The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organi

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Has anybody explained why we should be forced to pay for people's abortions and how that is not a double-standard?

Still waiting on that one.

Wait no further, as I have checked.

Learning is a "process".

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Of course it's not.

But that doesn't stop it from being what is being said since Romney's defeat.

The almost universal view out there is (R) needs to stop being (R) to ever win again.



With all due respect, it's hard to take you, the biggest and hardest-core Romney-backer on J.I., seriously about what the Party "should be" going forward to win elections.

Coming out two days after everything you talked-up and defended for a year and a half got totally roflstomped, is the height of humorous hubris. You were wrong. Maybe you should let that settle in for a while before telling us where the party needs to go.

And in more important, real-world concrete terms.....the Republican Right will not, ever, give up the social conservativism you want them to. You and other Romney/McCain Moderates would be kicked from the party before the give us social conservativism. And you know it.

If anything, this result will end the era of the Grand Old Establishment Republican, the Next Old Rich White Man Up arrangment that gave us Dole, Bush II, McCain and Romney. If anything, the right will shift further right, not further left. Especially after 4 more years of Obama.

But we'll see.

I'm trying to make sense of it all and heal. Much like at the end of a football season when my team doesnt live up to expectations I look back and try to determine where it all went wrong. I have been here long enough openly posting by personal beliefs. I have never been a social conservative. I've argued here that social conservatives are the real RINO's. I railed against Santorum as possibly the only nominee which would force me to withhold a vote this year. I have been and am consistent with my personal views. As I sit in shock that an election went so differently then I had expected I still cant see exactly where it went wrong. Did the storm change things that much? Was the Obama turnout machine really that good? Was it the position Romney took vis a vie immigration?

The problem for me personally is that unlike with McCain I thought Romney was an inspirational speaker. I thought he would have made a great president. It seemed obvious to my eyes. Then I back that up with GOP gains over the past 4 years on local levels. I thought turnout would favor the GOP. In the end Obama got the same D+6 electorate he had 4 years ago. How is it possible? I know personally many Obama voters that switched this year. Obama's margins were down huge in almost every state except for the key swing states. How can it be? From NJ to PA to MI to WI to WA to OR Obamas margins were down by 8-10 points yet in Ohio and Florida they were down by 1-2 points. Is that normal? I'm still trying to make sense of it.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

That's why a 2-party system is a must.

Agreed, and also why single party control of the POTUS, and Congress is rarely anything but a disaster.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Agreed, and also why single party control of the POTUS, and Congress is rarely anything but a disaster.

The Dems need to show smarts and toughness, as the Republicans can show that in spades.

[jetman67]

Winning the Whitehouse involves a few key components, Values, the GOP with their Anti abortion and Anti Marriage equality stance does not sit well with the masses. They preach Freedom, but reality its freedom as long as they approve.

The other and most important component is marketing, The Dems do a far better job of packaging and selling it. The GOP is not a progressive party, in fact they have a silly desire to go back to 1955.

Society has always evolved and moved forward, the Dems have shown a great ability to adapt, where the GOP has not. Its very much like the dinosaur, they couldnt adapt to changes in the world and as a result they died.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

All fine and dandy. I am not going to get into "when life begins". BUT.

Why do I have to pay for your abortions? THAT is the double standard. You don't want religious people to tell you what to do with your body but why do those religious people have to pay for your abortions?

Oh, and BTW. "Women's health issues" and "contraception" = "abortion". Every time you hear a Dem talk about women's health they are talking about abortion. Don't get it twisted. Lets call it what it is and not hide behind semantics.

Also, lets take the 20,000 "rape pregnancies" and other extreme cases out of the equation. Do you guys think it is good for society to make getting an abortion easier? What message does it send?

BTW, technically I am "pro-life" but I do not want to overturn Roe v Wade. It has been decided and is done as far as I am concerned. I just think the rate of abortions says something about our society.

Guess what I don't want to pay for anything government does, not one bit of it yet I do. While pro-choice I have far more respect for the moral argument of those oppossed to abortion then the infantile I don't want to pay for it argument. Who wants to pay for anything? That's the point of having elections, we have decided to give representatives of our society the right to confiscate our property in the form of taxes to fund the government actions that presumably are in our collective interest.

You want to stop paying you better convince a majority of the public to vote in representatives that will outlaw abortions. The only party that supports that position is the Republican Party.

Personally I don't think that's why they lost this election, they have lost Hispanics with their position on Immigration and that's a long term trend that is going to be hard to overcome.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Guess what I don't want to pay for anything government does, not one bit of it yet I do. While pro-choice I have far more respect for the moral argument of those oppossed to abortion then the infantile I don't want to pay for it argument. Who wants to pay for anything? That's the point of having elections, we have decided to give representatives of our society the right to confiscate our property in the form of taxes to fund the government actions that presumably are in our collective interest.

You want to stop paying you better convince a majority of the public to vote in representatives that will outlaw abortions.

Because there is a difference between abortions being legal and having them subsidized by the gov't.

Where do we draw the line? Are we going to be paying for people's sex change operations in the future?

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

Wait no further, as I have checked.

Learning is a "process".

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Because there is a difference between abortions being legal and having them subsidized by the gov't.

Where do we draw the line? Are we going to be paying for people's sex change operations in the future?

When sex change operations are the norm I suspect we will.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

well...are you religious?

I consider myself a Christain. You'll find however that for the most part it doesn't affect my politics. In fact other than abortion i'm not sure i agree with the church on any other major political issue.

I don't believe they should be tax exempt.

I don't believe they should be telling fed/states to legislate against drugs and alcohol.

I don't believe the state should be enforcing the church's view of marriage. But then i don't believe in state-sponsored marriage, and thus dont' support gay marriage laws either.

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

Do you believe that men and women of skill and capability, with maybe a 5-12 year service window, should be bounced from office because of this issue?

I do. And if you believe a human being is killed during an abortion, I'm not sure how you can feel otherwise.

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

To try to gather these votes, the (R) are treading a fine line that may have shifted. The Moral Majority seems to be having trouble defining morality for 2012.

So are you suggesting (R) convince themselves Abortion is not murder, or just that murder is OK in some instances? I realize being anti-abortion is politically unsound right now. It may always be. However I don't foresee a large portion on the Republican Party just deciding all of the sudden that a fetus is not a human being.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

When sex change operations are the norm I suspect we will.

And what does that say about the fabric of society that abortions are the norm and that is why we must fund them?

[Axil]

Originally Posted by jetman67

Its a personal issue that the government has no business being involved in. IMO life begins at birth, and until then its a fetus. Others believe life begins at conception, and some extremists like the loser in the election seem to believe it begins 2 weeks before conception.


If in fact God thinks its wrong or immoral, then its a issue between the woman and God. Nobody else should be involved.

Originally Posted by jetman67

Life begins at birth. a living being is able to breathe on its own, have a heart beat on its own and not need to rely on another living being to breathe.

Therefore, Abortion is not murder.

I like your second answer better than your first. I understand the way you're defining life now.

What you need to understand though is that people disagree with you. And if you believe life starts at conception, you cannot support abortion.

If you believe it starts at birth, i understand why you would think abortions should be legal, and the choice of the mother.

Personally i think defining life as a human being capable of breathing on it's own is rather arbitrary. After an accident, or at a certain age many human beings cease to be able to breathe without assistance from a machine. If independent breathing is a prerequisite for humanity, do these people being sub-human?

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

If so, than in-vitro clinics murder just like abortion clinics.

That's a very good point. I am against the current methods used by in-vitro clinics as well.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

And what does that say about the fabric of society that abortions are the norm and that is why we must fund them?

Taken in context with the other things that have become the norm, not much.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by jetman67

Life begins at birth. a living being is able to breathe on its own, have a heart beat on its own and not need to rely on another living being to breathe.

Therefore, Abortion is not murder.

Before you continue the conversation, you should have at least an elementary understanding of science. Life begins at conception. This is indisputable fact. Pro*choicers informed on the topic acknowledge this basic starting point in the discussion.

