Who Would You Vote For?

There are in fact law makers who have tried to pass abstinence only sex education laws. (Such as Susan Combs in TX) Our federal funding policy (while not legislative) certainly has limited the use of contraceptives and scientific information about contraceptives, not only in our country, but in our fight against AIDS in Africa.

In many states (Kentuky, Florida, Iowa, Oklahoma), school boards are passing curiculum requiring abstinence only education. Some will fire teachers if they tell students that condoms can prevent AIDS because they are not 100% affective. There is certainly a lot of pressure on teachers to withhold scientific information.

The most tragically ironic part is that abstinence only education causes more unwanted pregnancy and more abortions (based on statistical, mathmatical studies.)

Although we are probably far from making contraception illegal, by stopping funding and preventing education, some of the same forces that are against abortion illogically are causing more abortions, by discouraging use of contraception.

Even if abortions were illegal, there will still be abortions. They will just be unsafe. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is policy which actually reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and helps young woman who want to complete their pregnancy.

I think it is noble of you to follow your morals and try to reduce or stop abortion, but I think it's important to stay close to reality. Even if you don't believe in all science (like some others who want to reduce abortion), at least statistics and mathmatical facts can not be ignored.

There was certainly abortion and even exposure (leaving new born babies to die if they were not wanted or had birth defects) when Jesus walked the Earth. I wonder why he spoke more specifically against organized religion and helping the poor than he did against these practices.
(Although I'm sure someone could point out scripture that they believe is about these practices. I certainly don't want to get into some kind of argument about that......)

 

he is also a REPUBLICAN with a history of REPUBLICAN CRONYISM who helped put Reagan into office. the way the government works a president can't accomplish shit without his party's support. supporters of ron paul who think he can singlehandedly end the war, legalize marijuana or anything else are ignoring the realities of US government practices and procedures. if you vote for a REPUBLICAN you're voting for the entire REPUBLICAN AGENDA. so pay close attention to the REPUBLICAN PLATFORM during the convention cuz that's what you're going to get regardless of the candidate chosen to run for the party. this country cannot handle 4 more years of REPUBLICANS running things.

 

*shrugs*

I do learn my history, thanks. I just don't agree with yours.

 

yes keep shouting the parties name, cause that means something when there are only 2 FUCKIN PARTIES(who get 95% of the vote anyway). just dumb. there is a great deal of variance within each of the major parties and how huckabee, guiliani, or paul would govern are completely different, the same as the way biden, clinton, and kucinich would govern, to think that the D or the R means anything anymore is just ignorant. shit there are still klan member in the democratic party that doesnt say anything about the party just the idiot who was a klansman. i hope you are actually researching these candidates positions before you cast a vote, i really do because you're making me ill right now.

 

1. my point still stands, you can oppose abortion and embrace safe sexual practices including the use of contraceptives, just because some would like to do both doesn't mean that banning one will lead to a ban on the other. they are two seperate issues that can be adressed seperately.

2. the fact that people are willing to kill despite laws against such killing is not enough justification, to me at least, to allow the killing to take place, not in this circumstance or any other.

3. safe havens are the smartest way to deal with the exposure issue, not murder.

4.i don't consider encouraging poor people to kill their offspring as helping them do anything but, well, kill their offspring.

4. i couldn't give 2 shits what jebus said about anything, i'm a proud atheist.

 

Until women are no longer rape victims, then I would be okay with banning abortions and/or making them extremely difficult for young women to have one.

But until then, I cannot judge women who go to obtain the morning after pill (some people believe this is abortion) and are denied to do so. Nor do I feel it is necessary to deny a woman the right to have an abortion when they have been sexually assaulted (by their husbands, fathers, brothers, friends, cousins, uncles, boyfriends, strangers, coaches, teachers, acquaintances, co-workers, bosses, etc).

Who is anyone to decide the circumstances of unwanted pregnancy and/or the events surrounding sexual assault? The woman.

Sure, contraception is a great idea Shane. Maybe you'd be interested in funding medical research to help patent a male oral contraceptive pill. Give some of the fertility responsibility to the male. That kind of contraception is very much needed, and could help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the long run.

But the idea of having an abortion is the right to abort after pregnancy.

Until women are no longer being raped, you have no say over what her rights are to make a choice about her pregnancy. At least, I believe each woman should be given that right.

