Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2008 12:42:56 GMT -5
Even if you do not approve of the pro-choice VP, what do you expect from Obama and his VP? Wouldn't you rather a President and a VP who agree with you on all the other issues? Another illustration that some people do not understand the depths of commitment of real pro-life people to the sanctity of human life. The other issues are a very poor second or third in our minds. They don't matter in comparison to our desire to stop killing babies. We will never pull the lever to vote for someone who is in favor of allowing people the "choice" to kill their babies. To vote for such people is to be complicit in the killing. That level of passion and commitment is certainly admirable, but I don't understand how anyone who is that passionate about the sanctity of human life can ever support a war. Of course, there are moral arguments for just war, etc...but the reality is that any war, no matter how carefully executed, will result in the loss of innocent human life. Are the lives of unborn children more important than the lives of innocent adults? I don't want to totally hijack the thread, but the "sanctity of life" argument must surely apply to grown adults as readily as it applies to the unborn. Those who oppose abortion on those grounds should - as far as I can tell - be pacifists by nature. I can't figure out what it menas for the death penalty, since "innocent" is not a part of that equation. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 14, 2008 14:12:51 GMT -5
I believe it should also apply to the death penalty. If you're going to say all human life is sacred, you cannot start qualifying it in any manner I feel. You do not have the right to take another human life in any case but in the most extreme ( kill or be killed aka self defense). That's why although I'm pro Life i think there can be that one exception. The case where if the birth is allowed to go on it's natural course it will kill the mother. That's it. No abortions for any other reason but to save the mothers life.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 14, 2008 14:18:05 GMT -5
McCain is apparently floating an idea to have a pro-choice person as his running mate, like Ridge. With a pro-life VP he has a 10-20% chance of winning but with a pro-choice VP his odds are zero. Anecdotal evidence: listening to a radio station this morning and the host posed the question as to what would be the reaction of Republicans. All of the callers said essentially the same thing that they would not vote for McCain if he picked a pro-choice running mate. The rationale was that adherence to deep beliefs are more important than winning elections. I might add I will also not vote for McCain if he picks a pro-choice VP. I understand and respect your view on abortion. I have yet to meet anyone who is "in favor of" abortion. But many of us are opposed to having the federal government making decisions that are intensely personal for a woman and her own body and life. OK, we disagree on that. But here's where I am unable to follow the "sanctity of life" reasoning. If one were truly behind the sanctity of life thinking as Bush claims to be, wouldn't he also be strongly in favor of providing sex education to help avoid unwanted pregnancies? And in favor of greater knowledge of and access to contraception? And even more importantly, totally in favor of providing health care and nutrition and social services to mothers and children? And wouldn't they also be completely opposed to war... especially to initiating wars? And opposed to the death penalty because that involves society officially sanctioning violating the sanctity of life? Those are the areas that I am unable to reconcile. I am not criticizing you on your anti-abortion stance. I really do understand that. My personal view is opposed too, but not to the extent of government involvement to impose the governments will and judgments on individual women. If people are opposed, why wouldn't they do everything possible to help pregnant women and new mothers regardless of their circumstances so they can adequately care for and raise their children, instead of opting for an abortion. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 14, 2008 14:35:24 GMT -5
Another point from the Houston Chronicle HoustonChronicleThe Bush administration has consistently opposed providing funding for international birth control programs, but until now has not tried to limit the use of contraceptives inside the United States.
That could change in the president's final months in office. Health and Human Services officials are considering a draft regulation that would classify most birth control pills, the Plan B emergency contraceptive and intrauterine devices as forms of abortion because they prevent the development of fertilized eggs into fetuses.
Yet another reason why so many distrust the Bush administration and their close links to religious groups. This country was founded on the princiiple of separation of church and state... that's why the Pilgrims came here in the first place.. to escape religious persecution. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 14, 2008 14:43:03 GMT -5
While your point is certainly well-taken, it is a bit of a reach to say this country was founded upon the separation of church and state.
Economic freedom played at least as large, if not a larger role.
And last time I checked, there were several groups who settled in the Americas, not all of them Pilgrims seeking to escape religious persecution..
