|
Updated Political Poll
|
|
Topic Started: May 22 2016, 08:44 PM (3,326 Views)
|
|
Mr Gray
|
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
Post #241
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
- mongo
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 AM
- rkl15
- Sep 10 2016, 09:29 AM
- sirbrianwilson
- Sep 10 2016, 02:18 AM
How does a president's stance on guns affect the 2nd amendment rights of anyone?
There is this little thing called SCOTUS and the next POTUS will most likely nominate 2 Judges. This could drastically change the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment isn't going anywhere....unfortunately. You gun people need to relax. I remember hearing for 8 years how Obama was gonna round up all your guns. Don't recall that ever happening...
Same reason abortion stance is pretty much moot point for me. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is president and who they nominate for scotus.
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people. Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid. You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that.
Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
Post #242
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
- mongo
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 AM
- rkl15
- Sep 10 2016, 09:29 AM
- sirbrianwilson
- Sep 10 2016, 02:18 AM
How does a president's stance on guns affect the 2nd amendment rights of anyone?
There is this little thing called SCOTUS and the next POTUS will most likely nominate 2 Judges. This could drastically change the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment isn't going anywhere....unfortunately. You gun people need to relax. I remember hearing for 8 years how Obama was gonna round up all your guns. Don't recall that ever happening...
Same reason abortion stance is pretty much moot point for me. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is president and who they nominate for scotus.
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people. Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that. Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid. you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong.
Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works.
I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate.
If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Sep 11 2016, 02:06 PM
Post #243
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,067
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid. lol
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Sep 14 2016, 08:09 AM
Post #244
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Sep 11 2016, 02:06 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
lol I thought your lack of understanding and thought on the issue was sort of funny also.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
Post #245
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
- mongo
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 AM
- rkl15
- Sep 10 2016, 09:29 AM
- sirbrianwilson
- Sep 10 2016, 02:18 AM
How does a president's stance on guns affect the 2nd amendment rights of anyone?
There is this little thing called SCOTUS and the next POTUS will most likely nominate 2 Judges. This could drastically change the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment isn't going anywhere....unfortunately. You gun people need to relax. I remember hearing for 8 years how Obama was gonna round up all your guns. Don't recall that ever happening...
Same reason abortion stance is pretty much moot point for me. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is president and who they nominate for scotus.
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people. Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that. Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong. Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works. I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate. If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote? Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have.
Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
mongo
|
Sep 14 2016, 09:30 AM
Post #246
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 11,595
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #160
- Joined:
- February 12, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
- mongo
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 AM
- rkl15
- Sep 10 2016, 09:29 AM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
The second amendment isn't going anywhere....unfortunately. You gun people need to relax. I remember hearing for 8 years how Obama was gonna round up all your guns. Don't recall that ever happening...
Same reason abortion stance is pretty much moot point for me. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is president and who they nominate for scotus.
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people. Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that. Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong. Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works. I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate. If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have. Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example. Did you vote both times for W?
|

"Son, if you really want something in this life you have to work hard for it. Now quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers."
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Sep 14 2016, 11:39 AM
Post #247
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- mongo
- Sep 14 2016, 09:30 AM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
- mongo
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 AM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Same reason abortion stance is pretty much moot point for me. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is president and who they nominate for scotus.
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people. Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that. Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong. Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works. I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate. If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have. Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Did you vote both times for W? I did the first time, but not the second. In 2000, I was pretty young and not really thinking in depth about these issues.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Sep 14 2016, 06:57 PM
Post #248
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 11:39 AM
- mongo
- Sep 14 2016, 09:30 AM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people. Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that. Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong. Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works. I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate. If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have. Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Did you vote both times for W?
I did the first time, but not the second. In 2000, I was pretty young and not really thinking in depth about these issues. You voted for Senator Swiftboat, aka Lurch? Yuck
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Sep 14 2016, 07:14 PM
Post #249
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Sep 14 2016, 06:57 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 11:39 AM
- mongo
- Sep 14 2016, 09:30 AM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that. Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong. Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works. I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate. If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have. Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Did you vote both times for W?
I did the first time, but not the second. In 2000, I was pretty young and not really thinking in depth about these issues.
You voted for Senator Swiftboat, aka Lurch? Yuck Lol. No no no
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Sep 14 2016, 07:52 PM
Post #250
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,067
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 08:09 AM
- dreachon
- Sep 11 2016, 02:06 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
lol
I thought your lack of understanding and thought on the issue was sort of funny also. Yes. That's definitely what it is.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Sep 14 2016, 09:25 PM
Post #251
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example. Which was my original statement: it wouldn't matter if a candidate agreed with you on every position if they were pro-choice....you wouldn't vote for them.
However, I would guess that you most definitely have voted for candidates that are pro-death penalty. George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are all pro-death penalty.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Sep 14 2016, 09:56 PM
Post #252
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 07:14 PM
- HoosierLars
- Sep 14 2016, 06:57 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 11:39 AM
- mongo
- Sep 14 2016, 09:30 AM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
- dreachon
- Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that. Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong. Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works. I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate. If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have. Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Did you vote both times for W?
I did the first time, but not the second. In 2000, I was pretty young and not really thinking in depth about these issues.
You voted for Senator Swiftboat, aka Lurch? Yuck
Lol. No no no Ok, good, I was worried.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Sep 15 2016, 03:32 AM
Post #253
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Sep 14 2016, 09:25 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Which was my original statement: it wouldn't matter if a candidate agreed with you on every position if they were pro-choice....you wouldn't vote for them. However, I would guess that you most definitely have voted for candidates that are pro-death penalty. George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are all pro-death penalty. I established my stance on the death penalty in 2010. I didn't vote for Romney.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Sep 15 2016, 03:38 AM
Post #254
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Sep 14 2016, 07:52 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 08:09 AM
- dreachon
- Sep 11 2016, 02:06 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
lol
I thought your lack of understanding and thought on the issue was sort of funny also.
Yes. That's definitely what it is. If science proved to you that say a 3 month old fetus had a desire to survive and definitely felt pain, agony and sorrow during an abortion, just like your born children would if someone were trying to kill them, would you still feel that it's a woman's right to inflict such pain dread and death? This is not a "gotcha" dreach because this technology does not exist that I'm aware of. But you do need to seriously think about it outside of your established ideology.
Think about your own children and the agony you would experience at the thought of their mother trying to kill them while they fought through pain to try to survive. If you knew that the fetus went through the same feelings, would you still feel that it is the moms right?
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Sep 15 2016, 09:07 AM
Post #255
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Sep 15 2016, 03:32 AM
- brumdog44
- Sep 14 2016, 09:25 PM
- Mr Gray
- Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Which was my original statement: it wouldn't matter if a candidate agreed with you on every position if they were pro-choice....you wouldn't vote for them. However, I would guess that you most definitely have voted for candidates that are pro-death penalty. George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are all pro-death penalty.
I established my stance on the death penalty in 2010. I didn't vote for Romney. Would you agree that going forward there is very little chance that you will vote for one of the two major parties in a national election given that it's not likely thst either party will put forth a candidate that is pro-life and anti-death penalty?
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|