McCain Flip-Flops, Supports Immediate Reversal of Roe v. Wade
McCain Flip-Flops, Supports Immediate Reversal of Roe v. Wade
In 1999, the “moderate” version of John McCain said that overturning Roe v. Wade would be dangerous for women and he would not support it, even in “the long term.” Here’s McCain in the San Francisco Chronicle:
I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.
This morning on ABC, McCain — now aggressively courting the likes of Jerry Falwell — expressed his unequivocal support for overturning Roe v. Wade. Watch it:
Transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?
MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?
MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
More duplicity.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:04 amStay out of my pants and stay off my deathbed, freak.
Never forget Schiavo.
If nothing else, this should start to knock some of his shiny polish of being a moderate off. People need to see him as he truly is – a right winger.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:04 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
They lie for votes and they steal elections.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:06 amToday’s FOX Democrat is John Kerry.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:08 amSomeone should tell Democrats FOX ain’t real news.
Do we really want a President that looks like the Phantom of the Opera???
November 19th, 2006 at 10:09 amMcCain ia a manipulator of the highest order prone to prevarication.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:09 amRabbit
Speaking as a woman, he enrages me. A lot of women will not forget this….believe me.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:15 amGood Morning all, here we are again another thread about mccain, watching him throw up and out any old statement to try and snag some extreme reich winged profesed fundamentalists christians. Like all the repug’s running their races now they don’t seem to get it that the public is sick and tired of their crap and not buying any of it…America and her people are weary of polaticians and turning away from the old fat white men that have messed up so badly….I think, we the people are looking for fresh faces, new ideas and steady old timers that have remained true to the constitution….Mccain like many others will not even make it out of the starting gate in 2008….Blessings all.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:15 amHe is pushing very hard to shore up the right wing of the republican party. It will be interesting to see if Rudy does the same. I hope not, but politically, McCain may be making a smart move.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:17 amNot to mention that his new “conviction” has been paid for by evangelicals.
All his “principles” are for sale.
He ought to list them on Ebay.
Rabbit
November 19th, 2006 at 10:18 amSharon Cox, Is there something wrong with sticking to the Constitution?After all, it is the first place that the Dems run when they want protection.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:20 amAnd McCain is saying to make it a state issue, not federal. what is wrong with that? Or are the Dems only effective as a national force?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:21 amHi Sharon,
regarding your post and turning away from the fat white men who have nearly ruined America:
I once saw this saying and thought it was funny,
“Screw Presidents.
Let’s Try a High Priestess for a While”
I nominate Zooey.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:23 am;)
Like mccaine some reich winged posters are to far gone to even respond to…LOL….
November 19th, 2006 at 10:25 amWhat an empty, soulless political and intellectual whore…
…how could ANYONE vote for this scum…
…or Guiliani?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:26 amI’ll be happy when John Mc Cain becomes irrelevent…
November 19th, 2006 at 10:28 amHere goes “pimping” the religious right just like W did! Guess Falwell’s advisor is already steering him in the absolute “wrong direction”…oh well….he can’t help it…once a flip-flop, always a flip-flop. The sad fact is that since McCain has sold his soul to you know who….he hasn’t a clue as to “who HE (McCain) really is these days. Maybe he’s losing it,too – old enough, that’s for sure. Senile dementia, anyone??
November 19th, 2006 at 10:28 amMcCain has become “everyone’s whore”….he whores for the highest bidder these days.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:29 amI second that nomination trueblue…Blessings
November 19th, 2006 at 10:29 amOnce again, McCain shows just what an idiot he really is. Leaving such momentous decisions such as abortion and gay rights to the states will create a severly devided, therefore weakened nation.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:32 amBut he really is good at dropping the code words to the far right wing knuckledragger base.
McCain has fallen so low, that now he is nothing but a mere George W. Bush wannabe.
How very sad: McCain’s the embodiment of everything that voters rejected this month about Republicans. Unreliable, lying, saying whatever has to be said to win votes. How very right wing “Christian.” How very George W. Bush.
What a whore. Sad, in that he used to be a hero. But after the Keating Five, and now a decade’s old overweening ambition to be president, he is the Senate equivalent of Randy Cunningham without the virtue of imprisonment for taking his Republicanism to the ultimate measure.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:32 amThis isn’t the first weasel response from McCain on abortion. He said he would sign the South Dakota abortion ban that specifically did not allow exceptions for the life of the mother and rape and incest. That was the entire point of the ban. Here’s McCain having it both ways from The Hotline:
What steps? Signing a bill makes it law.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:35 amOxyCon,
I agree with 50% of what you said in #20. Gay marriage should be a Federal issue as it has implications (legal and financial) in all 50 States.
As for abortion, I think that should be a state issue. If your state is a “No Abortion” state then you can always cross state lines. Therefore it has no hard national implications.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:38 amHe was against torture before he was for it.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:39 amEh? McCain says he’s for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, then seconds later says he’s a federalist who believes the issue should be decided by the states. A constitutional amendment would take the decision out of the hands of the states.
I don’t suppose Stephanopoulos confronted him about the obvious contradiction. What am I saying? Someone in the media confronting St. McCain? Sorry, I must have been hallucinating for a second there that we were living in a world where the media did their job.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:39 amWell he’s locking up the vote of the “10 Commandments on the Courthouse Wall” contingent.
If he is installed in the White House, we can look forward to really hard hitting questions from the press corps like the ones they gave Bush: “Mr. President, how has your deep and abiding faith helped you in these difficult times?”
November 19th, 2006 at 10:39 amOnce again, no follow-up by the “liberal” media.
Where’s the “Yes, but in 1999…”
November 19th, 2006 at 10:42 amI hope the Bush worshippers were watching C-Span this morning…
…Syrian ambassador to the U.S. Imad Moustapha was on and responded to a ? from a caller who asked…
…”President Bush and the architects of this so called war on terror have been saying that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom, our way of life. Can you explain why they hate us?”
…Moustapha gave an excellent, thoughtful and very comprehensive dissertattion into why we find ourselves at odds with Middle Eastern fighters…
to paraphrase:
…because of the U.S.’ (racist- implied my word), hegemonist, imperialist, pro-Israeli, hypocritical foreign policy…
…I hope the al Cracker inbred Bush worshipping TRAITORS understand that the soldiers dying in Iraq…
…are NOT defending America…
…they’re defending CORPORATE America…
… God is going to piss on their (Bush supporters’) heads…
…only it won’t be with the riches they envision garnering from their support of their wealthy, avaricious, corporate elitist gods…
…their Karma demands it…
November 19th, 2006 at 10:42 amrobert. you make a good point. I think the founders believed in states rights. I probably does make sense to give more power to the state and less to the federal government.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:44 ambig papa, I though tis was about McCain and abortion, not Bush and the war?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:46 am#17. you are right. W pimped the religious right and now McCain is too. But you have to admit, it’s like the left was pimped about the war prior to this last election.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:46 amSome suggested Guiliani is the answer…Guiliani will be nothing but an Israeli puppet. I can’t imagine Guiliani says ‘no’ to Israel, or listen fairly to an Arab or Moslem point of view Vs. Israeli view without being biased. Guiliani is also unknown in the South. It will be very hard for him to win any state in the south. He might win New York,but that is not enough for him..Good luck Guiliani
November 19th, 2006 at 10:48 amKeep it up John. The further you ram your head up the rear ends of the most vile right wing hate and war mongers, the more you insure you haven’t a snowball’s chance in Hades of being nominated for, much less being elected, President.
Any credibility you once had has been not merely tarnished, but blown away like the smoke it was. If you sucked up any harder to the absolutely most despicable, hate and fantasy filled elements of the right wing, your head would implode.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:49 amHow very right wing “Christian.†How very George W. Bush.
Comment by Superskepticalman — November 19, 2006 @ 10:32 am
Christianity has evolved into a cult for these people.
No where in the Bible does it condemn abortion. No where. It even says that life begins at breath – which is birth.
The need for these holier-than-thou hypocrites to control other people is sadistic and demented – at best.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:50 amI am sure he will also soon blast the Supreme Court decision on Gore vs. Bush that gave Bush the presidency, because of his deep committment to Federalism.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:52 am#31, Paul, you are correct, sir. Anyone that think that these people in DC are standing on any moral high-ground in sadly mistaken. Each is there to further their own interests. If yo uask me, they all whore to the highest bidder.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:53 amBringing a fetus to term in the past has killed women…
If doctors cannot say with 100% certainty that bringing a fetus to term will not kill you…
If a you feel that bringing the fetus to term will kill you…
What gives anyone else the RIGHT to force you to do something that you feel will kill you?
No “critical thinking” person believes government has that RIGHT!
What happens when some doctor says brining the fetus to term will not kill you, but you have a gut feeling it will?
Can you not be more in tune with your own body than what can be detected by medical instruments and the doctor’s interpertation of that data?
What happen when the government forces you to bring the fetus to term and you die?
Are not the government and the people who voted for the law, guilty of having murdered you?
Who should pay for your murder and how should they pay for it?
Will a law against abortion, actually stop abortions, or will SAFE abortions be only available to the RICH, while the POOR will go to a back alley with a hangar, just like pre Roe Vs Wade?
Will all the people who voted against abortions, now start adopting every baby from a womwn who did not want to have it?
Will all the people who voted against abortions, now start paying for the mecical care and living expenses for the mothers who are poor and cannot afford to be off from work, and who have no health insurance?
Can you not see that just like with alcohol prohibition, the effects from having the ban cause more harm than not having the ban?
Why should men be allowed to vote on this subject at all?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:54 amGay marriage should be a Federal issue as it has implications (legal and financial) in all 50 States.
But because you do not consider gay people as human as straight people, you don’t think they deserve equality in those legal and financial implications?
People like you used tothink black people were 2/3s of a person as well. Or do you give gays that much credit?
As for abortion, I think that should be a state issue. If your state is a “No Abortion†state then you can always cross state lines. Therefore it has no hard national implications.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 10:38 am
South Dakota just verified that peope want abortion to be legal – to keep it safe.
Go read up on back alley abortions and see how banning abortion does nothing to prevent it – and winds up costing more lives in the long run.
Also, for someone who cares about financial implications – it costs the tax payers far more money in the long run to force women to have children they do not want. Even if you don’t like it, it’s a fact.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:54 amGuiliani will not win in New York, we know him too well.
As for the rest of the country, right wingers will find him to be far to liberal.
That is why mccain is tracking further to the right, show he is more like “them” that Guiliani is.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:54 amMcCain is deploying the famous Nixon strategy to win the White House. Run to the right in the primary to get the nomination and move to the center to win the general election. McCain: Its the 2!st CENTURY, you moron.
McCain is embracing the Karl Rove strategy. It will be interesting if his campaign directors resort to the sleezy Rove tactics that were used against him in South Carollina.
The corporate media has sold a bag of goods to the Ameican people and it is this: That John McCain is some kind of moderate independent maverick. He’s NEVER been one.
If the Democrats would run a Edwards/Obama ticket in 2008, there will no longer be an evenly split electorate down the middle. This ticket would win in an electoral landslide no matter who the Republicans run and I HOPE it is McCain too.
The polls that show McCain as the front runner two years away are irrelevant. I remember in April of 1992, Clinton ran 3rd behind Perot and Bush. Polls 2 years out are meaningless.
Let Hillary Clinton become Majority Leader of the Senate in 2008 and run Edwards/Obama. This is the ticket for success.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:54 amWC said:
It’s okay to flip-flop if you’re a Republican…and it’s doubly okay to flip-flop if you’re Saint John McCain.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:56 amMudge, #35, But if the Supreme Court have given the win to Gore, that would have been just fine?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:56 am“As for abortion, I think that should be a state issue. If your state is a “No Abortion†state then you can always cross state lines. Therefore it has no hard national implications”
Robert,
You obviously are not following this issue as well as you might or you would know states are starting to criminalize the act of taking a woman across state lines to avoid their draconian abortion laws. These states (state A) are passing laws to make the medical provider who performs the services legally (in state B) and anyone assisting the patient get across state lines to the medical provider (from state A to state B)guilty of a felony (and subject to the jurisdiction of state A). Thus, your comment is somewhat incorrect as a hodge podge of laws will ultimately prevent women from crossing state lines as well. This is a national issue and I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice Kansas, Florida or any other state to the will of the theocrats of the Flat Earth Society.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:57 amWhy should men be allowed to vote on this subject at all?
Comment by criticalthinker — November 19, 2006 @ 10:54 am
I have no problems with men who consider women their equals to have input. It’s the ones who think women are possessions with asses and oxen – that only care about their seed being sown and not about the rights or health of women who don’t deserve a say…
November 19th, 2006 at 10:59 amWC said:
Once again, no follow-up by the “liberal†media.
