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.
I believe you're wrong. I and most Republicans I know are for the freedom to choose. We may not be for Abortions but realize they're going to happen whether they are legal or not.
I'd also like to see free Birth Control centers in every Middle and High school.
Most Republicans I know are NOT for the freedom to choose. Furthermore, you can claim that you support the freedom to choose but you vote for the opposite...
As it stands, women have the choice whether or not to have an abortion. I personally do not believe abortion is right, so I won't have one. However, that decision is between each woman and God. God will deal with the situation as He sees fit.
So there is no compromise to be had. It simply is not your place to try and play God. The quicker Republicans grasp that and realize that protesting a woman's choice doesn't get them a free pass into heaven, the better.
Oh and I'm a libertarian, not a Democrat.
That does not suffice on the issue of homicide and the US Constitutionally protected right to life. The US Constitution is the highest law of the land in the USA and it does not merely grant state protective right to life to citizens of the USA, but even non-citizens even if they illegally enter the USA.
The species of life in the early stages of development when a human female egg is fertilized is not under questions in the science of biology. To not know what species of life it is or to remain baffled as to how humans reproduce would cast doubt in the whole Theory of Evolution and particularly on its propositions explaining human origins as a species. As the whole Theory can be reduced for simplicity sake to a narrative of sex and death.
The species of life is one issue.
What constitutes personhood is another issue. The question of personhood, however, is not a scientific inquiry but a philosophical inquiry. The US Supreme Court for example, has declared for profit corporations are granted personhood like Obama or one of Trumps children are. In others words the legal entity, that is non-human, non-biological in fact, is a person endowed with the same Civil Rights as any homosexual, black person, undocumented Mexican, woman, child molester, or drunk driver.
The decision of the US Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade can be decifered from the leading Justice statements on his motives, to be a secular religious decision. He viewed "Mother Nature" as a big meanie that is unfair, unjust, and inferior to US capitalist ideas of fair chances to compete in the workforce, by biologically incurring more cost to females than to males when it comes to humans reproducing.
The US Supreme Court's biased decision makes as much scientific sense as their past decision to regard black phenotypic humans as a lesser percentage of humans than white phenotypic humans.
So, it is neither here nor there if a libertarian is personally opposed to abortion or mother commiting infanticide or personally opposed to a father sexually molesting his 10 year-old daughter, or if he or she is a feminist angered at the prevailing scientific theory explaining how humans reproduce thinking that end of a Godless biological evolutionary process is flawed, unfair, and a big meanie.
Furthermore, when hearing the "Roe for Men" case challenging tricks by women who claim infertility trapping men who have made it known they do not want to be fathers, the US Supreme Court Justices hearing the case laughed and ruled when a man engages in the risky behavior of sexual intercourse he gives up all rights to choice of being a father.
Basically, the Justices are saying when a guy and gal get together to have sexual intercourse they are engaging in a risky behavior that can result in a pregnancy. But that only the man is held personally responsible for the outcome of having sex.
So, no, when US Constitutional law is interjected into legal opinion and legislation on a matter, it is not merely an issue left between "a woman and God."
I believe you're wrong. I and most Republicans I know are for the freedom to choose. We may not be for Abortions but realize they're going to happen whether they are legal or not.
I'd also like to see free Birth Control centers in every Middle and High school.
Homicides born out of jealousy, greed, or hate are going to happen whether they are legal of not. So are undocumented immigrants flooding into the USA.
I'm not obligated to help a mother safely execute her 4 year-old daughter or her unborn child, so that she can carry out her desired terminations on those lives with as little personal risk to herself as possible. Then you have women coming on the Maury Povich show for paternity tests, after 3 or 5 different men tested they still don't know who the father of their child is. I do think they display great virtue in not aborting their child though, in light of such modern day pressures, with stigmas in their personal situations added, to have abortions. That takes a lot of internal strength on their part. And virtue to protect their child by even putting themselves in public spotlight for ridicule.
But those on the political left want to appeal to science void of a God as First Cause, praise the mathematical probability involved in the Theory of Evolution that makes a God proposition null, but then turn around and emotively bemoan in all religiosity how unfair biological life and the universe itself are for not allowing males to get impregnated. They think biological evolution and the universe itself sinned against human females, the same people who rage against the whole concept of sin otherwise and who thereby decry how unfair it is men can have sex with 5 women and not incur the same social cost (stigma) as women that have sex with 5 men (aside from the fact a woman can have sex with 20,000 men far easier than a man can convince 5 women into bed).
Most Republicans I know are NOT for the freedom to choose. Furthermore, you can claim that you support the freedom to choose but you vote for the opposite...
In my interaction with my more conservative/Republican friends/family, they really do support the freedom of choice. As long as it coincides with their belief system, their definition of values and morals. It looks and feels like freedom of choice as long as you subscribe to same/similar set of views/perceptions.
