|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:12 pm
I don't know if anyone else watched the CNN/Youtube GOP Presidential Debates (or whatever the hell they're called), but I did, and there were a few very interesting questions relating to abortion that were asked. If abortion is illegal, what should the punishment be?Would you sign a federal abortion ban?Some spectacular gems (all emphasis mine): Ron Paul I'm an O.B. doctor, and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I of course never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done. It's not like anyone's ever died from a pregnancy. Right? Mitt Romney I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted."I would be delighted to approve a blanket abortion ban that would prevent women from getting abortions when they need them!" And Giuliani (who has deluded himself into thinking that he's pro-choice) finally laid his positions out on the table. Rudy Giuliani I think that that -- the problem with Roe against Wade is that it took the decision away from the states. If Roe against Wade were overturned because it was poorly decided, if the justices decide that, it would them go back to the states, and it would seem to me that that would be the answer. The answer is that each state would make a different decision. I don't believe, in the circumstance that you asked before, that it should be criminalized. I think that would be a mistake unless we're talking about partial birth abortion or late-term abortion. I think you should have parental consent. I think we should have access to adoptions instead of abortion. But, ultimately, I think these decisions should be made on a state-by-state basis. Isn't it fun to watch hypocritical self-righteous politicians dance around questions that render their "pro-life" positions batshit insanity?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:55 am
My whole issue with this is that they seem to think that it isn't the state's decisions. The state is not out there going "You get an abortion." "Abortion for you!" "You want an abortion... Well I dunno. My decision is ask again later!" The decision to get an abortion is the woman's decision. Whether she makes it alone or with the support of family and friends.
I will cry if any of these men come into power and continue the trend of taking the power (however small it may be) that woman have over their lives our of their hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:10 am
You know, my original position on the abortion debate, before I ran across the ADT was pro-choice... but I felt it should be determined at a state by state level. I was all for state's rights. I do think you can be pro-choice but for the decision made by the states, though I don't think I'm that way now, knowing the consequences that would have for women in some states.
As for Guiliani, I listened to HOW all the candidates said things... I get the feeling Guiliani won't actively work to end abortion, the way the others would. He's not exactly pro-choice, but he's also not exactly pro-life, and the only reason he's talking about abortion is because he's forced to in the debates... abortion just doesn't seem to be an issue important to him on either side.
At the very least, I'd much rather have him than Romney or Thompson.
Ron Paul is exactly who I thought he was... state's rights person. He wants to turn back the clock to a 19th century U.S. where the states had the vast majority of the power, and the federal government had very little. I'm not sure if he wants to just go pre-FDR, or all the way back to pre-Civil War, but the states' rights fits right in with all his other views, whatever you think of state decided abortion rights... that's how he feels about EVERYTHING, basically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:15 am
The thing is... it's not a state issue.
It's a federal issue of women's rights and women's equality. It would end up going to the supreme court to decide if a woman's body is hers to defend.
When abortion is illegal in one state but legal in another... and I go from the illegal state to the legal state to get one done, and my home state charges me with a crime... it's now a federal issue.
If a fetus has a right to life this right to life exists in ALL states, sorta how civil rights exist in all states... so if one state says 'no fetuses don't get rights' then it becomes a federal issue.