Where’s the “Yes, but in 1999…â€
It’s okay to flip-flop if you’re a Republican…and it’s double-plus okay to flip-flop if you’re Saint John McCain.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:59 amBut if the Supreme Court have given the win to Gore, that would have been just fine?
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 10:56 am
No. You don’t get it. It wasn’t an either or situation. We want the votes ofteh people tohave decided. Not judges or election officials or electorates for that matter either…
November 19th, 2006 at 11:01 amBut because you do not consider gay people as human as straight people, you don’t think they deserve equality in those legal and financial implications?
My, you like to put words in my mouth. I never said they were not equal. If THE PEOPLE, not the courts decide that gay marriage should be legal, than so be it.
South Dakota just verified that peope want abortion to be legal – to keep it safe.
Go read up on back alley abortions and see how banning abortion does nothing to prevent it – and winds up costing more lives in the long run.
Also, for someone who cares about financial implications – it costs the tax payers far more money in the long run to force women to have children they do not want. Even if you don’t like it, it’s a fact.
Again, the people of that state say to keep it legal, then so be it. saout Dakota is a pro-choice state. If the people in North Dakota say to ban it, do they not have that right in their state of residence?
November 19th, 2006 at 11:02 amTas, #43m thanks for sheading some light in my dark little closet. Food for thought indead.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:03 amThis is a national issue and I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice Kansas, Florida or any other state to the will of the theocrats of the Flat Earth Society.
Comment by Tas — November 19, 2006 @ 10:57 am
Personally, I tend to prefer smaller federal government and larger local government. However, I think you’re right that, in this case, the Federal government needs to prevent local governments from usurping people’s rights.
And the fact that is it women’s rights and a right that affects both genders says a lot…
November 19th, 2006 at 11:04 amunbelievable, #46, on this we agree (surprize), but until we do away with the electoral college and all the others you named that will not happen. I would be perfectly happy if “One Vote, One Voice” really ment that an if this were a true democracy and not a democratic republic.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:08 amwhat a surprise…I wonder how people have him in their pocket?
November 19th, 2006 at 11:08 amPersonally, I tend to prefer smaller federal government and larger local government
Comment by unbelievable
That is twice I think we agree.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:10 amMy body = My responsibility
My body = My decision
You guys hear that? It’s. My. Body.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:10 am“Screw Presidents.
Let’s Try a High Priestess for a Whileâ€
I nominate Zooey.
Comment by trueblue
I second that nomination trueblue…Blessings
Comment by Sharon Cox
Oy. I don’t know if I should thank you, or ask if I’ve pissed you off.
Heh. You two are sweeties, that’s for sure.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:13 amMy, you like to put words in my mouth.
Nope. You implied it. I just pointed it out to you.
By saying that we shouldn’t allow gay people to marry due tothe implications of it means that they are not entitled. If they aren’t entitled, it is because you do not consider them as worthy as you do straight people. It’s what you said.
I never said they were not equal. If THE PEOPLE, not the courts decide that gay marriage should be legal, than so be it.
That’s not what you initially said. You’re not very good at owning what you say – or thinking it through. That’s what happens when you just acept someting in blind faith without thinking it through.
Again, the people of that state say to keep it legal, then so be it. saout Dakota is a pro-choice state. If the people in North Dakota say to ban it, do they not have that right in their state of residence?
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Not when it denies someone their rights. Thomas Jefferson said that a democracy was where 51% of the population has the right to take away the rights of the other 49%. Hence, we live in a Republic.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:15 amThe media lets these repubs weathervane it but holds an electron microscope over every progressive
November 19th, 2006 at 11:16 amWhen the religious right were in full thrust last two presidential elections..McCain wanted to look liberal…he lost. Now McCain thought he learned his lessons..went to kiss J.Falwells #ss…but now the religious rights are in decline…and the last Congressional elections proved it…now McCain got himself trapped between the claim of being liberal few years ago, and the new ‘religious wannabee’ McCain . Good luck
November 19th, 2006 at 11:18 amBy saying that we shouldn’t allow gay people to marry due tothe implications of it means that they are not entitled. If they aren’t entitled, it is because you do not consider them as worthy as you do straight people. It’s what you said.
You misunderstand. I did not say they should not marry because of the implications. I said it should be a federal issue because of the implications.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:18 amNot when it denies someone their rights. Thomas Jefferson said that a democracy was where 51% of the population has the right to take away the rights of the other 49%. Hence, we live in a Republic.
So if 99% of the people agree, we can not make a change because of the 1% that doesn’t? These are just easy numbers I am spouting, I am not claiming them to be true. I am using them to illustrate a point.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:20 amI would be perfectly happy if “One Vote, One Voice†really ment that an if this were a true democracy and not a democratic republic.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:08 am
I have reservations about that also.
It’s only IF the public is educated. And we once were the most education nation in the world. But, no longer. We now rank 7th. Canada is 1st. And Canada is quite liberal with social issues…
I left Corporate America two years ago to become a high school teacher. I can tell you that the system is broken. And that NCLB and private school vouchers are NOT the answer.
I do not want a Democracy of ignorant people.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:20 amMcCain is a guaranteed win for the Democratic Party in 2008. McCain is a flip flopper on every issue including the fact that he kissed up to Dubya after a thorough ass raping in 1999. Not enough balls to be President. Kissing up to the hypcritical Reichwingnuts is not going to help.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:22 amYou guys hear that? It’s. My. Body.
Comment by Zooey — November 19, 2006 @ 11:10 am
I second that.
No one will force me to have a child that I do not want. Period.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:22 am#60, We agree again. But people also have a DUTY to educate themselves. Government education has proven to be a joke. You know that by your occupation. I do not fault you, so please do not take it a a personal attack. Our system is broken.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:24 amrobert #30
…”thinking” is definitely NOT your strong suit…
…when people like YOU “think”…
…people die, and/or get snookered…
…the “war” (as you call it) and Bush are much more important than…
…a flip-flopping political whore…
November 19th, 2006 at 11:24 am[...] We might wanna start by connecting it to another of the most important fights over the next few years: protecting reproductive freedoms. This morning, McCain performed a complete flip-flop on Roe V Wade. He’s now calling for it to be overturned and admitted he expects it to happen. [...]
November 19th, 2006 at 11:25 am“Mumbles” McCain is such a liar…when he said he would “commit suicide” if Democrats win the Senate…and now I see him on Meet the Press this morning. Very disappointed in him.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:29 am#64, so, because I do not think the same as you, I am wrong? Try sticking to the issue at hand. If you want to discuss Iraq or Bush, there is anothe r blog for that.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:29 ami commented yesterday on another weblog that i believe mccain is slowly but surely marginalizing himself, and will soon cease to be a potent factor in today’s important issues, much less a viable 2008 presidential candidate…
mccain is working hard to position himself as the heir apparent to the fundamentalist christian base, but he’s discounting two important things… a big one is that the leaders of that base are being exposed as power and money-hungry hypocrites, willing to sell their flocks to the highest bidder, and the flocks are no longer going to follow these so-called “shepherds” quite so willingly… the second thing, also big, is that the individual members of the churches and religious groups are awakening to the fact that the republicans have shamelessly used and manipulated them to further a decidedly un-christian agenda…
you go right ahead, john, and keep sucking up to that base… just don’t be surprised to find that it’s built on sand…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
November 19th, 2006 at 11:30 amYou misunderstand. I did not say they should not marry because of the implications. I said it should be a federal issue because of the implications.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:18 am
I know what you said. I didn’t misunderstand. You just didn’t consider the ramifications of your statement. I pointed them out to you so now you can consider them.
So if 99% of the people agree, we can not make a change because of the 1% that doesn’t? These are just easy numbers I am spouting, I am not claiming them to be true. I am using them to illustrate a point.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:20 am
The absolutism through which you view the world is not rational. Your point is not realistic and your example is not logically valid – because no one said it should be all or nothing. The founding fathers intention was not that at all. Because they understood that people might not make educated choices, there needed to be an opportunity for another body of people to be a balance to potential mob rule… Much likethe checks and balances we have at the top. If they didn’t trust the President to always make wise decisions, how could they trust others? They didn’t. Hence, a Democratic Republic.
I think the people should vote for the President now, because we live in a world of instant information and no longer have to worry that someone voting may not know where the candidates stand on the issues. And, in generally, most people who vote try to be educated about it.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:32 amOnce again an old rich white guy is deciding that the HEALTH of women doesn’t matter and isn’t even worth addressing. Shameful.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:35 amI agree with 50% of what you said in #20. Gay marriage should be a Federal issue as it has implications (legal and financial) in all 50 States.
Where does this say that gays should not be allowed to marry because of financial or legal implications?
It says that the federal government should decide on gay marriage in order to have it recognized in all 50 states. Otherwise Texas does not have to recognize Utah and allow the same benifits it would to a hetro couple.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:40 amBut people also have a DUTY to educate themselves.
Robert, clearlyyou hav no idea what it is like to be anything but a white heterosexual male both to people who wanted and loved him enough to provide him the home environment that allows him to move about Maslow’s first level of human needs.
Not everyone is like you or had the same good fortune.
Government education has proven to be a joke.
It’s not a joke, it’s just not in touch with reality because so many people who are running the system are not in touch with reality themselves. And, well, the general public elects the BOE. I think teachers should have a much bigger say… After all they are the people who are educated on the system and know where and why it is broken. In Georgia, we are not even allowed to have unions…
You know that by your occupation. I do not fault you, so please do not take it a a personal attack. Our system is broken.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:24 am
I don’t take it personally. I just joined – mostly because it was broken and I wanted to see if I could help.
And mostly what is broken in middle and high schools is that we treat teenagers like 5 year olds. Seriously.
I work for a brand new public Charter school. We have given our students a lot more responsibility and respect than they get otherwise. We run our programs like a business would run. And you know what? It’s working. They are staying in school, doing better in their core classes, and working toward their futures.
It’s actually about controlling them less, allowing them in the comfort of the classroom to make mistakes (it’s how we learn), and giving them hands on experiences. It works. I see it because I live it.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:43 amComment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Looks like Robert drew the short straw for today.
So, Robert, let’s project your philosophy forward a few years. People of Hispanic descent have become a slight majority in the United States, and, using their majority status, pass a law preventing white people from getting married, thus ensuring that the white race will gradually decline and that Hispanics will continue to grow in majority status.
The People will have spoken. The People will have passed an unconstitutional law. And, according to you, there should be no recourse to the courts.
Without the courts, minorities will cease to have rights. Constitutional protections will become meaningless. When minorities can no longer count on the rule of law to protect their rights, the usual recourse is violence.
Your attitude, Robert, is why people resort to terrorism as a tactic to achieve political change. As long as there are people such as yourself, there will be a “war on terror” because you create the very monster you portend to fight.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:43 amIf THE PEOPLE, not the courts decide that gay marriage should be legal, than so be it.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Hey numbskull – what you are describing is mob rule… the reason we have courts in the first place is to make sure that the rights and liberties of those not in the majority are protected.
If you made law by taking a vote at a local level (state or county), you would end up with many laws that would fly in the face of the individual rights provided by our national constitution… slavery would be legal in many states, homosexuality and abortion illegal, and some states or counties might even decide that members of one political party or another can be imprisoned simply for opposing the majority party.
What you are suggesting is no less than the destruction of our free and democratic nation… why Robert do you hate America?
November 19th, 2006 at 11:46 am[...] Who you gonna believe, your lying eyes and ears, or the TV? Usually, it’s the TV. Watch for yourself at Think Progress. [...]
November 19th, 2006 at 11:48 amWOW, giving power to the people is a scary thing, ain’t it. But I though that was what you all want.
Using the ETHNIC angle is a different tactic. To bad we are talking about LIFESTYLES not RACES. Last I checked there was no nation of Homolia.
unbelievable-
If you must really know my background, I am white and was raised most of my life by a divorced mother of 5. Myself and my brother and sisters spent about 4 years in foster care because my mother was working two jobs and still not able to take care of us. this was in the early 70s when there were not as many programs to help as there are now.
And government education is a joke because too much money is going to the fat-cat administrators and not to the teachers. Schools do not have enough text books for the students, and not enough computers. You are right, teachers do not have enough say, but at the same time, some teachers abuse that right by spouting their own political ideas and agendias (from both sides, mind you).
November 19th, 2006 at 11:54 amSurprise, surprise,…not! No Republican can become president without wooing the religious right, and McCain knows that just as Bush knew it.
