That right there is the most intelligent thing you've said yet. You don't know. You really don't. So stop assuming things based on a pro-choice position.
You have no value for human life….none. It is not an absolute for you….life that is. Its all about your bias, your opinion….when life should be killed or whether it should live. Our Constitution mentions life before any of the other two rights mentioned. You embrace the liberty and the happiness part….especially happiness as far as abortion goes. You don't value all life….oh but you do value your own. Odd that you got life and are here talking about humans you don't think have a right to what you got. The life in the womb…question affects all others and you can usually tell all about a person if they want no legal protection for unborns. Are you pro-euthanasia? I would bet yes. Are you for assisted suicide? I would bet yes. Are you pro-stem cell research? My guess would be yes. Do you see a link or connection between birth control causing abortion? My guess would be no. Are you a Democrat? Yea for socialism? Yea for redistributing the wealth? Yea for BIG government. My guess yes, yes, yes and yes Do you consider yourself a liberal? No brainer……YES Do I need to go on? Don't know you personally…..don't want too….but I can tell by your posts all about your worldview.
You avoided the other questions…..fess up and answer. And the question you asked was so stupid…if you do not know how I would answer that one…then I am not telling ya. So how do you feel on the others? LOL
No because that leaves open the possibility that it is forced. Yes because that is consensual. I don't believe you have any more right to force a person to live than you have to force a person to die. Absolutely, and it's despicable that it's been blocked and railroaded to the extent that it has. Stem cells aren't alive. They're frozen. And they aren't even human beings, much less a person. Not sure what you mean here. I am not a Democrat. I believe a mix of capitalism and socialism, not much different than what we already are, is the best route. I am for moderate wealth redistribution. I don't believe a classless society is realistic or beneficial, however, I believe society has a responsibility to take care of those who can't take care of themselves, as well as provide at least the most basic necessities of life instead of allowing people to die. I am for a government as big as it needs to be, not for big government just to have a big government. If there are areas where government can shrink and still do it's job, all the better. I do not believe in small government as a principle, nor big government. No. I am a moderate at best, but since I prefer examining an idea instead of having a predetermined position, that would probably make me an independent.
Yes, it was rather stupid, because you've made obvious that you are for complete oppression of women. Why are you afraid to admit it?
Oh honey I am not afraid to admit it. I am sure we have talked about his on another thread….so there is no excuse why you should not have known. I am all for women's rights…but I want it this way. Abortion illegal to protect the life inside her…….if any women then wants to exercise freedom she can then take matters into her own hands by self aborting….
Refresh my memory. Link, please? You want women to have the freedom to kill themselves by self aborting. Interesting pro-life position.
Junkie said, Couldn't someone force someone to get an abortion? A boyfriend, parent? Ya fell for this one sorry. You want to deny someones family like Terri S .putting her out of her misery? Wow ..So you were one of the ones who wanted TErri to live? Never would have guessed that. So yes to suicide .wow. So a twenty year old woman who just wants to end her life should be able to do it with help? So a 18 year old kid who has been hooked on drugs and wants to end it can do it with help? By the law both are adults so your supporting them. Wow. I believe however you are on the liberal side you are for assisted suicide, abortion, for stem cell research, redistributing wealth .You would never vote however for Romney and you will vote probably for Obama am I right?
The same reasoning behind immeasurable suffering across Africa and the world when the Pope condemned contraception. "I'll make it against religion (or in this case illegal)... if they keep having unprotected sex that's their problem."
You are blaming the Pope for making/taking a moral stand. You do it, so do I? So he does not have the right? I am not a Catholic by the way. The suffering across Africa you can't lay at the Popes feet. You can't cave in just to be politically correct not if you do not believe it. And birth control is linked to abortion….so the CAtholic Church is against it. Why don't you liberals….redistribute your wealth…in fact hell give all your money away…..and send birth control to AFrica. Why point the finger at us continually while doing nothing.
Can I just say, I find it quite disquieting to witness the divisive nature of American politics on this forum. It seems to be practice to definitively lump everyone into categories and by which make your assumptions and build your attacks on what you think this category stands for. I don't really know what you consider as a liberal and therefore I wouldn't want to attach myself to it. Politics evacuates these terms of their meaning... I'm not much into putting myself in a box, politically or otherwise. As for the Pope, it's nothing like moral to condemn contraception, at best it's very stupid, at worst it's evil... but that's the Catholic Church for you. It's such a shame that people buy into to it so much, especially in Africa where the horror of the theology bestowed upon them by greedy colonialists is still in perpetuation and will be for the foreseeable future. I've been giving money to third world countries for 9 years, since I was 17.
