn't you try to vote for people who have those same values? I don't see why what the bible says about government getting involved has to do with it.
Her argument seems to be that she's a Democrat because they want the government to take care of everyone and she uses the gospel to indicate why she favors the democrats. I was simply saying that I've never seen anywhere in the Bible where it says those types of activities should be government (and taxpayer) directed. I think those types of activities are wonderful too. Should that make me a democrat? Of course not. I choose to engage in those activities individually and through my church rather than desiring the government to forcibly extract money from me so they can do it (very inefficiently) on my behalf.

[yermom]

that's just like, your opinion, man

other religious Pubz might say the opposite side, saying that since they agree with W protecting Isreal and spreading the gospel that they thinks their faith points to supporting him

[Widescreen]

By the way, while the government doesn't force anyone to have an abortion, they certainly facilitate it by making it legal - even the most horrific kinds like partial birth. And she's right about one thing - the solution is a societal mindset shift. Until everyone realizes that abortion as birth control is immoral, abortion will never truly go away. And that, unfortunately, will never happen.

But to suggest that the Democrats will lead that mindset shift is ridiculous.

[Widescreen]

that's just like, your opinion, man

other religious Pubz might say the opposite side, saying that since they agree with W protecting Isreal and spreading the gospel that they thinks their faith points to supporting him
I disagree with that stance too. I'm glad that he thinks spreading the gospel is a good thing -all Christians should - but I'm not voting for him because of it. There are a lot of other reasons I wouldn't vote for him.

[Okieflyer]

Nice break down Widescreen!

[Jerk]

You guys realize that Democrats would have won and would win every single election if they wouldn't have aborted 40,000,000 of their own kids?

I'm just making an observation.

[Viking Kitten]

No offense dude, but that's a bunch of bullsh*t. There are a whole lot of Rs who become pro-choice REAL fast when their daughter is the one that's knocked up. I am making an observation based on what I've seen and people I know. Sorry if it bothers anyone.

[Jerk]

No offense dude, but that's a bunch of bullsh*t. There are a whole lot of Rs who become pro-choice REAL fast when their daughter is the one that's knocked up. I am making an observation based on what I've seen and people I know. Sorry if it bothers anyone.
My observation is based on stats and on who is getting abortions based on the 40 million or so that have occured since 1971.

That's all I have to say.

[leavingthezoo]

My observation is based on stats and on who is getting abortions based on the 40 million or so that have occured since 1971.

That's all I have to say.


you have stats on party affiliation abortions?

[Viking Kitten]

Yeah, do they like... make 'em check a box or something?

[royalfan5]

I'm pretty sure all 40,000,000 would have been liberatarians, and are thus depriving the country of a third party.

[Jerk]

I'm done. If you guys can't figure it out, that's your problem. I'm not going to get into this because some people will take it the wrong way.

I'm on the verge of doing something that would get me perma banned, so I need to stop now.

[Czar Soonerov]

Providing a link would get you permabanned?

[Jerk]

Providing a link would get you permabanned?
Not really, I was thinking about posting pics of aborted "fetuses."

But if you want a link, here it is (this is not a link to photos)

http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html

If you think they are just masses of tissue, then check out the photo section. It makes me so fkn mad I can't stand it.

[StoopTroup]

Folks...

IMO...it's real easy.

Abortion is for folks who are irresponsible with their sexual lives.

Given there are a few exceptions.

The reason Government has to be invloved is that the same Government is keeping God out of our kids lives when they need it the most.

Lots of folks struggle to raise families and it doesn't help to limit kids education of topics that can help them keep focus in their lives.

America has become a blog of people who've lost focus already.

It seems to be getting worse IMO.

There are way too many "Christians" that can't get along with folks with different Christian religions IMO.

Politics has helped tear down the bridges of Christianity.

[Okieflyer]

you have stats on party affiliation abortions?

Do you have stats to prove him wrong?:confused:

Truth is doesn't matter whether they are "R" or "D". We have become a society that does what is convenient and not what's right.

