|
Post by Merge on Oct 11, 2016 10:29:18 GMT
Glad to hear that, truly. Because Pres. Obama is for unrestricted access, and the above is an improvement on that. Well, no, sorry - that's not true either. He has also said that the states can properly restrict late-term abortion with exception for mom's life and health.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:43:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 10:37:30 GMT
I know that about pro-choicers because I have lots of liberal friends. That's why I have participated here.
I don't want to be surrounded by people like me & make assumptions about others, just like you know that I am not like what is sometimes portrayed a right wing Christian to be because of our friendship.
I have no doubt that article is correct, and am not in favor of abstinence only education (but I *do* think it should be discussed) & am also okay with BC being available, though I think that parents should be aware of that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:43:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 10:38:42 GMT
Well, he voted for unrestricted abortion in Illinois, which is why I thought he favored that.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Oct 11, 2016 11:33:23 GMT
Well, he voted for unrestricted abortion in Illinois, which is why I thought he favored that. Confused Illinoisan here. Are you talking about the "born alive" bill? First, voting for-or-against something as a legislator isn't black and white. My preference is to believe the explanation the legislator gives (instead of the internet, which is bursting with claims that his vote proves that he enthusiastically supports infanticide). In this case, he's explained about eleventy times that he was in favor of the content of the bill, but supported its inclusion in a federal bill, instead. It had simethi g to do with Roe v. Wade protections, but I don't have time to look it up now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:43:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 11:37:22 GMT
I can't remember what bill it was, to be honest.
I read an article during his first term and it mentioned that he voted for unrestricted access while in Illinois, but it's been too long so I don't remember the specifics.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Oct 11, 2016 11:44:35 GMT
I can't remember what bill it was, to be honest. I read an article during his first term and it mentioned that he voted for unrestricted access while in Illinois, but it's been too long so I don't remember the specifics. Well, if you you find it, link it, please.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 11, 2016 11:46:20 GMT
Well, he voted for unrestricted abortion in Illinois, which is why I thought he favored that. The truth is a little more nuanced than that. www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/Again, further restrictions on legal abortion and ending all abortions are not the same thing. Does making it very difficult or impossible for women with true medical need to obtain a safe, legal abortion accomplish the goal of reducing abortion? It does not. We should also note that the late-term abortions in question make up a minuscule percentage of all abortions. I feel like people and politicians who can see this from a practical and logical viewpoint are unfairly demonized by the pro-life side as baby killers. I also feel like holding politicians to this litmus test excludes a lot of principled and honest people who might also be practical and logical thinkers. I wish we could focus more on what our goal is instead of insisting on what is essentially a religious test for office.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 11, 2016 11:50:17 GMT
Somewhat a side-topic, but this discussion made me ponder whether being pro-life is really more important than being someone who works to better the lives of those with less power in our society?
Is ensuring unwanted babies are born more important than ensuring that the current living people don't suffer from racism, sexism, and violence - even at the hands of the police?
That a candidate who is for making segments of our populations lives worse - Muslims (restricting immigration and travel, asking them and them alone to report their neighbors), African Americans and Latinos (with stop-and-frisk), women (by presenting a role model to men and boys that sexual assault is okay), the disabled (by making it okay to publicly make fun of them), etc. - is the best candidate because he claims to be pro-life?
