2004 election news

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
mostly for posterity, right now

The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision.
Click to expand...

count him out.
 
Gonz said:
count him out.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I think there's a lot of support in the public for abortion rights. Opposition to Roe v. Wade is a weak plank in the GOP platform, a sop to the religious conservatives. Republican candidates are measured by those of us outside the 700 Club by whether they're serious about banning abortion, or just paying lip service to the fanatics.
 
I'm pro-choice. I also don't want people limited becasue of their stance exclusively.
 
Gonz said:
I'm pro-choice. I also don't want people limited becasue of their stance exclusively.
Click to expand...


i agree there are more controversial subjects than roe v wade and that is important to me but i look at other areas too.
 
My "favorite" bumper stickers on one car said,

first;

"Animals have Rights too"

Then below it said;

"Pro-abortion/pro-choice."

There are three primary sources of embryonic cells and fetal tissue in the U.S.: hospitals, abortion clinics, and private physicians (obstetricians and gynecologists). All must obtain written consent from women to conduct research on the tissue from abortions or miscarriages for the purposes of education, research or the advancement of medical science (King et al., 1995). They then distribute the tissue to researchers who are located in a variety of settings, including academic institutions, commercial companies, and institutions outside the U.S. (Vawter et al., 1990).
Click to expand...

Apparently to some it is okay to be cruel to human babies but it wrong to be cruel to animals.

To think that a fetus does not feel or is conscious of its head being crushed, arm ripped off, or brains sucked out is completely ludicrous.

Main thing is with these new partial birth abortions, when they suck out the brains, what do they do with that tissue? You bet people like Michael J. Fox are lined up cause apparently injecting fresh baby brains in people brains with alzheimers, parkinsons etc.... helps them. People with cash will no doubt get the baby "food" they want. You know "food" made from dead babies. There are many cases of this treatment working. I don't think it is fair for a baby to give his life for someone older unless it saves the mother. The line of people wanting to adopt is phenominal. I have never liked the thought of infanticide. China's policies come to mind.

I remember in class they had a baby skull that was only like 5 months old. I asked my teacher where they would buy a baby skull like that. She said they are expensive but you can get them. I have no doubts that was a partial birth aborted baby. It made me damn sick to think some asshole with a PhD probably killed that little child and then we all had to hold the thing for a quiz and profiting from its death.

Yeah I am pro choice too. Pro that you have the choice keep your dick in the pants and "virginia" shut.
 
ol'man, don't start that again. :eh: The pro-death people here have a habit of taking offense when you mention how it offends you that they execu.., err murde..., err, "remove" babies by sucking their brains out, crushing their skull, and ripping them out of the body.

Yeah I am pro choice too. Pro that you have the choice keep your dick in the pants and "virginia" shut.
Click to expand...
Exactly. :cool:


And now watch everyone go ape about that and everyone giving me shit for that. :rolleyes:
 
Jeslek said:
And now watch everyone go ape about that and everyone giving me shit for that
Click to expand...

Naw, I think you and 'ol man were made for each other. It's actually kind of romantic.
 
I get periodic calls for donations from some pro-life organization. Usually, as soon as they start their spiel I interrupt and tell them that I'm pro-death, definitely pro-death. That shuts them up pretty quick. The last time one called, about two weeks ago, I didn't get to use my line before he had launched into his pitch about how 30,000 babies were killed last year, or some such. I chewed his ear off.

I'm not going to get into this debate with ol man and Jeslek, though, because it's pointless. All I will say is that using the term "babies" is begging the question. If I agreed with you that a fetus is a baby, I wouldn't be in favor of abortion; they're not. I can go into gruesome detail about how cows are killed and butchered to gross people out, but it wouldn't change the fact that it's perfectly okay to kill them. Likewise with abortion. Describing the gruesome details doesn't make it wrong.

And that's all I have to say about that.
 
Wouldn't it be nice someday to be able to vote for someone instead of against everone else?

RE. the religious right, three of the last four presidents have been card carrying members. This scares me as much as anything does. One of these presidents even stated that I am not really a citizen. Things like this make me worry that I may at some point have to leave my country because of my religious beliefs.
 
chcr, why are you so scared of voting for someone that is religious? Do you have issues with their religion? Afterall, one of the cornerstones IS freedom of religion.
 
Jeslek said:
Afterall, one of the cornerstones IS freedom of religion.
Click to expand...
Well, it's in the constitution, but it really doesn't work out that way. Actually, John Anderson was a Methodist if I remeber correctly. I don't care what religion a candidate is, I only care what religious group he expects me to be in. George the first doesn't even think I'm a citizen (see link above), and I seriously doubt his son feels differently. Generally, the religious right want you to agree with them. I don't. Their idea of freedom of religion is freedom to belong to a religion they approve of. I have even heard many of their leaders say that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. I am free from religion, and I fully intend to stay that way. Religious choice is every American's right, I'm afraid certain groups would like to change that.
 
You'll be happy to know that, as a fellow atheist, I have infiltrated the Republican Party and I'm working to change their attitude on this issue. :eh:

Meanwhile, perhaps you could infiltrate the Democrats and get them to ease up on the whole socialism thing.
 
I'll tell my religious buddies to back off when the Democrats adopt Ayn Rand as their model of life. :D Deal?
 
Jeslek said:
I'll tell my religious buddies to back off when the Democrats adopt Ayn Rand as their model of life. :D Deal?
Click to expand...

No need. If that ever happens I'll just switch my voter registration and to hell with the Republicans.
 
Those quotes above by GB #1 look pretty fishy. I think somebody took his statement and did a little add libbing;)

I am freinds with muslims, hindus, jehovahs witness,mormons, buddhists, Nativie American beliefs etc...And the only people I have ever met that were really spiteful about someone of a different faith were atheists. I suppose that is why they leave a sour taste with many people.
 
ol' man said:
Those quotes above by GB #1 look pretty fishy. I think somebody took his statement and did a little add libbing;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, prettty hard to imagine that any politician would make such statements, regardless of what they actually believed. :)

And for the record, I don't really care what the religious preference of our president is. I want a good leader, not a preacher. If they happen to be both, then more power to them. ;)




And no... that's doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Rev. Sharpton! :rofl2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top