But maybe there are a lot of you that need to read the party platforms. :cool:

[Vaevictis]

Do you have stats to prove him wrong?:confused:

Come on. It's incumbent upon the person making the claim to provide evidence in support of the claim. (If they want skeptics to take their claim seriously.)

Otherwise, let's just join the rest of the 94.58128123% of people who make up statistics on the spot.


We have become a society that does what is convenient and not what's right.

There's some truth in that, but there's also room to disagree about what is "right" and what is "wrong."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Someone who honestly believes that a fetus is a human life from conception, and honestly believes in individual rights is fundamentally incapable of supporting abortion rights laws. And similarly, someone who honestly believes that there is a period between conception and the fetus achieving humanity, and honestly believes in individual rights is fundamentally incapable of supporting laws restricting abortion rights.

[mdklatt]

I've never read anywhere in the gospels that it's up to the government (and by proxy, it's taxpayers) to do all those wonderful things. I believe that's the church's job.


Does the Bible say the government isn't allowed to do that? What if the church doesn't have the resources to do it? Isn't alleviating suffering more important than the specifics of how that happens?

Let's say all government taxes were done away with. Would you give all that extra money to your church?



The only policy I can think of that might be in the vein of abortion reduction is giving free condoms to everyone who wants them. However, that's also an attempt by the Democrats to usurp parental rights.


If all it takes is a free condom for a kid to have sex, maybe some parental rights need usurping. (P.S. It's not the condom that makes you want to have sex in the first place.)

[Widescreen]

Does the Bible say the government isn't allowed to do that? What if the church doesn't have the resources to do it? Isn't alleviating suffering more important than the specifics of how that happens?
If less money was going to the government, more would likely go to the churches. I believe the government should be involved in providing a safety net but that's no longer what's happening. The government is now in the full-time business of being daddy for millions of people for much of their lives. I think that's wrong. And what it does is create a dependent class that will continue voting for the people who provide all the freebies for them.


Let's say all government taxes were done away with. Would you give all that extra money to your church?
Some of it would, but mostly not. I already give a good amount of money each month to my church and other charities. I'm also in a fair amount of debt right now so a lot of that money I would save from taxes would go to pay off my debt.


If all it takes is a free condom for a kid to have sex, maybe some parental rights need usurping. (P.S. It's not the condom that makes you want to have sex in the first place.)
Parental rights need usurping? Wow.

[Vaevictis]

Parental rights need usurping? Wow.

Sometimes they do.

[Widescreen]

Sometimes they do.
Not in the context of this discussion they don't.

Edit: Your breakdown of which people are incapable of supporting either type of abortion law was right on. Of course, both sides can't be right. Hence the debate that will probably never end.

[Vaevictis]

Not in the context of this discussion they don't.

I just wanted to make you qualify it ;)

[mdklatt]

Parental rights need usurping? Wow.

Exactly which "parental right" is being usurped if your kid is given a condom?

[Widescreen]

The right to direct your kids into responsible sexuality. And the right to know what activities they are becoming involved in. It's not the government's job to facilitate any kind of sexual activity.

[Kels]

Well, there were 33,000,000 as of 2000. Looking at these tables from the CDC, a range from 37,000,000 to 40,000,000 isn't illogical.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

The Alan Guttmacher Institute's numbers are higher than the CDC's, pushing the number up to 48,000,000 if a reasonable average were accepted through 2006.

Seems tragic to me.

[Jerk]

If any of you think it's just a lump of tissue, then go to the link I provided earlier in the thread and click on the photos section. Don't be a puss, just go fkn do it. You're probably the same people that would get bent-out-of-shape if I posted all the pics of the prairie dogs we shot.

[Vaevictis]

If any of you think it's just a lump of tissue, then go to the link I provided earlier in the thread and click on the photos section. Don't be a puss, just go fkn do it. You're probably the same people that would get bent-out-of-shape if I posted all the pics of the prairie dogs we shot.

Whether it is or is not just a lump of tissue is irrelevant to me.

To me, being "human" is more than just having human DNA or having a human form. Hell, there are some fully grown adults I don't consider human, and many of them are a big part of why I think the death penalty needs to stay on the books. And then there are the living remains of what were once humans whose spirit has long since left the body that I think should just be allowed to finish dying because they're already dead in every important way.