The crux of the discussion is at what point is life "viable" and when do rights begin. The lack of the most basic levels of education truly is disturbing, especially when people take such strong stances on issues based on total fallacy.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Before you continue the conversation, you should have at least an elementary understanding of science. Life begins at conception. This is indisputable fact. Pro*choicers informed on the topic acknowledge this basic starting point in the discussion.

The crux of the discussion is at what point is life "viable" and when do rights begin. The lack of the most basic levels of education truly is disturbing, especially when people take such strong stances on issues based on total fallacy.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I've heard from quite a few pro-abortion people whose intelligence i have high regard for that it's "life" that begins at birth. I think what's meant by life is "human life" specifically, and the implication is that prior to birth the fetus is sub-human.

While you are absolutely correct that no one can dispute that a Fetus is alive, the sperm and egg were living prior to conception as well. A woman's hair is alive too, yet we all acknowledge she has the right to cut it.

So again the question isn't so much "is it alive" as "is it human". I happen to agree with you, at conception it is human. At conception is receives it's own unique DNA it becomes a separate entity that is no longer a part of the mother.

I don't think the viability argument is particularly strong. Many babies are born without the ability to breath properly on their own. And all babies require assistance in order to continue to survive. At it's core the viability argument asserts that if you are wholly dependent upon another to continue living, you are sub-human. If that is the case, children don't become fully human until 3-4 at the earliest, prior to that there is no way for them to survive without a parent actively preventing circumstances that would lead to it's death.

Hell, by that definition my 8 yr/o son probably still hasn't achieved full humanity.

[sg3]

From a financial perspective DDNY it costs vastly less of "your" money for an abortion of a 0-3 month fetus than it costs you to support an unwanted child with healthcare and other government long-term benefits if this fetus is allowed to become an actual life at birth

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[dmitexxi]

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

That's why a 2-party system is a must.

George Washington Farewell address to nation on dangers of a party system.

They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.

This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume."

Pretty ironic if you look at the current state of our country, held hostage by China and other foreign financial influences, Held hostage by Middle Eastern politics an religious conflicts, The deep division as nation which has a very similar feel to the Civil War, etc. I've never been so disappointed and disillusioned at the current and future state of this nation.

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Before you continue the conversation, you should have at least an elementary understanding of science. Life begins at conception. This is indisputable fact. Pro*choicers informed on the topic acknowledge this basic starting point in the discussion.

The crux of the discussion is at what point is life "viable" and when do rights begin. The lack of the most basic levels of education truly is disturbing, especially when people take such strong stances on issues based on total fallacy.

But the pro choice side doesn't believe in science and evolution.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Taken in context with the other things that have become the norm, not much.

So just continue right on down the toilet?

Why the defeatist attitude?

Originally Posted by sg3

From a financial perspective DDNY it costs vastly less of "your" money for an abortion of a 0-3 month fetus than it costs you to support an unwanted child with healthcare and other government long-term benefits if this fetus is allowed to become an actual life at birth

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I certainly understand the reasoning from a long-term cost standpoint. However what is the social cost of basically promoting carelessness with one's body? I would rather my money go to educating kids about the importance of having responsibility for their bodies, promote having healthy relationships and the benefits of having children when married as opposed to being a single parent or having to have an abortion.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

So just continue right on down the toilet?

Why the defeatist attitude?



I certainly understand the reasoning from a long-term cost standpoint. However what is the social cost of basically promoting carelessness with one's body? I would rather my money go to educating kids about the importance of having responsibility for their bodies, promote having healthy relationships and the benefits of having children when married as opposed to being a single parent or having to have an abortion.

I support safe abortions for those without the economic means who wish to have them in the first trimester. I don't see the benifit of making abortions safe and effective for the middle class and not for the poor.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

And what does that say about the fabric of society that abortions are the norm and that is why we must fund them?

A capitalist society has messages driving the culture. Your investigation should start there. We have gone from the PURSUIT of happiness to the idea of purchasing happiness. This thrill, that thrill. Add in teenage hormones (WHERE? WHERE?) and you have a society that views things as disposable, as there is something new coming tomorrow.

Yes I am saying people can become confused; shocking, isn't it.