[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by twowilldo

Just as Margaret Sanger wished back in the day, I guess. The ultimate form of birth control. Clearly not conservative.

Conversely, there is an ideology out there that would like to see the poor population eliminated by encouraging the killing of their unborn. It isn't the conservatives working for that. Clearly.

I am pro-choice but believe in reasonable bounds and limitations.

Sanger never promoted abortion.

https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/ms_abortion/

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Corrie22

so support someone politically...that is the antithesis of how you would vote...and would do the complete opposite of how you would vote

?

I don’t understand why this is hard for you to understand.

Let’s say you have 80% in common with person A and 30% in common with person B… so you support person A. That’s easy to understand right, but there is still 20% of issues you don’t agree with.

So now like we have in Florida, we are able to vote on the 20% we don’t agree with.

So for someone to ask… why would you vote for Trump if you are also voting to legalize marijuana… the answer is just because I’m voting for Trump doesn’t mean I have to agree with 100% of his positions. And why am I voting for him because for every issue I disagree there are 5 issues I agree with him on vs the other candidate for every 1 issue I agree with there are 5 issues I disagree with.

[cjairo191]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

So, preventing poor people from killing their unborn children = conservatives wanting to kill off the poor? How does your argument make any sense? It would actually increase the poor population by not allowing poor people to get abortions. You are going off the deep end here lol.

No actually, the poor will give birth and not pay for the birth and you as a tax payer will be on the hook to pay for all this. Conservatives have no solutions. How are you paying for childcare, etc??? Just want people to stay poor and in debt.

[silverct9a]

The "flaw" in your logic I see is that Trump was exactly the person who stacked the SCOTUS with ultra conservative, far right leaning justices who overturned a law and bragged that he eliminated Roe v Wade which was in place for decades (rightly or wrongly is a matter of opinion) possibly setting a precedent to go after other "settled" legal matters?

Does this cause any concern?

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

?

I don’t understand why this is hard for you to understand.

Let’s say you have 80% in common with person A and 30% in common with person B… so you support person A. That’s easy to understand right, but there is still 20% of issues you don’t agree with.

So now like we have in Florida, we are able to vote on the 20% we don’t agree with.

So for someone to ask… why would you vote for Trump if you are also voting to legalize marijuana… the answer is just because I’m voting for Trump doesn’t mean I have to agree with 100% of his positions. And why am I voting for him because for every issue I disagree there are 5 issues I agree with him on vs the other candidate for every 1 issue I agree with there are 5 issues I disagree with.

[Lillie767]

Originally Posted by silverct9a

Doesn't that go against MAGA belief systems?

You presume to know another's mind and you assume a single profile of voters.

Tsk-Tsk

[Lillie767]

[quote=Ghaati;66602337I mean, you can vote for whoever you want, and voice yes or no on any ballot you want. That's your right.

.[/QUOTE]


Thank you for your permission.

[RayHammer]

Originally Posted by Ghaati

So, if your wife goes into her third trimester, is in the middle of her 7th month and they discover the fetus is not only not viable, but the placenta is starting to rip away from the womb and allowing her to remain pregnant will kill her - oh well, sucks to be her, right? Or would you beg the doctor to take that unviable fetus out, and let your wife live - maybe even possibly to bear you another child some day?

At 7 months a baby has an incredibly good chance of survival and will most likely thrive as well. She has already expressed (to me, family, doctors) that the baby's life will always take precedence over her own. Maybe not every woman feels that way, but many, and likely most, do. She's had a good shot at life, and she wants the baby to have one too, and in the incredibly rare case where that might happen to mean one of the other....well, it's the baby's turn. My wife knows I am, and will continue to be, an excellent father (because why would any woman choose a man who isn't) and we have tons of family support from both sides and that we will continue to honor her.

But, we're not expecting that to happen. While those instances do exist, they are rare. No need to cherry-pick from small percentages, and most people reasonably agree on exceptions to the rule like this anyway.


For what it's worth, pregnancy is at least 300% preventable. Here's how: You can choose to abstain. I know that seems "crazy" to some in this day and age, but it's an option and 100% effective. You can also choose from an incredibly array of birth control, all of which is near 100% effective. You can also choose to wear condoms, which of course when worn correctly are 100% effective, you can even do this in addition to using birth control; it's not an either-or option.

Murder should not be a birth control option because pregnancy is incredibly preventable if you don't want to get pregnant. Most pregnancies nowadays are by choice, and even in instances where they are "unplanned" there were plenty of options to safeguard against it.

Obviously, any reasonable person (aside from the fundamentalists) will give reasonable exemption for rape and incest (again up to a reasonable time frame), both of which are incredibly rare compared to your average "oopsie". So, there's no need to play the "what about rape and incest" card. Bluff called.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by cjairo191

No actually, the poor will give birth and not pay for the birth and you as a tax payer will be on the hook to pay for all this. Conservatives have no solutions. How are you paying for childcare, etc??? Just want people to stay poor and in debt.

I agree, this is another reason why I am pro-choice. For me, I wouldn't want to be born into extreme poverty. And as a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying for other people's children. I agree that it creates more poverty. Unlike the other poster who claims the GOP is trying to kill off the poor. No, restricting abortions will create more poor people.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by silverct9a

The "flaw" in your logic I see is that Trump was exactly the person who stacked the SCOTUS with ultra conservative, far right leaning justices who overturned a law and bragged that he eliminated Roe v Wade which was in place for decades (rightly or wrongly is a matter of opinion) possibly setting a precedent to go after other "settled" legal matters?

Does this cause any concern?

Once again, abortion is just one of MANY issues. When it comes to abortion, I wish Roe v Wade was upheld. However, on most issues I prefer having Conservative justices. I'd prefer Moderate justices, but if I had to choose between Liberal or Conservative justices, I'd easily choose Conservative.

[silverct9a]

Wonderful, but you didn’t really answer my question…

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Once again, abortion is just one of MANY issues. When it comes to abortion, I wish Roe v Wade was upheld. However, on most issues I prefer having Conservative justices. I'd prefer Moderate justices, but if I had to choose between Liberal or Conservative justices, I'd easily choose Conservative.