We warned about this before the 2004 elections. This can only get worse. Bush, McCain, and the entire group of lemmings in the GOP have waged an assault on women, here and worldwide, that will reverberate for decades.
Title of this article, which seems to be blocked by an ad (ignore it)…is George Bush’s Assault on Women. Scary stuff.
HERE
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/assault_on_women.html
November 19th, 2006 at 11:55 amWhere does this say that gays should not be allowed to marry because of financial or legal implications?
Let’s try this again…
You said that the Federal Governemt should decide because of financial and legal implications… meaning that you think they should decide the issue based on money and legalities. That’s not how they judge straight marriage.
Therefore, holding gay marriage to a different, more stringent standard means that gays are not give equal status to straights. You’re playing a double standard that makes one group of people unequal to another. And in inequality – there is one who is ‘lesser’ to the other.
Get it yet?
It says that the federal government should decide on gay marriage in order to have it recognized in all 50 states. Otherwise Texas does not have to recognize Utah and allow the same benifits it would to a hetro couple.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:40 am
If that’s truly what you mean, then that is what you should say. Otherwise, you givethe impression that money and legalities are a reason for denying gay marriage.
Robert, I think you’re one of those people who is on the verge of seeing the world that exists rather than the one that you were told should exist. I used to be like you. Came from a conservative Reublican military Christian family. One day, it started to unravel, and the more of reality I discovered, the more it began to fall apart for me until I eventually found something much better.
I would suggest you get out in the world and meet people who are different from you… I met a homeless man, a Catholic man from Belfast who had been tortured by the British military even though he had no connections to the IRA, and many others like them who had lived lives far different from mine. It was a better education than the 6 years I went to college combined.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:56 amYour attitude, Robert, is why people resort to terrorism as a tactic to achieve political change. As long as there are people such as yourself, there will be a “war on terror†because you create the very monster you portend to fight.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — November 19, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Did I see that you passed the bar? Not surprised : )Congrats!
November 19th, 2006 at 11:59 amG.W.SuperChrist
A governmet for the people and by the people is not a hatred of a country I love dearly.
I do not think that we should allow 9 people in DC to decide what is right for all of us.
What is wrong with protecting the rights of the minority within the laws of the majority?
What if the courts decide gay marriage should be Illegal?
You can not have it both ways. You can not say that the court has to vote this way because the people want it.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:00 pmI’m looking forward to seeing Wes Clark obliterate McCain the phoney in 2008
November 19th, 2006 at 12:02 pmWOW, giving power to the people is a scary thing, ain’t it. But I though that was what you all want.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:54 am
You are not suggesting giving “power to the people”… what you have suggested is that some people should be given the power to render other people powerless… simple majorities should be given all the power, while everyone else should have none.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:05 pmUsing the ETHNIC angle is a different tactic. To bad we are talking about LIFESTYLES not RACES. Last I checked there was no nation of Homolia.
Comment by robert
That’s a very revealing statement, Robert. Try taking the word “lifestyle” out of the equation, and inserting the word “human.” It’s none of our business who people sleep with, as long as they are consenting adults. We are all human, and should treat one another as such.
The ethnic angle Briseadh na Faire used was not the main point. The main point is that we have the courts to protect those who may not be able to protect themselves. It’s a constitutional protection.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#78,
I think now you understand my point. You and I seem to cone from different ends of the spectrum. I was raised in a very liberal-democrat family, that was military like yours. And after being out in the world, I came to the views I have.
It says that the federal government should decide on gay marriage in order to have it recognized in all 50 states. Otherwise Texas does not have to recognize Utah and allow the same benifits it would to a hetro couple.
Comment by robert
I assumed this would be understood by my original post. It is an issue of making sure that they are afforded the SAME, not less, not more, rights under the law.
The world I was told should exist is one where everyone is equal and tollerance is valued. All people are valid and everyones voice counts. I have experianced that not to be true. And both side are to blame.
I take part and offer myself for sacrifice in forums like this in order to understand the other side. I do not want to be just talking points and no understanding.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:10 pmIf I ever saw this hack on the campaign trail I would spit at his feet and turn my back to him. What a piece of Sh!t.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:10 pmIf you must really know my background, I am white and was raised most of my life by a divorced mother of 5. .
How many friends do you have who are not white? Not straight? Not Christian? Not like you?
And government education is a joke because too much money is going to the fat-cat administrators and not to the teachers.
I’d rather the money go to the kids.
Schools do not have enough text books for the students, and not enough computers.
I don’t use textbooks. In my field, they are obsolete by the time they are printed. And we onlyare allowed to get new ones once every seven years.
Computers – we do need more of those. But as tools for learning…
You are right, teachers do not have enough say, but at the same time, some teachers abuse that right by spouting their own political ideas and agendias (from both sides, mind you).
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:54 am
I am so sick of that line. It’s simply NOT true. Just like the few teachers who are pedophiles do not mean that most of us are sleeping with our students…
The reality is that children look to their parents as role models… Unless their parents aren’t there (another huge issue we have in our society), and then they seek others – who are usually those that we’ve culturally taught them to value – Hollywood and sports stars.
The fact that I am a liberal Atheist vegan has zero impact upon my students or what they believe. It’s their parents who have that impact.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:11 pmZooey, so the people have no say an dthe courts decide it all? Then why haev a vote?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:12 pmRobert, I know your comment was directed to GWSC, but here’s my take:
A governmet for the people and by the people is not a hatred of a country I love dearly.
We have common ground in dearly loving this country.
I do not think that we should allow 9 people in DC to decide what is right for all of us.
The Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances set up by our Constitution. Kick that leg off the stool, and our whole system collapses.
What is wrong with protecting the rights of the minority within the laws of the majority?
Tell that to the minorities in this country before the civil rights movement.
What if the courts decide gay marriage should be Illegal?
They certainly could decide that. There remains the right of appeal.
You can not have it both ways. You can not say that the court has to vote this way because the people want it.
Comment by robert
You’re right, Robert, but you can’t say that either.
Peace.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:16 pmZooey, so the people have no say an dthe courts decide it all? Then why haev a vote?
Comment by robert
The people have the right of appeal.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:17 pmThe world I was told should exist is one where everyone is equal and tollerance is valued.
I think it’s more complicated than that, but I need to get going…
All people are valid and everyones voice counts. I have experianced that not to be true. And both side are to blame.
I’ll agree with that. I just think the Right is more to blame than the left.
I take part and offer myself for sacrifice in forums like this in order to understand the other side. I do not want to be just talking points and no understanding.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
Until you value yourself and your opinions, no one else will either. Calling yourself a sacrifice is self-degrading. Stop it. You have a right to your views. Just don’t expect us to respect them if you don’t…
I have to run… But I am sure I’ll run into you later.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:17 pm[...] Think Progress reports that in 1999 he was adamantly opposed to reversing Roe vs. Wade: I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations. [...]
November 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pmhttp://www.catalyst-chicago.org/news/index.php?item=2083&cat=24&tr=y&auid=2163085
“An estimated 1 in 10 children nationwide has a parent in the criminal justice system. In Chicago, schools have no way to identify such children—and few resources to support them.”
November 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pm#86, I never said most teachers do this, just a few.
My best friend, Edward Buggs is black. He and his wife were there for the birth of 2 of my 3 children. He is not my only black friend.
Or Eric Gonzalez, another good friend and democrat.
A long time friend of mine, Heath Lovett, is Jewish. Paul is athiest libritarian.
Sorry, we all like meat. Nothing agains vegans, just dont have any friends.
Because of my vocation, I do not see a lot of openly gay people. One I can point out is Dawn Conrad. She decided to out herself while we were stationed together and they spent 2 weeks trying to prove she was not a lesbian. Her and I drank many a beer together.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:21 pmWhat is wrong with protecting the rights of the minority within the laws of the majority?
Tell that to the minorities in this country before the civil rights movement.
During the civil rights movement their right were not being protected.
I do not think that we should allow 9 people in DC to decide what is right for all of us.
The Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances set up by our Constitution. Kick that leg off the stool, and our whole system collapses.
You are right, 100%. It can not be the ONLY leg in the stool is my point.
You can not have it both ways. You can not say that the court has to vote this way because the people want it.
Comment by robert
You’re right, Robert, but you can’t say that either.
I wouldn’t want it that way.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:26 pmRobert,
Please be careful revealing your friends’ names online.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:28 pmI do not think that we should allow 9 people in DC to decide what is right for all of us. What is wrong with protecting the rights of the minority within the laws of the majority? What if the courts decide gay marriage should be Illegal? You can not have it both ways. You can not say that the court has to vote this way because the people want it.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
I don’t think you understand how this whole law thing works… judges do not get to willy nilly decide cases based on their temperaments that day… they are bound to uphold the constitution.
The constitution does not allow some citizens to take away the right of other citizens to form social contracts (marriage). The courts will not decide that gay marriage is illegal because the constitution forbids them from arriving at this conclusion. Public opinion is irrelevant.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:28 pmWhosoever supports false christians does not get my vote. What happened to the Senator’s backbone. He used to have one. I guess he lost it carrying all that water for the Bushies.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:28 pm#90I take part and offer myself for sacrifice in forums like this in order to understand the other side. I do not want to be just talking points and no understanding.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
Until you value yourself and your opinions, no one else will either. Calling yourself a sacrifice is self-degrading. Stop it. You have a right to your views. Just don’t expect us to respect them if you don’t…
I do value my opinion. I just realize they are unpopular in this forum. It seems that many will launch a personal attack because I differ. Doesn’t that counter what this is all about?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:29 pmMcCain could not possibly violate his own convictions because he has note. He is the definition of situational ethics.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:32 pmRobert,
You are right, 100%. It can not be the ONLY leg in the stool is my point.
The point is that this administration has made the Executive the strongest leg of the stool, and is actively trying to kick out the Judicial leg, and to a certain extent the Legislative leg.
Very dangerous! The system only works the way it was supposed to if there is balance. The balance is gone, and our country is wobbling dangerously.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:33 pmJohn McCain is far too old to be Prez. He needs to put this idea of running, out of his mind. He’s losing it, slipping, failing! The critical signs of senility are showing. He hasn’t been on his game in a few years now. We are finally going to get rid of our “retarded, incompetent, and criminal” Prez, and God knows we don’t need another one to set us back another century! McCain, get a hobby, and go away!
November 19th, 2006 at 12:35 pmI do value my opinion. I just realize they are unpopular in this forum. It seems that many will launch a personal attack because I differ. Doesn’t that counter what this is all about?
Comment by robert
Robert, you and I do not agree on many things, but if I have attacked you personally, it was not my intention. Please accept my apologies.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#95,
I have to use facts because otherwise I am called a liar. You should know that by now. Look at Wayne from last night.
You do, however seem to be the lone exception.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:36 pmYou’re right, Robert, but you can’t say that either.
I wouldn’t want it that way.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Robert agrees with Robert… hmmmmm.
Robert – did you forget to switch your name over to Paul before agreeing with yourself again?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:36 pmYou’re right, Robert, but you can’t say that either
This was a quote from Zooey that I was agreeing with.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:37 pmBush was visiting Vietnam to get the secret Manchurian Candidate codes that he must punch in to the control panel on back of McCains’ neck so that McCain can enact the Red Chinese takeover strategy.
When you see McCain playing solitaire, head for the hills.
-GSD
November 19th, 2006 at 12:39 pm#104, please refer to post #88
November 19th, 2006 at 12:40 pm[...] Think Progress has the relevant portion of the transcript, which I am copying here in full: [...]
November 19th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#104 G.W, I think you can call that a ‘Gottcha moment”..LOL…Blessings
November 19th, 2006 at 12:47 pmBefore Roe vs. Wade, women were denied a medical treatment to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
I was one of them. I had to go to Mexico City, be taken to a secret location to have a procedure that I determined was the best for me.
At least half of the other women there were married and didn’t want more children for economic reasons, or that they were not in good relationships with the father, or they had plans to attend school or other career aspirations and having more children was not right for them.
I was 19 years old.
Fortunately, my procedure was performed safely and without harm to my body. Others have not been so fortunate.
The procedure was done in what you would recognize as an out-patient surgery center. That is the facility in which this procedure needs to be performed to assure safety to the woman.
This center did not perform abortions on women whose pregnancy was more than 6 weeks.
My procedure clearly was not covered by my medical insurance. It was lots of cash upfront, no guarantees. I didn’t even know the name of the doctor or where I was in Mexico City.
Why tell you this story, because no one talks about what it is like to have an illegal abortion when they talk about the moral issue side of this procedure.
Abortion is a medical procedure that has consequence, involves accessing the inside of a woman’s body, and carries health risks.
