Originally posted by SleepyguyYou can be pro-choice and still believe that the government shouldn't pay for abortions.
Abortion is not a cut and dry Republican vs Democrat issue. In fact about 40 house Dems are threatening to torpedo ObamaCare over it.
----------
[i]Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on Tuesday threatened that he may work with Republicans to torpedo healthcare reform unless he gets a vote to strip abortion-related provisions out of the House bill.
Stupak ...[text shortened]...
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65099-stupak-threatens-to-work-with-gop-to-kill-health-bill
Originally posted by kmax87Agreed. Here in the UK, motions on abortion are always free votes (that is, unwhipped by party lines and left to the conscience of the MP). I haven't looked at the US voting records, but over here, although a greater proportion of Conservatives might vote against pro-abortion measures and a greater proportion of Labour vote for them, there are always plenty of Tories who vote for and Labour MPs who vote against. The European perspective is similar - although specifically Christian parties of right or left naturally tend to regard the matter in party political lines, of course.
All jokes aside the fact that politicians still do vote on conscience with respect to certain weighty issues of ethics and morality is a cause for some celebration. We have not all been swallowed by the Borg, yet!
It's very American to have a matter such as abortion so strongly identified with party lines; I'm not sure, of course, but I think perhaps part of the explanation for this was the co-option of Christian fundamentalists by the GOP which started many years ago...
Originally posted by DrKFIndeed.
Agreed. Here in the UK, motions on abortion are always free votes (that is, unwhipped by party lines and left to the conscience of the MP). I haven't looked at the US voting records, but over here, although a greater proportion of Conservatives might vote against pro-abortion measures and a greater proportion of Labour vote for them, there are always plenty of ...[text shortened]... his was the co-option of Christian fundamentalists by the GOP which started many years ago...
Originally posted by kmax87So does life begin at this squeemish stage of development? Personally, I think life begins when they have a full set of hair. I just can't imagine life being worth living bald.
Emotionally I'm pretty squeamish about anything much past the blastocyst being aborted.
Originally posted by sh76In other words: the Republicans should back electoral reform so that you can vote the Libertarians into office?
What would or what should?
What would? Who knows?
What should? The Republicans should adopt
1) A fundamental belief in freedom of the individual rather than freedom of the collective
2) A belief in maintaining a balanced budget except in the event of a true emergency (which we have not had since Pearl Harbor)
3) The view that government is there ...[text shortened]... ree from government interference
I'm sure there are others; but this is a pretty good start.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey should be strong on national security; strong on law enforcement, recognize that some regulation of the markets is necessary and not inherently despise all government action.
In other words: the Republicans should back electoral reform so that you can vote the Libertarians into office?
But other than that, basic libertarian principles are a good start for the platform of the Republican party, yes.
Originally posted by smw6869Descriptions of abortion that include procedures for puncturing the skull and snapping limbs kind of have too much of the macabre associated with it for me to blithely go on eating my cornflakes.
"Emotionally I'm pretty squeamish about anything much past the blastocyst being aborted."
Obviously you have never witnessed invagination and gastrulation. Makes me want to up-chuck !
GRANNY.