Are Liberal/Democrats Pro Choice?

[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.