What makes people vote republican?

I believe Harry Reid is a perfect example of what makes people vote Republican.
So are the rest of the morons on the left.

What I mean by that is that they just sound crazy and the Republicans sounds reasonable. Until they take office and lower my taxes but spend more fucking money than ever before. And get rich off of it too.

When they changed the bankruptcy laws a while back, did they make it easy for our country as a whole to file with the rest of the world? Sure hope so.

Sometimes I feel it would be better if we just repealed every law that wasn't basic stuff and started over.

Murder rape and incest would still be illegal but almost everything else would have to be worked out all over again.

 

I agree with this.

 

I'm giving that a lot of thought as well.

 

I think you can be consistent on abortion and the death penalty either way. You can say a fetus simply isn't a life, and therefore you're not taking one so abortion is ok, but capital punishment isn't, because you're taking a life. And vice versa, you can say it's fine to take a life via capital punishment because that person's actions make him deserving of death whereas a fetus (if you consider it a life) has done nothing to derserve it.

However, I think liberals and conservatives tend to be inconsistent on nature vs. nuture questions. For example, liberals tend to think homosexuality is something we're "born with" and gender-based differences are something society "teaches" us, while conservatives tend to think the opposite. I doubt either is correct.

 

Abortion is a difficult thing for me. I am pro-life, I believe life begins at conception, and I believe that if you had to choose between a baby's right to life and a woman's right to choose, I'd say the former is more important.

I've tried to wrestle with the idea that government should stay out of health care, and that should include abortion, but at the same time I can't really get behind it 100 percent.

I've voted for pro-choice candidates, and I'll do it again. I don't really think abortion right now is as fundamental an issue in this race as the economy or the war, which is why I got pissed off when these "conservatives" who hate John McCain but love Fred Thompson (who used to be pro-choice) and Mitt Romney (who used to be multiple-choice) said no to guys like Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman because of their abortion stances. Lieberman I could understand, but to disqualify someone like Ridge because of one issue kind of sucks IMO.

 

One thing that has always puzzled me about pro-death folks is that their stance is that if a person kicks a dog, they should go to jail. If a person takes a baby half way out of the womb on delivery, kills it, we should celebrate "choice". To me, logic dictates that human life is more important than a bruise on a dog's fanny.

BTW, I don't kick dogs.

 

Abortion is a difficult issue. I'm pro-choice, but I absolutely understand and empathize with the pro-life perspective. And don't entirely disagree with it. I do my best to maintain what I see as a reasoned, consistent position, which is that abortion should be a choice before the fetus becomes what we'd recognize as "human life" but after that point, abortion can only happen to save the mother's life.

What this boils down to as a matter of policy, for me, is that abortion can be freely chosen in the first trimester only. From what I've read of the medical science, most doctors and neuroscientists believe that the brain develops what we'd consider human consciousness sometime in the second trimester. In the first trimester, it definitely doesn't have a human-like brain, and in the third trimester it definitely does.

But I don't feel the fires of 100% conviction. It just feels like the best compromise between choice and "life" to me.

 

While I may disagree with this, I have to admit it's the most reasonable thought on the subject of pro-choice I have seen. Well written, too.

 

What if scientists discover that if a pregnant woman eats cream cheese during the first six months of her pregnancy, the fetus would be aborted? Other than that, it has no effect. Should we ban cream cheese? Or should we prohibit pregnant women from eating it?

Now, what if scientists then discover that eating a cream cheese and jelly sandwich during the first six months of pregnancy has a one in ten chance of ending the pregnancy. Do we ban cream cheese and jelly sandwiches? Do we prohibit pregnant women from eating them? Or is this different, because it is unlikely that the fetus will be aborted, and therefore there will be no intent?

Should pregant women become wards of the state, prohibited from taking any action or participating in any activity that could harm the fetus? Should they be required to take certain vitamins if it is shown that the baby, when born, will be healthier and smarter? Should they be prohibited from smoking, or eating peanuts because there is a higher chance that the child will be allergic? Or is the condition of the fetus up to the mother, so long as the fetus is born?

