I am Pro-Life.It is the primary reason I am registered Republican.In most other aspects of my life I am liberal.Today I got a letter (mass mailing) from Rand Paul and the National Pro-Life Alliance.Although I have heard it before, it never really struck me how very UN Pro-Life the Republican Party is.In my opinion Pro-Life means that you are in favor of people living over people dying. In my opinion this extends to pre-born people. However it does not stop at birth. It should in my opinion apply 10x more once you are born. Where are the pro-life petitions to extend health care for those who do not have access? Where are the pro-life petitions to end the death penalty? Where are the pro-life petitions to stop unwanted pregnancies?
This is a NEW thought to you???????????????Hmmmmmmm!
This is a NEW thought to you???????????????I had heard it before. I and knew there was some truth to it, but somehow reading the mailing from Mr Paul, combined with the current arguements the GOP is prioritizing made it so much more obvious.
I am Pro-Life.It is the primary reason I am registered Republican.In most other aspects of my life I am liberal.See, I don't really understand that combination.If one wants people to stop having abortions, as you say, one should support aggressively lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancies. That means teaching children, broadly and from a young age, about how not to become pregnant. It means free (or as near to it as possible) and widely accessible birth-control, for people who are sexually active.The current GOP is entirely antithetical to those things. The only course of action that most conservatives recommend is, "Don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant." That's a failed policy, it doesn't work, people are biologically wired to like sex and to have sex.Once a child is born out of wedlock, as you point out, the modern GOP's job is done. They're happy the child wasn't aborted. But they want to wash their hands of any social responsibility to help that child grow up to be an educated, healthy, productive member of society. If the kid is hungry, too bad, the parent should work harder. If the kid grows up illiterate, too bad, it's the fault of the crappy public school system they attend, and the parent's fault too. If the kid commits a crime, too bad, lock 'em up, hope they rot.So, why on earth would you still be voting for the GOP? The modern GOP likes to talk about "personal responsibility". Well, what's wrong with providing people with the means not become pregnant, and if an accident still happens, allowing them to make the personal choice to abort? No one's forcing anyone to make this choice. Why should they be denied that choice? If one's faith-based beliefs make abortion a sinful thing to do, then let the person making that choice carry that. The modern GOP also likes to natter on about the "nanny state". What the hell could be "nannier" than getting between a woman and her doctor in such a personal matter?--FY
All that logic, FY, is never going to work on PA. The kid should have picked better parents.
The kid should have picked better parents.Mitt chose to stop at five....
So, why on earth would you still be voting for the GOP? The modern GOP likes to talk about "personal responsibility".I should point out that I have not voted for a Republican since 2000 (at the national level).I was morally against Bush's use of torture. Then they threw Sector under the bus, and I have not had respect for anyone running for a national post since then.Truthfully the republicans running for state office that I have met were very much of the same cloth.Only the local GOP members seem to be worth voting for, but even then, not all of them.
Although my parents extended families are staunch Republicans, my parents were each the black sheep of their families and voted Dem. As I came of age I registered Libertarian, and then once I bought a home and needed permits, it became clear that these were gotten much easier if you had a R next to your name in the voter rolls.Imagine if Fox News found out that a Republican had trouble getting building permits in a Dem controlled township? But the opposite happens (or at least is rumored to) every week here in Upper Darby.
I was morally against Bush's use of torture. _____________________But although Obama sends drones everyone to blow people up, I find him just fine. That he basically believes in birth channel abortions is just a bonusBS meter just broke again, gotta stop turning it on before coming to PA
BS meter just broke again, gotta stop turning it on before coming to PA C'mon, this is just another "I was a staunch Republican until.......(insert latest BS here)...." post. Let them have their fun.
C'mon, this is just another "I was a staunch Republican until.......(insert latest BS here)...." post. Let them have their fun. ________________________Truth is I AM a registered Democrat, I gotta start making this type of post. NYC is so crooked, I could take no chances when my wife became involved in a politically influenced position when I still lived in Brooklyn. And I have been too lazy to change affiliation. Just in case she ever moves out here, I should probably change to Republican, as we are just as crooked here, just the other way. Then I can make one of those I was a registered Democrat but the party left me I didn't leave the party, and though I would of course vamp it up a little, it would essentially be true.
But although Obama sends drones everyone to blow people up, I find him just fine. That he basically believes in birth channel abortions is just a bonusDrones are acts of war.Defending the nation from those that want to do us harm. I am not against defense.I am still pro-life, I don't pretend to agree with everything Obama supports. But I agree with a lot more of what Obama supports than what Romney says he supports. That is assuming that if he takes both sides of an issue, he really means the side I am against.
Drones are acts of war.Defending the nation from those that want to do us harm.I am not against defense.If drones were so great, then why are more civilians killed that combatants. This is more a way to protect pilots while attacking targets that are not well identified. If there were real pilots flying these missions, then there would be better trade offs; is this target worth risking this pilots life. Now it is "Is there be someone to assassinate who might be at this at this location." Assassination is not legal under modern rules of war but death of field of battle is. Hmmmo R
I get building permits every month of the year, and it makes no difference if you are a D or an R to whether you can pull them.
"pre-born people"No such animal.
jerryab says"The kid should have picked better parents."Mitt chose to stop at five....Um, is that a Mormon thing?
Um, is that a Mormon thing?Think of it as a defying God's will thing....
If drones were so great, then why are more civilians killed that combatants.If an al-Qaeda drone attacked the World Trade Center Twin Towers, would it kill more combatants or more civilians? And why are those two groups mixed together--expecially at that location?
By the same token, I understand that in Philadelphia Republicans get building contracts all the time. Are you suggesting that this never happens? I don't know for certain that it has ever happened, but I know more than a few members who take it as fact.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |