Issue you support that ur political party doesn't

[foodcourtdruide]

<p>Pardon the&nbsp;spelling of &quot;your&quot;, but I had to fit the topic&nbsp;into the topic title.&nbsp;</p><p>So, let's pretend you are a republican if you lean right or you are a democrat if you lean left. Which belief/agenda/platform does your &quot;political party&quot; have that you disagree with?</p><p>I really don't consider myself democrat, but I definitely lean left.</p><p>I completely disagree with affirmative action. I think in a world of equality it serves as a tool of racism. It compromises legitimate progress by minorities. </p><p>EDIT: Cleaned up some bad grammar.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by foodcourtdruide on 3-11-07 @ 11:13 PM</span>

[Tenbatsuzen]

<p>I'm pro-choice, pro-gun control, but also pro-military and pro-personal responsibility.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I cross party lines frequently, but I identify myself as a moderate-to-liberal republican.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[Kevin]

<strong>Tenbatsuzen</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I'm pro-choice, pro-gun control, but also pro-military and pro-personal responsibility.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I cross party lines frequently, but I identify myself as a moderate-to-liberal republican.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Welllll.... You are from Texas, JBL, You&nbsp;being pro gun, and a republican, is no shocker</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Kevin on 3-11-07 @ 11:19 PM</span>

[MrPink]

None, I believe in all libertarian philosophies.

[patsopinion]

<p>im anti affirmative action and welfare along with being against gun control (meaning i am pro guns because most gun related crimes in the us are bought illegally anyway, guns dont kill people, people kill people)</p><p>other then that im like 75 percent democrat&nbsp;</p>

[sailor]

<strong>Kevin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Tenbatsuzen</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I'm pro-choice, pro-gun control, but also pro-military and pro-personal responsibility.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I cross party lines frequently, but I identify myself as a moderate-to-liberal republican.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Welllll.... You are from Texas, JBL, You being pro gun, and a republican, is no shocker</p> <span class="post_edited">This message was edited by Kevin on 3-11-07 @ 11:19 PM</span><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">pro gun <em>control</em><br /></font></p>

[Bob Impact]

I traditionally have voted conservative, but I don't really have a party.&nbsp; Both of them are pushing policies that destroy individual freedom.

[A.J.]

My Pro-Death platform (not to be confused with Pro-Death Metal): Pro-Abortion/Choice, Pro-Capital Punishment, Pro-Euthanasia.

[foodcourtdruide]

<strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br />I traditionally have voted conservative, but I don't really have a party.&nbsp; Both of them are pushing policies that destroy individual freedom. <p>At this time, I can't imagine how someone would vote conservative if they were at all concerned about personal freedom.</p>

[Dan 'Hampton]

<strong>foodcourtdruide</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br />I traditionally have voted conservative, but I don't really have a party. Both of them are pushing policies that destroy individual freedom. <p>At this time, I can't imagine how someone would vote conservative if they were at all concerned about personal freedom.</p><p>&nbsp;Why does everyone think that when the Dems take over things will be any better or change at all?&nbsp; Al Gore and his censorship loving whore-wife.&nbsp; A big deal was made up here in MA about finally having a D governor. And how Romney was spending too much time not doing his work.&nbsp; Right off the bat Patrick triples the budget for his personal car, and hires a 75K personal asistant for his wife.&nbsp; Catches flack for it so says he'll cover the difference on the car.&nbsp; Then he goes and makes shady calls to large corporations on behalf of other large corporations while on the clock.&nbsp; Apologizes and then tells us how his wife is being treated for depression and he needs to lower his workload.&nbsp; Kitty Dukakis anyone? </p>

[Bob Impact]

<strong>dschef</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>foodcourtdruide</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br />I traditionally have voted conservative, but I don't really have a party. Both of them are pushing policies that destroy individual freedom. <p>At this time, I can't imagine how someone would vote conservative if they were at all concerned about personal freedom.</p><p> Why does everyone think that when the Dems take over things will be any better or change at all? Al Gore and his censorship loving whore-wife. A big deal was made up here in MA about finally having a D governor. And how Romney was spending too much time not doing his work. Right off the bat Patrick triples the budget for his personal car, and hires a 75K personal asistant for his wife. Catches flack for it so says he'll cover the difference on the car. Then he goes and makes shady calls to large corporations on behalf of other large corporations while on the clock. Apologizes and then tells us how his wife is being treated for depression and he needs to lower his workload. Kitty Dukakis anyone? </p><p>&nbsp;Exactly, neither one is really ideal when it comes to the individual.&nbsp; I don't want to sit these elections out, but until there's a &quot;pro-mind&quot; party I think I just might. </p>

[Fezticle98]

Marijuana should be legalized and taxed like alcohol and cigarettes.

[burrben]

i love guns and hate immigrants (illegal)

[ralphbxny]

<p>I tend to hate both sides its why I am not enrolled in a party.</p><p>Jesse the body for president!</p>

[MrPink]

<strong>ralphbxny</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I tend to hate both sides its why I am not enrolled in a party.</p><p>Jesse the body for president!</p><p>There are more than just Democrat and Republican parties.</p>

[SatCam]

pro unrestricted immigration

anti copyright/patent/trademark

although i think the lp is split on these two issues

[foodcourtdruide]

