U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-17-2016, 03:45 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
29,677 posts, read 16,450,800 times
Reputation: 22289

Advertisements

Reads. Processes. Steps away.

 
Old 07-17-2016, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Mountain Home, ID
1,955 posts, read 2,998,782 times
Reputation: 2410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71 View Post
You honestly believe that a person's religion - or lack thereof - will not have any affect on their descision, should you poll them on this topic?

I want an honest answer. Not one from your heart or soul, but your head and your logical, rational reasoning..."Will a person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) have a major effect on their decision if asked about whether abortion was murder?"



I made no assertion whatsoever. We are a government of, by, and for the people. Ideally, our representatives make laws based on the will of the people. In most cases, this works well. But in the abortion debate, it becomes more complex, based on the idea that a majority of people will use either their religious beliefs concerning life and its conception, or their beliefs of the individual over said fetus.

The only assertion I made was concerning the fact that our government is a secular one, and cannot be influenced by any specific religious affiliation - which (for the most part) tends to abhor the idea of abortion.

I think some ofd you are missing the point of my texts, mainly because its a pretty complex topic.

Personally, I'm pro-life. I truly believe life begins at conception. And I hate the idea of abortion being used as a post-coital form of birth control. These are my beliefs based on my religion, as well as my knowledge and degrees in the health sciences.

But I have no right to tell another person that they must endure carrying a fetus to full term. There could be complications that could lead to extremes problems (including death for the mother). It could lead to hardship, that I might not possibly fathom. I could list a few more off the top of my head and still miss all of the reason s why I have no right to tell another person "you must do this". It's not my place.

And neither is it yours.

I have enough science to debate both sides of the fence concerning the conception topic. And I frankly have mixed feelings about it. But because this is a true unknown, then we cannot factually claim thus. And therefore I cannot say to another person that might have this issue, you must not do what you're thinking as I can prove it's wrong. And frankly neither can any of you, unless of course you're arrogant enough to claim you know perfectly the mind of God.

So this topic is truly an individual choice and should be left up to the person. If they will be judged, then that's their problem. Not yours.

Frankly, (and this is extremely hard to say) I would like to think that society might benefit from more access to it.
The person you're responding to is on the record for being against abortion, but also against requiring unmarried fathers to provide child support AND against government welfare for disadvantaged families. In other words, he's one of those flaming hypocrites who only cares about fetuses in an abstract sense and not the quality of life they're going to have after they're born.
 
Old 07-17-2016, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Kansas
19,187 posts, read 14,941,333 times
Reputation: 18247
This appears to be yet another anti-Trump thread about abortion yet again.

Trump on why he changed his stance on abortion, he got "real":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xugqLfJLs3Y

With Pence: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/us...tion.html?_r=0 That bill would even have kept women from aborting a baby with Down syndrome, someone like my son whom we adopted almost 30 years ago. Of course, that just horrified some people that think that people with disabilities should have no rights, not even "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" all of which our son has attained having a birth mother that gave him that chance! Down syndrome babies are VERY adoptable for those that can't get past a disability: National Down Syndrome Adoption Network

OP, exactly what is it that you are looking for? And, I hope you realize that the POTUS and/or the VP cannot change the current laws. At best, the POTUS can nominate people to the Supreme Court who could vote to overturn Rowe vs Wade (death to babies as a matter of convenience).
 
Old 07-17-2016, 04:47 PM
 
Location: FL
15,621 posts, read 8,747,868 times
Reputation: 3767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71 View Post
That is your morals.
And you have absolutely no more right to dictate your morals in a secular society than I have.
You presume to judge me??? Where do you get the arrogant presumption to judge me?!?!

We live in a country made of over 300 million people, ranging from the far left to the far right, and several millions in between. We are the most diverse country on the face of the planet, and there is no damn way on earth that we could possibly secure the wide ranging beliefs of every religious group that exists in our country. To assume that we could be be idiotic.

You have your religious beliefs. Ironically enough, I actually share your beliefs on this specific topic.

BUT THIS TOPIC IS RELIGIOUS MORE THAN SECULAR!!!

And our government is a secular one, since it cannot be based on any one religious belief!!! Did you not learn that in high school?!?!?!

If you'd like to live in a country in which the laws of the land were based solely on a religious text, then I've got several countries in which you could move... mainly in the middle east.

SO get off your high horse (or the cross), grab a dose of reality and focus on than things that can be changed... and stop forcing your morality onto others. Your sanctimony is obnoxious and repellant.
Well said.
 
Old 07-17-2016, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Florida
22,046 posts, read 9,367,972 times
Reputation: 18009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71 View Post
That is your morals.
And you have absolutely no more right to dictate your morals in a secular society than I have.
You presume to judge me??? Where do you get the arrogant presumption to judge me?!?!

We live in a country made of over 300 million people, ranging from the far left to the far right, and several millions in between. We are the most diverse country on the face of the planet, and there is no damn way on earth that we could possibly secure the wide ranging beliefs of every religious group that exists in our country. To assume that we could be be idiotic.