While that is "mostly" true, one must be convicted to be a criminal. Have you ever heard of jury nullification? Some juries refused to convict people charged with helping slaves with comfort or passage to freedom. The elements of the crime might all be there but some people saw the law as unjust. I don't know, think some folks were sympathetic for a bunch of living cells and organs that really were the state mandated property of someone else? I'm not doubting your statement but could you post the statute where the condition or physiological status of addiction is a crime, so I might be able to reference it when needed? Just in case a good citizen comes across some people that need reporting . Admittedly your completed research will save me time...hope you're feeling generous. You have been excused. Yes I did, are you calling my sincere sincerity into question, that is just plain hurtful Dearest Cady . . "perceived benefit?" hmmmm, a most interesting or perhaps even telling choice of words? True. If 100% of mothers who aborted their child by choice died because of the abortion it would be a hard sell to any future mother to be. Should I trust that these stats are mandated to be shared with mother before the abortion? I do not know the statistics on the mothers who do die with the abortion being the proximal cause but I would guess that the primary target of abortion, unless making a successful escape to sanctuary just prior to or during the attempt to terminate that life, dies 100% of the time. So I stand by the position that death is not only an integral part of abortion but is considered exclusively successful only if death is the outcome. In other words what is the result of an unsuccessful abortion...the child lives? I would suggest that to the targeted victim of any age of the the Pale Horse Rider (in any of its manifestations or forms) Life is everything. Sincerely shared-I know that there are expectant mothers who have had an abortion that are or appear unaffected conversely there are mothers that have been obviously affected. I think many are deceived by those who speak with authority especially from positions of formal authority and especially when one is or "feels" most vulnerable. Taking human life, (for some any beings life, even those who only had a chance to offer their potential) is as simple as following a mechanical process. It is living with what one has done or sometimes didn't do that can be challenging. Have you ever heard of PTSD? I would recommend reading "On Killing." Don't worry this isn't pro-life "propaganda." I sense you are deeply committed to abortion, this isn't an anti-abortion book and won't change your mind on this social "sacrament." It was written by a soldier who looked at the psychological cost to the soldier/Marine/sailor/airmen etc. for killing in war/self defense. It, in part, looks at the process on how our combat participants are psychologically conditioned to kill. A primary component of any effective/useful combat soldier's skill set. And we need our military to be effective and kill efficiently. It saves lives. But some, though they have done their duty honorably, struggle with things that we, the protected, would see as simply the right thing to do. I suspect that some mothers have to be coerced/conditioned to be complicit in taking the life of their child by someone with an agenda, political or financial interest. As there are ways to ask questions to skew or make a "poll" come out in a predetermined favorable way for the pollsters agenda, couldn't the same be so for vulnerable expectant mothers?
Not legally, no. Family politics aren't something the law can really administer to, so I have no doubt there may be situations of pressure, just as there are very likely situations, more of them even, where a family pressures someone NOT to get an abortion. I was neutral on that whole thing. I agreed with the right of the family to unplug but since there was no real will or legal document stating that's what her wishes where, it legally fell to the husband and was a little up in there air as to whether that was what her wishes were. He was within his legal rights to do so, but this situation is rather special considering that everything that made her a person, her brain, was dead and beyond recovery. In this regard, I personally feel a legal document needs to be created to address any confusion that may arise in situations where you yourself are not able to make your wishes known. Basically, yes. But, prior to that suicide being legal, there should be a few conditions that have to be met to make sure the person is choosing this route with a competent mind. I don't believe that anyone considering suicide is automatically incompetent or mentally unstable, however, that is certainly the case in some of the situations. I would also disagree with this being a right available to people in prison trying to escape their sentence, unless it was a case of being in extreme prolonged pain due to injury or illness. Yes I will be voting for Obama. He is not my ideal candidate, he kisses the Republican's hiney's too much for my liking, but he's better presidential material than Romney is. Personally, I'm not opposed to voting for a right-wing candidate, but I know that doing so would be voting for the religious right, discrimination against homosexuals, women, the poor, and minorities. If I could get a right-wing candidate who was truly conservative minus all the wacky social positions and pandering to the religious groups, I would be much more willing to consider it. However, too conservative and you've lost me. I would never vote for Ron Paul. I would sooner cut off my own hands to prevent myself from doing so.
