DVD Talk
Will all Abortion be Illegal in the US by 2008? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Will all Abortion be Illegal in the US by 2008?


VinVega
11-03-04, 11:22 AM
Now that some are claiming that we have a "mandate" from the US voters for Republican platforms and values, do they have enough steam to make abortion illegal before the next election? There will be Supreme Court Justices appointed during this Presidential cycle.

kvrdave
11-03-04, 11:24 AM
Was abortion illegal in the US before Roe v Wade? Only in certain states. Worst case scenario is that it becomes a state issue again. How awful.

But that won't happen either, even though Roe v. Wade is really about "privacy" :lol: Stoooopid.

wendersfan
11-03-04, 11:24 AM
Yes, along with watching reruns of Will and Grace, Zoroastrianism, and attending hockey games where one of the teams is from Canada, or more than two of the players from either team speaks French as their native language. ;)

wlmowery
11-03-04, 11:25 AM
I voted no, but I can see Abortion being more heavily regulated in about 20 states IF the Bush Administration can get the right 3 SC nominees confirmed.

I don't think abortion will ever be made illegal on a national level, but I can foresee a gradual return to state's rights on the issue given some potential SC turnover!

kvrdave
11-03-04, 11:26 AM
Honestly, it is like the idea that there will be no guns if a democrat wins. America loves guns, and it loves baby killing, so neither is in jeopardy any time soon.

Chew
11-03-04, 11:27 AM
I have serious doubts that a Justice who is openly pro-life could make it through the Senate unless the Republicans had the needed 60 super-majority. So, no.

Trigger
11-03-04, 11:27 AM
let's see... republican majority in every branch of government? check. yup - it'll happen.

Pharoh
11-03-04, 11:27 AM
:lol:

No.

classicman2
11-03-04, 11:29 AM
Of course not.

The Senate will never (at least for the foreseeable) future confirm anyone who has ever uttered the words 'Roe v. Wade should be overturned.'

Forget about the Democratic filibuster. There are least 5 (probably more) Republicans in the Senate who would not vote to confirm such an individual.

classicman2
11-03-04, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Trigger
let's see... republican majority in every branch of government? check. yup - it'll happen.

I see you're not terribly familiar with the process, are you? ;)

wlmowery
11-03-04, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Chew
I have serious doubts that a Justice who is openly pro-life could make it through the Senate unless the Republicans had the needed 60 super-majority. So, no.

This is why I think it will remain legal, if not more strongly regulated on a local/statewide level.

While professed anti-ROE candidates will never be confirmed, I think states' rights candidate can be confirmed and can lead to states' rights related restrictions/modifications to ROE's application. But it will take at least 2, more likely 3, states' rights justices to make it happen (1 for Rehnquist 1 for Stevens; and, please God, one for Ginsburg).

taa455
11-03-04, 11:37 AM
It will never happen.

dtcarson
11-03-04, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Chew
I have serious doubts that a Justice who is openly pro-life could make it through the Senate unless the Republicans had the needed 60 super-majority. So, no.

Yep.
Which is sad. Almost every president/candidate says 'There's no litmus test', but almost the first question is 'How do you feel about abortion?' I'd be satisfied with states rights judges instead of interventionists.

Trigger
11-03-04, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by classicman2
I see you're not terribly familiar with the process, are you? ;) I am... can't you just let me be apocalyptic for one day without you accusing me of being more stupider than you?

sfsdfd
11-03-04, 11:41 AM
I would hope not, but I also would not expect the country to come out so strongly in favor of DOMA laws. In Ohio, it was 62% to 38% - a landslide.

I would not be surprised if Bush and the RNC capitalized on its leverage in Congress. Right-wing legislators who manage to push through the process to get abortion banned (either a couple of conservative SCt justices or some constitutional mumbo-jumbo) will basically be assured lifetime appointments by a grateful Christian base.

Simply put: Bush ran on an agenda of making his views the law of the land. The voting public tacitly condoned that behavior. So that's what we're going to see over the next four years.

- David Stein

kvrdave
11-03-04, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Trigger
I am... can't you just let me be apocalyptic for one day without you accusing me of being more stupider than you?

