The GOP VP Charade

Completely incorrect. Pro Choice is the elevation of the individual over everything else. The idea is that an individual woman, irrespective of the "common good" or basic morality, has the right in and of herself to choose whether some of those people around get to live or not.

To cast it as individualism vs. collectivism is incorrect.

 

Really? Then how is it then pro choicers who you claim elevate the individual over everything else is willing to murder another individual? Maybe it's just me but that doesn't make sense somehow.

Unless they feel an unborn child isn't an individual and if that's the case...where'd they get that idea? Is it selfishness maybe? Or could it be peer pressure?

Incorrect? How so? It seems to me that if everyone put the individual's rights first we'd have a whole lot less murder and war going on. Not trying to throw in an extra variable here by mentioning war but wars do seem to be fought to protect the "common good" at least that's what all the propaganda leading up to them is based on.

I have another question about abortion that I've always wondered about. I'm going to start another thread and see what others think about it. Hope you'll join in PL. I'm interested in what your answer might be.

I started it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1286164#post1286164

 

iq4 truth said this "I implore you to help end the GOP charade and vote Chuck Baldwin for president."


Are you sure you want everyone to take this advice?

 

They are elevating themselves ... their own individual desires. The point of "pro choice" is an individual's right to privacy so-called and an individual's right to her so called reproductive health. The mother is not considering anyone else. She is considering only herself. That, by definition, is individualism.

 

Yes, I'm afraid I do!

 

That by definition is selfishness. If she had any consideration for any individual but herself she might think differently.

 

It has nothing to do with either party or congress for that fact. It has to do with nine judges.....

 

Abortions went down under Clinton and flattened out under Bush. It wasn't because of anything Clinton did specifically but was probably due to a strong economy and maybe giving poor Americans a little more hope for the future.

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html

 

If you had a mind , I wonder what it would think about your cut 'n paste skills?

 

Well as you say yourself, the missiles in Poland will be defensive. They are no threat to Russia. And the Poles are asking for defensive weapons after seeing what Putin is doing in Georgia. A wise choice on their part.

 

However, the judges are appointed by the President - so which party holds the office of President is important.

 

The President nominates the candidate. The Senate hold hearings and must approve the person. So, it is both the President and the Senate.

No candidate who says that precedent is not imprtant will not be approved. Roe v Wade has more precedent than any other case in US history. So, if the justices were truthful in their hearings Roe v. Wade will not be overturned.

No, I am not pro abortion.

 

Remember that one can say that precedent is important without saying that precedent is binding. I don't know of any justice who believes that precedent is always binding. I think all would agree that it is not.

 

I agree and we see that in history where cases have been overturned, i.e. the Dred Scott decision for one. Of course that was a terrible decision.



But to overturn a decision that has more precedent than any case in US history does not seem very possible.

Time will tell.

 

Precedent has no bearing on R V. W as it has no legal standing. The one who brought the suit has aditted it was brought under false pretenses.