Are Liberal/Democrats Pro Choice?

[BIgDaddyChia]

Cause if they are this car I saw today is confused. Pro Life and For Obama.

[5-90]

Yes, they are. The Left tends to be in favour of abortion, including late-term abortion; while the Right tends more toward the religious "pro-life" stance.

If anyone is wondering, I personally believe that abortion should not be practised as retroactive birth control - there are plenty of methods out there that are cheaper, entail far less risk (surgery is always risky!) and can approach 100% effectiveness when used in combination. Publicly, it's a matter of personal choice, and I do not RPT not have the right to dictate what another person does with their body. I don't have to agree with it, but I haven't the right to prevent it. Nor the arrogance.

And yes, I lean fairly well to the right of centre (conservative libertarian, if anything. Less government, more personal freedom.) The "libertarian" view is what you see in the previous - just because I don't agree with it personally doesn't give me the right to dictate it.

[JoesXJ]

IMHO Being for or against abortion should not have anything to do with who you vote for or what party you align with.

[JoesXJ]

< I'm a pro abortion (in certain cases), pro gun rights, pro gay rights, pro regulation of the govenment, anti tax, semi religious, married white middle class undecided voter. :D

[Nuke Proof]

I just like to bitch....hehehehehee

Pro abortion in the case of a legal or moral (rape or incest) and pro life in any other case and I am a strong conservative to boot. And I hate anyone that tries to take away my gun's.

I'm not saying there's a war comming, but if there is, I am definitly prepared.........

[Tom R.]

Not everything is so black and white. There's no formula that states if you believe this, then you're a democrat; if you believe that, then you're a republican.

I think Kelly is correct that a party tends to go a certain way, but there are no hard and fast rules.

[Nuke Proof]

Not everything is so black and white. There's no formula that states if you believe this, then you're a democrat; if you believe that, then you're a republican.

I think Kelly is correct that a party tends to go a certain way, but there are no hard and fast rules.

Who is this Kelly that you speak of? Is he fictional or literal?........:dunno:

[Glenn B]

Who is this Kelly that you speak of? Is he fictional or literal?........:dunno:

Kelly is still but a child that likes to speak the Kings English and post like he has been in every concflict known to man in modern times.

In reality, he is a 30 something year old guy that is absolutely-completely afraid of a telephone. IIRC, he also lives with his wife, his wifes mother, his mother, her mother, and her mother. AND lives in the Bay Area. BUT he is cool 'cause he spells "tire" as "tyre" and some other BS.

Go Jon. LMAO.

[Metal Thrasher]

Being a member of one of hte political parties does not mean you HAVE to agree with every one of the party's "tendencies".
Fortunately - so far- the two party system we have has mostly landed us in the middle on most subjects. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans are not far left or far right but rather right in the middle. So on subjects like abortion you are going to have people STUCK in the middle. I think that abortion is one of those issues where most people really don't like it but don't want to see it outlawed becasue there is some need for it. I've known ultra right wing - holier than thous who took their daughter to a clinic and came out preaching against what they had just done as loud as before they went in. I'm pretty sure they were happy not to be breaking the law as well.

[woody]

I want to know which candidate is Pro-chucking them in the woodchipper.

"them" being those deemed worthy...

[JohnX]

< I'm a pro abortion (in certain cases), pro gun rights, pro gay rights, pro regulation of the govenment, anti tax, semi religious, married white middle class undecided voter. :D
Thats funny. Sounds a lot like me....but I don't give a fawk one way or the other about gays and religion.

[Tom R.]

Jon
Jon, Kelly, or even Kelley.... It's all the same, right? ;)

[Nuke Proof]

Kelly is still but a child that likes to speak the Kings English and post like he has been in every concflict known to man in modern times.

In reality, he is a 30 something year old guy that is absolutely-completely afraid of a telephone. IIRC, he also lives with his wife, his wifes mother, his mother, her mother, and her mother. AND lives in the Bay Area. BUT he is cool 'cause he spells "tire" as "tyre" and some other BS.

Go Jon. LMAO.


HAHAHAHAHAHA..........LMAO.........so is this fear of telephones a deep rooted psychological disorder that deals with discipline from his mother, or does it stem from the Fruedian analytical nurture argument?....hehehehehee:huh:

[woody]

Just don't call Glenn 'glen' or 'Gllynn'

Telephone fear is a real thing... not to be made fun of. Mine stems from (nevermind...) F2F and 'e' works for me/

[5-90]

HAHAHAHAHAHA..........LMAO.........so is this fear of telephones a deep rooted psychological disorder that deals with discipline from his mother, or does it stem from the Fruedian analytical nurture argument?....hehehehehee:huh:

Just the annoyance of a device that thinks it can command my attention simply by making an obnoxious noise. Therefore, every phone in my house has a ringer that can be switched OFF.

