If Santorum wins the nomination...

[JSt0rm]

It will be funny when one hundred years from now school children will learn about how it was the Democrat party in the former United States who were the truly evil group which financially propped up a joke party called "the Republicans" and filled it with the dumbest people it could in order to give the Democrats the apperance of normalcy, thereby giving them cover to attempt to take over the world.

I'm sensing a movie script in here.

 

[trenchfoot]

I understand that preaching to the choir in an in-house fight is a wholly different dynamic than preaching to the choir against a common outside enemy.

As we all know, what the Repub candidates are presently concentrating on is what the differences are among themselves whilst taking as many jabs at Obama as possible. Once the in-fighting stops and the Repubs rally around their battered and bruised primary winner and unify to face that black muslim fake christian poser who threatens Christianity and the whole nation as we know it, (even though he's been leading the nation for the previous three+ years without the aforementioned calamity occurring ) the Repubs will turn on Obama with a vengeance unlike anything we've seen yet. What they're throwing at Obama at present is infintismally mild in comparison with what they'll barrage him with once the Repubs get their house in order.

The millions (billions?) of $$$ the Super Pac's will be providing their single Repub candidate has to be matched and exceeded by Obama's less numerous well-off supporters, which to me will give the Repubs a much larger advantage despite their candidate(s) lack of....electability?

And if all else fails and a tight contestable result occurs, the corporate owned Supreme Court can once again anoint their Repub cherub to office.

As many have previously mentioned, it seems to me the upcoming election will be closer than what it looks like at present.

 

[irishScott]

Obama. It's not just about voting for the right candidate, it's about keeping the dangerous ones out.

I'm no Obama fan, but he has his good points. Santorum would severely damage the United Sates, as would Newt.

 

[Mursilis]

but I think being a gay individual--voting based on something that directly effects you--who you are, how you are able to live your life--is very different from someone that votes on an issue, like abortion, that will never have any effect on their own personal lives (males that simply don't give a shit about women). Or well, being a male, abortion does not apply to them.

ever.

I would hope any decent person would take very seriously a moral wrong against another being tolerated within a society. Plenty of straights care very much about gay rights, plenty of whites fought and died for black people to be liberated from slavery and later to gain basic civil rights (Andrew Goodman and Michael Scherner, for example), and plenty of non-Jews aided Jews during the Holocaust. All these actions were taken despite these people not being personally affected by anti-gay, anti-black, or anti-semetic policies. You may not agree with pro-lifers that a fetus is a human worth protecting, but it's ignorant to claim not to understand why it's a major issue to them.

I'm reminded of Elie Wiesel here:

I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
​

 

[Mursilis]

Obama. It's not just about voting for the right candidate, it's about keeping the dangerous ones out.

I'm no Obama fan, but he has his good points. Santorum would severely damage the United Sates, as would Newt.

The populace is going to wreck the country regardless of who wins in November. The election is just about choosing the means of the destruction.

 

[cybrsage]

That's not what you said, though. You said the non-Santorum candidates had "no problem with abortion", suggesting that they think it's fine in any and all circumstances and should not be restricted in any way.

Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This bill says any infant born alive is a person and has all the rights of any person who was born alive. It is aimed at forcing doctors to try to save any infant who they tried to kill in the womb but failed.

Since most people consider birth to be the point where personhood and therefor human and US rights are granted, it seems a no brainer to pass the bill...especially when Obama said he would say Yes if the bill was identical to the federal bill - but then voted No anyway, even though it was identical to the federal bill.

Anyone who would leave a live baby to die of exposure on the birthing table has no problem with abortion.

 

[pcgeek11]

I voted for the lesser of the two evils. A third party candidate would not win.

Wow. You're voting for Santorum.

 

[fskimospy]

Does that apply to all federal(House&Senate) and state(Gov, whatever State house&senate) elections or just only Presidential elections?

All elections, basically. There are probably some local elections where the turnout is small enough as to make it worth your while, but certainly not any federal or statewide office elections.

Well, they did nominate Dubya.

Right, but that made perfect sense. The purpose of political parties is not to govern well or to do good things for the country, but to acquire and retain political power. Considering that our good friend Dubya won office not once, but twice, that was a pretty smart move on their part.

 

[werepossum]

I would hope any decent person would take very seriously a moral wrong against another being tolerated within a society. Plenty of straights care very much about gay rights, plenty of whites fought and died for black people to be liberated from slavery and later to gain basic civil rights (Andrew Goodman and Michael Scherner, for example), and plenty of non-Jews aided Jews during the Holocaust. All these actions were taken despite these people not being personally affected by anti-gay, anti-black, or anti-semetic policies. You may not agree with pro-lifers that a fetus is a human worth protecting, but it's ignorant to claim not to understand why it's a major issue to them.

