Female Mccain''s VP pick

[diamondfan]

To people who are pro life, she is embodying what they believe.

I did see her say on the Charlie Rose interview that SHE believes it, and would not have one, but that she respected and understood others views. To me, great, so do not try to do anything to take the right away and I will feel better about her.

Extremists of any type are tough for me to take, I am much more a middle of the road type.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 6:34:34 PM
Author: stone_seeker
60% tax rate I was referring to was including capital gains. History shows that increases in capital gains rates does not increase government revenues - it actually lowers them. So Obama intends to re-distribute wealth. If I had Warren Buffet's money, I wouldnt care either. And he endorses people for a variety of reasons. But someone who earns $150K and lives in New York City is not a rich person.

I am not a fan of the notion of re-distribution of wealth for a lot of reasons. Ironically, history has proven that the people it hurts the most are the recipients because it keeps them in their current state with no incentive to seek higher wage jobs.

Barack worked with people from Saul Alinsky's group as a community organizer in Chicago which is a radical left-wing group who's ideologies border on those of the socialist party. Class warfare was one of the methods they employed to generate conflict in order to rise to power.

**Non-Palin post alert** Yeah, 60% is a very realistic number for someone will a small business who declares incomes earned from the business as personal income to avoid being taxed twice.

Someone sent me this hypothetical in an email, maybe some economist-minded PSers can explain how it would be better for America: A small business brings in $600,000/year in gross income. The business has 4 employees who each make $30,000/year = $120,000/year paid out by the business owner. A current tax rate of 35% costs the company $210,000/year. Assuming an additional 25% overhead at $150,000/year, the owner takes home about $120,000/year in income. Under Obama's plan, the tax would be raised to about 51%, which would equal $306,000/year in taxes alone. The cost of employees plus overhead would remain the same to equal $270,000/year and the business owner would now be left with a grand total of $24,000/year, or an 80% pay cut. What will happen? Obviously the owner will either close the business, fire some employees, and/or charge higher prices to make more profits to survive. The business would certainly not grow or hire more employees. The $500 or $1,000 tax check in the mail won't do much for most Americans directly or indirectly affected by this scenario who lose their jobs or pay more for goods or services. It's hard to understand how this would benefit people in the long-run. I would appreciate if anyone can refute this story for me, as it has bothered and scared me ever since I read it.

Also, maybe someone can explain to me how, if 40% of Americans don't pay income tax, he will give tax cuts to 95% of Americans? Sounds like those of us who do pay taxes will be paying for handouts for the 40%!

 

[E B]

Date: 9/14/2008 8:55:21 PM
Author: diamondfan

I did see her say on the Charlie Rose interview that SHE believes it, and would not have one, but that she respected and understood others views. To me, great, so do not try to do anything to take the right away and I will feel better about her.

I don't think she'd respect and understand others' views on abortion. As it's been said before, she wants everyone to respect her daughter's choice to keep her child, but wants to take this choice away from other women. I have a BIG problem with that.

Her god, her beliefs, her morals will not govern my body. And I will fight to protect not only my rights, but the rights of every other woman in this country.

 

[Anna0499]

I have read articles that have shown that while Palin has some very strong personal beliefs she has not pushed them into legislative or executive action if they are not wanted by her people while in office (i.e. creationism being taught alongside evolution in schools). I know the pro-choice saying, "My Body, My Choice," but I have a *big* problem with federal funding of abortions (and I know other pro-choice people do as well) and I believe citizens in states should be able to choose for themselves whether or not they want to pay for someone else''s abortion. Obama''s ads are just scare tactics aimed at pro-choice Americas who haven''t read Roe v. Wade or who don''t understand the Constitution. She will be the VP, not the President, so it''ll be interesting how much power she will really have if McCain is elected. Just because pro-life and "right wing" Americans love her personal views does not mean it will translate into her politics beyond the election.

