Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: do you vote with the anti-choice nut party? Or do you vo te for the party that supports a woman's right to choose?

Posted 2 years ago on July 18, 2012, 6:49 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In Idaho, a woman was arrested for breaking the new Idaho law
that prohibits an abortion after 20 weeks. She believed she was 14 weeks. For her: This felony carries a prison sentence up to five years,

194 Comments

194 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Either way both parties bomb brown people in foreign countries.

But hey I just know about the history of the wars.

Maybe people should start voting for the guys that aren't backed by money of the 1% that parades them on tv.

Jill Stein supports a woman's right to choose

Your commentary is as biased as the media.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

biased? why can't a "third party" supporter be honest and acknowledge that they are working to get something done that will never be done.
and start devoting their time and energy to something that can be done
such as keeping another scalia off the court

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 2 years ago

Well, the "never be done" isn't exactly correct. The Republican Party was a third-party formed of the Free Soil, various Anti-Slavery parties, and disenfranchised Democrats and Whigs, that decided Slavery was the most important issue and that voting "left or right" over "lesser" issues was what was keeping slavery going.

In order to end the Wars we may need to put a few issues aside for a while. We will get back to them, but let's stop the murder of innocents before we make sure abortion rights are on the up-and-up.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Support the big banks, the 1%, and murder in foreign countries? No thanks. That would be ignorant.

Voting for who the tv says the most is not working. Obama 2012 and Romney 2012 are propaganda created by money in politics. And you and the majority of the nation are buying into it.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I never said Obama is a saint - or always right
If you want to translate it - I'm voting against scalia & thomas

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the assumption being the current government structure will continue

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You are right, it wont happen, becaues the nation is filled with idiots like you.

Im not following the idiots off the cliff, to the right or the left. Go ahead, join the corruption. Follow the leaders. Be part of the problem. Endorse war, crime and inhumane policies. Sign on. go for it.

Fuck it, you might as well go all the way and just head down to the local campaign offices and get going. Theres a lot of countries with resources that we can still attack. Theres lot problems that we can still ignore.

The main thing to remember is to put politics ahead of policy. Put party before nation. Put your own personal goals ahead of what is morally right.

Go for it. You deserve it.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

In Idaho, a pregnant woman fell down the stairs, went to the hospital, a nurse called the cops and the accident victim was arrested.
Will you vote against the MEN who made this possible?

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Must be two cases then. I'm aware of a woman that was about 20 weeks pregnant and ordered the abortion pill over the internet. Someone she confided in went to the police. The law used to arrest her predates Roe (1972 or 74 i think) It essentially states it's a crime to do your own abortion. In that case the men that made it possible are likely all gone from the political scene.

If intentionally throwing someone down stairs results in the death, or termination if you prefer, of the fetus wouldn't it be a crime if it was done to her? If so it may be equally illegal to do it to yourself. The charge is related to harming the fetus, not unlike people that are charged with a double homicide when they kill a pregnant woman.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

If you cut off your finger - is it a crime?
If I cut off your finger - is it a crime? a fetus is NOT a person or a citizen
and just because laws made abortion illegal in 1950
or integration laws made integraion illegal in 1950
or homosexual sex laws made it illegal in 1950
or birth control laws made it illegal in 1950

does not make it right or wrong or moral or immoral

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Morality is what society says it is. Cutting off one's finger may be viewed as evidence of mental illness. In some jurisdictions the party could be committed against his will and examined for a time. Moral codes have changed and will continue to do so, unfortunately not at a pace you might like and there is no guarantee they will change in a way you might agree with.

A fetus may not be a person, but there is a level of development in one at 14 weeks that gives many people pause to think about when life does begin. Once we get into setting an arbitrary point in time, where termination will or will not be legally allowed we're in a gray area. Until we work it out it's likely to vary from one state to another.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

"Anti-choice nut party" seems to convey a little bias against anyone that feels terminating a pregnancy is immoral. Personally I feel nothing more then ambivalence toward abortion.

The situation you describe also stirs ambivalence, I agree that the penalty is overly harsh, but also see it as the right of the majority to place restrictions on a procedure they find morally objectionable.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So then you support the Anti choice nut party who make policy based on religious wackery?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The majority of people in Alabama wanted to own slaves
The majority of germans chose a government to burn Jews
A majority of Mormons (150 years ago) wanted polygamy
The majority of Georgians wanted segregated schools
The majority of Americans believe in the death penalty
The majority of Americans REelected crook Nixon ( watergate )
The majority of Americans REelected crook Reagan ( Iran-Contra )
The majority of Americans REelected crook Bush ( wmds / iraq )


The fundamental precept of CIVILIZATION is how the
MAJORITY treat the MINORITY

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

So we throw out the will of the people in all cases because of past mistakes. Who is going to make the decisions for the rest of us? Are you advocating and oligarchy?

On the issue of abortion the rights of the minority are already being respected, polls show repeatedly over 60% want most or all abortions made illegal. Like capital punishment abortion offers little middle moral ground for compromise.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

what poll says 60% want most abortions illegal?
The bishop's poll?
It's fun to make up numbers

[-] -1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Abortion, like the death penalty is an emotional hot button issue with people. There is little or no compromise possible. It's not my intent to support a position, it's a flaw perhaps in my character that I don't really care about abortion one way or the other.

My point is who makes the decision if not the voters through their representatives? You offer straw men to argue against democracy, and find fault when a group makes a law you dislike, but what do you want to replace it with?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

still waiting for that 60% poll
was it from 1955?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Then we're both left waiting. Who decides our morality for us?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

see my MORAL post below

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So you support the anti-choice nut party who make policy based on religious wackery?

Support Women, Vote out republicans.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Abortion and religious matters are not at all on my list of important issues.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Abortion is not important unless you want one and
the bishops lie that Jesus will send you to hell
if you do it


Will I win my bet that you are not a woman of child bearing age?

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

No I'm not a woman that's why abortion isn't relevant to me as an issue. My question to you from the start is on and point of morality who makes the decision on what our morality will be? You seem to distrust the majority, so who decides?