I don't fear telephones, I simply do not like them. It's probably pathological by now - mum wasn't heavily into discipline growing up, so that's not it.:looney:

(And, while my MIL lives with us, it's not by preference. Both of us are getting tired of her...)

[Nuke Proof]

Just the annoyance of a device that thinks it can command my attention simply by making an obnoxious noise. Therefore, every phone in my house has a ringer that can be switched OFF.

I don't fear telephones, I simply do not like them. It's probably pathological by now - mum wasn't heavily into discipline growing up, so that's not it.:looney:

(And, while my MIL lives with us, it's not by preference. Both of us are getting tired of her...)

All's good just as long as I don't hear about you being on a bell tower with a high powered rifle.
As long as we're on the subject, you should my typical reaction when the phone rings....turns out we have a lot in common, however my childhood has some strong resemblances to Pink Floyd's-The Wall.

[buschwhaked]

I'm a Democrat but I like guns, I'm white, love off roading, my gas guzzling XJ, and I'm in the military. Other than that the stereotypes begin to disappear.

[JohnJohn]

< I'm a pro abortion (in certain cases), pro gun rights, pro gay rights, pro regulation of the govenment, anti tax, semi religious, married white middle class undecided voter. :D

Sounds like you're Libertarian. That's how I define myself. I'm pro choice, knowing I wouldn't choose that does not give me the right to tell others what to choose. I vote Republican though. I pick 10 issues and the Republicans side with me on 7 of the 10. It's always been that way. Even though a few of the 10 things things change every so often.

I'm not super religious...I pray when I buy lotto tickets...come on. (kidding) I do believe that abortion is wrong. I do believe that life starts at conception. I DON'T think it's above my pay grade to have an opinion on the issue either. I have a stronger belief in independent/libertarian values, God, someone, something will judge. All I can do it tell you when I think life starts...I shouldn't force anyone to act on what I believe.

[Rob Mayercik]

Just the annoyance of a device that thinks it can command my attention simply by making an obnoxious noise. Therefore, every phone in my house has a ringer that can be switched OFF.

Except for the part about the OFF switch, it sounds like you just described all our elected officials and a significant number of "celebrities".

What was the name of that guy mentioned at the end of "So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish" who, when locked in his room for a year to invent a defense against an imminent invasion, got distracted and ended up causing peace with his "genetically engineered fly that could fly through the open half of a half-open window" and his "off switch for children"? We should hire him to make us a remote-controlled "MUTE" switch for politicians. Must try to remember to look that up over the weekend...

[5-90]

Except for the part about the OFF switch, it sounds like you just described all our elected officials and a significant number of "celebrities".

What was the name of that guy mentioned at the end of "So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish" who, when locked in his room for a year to invent a defense against an imminent invasion, got distracted and ended up causing peace with his "genetically engineered fly that could fly through the open half of a half-open window" and his "off switch for children"? We should hire him to make us a remote-controlled "MUTE" switch for politicians. Must try to remember to look that up over the weekend...

Don't recall the name, but I know exactly what you're talking about (I've got the entire trilogy - five books and a prequel short story...) Douglas Adams was certainly an oddball in the classic sense. Give both of the Dirk Gently stories a read, and check out The Meaning of Liff as well.

[XJEEPER]

Food for Thought........

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

Doctors at the Christian clinic referred the lesbian to another clinic, but the lesbian refused their referral - demanding that the Christian clinic perform the procedure. When the Christian doctors refused to violate their religious convictions, the lesbian sued and the Supreme Court gave her the victory.

This ruling will affect every business in California. If a similar victory in a federal court is won, every business in America will be affected.

[Darky]

Abortion isn't a religion issue. Yes, most people who claim to be followers of one of the main religions are anti-abortion, pro-life, but that doesn't make it a religious issue. I've also known plenty who were self-professed atheists who believed the same as I do about abortion. I am definitely against it if your reason is that you had sex, got pregnant, and just don't want the kid. If that's the case, carry it through and give the child up for adoption. Its when you throw rape, incest or the mother's life into the mix that I get a little fuzzy on my view.

