olpfan1 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I don't see too many women voting for Santorum .. and women hold more votes than do men lets hope Santorum wins MI .. then let the panic sink in in the GOP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 If Romney hammers home his business & fiscal governing cred he will give Obama a run for his (tons of) money. Yeah I don't think Santorum held up in the hot seat. But while I agree that Romney has always been the guy to beat, judging from the way the race has played out so far it is still too unpredictable. I wouldn't be totally surprised if Newt gets another wind. The anti-Romney wing are strong. And other than his other obvious faults it could be relatively easy for Obama to turn Romney's apparent good qualities (business experience, governing Mass.) into negatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 There's not a single doctor in Canada that would abort a fetus in the third trimester unless the mother was going to die otherwise. Really? So you know every single doctor in Canada? And on what basis would they deny her? What law or restriction would they cite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 There's not a single doctor in Canada that would abort a fetus in the third trimester unless the mother was going to die otherwise. You honestly think that all doctors are so "moral," so immune to the call of the 'almighty dollar,' that they couldn't be convinced to abort a fetus in the third trimester? Of course the flip side is that there are those who would still do it even if it were illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Can someone start an Abortion, contraception, pro-life/pro-choice thread in another section? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Can someone start an Abortion, contraception, pro-life/pro-choice thread in another section? Yes, excellent point. In another thread, somebody speculated that the Obama vs Catholics birth control mandate controversy might be a clever ploy the Democrats cooked up so that Obama could reconcile with them and win support. I think a better conspiracy theory might be that if the birth control mandate controversy was planned, it was planned with the intention of turning the Republican primaries into a religious rage-out. I think it's pretty clear that what's going on right now isn't going to make the party more attractive to independents and centrists and the "Reagan Democrats" I keep hearing about. I think that if Rick can right the Irate Religious People vote to win the nomination, it'll pretty much sow up a second term. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 .... I think it's pretty clear that what's going on right now isn't going to make the party more attractive to independents and centrists and the "Reagan Democrats" I keep hearing about. I think that if Rick can right the Irate Religious People vote to win the nomination, it'll pretty much sow up a second term. Obama's second term is already a given, but you are mistaken if you think that his contraception move was a good one for political contrast and advantage with "centrists". Religious freedom trumps free birth control pills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Even if it is a person and you consider it alive, that still does not oblige a woman to incubate this person for 9 months against her will. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, it's her right to choose not to be. I agree. One person's freedom cannot be forced by the state to be subjugated to that of another. Even if one acknowledges the fetus as a person, you cannot force the mother to go through with a pregnancy against her will. That being said, if a fetus is old enough to survive independently, then the available option should be to extract the fetus and to give it away to other people who want to adopt / foster care / etc, rather than an abortion. Although, I didn't get much agreement with that viewpoint when it came to the will and freedom of the male in the gender equality thread... there, the consensus from left-leaning posters seemed to be that the rights and freedoms of fathers and people who have been lied to to think they are fathers should be sacrificed without a second thought if it benefits the child... Edited February 24, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 ...Although, I didn't get much agreement with that viewpoint when it came to the will and freedom of the male in the gender equality thread... Males are free to pay child support after the female decides if her baby shall live or die! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Males are free to pay child support after the female decides if her baby shall live or die! Indeed, there is considerable hypocrisy. Personally, I think that if a female has the right to not support a fetus physically for 9 months if she doesn't want to (at the cost of the fetus's life), neither should a male be obligated to support that fetus, after its birth, for the next 18 years financially (at the cost of that child getting a slightly smaller big screen TV). Individual freedom must be held as the paramount consideration. Edited February 24, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 I agree. One person's freedom cannot be forced by the state to be subjugated to that of another. Of course it can. What do you think laws do? I can't smoke in elevators? What of my freedom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Of course it can. What do you think laws do? I can't smoke in elevators? What of my freedom! Bad example...your right to smoke ends where my right to breathe clean air begins. Take it outside.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Indeed, there is considerable hypocrisy. Personally, I think that if a female has the right to not support a fetus physically for 9 months if she doesn't want to (at the cost of the fetus's life), neither should a male be obligated to support that fetus, after its birth, for the next 18 years financially (at the cost of that child getting a slightly smaller big screen TV). Individual freedom must be held as the paramount consideration. The difference is that the government does have the right to make legislation regarding your property, they do not have the right to make legislation regarding your body. Another example of that is drug laws. Sale, possession, manufacture, importation and exportation are all illegal because they deal with drugs as property. Consuming drugs is not illegal because it deals with what you do with your body. Prostitution itself is not illegal, but the act of selling sex is because the law is directed at sex as commercial property. Edited February 24, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 .... Consuming drugs is not illegal because it deals with what you do with your body. Oh boy..here we go: "Consuming" illicit drugs is not lawful for Canadian Forces or members of the US Armed Forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Can someone start an Abortion, contraception, pro-life/pro-choice thread in another section? :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Males are free to pay child support after the female decides if her baby shall live or die! Fortunately for you, you're free not to have sex if you don't want to take on the responsibility of providing for the child you helped create if the female decides to carry the pregnancy to full term - or you're free to have a vasectomy if you want to have sex