I'm reminded of Elie Wiesel here:

I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
​

I agree, completely. Voting (and civic action) should in my opinion be based first on what is morally right, then on what is best for the country, then what is best for me individually. That said, while I agree with Atreus that abortion is murder or at least manslaughter, I am not anti-abortion for fetuses too young to survive outside the womb. That forces a woman to devote her body to nurture someone else against her will, and I think it is wrong for the state to do that. (And in the case of rape, heinously wrong.) Since I see no practical way to resolve that dichotomy, abortion for me is simply not a public policy issue, but strictly a private one. (Hey, just call me Mitt.) If the state cannot take an action without unduly removing someone else's rights, the state should not take that action. In other words, I disagree with Obama that the state should guarantee "positive rights", what it must do for you even at someone else's expense.

 

[werepossum]

Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This bill says any infant born alive is a person and has all the rights of any person who was born alive. It is aimed at forcing doctors to try to save any infant who they tried to kill in the womb but failed.

Since most people consider birth to be the point where personhood and therefor human and US rights are granted, it seems a no brainer to pass the bill...especially when Obama said he would say Yes if the bill was identical to the federal bill - but then voted No anyway, even though it was identical to the federal bill.

Anyone who would leave a live baby to die of exposure on the birthing table has no problem with abortion.

Let's be accurate - anyone who would leave a live baby to die of exposure on the birthing table has no problem with murder. In defense of Obama though, voting to restrict any abortion rights is difficult to overcome if one wants to run for President on the Democrat Part ticket. It's the same only opposite with the Republicans, which is why abortion is such a hot button issue in Presidential races even though the President has little or no ability to affect abortion. So Obama might well have some problem with abortion, just not enough to stand in the way of his personal rise to power (which I'm sure he thinks is for the greater good.)

 

[zsdersw]

Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This bill says any infant born alive is a person and has all the rights of any person who was born alive. It is aimed at forcing doctors to try to save any infant who they tried to kill in the womb but failed.

Since most people consider birth to be the point where personhood and therefor human and US rights are granted, it seems a no brainer to pass the bill...especially when Obama said he would say Yes if the bill was identical to the federal bill - but then voted No anyway, even though it was identical to the federal bill.

Anyone who would leave a live baby to die of exposure on the birthing table has no problem with abortion.

There's far too much assuming going on. You and your ilk assume Obama actually believes in and supports "infanticide", in spite of his support of existing IL statutes that state that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.

Meanwhile, people like Obama and pro-choice groups are assuming BAIPA and similar bills are trying to completely criminalize all abortions.

The reality, as is usually the case, is probably somewhere in between.

So my original point stands: the statement that Obama "has no problem with abortion" remains something that is not objectively supported.

 

[blankslate]

If Santorum wins the nomination we'll see more of this

Note the "Frothy" Santorum sign in the middle..

This was a screen capture from the the audience of the most recent GOP debate just before a commercial.

I find it hilarious myself.

 

[Mursilis]

I agree, completely. Voting (and civic action) should in my opinion be based first on what is morally right, then on what is best for the country, then what is best for me individually. That said, while I agree with Atreus that abortion is murder or at least manslaughter, I am not anti-abortion for fetuses too young to survive outside the womb. That forces a woman to devote her body to nurture someone else against her will, and I think it is wrong for the state to do that. (And in the case of rape, heinously wrong.) Since I see no practical way to resolve that dichotomy, abortion for me is simply not a public policy issue, but strictly a private one. (Hey, just call me Mitt.) If the state cannot take an action without unduly removing someone else's rights, the state should not take that action. In other words, I disagree with Obama that the state should guarantee "positive rights", what it must do for you even at someone else's expense.

A woman's rights aren't being removed, they're being subjugated to those of the baby. I don't see it as much different from other burdens the state (rightly) places on parents - the legal obligations to feed, clothe, house and protect their offspring. In essence, the state is guaranteeing positive rights to the child, and few seem to have a problem with that. I certainly don't.

As for the "against her will" part, pregnancy is a known result of sex. There's already been a ton written here about consent to sex vs. consent to become pregnant, so there's little point in revisiting it, but with the wide availablility of effective birth control, I can't accept that a person gets pregnant "against her will" unless she's raped. As for rape, it's a heinous crime, and both sides agree it should remain a crime. That being said, aborting any resulting fetus/baby seems to punish the wrong person.

 

[fskimospy]

A woman's rights aren't being removed, they're being subjugated to those of the baby. I don't see it as much different from other burdens the state (rightly) places on parents - the legal obligations to feed, clothe, house and protect their offspring. In essence, the state is guaranteeing positive rights to the child, and few seem to have a problem with that. I certainly don't.

As for the "against her will" part, pregnancy is a known result of sex. There's already been a ton written here about consent to sex vs. consent to become pregnant, so there's little point in revisiting it, but with the wide availablility of effective birth control, I can't accept that a person gets pregnant "against her will" unless she's raped. As for rape, it's a heinous crime, and both sides agree it should remain a crime. That being said, aborting any resulting fetus/baby seems to punish the wrong person.

