Reply With Quote
Bout freakin time, women in America need to be taken down a peg or two
Jan 22, 5:37 PM EST
Brownback, Hunter Vow to Overturn Roe
By SAM HANANEL
Associated Press Writer
APWASHINGTON (AP) -- Two of the Republicans' most conservative presidential hopefuls promised anti-abortion activists on Monday that if elected, they would work to overturn the Supreme Court decision legalizing the procedure.
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and California Rep. Duncan Hunter addressed the annual March for Life marking the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
"We recognize a tragedy of life in Roe v. Wade, but that tragedy will not always stand," Brownback told thousands of cheering abortion foes at an afternoon rally.
...
"If we have a judicial applicant, a judicial nominee who can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see the value of human life ... if I should become president of the United States, he will not receive a judicial appointment," Hunter said.
Sad (for women), but It get's even nuttier for Hunter...
Think ProgressAppearing at yesterday’s rally, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) declared that judicial nominees should be given a sonogram test before being confirmed. “If we have a judicial applicant…who can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see the value of human life,” then “he will not receive a judicial appointment,” Hunter announced. “I tell you what you he will receive, he will get an appointment with an optometrist so he can get a pair of eye glasses.”
Bout freakin time, women in America need to be taken down a peg or two
One thing I'll NEVER agree with Repubs on is abortion.
The GOP had the majority of both houses of Congress and the President. Abortion is still legal. They talk a good game, but only propose legislation when they are the minority party, and they can throw rocks at the Dems when it gets shot down. They have no interest in making abortion illegal. If they did, it would be.
The Republicans only talk about abortion when it is election time. Their wealthy benefactors want to keep abortion legal.
Abortion suppresses the population of certain groups.
Your premise is unsupported drivel. The Democrats support for abortion, however, is well known.
Speaks well of 'em, eh?
The only bills that come out of the GOP are to restrict abortion on demand -- not to ban it outright. The latter is merely wedge-issue rhetoric.
But yes, the Democrats who hold up abortion as a hallmark of sexual freedom would appear to have some moral issues. Not all Democrats can be pigeonholed that way, however -- for example, the Senate Majority Leader.
Or, it could be that "on demand" abortions comprise the vast majority of all abortion and that Republicans would like to separate the debate of killing for convenience from killing under duress.
That's why I approve of approaches that attempt to address convenience abortions first. It's only then that we can tackle the more sensitive issue of pregnancies resulting from rape, incest, or that endanger the life of the mother.
What is her angle?
Let's tabilulate the score so far..
GOP wants no abortions under any cir stance...yet they oppose birth control being readily available. They don't want the morning after pill that would in effect eliminate the need for an abortion... GOP oppposes the bill because it promotes promiscuity.. They don't want anyone telling their kids about birth control because if you just tell teenagers not to do it they won't... No birth control for married women either for the GOP... to me it seems as though the GOP wants no one to have sex unless it is for pro-creation... but thankfully they are for limited govt and keeping it our of our lives..
Yeah, let's. But, first, let's disassemble the following.
"...under any cir stance..." is neither absolute nor universal in the Republican Party. There are a wide range of positions on this issue. You're being disingenuous when you say this and it weakens whatever argument you're about to make, before it's even been read.
Also a mischaracterization.
They have concerns over the morning after pill and of minors being able to receive what amounts to medical care without a parent's knowledge and consent.
I know of no widespread Republican consensus on denying the use of condoms, or birth control pills, or sponges, or diaghrams, or abstinence for that matter.
Birth control, as a religious matter however, does present problems for many Democrats who happen to be Catholic and there are more Catholic Democrats than there are Catholic Republicans.
They don't want the morning after pill because 1) there are concerns it is harming women and 2) there is, arguably, a case to be made that it cons uted abortion or, as former Vice President Al Gore said, it is arguably the taking of a human life.
Not being a settled issue, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and not provide women with a means to harm themselves and commit infanticide.
I know you don't share this view and, reasonable people can disagree. I'm not saying I'm settled on the matter though.
I've never heard the argument that "...it promotes promiscuity..." except in the context that everything you do to relieve people of personal responsibility promotes irresponsibility. This is just one way.
You're right, I don't want the schools teaching my children about how to apply a condom or safe sex techniques. And, I don't think that's unreasonable.
I'm not sure I know to what you're referring here unless it's back to the morning after pill thing. Do tell.
Well, it doesn't seem that way to me. My wife and I are no longer procreating and we're still intimate. Where, on earth, did you get that idea?
Yep, like dropping all Gov't subsidy of Planned Parenthood and abortion.but thankfully they are for limited govt..
So your against the morning after pill due to safety concerns? Aspirin is sold over the counter. Some people have adverse reactions to it yet no one is crying for parents to be notified that their children are taking ibuprofen... it's about sex admit it..
Question about your kids. I will assume that you will tell them the best way to avoid std's, getting pregnant etc is abstinence.. so what if they don't listen or let's say 1 child does and the other does not... woohoo unprotected sex..! Very naive.
People under 18 have sex?!
For fun?!
