Also, I'm not religious but for those who believe that life begins at conception, I can completely understand where their pro-life stance comes from. I think their view deserves respect as well, not ridicule.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Amen (a non-religious amen)
and those religious folk are free to do as they wish, but they shouldn't have the right to use govt. regulations to force their beliefs on someone else.
This isn't about hurting feelings or attacking the religious - it's the other way around.
I'd have more respect for that stance if those same people supported babies once they're born, as it stand however they just seem like hypocrites and arseholes. I know there's plenty of religious people who are pro-people once they're born, but the ones who shout their beliefs the loudest tend to be the most anti-people.
That's because Cruz is a very strong candidate. His policies aside, he is an excellent debater who is running a disciplined, strategic campaign that has muddled through 17 candidates in 9 months. I don't know who would win if he faced Hillary because she is an average debater who doesn't excite voters, whereas Cruz would have complete establishment backing behind him if he manages to get passed Trump.
It also doesn't help "their view" that they are quite often bigots. Perhaps in a big country like the US it's harder to notice, but here in Portugal the ones in TV and debates that go on arguing against abortion are usually exactly the same faces who go to contest gay marriage and stuff like that. That alone removes their credibility and exposes them to ridicule.
Personally, I'll usually debate respectfully with someone who's against abortion in a solely humanitarian view, even if I don't agree with it. I've met a few, they do exist. The majority of pro-life I met though, are also anti-gay, a few are also xenophobes, constantly argue about stuff like social security etc, so I'll just treat them as the mean selfish idiots I think they are (don't want to sound like a bad-ass, as I'm not. By "treating them" I mean ignoring them and insulting them in my private mind).
They are hypocrites plain and simple. Religion has no place in government.
And if they want to talk about Life...carry that through until the grave.
These same people are more concerned about who will pay for the person dying on the streets. Trump is willing to look after that person. Who is the Christian?
Your stance is fine, but recognize it for what it is. You and Ted are fine with government´s intrusion and control of womens´personal reproductive rights. Please admit it, and stop the bs propaganda of Teddy and the right wing for non intrusive government.
The ridicule is for the myth of Ted and Amerika freeing us from government impingement
But they would argue that since the fetus is a person it has rights, and one of those rights is to be protected by the govt. (I'm pro-choice, but think this is how they'd frame their opposition)
I know what you mean, but you're arguing vs. the extreme which is always easier (not convincing them, which is impossible). Better to ignore them and acknowledge and argue with those that have more moderate views, no?
Same Pro life groups which prevent abortions are strictly in favor of capital punishments. Look no further.
Bernie isn't winning.
NY is almost impossible to flip as it is, and that is his best hope.
Pennsylvania has almost as many delegates, and there's not sign of change in the numbers there. NJ, Rhode Island, etc. are described as hopeless on the Sanders subreddit. Big wins in NY and California are his only hope, and the margins are too big to be possible.
NY is almost impossible to flip as it is, and that is his best hope.
Pennsylvania has almost as many delegates, and there's not sign of change in the numbers there. NJ, Rhode Island, etc. are described as hopeless on the Sanders subreddit. Big wins in NY and California are his only hope, and the margins are too big to be possible.
Same Pro life groups which prevent abortions are strictly in favor of capital punishments. Look no further.
And carpet bombing! They fantasize about this shit.
Fine and a fair point. Anyone who believes that life begins at conception should practice Abstinence, have babies if they feck around and generally lead a good life. They shouldn't make others practise the same. I'm religious, lutheran christian for nearly 28 years now.
The way they arrive at their conclusion is through a fairy-tale though, not science. They all used to think that wanking was a sin too but changed their minds on that.
I'm not sure moderates would be voting for Trump, Cruz or even Kasich who's just a slightly quieter version of the crazies.
The amount of people who justify collateral damage in a war with ISIS with what happened during WW II is frightening. And then, they criticize Donald Trump for talking up waterboarding. Do they even realise they are hypocrites? I'm not sure.
NY, NJ and PA are definitely going to Hillary. At very best, Sanders will close the gap of margins to say 55/45, but that won't help him. He needs 65/35 victories at least. They've started downplaying the east coast results and trying to pin everything on CA.
If someone believes that life begins at conception, being pro-life is hardly big gov, it's just enforcement of normal laws where human life is concerned. LGBT discrimination is wrong but again, having a view on the definition of marriage is not really big gov. I'm for legalizing polygamy as well for example, but wouldn't regard someone opposed to it as overbearing etc. Most of these issues are about ethical values and not the size of the state.
Who is 'you guys' here? I'm a libertarian so I certainly don't support a large military or intelligence programs. But Obama doesn't have a good record regarding those things either, so it's hardly a Republican-limited problem. In fact the only candidate who's called for total American withdrawal from overseas military activities is a Republican candidate, Rand Paul. Btw, the American judicial system is woefully underfunded and does in fact need more money. Happy to be tarred with that brush.
Naw. Discussing whether abortion is the killing of an unborn child or whether the father should have input is not tantamount to government denial of women's rights.
