Originally posted by duecerHow did we get from economics to abortion? It is because PEOPLE make the economy run and there is a direct correlation between the two. As far as its significance, if you call the reduction of the US population by about 50 million people, since Roe vs. Wade, insignificant, then that is your call. In addition, you also assume that they would all be single moms or that we would be better off if the children with single moms would be nonexistent.
how did we go from economics to abortion? Does your mind work in any semblance of a logical fashion? The number of new Americans would not be significantly increased by eliminating abortions. as far as economic impact, the majority would be single moms who would have to quit their jobs and go on welfare....a further drain on our economy. so now we are not onl ...[text shortened]... aise her children and supporting her. Your argument is irrelevant and ill thought out.
next!?
So who mind works in an illogical fashion again?
Originally posted by duecerWe have let the legislatures do their job for some time now with over $11 trillion in debt to show for it as well as standing armies in two foriegn countries still in place. Maybe we should begin to look out for the majority for a change?
our system of government was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, let the legislators do their job
Originally posted by MelanerpesThese guys are going to face a lot of angry people no matter what they do or don't do. The only question will be, will it cost them their jobs?
But even here, they may have to face a lot of angry liberals in the next primary if reforms are watered down too much or don't pass at all.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey49% opposed and 46% in favor -- so the "public as a whole" isn't opposed, it's evenly divided.
No offense, but the US is a little bigger than your work place. In fact, the last poll I saw said that 49% were in opposition as where 46% were in favor. Also, seniors seem to be the ones who oppose it the most with 42% thinking it will worsen their access opposed to 24% who think it will increase their access.
So the question begs, is it a moral thing t ...[text shortened]... ey masses don't know what is best for them.
So what then is best, a tyranny or democracy?
So it's very likely that in the "blue" districts, the numbers would be weighted relatively strongly in favor of healthcare reform - and in "red" districts, they'd be strongly opposed. And in "purple" districts, you'd have a similar even mix.
So what's the moral thing for a representative to do? One approach would be to just take a poll and change your position depending on how the wind is blowing that day in your district, but this is the sort of thing that ends up with you saying stuff like "I was for it before I was against it". At the end of the day, you just end up looking like a fool.
I would tell my representative to use his or her best judgment (even if it differs from what I personally want). Gather all pertinent information and make the decision that you believe is best for your consituency. You were elected because the voters trusted your judgment to make these kinds of decisions (or at least trusted you better than your opponent). While there's always room for adapting to opinions voiced by constituents, I can't imagine how it would be moral to cast a vote you don't truly believe in.
Originally posted by whodey50 million? doubtful. and yes, the VAST majority would be single moms, and taxpayers would be footing the bill. Not just for their room and board, but for their....are you ready for it?.....pre-natal care and hospital stay upon delivery....you dope
How did we get from economics to abortion? It is because PEOPLE make the economy run and there is a direct correlation between the two. As far as its significance, if you call the reduction of the US population by about 50 million people, since Roe vs. Wade, insignificant, then that is your call. In addition, you also assume that they would all be single m ...[text shortened]... ren with single moms would be nonexistent.
So who mind works in an illogical fashion again?
Originally posted by whodeyyeah...the majority...code for white people right?
We have let the legislatures do their job for some time now with over $11 trillion in debt to show for it as well as standing armies in two foriegn countries still in place. Maybe we should begin to look out for the majority for a change?
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe problem is that this does not always happen, or if it does, their positions are full of comprimise.
I would tell my representative to use his or her best judgment (even if it differs from what I personally want). Gather all pertinent information and make the decision that you believe is best for your consituency. You were elected because the voters trusted your judgment to make these kinds of decisions (or at least trusted you better than your opponent).
So the question becomes, what happens if you don't believe they are acting on our behalf or at what point do you make that determination? For example, everyone and their brother knows that tort reform should be a part of the NHC plan but it is blatantly missing. Why? It is because the Dems do not want to rub their constituency, who are the trial lawyers, the wrong way.
Originally posted by duecerWell since you put it that way, I guess we are all better off with them dead. My bad.
50 million? doubtful. and yes, the VAST majority would be single moms, and taxpayers would be footing the bill. Not just for their room and board, but for their....are you ready for it?.....pre-natal care and hospital stay upon delivery....you dope
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyFirst, not everyone agrees that tort reform is important, or if any current proposals wouldn't cause more harm than good. But suppose a representative believes in both universal healthcare and tort reform
The problem is that this does not always happen, or if it does, their positions are full of comprimise.
So the question becomes, what happens if you don't believe they are acting on our behalf or at what point do you make that determination? For example, everyone and their brother knows that tort reform should be a part of the NHC plan but it is blatant ...[text shortened]... cause the Dems do not want to rub their constituency, who are the trial lawyers, the wrong way.
If your top priority was universal healthcare - you would probably want to exclude anything, including tort reform, that could interfere with getting a bill that could pass.
On the other hand, if your priority was tort reform, and you believed that excluding tort reform now would make it much harder to get it done later - you would probably insist that it be included in any healthcare bill.
In both cases, there are many judgment calls -- How good are the current proposals for healthcare and tort reform? What are the downsides of these proposals? What is the best strategy for reaching both goals?
And, yes, people generally prefer to win their re-election campaigns, so campaign-related issues have to be factored in. And yes, some representatives are willing to sell their soul for another term of office.