Posted on 08/31/2011 1:19:03 PM PDT by CA Conservative
I disagree. George McGovern was a democrat in 1970 and the democrat Presidential nominee in 1972. Do you really believe the present day GOP is to the left of him? I think it is the opposite. I mean no disrespect by this but Ronald Reagan did sign a strict gun control law (Mulford Act), the “Therapeutic Abortion Act” liberalizing abortion in his state and tax increases while he was Governor of California. No Candidate could do all of that now and still be the GOP nominee. I believe the GOP is a more conservative party now than the version that had Nixon for its candidate in 1968 and 1972.
Nice try. When the final numbers are not available (such as for a current or just completed fiscal year), they mark those specific entries as "guesstimated". Once the final numbers are available, they mark them as such. They also break down the numbers to separate state debt from "local" debt, which includes things like school districts, cities, counties and the university systems (which your number includes).
Obviously you don’t need us filthy conservatives stinking up your big tent.
Enjoy begging for crumbs from the democrats.
So then using your logic, abortion is illegal. Gee, I wonder why the Bush justice department never prosecuted abortionists if that was the intent or affect of the law?
Americans are slightly less favorable to abortion every year. That's been a long, downhill trend for some time. What they are in favor of, by large margins, is exceptions for rape and incest. <1%, but a highly visible percentage.
So
The best way, right now, to save the >99% of abortion victims is to get Supreme Court justices in power sooner than later, and to favor policies and politicians that incrementally change American's viewpoints to make abortion socially unacceptable. Obama's nominees in a second term could stretch their advantage, and keep abortion legal for another 20 years over what a Perry nominees would, for that 99%.
The strategically smart thing to do is save as many as you can, as soon as you can, given the prevailing American sentiment. Being a absolutist hold-out might stoke your ego, but it's not a functional path to saving anyone. It plays into the hands of people that want to keep all abortion legal.
Since when is Perry pro-life?
He supports abortion in cases of rape and incest.
So do I. So do many people who otherwise abhor abortion. Should a woman be forced to care for a child concieved by a criminal act?
I said, abortion is abortion and it is wrong. That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of many.
I also said the child is innocent of the act and deserves life. That opinion is not just mine, it is shared by many and it speaks volumes that it was omitted from your response.
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception -- that is the pro-life position. From the first moment of his/her existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. To make exceptions is to cross into the dark side -- and when it comes to abortion that is where RINO Rick Perry resides.
So if you had your choice, rape vicitms WOULD be forced to carry their rapists child.
How....compassionate. I wonder, would you charge these rape victims with murder or manslaughter? Which is it?
“Should a woman be forced to care for a child concieved by a criminal act?”
According to at least two posters on this thread, yes.
How do you get that from what I wrote? Is there anything I wrote that is not true? If so, please educate me. I did not meant to offend, I am just pointing out that conservatives from 30-40 years ago could probably not get nominated in today’s GOP because they would not be conservative enough. I do disagree with your assertion that we are to the left of the Democrat party in 1970, or the Republican party in 1970 for that matter, but that is a good thing in my view.
In 20 years it will. We don’t have 20 years before events which will kill a lot more people than that if we don’t get our house in order, FAST.
Setting the stage for more double murder cases which would lead to stronger case law to establish the legal status of a fetus (child)? Your guess is as good as mine at this point. This world has turned upside down if you ask me.
I know Mormons, among others, do. But that's between them and their god.
Abortion in a case of incest or rape is still abortion in that it terminates the life of an innocent child. Until someone can convince me otherwise I will remain opposed to it.
And I’d not deny them their opinion. However, I have had to deal with it as fact. Not theory (Rape, not incest, thank God).
Ditto.
America uses 18,690,000 bbl/day (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption).
We have 2.855 trillion barrels. (http://247wallst.com/2011/08/31/the-ten-largest-oil-deposits-in-the-world/)
If I have it figured correctly that’s 160 thousand years of oil reserves. Why are we buying oil from other countries?
“Why are we buying oil from other countries?”
Because our leaders (many of them) get money from environmental wackos?
My sympathies to you, and I hope you have managed to put her back together.
Bless you.
Firstly, it is not up to me to ‘force’ anyone to do anything. Your histrionics notwithstanding, the woman has the option to do whatever she pleases; that is the world that we live in. But don’t act as if a victim would escape further trauma by aborting the child, they don’t. Long term psychological affects from an abortion can be tough to deal with as well. The rest of your post is so asinine it doesn’t warrant my time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.