2012 Presidential Campaign

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

This whole line of debate is stupid. It would be one thing if an administration wasn't clear on an action IT took or defining a threat in the future. But to be unclear about defining an attack that took place in the past? When its possible that the lack of clearity or accuracy may be due to caution? It's just ridiculous. And can this debate ever really win Romney any points or really affect the election?

This has always been my thought - maybe the lack of clarity was due to either

a) caution

or

b) NATIONAL FUCKING SECURITY

Just because the government knows or has reason to suspect doesn't mean they have to broadcast it to the world right away. They didn't go running to CNN to hold a press conference when they discovered where Bin Laden probably was. Why? Caution, and because they were working on a plan to kill him. A plan that...had they told everyone "AH HA WE FOUND HIM!" would not have been used.

Maybe it's a similar situation in Libya. They know who did it but have to/want to work through the Libyan government to bring them to justice...and part of that is witholding specific information so as not to spook those responsible into going to ground?

It's a stupid, immaterial point of emphasis by people with nothing better to talk about.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

...It's a stupid, immaterial point of emphasis...

If you don't think, if spun "properly", it's the sort of thing that can fire up the voter turnout and even sway a few undecideds, then you haven't been paying attention to how dumb most Americans are.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

"Claimed credit for" is not always believable.

C'mon now. This is the federal government that we're talking about here. If I'm an intelligence office and I see this claim (which I likely knew about very quickly since it's being monitored 24/7 for threats), I'm going to quickly go into my information files and look up previous communication from this group. One of two scenarios occurred here:

1. They tried to cover up that they knew it was a terrorist attack so they could get more info before the group started scattering. If so, that's fine, but by now, the President has had more than enough time to come forward and tell people that's why they kept it on the low-down. His continued defense of his administration's lack of immediate diagnosis doesn't look good.

2. They truly didn't know it was a terrorist attack. In that case, there was a colossal failure of intelligence that should be dealt with immediately. That's not directly the administration's problem, but he should make it his problem and make swift changes that make sure it doesn't happen again.

I've talked with people in the intelligence community (met a couple of them during my time in Baltimore and I'm still friends with them). While they clearly don't go into specifics, they feel like they have a much better grasp on extremist groups and what they are doing. This just doesn't pass the sniff test of what should have been happening, no matter which scenario we're dealing with here.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

"Claimed credit for" is not always believable.

Right, I do recall terrorist groups claimed they destroyed the Space Shuttle Columbia.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If you don't think, if spun "properly", it's the sort of thing that can fire up the voter turnout and even sway a few undecideds, then you haven't been paying attention to how dumb most Americans are.

Agreed. They wouldn't bother to continue hammering home the point if it doesn't sway votes.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

C'mon now. This is the federal government that we're talking about here. If I'm an intelligence office and I see this claim (which I likely knew about very quickly since it's being monitored 24/7 for threats), I'm going to quickly go into my information files and look up previous communication from this group. One of two scenarios occurred here:

1. They tried to cover up that they knew it was a terrorist attack so they could get more info before the group started scattering. If so, that's fine, but by now, the President has had more than enough time to come forward and tell people that's why they kept it on the low-down. His continued defense of his administration's lack of immediate diagnosis doesn't look good.

2. They truly didn't know it was a terrorist attack. In that case, there was a colossal failure of intelligence that should be dealt with immediately. That's not directly the administration's problem, but he should make it his problem and make swift changes that make sure it doesn't happen again.

I've talked with people in the intelligence community (met a couple of them during my time in Baltimore and I'm still friends with them). While they clearly don't go into specifics, they feel like they have a much better grasp on extremist groups and what they are doing. This just doesn't pass the sniff test of what should have been happening, no matter which scenario we're dealing with here.

Couldn't there be options 3-???

For instance, option 3 starts with: There's a lot of conflicting evidence and we need to sift through it to figure out which one is correct.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If you don't think, if spun "properly", it's the sort of thing that can fire up the voter turnout and even sway a few undecideds, then you haven't been paying attention to how dumb most Americans are.

No doubt about that. Which is frankly...embarassing and sad. We've encouraged a subculture (speaking in a broad generality - everything from ridiculous reality TV to things like this) that celebrates the "dumbing down" of our citizens, instead of encourages them to achieve more.

