|
|
| Author |
Message |
tod
|
|
Civil Rights in your voting
| 
Oct 4 15:05 UTC 2000 |
It's not about Democrat vs. Republican
It's about the woman's right to choose.
Make no mistake, this election could overturn Roe Vs. Wade, and
that's paramount.
|
| 216 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 1 of 216:
|
Oct 4 15:06 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 2 of 216:
|
Oct 4 15:45 UTC 2000 |
They're politicians. They both lie, and they both WILL lie.
They both WILL tax us.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 3 of 216:
|
Oct 4 16:43 UTC 2000 |
And remember, kids...your pal Al has voted *against* pro-choice bills in the
senate.
And let's not forget that Al the Pal is going to "make the Internet safe for
children" according to the ads he's running on Detroit channels.
|
brighn
|
|
response 4 of 216:
|
Oct 4 17:21 UTC 2000 |
Oh please, twinkie. Bush SAID in the debates that he's pro-life, that he will
actively work to convert all Americans to pro-life, and that his choice of
SC justices will be based on their ability to uphold the Constitution, which
he went on to imply was pro-life.
Al may waver on the issue, but Bush is unmitigated. He WILL overturn Roe v.
Wade, given any chance at all.
|
senna
|
|
response 5 of 216:
|
Oct 4 17:29 UTC 2000 |
I don't think Bush will be able to turn that trick. 12 years of his dad and
his dad's boss didn't do it, and I don't think it can happen in 4 years.
There's too much at stake. I don't think Gore will be a problem; he respects
his party enough not to job them all.
|
jazz
|
|
response 6 of 216:
|
Oct 4 18:49 UTC 2000 |
What does it matter what a politician promises, if they're not beholden
to anyone to follow up on their promises?
|
brighn
|
|
response 7 of 216:
|
Oct 4 18:52 UTC 2000 |
Which is why I think that any candidate who knowingly lies in their campaign
ads (or who are linked to financing untrue ads), including making promises
they know they don't have the power to keep, should be barred from holding
the office.
I also think that candidates who have failed to make decent progress on
campaign promises after the first term should be barred from holding a second.
Replace term limits with promise limits.
|
jazz
|
|
response 8 of 216:
|
Oct 4 18:56 UTC 2000 |
Or at least be criminally liable. Is a politician any less guilty who
tries to infringe upon someone's rights by attempting to pass unconstitutional
legislation through legal means, than one who simply violates their rights
in person?
|
brighn
|
|
response 9 of 216:
|
Oct 4 19:52 UTC 2000 |
Why don't slander/libel laws apply to political advertising?
(I'm assuming they do, but are rarely enforced, presumably because if Abraham,
say, presses charges against Stabenow, then that opens Abraham to be
prosecuted for the same thing.)
I'm tired of hearing the defense, "Hey, all the politicians lie/bend the
truth/make false promises when campaigning, so it's all right for X to do it."
Even Nader, when given the chance, does some mudslinging of his own while
decrying it and decrying the system as it is (example of mudslinging: When
Leno asked Nader why Gore and Bush were unwilling to have anyone else in the
debates, Nader took out a rubber chicken).
I'm also tired of, every two to four years (depending on how interested people
are in gubernatorials and Congressional elections), the parties putting forth
mediocre candidates because the qualified candidates are too smart to put
themselves out for the kind of media and government whitewashing and
blackballing.
Geez o pete's, guys, get to the work of governing and stop scaring the smart
kids out of the sandbox. And media folk, look for someone else's dirty laundry
and stop feeding on the elected officials.
|
edina
|
|
response 10 of 216:
|
Oct 4 21:19 UTC 2000 |
Gore voted to end Medicaid abortions (which I agree with, though I am
pro-choice). He has said he will defend a woman's right to choose. I believe
he is pro-life, though - and quite frankly, that works for me.
Face it, in abortion, there isn't anythign about it to like.
|
brighn
|
|
response 11 of 216:
|
Oct 4 21:56 UTC 2000 |
Yep. Poor women shouldn't be allowed to get abortions. After all, abortion
isn't about choice, it's about avoiding shame for those who have the money
to do so.
If we stop funding all procedures that someone's opposed to, we'll have to
go after organ transplants, and lots of other "questionable" procedures.
