The GOP VP Charade

I hope every republican here takes your advice!

 

This is simply incorrect. It's irrelevant now, but let's be more careful with the truth.

 

What is the truth on this topic?

 

They did very little. Nothing to really impact the law on abortion.

 

The truth is that they did something. They may have done very little (as BB says), but it was something, and contrary to BB, it did impact the law on abortion when they made PBA illegal.

So we can complain that enough wasn't done. But to say that nothing was done is incorrect.

 

But what we can REALLY say, is that truly changing the fact that abortions happen may not necessarily reside with a particular party.

 

The vow to sign FOCA does reside with a particular party - the Dems.

 

Poor example...

....But I certainly get the point. :thumbs:

 

What was done? I do not believe anything nor do I believe Congress can do anything. I do see politicians using abortion as a hot topic to try to get elected but they know they can do nothing.

Now I do fault them with indirectly promoting teen pregnancy as they have passed rules, or the admin has ... not sure who is to blame the most ... for allowing funds for sex education to be on abstence only and no information being allowed to be taught on other ways of avoiding pregnancy. Abstence should be taught, but we all know that the large majority of teenagers are not going to get out of high school as virgins. So, as the families and churches are not doing their job on sex education it is left to the schools and they are not allowed to teach develop and teach a good program.:tonofbricks:

 

Not necessarily. With the Dems there is no chance that anything will done. With the Repubs there is some chance that something will be done.

'

As I said the PBA ban, as well as funding changes, as well as two conservative court nominees.

It is not the government's job to teach kids how to have s*x without pregnancy. Abstinence is the only thing that should be taught. Testimonies of young mothers who have lost their childhood should be paraded about loudly and kids warned about it. Believe me, there is enough information about how to have sex without getting pregnant, that schools don't need to be doing it, and in fact should not be doing. Our goal should not be to keep kids from getting pregnant. Our goal should be to keep kids from having sex.

 

What I disagree with is turning elections into one or two issues, when those one or two issues is just as you say...."some chance".

I think there is a greater chance that abortions will decrease if we worry about caring for people who face these decisions, and guide them to make the right decisions as opposed to acting like a 10 year old at a hanna montana concert because your "pro-life" candidate just bad mouthed the opponent.

With the power of the gospel, it isn't just chance. People's hearts will completely transform. I know your response, and that is my tension, because I'm not saying we shouldn't care who is in office, or that we shouldn't worry about voting...not at all. I just know I don't want to be the way many are on the right. Not because I disagree with what they say...but with how they portray it.

 

As opposed to giving it no chance? I will take "some chance" over "no chance" any day, particularly on important issues.

I can't think of any redeeming value to Hanna Montana, and particularly not for 10-year olds who need good role models. I think we should care about people making these decisions. But murder is a serious matter. We have laws that protect some people; we should have them for all people. Caring for them should not be held in tension against that.

 

What is behind all the efforts to place the gospel as being diabolically opposed to passing laws against murder. How about let's make murder illegal for everyone and reach out to people who have unwanted unborn children at the same time. As if that isn't already happening.

 

I voted for Bush in 2000. The Republicans had control of the Senate, the House, the Presidency and 7 of the 9 in the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans. If they wanted to change Roe- Wade, they had their best chance. They talk a good talk, but do nothing to change the status quo. I'm not chasing the carrot, they dangle. As for McCain, when showing the video introducing Cindy McCain at the RNC, they said it was love at first sight when they ment in Hawaii. What the didn't mention was that John was still married to his first wife. On 3/6/80, He got his marriage license in AZ (with Cindy) before he was divorced. And on the issues he has changed his position on just about everything at least once. Back to Bush, he has our soldiers train Georgia (the country) soldiers, he wants to put a defensive missles in Poland (in case Iran attacks them) and then wonders why Russia is upset. What if Putin was training troops in Mexico and put missles in Cuba- who would be upset? I made a mistake in 2000, not this year.

 

Good post. I'm ashamed to admit I voted for "W" in 2000, and even more ashamed to admit I voted for him again in 2004. Not falling for the neocons' Orwellian propaganda anymore (ie WAR IS PEACE).

 

So you think they should have not banned it? Murder is murder, and if we stop some by banning PBA that is a good thing. It is not enough but it is good.

I can't understand why you say this. I see no evidence that anyone here doesn't understand and agree with you. If you have someone in mind, please quote them so we can see that they disagree that PBA is murder.

That is still false (just as it was last time you said it). They have not done enough, but they have done something. Ignoring Ron Paul is not the same as doing nothing.

I agree. But that's not the point. You said they had done nothing at all, and the truth is that something has been done. It has not been enough, but it was something. So your original argument and your subsequent post are simply incorrect.

 

Preach it, PL.

So, let's vote for Obama and the Democratic Party and then we can be ASSURED that nothing at all will be done!!

 

I'll probably get called names for this but, imho you guys are focused on the wrong thing here. Pro choice is a matter of perspective imho. For the record I am against abortion in any form as it takes the life of an innocent individual.

Which brings me to my point. Pro choice as it's called seems to come from the collectivist idea of what's best for the "common good" or sacrificing the individual for the greater good of the group. If that is the case as I suspect it is then wouldn't it be wise to put our energy into spreading the idea of individualism which is the idea of protecting the individual's rights...like the right to life?

I mean we can keep trying to bring down the tree by picking it's leaves off one at a time our we can take an axe to the root. I think the later would be more productive myself.

Just my two cents.