The Supreme Court left an opening in it's Roe v Wade decision for the States to balance protecting both prenatal life and a woman's health against a woman's right to have an abortion. Until Idaho's law is successfully challenged and overturned don't they have a right to place their morality into law?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

morality is INTERNAL - not external -
that is the problem with religion
some religions say it is moral to kill the "other"
but the MORALITY is fundamental - not relative - not legislated
and is not based on what a priest or a law says
is it MORAL to abort a fetus ?
is it MORAL to kill an abortion doctor ?
is it MORAL to kill an infadel ?
each person's MORALITY can answer these questions
and the state or the church can punish us for doing what the state or the church does not want us to do

popes burned protestants, mao burned intellectuals etc etc
etc, etc, etc etc, etc, etc, etc, etc etc, etc, etc, etc, etc etc, etc

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Morality has to be something that a group or society can agree on. It's a code of conduct established by a society and accepted and followed by individuals. There have been archaic moralities in the past that evolved, but they are still societal not individual.

We can build conflicting scenarios all day long if we allow it to be personal and internal. The sociopath that kills to ease his path in life can believe it's a moral imperative for him. We judge some innocent by reason of insanity occasionally for their lack of any ability to see or understand societies morals.

We have a general prohibition against taking a life. There have been exceptions made for defense, criminal prosecution, or war. Those decisions rarely please everyone. In the case of abortion we can use the bright clear line of the moment of birth, or some arbitrary point in the pregnancy. That decision has to be one made by society balancing rights of women and the life carried. Why set the time at 14, 20 or even 42? Idaho picked 14 weeks apparently. As long as a majority there accept it and it doesn't violate US law, 14 weeks is as good as any other arbitrary time.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The majority of Utah citizens believe in magic underpants The majority of hundreds of souther towns & cities believe in segregation The majority in many Arab countries believe a woman ( not a man ) who commits adultery should be stoned to death


majority does not equal MORALITY


[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Do you think wearing funny underwear is somehow immoral?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I think FORCING a minority to wear funny underwear is immoral
I also think that forcing a minority to give up ( adult ) polygamy is immoral

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Okay, but mormons don't force other people to wear the same underwear.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I never said they did

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Is it a Mormon sin to go commando?

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Their morality doesn't equal our morality. Morality is still a set of behaviors that a particular society considers acceptable, even desirable. It tends to be what the majority say it is, or was. Sometimes law protects us from social norms, sometimes not, but it's usually what the majority in a society say it is. Honor killings are not accepted in our society, but they still are in some places. We see that as wrong, in another society it's majority believes differently.

As a society evolves a belief's base majority grows smaller and it's morality gets challenged and slowly changes. We're there now with gay marriage. Life and death questions like abortion, assisted suicide, or the death penalty are more emotional and will take more time.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"Morality is still a set of behaviors that a particular society considers acceptable" - is your definition
"Their morality doesn't equal our morality" is exactly the problem with your definition.
My definition of MORALITY is MINE or YOURS - NOT OURS or THEIRS

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The problem then is with reality. No matter what you or I think, a large group has a different opinion. There is no universal right. We say killing is wrong, but society seems willing to make exceptions for war, self defense, punishment for certain crimes. In the case of abortion we're not even able to agree on when life is present. We punish criminals for a double murder when a pregnant woman is killed. Then in contradiction to that acknowledgement of life, permit late term abortion. Our morality seems fluid and situational, not universally fixed.

In the end you're post was simply a pitch for Democrat votes, that's fine. Obama may very well be the lesser evil out of two corrupt individuals. Certainly better for progressive Supreme Court picks. It's unfortunate that your approach makes me believe you're using fear in an attempt to motivate and manipulate. Idaho made a reasonable attempt to determine when life begins, yet you tie them in with the "nut" party. It's their belief, they have a right to it.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"Idaho made a reasonable attempt to determine when life begins"
and if
"Idaho made a reasonable attempt to determine when life ends"
say at age 30 [ like Logan's Run ]
the would be MORAL and you would be ok with that
because a state or its majority decided that ?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Another straw man, but to deal with your question though, under today's morality no one would accept death at 30. Our moral attitudes change slowly with time though. We're already struggling with end of life, our attitudes on the morality of assisted suicide are being altered over time.

There is no universally agreed upon set of morals, until there is we'll have to do the best we can with what we have. It is and has always been for society something close to majority rules. When the majority steps too far outside reason, it may take time for an educated minority to change things. Social standards also evolve as the society itself develops. It would be nice to hope that someday all forms of killing will be considered barbaric.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

good. It is settled law. It is only an issue because religious wacko can't let go.

Let the women choose for themselves. Leave the invisible, all powerful man in the sky out of it.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Don't you realize that outlawing abortion creates jobs? That is why the GOP passed 31 bills in the House related to abortion in the first several months after the 2010 election. They were just trying to create jobs. And they know how to create jobs. They said so.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LMFAO.

I believe it. We need leaders who will make decisions based on reason.

Seperation of church and state. Get out of the bronze age.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Apparently we aren't as far out of the cave as we should be this many centuries later. The age of reason? Not quite.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

not all of us. Seems to afflict mostly Repubs here in America. But I guess there are religious extremists everywhere.

Never good.

Peace, solidarity

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Apathy. Ignorance, Willful ignorance. Criminal neglect. Shades of black.

Football. Financial institutions. Energy companies. Industry. Interests.

Trustees. Executives. Boards of Directors. Legislators. Congress. Oversight

Police. Prosecutors. Regulatory agencies, Courts. Enforcement.

Fans. depositors. Investors. Boards of Directors, Citizens.

Fairness. Justice. Governance. Civilization.

Who is wrong? Who is right?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

conservatives are the problem! Elect progressives

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Reasonable tactic, HOWEVER, you must admit that Dems have sold out as well, but to a lesser degree. Progressives? Well, you can't identify more than a handful today and their hands are of questionable cleanliness, as well.

So, as a tactic,I get it. But as a strategy, until we get all of the money out of governance, which has to be a nonpartisan effort (I believe), no real or lasting progress can be made.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Money out of politics 1st. yes definitely. Nothing can change without that.

:move to Amend" check 'em out.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Another somewhat reasonable tactic but, getting the money out of politics isn't enough. Politics and governance are not exactly equivalent.

Governance is the act of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance. It consists of either a separate process or part of management or leadership processes. These processes and systems are typically administered by a government. Governance is the physical exercise of management power and policy.