<strong>dschef</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>foodcourtdruide</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br />I traditionally have voted conservative, but I don't really have a party. Both of them are pushing policies that destroy individual freedom. <p>At this time, I can't imagine how someone would vote conservative if they were at all concerned about personal freedom.</p><p>&nbsp;Why does everyone think that when the Dems take over things will be any better or change at all?&nbsp; Al Gore and his censorship loving whore-wife.&nbsp; A big deal was made up here in MA about finally having a D governor. And how Romney was spending too much time not doing his work.&nbsp; Right off the bat Patrick triples the budget for his personal car, and hires a 75K personal asistant for his wife.&nbsp; Catches flack for it so says he'll cover the difference on the car.&nbsp; Then he goes and makes shady calls to large corporations on behalf of other large corporations while on the clock.&nbsp; Apologizes and then tells us how his wife is being treated for depression and he needs to lower his workload.&nbsp; Kitty Dukakis anyone? </p><p>Hm. I don't know where your tangent came from. I didn't say that democrats would be any better or worse than conservatives. My political beliefs lean more towards the left, but this does not mean I consider myself a democrat. </p><p>All I said was that at this time, I can't imagine how someone would vote conservative if they were at all concerned about personal freedom.</p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br />I traditionally have voted conservative, but I don't really have a party. Both of them are pushing policies that destroy individual freedom.<p>&nbsp;</p><p>I agree completely. </p><p>Great question, since no one really fits either party if they're honest about it. I'm a Manhattan/Cato Institute type conservative. Which is to say I believe in freedom, for myself and others. This means I hardly ever agree with social conservatives like Pat Robertson or the Christian coalition. And I agree with many liberals who want to build a better society, up until they try to force it on everyone through the heavy handed power of the state. <strong>Which they always do</strong> eventually, since when people have the freedom to choose, they often make bad choices and liberals dont get the results they want by educating the public.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>Here's a breakdown for me on some current issues</p><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>Gay Marriage-Support it. Gays can engage in every other legal contract. They can form a corporation, enter into all other forms of contracts, why not marriage? At the end of the day marriage is a legal arrangement, despite what your girlfriend might think. </p><p>Affirmative Action-Time's up folks. I understand the long history of racism in this country and the desire to do a temporary corrective measure. But its 40+ years since the Civil Rights Act, 2 generations have passed, and at this point its a crutch for folks who dont need one. At some point you have to sink or swim, the goal of reaching equality is a fool's errand. Some groups overperform, some underperform regardless of race. I also think its perpetuates both a sense of entitlement and victimization, which are unhealthy for individuals achieving success and I think explains black prison rates far better than racism does at this point.&nbsp;</p><p> Immigation-Support it and liked Bush's path to citizenship plan. To me targeting immigrants is beating up on the poor, overworked and voiceless. Cowardly. The fact of the matter is immigration is a self correcting problem. They only keep coming because they keep finding work here. After 9/11, immigation stopped cold in NYC. You know why? No work. And these folks break their asses doing low paid shit work for a chance that their kids might have a better life. You'd think that us sons and grandsons of immigrants would be thankful these folks do the jobs Americans dont want to do anymore, which we all benefit from. </p><p>Gun Control-Lax gun laws make more sense in rural America than they do in big cities. Therefore, I dont like federal governmant getting involved. Let each state/locality decide what makes sense for them.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Here's my political philosophy in a nutshell. Get your fucking paws off my money and leave me alone. &nbsp;</p><p>Sorry for the Yerdaddy legnth post. But its a great topic. &nbsp;</p>

[Bob Impact]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p>&nbsp;Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.<br /> </p>

[foodcourtdruide]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br />I traditionally have voted conservative, but I don't really have a party. Both of them are pushing policies that destroy individual freedom. <p>&nbsp;</p><p>I agree completely. </p><p>Great question, since no one really fits either party if they're honest about it. I'm a Manhattan/Cato Institute type conservative. Which is to say I believe in freedom, for myself and others. This means I hardly ever agree with social conservatives like Pat Robertson or the Christian coalition. And I agree with many liberals who want to build a better society, up until they try to force it on everyone through the heavy handed power of the state. <strong>Which they always do</strong> eventually, since when people have the freedom to choose, they often make bad choices and liberals dont get the results they want by educating the public.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>Here's a breakdown for me on some current issues</p><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>Gay Marriage-Support it. Gays can engage in every other legal contract. They can form a corporation, enter into all other forms of contracts, why not marriage? At the end of the day marriage is a legal arrangement, despite what your girlfriend might think. </p><p>Affirmative Action-Time's up folks. I understand the long history of racism in this country and the desire to do a temporary corrective measure. But its 40+ years since the Civil Rights Act, 2 generations have passed, and at this point its a crutch for folks who dont need one. At some point you have to sink or swim, the goal of reaching equality is a fool's errand. Some groups overperform, some underperform regardless of race. I also think its perpetuates both a sense of entitlement and victimization, which are unhealthy for individuals achieving success and I think explains black prison rates far better than racism does at this point.&nbsp;</p><p>Immigation-Support it and liked Bush's path to citizenship plan. To me targeting immigrants is beating up on the poor, overworked and voiceless. Cowardly. The fact of the matter is immigration is a self correcting problem. They only keep coming because they keep finding work here. After 9/11, immigation stopped cold in NYC. You know why? No work. And these folks break their asses doing low paid shit work for a chance that their kids might have a better life. You'd think that us sons and grandsons of immigrants would be thankful these folks do the jobs Americans dont want to do anymore, which we all benefit from. </p><p>Gun Control-Lax gun laws make more sense in rural America than they do in big cities. Therefore, I dont like federal governmant getting involved. Let each state/locality decide what makes sense for them.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Here's my political philosophy in a nutshell. Get your fucking paws off my money and leave me alone. &nbsp;</p><p>Sorry for the Yerdaddy legnth post. But its a great topic. &nbsp;</p><p>Agree with a lot of what you said, but probably believe in more social programs than you. I completely agree with your opinions of immigration and gun control. </p><p>I think a lot of anti-immigration is thinly veiled racism.</p>

[HBox]

<p><span class="postbody">I think a lot of anti-immigration is thinly veiled racism.</span></p><p>Ya think, Sherlock? <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p> Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.<br /> </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>No, but they have the right to run their state according to their values. That's democracy. If Roe was overturned I'd imagine a handful of states would abolish it, maybe 5 tops. Little to nothing would change in most states, where abortion is supported by comfortable majorities. </p><p>Worst case scenario, you'd have to drive or take a bus for a few hours to get to a nearby state. Not the end of the world. And the fact of the matter is people have to do that now, since some of the more anti-abortion states have few if any abortion clinics. And we could be finally done with this issue. <br /> </p>

[ChimneyFish]

<strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p>&nbsp;Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.</p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Agree. You can't puish a young girl who made a stupid mistake(and who might barely be able to afford an abortion in the first place) to have to travel to an another state to have it done.</font></em></strong></p>

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I am independent, Kind of like what Lou Dobbs is. One thing is that spending is out of control so I would say Im fiscally conservative, something this administration is not

[sailor]

<strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p> Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.<br /> </p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">the 4 negatives in your last sentence are making my head hurt.<br /></font></p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p> Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.</p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Agree. You can't puish a young girl who made a stupid mistake(and who might barely be able to afford an abortion in the first place) to have to travel to an another state to have it done.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry, but your argument doesn't add up. Abortions average around $350-$650 for 1st trimester procedures. You're arguing that a $25 tank of gas or bus ticket is an undue burden? Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you can afford an average $500 procedure, you can dig up another $25.&nbsp; </p>

[foodcourtdruide]

<strong>HBox</strong> wrote:<br /><span class="postbody">I think a lot of anti-immigration is thinly veiled racism. </span><p><font color="#000080"><font size="2">Ya think, Sherlock?</font></font> <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" width="20" height="20" /></p><p>It does seem rather obvious doesn't it? But many people will dispute that statement.</p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>foodcourtdruide</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>HBox</strong> wrote:<br /><span class="postbody">I think a lot of anti-immigration is thinly veiled racism. </span><p><font color="#000080"><font size="2">Ya think, Sherlock?</font></font> <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" width="20" height="20" /></p><p>It does seem rather obvious doesn't it? But many people will dispute that statement.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I work in Greenpoint, BKLYN. All Polish, most of them 1st generation immigrants. Most of them dont speak any english, but somehow the anti-immigrant types never seem to complain about them. Cant figure it out.</p>

[sailor]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>foodcourtdruide</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>HBox</strong> wrote:<br /><span class="postbody">I think a lot of anti-immigration is thinly veiled racism. </span><p><font color="#000080"><font size="2">Ya think, Sherlock?</font></font> <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" width="20" height="20" /></p><p>It does seem rather obvious doesn't it? But many people will dispute that statement.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I work in Greenpoint, BKLYN. All Polish, most of them 1st generation immigrants. Most of them dont speak any english, but somehow the anti-immigrant types never seem to complain about them. Cant figure it out.</p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">the young chicks are hot.<br /></font></p>

[TheMojoPin]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p>Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.</p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Agree. You can't puish a young girl who made a stupid mistake(and who might barely be able to afford an abortion in the first place) to have to travel to an another state to have it done.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry, but your argument doesn't add up. Abortions average around $350-$650 for 1st trimester procedures. You're arguing that a $25 tank of gas or bus ticket is an undue burden? Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you can afford an average $500 procedure, you can dig up another $25.&nbsp; </p><p>I disagree that allowing the states decide on abortion would only lead to as few as you think.&nbsp; It's a generalization, but I don't think that it's an issue too seperate from the people who oppose gay marriage, and look how many states are jumping on that like it's a genuine threat to...whatever the fuck they cry it's a threat to.&nbsp; I'm sorry, but when one option in the abortion issue is &quot;people choose whether or not they want one&quot; and the other is &quot;NO ABORTIONS FOR ANYONE!!!!&quot;, I can't go with the latter.&nbsp; I just can't get behind the idea of passing laws when the PRIMARY (not all, but statistically most) motivation behind them is faith-based.</p>

[ChimneyFish]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p>Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.</p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Agree. You can't puish a young girl who made a stupid mistake(and who might barely be able to afford an abortion in the first place) to have to travel to an another state to have it done.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry, but your argument doesn't add up. Abortions average around $350-$650 for 1st trimester procedures. You're arguing that a $25 tank of gas or bus ticket is an undue burden? Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you can afford an average $500 procedure, you can dig up another $25.&nbsp; </p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Most Americans don't live in states the size of Delaware.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">Some 14 year old girls might not know anyone they can trust who has a drivers license and a car.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">And don't act like there are buses that go to every hayseed, out of the way town in the country.</font></em></strong></p>

[sailor]

<strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p>Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.</p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Agree. You can't puish a young girl who made a stupid mistake(and who might barely be able to afford an abortion in the first place) to have to travel to an another state to have it done.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry, but your argument doesn't add up. Abortions average around $350-$650 for 1st trimester procedures. You're arguing that a $25 tank of gas or bus ticket is an undue burden? Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you can afford an average $500 procedure, you can dig up another $25. </p><p>I disagree that allowing the states decide on abortion would only lead to as few as you think. It's a generalization, but I don't think that it's an issue too seperate from the people who oppose gay marriage, and look how many states are jumping on that like it's a genuine threat to...whatever the fuck they cry it's a threat to. I'm sorry, but when one option in the abortion issue is &quot;people choose whether or not they want one&quot; and the other is &quot;NO ABORTIONS FOR ANYONE!!!!&quot;, I can't go with the latter. I just can't get behind the idea of passing laws when the PRIMARY (not all, but statistically most) motivation behind them is faith-based.</p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">where are you pulling your &quot;stats&quot; from?&nbsp; and i'm opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons.</font></p>

[TheMojoPin]

<strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p>Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.</p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Agree. You can't puish a young girl who made a stupid mistake(and who might barely be able to afford an abortion in the first place) to have to travel to an another state to have it done.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry, but your argument doesn't add up. Abortions average around $350-$650 for 1st trimester procedures. You're arguing that a $25 tank of gas or bus ticket is an undue burden? Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you can afford an average $500 procedure, you can dig up another $25.&nbsp; </p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Most Americans don't live in states the size of Delaware.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">Some 14 year old girls might not know anyone they can trust who has a drivers license and a car.</font></em></strong> </p><p>As pro-choice as I am, I don't think girls under 18 should be allowed to get an abortion without parent or legal guardian consent unless there's a health issue going on.&nbsp; Kids under 18, in my opinion, do NOT have the same rights or freedoms as legal adults.</p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<p><font size="2">where are you pulling your &quot;stats&quot; from? and i'm opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons.</font></p><p><a href="http://www.ncap.com/abortion_faq.html" title=" LINKY">&nbsp;LINKY</a></p>

[sailor]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<p><font size="2">where are you pulling your &quot;stats&quot; from? and i'm opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons.</font></p><p><a href="http://www.ncap.com/abortion_faq.html" title=" LINKY"> LINKY</a></p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">that had nothing on why people oppose abortion. </font></p>

[TheMojoPin]

<strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p>Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.</p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Agree. You can't puish a young girl who made a stupid mistake(and who might barely be able to afford an abortion in the first place) to have to travel to an another state to have it done.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry, but your argument doesn't add up. Abortions average around $350-$650 for 1st trimester procedures. You're arguing that a $25 tank of gas or bus ticket is an undue burden? Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you can afford an average $500 procedure, you can dig up another $25. </p><p>I disagree that allowing the states decide on abortion would only lead to as few as you think. It's a generalization, but I don't think that it's an issue too seperate from the people who oppose gay marriage, and look how many states are jumping on that like it's a genuine threat to...whatever the fuck they cry it's a threat to. I'm sorry, but when one option in the abortion issue is &quot;people choose whether or not they want one&quot; and the other is &quot;NO ABORTIONS FOR ANYONE!!!!&quot;, I can't go with the latter. I just can't get behind the idea of passing laws when the PRIMARY (not all, but statistically most) motivation behind them is faith-based.</p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">where are you pulling your &quot;stats&quot; from?&nbsp; and i'm opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons.</font></p><p>&quot;Statistically&quot; was the wrong word, as that it's totally a hunch on my part.&nbsp; I think it's a good hunch, I'm just too lazy to go look for numerical data to back me up.&nbsp; If anyone out there can find survey data or the like that proves me wrong, feel free.&nbsp; I'm just throwing out my reasonings for my opinion.&nbsp; I think the majority (at least 51%)&nbsp;of people opposed to gay marriage and abortion do so for so-called &quot;faith&quot; reasons.</p>

[Gvac]

<p>I'm so done with political parties.</p><p>The debates all sound like &quot;I hate when the government rapes the people and abuses its power for things I don't believe in!&nbsp; They should rape the people and abuse their power for things <strong><em>I </em></strong>believe in!&quot; to me. </p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<p><font size="2">where are you pulling your &quot;stats&quot; from? and i'm opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons.</font></p><p><a href="http://www.ncap.com/abortion_faq.html" title=" LINKY"> LINKY</a></p><p> <font size="2">that had nothing on why people oppose abortion. </font></p>&nbsp;I have no idea what you're talking about. &nbsp;The only &quot;stats&quot; I referenced were the cost of the abortions (see link) and of a tank of gas. &nbsp;<p>&nbsp;</p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>Gvac</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I'm so done with political parties.</p><p>The debates all sound like &quot;I hate when the government rapes the people and abuses its power for things I don't believe in! They should rape the people and abuse their power for things <strong><em>I </em></strong>believe in!&quot; to me. </p>Lets legalize Gay marriage and get hitched. &nbsp;<p>&nbsp;</p>

[sailor]

<strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<br /><p> <font size="2">where are you pulling your &quot;stats&quot; from? and i'm opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons.</font></p><p>&quot;Statistically&quot; was the wrong word, as that it's totally a hunch on my part. I think it's a good hunch, I'm just too lazy to go look for numerical data to back me up. If anyone out there can find survey data or the like that proves me wrong, feel free. I'm just throwing out my reasonings for my opinion. I think the majority (at least 51%) of people opposed to gay marriage and abortion do so for so-called &quot;faith&quot; reasons.</p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">for gay marriage i totally agree.&nbsp; don't know on the abortion.&nbsp; i'd also say a lot of people who support abortion are religious, and just go off on their own on that topic. </font></p>

[sailor]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<p><font size="2">where are you pulling your &quot;stats&quot; from? and i'm opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons.</font></p><p><a href="http://www.ncap.com/abortion_faq.html" title=" LINKY"> LINKY</a></p><p> <font size="2">that had nothing on why people oppose abortion. </font></p> I have no idea what you're talking about. The only &quot;stats&quot; I referenced were the cost of the abortions (see link) and of a tank of gas. <p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">hahaha.&nbsp; if you look back i was asking mojo, not you.&nbsp; :)<br /> </font></p>

[ChimneyFish]

<strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Abortion-I'm ambivilent. I couldn't live with myself if I was party to one, but I understand other people from other religious backgrounds have a very different take on it, and a valid one. Oppose any 'one size fits all' bullshit from Washington, <strong>from either side</strong>. Let the states decide. Which means I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned. People from heavily Christian states shouldn't have this shoved down their throats any more than NYC should have restrictions from Washington shoved down theirs. </p><p>Not every person in a heavily christian state is christian. By not outlawing abortion you are not forcing anything on anyone, in other words you can't shove nothing down somones throat.</p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Agree. You can't puish a young girl who made a stupid mistake(and who might barely be able to afford an abortion in the first place) to have to travel to an another state to have it done.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry, but your argument doesn't add up. Abortions average around $350-$650 for 1st trimester procedures. You're arguing that a $25 tank of gas or bus ticket is an undue burden? Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you can afford an average $500 procedure, you can dig up another $25.&nbsp; </p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Most Americans don't live in states the size of Delaware.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">Some 14 year old girls might not know anyone they can trust who has a drivers license and a car.</font></em></strong> </p><p>As pro-choice as I am, I don't think girls under 18 should be allowed to get an abortion without parent or legal guardian consent unless there's a health issue going on.&nbsp; Kids under 18, in my opinion, do NOT have the same rights or freedoms as legal adults.</p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">I understand your point, and my opinion comes strictly from a selfish perspective.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">a) there are already <u>far</u> too many worthless human beings on this planet already.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">b) I want peaples fairy tale beliefs as far away from my government as possible.</font></em></strong></p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Most Americans don't live in states the size of Delaware.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">Some 14 year old girls might not know anyone they can trust who has a drivers license and a car.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">And don't act like there are buses that go to every hayseed, out of the way town in the country.</font></em></strong></p>No, but they go from city to city, where most abortion providers will be located. So some may need a car ride and a bus ticket. Not a big difference there.&nbsp;And to piggyback on what Mojo said, 14 year olds simply dont (and shouldn't) have the same rights as adults. <p>&nbsp;</p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>sailor</strong> wrote:<p><font size="2">where are you pulling your &quot;stats&quot; from? and i'm opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons.</font></p><p><a href="http://www.ncap.com/abortion_faq.html" title=" LINKY"> LINKY</a></p><p> <font size="2">that had nothing on why people oppose abortion. </font></p> I have no idea what you're talking about. The only &quot;stats&quot; I referenced were the cost of the abortions (see link) and of a tank of gas. <p>&nbsp;</p><p> <font size="2">hahaha. if you look back i was asking mojo, not you. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" border="0" /> <br /> </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Oh! Now it makes sense!!!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">I understand your point, and my opinion comes strictly from a selfish perspective.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">a) there are already <u>far</u> too many worthless human beings on this planet already.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">b) I want peaples fairy tale beliefs as far away from my government as possible.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thats fine, but try to get elected in Alabama on that platform. </p><p>And no, you dont have the right to dictate to the fine citizens of Alabama how they should run their state. &nbsp;</p>