The minute you deviate (and I do "deviate") from that set of views/perceptions, it changes from an issue of personal freedom of choice to an issue of their religious freedoms.
That does not suffice on the issue of homicide and the US Constitutionally protected right to life. The US Constitution is the highest law of the land in the USA and it does not merely grant state protective right to life to citizens of the USA, but even non-citizens even if they illegally enter the USA.
The species of life in the early stages of development when a human female egg is fertilized is not under questions in the science of biology. To not know what species of life it is or to remain baffled as to how humans reproduce would cast doubt in the whole Theory of Evolution and particularly on its propositions explaining human origins as a species. As the whole Theory can be reduced for simplicity sake to a narrative of sex and death.
The species of life is one issue.
What constitutes personhood is another issue. The question of personhood, however, is not a scientific inquiry but a philosophical inquiry. The US Supreme Court for example, has declared for profit corporations are granted personhood like Obama or one of Trumps children are. In others words the legal entity, that is non-human, non-biological in fact, is a person endowed with the same Civil Rights as any homosexual, black person, undocumented Mexican, woman, child molester, or drunk driver.
The decision of the US Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade can be decifered from the leading Justice statements on his motives, to be a secular religious decision. He viewed "Mother Nature" as a big meanie that is unfair, unjust, and inferior to US capitalist ideas of fair chances to compete in the workforce, by biologically incurring more cost to females than to males when it comes to humans reproducing.
The US Supreme Court's biased decision makes as much scientific sense as their past decision to regard black phenotypic humans as a lesser percentage of humans than white phenotypic humans.
So, it is neither here nor there if a libertarian is personally opposed to abortion or mother commiting infanticide or personally opposed to a father sexually molesting his 10 year-old daughter, or if he or she is a feminist angered at the prevailing scientific theory explaining how humans reproduce thinking that end of a Godless biological evolutionary process is flawed, unfair, and a big meanie.
Furthermore, when hearing the "Roe for Men" case challenging tricks by women who claim infertility trapping men who have made it known they do not want to be fathers, the US Supreme Court Justices hearing the case laughed and ruled when a man engages in the risky behavior of sexual intercourse he gives up all rights to choice of being a father.
Basically, the Justices are saying when a guy and gal get together to have sexual intercourse they are engaging in a risky behavior that can result in a pregnancy. But that only the man is held personally responsible for the outcome of having sex.
So, no, when US Constitutional law is interjected into legal opinion and legislation on a matter, it is not merely an issue left between "a woman and God."
Let us know when you figure out how to make pregnancy fair.
Until you have figured out how to make men suffer all of the negatives of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth things will never be fair.
Risks to health and life, discomfort and agonizing pain.
Risk of losing income, job promotions or outright losing a job.
Financial losses. Missed work, medical expenses, new clothing, etc.
Until all of these things are made fair, abortion will remain the woman's choice.
After birth, men and women are already held equally responsible.....that is as close to fair as nature will allow.
Registered as a Republican, but far more Libertarian in ideology (though not completely on board with all they say they stand for). So, pro-choice until the third trimester. Once the baby stands a chance at life outside the womb, you shouldn't have the choice to terminate it unless there are SEVERE medical reasons for it.
Compromise needs to come from the extreme left. The extreme right needs to drop their attempts to change existing legislation.
You believe in choice until you choose to have the kid and then you want a man to pay for that choice.
Well I might be speaking for myself only but I personally believe in choice. In fact though having a baby would mean I'd want the man to be in my life (or I wouldn't have one with him) I don't expect him to pay. It'd be nice but he doesn't have to and I definitely don't want him to pay for all of it. I also would value his time and his emotional support more than his money but I wouldn't think as highly of him if he simply did not want to pay because if I loved the man enough to have a baby with him then it's wrong to sleep with me knowing that. The money itself doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Pregnancy is very difficult so if he hit it and quit it that would be very disappointing. Maybe I'm not like other people though because even if a man was rich, I would still want to have a career and not just be a stay at home wife/mom. So I'd rather have him help me get a good job if I was struggling than help me pay for it more than anything
However, the thing about it is it doesn't matter. Choice to pay for the kid=/ having the kid. That's why there seems to be a contradiction. The man didn't go through carrying the child for 9 months and the thing is if he didn't want the kid then he shares some of the responsibility too. He should have found out more about her if he was that adamant about it..make sure they're on the same path.
It also is rather difficult to get a job or hold a job when you're pregnant so unfortunately for us both he might have to help me financially anyway...at least until the baby arrives.
Last edited by Nickchick; 02-15-2017 at 06:03 PM..
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.
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.
We should compromise on the abortion issue.