[JPhillips]

So what should the WH have done differently? Is this just about using more aggressive language?

[cartman]

The Al-Qaeda tie-in came out soon after the attacks happened, so it wasn't an unknown. There is a shitload of chaos that comes out after these events, and it takes a bit of time to sort through it all and find out the root cause. Sure in hindsight the root cause is clear, but it was anything but in the first few days after the event.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Couldn't there be options 3-???

For instance, option 3 starts with: There's a lot of conflicting evidence and we need to sift through it to figure out which one is correct.

SI

Even if I grant you that, there still has been plenty of time for Obama to simply state that they were playing dumb early on to get the jump on the bad guys. The lack of any indication that was the case in his comments shows that someone was caught flat-footed. Like I said, it may not even be Obama, but someone dropped the ball.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. They wouldn't bother to continue hammering home the point if it doesn't sway votes.

You mean like birtherism and 'the President is a Kenyan muslim'?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So what should the WH have done differently? Is this just about using more aggressive language?

What it appears the Repubs are going to try to do here is spin it as such:

1. They knew it was an organized terrorist attack, but delayed telling us that.
2. They delayed because they didn't want people to see what a massive intelligence failure it was that they didn't see it coming.

If they did have a decent idea that it was a terrorist attack early on, it was pretty clumsy and stupid to attach it to protests from that piece of crap low-budget video, as several in the administration appeared to do. That just opened them up for this.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

The Al-Qaeda tie-in came out soon after the attacks happened, so it wasn't an unknown. There is a shitload of chaos that comes out after these events, and it takes a bit of time to sort through it all and find out the root cause. Sure in hindsight the root cause is clear, but it was anything but in the first few days after the event.

Exactly, so why the hell doesn't Obama just say that? We're not hiding anything at this point. Just walk out and say, "Yes, we definitely had some clear indications that terrorists may have been involved, but we had to keep our cards to ourselves for a few days to sort it out."

If he says that, even in the last debate, this isn't an issue. More than anything, this is another clear indication of just how poorly the Obama campaign managers continue to handle his re-election run. Put out the fire when it's a small one rather than waiting until others throw gasoline on it. This should have never reached this point.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

What it appears the Repubs are going to try to do here is spin it as such:

1. They knew it was an organized terrorist attack, but delayed telling us that.
2. They delayed because they didn't want people to see what a massive intelligence failure it was that they didn't see it coming.

If they did have a decent idea that it was a terrorist attack early on, it was pretty clumsy and stupid to attach it to protests from that piece of crap low-budget video, as several in the administration appeared to do. That just opened them up for this.

But we currently have reporting that Libyans are still saying the attack wasn't preplanned, but was a response to the video. Now the protests that were seen in other countries don't appear to have happened in Benghazi, but I think that mistake, at least initially, is understandable.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

You mean like birtherism and 'the President is a Kenyan muslim'?

LOL. I'm not sure those have quite as much sway. I think those are used more to mobilize the base. Those arguments get Democrats and Republicans to the poll more than they cause a person to switch sides.

[JPhillips]

The Al-Queada tie-in is tenuous at best. There's no evidence of any AQ leadership planning the attack. The group claiming responsibility is sympathetic to the AQ cause, but they seem to have acted independently.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But we currently have reporting that Libyans are still saying the attack wasn't preplanned, but was a response to the video. Now the protests that were seen in other countries don't appear to have happened in Benghazi, but I think that mistake, at least initially, is understandable.

Eh, if you're CNN or ABC or MSNBC or FOX, sure. But if you're the United States Government and you have some indication that an attack *might* have been a pre-planned terrorist attack, you express sorrow for the families of the Americans killed, promise to bring the perpetrators of this heinous act to justice, and don't say much else until you're reasonably certain of what went down.

[JPhillips]

I might think this was more than a political ploy if any of the top GOPers pushes this said anything other than who coulda known after the Bin Laden Determined to Attack America briefing was released.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't think that those allegations will amount to much. The media is tired of it. And the public seemed to accept the administration's answer for it. Based on the third debate, the Romney campaign seems to have decided that that was milked for all it was worth.

I am not, of course, saying that it SHOULD not matter. Just that it won't matter.

