Post #349,469
10/21/11 8:55:58 AM
|
Nice try.
He explicitly stated a "Pro-Choice" position.
No, it comes down to it's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision.
Pro-Lifers want to ban it, make it illegal. Most moderate that view to include exceptions for rape and/or incest. But the whole discussion is idiotic. I find myself agreeing with Cain here. It is a private matter, just as any other decision concerning healthcare is. You can argue about whether or not you want to live in a society (as we apparently wish to do) in which only those fortunate enough to have the cash to pay for healthcare get it. But that is a different question.
His position as stated here is unambiguously Pro-Choice.
|
Post #349,470
10/21/11 9:18:58 AM
|
Doesn't really matter
he isn't going to get to Pres for us to have to worry about it.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #349,471
10/21/11 9:27:20 AM
|
Careful. I said the same thing about Dubya. ;0)
|
Post #349,484
10/21/11 10:12:09 AM
|
No, that's a submarine statement
His policy actions will be driven by this.
He explicitly said he will only appoint judges that will allow prosecution of abortion doctors and cut any funding possible in any way.
He's clear on this.
And Bush (no matter how stupid) made it in. There is NO pass on these statements.
So no matter what he said about his daughter, he will make sure it is as difficult as possible. Which in some states means traveling 6 hours to the only clinic in the state, getting a horror story read, and then delaying 24 hours before having the abortion. Which means they rent a room or travel back and forth.
The cost skyrockets, and people in that situation are already on the edge. So to have to spend a few hundred over baseline for no reason other than political pandering (a state by state issue) is the issue. Either it's legal or not, and if legal, any non-medical based impediments are not acceptable.
Which means these laws get challenged and end up at the supreme court.
Which means any candidate who's position is in the direction of these impediments fails.
That's MY litmus test on this issue.
Do you have one?
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life."
|
Post #349,487
10/21/11 11:51:34 AM
|
That was a revision to the earlier statements
and, quite frankly, a very large change in the meaning of those statements.
Until he is actually a candidate, not a "potential" candidate. I'm not going to waste my time on it. The earlier "plus" points he got from the initial statement have been rescinded, because he clearly (now) didn't mean what he said (then).
And I'm not going to engage with you one way or the other on this issue. If you'd like, you can invent a position for me and debate it, you've done this before.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #349,513
10/22/11 7:01:56 AM
|
No assumptions here
As you said, he not a candidate yet.
But I just wanted to state my position and why.
No hassles to you.
|
Post #349,517
10/22/11 7:32:07 AM
|
On the other hand, his star is rising
|
Post #349,524
10/22/11 10:31:37 AM
|
the board rooms like him and he isnt mormon
his tax plan pleases the tea partiers so if he can fundraise he has a shot on the ballot
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #349,518
10/22/11 7:32:09 AM
10/22/11 9:50:44 AM
|
Dupe
Edited by crazy
Oct. 22, 2011, 09:50:44 AM EDT
|
Post #349,472
10/21/11 9:32:17 AM
|
Two points.
First and foremost: It is a private medical decision and the only principal involved is the woman. She may CHOOSE to be informed by her partner, family, doctor, clergy, or pet cat. She is the only principal in the decision. If he ever said that, I would deem him correct. It is my impression he replaced conciseness with a lot of weasel words, but I'm being hugely fallible these days.
Second: I don't think the point is that he actually has made a clear stand. I think he is trying to stand firmly on both sides of the fence without straddling. It's a difficult trick and I don't think he does it very well. In my opinion, he's just another hack who would piss on a spark plug for more power or prestige read MONEY
|
Post #349,475
10/21/11 9:37:53 AM
10/21/11 9:39:07 AM
|
Addendum. And I have a point for you.
I should have said that I agree with the quoted statement as written.
I'll buy your argument that "the only principal involved is the woman" if and only if you buy the proposition that the biological father to an out of wedlock pregnant teen is held harmless by any decision the "woman" makes.
An out of wedlock teen pregnancy is a mistake. Once pregnant, a decision needs to be made. Whatever decision is made, if the sperm contributing partner has no say in the next decision, he shouldn't be held accountable for the consequences of that decision.
But that's not the way the law currently works, is it? Better to leave it out of the law entirely.
Edited by mmoffitt
Oct. 21, 2011, 09:39:07 AM EDT
|
Post #349,486
10/21/11 11:46:20 AM
|
Different subject, but the law should be rewritten.
Given agreement on the basics, an appropriate law could be written. Before they get to the basics, however, they have to solve something involving waltzing angels and pins. I'm not hopeful.
|
Post #349,488
10/21/11 12:35:42 PM
|
Well, there is that... ;-)
|
Post #349,490
10/21/11 12:41:13 PM
|
144 well known fact
used to be 150 but six got pulled off due to the burgeoning virgin supply crisis
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