 

[diamondfan]

Date: 9/14/2008 9:59:19 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
I have read articles that have shown that while Palin has some very strong personal beliefs she has not pushed them into legislative or executive action if they are not wanted by her people while in office (i.e. creationism being taught alongside evolution in schools). I know the pro-choice saying, ''My Body, My Choice,'' but I have a *big* problem with federal funding of abortions (and I know other pro-choice people do as well) and I believe citizens in states should be able to choose for themselves whether or not they want to pay for someone else''s abortion. Obama''s ads are just scare tactics aimed at pro-choice Americas who haven''t read Roe v. Wade or who don''t understand the Constitution. She will be the VP, not the President, so it''ll be interesting how much power she will really have if McCain is elected. Just because pro-life and ''right wing'' Americans love her personal views does not mean it will translate into her politics beyond the election.

Indy, I mostly do agree with you! The dems are fear mongering (what else is new in an election process?) and the facts are McCain says he wants it to be state''s rights, and Palin looked right at Charlie Rose and said she respected the right of others to decide. Not sure if she means it or not I cannot say right now. Also, I agree that I do not want my tax money being used to pay for abortions, but then again, if the person would have the baby and abuse it or harm it, I am not loving that. And, in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother, I would pay for it for someone if they were not able to. But I totally think that one can believe it is not okay to be pro choice, they are entitled to NOT have an abortion, just as I am entitled TO have one if I wish.

Heard Biden is in trouble with the church, as is Nancy Pelosi, for being Catholic and pro choice. Flies in the face directly at what church doctrine says.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/14/2008 9:37:48 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/14/2008 6:34:34 PM

Author: stone_seeker

60% tax rate I was referring to was including capital gains. History shows that increases in capital gains rates does not increase government revenues - it actually lowers them. So Obama intends to re-distribute wealth. If I had Warren Buffet''s money, I wouldnt care either. And he endorses people for a variety of reasons. But someone who earns $150K and lives in New York City is not a rich person.


I am not a fan of the notion of re-distribution of wealth for a lot of reasons. Ironically, history has proven that the people it hurts the most are the recipients because it keeps them in their current state with no incentive to seek higher wage jobs.


Barack worked with people from Saul Alinsky''s group as a community organizer in Chicago which is a radical left-wing group who''s ideologies border on those of the socialist party. Class warfare was one of the methods they employed to generate conflict in order to rise to power.

**Non-Palin post alert** Yeah, 60% is a very realistic number for someone will a small business who declares incomes earned from the business as personal income to avoid being taxed twice.


Someone sent me this hypothetical in an email, maybe some economist-minded PSers can explain how it would be better for America: A small business brings in $600,000/year in gross income. The business has 4 employees who each make $30,000/year = $120,000/year paid out by the business owner. A current tax rate of 35% costs the company $210,000/year. Assuming an additional 25% overhead at $150,000/year, the owner takes home about $120,000/year in income. Under Obama''s plan, the tax would be raised to about 51%, which would equal $306,000/year in taxes alone. The cost of employees plus overhead would remain the same to equal $270,000/year and the business owner would now be left with a grand total of $24,000/year, or an 80% pay cut. What will happen? Obviously the owner will either close the business, fire some employees, and/or charge higher prices to make more profits to survive. The business would certainly not grow or hire more employees. The $500 or $1,000 tax check in the mail won''t do much for most Americans directly or indirectly affected by this scenario who lose their jobs or pay more for goods or services. It''s hard to understand how this would benefit people in the long-run. I would appreciate if anyone can refute this story for me, as it has bothered and scared me ever since I read it.


Also, maybe someone can explain to me how, if 40% of Americans don''t pay income tax, he will give tax cuts to 95% of Americans? Sounds like those of us who do pay taxes will be paying for handouts for the 40%!

its not better for the economy. its better only for the recipients of the "robin hood" money. but it does them little good in the long run as they now have no incentive to seek higher wages and improve themselves by learning a new trade, etc.