EDIT: My point is basically that people have a hazy sense of what happened with it in the first place. New "details" about who knew what when just won't end up being more than background noise. Unless there is a video of the President or Secretary Clinton saying "If he dies, he dies" in an Ivan Drago voice, new information will not break through enough to be useful.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

OK. But aren't you and RendeR decided to begin with? This election is about those who might be convinced one way or another and those who might turn out for their party if they're inspired enough.

I can't rest too much on this one. To me, Romney is a professional politician from a family of professional politicians. If he had real answers about dealing with the deficit and handling unemployment, I might be tempted to vote for him. But he doesn't, so I'm not.

I thought it was interesting that if I didn't know from being alive the last four years that Obama was the president and Romney the challenger, I would have guessed, from the debate last night and the facial expressions and conduct of the candidates, that Romney was the incumbent.

I'd add that someone needs to advise Obama that the word "decimate" does not mean what he thinks it means. We do not want to simply decimate Al Qaeda's leadership. He needs to go quite a bit further if this is to have any significance, and I think he has.

I guess if it boils down to having to watch debates to decide who someone is going to vote for, then I would say that person isn't very informed to begin with. In this day and age with how relatively easy it is to get information or read up on a candidate, you basically have to have been sticking your head in the sand and with your fingers in your ears, to not know what each candidate is about.

Now, if the debates were much sooner in the process instead of just about a month before the election, then I can see how they could/should have more influence on voters. But, you are correct, he has no answers. Usually you hear on the campaign trail all these grandiose promises. The only one that I've heard from Romney is the 20% tax break, which sounds so freaking ridiculous, it sounds like he got it from an Onion article. Other than that (and saying 'Obama bad'), he's said zero, zilch, nada. If substance was a suit, he'd be naked.

I didn't watch the debates, but, from reading the cliff notes (various news articles), he sounded like the political dolt that he has been the whole time. Can't even get Iran's geography right and that's very very bad when the topic of the debate is foreign policy. How one looks or speaks has zero bearing for me. It's the substance of what they say and the platform they stand on that does. Romney and about 99% of the GOP fail that test time and time again. Obama and the DP fail it about 80% of the time. Obama's continued support of the Patriot Act is cause enough for me to never vote for him. So, yes, in a way, due to really only having two parties, my mind is pretty much made up for me, which leaves an awfully bad taste in my mouth.

[molson]

Trump stunt - "release your 'college and passport records' and I'll give a check for $5 million to your favorite charity".

So, he's still on the birther thing.

[Julio Riddols]

Donald Trump is the Gary Busey of rich people.

[mckerney]

Trump Announces He's A Very Sad Man | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

NEW YORK—In a blockbuster announcement today, Donald Trump announced that he is a very sad man who has nothing to live for other than drawing attention to himself. "I'm a sad, pathetic human being and a complete waste of life," said Trump, adding that he lives an empty existence, and that he is nothing more than a corporate shill, as well as a failed husband, father, and human being. "I am the piece of shit you stepped in on your way to work. I am the vomit that hurls out of your mouth when you are sick. I want to kill myself very badly. Thank you." Trump then slit his throat from ear to ear.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FWIW ... a reasonably interesting read (if a bit mindnumbing after a few states) for those who like to do mental gymnastics with random bits of data. Basically it's an RNC memo that details numerous states early voting patterns thus far, GOP voting up & Dem voting down compared to 2008.

GOP memo on early voting | Jamie Dupree Washington Insider

[larrymcg421]

I doubt that this is going to translate into any tangible harm for Obama's campaign. If he was already considered weak on foreign policy, then maybe. But he will get alot off deference on the issue to the credibility he's developed over the last 4 years. Furthermore, even Fox News ridiculous headline (even for them) attacks Clinton and not Obama.

[larrymcg421]

On the polling front, Gallup's 7 day tracker has reversed somewhat from it's massive 7 pt outlier a few days ago and now shows only a 3 pt Romney lead. Furthermore, their 3 day job approval tracker broke heavily for Obama and now shows him with a 53% appoval vs. a 42% disapproval. That's a 3 point improvement since yesterday. It could either be noise or an indicator of a post-debate bump.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Another GOP Senate candidate says something offensive about rape. This is Mourdock in IN:

I'm going to actually slightly defend this person. I think he really looked through and into the position and this wasn't a knee jerk response. From the reports on this when he said it, he said it "tearfully". As in, this wasn't an easy response for him - but he cares so much for life that even in cases of rape, he would want that unborn life cared for.