So, does pro-life mean ONLY unborn lives? Looking at the term, it seems to imply that it means pro-life across the lifespan, but in practice, it appears that lives only matter in-utero; once the baby is born, whatever society does to that baby is fine, or at least less important, MUCH less important in making a decision on who one votes for.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:43:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 11:50:57 GMT
Amelia & Merge...thanks for the discussion. It's rare to have such a cordial one on the topic. Amelia I will try to find the article later today. I am not the best early in the morning, lol.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Oct 11, 2016 12:07:12 GMT
Amelia & Merge...thanks for the discussion. It's rare to have such a cordial one on the topic. Amelia I will try to find the article later today. I am not the best early in the morning, lol. I know you don't 'know' me, I hardly had a presence at all on the old board-but I wanted to say that I am sorry that your experience with people in the pro-choice camp has been so negative. It is a an awful thing when we can't rationally discuss our differences without devolving into shouting matches. I have a friend who runs a crisis pregnancy center where they are firmly and unequivocally pro-life. She and I have had long discussions and tease each other all the time for our differing views, but we have learned a lot from each other and it doesn't at all effect our relationship. She told me that one of the biggest things she learned from me was that pro-choice doesn't mean anti-life, and I learned from her that there are a lot of people out there silently supporting the mothers and babies who are born (the age old question of who is there to help after the baby is born.) Thanks to this friendship, I am a better person and a whole lot more educated about 'the other side' than I have ever been.
|
|
|
Post by kellybelly77 on Oct 11, 2016 13:20:15 GMT
Somewhat a side-topic, but this discussion made me ponder whether being pro-life is really more important than being someone who works to better the lives of those with less power in our society? Is ensuring unwanted babies are born more important than ensuring that the current living people don't suffer from racism, sexism, and violence - even at the hands of the police? That a candidate who is for making segments of our populations lives worse - Muslims (restricting immigration and travel, asking them and them alone to report their neighbors), African Americans and Latinos (with stop-and-frisk), women (by presenting a role model to men and boys that sexual assault is okay), the disabled (by making it okay to publicly make fun of them), etc. - is the best candidate because he claims to be pro-life? So, does pro-life mean ONLY unborn lives? Looking at the term, it seems to imply that it means pro-life across the lifespan, but in practice, it appears that lives only matter in-utero; once the baby is born, whatever society does to that baby is fine, or at least less important, MUCH less important in making a decision on who one votes for. Elaine- this is one of the things that drives me crazy about Gov Brownback here in Kansas. He is staunchly prolife and supports prolife measures at all costs. he wins awards from prolife groups on his stance and publically endorses every anti abortion bill out there.
But after baby is born, nothing. He has: cut Medicaid funding and eligibility cut food stamp assistance cut TANF/cash assistance funding cut early ed programs decimated our state education funding cut funding for other community based services including parenting programs
He has decimated our state budget and all the services that are needed in order to give a tax break to rich folks, poor people be damned. After this mess I don't feel that it is appropriate for him to call himself prolife anymore.
|
|
|
Post by cindyupnorth on Oct 11, 2016 13:39:29 GMT
About abortion: That is where his platform comes in vs. Hillary's platform. She absolutely favors no restrictions on abortion. He has stated that he is now pro life. Do I have misgivings about his claim? Sure. I'm not stupid...but if he gets elected he is going to have to stand behind what he says if he wants to be re-elected. IF...IF he gets in, and god forbid, he does. He won't be interested in another term, and frankly I don't really think he cares, or will care. It's his 4 years of glory, which will be a joke, because he won't be allowed to do all this stuff he claims he can, and he will pout and carry on, and then the 4 yrs will fly by! YAY!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:43:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 13:42:48 GMT
Honestly, I don't think he'll win. So I don't think you have anything to worry about.
There are enough people who refuse to vote for him that otherwise would vote Republican and will be voting 3rd party that I think Hillary will pull it out.
|
|
|
Post by cindyupnorth on Oct 11, 2016 13:44:44 GMT
Somewhat a side-topic, but this discussion made me ponder whether being pro-life is really more important than being someone who works to better the lives of those with less power in our society? Is ensuring unwanted babies are born more important than ensuring that the current living people don't suffer from racism, sexism, and violence - even at the hands of the police? That a candidate who is for making segments of our populations lives worse - Muslims (restricting immigration and travel, asking them and them alone to report their neighbors), African Americans and Latinos (with stop-and-frisk), women (by presenting a role model to men and boys that sexual assault is okay), the disabled (by making it okay to publicly make fun of them), etc. - is the best candidate because he claims to be pro-life? So, does pro-life mean ONLY unborn lives? Looking at the term, it seems to imply that it means pro-life across the lifespan, but in practice, it appears that lives only matter in-utero; once the baby is born, whatever society does to that baby is fine, or at least less important, MUCH less important in making a decision on who one votes for. YES! that is exactly what they think. They are NOT supportive of different religions, races, and sexes. Anti-abortion IS their obsessive stand. It's sort of sad, that some can't see that bigger picture.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:43:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 13:53:26 GMT
At my former church in Louisiana, there were many folks who were becoming foster parents because they wanted to help kids in need. My husband's cousin is a minister's wife with a kid, but they are planning to adopt their next one.
