Abortions are not for everyone. You have a choice...yes or no. It's not my place to judge.
'nuff said...
No, it is not "Nuff said". There is a sense in several of these posts that social issues like abortion need to fall by the wayside and we should focus solely on the fiscal issues. If the GOP does that they are throwing out a huge section of their base and for what? To be democrat-lite? Like I said before, do those who are proposing this think that there are enough people who are fiscally conservative (but so socially liberal that they set that aside to vote for Obama) that it would make up for all of us who are conservative on social issues? Do you think there are enough votes that the GOP can afford to completely alienate the base of the party (because I can assure you that I do vote on social issues too!)?
Edited to add.....all it takes for evil to win is for good people to stand silent.
With all due respect, I have no more right to tell you that you must have an abortion than you have the right to tell me that I can't have an abortion. Therein is the essence of the matter and the government should have no part nor say, fiscally or physically, in these private and individual decisions.
As it was a federal court (the Supreme Court) that found it constitutional by the pnuembras and emanations, it is a federal issue. I would like to see the issue returned to thepeople in each state. That way the people can decide whether or not to stick their finger in the Almighty's eye. However I still want to know whether a president values human life or not. The one we have quite obviously (and not just on the abortion issue) does not. Does the man see value in the weakest and the smallest of us. I think that tells me a great deal about who the person is and whether it not I want him for president.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
C-dub wrote:The problem, as I see it though, is that abortion is not or should not be an issue when it comes to presidential elections. It is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Each state regulates abortions within their state and that has nothing to do with presidential elections.
The problem is that it is has become a major issue for many years. IMO, education is not a federal issue either, but I can not conceive of any presidential candidate giving a response to the press like this: "Education is a matter for the states to decide. The federal government has no constitutional obligation or authority to be involved in education."
Oldgringo wrote:
With all due respect, I have no more right to tell you that you must have an abortion than you have the right to tell me that I can't have an abortion. Therein is the essence of the matter and the government should have no part nor say, fiscally or physically, in these private and individual decisions.
We have been round and round here. I see abortion as murder, and murder of a child to boot. So yes, I think I have the right to plead with someone not to murder their child. The gov't tells us we may not place our already born babies out on the rocks to expose them to death....so yes the govt does intrude in private and individual decisions. The govt tells me I may not grow cannabis in my backyard, so the govt does intrude on private and individual decisions.
Edited to add that now the govt is forcing Catholics and others to pay for abortion inducing drugs (which is against their religion)......so yes the federal govt has a habit of intruding on private and individual decisions.
Last edited by mamabearCali on Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
mamabearCali wrote:As it was a federal court (the Supreme Court) that found it constitutional by the pnuembras and emanations, it is a federal issue. I would like to see the issue returned to thepeople in each state. That way the people can decide whether or not to stick their finger in the Almighty's eye. However I still want to know whether a president values human life or not. The one we have quite obviously (and not just on the abortion issue) does not. Does the man see value in the weakest and the smallest of us. I think that tells me a great deal about who the person is and whether it not I want him for president.
But that is a settled issue. It is legal and I cannot see it ever changing. I disagree with it, but that's irrelevant and a president's opinion on the matter should also be irrelevant. They can't change it's legality.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
Oldgringo wrote:
With all due respect, I have no more right to tell you that you must have an abortion than you have the right to tell me that I can't have an abortion. Therein is the essence of the matter and the government should have no part nor say, fiscally or physically, in these private and individual decisions.
We have been round and round here. I see abortion as murder, and murder of a child to boot. So yes, I think I have the right to plead with someone not to murder their child. The gov't tells us we may not place our already born babies out on the rocks to expose them to death....so yes the govt does intrude in private and individual decisions. The govt tells me I may not grow cannabis in my backyard, so the govt does intrude on private and individual decisions.
I agree with you, but the SCOTUS does not agree with either one of us.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
mamabearCali wrote:As it was a federal court (the Supreme Court) that found it constitutional by the pnuembras and emanations, it is a federal issue. I would like to see the issue returned to thepeople in each state. That way the people can decide whether or not to stick their finger in the Almighty's eye. However I still want to know whether a president values human life or not. The one we have quite obviously (and not just on the abortion issue) does not. Does the man see value in the weakest and the smallest of us. I think that tells me a great deal about who the person is and whether it not I want him for president.
But that is a settled issue. It is legal and I cannot see it ever changing. I disagree with it, but that's irrelevant and a president's opinion on the matter should also be irrelevant. They can't change it's legality.
Once slavery was legal and no one could ever see that changing. Even Thomas Jefferson could not see a way out of it, but end it did.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
Oldgringo wrote:
With all due respect, I have no more right to tell you that you must have an abortion than you have the right to tell me that I can't have an abortion. Therein is the essence of the matter and the government should have no part nor say, fiscally or physically, in these private and individual decisions.
We have been round and round here. I see abortion as murder, and murder of a child to boot. So yes, I think I have the right to plead with someone not to murder their child. The gov't tells us we may not place our already born babies out on the rocks to expose them to death....so yes the govt does intrude in private and individual decisions. The govt tells me I may not grow cannabis in my backyard, so the govt does intrude on private and individual decisions.