Should pregnant women be required to devote their lives to taking care of the fetus inside them, even if they don't want it, without compensation? Does this deprive them of their freedom? Would this fall under the definition of slavery (doing work for the sole benefit of another person without compensation or the ability to stop working)?

If a pregnant woman is prohibited from ending her pregnancy, what sort of social programs should be in place to either make sure that the child is cared for properly, or to take over if the parents don't want the child? Who should pay for such programs? Should our federal tax dollars support foster care for all the additional unwanted children? Or should the parents be required to raise the children once they are born?

 

here's one more question. There is something called a "blighted ovum," which is one way a fetus can self-abort, usually in the first trimester. It is not uncommon. If abortion is outlawed, when a blighted ovum is claimed as the reason a pregnancy was terminated, should there be some sort of hearing to determine with certainty that the mother did not artificially abort the fetus on her own to end her pregnancy? How would you prove that? Where would the burden of proof lie?

 

I love how people have to come up with rediculous hypotheticals to support their positions. Did you know in many states if you stab a pregnant woman and kill her unborn baby, it is murder?

Did you know that in many states a mother who takes drugs and harms her unborn baby is guilty of child endangerment or similar crimes?

If a mother has a handicapped child, which causes her great frustration, should we allow her to kill it because of the inconvenience?

If a mom legally buys whiskey and gives her child a bunch, should we outlaw whiskey? What?

Why talk about cream cheese?

Why is prostitution illegal but abortion isn't? A woman can choose anything to do with her body or her baby as long as it's not profitable? Huh?

 

Either it self terminates or it doesn't. If an abortion wasn't induced by surgery or drugs, then what is the issue? Miscarriages happen all the time.

Nobody is talking about hauling women in to court on such issues (another extreme example to try and support a weak position). Prevent doctors from doing it and don't approve drugs who's primary purpose is abortion and that is fine with me.

 

Please don't ascribe some sinister intent or agenda to me and my posts. Thanks.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend.

I do get a lot of that kind of response, however. I talk in terms of 99% of what really goes on with pregnancies and abortions, and the response comes about regarding some obscure fact pattern that either doesn't exist, or exists for 0.0001% of the population. I would rather people just faced the 99%.

 

I'm just asking questions to fully understand everyone's position--not just yours. It is meant as a starting point for debate. I haven't described my position, and please don't assumptions based on the line of questioning. If you don't like the examples I gave (which is fair), how about this one: there is a chance, although a small one, that a woman's pregnancy could be terminated early if the mother does something active like ski or go on a zip line. If an unborn fetus is given the full gamut of rights, should these activities be prohibited? Should a pregnant woman be prosecuted for skiing or going down a zip line, even though the chance of something bad happening is small? Should it depend on how many months pregnant she is? What should the limit be, and who should decide it? Who will enforce it?

I think the hardest question to answer is this: If the Catholic Church suddenly changed its stance, and announced that abortion was okay, how would it affect the debate? How (if at all) would it affect people's opinion? If the answer is that many people's views would instantly change, should that affect any decision on whether abortion should be outlawed? In short, to what extent is this debate directed by religious views? And, if that is the case, why should non-Catholics be handcuffed by the viewpoint of a religion that they do not support?

 

Existing laws cover this. If a mom takes her child skiing and the child dies, is she guilty of murder? No. If she recklessly shoves the child and they die (not murder, maybe manslaughter)? If she plans and then kills the child? Yes, murder. The crimes are already defined by intent and the DAs use discretion in choosing who to prosecute. Your fact patterns would be no different. Having a miscarriage after an active sport would be a very sad accident--no more.

I'm not Catholic, so I don't know how this would change things. I would hope most people at least considered the science, rather than have their oppinion based solely on religion--or lack thereof.