Politics is thought of as the way we "choose government officials and make decisions about public policy.

We have corruption in our courts, in every regulatory agency, the military, government sponsored research and the list goes on and is very long.

Most of the amendments only deal with elections, and those only at the Federal level. That isn't good enough. It is too narrow in scope and the fixes to these should be in the same amendment. It could be decades before a New Congress gets around to dealing with all of this, it is so broad and so deep.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

yes the corruption is broad and deep. And I agree that money out of politics s/b 1st. i agree we must change therest but think we can't to do it one law.

money out 1st, the rest will be easier

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Getting a Constitutional amendment is difficult which make them last. Doing just the election part only gives the bad guys the opportunity to do what they do best, delay, distract, dilute, deflect, and defuse. The longer it takes and the more pieces the solution is split into the longer it will take and the more it will be eroded. Momentum is hard to maintain in a population with a 15 minute attention span.

Look at gun control.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

One subject at a time legislation. Keep it clean and clear. Our example can be in our petitions for change. Each issue with it's own petition.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well said.

Support women! Vote out republicans.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Yearight... go read some more Emma Goldman; no minority should lord it over a majority; that's not a pluralistic world.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So you support the anti-choice nut party who make policy based on religious wackery?

Support Women. Vote out republicans

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

You're speaking utter foolishness - the Republican party with all of its emphasis on family, family values, and virtue, has NEVER been able to contain the voice or choice of their women. "Democrat," as the self-appointed authority on EVERYTHING, is decidedly more authoritarian; why? Because it's their only hope of success - the majority simply aren't stupid enough to buy their superficial BS. I mean, you're joking, right?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Support Women. Vote out anti women, anti LGBT, anti immigrant, anti minority, anti muslim (anti any non christian) republicans.

No Joke! Ain't funny.

Do not support the party of intolerance who wants the govt in our bedrooms and our womens wombs!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

The majority also used to burn, stone, and drown women that they believed to be witches.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

In some places they still do, but does that mean we give up on any form of government involving a democratic process? Do we advocate setting up an oligarchy to make the difficult moral decisions and impose them on the people?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You support stoning women?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I didn't say what I personally support at all. I simply stated that stoning and unjustified killings of accused witches is still done in places. They are a straw man argument in any case. Abortion is the action mentioned.

Abortion itself isn't even my point. Currently a moral case for preserving the existence of just about any fetus can be made. There are also arguments that can be made for the rights of the mother to terminate pregnancy. Who knows which way our morality will evolve over abortion?

My actual point is, who decides what the morality of a society will be? Do we allow society to decide and evolve on it's own (majority rules with protections for the minority)? Should we convene a small group of elites to determine what the rest of us will be allowed to think about an issue? Do we allow each individual to set up their own morality and if so how do we resolve conflicts in moral codes?

There is a certain hubris in condemning an entire state population because their morality isn't the same as yours.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Abortion is settled law. The woman is smart enough to decide for herself. Her own morality can be her guide. The morality of the majority is irrelevant.

No one is forced to have an abortion no one should have the power to impose their morality on a womans freedom of choice.

Its her body. Enough already with this religious wacko crap.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I agree, but law too evolves and those with a moral objection to an issue, that can have no compromise position, see themselves as having a right to lobby for change.

This law in Idaho may be struck down if challenged or upheld either way that isn't really my point. My point is, who is allowed to make our decisions for us? The author of the post condemns an entire state, what is the alternative to some form of democracy?

When is a moral issue truly closed? Did the Dred Scott decision end the slavery issue? The death penalty is currently legal, should opponents stop protesting it? What makes someone's moral view "wacko"?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

when they base it on bronze era invisible man in the sky non sense it is wacko.

The state in question is infringing on a womans right to choose based on some peoples (not necessarily the majority) religious beliefs.

Seems wacky to me. not you?

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I don't know about what the feelings are of the people of Idaho. As I mentioned somewhere else on here SCOTUS left an opening in it's Roe v Wade decision for balancing State interests of protecting women's health and protecting the unborn, with a woman's right to have an abortion. If this Idaho law gets past the Supreme Court then we have to accept it until a different group gains enough representatives to change it again.

It may be unfortunate but the wackos get to vote. My basic point is not about abortion, it's about how we establish our laws and morality. The original post gives me the impression that some form of oligarchy is desirable when you find yourself on the wrong side of a majority. That would seem less desirable and more dangerous for society to me.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oligarchy.? Don't we have that now. Plutocracy maybe. In any event if it goes to this right wing wacko SCOTUS then women are in trouble.

another reason to keep conservatives from power. They are stuck in the bronze age thinking of the all powerful invisible man in the sky crap.

I'd much rather leaders and judges who use reason to make decisions.

Abortion is an issue because of religious zealots.

Seperation of church and state, A new age of reason. God is dead. If he ain't, it's time he was sent to Texas for execution.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

You can't always separate what you believe as moral from how you legislate and you don't have to. The constitution doesn't demand a separation of religion from the state, only that the state not establish an official religion. Even as an atheist I can still believe in a sanctity of life and lobby for laws against capital punishment and/or regulating abortion. I have no right to demand that a bronze age thinker give up his or her beliefs, that is what the First Amendment guarantees. They can even apply those beliefs to their laws.

God isn't dead, he never was. My position is a minority one though, but that isn't the point. Theists have archaic beliefs, but they are entitled to them. If we want to set ourselves up as pillars of enlightened thought we should refrain from the open hatred toward people we disagree with.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

You can't always separate what you believe as moral from how you legislate and you don't have to. The constitution doesn't demand a separation of religion from the state, only that the state not establish an official religion. Even as an atheist I can still believe in a sanctity of life and lobby for laws against capital punishment and/or regulating abortion. I have no right to demand that a bronze age thinker give up his or her beliefs, that is what the First Amendment guarantees. They can even apply those beliefs to their laws.

God isn't dead, he never was. My position is a minority one though, but that isn't the point. Theists have archaic beliefs, but they are entitled to them. If we want to set ourselves up as pillars of enlightened thought we should refrain from the open hatred toward people we disagree with.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

i have no hatred for the religious wackos who appear to hate women, gays, and science. i just don't want that intolerant, unenlightened, philosophies involved with the governing of our lives.