:lol::up:

Jeremy517
11-03-04, 11:42 AM
Even if Roe v Wade was overturned (which it won't be), abortion still wouldn't be illegal.

chess
11-03-04, 11:45 AM
No.

Republicans care about the issue, but they are all about winning.

Tough to win without women.

DodgingCars
11-03-04, 11:45 AM
I don't believe that abortion will ever be illegal in the United States again, ever.

LasVegasMichael
11-03-04, 11:47 AM
Unfortunately, no. Hopefully, it will be made less accessible and readily used through litigation (i.e. parental consent etc), but not illegal.

chess
11-03-04, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Jeremy517
Even if Roe v Wade was overturned (which it won't be), abortion still wouldn't be illegal.

It would be in many states, and very quickly I suspect.

So many misconceptions about R v W. All it does is defines the state's interest at the three trimesters of pregnancy. The only absolute right given by R v. W is in the first trimester.

B.A.
11-03-04, 11:50 AM
Not on a national level.

DodgingCars
11-03-04, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Jeremy517
Even if Roe v Wade was overturned (which it won't be), abortion still wouldn't be illegal.

You wouldn't really need to "overturn" Roe v Wade. A state or local government would simply have to pass a law that restricts, limits, or otherwise prohibits abortion -- it would be challenged and would have to be appealed to the Supreme Court, who would have to agree to hear the case.

But it won't happen. And even if it did, the governments would have to actually agree to enforce the ruling. The Supreme Court has no authority to enforce its rulings.

Geofferson
11-03-04, 12:05 PM
Nope. This is a non-issue.

Birrman54
11-03-04, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by DodgingCars
You wouldn't really need to "overturn" Roe v Wade. A state or local government would simply have to pass a law that restricts, limits, or otherwise prohibits abortion -- it would be challenged and would have to be appealed to the Supreme Court, who would have to agree to hear the case.

But it won't happen. And even if it did, the governments would have to actually agree to enforce the ruling. The Supreme Court has no authority to enforce its rulings. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/resources/graphic/xlarge/32_00018.jpg

Pharoh
11-03-04, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
I would hope not, but I also would not expect the country to come out so strongly in favor of DOMA laws. In Ohio, it was 62% to 38% - a landslide.

....
- David Stein



Really, really surprised by this margin. I don't know anybody who openly supported the adoption of this.

classicman2
11-03-04, 12:18 PM
When was the last time the Executive Branch refused to enforce a Supreme Court ruling?

B5Erik
11-03-04, 12:19 PM
This issue will never really be settled...

Abortion WILL remain legal for the forseeable future (and by that I mean in our lifetimes).

There may be more limitations (parental notification, 3rd trimester limitations, etc), but it will remain legal and accessable.

Red Dog
11-03-04, 12:21 PM
Oh brother. -ohbfrank-

Michael Ballack
11-03-04, 12:26 PM
Anyone hear about the senator who was just elected(I think in Oklahoma) who wants to outlaw all abortions and ban un-wed mothers from teaching in schools? I'm scared where this country is heading. I hope I'm so wrong.

AGuyNamedMike
11-03-04, 12:29 PM
http://8ball.ofb.net/icosa.gif

wendersfan
11-03-04, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Pharoh
Really, really surprised by this margin. I don't know anybody who openly supported the adoption of this. You don't live in southern Ohio.

(Well, neither do I, for that matter...)

classicman2
11-03-04, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Michael Ballack
Anyone hear about the senator who was just elected(I think in Oklahoma) who wants to outlaw all abortions and ban un-wed mothers from teaching in schools? I'm scared where this country is heading. I hope I'm so wrong.

Dr. Tom Coburn

He's an OB/GYN doctor.

Dr. Coburn's views have been misrepresented by both his opponent and by the media.

Red Dog
11-03-04, 12:36 PM
So what is with the 11 people who voted yes on this? Are you:

A. Not familiar with the current state of the SCt on abortion (6-3 who believe it is a constitutional right) - meaning that 2 pro-Roe Justices would have to step down and then Bush would be able to get 2 anti-Roe nominees through a Senate with 41+ Democrats that is ready, willing, and able to block such nominees with a filibuster?

B. Not familiar with the actual ruling of Roe and Casey?

C. Both

Quake1028
11-03-04, 12:54 PM
No way in hell.

weargle
11-03-04, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Red Dog
Oh brother. -ohbfrank-

I'm with stupid.

Michael Ballack
11-03-04, 01:02 PM
Dr. Coburn's views have been misrepresented by both his opponent and by the media.

How so? :hscratch:

wendersfan
11-03-04, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Michael Ballack
How so? :hscratch: According to his own website, Coburn opposes all abortions, with the lone exception of when the mother's life in endangered. I don't know if that supports your argument more than c-man's.

Michael Ballack
11-03-04, 01:32 PM
According to his own website, Coburn opposes all abortions, with the lone exception of when the mother's life in endangered. I don't know if that supports your argument more than c-man's.

What about rape?

Nazgul
11-03-04, 01:34 PM
Nope

wendersfan
11-03-04, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Michael Ballack
What about rape? "Dr. Coburn is staunchly opposed to abortion in all cases, with the lone and rare exception of when the life of the mother is endangered. He is, likewise, opposed to euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and destructive embryonic stem cell research. "

http://www.coburnforsenate.com/righttolife.shtml

BTW, I couldn't find anything on his website about the unwed mothers not teaching issue...

Pharoh
11-03-04, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by wendersfan
You don't live in southern Ohio.

(Well, neither do I, for that matter...)


True, but I do know some staunch conservatives. They didn't support this amendment. Perhaps their reasonable enonomic views took precedence however?

Pharoh
11-03-04, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by wendersfan
...

BTW, I couldn't find anything on his website about the unwed mothers not teaching issue...


Because it wasn't Dr. Coburn, it was Mr. DeMint of South Carolina.

sfsdfd
11-03-04, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by wendersfan
"Dr. Coburn is staunchly opposed to abortion in all cases, with the lone and rare exception of when the life of the mother is endangered. He is, likewise, opposed to euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and destructive embryonic stem cell research."
It's always nice to see one's belief in a "culture of life" interfere with medical research intended to extend and improve life.

- David Stein

Pharoh
11-03-04, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
It's always nice to see one's belief in a "culture of life" interfere with medical research intended to extend and improve life.

- David Stein


How do they interfere? They aren't inconsistent views.

VinVega
11-03-04, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Pharoh
How do they interfere? They aren't inconsistent views.
It's somewhat hypocritical to say to someone suffering that you can't do research that could save their life because you have to protect an embryo that will never become anything. The funny thing is that they would rather throw unused embryos in the trash can than let them be used for stem cell research. Those embryos should be protected and kept frozen indefinitely if you're really about a culture of life. ;)

sfsdfd
11-03-04, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Pharoh
How do they interfere? They aren't inconsistent views.
As <b>VinVega</b> correctly points out: The point of taking embryonic stem cells is to make research discoveries that will improve the lives of people everywhere forever. It's a fixed cost of life (that will never become human anyway) in exchange for an improvement in every human life from this point forward. So it's nonsensical to see that research blocked in order to promote "a culture of life."

And let's cut through the bullshit: What's really happening is that Bush is using the issue to push "fetus = human life" further into the reigning culture. Is this really in dispute? Is the motivation unclear to anyone in the country?

On the topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide: The core principle in those methods is that human dignity is being preserved - that the human life has already been lost, and that needlessly prolonging suffering, against the patient's wishes, is not only cruel but an affront to human dignity. The counterargument - which is logical, though I disagree with it - is that terminating a human life cannot be permitted in any context.

Now, it's vital that we have a nationwide discussion of this. And it's vital that we acknowledge the validity of each position, but choose one that best suits our national culture. That is fine.

It is <i>not</i> fine to dismiss the issue because one promotes "a culture of life." That is an out-of-hand rejection of the views of the other side - implicitly characterizing them as "a culture of death."

In both cases, these "representatives" use tactics that deny the validity of the opposing argument and circumvent the opportunity for a national discussion of the issue. In other words, these are two more examples of the Christian right imposing its views on America through its Congressional mouthpieces.

That is a violation of democracy. And it is the hallmark of this administration.

- David Stein

Geofferson
11-03-04, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
In other words, these are two more examples of the Christian right imposing its views on America through its Congressional mouthpieces.
We can respectfully disagree on social policy, but what I can't help but notice is that what seems to frighten you the most is the so-called "Christian right". Is that your God's honest fear of this administration (that he panders to the Christian right)?

I'm assuming that you are Jewish (my apologies if I am mistaken). If so, does your Christian fear stem from your practice of Judaism (whether you are secular or religious, I do not know)? What you have to understand is that the majority of Christians in America believe the following: "God will bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews."

Shannon Nutt
11-03-04, 03:35 PM
As much as I dislike Bush, the banning of abortion (along with the banning of homosexual couplings, porn, gambling and/or dozens of other "bannings" the reglious right would like) ain't ever gonna happen. It still amazes me that people vote according to a politican's stand on such issues. I'm surprised these far-right zealots haven't tried to bring back prohibition. ;)

JasonF
11-03-04, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Pharoh
Because it wasn't Dr. Coburn, it was Mr. DeMint of South Carolina.

Dr. Coburn is the one who's concerned about the rampant lesbianism in Oklahoma schools that prevents more than one girl from going to the washroom at the same time. ;)

classicman2
11-03-04, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
Dr. Coburn is the one who's concerned about the rampant lesbianism in Oklahoma schools that prevents more than one girl from going to the washroom at the same time. ;)

Were you present when he made this comment, or are you simply quoting what you heard or read from the media?

Or, are you quoting from his opponent's (Brad Carson) campaign ad?

Just wondering?

DodgingCars
11-03-04, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by classicman2
When was the last time the Executive Branch refused to enforce a Supreme Court ruling?

Legislative veto.

Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, but yet Congress and the Executive branch still use it.

That's one example I can think of... there are more.

OldDude
11-03-04, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by kvrdave
Was abortion illegal in the US before Roe v Wade? Only in certain states. Worst case scenario is that it becomes a state issue again. How awful.

But that won't happen either, even though Roe v. Wade is really about "privacy" :lol: Stoooopid.

Got a list? My recollection may be off, but I don't remember it being generally available anywhere prior to Roe vs Wade. There may have been states that had more "special exceptions" but it wasn't generally available to women except in back alleys with coathangers.

I don't think we will return to those days.

Michael Ballack
11-03-04, 04:15 PM
I don't think we will return to those days.

We'll see.

GreenMonkey
11-03-04, 04:16 PM
When was the last time the Executive Branch refused to enforce a Supreme Court ruling?

A little study of the civil rights movement will find you plenty.

The law has to be enforced to be effective. Laws have to be written to back up the ruling with force and punishments.

Civil rights movement: blacks authorized to vote, de-segregated schools. But when the federal government does nothing to protect them, the racists and segregationists could beat/shoot/intimidate potential voters.

naughty jonny
11-03-04, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by kvrdave
But that won't happen either, even though Roe v. Wade is really about "privacy" :lol: Stoooopid.

I thought Row vs Wade was whether you crossed a river by boat or swimming... :)

Geofferson
11-03-04, 04:26 PM
IMO, a reason that this will not happen is that the Republicans know that 58-60% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal. It'd be foolish for them to mandate opposition to this, which would destroy all the momentum they have gained from this election.

JasonF
11-03-04, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by classicman2
Were you present when he made this comment, or are you simply quoting what you heard or read from the media?

Or, are you quoting from his opponent's (Brad Carson) campaign ad?

Just wondering?

I was sitting immediately to Dr. Coburn's right. I immediately stood up and tried to shout "Using homosexuality as a wedge issue is wrong!" but was wrestled to the ground by Dr. Coburn's security.

OK, not really -- I'm basing my statement on contemporaneous newspaper accounts. And yes, I am aware that Dr. Coburn was merely repeating what a campaign worker had told him. And yes, I am aware that Dr. Coburn says he was making a point about how our kids grow up too fast, or something like that.

dork
11-03-04, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by classicman2
Were you present when he made this comment, or are you simply quoting what you heard or read from the media?

Or, are you quoting from his opponent's (Brad Carson) campaign ad?

Just wondering?
"You know, Josh Burkeen is our rep down here in the southeast area. . . . He was telling me lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?"

You're right -- that's not crazy or bigoted at all.

classicman2
11-03-04, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by dork
"You know, Josh Burkeen is our rep down here in the southeast area. . . . He was telling me lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?"

You're right -- that's not crazy or bigoted at all.

link

movielib
11-03-04, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Geofferson
We can respectfully disagree on social policy, but what I can't help but notice is that what seems to frighten you the most is the so-called "Christian right". Is that your God's honest fear of this administration (that he panders to the Christian right)?

I'm assuming that you are Jewish (my apologies if I am mistaken). If so, does your Christian fear stem from your practice of Judaism (whether you are secular or religious, I do not know)? What you have to understand is that the majority of Christians in America believe the following: "God will bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews."
You're very wrong. I await sfsdfd's reply.

movielib
11-03-04, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by OldDude
Got a list? My recollection may be off, but I don't remember it being generally available anywhere prior to Roe vs Wade. There may have been states that had more "special exceptions" but it wasn't generally available to women except in back alleys with coathangers.

I don't think we will return to those days.
It was generally available in New York state for at least a few years. Can't remember real well (and too lazy to search) but I think one or two other states had legalized it before Roe v. Wade.

Pharoh
11-03-04, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by movielib
You're very wrong. I await sfsdfd's reply.


Catholic, Jewish, what's the difference?


:)

DVD Polizei
11-03-04, 06:42 PM
The US Government has little control over social behavior, whether it's illegal or not. People still smoke marijuana, smoke cigarettes, and drink and drive, and the numbers are increasing every year.

Making abortion illegal will not stop idiots from forgetting about birth control, and it certainly won't stop rapists either. The only difference, is that the abortions will happen in a non-hospital environment. Hey, whatever it takes. Doctors will actually make more money from abortions being illegal.

In any case, this morality play will have no effect on people who want to have sex. This is why I don't really pay too much of attention to the Republican Party regarding morality laws, because they almost always never work. But hey, if it makes them feel better, have fun with it.

However, they should realize, if they push society too far, we will all vote Democrat. :)

mikehunt
11-03-04, 07:35 PM
outright ban: no
more regualtion and more use of the term "partial birth": yes

dork
11-03-04, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by classicman2
link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25745-2004Oct11.html

Red Dog
01-29-08, 02:07 PM
Came across this old thread (in the aftermath of the '04 elections) in a search, and I thought it would be amusing to resurrect now that 2008 is here.

Do any of the 32 "Yes" votes want to make themselves known? Did the sky fall too? ;)

wendersfan
01-29-08, 02:10 PM
I voted no. ;)

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 02:10 PM
Perhaps you didn't notice, but abortion is now illegal in 47 of the 50 states of mind.

wendersfan
01-29-08, 02:16 PM
Did the sky fall too? ;)<a href = "http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=515736">According to some people here, yes.</a>

MartinBlank
01-29-08, 02:30 PM
Uh-oh, the Big-A!!

Abortion's just a symptom of a much larger problem. Take care of the problem and the problem and the symptom takes care of itself.

wendersfan
01-29-08, 02:44 PM
Uh-oh, the Big-A!!

Abortion's just a symptom of a much larger problem. Take care of the problem and the problem and the symptom takes care of itself.I agree. If you want fewer abortions, simply make birth control readily available to anyone who wants it.

MartinBlank
01-29-08, 02:45 PM
I agree. If you want fewer abortions, simply make birth control readily available to anyone who wants it.

Especially 12-year-olds!

Ky-Fi
01-29-08, 05:16 PM
And on the subject, I came across this today:


Source URL: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/08012802.html


Vatican-led Global Anti-Abortion Campaign Finds Unusual Supporters

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

VATICAN, January 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A campaign for a moratorium on abortion that began in Italy and is now being expanded to a worldwide effort by the Vatican, is being joined by people from across the ideological and religious spectrum, including individuals often identified with extreme leftism and atheism.

The idea for a worldwide moratorium on abortion originated with Giuliano Ferrara, a non-Christian journalist and former head of the Italian Communist Party in Turin. Although he was once associated with a movement that in most of the world has come to identify itself with abortion, euthanasia, and other elements of the "culture of death", Ferrara is now strongly pro-life.