I'm pro-life, pro-gun, pro-lower tax and even lower spending, quasi-isolationist (only a few cases where I would justify getting involved in other countries' problems, except where it affects our interests in such a fashion that we can't ignore it), pro-religion (obviously) but also pro-"keeping my personal views out of the law except in very few cases. I call myself republican but will vote for whoever upholds my views. Which coincidentally has not been a democrat yet. Oh yeah, I'm also pro-environment, pro-access. Who better to take care of the wilderness and country areas except those who enjoy getting out in it and have the capacity to get out to rugged locations quickly with and gear?

[Darky]

Food for Thought........

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

Doctors at the Christian clinic referred the lesbian to another clinic, but the lesbian refused their referral - demanding that the Christian clinic perform the procedure. When the Christian doctors refused to violate their religious convictions, the lesbian sued and the Supreme Court gave her the victory.

This ruling will affect every business in California. If a similar victory in a federal court is won, every business in America will be affected.
I can't see how she'd win. Ok, so he doctor's view didn't line up with hers and he wouldn't do the procedure. He did however recommend someone who would. He wasn't stopping her from getting it done, just not by him. Its BS if you ask me. Since when did we have the right to make others do what we want when other, equal options are available. Yes, I see the parallel with segregation but I still don't see sexual orientation as the same as race.

[5-90]

Abortion isn't a religion issue. Yes, most people who claim to be followers of one of the main religions are anti-abortion, pro-life, but that doesn't make it a religious issue. I've also known plenty who were self-professed atheists who believed the same as I do about abortion. I am definitely against it if your reason is that you had sex, got pregnant, and just don't want the kid. If that's the case, carry it through and give the child up for adoption. Its when you throw rape, incest or the mother's life into the mix that I get a little fuzzy on my view.

Which lines up with what I'd said. If it's "retroactive birth control," then condoms are cheaper and less invasive; and let's not forget diaphragms, spermicidal foams & gels, knowing your ovulation cycle (not 100%, but far better than nil,) the "morning after" pill, and any of a number of other methods. Reasons of health (physical or mental,) unable to carry a child to term without significant risks, and I'll even go as far as significant congenital defect would be reason for justifiable abortion.

I'm pro-life, pro-gun, pro-lower tax and even lower spending, quasi-isolationist (only a few cases where I would justify getting involved in other countries' problems, except where it affects our interests in such a fashion that we can't ignore it), pro-religion (obviously) but also pro-"keeping my personal views out of the law except in very few cases. I call myself republican but will vote for whoever upholds my views. Which coincidentally has not been a democrat yet. Oh yeah, I'm also pro-environment, pro-access. Who better to take care of the wilderness and country areas except those who enjoy getting out in it and have the capacity to get out to rugged locations quickly with and gear?

"Pro-life?" Yeah - fuzzy there. "Pro-gun?" Mais oui! People have the right to defend themselves, and there's no-one who should be able to regulate, legislate, or strip that right. Period. People who aren't fit to have the tools to defend themselves will be weeded out of an adult society rather quickly. "Pro-lower-tax?" Yep - we were the most prosperous nation on the planet - until all these taxes settled in. We seem to be supporting people who can't support themselves (I'm not talking about old-age or disability pensions - I'm talking about government bureaucracy.) "Isolationist?" Sure - I'm tired of our playing "Globocop" for no good reason, and for no tangible benefit. Sorry, but we're spending a lot of money and getting no return for it - that's a problem. "Pro-environment?" Yes, if we're preserving it to be enjoyed (that's your "pro-access" issue, I'd bet.) What's the point in preserving something if we're not going to enjoy it?

There are some global issues that should be addressed, however. Population control. We're up around seven billion people on this rock, and most sources I can recall seeing (sorry, it's been years. I'd have to dig them up again...) and some exercises in logistics indicate that we were pushing overpopulation at four billion or so. We don't have the room - will Soylent Green be people?

Of course, if the Space Programme had been globalised in the mid-1970's (as it should have been) and carried out to its logical conclusion, we'd have a "jumping-off" station on Luna, we'd have started terraforming Mars and Venus, and we'd be pushing out even farther - with at least one "generation" ship under constant boost heading toward Alpha Centauri (I'm sure there's something there - we just haven't gotten there yet...) We'd probably be about ten years from breathing the air on Venus - Mars might require supplemental oxygen, as it is rather thin there.

"Pro-lower-spending?" That's not hard - fire a third to half of government administration (starting with middle management) out of hand. Go with a flat tax or a National Retail Sales Tax, and we can eliminate half to two-thirds of the Internal Revenue Service out of hand as well - can't get straight answers out of them anyhow. No, I don't want to overthrow the government - I just want to fire them and make them work for a living.