You may not see a seperation of church and state (I realize the words aren't in the 1st Amendment) but I see a seperation and I agree with Jefferson who crafted the 1st amendment and uttered the phrase.

I ain't said they should give up their beliefs. But I reserve the right to say it is out of step with reason. And I can prefer (and express the preference) that we not base our policies on bronze era fairy tales.

You can defend that silliness. I support progress. Not fairytales used to bash people.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I wish it were otherwise, but people are always going to disagree, for a variety of reasons. It makes consensus nearly impossible on some issues. Under our current system of governance be are not permitted to disqualify people based on their beliefs.

I don't support their beliefs but until we come up with a better system they have a right to participate in the laws we make. Some kind of test on your beliefs prior to being allowed to vote strikes me as more Jim Crow then anything ever dreamt up by Southerners of a century ago.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Name calling is unproductive.

Thats why I avoid it.

Peace

[-] -3 points by vvv0721 (-290) 2 years ago

Oh really? 100% of your posts are pro-regime propaganda. 80% of your posts are "name calling". The other 20% are spin.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"derogatory"? "devalue"? Are you talking about how religions treat women? Or gays? Or how they've treated minorities in the past? or how they treat non believers?

And all this religious "derogatory, devalueing" and demonizing has led to millions of deaths from war.?

And in so far as parties. I hope you can at least acknowledge that it isn't the dems catering to the religious right.

The republicans ARE they problem. Elect progressives

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Calling an entire group nuts is demeaning to that group. The fact that many make derogatory statements about gays, women, minority groups isn't mitigation. It's simply stooping down to a lower level.

Republicans may well be the problem, calling them names doesn't do anything but give one a momentary childish pleasure. I agree, electing those that support your point of view is the answer. Name calling is pointless, at best it adds nothing to the debate at worst it hardens your opposition.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Who said they should be disqualified. I disagree with religion based policies. I'm comfortable with people choosing in the marketplace of ideas.

I know my state will choose reason over bronze era fairytales. And in the end the fed govt will also.

I never said they ain't allowed. only that they are wrong. in my opinion.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

It's the attitude offered by people in general, not necessarily you in particular. When people get labeled in a derogatory way it makes them less them human and devalues their opinion. I see it as a step toward saying they have no right to their opinion.

This entire thread started with an oversimplification of a highly charged and complex issue. It seems little more then a plug for Democrats using prejudice and fear. With calling one group the nut party and the other in favor of choice. Ignoring the possible validity of the opinion that life is present in a fetus.

As an atheist, I believe we only get one shot at life, then it's over. I'm not certain when some form of cognition begins. The physical development of the fetus at 14 weeks is remarkable though, so I can understand why Idaho may have put the arbitrary line for abortion there.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 2 years ago

In Nevada it use to be a 5 year sentence for having a joint. So the people voted out the Attorney General and got one that immediately began working on decriminalization.

It sucked, but people worked at it and now the state will probably be one of the first to legalize after probably being the worst in the country.

The above case sounds horrible. I think that is lame. However, that case does not trump the hundreds of thousands and women and children that will die in the Middle East (and around the world) if Obama or Romney is re-elected.

Economics; same. Civil Liberties; same. Foreign Policy; same. Drug Policy; same. Assassination list; same. Drones; same. Debt; same. Bailout; same. Insurance Mandate; same.

They told us McCain would have been worse...how? How much worse? I don't think Obama is "better" enough to warrant supporting him. I don't care if you vote for him, that is your choice. I don't care if you support him or post stuff; I understand why you are voting and supporting him (Abortion rights are more important to you than War).

I just hope you are willing to understand why a lot of people won't agree with you.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And which party started a war in Iraq ?
And which party started a war in Afganistan ?
And which party ended the war in Iraq ?

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 2 years ago

Almost half of the Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Some info on War in Afghanistan as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

Our foreign policy has been established by both Parties over a long period of time.

And we got out of Iraq because they denied our soldiers immunity: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/world/middleeast/iraqis-say-no-to-immunity-for-remaining-american-troops.html?_r=1

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And who do you want deciding on next year's tax policy or jobs bill or supreme court nominee?

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 2 years ago

I want someone who doesn't get millions from Goldman Sachs.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And I want Angelina Jolee
so what!

[-] 0 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 2 years ago

Wait, you just asked me who I wanted and I told you. Then you say so what?

Seriously, I want someone in the White House that isn't one of the picks of the major corporations that are destroying this country. Yes, might not win this year. But if I support a corporate pick this year, then the same thing will happen in 2016 and 2020 and...as some point you got to start working toward the world you want within the world that is. That is how I see it.

Check this out: http://freeindependentsun.com/natural_law/friends-of-freedom-and-trans-partisan-theory-ron-paul-2012-rnc-peace-and-freedom-democrats-rand-paul-2016-election-third-parties-and-a-federalist-government-by-2020/

I understand if you are too busy volunteering on the campaign and getting out to voters to spend time in forums arguing with people that obviously don't want to vote for Obama.

Maybe we can work on an specific issue we agree on?

[-] -2 points by vvv0721 (-290) 2 years ago

Your point being "old ugly is better than old nothing", Obamapologist? FUCK YOU. I'm good with NOTHING.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Did you accidentally admit a truth to yourself about yourself?


[-] -1 points by vvv0721 (-30) 16 minutes ago

Your point being "old ugly is better than old nothing", Obamapologist? FUCK YOU. I'm good with NOTHING. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


As so far you really have demonstrated that you are no good at posting.

[-] -2 points by vvv0721 (-290) 2 years ago

Who besides a slacktivist troll would want a headstone that reads:

"Here lies DKAtoday. He was good at posting."

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I could think of worse things.

Like:

Here lies RustyButtheadBrucie. He was a compulsive liar.


[-] 0 points by vvv0721 (-30) 0 minutes ago

Who besides a slacktivist troll would want a headstone that reads:

"Here lies DKAtoday. He was good at posting." ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] -2 points by vvv0721 (-290) 2 years ago

I don't know who "RustyButtheadBrucie" is, except perhaps your name for the Boogie Man. I DO know, however, that I have never posted anything to this forum that was not the substantiated Truth. So unless and until you prove otherwise by documentation rather than decree, of the two of us that makes YOU the "compulsive liar", GeriTroll.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What's that you say? I can't understand you. Spit the Koch out of your mouth and try again.