 

[Miranda]

Date: 9/14/2008 9:38:27 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 9/14/2008 8:55:21 PM
Author: diamondfan

I did see her say on the Charlie Rose interview that SHE believes it, and would not have one, but that she respected and understood others views. To me, great, so do not try to do anything to take the right away and I will feel better about her.

I don''t think she''d respect and understand others'' views on abortion. As it''s been said before, she wants everyone to respect her daughter''s choice to keep her child, but wants to take this choice away from other women. I have a BIG problem with that.

Her god, her beliefs, her morals will not govern my body. And I will fight to protect not only my rights, but the rights of every other woman in this country.

The way Sarah Palin sees it is that she is trying to protect human rights. Including those of the unborn child. It''s not a religious issue, in my mind. It is a different way of looking at ''rights''. A difference of opinion. The real question is where do you draw the line at who is entitled to rights.

I''m with DFan and Indygirl. Have an abortion if you want to. I just don''t want to pay for it.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/14/2008 11:20:59 PM
Author: Miranda

Date: 9/14/2008 9:38:27 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 9/14/2008 8:55:21 PM

Author: diamondfan


I did see her say on the Charlie Rose interview that SHE believes it, and would not have one, but that she respected and understood others views. To me, great, so do not try to do anything to take the right away and I will feel better about her.

I don''t think she''d respect and understand others'' views on abortion. As it''s been said before, she wants everyone to respect her daughter''s choice to keep her child, but wants to take this choice away from other women. I have a BIG problem with that.


Her god, her beliefs, her morals will not govern my body. And I will fight to protect not only my rights, but the rights of every other woman in this country.

The way Sarah Palin sees it is that she is trying to protect human rights. Including those of the unborn child. It''s not a religious issue, in my mind. It is a different way of looking at ''rights''. A difference of opinion. The real question is where do you draw the line at who is entitled to rights.


I''m with DFan and Indygirl. Have an abortion if you want to. I just don''t want to pay for it.

Well how about: have a war if you want to. I just don''t want to pay for it.

And as for who has more rights, I think it should be pretty obvious that an actual, adult, living woman has more rights than an unborn child. And I''m all for differences of opinion, but the problem is that anti-choice politicians don''t want anyone to have a choice. So it''s not really much of a difference of opinion, it''s taking away an adult woman''s right to choose.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 11:33:43 PM
Author: thing2of2

Well how about: have a war if you want to. I just don't want to pay for it.

And as for who has more rights, I think it should be pretty obvious that an actual, adult, living woman has more rights than an unborn child. And I'm all for differences of opinion, but the problem is that anti-choice politicians don't want anyone to have a choice. So it's not really much of a difference of opinion, it's taking away an adult woman's right to choose.

The line is actually, from what I understand, when n person believes that human life begins. Most pro-choice literature refers to abortion as the killing of a "fetus/not yet human" whereas pro-life literature refers to abortion as the killing of a full human being. Pro-lifers don't think that the discomfort from 9 months of pregnancy is worth killing another human being (speaking only about abortions where the life of the mother is not in danger). That is the difference between the views & in the mind of pro-life Americans there is no choice when the options are killing a human being vs. pregnancy.

As for the war analogy...makes no sense. You're talking about apples & oranges, there. National security (which has ALWAYS been a federal issue) vs. abortions for an individual (which are traditionally within the purview of the States)...

ETA: Not judging any pro-choicers above, just stating the differences in reasoning between the groups.

 

[diamondfan]

Well, to some, a war is about global safety and things that are on a larger scale. I am not pro war but I am pro safety and pro protecting ourselves.
Protecting the right of an unborn baby is trickier, as the baby needs the mom to survive. Also, the debate about when life begins mucks it all up. But as much as I would like to not have to have needless abortions be what occurs, there is always abuse when there is a controversy. Some women WILL use it as their birth control, it happens. For the most part, I would like to believe that a woman does not have an abortion without some thought. It is her body, and if it is something she feels she must do, I do not have to agree or want one myself, but I should respect her choice.