It seemed like a case of while he knows it would cause pain & isn't at all an ideal situation, protecting the unborn life is more important.

I actually applaud him for being so unvarnishedly honest about it, especially since it appeared he struggled with the decision.

[JediKooter]

I'm sorry, but, had he actually understood and knew the process of what happens from the moment of fertilization to birth, it wouldn't be a struggle for him at all. Instead, he's going off of his religion and his opinion. I sure hope that if he was a member of the senate at the time they voted to go to war, his decision was met with the same, heartfelt, teary eyed apprehension as he was when he was talking about abortion.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm glad that people can so easily determine how others may or may not be struggling with their beliefs?

And FWIW, I don't see "going off his religion" as being anything wrong. Our faith lives are a huge portion of who we are and what we believe. If it defines some of his positions, so what? And if it doesn't, then why be a member of a community of faith to begin with?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm glad that people can so easily determine how others may or may not be struggling with their beliefs?

And FWIW, I don't see "going off his religion" as being anything wrong. Our faith lives are a huge portion of who we are and what we believe. If it defines some of his positions, so what? And if it doesn't, then why be a member of a community of faith to begin with?

Because his decision isn't based on fact and he's bringing those decisions into his voting, forcing his religion onto others. If he kept it to himself, cool, but, he's obviously not, since his voting could affect many people that don't prescribe to his set of beliefs. He can be a member of a community of faith all he wants, what he can't do is force those beliefs on others by voting for things based on his religion. It happens all the time though, so I'm not holding my breath.

However, I chastise him more for his theatrics than his principles, even though I'm chastising him for both. Like I said, if he feels that life is so precious, I really hope he had the same teary eyed, heartfelt, moral, spiritual decision if he voted to go to war. I don't know if he did, I'm just saying if life is so special, then it shouldn't make a difference if that life is a muslim, a soldier, a criminal, etc...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Because his decision isn't based on fact and he's bringing those decisions into his voting, forcing his religion onto others. If he kept it to himself, cool, but, he's obviously not, since his voting could affect many people that don't prescribe to his set of beliefs. He can be a member of a community of faith all he wants, what he can't do is force those beliefs on others by voting for things based on his religion. It happens all the time though, so I'm not holding my breath.

However, I chastise him more for his theatrics than his principles, even though I'm chastising him for both. Like I said, if he feels that life is so precious, I really hope he had the same teary eyed, heartfelt, moral, spiritual decision if he voted to go to war. I don't know if he did, I'm just saying if life is so special, then it shouldn't make a difference if that life is a muslim, a soldier, a criminal, etc...

His decision isn't based on YOUR idea of facts. Why would he want to keep something he strongly believes in to himself. His faith guides his beliefs as to what society should look like. We force morals all the time on others - however, they are deemed ok if those morals are based on things other than religion (which, IMO, is not fair). After all, if President Obama can say that one of the big things that drove him in passing Health Care Reform was his faith, then why can't this individual have his faith drive him in what he believes is the protection of life?

And we all have our issues that we are more or less passionate about. No one would pass the "you must be as passionately consistent about everything that may pass that muster", so I see the second paragraph as silly.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

His decision isn't based on YOUR idea of facts. Why would he want to keep something he strongly believes in to himself. His faith guides his beliefs as to what society should look like. We force morals all the time on others - however, they are deemed ok if those morals are based on things other than religion (which, IMO, is not fair). After all, if President Obama can say that one of the big things that drove him in passing Health Care Reform was his faith, then why can't this individual have his faith drive him in what he believes is the protection of life?

And we all have our issues that we are more or less passionate about. No one would pass the "you must be as passionately consistent about everything that may pass that muster", so I see the second paragraph as silly.

It isn't MY idea of facts, it's sciences facts. Facts are facts regardless if you want to believe them. Again, I'm mainly attacking him on his theatrics, which is what is silly. If he feels life is so precious, then it shouldn't matter what that life is or where it came from. It reeks more of a public stunt to gain votes than anything else and deserves ridicule in my opinion.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

It isn't MY idea of facts, it's sciences facts. Facts are facts regardless if you want to believe them.

It is science's facts that an embryo won't potentially become born?

