70 yr. old Ohio Republican: "I’ve Never Seen Such HATE (ideology, compared)

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by Dale Cooper

There are fools everywhere. An awful lot of them are on the Daily kos, which is filled with more hate than any website I've ever seen. I hope the idiot stays there. We don't need or want him in the R party.

Yeah, you tell 'em, Ms "How do you starve an Obama supporter?"....

[OhioIstheBest]

Originally Posted by vamos

You are right. You don't sound emotional - at all!

So, let me get your logic straight. Women can make their own medical decisions - according to you. However, abortion is not a medical decision. What, then is it, if it is not medical? Is it a landscaping procedure? Or perhaps it falls within the scope of construction? Oh wait, it IS medical, now isn't it?

It's usually not life threatening and perhaps that's why you make the distinction that it is elective. Neither are many tumors, viruses, and infections. So I suppose women should not make decisions about treatment of benign tumors, then either. After all, treatment is often not medically necessary since the body will heal itself or continue to function just fine. Or where are you going with this distinction?

Alas, you are saying that abortion is an elective procedure. And you are making this distinction to point out that women can make their own medical decisions UNLESS the procedure is elective. Thus, you are saying that elective medical procedures should be under government control? That includes breast implants, improving one's smile, hair plugs, etc. Or is it only this one particular procedure that should be under government control?

And women are having abortions because they "can't be bothered with having a child?" While this is certainly true in some cases, it is equally untrue in other cases. But extremists like you prefer to ignore this, don't you?

I completely agree that rapists, especially those who raped young girls, should have a right to influence and determine the life of any resulting baby. Yes, make the poor victim of the rape continue to be subject to the torture of having to associate with her rapist for the rest of her life. Sure, that makes perfect sense. Have you lost all sense because of your zealotry?

You also conveniently like to ignore that a zygote or a fetus are simply what they are, regardless of the potential they carry. Medically speaking, either is nothing more than a parasite. It becomes a human being with all rights at birth - not before. The double homicide laws you mention grant protective rights to the unborn but they explicitly exclude abortion - so they do not apply. A murder charge also excludes certain acts that result in the death of another human being - just because you don't agree with those exception does not make your opinion any more legally relevant than clapping your hands does.

If you want the unborn to be considered equal to a post-natal person, then you MUST prosecute mothers who endanger their "children" by smoking, drinking, driving recklessly, doing drugs, etc. All these cases would be child abuse and/or child endangerment. Are they?

However, you have been through this a thousand times with others and you are simply stuck on a position that allows for no leeway. It's all or nothing - a perspective I find despicable and far removed from reality. You see, you can make abortion illegal - and it would never, ever affect somebody like me. Instead, it only affects the poor, the uneducated, and those who are not resourceful. The rest of us, if they are determined to get an abortion, will spend a few hundred bucks, get on a plane, and fly to a location where it is legal. Others, however, will find a way at home - with the tragic results that most people remember from a much darker time in our history.

Nobody said that you were attacking women. The question you raised was why the GOP is perceived as attacking women - remember, that's the topic of this thread? It's not your personal quest to divulge your opinion on the legality of abortion... You can have whatever opinion you want - just like I can have mine. Mine happens to coincide with the law...yours not so much. That's why the statements I made about restricting other people's rights wasn't aimed at you, either. Again, the topic of this thread is the GOP, not you. Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not the center of the universe or of C-D.

Also, I did not address you as a conservative or Republican - you are simply reading this into my posts because your position happens to agree with the general GOP perspective. Thus, you feel personally addressed. This has little to do with my reading comprehension but rather, has a lot to do with you being emotionally and personally invested in this topic. I have no idea why you think that this would be an offense - abortion is an emotional topic for many people, particularly if they see it is "wrong."

You might also find that most people are "lemmings" to one degree or another - it seems not necessarily correlated to their political orientation as far as I can tell.

Finally, you claim that "Government should punish violence" and that "killing a living fetus is violence." Alas, lots of acts are violent - slaughtering a cow for food is a violent act, defending oneself when attacked can be rather violent, hunting is violent. I simply cannot agree with this statement. Like your view on abortion, it is overly simplistic and shows an absolute lack of having "thought things through" - as the saying goes. Consequently, such a viewpoint is far too extreme and completely detached from reality.

Yawn. The other elective procedures don't kill people. See the difference?

I was referirng to men that had consensual sex with the woman. I figured you were smart enough to figure that out. Maybe not.

Wanting to allow a baby to be born is what you call "extreme". You should listen to yourself.

And I hate to tell you but all medical procedures are already under government control. Including elective ones like abortion. You can't name one medical procedure legally performed in the United States today that isn't under government control. Which means men make decisions about women's health care all the time. And women make decisions about men's healthcare all the time.

Again, I figured you were smart enough to figure this out. Maybe not. When I said violence I was referring to violence against humans.

And finally vamos, your view on abortion, is overly simplistic and shows an absolute lack of having "thought things through" - as the saying goes. Consequently, such a viewpoint is far too extreme and completely detached from reality.