That said, it is hard for me to grasp some of these VERY extreme and rigid thinking people. I just cannot fathom thinking that MY view is a one size fits all thing that I should be able to impose on others.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 10:17:25 PM
Author: diamondfan

Indy, I mostly do agree with you! The dems are fear mongering (what else is new in an election process?) and the facts are McCain says he wants it to be state's rights, and Palin looked right at Charlie Rose and said she respected the right of others to decide. Not sure if she means it or not I cannot say right now. Also, I agree that I do not want my tax money being used to pay for abortions, but then again, if the person would have the baby and abuse it or harm it, I am not loving that. And, in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother, I would pay for it for someone if they were not able to. But I totally think that one can believe it is not okay to be pro choice, they are entitled to NOT have an abortion, just as I am entitled TO have one if I wish.

Heard Biden is in trouble with the church, as is Nancy Pelosi, for being Catholic and pro choice. Flies in the face directly at what church doctrine says.

Yeah, Kerry got in trouble for it too. I posted earlier about this (not sure if it was this thread) but I was accused of judging and condemning pro-choice Catholics. It is a fact that the Catholic Church has always had a pro-life stance and it doesn't sit well with many Catholic leaders if Biden/Pelosi/Kerry are going to use their Catholic faith to woo voters in one breath while proclaiming their pro-choice beliefs in the next one. There was *never* been a controversy as to the Catholic Church's stance on abortion and Biden's allegation of one in recent interviews angered many Catholic leaders...seems to be in hot water now.

ETA: I'm not condemning or judging, either...just stating the facts as laid out in the Catechism.

 

[diamondfan]

Oh, I am not judging anyone at all, just stating that this is becoming problematic as the church does not like this to be going on, to them, you cannot be Catholic and pro choice.

 

[Miranda]

Date: 9/14/2008 11:38:28 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/14/2008 11:33:43 PM
Author: thing2of2

Well how about: have a war if you want to. I just don''t want to pay for it.

And as for who has more rights, I think it should be pretty obvious that an actual, adult, living woman has more rights than an unborn child. And I''m all for differences of opinion, but the problem is that anti-choice politicians don''t want anyone to have a choice. So it''s not really much of a difference of opinion, it''s taking away an adult woman''s right to choose.

The line is actually, from what I understand, when an person believes that human life begins. Most pro-choice literature refers to abortion as the killing of a ''fetus/not yet human'' whereas pro-life literature refers to abortion as the killing of a full human being. Pro-lifers don''t think that the discomfort from 9 months of pregnancy is worth killing another human being (speaking only about abortions where the life of the mother is not in danger). That is the difference between the views & in the mind of pro-life Americans there is no choice when the options are killing a human being vs. pregnancy.

As for the war analogy...makes no sense. You''re talking about apples & oranges, there. National security (which has ALWAYS been a federal issue) vs. abortions for an individual (which are traditionally within the purview of the States)...

Right Indy. That is the distinction. When does life begin? The way I see it is that the baby has every right to become an actual, adult, living woman (or man). We could go round and round...Anti-life politicians are taking away the right to life.

And a great big ditto to the highlighted part.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 11:40:56 PM
Author: diamondfan
Well, to some, a war is about global safety and things that are on a larger scale. I am not pro war but I am pro safety and pro protecting ourselves.
Protecting the right of an unborn baby is trickier, as the baby needs the mom to survive. Also, the debate about when life begins mucks it all up. But as much as I would like to not have to have needless abortions be what occurs, there is always abuse when there is a controversy. Some women WILL use it as their birth control, it happens. For the most part, I would like to believe that a woman does not have an abortion without some thought. It is her body, and if it is something she feels she must do, I do not have to agree or want one myself, but I should respect her choice.

That said, it is hard for me to grasp some of these VERY extreme and rigid thinking people. I just cannot fathom thinking that MY view is a one size fits all thing that I should be able to impose on others.