Only the woman can decide if this pregnancy is right for her. Yes, better to have used contraceptives to avoid the pregnancy, but in the absence of that what is the moral issue here?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#104 G.W, I think you can call that a ‘Gottcha momentâ€..LOL…Blessings
Comment by Sharon Cox
No Sharon, Robert was responding to me. The italics got messed up. Robert is not a troll!
When are you sending me some snow?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:51 pmNancy K, thank you for sharing.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#109, please refer to # 88 where I was responding to someone else before patting yourself too hard. FACT CHECK TIME
November 19th, 2006 at 12:53 pmThank you for sharing your story, Nancy K. I’m glad you came through it safely.
If anyone doubts the necessity of safe and legal abortion, just Google the words “abortion wards.” You will find the true horror of desperation there.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:54 pmI was for reproductive rights before I was against them.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pmI have to use facts because otherwise I am called a liar. You should know that by now. Look at Wayne from last night.
I’m concerned because a truly prsistent sicko could possibly find these people — you’ve posted your email and website information.
You do, however seem to be the lone exception.
Comment by robert
Thank you. I don’t call people liars, and don’t generally attack people. Well, I will attack Exley, but he’s such a prick it brings out the worst in me.
I hope you continue to comment on Think Progress.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pmFor arguments sake lets say that abortion was repealed.
[which I think is a womans choice]
How many orphans would that create a year?
How many adoptions are there in a year?
Who would suport all these orphans?
Would you want to be raised as an orphan?
November 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pmThat credibility gap is growing larger every time he speaks. How can he possibly be trusted to keep his word on anything he may promise voters?
November 19th, 2006 at 1:04 pmjohn mcCAVE… once again, caving in…
November 19th, 2006 at 1:06 pm.
Sorry Robert… the reference within a reference within a reference confused me.
You are not a self aggrandizing schizophrenic… but you are still wrong in just about everything you say.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:07 pmThat credibility gap is growing larger every time he speaks. How can he possibly be trusted to keep his word on anything he may promise voters?
Comment by Marie
I’m certain it has never occurred to McCain.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:10 pm#8, Sharon,
November 19th, 2006 at 1:11 pmAs our eloquent and articulate president moron said this week, “History has a long march to it.”
Throughout history, fat, rich, white guys have been running things with poor results. I agree that we should try a government with as many fresh faces with fresh ideas and new approaches as possible – I don’t see that it could get much worse than what we have endured in recent history.
McCain is from the old guard, and his pandering and politicking of today is so transparent that most voters will see through it. Note, I said “most” because we always have to allow for the willfully ignorant.
When are the media going to get their tongues out of John McCain’s ass?
November 19th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#25 KCinDC
November 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pmExcellent point – your ears are quick to pick up the contradiction, that slipped past some of us.
#116, Zooey, thanks for the concern. The e-mail address I posted is for that site and basically a dumping ground.
#120, Thanks for checking that and the retraction. It is very much appreciated, even if you do think I am wrong.
that is the beauty of the U.S., Differing views working in harmony (kind of)
November 19th, 2006 at 1:19 pmMcCain flip flops on everything, so call him Flipper the name of a dolphin > lol.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:20 pm[...] Pimping for the religious right is so over, Senator. [...]
November 19th, 2006 at 1:44 pmAnd you wanna run for WHAT, Mc Cain? For the sake of your country, seek professional counseling immediately…
This is the freak willing (just like his own abusive father) sacrifice his own son for his own political gain, by enlisting him in the military.
Good for you McCain-all that proves is you don’t value anyones life-unless they aren’t born yet!
November 19th, 2006 at 1:53 pmSuch is the vote of a lynch mob.
Using the ETHNIC angle is a different tactic. To bad we are talking about LIFESTYLES not RACES.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:54 am
We’re talking about the principle of majority rule without regard to the rights of the minority. This principle applies whether the underlying issue is “lifestyle” or “ethnicity” or “religion.” Even giving “power to the people” must have its system of checks and balances, otherwise a majority will always have ablsolute power over the minority. Thus we have a Constitution, guaranteeing certain rights to ALL people, and providing for a judicial system to uphold those rights.
Then you would overturn the principle of judicial review. Congress could then change the Constitution merely by passing laws that would otherwise be unconstitutiona.
It doesn’t work. If it did, the Supreme Court would never have stricken any law as unconstitutional.
The courts do not decide whether or not gay marriage should be legal or illegal. All the courts can decide is whether or not a law is Constitutional or unconstitutional. A law banning gay marriage is discriminatory on its face. What is the government’s interest in discriminating against one group of people, simply based on their gender? How does banning gay marriage further the government’s interests? When some religions recognize gay marriage and others don’t what government purpose elevates the marriage status from some religions while refusing to do so from others?
November 19th, 2006 at 1:58 pm79 –
Comment by unbelievable — November 19, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Yes, I did, and thank you. Woo Hoo!
:-D
November 19th, 2006 at 2:01 pmonce again, McCain proves that republicans love to pander, to whomever can give the votes, no matter how bad their policies are for real Americans.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:04 pmComment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
It’s not that your opinions are unpopular, it’s that they are uninformed. You demonstrate a superficial knowledge of human nature, our political and governmental system, U.S. history, natural law and Constitutional law. If you’re here to learn, welcome. Hopefully you are open minded enough to read, research and re-think your opinions. Many of us have had our opinions changed over time, as new knowledge challenges old assumptions.
I encourage you to give some reflective thought and do some serious reading. Follow the links provided by the various posters. Be willing to abandon long-held dogma. If you can do this, it will be interesting to watch you grow over the next few months.
Peace and Blessings.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:09 pmBriseadh na Faire, #129, I haev not said to make it one way or the other. I said to make it a federal issue, not state as it has federal implications.
I am not a lawyer and I do not take Constitutional Law until next year, but I do not remember the Constitution saying either way.
If a ban is passed and the Court can PROVE that is is un-constitutional then they can override or”veto” it. But the court should base that on the facts, and the constitution, not party lines and the wishes of the people that appointed them.
I m a firm believer in judicial review. But they can not be the ONLY say. They do not have ultimate authority. That is why we have 3 branches of government. Checks and balances.
You want to use my 99%-1% arguement against me then reverse the numbers. If 99% of people think that gay marriage should be allowed and 1% disagree, what should we do?
November 19th, 2006 at 2:18 pmComment by Nancy K. — November 19, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
The moral issue is that some people have decided that a fertilized egg has a soul. As such, destroying that fertilized egg is tantamount to murder.
The challenge is, that determination is based on belief, not scientific fact. Fact: all the DNA is present to create a human being, however sometimes the process malfunctions and a human being is not created.
Unfortunately, the people who believe a life is created at conception wish to codify that belief into law and criminalize the activities of those who do not share their belief.
The Supreme Court has set the line at viability and created a balancing test between the needs of the mother and the needs of the potential human being. The needs of the mother are given greater weight prior to viability, the needs of the potential human being are given greater weight after viability.
My concern is that we are talking about federal and/or state laws dictating medical decisions between a doctor and a patient. All one has to do is recall the Frist diagnosis of Terry Schiavo to grasp the folly of Congress’s forrays into medical decision-making.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pm[...] That was then. And now? Go see. [...]
November 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pmZooey and unbelievable. I know you believe that the pregnancy is happening in your body and so it is your right to abort it. But let me ask you this. Suppose we decide to get together to talk politics. After a few glasses of wine, the two of you talk me into a threesome and the result is that both of you become pregnant. Although the pregnancies are in your bodies, the infants would have my genes. As the father, do I have no rights? The idea that it is only your decision, with no consideration for the unborn fetus or the father is a little simplistic.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pmBriseadh na Faire #132,
I am here to learn what the other side thinks. I think I have mentioned that before.
I have never said that my way of thinking is the one that should be followed and everyone else wrong. But if you disagree with anyone here you are called everything from uninformed to a racist, biggot, murder. for many here, a free honest exchange of ideas is not welcome. They just want to pat each other on the back.
You are right that Knowledge can change long held opinions. But first, people need to be willing to accept that knowledge regardless of the source.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:24 pmpaul,
The idea that unbelievable or I would agree to have sex with you in any form is not only simplistic, it’s insane.
Having said that, if for some reason I am pregnant, by any man, it would not be my “belief” that the pregnancy is happening my body, it would be a fact.
My body = My decision.
If you have a problem with that, paul, I suggest you take responsibility for your own birth control. I would expect the woman to do the same. You do believe in birth control, don’t you, paul?
November 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#128, Why do peopel here hate the military so much? What is wrong with someone enlisting in the military?
November 19th, 2006 at 2:34 pmJay Randal:
St. “Flipper” McCain?
I like it!
November 19th, 2006 at 2:35 pm#138,
On that same note. How come in many states if a man wants to have a vasectomy, and he is married, he needs the consent of his wife. After all, it is his body.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:36 pmComment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
I wasn’t using your argument against you, I was pointing out the falacy of the argument.
At one point, a majority felt interracial marriages should be outlawed, and many States had laws banning interracial marriages. The courts ruled with the minority in striking those laws as unconstitutional.
“If 99% of people think that gay marriage should be allowed and 1% disagree, what should we do?” This argument is still falacious, because it presupposes a course of action is right or wrong depending on how many people agree or disagree. Regardless of the percentages, I feel we should not discriminate based upon gender when it comes to legislating whom one can or cannot love.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:42 pm#2 If nothing else, this should start to knock some of his shiny polish of being a moderate off. People need to see him as he truly is – a right winger.
McCain is an empty suit, an unsophisticated political hack and a loser and oh yes also a right winger when its convenient. Wonderful leadership qualities ?????
November 19th, 2006 at 2:44 pm#142, Just checking to make sure the standard is applied equally.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:45 pmWhy do peopel here hate the military so much? What is wrong with someone enlisting in the military?
Comment by robert
Speaking only for myself, Robert, it’s not the military that is bad. It’s how the military is being used by this administration.
When my youngest was growing up, I thought military service would be an excellent start in his adult life, even if he didn’t make it a career. Afterall, my family can document military service by every generation back to WWI.
But GWB got us into the wrong war, and I’m not prepared to offer my son’s life and well-being to this vanity war. Of course, I would support any decision my son makes, but we’re on the same page on this issue.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:46 pmZooey. If the woman took responsibility for the birth control, the abortion wouldn’t have to be debated. By the way, you’d be okay, I’ve had the vasectomy. Call me. I’ll bring the wine.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:48 pmOn that same note. How come in many states if a man wants to have a vasectomy, and he is married, he needs the consent of his wife. After all, it is his body.
Comment by robert
You’re right, Robert. He should be allowed to have a vasectomy, if he wants one. I’m not aware of that being a law, however. Quite possibly it’s the doctor’s malpractice insurance forcing a little CYA.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:49 pm#147, then in the CYA mentality, the wife would have to have the husbands consent. and that is not usually the case. Starting to see the double standard? A womans privacy and body are placed higher than a mans. That is not equality.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:54 pm[...] Video available at Think Progress. Written by Ron ChusidLast 5 posts by Ron ChusidGoodbye Columbus, To Be Continued?Al Gore: This Administration Has Been Most Incompetent, Inept,Tributes to Bo Schembechler, The Greatest Wolverine of AllDover, The MiniseriesVeronica X20 [...]
November 19th, 2006 at 2:58 pmZooey. If the woman took responsibility for the birth control, the abortion wouldn’t have to be debated.
Both parties should take care of their own birth control — no matter what the other party might say.
By the way, you’d be okay, I’ve had the vasectomy. Call me. I’ll bring the wine.
Comment by paul
Thank you for not breeding further. Enjoy your little dreamworld.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:58 pmthen in the CYA mentality, the wife would have to have the husbands consent. and that is not usually the case.
I would hope in a ‘husband and wife” situation there would be some meeting of the minds, but that’s not always possible. I think most abortion situations are not within the marriage setting.
A man could choose to find another doctor to perform the vasectomy.
Starting to see the double standard? A womans privacy and body are placed higher than a mans. That is not equality.
Comment by robert
Unfortunately there is always going to be a double standard when it comes to pregnancy, since men do not become pregnant! It’s not a matter of placing a woman’s privacy and body higher than a man’s, it’s a matter of biology.
I don’t know if you have a daughter, Robert, but consider if you want her life path irrevocably altered because she made a really stupid decision at 15, and wound up pregnant by the village idiot — and wanted an abortion. It happens! Would that one really bad mistake be a life sentence for your daughter, Robert? Would you want the village idiot to have a say in your daughter’s decision?