See how easy it to sound like a child when you don't agree with someone. Just say they are "simplistic" and "detached from reality". You make a good argument.

[PullMyFinger]

I've never seen republicans as low as they are now.

[OhioIstheBest]

Originally Posted by Electric Blue

"I voted for Barry Goldwater. Voted for Reagan four times(twice for gov,twice for potus. Hell,I voted for Bob Taft back in the day. But this Mitt Romney is too far to the right!"
Fake lifelong Republican now voting Democrat for 1st time ever.

Especially since Romney is to the left of Goldwater, Reagan and Taft. Way left of all 3.

[OhioIstheBest]

Originally Posted by vamos

If you want the unborn to be considered equal to a post-natal person, then you MUST prosecute mothers who endanger their "children" by smoking, drinking, driving recklessly, doing drugs, etc. All these cases would be child abuse and/or child endangerment. Are they?

I simply cannot agree with your statement that government should punish violence......it is overly simplistic and shows an absolute lack of having "thought things through" - as the saying goes. Consequently, such a viewpoint is far too extreme and completely detached from reality.

Women are prosecuted for child abuse for doing the things you mention. When I lived in Tennessee there were two women in the town I lived that got 18 years apiece for doing meth while pregnant. Both the babies were born healthy.

Sometimes the fetus is treated as post-natal. Sometimes they aren't. The government has decided a medical doctor can kill a fetus with no consequences. No one else can. Seems reasonable.

And if government shouldn't punish violence then who should? And if I want government to punish violence then my thinking is "overly simplistic" and I haven't "thought things through" and I'm "extreme and completely detached from reality" ???????????? Sounds reasonable.

[Icy Tea]

I'm seeing the fiurst few campaign signs popping up on private lawns. I've also seen a few bumper stickers on cars. All pro Romney. Both parties seem to be waiting until the last minute to really make a push. Although this being PA, maybe the outcome is already assumed. But its not just the Obama/Romney race, its the senatorial and congressional races that are also low key. Where are the parties dumping their money I wonder?

[vamos]

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

Yawn. The other elective procedures don't kill people. See the difference?

I was referirng to men that had consensual sex with the woman. I figured you were smart enough to figure that out. Maybe not.

Wanting to allow a baby to be born is what you call "extreme". You should listen to yourself.

And I hate to tell you but all medical procedures are already under government control. Including elective ones like abortion. You can't name one medical procedure legally performed in the United States today that isn't under government control. Which means men make decisions about women's health care all the time. And women make decisions about men's healthcare all the time.

Again, I figured you were smart enough to figure this out. Maybe not. When I said violence I was referring to violence against humans.

And finally vamos, your view on abortion, is overly simplistic and shows an absolute lack of having "thought things through" - as the saying goes. Consequently, such a viewpoint is far too extreme and completely detached from reality.

See how easy it to sound like a child when you don't agree with someone. Just say they are "simplistic" and "detached from reality". You make a good argument.

Well, that was a lame response. I would have expected more than backpedalling and "oh, I meant this and that." If that's what you mean, than say/write it - that's how communication works. Otherwise, you are asking people to make assumptions about you and your statements.

So let's see: Abortion is a procedure that kills people - except that the law does not see abortion as killing people. In fact, it explicitly excludes abortion. It does so because there are very legitimate reasons to have an abortion. You, however, are not interested in that: You paint with a broad brush that attempts to uniformly bury everything under one thick coat of paint so as to lend your viewpoint the illusion of having viability. As I said before, legal definitions are what they are and simply failing to believe them does not change reality.

If you were talking about men that had consensual sex with women, then why don't you say so? Instead, you used your broad brush again and complain when you are not understood. It looks to me like the problem lies with the imprecision of your writing - not with people having to second-guess what you could or could not have meant. As a matter of fact you said nothing like the claim you now make that

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

I was referirng to men that had consensual sex with the woman.

Here is what you said:

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

And I happen to think that if abortion is legal the father has the right to have a say also.

Seems to me that "fathers" is rather inclusive of rapists, is it not? Your statement does NOT refer to men that had consensual sex with women - it refers to "fathers."

The same with "violence" - now you say you meant "violence against humans." Fine, so in cases of self-defense you believe that government should dole out punishment? Of course you don't - but that is what you are saying nonetheless. See now how it may help to be a bit more accurate in what you mean?

Here is what you said

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

Government should punish violence and fraud. Once she goes beyond that she commits violence and fraud against her own people. (And killing a living fetus is violence).

No qualifiers whatsoever: Just one broad, all-encompassing statement.

Otherwise, you should just drop all the fluff and simply say "Abortion is bad" or "Abortion should be illegal." You can, then, let everybody else figure out what, exactly, you mean by that and complain how they are not smart enough to have read your mind. I am not sure what kind of "smarts" you expect others to possess that enables them to be mind-readers, though.

Finally, we were not talking about government control - or, more precisely, oversight - assuming that is what you mean.

Here is my statement that you responded to:

Originally Posted by vamos

You believe then, that a person should not have full control over his or her body and all medical procedures that affect it. Instead, you believe that the small government that conservatives praise to the high heavens should take over such domain?