The spirit is what makes someone "human", not the body.

[mdklatt]

The right to direct your kids into responsible sexuality. And the right to know what activities they are becoming involved in. It's not the government's job to facilitate any kind of sexual activity.

If your kid is going to have sex just because somebody hands him a condom, it's not the government that's to blame.

[mdklatt]

Well, there were 33,000,000 as of 2000. Looking at these tables from the CDC, a range from 37,000,000 to 40,000,000 isn't illogical.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm



I don't see the words "Republican" or "Democrat" anywhere in there.

[Jerk]

Whether it is or is not just a lump of tissue is irrelevant to me.

To me, being "human" is more than just having human DNA or having a human form. Hell, there are some fully grown adults I don't consider human, and many of them are a big part of why I think the death penalty needs to stay on the books. And then there are the living remains of what were once humans whose spirit has long since left the body that I think should just be allowed to finish dying because they're already dead in every important way.

The spirit is what makes someone "human", not the body.

What is the moment that a fetus becomes human?

I have a hard time believing that any of us can make that determination.

[mdklatt]

What is the moment that a fetus becomes human?

I have a hard time believing that any of us can make that determination.

When is the moment an embryo becomes a fetus?

[Vaevictis]

What is the moment that a fetus becomes human?

I have a hard time believing that any of us can make that determination.

You don't have to know the exact moment with certainty, only the exact moment that you become uncertain.

[Jerk]

You don't have to know the exact moment with certainty, only the exact moment that you become uncertain.

Yep, spot on. I agree.

I bet, however, we disagree on when to become uncertain.

[Vaevictis]

No doubt.

Fact is, rational people acting in good faith will come to different conclusions. And because this sort of determination is as much a gut check as anything else, the differing conclusions will crop up more frequently, and are generally unresolvable.

There's really not a whole lot you can do about it, and you can either throw a fit at each other, or just agree to disagree.

[mdklatt]

There's really not a whole lot you can do about it, and you can either throw a fit at each other, or just agree to disagree.

Agreeing to disagree isn't going to cut it when one side thinks murder is involved.

[Vaevictis]

Agreeing to disagree isn't going to cut it when one side thinks murder is involved.

Well, that's why agreeing to disagree isn't the only option I listed ;)

[leavingthezoo]

Do you have stats to prove him wrong?:confused:


um, i didn't claim to have stats. he said he was using stats to back up his claims. therefore, i wanted to see the stats. 'cause, you know, i like stats. stats are fun. especially when they don't exist.

some of you are pretty naive though. if you think a republican can't be pro-choice and democrat can't be pro-life it certainly explains a lot. and by a lot i mean ... more than a little. i don't have stats to back up exactly how much a lot is though. maybe jerk can find those for you too. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

um, i didn't claim to have stats. he said he was using stats to back up his claims. therefore, i wanted to see the stats. 'cause, you know, i like stats. stats are fun. especially when they don't exist.

some of you are pretty naive though. if you think a republican can't be pro-choice and democrat can't be pro-life it certainly explains a lot. and by a lot i mean ... more than a little. i don't have stats to back up exactly how much a lot is though. maybe jerk can find those for you too. :D

WEDGE ISSUES COMPLETELY DEFINE YOU!!!!! Man, can't you get over that?

Now I know I'm just speaking anecdotally, but I happen to know several pro-life Democrats that are Catholics. They have a pretty big problem with the death penalty as well. It's not like the Democrats have a monopoly on things that are abhorrent to Christians.

[mdklatt]

...if you think a republican can't be pro-choice...


:les: RINO!

[Widescreen]

If your kid is going to have sex just because somebody hands him a condom, it's not the government that's to blame.
Pssst. Adolescents don't have very good judgment. Giving them things for free that in any way encourages them to do something inappropriate is not good.

[yermom]

you think they are going to just not have sex because they would have to go buy condoms?

[47straight]

There's really not a whole lot you can do about it, and you can either throw a fit at each other, or just agree to disagree.

Or maybe use the democratic process to resolve it? Perhaps on a state by state basis?

