[Hughv]

The trouble here, I think, is that you've decided that your position on abortion is "right", yet you're decidedly on the minority side. That's admirable, but it's a moral stand that's at odds with most of us, and, IMHO, will never be the prevailing position as long as men and women are fallible.
Are there any nuances to your position? Any exceptions for rape and incest, for example?
I think Roe v. Wade was decided correctly, at least in its effect. There have always been abortions, there will always be abortions, and criminalizing the participants is counter productive.
I admit to having gotten a bit carried away in this thread. I'll try to do better.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by Hughv

Maybe there's more to it than that. Ask Lt. Calley about war and murder. There have already been courts martial based on unjust killings in this (undeclared) war, so it's not quite so black and white.
We know for certain that this war was based on lies, and that makes Bush and company murderers in my book. The crimes involved here are so incredible that we have trouble comprehending them. The White House sanctioned torture alone should have led to wholesale imprisonment for these thugs long ago.

The instant you introduced the phrase, "in my book", you forfeited the argument, saying, in effect, that you will now proceed to make your own definitions

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by Hughv

Maybe there's more to it than that. Ask Lt. Calley about war and murder. There have already been courts martial based on unjust killings in this (undeclared) war, so it's not quite so black and white.

Show me one war in which there have not been unjust killings or courtmartials.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by Hughv

We know for certain that this war was based on lies, and that makes Bush and company murderers in my book.

Do you know what America's entrance into the European theatre in WW2 was based on?

Seriously, this war is par for the course.

Originally Posted by Hughv

The crimes involved here are so incredible that we have trouble comprehending them.

Unless you've read your history books, then you'd realize that it's pretty much the way business has been done since the nation was founded

Originally Posted by Hughv

The White House sanctioned torture alone should have led to wholesale imprisonment for these thugs long ago.

We're talking about legal definitions. If killing is legal, you're not against it. That's why you're not against abortion, right? So what's the difference if torture is legal? Why would you be against that? It is, afterall, legal. Even the white house says so.

[lorelai]

I didn't say those things. I think the real al quaeda types SHOULD be tortured.

[BanditFlyer]

Sorry, I'm posting in multiple threads and quoting multiple people at the same time. I'll fix that error, It was Hughv who said those things

[lorelai]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Sorry, I'm posting in multiple threads and quoting multiple people at the same time. I'll fix that error, It was Hughv who said those things

Yeah, only I wish our G would distinguish between Al Qaueda cell members and Iraqis resisting foreign occupiers.

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by Hughv

The trouble here, I think, is that you've decided that your position on abortion is "right", yet you're decidedly on the minority side. That's admirable, but it's a moral stand that's at odds with most of us, and, IMHO, will never be the prevailing position as long as men and women are fallible.
Are there any nuances to your position? Any exceptions for rape and incest, for example?
I think Roe v. Wade was decided correctly, at least in its effect. There have always been abortions, there will always be abortions, and criminalizing the participants is counter productive.
I admit to having gotten a bit carried away in this thread. I'll try to do better.

Actually my position on abortion is dead center of the road and the position held by most Americans. That's why Roe v. Wade bothers me because it provides the opportunity to totally ban abortion, in all respects, in all states.
Its the moral implications that create my view and that of most Americans. The tug between the woman's right to choose...an outgrowth to control her own body and the opposite right to life of even a fetus. If you believe fetuses have no rights your decision is rather easy but your moral compass is askew. By the same token, if you believe that upon conception the woman's right to choose ends then your position on abortion is fairly evident, but, again, your moral compass is askew. Most of us recognize this inherent conflict and prefer a compromise to both....the abortion be legal for a period of time and those fetuses that pass that stage are safe from termination. What is that point of safety? That is the rub and when the moral dilemma comes to the forefront.

[pyritechips]

Ah, abortion! I grew up sharing a city with one of the most famous (or infamous, depending on your position on the topic) people involved. I was exposed to the controversy some forty years ago, before I understood what it all meant.

Here he is:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...ler-order.html

[Stoner]

One issue that bothers me, Jim, is the usage of abortion as a means of birth control. I've seen some pretty steep numbers ranging , as I remember, from some 80% to 95% depending on the source.
I feel it has an influence in lowering our moral values ( and even this terminology seems to upset some people) and is an element in the general lack of respect seen for life in society.
Issues of rape, incest, health are used to argue an absolute, rather than arguing their points and addressing them as exceptions .

