Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Rules are beliefs and must be imposed. We can debate what rules should and shouldn't be imposed upon society, but in the end it is all going to be sets of beliefs coliding with each other. >> So I guess the question is how outlawing abortion improves our society to the extent that it should be the law of the land? Quite frankly, our society is probably not served well when it has a population of unwanted children born into poverty and unloving homes. How are the evangelicals improving the lives of children that are unloved and unwanted? I suppose that the rich are showering their wealth on all these children when they get tax cuts that favor them?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>So, Mr. X do you have a problem with giving back the rights to the States, instead of the Federal Government, which is what would happen if Roe vs Wade is overturned?<< I'm not X, but as long as one of the states is Mississippi, YES! >>McCain has already promised to nominate pro-lifers (a Palin in the Oval would be several magnitudes more extreme imho), and there will likely be at least a couple new justices in the next 4-8 years.<< A question kind of from the dark side ... Given that Justices have to be confirmed by the Senate, and it appears that the senate is going to be controlled by the Democrats, why is this an issue with the President? It seems pretty unlikely that even Palin could get a genuine pro-life judge on the Supreme Court at this point in time. Your thoughts?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Congress has never fared too well when it has blocked judicial nominations. They've done it before, but the public tires of it quickly. McCain would have to pick an awfully controversial judge to have the nomination blocked no matter who has the majority.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***So, Mr. X do you have a problem with giving back the rights to the States, instead of the Federal Government, which is what would happen if Roe vs Wade is overturned?*** Absolutely, yes. It would most certainly lead to outlawing the practice in many states, and making criminals out of many women.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox "How are the evangelicals improving the lives of children that are unloved and unwanted?" I KNOW! I KNOW! <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html" target="_blank">http://voices.washingtonpost.c...elp.html</a> "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live." It would appear that one particular Alaskan evangelical is NOT improving the lives of children that are unloved and unwanted. At least, not the lives of their mothers.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Why did Bush appoint a supreme court judge who was pro-choice? I mean, had he appointed a pro-life judge Roe V. Wade could already be overturned. This brings back the idea that perhaps the Republicans don't want to make abortion illegal because it would take away that major platform for them.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Darkbeer my buddy. Why do you always try to bring up ONLY the bad or percieved bad things of the Democrats .. and never point out the wrongs of the Republican party? I thought you said you were Libertarian with slight leeniance to fiscal conservative views ... when we went to Knott's Halloween Haunt a few years ago. Maybe you've changed .. I don't know. I think you are a great guy .. and a fair person ... so please do us the honor and let the Republicans have it! From time to time. Lets point out some of the ills of their policies/people. Dems may not be saints .. but niether are the Republicans!!!!!!!!! Who exactly have made the messes of the last 8 years? Not the Democrats!