This is where the analogies of letting people die to prevent others from dying vs. killing people to prevent others from dying come into play.

Again, I'm mainly attacking him on his theatrics, which is what is silly. If he feels life is so precious, then it shouldn't matter what that life is or where it came from. It reeks more of a public stunt to gain votes than anything else and deserves ridicule in my opinion.

And I'm mainly saying it is ridiculous to dictate to others where their strongest passions should rest. And it apparently only tends to apply to folks who have some sort of religious belief.

And, of course, it doesn't matter if a person is consistent on these issues - they'll still be attacked for the abortion one. For example, look at how Pope Benedict XVI (and Pope John Paul II before him) was treated on the issue.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm going to actually slightly defend this person. I think he really looked through and into the position and this wasn't a knee jerk response. From the reports on this when he said it, he said it "tearfully". As in, this wasn't an easy response for him - but he cares so much for life that even in cases of rape, he would want that unborn life cared for.

It seemed like a case of while he knows it would cause pain & isn't at all an ideal situation, protecting the unborn life is more important.

I actually applaud him for being so unvarnishedly honest about it, especially since it appeared he struggled with the decision.

I'm fine with his belief as it relates to him. What I find offensive is his declaration that God meant it to happen. If that's true, why doesn't he carry that out to everything that happens in the world? Telling women in that situation it's meant to be is just cold and heartless. He may have thought about his position, but he hasn't spent enough time thinking about others, IMO.

[spleen1015]

http://www.wthr.com/story/19897228/d...-in-2nd-debate

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm fine with his belief as it relates to him. What I find offensive is his declaration that God meant it to happen. If that's true, why doesn't he carry that out to everything that happens in the world? Telling women in that situation it's meant to be is just cold and heartless. He may have thought about his position, but he hasn't spent enough time thinking about others, IMO.

If God is soveriegn then He can turn bad things into good. The candidate's statement was more about God's intent that the child be born (if it can) and perhaps some redemption coming through that.

I do think on one hand it may be a disconnect between the religious and non-religious as to what that statement meant. The candidate had to do a seperate press conference to indicate that his words had been somewhat twisted and that he did not believe that God wanted the rape to happen - which every believer already knew.

[I. J. Reilly]

I’m pro-choice so whenever I try to understand the pro-life point of view I always try to use this thought experiment: instead of thinking of a fetus think of an infant. After doing this I just can’t understand how someone who is being honest about believing that life begins at conception could support abortion under any circumstance; rape, incest, whatever it’s all murder. If we are to take Romney and other mainstream Republicans who support abortion is some cases at their word how can we not look at them as being complicit, in their own minds at least, in the murder of innocent children?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It is science's facts that an embryo won't potentially become born?

This is where the analogies of letting people die to prevent others from dying vs. killing people to prevent others from dying come into play.

I'm not arguing that nor did I say that. I said, if he actually understood what happens from fertilization to birth, he probably wouldn't have such a 'hard time' with it.

And I'm mainly saying it is ridiculous to dictate to others where their strongest passions should rest. And it apparently only tends to apply to folks who have some sort of religious belief.

And, of course, it doesn't matter if a person is consistent on these issues - they'll still be attacked for the abortion one. For example, look at how Pope Benedict XVI (and Pope John Paul II before him) was treated on the issue.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to dictate or say that others should dictate what others should feel or how strongly their convictions should be. I'm saying that the theatrics seem to be more of a show than anything else, given the timing. Now had he did this mid term or he wasn't running for office, ok, I'd cut him some slack.

Well, since they are the heads of the church, much like a president, they are going to get the brunt of the attacks, rightly so or not. I do think Benedict XVI has softened his stance on some forms of birth control though. I may have read wrong or be remembering wrong, it's been a while, but I seem to remember that for some reason.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'm not arguing that nor did I say that. I said, if he actually understood what happens from fertilization to birth, he probably wouldn't have such a 'hard time' with it.

No offense, but is an amazingly condescening and non-understanding statement. There are plenty of folks who understand what happens from fertilization to birth and how many pregnancies fail who still have a hard time with the issue. I count myself among them.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to dictate or say that others should dictate what others should feel or how strongly their convictions should be. I'm saying that the theatrics seem to be more of a show than anything else, given the timing. Now had he did this mid term or he wasn't running for office, ok, I'd cut him some slack.