November 19th, 2006 at 3:08 pm#151, I do have two daughters. My course of action I have chosen to teach is abstainance. In absence of that, then contraception. Soon, my oldest will be at the age group where it becomes a REAL concern and she will have to option of getting “the pill” of some like thing.
The village idiot would have a right to know and a responsability as well. If my daughter wanted an abortion, and it is a legal procedure, I would assist her in any way I could. But ONLY after she explored all options. With that being said. I do not have to condone it or think it is right.
Yes, women get pregnant and not men. But it take two people to get one pregnant and since both have responsibility, both should have a say.
Look at the reverse. A man wants a woman to have an abortion and she says no. You have also given a responsible man a life sentence. He now has a child he may not have wanted and whether or not he and the mother stay together, he is still legally responsible for that child. Again, his rights are over ridden by hers.
November 19th, 2006 at 3:21 pmRobert – there can be no laws or medical practice requiring another’s consent for a medical procedure… this has to be a red herring.
Also – you mention earlier that you are not taking Constitutional Law until next year… I did not know that they required Constitutional Law for Finger Painting Majors these days.
Okay that wasn’t very nice… but seriously if you are contemplating a career in law I would suggest that you bone up on critical thought and reasoning… these are skills that will serve you well in and out of the courtroom.
November 19th, 2006 at 3:30 pmSection 1 article four of the constitution says all states must give full faith and credit to the public acts,recordings and judicial practices of the others. When one state says Gay marriage is legal all other states must accept marriage preformed in that state as legal. The defense of marriage act is not a constitutional amendment and has no effect on constitutional rights. As for abortion, that is the business of the pregnant person. It is she who will be pregnant and give birth, no one has the right to decide another person’s medical, religious, or family decisions. For the Bible believers out there. In the bible one of the penalties for adultery was that a woman be taken to the tabernacle and be given a drink to cause her to abort. Doesn’t sound as if God was against abortion. Mc Cain is a right wing opportunist. Any person who will kiss the man who has lied about his daughter has no morals, and no character. Mc Cain will change his opinion to suit his ambitions
November 19th, 2006 at 3:34 pmSoon, my oldest will be at the age group where it becomes a REAL concern and she will have to option of getting “the pill†of some like thing.
Bravo, Robert.
We teach them what we can, and have to have faith that they listened at least half the time, right?
We will probably never agree on most things, Robert, but I think we both see that the other is not some whacked-out lunatic, just because we don’t agree.
I could be a whacked-out lunatic for a lot of other reasons. :)
November 19th, 2006 at 3:37 pmG.W., Nope, not contemplating a law career at all. Just a class that I have to take.
And it is not a red herring. Last year when I went to check into a vasectomy, I was told that in order to have the procedure done that I would have to have my wife come in and sign a form stateing that she had been informedof my decision before they would perform the procedure. This happened at two different facilities.
One of my good friends was told tht he could not have one done even though he is single and has one child. The reasoning was that he was only 32 years old and may want to have more children later in life.
November 19th, 2006 at 3:38 pmApparently, McCain isn’t committed to anything and never was . . . except converting himself into The Available Man and becoming president. What a total horse’s ass he turned out to be. If he becomes president he’ll wind up being another Republikan catastrophe for this nation.
November 19th, 2006 at 3:40 pmOkay that wasn’t very nice… but seriously if you are contemplating a career in law I would suggest that you bone up on critical thought and reasoning… these are skills that will serve you well in and out of the courtroom.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist
You’re right, that wasn’t nice! Law professors will make you put up or shut up, that’s for sure. They can be like little ankle-biter dogs…in class and outside of class. Luckily, I never had to deal with them in class — just occasionally as lawyers. :P
November 19th, 2006 at 3:41 pmZooey, as I have said many times, I like the way you think. Even if we do not agree.
If you agree with me 50% of the time, that is a good thing. If you agree with me 100%, you need help. lol
November 19th, 2006 at 3:43 pmMy body = My decision.
Comment by Zooey — November 19, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Here here, like seatbelt laws and helmet laws.
On to the clip: McCain didn’t say he was against abortion, he didn’t say he was putting his support behind guys like falwell. He said he would like to see it go to the states instead of being a federal matter. I fully agree with him on that. Why should a group of people in Deep south Georgia have any say over what happens with abortion in California (and vice versa)?
November 19th, 2006 at 3:43 pmHere here, like seatbelt laws and helmet laws.
Comment by Tundra
You’re still pulling out that old thing, Tundra? It’s time to get a new party dress, this one’s a little frayed.
But you’re right, it should be your decision to wear a seat belt or helmet — which I hope you do. But if you choose not to, don’t expect the taxpayers to contribute to your drool cup and Depends budget.
You’re saving up, right? :)
November 19th, 2006 at 3:55 pmThis line of reasoning just further proves the zealots’ sick repulsion of – yet obsession with – sex (especially other people’s bodies and sexual activities). Only if they ‘deem’ the woman has suffered sufficiently by being raped, a victim of incest, or if her life hangs in the balance, then and ONLY then will they ‘allow’ her to have an abortion. So in other words, consentual happy sex means you sign away any rights to your body. How perverted! I wish they would work out their own demons on their own time and leave the most personal decisions there are to the individual.
November 19th, 2006 at 3:59 pmUntil such time as men can give birth – this issue should be left up to the woman.
I would ask every non-choice person out there ~ how many children have you adopted ?
November 19th, 2006 at 4:00 pmAnd it is not a red herring. Last year when I went to check into a vasectomy, I was told that in order to have the procedure done that I would have to have my wife come in and sign a form stateing that she had been informedof my decision before they would perform the procedure.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
I guess because it is a non vital procedure that doctors can, for what ever personal reasons, refuse service or put stipulations on it… but in no way can spousal consent ever be mandated by law.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:00 pmThanks, Robert. :)
November 19th, 2006 at 4:02 pmYou’re still pulling out that old thing, Tundra? It’s time to get a new party dress, this one’s a little frayed.
bah, I have to throw it in when I can :)
But if you choose not to, don’t expect the taxpayers to contribute to your drool cup and Depends budget.
You’re saving up, right? :)
And if the abortion screws up don’t expect the taxpayers to pay for your care, or the care of your child if they live and end up mentally impaired.
But yes I always do wear a seatbelt and helmet, and always will regardless if it is a law or not. I just have a problem being told what to do with my body. There are many women out there that support a woman’s right to choose that would never have an abortion.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:03 pmAnd if the abortion screws up don’t expect the taxpayers to pay for your care, or the care of your child if they live and end up mentally impaired.
Comment by Tundra — November 19, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
Yes because this is such a pervasive problem right… can you name one instance where this has ever happened?
November 19th, 2006 at 4:10 pmAnd if the abortion screws up don’t expect the taxpayers to pay for your care, or the care of your child if they live and end up mentally impaired.
Not a factor, I believe in birth control. I have a disabled son, nobody supports him but me and him.
But yes I always do wear a seatbelt and helmet, and always will regardless if it is a law or not. I just have a problem being told what to do with my body.
Me too!
There are many women out there that support a woman’s right to choose that would never have an abortion.
Comment by Tundra
Absolutely.
Wow. That was easy. Seriously, though, new party dress. I’m thinking a nice blue…
November 19th, 2006 at 4:11 pmOk, what am I missing here. I did not hear him say he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned, I heard him say that he thinks it should be up to the states to decide.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:17 pmcan you name one instance where this has ever happened?
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06060504.html
November 19th, 2006 at 4:18 pm#170, Tundra, don’t use facts that can be proven. It confuses some people.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:22 pmOk, what am I missing here. I did not hear him say he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned, I heard him say that he thinks it should be up to the states to decide.
Comment by Kate Henry — November 19, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
Well see, this is sort of how it works. They post something here with a catchy headline. The masses at the site read the headline and not the article etc. Then they run around screaming that “McCain want’s to overturn Roe V Wade”. They also stand at water coolers and say “McCain is completely against abortion, he is like a religous nutbag”. Basically it’s spin.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:22 pmWhich States? Which statutes?
You say you’ll be taking Constitutional Law next year, which implies that you are about to finish your first semester of law school, so it should be no problem for you to back up your assertion of fact with the proper legal citations.
Quite true. The professors I had would never let us get away with an assertion of fact which we could not back up right then and there. The follow-up questions were always brutal! And since they always called on students at random, you always had to be prepared. Not all students survived that first semester.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:25 pmATTN: CONSERVATIVES
DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS BLACKMAILED, COMPROMISED, WORTHLESS PEICE OF FAKE $HIT.
You HAVE been awake the past 6 yrs havent you?
quit being part of the collective 2-dollar-wh0re of the republican party.
wunb
November 19th, 2006 at 4:26 pmSee a tongue-in-cheek visual of John McCain’s move to be all things to all people…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
November 19th, 2006 at 4:29 pmcan you name one instance where this has ever happened?
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06060504.html
Comment by Tundra — November 19, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
Nice try genius but she is suing the clinic that botched the job not the taxpayers… this is distinctly different than the scenario you painted previously.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:30 pmTundra, don’t use facts that can be proven. It confuses some people.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Weren’t you just whining ten minutes ago about people insulting you? And you haven’t exactly posted any facts here crybaby, just your ignorant opinions.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:32 pmBriseadh na Faire,
Lawyers are not the only ones that take Constitutional law. It is also a requirement for Homeland Security and Criminal Justice as well.
Maybe I am wrong about it being a law. I know what I experianced in North Carolina. It was put to me as if it were a legal requirement.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:36 pmTundra, don’t use facts that can be proven. It confuses some people.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
What facts… what proof… what the hell are you talking about?
It sounds as though you are the one that is confused.. check out the link and try again professor.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:37 pm#177, Did I launch a direct insult on any individual. And some are posting only their EXTREME opinions.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:38 pmComment by Kate Henry — November 19, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
Kate, you’re not going to here him say it in so many words. You’ll have to put together the pieces: he is in favor of a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. A Constitutional Amendment would nullify the holding in Roe v. Wade.
McCain then went on to say, that he didn’t think a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion would ever get adopted, but “I believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support. (emphasis added)” In other words, he supports overturning Roe v. Wade.
Another comment I found disconcerting, “I’m a federalist.” Federalists believed in a strong Federal Government. Anti-Federalists believed in State’s Rights.
Finally, “And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.” Translation: I want a Supreme Court that will not strike down unconstitutional laws.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:39 pmGW, You asked tundra to show proof of an instance where an abortion has gone wrong and (s)he did.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:40 pmLawyers are not the only ones that take Constitutional law. It is also a requirement for Homeland Security and Criminal Justice as well.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Holy shit… Barney Fifth is going to be in charge of Homeland Security… Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
November 19th, 2006 at 4:43 pmGood arguments here today on the right to have an abortion or not, as opposed to having a vasectomy, and getting consent of the other half of the couple. Both Zooey and Robert make thoughtful arguments.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:43 pmI think the argument to be made for choice instead of comparing it to a vasectomy would be one that recognizes the pregnancy produces profound changes in the body and involves the risk of childbirth. In the vasectomy argument, there is the very valid argument of the right to choose parenthood or not with no risk to the person making the choice. It is more a matter of rights.
In choosing whether or not to give birth is not only a matter of choosing parenthood, but of the physical ramifications.
As Tundra says:
I just have a problem being told what to do with my body.
This is not a choice women enter into without careful consideration; but what one chooses to do must not be imposed on another.
As for teaching abstinence – sure, that is the ideal – but reality has to be considered and reality is often not the ideal.
Marie, thanks for bringing some sanity back to all of us!
November 19th, 2006 at 4:46 pmYes because this is such a pervasive problem right… can you name one instance where this has ever happened?
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — November 19, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
What did you mean by this then?
I took it as can you give me one example of a situation where a child lived through the abortion and was mentally impaired?
Did you want an example of a child who was a failed abortion and is now in programs funded by the federal government?
Did you want an example of a woman who use to make a living and after an abortion went on welfare due to emotional stress associated with it?
Did you want an example of taxpayers paying for a woman after a failed abortion?
November 19th, 2006 at 4:47 pmGW, You asked tundra to show proof of an instance where an abortion has gone wrong and (s)he did.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Wrong again Gilligan… If you read the exact exchange you will notice he was referring to taxpayers picking up the bill, which was in reference to Zooey telling him not to expect the taxpayers to contribute to his drool cup and Depends budget if he did not wear a seatbelt or helmet.
You really should try reading the posts… it might save you from suffering so many avoidable embarrassments.
And if the abortion screws up don’t expect the taxpayers to pay for your care, or the care of your child if they live and end up mentally impaired.
Comment by Tundra — November 19, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
Yes because this is such a pervasive problem right… can you name one instance where this has ever happened?