Congress? They're all independently wealthy anyhow, so they get a stipend (similar to the Vermont model,) and no retirement. President? Reduced or no retirement. USSS protection is kinda fuzzy there - former Presidents can carry things around in their heads that we'd rather other people not know. Assassination is less of a risk, to me.

I'm not a "Party" voter - "Parties" aren't that damned much fun (and they don't have a "Party" that lines up with what I'm thinking anyhow.) I tend to vote based on positions and issues. Some thumb rules, tho...

1) Vote AGAINST anything that raises or creates taxes
2) Vote AGAINST any bond issues (if they need money, they already have it - they're just wasting it on themselves.)
3) Cast an empty ballot for any position that either cannot prove its necessity, or has no suitable candidates (None of the Above. Pity it isn't a mechanism for actual change.)
4) Vote AGAINST anyone that makes noise like a Socialist, Communist, Fascist, or Authoritarian (sorry, but that little thumb rule eliminates most Democratic candidates for pretty much anything these days. This one takes precedence over "issue voting.")

5) If I can't get a decision made after all of those, I'll just ask someone - or several someones. Get a consensus, and I usually vote the other way (this being California - and the SF Bay Area! - that's usually a safe way to bet.)

How's all that sound?

[5-90]

I can't see how she'd win. Ok, so he doctor's view didn't line up with hers and he wouldn't do the procedure. He did however recommend someone who would. He wasn't stopping her from getting it done, just not by him. Its BS if you ask me. Since when did we have the right to make others do what we want when other, equal options are available. Yes, I see the parallel with segregation but I still don't see sexual orientation as the same as race.

Duh. She won because it's in California! Look at most of the decisions handed down by the Ninth Circuit in the last ten years to see what I mean.

I'm with you - the doctor didn't want to go against his own principles (impregnating a lesbian couple,) but he offered a referral for them for someone who would. That's not a denial of service, so what's the problem?

But, this is probably another case of "militant gays" getting in everyone's face, kinda like ACT UP used to do years ago, or when you get stuck seeing the "Fag Shows" (read: "Gay Pride Parades") in major cities nationwide. NB - I have no trouble at all with homosexuals. None. But, the best line on the subject comes from a hairdresser my wife used to use (ran the shop with his "life partner," or whatever they're calling it...) "If you want to be gay, be gay. But, don't be a f'n fag about it." Even most gays have issue with the militant queers going around, clogging up cities, and making nuisances of themselves in general.

And they're not slowing down. They'd probably have an easier time "finding acceptance" if they'd slow it down a bit, methinks.

[Darky]

I think we'd make good running mates...very similar ideas with the exception of religion. Good balance. I'd definitely be all for cutting/eliminating Congress' pay. Take the financial aspect out of it. Let the people who truly want to make a difference run. Give them room/board and maybe $20k/yr for other expenses. That way it wouldn't be limited to just the independently wealthy, we've seen what kind of good they do...

[Ecomike]

Abortion isn't a religion issue. Yes, most people who claim to be followers of one of the main religions are anti-abortion, pro-life, but that doesn't make it a religious issue. I've also known plenty who were self-professed atheists who believed the same as I do about abortion. I am definitely against it if your reason is that you had sex, got pregnant, and just don't want the kid. If that's the case, carry it through and give the child up for adoption. Its when you throw rape, incest or the mother's life into the mix that I get a little fuzzy on my view.

I'm pro-life, pro-gun, pro-lower tax and even lower spending, quasi-isolationist (only a few cases where I would justify getting involved in other countries' problems, except where it affects our interests in such a fashion that we can't ignore it), pro-religion (obviously) but also pro-"keeping my personal views out of the law except in very few cases. I call myself republican but will vote for whoever upholds my views. Which coincidentally has not been a democrat yet. Oh yeah, I'm also pro-environment, pro-access. Who better to take care of the wilderness and country areas except those who enjoy getting out in it and have the capacity to get out to rugged locations quickly with and gear?

So I take it your an envortard like me? LOL :shhh: , not my words, just quoting others here, LOLj

A lot of guys here get so anti-environment bent out of shape that they forget they have their own enviro agenda.

There is very little in your list above that I don't have the same possition on. The only one I really disagree with significantly is the lower spending. There are areas I would like to see less spending, and areas I would like to see more spending, and changes in the tax code I would like to see. At some point it is not healthy to have a hand full of people who can afford to buy the US government several times over with their personal debit card. That leads Kingdoms and Kings.

While I beleive Washington needs to practice fiscal discipline, the US money supply is actually tied in part to the size of US deficit. Too much triggers inflation, too little triggers deflation, neither of which is good.