Same Pro life groups which prevent abortions are strictly in favor of capital punishments. Look no further.
Yup, that's the biggest contradiction of them all, and you will also find the vast majority are pro gun nuts as well. Menthol, the feckin lot of them.
Well the point is, if you believe that life begins at conception then abortion is murder. I don't really see how you could expect them to stand around and accept that happening. Much as I wouldn't stand for any practice that resulted in infanticide, regardless of the culture/traditions/beliefs involved.
Agreed that people who preach these kinds of things should lead a life in agreement with their religious views, else they are hypocrites (which a fair number are, unfortunately).
He needs 57-43 overall, not 65-35. But since he will lose NJ and PA badly and NY by a margin, it will indeed need to be a crazy margin in CA.
They're very incoherent about it then, as most of them (nearly all, but a few extremes) won't simultaneously ask for the hefty criminal punishments that traditional murderers get. We just saw that with the recent Trump fiasco on that issue. Quite frankly, the majority sound more like people who like to control what others do, in terms of their own morality, rather than feel the genuine repulse we feel when faced with a murder. "Abortion is murder" is just a sound-byte for most pro-life groups, they don't really believe that, or else they'd act accordingly.
Don't you see the problem right there? Your belief system shouldn't dictate Law. If it did, it should dictate laws only for people who believe in the same belief system. It is not possible to have different penal codes for various religions. Pastafarians (yes, that's a religion) may believe that dieting is offensive and should be banned. Should we ban dieting? A more reasonable parallel is the group of radical muslims. If they believe in Shariah law, should you grant beheading rights to Imams?
It's a moot point anyway. Republicans and anti abortionists are very clear in the stand. Do not punish the mother but the providers. You saw the controversy about Drumpf's call to punish mothers?
Haa, I didn't know it was that close yet. I believe NJ could still spring a surprise in terms of margin. Say if Hillary wins PA, NJ and NY by 55/45, what is the margin he needs in CA? Even if he wins handsomely in CA, I don't see a lot of Supers changing side.
I believe that we have an obligation to not kill animals unless it's necessary for survival. I think its morally wrong and.....you can follow this to its logical goals. Unlike with abortion, there is no mother; no opposing interests have to be weighed. It's basically (animal lives+suffering+the environment+resources) v/s pleasure. Again, unlike with abortion and the ambiguity about when exactly brain development starts, there is no ambiguity about the fact that animals suffer/are conscious.
So if you allow personal beliefs to dictate policy, stuff like this can happen.
I gave up doing the maths a while ago. Right now it is 1279-1027 in pledged delegates, with 1748-1058 in supers.
2383 to win, with 1959 in play.
CA is ~500 delegates, NY ~300, PA~200. A decent win in CA can halve his gap, if by crazy miracles he took NY it would be a tossup. But a bad day in PA/NJ would still be the end.
Having said that, today was a good day of polls for him: +2 national, -6 PA.
30% perhaps, maybe more. Maryland is another with 95 delegates that she'll win by a big margin.
538 did a handy guide of what he needs - http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/
I think there are people who genuinely believe it, Arruda. Politically, they try to aim for what they think is realistically achievable even if its not entirely sufficient to what they'd want. Obviously there are also plenty in it for the kicks they get dictating others lives, and those in it for purely political gain / personal attention. I'm not justifying the entire political agenda, just that if that's someone's personal view it should be respected as such.
Precisely. Everyone has to live under the same laws. How can making people who believe abortion is murder live in conditions where its allowed be any more justifiable than outlawing abortion among those who do not believe the same? There's no clear right or wrong on this issue.
Yeah, that's a fair point of view. I would respect you having political views to outlaw meat eating etc if that's what you believe. Maybe future societies will regard us as barbaric for eating other sentient beings, who knows.
Works for the Russians
It does? Links?
well a few months ago Assad was in trouble, lost too many key towns, now they are gaining territory against ISIS (Palmyra for example), so did the Russian bomb the shit everybody worked? Yes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5
some clarification about the big banks break up interview.
@Raoul
some clarification about the big banks break up interview.
@Raoul
Who says men don´t have input? Him saying - but not OK for him to have an input on whether she keeps the baby in the first place? - is totally misleading in the first place. Men often have a massive say, and it´s usually convincing the woman to have an abortion. Just ask that rabid anti abortion doctor/congressman Scott Desjarlais.
It is ultimately the woman´s body and her decision though, unless of course you´re a man seeking control over her. Hmmm . . .
I'm confused. In Lyin' Ted's victory speech last night he talked about being counted out and way behind in Wisconsin just weeks ago. Only Walker was substantially ahead and that was back in May 2015!
And the sad thing is, it sums up the loudest anti abortion people in most countries.
why we call him Lyin Ted
Yes there is. A sizeable population believe in cutting off the hands of people who indulge in thieving as per their belief system. How can you deny their right to practise what they believe in while claiming 'gray area' on abortion rights?
the confusion about these abortion discussions is about deciding when the child is afforded protection under the law as a person.
Until the child is born, only the woman has rights.
Until the child is born, only the woman has rights.
- Status