Steven Curtis Chapman, a Christian singer, runs a charity in order to help those who want to adopt. (Called Show Hope)
One of the retired couples from that same church moved away from family so that they could be house parents at an orphanage in another state.
So I know plenty of Christians who've taken the step to help kids beyond the womb. They just aren't in the headlines.
|
|
pridemom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,843
Jul 12, 2014 21:58:10 GMT
|
Post by pridemom on Oct 11, 2016 14:01:49 GMT
At my former church in Louisiana, there were many folks who were becoming foster parents because they wanted to help kids in need. My husband's cousin is a minister's wife with a kid, but they are planning to adopt their next one. Steven Curtis Chapman, a Christian singer, runs a charity in order to help those who want to adopt. (Called Show Hope) One of the retired couples from that same church moved away from family so that they could be house parents at an orphanage in another state. So I know plenty of Christians who've taken the step to help kids beyond the womb. They just aren't in the headlines. Many churches and Christian organizations have programs for children in poverty and bad situations. We have a foster grandparent program, transport children to see their incarcerated parents and created a comfy room and playground at the prison, sponsor children in the US and abroad with feeding and school programs, supply shoes and coats to schools, and individuals foster and adopt.
|
|
|
Post by miominmio on Oct 11, 2016 14:06:10 GMT
Honestly, I don't think he'll win. So I don't think you have anything to worry about. There are enough people who refuse to vote for him that otherwise would vote Republican and will be voting 3rd party that I think Hillary will pull it out. Just a gentle reminder that this exact mindset is what ended in Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by Yubon Peatlejuice on Oct 11, 2016 14:50:28 GMT
Go to YouTube and watch the CNN interview with the GOP's Vicki Sciolaro. That is another Trump-supporting "Christian" woman. LMAO at the host's reactions!!!
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 11, 2016 14:52:32 GMT
I'm kind of confused by this discussion. When discussing voting and parties, there were an overwhelming number of peas who stated they would never vote for a Republican presidential candidate because of their ability to appoint Supreme Court nominees and specifically concerns about abortion access. I'm no spreadsheet keeper, but there were certainly a lot of likes and yeah thats for those participating in this side discussion about settled law. Are these peas now open to a pro-life Republican candidate as he can't overturn Roe v Wade? (NOT talking specifically about this election and Donald Trump) If not, why exactly would you expect @jodster with an opposing view to not feel similarly? I've been frustrated over the last few days with some of the commentary (NOT this one which has been extremely civil) here as while I fully appreciate people's concerns about a Trump presidency, the level of vitriol for people voting platform is really disturbing. I understand that some here may not hold their nose and vote for a horrible Democratic candidate, but there are a TON who would - and for many of them a pro-choice candidate is their absolute litmus test.
Personally, I would like to the debate on BOTH sides move beyond abortion as a litmus test - but I don't think we're there yet and understand my friends on both sides of the aisle who feel passionately about this issue - even if it's not how I vote.
|
|
|
Post by tara on Oct 11, 2016 15:30:40 GMT
At least now I can understand how Hitler got elected...... This is what I said. It's scary! I thought I would never see that in my country, but now it's happening before my eyes.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:43:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 15:32:51 GMT
I'm not generally a Daily Show fan, but Trevor Noah does a good job or pointing out what I wish more people were understanding about this debacle: this is not about Trump being *crass* - it's about normalizing talk and *criminal* action that violates, degrades and humiliates women.