[-] -2 points by vvv0721 (-290) 2 years ago

Which word was too big for you, GeriTroll? I'd say none of them.

How much have the Koch Brothers paid you and yours to sabotage this forum while blaming others for what you and yours are doing? Or is it Karl Rove your slimey two-faced ass is working for? Is there any difference?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sorry sorry you Koch head. Enough attention for you. Tata

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the rumor is DKA is a democrat

[-] -2 points by vvv0721 (-290) 2 years ago

I see we hit a nerve! Who are you working for, DKAtoday? Who sent you here to turn this forum into a meely-mouth circle-jerk? Karl or the Kochs?

[-] -1 points by vvv0721 (-290) 2 years ago

How about NONE of the 537 corporate puppets or either of the 2 parties who THINK they'll be making those decisions? How about if those are no longer relevant decisions next year?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Choose??!!!

In some places they are not even allowed to speak!

After all they may use the word vagina, and (R)epelican'ts don't know what that is, and we all know how much they hate intelligent people.

http://eclectablog.com/2012/07/interview-rep-barb-byrum-on-being-silenced-a-second-time-on-the-house-floor-yesterday.html

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Forget the tiny little nuts. Get some BALLS and support neither party! Vote for real change. Take back your power from the party and we will increase in size and stamina.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and which third party PRESIDENT will EVER do ANYTHING ?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The one we are brave enough to elect.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The2 parties are vastly different. The repubs proudly support the policies of the 1% plutocrats. Some dems always cave in and support the same conservative policies.

electprogressives, and put their feet to the fire to pass the progressive agenda.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Dems support Patriot act, bail outs, war, NDAA. Tired of hearing the same political bigotry over and over.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

House dems attempted to repeal NDAA (may 18), your repubs defeated them.

Bank bailouts were because of repub created economic crash, repub created tarp legislation. Repub Pres put his signature on it.

Dems supported GM bailout. Thats a good one. helped workers.

Dems supported homeowner help. Your repubs watered it down.

Elect progressives. Vote out conservative pro plutocrats.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The Democratic resistance to NDAA was anemic at best. Just 93 Dems out of the 435 members of the house voted against it.

"136 members of the House of Representatives registered their disapproval of the bill in its final go-round, and 13 senators joined them. Six Republican senators dissented, including Rand Paul and Jim DeMint, and an equal number of Democrats, including Al Franken and Dick Durbin, along with Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders. As for the House, the breakdown was 93 Democrats and 43 Republicans."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/truthdiggers_of_the_week_ndaa_dissenters_in_congress_20111216/

In the Senate as many Reps voted against as Dems.

Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

On may 18th an overwhelming number of dems voted to repeal, and the repubs you defend defeated it overwhelmingly.

Period. One party wants to repeal ndaa, the repubs created the law and vote for it overwhelmingly.

Pres Obama made sure the authority to use was with him alone so that he could rescind it's use. Which he did. He also allowed the judges decision against it stand. No appeal.

These are the actions of a party that doesn't support ndaa.

Your repubs support it. Complain about them. they created and nurture the fear mongering atmosphere that layed the ground work to get ndaa, patriot act and warrentless wiretaps passed.

Republicans are the problem. Dems can be the solution if we pressure them to stay true to progressive principles.

Elect progressives. Vote out fear mongering republicans

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Back up your words with the numbers.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please i just did. you don't want to believe it because you are a partisan republican Whose only goal is to get progressives on this site to give up their right to vote.

Republicans are the problem.They created and nurture the fear mongering atmosphere that layed the ground work to get ndaa, patriot act and warrentless wiretaps passed. Dems can be the solution if we pressure them to stay true to progressive principles.

Elect progressives. Vote out fear mongering republicans

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Back up your words with the numbers.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

just did.

Repubs are the problem. they created and nurture the fear mongering atmosphere that layed the ground work to get ndaa, patriot act and warrentless wiretaps passed.

Elect progressives. vote out pro plutocrat republicans

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"some" when they had the majority and decided to keep bombing people, extend bush cuts, keep Gitmo open, etc..

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your repubs misused the filibuster to obstructprogress on the items you listed.

Elect Progressives, put their feet to the fire. Vote out conservative 1% plutocrat tools.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Sorry, no fillibuster for that stuff. It was all signed by the guy we all voted for. Slippery fella that Obama.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"calling for" while still signing them. Politics as usual. Typical bumper sticker crowd stuff. Say one thing, do another quietly, and then say it LOUDER. Works like a charm.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-tries-to-sell-tax-cut-extension-deal----to-democrats/1

Glad to see you still like to use cute little phrases in very serious matters, shows you really have the stuff it takes to understand this crap.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

If he caves to a bunch of losers like the Republican Party, and cannot get the public on his side and against them, then he's too weak to lead.

Plain and simple. Leadership. There isnt any of it DC.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It's the people who should be leading and the government should be supporting.

BTW - there are quite a few politicians in office trying to push forward issues of the people - there just are not enough of them - and the rethugs in office are not any of them ( can't call them republicans as they are not - hell they have basically started their own party and just have not announced it = the corpoRATists ).

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

There's always a way to justify any failure, its what Americans do best. All that nationalistic propaganda really pays off.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You wouldnt recognize a fact if the actual vote count reached out and slapped you in the face.....

You've spent an entire lifetime being tricked by corporations into voting for their choices.

I dont expect an old dog to learn new tricks.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Both parties work for the establishment, not the people, and are dependent on divisive topics to maintain power.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please. Your defense of your republicans is expected and unconvincing. The misuse, and overuse of the filibuster by your repubs is well known.

Repubs are the problem. Dems can be dragged back from the right and made to serve the 99% with active large scale constant protest.