I hear ya DF! I think that's one of the main things politicians struggle with; the balance between what they personally believe and what they legislate/execute/etc. in addition to what the "people" want. I think Obama's stances are much easier for most people to accept because they are more liberal & people usually react better to having more room than less, but the most recent polls show that Palin has actually had a positive effect on McCain & the Republican party's showing so maybe I'm wrong...

 

[E B]

Date: 9/14/2008 11:49:47 PM
Author: Miranda
Anti-life politicians are taking away the right to life.

Anti-life? Please. Pro-choicers aren't 'murder-happy,' we're simply pro-choice.

 

[ladypirate]

I thought what Kerry said about his Catholic beliefs was really apt--he has personal beliefs, but that doesn''t mean he can legislate them. That is what separation of church and state is all about.

 

[diamondfan]

LP, I agree. It is supposed to and should be, but sadly there are people with extreme and typically intolerant views and they want all people to feel the same way.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/15/2008 1:46:50 AM
Author: ladypirate
I thought what Kerry said about his Catholic beliefs was really apt--he has personal beliefs, but that doesn't mean he can legislate them. That is what separation of church and state is all about.

I disagree. It's one thing to say you are personally pro-life (as the Catholic Church dictates that all Catholics should be pro-life & rally against abortion) and not legislate for anti-abortion laws; it's quite another thing (and hypocritical) to openly support the pro-choice stance while you use your Catholic faith to garner votes. ALL politicians legislate based on their personal beliefs or it wouldn't matter who got elected (i.e. Obama personally believes that there should be universal health care, McCain personally believes we should drill in AK). Kerry chose not to legislate on the issue of abortion because he is a Democrat & it wouldn't fly with his party. Also, a lot of pro-life people are against abortion and/or Roe v. Wade for reasons unrelated to religion - to some it is a diginity of human life issue, for some it is a federalism issue, neither instances having anything to do with faith.

 

[Miranda]

Date: 9/15/2008 1:13:47 AM
Author: EBree

Date: 9/14/2008 11:49:47 PM
Author: Miranda
Anti-life politicians are taking away the right to life.

Anti-life? Please. Pro-choicers aren''t ''murder-happy,'' we''re simply pro-choice.

Ok, well, call it whatever you wish. I''m not saying women shouldn''t have the right to choose, but, let''s get real and call it what it is. It IS taking a life away...If you want to cheapen life even further, call it a ''potential life''. After all, weren''t we all at one point potential life?

I''m sorry, I''m gonna have to bow out of this conversation now. The pro-life/pro-choice argument hits a little too close to home for me. I just typed out a long story, but, nevermind. It isn''t worth it.

 

[thumbelina]

With all due respect to DiamondFan...

I am Catholic. I was an alter girl when I was little... probably went to church 3-4 times a weekend. And although I don''t attend service as much anymore (1-2 times monthly only), I''m still strong in my faith. It''s what helps me through difficult times, and guides me in my treatment of others. I am also pro-choice. This issue is not black and white, and I don''t pretend to know/understand the agony that a woman goes through when choosing to have an abortion. What I do know, though, is that if God has given us free will (as he did when he created Adam and Eve), then who are we to take that free will, that choice, away from a woman.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/15/2008 3:03:10 PM
Author: thumbelina
With all due respect to DiamondFan...


I am Catholic. I was an alter girl when I was little... probably went to church 3-4 times a weekend. And although I don't attend service as much anymore (1-2 times monthly only), I'm still strong in my faith. It's what helps me through difficult times, and guides me in my treatment of others. I am also pro-choice. This issue is not black and white, and I don't pretend to know/understand the agony that a woman goes through when choosing to have an abortion. What I do know, though, is that if God has given us free will (as he did when he created Adam and Eve), then who are we to take that free will, that choice, away from a woman.

not saying i agree or disagree, but just to play devil's advocate.....

then it's wrong to outlaw murder or assault? or anything else that is outlawed for the good of humanity for that matter? again, i'm not saying i agree or disagree, but if you are using free will to justify abortions then you need to apply it to other restrictions as well.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/15/2008 3:50:31 PM
Author: mimzy

not saying i agree or disagree, but just to play devil''s advocate.....

then it''s wrong to outlaw murder or assault? or anything else that is outlawed for the good of humanity for that matter? again, i''m not saying i agree or disagree, but if you are using free will to justify abortions then you need to apply it to other restrictions as well.