And I completely disagree. Abortion is a VERY passionate issue for many people. I know people who would be down the line Democrats, except for the issue of abortion and so they vote Republican every time - because that issues means that much. When you believe, strongly, that it is murder, then you are basically dealing with a genocide.

Well, since they are the heads of the church, much like a president, they are going to get the brunt of the attacks, rightly so or not. I do think Benedict XVI has softened his stance on some forms of birth control though. I may have read wrong or be remembering wrong, it's been a while, but I seem to remember that for some reason.

Neither the Pope or the Catholic Church has softened their views on birth control, but the statement the Pope made was referring to condoms vs. contracting AIDS in Africa and the difficult decision there.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I’m pro-choice so whenever I try to understand the pro-life point of view I always try to use this thought experiment: instead of thinking of a fetus think of an infant. After doing this I just can’t understand how someone who is being honest about believing that life begins at conception could support abortion under any circumstance; rape, incest, whatever it’s all murder. If we are to take Romney and other mainstream Republicans who support abortion is some cases at their word how can we not look at them as being complicit, in their own minds at least, in the murder of innocent children?

You can't. If abortion = murder, then no abortion in any case can be reasonably allowed.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If God is soveriegn then He can turn bad things into good. The candidate's statement was more about God's intent that the child be born (if it can) and perhaps some redemption coming through that.

I do think on one hand it may be a disconnect between the religious and non-religious as to what that statement meant. The candidate had to do a seperate press conference to indicate that his words had been somewhat twisted and that he did not believe that God wanted the rape to happen - which every believer already knew.

I'm not sure where he falls in the predestination/free will continuum, but not a number of Christians still believe that bad things happen to people who deserve to be punished. That idea is at the heart of Akin's stupid comment about legitimate rape. What I hear from Mourdock is a clumsy statement on bad things happening to the wicked, and I still find that offensive.

And again, he's entitled to that belief, but it shouldn't be the principle on which everyone else has to live. We aren't a theocracy.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not sure where he falls in the predestination/free will continuum, but not a number of Christians still believe that bad things happen to people who deserve to be punished. That idea is at the heart of Akin's stupid comment about legitimate rape. What I hear from Mourdock is a clumsy statement on bad things happening to the wicked, and I still find that offensive.

And again, he's entitled to that belief, but it shouldn't be the principle on which everyone else has to live. We aren't a theocracy.

Those who believe in free will still believe in God's soveriegnty (ask any Catholic for instance). Bad things may and will happen (as they happened to our Lord and Savior), but God can use those bad things for good.

And I see no reason as to why a belief that someone shares has to be locked away and applied to no one else - are we a democracy or not? If the people want that belief to become law, they are entitled to vote on it.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No offense, but is an amazingly condescening and non-understanding statement. There are plenty of folks who understand what happens from fertilization to birth and how many pregnancies fail who still have a hard time with the issue. I count myself among them.

I disagree, it is not condescending at all. Especially if you understand that after fertilization, there really isn't much that is representative of a human (other than DNA) or that could be considered a person, at all. It's a bunch of cells. No heartbeat, no brain, nothing, just cells. I'm talking about biology here only, I'm not talking about the emotional aspects of expecting parents. And as a matter of disclosure, you're not the only one, between you and I, that its happened to.

There's been two miscarriages in my past and considering how much I would really like to be a dad, that sucks majorly. I'd have a 22 year old kid if the first pregnancy didn't end up in a miscarriage. So, I'm not just being a cold heartless ass here. I'm just separating the emotional part from the biological part is all and seeing the science for what it is.

And I completely disagree. Abortion is a VERY passionate issue for many people. I know people who would be down the line Democrats, except for the issue of abortion and so they vote Republican every time - because that issues means that much. When you believe, strongly, that it is murder, then you are basically dealing with a genocide.

Yes it is a very passionate issue for a lot of people. I did not say that it wasn't. Now if you meant to say that you disagree with me that I think he's putting on a show and is embellishing it a bit too much, I totally respect that you disagree with me. I just see it differently. Not the end of the world.

I don't disagree with you at all that there's many, many people that think it's murder/genocide. I just don't find most people's reasoning a compelling case that feel that way.