Elect progressives. Vote out conservative pro plutocrats.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I realize that this is an important issue to many people. It divides families, generations, religions, and people from both parties. It is also another wedge issue that keeps us busy while the corrupt elite continue to plunder our financial well being, and hence out ability to find a good job, send our kids to university, and afford a mortgage on a home, etc., etc.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Yes - this is not THE issue


BUT most people in OWS dont want to talk about THE issue and REALITY
in the same breath - there are no PERFECT parties or candidates
but there are some candidates who can get something done such as
Barak Obama and Eric Cantor
so I will put on my suit of armor and dive into the can of worms


As I am older, I was there when street action converted to political action to stop the Viet Nam war and build the civil rights movement - so maybe my perspective is just too old - or maybe not.


model A
Yes there are great third parties ( Greens, etc ) and for decades they have got little done ( other than awareness )


model B
Then there is "it" - founded in 2009, they woke up America to their issue
by vast public actions and out reach. Then they stopped masturbating and grew up - and elected 50+ people to congress - completely halting any progressive actions - anything that grover & alec & david & charles wanted stopped. The list of critical problems ignored is endless - just three: jobs, taxes, wars.


Can you image what could have been done during the last three years if those elected 50 had been Elizabeth Warrens or Bernie Sanders ?


OWS & YOU have a choice -
keep masturbating as in model A
OR
act to get money out of politics as in model B


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com


[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Yes - but if you stop the 1% koch & adelson & AFP & exxon money flowing into the system, WE will control the budget
would the 99% vote for candidates who want to stop the wars, build infrastructure, tax the rich?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the budget could control itself by spending a miniscule part of itself

what jobs will be paid for is determined by the few that have money

[-] -3 points by vvv0721 (-290) 2 years ago

Obama has expanded our wars overseas, done little to improve our infrastructure and nothing so far to tax the rich. Romney would be same same. Stop posting this counterrevolutionary perpetuate the two-party tyranny crap!

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

A great presentation, but bad reasons for turning this movement into a political movement at this point. We are in the final stages of losing all that we had beforehand. This did not start in 2009. It is no time for OWS to go get in bed with one of the parties, or the system itself that caused so much harm to so many people, and continues to do so. We have to remain the movement of resistance, pressure, and education, not one of compliance to this broken system where this will die.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I never suggested "getting into bed"
I suggested voting for the people who will support the 99% [ most of the time ], that will end wars, that will keep womens rights safe, that will not suppress voters, that will not sign grover's pledge, that will not take koch money.
You want to vote for the "others" that's your right. You want to vote for no one that's your negligence.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Yes, fine vote for the people that you believe will help us. This is not a political movement though. OWS is an outside pressure, resistance, and education movement, and for us to be anything else will render us impotent.

Today, I believe the affinity group that I am a peripheral member (mostly due to the distance I live from NYC) of, Occupy Town Square is having an event in which they reach out to the mainstream through education, although I will not be there as I am in AK visiting family. I have seen them meet in parks, doing jail watch, and protesting at night after working or going to school all day, Their determination is incredible. They are emailing each other and other groups from morning to night coordinating activities. No one is talking about OWS getting involved in the political process to bring about the systemic change we need. They know better, and so do I.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"They are emailing each other and other groups from morning to night coordinating activities. No one is talking about the tea party getting involved in the political process to bring about the systemic change we need."


That is why the tea party failed so miserably to stop any progressive policies like infrastructure spending and they failed to stop tax hikes on the job creators. David & Charles are so very pissed!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

slave driver not job creators

we cannot live without "their" money

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

The Koch brothers financed them because the Tea Party towed their boat. That is how the they became so influential, and neoliberalism has been around long before, and both parties have endorsed it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by wellhungjury (296) 2 years ago

Since you put it in such a derogatory way, I may have to side with the non-abortion people just to spite you. Why? Because stating things in the way you have will change no ones mind. Truthfully, abortion is a very effective way to control unwanted pregnancies, manage population, give relief to our welfare system and has been researched in studies to actually lower crime. These are all wins. Now if we can just get over the ending a life thing, there would be no hangups.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

What if she was 36 weeks along- would you still be ok with it? What if she just snuffed it out right as it was born - is that ok, I mean that's pretty close to having an abortion.

That is the tricky thing about abortion law - where do you draw the line?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The Supreme court set the law decades ago
This should be a woman's decision
But if willard gets elected, he will appoint at least 1-2 justices
and abortions will be illegal HOORAY!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Not the church, not the state. Women have to have the respecvt and freedom to choose what happens to their bodies.

Keep your rosaries off their ovaries!

Support women. Vote out republicans

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

And that 36 week old child, which is capable of fulling supporting it's own life outside the womb (needing care, of course) - has no rights? It is still considered part of the mother's body?

By the way... abortions don't happen in ovaries...

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Abortion is just another religious wacko issue. If the church is pushing it we need to be suspicious.

Women can decide for themselves. I don't need to get involved. Neither the church or the govt.

Support women. Vote out the intolerant anti women republicans

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

So valuing life is a religious issue? I thought atheists valued life as well, at least some purport to.

As I dispute your claims, I know that I sound like I have an opinion one way or another on abortion - I actually struggle a lot with the moral and legal implications of it. I specifically selected a very late term abortion just to see what kind of discussion it would generate. I'm frankly surprised that you would think a baby that is practically full term (normally 38 weeks) is still eligible for abortion just because it hasn't been born yet.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

My position has been consistently to let a women choose. Not me not you, not the church. not the state.

your scenario was thoroughly ignored. But you knew that you just want to label me a baby killer and put on one of yourright wing wacko target lists. I remebrthe drill with your extremists.

put it to rest. It s/b settled law by now. Put your bible down. Let the women decide.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

You are making life a religious issue, not me. You are making assumptions that I have a religious stance on this, just because I am countering your points about abortion.

It sounds to me like you are afraid to take a stand. But that is understandable because it is a very complex issue.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No fear boss.

Abortion is legal. I stand with the women who must contend with the anti choice religious wackos. I stand with the law. Unashamedly, unequivocally.

without reservation I state that this is only an issue because religious zealots want to impose their views on everyone.

Not the church, Not the state, Women will decide their fate.

It's an old battle. Where do you stand mr "I struggle a lot "?

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I admittedly struggle with the issue. On one hand, you have a woman that has gotten pregnant and may have some significant life issue that prevent her from raising this child. One the other hand, at some point this mass of tissue becomes a sentient life form - and to kill it out of convenience seems wrong to me. When you say "women will decide their fate" do you mean "women will decide the baby's fate?"

But, I'm glad to hear that you are so supportive of the law. The courts have decided, therefore it is a dead issue in your eyes. Do you have the same opinions about gay marriage, drug laws, environmental protection issues, etc?