Responding to a recent decision by the United Nations to call for a moratorium on the death penalty, Ferrara urged that the moratorium be extended to a moratorium on the unjust killing of unborn children. After introducing the idea in a television interview on December 18th, Ferrara published it in his opinion journal il Foglio. From there it spread to the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano and the Italian Bishops' Conference journal, Avvenire. The idea began to be echoed by Catholic cardinals.

Ferrara is joined by Lenin Raghavarshi, an Indian atheist and winner of the Gwangju Prize for Human Rights. Raghavarshi told Asia News, "It is ridiculous and absurd to suggest that abortion is a solution to hunger, in order to control population growth. What's more the concept - typical of UN organisations - that overpopulation represents the greatest danger to the health of a nation has no basis at all in reality….. In reality the world should urgently look at socio-economic and political issues to eliminate hunger, poverty, misery among people".

Raghavarshi identifies the global push for abortion with an agenda that serves the interests of multinational corporations at the expense of the poor and vulnerable.

"Malthus promoted the theory that the main problems of the world like poverty and other such inhuman situations of the marginalized are due to population, but this is completely unscientific idea and false theory," he told Asia News. He continued, "The multinational companies - who thrive on the industry of population control, push the agenda of population control through false propaganda - want to market and promote their products, because their sole aim is profit."

Perhaps the most prominent intellectual to have added his voice to Ferrara's call for an international moratorium on abortions is the British philosopher Roger Scruton, whom the New Yorker magazine once called "the most influential philosopher in the world". According to the Italian Catholic news agency Chiesa, he immediately endorsed the campaign after its announcement.

Ferrara has reportedly stated that he wishes to bring together such prominent intellectuals, as well as others such as Mary Ann Glendon, the former Harvard professor who is now US ambassador to the Vatican, and American bioethicist Leon Kass, to sign the petition. He would also like to see "five million pilgrims of life and love, all in Rome next summer" to request that the United Nation's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" be amended to include "the right to be born," reports Chiesa.

classicman2
01-29-08, 06:02 PM
A conservative state like OK has a 'fall-back' abortion provision.

I have a very good way to greatly decrease the number of abortions - require the clinics tp have the same standards that day surgery establishments are required to have.

creekdipper
01-30-08, 12:02 AM
As much as I dislike Bush, the banning of abortion (along with the banning of homosexual couplings, porn, gambling and/or dozens of other "bannings" the reglious right would like) ain't ever gonna happen. It still amazes me that people vote according to a politican's stand on such issues. I'm surprised these far-right zealots haven't tried to bring back prohibition. ;)

Yeah, just like you don't understand those zealots who wouldn't vote for a candidate simply because he/she is a Ku Klux Klan member.

Or those members on this forum who say they'd never vote for anyone who doesn't believe in evolution.

Dang single-issue voters.

By the way...who are the "reglious right" and where do they meet?

NCMojo
01-30-08, 12:13 AM
Yeah, just like you don't understand those zealots who wouldn't vote for a candidate simply because he/she is a Ku Klux Klan member.

Or those members on this forum who say they'd never vote for anyone who doesn't believe in evolution.

Dang single-issue voters.

By the way...who are the "reglious right" and where do they meet?
Here's an idea -- take a closer look at your analogies...

zekeburger1979
01-30-08, 12:21 AM
I have a very good way to greatly decrease the number of abortions - require the clinics tp have the same standards that day surgery establishments are required to have.

What would those standards be? Link?

LiquidSky
01-30-08, 07:24 AM
By the way...who are the "reglious right" and where do they meet?

The Southern Baptist Convention and they have met right here in Nashville. Some seem more concerned with politics than Christianity.

*edited to change "They" to "Some" so it won't be a blanket statement.

creekdipper
01-30-08, 07:42 AM
The Southern Baptist Convention and they have met right here in Nashville. They seem more concerned with politics than Christianity.

My question was a facetious one, Sky...not even a rhetorical one, and certainly not soliciting actual information. That's why the quotes were placed around "reglious", which would sort of rhymes with "reckless" when pronounced. I forgot to add the wink, though.

Anyway, thanks for wanting to help the debate along with your info., even if the intent of my question was to poke gentle fun at the poster's misspelling.

creekdipper
01-30-08, 07:43 AM
Here's an idea -- take a closer look at your analogies...

You mean the ole "Yeah, but that's different" approach to refuting a point?