More “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

[Vater Araignee]

You think removing DADT is a failure?

You are right, it is none of the military's business who is gay. I think you misunderstand DADT. It wasn't about keeping people's lives private, it was a licence to attack and investigate them when that information was made public. It is an example of the name of a bill being the exact opposite of what the bill actually did, in an attempt to mislead.

They had a license to do it before DADT. The only thing DADT did do was make questioning illegal and make imprisoning them for being gay illegal, two steps in the right direction.

But people want to forget that before DADT it was code to to kick out homosexuals, and a service record that would get them an HD was the only thing that would keep them out of the brig.

[0pheliA]

Basically DADT was a shell-game to let them do what they did before while naming it something PC sounding.

It leaves the military bound by the same rules as the rest of the country, which are covered by anti-discrimination laws in most states and growing. DADT allowed those laws to be ignored.

[Nymada del Sol]

They had a license to do it before DADT. The only thing DADT did do was make questioning illegal and make imprisoning them for being gay illegal, two steps in the right direction.

But people want to forget that before DADT it was code to to kick out homosexuals, and a service record that would get them an HD was the only thing that would keep them out of the brig.

Why should soldiers be forced to be in the closet? Straight soldiers were allowed to be seen in public with their mates. Why not non straights?

[0pheliA]

If you actually are interested in a debate on DADT policy, I would be glad to debate in another thread. For now though this thread is about abortion and public opinion. To save derailing the thread, I have nothing more to say here that isn't on that issue.

[Nymada del Sol]

If you actually are interested in a debate on DADT policy, I would be glad to debate in another thread. For now though this thread is about abortion and public opinion. To save derailing the thread, I have nothing more to say here that isn't on that issue.

Agreed. And as far as abortion rights go, no woman should be forced to carry to term any child. It isn't a equal endeavor. The women are the ones dealing with all the risk. Dealing with the complications of birth.

No one should have say over that besides the pregnant woman.

[Vater Araignee]

Why should soldiers be forced to be in the closet? Straight soldiers were allowed to be seen in public with their mates. Why not non straights?

Correct me if I am wrong but I do believe I said "sexuality has no place in the military". Straight, Gay, Asexual, it don't matter, all should should keep their mouths shut be in the closet during service.

[Nymada del Sol]

Correct me if I am wrong but I do believe I said "sexuality has no place in the military". Straight, Gay, Asexual, it don't matter, all should should keep their mouths shut be in the closet during service.

We should continue this in another thread. We have trailed off the original subject for too long.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

It is highly disturbing when politicians from both sides of the isle can just say random shit and not be expected to back it up. The U.S has become a place where science and facts do not matter to the people at large.

Now the GOP just randomly spouts crap with no basis in reality and regularly gets away with it.

I myself am just tired of lying politicians who play fast and loose with facts to get what they want. This abortion debate is just one of many issues where science and facts take a backseat to emotional rhetoric

It has always been this way unfortunately. There was never a golden age when politicians had to back up their claims particularly. If anything they have to back them up more now than they ever did, due to all the "eyeballs" that are on them compared to historical times. Long gone are the day's were a politician could go to one town and say something, and then take the horse and buggy one town over and say the exact opposite and not get called on it as there were very little communication options.

It takes a THICK skin to be in the public eye now more than ever, with the blogosphere and the 24 hour news cycle more watchers are watching than have ever been. It still sucks, and they still say crap that has no foundation here and there, but honestly its a much better landscape than it was say 100 years ago. Things are better than we think they are on this score, its just that we tend to focus on what is messed up with the system, more than what has improved over the generations. Of course things are still crumby , but in perspective THIS is the golden age if anything, the further you go back in time , the worse it gets.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

We should continue this in another thread. We have trailed off the original subject for too long.

Yeah I try to do this but it can be difficult, ans people would rather just stop talking than click "new topic".

[Nymada del Sol]

It has always been this way unfortunately. There was never a golden age when politicians had to back up their claims particularly. If anything they have to back them up more now than they ever did, due to all the "eyeballs" that are on them compared to historical times. Long gone are the day's were a politician could go to one town and say something, and then take the horse and buggy one town over and say the exact opposite and not get called on it as there were very little communication options.

It takes a THICK skin to be in the public eye now more than ever, with the blogosphere and the 24 hour news cycle more watchers are watching than have ever been. It still sucks, and they still say crap that has no foundation here and there, but honestly its a much better landscape than it was say 100 years ago. Things are better than we think they are on this score, its just that we tend to focus on what is messed up with the system, more than what has improved over the generations. Of course things are still crumby , but in perspective THIS is the golden age if anything, the further you go back in time , the worse it gets.

It's openly accepted nowadays. Out in the open and unchallenged.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

And as far as abortion rights go, no woman should be forced to carry to term any child. It isn't a equal endeavor. The women are the ones dealing with all the risk. Dealing with the complications of birth.

No one should have say over that besides the pregnant woman.

In the short term, as a pragmatic matter, I agree.