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

She decides her fate either way, keeping the baby or not. Keeping the baby is a lifelong commitment that will change her life..... not keeping the baby, is an act that will change her life....either way it should be her choice as it is her life that is impacted the most.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

A lifelong commitment to keeping a baby (which actually isn't lifelong) is more of an impact than death? I guess that is easy to say when you're the one making the decision.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

No its not. Most women feel deep remorse after an abortion, similar to what they feel for a miscarriage. And yes raising children is a lifelong commitment... at least where I am from. Just because they turn 18 doesn't mean all ties are cut.

I wish all the people who care so much about a fetus and killing were just as passionate about being anti-war. I didn't see them marching in the street to protest our last 3 wars and the 100,000's of lives lost on both sides. Protecting oil is more important than the lives and safety of the sons and daughters we put our efforts into and did raise.

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

My parents aren't raising me anymore - if anything, I'm more of a benefit now than I am a burden, but I guess there are different situations.

I don't disagree with your point about war. Death is death. And, as I've said in a number of posts above - I'm not sure exactly where I stand on abortion. I think it is a very difficult issue to just throw a blanket over. I think I agree that if the mother is going to die a pregnancy should be terminated, or in the case of rape and such, an early pregnancy should be terminated (why wait?) I also think that having an abortion out of convenience or waiting until extremely late in the term is wrong. It is all that stuff in between - that grey area - that I struggle with.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Do you go to your parents for guidance or advice? As a parent of two, a 25 year old and a 20 year old, my 25 year old is getting married next year, I know that I will always be a parent to them throughout their lives. Being a parent goes beyond just supplying a roof over their heads, clothing, and feeding them for the first 18 years of their lives. As a parent you will always be a resource for them, someone they can turn to and trust to get the right answer on anything, and that is as it should be. Should they ever need a roof over their heads again, I don't consider it a burden either.

Abortion is not black and white as you know. I think the government should stay out of such a personal and important moment in a womans life.... thus I am 'pro choice'..... with the only restriction being 3 months as the limit.

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I don't go to my parents for advice or guidance...but that is irrelevant. Like I said, I am more a help to my parents than they are to me. But it is nice to have them around. I hope that my kids come to me when they are adults, but I don't see that as the same commitment as when they are young...of course, if a person have screwed up kids - then maybe it is more of a burden. I know my cousins are 50+ and they have been in and out of their mother's house all their lives. Just couldn't ever quite get their act together...

Anyway - I'm glad you have chosen some limit it seems more logical than just "before birth."

You brought up an interesting point earlier, however. You complained that the anti-abortion people were not standing with you during anti-war protests. Couldn't that anti-abortion people say the same thing? If life is so important, why not the unborn child?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

the woman will decide her fate, not the babies. there ain't no baby. It's fetus. There ain't no sentient life. Thats the point. The life in question belongs to the woman. I guess you slipped up there anti choice boy.

I'm ok with this law as it is settled because there was a battle and we got some justice. The other issues Gay marriage (more religious prejudice. Hmmmm?), drug laws. (tools to oppress minorities) environmental protection are battles we are still in the midst of so I am not satisfied with the state of those laws.

Can you understand that? You wanna take a stand on the new issues you raised or are you struggling with those too.?

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Your logic is so jacked up. I can see why it is easier for you to say "law is written, women choose - I'm done!" Of course you aren't struggling with the issue because you haven't put any real thought into it. Think about what you said - that life form belongs to the woman. At what point does the life belong to itself, only when it exits the birth canal naturally? There are so many complicating factors in deciding when it is ok to take a life, but as far as your concerned the Supreme Court has spoken and your done.

Of course, you don't have that same foundation for other topics. You stand by the law when you agree with it - and when you don't agree with it then there is still a battle to be fought. Quite a naive point of view. And yes, I struggle with other topics as well - but that isn't a weakness. I struggle because I actually take the time and effort to understand them, the implications the issues, and what is right and what is wrong.

I'm glad you have such clear cut understanding of the world. Of course, my daughter thinks she understands the world too...she's 6.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm 49 yrs old and I understand enough to know I got a lot to learn. I know that woman have struggled in back alleys and life threatening procedures. because of religious control over their bodies. After many years they won the right. They haven't had a rest from you religious wackos "struggling" with you conscious. I've march with them for 35 years against you people.

Give it a rest. Move on. put the bible down it only creates pain and suffering. It is bronze age logic that has no place in the 21st century.

Your not struggling. You seem like a right wing wacko religious fanatic.

And you didn't answer about the other issues you brought up. ????

Your silence is deafening.

Peace, and Amen

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I think gay marriage should be allowed. I don't care who marries who - not my business. Drugs - marijuana should be legalized. I think stronger drugs that cause more significant impairment, addiction and health issues should not. There are too many environmental issues to speak on them all - so blah blah whatever.

Don't try to paint me as a "right wing wacko religious fanatic." I'm sure you do that so you can minimize my points. You are the only person in this discussion that has brought up religion. I haven't said one single thing about it, only that I value life. Why is that exclusive to religion? Why do you believ that ONLY people who are "religious fanatics" are against abortion? Here's a little snippet from Christopher Hitchens that you might find interesting:

“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.” -Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (pp. 220-21)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I do think independently. your accusation is just evidence that you have no substantive argument. I support a womens right to choose. I am against religious zealots who use bronze era fairytales to oppress women, gays, and anyone else that disagrees with them.

seperation of church and state. Support a womens right to choose. Vote out republicans

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If the issue is abortion how can we avoid the religious wackos that have killed drs and targeted women who choose a legal medical procedure.?

I could understand you want to avoid those realities. But I will not. I love women too much to let them be harrassed and oppressed because of someones bronze era fantasies.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

You should decide for yourself whether something is right or wrong based solely on the issue, not based on who is for or against it.

Try independent thinking. It's quite a rush.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Whatever. Abortion has been and is an issue because of religious fanatics who are against it. Every march I've been to (many) were accompanied by the requisite reliigous zealots. i can't pretend that the opposition to a womens right to choose are not religious wackos. I didn't call you a religious wacko. I've only said that the issue has been created by religious wackos who want to impose their bronze age views on an entire gender.

It's wrong. It's old. It's settled. forget religion extremism and think of the women in your life and out women.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

"They haven't had a rest from you religious wackos"

" You seem like a right wing wacko religious fanatic."