*Shrug*
If he will defend a woman's right to choose, he's pro-choice. It's pro-life
propoganda that everyone who favors keeping abortion legal would personally
condone an abortion in their own life. The issue is about whether abortion
should be legal or not, not whether a person personally thinks abortion is
a viable choice for themselves or their family.
|
bru
|
|
response 12 of 216:
|
Oct 4 22:08 UTC 2000 |
I disagree. It isn't about a womans choice, Its about the Right to Keep adn
Bear arms.
Bush says he would appoint strict constructionists as judges, Gore said that
was a buzzword for Judges willing to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Even if Roe v. Wade was to be overturned, It wouldn't stop abortions, only
leave it up to the states to make the decision.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 13 of 216:
|
Oct 4 22:30 UTC 2000 |
*farts*
|
danr
|
|
response 14 of 216:
|
Oct 4 23:15 UTC 2000 |
Hmmmm. Seems I'm more of a democrat than brighn is. Even if one could
objectively rate a candidate as to how well he or she did with campaign
promises, denying voters the right to elect who they want is simply not the way
to go.
Stupid electorates get stupid elected officials. It would be a much more
effective strategy to work for educating the electorate than to pass laws
restricting who can run and who cannot.
Despite what jazz says in #6, they are beholden to keep their promises. They
are beholden to the voters. If it matters to the voters, the voters can vote
them out.
|
brighn
|
|
response 15 of 216:
|
Oct 4 23:26 UTC 2000 |
Not if the politicians create a system by which no honest candidates can get
through... if you've a choice between liars, you must choose a liar (or not
make a choice at all).
There should be repurcussions for telling untruths and making unkeepable
promises. By the time the voters become aware that the promises haven't been
kept, it's too late to chnage the vote.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 16 of 216:
|
Oct 4 23:45 UTC 2000 |
Translation:
The people are gullible and feebleminded. We must protect them by
limiting their choices; it's for their own good, really..
|
edina
|
|
response 17 of 216:
|
Oct 5 03:21 UTC 2000 |
You know what? I am not going to debate the medicaid abortion issue - I had
to do it at work. But this is my position.
Women worked their asses off to get us the right to govern our own bodies,
thus the ruling of Roe vs. Wade. But what people seem to think is that with
that ruling came the right for women to own responsibility over their own
bodies. Do you know why I don't belive in medicaid abortions? Because I know
how easy and cheap it is to get birth control, if it isn't free. When do we
say that women have to take responsibility over their own decisions? And no,
I don't mean 14 year old girls who are raped. I mean the average person who
has an abortion. The 25-40 year old girls who didn't use contraception - or
use it properly because they couldn't be bothered.
If you are going to make abortion free to some, make it free to all. But
don't tell me I have to pay for someone not taking responsibility over their
lives.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 216:
|
Oct 5 03:39 UTC 2000 |
I'm not a woman, but from much reading of literature and knowing many
women in my life, there are situations where a woman cannot use birth
control methods but does not want to bear children. One is when she
is in a marriage with a dominating man that forbids her to use birth
control, but she does not want a divorce. I think this is probably
pretty common in Africa or India, where seeking a divorce would be
a death sentence. So, taking responsibility for one's life means
abortion - and she is going to have to get it through some sort of
public welfare system like medicaid since she dare not spend money
for it. This type of situation is certainly rarer here, but I am
sure it is not absent.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 19 of 216:
|
Oct 5 05:00 UTC 2000 |
And this is the USA not Africa or India. I don't believe in imposing on
other folks but it sure would be nice where we had a society with morals
and values such that the majority of children were wanted and desired
and not flushed down the toilet.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 20 of 216:
|
Oct 5 13:14 UTC 2000 |
politicians who lie shouldn't be able to hold office? coo el. remember this
one? "read my lips......"
|
mooncat
|
|
response 21 of 216:
|
Oct 5 14:59 UTC 2000 |
I agree with resp# 19, a society that valued and loved every child
would be great.
But newsflash- we don't live in that society and making abortion
illegal won't make something like that society come about.
Haven't we already tried the 'abortion is illegal' routine? Did people
forget that it didn't work well the first time?