:eek:

[Vaevictis]

Or maybe use the democratic process to resolve it? Perhaps on a state by state basis?

There's a democratic process to overturn the court ruling too, you know.

And no, in so far as people believe rights are involved, simpler democratic processes like you're advocating are deliberately eschewed in our Constitution. This is why amendment's ain't easy to pass. But you knew that.

And even aside from that, do you really think that the people who believe it's murder are going to say it's okay just because 50%+1 said it is? Or, on the flip side, the violation of a woman's right to control her own body is okay just because 50%+1 said it is? Not bloody likely.

[Frozen Sooner]

Pssst. Adolescents don't have very good judgment. Giving them things for free that in any way encourages them to do something inappropriate is not good.

Psst. Adolescents don't have very good judgment. They're not going to let "O noes! No condum!" stop them very often.

[Widescreen]

you think they are going to just not have sex because they would have to go buy condoms?
Hmmm. I don't seem to be communicating this point very well.

I don't think it's the government's job to provide sexual aids for my kids using my tax money. I'm not sure how else to say it.

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, if you'd just stop giving so much gol-durn money to your church and just buy your kids a big box of Trojans, the government wouldn't HAVE to buy them for your kids. ;)

I'M KIDDING!

[Widescreen]

Well, if you'd just stop giving so much gol-durn money to your church and just buy your kids a big box of Trojans, the government wouldn't HAVE to buy them for your kids. ;)

I'M KIDDING!
Now, if my church would take my tithe and start passing out condoms to the kids, I'd be OK with that, of course.

[Frozen Sooner]

OK, that's a church I'd probably go to. :D

[yermom]

i don't think that i'm lamenting the govt's lack of supplying condoms, it's more about them pushing abstinence as the only form of birth control

even if they did hand out condoms, it's not exactly that expensive compared to the pork, etc... going around

[47straight]

And even aside from that, do you really think that the people who believe it's murder are going to say it's okay just because 50%+1 said it is? Or, on the flip side, the violation of a woman's right to control her own body is okay just because 50%+1 said it is? Not bloody likely.


There's a hell of lot more legitmacy in 50%+1 of the voters than there is in 5 when it comes to a moral judgment. Which is what this is.

[JohnnyMack]

Abortion is for folks who are irresponsible with their sexual lives.

Given there are a few exceptions.


Yep.

Couldn't agree more.

Abortion isn't birth control.

[JohnnyMack]

But I'm pro-life because I think it's wrong on a moral level. Not 'cause Jeebus told me so.

[jk the sooner fan]

um, i didn't claim to have stats. he said he was using stats to back up his claims. therefore, i wanted to see the stats. 'cause, you know, i like stats. stats are fun. especially when they don't exist.

some of you are pretty naive though. if you think a republican can't be pro-choice and democrat can't be pro-life it certainly explains a lot. and by a lot i mean ... more than a little. i don't have stats to back up exactly how much a lot is though. maybe jerk can find those for you too. :D

i'm sure there are voting democrats who are pro-life

but i personally dont know of any "ELECTED" democrats that espouse that position

if i'm wrong, i'd love to see some names

fwiw (shocking news), i agree with widescreen on this......GENERALLY speaking, the democratic party (as in elected members) are not going to be the voice of the pro-life movement

[jk the sooner fan]

as for the condom issue......

the FDA (or whatever branch of the government is in charge of this area) doesnt recognize condoms as an approved form of birth control......by approved, i mean "from the government" because of its failure rate

having said that......as a parent, while i do realize that condoms do offer SOME protection, it isnt the end all solution

there are kids out there with health conditions that we as parents, as well as the other kids, simply dont know

i personally dont want my boys thinking that a condom is all they need.....so yeah, i'd like to preach a little abstinence as well as "thinking with the other head".......will they listen? yes because i give them no choice.......will they act on what they hear? lol....likely not but that doesnt negate my job as a parent to arm them with as much knowledge as possible

i'd have no problem with handing out condoms if schools handed them out with some education as well.....but really, its the parents job

[leavingthezoo]

well, zell miller for one.

i know. he gets an *. but you can't take away his many years of service as a democrat no matter how much you like the guy for sticking it to the democratic party in the end.

heath shuler

brad ellsworth

i still fail to see what this has to do with the claims all of the abortions were only of potential democratic voters. i'm sure you can explain it though...