Neither the Pope or the Catholic Church has softened their views on birth control, but the statement the Pope made was referring to condoms vs. contracting AIDS in Africa and the difficult decision there.

Ah ok, that sounds more like it. I couldn't remember exactly, thank you.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I disagree, it is not condescending at all. Especially if you understand that after fertilization, there really isn't much that is representative of a human (other than DNA) or that could be considered a person, at all. It's a bunch of cells. No heartbeat, no brain, nothing, just cells. I'm talking about biology here only, I'm not talking about the emotional aspects of expecting parents. And as a matter of disclosure, you're not the only one, between you and I, that its happened to.

There's been two miscarriages in my past and considering how much I would really like to be a dad, that sucks majorly. I'd have a 22 year old kid if the first pregnancy didn't end up in a miscarriage. So, I'm not just being a cold heartless ass here. I'm just separating the emotional part from the biological part is all and seeing the science for what it is.

While I can only imagine your pain at the miscarriags you've faced, I would say that, regarding a religious person, you just don't get it. Those cells potentially become a human being and it is an arbitrary line as to when one considers it a "life" or not. That is a moral issue, not a science issue. Science doesn't decide when the cells become advanced enough to be considered life.

Many people believe that when the embryo comes into existance, human life exists in that moment. It may not make it, but it is still life to be treasured. To say that it is simply a "bunch of cells" and thus not life shows a lack of understanding.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I see no reason as to why a belief that someone shares has to be locked away and applied to no one else - are we a democracy or not? If the people want that belief to become law, they are entitled to vote on it.

If that belief infringes on somebody's civil rights, then no we're not a democracy and people shouldn't be able to vote on it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If that belief infringes on somebody's civil rights, then no we're not a democracy and people shouldn't be able to vote on it.

I think people can disagree whether or not abortion is a "civil right".

Especially if it potentially infringes on another civil right - the life one.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think people can disagree whether or not abortion is a "civil right".

Especially if it potentially infringes on another civil right - the life one.

The woman's right to decide what to do with her own body is a civil right.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The woman's right to decide what to do with her own body is a civil right.

And there are those who disagree, as, of course, there is another life in play. I am one of them, to be honest (though I guess I am 'defined' as pro-choice since I'm for abortion in the 1st and, in a more limited way, in the 2nd trimesters).

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

While I can only imagine your pain at the miscarriags you've faced, I would say that, regarding a religious person, you just don't get it. Those cells potentially become a human being and it is an arbitrary line as to when one considers it a "life" or not. That is a moral issue, not a science issue. Science doesn't decide when the cells become advanced enough to be considered life.

Many people believe that when the embryo comes into existance, human life exists in that moment. It may not make it, but it is still life to be treasured. To say that it is simply a "bunch of cells" and thus not life shows a lack of understanding.

That's just it, I do understand. I just don't agree with how certain religions and people view those cells and consider them to be 'alive' from the moment of conception. I think a stronger argument could be made for pregnancies later in their term. I would be highly suspect of anyone wanting an abortion 8 months into their pregnancy unless it's life threatening and even then, I think there's more options other than abortion at that point.

Now part of the issue with the dude from Tennessee. Here's the big difference, a pro life person like the senator from TN, would vote for measures that restrict a woman's right to choose, based partially or in large portion to their religious beliefs. A person like me would simply say, if you feel that life begins at conception, then don't get an abortion, do what you feel is right, do what your conscience is comfortable with. I would not introduce any kind of legislation that requires someone to get an abortion. Big difference between mandating someones beliefs and mandating nothing. I'm probably not articulating that very well, but, I hope you see what I mean.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And there are those who disagree, as, of course, there is another life in play. I am one of them, to be honest (though I guess I am 'defined' as pro-choice since I'm for abortion in the 1st and, in a more limited way, in the 2nd trimesters).

There is another life in play at some point yes. I'm not advocating for 3rd trimester abortions by healthy women of healthy babies. Nobody is.

But in the first and in some cases (idk exactly where I want to draw the line medically speaking) 2nd trimester...I'm okay with it.

My issue is that the extremist wing of the Republican party dominates the moderate wing on this issue. I 100% believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that any Republican president, no matter their public statements, would use Roe v. Wade as a litmus-test when appointing a SC justice. The party is so driven by its alliance with far-right socially-driven voters that they would basically be forced to.