The future of the Republican Party.

[Knight Templar]

And bet I can find a unapologetic racist who is also a Republican.

Look. This country of yours that you think existed, never existed. There's always been an element that hasn't been suitable for Leave it to Beaver. The only difference between then and now is that we talk about it whereas then it wasn't "polite conversation".

So is the nature of society. Every successive generation gets more liberal than the last. Trying to be big government (yes, you people are just as guilty) and legislate morality isn't going to work. It's never has worked and it never will work.

Government has always legislated morality one way another. Plus, you're just assuming that each generation is more liberal (libertine actually) than the last. I doubt the generation that came of age in the Depression and World War II (sometimes called 'the greatest generation") were more "liberal" than those coming of age after World War One who defined the "roaring twenties".

and even if what you say is accurate, the future has never been a straight line projection of the past.

 

[Squiggy]

I doubt the generation that came of age in the Depression and World War II (sometimes called 'the greatest generation") were more "liberal" than those coming of age after World War One who defined the "roaring twenties".

There were more comfortable with women voting and drinking than the previous generation. And the people who came of age during WWII were the people who led the country in the 60s when a whole slew of liberal projects (Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Medicare, etc) came to pass. Those same people also voted for FDR 4 times. The first woman Secretary of Anything was nominated during this era as well.

Hate to break it to ya. punchy, but war doesn't equal "conservative". It the world isn't black and white like that.

 

[Knight Templar]

I doubt the generation that came of age in the Depression and World War II (sometimes called 'the greatest generation") were more "liberal" than those coming of age after World War One who defined the "roaring twenties".

There were more comfortable with women voting and drinking than the previous generation. And the people who came of age during WWII were the people who led the country in the 60s when a whole slew of liberal projects (Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Medicare, etc) came to pass. Those same people also voted for FDR 4 times. The first woman Secretary of Anything was nominated during this era as well.

Hate to break it to ya. punchy, but war doesn't equal "conservative". It the world isn't black and white like that.

Not really.

The only people that voted for FDR 4 times had to have been born no later than 1911. Which puts their formative years after World War One and during the roaring 20s.

 

[horatio83]

In the end, I think Bill Clinton was exactly right (although I don't know if he was quoting someone else or not):

"Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

Precisely. It's not like anybody who is against the criminalization of abortion in general is happy about women doing it'.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/...-love-abortion-and-i-dont-want-it-to-be-rare/

Think again.

I totally agree, such an attitude is totally sick. On the other hand this discussion will hardly be useful if we just repeat the crazy positions of extremists on both sides, be it people who threaten abortion doctors or wicked feminists who do not wan abortions to be rare.

If you asked me what my spontaneous reaction about sucking an embryo or fetus out of a woman were I would have to say disgust and sadness. It might come as surprise to you but I grew up as a moderate Christian, I value what you could call conservative values like family, decency, discipline and detest a carnevalesque, libertine attitude ... and sanctity of life is not a foreign term to me.
I think that abortion should be as rare as possible, I think that every woman should receive counselling before doing it and I certainly do not want to live in a culture which views killing embryos as something ordinary.
But to force women to go to quacks and endanger their health, to ignore the suffering of a woman who has been raped and bears the consequence of that in her stomach or to not give a crap about young people whose contraceptives failed and who still go to school or college and have no means to continue their education and support a child at the same time thanks to the slashing of the welfare state since Reagan sickens me far more than the killing of soon-to-be human life.

 

[Knight Templar]

Precisely. It's not like anybody who is against the criminalization of abortion in general is happy about women doing it'.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/...-love-abortion-and-i-dont-want-it-to-be-rare/

Think again.

I totally agree, such an attitude is totally sick. On the other hand this discussion will hardly be useful if we just repeat the crazy positions of extremists on both sides, be it people who threaten abortion doctors or wicked feminists who do not wan abortions to be rare.

