Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Obama/Romney Care (guess which one covers abortions)

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=pauliec;4027839]I suggest you actually read up on an issue before making broad statements about it.[/QUOTE]

    lol you are using state rights like a crutch, at least Tucker is honest.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4027803]Maybe for YOU.

    But the vast majority of people in your party don't see it as a state rights issue, they see it as a moral issue. "IT'S KILLING A BABY" It's not called the pro life movement for nothing.[/QUOTE]

    Your level of naïveté is astounding.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4027842]lol you are using state rights like a crutch, at least Tucker is honest.[/QUOTE]

    I don't even know how to respond to that.

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=pauliec;4027896]I don't even know how to respond to that.[/QUOTE]

    I'm just shocked we haven't been called racist yet.

  5. #25
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,941
    [QUOTE=Revi$_I$l@nd;4027329]Kinda tough for an Obama supporter to critique flip-flopping politicians...[/QUOTE]

    +1

    Not just that, but to critique Flip-Flopping Politicians who passed Universal Healthcare that supported abortions.

    Romney should be the Left's favorite (R). Just like McCain thought he was, lol.

    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4027783]Oh and BTW. Funny now abortion is a states right issue :P[/QUOTE]

    Whats funy about that? Abortion has always been (to the right) a States rights issue.

    Doesn;t mean they won;t promote making it illegal (they will, absolutely), but as with many things, the right supports choice....of what state to live in, and of the peopel of those states to self-govern on issues they feel are not Federal issues.

    Sure, to the right it's also a moral issue, the two positions are not mutually exclusive.
    Last edited by Warfish; 05-13-2011 at 03:46 PM.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027901]the right supports choice....[/QUOTE]

    ....except when it comes to gay marriage, entertainment content (TV/radio programming, video games, music), and drugs & alcohol.

    In those instances, f*ck choice.



    I know you personally don't believe that, Fish. However saying "the right" supports choice isn't entirely honest.
    Last edited by Sourceworx; 05-13-2011 at 04:13 PM.

  7. #27
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    [QUOTE=pauliec;4027794]Now? Abortion should have always been a states rights issue. That's why I, and many other conservatives, disagree with Roe v. Wade.[/QUOTE]

    This makes no sense at all, unless you're proposing that abortion should be a personal choice in the first place, as opposed to murder. Otherwise, making it a states rights issue is meaningless. Is that what you are supporting?

  8. #28
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Romney. LOLz. Dead Mormon Walking.

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4027943]This makes no sense at all, unless you're proposing that abortion should be a personal choice in the first place, as opposed to murder. Otherwise, making it a states rights issue is meaningless. Is that what you are supporting?[/QUOTE]

    My God.

    This is unbelievably dumb.

    But explains a lot.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4028078]My God.

    This is unbelievably dumb.

    But explains a lot.[/QUOTE]

    So, genius, explain it to me...

  11. #31
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,941
    [QUOTE=sourceworx;4027921]....except when it comes to gay marriage, entertainment content (TV/radio programming, video games, music), and drugs & alcohol.[/quote]

    Generally, the right supports choice on all the issues you mention, choice being (as I was using it) States-Based.

    Yes, the right are against many of what you list policy wise. But they are not against States voters voting and passing laws that allow them, if that is the will of the State and it's People in the majority.

    You're confusing legislative choice, with choice on the issues themselves.

    For the record, the left controlled all three houses and didn;t pass any gay marriage laws. The left controlled all three houses and didn;t pass any entertainent content laws. And they sure didn;t pass ny drugs and alcohol laws. So not as much difference as you might think.

    [quote]I know you personally don't believe that, Fish. However saying "the right" supports choice isn't entirely honest.[/QUOTE]

    It is the way I was using the term. It's not the way you are. So agreed.

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027901]+1

    Not just that, but to critique Flip-Flopping Politicians who passed Universal Healthcare that supported abortions.

    Romney should be the Left's favorite (R). Just like McCain thought he was, lol.



    Whats funy about that? Abortion has always been (to the right) a States rights issue.

    Doesn;t mean they won;t promote making it illegal (they will, absolutely), but as with many things, the right supports choice....of what state to live in, and of the peopel of those states to self-govern on issues they feel are not Federal issues.