I agree with you, but the SCOTUS does not agree with either one of us.
So we give up? NO, when the otherside cheats and lies (because that is what happened in Roe v Wade) and millions are dying we must try to continue to win the argument. The argument was that it was just a blob of cells...not alive. We now KNOW for certain that is not true, and we can prove it. So we must do so as loud as we can for as long as we must.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
Oldgringo wrote:Y'all work it out. It was in December of '77, that I no longer had a dog in this hunt.
Well you are still alive. Right now there are 54,000,000 less people around to fund social security. There are 54 million fewer people to come up with the next amazing cure for Alzheimer's or cancer. The loss of those individuals on our society is unimaginable So I would say you still have a dog in that hunt.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
Oldgringo wrote:
With all due respect, I have no more right to tell you that you must have an abortion than you have the right to tell me that I can't have an abortion. Therein is the essence of the matter and the government should have no part nor say, fiscally or physically, in these private and individual decisions.
We have been round and round here. I see abortion as murder, and murder of a child to boot. So yes, I think I have the right to plead with someone not to murder their child. The gov't tells us we may not place our already born babies out on the rocks to expose them to death....so yes the govt does intrude in private and individual decisions. The govt tells me I may not grow cannabis in my backyard, so the govt does intrude on private and individual decisions.
I agree with you, but the SCOTUS does not agree with either one of us.
So we give up? NO, when the otherside cheats and lies (because that is what happened in Roe v Wade) and millions are dying we must try to continue to win the argument. The argument was that it was just a blob of cells...not alive. We now KNOW for certain that is not true, and we can prove it. So we must do so as loud as we can for as long as we must.
No, but it is not a federal issue. As far as I know there are no federal laws for or against abortion or that even regulate abortions. Those are state issues and laws and when someone takes the new evidence all the way to the SCOTUS and they may reverse or limit the previous ruling if they agree to see the case.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
mamabearCali wrote:As it was a federal court (the Supreme Court) that found it constitutional by the pnuembras and emanations, it is a federal issue. I would like to see the issue returned to thepeople in each state. That way the people can decide whether or not to stick their finger in the Almighty's eye. However I still want to know whether a president values human life or not. The one we have quite obviously (and not just on the abortion issue) does not. Does the man see value in the weakest and the smallest of us. I think that tells me a great deal about who the person is and whether it not I want him for president.
But that is a settled issue. It is legal and I cannot see it ever changing. I disagree with it, but that's irrelevant and a president's opinion on the matter should also be irrelevant. They can't change it's legality.
Once slavery was legal and no one could ever see that changing. Even Thomas Jefferson could not see a way out of it, but end it did.
It was legal, but I don't think slavery was ever ruled to be a "right." I could be wrong and this could be one of those distinctions without a difference. IDK
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
mamabearCali wrote:As it was a federal court (the Supreme Court) that found it constitutional by the pnuembras and emanations, it is a federal issue. I would like to see the issue returned to thepeople in each state. That way the people can decide whether or not to stick their finger in the Almighty's eye. However I still want to know whether a president values human life or not. The one we have quite obviously (and not just on the abortion issue) does not. Does the man see value in the weakest and the smallest of us. I think that tells me a great deal about who the person is and whether it not I want him for president.
But that is a settled issue. It is legal and I cannot see it ever changing. I disagree with it, but that's irrelevant and a president's opinion on the matter should also be irrelevant. They can't change it's legality.
Once slavery was legal and no one could ever see that changing. Even Thomas Jefferson could not see a way out of it, but end it did.
It was legal, but I don't think slavery was ever ruled to be a "right." I could be wrong and this could be one of those distinctions without a difference. IDK
I am sure quite a few plantation owners disagree with you as they saw the slaves as their property. Again, just because something is legal at the moment does not mean it should be, nor does it mean the argument is over.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
Oldgringo wrote:Y'all work it out. It was in December of '77, that I no longer had a dog in this hunt.
Well you are still alive. Right now there are 54,000,000 less people around to fund social security. There are 54 million fewer people to come up with the next amazing cure for Alzheimer's or cancer. The loss of those individuals on our society is unimaginable So I would say you still have a dog in that hunt.
Somebody has to feed, cloth, house and employ those 54,000,000 people. You reckon the Chinese are onto something with their birth rate mandates?
I suspect that you and I can debate this issue until the cows come home without any change in positions. So, what say we have some ?
C-dub wrote:
No, but it is not a federal issue. As far as I know there are no federal laws for or against abortion or that even regulate abortions. Those are state issues and laws and when someone takes the new evidence all the way to the SCOTUS and they may reverse or limit the previous ruling if they agree to see the case.
Let me refer you to the HHS mandate which requires businesses even those run by staunch Christians to pay for abortifacients. So there are federal laws mandating that employers play for employees abortifacient drugs.
Roe V wade is a federal case that permitted abortion nationwide when before it was decided state by state. So at the moment it is a federal issue. It would seem to me to be a step forward to return the decision to the people.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
Here we go again....
The problem is that it is has become a major issue for many years. IMO, education is not a federal issue either, but I can not conceive of any presidential candidate giving a response to the press like this: "Education is a matter for the states to decide. The federal government has no constitutional obligation or authority to be involved in education."
?