[TheMojoPin]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote: <p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">I understand your point, and my opinion comes strictly from a selfish perspective.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">a) there are already <u>far</u> too many worthless human beings on this planet already.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">b) I want peaples fairy tale beliefs as far away from my government as possible.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thats fine, but try to get elected in Alabama on that platform. </p><p>And no, you dont have the right to dictate to the fine citizens of Alabama how they should run their state. &nbsp;</p><p>There's a line, especially when it comes to civil rights.</p>

[boeman]

maturity and reason... something all political parties lack...

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<p>I disagree that allowing the states decide on abortion would only lead to as few as you think. It's a generalization, but I don't think that it's an issue too seperate from the people who oppose gay marriage, and look how many states are jumping on that like it's a genuine threat to...whatever the fuck they cry it's a threat to. I'm sorry, but when one option in the abortion issue is &quot;people choose whether or not they want one&quot; and the other is &quot;NO ABORTIONS FOR ANYONE!!!!&quot;, I can't go with the latter. I just can't get behind the idea of passing laws when the PRIMARY (not all, but statistically most) motivation behind them is faith-based.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I just think that if the Blue states stopped shoving abortion down the throats of certain Red states, then the Red States would have a herder time getting the Supreme Court to pass restrictions. There would be a sense of somewhere to go for people on both sides of the issue, sort of like the Missouri compromise on slavery (AND LOOK HOW WELL THAT WORKED OUT!!) If this issue was settled in the minds of most Americans both sides would lose $$, and thats the mothers milk in politics. And it would still be available in most of the country even under the most dire predictions.&nbsp; </p><p>I could be dead wrong about it, but I think the situation would vastly improve.</p>

[ChimneyFish]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote: <p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">I understand your point, and my opinion comes strictly from a selfish perspective.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">a) there are already <u>far</u> too many worthless human beings on this planet already.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">b) I want peaples fairy tale beliefs as far away from my government as possible.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thats fine, but try to get elected in Alabama on that platform. </p><p>And no, you dont have the right to dictate to the fine citizens of Alabama how they should run their state. &nbsp;</p><p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">I never said I wanted to run for office.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">And I see your point. Luckily, I couldn't see Pennsylvania overturning Roe v Wade.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">But answer me this........</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">&quot;fine citizens&quot; or hayseed Comedy Pyramid killers????<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smoke.gif" border="0" width="46" height="20" /></font></em></strong></p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote: <p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">I understand your point, and my opinion comes strictly from a selfish perspective.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">a) there are already <u>far</u> too many worthless human beings on this planet already.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">b) I want peaples fairy tale beliefs as far away from my government as possible.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thats fine, but try to get elected in Alabama on that platform. </p><p>And no, you dont have the right to dictate to the fine citizens of Alabama how they should run their state. </p><p>There's a line, especially when it comes to civil rights.</p>Absolutely, thats the classic example. But every issue isn't Civil Rights. This gets complicated by existence of another entity. Call it a life or a fetus, there's something/someone else involved here. So its not as simple making sure everyone gets equal protection under the law. Or at least I dont think it is. <br />

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote:<p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">I never said I wanted to run for office.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">And I see your point. Luckily, I couldn't see Pennsylvania overturning Roe v Wade.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">But answer me this........</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">&quot;fine citizens&quot; or hayseed Comedy Pyramid killers????<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smoke.gif" border="0" width="46" height="20" /></font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Oh, geez. Those fucking Virginia callers were brutal in the JFK days. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 3-12-07 @ 9:29 PM</span>

[HBox]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<p>I disagree that allowing the states decide on abortion would only lead to as few as you think. It's a generalization, but I don't think that it's an issue too seperate from the people who oppose gay marriage, and look how many states are jumping on that like it's a genuine threat to...whatever the fuck they cry it's a threat to. I'm sorry, but when one option in the abortion issue is &quot;people choose whether or not they want one&quot; and the other is &quot;NO ABORTIONS FOR ANYONE!!!!&quot;, I can't go with the latter. I just can't get behind the idea of passing laws when the PRIMARY (not all, but statistically most) motivation behind them is faith-based.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I just think that if the Blue states stopped shoving abortion down the throats of certain Red states, then the Red States would have a herder time getting the Supreme Court to pass restrictions. There would be a sense of somewhere to go for people on both sides of the issue, sort of like the Missouri compromise on slavery (AND LOOK HOW WELL THAT WORKED OUT!!) If this issue was settled in the minds of most Americans both sides would lose $$, and thats the mothers milk in politics. And it would still be available in most of the country even under the most dire predictions. </p><p>I could be dead wrong about it, but I think the situation would vastly improve.</p><p>I think you are wrong. You would probably be right if this were any other issue but this issue is so polarized that there will be way too many zealots on both sides of the abortion debate fighting for nothing less than complete and total victory for this issue to die down in any way for a very long time. </p>

[TheMojoPin]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote: <p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">I understand your point, and my opinion comes strictly from a selfish perspective.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">a) there are already <u>far</u> too many worthless human beings on this planet already.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">b) I want peaples fairy tale beliefs as far away from my government as possible.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thats fine, but try to get elected in Alabama on that platform. </p><p>And no, you dont have the right to dictate to the fine citizens of Alabama how they should run their state. </p><p>There's a line, especially when it comes to civil rights.</p>Call it a life or a fetus, there's something/someone else involved here.<p>Maybe.&nbsp; Personally, I THINK there is, but I'm not going to pretend like I know the answer for sure.&nbsp; The issue of when &quot;life&quot; begins ultimately enters a subjective&nbsp;religious/philisophical debate that I don't want dictating the issue of choice.&nbsp; One ruling deprives people of options...the other gives everyone a choice, no matter what.&nbsp; I'll take the option of choice.&nbsp; That's where I see the issue of civil rights coming into play.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-12-07 @ 10:41 PM</span>