But I also think its a inadequate system and still an open question, even though I WANT that to be the final answer, What I want and what I think is best, often are at odds with each other. Its very frustrating (and emotional in other ways). To pretend I do know the most ethical answer to that would to pretend I have answered some deep philosophical question that the smaretest people on the planet still wrestle with.

I'm still not fully convinced one way or the other of the basic premise that is "does or does not the "potential child" have right to life?" how much right? None? Total? I don't really know what the answer is to that as much as I'd just like to take a "leap of faith" and guess at the answer.

[Simon Bar Sinister]

people who are against abortion shouldn't have them.

[0pheliA]

You know, the number of people I have met who were Pro-Life until suddenly it impacted their life is absurd. Just last summer I had a friend of mine who was Pro-Life and outspoken on it the entire time I knew her (8 years) suddenly in a situation where a random fling she had with the custodian at the mental hospital she was in (she was lonely, so I don't blame her for it) resulted in a pregnancy. Suddenly shes asking me about abortions. She is Pro-Choice now.

I've had friends whom their pro-life parents suddenly started suggesting they aborted. This actually happens a great deal.

I've (scarily enough) had friends have abortions, and continue to be pro-life afterwards. People like that don't generally remain friends long. >.>

[EAF (1)]

I'm technically pro-choice but don't think people should use abortions as birth control. Which is dangerous for women to do anyway.

[0pheliA]

I'm technically pro-choice but don't think people should use abortions as birth control. Which is dangerous for women to do anyway.

Indeed.

Having an abortion is a very difficult choice, it should not be a get out of jail free card. There has to be something seriously broken with someone to take such a choice that lightly.

[Nymada del Sol]

One of the other issues is the fact that people always try to project their beliefs on others. I personally dislike abortion, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to as well. I am mature enough to be able to have a strong opinion without feeling the need to make everyone else agree.

This is the issue at large. It's people using the law to force others into doing and believing as they do. Laws are not supposed to be a tool of oppression and control. It's supposed to protect.

If someone doesn't like abortion, fine. That person does not have to get a abortion. But it's wrong to force everyone to do the same.

[Vater Araignee]

Indeed.

Having an abortion is a very difficult choice, it should not be a get out of jail free card. There has to be something seriously broken with someone to take such a choice that lightly.

And this would be why many people who would normally be choicers are lifers.

Then you have the group who don't care if it is used as birth control as long as they don't have to pay for it so they vote pro-life to prevent state funded abortion.

Many fathers right advocates would be a "Mostly Choicer" if the father had some say, but because he doesn't, they aren't.

[Vater Araignee]

One of the other issues is the fact that people always try to project their beliefs on others. I personally dislike abortion, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to as well. I am mature enough to be able to have a strong opinion without feeling the need to make everyone else agree.

This is the issue at large. It's people using the law to force others into doing and believing as they do. Laws are not supposed to be a tool of oppression and control. It's supposed to protect.

If someone doesn't like abortion, fine. That person does not have to get a abortion. But it's wrong to force everyone to do the same.

That is Libertarian at its core.

[Nymada del Sol]

That is Libertarian at its core.

What is? My comment?

[Vater Araignee]

What is? My comment?

Yup!

Tho I would further expand on it.

And never let someone convince you that the belief is to idealistic to be practical.

[0pheliA]

It is Libertarian. Liberty is a good thing.

[taysteewonderbunny]

I think the answer to the question "why the change in opinion" has to do with the polling mechanism: Phone calls. Please remember that by 2009, the date of the last poll, that it was AFTER the housing crash that continued to put people out of their homes even after the election in '08. I wouldn't be surprised if the polling was a bit skewed by who was more affected in terms of home displacement, specifically that those in a more transient housing market would be LESS likely to have a permanent land line. I think that is significant not because financially strapped people value life less, or anything like that, but in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, they might be more likely to choose abortion than richer people who may be able to absorb the cost of another child with a little juggling. That is, to some extent, I do think our choices are influenced by the resources available to us.

Additionally, we Americans have a very short attention span. Now that it is 30 years since Roe v. Wade, who remembers their peers having been forced into involuntary pregnancy and labor? I mean, I know my mom was terrified because she was brought to a Catholic hospital in '72 (four years before me) where the staff was going to force her to have a baby whose limbs had been partially expelled at five months because they would rather my mom have died of sepsis than the severely injured baby perish, but who of those polled have things like that in mind? (Re: my mom--the staff insisted that she keep very still; their plan was that she remain in bed rest to save the baby in spite of the fact that there was a 90%+ chance that she would suffer from infection and early labor would have to be induced. Knowing this, my mom did every calisthenic she could think of until the baby fully aborted. You might think it's terrible, but my mom lived and produced two fully healthy children afterward and I am very glad of her choice.)

As to the issue itself, I don't think many women take the question lightly, no matter her circumstance. But let's just say for the sake of argument that one woman did--that she cared about as much for her fetus as she does for her feces: isn't that precisely the kind of woman one would hope would never become pregnant in the first place? And say we forced that woman to go through with the pregnancy. How prepared are we to ensure that she takes good care of the fetus? What if she doesn't want to surrender it when it's born? What if she does give it up for adoption but it's damaged because she used drugs? Are you going to adopt it? Be real.

