Indiana Senate Race (appointed, legally, moving)

[X-Greensboro Resident]

Originally Posted by Gustav Halbach

I was born and raised in the Netherlands (Holland). My homeland has some of the most lenient abortion policies of any nation. Basically, it's on demand for any reason. However, Holland also one of the lowest abortion rates in the industrialized world. I've always thought that the reason for this is the State does care what happens to people in my homeland. New mothers & babies are protected by several national policies designed to insure a good start.

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but that in the USA politicians care a great deal about the unborn but, once the birth has happened....mother/child and family are on their own. Kind of sink or swim.

-G

To your point, I wonder how many of these babies Mr. Mourdock and his supporters have adopted?

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by wh15395

Also, we don't consider abortion killing a baby, at least I don't. I know this sounds a little insensitive, but do you consider eating an egg murdering a chicken?

In most cases, if there was no abortion, there would eventually come an infant human being. I fully consider eating eggs the killing of chickens, if the egg is fertilized. Clearly some in the country view the destruction of eggs in the animal kingdom as the destruction of the animal itself. That is why one needs a special permit to destroy Canadian Goose eggs.

Originally Posted by grmasterb

I'd like to think that folks on both sides of the abortion debate can agree that we should be doing everything we can to eliminate abortion.

Why? Why can't abortion be an accepted form of birth control?

Originally Posted by grmasterb

The bigger problem I see with Mourdock's position is that it advocates putting the government in the position of forcing a woman to carry to term the product of a violent crime committed against her. And such a position is espoused by a man who supposedly advocates less government.

Just caught this yesterday. A 14 year old was pressured/raped by a 20-something guy that had come over to her house. He was arrested and found guilty and served some time. She had his kid, he now wants his parental rights when it comes to seeing the kid. I guess it is going to the state's high court. A lower court judge said the case belongs in family court.

Originally Posted by Gustav Halbach

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but that in the USA politicians care a great deal about the unborn but, once the birth has happened....mother/child and family are on their own. Kind of sink or swim.

I've spoken to a handful of 19 year olds who had kids during their mid-teens. They get a partial or totally subsidized housing unit. They get food stamps for not only themselves, but the kids. They get a money allocation for themselves and each child. In Indiana, the money allocation for the mother eventually ends, but from what I've heard/read, it continues for the child till the child is 18 years old. They also have a program called WIC, which provides for vouchers which can be used for baby stuff. The issue is a difference of culture. Here in the US, some people on welfare think they are owed more, thus it seems like the gov. doesn't care because they aren't giving free cable, free internet, free smart phone, etc.

Originally Posted by X-Greensboro Resident

To your point, I wonder how many of these babies Mr. Mourdock and his supporters have adopted?

Likely not many. Adopting a baby in the US is very risky from what I hear. I've know a few horror stories about moms taking money/gifts, then changing their mind at the last minute. We bailout out-of-wedlock births, so those with the most to lose really don't see a need to abort or even give up the child to provide for a better life. I would wonder what the background is for people who choosing to have abortions. Do more come from lower, middle, or upper income backgrounds?

I saw my first commercial related to this issue yesterday. The Dems are really hitting on his comment about rape/abortion. It will really be interesting to see what happens. Thankfully we only have one more week and we are done with this election stuff.

[cubssoxfan]

But why are MEN (since most of the leading pro-life political advocates are men) telling women what to do with their bodies. Isn't it week 32 where a baby is considered viable without life support? Women will not stop seeking abortions, but it will become riskier and more dangerous if it becomes illegal. I'm definitely not a proponent of abortion being used as birth control, but I also don't agree life begins when the egg is fertilized.

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

But why are MEN (since most of the leading pro-life political advocates are men) telling women what to do with their bodies.

Likely because WOMEN constantly tell men to pay up when the WOMAN chooses to allow their body to produce a baby that a man is said to have had a hand in producing.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by indy_317

Likely because WOMEN constantly tell men to pay up when the WOMAN chooses to allow their body to produce a baby that a man is said to have had a hand in producing.

Spent much time in Family Court lately? Lots of men doing what ever they can to avoid their share of the responsibility. It does take 2 to "tango", but with DNA testing able to tell who the dad(s) are, the black mailing by women can be avoided. And what is stopping these men from using a condom?! Your viewpoint is very chauvinistic.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

Spent much time in Family Court lately? Lots of men doing what ever they can to avoid their share of the responsibility. It does take 2 to "tango", but with DNA testing able to tell who the dad(s) are, the black mailing by women can be avoided. And what is stopping these men from using a condom?! Your viewpoint is very chauvinistic.

Yep, and it appears the good people of Indiana are smart.

http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...nclick_check=1

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Yep, and it appears the good people of Indiana are smart.

http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...nclick_check=1

Of course, the Mourdock people are claiming their poll shows their guy in the lead. I tend to trust Brian Howey's work, but we'll see for sure on Tuesday.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

Of course, the Mourdock people are claiming their poll shows their guy in the lead. I tend to trust Brian Howey's work, but we'll see for sure on Tuesday.

Who do you trust more, an independent poll or one done internally for a campaign?

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Who do you trust more, an independent poll or one done internally for a campaign?

In this case, the former, hands down.

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

Spent much time in Family Court lately? Lots of men doing what ever they can to avoid their share of the responsibility. It does take 2 to "tango", but with DNA testing able to tell who the dad(s) are, the black mailing by women can be avoided. And what is stopping these men from using a condom?! Your viewpoint is very chauvinistic.

If we use the "2 to 'tango'" logic, then why does it only take one to approve the abortion? What is stopping these women from using birth control? I fully agree it takes "2 to 'tango' " but don't understand why then folks are so hell bent on the abortion choice being only one person rule. Clearly it is about power to the woman. The woman can kill the would be kid and the father can't do anything about it, or the woman can give birth to the kid and the father can be on the hook to pay for something he doesn't want. There have been arguments made that since a woman has the right to kill the child before it is even born, a man should have the right to an abortion of his parental obligations and rights if he so chooses. I agree with that logic. Both sides should get a choice, not just one.

Thankfully in about thirty hours, all this election stuff will be over.