without any responsibility. It's a wonderful, free world, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Fortunately for you, you're free not to have sex if you don't want to take on the responsibility of providing for the child you helped create if the female decides to carry the pregnancy to full term True, but so is a female partner. - or you're free to have a vasectomy if you want to have sex without any responsibility. It's a wonderful, free world, eh? Biology is what it is....I personally lean towards taking responsibility for my actions and that means not encouraging an abortion. But that's just me. Abortion would be a constitutional right if men got pregnant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 True, but so is a female partner. I'm not arguing that - but since men can only make decisions regarding their body, not the woman's, I'm just pointing out that men really aren't "forced" to do anything - as it's in their control. Biology is what it is....I personally lean towards taking responsibility for my actions and that means not encouraging an abortion. But that's just me. Abortion would be a constitutional right if men got pregnant! Oh, it absolutely would be a constitutional right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'm not arguing that - but since men can only make decisions regarding their body, not the woman's, I'm just pointing out that men really aren't "forced" to do anything - as it's in their control. Women make choices too, and those choices have much larger ramifications than just control of their own bodies. The state (and society) has an interest in the welfare of the child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Women make choices too, and those choices have much larger ramifications than just control of their own bodies. The state (and society) has an interest in the welfare of the child. An interest in the welfare of the child, yes, once the pregnancy has gone to term - as I already acknowledged. Then the rights of the minor, dependent child supersede the rights of both the male and female. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Oh boy..here we go: "Consuming" illicit drugs is not lawful for Canadian Forces or members of the US Armed Forces. Sure thing there BC.. .. 'performance enhancing drugs' http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0809/p01s04-usmi.html When Navy fighter pilot "Maverick" and his sidekick "Goose" declare "I feel the need – the need for speed!" in the box-office hit "Top Gun," they're speaking about the capabilities of their fast and furious F-14 Tomcat.In the air war over Afghanistan, "the need for speed" may have taken on quite a different meaning. "Speed" is the well-known nickname for amphetamines, the controversial and potentially harmful drug some American pilots are taking in order to enhance their performance. Despite the possibility of addiction and potential side effects that include hypertension and depression, such drugs are needed, military officials believe, in order to stay alert and focused – especially on long-range bombing missions. Such flights can mean nine hours or more alone in expensive, high-performance aircraft. Their lethal weapons are aimed at an elusive enemy that can be (and has been) confused with civilians or friendly troops. According to military sources, the use of such drugs (commonly Dexedrine) is part of a cycle that includes the amphetamines to fight fatigue, and then sedatives to induce sleep between missions. Pilots call them "go pills" and "no-go pills." For most Air Force pilots in the Gulf War (and nearly all pilots in some squadrons), this was the pattern as well. The drugs are legal, and pilots are not required to take them – although their careers may suffer if they refuse. More ..... http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Health/story?id=3408266&page=2#.T0fbRXnpfbc Doctors have long "tinkered" with artificially enhancing the brain, and the military spends about $100 million each year on research to find ways to reduce soldiers' need for sleep and still retain cognitive function, according to Moreno."The human being is the weakest instrument of warfare," he said. "[soldiers] must eat, sleep, discern friend from foe and heal when wounded … The first state to build superior fighters will make an enormous leap in the arms race." Until now, the military has used amphetamines or "go pills" for its pilots, but the side effects of amphetamines can cause problems. Investigators blamed those drugs for a 2002 incident in which American pilots inadvertently killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. That's not including the many field tests the US military (and others) have done in the past. LSD experiments in the 60s 70s. For an entity that is to have a strict drug policy, they seem to have violated it at every turn. Edited February 24, 2012 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 An interest in the welfare of the child, yes, once the pregnancy has gone to term - as I already acknowledged. Then the rights of the minor, dependent child supersede the rights of both the male and female. I disagree...the state has a prenatal interest as well, because of the costs born by society should the fetus go full term or be aborted. The apparatus to support a female's fickle choice has to be maintained either way. From a practical viewpoint, women really do have (safe) total control because of medical technology and abortifactants. The political problems loom larger the more that the state or other actors must be engaged to preserve her right to control "her own body". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 An interest in the welfare of the child, yes, once the pregnancy has gone to term - as I already acknowledged. Then the rights of the minor, dependent child supersede the rights of both the male and female. No. The rights of no individual supersede those of another. Most parents willingly sacrifice many aspects of their freedom for the benefit of their offspring, and, morally, few would disagree that this is the right thing to do. But the state has no business forcing the subjugation of one individual's freedom to another's wants and needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 No. The rights of no individual supersede those of another. Most parents willingly sacrifice many aspects of their freedom for the benefit of their offspring, and, morally, few would disagree that this is the right thing to do. But the state has no business forcing the subjugation of one individual's freedom to another's wants and needs. The problem is in our society we try to not just let kids die of neglect. So that means that if parents have a child and then dont pay for it and care for it, they are forcing the taxpayer to suffer the consequences of THEIR actions. The taxpayer is robbed of his/her property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 No. The rights of no individual supersede those of another. Most parents willingly sacrifice many aspects of their freedom for the benefit of their offspring, and, morally, few would disagree that this is the right thing to do. But the state has no business forcing the subjugation of one individual's freedom to another's wants and needs. The rights of an adult do not supersede the rights of a minor; providing for children is more than a "moral" issue, it's a legal issue, as a child is unable to provide for their own needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.