[jk the sooner fan]

well, zell miller for one.

i know. he gets an *. but you can't take away his many years of service as a democrat no matter how much you like the guy for sticking it to the democratic party in the end.

i still fail to see what this has to do with the claims all of the abortions were only of potential democratic voters. i'm sure you can explain it though...

ok, there's a name.

i dont think i ever said that all abortions were from dem voters

if i posted that, give me a link

[leavingthezoo]

my responses have only been in response to jerks initial claim, and then when someone else questioned where my stats were to dispute his non-existent stats. so when you chimed in along that line of thought, i (wrongly?) assumed you were taking into account what has previously been said. sigh.


You guys realize that Democrats would have won and would win every single election if they wouldn't have aborted 40,000,000 of their own kids? - jerk

[jk the sooner fan]

i doubt jerk was being completey serious when he posted that

however he'd have to verify that

my thoughts are.....that i agree that it seems odd that anybody would think the democratic party was going to take the lead in the pro-life position

that doesnt mean that all democrats feel that way, i'm certain there are democrats that arent one issue voters......

[leavingthezoo]

i doubt most democrats are one issues voters.

i don't care if jerk was serious or not. a stupid statement is a stupid statement is a stupid statement.

and... i'm ok with your stance that the democratic party is probably not going to take the lead on pro-life. it would surprise me if it did, as well.

[jk the sooner fan]

ahh, common ground

then perhaps you can at least understand how those of us on our side of the issue have difficulty sometimes getting that democrats can be/are pro-life

i know they exist, but they arent the most vocal of groups

[leavingthezoo]

ahh, common ground

then perhaps you can at least understand how those of us on our side of the issue have difficulty sometimes getting that democrats can be/are pro-life

i know they exist, but they arent the most vocal of groups

the same could be said about pro-choice republicans. but they, too, exist and obviously are not the most vocal of groups.

the point is... none of us fit in the tiny, little perfect box that several would have us believe we do. and for those who think they fit perfectly in one, i suspect they don't know the platforms of either party as well as they think they do.

[jk the sooner fan]

the same could be said about pro-choice republicans. but they, too, exist and obviously are not the most vocal of groups.



absolutely

[1stTimeCaller]

I'm just thankful for the extra fetuses (or is it feti?) that allow me to throw some of the best barbeques Carter County has ever seen.

[Jerk]

i doubt most democrats are one issues voters.

i don't care if jerk was serious or not. a stupid statement is a stupid statement is a stupid statement.

You just keep your head buried in the sand in everything will be okie-dokie.

Minority women are getting a disproportionate number of abortions compared to the rest of the population. Minority women tend not to vote for Republicans. Don't fool yourself and think that this means I'm cheering them on, because it's tragic. Some democrat editorial writer figured this out about a year or so ago and wrote a news article about it, complete with citation of facts. I will try and dig that up for you.

[Jerk]

Here you go, I found one, but you just keep your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalaalallalalaala, I can't hear you!"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277

It also blows VK's dumba.ss statement out of the water. (mods, I didn't call VK a dumba.ss)

But don't panic, guys! Our self-destructive nature was taken note of long ago. It's only natural. So, it's normal.

And hey, if you dig this kind of stuff, there is even a good video to watch with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hii17sjSwfA

I'm done with this. I just can't handle this sh** without it fkn up my day.

[leavingthezoo]

ok, let's try this again.

so of the 35% republican abortioners (for lack of a better term); all of their aborted would have been democrats. i see. thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Viking Kitten]

Here you go, I found one, but you just keep your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalaalallalalaala, I can't hear you!"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277

It also blows VK's dumba.ss statement out of the water. (mods, I didn't call VK a dumba.ss)

But don't panic, guys! Our self-destructive nature was taken note of long ago. It's only natural. So, it's normal.