See, we are talking about government dictating what procedures a person can and can not have. We are not talking about government setting and approving standards for medical procedures - which is exactly what you try to steer this to. I have no idea if you try to distract from the issue on purpose or if you simply fail to understand the distinction:

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

And I hate to tell you but all medical procedures are already under government control. Including elective ones like abortion. You can't name one medical procedure legally performed in the United States today that isn't under government control. Which means men make decisions about women's health care all the time. And women make decisions about men's healthcare all the time.

Thus, you were saying that women should not be allowed to have abortions because it is, well, something.

It was either that abortion is not a medical decision - according to you:

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

But abortion is not a medical decision.

Of course, it is a medical decision, so that's out.

Or, alternatively, it is an elective procedure

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

It's an elective procedure that has no medical benefit. (unless the life of the mother is in danger).

But then I pointed out that lots of procedures were elective and did not require a person to ask for a governmental permit.

Or, finally, that abortion should not be allowed because women are selfish:

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

It's done because the woman can't be bothered with having a child. It's basically the most selfish thing a person can do.

Naturally, you completely fail to acknowledge that there are quite a few abortions that have nothing to do with being "selfish." Or was I supposed to simply "guess" that you acknowledge this? I even acknowledge that there is SOME merit to this assertion:

Originally Posted by vamos

While this is certainly true in some cases, it is equally untrue in other cases.

However, using this as a primary reason for banning abortion makes you one thing above all else: A person with a very low opinion of women. You see, you are saying that women are selfish creatures and therefore, they should not be allowed to make medical decisions for themselves. In fact, they are so irresponsible (and perhaps even stupid) that we need government to tell them what medical procedures they can and cannot have.

See how this is overbearing? Probably not. Or, let me guess, that's not what you meant. At all.

So, tell me again how your expressed views on abortion are not simplistic? If they aren't, you certainly make a very poor effort at communicating that they are more complex. Using overly simplistic, all-encompassing statements and later back-pedalling also does not leave me with the impression that you have thought these things through. Perhaps you have - but again, I don't get the impression from your writing that this is the case. At least, this finally brings us back to the topic at hand. Then again, since you are not conservative or republican, perhaps it doesn't...

Your best retort is to childishly parrot my allegations? Come on...

[vamos]

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

Women are prosecuted for child abuse for doing the things you mention. When I lived in Tennessee there were two women in the town I lived that got 18 years apiece for doing meth while pregnant. Both the babies were born healthy.

I'd like to read that case. Care to post a link?

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

Sometimes the fetus is treated as post-natal.

What does that mean? And when does this apply?

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

And if government shouldn't punish violence then who should? And if I want government to punish violence then my thinking is "overly simplistic" and I haven't "thought things through" and I'm "extreme and completely detached from reality" ???????????? Sounds reasonable.

Yes, saying that government should punish violence is overly simplistic, extreme and detached from reality because you fail to explain what you mean by violence. As so often in this thread, you make broad statements and hope that everybody makes the right assumptions about the meaning and boundaries of your assertions.

Here is what you said:

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

Government should punish violence and fraud. Once she goes beyond that she commits violence and fraud against her own people. (And killing a living fetus is violence).

Here is what I said:

Originally Posted by vamos

Finally, you claim that "Government should punish violence" and that "killing a living fetus is violence." Alas, lots of acts are violent - slaughtering a cow for food is a violent act, defending oneself when attacked can be rather violent, hunting is violent. I simply cannot agree with your statement that government should punish violence.

It shouldn't. It should, however, punish certain kinds of violence. And that is exactly what it does.

Still, you make this assertion (I assume) to point out that abortion is violent. Does that mean you are alright with a medically induced abortion through the use of Mifepristone? After all, it "simply" causes the body to reject the fetus (or the zygote, as the case may be).

Or is that also violent? And if it is, can I assume that government should punish women whose body naturally rejects a fetus? Or is the same physical process of rejecting the fetus violent in only some cases and not others? Ah, so many questions.

And finally, you still seem to not be able to move beyond the abortion issue. Look again at the title of this thread - do you think you can stay on topic or should we make some sort of assumption that your views about abortion (that have nothing to do with you being a conservative or republican) somehow address this topic?

[vamos]

Originally Posted by Icy Tea

I'm seeing the fiurst few campaign signs popping up on private lawns. I've also seen a few bumper stickers on cars. All pro Romney. Both parties seem to be waiting until the last minute to really make a push. Although this being PA, maybe the outcome is already assumed. But its not just the Obama/Romney race, its the senatorial and congressional races that are also low key. Where are the parties dumping their money I wonder?

Same in my neck of the woods. However, my geographical location really does not allow for much Obama campaign paraphernalia. This is a very red state. With the current political attitude in this country, I don't think too many people are eager to have some moron throw rotten eggs at their house.

[MetalLord]

Originally Posted by Dale Cooper

And have you forgotten Robert Byrd, the Grand Wizard in congress?

He was one of the old Dixiecrats who didn't switch to the GOP at Nixon's behest (like Strom Thurmond, etc.).