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — November 19, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 4:53 pmThis is not a choice women enter into without careful consideration; but what one chooses to do must not be imposed on another.
I fully understand and appreciate that. You will never hear me come out and say abortion is wrong. You will never hear me say someone shouldn’t/can’t have an abortion. My arguments have always been against me paying for anyone elses abortion. If I was in that situation and that was the decision me and the mother came to, it would be fully our decision and responsibility.
Alot of the debate that goes on in the abortion realm centers on “The government should pay for medicare abortions etc. I am against that. The fact is there is a large group that completely opposes abortion and the “Choice camp” wants federal funds to be spent on it. A woman should be able to get an abortion if she sees fit, Fine agreed, but she should also take the responsibility for the bill (Or with the father etc..)
November 19th, 2006 at 4:55 pm#187, It looks as if Tundra may have been confused by what you were looking for as well
November 19th, 2006 at 5:02 pm#188, I agree. The government should not fund it in any way. Just because I say it is wrong for ME(and my wife) does not mean that others can not make tht choice. But they have to foot the bill for it, not the tax payers.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:05 pmOh base? where are you? Here base, here base, good fundies! Come on along, I’m one of you…
November 19th, 2006 at 5:06 pmMarie. I would not be comfortable denying a woman’s ability to have an abortion. The world is not black and white. For example, a sixteen year old girl is out, driving alone. She is carjacked and raped. Her pregnancy is a constant reminder of the crime against her. She is worried that the child will also be a constant reminder of that terrible event. She may never be able to live with peace of mind. It would be hard to deny her need for an abortion. I am not ready, nor do I believe the country is ready to ban abortions. But what I hear from the left is unsettling. There seems to be no consideration for the unborn child. I doubt there is anyone here (besides robert) that would agree that partial birth abortion is wrong. Image you, in the womb at 3 months. Should your life have been snuffed out, for no better reason (in some cases) than convenience?
November 19th, 2006 at 5:08 pmpaul, for those who believe in reincarnation, no life is ever snuffed out, merely the physical manifestation of that life in this realm. In that belief system, every soul comes to this earth for a reason, to learn, to teach, to experience. Even a soul which has been miscarried in this realm has gained an experience and perhaps taught a lesson as well.
To presume a life has been snuffed out is to impose your particular belief system upon others. Are you so omniscient to claim you are right, and those who believe in reincarnation are wrong?
November 19th, 2006 at 5:17 pmok, one day prior to birth, is abortion still a valid option?
November 19th, 2006 at 5:20 pmWhere I part ways with most of my conservative friends, is on birth control. Many conservatives don’t want abortion as a option, but the only birth control the want to consider is abstinence. If it were up to me, people would be given contraceptives when they hit puberty. Then when someone decided to have a baby, they would make the choice to come off the contraceptive. Relying of abstinence, for most people, is not a reasonable strategy to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:21 pmBriseadh na Faire
To presume a life has been snuffed out is to impose your particular belief system upon others.
To presume that a life has NOT been snuffed out is also imposing your your particular belief system on others.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:22 pmTo presume a life has been snuffed out is to impose your particular belief system upon others. Are you so omniscient to claim you are right, and those who believe in reincarnation are wrong?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — November 19, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
In that instance Murder wouldn’t be wrong either then.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:25 pmBriseadh na Faire. Our differing beliefs may be the cause of most of our disagreement on this issue. I wished I believed the way you do, it sounds beautiful. I am an agnostic that believes you have one chance at life and when your life is over, either in the womb or at 105, there is no more. I will concede that if I believed in reincarnation, I would probably feel differently about abortion. The burden of proof would seem to lie with those that believe something happens (reincarnation, heaven, valhalla, etc) as opposed to those that believe that the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. I value your thoughts and read your posts with an open mind.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:29 pm198 – paul, that’s the most reasonable thing I have read coming from you. Are you the same paul that has posted these past three months?
196 – Robert, so, how do you devise laws that accommodate various belief systems? That, then, is the goal of our system of checks and balances, where the majority rules, and the courts protect the rights of the minority.
197 – Tundra – correct. Under that belief system even murder would be considered two souls acting out an agreement made in another realm.
yes, but the potential for experience is limitless. Read “The Way of the Shaman” by Dr. Harner.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:43 pmMcCave is apparently making a play for the right wing religious vote. Good for him. Let him lean that way and ease himself right out of any chance to become a candidate. I’ve said it before, McCave has been in the Senate too long. He’s a real hero but he’s forgotten that there are such things as fundamental principles. He leans whichever way the wind blows, and then some, just the way any Senator who’s been around too long, such as Kerry, has to do. So every principle is variable, subject to the current direction of the wind.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:01 pmBriseadh na Faire. None of us are really monolithic. You post a lot of good info, but the reincarnation logic could be used by pro-war advocates to justify the death of innocent Iraqis, as no big deal. Hey, they learned the lesson they came for an they’ll come back more enlightened. I’ll keep an eye out for the book.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:07 pmThere are many, many laws enacted and activities of our government, paid for by my tax dollars of which I do not approve. So, the argument against “paying” for someone’s abortion (with taxes) is specious. In a society of laws, there will always be some with which an individual diagrees. Not to say disagreement is wrong – but it is a fact.
As for “snuffing” out a life at 3 months — one would have to believe that the embryo would indeed survive until childbirth — and one would have to believe that at that early stage, it could still be considered “life.” Is an acorn an oak tree? That imposes one set of beliefs upon another.
As for abortions gone wrong, of course they can. And I am old enough to remember when desperate young girls died of sepsis from “back alley” abortions. I am also old enough to know those who have died from complications of childbirth.
I also know of married mothers in their 40’s who are suffering depression, raising several children, and having contraception fail them. Shall that person risk her mental health with delivering another child – shall she risk the well-being of her other children who already have a fragile mother – at her age, shall she risk a “special needs” child at further risk to her delicate well-being and of her existing children?
These are too complicated, and too numerous to make a black and white decision. It must be an individual choice.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:07 pm[...] Read More [...]
November 19th, 2006 at 6:19 pmActually, I agree with Republicans, in a sense- ideally, the decision making about abortion should be as local as possible. But not at the Federal Level, NOT at the state level, not at the county level…. The Person who should be making the decisions about abortion, birth control, and pregnancy is THE WOMAN WHOSE BODY IT IS.
Duh.
Is that “local” enough for you folks?
By the way, that “Constitutional Amendment” The so-called pro-life gang -and now McCain- are stumping for, you know, the one that would grant rights under the 14th amendment to fertilized eggs? It would also criminalize the Birth Control Pill, IUDs, and other forms of contraception that the Talibornagains consider “morally equivalent” to getting an abortion. Which is fine, if you sign on to their endgame agenda of making it against the law to have non-procreative sex criminalized.. However, well-meaning folks who really think that this is about “saving babies” ought to consider that what works- what really works- in reducing the numbers of surgical abortions is widespread contraceptive access and education; two things anathema to the so-called “pro-life” movement.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:22 pmRobert #23, do you think most people just jump in their BMW and drive from Phoenix to Los Angeles to get an abortion? What if you don’t have a BMW? What if you don’t have any transportation? What if you have no money?
I am a male and I do agree with some on this site, this is not a male issue. You nor I will ever have to drive across a state line to get an abortion, Never, ever. So I have to laugh at these men who are ready to tell every woman what they can and can not do with their own bodies. Men that vote on the abortion issue as a sole issue, need to get a grip on real life. Men that oppose abortion should ALWAYS wear condoms so that will not be an issue in your life.
So while some conservatives are true believers in states rights, the abortion issue is a woman’s issue and men should pass no laws to regulate the woman’s right to abortion. I’m sure McCain sees this as him tying up another branch of the Republithug party. Rove made the mistake that their “base” would stick with them for every election. Sorry Rove but your base is shrinking as the Republithug party shows it lacks morals and common sense.
John McCain should look at running for the President of the Confederacy since the rest of the country is waking up to the neocons and their total lack of conservative principles. We don’t need reich wing principles, just right principles.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:34 pmAZDem. Let’s say I work at a lab where they fertilize eggs for invitro. You provide a sample and you and your wife have several of your wifes eggs fertilized. Later you find out that I am selling the leftover part of your sample to fertilize the eggs of women that did not have fertile donors. Is that okay for me to do?
November 19th, 2006 at 6:49 pmI’m confussed. What the hell business is it of anyone’s if I have an abortion or not? How does my decision to have or not have, an abortion affect foreign, energy, tax, etc. policy?
November 19th, 2006 at 6:51 pmWhat a weak SOB. Can’t even stick to his values… I used to think he was one of the best at doing that. Nice job, McCain, you’ve thrown away any chance of getting my vote.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:55 pmI wrote him a letter back in 2002, telling him how impressed I was by his enormous integrity and that even though I’m a loyal Dem, I would vote for him for president. No more. His pandering to the right wing is just too nauseating.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:56 pmIgnoranceIsNotBliss. Would it also be no ones business if you strangled your teenage daughter to death if you found out she was no longer a virgin.
November 19th, 2006 at 7:02 pmGod forbid we let it become an issue for the States to decide as the US Constitution intended. McCain taking this stance shows a respect for the US Constituion is that so hard for folkes to deal with?
November 19th, 2006 at 7:41 pmMany Dems are pro-Aborts, with a few pro-lifers sprinkled in by the unionized-Catholics. Most Repubs are pro-Life – with a few pro-Aborts thrown in by the Libertarian wing of the Party. Pro-lifers shouldn’t be considered anti-women – - think of us as pro-girl or boy.
November 19th, 2006 at 7:56 pmPro-lifers shouldn’t be considered anti-women – - think of us as pro-girl or boy.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
And pro-deathrow inmate?
November 19th, 2006 at 8:01 pmMy sister went through an abortion when she was 15. She had to do what was best for her at that time. She was not responsible enough to raise a child, being way to immature her on self. My parents didn’t really approve of abortion, but they knew what had to be done. Its sad that she got herself into that situation to begin with, but lets face it, it happens. Abortions need to be done in a safe, clean, and approved facility. If abortion is ever outlawed, you know we will go back to shady doctors doing them anyhow in places not so good. It will be worse for that to happen. I think people don’t really know how they may react until thrown into a situation like my sis was in. My parents didn’t. they were not for abortion, but decided in the heat of the moment, that it had to be done. Just think a minute, how you
November 19th, 2006 at 8:24 pmwould react.
[...] Watch McCain [...]
November 19th, 2006 at 8:29 pmPro-lifers shouldn’t be considered anti-women – - think of us as pro-girl or boy.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
And pro-deathrow inmate?
Comment by Zooey — November 19, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
Don’t feed the troll.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:37 pmPro-lifers shouldn’t be considered anti-women – - think of us as pro-girl or boy.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
And pro-deathrow inmate?
Comment by Zooey — November 19, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
Don’t feed the troll.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:38 pmLeaving it up to the states sounds like a fine idea, at first. It is really just a backdoor to a permanent national ban. How does this work when the Fugitive Girl Act – “Child Custody Protection Act” in Newspeak – extends whatever draconian laws passed in one state to all others. And, since you can be sure rich girls “in trouble” will be able to have abortions wherever they reside, you have a situation that violates the equal protection clause. What Robert (and even Paul) describe as how they teach or support their daughter is great, but many girls do not live in such ideal situations. The law must keep them in mind as well. And what exactly is the goal of the Fundies? Preventing “murder” is a red herring. Abortion laws around the world have had very little impact on actual abortion rates. They quite significantly impact teen suicide, murder, and accident rates. Their only purpose is to punish sex, and to help keep women under control of men. People, like McCain (who I once voted for as my Senator) , who would grant exceptions for rape or incest, are also not thinking this through. Will this rape have to be proven??? If not, it means nothing, and invites false accusations. If so, we are forcing the girl or woman to undergo a very traumatic experience after she just had one, with no guarantee of the case actually being proven. While I would certainly encourage a victim to prosecute, forcing her to do so is outrageous. And many actual rapes will be unproven no matter what standard of proof is required. All restrictions are ridiculous when taken to their worst case. Those cases are actual girls and women who will be put through Hell for no reason.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:49 pmI don’t want a ban on abortion, because I agree with Todd. My issue is that I feel there is not much, if any, consideration given to the fetus. Although abortion should not be banned, why aren’t we giving alternatives like adoption more of a chance. Abortions should be legal and safe, but they should be extremely rare. (Again, I fault conservatives for blocking contraception alternatives, but I would like to get the feeling from liberals that it is not like getting your tonsils taken out). I just believe that life begins at conception and there is something wrong with taking that life.