It's all nice and dandy to say "state's issue" but ultimately it's a national issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:17 am
RoseRose You know, my original position on the abortion debate, before I ran across the ADT was pro-choice... but I felt it should be determined at a state by state level. I was all for state's rights. I do think you can be pro-choice but for the decision made by the states, though I don't think I'm that way now, knowing the consequences that would have for women in some states. As for Guiliani, I listened to HOW all the candidates said things... I get the feeling Guiliani won't actively work to end abortion, the way the others would. He's not exactly pro-choice, but he's also not exactly pro-life, and the only reason he's talking about abortion is because he's forced to in the debates... abortion just doesn't seem to be an issue important to him on either side. At the very least, I'd much rather have him than Romney or Thompson. Ron Paul is exactly who I thought he was... state's rights person. He wants to turn back the clock to a 19th century U.S. where the states had the vast majority of the power, and the federal government had very little. I'm not sure if he wants to just go pre-FDR, or all the way back to pre-Civil War, but the states' rights fits right in with all his other views, whatever you think of state decided abortion rights... that's how he feels about EVERYTHING, basically. I got to see Ron Paul speak a few weeks ago, and he's definitely a libertarian. I guess if he defines his reasons for being anti-abortion as "state's rights", then it makes sense, but when I saw him giving that speech he kept mentioning "freedom of choice" for the people. You can't go on about "freedom of choice" and then outlaw abortion. He also wants to get rid of the IRS and the Department of Education. He doesn't like big government, period, and I think that includes large state governments. I would actually rather have Romney than Giuliani (unless Daddy Dobson carries out his threat to support an evangelical third party candidate if Giuliani gets the nomination, guaranteeing a Democratic win), and that's mostly because of foreign policy. I've read both of their essays over at Foreign Affairs.org, and Romney strikes me as much more sane than Giuliani. Plus, I trust Romney with federal money waaay more than I trust Giuliani.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:26 am
[Ernie] RoseRose You know, my original position on the abortion debate, before I ran across the ADT was pro-choice... but I felt it should be determined at a state by state level. I was all for state's rights. I do think you can be pro-choice but for the decision made by the states, though I don't think I'm that way now, knowing the consequences that would have for women in some states. As for Guiliani, I listened to HOW all the candidates said things... I get the feeling Guiliani won't actively work to end abortion, the way the others would. He's not exactly pro-choice, but he's also not exactly pro-life, and the only reason he's talking about abortion is because he's forced to in the debates... abortion just doesn't seem to be an issue important to him on either side. At the very least, I'd much rather have him than Romney or Thompson. Ron Paul is exactly who I thought he was... state's rights person. He wants to turn back the clock to a 19th century U.S. where the states had the vast majority of the power, and the federal government had very little. I'm not sure if he wants to just go pre-FDR, or all the way back to pre-Civil War, but the states' rights fits right in with all his other views, whatever you think of state decided abortion rights... that's how he feels about EVERYTHING, basically. I got to see Ron Paul speak a few weeks ago, and he's definitely a libertarian. I guess if he defines his reasons for being anti-abortion as "state's rights", then it makes sense, but when I saw him giving that speech he kept mentioning "freedom of choice" for the people. You can't go on about "freedom of choice" and then outlaw abortion. He also wants to get rid of the IRS and the Department of Education. He doesn't like big government, period, and I think that includes large state governments. I would actually rather have Romney than Giuliani (unless Daddy Dobson carries out his threat to support an evangelical third party candidate if Giuliani gets the nomination, guaranteeing a Democratic win), and that's mostly because of foreign policy. I've read both of their essays over at Foreign Affairs.org, and Romney strikes me as much more sane than Giuliani. Plus, I trust Romney with federal money waaay more than I trust Giuliani. I think Pat Robertson supports Giuliani because Giuliani will keep the US in Iraq, and on a "crusade" against the evil that is Islam. I dunno who's bigger there, Robertson or Dobson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:55 am
[Ernie] RoseRose You know, my original position on the abortion debate, before I ran across the ADT was pro-choice... but I felt it should be determined at a state by state level. I was all for state's rights. I do think you can be pro-choice but for the decision made by the states, though I don't think I'm that way now, knowing the consequences that would have for women in some states. As for Guiliani, I listened to HOW all the candidates said things... I get the feeling Guiliani won't actively work to end abortion, the way the others would. He's not exactly pro-choice, but he's also not exactly pro-life, and the only reason he's talking about abortion is because he's forced to in the debates... abortion just doesn't seem to be an issue important to him on either side. At the very least, I'd much rather have him than Romney or Thompson. Ron Paul is exactly who I thought he was... state's rights person. He wants to turn back the clock to a 19th century U.S. where the states had the vast majority of the power, and the federal government had very little. I'm not sure if he wants to just go pre-FDR, or all the way back to pre-Civil War, but the states' rights fits right in with all his other views, whatever you think of state decided abortion rights... that's how he feels about EVERYTHING, basically. I got to see Ron Paul speak a few weeks ago, and he's definitely a libertarian. I guess if he defines his reasons