 

and what is abortion? the taking of a human life. unless the presence or actions of that human life is a threat to your life then the taking of that life is murder. her right to continue to live comes before your right to not want to be pregnant any more, if you can figure out away to become un-pregnant without killing someone else in the process i'm on board, until then i can't agree there is a right to abort. it's not a woman's right issue here unless you're talking about the women you are killing when you do an abortion, it's a human rights issue and all humans have a right to to live once they are alive it's fundemental and prerequesite to all subsequent rights.when do women have rights? when they exist. when do they exist? science tells us when: when she is more than a part of her mother and more than a part of her father, when she is a distinct thing herself. at conception. no burden or inconvenience short of threatening the life of another justifies the ending of her life, to do so is to question that fundemental of all human rights, the right to be alive.

 

Again, I think the woman who is pregnant has the right to abort her pregnancy. Whether sexual assault was involved, drugging, incest, related health complications or not. I don't believe human life starts in utero - for myself I tinker around with life as having potential before that within a sperm and an egg - but I support legal abortions because a woman has a right to say 'no' before being assaulted and should have that same right afterwards.

It is a woman's right issue. It is our bodies a few people are wanting to pass laws onto.

At any rate, as it stands it's legal to kill in your country. It's legal to kill in my country as well. Not sure how abortion is all that much different - just different circumstances.

 

No, it's her body their trying to pass laws to protect, you can do what you want with your body, i don't care and neither do most, what you do to another's body is different matter entirely. To claim that protecting her from harm 3 weeks is forcing you to be pregnant makes as much sense as stating that protecting her from harm at 3 years is forcing you to be a parent. no one is forcing you to do anything, their trying to keep her from being harmed by you or anyone else.

well then you've made your point and mine. thank you for that. in most cases someone must be alive to begin with before she can be killed....

just saying.

 

research? i've been living through this process for over 50 years. the republicans are fucking every thing up. period.

 

I personally don’t care if a person is a Republican or a Democrat, moral or amoral. What I care about is what kind of a job are they going to do? After 8 years of Clinton everyone was talking about a surplus and what to do with it. Now after less than 8 years of Bush, people are talking about the collapse of the economy and possibly a depression that would make the 30’s look like a cake walk. Also look at New Orleans, it’s a national disgrace that it hasn’t been rebuilt while billions are being spent on a war with dubious if any benefits.

Also I have always thought of myself as pro-choice, it just seems like the choice should be made before conception not after.

 

Should women have the right to abort? No. Should women have the right to have a procedure done safely by a competent doctor, if she does decide to abort? Yes. Should we develop anti-abortion campaigns to help lower the number of abortions as much as we can, without hindering peoples right to safe medical procedures? Absolutely.

Some good points that the opposite end have come up with:

1. Develop a male version of 'The Pill' - Make it effective, while at the same time not limiting the pleasure associated with male orgasms, otherwise no man would go for it.
2. Teach men that they have a responsibility, too.
3. Governments shouldn't hinder the right to choose because it only creates more problems.

 

sure.

 

Both sides are fucking shit up.

 

imagining there can only be two sides to anything doesn't help either.

and neither does associating everything that refuses to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper with marxism and the short comings thereof.

and i'm not acusing anyone of anything, just adding on to what is true enough as far as it goes.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Yes, I agree.

 

Sorry I assumed anything...I knew that I should have deleted that last part. I really don't know much about Jesus either, but have always wondered about that question I asked...if anyone is anti-abortion because their Christian church tells them to, and has a calm response, I'd still be interested.

I'm glad you are pro-contraception and, I assume, pro-sex education about contraception and providing contraception for people of all ages.

I guess my main point was that there are people passing laws that are anti-contraception, and if you vote based on the abortion issue, those people will likely gain power....Even though it shouldn't have to be that way, I think it is because of the political situation now.

I'm curious if you believe the day after pill is murder.

I also wonder about your thoughts on social programs to help the poor care for their children, and to help children who have children to complete their education.

Is there a candidate who who agrees with you on those issues that you know of? (anti-abortion, pro social programs to help the poor, pro sex ed and contraction).

 

OH SHANE? So, you want government OUT of your WALLET and OUT of Big Business, but ALL UP IN a woman's womb?

That's about as "libertarian" as, I don't know...say... THE AYATOLLAH!

So, what's next "Vagina Warrants?"

 

1. Kucinich
2. Paul



3. Edwards

 

I am having a hard time seeing how anybody could support Clinton she she is a pathological liar she doesn't follow through with important issues .For example some one mentioned "Children's Health Insurance Program" on 11/01/2007 she was so busy taking credit for it she didn't even have time to vote. If you people would actually look at her voting record and her corporate involvements you would see whats she really stands for.Hell voting for Clinton is like voting for Bush all over again . I'm not trying to piss anybody off but can anyone name one contribution that she or her P.O.S. husband has made to the people of this country? I honestly cant think of any.Imho the only thing she cares about is her self and her bank account

peace love and oreos to all