You have your religious beliefs. Ironically enough, I actually share your beliefs on this specific topic.

BUT THIS TOPIC IS RELIGIOUS MORE THAN SECULAR!!!

And our government is a secular one, since it cannot be based on any one religious belief!!! Did you not learn that in high school?!?!?!

If you'd like to live in a country in which the laws of the land were based solely on a religious text, then I've got several countries in which you could move... mainly in the middle east.

SO get off your high horse (or the cross), grab a dose of reality and focus on than things that can be changed... and stop forcing your morality onto others. Your sanctimony is obnoxious and repellant.
Excellent, really excellent, post.

Religious zealots in the US do not seem to understand how closely related they are in beliefs to Islamic fundamentalists in forcing religious laws as governance of a nation state.
 
Old 07-17-2016, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Kansas
19,187 posts, read 14,941,333 times
Reputation: 18247
Abortion is more than a "religious" issue. We are talking about terminating life, stopping a heartbeat. That goes beyond religion and to the rights of an individual. As we know, the Democratic candidate believes in partial birth abortion where the baby is pulled into the birth canal, stabbed, pushed back in the womb and "born" dead. I would think the choice of a candidate based on that alone would make one stop and think about where the world has gone.
 
Old 07-17-2016, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,604 posts, read 11,132,986 times
Reputation: 6101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speleothem View Post
I suppose it's "interesting" if you equate an innocent "baby-to-be" with a convicted killer.
You either believe in the right to life or you don't. There is no middle ground. You receive your rights as an individual. The individual owns their life. No one and no entity does.

The only just reason to take a life is in defense of property or in defense of an individual.
 
Old 07-17-2016, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Mountain Home, ID
1,955 posts, read 2,998,782 times
Reputation: 2410
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
Abortion is more than a "religious" issue. We are talking about terminating life, stopping a heartbeat. That goes beyond religion and to the rights of an individual. As we know, the Democratic candidate believes in partial birth abortion where the baby is pulled into the birth canal, stabbed, pushed back in the womb and "born" dead. I would think the choice of a candidate based on that alone would make one stop and think about where the world has gone.
A lot of medical procedures are gory and have disgusting details. What difference does it make how it's performed? If the doctor feels that is the best method with the highest chances of success, then that is how it should be done.

And considering you're another one of those flaming hypocrites who are against universal healthcare and begrudge every penny of taxpayer support to poor families, why do you pretend to care about babies anyway?

 
Old 07-17-2016, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
9,869 posts, read 6,564,339 times
Reputation: 6249
Quote:
Originally Posted by kat in aiken View Post
What does that mean?

If you are asking if you can find something that shows he is willing to sign a law that is one of the most restrictive about abortion in the nation, that also makes mothers of babies who were miscarried have funerals, yes, he did sign that. So, that seems to put him on the oddly named "pro-life" side of town. If he didn't think that was a good stance, he would have vetoed the law, don't you think?

If he's "pro-life in all cases except maybe life"... I suppose you could take that to mean, yeah, he's for sticking his nose in a woman's private business before and during her pregnancy, but once there is a delivered "life", he doesn't much care any more.
Yep --- they believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth - when it comes for political concern and societal support.
 
Old 07-17-2016, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,229 posts, read 14,246,198 times
Reputation: 15719
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianneP21 View Post
I'm just wondering is he prolife in all cases except maybe life? Or is pro-abortion like trump? I hear he hates gays and stuff like trump but no actual information about his actual stance on abortion just what he's pushed forward but not like his beliefs on when abortion is permissible. Does anyone have a link showing his beliefs on this issue?
As a Congressman, Pence was obsessed with advancing anti-gay issues. By the time the Supreme Court got into this, he was out of Congress, and turned to anti-abortion as his obsessive issue. He never mentions gays at all now, one way or another.

He has never been a stand-out leader in either cause. I've watched the goings-on in Congress for decades, and Pence rang no bells at all with me. That he had served 6 terms in the House meant to me that he must have been a back-bencher. Typically that bunch are always better known at home than in Congress.

But back in the 90s when he was serving, the House was chock full of very colorful Representatives on every issue that existed back then. That decade set the tone of what followed into the 21st century in many things, even though most of the real colorful and memorable people are long gone from both politics and life now.

So, in this, Pence not being a stand-out in my mind isn't unusual at all. It's often the back-benchers who have the longest Congressional careers, and their influences happen much more subtly, accumulating over time, than those caused by the real showboaters. Their issues tend to fade away as soon as they're gone, and they almost never last for very long.

In the end, it's always what they say today that is the most important anyway. Even the most fervent believers do change their minds as time goes by on many things they once believed the very most in.

Today's Michael Pence is the person asking for our vote, not the one from 20 years ago, or even the one who was elected Governor 4 years ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:26 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top