So, what next for Americans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

When a "Born Alive" act, basically outlawing the procedure, was brought to a vote in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against it. This is not merely a defensive posture to an assumption of slippery slope from the pro-choice side, it is a widening of the scope of abortion. In light of that, and in light of the stated intention by NARAL to get the federal "Born Alive" act repealed, I think it's a safe guess that it will be.

---

The bill Obama voted against was full of backdoor riders meant to curtail the legality of abortion. The insistence that he "voted for infanticide" is entirely created by the far right, and an intentional misrepresentation of the reasons he voted no on it.

Let's be straight about the point; the pro-life movement is not seeking to create "responsible" and "ethical" laws regarding abortion procedures, which they view as inherently immoral and unethical. They are trying to find any possible avenue to making it illegal, even if they have to do it by babysteps (pardon the pun), which was what the Illinois state bill was full of.

I also think the idea that abortion is "chic" is a gross, gross misrepresentation. I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find, even on the left, even in the pro-choice crowd, someone who would say, "You just got an abortion? WELL DONE!"

Tuff, I am a bit mystified as to why you believe Obama saying he wants to end the culture wars means a total submission to the will of the pro-life movement, or else he's insincere. If there was some middle ground compromise that would appease the pro-life movement, I think there's room for discussion of it. But the pro-life movement is an extremist one, and won't settle for anything less than nearly full banning. Even when they are not for full banning, they want it only available for really extreme things; within the pro-life movement there isn't even consensus on whether or not it should be alright if the mother's life is in danger or in the case of incestuous rape.

Quote:

---

A similar poll in January 2006 surveyed people in the United States about U.S. opinion on abortion; 33% said that abortion should be "permitted only in cases such as rape, incest or to save the woman's life", 27% said that abortion should be "permitted in all cases", 15% that it should be "permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now", 17% said that it should "only be permitted to save the woman's life", and 5% said that it should "never" be permitted.

---

As you can see, no consensus. When the public is this divided on the issue and there is no clear majority for one specific ruleset on the issue I think the wisest course is leave it up to individuals and doctors to make the best decision in accordance with their beliefs and medical needs.

Thank you Don, for your insights. :bow: It seems to be an intractable problem, which is very sad.

The "Born Alive" procedure you described seems indefensible to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

The bill Obama voted against was full of backdoor riders meant to curtail the legality of abortion. The insistence that he "voted for infanticide" is entirely created by the far right, and an intentional misrepresentation of the reasons he voted no on it.

---

So you support the Federal version of the "Born Alive Act" which doesn't contain these riders? If so, then according to NARAL, you're anti-choice. Actually, according to this article in the NYTimes, (yes, you read that right, I've started reading the NY Times again in my effort to reach out and understand and support the other side), there were actually two bills, one which was identical to the federal version, and one that provided civil and legal penalties for failing to provide neo-natal care to said babies/fetuses. Obama, as the committe chairman, squashed them both, because he claims they were linked, thought it appears he could have squashed just the one. There appears to be some debate on whether they were directly linked or not, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and drop the point.

Quote:

---

Let's be straight about the point; the pro-life movement is not seeking to create "responsible" and "ethical" laws regarding abortion procedures, which they view as inherently immoral and unethical. They are trying to find any possible avenue to making it illegal, even if they have to do it by babysteps (pardon the pun), which was what the Illinois state bill was full of.

---

I do not argue this point. You're absolutely correct that the Pro-Life side also has a "not a whiff of a compromise" attitude towards the issue. You'll note that I ceded that point to Banquo in my response.

Quote:

---

I also think the idea that abortion is "chic" is a gross, gross misrepresentation. I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find, even on the left, even in the pro-choice crowd, someone who would say, "You just got an abortion? WELL DONE!"

---

I guess you've forgotten this 'trendy' piece out of the New York Times magazine.

Oka

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I guess you've forgotten this 'trendy' piece out of the New York Times magazine. ?

---

Sweet mary mother of God. After reading that article I want to vomit. I will never understand those kind of people or there thought process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I guess you've forgotten this 'trendy' piece out of the New York Times magazine.