Stick to the issue, and not religion.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

holdren ( obamas science czar) asys that its o.k to abort children under the age of 2 because they have no concept of what "tomorrow "is thats right , he advocates murdering living , healthy children. he also believes in forced abortions and mass sterilization. he wrote this in his book "Planetary Regime " (1977)

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

while a state senator, obama voted that any baby that survived an abortion should not be given any medical care, should be left to die.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Isn't that the point of an abortion? Why would you expect anything different?

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

you would intentionally leave a living baby ( the survivor of a late term abortion) to die? you are disgusting..

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Depending on how far along the pregnancy was - the aborted baby might not be developed far enough to survive - even with intensive medical care.

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

obama voted to not do anything to save a baby that survived. he voted to let the baby die.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Prove that statement.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi page 238.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No link to this information? Someones book? Nothing with legal tracks? The vote for instance?

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

too lazy to do your own search?

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is your statement - don't you want to validate it?

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

i gave you the book, the writer, the page number. bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.php

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sorry fail - this is a propaganda site - and provides no factual evidence - it presents a story nothing more.

From your reference site - BS and nothing more on display :

Born Alive Truth

About BornAliveTruth.org

In 1999 a gruesome discovery was made that an IL hospital was shelving babies to die in a soiled utility room who had survived their abortions.

The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act was introduced in 2000 to provide legal protection to all born babies, wanted or not, including the right to medical care.

In 2002, Born Alive passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and by overwhelming voice vote in the House. On August 5, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law.

Despite that, numerous accounts from various parts of the country document abortion survivors are still being medically neglected until the die or outright killed – infanticide.

BornAliveTruth.org exists to expose the shocking truth and pursue enforcement of Born Alive.

Our first project in Autumn 2008 was to spotlight then-presidential candidate Barack Obama's opposition as an IL state senator to the identical Born Alive bill that passed so overwhelmingly on the federal level.

Our second project is to promote the movie 22weeks, which tells the true story of a baby aborted alive in a toilet in an Orlando abortion clinic in 2005, with workers refusing to give the baby help or allow EMTs into the building following a 911 call for help from the mother's friend. To date, there has been no prosecution.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

if you bothered to type in the entire link instead of just clicking on the highlighted part,.....................you would get the story about obama and baipa.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

illinois state senator obama voted to let babies that survived an abortion be given no medical help. disgusting then, disgusting now.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Fine provide the information - the bill what it covered and who voted for it. Don't put up some propaganda site and say here ya go.

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

www.mcclpac.org/about_obama_baipa.htm

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This has what(?) to do with you statement about Obummer?This is a piece on Minnesota politics.

[-] 0 points by salta (-370) 4 minutes ago

www.mcclpac.org/about_obama_baipa.htm ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I didn't say that I agreed with it - I just don't know why you are shocked to find out that when a person tries to kill their baby and it happens to survive that all of the sudden they are going to now take some action to save it. Doesn't make sense.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22352) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Also - depending on how far along the pregnancy was - the aborted baby might not be developed far enough to survive - even with medical care.

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

if a baby survives a late term abortion, its the doctors the did the abortion that can save the baby . the woman who had the abortion is not a doctor.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You are a partisan republican. It's no surprise you hate women,

Support Women. Vote out republicans

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

you have no idea whether i am a woman or a man.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But I know you're republican. Thats enough.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

you don't know that either.

[-] -1 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 2 years ago

Read this. You might learn something

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

[-] -2 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

You support a woman's right to choose under the auspices of the right to privacy but then want to take all of my hard earned money. Do I not have the same right to choose what I do with my money.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I know it's hard to understand so I will spell it slowly
a w-o-m-a-n h-a-s a r-i-g-h-t t-o c-o-n-t-r-o-l h-e-r b-o-d-y
i d-o n-o-t w-a-n-t t-o t-a-k-e a-l-l o-f y-o-u-r h-a-r-d e-a-r-n-e-d m-o-n-e-y

[-] 0 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

Then why don't I pay the same tax rate as everybody else, why is mine higher? You have no right to take my money, so if a woman has a right to her own body then why do i not have a right to my own money?

[-] -2 points by vvv0721 (-290) 2 years ago

Your posting title projects the false premise that the American Sheeple MUST choose between voting Democratic or voting Republican:

http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/05/18/americans_have_3_choices_bushbamney_third-party_or_nobody

You know how to post images here, bensdad, so why don't you start including this one with all of your postings:

http://cdn.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/obama2012-re-election_poster-big.jpg

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Bensdad, what is hte week limit you believe in?

Please give a specific day number to this horrific procedure that you believe the gov should regulate.

Or do you believe the gov should not regulate it at all?

Waiting....

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Only a retart would cast a vote to support indiscriminate choice. What ever happened to Roe vs Wade as the limit of our tolerance?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I guess you meant retard? Please leave your slurs out of these forums.

Support Women. Vote out republicans.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

And why are you so foolish? Women throughout history have ruled men, we seek to placate them, and this is just as true of Republicans as it is of Democrats. It was true even in the formation of America.

I don't agree at all with "abortions unlimited" because it is just something I find emotionally repugnant. I am willing to make allowances but extend my tolerance only so far as Roe versus Wade because I have had the benefit of observing a world without it. Nor do I believe that the Catholic church should be forced by law to violate their own religious mandates; if it were not for the prejudice of opinion as in " We like this but don't like that; this is therefore what we shall mutually 'believe' " then no religion would exist at all. That didn't work out too well for places like Russia; it will rise in the shadows regardless of state banishment, driven by human desire. I would never waste a vote on such frivolous issues anyway. What you don't understand is that it is the women themselves who are at odds here, men are but their political voice.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"foolish"? insults= weak arguments.

Women have not ever ruled men. As the great John lennon said "women is the Ni#@er of the world"

Leave women alone. Let them decide. They aresmarter than men and can decide for themselves. They don't need you are the corrupt evil catholic church.

"imagine no religion" JL

We would have a lot less wars and death and destruction, a lot less oppression of minorities,women, and LGBT people without the bronze age policies of religion.

Seperation of church and state. Make religions pay taxes already.

That'll learn 'em.

[-] -3 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

In I daho? or She daho?