CNN's God's Warriors

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

well Romney is leading the pack, and if he doesn't get it who does? McCain's campaign is a wreck, Guliani won't get the right wing vote for his progressive views, and maybe it's just me but i just can't picture saying President Huckabee. Thompson seems to be the only other name that's getting attention but he's not even officially running, so i didn't count him. if he does man up and he doesn't bend over for the christian right, then great. my whole point was that with a republican the chance of getting a president who will let his religious views interfere with politics is much higher. i'd love for a candidate to come along, take charge, and prove me wrong

Man, the race hasn't even really started yet. It's way too early to be calling someone's campaign a wreck. Clinton came out of no where in 92. This time in 1991 nobody was talking about Clinton.

Fred Thompson said he would "ban abortion" as President. That puts him on the outs for me...not solely because I think that's a bad idea...but also because the President can't ban anything and it's ridiculous to say so.

Can you define "let his religious views interfere with politics" for me? I'm not sureI know exactly what you mean.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Man, the race hasn't even really started yet. It's way too early to be calling someone's campaign a wreck. Clinton came out of no where in 92. This time in 1991 nobody was talking about Clinton.

Fred Thompson said he would "ban abortion" as President. That puts him on the outs for me...not solely because I think that's a bad idea...but also because the President can't ban anything and it's ridiculous to say so.

Can you define "let his religious views interfere with politics" for me? I'm not sureI know exactly what you mean.

well i guess Thompson isn't the answer either, didn't know he said that. and as for an example of religious ideals ruling his decisions, just look at Bush. he put two right wing, christian justices into the supreme court. thanks to that you have some forms of abortion now illegal and crazy proposals such as putting creationism into the public school losing by only 1 vote. you get another president like Bush in there, and all he needs to do is replace one more justice and they'll have complete control to start enforcing their own moral views on an entire country. that's a scary thought

and i don't even need to go into the asinine comments that Bush has made about how he was "appointed by god". that's enough evidence right there

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

well i guess Thompson isn't the answer either, didn't know he said that. and as for an example of religious ideals ruling his decisions, just look at Bush. he put two right wing, christian justices into the supreme court. thanks to that you have some forms of abortion now illegal and crazy proposals such as putting creationism into the public school losing by only 1 vote. you get another president like Bush in there, and all he needs to do is replace one more justice and they'll have complete control to start enforcing their own moral views on an entire country. that's a scary thought

Some forms of abortion SHOULD be illegal. Can you tell me why late term abortions (third trimester) when the mother's life is not in danger are necessary? I'm no pro-life nut job (scum of the earth) but I don't think an abortion free for all is a good thing either. There needs to be restrictions. States have the power to impose stricter laws on abortion anyway so it doesn't really matter what the Supreme Court does short of overturning Roe V. Wade which is something John Roberts is on record saying he would not vote for.

What kind of justices should be appointed?

BTW...show me what the heck you're talking about with the creationism in public school thing. Don't believe that happened.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Some forms of abortion SHOULD be illegal. Can you tell me why late term abortions (third trimester) when the mother's life is not in danger are necessary? I'm no pro-life nut job (scum of the earth) but I don't think an abortion free for all is a good thing either. There needs to be restrictions. States have the power to impose stricter laws on abortion anyway so it doesn't really matter what the Supreme Court does short of overturning Roe V. Wade which is something John Roberts is on record saying he would not vote for.

What kind of justices should be appointed?

BTW...show me what the heck you're talking about with the creationism in public school thing. Don't believe that happened.

really?

Roberts wrote the government's brief in a 1991 case in which the Supreme Court held that government could prohibit doctors and clinics who receive federal funds from discussing abortion with their patients. In his brief, Roberts wrote: "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also stated that the 1973 Court decision finds "no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

how about i believe that any justice appointed shouldn't be on a personal mission to overturn a legally decided precedent for his own moral reasons

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

really?



how about i believe that any justice appointed shouldn't be on a person mission to overturn a legally decided precedent for his own moral reasons

Yep, well aware of that.

Do you have his confirmation hearing transcripts? You might want to read those. They are more relevant.

Would appreciate an answer to the other questions in my post too.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yep, well aware of that.

Do you have his confirmation hearing transcripts? You might want to read those. They are more relevant.

Would appreciate an answer to the other questions in my post too.

how so? he is on record as saying he wants Roe vs. Wade abolished. have his views changed that dramatically since then? what makes his confirmation hearings more relevant than a quote he made before being in the public eye, where he's more likely to reveal his true feelings without fear of public reprisal?

as for your second question, if partial birth abortion needs to be illegal (the one that was recently ruled as such) then why wasn't it done years ago? why did we need to wait until a right wing christian president with 2 handpicked right wing judges had their say? to me that looks slightly suspicous

[Flash Walken]

'Partial Birth Abortion' is simply a political term.

It's used as a 'political issue' (see reagan), but represents less than 1 percent of all abortions in the US.

It's only an issue during an election, after which, it will most likely disappear, or appear as law with dubious concessions.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

how so? he is on record as saying he wants Roe vs. Wade abolished. have his views changed that dramatically since then? what makes his confirmation hearings more relevant than a quote he made before being in the public eye, where he's more likely to reveal his true feelings without fear of public reprisal?