November 19th, 2006 at 9:05 pmI believe the September 11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush Administration and the Republican controlled Congress so that Sen. McCain could denounce Roe vs. Wade as a terrorist threat by liberals and Al Qaeda.
November 19th, 2006 at 9:16 pmI believe the September 11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush Administration and the Republican controlled Congress so that when Sen. McCain gears up for a presidential run for 08′, he can use Roe vs. Wade as a target against terrorism acts by liberals and Al Qaeda.
P.S. Dick Cheney really needs to meet with an orthodontist-I dont see how he can possibly floss with his overlapping fands.
November 19th, 2006 at 9:20 pmComment by paul — November 19, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
Read and understand the 105 Universal Laws, then get back to me on this. (google it)
Your simplistic statement could also apply to certain Christian sects. Those Christians who believe they will be forgiven all their sins no matter what are free to commit all kinds of crimes secure in the knowledge that they will go to heaven. A prime example is Jason Hendler, a poster on these boards who “suspends his Christianity” for the fight. Following his, and others of his ilk’s logic, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent children, women and men is “no big deal.”
When you finish “The Way of the Shaman” (available at Amazon or Barnes and Noble), I would recommend “Up From Eden” by Ken Wilber. Then you’ll be ready for “Jonathan Livingston Seagull” and “Illusions” by Richard Bach.
November 19th, 2006 at 9:22 pmIf the woman took responsibility for the birth control, the abortion wouldn’t have to be debated.
Comment by paul —
First of all, it is a fallacy to think that birth control always works. I know women who have gotten pregnant on the (man’s) condom, diaphragm, etc. The pill may be most effective, but it does not agree with all every physical types. I have a friend, who had to give it up for health reasons, switched to the diaphragm and promptly got pregnant. (She and her partner decided to marry and have the baby.)
November 19th, 2006 at 10:06 pmMoreover, there have been reports from various parts of the US that certain fundamentalist Christian pharmacists have been refusing to fill doctors’ prescriptions for birth control pills. Women’s access to birth control has become more difficult under the Bushevik regime.
And, finally, why should it be only the woman’s responsibility for birth control? If a man wants to get laid or thinks he has a good chance of it (and hasn’t had a vasectomy like you), shouldn’t he carry around some condoms with him?
Many Dems are pro-Aborts, with a few pro-lifers sprinkled in by the unionized-Catholics. Most Repubs are pro-Life – with a few pro-Aborts thrown in by the Libertarian wing of the Party. Pro-lifers shouldn’t be considered anti-women – - think of us as pro-girl or boy.
Comment by mighty hypocrite—
I really should take Max Renn’s advice in #217 to “not feed the troll.” However, I would like to know how people who call themselves “pro-life” can support killing innocents in Iraq as mere “collateral damage” or whatever. On the thread about the Haditha massacre of an Iraqi family, Mighty Hypocrite was even trying to make excuses for the murder of a 3-year old. Why is the life of a living, breathing three-year old Iraqi worth less than an American fetus, which might miscarry anyway, for all we know?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:28 pmI am very pro-life–in the sense of protecting the lives already here on this planet.
It sounds to me that Mcain is saying that the states should decide issues such as abortion…not that abortion should be overturned. Remember, big brother in the form of our government deciding how we do things locally is bullshit…would you rather be subjected to the rule of dicks in washington who don’t care about us…or by people in your own state(whom you can have a better chance of influencing?)? and if you don’t like the abortion law in this one…you can drive across the border to the next state and get’r done….
November 19th, 2006 at 11:54 pmWill,
learn to read. McCain supports a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion for crying out loud. Failing that, he thinks the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade. Can’t be much clearer than that.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:12 amMcCain says he would not object to abortion in the case of incest or rape – which confounds me.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:14 amWhy is the product of violence – a pregnancy – all right to be aborted?
If the person allowing for exceptions to their anti-choice stance, then they have granted themselves power that they do not grant to anyone else.
The issue is too complex, too personal, and too profound for there to be rules of law. It must be left to the individual.
pander pander flip flop, pander pander flip flop
McCain puts the ICK in Maverick
November 20th, 2006 at 1:07 amAbortion will never be unavailable to wealthy women, it NEVER was, they could go to nice clean clinics and have safe abortions, or travel to other countries. This will effect young and poor women, and as a man who fought for reproductive choice in MN, before Roe vs. Wade, it’ll be over my dead body they will repeal Roe, and I guarantee there won’t be a federal court building in the entire USA with unbroken windows the day Scalito and Roberts overturn Roe.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:15 am“If the woman took responsibility for the birth control, the abortion wouldn’t have to be debated.
Comment by paul ”
Paul,
November 20th, 2006 at 1:21 amIf men got pregnant there’d be an abortion clinic on every corner, including a cocktail lounge on the premises.
I guarantee there won’t be a federal court building in the entire USA with unbroken windows the day Scalito and Roberts overturn Roe.
Comment by mark — November 20, 2006 @ 1:15 am
Just another example of me having to pay because someone doesn’t get their way.
If men got pregnant there’d be an abortion clinic on every corner, including a cocktail lounge on the premises.
Comment by mark — November 20, 2006 @ 1:21 am
Perhaps the men you hang around.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:29 amIf it did go back to the states tools like McCain couldn’t court the nuts with it. Just more typical Republican bullshit where they say one thing to rouse the nuts then don’t follow through. I say call his bluff, return it to the states, and show’em how we do things in South Dakota.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:53 am“I am very pro-life–in the sense of protecting the lives already here on this planet.” Comment by Lora
*******Lora – Which planet do you think the fetuses are on before they are born – don’t tell me you think they are brought by storks? They are here – they are alive – unfortunately many of them are INCONVENIENT for their mothers. (The tiny percentage of preganancies which result from rape or incest would be even further reduced through a D&C procedure after such a horrible assault. This is recommended not only to reduce the chances of pregnancy, but for DNA sample collection for criminal prosecution and general feminine hygiene.) BTW, IF a woman’s health WERE REALLY the issue during a very late term pregnancy, an emergency Caesarean is much more swift and effective for removing a baby hindering a mother’s health – rather than the barbaric partial birth procedure. (That procedure is done to INSURE a dead baby….)
What were YOU the day before you were born? Two weeks before? A cabbage?
As I have stated numerous times, I am against the death penalty for a variety of well grounded reasons. (During a debate with a pro-abort friend, she asked how could ’some pro-lifers be so hypocritical as to support the death penalty’. I explained that many people with that view felt one had “earned” death and the “pre-born” were innocent of wrong doing – except for the fact they existed.
I am horrified that innocent civilians are victims of warfare. I am also aware, unfortunately, that the innocent have always been the victims of war. You, on the other hand, do not feign horror when tens of thousands of innocents are tortured and murdered by their dictators (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Amin, Pol Pot, Milosovic, Saddam) but the anti-war crowd has ALWAYS cried for the dead resulting from US military action.)….hypocrite……
And on that cheerful note….I will bid you a Happy THANKSgiving……(Who or what do you give “thanks” to – the cook?)
November 20th, 2006 at 2:09 amYou, on the other hand, do not feign horror when tens of thousands of innocents are tortured and murdered by their dictators (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Amin, Pol Pot, Milosovic(SIC), Saddam) (comma required but the anti-war crowd has ALWAYS cried for the dead resulting from US military action.)….hypocrite……
And on that cheerful note….I will bid you a Happy THANKSgiving……(Who or what do you give “thanks†to – the cook?)
Comment by mighty hypocrite
I wasn’t alive during Hitler’s or Stalin’s times, so I’m afraid that I couldn’t have protested. But in real life I have interviewed Holocaust survivors, so I am well aware of the horrors.
November 20th, 2006 at 2:41 amAnd how do you know I have never feigned horror at the other massacres you mention, while, in fact, leaving out the ongoing one in Darfur? Can you produce any proof of your (false) statement? You won’t be able to find any written statement where I have tried to justify the killing of innocents, as you did with the murder of a 3-year in Haditha. In fact, I have donated money to refugees from Cambodia, etc. and took part in the “Dining for Darfur” event to raise money for the victims of the ongoing genocide in Sudan.
Incidentally, I am not in favor of partial birth abortions, except in dire emergencies. However, I don’t regard a fetus or an embryo that is not at the stage of viability as a living creature on this planet. Sorry, but there are various intrepretations about this, in case you haven’t noticed.
And to whom or what I pay Thanks is none of your rotten business.
[...] And now, wishing to exploit the only wedge issue left, one of the GOP’s two leading presidential candidates has decided to attack Roe v. Wade while simultaneously playing his own Southern card, with the old call for states’ rights. [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 3:34 am[...] McCain seems to have a tough time staying the course on, well everything. We all remember the first McCain? The one that was a centrist and tight on ethics? Campaign finance reform was his passion and was fiscally conservative? I remember him. In fact, I would have voted for him had he won the primary. What? Stop looking at me. Gore bored me. I voted for Nader in the end. What? Stop looking at me. I really just did not like Gore back then. Things seemed to have changed. The new John McCain is running WAY right of the old John McCain. While the old John McCain said that he would not support the overturn o Roe V. Wade. The new John McCain said today that he would support an immediate overturning of Roe V. Wade. The old John McCain had dialogs about gay rights. The new John McCain is really distancing himself from any type of gayness. He now claims that he would not support workplace protections for homosexuals. [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 4:27 am[...] “McCain Flip-Flops, Supports Immediate Reversal of Roe v. Wade” Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 5:15 amDear Senator McCain:
Thank you for the early gift of so many blatant flip-flops that will come flying back in either of your two faces in ‘08.
As someone who both writes and voices Democratic national TV and Radio ads, I wanted to thank you for those gifts; they will be used often and completely.
Now, when will we see more of that well-known propensity for bizarre personal behavior? (We know about that, as well.)
Looking forward to painting you as the ambivalent and devious Right-Wing scumbag you are. :-)
AnaHadWolves
November 20th, 2006 at 5:34 amHow do you spell McClain? answer: PANDERER!
November 20th, 2006 at 6:22 amWho is going to vote for that chump anyway?
November 20th, 2006 at 7:28 amwell, maybe we will, in a short time, see the end of McCain. I’ve heard him say some stupid things lately, but this one takes the cake.
Does he NOT realize that his constituents JUST rejected a constitutional ban on gay marriage? (by something like 84%?) So, he runs for president, and I would be willing to bet he’ll be easily defeated IF his own party nominates him, as long as his opponent is smart enough to run soundbytes of all the contradicting statements he’s made over the last 5 or six years.
As for the real issue, I think if there is to be any discussion of abortion, it should be among WOMEN ONLY. If there is a vote about abortion, it should be a vote cast by WOMEN ONLY–it is, after all, the woman’s responsibility to carry the child, give birth, nurture, etc.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:43 amA very large percentage of homes across the country are spearheaded by a single woman raising children ALONE, for whatever reason, so the ultimate choice should be hers.
I was raised by a single mother of 5 who chose to divorce an abusive alcoholic in the mid 60’s–something not accepted and frowned upon at the time. We have had discussions about her situation and she told me that she had so many children because the pill was not available until 1969, and my father refused to use condoms, even though her gynecologist had advised her against having more children, for health reasons.
My father believed that if she was pregnant and taking care of a passel of children, she wouldn’t leave……but she did–with no help from anyone.
I would not wish this on anyone, and I wonder why EVERY time I see Pro-Lifers in a group, there seems to be a higher ratio of MEN to WOMEN in those crowds. I look at the faces of these “men” and all I can see is an abusive, controlling tyrant who has no business telling me or any other woman how to take care of my reproductive health.
This is the best thing that could have happened
November 20th, 2006 at 8:35 amfor Progressives. The american people sent an
undeniable message to the Rightwing Christonazi’s
to hit the road in the last election. Since then, most
ReThuglicans have continued a business as usual,
strategy, completely ignoring the voters. Its as if
they are stuck in an time warp, and can’t learn the
lesson sent to them by the majority of the Amercian
people. The Far Right Fruitcakes didn’t save them
in 2006, and by 2008, even more people will be even
more alienated by the Willie Horton tactics of the
Gay Old Party. Let McCain rave all he wants. What
worked for these crooks in the 80’s and 90’s, will
fall flat on its face in 2008. Before we vote Mr McCain,
can we discuss your involvment in the Keating 5?
Abortion is the straw man he throws up, to keep
his Savings and Loan scandal off the table. And
about that Concentration Camp Tent City he condones
in Phoenix. Wth him in the WHitehouse, can we look
forward to the same thing on a Federal scale?
Is there any doubt?
Be happy and enhance your calm Democrats, he is
determined to commit political suicide, so lets not
argue with a man that insists on political self destruction.