Junkieturtle said, Her family did NOT want her to die…her husband did. She was not hooked up to anything to make her live….other than a feeding tube…and this is what they took out…they did not give her food and water….she starved to death which is extremely painful. What right would it be for you to make conditions? ARe there conditions for women getting abortions? No. You said no explanation necessary. So why if an adult wants to die…do you need one? You are also denying a prisoner his basic rights are you not? Or do you think prisoners should not get any? i was right again…had ya pegged. LOL Of course you would be for Obama…that was a no brainer. You hate the religious right….come on admit it. I am the religious right….and most people who are….are Christians of course. Obama does not kiss anyones hiney. No way. He does exactly what he wants….just like this protest bill he signed in secret. No Obama is part of Camelot remember…..He is a socialist…but considers himself elite. Why don't you like Ron Paul?
Politics by its nature is divisive, selfish even. Hmm, John Constantine, your screen name is associated with a character that may know something of good and evil...how fitting. Would you have chosen that name in part, unless that is really your name, for that reason? Than politics and its associated dressing should be your forte'. You criticized a leader whose foundation of power or authority is based in a religion and you support some aspect of life in third world countries...you have stated something political (maybe charitable) and divisive in the same post. If not here, where? Well done, be assured that you are in the right place, among kindred spirits. Sincerely good for you giving (your) money to third world countries.
Would you be inclined to bless me with a moderate portion of your wealth? If not and I'm really OK with not possessing that which isn't mine but would you just let me pick where or to whom your wealth is redistributed to, cause I believe, like the government, I know better than you do on what to do with your property...lol
Her family, outside of her marriage, had no legal rights to do anything. Also, starvation may be extremely painful, but if she was brain dead, she wasn't feeling any pain. There are no absolute rights. None. Even abortion that is legal and protected by the Supreme Court can be restricted. States are doing it all the time, including your own state that outrageously wants to claim a pregnancy now starts two weeks prior to conception. It's not hypocritical to favor restrictions on rights, because the law contains a whole host of restrictions on a whole host of rights. There are more than just two positions to take on an issue besides just yes or no. Do you think I should be legally allowed to drive 125mph through residential areas just because I'm legally allowed to drive a car? I'm legally allowed to listen to music so why should I have to turn it down just because it's bothering someone else? Why do I have to wait till I'm 18 to vote or buy cigarettes? Why do I have to be 21 to drink? I'm either allowed to drink or I'm not, right? Prisoners already lose basic rights just by being sent to prison. I do not hate the religious right, I hate the push for using the law to legislate morality and to discriminate against people. Obama most certainly kisses the butts of the Republicans. That's why his base is deserting him. They didn't intend to elect another Republican when they voted for a Democrat. As for Ron Paul, his dangerous "we don't need no stankin rules" approach to pretty much everything is foolish, dangerous, and completely unrealistic in the modern world. There are no examples, none, of a country of our size running their government in the way that he suggests, and I'd rather not become the first experiment in what would end up being a disaster of epic proportions.
If you were in need of that wealth to survive, I would share it. I've said quite a few times that if my taxes needed to be raised in order to provide for people, I'd be fine with that, as long as it was reasonable. I pay about 23% total taxes(including SS and medicare, plus state) out of each paycheck. I would be willing to pay more. I don't favor wealth redistribution just to make people more equal, I favor it in cases of living on the streets eating trash versus at least having a place to live, food on the table, and medical care if you need it. I do not begrudge anyone the wealth they've earned, but I believe we all benefit by reinvesting in society, if only because I'd rather not live in a country that doesn't give a crap about the less fortunate because of some foolish "every man for himself" philosophy towards society. I do not think people are wrong when they say welfare has created a culture of dependance. That's definitely a problem and I don't deny it, but I would still prefer the social safety net being there and people who don't actually need it exploiting it in place of it not being there and people falling through the cracks just because they hit a rough patch.