Oka

---

That's part of the problem Don... you're talking to a stained in the wool leftie right now. Don't assume you know how every prochoice person thinks by reading some inflammatory article in the NY Times editorial page. Look at the stats I put up... public opinion is all over, and anyone who acts like 50% of the country is bloodthirsty KILL DA BABIES IT'S COOL ghouls, they're just fearmongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

That's part of the problem Don... you're talking to a stained in the wool leftie right now. Don't assume you know how every prochoice person thinks by reading some inflammatory article in the NY Times editorial page. Look at the stats I put up... public opinion is all over, and anyone who acts like 50% of the country is bloodthirsty KILL DA BABIES IT'S COOL ghouls, they're just fearmongering.

---

I never said anything of the sort, and I resent you portraying my views that way. I said that in some circles, abortion is enjoying a 'chic' phase. Think "Cider House Rules". Think "Juno". Yes public opinion is all over the place, but one thing the majority of Americans DO agree on (possibly even you) is that elective abortion should have a timelimit, somewhere between 13 weeks and full viability (~24 weeks).

This isn't an abortion thread, so I consider the matter closed, and this will be the last I have to say on this topic, in this thread. The funny thing is, my main point for raising it was to suggest that attempting to end the procedure by legislating it away was misdirected and unfruiful. One thing I think we can both agree upon here is that lowering the 1.2 million abortions that are performed in the US each year would not be a bad thing, especially if it was done by offering better alternatives, not by passing laws.

As a feminist, I'd like to point out that abortions are not risk free and put women at jeopardy (yes, so do pregnancies). The best option for women is avoiding unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I never said anything of the sort, and I resent you portraying my views that way. I said that in some circles, abortion is enjoying a 'chic' phase. Think "Cider House Rules". Think "Juno". Yes public opinion is all over the place, but one thing the majority of Americans DO agree on (possibly even you) is that elective abortion should have a timelimit, somewhere between 13 weeks and full viability (~24 weeks).

This isn't an abortion thread, so I consider the matter closed, and this will be the last I have to say on this topic, in this thread. The funny thing is, my main point for raising it was to suggest that attempting to end the procedure by legislating it away was misdirected and unfruiful. One thing I think we can both agree upon here is that lowering the 0.8 million abortions that are performed in the US each year would not be a bad thing, especially if it was done by offering better alternatives, not by passing laws.

As a feminist, I'd like to point out that abortions are not risk free and put women at jeopardy (yes, so do pregnancies). The best option for women is avoiding unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

---

That's true of EVERY elective procedure Don. It's factual, but not widely known, that babies get severe infections and/or die every year from circumcision. Way off topic, but wanted to point out that danger from elective procedures is nothing specific to abortion. You can even die going to get plastic surgery.

Well, like I said Koga, I was dropping the topic, so you're getting the last word (and unlike Bill O'Reily, I won't say you do then get a zinger in at the end).

I can't believe you passed over my admission that I've started reading the NY Times again. :jawdrop: Now, I know all about Jason Blair and company, but I'm willing to give this whole left of center approach a chance. What else do you guys read? I don't waste time reading fiction, so I can't go to DailyKos or MoveOn.org. The Atlantic and the Nation are a bit too focused, is there a lefty Drudgereport out there I should start reading?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I guess you've forgotten this 'trendy' piece out of the New York Times magazine.

---

That is simply barbarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, like I said Koga, I was dropping the topic, so you're getting the last word (and unlike Bill O'Reily, I won't say you do then get a zinger in at the end).

I can't believe you passed over my admission that I've started reading the NY Times again. :jawdrop: Now, I know all about Jason Blair and company, but I'm willing to give this whole left of center approach a chance. What else do you guys read? I don't waste time reading fiction, so I can't go to DailyKos or MoveOn.org. The Atlantic and the Nation are a bit too focused, is there a lefty Drudgereport out there I should start reading?