[Fat_Sunny]

<strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br />Maybe.&nbsp; Personally, I THINK there is, but I'm not going to pretend like I know the answer for sure.&nbsp; The issue of when &quot;life&quot; begins ultimately enters a subjective&nbsp;religious/philisophical debate that I don't want dictating the issue of choice.&nbsp; One ruling deprives people of options...the other gives everyone a choice, no matter what.&nbsp; I'll take the option of choice.&nbsp; That's where I see the issue of civil rights coming into play.<span class="post_edited"><font size="3">This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-12-07 @ 10:41 PM</font></span> <p><font size="2">IF You Are A Person Who Believes That A Two-Month Old Fetus Is A Human Being, Then You Must Consider Abortion As Murder.&nbsp; If You Do Not Believe It Is A Human Being, Then It Is Not Murder.</font></p><p><font size="2">Fat Cannot Be Angry With Those Who Think It Is Murder.&nbsp; If You Believe It Is A Human Being, Then You&nbsp;Are Just Being Against Murder.</font></p><p><font size="2">F_S Does Not Know Whether A Two-Month Old Fetus Is A Human Being Or Not.&nbsp; So He&nbsp;Can Only Try&nbsp;To Understand Both Sides.</font></p><p><font size="2"></font></p>

[Bob Impact]

<strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>ChimneyFish</strong> wrote: <p><strong><em><font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">I understand your point, and my opinion comes strictly from a selfish perspective.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">a) there are already <u>far</u> too many worthless human beings on this planet already.</font></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><font face="Georgia" size="2">b) I want peaples fairy tale beliefs as far away from my government as possible.</font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thats fine, but try to get elected in Alabama on that platform. </p><p>And no, you dont have the right to dictate to the fine citizens of Alabama how they should run their state. </p><p>There's a line, especially when it comes to civil rights.</p>Call it a life or a fetus, there's something/someone else involved here.<p>Maybe. Personally, I THINK there is, but I'm not going to pretend like I know the answer for sure. The issue of when &quot;life&quot; begins ultimately enters a subjective religious/philisophical debate that I don't want dictating the issue of choice. One ruling deprives people of options...the other gives everyone a choice, no matter what. I'll take the option of choice. That's where I see the issue of civil rights coming into play.</p> <span class="post_edited">This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-12-07 @ 10:41 PM</span><p>&nbsp;Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights&mdash;and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a <em>potential</em> with an <em> actual</em>, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. - Ayn Rand</p>

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote: <p>I disagree that allowing the states decide on abortion would only lead to as few as you think. It's a generalization, but I don't think that it's an issue too seperate from the people who oppose gay marriage, and look how many states are jumping on that like it's a genuine threat to...whatever the fuck they cry it's a threat to. I'm sorry, but when one option in the abortion issue is &quot;people choose whether or not they want one&quot; and the other is &quot;NO ABORTIONS FOR ANYONE!!!!&quot;, I can't go with the latter. I just can't get behind the idea of passing laws when the PRIMARY (not all, but statistically most) motivation behind them is faith-based.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I just think that if the Blue states stopped shoving abortion down the throats of certain Red states, then the Red States would have a herder time getting the Supreme Court to pass restrictions. There would be a sense of somewhere to go for people on both sides of the issue, sort of like the Missouri compromise on slavery (AND LOOK HOW WELL THAT WORKED OUT!!) If this issue was settled in the minds of most Americans both sides would lose $$, and thats the mothers milk in politics. And it would still be available in most of the country even under the most dire predictions.&nbsp; </p><p>I could be dead wrong about it, but I think the situation would vastly improve.</p><p>How is it that the blue states are &quot;shoving abortion down the throats&quot; of red states?</p><p>Thank you. I'll hang up now and listen to your response.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Hello?</p>

[TheMojoPin]

<strong>Fat_Sunny</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br />Maybe.&nbsp; Personally, I THINK there is, but I'm not going to pretend like I know the answer for sure.&nbsp; The issue of when &quot;life&quot; begins ultimately enters a subjective&nbsp;religious/philisophical debate that I don't want dictating the issue of choice.&nbsp; One ruling deprives people of options...the other gives everyone a choice, no matter what.&nbsp; I'll take the option of choice.&nbsp; That's where I see the issue of civil rights coming into play.<span class="post_edited"><font size="3">This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-12-07 @ 10:41 PM</font></span> <p><font size="2">IF You Are A Person Who Believes That A Two-Month Old Fetus Is A Human Being, Then You Must Consider Abortion As Murder.&nbsp; If You Do Not Believe It Is A Human Being, Then It Is Not Murder.</font></p><p><font size="2">Fat Cannot Be Angry With Those Who Think It Is Murder.&nbsp; If You Believe It Is A Human Being, Then You&nbsp;Are Just Being Against Murder.</font></p><p><font size="2">F_S Does Not Know Whether A Two-Month Old Fetus Is A Human Being Or Not.&nbsp; So He&nbsp;Can Only Try&nbsp;To Understand Both Sides.</font></p><p><font size="2"></font></p><p>No, I don't think it's a &quot;human&quot; at that point.&nbsp; I said I agree with BDC's statement that there's &quot;something&quot;...but I acknowledge that the question of when &quot;life&quot; begins and what it is is a bigger philisophical/theological debate that is too abstract to dictate sweeping laws on state or federal level to ban the option to choose.</p><p>I do think that abortions should be banned after the third trimester except in cases of medical issues or &quot;criminal pregnancies.&quot;&nbsp; But the option to choose should exist in those first three months.&nbsp; No, I'm not saying that everything is magically known for sure after three months...I'm just trying to look at the whole thing with the idea of trying to find some middle ground.</p>

[Fat_Sunny]

