I tried to write something here about understand and fairness and the value of open debate. I want to understand how a reasonable person could believe that "no exceptions" is a good idea. But I just can't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cat5SyMBSpk
You are a rational thinking person. Don't fry your logic by trying to understand the unreasonable tools of the conservative party.
ReplyDeleteidiot...Paul ......u are nazi
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm not getting the point. Didn't Ryan say in that clip that jerk should get out.
ReplyDeleteAs far as a debate on abortion, no one has won to their total satisfaction (see below). Ryan could say that opposing views are extreme. He doesn't, when asked he simply states his views.
Perhaps the most notable opposition to Roe comes from Roe herself; in 1995, Norma L. McCorvey revealed that she became pro-life and is now a vocal opponent of abortion
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health.
Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today, about issues including whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
The party calls for no exceptions. There are many cases where the mother could be saved (cancer-infections-etc) and she would be put to death on the chance that the fetus might be viable. Her wishes would not matter, nor would the doctors have any say. No exceptions -period...
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that the "morning after" pill should be available to victims of rape, but it would not. Even if the victim went to another country for the pill, she would be arrested on her return. I may be wrong about this but I feel strongly about the first part. If the mother can be saved and the viability of the fetus is questionable it should be her choice. Not the governments.
No no no no. Ryan said he believes in no exceptions. HIS belief. He clearly said that Romney has said he, Romney, is for exceptions. (and he's fine with that). He is not trying to force his belief onto anyone else. Your and my beliefs are different. It shouldn't have to be political.
ReplyDeleteSorry - I was mixing in the Republican Platform position. My bad. The platform (and Ryan) is "NO EXCEPTIONS) while the original piece was just about him. Again, sorry.
ReplyDeleteEven so•••
ReplyDeleteMr. Boehner, the top-ranking Republican in Washington, was dismissive of the party platform that was completed last week under the direction of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, the Republican Party platform chair.
The Republican platform was in the news last week because the group drafting the document met after Missouri Rep. Todd Akin made controversial comments about rape. The 2012 GOP platform contains a plank calling for banning abortions without including a specific exception in the case of rape or incest.
But then***
ReplyDeleteWhile Washington may play fast and loose consider the planks to be "guidelines", can we count on the States to be reasonable ? Arizona for example has a law that says life begins before conception. Can Virginia and Mississippi be far behind ?
Before? Or at? I'll look later but I remember at•••
ReplyDelete