I agree...I don''t think it''s a free will choice as in, we have the freedom to do it so we can''t tell others not to...too many laws are based on the premise of right/wrong that I don''t think abortion can be based on the free will argument.

McCain says Obama didn''t call Palin a pig - what has the election come to when Rove is the voice of reason? lol

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 4:07:13 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 3:50:31 PM
Author: mimzy

not saying i agree or disagree, but just to play devil''s advocate.....

then it''s wrong to outlaw murder or assault? or anything else that is outlawed for the good of humanity for that matter? again, i''m not saying i agree or disagree, but if you are using free will to justify abortions then you need to apply it to other restrictions as well.

I agree...I don''t think it''s a free will choice as in, we have the freedom to do it so we can''t tell others not to...too many laws are based on the premise of right/wrong that I don''t think abortion can be based on the free will argument.

McCain says Obama didn''t call Palin a pig - what has the election come to when Rove is the voice of reason? lol

 

[thumbelina]

Outlawing murder or assault? Of course not, Mimzy.

But would you kill or assault someone who was about to kill you? A family member? (I know I would.) Is murder/assault still wrong? What about our soldiers who are carrying out their mission? This is a very slippery slope, as we all know. I actually disagree with your statement "if you are using free will to justify abortions then you need to apply it to other restrictions as well." These are far from being black and white issues, and I can think of very few rules that apply to everything. But, as a point of clarification, I''m not using free will to justify abortion. I''m using free will to justify giving a woman a choice to make that decision. But then that''s one of the disagreements of the argument, isn''t it?

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/15/2008 4:07:13 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 3:50:31 PM

Author: mimzy


not saying i agree or disagree, but just to play devil''s advocate.....


then it''s wrong to outlaw murder or assault? or anything else that is outlawed for the good of humanity for that matter? again, i''m not saying i agree or disagree, but if you are using free will to justify abortions then you need to apply it to other restrictions as well.

I agree...I don''t think it''s a free will choice as in, we have the freedom to do it so we can''t tell others not to...too many laws are based on the premise of right/wrong that I don''t think abortion can be based on the free will argument.

McCain says Obama didn''t call Palin a pig - what has the election come to when Rove is the voice of reason? lol

a voice of reason AND ethics?!

i imagine they are both (likely more mccain) is feeling pretty embarrassed right now.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/14/2008 11:49:47 PM
Author: Miranda

Date: 9/14/2008 11:38:28 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/14/2008 11:33:43 PM

Author: thing2of2


Well how about: have a war if you want to. I just don''t want to pay for it.


And as for who has more rights, I think it should be pretty obvious that an actual, adult, living woman has more rights than an unborn child. And I''m all for differences of opinion, but the problem is that anti-choice politicians don''t want anyone to have a choice. So it''s not really much of a difference of opinion, it''s taking away an adult woman''s right to choose.

The line is actually, from what I understand, when an person believes that human life begins. Most pro-choice literature refers to abortion as the killing of a ''fetus/not yet human'' whereas pro-life literature refers to abortion as the killing of a full human being. Pro-lifers don''t think that the discomfort from 9 months of pregnancy is worth killing another human being (speaking only about abortions where the life of the mother is not in danger). That is the difference between the views & in the mind of pro-life Americans there is no choice when the options are killing a human being vs. pregnancy.


As for the war analogy...makes no sense. You''re talking about apples & oranges, there. National security (which has ALWAYS been a federal issue) vs. abortions for an individual (which are traditionally within the purview of the States)...

Right Indy. That is the distinction. When does life begin? The way I see it is that the baby has every right to become an actual, adult, living woman (or man). We could go round and round...Anti-life politicians are taking away the right to life.