And hey, if you dig this kind of stuff, there is even a good video to watch with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hii17sjSwfA

I'm done with this. I just can't handle this sh** without it fkn up my day.

You maybe want to elaborate a little on exactly how my statement was "dumba*s"?

I related an absolutely true observation based on a phenomenon I've personally seen on multiple occasions. I'm not the one who said there were "stats" to back up an idiotic statement, when no such stats exist.

Here's another idea for you. Instead of sitting here seething with impotent rage because you can't control what other people do with their lives, why don't you go out, find an inner-city school to volunteer at, and actually do something that might make a difference in the lives of these children you claim to care so much about. I know of some wonderful places that need lots of help and positive role models in the lives of their students. PM me if you want more details.

[Vaevictis]

There's a hell of lot more legitmacy in 50%+1 of the voters than there is in 5 when it comes to a moral judgment. Which is what this is.

No, really there isn't. There's a reason the founders didn't leave the protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights to 50%+1 of voters, and the reasons why they didn't go for a straight democracy were not limited just to logistical issues -- they didn't trust straight democracies.

To be frank, I trust the system as a whole much more than any individual component -- I'm glad that the Supreme Court, the President, the Congress and the People are all empowered to protect my rights. Gridlock ain't the worst thing in the world.

And as I said, if the People wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the People have the power to do so.

EDIT: And let's not neglect this: Have you been paying attention to the moral compass of this nation recently? I really dislike some of those folks on the Court right now, but I sure as hell trust them to make moral decisions that are better than 50%+1 of the people in our nation right now.

[Widescreen]

Who started this stupid thread anyway? This thread's getting 1 star. :mad:

[soonerloyal]

You cannot legislate morality.

Doesn't keep people from trying, though.

I don't believe that government has a right to dictate all my personal choices. Nor do I believe that they should just leave everything to the masses to "do what feels good", either. Where's common sense and the middle ground? Don't personal freedoms automatically come with strong personal responsibility? Are we saying it's impossible to find a balance anywhere between letting society descend into chaos and allowing Big Brother to put us on strings?

The fact is that it's normal for people to want sex. It's normal for people to not always think ahead and make decisions based on long-term outcomes. No amount of birth control info or parental input can totally negate wanting to do what comes naturally. And not every parent is as caring, involved, morally upright and concerned as most of us try so hard to be. Somebody's gotta step in and carefully give some protection to the kids that are left to their own devices. What I prefer as a Christian isn't necessarily what every kid ends up knowing or using when they make choices. I'd rather the kids be aware that they have a choice to be abstinent, but it's realistically improbable. I'd rather they have a condom if they're going to do it than not have one at all. And if their parents have their heads up their arses no matter what background or belief, some body has to be there for the younguns if the parents are not. I can train up my children in the way they should go, but in the end they have just as much free will as I do. I taught them that it was best to wait, but I damn sure made sure they knew how to handle it if (when) they ignored the best alternative. And as for abortion, I hold innocent life sacred. That doesn't mean I think the Gubmint should tell me how to handle my procreation, or lack thereof. And until we as individuals are smack-dab in a situation where it's our own lives on the line, all our discussion is subjective.

Human nature is at the same time selfish & violent, and caring & benevolent. It's what makes us so interesting - and so fricking screwed up.

[47straight]

No, really there isn't. There's a reason the founders didn't leave the protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights to 50%+1 of voters, and the reasons why they didn't go for a straight democracy were not limited just to logistical issues -- they didn't trust straight democracies.

To be frank, I trust the system as a whole much more than any individual component -- I'm glad that the Supreme Court, the President, the Congress and the People are all empowered to protect my rights. Gridlock ain't the worst thing in the world.

And as I said, if the People wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the People have the power to do so.



No, really there is. Too bad we're not talking about a right in the bill of rights. There is a reason why the founding fathers left the other bits to the 50% + 1 of each individual state. They didn't trust straight democracies but that's okay because I never said it should.

To be frank, I have no idea what you are talking about "trusting the whole system." A small number of people "found" a "penumbra" and took the basic issue away from the rest of the system and the democratic process you reject. Later when the issue came up, one of those little people said, "Look, the unwashed masses are still divided on the issue - so we must continue to withhold it."