<p><font size="2"></font></p><p>No, I don't think it's a &quot;human&quot; at that point.&nbsp; I said I agree with BDC's statement that there's &quot;something&quot;...but I acknowledge that the question of when &quot;life&quot; begins and what it is is a bigger philisophical/theological debate that is too abstract to dictate sweeping laws on state or federal level to ban the option to choose.</p><p>I do think that abortions should be banned after the third trimester except in cases of medical issues or &quot;criminal pregnancies.&quot;&nbsp; But the option to choose should exist in those first three months.&nbsp; No, I'm not saying that everything is magically known for sure after three months...<font style="background-color: #ffff00"><font size="1">I'm just trying</font> to look at the whole thing with the idea of trying to find some middle ground.</font></p><p><font size="2">And Credit To You For That...That's Why You Got Over 10 On The Liberal-Conservative Quiz!</font></p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<p>How is it that the blue states are &quot;shoving abortion down the throats&quot; of red states?</p><p>Thank you. I'll hang up now and listen to your response.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Hello?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Because it goes against their religious values. </p><p>Because if you put abortion on a referendum it would be defeated by wide margins in some areas/states.</p><p>Because this used to be an issue that was regulated locally, as the 10th ammendment sets out for all things not expressly included in the constitution. And then a right was magically created by the Supreme Court. You have to get very creative to find a right to privacy in the constitution. Somehow search and seizure got applied here, one of the great stretches in legal history. So what the Pro-choice people couldn't achieve legislatively, they got Supreme Court to shove down people's throats.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>As a conservative I dont like that regardless of whether I agree with abortion or not. And I already stated I'm ambivilent on the matter.&nbsp; </p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<p> I'm sorry, but when one option in the abortion issue is &quot;people choose whether or not they want one&quot; and the other is &quot;NO ABORTIONS FOR ANYONE!!!!&quot;, I can't go with the latter. I just can't get behind the idea of passing laws when the PRIMARY (not all, but statistically most) motivation behind them is faith-based.</p><p>Thats the old &quot;If you dont like abortion, dont have one&quot;. Which is a solid argument, and I have no problem with. But it doesn't apply across the board. For instance, there are &quot;dry counties&quot; in the US. Where alcohol is prohibited. And Blue laws, rooted directly in religious observances. Just because alcohol is legal in one area doesn't mean it cant be restricted somewhere else, as again the 10th ammendment gives states the authority to do for anything not exrpressly included in the constitution. If you dont like whats in the constitution, then get an ammendment passed. But dont invent things that simply aren't there and ignore things that are. &nbsp;</p>

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote: <p>How is it that the blue states are &quot;shoving abortion down the throats&quot; of red states?</p><p>Thank you. I'll hang up now and listen to your response.</p><p>Hello?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Because it goes against their religious values. </p><p>Because if you put abortion on a referendum it would be defeated by wide margins in some areas/states.</p><p>Because this used to be an issue that was regulated locally, as the 10th ammendment sets out for all things not expressly included in the constitution. And then a right was magically created by the Supreme Court. You have to get very creative to find a right to privacy in the constitution. Somehow search and seizure got applied here, one of the great stretches in legal history. So what the Pro-choice people couldn't achieve legislatively, they got Supreme Court to shove down people's throats.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>As a conservative I dont like that regardless of whether I agree with abortion or not. And I already stated I'm ambivilent on the matter.&nbsp; </p><p>No, it goes against their secular values - the idea that another's religious values should not be used to restrict the rights of another person. Most pro-choice people are, in fact Christians, (simply by default - there aren't enough non-christians and atheists to make up a majority of that group). They've simply rectified their values with the secular principles of the Bill of Rights. </p><p>Now abortion, or the right to decide what medical procedures you can have done to your body, are not in the Constitution. There were no pro- or anti-leaching groups to even make it an issue at the time. It's an issue now because there are people who would intervene in the decision of others with regards to their own bodies, so political decisions had to be made. The legislature is incapable of deciding on legislation because of the polarized nature of the issue so the Supreme Court was forced to decide it and they decided it based on privacy - that one's decisions what to do with their bodies is none of anyone's business. It doesn't fit neatly with the limited construction of the Constitution, but a decision had to be made. Why because what could be a more fundamental right than to decide what you do with your own body? </p><p>This is where you say it should be left to the states, I think.&nbsp;And where you're saying, because Roe v Wade is on the books the blue states are imposing on the red. Fair point, but what you're arguing for is the red states' rights to impose on their citizens. Now I'm for states rights on many issues too but not for their rights to impose the tyrany of the majority over the individual's rights. So when you say some states are &quot;shoving abortion down the throats&quot; of other states, what you're saying is that red states should be allowed to strip their citizens of the right to decide what to do with their bodies, and with the rest of their lives. At that point I don't give a fuck about the rights of some state's government - especially one that's still got&nbsp;spittoons in&nbsp;the lobby and an old gallows down in the basement - to tell their people what decisions they can make about their lives.</p><p>Besides, if there was a little more throat-shoving we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Let that be a lesson for you ladies!</p>

[Golfman]

A moderate to liberal republican.&nbsp; But i have a lot of issues with my party not addressing man made pollutants and conservation of wildlife and animals.&nbsp; I'm also PRO PRO PRO anything venturing into Space, because eventually our people are going to have to move somewhere to survive anyway.&nbsp; WAY to much to mention here...zzzzzzzz..

[Fat_Sunny]

<strong>Golfman</strong> wrote:<br />A moderate to liberal republican.&nbsp; But i have a lot of issues with my party not addressing man made pollutants and conservation of wildlife and animals.&nbsp; <font style="background-color: #ffff00">I'm also PRO PRO PRO anything venturing into Space</font>, because eventually our people are going to have to move somewhere to survive anyway.&nbsp; WAY to much to mention here...zzzzzzzz.. <p><font size="2">Fat Is 100% With You On That One.&nbsp; That Is An Area, Like National Defense,&nbsp;That Is A Totally Legitimate Function Of Government.&nbsp; More Space Exploration, Please!</font></p>

[sailor]

<strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Fat_Sunny</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br />Maybe. Personally, I THINK there is, but I'm not going to pretend like I know the answer for sure. The issue of when &quot;life&quot; begins ultimately enters a subjective religious/philisophical debate that I don't want dictating the issue of choice. One ruling deprives people of options...the other gives everyone a choice, no matter what. I'll take the option of choice. That's where I see the issue of civil rights coming into play.<span class="post_edited"><font size="3">This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-12-07 @ 10:41 PM</font></span> <p><font size="2">IF You Are A Person Who Believes That A Two-Month Old Fetus Is A Human Being, Then You Must Consider Abortion As Murder. If You Do Not Believe It Is A Human Being, Then It Is Not Murder.</font></p><p><font size="2">Fat Cannot Be Angry With Those Who Think It Is Murder. If You Believe It Is A Human Being, Then You Are Just Being Against Murder.</font></p><p><font size="2">F_S Does Not Know Whether A Two-Month Old Fetus Is A Human Being Or Not. So He Can Only Try To Understand Both Sides.</font></p><p><font size="2"></font></p><p>No, I don't think it's a &quot;human&quot; at that point. I said I agree with BDC's statement that there's &quot;something&quot;...but I acknowledge that the question of when &quot;life&quot; begins and what it is is a bigger philisophical/theological debate that is too abstract to dictate sweeping laws on state or federal level to ban the option to choose.</p><p>I do think that abortions should be banned after the third trimester except in cases of medical issues or &quot;criminal pregnancies.&quot; But the option to choose should exist in those first three months. No, I'm not saying that everything is magically known for sure after three months...I'm just trying to look at the whole thing with the idea of trying to find some middle ground.</p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;i'd disagree and say that it's a person from the moment of conception.&nbsp; it's a biological thing not a religious thing.&nbsp; it's also not a &quot;potential&quot; person, whatever that means.&nbsp; i could see applying that to sperm or an egg, but not to a fertilized growing egg, aka a fetus.&nbsp; and i agree with yerdaddy that the majority of both sides are christians, based entirely on the make-up of this country.&nbsp; i tried to write that myself earlier, but kept stumbling over the words.&nbsp; thanks for exdpressing what i was having so much trouble getting out.</font> </p>

[RichieRich]

Sorry to get off topic and back to the original premise of this thread.&nbsp; I'm a democrat but I think school vouchers are a good idea.&nbsp; Kind of an obscure point to disagree on, and I don't think private enterprise is the answer for everything, but I'm for&nbsp;anything that works when it comes education.&nbsp; I do find this thread fascinating for two reasons.&nbsp; The first is all the &quot;left leaning&quot; or &quot;moderate republicans&quot; who disagree with the basic tenets of the liberal party.&nbsp; Secondly, I think it's interesting how little it takes for any politcal discussion to devolve into a debate on abortion.&nbsp;

[TheMojoPin]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote: <p>I'm sorry, but when one option in the abortion issue is &quot;people choose whether or not they want one&quot; and the other is &quot;NO ABORTIONS FOR ANYONE!!!!&quot;, I can't go with the latter. I just can't get behind the idea of passing laws when the PRIMARY (not all, but statistically most) motivation behind them is faith-based.</p><p>Thats the old &quot;If you dont like abortion, dont have one&quot;. Which is a solid argument, and I have no problem with. But it doesn't apply across the board. For instance, there are &quot;dry counties&quot; in the US. Where alcohol is prohibited. And Blue laws, rooted directly in religious observances. Just because alcohol is legal in one area doesn't mean it cant be restricted somewhere else, as again the 10th ammendment gives states the authority to do for anything not exrpressly included in the constitution. If you dont like whats in the constitution, then get an ammendment passed. But dont invent things that simply aren't there and ignore things that are. &nbsp;</p><p>I'm sorry, I simply don't like the idea of the state or federal government limiting or banning medical procedures or treatments like that because of what ultimately boils down to being a religious issue.&nbsp; It's not like banning alcohol...it's legitimate medical treatment.&nbsp; That sets up a very dangerous and too easily abused precedent, in my opinion.</p>

[TheMojoPin]

<strong>Fat_Sunny</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Golfman</strong> wrote:<br />A moderate to liberal republican.&nbsp; But i have a lot of issues with my party not addressing man made pollutants and conservation of wildlife and animals.&nbsp; <font style="background-color: #ffff00">I'm also PRO PRO PRO anything venturing into Space</font>, because eventually our people are going to have to move somewhere to survive anyway.&nbsp; WAY to much to mention here...zzzzzzzz.. <p><font size="2">Fat Is 100% With You On That One.&nbsp; That Is An Area, Like National Defense,&nbsp;That Is A Totally Legitimate Function Of Government.&nbsp; More Space Exploration, Please!</font></p><p>I couldn't agree more.&nbsp; We make more useful and practical&nbsp;technological advances through our space program than anything and anywhere else during peacetime.</p>

[foodcourtdruide]

<strong>RichieRich</strong> wrote:<br />Sorry to get off topic and back to the original premise of this thread.&nbsp; I'm a democrat but I think school vouchers are a good idea.&nbsp; Kind of an obscure point to disagree on, and I don't think private enterprise is the answer for everything, but I'm for&nbsp;anything that works when it comes education.&nbsp; I do find this thread fascinating for two reasons.&nbsp; The first is all the &quot;left leaning&quot; or &quot;moderate republicans&quot; who disagree with the basic tenets of the liberal party.&nbsp; <strong>Secondly, I think it's interesting how little it takes for any politcal discussion to devolve into a debate on abortion.</strong>&nbsp; <p>lol, very funny. </p>

[Fat_Sunny]

<strong>RichieRich</strong> wrote:<br />Sorry to get off topic and back to the original premise of this thread.&nbsp; I'm a democrat but I think school vouchers are a good idea.&nbsp; Kind of an obscure point to disagree on, and I don't think private enterprise is the answer for everything, but I'm for&nbsp;anything that works when it comes education.&nbsp; I do find this thread fascinating for two reasons.&nbsp; The first is all the &quot;left leaning&quot; or &quot;moderate republicans&quot; who disagree with the basic tenets of the liberal party.&nbsp; <font style="background-color: #ffff00">Secondly, I think it's interesting how little it takes for any politcal discussion to devolve into a debate on abortion.</font>&nbsp; <p><font size="2">That's Because It Is The HARDEST Philosophical Issue Of All!&nbsp; </font></p>

[foodcourtdruide]

Another way I differ from the democratic party is I'm pro-gun. I think blaming murder on guns is kind of like blaming the ill effects of illegal immigration on illegal immigrants.

[hedges]

I'm an independent who is pro-choice and believes in the right-to-bear-arms.