Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't both sides have views that they want to push on the other side of the debate?
No - both sides are definitely NOT pushing their views onto each other. Those that are pro-choice want to leave the choice up to the one that has to carry the fetus. No one is pushing anyone to terminate a pregnancy. It should be up to the woman that is pregnant, within certain time limits.
However, those that are anti - choice are trying to take any choice away from all women. THEY are the ones pushing their views.
But what bothers me the most about this issue that this woman is also against sex education! Absolutely unbelievable. If you are anti-choice you should most certainly support sex education. A lot of parents do not discuss this at home because they don't know how or feel uncomfortable. My parents certainly never discussed it with me and I was very glad we had sex ed in school (as were they, I think!).
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
In my opinion SP tramples all over the constitution by trying to mix church and state. These beliefs are what drives her advocacy for abstinence only sex education. Fifteen, sixteen and seventeen year old high schoolers need to be taught about birth control, and how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. They should have access to information about the pill, condoms, but taught about abstinence as well
Perhaps, but based on what she has done within her own state, she has yet to mix her religion and politics. I doubt being in charge on the executive branch would change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbie1964
Nobody likes abortion, but it is a fundamental right for women to be able to make choices about their body and being. By having legal abortions women are assured safe procedures, otherwise they will be forced back into dirty back alley situations. Abortion will not stop if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will just become more dangerous for the health of women.
So long as it is done within the first month of pregnancy abortion is fine with me. What kills me is when people wait until 7 or 8 months in to make the decision. Even sadder is that there are so many couples out there unable to conceive a child, yet so many people choose to abort multiple times throughout their lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbie1964
She is a proponent of teaching creationism in schools, this is not a proven scientific theory, so it should be saved for Sunday, or taught at home.
No she isn't actually. She mentions believing in ID (Creationism) as well as Evolution, and she hasn't mentioned forcing it into the curriculum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbie1964
She is an opponent on key environmental issues, such as protecting the polar bear in Alaska, and is for oil and natural gas drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
She opposed adding the polar bear to the endangered species list. Big difference. That action was not limited to Alaska. She does advocate drilling for oil in the ANWR, but only a very minuscule portion of it. It isn't like she plans on turning the whole ANWR upside down for the sake of oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbie1964
She stands with John McCain, who is opposed to legislation fighting wage discrimination for women (the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act), is opposed to the Violence Against Women Act, authored by Senator Joe Biden and has a zero rating with women's rights groups.
John McCain opposes it for that very reason. Joe Biden is a Democrat, McCain is a Republican. Since when do parties willingly vote for the others bills?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbie1964
For me the choice is Joe Biden.
Why? Is it the dislike for Sarah Palin based on inaccurate information? Please elaborate because I had never heard of Biden (or Palin) until they were named VP. It is amazing how the respectively biased media outlets can tear an honest person to pieces.
----------------------------------
Overall I still go with Palin. We need a refreshing change, not another old white man.
I don't know who I would choose between Biden and Palin. My most significant issue is foreign policy; diplomatic relations, military partnerships, strategic planning and economic trade agreements.
Since I don't know where Palin stands on these issues it is too tough for me to decide who to support. Also, Biden tends to be a team player, but are his personal points of view a bit different from the Democratic Party if he were to be the primary decisionmaker?
Biden - because I am not a fan of religious right. In fact, if McCain, despite a few negatives on his part (selling out to religious right to get elected etc), had not chosen Palin, I would be in the middle. Religious right pushed me out to being Independent. McCain just nudged me further along for this election. I hope there is a place for a socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative person in the Republican party in the next elections.
If you could please explain to me what the religious right is?
"Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)"
No - both sides are definitely NOT pushing their views onto each other. Those that are pro-choice want to leave the choice up to the one that has to carry the fetus. No one is pushing anyone to terminate a pregnancy. It should be up to the woman that is pregnant, within certain time limits.