I can see Brooke's point about paying for abortions for girls who
couldn't be bothered with contraceptives. However, and this is rather
sad, what about young women who simply don't really know how to
properly use contraceptives? Young women who haven't been educated and
thus even though they try to use them- they don't work? If you don't
know something exists, or how it works, it's easy to make mistakes.
|
jazz
|
|
response 22 of 216:
|
Oct 5 15:09 UTC 2000 |
It's much less satisfying, though more productive, for two people who
are debating to understand that:
(1) we do not live in a perfect world, and
(2) no amount of legislation, social change, or wishful thinking is
going to make it a perfect world.
Many (though not all) of the pro-choicers I've talked to really don't
like the thought about abortion, and quite a few would never have one
themselves. They only support the pro-choice position because they realise
(1) and (2), and consider it the best of all possible alternatives.
|
edina
|
|
response 23 of 216:
|
Oct 5 15:12 UTC 2000 |
I understand that Anne - but I omitted younger women from the equation - and
most women who are older (let's say 20 and up) have been exposed to proper
info on contraception.
|
brighn
|
|
response 24 of 216:
|
Oct 5 15:16 UTC 2000 |
#16> Um, no. that's not what I said. Don't put words into my mouth, senator.
#17> If you are going to make abortion free to some, make it free to all. ...
Isn't that the gist of government (i.e. Medicaid) abortions?
Also, your 17 assumes that birth control methods are 100% reliable. None are.
The only safe method of never getting pregnant is never having sex. When the
government starts stepping in and telling us that we can't have sex if we're
poor and the government doesn't want to pay for accidents, where does it end?
Poor people can't drive because if they get into a traffic accident, Medicare
won't pay for their medical care -- after all, THEY got into the collision,
THEY clearly weren't being attentive to their own safety, THEY weren't taking
responsibility for their own actions. Poor people can't get any welfare when
they're between jobs because they shouldn't have lost their jobs in the first
place.
Sorry, Edina, if you live in a country with a welfare system, you're going
to be paying for some people who aren't taking responsibility for their own
lives, either because they can't, or because happenstance prevents them from
doing so temporarily. Deal.
And debates consist of a series of people presenting their stances on an
issue. You can't say you're not going to debate something and then debate
something, without looking like a dweeb.
19> I agree. If a child is going to be resented, maligned, ignored, abused,
or whatever, and the conceivers know this from the outset, better that the
child be aborted from the get go rather than be made to suffer.
Edina's stance reminds me of the general "pro-life" stance of living under
the assumption that all conceptions fall under three categories: Rape,
Deliberate, and Recklessness. Rape, fine, let's have laws and protections for
it; Deliberate, fine, they don't WANT abortions; Recklessness, fuck 'em, let
'em suffer if they can't pony up the cash.
As I've already said, sometimes people just get pregnant, even when they've
taking all precautions. A friend of mine got pregnant even though she was on
the Pill AND the guy used a rubber. So, if she couldn't afford an abortion,
should she sue Trojan to pay for it?
Also, whle some women might get pregnant deliberately, their situation might
change dramatically. First of all, it might become apparent there are health
problems with the fetus. If it's actually life-endangering, most pro-lifers
favor allowing abortions; but if it's not, words like "eugenics" start spewing
out. In other cases, though, maybe the woman was told by her beau, "Oh baby,
yes, let's have a child." and then gets dumped by him as soon as she tells
him she's pregnant. Again, should she sue the guy because she can't afford
it and the government won't pay?
Plus, having a policy of "we'll only pay if you've been raped" policy is just
as bad as the "we'll only let you have an abortion if you've been raped"...
it leads women to either find a rapist to press charges against, or back-alley
abortions... then what? Some poor woman shows up in ER with advanced
hemorrhaging from a shoddy abortion, and now We Taxpayers get SERIOUS bills
to pay, because Edina was too stingy to pay up front?
Or the poor woman has the kid, the ranks of the ultrapoor increase by two
(since the woman, who had been crawling out of her ghetto, is now albatrossed
back into it), and We Taxpayers pay SERIOUS welfare?
The issue shouldn't be the cost of paying for abortions, and that alone --
part of the issue is the cost of NOT paying for abortions.
|