I introduced the issue.
I didn't bring the topic here to debate.
I've debated it in another thread.
As Obama is now courting the fundamentalists, it becomes an issue waiting for him to address and express his position on.
That is the purpose of this thread as I understand it.
McCain has supported abortion in the past.
Bush didn't.
There becomes a void.
Will the Democrats fill it as Rep suggests?
I doubt Democrats have any intention of reducing the killing as that policy is aligned with it's major constituents.
But Obama is courting the fundies at this time and it will be interesting to see how he weasels on the issue.

BTW.......if anyone remembers, I predicted Bush would be leaving office with out much effect to the premeditated killings ( must be PC.....it seems to deeply offend some people to use the term murder ).

Originally Posted by bassetman

Technically all miscarriages are counted as abortions in those stats. While, yes they are, they are not intentionally induced!

I have no idea where you get your data, but I've been using Guttmacher in the past and he stipulates 'induced abortions' and those are intentional.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Stoner

One issue that bothers me, Jim, is the usage of abortion as a means of birth control. I've seen some pretty steep numbers ranging , as I remember, from some 80% to 95% depending on the source.
I feel it has an influence in lowering our moral values ( and even this terminology seems to upset some people) and is an element in the general lack of respect seen for life in society.
Issues of rape, incest, health are used to argue an absolute, rather than arguing their points and addressing them as exceptions .

I introduced the issue.
I didn't bring the topic here to debate.
I've debated it in another thread.
As Obama is now courting the fundamentalists, it becomes an issue waiting for him to address and express his position on.
That is the purpose of this thread as I understand it.
McCain has supported abortion in the past.
Bush didn't.
There becomes a void.
Will the Democrats fill it as Rep suggests?
I doubt Democrats have any intention of reducing the killing as that policy is aligned with it's major constituents.
But Obama is courting the fundies at this time and it will be interesting to see how he weasels on the issue.

BTW.......if anyone remembers, I predicted Bush would be leaving office with out much effect to the premeditated killings ( must be PC.....it seems to deeply offend some people to use the term murder ).

I have no idea where you get your data, but I've been using Guttmacher in the past and he stipulates 'induced abortions' and those are intentional.

Conservatives, when taking over the GOP did so by creating the big tent of mainly single issue voters.

All they needed was the numbers to gain the power. Once in power, only lip service was offered those single issue voters.

Today, many of those voters are fed up with being used and are looking for a new home.

Will Obama appeal to these single issue voters? I doubt it. But, there may be a shift in many peoples thinking.

Our nation is in trouble. It may be that more people will be making their political choices based on a number of factors and we might see a reduction of the more traditional single issue voters.

When we are fat and happy we do not need to make decisions based on economic need as much as we do when we are less affluent.

God, Guns & Gays may be less of a factor in 08 as they had been in the last 25 years.

[Stoner]

In other words, expect the killing to continue with Obama.
Not much change there.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Stoner

In other words, expect the killing to continue with Obama.
Not much change there.

It will continue regardless of whom is elected, and whether legal or illegal, moral or not, murder or not. I normally stay out of abortion threads as I do not feel it's any of my business what a woman decides to do............it's irrelevant what I think in this matter and there is little or nothing I can do about it...............just like going to war in Iraq.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Wino

It will continue regardless of whom is elected, and whether legal or illegal, moral or not, murder or not. I normally stay out of abortion threads as I do not feel it's any of my business what a woman decides to do............it's irrelevant what I think in this matter and there is little or nothing I can do about it...............just like going to war in Iraq.

I suspect it will continue, also.
I'd like to see it reduced, though.
I do resent the position that the fundamentalist takes in that it is an all or nothing position.

However, Obama has been reported in courting the fundies.
I am quite curious as to how that plays out

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I suspect it will continue, also.
I'd like to see it reduced, though.
I do resent the position that the fundamentalist takes in that it is an all or nothing position.

However, Obama has been reported in courting the fundies.
I am quite curious as to how that plays out

If Obama keeps dancing with the devil, I'm going to find another to vote for and it won't be McCain.