Have you been paying attention to the moral compass of this nation recently? I really dislike some of those folks on the Court right now, but I sure as hell trust them to make moral decisions that are better than 50%+1 of the people in our nation right now.

Wow.

[jk the sooner fan]

You cannot legislate morality.



really?

so you're saying all the crimes against man that we currently have on the books, murder, sexual assault, etc etc.......those arent crimes against morality?

is it not the same thing? or just is it that abortion is a moral you'd rather not be legislated where others are?

[JohnnyMack]

The selfish people who make stupid decisions with their lives and decide in turn to scream, "Hands off my body! It's my right! Yarghhh!" make me wanna puke. It isn't your choice, it isn't your right and it shouldn't be left up to you. Let the kid decide. I'm pretty sure I know what they'll choose.

People that use abortion as birth control are the worst kind of scum.

[soonerloyal]

really?

so you're saying all the crimes against man that we currently have on the books, murder, sexual assault, etc etc.......those arent crimes against morality?

is it not the same thing? or just is it that abortion is a moral you'd rather not be legislated where others are?


Yes, really. Perhaps you simply aren't understanding me here. You cannot force, by law, people to have morals. You can put laws in place that protect society from antisocial behavior - indeed, we must. But laws in and of themselves do NOT prevent bad things from happening. They sometimes lessen the probability for some people, and punish the people who do not follow the laws. But they do not keep us from being evil or stupid, overall.

If someone is bound and determined to do bad or stupid things, all the laws in the world won't stop them. Expecting teenagers to wait until marriage won't force them to wait. Outlawing abortion and forcing a pregnant rape victim to self-abort won't keep the average woman from sleeping with her first date and getting knocked up. By the same token, fear of guns and ideas of outlawing them won't keep criminals from having them. It will only limit the average citizen from protecting himself, not only from criminals, but from a government gone bad. (No special comment on the present Admin, although they suck big hairy basketballs)

[JohnnyMack]

(No special comment on the present Admin, although they suck big hairy basketballs)

You must be talking about :dean:

[M]

I am on the same page as soonerloyal. Abortion is a very private, personal issue. Personally, it is not something I would ever do. However, it is not my place, or anyone else's place, to step in and regulate something that is a personal and private issue. Our country's Supreme Court has ruled that our Constitution grants us the right to privacy against government intrusion. As it stands today, our laws guarantee a woman's right to privacy in regards to abortion. The government does not have a compelling interest to be involved in what a woman decides is best for her at that point in her life. The difference between abortion and other crimes such as murder, sexual assault, robbery, etc. is that abortion involves the right to privacy.

[jk the sooner fan]

so while you are personally against it, you're ok with others doing it

[M]

It is none of my business to be involved in another person's private matters.

[yermom]

if there is no victim, i agree with that sentiment

[Vaevictis]

No, really there is. Too bad we're not talking about a right in the bill of rights. There is a reason why the founding fathers left the other bits to the 50% + 1 of each individual state. They didn't trust straight democracies but that's okay because I never said it should.

Ah, but they didn't leave all of the other bits to the states. There's an amendment in there stating that just because a right isn't enumerated should not be taken to imply that it doesn't exist. They deliberately left an in for unenumerated rights to be protected despite the fact that they aren't enumerated.

Clearly, the court felt that the rights they invoked for Roe v. Wade exist.

There are plenty of rights that aren't enumerated that get protected. Should the states have the power, on a 50%+1 vote to the people, to say that people have to get a license to have kids? To breathe? To eat? To earn a living? None of those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Don't give me that "Too bad we're not talking about a right in the bill of rights" bull****. The 9th amendment gives the lie to that pathetic argument.


To be frank, I have no idea what you are talking about "trusting the whole system." A small number of people "found" a "penumbra" and took the basic issue away from the rest of the system and the democratic process you reject. Later when the issue came up, one of those little people said, "Look, the unwashed masses are still divided on the issue - so we must continue to withhold it."