for being anti-abortion as "state's rights", then it makes sense, but when I saw him giving that speech he kept mentioning "freedom of choice" for the people. You can't go on about "freedom of choice" and then outlaw abortion. He also wants to get rid of the IRS and the Department of Education. He doesn't like big government, period, and I think that includes large state governments. I would actually rather have Romney than Giuliani (unless Daddy Dobson carries out his threat to support an evangelical third party candidate if Giuliani gets the nomination, guaranteeing a Democratic win), and that's mostly because of foreign policy. I've read both of their essays over at Foreign Affairs.org, and Romney strikes me as much more sane than Giuliani. Plus, I trust Romney with federal money waaay more than I trust Giuliani. Romney scares me domestically. He's WAY too conservative that way for my tastes. I do admit Guiliani ain't great forgien policy wise, though. I don't know... there's lots of reasons to not like a lot of people, and I really don't like anyone when it comes to foreign policy at this point. And to Talon-chan: Under my old belief system, basically, if you do it somewhere where it isn't a crime, it isn't a crime. For example, if I drink alcohol in another country where it isn't a crime, I can't get in trouble in the U.S. If I have sex with someone who is 16 in a state where that is the age of consent, and later come back to the state I'm in, which has 18 as the age of consent, I can't get in trouble. Basically, the law goes by where the act was committed. As of now, I understand that the situation isn't realistic... but I'm willing to bet that's where a lot of "states' rights" abortion people, especially on the pro-choice side, believe. It's internally consistent, at least. And it's actually more consistent than a federal abortion law (either pro or con) with my own personal beliefs on other things, at least at the time... now, it varies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:28 pm
rolleyes This is why I'm not a Republican.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:29 pm
These clips all cut short before everyone can answer... did they all answer each question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:24 pm
RoseRose Romney scares me domestically. He's WAY too conservative that way for my tastes. I do admit Guiliani ain't great forgien policy wise, though. I don't know... there's lots of reasons to not like a lot of people, and I really don't like anyone when it comes to foreign policy at this point. I mean, at the end of the day I'm not going near the Republican camp. But I understand what you mean. Mostly, I feel like Romney is a lot less likely to become corrupt and make really, really stupid decisions. Stupid decisions, quite possibly, but not Bush-level stupid. @ Setar: Dobson, definitely. Robertson isn't as visible or insane. Aliareana These clips all cut short before everyone can answer... did they all answer each question? Only a couple candidates answered each question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:41 pm
Hey, that first one's my question. 4laugh
I see three problems:
1. As Talon said, it's a women's rights issue. A woman, IMO, has a fundamental right to make her own medical choices, just as a man would. If it's a constitutional issue -- which I believe it is -- then it shouldn't be left up to the state. But it isn't surprising that Ron Paul would want it left up to them, since Paul wants to practically abolish everything and keep SCOTUS from ruling on a variety of constitutional issues.
2. Limiting access to medical care from state-to-state with negatively affect poor women. Wealthier women could easily travel to another state, middle-class women could possibly save up the money, but what about poor women? I know there's funds out there to help them, but if abortion is outlawed entirely in some states and these funds have to pay for travel as well as the procedure for an increased number of women, it's going to be harder and it is going to disproportionately affect poorer women.
3. On a slightly less related note, I'm sick of everything being "state's rights." If we get rid of everything and everything is "state's rights," are we still the United States or are we more of A Loose Collection of Territories That Happen to be Near Each Other? I mean, I get that some people don't like "Big Government" but Ron Paul goes a bit too far.
oh, no, make that 4 things:
4. If they believe that a fetus is a person and deserves the same rights as everyone else, why would they allow it to be a state's rights issue? Would pro-lifers allow, say, white men to be defined as a person with legal rights in only some states, and allowed to be legally "murdered" in others, in accordance with "state's rights"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:22 am
Pandora Box Hey, that first one's my question. 4laugh I see three problems: 1. As Talon said, it's a women's rights issue. A woman, IMO, has a fundamental right to make her own medical choices, just as a man would. If it's a constitutional issue -- which I believe it is -- then it shouldn't be left up to the state. But it isn't surprising that Ron Paul would want it left up to them, since Paul wants to practically abolish everything and keep SCOTUS from ruling on a variety of constitutional issues. 2. Limiting access to medical care from state-to-state with negatively affect poor women. Wealthier women could easily travel to another state, middle-class women could possibly save up the money, but what about poor women? I know there's funds out there to help them, but if abortion is outlawed entirely in some states and these funds have to pay for travel as well as the procedure for an increased number of women, it's going to be harder and it is going to disproportionately affect poorer women. 3. On a slightly less related note, I'm sick of everything being "state's rights." If we get rid of everything and everything is "state's rights," are we still the United States or are we more of A Loose Collection of Territories That Happen to be Near Each Other? I mean, I get that some people don't like "Big Government" but Ron Paul goes a bit too far. oh, no, make that 4 things: 4. If they believe that a fetus is a person and deserves the same rights as everyone else, why would they allow it to be a state's rights issue? Would pro-lifers allow, say, white men to be defined as a person with legal rights in only some states, and allowed to be legally "murdered" in others, in accordance with "state's rights"? 