Well, generally speaking the things people have said most recently are usually more relevant. Let's not forget he was under oath when he agreed that Roe V Wade was "the settled law of the land", had 38 times faced overturning and had not once been overturned and had been strongly reaffirmed by the Casey vs Planned Parenthood decision in 1992....which interestingly was made after the quote you produced. So forgive me if I find what he said while being questioned by US Senators, under oath, more relevant than what he wrote in a decision a dozen years earlier.

as for your second question, if partial birth abortion needs to be illegal (the one that was recently ruled as such) then why wasn't it done years ago? why did we need to wait until a right wing christian president with 2 handpicked right wing judges had their say? to me that looks slightly suspicous

You answered my question with a question? Well, I'll go ahead and answer yours anyway and maybe you'll go back to answering mine. Many times when laws are made, they have to be revised because to quote The Dude "New #%^@ comes to light...a lot of ins and outs". Roe v Wade set a general precedent. There is room for refinement...as with almost anything that is created in law or otherwise. Now, can you tell me why late term and partial birth abortions are necessary when the mother's health is not at risk?

BTW...here are the relevant transcripts.

http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/webl...es/000204.html

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

'Partial Birth Abortion' is simply a political term.

It's used as a 'political issue' (see reagan), but represents less than 1 percent of all abortions in the US.

It's only an issue during an election, after which, it will most likely disappear, or appear as law with dubious concessions.

And.....not sure I get your point.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

And.....not sure I get your point.

I just don't like terms like 'partial birth abortion' being bandied about.

It's like calling the civil rights movement, the negro rights movement.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Well, generally speaking the things people have said most recently are usually more relevant. Let's not forget he was under oath when he agreed that Roe V Wade was "the settled law of the land", had 38 times faced overturning and had not once been overturned and had been strongly reaffirmed by the Casey vs Planned Parenthood decision in 1992....which interestingly was made after the quote you produced. So forgive me if I find what he said while being questioned by US Senators, under oath, more relevant than what he wrote in a decision a dozen years earlier.

You answered my question with a question? Well, I'll go ahead and answer yours anyway and maybe you'll go back to answering mine. Many times when laws are made, they have to be revised because to quote The Dude "New comes to light...a lot of ins and outs". Roe v Wade set a general precedent. There is room for refinement...as with almost anything that is created in law or otherwise. Now, can you tell me why late term and partial birth abortions are necessary when the mother's health is not at risk?

becuase being under oath in front of senators is a sure fire way to get someone to tell the truth, we can just ask Mr. Gonzales about that (who was also coincidentally hand picked by Bush). and where did i say late term abortions are neccessary? my point was that it seemed shady that we're seeing changes to abortion law as soon as Bush gets his pieces in place, like they're testing the waters and opening the door for more changes

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I just don't like terms like 'partial birth abortion' being bandied about.

It's like calling the civil rights movement, the negro rights movement.

Well, I didn't use it...hemi did..just to be clear. What is wrong with the term? It's an accurate physical description of the process.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Well, I didn't use it...hemi did..just to be clear. What is wrong with the term? It's an accurate physical description of the process.

And I didn't quote you, did I?

And I don't think it is an accurate physical description. It isn't like the woman is giving birth and decides to abort the baby.

Why adopt a loaded political phrase when you can just as easily use the existing term that encompasses all three physical procedures?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

becuase being under oath in front of senators is a sure fire way to get someone to tell the truth, we can just ask Mr. Gonzales about that. and where did i say late term abortions are neccessary? my point was that it seemed shady that we're seeing changes to abortion law as soon as Bush gets his pieces in place, like they're testing the waters and opening the door for more changes

So you don't think they are necessary but you're angry because they are now illegal? BTW that law was passed by Congress in 2003...has it even faced Supreme Court scrutiny yet?

I think you might be blaming some things on people who have had nothing to do with them.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

And I didn't quote you, did I?

And I don't think it is an accurate physical description. It isn't like the woman is giving birth and decides to abort the baby.

Why adopt a loaded political phrase when you can just as easily use the existing term that encompasses all three physical procedures?

Relax..I said just to be clear so everyone knew I didn't use the term first.

No she decides not to have the baby, then delivers it...as soon as the head is exposed it is killed. Pretty freaking accurate if you ask me.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Relax..I said just to be clear so everyone knew I didn't use the term first.

No she decides not to have the baby, then delivers it...as soon as the head is exposed it is killed. Pretty freaking accurate if you ask me.

That's the potential scenario of one of the procedures, yes.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

So you don't think they are necessary but you're angry because they are now illegal? BTW that law was passed by Congress in 2003...has it even faced Supreme Court scrutiny yet?

I think you might be blaming some things on people who have had nothing to do with them.

the law was passed by the (republican) congress in 03, overturned by the federal appeals court, then upheld by the supreme court in April of this year

http://michaeldorf.org/2007/04/supre...-abortion.html

and i'm not angry that the procedure is illegal, i'm angry at when it became illegal and what the true motivations of those who made it so are

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

the law was passed by the (republican) congress in 03, overturned by the federal appeals court, then upheld by the supreme court in April of this year

http://michaeldorf.org/2007/04/supre...-abortion.html

and i'm not angry that the procedure is illegal, i'm angry at when it became illegal and what the true motivations of those who made it so are

Thanks for the rundown, because I wasn't aware if it had faced the SC yet.

I believe their motivation was to ban that type of abortion. What else could it be? Are you trotting out the slippery slope card?? I thought that was for RW evangelical Christian republican use only!