Junkieturtle said, They loved her. Can you imagine someone you love say a daughter being enslaved by someone who had moved on with another so called spouse…who wanted her dead so he could remarry? Can you imagine sitting and watching her struggle to swallow because she had not had any liquids in her mouth? Lips chapped to the point of bleeding? Do we even starve animals in this manner? But then your for going into the womb….and RIPPING APART A LIVING HUMAN BEING. So asking you a question like this is ridiculous….of course it would not tug at your so called heartstrings. And I do not believe she was brain dead or she would not have been able to move at all and she moved. Bullcrap……LIFE IS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THIS GIVEN TO US BY OUR CREATOR. If it were not a right….killing someone would not be wrong. Abortion restricted…….yea…and why are you not out trying to change those laws because they do to the woman what you say I do to the women…enslave her. Shouldn't she by your standards kill even until natural delivery? There should be no restrictions. They chose to give them up by the crimes they committed. They still are not losing their lives. Yes you do. Our laws legislate morality, they always have. We could not have survived as a nation had we not had laws. They are leaving him because of his record and the promises he did not keep. He is out for himself and does not care about anyway…he would eat his mother if she were alive for a vote. He is a liar and incompetent to lead this nation. He has done absolutely nothing since taking office. Oh I take that back………after campaigning and stating that the first thing he would do after taking office…would be to END THE WAR IMMEDIATELY….he did NOT. Not the first year or the second year or the third. He send 30,000 some additional troops…and the blood is all over him…as are his lies. AND AS BARACK SAYS……"YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK" !!!!!! Anyone would be better than Obama…..anyone. Our country is the greatest on earth…we might have problems but none can compare to what we have in America. Our Constitution is like no other and is the oldest living Constitution on earth. We have only ever had ONE. France has had 23 since the Revolution, Poland has had several the last one coming about in 1997. Russia has had several….Ours has lived the test of time….none can compare. Obama needs to go…….
I don't blame her family for doing what they did. I would likely do the same in their position, but that's because it would be personal, not because it was the "right" thing to do. At that point, logic takes an extreme backseat to emotion. Life is not an absolute right, or we wouldn't fight wars, or execute prisoners, or let people get off without charges when they kill someone in self defense. We recognize that in most cases, life is your right, but not in all. Saying they have "given up" that right is just another way of saying the right itself was not absolute because if it was, and you should know something about this because you only speak in absolutes, they would not be able to kill people, ever, for any reason. No they didn't. Ask any prisoner on death row if they made a choice to give up their lives. It's being taken from them. (and just for the record, I support the death penalty). Our laws are created to maintain balance within society, not to legislate morality. If people were allowed to kill, rape, steal, kidnap, etc etc, that society is going to be doomed to fail. There is a big difference between those laws and laws that ban gay marriage, sodomy, etc etc. This is a rabid assessment based on a position of complete bias against him. He ended the war in Iraq. You don't end a war overnight. Signing a paper that says the war is done does not mean the troops pack up and leave the next day. Life doesn't work that way. Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Rick Perry would all have been abysmally worse than Obama, especially Palin and Paul and Santorum.
Junkieturtle said, Sweet. What if you lived on a street where everyone needed extra cash to survive. Then what? You going to give almost everything you have away? You might and that would be honorable. But the giving should be from the heart not because the government says….YOU OWE IT TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LESS THAN YOU TO GIVE IT AWAY. You say….only what is responsible. Well what is reasonable? What does our Constitution say about this? What you are suggesting is redistribution….and Obama wants the wealthy to hand more over. The wealthy believe in this concept….for the middle and upper middle classes…just not for themselves. Can you see rich politicians and Hollywood, sports elite…handing over the majority of their wealth? No….they don't want that….Our Constitution says nothing about making everyone equal as far as wealth goes. I should not be forced by the government to redistribute my wealth so that they guy down the street has what I have. Our Constitution gives us nothing, absolutely nothing but it is there to protect our rights….speech, religion, press, the right to assemble and to bear arms and to privacy. And to be wealthy is anyones right…to pursue. You said…." I believe that we all benefit…." You are speaking from opinion, yours. It should not matter what our opinions are….but what the Constitution says. I give to the poor in many ways….not because I am forced, but because I give from my heart. And people having been doing that since the beginning of time. There should be no law requiring anyone to do this however…..and there isn't, at least not in the Constitution. That safety net your talking about is redistribution……and it is unconstitutional. Funny you want a safety net and want to side on the side of helping living people should they need it. But you don't side on the side of life in the womb……weird isn't it?