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,663
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Oct 11, 2016 15:40:18 GMT
I'm kind of confused by this discussion. When discussing voting and parties, there were an overwhelming number of peas who stated they would never vote for a Republican presidential candidate because of their ability to appoint Supreme Court nominees and specifically concerns about abortion access. I'm no spreadsheet keeper, but there were certainly a lot of likes and yeah thats for those participating in this side discussion about settled law. Are these peas now open to a pro-life Republican candidate as he can't overturn Roe v Wade? (NOT talking specifically about this election and Donald Trump) If not, why exactly would you expect @jodster with an opposing view to not feel similarly? I've been frustrated over the last few days with some of the commentary (NOT this one which has been extremely civil) here as while I fully appreciate people's concerns about a Trump presidency, the level of vitriol for people voting platform is really disturbing. I understand that some here may not hold their nose and vote for a horrible Democratic candidate, but there are a TON who would - and for many of them a pro-choice candidate is their absolute litmus test. Personally, I would like to the debate on BOTH sides move beyond abortion as a litmus test - but I don't think we're there yet and understand my friends on both sides of the aisle who feel passionately about this issue - even if it's not how I vote. While I am very pro-choice and really want Roe v Wade to not be overturned, this election is different. If Donald Trump was the democratic nominee, I don't think it would matter what my stance on any issue was. I would not vote for him. If I thought he might be elected I would vote Republican. And voting Republican goes against every thing in me.
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,663
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Oct 11, 2016 15:43:56 GMT
I'm not generally a Daily Show fan, but Trevor Noah does a good job or pointing out what I wish more people were understanding about this debacle: this is not about Trump being *crass* - it's about normalizing talk and *criminal* action that violates, degrades and humiliates women. I wish everyone would get this!!!
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 11, 2016 15:49:01 GMT
I'm kind of confused by this discussion. When discussing voting and parties, there were an overwhelming number of peas who stated they would never vote for a Republican presidential candidate because of their ability to appoint Supreme Court nominees and specifically concerns about abortion access. I'm no spreadsheet keeper, but there were certainly a lot of likes and yeah thats for those participating in this side discussion about settled law. Are these peas now open to a pro-life Republican candidate as he can't overturn Roe v Wade? (NOT talking specifically about this election and Donald Trump) If not, why exactly would you expect @jodster with an opposing view to not feel similarly? I've been frustrated over the last few days with some of the commentary (NOT this one which has been extremely civil) here as while I fully appreciate people's concerns about a Trump presidency, the level of vitriol for people voting platform is really disturbing. I understand that some here may not hold their nose and vote for a horrible Democratic candidate, but there are a TON who would - and for many of them a pro-choice candidate is their absolute litmus test. Personally, I would like to the debate on BOTH sides move beyond abortion as a litmus test - but I don't think we're there yet and understand my friends on both sides of the aisle who feel passionately about this issue - even if it's not how I vote. While I am very pro-choice and really want Roe v Wade to not be overturned, this election is different. If Donald Trump was the democratic nominee, I don't think it would matter what my stance on any issue was. I would not vote for him. If I thought he might be elected I would vote Republican. And voting Republican goes against every thing in me. I completely understand this election is different. I have many, many reliable Republican friends/family members who are utterly distraught at the idea of pulling the lever for him - I predict voter participation will be abysmal. My comment was specifically about the side discussion on why @jodster shouldn't worry about her pro-life stance as it's settled law. People weren't arguing that he's just such a flawed candidate - it was that abortion was settled law - and I definitely know many, many pro-choice peas have stated emphatically the opposite view when discussing voting for ANY hypothetical Republican candidate.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 11, 2016 15:59:54 GMT
At my former church in Louisiana, there were many folks who were becoming foster parents because they wanted to help kids in need. My husband's cousin is a minister's wife with a kid, but they are planning to adopt their next one. Steven Curtis Chapman, a Christian singer, runs a charity in order to help those who want to adopt. (Called Show Hope) One of the retired couples from that same church moved away from family so that they could be house parents at an orphanage in another state. So I know plenty of Christians who've taken the step to help kids beyond the womb. They just aren't in the headlines. And all those people should be applauded for the help they give children. I guess that my question goes beyond only children though - I'd like to reiterate this part of it: Donald Trump wants to make life more unpleasant, intimidating and dangerous for huge segments of adults in our society - that isn't pro-life, unless pro-life is only about unborn babies. I think that there are plenty of Christians who do many charitable acts for many people across the lifespan, so I'm not pointing a finger at them. My finger is pointing straight at Trump who demonstrates daily that the only lives he values are those of himself and his family. I cannot understand how anyone would label him as "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortion" (which would be more accurate, if he changed his mind and actually is against abortion). A vote for him him might be a vote against abortion, but it isn't a vote for "life" if one cares about all lives.