The solution to the abortion issue is really simple, don’t have sex with pro-life men, once they die off in a generation or two, problem solved.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:41 amAside from McCain, I sometimes even wonder about the sincerity of some–not all–Repug politicians’ anti-abortion stance. After all, abortion was legalized in California when Ronald Reagan was governor. In other words, he was for it before it against–or before he started courting the religious right/wrong. Laura and Grandma Barbara Bush are still pro-choice. Barry Goldwater, whom some consider the father of the current American conservative movement, was pro-choice, as well as pro-gay rights. I believe one of his granddaughters even had an abortion.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:44 am#243 Mark,
November 20th, 2006 at 8:59 amGood advice, but in my own case I think I’ve already taken it.
And they day Kerry flip-flopped!!!!!
November 20th, 2006 at 9:09 am#246 Judy,
November 20th, 2006 at 9:20 amDon’t you know it’s “flip-flopping” only when a Dem does it?
One thing I want to clarify is that I don’t think Barry Goldwater ever flip-flopped after announcing his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stance. Although I didn’t agree with him on many things, he was at least a man of principle, unlike so many G(reedy)O(ld)P(erverts) today who will do just about anything to get elected.
[...] Thanks to ThinkProgress for catching all of this. [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 9:31 am[...] In a giant and disappointing flip-flop, Sen. John McCain now supports overturning Roe v. Wade: STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest. [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 9:45 am[...] Meet Senator John McCain, the supposed moderate: MCCAIN: …I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support. [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 10:26 amThere is nothing in the constitution that mentions or even implies the subject of abortion. There may be a moral right to abortion but there is no constitutional right and the SC should have never said otherwise. Let the legislators decide this.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:09 amThere goes any thought I had for voting for McCain.
As a Democrat, I was considering him, mostly for his fight to get a torture Ban bill into law.
He got it, and then didn’t say squat when Bush’s signing statement made it worthless.
But this latest is garbage. Bye, bye McCain. You dont have a chance now that you’ve alienated the political center.
Guiliani is a Bush Worshipper too. I hope noone forgets that either. Who cares if he was mayor on 9/11?
November 20th, 2006 at 12:21 pmMcCain is becoming Bush more every day.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:50 pm[...] Get this through your heads, John McCain is not a moderate. He’ll try to look like one for campaign purposes, but he is still the guy who won’t miss an opportunity to hug President Bush. He’s still the guy who thinks torture is bad, except that the bill he wrote to ban it doesn’t apply to Guantanamo. Nice loophole, there. Maybe he should run a Craigslist ad to the effect of “Lost: credibility. If found please send to Senator McCain’s office.” [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 1:05 pmShame on the democrats for not standing up to the repeated mindless mantra of “Liberal Activist Judges.” There is no such national conspiracy. The far right keeps losing on court not because our judges are slanted to the left of the constitution, but because their attemps to control our lives are too oppressively far to the right of it. “If you’ve been married five times, hell, maybe it’s you!” No, the constitution does not specifically mention abortion, but there are two philosophies in approaching interpreting the constitution: those who consider its grey areas looking for justifications to expand and protect our freedoms, and those who scour it looking for excuses to crush them. The right wing favors the latter. McCain has never been moderate; he is far right. I respected him before he caved in on the Interrogation bill. No chance of my vote now.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:32 pmThe funniest thing about McCain’s comments is that he is pandering to a MINORITY. Being anti-gay or anti-woman rights, or anti-anything is no longer a winning strategy. Let him talk himself to death. He is making it clearer to the American public that he will NEVER become president. His mind is going haywire that he does not even know that America has REJECTED losers like McCain! too funny!
November 20th, 2006 at 1:59 pmMcCain needs to return to school I think. If he is actually a Federalist he would want an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds more power. By wanting the states to decide he is an anti-federalist.
Federalists want strong central government
Anti-Federalists want more state’s rights.
McCain is an idiot.
“Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states”
November 20th, 2006 at 2:21 pmStuff You Should Read…
McCain Supports Immediate Reversal of Roe v. Wade…
November 20th, 2006 at 2:39 pmFor those who think it is easy enough for a woman to obtain birth control, read this:
The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. This appointee, Eric Keroack, worked for an anti-choice group that considers birth control “demeaning to women.”
So what do the neo-CON trolls here call “family planning?”
November 20th, 2006 at 8:05 pm[...] That wasn’t some 1982 speech someone caught on tape and recycled for current use. That was just this past Sunday, on national television. [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 8:08 pm“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary”
What’s more scary than this formally tortured, currently insane man? the fact that he could go all the way to the top! After Bush I wouldn’t be shocked by anything.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:10 pm“The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. This appointee, Eric Keroack, worked for an anti-choice group that considers birth control “demeaning to women.â€
You may remember Keroacks best seller–”On The Pill”
November 20th, 2006 at 8:13 pmHey all!
November 21st, 2006 at 12:08 amIm very pro life but I think the states should decide, not the federal government. The constitution says that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or to the people (if not completly illegal for violating an unborns right to life)… That INCLUDES abortion legislation. To all you poor fools who have made this “pro-abortion” propaganda your life’s goal, i pity you and hope you find a better cause to promote. The federal govt has no business legislating this kind of stuff!
Visit
http://www.theseliberties.net
and
[...] McCain announced, changing the position he held in his last Presidential run, that he now supports the immediate overturn of Roe v. Wade. Appearing on ABC he gave this interview: STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest. [...]
November 23rd, 2006 at 3:01 pm[...] Are you kidding? McCain has superb acting skills. Didn’t you see his bit part shaking Christopher Walken’s hand in Wedding Crashers? What about his hosting of NBC’s Saturday Night Live and many appearances on Meet the Press? Now, that’s acting. [...]
January 4th, 2007 at 3:38 am[...] This Soren Dayton piece is a really good take down of Romney over “the smallish” issue of Romney’s education department funding outreach to LGBT youth. The piece is a small but critical take down of Romney’s lurch right as it demonstrates that he’s never been a full on homophobe. Here’s the thing though, why aren’t these bloggers writing similar pieces about McCain? Maybe, they’re “making room” for their McCain alternative? Surely, it’s not difficult to do, it’s not that McCain hasn’t had a history of flip-flops. * McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite. [...]
January 6th, 2007 at 9:58 pm[...] November 20, 2006 McCain Flip-Flops, Supports Immediate Reversal of Roe v. WadeVIDEO: McCain Says Jerry Falwell is No Longer an ‘Agent of Intolerance’ [...]
January 6th, 2007 at 10:50 pm[...] * McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite. [...]
January 20th, 2007 at 2:16 pm# 47
What gives others the right to pass laws against those they simply disagree with? Churches aren’t being forced to ‘marry’ gay people, so what right do you or anyone else have over my life if it does not DIRECTLY interfere with your own rights. Most people don’t agree with Wicken/Witch Craft, yet after the hangings in Salem we no longer practice it. . .HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING FROM HISTORY???
The majority of people don’t believe/trust magic/witchcraft. If asked, I’m sure the general public would outlaw such practices if given the opportunity. Does that mean we should have the right to do that though because we don’t believe it. If the entire country was run on WHAT THE AVERAGE JOE THINKS, everyone in this country would be forced to go along with the majority, because the majority will vote for the majority opinion–not what’s constitutionally fair. . .read up on why this country was founded before opening your trap. You have no right to step in and run other people’s lives, and as long as I’m not committing a crime or going into your life and taking rights away from you, why should you or anyone who disagrees with me have a right to tell me I am not allowed to love someone I love because THEY don’t agree with it. What if the majority of the country voted Red Heads shouldn’t get married because they have temper issues??? Would that be fair because the Majority of people voted it should be passed???? NO!!!!!!!!!! STOP RUNNING MY LIFE JERKO!
February 4th, 2007 at 11:23 pmAbortion is Murder. Maybe McCain has seen some state of the art sonograms.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:42 amAbortion is Killing a baby whether you are dumb enough to stick a coat hanger in there or have the doctors slice it into pieces with a scalpel. Women that want to go around and have unprotected sex know the consequences.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:16 amIt is amazing how the liberals portray anyone who is pro-life as “extreme right wing.”
Evangelicals and Catholics … people who, on paper at least, are pro-life represented over 50% of the country. How, by any definition, can 50% of the country be classified as extreme.
My discomfort with McCain is that I doubt his sincerity in his support.
Brownback for President.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:07 amRead and listen carefully people. He said he was for returning the decision to the states, not banning abortion. Friggin’ Liberals get so fired up when someone waves a red flag that they forget to think for themselves.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm[...] the weblog Think Progress noted, on November 19, 2006, McCain told ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos that he would [...]
February 24th, 2007 at 12:20 pmMcCain is a sick old man – does not have a chance. Only old white guys are gonna vote fo r him and they do not rule anymore.
I would love to see him debate Obama. Youth and energy and the future wouid put an end to the old white farts who seen their day.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:37 pm[...] I think McCain’s proven he can be flexible on a lot of things lately, including abortion, climate change, and gay marriage. Any illusion of McCain having convictions strong enough to [...]
April 5th, 2007 at 1:28 amAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 8:06 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 12:06 pmTeen Petite Teens Teen Titans Hentai
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pmPreteen Preteen Model Galleries Pre-Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 4:13 pmPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pmLesbians Lesbian 69 Indian Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 6:26 pmTeen Girls Teen Titans Raven Tiffany Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 11:22 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 3:26 amInsurance Automobile Insurance Home Owners Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 3:26 amTeen Teens For Cash Nudist Teens
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 10:17 pmBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 6:34 pmSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 10:15 pmLesbians Girls Lesbians Teen Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 12:46 amMervin
I could not believe the amount of quality material on this site. The site is extremely eyecatching and pulls the reader straight it, the articles are great quality and are very professionally written. I have seen too many of these sites where it looks…
March 17th, 2008 at 12:47 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 1:54 amLesbians Black Lesbian Sex Lesbian Girls Licking
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 2:04 amsample business letter
(Blogger now has backlinks – very similar to the trackback feature in Movable Type. One notable blogging tool that does not support
March 17th, 2008 at 5:36 amPreteen Preteen Lolitas Innocent Preteens
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 4:22 pmTeen Girls Teen Chat Teen Panties
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 10:58 pmInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 12:44 amChubby Grannies Chubby Granny Masturbate Pussy Big Tit Chubby Grannys
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 8:14 amHealth Insurance Gulf Breeze Insurance Flood Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 9:06 amchild custody lawyer phoenix
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:03 pmGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 2:56 pmUtah Home Insurance Quote
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:17 amCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:25 amLesbians Lesbian Girls Lesbian Twins
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 6:25 amLesbian Sex Lesbian Anime Teenage Lesbian
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:53 pmCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pmPhilis
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:22 amKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 1:13 amGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:05 amTeen Girls Teen Titans Hentai Teen Girls That Are Hot
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 2:55 pmLesbian Sex Free Lesbian Porn Blonde Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 4:26 pmTeen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 12:40 amLesbian Sex Free Lesbian Sex Videos Lesbian Sex Videos
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 4:25 am[...] of an ambitious politician. But the man has been changing his tune, changing his tone, changing his mind, changing his associates, all at an alarming [...]
March 21st, 2008 at 9:12 amAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 2:57 pmYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 amYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:23 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:53 amChubby Grannies Mature Chubby Women Mature Lesbians Blonde Chubby Bbw Fat
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pmGuy hun Lee
Good and quality stuff! i would really appreciate if the author or any other guest of this page can elaborate upon the last few lines of the article. Because i do not want to agree/ disagree blindly. Thanks.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:52 pmVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 4:26 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 6:26 amSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 7:50 ambackground check on doctor
I’m with the earlier poster, this seems like a good idea.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pmJack
Lots of free content here. Thanks for sharing.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:07 amSample Business Plans
Your blog makes very interesting reading. I’m sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:26 amPreteen Preteen Pussy Model Pre Teen Underwear
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 8:49 amLashunda
Dream as if you’ll live forever, live as if you’ll die today.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:21 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 2:01 amCorporate Cocktail Party Planning
Thanks for creating this blog. I thought it was a very interesting read. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:33 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 9:19 pm[...] now: MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support. [...]
March 31st, 2008 at 2:05 amKds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 4:22 pmEbay Selling Strategy
Want to take a look at my site, you will find it very intereting.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:23 pmchild custody lawyers california
Other lawyers handle only public-interest cases?civil or criminal?concentrating on particular causes and choosing cases that might have an impact on the way law is applied.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:12 pm[...] And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. [...]
April 11th, 2008 at 4:36 pm