If you asked me what my spontaneous reaction about sucking an embryo or fetus out of a woman were I would have to say disgust and sadness. It might come as surprise to you but I grew up as a moderate Christian and sanctity of life is not a foreign term to me.
I think that abortion should be as rare as possible, I think that every woman should receive counselling before doing it and I certainly do not want to live in a culture which views killing embryos as something ordinary.
But to force women to go to quacks and endanger their health, to ignore the suffering of a woman who has been raped and bears the consequence of that in her stomach or to not give a crap about young people whose contraceptives failed and who still go to school or college and have no means to continue their education and support a child at the same time thanks to the slashing of the welfare state since Reagan sickens me far more than the killing of soon-to-be human life.

So. A woman getting to remain in college sickens you MORE than killing a human life?

Talk about misplaced priorities. And once again, put the baby up for adoption. A birth mother doesn't pay for the delivery of the child you know.

And you do know just how staggeringly few women actually are impregnated due to rape don't you?

 

[horatio83]

For me an embryo is soon-to-be human life so yeah, I value the financial situation of the parents as more important than the rights of an embryo. I might view the issue slightly differently if we lived in a middle-class society like the sixties when people could lead a decent life without a college degree but in reactionary times with income inequality ascending to Gilden Age like levels forcing people to stop their education is quite irresponsible.

Are you in general against abortion or do you view it as acceptable when the woman faces medical complications and health risks during pregnancy respectively has been raped? And no, it doesn't matter that only a few percent of rape victims get pregnant as millions of women who live right now in your country or perhaps even your state have been raped!

 

[Squiggy]

And you do know just how staggeringly few women actually are impregnated due to rape don't you?

Do tell.

 

[Knight Templar]

Are you in general against abortion or do you view it as acceptable when the woman faces medical complications and health risks during pregnancy respectively has been raped? !

Personally, I'm against all abortions except when both the life of the mother and the baby are endangered and only abortion can save one of them.

Politically, I'm willing to accept the "medical complications, health risks, rape, and incest" exceptions because I know that eliminating elective abortions in the United States is undoable without them.

 

[Knight Templar]

And you do know just how staggeringly few women actually are impregnated due to rape don't you?

Do tell.

http://www.pandys.org/articles/rapeandpregnancy.html

According to the above site, anywhere from 1% to 4.7% of rapes result in pregnancy. Understand that it is very difficult to get accurate statistics and this accounts for the huge range.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I don't want to live in a society that recognizes elective abortions as a legitimate decision.

Then leave the Western World. I've heard they are hiring in Saudi Arabia.

It wasn't the society and nation I was born into and it is not the one I want to live in.

Hope you enjoy the sand.

I want my country back.

And the camels!

Why can't women simply carry an unwanted child to term and give them up for adoption?

Yeah, why can't they have their body held hostage by a biological process they don't want? Why can't they be slave to your morality, instead of answering to their own? I mean, what could possibly be the problem there?

To explain it, we will implant a ever-growing inflatable balloon in your abdomen, give you daily shots of crazy hormones, and put 20 kilos on you. You don't have a say on it, but hey! it will only be for 9 months! You'll even get to wear those pretty flowery dresses! Oh, right: at the end, you'll shit a watermelon through your anus. But I guess it's all in good spirit, right?

For me an embryo is soon-to-be human life

Yep. No superior brain -- no person.

 

[Knight Templar]

I don't want to live in a society that recognizes elective abortions as a legitimate decision.

Then leave the Western World. I've heard they are hiring in Saudi Arabia.

Or the U.S. prior to 1973.

and how long have abortions been legal in Italy for that matter?

 

[horatio83]

And you do know just how staggeringly few women actually are impregnated due to rape don't you?

Do tell.

http://www.pandys.org/articles/rapeandpregnancy.html

According to the above site, anywhere from 1% to 4.7% of rapes result in pregnancy. Understand that it is very difficult to get accurate statistics and this accounts for the huge range.

Let's do this very conservatively. 80.000 reported rapes per years in the US (actual stats are higher) and let's say 1 in 4 rapes are unreported (estimates are again higher). This yields about 300.000 rapes in the US per year or one per mille of the population.
Let's again conservatively estimate, using your numbers, that only 1% get pregnant. That's 3.000 or 1/50.000 women. One women in every mid-sized town gets raped and impregnated ... and on top of that horror she has to endure a reactionary, misogynist "make the best out of a bad situation" but do not abort attitude.

