olpfan1 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 If Santorum wins this republican nomination to challenge Obama could the people who vote for him be sent to an island in the South Pacific? Quote
Smallc Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 Well, you're definitely out of the mainstream, pretty extreme actually. Other than if the mother's life is in danger, an abortion should never take place any where close to a deliver date. Not for this country. There is always the possibility of an unknown pregnancy (it does happen) which doesn't make itself known until very late in the term. Like I said, it isn't that simple, and since late term abortions on demand almost never happen (do they happen at all, outside of extreme circumstances like I mentioned?), I don't see the issue with the current law in Canada. This is a medical decision. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 If Santorum wins this republican nomination to challenge Obama could the people who vote for him be sent to an island in the South Pacific? Yes, but it would have to be large...like the size of Australia. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jbg Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/11/16/368369/romney-flashback-homosexuality-is-perverse-and-reprehensible/?mobile=nc Speaking last fall to a Mormon Church gathering, Mitt Romney, then on the verge of launching a bid for a US Senate seat, expressed dismay at reports of homosexual behavior in the group and denounced homosexuality as “perverse,” according to several people present at the meeting. Romney’s alleged comments on homosexual practices were part of a 20-minute address he delivered on November 14 to the Cambridge University Ward, which numbers about 250 to 300 single Mormons. “He said he was appalled at the incidence of homosexuals in the congregation,” said Rick Rawlins, a 32-year-old Mormon who had previously served as a counselor to the ward’s bishop. “He went on to say that he found homosexuality both perverse and reprehensible.” Romney denied the veracity of the comments but, as the Globe noted, the account was confirmed by three other attendees I believe that social mores have changed alot since 1994 when Romney allegedly made those comments. I may not agree with those changes but they are a fact. I cannot believe you have sunk to the level of unearthing comments from 18 years ago. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 Yes, but it would have to be large...like the size of Australia. If $5.00 gasoline arrives even Santorum may be electable. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 If $5.00 gasoline arrives even Santorum may be electable. President Obama will just release some strategic oil from our reserve, as he did before. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
olpfan1 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 I believe that social mores have changed alot since 1994 when Romney allegedly made those comments. I may not agree with those changes but they are a fact. I cannot believe you have sunk to the level of unearthing comments from 18 years ago. They don't have a problem doing it to Ron Paul Quote
jbg Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 President Obama will just release some strategic oil from our reserve, as he did before. That won't check a raging Brent Crude market. The SPR has a different grade of oil. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
guyser Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 I cannot believe you have sunk to the level of unearthing comments from 18 years ago. You have got to be kidding me. Republicans trot out Reagan any chance they can, and hes been gone from office , not to mention dead for how long? The Conservatives in this country trot out Trudeau, including you, and he has been gone how long? If its tit, then tat is fair game. Quote
Wolf Larsen Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 Santorum is a crazy religious fanatic. He wants to take us back to the Middle Ages. We already have enough religious fanatics in the United States of America already, we don't need one in the White House. Not that I like Obama. Obama and Mitt Romney are sane horrible capitalist politicians. But the rest of the Republican field is just plain insane. We certainly don't need Ron Paul either. He wants to get rid of regulations. Can you imagine what will happen to the food industry? If Ron Paul wins in 2012 we will be calling him "President E. Coli". Back to Santorum, the religious fanatic. Insane Santorum, is that like Latin for insane asylum? Let's send these Puritans back to England on the Mayflower! We've put up with them for long enough, let's send them all back to England! Quote Capitalism Sucks!