    Sure, to the right it's also a moral issue, the two positions are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]

    Okay, since Potato didn't answer, I'll ask you. How can the adjudication of the right to life be a states rights issue? Unless it is determined that a foetus is not viable (as Justice Brennan went to great lengths to assess and determine a medical timeframe), the foetus would be protected Constitutionally from harm. If the Supreme Court attempted to avoid the issue and leave it to the states to determine whether a foetus was viable (and therefore a person), the first instance where a state allowed abortion would be brought to the courts and challenged as a constitutional violation and they'd be back in the Supreme Court. The only way this could be a states rights issue is if the foetus is unprotected Constitutionally. Then the determination of states to fund abortion or for the federal government to fund or not fund it would be a reasonable debate. But you can't have that debate at all if you are sidestepping the viability/person issue, which is fundamental. It would be very similar to the slavery issue prior to the 13th and 14th amendment, since slaves were not considered protected as persons under the Constitution but were chattel. Therefore states had the latitude to essentially allow all forms of brutality, including inflicting death (but they could pretend it wasn't murder, since slaves did not attain to equal standing).

    So my question stands: are you all agreeing that the foetus is not viable and that the issue is adjudicating funding at the state or federal level?

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4028254]Okay, since Potato didn't answer, I'll ask you. How can the adjudication of the right to life be a states rights issue? Unless it is determined that a foetus is not viable (as Justice Brennan went to great lengths to assess and determine a medical timeframe), the foetus would be protected Constitutionally from harm. If the Supreme Court attempted to avoid the issue and leave it to the states to determine whether a foetus was viable (and therefore a person), the first instance where a state allowed abortion would be brought to the courts and challenged as a constitutional violation and they'd be back in the Supreme Court. The only way this could be a states rights issue is if the foetus is unprotected Constitutionally. Then the determination of states to fund abortion or for the federal government to fund or not fund it would be a reasonable debate. But you can't have that debate at all if you are sidestepping the viability/person issue, which is fundamental. It would be very similar to the slavery issue prior to the 13th and 14th amendment, since slaves were not considered protected as persons under the Constitution but were chattel. Therefore states had the latitude to essentially allow all forms of brutality, including inflicting death (but they could pretend it wasn't murder, since slaves did not attain to equal standing).

    So my question stands: are you all agreeing that the foetus is not viable and that the issue is adjudicating funding at the state or federal level?[/QUOTE]

    You're tying two things together that are not to be

    Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder. Murder committed within the borders of a state, then that state has jurisdiction.

    If you don't believe that abortion is murder, then abortion is simply a medical (social) issue. Social issues such as that belong on the state level. Unless you can find for me the part of the Constitution that allows the federal government to rule on it. But you can't.

    Abortion good/bad and abortion state/federal are two different topics. You can be one of 4 combinations on stances on those. It's not one or the other.
    Last edited by JetPotato; 05-14-2011 at 09:43 PM.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4028625]You're tying two things together that are not to be

    Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder. Murder committed within the borders of a state, then that state has jurisdiction.

    If you don't believe that abortion is murder, then abortion is simply a medical (social) issue. Social issues such as that belong on the state level. Unless you can find for me the part of the Constitution that allows the federal government to rule on it. But you can't.

    Abortion good/bad and abortion state/federal are two different topics. You can be one of 4 combinations on stances on those. It's not one or the other.[/QUOTE]

    :clapper:

  15. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4028102]For the record, the left controlled all three houses and didn;t pass any gay marriage laws. The left controlled all three houses and didn;t pass any entertainent content laws. And they sure didn;t pass ny drugs and alcohol laws. So not as much difference as you might think.[/QUOTE]

    No difference at all.

    The left will likely never try to pass a Federal law legalizing gay marriage for the same reasons why Republicans will never try to pass a ban on abortions: it is a wedge issue for them. It's a way to rile up the extreme end of their party.

    As for entertainment laws, the left is just as guilty for trying to restrict/suppress entertainment (Remember the PMRC back in the 80's?).

    I wasn't defending the left at all in my post.

  16. #36
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4028625]You're tying two things together that are not to be

    Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder. Murder committed within the borders of a state, then that state has jurisdiction.

    If you don't believe that abortion is murder, then abortion is simply a medical (social) issue. Social issues such as that belong on the state level. Unless you can find for me the part of the Constitution that allows the federal government to rule on it. But you can't.

    Abortion good/bad and abortion state/federal are two different topics. You can be one of 4 combinations on stances on those. It's not one or the other.[/QUOTE]

    I would agree with the second paragraph, but the first one is rife with problems. How can a state adjudicate murder (which is indeed a state driven sentencing issue) unless the personhood of the foetus is determined constitutionally? Unless you're arguing that states have the delegated right to determine what a person is under the Constitution rather than the Congress or Supreme Court. If they do, then the protected rights in the Bill of Rights mean very little. The Constitution placed "we the people" above the rights of states. That's the most fundamental unit and therefore the one that would override states rights in this instance. IMO.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us