Dem. vs. Rep. Views on abortion and logic
Replies
-
I don't think it's ever going to be like it was. Let's face it, our forefathers were "WORKING" leaders back in the day. Every politician now is practically raised as a lawyer.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I don't think it's ever going to be like it was. Let's face it, our forefathers were "WORKING" leaders back in the day. Every politician now is practically raised as a lawyer.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
From Wikipedia: Almost all of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had experience in colonial and state government. 80% had been members do the Continental Congress.
More than 75% had legal training, although not all practiced law. Quite a few owned slaves.
43% of the current Congress report their occupations as "lawyers".
Yep, them forefathers were working all right -- mostly working as LAWYERS. :laugh:0 -
I don't think it's ever going to be like it was. Let's face it, our forefathers were "WORKING" leaders back in the day. Every politician now is practically raised as a lawyer.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
From Wikipedia: Almost all of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had experience in colonial and state government. 80% had been members do the Continental Congress.
More than 75% had legal training, although not all practiced law. Quite a few owned slaves.
43% of the current Congress report their occupations as "lawyers".
Yep, them forefathers were working all right -- mostly working as LAWYERS. :laugh:
Per the link below, 57 members or 57% of the Senate currently hold a law degree. 169 members or 38% of the House have a law degree. These ratios also existed in 2009 when the Dems had a Democratic majority so their is no correlation between current policy decisions and educational background of Congress. They're all equally corrupt.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf0 -
Not "babies" the youngest ever to survive was 21 weeks and 6 days.I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.
so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?
Personally, as I can only speak for myself, I believe that life starts when the first breath is taken or is able to be taken outside the mother.
Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.
After someone is alive, nobody, including the government, should have the right to end that life.
Also,. there are many other problems with the death penalty, but as per this discussion, that is the opinion I share for now.
Just one last question. Since there have been cases of babies surviving premature births as early as 21 weeks and you are basing it on the viability of the baby outside of the womb., at what stage of pregnancy would you no longer consider an abortion?
For me, an abortion needs to be done ASAP. Unfortunately GOP rules are only pushing women to have later and later abortions. The "waiting period", shutting down clinics because a hallway isn't wide enough, etc. A poor woman may end up spending a lot of money just getting to a clinic twice in order to get the abortion. She may have to save up a few weeks to pay for that.0 -
Not "babies" the youngest ever to survive was 21 weeks and 6 days.I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.
so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?
Personally, as I can only speak for myself, I believe that life starts when the first breath is taken or is able to be taken outside the mother.
Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.
After someone is alive, nobody, including the government, should have the right to end that life.
Also,. there are many other problems with the death penalty, but as per this discussion, that is the opinion I share for now.
Just one last question. Since there have been cases of babies surviving premature births as early as 21 weeks and you are basing it on the viability of the baby outside of the womb., at what stage of pregnancy would you no longer consider an abortion?
For me, an abortion needs to be done ASAP. Unfortunately GOP rules are only pushing women to have later and later abortions. The "waiting period", shutting down clinics because a hallway isn't wide enough, etc. A poor woman may end up spending a lot of money just getting to a clinic twice in order to get the abortion. She may have to save up a few weeks to pay for that.
Yea poor woman. It's unfortunate a malady, such as pregnancy, is not preventable. :huh:0 -
Not "babies" the youngest ever to survive was 21 weeks and 6 days.I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.
so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?
Personally, as I can only speak for myself, I believe that life starts when the first breath is taken or is able to be taken outside the mother.
Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.
After someone is alive, nobody, including the government, should have the right to end that life.
Also,. there are many other problems with the death penalty, but as per this discussion, that is the opinion I share for now.
Just one last question. Since there have been cases of babies surviving premature births as early as 21 weeks and you are basing it on the viability of the baby outside of the womb., at what stage of pregnancy would you no longer consider an abortion?
For me, an abortion needs to be done ASAP. Unfortunately GOP rules are only pushing women to have later and later abortions. The "waiting period", shutting down clinics because a hallway isn't wide enough, etc. A poor woman may end up spending a lot of money just getting to a clinic twice in order to get the abortion. She may have to save up a few weeks to pay for that.
Yea poor woman. It's unfortunate a malady, such as pregnancy, is not preventable. :huh:
I know someone who was both on the pill and used condoms and ended up pregnant.....sometimes, to paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcom, nature finds a way.0 -
Yea poor woman. It's unfortunate a malady, such as pregnancy, is not preventable. :huh:
I know someone who was both on the pill and used condoms and ended up pregnant.....sometimes, to paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcom, nature finds a way.
Cue the insipid "Well then don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant" comments. As if married women don't have sex. Abstinence is the only method that is 100% effective. It's also unrealistic.0 -
What I don't understand is why, when they are so vehemently against abortion, are they also so determined to prevent access to birth control - or even education about birth control. It does seem to me to be an attempt to keep the women folk under control.
And fwiw, the whole 'most Catholics know' about Adam/Eve - add me to the list of those who never heard that before either - and I come from very Catholic family (parents did 12 yrs of Catholic school, I did 8, have a relative who is a nun, have another relative who did seminary school until it just made so little sense logically that he actually became an atheist.)0 -
I think, in most cases, it is a personal decision.
Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.0 -
-
That would be like saying lynching and hanging of blacks is a personal decision. Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.TheRoadDog wrote: »I think, in most cases, it is a personal decision.
Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.0 -
alpha2omega wrote: »
That would be like saying lynching and hanging of blacks is a personal decision. Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.TheRoadDog wrote: »I think, in most cases, it is a personal decision.
Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.
What an idiotic correlation.
0 -
TheRoadDog wrote: »alpha2omega wrote: »
That would be like saying lynching and hanging of blacks is a personal decision. Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.TheRoadDog wrote: »I think, in most cases, it is a personal decision.
Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.
What an idiotic correlation.
Care to elaborate?
0 -
TheRoadDog wrote: »I think, in most cases, it is a personal decision.
Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.
It is what I was going to say.
And religion has no place in politics, yet here we are....0 -
alpha2omega wrote: »TheRoadDog wrote: »alpha2omega wrote: »
That would be like saying lynching and hanging of blacks is a personal decision. Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.TheRoadDog wrote: »I think, in most cases, it is a personal decision.
Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.
What an idiotic correlation.
Care to elaborate?
How does lynching and hanging anyone relate to separating Politics and Religion?
0 -
How do you separate the killing of an innocent child from Politics and Religion? Isn't life, such as that of an African America life, something that should be stood up for politically and religiously? If you are of the mindset that a child is not being killed in the process of an abortion, I can only deduce you condone the dissection and selling of fetus parts since the tissue being harvested carries no human value to you. Please correct me if I am wrong.0
This discussion has been closed.