1. You're right, which is why I changed my mind. I no longer believe that... but since I once did, I do understand that POV. I think it's probably mostly found in people who really don't see how important abortion is. They probably see it about equivalent to age of consent or drinking age. They just don't get it. 2. That's the other reason I changed my mind... and have slowly been moving towards supporting national health care. I used to be EXTREMELY fiscally conservative, and I've slowly been moving more liberal (probably because I've stopped parroting my father. He's not that bad socially, though a large step to the right of me, but he's extremely fiscally conservative. He probably agrees with Ron Paul on a lot of things, too). 3. You know, I wonder what would happen if we gave the "state's rights" people a lecture on the history of the Articles of Confederation... and while we're at it, a look at the causes of the Civil War. Up until the Civil War, we WERE "A Loose Collection of Territories Who Happened to Be Located Near Each Other". That was part of what the Civil War was fought for. Slaves were the state's rights/federal rights cause, but the war was less about slavery (except in the sense of whether banning it was a federal or state issue) than it was about states vs. federal rights. I think being a History major and learning more history has helped me to see that while I think we HAVE gone too far towards big government, Ron Paul wants to turn it TOO far back. We do need to make the federal government smaller, IMO, but it does serve a necessary function, and protecting the rights of all it's citizens is part of that function. (Anyone want me to post my logical reasoning for why the Defense of Marriage Act is not only wrong, but unconstitutional, which it arguably is?) 4. In my opinion, it depends on the candidate. Judging by the responses, Guiliani is trying to not loose the Republican party while at the same time trying to remain pro-choice... he's trying to find a balance (and is going to end up pissing EVERYONE off. Take a frigging stand that you believe in, Guiliani). Ron Paul- because he probably does believe everything should be determined by the states except as SPECIFICALLY stated in the Constitution (which some of that IS as unconstitutional in the... 14th amendment, I believe. Whichever one defines citizenship, and I don't have my copy of the Constitution handy). Mitt Romney- Because he is anti-abortion, but is trying not to loose the middle ground. And Fred Thompson didn't talk about states rights, if I recall correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:12 pm
Quote: 3. On a slightly less related note, I'm sick of everything being "state's rights." If we get rid of everything and everything is "state's rights," are we still the United States or are we more of A Loose Collection of Territories That Happen to be Near Each Other? I mean, I get that some people don't like "Big Government" but Ron Paul goes a bit too far. That's my problem with that whole "states rights" things. I'm not that american to understand why each state would want to decide things for itself but I agree with everyone that said that women's rights (which include abortion and access to contraceptives) are a NATIONAL issue. Makes me glad i live in a smaller country where its not such a issue. If LowerAustria decided it wanted Viennas territory back then there would be a big uproar. -.- (I don't expect anyone to get it. It's just an example.) =3 Read and be pissy. All this anti cares about is that the questions that were picked were "mean".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:03 pm
LadyInWhite That's my problem with that whole "states rights" things. I'm not that american to understand why each state would want to decide things for itself but I agree with everyone that said that women's rights (which include abortion and access to contraceptives) are a NATIONAL issue. Makes me glad i live in a smaller country where its not such a issue. If LowerAustria decided it wanted Viennas territory back then there would be a big uproar. -.- (I don't expect anyone to get it. It's just an example.) =3 Read and be pissy. All this anti cares about is that the questions that were picked were "mean". I understand state's rights from a historical point of view but I don't really get the current advocates of it, or least not the extreme ones. But yeah -- equality and related issues should definitely be national. I love that they think there's some huge conspiracy with the questions. God forbid someone from a different political party ask a question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:22 pm
Pandora Box LadyInWhite That's my problem with that whole "states rights" things. I'm not that american to understand why each state would want to decide things for itself but I agree with everyone that said that women's rights (which include abortion and access to contraceptives) are a NATIONAL issue. Makes me glad i live in a smaller country where its not such a issue. If LowerAustria decided it wanted Viennas territory back then there would be a big uproar. -.- (I don't expect anyone to get it. It's just an example.) =3 Read and be pissy. All this anti cares about is that the questions that were picked were "mean". I understand state's rights from a historical point of view but I don't really get the current advocates of it, or least not the extreme ones. But yeah -- equality and related issues should definitely be national. I love that they think there's some huge conspiracy with the questions. God forbid someone from a different political party ask a question. The whole point of the YouTube debates, was ANYONE could ask any candidate any question. Republicans: We dun like aborshuns! Question: So what should be the punishment? Republicans: Omg a DEMOCRAT! Not fair! If a Republican asked the exact same question, wearing a Pro Ron Paul shirt, would they have thrown a fit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Ernie]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/92/33/c08bbf4183392_flip.png?t=1464681375_6.00_00)