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 14, 2008 15:10:53 GMT -5
While your point is certainly well-taken, it is a bit of a reach to say this country was founded upon the separation of church and state. Economic freedom played at least as large, if not a larger role. And last time I checked, there were several groups who settled in the Americas, not all of them Pilgrims seeking to escape religious persecution.. OK, one of the major founding principles for this country was the separation of church and state. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 14, 2008 15:25:39 GMT -5
McCain is apparently floating an idea to have a pro-choice person as his running mate, like Ridge. With a pro-life VP he has a 10-20% chance of winning but with a pro-choice VP his odds are zero. Anecdotal evidence: listening to a radio station this morning and the host posed the question as to what would be the reaction of Republicans. All of the callers said essentially the same thing that they would not vote for McCain if he picked a pro-choice running mate. The rationale was that adherence to deep beliefs are more important than winning elections. I might add I will also not vote for McCain if he picks a pro-choice VP. I understand and respect your view on abortion. I have yet to meet anyone who is "in favor of" abortion. But many of us are opposed to having the federal government making decisions that are intensely personal for a woman and her own body and life. OK, we disagree on that. But here's where I am unable to follow the "sanctity of life" reasoning. If one were truly behind the sanctity of life thinking as Bush claims to be, wouldn't he also be strongly in favor of providing sex education to help avoid unwanted pregnancies? And in favor of greater knowledge of and access to contraception? And even more importantly, totally in favor of providing health care and nutrition and social services to mothers and children? And wouldn't they also be completely opposed to war... especially to initiating wars? And opposed to the death penalty because that involves society officially sanctioning violating the sanctity of life? Those are the areas that I am unable to reconcile. I am not criticizing you on your anti-abortion stance. I really do understand that. My personal view is opposed too, but not to the extent of government involvement to impose the governments will and judgments on individual women. If people are opposed, why wouldn't they do everything possible to help pregnant women and new mothers regardless of their circumstances so they can adequately care for and raise their children, instead of opting for an abortion. Sigh. The "woman's right" is considered a nonissue since there's an assumption that someone's right does not infringe upon another's life. On the new mothers thing, Catholic Charities and other pro-life groups are very focused on helping new mothers. The sex education issue is a bitterly-divided policy question on whether assuming the teens are going to have sex rather than encouraging abstinence. I think everybody agrees that abstinence until out of high school is best for social and health reasons. Some people, however, think that abstinence is unworkable and prefer a solution that accepts this fact while working to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Others think that this approach encourages more sex and is much more dangerous. It's a policy decision, and each side believes that the correct use of their policy will lead to more sanctity of life. Finally, the war thing? Come on. The Catholic Church has a just war doctrine. From then, assuming that you accept the idea that some violence is just, then it's just a question of where you draw the line - where violating someone's sanctity of life may save tens, hundreds, or thousands more. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 14, 2008 22:43:39 GMT -5
marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/obama_richmond_va_next_thursda.phpMarc Ambinder says that Obama's schedule for next week is as follows: Monday: Florida Tuesday: Florida Wednesday: Unknown/Undecided Thursday: Virginia Not sure what this is worth since his schedule could turn on a dime. An Obama spokesperson indicated today that speakers could be shuffled, and there could be a repeat speaker at the VP position in the schedule. I could easily see Wednesday as an off day rather than the announcement day since the campaign will likely want to repaint the campaign plane and other such things before the 2 candidates hit the trail together.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 15, 2008 11:44:58 GMT -5
I don't want to turn this into another tired abortion debate. We have plenty of other threads for that. But I do have to respond to one thing:
Cam wrote:
That level of passion and commitment is certainly admirable, but I don't understand how anyone who is that passionate about the sanctity of human life can ever support a war. Of course, there are moral arguments for just war, etc...but the reality is that any war, no matter how carefully executed, will result in the loss of innocent human life. Are the lives of unborn children more important than the lives of innocent adults?
I don't want to totally hijack the thread, but the "sanctity of life" argument must surely apply to grown adults as readily as it applies to the unborn. Those who oppose abortion on those grounds should - as far as I can tell - be pacifists by nature. I can't figure out what it menas for the death penalty, since "innocent" is not a part of that equation.
Those are two entirely different issues. In the first case, there are some people who are total pacifists. They are against violence of any sort 100%. By that I mean they will literally get trampled into the ground before they lift a finger in defense. Thankfulle there aren't many of these people. But for the majority, there is no conflict here. They understand the necessary evil of military confrontation. They understand that there are times that you can't stand idly by, and in fact must be prepared to defend yourself, your family and even your beliefs all the way to the deat.
As for the second issue, I think it has much more bearing when flipped around. How in the world can someone who is so pro-abortion, be so vehemently opposed to the death penalty?
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 15, 2008 12:21:14 GMT -5
Because i assume for most people who are pro abortion they don't believe it is yet a human life there for they're not killing a human and they thinking killing humans is wrong.
If they do think that both are taking a human life then yes that is very confusing and makes no sense. But the difference is I believe one side's argument is: Human life is sacred unless we believe we've proved you committed a crime of a certain level of severity. Where as the other sides is We believe all human life is sacred but until you reace a certain level of physiological development you're not a human life.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 17, 2008 20:48:25 GMT -5
The way to attack this debate is through pragmatism. Despite the political war waged on the Supreme Court by some Republicans, Roe v. Wade is still on the books. Abortions have gone up over the past 8 years, with no plan offered as to how to reduce the number other than the hail mary pass to pack the court with conservative jurists. The same thing happens every four years, and there's a good chance that Republican politicians don't want Roe v. Wade overturned because it would take away a key talking point.