And a great big ditto to the highlighted part.

Yes, but as we know, Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction and there wasn''t definitive proof that they did from the onset, so they were never a threat to our national security. Yet we are still in a war that our tax dollars are paying for.

As for "anti-life politicians aren''t taking away the right to life"? That makes absolutely no sense. Pro-choice politicians believe that a woman has the right to make the decision whether or not to have a legal abortion. If abortion is outlawed, women will still have abortions. That''s why abortion became legal in the first place. Many doctors, nurses, politicians and even clergy fought for a woman''s right to a safe and legal abortion because of how many dangerous botched abortions they saw.

Against abortion? Don''t have one! You and all the other anti-abortion supporters don''t have the right to tell me (or any other woman) what to do with my uterus. (Or fetus, or unborn child, or potential life, or whatever you want to call it.)

 

[swimmer]

Backing away nervously from the abortion mess...

A huge anti-Palin rally in Alaska! link

The video is really interesting, lots of photos showing the posters, "my daughter deserves better than Palin" was interesting, "W with Lipstick" seemed popular as well. Most popular, "Voted for her once, never again" I''ve now seen two different polls with her popularity as Gov in Alaska being below 50%...interesting.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/15/2008 6:36:41 PM
Author: swimmer
Backing away nervously from the abortion mess...


A huge anti-Palin rally in Alaska! link


The video is really interesting, lots of photos showing the posters, ''my daughter deserves better than Palin'' was interesting, ''W with Lipstick'' seemed popular as well. Most popular, ''Voted for her once, never again'' I''ve now seen two different polls with her popularity as Gov in Alaska being below 50%...interesting.

Hahaha! What can I say, I feel strongly about the right to choose!

Anywho, great link. I was loving the signs. And I love that a couple of women over coffee started the biggest political rally ever in the state of Alaska!

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/15/2008 4:23:31 PM
Author: thumbelina



Outlawing murder or assault? Of course not, Mimzy.

But would you kill or assault someone who was about to kill you? A family member? (I know I would.) Is murder/assault still wrong? What about our soldiers who are carrying out their mission? This is a very slippery slope, as we all know. I actually disagree with your statement ''if you are using free will to justify abortions then you need to apply it to other restrictions as well.'' These are far from being black and white issues, and I can think of very few rules that apply to everything. But, as a point of clarification, I''m not using free will to justify abortion. I''m using free will to justify giving a woman a choice to make that decision. But then that''s one of the disagreements of the argument, isn''t it?

no, but in most cases the baby isn''t trying to kill you either

. and it''s really just a matter of wording what you''re saying: it''s the difference between saying "we''ll let you make the choice whether or not to kill that guy and no problem either way" and "you can kill that guy". again, i don''t agree or disagree, just addressing the argument you''re using.

but let''s get back to non-abortion issues! much more fun, much less touchy

 

[diamondfan]

Date: 9/15/2008 3:03:10 PM
Author: thumbelina
With all due respect to DiamondFan...


I am Catholic. I was an alter girl when I was little... probably went to church 3-4 times a weekend. And although I don't attend service as much anymore (1-2 times monthly only), I'm still strong in my faith. It's what helps me through difficult times, and guides me in my treatment of others. I am also pro-choice. This issue is not black and white, and I don't pretend to know/understand the agony that a woman goes through when choosing to have an abortion. What I do know, though, is that if God has given us free will (as he did when he created Adam and Eve), then who are we to take that free will, that choice, away from a woman.

Not sure why this pertains to me, I am also pro choice...and I never said the decision to have an abortion is black and white, it is for most women not a snap thing they decide to do, though I will not speak for all women.

I am not Catholic but know that for a staunch Catholic abortion is considered a big no no and I was commenting that there are members of the Church who are frowning upon those who say they are pro choice and devout Catholics. I am Jewish so I am not making a value judgment about it either way, just reporting things I have heard in regard to Biden and Pelosi.