I really tried to be moderate in this discussion but now I have to be frank. Forcing a woman to love the child that was begotten in a rape and be reminded of what has been done to her for the rest of her life is not something that ethical people do. It is something that war criminals do, mass-rape the civilian population of the enemy and if children are born as a result of that the rapists rejoice that their deeds will never be forgotten.

 

[Knight Templar]

[Forcing a woman to love the child that was begotten in a rape and be reminded of what has been done to her for the rest of her life .

Who said anything about "forcing a woman to love the child" or "rest of her life".

She gives birth and she never has to see it again.

And as stated above in response to your inquiry I believe, I did state that I would allow the "rape/incest exception" for obvious political reasons.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Or the U.S. prior to 1973.

So you have access to a time machine? Cool!

and how long have abortions been legal in Italy for that matter?

1978. You can thank the Catholic Church for the delay. Not a moment too soon for women's right to choose about their bodies, tho.

By the way, I feel quite uncomfortable arguing about "women's rights", as if they had different rights from men. The right to choose about your own body is universal.

 

[Knight Templar]

Or the U.S. prior to 1973.

So you have access to a time machine? Cool!

and how long have abortions been legal in Italy for that matter?

1978. You can thank the Catholic Church for the delay. Not a moment too soon for women's right to choose about their bodies, tho.

By the way, I feel quite uncomfortable arguing about "women's rights", as if they had different rights from men. The right to choose about your own body is universal.

No right is universal. Not the right to life. Nor anything else.

 

[Squiggy]

Don't worry. Poll after poll shows that the Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. The pro-lifers might be louder than the pro-choicers, but they're fewer in number because the Republicans have spun this into a biblical debate.

I have no idea why Republicans think an election year push on women's health/rights is a winning tactic. For all the talk about keeping the government out of healthcare, they sure do seem keen on getting the government all up in vaginas from coast to coast because of a passing verse in the Bible.

 

[iguana_tonante]

How profound. How meaningless.

 

[Awesome Possum]

And bet I can find a unapologetic racist who is also a Republican.

His name is Ron Paul and he and his delusional supporters think he's going to be President.

The evidence is his racist newsletters and his obsession with overturning the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

 

[Knight Templar]

Don't worry. Poll after poll shows that the Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. The pro-lifers might be louder than the pro-choicers, but they're fewer in number because the Republicans have spun this into a biblical debate.

I have no idea why Republicans think an election year push on women's health/rights is a winning tactic. For all the talk about keeping the government out of healthcare, they sure do seem keen on getting the government all up in vaginas from coast to coast because of a passing verse in the Bible.

Because it does not matter what the American people think or what they tell pollsters.

What matters is who votes and where.

And if the polls (and thus the public) are on your side, then why support Roe V. Wade? If the American public is on the side of abortion rights, then why not let it be decided at the local and state levels as it used to be? If the American public is truly in favor of abortion rights, then it won't matter what the Supreme Court says.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Don't worry. Poll after poll shows that the Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. The pro-lifers might be louder than the pro-choicers, but they're fewer in number because the Republicans have spun this into a biblical debate.

I have no idea why Republicans think an election year push on women's health/rights is a winning tactic. For all the talk about keeping the government out of healthcare, they sure do seem keen on getting the government all up in vaginas from coast to coast because of a passing verse in the Bible.

Because it does not matter what the American people think or what they tell pollsters.

What matters is who votes and where.

And if the polls (and thus the public) are on your side, then why support Roe V. Wade? If the American public is on the side of abortion rights, then why not let it be decided at the local and state levels as it used to be? If the American public is truly in favor of abortion rights, then it won't matter what the Supreme Court says.

Because certain states would ban it and have already made it as difficult as possible to get one. A woman shouldn't have to travel hundreds of miles for a basic medical procedure. Are you also upset that the government forced the states to treat black people like human beings? Because they had to do that too, some states are controlled by backwards hicks.