However, those that are anti - choice are trying to take any choice away from all women. THEY are the ones pushing their views.
Right. The pro-abortion crowd has already succeeding in pusing their view of legally acceptable infanticide onto us. So yes, your side is involved in pushing. Its just that the other side would like to push back rather than stand aside and give up.
Are the "anti-choice" people trying to take away the choice to not get pregnant, or to at least admit infanticide is not the correct solution to a "mistake"?
The reason I am using the term infanticide, for the record, is because I believe it distorts the argument to call abortion a choice, and then try to water the argument down into does one believe in women's rights or not. That is simply not the mindset of those who do not support abortion.
a fetus is not an infant. And "my side" is not pushing abortions on anyone. There are no forced abortions in this country.
Pushing something on someone means you are taking their choices away. The pro choice group is not taking any choices away, the anti-choice group is.
However, this is not an abortion thread, so I will not comment on this anymore. We already have plenty of abortion threads on the regular P&OC forum and it is a subject that people will NEVER agree on and never have, IMO.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
a fetus is not an infant. And "my side" is not pushing abortions on anyone. There are no forced abortions in this country.
I do not recall saying that they were forcing abortions. If you can point that out in my statements where I have said such, I would gladly go back and edit it. But I just looked and did not see it.
Quote:
Pushing something on someone means you are taking their choices away. The pro choice group is not taking any choices away, the anti-choice group is.
Are pro-choice people not taking away anti-abortion people's choice to prevent infanticide? They are. That argument can be spun around either way, but bottom line, one side pushed it on the other side that it should be acceptable to commit pre-birth infanticide.
Quote:
However, this is not an abortion thread, so I will not comment on this anymore. We already have plenty of abortion threads on the regular P&OC forum and it is a subject that people will NEVER agree on and never have, IMO.
I do realize we won't agree. But most of the times there is very little changed in the way of opinions, so I'm not sure people are here to change their own minds, but rather bolster their own opinions in most cases, but in some maybe lighten their position a bit when an understanding of why the other side feels the way they do and it makes a little bit of sense even though the level of disagreement may not have changed on the base issue.
If you could please explain to me what the religious right is?
"Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)"
Sorry - I had made minor edits (after your post) in the previous post that may have clarified my stance.
I should have said "far" religious right. By that I mean that regardless of the denomination, these are people who display the following characteristics
(a) do not want the seperation of church and state. This is a huge one for me. I like the country more than any religion. If the two are merged, we will become a Christian Saudi Arabia.
(b) haters of science: I am a non-believer but can live with the theory that science explains "how" and religion explains "why". Evolution is a scientific fact - I want my children to have no questions about it. But an extreme religious right person, in my view, will "spin" their text into a "quasi-scientific" theory based on no empirical evidence and ask others to (faithfully) believe it. It is not just the Creationism I am talking about - I have friends of other faiths and they also tell me how a scientific fact is "spun" into being "already discussed" in a religion's holy book. Let us respect science, invest in stem cell research etc. We are stifling a lot pof progress because of religion.
(c) "my way is the only way" people: another biggie. Most religions believe this. The extreme love for one's religion often results in the hate of another religion and many a war and hatred has resulted. Religion is a faith - follow it, but do not be dogmatic about it.
I think most people are not extreme right. I would say that maybe 5% of the right in the US may come under this umbrella. Problem is, this is a very vocal group and has practically taken over the Republican party. On the other hand, recent surveys have shown that more people in the US are leaving organized religion.
Fifty-five years ago religion and media curiosity was not an issue because TV was a novelty. The local newspapers were the main source of information. Now we have racist, biased media darlings not only telling us how to vote. but that the religious right will make it happen. Today its hard to find a preacher who is interested in the congregants or the word. .
I prefer to have a person who has a sense of God in the oval office.. I don't want church dogma, church policy, church rhetoric or church politics framing critical decisions on any subject that affects me or mine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