What makes it all the more amusing this year is that McCain is all over the map on this critical issue. Despite saying that he would not have nominated Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens, he voted to confirm 3 of them (and wasn't in the Senate when the 4th was nominated).
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 17, 2008 23:34:14 GMT -5
What makes it all the more amusing this year is that McCain is all over the map on this critical issue. Despite saying that he would not have nominated Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens, he voted to confirm 3 of them (and wasn't in the Senate when the 4th was nominated). How is that "all over the map?" Nominating someone is a lot different than voting to confirm. Unless your idea of advice and consent is to vote for only those with whom you agree, and not all of those whom you think are qualified - a position many Dems seem to take. I wouldn't have nominated any of those four either, but I don't think I would have voted against them. The President has the perogative to nominate jurists of his persuasion. I think they Senate should vote to confirm unless they're not qualified. See Scalia '86. I think it would be fascinating to see how a Scalia confirmation process would play out in today's climate. |
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Aug 19, 2008 15:21:17 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 19, 2008 15:38:45 GMT -5
I don't know if I'd agree with "America is no longer a place where citizens care about plagiarism...."
But I do think America is a place where citizens, for the most part, no longer care about Joe Biden's incidence of plagiarism.
[snark]
(Plus, we know that Obama's campaign is a place that doesn't care about plagiarism, since Axelrod gives Barack Obama the same speeches he gave to Deval Patrick.)
;D
[/snark]
In all seriousness, I think Biden would be a very good pick.
That's why I'm hoping Obama picks Kaine.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Aug 19, 2008 15:41:25 GMT -5
Well it will be nice to give Neil Kinnock another spin in the news, at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 19, 2008 19:31:28 GMT -5
I don't have a favorite in this selection process, and I'm not even sure that the real short list has been publicized. The speculation has changed every news cycle. First it was Kaine, then it was Bayh, and now it is Biden. Speculation is rampant that he's going to announce the pick on Saturday, but I think it will happen before then, especially if it is Biden. The press is staking out his house, and there's only so much that the campaign can do to protect Biden until a Saturday announcement, and the text message announcement loses its effect. I'm not convinced that Sam Nunn is out of the running, especially if Obama is trending toward a "Beltway" type. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 20, 2008 9:59:55 GMT -5
I don't have a favorite in this selection process, and I'm not even sure that the real short list has been publicized. The speculation has changed every news cycle. First it was Kaine, then it was Bayh, and now it is Biden. Speculation is rampant that he's going to announce the pick on Saturday, but I think it will happen before then, especially if it is Biden. The press is staking out his house, and there's only so much that the campaign can do to protect Biden until a Saturday announcement, and the text message announcement loses its effect. I'm not convinced that Sam Nunn is out of the running, especially if Obama is trending toward a "Beltway" type. Obama's in VA today, so the pick of the day is back to Kaine. I honestly think a lot of this is just is the media latching onto anything that could create a new story, as the political newsfront is pretty dead until the conventions. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 20, 2008 10:34:26 GMT -5
Today's Zogby poll has McCain ahead by 5 points but the Rasmussen poll has Obama ahead by 3 points. Gallup poll not yet out today but yesterday it was Obama by 1 or 2. I think this closeness makes it more likely Obama will pick Hillary.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 20, 2008 12:20:41 GMT -5
For a good statistical analysis of the race, check out www.fivethirtyeight.com. The methods are consistent and for the most part, unbiased (I suppose you could argue some demographic points). The blogger is a Democrat so the posts are going to swing that way, but if you just stick to the math, it's regression analysis, so it isn't like the methodology is getting altered to show a POV. It has a really interesting methodology on predicting a state, incorporating history, demographics and weighting polls by sample size, history of accuracy, etc. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 20, 2008 13:13:08 GMT -5
538 is a good site. An interesting note about that. Obama's current odds of winning (54% today) have been dropping steadily. This is a new low. We'll see if it bumps back up because of Denver. Obama has had a hard time getting traditional "bumps," and McCain's strategy of an Aug. 29 VP announcement could either be political genius or disaster. Probably not too much of a disaster though, since they'll have the whole next week even if they lose the Friday or weekend news cycle.
The RCP site, which I think is also pretty good, has McCain with a tenous lead in the Electoral College count. But that site does not allow for toss ups, so McCain's lead is based on razor thin margins in states like Virginia, which obviously could switch at any time.
And, forgive the fact that this came from a conservative site, but I thought this was a good line in predicting Tim Kaine as the D-VP:
"Both Obama and McCain really need someone with executive experience. That rules out Joe Biden, who was raised by the wolves in the Senate."
I thought that was kind of funny. But I still think Biden would be the better pick.
|
|