Very simply: I trust the competitive nature of the system as framed in the Constitution to protect my rights more than any one component of the system. I trust the whole system over the Court. I trust the whole system over the President. I trust the whole system over the Congress. And I trust the whole system over the People.

And no, they didn't take the basic issue away from the system. There are methods in the system to override the Court, the most basic one being the amendment process. It's a critical feature of our system that one branch of the government (Court, President, Congress, People) can say on its own recognizance, "Hold the **** up" and require another branch to muster a super majority to override them. It is not a bug.

[jk the sooner fan]

if there is no victim, i agree with that sentiment

to a certain extent i'll agree with that, but you cant turn a blind eye to everything

this whole "its not my business what other people do" will be the end of us.....

[soonerloyal]

I understand, and it is indeed a vile state we put ourselves in when we turn a blind eye. It's just a razor's edge upon which we sometimes are forced to walk.

[Jerk]

You maybe want to elaborate a little on exactly how my statement was "dumba*s"?

I related an absolutely true observation based on a phenomenon I've personally seen on multiple occasions. I'm not the one who said there were "stats" to back up an idiotic statement, when no such stats exist.

Here's another idea for you. Instead of sitting here seething with impotent rage because you can't control what other people do with their lives, why don't you go out, find an inner-city school to volunteer at, and actually do something that might make a difference in the lives of these children you claim to care so much about. I know of some wonderful places that need lots of help and positive role models in the lives of their students. PM me if you want more details.

The article contradicts your statement that 40 million abortions were done by the daughters of church going Republicans.

The article is full of statistical facts taken over the last 40 years that make whatever observations you've personally seen irrelevent to the over-all point I made.

I don't get mad at what other people do with their own lives, but I don't like to see other people hurt the innocent and the unprotected. Yeah, I'm for individual rights. What about the right of the friggin child to live?

[jk the sooner fan]

I understand, and it is indeed a vile state we put ourselves in when we turn a blind eye. It's just a razor's edge upon which we sometimes are forced to walk.

and i understood your legislating morality, after you explained it

i dont totally agree with you, but for the most part you're right

[Jerk]

I mean, really, all I'm doing is passing along the info.

Perhaps, instead of 'Abortion stops a beating heart" the pro-life side should take up the phrase: "Abortion stops a bleeding heart"

Think about it.

[Vaevictis]

Still just boils down to when you think it's a human ;)

If you don't address that, it's just a big circle jerk.

[jk the sooner fan]

Still just boils down to when you think it's a human ;)

If you don't address that, it's just a big circle jerk.

yep, that is exactly the crux of the issue

or i'd like to think it is, but i think there are some that even though they may agree when life begins, they wouldnt care if others aborted

[yermom]

it seems the govt thinks that it's a human until the mother decides to abort it

[Jerk]

it seems the govt thinks that it's a human until the mother decides to abort it

Exactly. If you kill a pregnent woman, you get charged with two murders. But all of that goes out the window when the woman walks into an abortion clinic.

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, that's definitely inconsistent.

Although I don't know for sure if it has more to do with the belief that it's a human, or with the desire to have an excuse to punish the perp even more harshly.

EDIT: FWIW, I think it's a little of both, depending on which individual who voted for the law you ask.

[soonerloyal]

I for one think that the second two cells combine, it's an innocent life. Others don't agree. But neither stance means the government has a right to dictate our procreation. It's a slippery slope. It's also an issue on which we'll probably never be able to agree.

[1stTimeCaller]

As a single male with no kid on the way, I have no opinion on the subject.

[Jerk]

As a single male with no kid on the way, I have no opinion on the subject.

Man, I bet you have a ton of money.

[1stTimeCaller]

I wish!!

[Jerk]

I wish!!

Then you must have a few car payments and maybe a boat payment and a lot of guns and other assorted toys laying around.

I can't imagine how many things I could buy if I were single. man!

[Okieflyer]

It is none of my business to be involved in another person's private matters.

So would it be OK if someone killed their 6 month old? Just askin' because it is their private matter, not yours. It doesn't effect you one way or another. I guess we could appeal those laws. I mean it's not as if the kid could say that he objects. Maybe it should be OK until the child is old enough to object. Yeah that's it.