GTFOOH....you guys are kidding, right? Well then, all we need to do is pass a law that says peeps under 18 cant have sex....that'll do the trick.
The good, medicinal, and healing properties of aspirin, acetomenophin, and ibuprofen far, far outway the risks. I dare say, more people have been saved by the simple act of taking an aspirin at the onset of a heart attack than have by taking the morning after pill.
I demand to know when my children are medicated and, if my I knew my child was susceptible to any adverse affects of any over-the-counter medication, you're damn right I'd be "...crying...to be notified..."
It's about a whole range of issues, abortion, parental notification, and parental control. I could care less what two consenting adults do in the private.
I care a whole of a lot what people do to my children and to unborn children.
There's not a question in there...unless you're wanting me to answer the "so what if they don't listen" rhetoric.
If they don't listen, they won't have listened to the consequences I told them about either and they'll be held accountable for their actions. Just like with anything we try to teach our children.
I'll still love them and I'll support them through whatever hardships their choice has resulted.
What's the point?
His. Harry Reid. He is pro-life.
If your child decided that they could not wait to have sex wouldn't you want them to protect themselves? Or would you want to open them to potentially deadly consequences? Seems like a tough lessen to learn when they get aids don't you think? Aren't you supposed to protect your children?
On a side note I certainly don't wish any harm to you or your family I am just trying understand your point if view.
Yes, when did I say I was opposed to birth control?
Well, in addition to informing them of all the risks involved in sex, I would also mention that there are no birth control methods, except abstinence, that eliminate the chance of contracting HIV.
Yep.
Understood, no malicious undertone was inferred by me. And, thanks for saying that.
Brownback Mountain!"brownback-hunter"
YahooRepublican presidential candidate Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) is backing the Pentagon's top general over his remarks that sexuality is immoral.
The Kansas senator planned to send a letter on Thursday to President Bush supporting Marine Gen. Peter Pace, who earlier this week likened sexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs also said: "I believe that sexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."
Lawmakers of both parties criticized the remarks, but Brownback's letter called the criticism "both unfair and unfortunate."
"We should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues," Brownback said. "In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views."
Asked whether he agreed with Pace's comments, Brownback said: "I do not believe being a sexual is immoral, but I do believe sexual acts are. I'm a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this."
The church also has views on the war in Iraq and the death penalty...
[redacted because I don't want to get into a pointless argument about ethics]
Last edited by Bob Lanier; 03-15-2007 at 06:13 PM.
Six years, no laws making abortion illegal.
ye gods
Last edited by Don Quixote; 03-15-2007 at 09:31 PM. Reason: duplicated
It's a little more complicated than merely having a GOP majority to make abortion illegal.
First of all, such a bill would never get through the Senate. The House, maybe, but not the Senate. It would have taken 60 votes in the Senate, and we're forgetting that a number of Republicans are pro-abortion(e.g, Specter, McCain). So, if the bill had seen the light of day in the Senate, it would have been voted down.
Second, we must remember that abortion was legalized thru a court decision. It was not put before the people and voted on. Nor was it put through Congress. I imagine the idea of the judiciary writing laws troubles alot of people. I understand that even some liberal, pro-abortion types are not happy with the precedent of bypassing Congress, and don't like Roe-Wade for that reason. So, if the bill passed Congress, the still-liberal judiciary would vote it down.
Hence, we have the need for judicial nominees that will strictly interpret the Cons ution, and resist the temptation to see in the Cons ution things that are not there. I imagine that's the source of the angst over anyone Pres. Bush nominates?
There's more to say here about abortion, but I'll leave it at the political reality. Let's not demonize Sen. Brownback over his convictions. He is acting on the desires of his cons uents and, I suspect, a large portion of the U.S. population.
As I said, I will not debate Americans about ethics, but I'm willing to argue facts.
Neither Arlen Specter nor (especially) John McCain is in favor of abortion rights. You're not off to a good start here.
An obvious impossibility, although a neat rhetorical trick.strictly interpret the Cons ution
As one recalls, it is the job of judges to decide what qualities are or are not there in a piece of legislation in the United States.see in the Cons ution things that are not there.
Should one demonize, say, Usama bin Laden for his convictions?Let's not demonize Sen. Brownback over his convictions.The 22% of the U.S. population that completely opposes abortion rights is indeed sizeable. Not so much compared to the 34% that believes in UFOs and alien abduction or the 29% that have faith in astrology, but quite comparable to the 24% that have found some reason to believe in the existence of witches.I suspect, a large portion of the U.S. population.
Abortion illegal and amnesty for illegal aliens?
If it were to come true...Republican political Jonestown. There would be so many more Dems in this country a Republican would never get elected again.
Quoted for Truth.
Abortion legislation is the last thing any career politician would want to touch outside the ultra-conservative, low population state reps.
What senator/rep from a large popualtion state would endorse such a bill?
Answer would probably be zero. Because its all well and good for someone from Kansas, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota or Nebraska to political pander to their conservative cons uents, its whole other matter when youre from Texas, Florida, any New England state, Arizona, California, etc.
Its political suicide for alot of politicians and there isnt a person in Washington willing to sacrifice their career for their convictions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