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,663
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Oct 11, 2016 16:00:19 GMT
Oh I see, I missed that, sorry. I thought she was talking about voting for Donald Trump because of her pro-life stance. And I agree that Roe v Wade may not be settled law. And even if it is, the republicans are trying to go around it. This is often talked about many Sundays in the churches in the south. It's dangerous to think it's "settled" it's not!
|
|
|
Post by hollymolly on Oct 11, 2016 16:26:54 GMT
Honestly, I don't think he'll win. So I don't think you have anything to worry about. There are enough people who refuse to vote for him that otherwise would vote Republican and will be voting 3rd party that I think Hillary will pull it out. @jodster, thank you for this discussion. I really appreciate your input. I feel like I can ask you questions that I can't ask my friends and family members who feel as you do. If you believe he can't win, why will you vote for him? Evan McMullen is pro-life, and you don't have to compromise the rest of your principles to cast that vote. I am voting for Hillary for a number of reasons, but I would love for McMullen to make a solid showing. I respect him, even if I don't agree with him politically. I really want this to be the election that opens the doors to third parties and better options. I believe that the things Trump has said and done are so far from Christian principles. I do understand voting for platform, but McMullen is closer to your actual platform than Trump. Again, thank you. You are a breathe of fresh air in this ugly political season.
|
|
|
Post by kellybelly77 on Oct 11, 2016 16:32:32 GMT
Go to YouTube and watch the CNN interview with the GOP's Vicki Sciolaro. That is another Trump-supporting "Christian" woman. LMAO at the host's reactions!!! Ah yes, Ms Vicki is the chairperson for the GOP in the 3rd congressional district here in Kansas as well as a national delegate. It's lunatics like her that helped reelect Brownback.
I watched the video yesterday and the reaction of the host was classic! I feel that way everyday living amongst all the "redness" here!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:43:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 16:36:46 GMT
I don't think he will win, but 538 gave him an 18 percent chance a few days ago. 18 percent is a lot better than 0 percent. In 2012, I got to vote for my favorite candidate for President in my voting lifetime. I love Mitt Romney for so many reasons...still do. There were tons of Republicans who didn't vote because he didn't have a conservative enough record, and I blame them for his loss. I totally understand those who are voting 3rd party...but I have to vote for the candidate who has a small chance of winning. Thanks for asking hollymolly.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 11, 2016 16:37:30 GMT
Honestly, I don't think he'll win. So I don't think you have anything to worry about. There are enough people who refuse to vote for him that otherwise would vote Republican and will be voting 3rd party that I think Hillary will pull it out. @jodster , thank you for this discussion. I really appreciate your input. I feel like I can ask you questions that I can't ask my friends and family members who feel as you do. If you believe he can't win, why will you vote for him? Evan McMullen is pro-life, and you don't have to compromise the rest of your principles to cast that vote. I am voting for Hillary for a number of reasons, but I would love for McMullen to make a solid showing. I respect him, even if I don't agree with him politically. I really want this to be the election that opens the doors to third parties and better options. I believe that the things Trump has said and done are so far from Christian principles. I do understand voting for platform, but McMullen is closer to your actual platform than Trump. Again, thank you. You are a breathe of fresh air in this ugly political season.Isn't that the truth!
|
|