I think the crux of the whole issue is pretty simple really. There is a general consensus in America that non-viable fetuses do not enjoy all the same rights as a citizen.

 

[soundforbjt]

Wow. You're voting for Santorum.

No, but I see you did. Anyone but Obama for you I'd bet.

 

[dank69]

A woman's rights aren't being removed, they're being subjugated to those of the baby. I don't see it as much different from other burdens the state (rightly) places on parents - the legal obligations to feed, clothe, house and protect their offspring. In essence, the state is guaranteeing positive rights to the child, and few seem to have a problem with that. I certainly don't.

As for the "against her will" part, pregnancy is a known result of sex. There's already been a ton written here about consent to sex vs. consent to become pregnant, so there's little point in revisiting it, but with the wide availablility of effective birth control, I can't accept that a person gets pregnant "against her will" unless she's raped. As for rape, it's a heinous crime, and both sides agree it should remain a crime. That being said, aborting any resulting fetus/baby seems to punish the wrong person.

If you assume a few cells = person.

 

[Mursilis]

I think the crux of the whole issue is pretty simple really. There is a general consensus in America that non-viable fetuses do not enjoy all the same rights as a citizen.

Consensus is a vague term, and I'd question it. Survey results are so easy to manipulate depending on how questions are phrased. And maybe you meant to say "human", not "citizen". Regarding basic human rights like right to life, we generally don't draw a line between citizens and non-citizens. It's as much a crime to murder a citizen as it is an illegal, as it should be.

 

[Mursilis]

If you assume a few cells = person.

Define "a few".

 

[zsdersw]

All the people who picked Santorum in the poll are the partisan shills, apparently.

Many who picked Obama are partisan shills, too... unless they've expressed an alternative explanation for selecting Obama.

 

[dank69]

Define "a few".

Define exactly how many cells are required for personhood. 2? 4? 10000? 1000000?

 

[fskimospy]

Consensus is a vague term, and I'd question it. Survey results are so easy to manipulate depending on how questions are phrased. And maybe you meant to say "human", not "citizen". Regarding basic human rights like right to life, we generally don't draw a line between citizens and non-citizens. It's as much a crime to murder a citizen as it is an illegal, as it should be.

Sure, rights as a human. I really wouldn't question the consensus, it's pretty clear from public positions on abortion.

A clear majority approves of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and to preserve the life of the mother. If you were to ask if a woman could kill her baby after birth if it were the product of rape or incest, the answer would clearly be no. Sure some of this might be due to the fact that you could put it up for adoption or whatever, but if that were somehow not an option people would still not be okay with it. If someone's continued living is a threat to you through no fault of their own, similar support would also clearly not exist for you to kill them.

There have been voluminous studies done on people's attitudes towards abortion, and those trends are crystal clear. Outside of 'surveys can say anything so there's no way to know', there really isn't an argument that people in the aggregate view fetuses as something different than a full human. I also find the 'survey questions can say anything' argument to be incredibly weak, there are more than enough credible surveys out there on this subject.

 

[dank69]

All the people who picked Santorum in the poll are the partisan shills, apparently.

Many who picked Obama are partisan shills, too... unless they've expressed an alternative explanation for selecting Obama.

Voting for Obama over Santorum makes someone a partisan shill? LOL are you posting in the wrong thread?

 

[fskimospy]

All the people who picked Santorum in the poll are the partisan shills, apparently.

Many who picked Obama are partisan shills, too... unless they've expressed an alternative explanation for selecting Obama.

I like how you think that nobody could support Obama without being a partisan shill. You realize how ridiculous that is, right?

 

[zsdersw]

I like how you think that nobody could support Obama without being a partisan shill. You realize how ridiculous that is, right?

That's why I said... unless they've provided an alternative explanation.

Many alternative explanations are valid, including hating Santorum.

 

[cybrsage]

There's far too much assuming going on. You and your ilk assume Obama actually believes in and supports "infanticide", in spite of his support of existing IL statutes that state that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.

Meanwhile, people like Obama and pro-choice groups are assuming BAIPA and similar bills are trying to completely criminalize all abortions.

The reality, as is usually the case, is probably somewhere in between.

So my original point stands: the statement that Obama "has no problem with abortion" remains something that is not objectively supported.

When you say it is fine to let a baby which survived an abortion attempt, and was born alive, die of exposure on the birthing table, you have shown you have no problem with abortion at all. This would be a post birth abortion. This is FAR worse than even third trimester abortions - you actually have a living baby and you let it die on purpose.

Clothe it in whatever platitudes you want, try to shift the discussion to pro-lifers in an attempt to shift this away from Obama having no problems with abortion, but you will be wrong.

Sad fact is that when you say doctors should be allowed to perform post-birth abortions, you show you have no problem whatsoever with abortions.