I am pro-abortion, to strip it of "nice labels." Would I have one myself? Really, it depends on the circumstance. Although, I was pregnant by rape in a strange city living with my rapist and decided to have the baby anyway knowing that there were good people in my acquaintance willing to raise that baby. But that was largely because my parents who were ready to disown me right up until they found out I was pregnant relented and continued their COBRA coverage of me. If I had no health insurance, would I have gone through with it? Probably not.

Oh, and I don't think that the opinion that women shouldn't be stripped of their right to choose abortion is Libertarian. The Libertarian goal is devolution of power to the State and even municipal level. That's not the same thing as protecting a woman's right to health care and abortion if she elects it given her health care options. I think that a woman has a right to determine her own choices regarding her fecundity and no one should bar her from making that choice. Only Federal protections can guarantee her that.

[0pheliA]

There is a difference between Libertarian as a political party and Libertarian as a political dynamic.

You need a governing force of some sort to maintain Liberty, otherwise someone just comes and takes it away. The American system actually managed to protect it for a good while, but has become broken. The Canadian system as well greatly protected liberty, but itself is starting to falter.

It isn't a failing of the political systems we have. Each system builds on the successes and learns from the failures of the last. We are due for another big reset, with the next step having better guidelines to protect from what has happened this time.

The Libertarian party in the USA is very Conservative, while Anarchists tend to be excessively Liberal. Both views are valid, we need the right and left to be able to debate with each other to keep each other in check and for real progress. Real political debate has not existed for quite a while though.

[Vater Araignee]

I think the answer to the question "why the change in opinion" has to do with the polling mechanism: Phone calls. Please remember that by 2009, the date of the last poll, that it was AFTER the housing crash that continued to put people out of their homes even after the election in '08. I wouldn't be surprised if the polling was a bit skewed by who was more affected in terms of home displacement, specifically that those in a more transient housing market would be LESS likely to have a permanent land line. I think that is significant not because financially strapped people value life less, or anything like that, but in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, they might be more likely to choose abortion than richer people who may be able to absorb the cost of another child with a little juggling. That is, to some extent, I do think our choices are influenced by the resources available to us.

Additionally, we Americans have a very short attention span. Now that it is 30 years since Roe v. Wade, who remembers their peers having been forced into involuntary pregnancy and labor? I mean, I know my mom was terrified because she was brought to a Catholic hospital in '72 (four years before me) where the staff was going to force her to have a baby whose limbs had been partially expelled at five months because they would rather my mom have died of sepsis than the severely injured baby perish, but who of those polled have things like that in mind? (Re: my mom--the staff insisted that she keep very still; their plan was that she remain in bed rest to save the baby in spite of the fact that there was a 90%+ chance that she would suffer from infection and early labor would have to be induced. Knowing this, my mom did every calisthenic she could think of until the baby fully aborted. You might think it's terrible, but my mom lived and produced two fully healthy children afterward and I am very glad of her choice.)

As to the issue itself, I don't think many women take the question lightly, no matter her circumstance. But let's just say for the sake of argument that one woman did--that she cared about as much for her fetus as she does for her feces: isn't that precisely the kind of woman one would hope would never become pregnant in the first place? And say we forced that woman to go through with the pregnancy. How prepared are we to ensure that she takes good care of the fetus? What if she doesn't want to surrender it when it's born? What if she does give it up for adoption but it's damaged because she used drugs? Are you going to adopt it? Be real.

I am pro-abortion, to strip it of "nice labels." Would I have one myself? Really, it depends on the circumstance. Although, I was pregnant by rape in a strange city living with my rapist and decided to have the baby anyway knowing that there were good people in my acquaintance willing to raise that baby. But that was largely because my parents who were ready to disown me right up until they found out I was pregnant relented and continued their COBRA coverage of me. If I had no health insurance, would I have gone through with it? Probably not.

Oh, and I don't think that the opinion that women shouldn't be stripped of their right to choose abortion is Libertarian. The Libertarian goal is devolution of power to the State and even municipal level. That's not the same thing as protecting a woman's right to health care and abortion if she elects it given her health care options. I think that a woman has a right to determine her own choices regarding her fecundity and no one should bar her from making that choice. Only Federal protections can guarantee her that.

Roe v. Wade is 39 years old. If the doctor my mother went to hadn't refused to perform on a minor regardless of consent I wouldn't be 38.

Article 1 section 4

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Roe v. Wade is 39 years old. If the doctor my mother went to hadn't refused to perform on a minor regardless of consent I wouldn't be 38.

Article 1 section 4

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Right now I'm benifiting from what I think are some socialist excesses in the american governmental system (even though I belive some socialist ideas have a place) but that does not mean I think, even though I'm benefiting from them, that I think they should be kept in place.

I try not to confuse my personal benifit from the benifit of mankind (or myself) as a whole. As cold as that sounds, its more humane I think to try and factor "everyone" in to a viewpoint than just myself. Not to say that in the end the viewpoint wont ALSO benefit me, if it doesn't, so be it.

Hell I am in favor of a mild form of the VERY taboo subject of euthanasia, which totally would have screwed me at birth.