---

Believe it or not, Don, I read mostly AP. I don't even read the NY Times. Local papers, LA Times, Daily Breeze, and then sometimes BBC stuff for international news. I don't run away to some "liberal haven." I don't 100% trust anything I read, even British news, while generally better than American ones, has its own bias problems. One story in particular I brought up quite awhile ago was the completely different spin on the same story between American and British news on the same incident of a pre-teen girl being shot from an Israeli security border post. The American (CNN) story had somehow neglected the bit of information that another couple dozen rounds had been posthumously emptied into her body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I can't believe you passed over my admission that I've started reading the NY Times again. :jawdrop:

---

If it is any consolation - I am impressed.

Now, to get you reading DailyKos :wink:

I'm willing to give this whole left of center approach a chance.

By this do you mean you could be moving your political stance if results go well, or conservative at heart willing to go along with this until the conservative movement in your country changes ?

jus' curious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I'm willing to give this whole left of center approach a chance.

By this do you mean you could be moving your political stance if results go well, or conservative at heart willing to go along with this until the conservative movement in your country changes ?

jus' curious...

---

I am a small "c" conservative. Fiscally conservative. Non-interventionist on foreign policy, socially non-interventionist as well.

Right now, I am saying that I'm willing to be a team player and work like a dog with an idea in mind that I didn't agree with. Should that idea prove itself to be true, yes I will adopt it. I don't believe in turning poor people out to the cold. I believe that relying on government in the first place is a terrible place to be, but I am open to the possibility in that I am wrong in this.

Here's some more of what's next:

Reid looking to remove Lieberman as committee head

Quote:

---

Democrats in the past had tolerated Lieberman's political straddling because he held their slim 51-49 majority in his hands. Now that Democrats have strengthened their hold in the Senate to at least 55 seats as a result of Tuesday's election, Lieberman no longer is vital to their majority control.

---

They may have thrown him out of the party, but they didn't mind letting Lieberman caucus with them. But now, with a solid senate majority, it sounds like they want to completely throw him overboard. :yes:

I'm sure if you're a good partisan Democrat, you're pleased to see this happen. However, those who were expecting a new bipartisan tone in congress may be disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

They may have thrown him out of the party, but they didn't mind letting Lieberman caucus with them. But now, with a solid senate majority, it sounds like they want to completely throw him overboard. :yes:

---

Good riddance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm sure if you're a good partisan Democrat, you're pleased to see this happen. However, those who were expecting a new bipartisan tone in congress may be disappointed.

---

...you caught me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I don't waste time reading fiction

---

Now I really am speechless. Yowza. May you be tormented by the ghost of Philip K. Dick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The Atlantic and the Nation are a bit too focused, is there a lefty Drudgereport out there I should start reading?

---

Hey kid, here's a nickel, go get yourself a real news magazine.

I would caution my fellow conservatives on reaching across the aile. "Bipartison" to democrats simply means to agree to what they want. So, I plan on giving BHO the exact same respect and support that so many on the Left gave George Bush during his presidency...

Oh and one more thing, that's complete history revision about everyone being behind Bush after 911. So cut the bull. It was not even an hour after the towers collapsed before he was being criticised for flying aound in Air Force One and not a day before people were on him about not freaking out in front of the school kids when he first heard of the attacks. The Jedi mind trick that Obama has played on all you fools won't work on me. I remember, and untill Mr Hussien sends his civilian security force to gather me up to go to a reeducation camp, I will remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I remember, and untill Mr Hussien sends his civilian security force to gather me up to go to a reeducation camp, I will remember.

---

The appropriate agency has been contacted. Please do not bother packing, as everything you need will be provided in the jungle compound.

So what's this lieberman character like, is he something like the democrat version of pre bush McCain ?

Whilst the whole republicans like of him does ring some warning bells for me, surely this is somewhat against obama's bipartisan rhetoric... this guy seems like a great choice to somewhat reach across the aisle, him and one or two of the better republicans could prove his bipartisanship and help concentrate on rebuilding the country rather than partisan conflict.....

The Jedi mind trick that Obama has played on all you fools won't work on me. I remember, and untill Mr Hussien sends his civilian security force to gather me up to go to a reeducation camp, I will remember.

How does it feel to be one of the last sane members of the human race ?

anyway back to work with you dave, xaihou has been promised a ps3 but pj's hidden his dads money so you need to pick up the slack....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Oh and one more thing, that's complete history revision about everyone being behind Bush after 911. So cut the bull.

---

Bush's job approval:
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...phqsjtd5hq.gif

Notice how the Democrats are in the mid-80s approval ratings right after 9/11. I would call say that means they were right behind him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The appropriate agency has been contacted. Please do not bother packing, as everything you need will be provided in the jungle compound.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXK0Hjfkrgw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Oh and one more thing, that's complete history revision about everyone being behind Bush after 911. So cut the bull. It was not even an hour after the towers collapsed before he was being criticised for flying aound in Air Force One and not a day before people were on him about not freaking out in front of the school kids when he first heard of the attacks. The Jedi mind trick that Obama has played on all you fools won't work on me. I remember, and untill Mr Hussien sends his civilian security force to gather me up to go to a reeducation camp, I will remember.

---

Super "liberals" like Peter Jennings were even starting to comment on why the President hadn't made an appearance to address the American people yet.

At any rate, you're just making things up if you think Dems were some fifth column deadset against Bush and refusing to cooperate with him even after 9/11. Even I was behind Bush after 9/11. And he had no trouble getting virtually anything he wanted passed in Congress for what, two years minimum after 9/11. So you, good sir, are engaging in the revisionism. The idea that Dems never gave Bush any credence whatsoever, at any time, out of sheer irrational personal dislike, is a characterization much more accurately applied to how conservatives are already reacting to Obama.

Well, all I can say to you all is that life is just too damn short to get all bunged up over politics. The sun will rise tomorrow, life will lurch along in it's usual unpredictable up & down way. So stop worrying/moaning/primal screaming about "things" because "things" just aren't that important...the people in your life are what's important. Think about it.

Happy pill, anyone? ~:wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I agree that it should be "Safe, Legal and Rare", but we as a society are doing what we can to see to it that it's anything but rare.

---

Sigh. I'm not going to turn this into an abortion thread, but does anybody care that the abortion rate is at a 30-year low? Anybody?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sigh. I'm not going to turn this into an abortion thread, but does anybody care that the abortion rate is at a 30-year low? Anybody?

---

*raises hand*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sigh. I'm not going to turn this into an abortion thread, but does anybody care that the abortion rate is at a 30-year low? Anybody?

---

Is it? If it is, then I would like to reframe the tone of my posts on this matter. I thought in 2007, we were at 1.2 million a year, according to the CDC. All I'm saying is that contraception, education and abstinence are vastly superior solutions.

You'll get no argument from me there. But the actual rate of abortions is at its lowest level since we started recording data. Here's one linky among many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I would caution my fellow conservatives on reaching across the aile. "Bipartison" to democrats simply means to agree to what they want. So, I plan on giving BHO the exact same respect and support that so many on the Left gave George Bush during his presidency...

.

---

Oh man.

After the last 8 years, you have the nerve to say this? Seriously? This is what you guys say the half of the time that you aren't complaining about why the Dems didn't overturn all the bad Bush legislation since they took Congress? Sounds just like how half the time you heard Reverend Wright, and the other half you heard Obama was a Muslim.

As far as obstructionism or refusing to cooperate goes, nothing the Dems have done or are likely to do bears out the idea that they are merely the mirror image of what the Bush Admin looked like when it had a Republican majority. Not by a LONG shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Oh man.

After the last 8 years, you have the nerve to say this? Seriously? This is what you guys say the half of the time that you aren't complaining about why the Dems didn't overturn all the bad Bush legislation since they took Congress? Sounds just like how half the time you heard Reverend Wright, and the other half you heard Obama was a Muslim.

---

This is slightly off topic but I feel it is needed for me to understand the politics of your nation, now you said "You guys" and you often say "us" and "we", refering to DevDave and the Republicans, your person and the Democrats, respectively.

Is this how most Americans approach politics, with this kind of sincere sense of personal affiliation?