Bonam Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 Can't argue with that. It's a sad reflection of how extremist our abortion policy is. How is it extremist? We basically don't have an abortion policy. Since when is it extreme for a government not to regulate something to death? Is it so wrong that the issue of abortion is between a woman, her family, and her doctor in Canada? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 Can you kill something that is not alive? 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. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 Gingrich later clarified his position: he would not protect a fertilized egg until it is successfully implanted. -k The egg is not fully implanted until 10-12 weeks. The vast majority of abortions (I believe over 90%) occur before this time anyway. After that time it needs to be a surgical abortion and the risks to the mother are greatly increased. If someone for whatever reason does not have any abortion before that, but still wants to end the pregnancy they will find a way. That's exactly what happened in the 60s before Roe v Wade. Making it more difficult for women to seek out a safe medical abortion puts their lives at risk. A botched abortion after the egg is implanted can cause the woman to bleed out and die. These are the abortions that especially need to be protected because they absolutely must be done by a skilled and qualified practitioner in a sterile setting, rather than clandestine back-alley clinics that may not be there the next day and leverage criminality against the woman to blackmail her out of more money than she may be able to afford. All of this risk to women's lives because the Right, at least in Gingrich's case, want to target a fraction of the overall abortions. Don't regulate corporations, but tell women what they can and cannot do with their wombs. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 Sadly we're one of only a small number of nations that allow an abortion all the way up to the day of delivery. It's pretty barbaric. It doesn't happen the way you think it does. 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. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 I disagree. Even in Canada there's strong support amoung all Canadians that late term abortions should be restricted in some way. It would be completely unnecessary legislation and would open the door to further restrictions on all other abortions, so it would cause more harm than the benefit that would come of it. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 Of course there's a reason for the government to get involved. It's called infanticide. You don't get a pass just because you're a woman or a doctor. Once agin, very specious argument. There's very little logic and reason to your defense of a barbaric practice. A fetus is not an infant. Quote
BubberMiley Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 A fetus is not an infant. Wow. A little bit of troll bait can last for days. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 Even if it is a person and you consider it alive, Are you seriously proposing that a full term fetus is not "alive"? If a woman does not want to be pregnant, it's her right to choose not to be. But it's not her right to force doctors to perform late term abortions, or for government to pay for the "procedure". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 How can the government charge you for a murder of a feotus when the government has not even recognized it as a citizen yet? I mean that is why they hand out birth cirtificates right? Quote
dre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) How can the government charge you for a murder of a feotus when the government has not even recognized it as a citizen yet? I mean that is why they hand out birth cirtificates right? This whole thread is pretty misguided. This isnt a scientific question at all its a political one. The question of when life begins is completely unimportant, the real question is when should the government assign that fetus its full compliment of human rights, and different societies will make different decisions. Youre always going to have a few nuts like Shady that will go as far as believing that masterbation is murder... but theres no need to take these people seriously. They can have their opinion and their little protests, as long as they behave. Edited February 23, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 If Santorum wins this republican nomination to challenge Obama could the people who vote for him be sent to an island in the South Pacific? Are you looking to boost your post count? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Moonlight Graham Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 If $5.00 gasoline arrives even Santorum may be electable. LOL, why, because he would want war with Iran? Yes I'm sure he would drive oil prices right down. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
punked Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 Just want to point out to those who know nothing about the speculation laws passed on Oil this year. They go into effect in October, meaning if it is speculators trying to get their last billions out of the easy money on driving up the price of oil there will be a HUGE drop in October. Gee the Dems might have been thinking when they passed that one. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) I watched just about all of the GOP Arizona debate last night. Santorum is done, the race is over, just give to Romney right now. Romney & Rick went at it, and the other guys were making some solid accusations towards Rick, and his answers to them just weren't good at all, not to mention his facial expressions (aww shucks ya got me). Romney did very well last night, made himself look sharply conservative, and fended off most attacks well. Paul did well as usual but nobody seems to care. Gingrich didn't come out fighting very hard for some reason, just seemed happy to be there. Again, all 3 but Paul wanted to look tough-guy vs Iran, and Santorum sounded like a freak who would scare me in the White House with his horrible (or lack of) analysis. If Romney hammers home his business & fiscal governing cred he will give Obama a run for his (tons of) money. Edited February 23, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
dre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Posted February 23, 2012 I watched just about all of the GOP Arizona debate last night. Santorum is done, the race is over, just give to Romney right now. Romney & Rick went at it, and the other guys were making some solid accusations towards Rick, and his answers to them just weren't good at all, not to mention his facial expressions (aww shucks ya got me). Romney did very well last night, made himself look sharply conservative, and fended off most attacks well. Paul did well as usual but nobody seems to care. Gingrich didn't come out fighting very hard for some reason, just seemed happy to be there. Again, all 3 but Paul wanted to look tough-guy vs Iran, and Santorum sounded like a freak who would scare me in the White House with his horrible (or lack of) analysis. If Romney hammers home his business & fiscal governing cred he will give Obama a run for his (tons of) money. business & fiscal governing cred The GOP will get laughed at if they try to run on fiscal responsibility. Thats why theyre focusing on the Iran thing. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
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.