Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree, Dogger. Great post on the subject. I doubt it will have any effect on Shogun. I'm almost convinced he wouldn't care if the mother was guaranteed to die because in his mind he is saving babies from being strangled at birth.
Thanks.
I'm not trying to influence Shogun. I've seen cocker spaniels with a higher learning capicity.
There are rational people who read these posts, and will consider other points of view. That's my target.
I figured. Sometimes I just can't resist pointing out the idiocy of Shogun.
Proving once again that maineman aka manfrommaine is a liar.
right on, ravi.
as a side bar, let me just say to shogun, or to anyone who is "pro-life", this issue is NOT about who thinks it's okey dokey to kill the unborn at random. it is about a woman's right to choose. the government can not be allowed to dictate that a woman must carry a baby to term. for most people, morality alone dictates that choice. for others, complex personal circumstances lead to the alternate choice. rather than assume awful things about those who stand up for a woman's right to choose, perhaps we could recognize that each of us could do more to fight for better circumstances for all women to be able to make better choices in the first place. for the record, i find the pro-life stance honorable, but it's frustrating to see the issue become so convoluted by the self righteous emotions involved.
Of all those numbers, only ONE was above 50%. And most are split roughly evenly with less than a 5% gap between them. Thats pretty much the definition of no consensus.
I was hoping you would actually. Was quite easy to set you up for the fall there. Like stealing candy from a baby that was.
Edit: For some reason on the original quote not all the numbers showed up. The important policy questions are, for the most part, under 50%. Such as when abortions should be restricted and such.
Of course it was. Thats because Republicans in Congress are pro-life. Thats doing really well by them
Umm, no. Its massively hard to change for the very reason that its NOT a document of public opinion.
Shogie baby....
The Constitution a document of public opinion?
That might be one of the most bizarre statements I've ever seen.... the whole point of the Constitution is that IT'S NOT A DOCUMENT OF PUBLIC OPINION. And its supposed to protect me from zealous idiots like youi.
If it were, how long do you think you'd be able to hang on to your guns?
And this from the person who think the world ended when they made him put out his cigarettes in restaurants.
Not only is their no consensus, there isn't even a definition of terms. More difficult could mean something like what was voted on in my state recently: requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before having an abortion. That would certainly qualify as "more difficult."
btw, in a Republican controlled state, the measure failed.
I'm surprised you didn't post this one:
A law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion
--------------------Favor Oppose Unsure
11/11-13/05--------64----34----2
1/10-12/03---------72----26----2
7/25-28/96---------70----26----4
1/16-19/92---------73----25----2
The bitches are winning, run for the hills Shog!!!
Actually, this one surprised me.
Thanks.
I'm not trying to influence Shogun. I've seen cocker spaniels with a higher learning capicity.
There are rational people who read these posts, and will consider other points of view. That's my target.
First, let's note that the statistics cited earlier in the thread show that results can differ depending on how the question is framed. I've selected two differing poll references on the same topic: partial birth abortion. Two polls show a 15 point variance on this single issue:
When I tried to reframe the questions, Shogun responded, "Indeed, you just don't get to frame the results around your opinion." [Post #72]
But that wasn't accurate. I have read the partial birth statute and the court cases that resolved the Constitutional dispute. The big issue was whether the law could omit any exception to protect the HEALTH of the mother. The new law permits the procedure to save her life, but not her health. I reframed the questions to focus on this important distinction, by listing cases where partial birth abortion is banned, but horrible consequences would ensue.
The partial birth abortion law will not allow the procedure in the following cases:
- the fetus will not survive, but the mother will
- carrying the doomed fetus to term will cause irreparable psychological damage
- carrying the doomed fetus to term will cause permanent physical injury
- the damaged or injured mother will be rendered incapable of taking care of other children already in this world
- all of these circumstance will occur, but the doctor cannot certify the mother will die
Another problem comes from the uncertainity of modern medicine. If the doctor thinks the mother might die, but he can't be positive that an abortion is necessary to save her life, he takes a serious legal risk. Even if prosecutions are unsuccessful, the threat will deter enough doctors that some women will die.
This isn't idle speculation. This is real. For the most part, the people who support this law in polls don't understand what the Republican Congress really did. The monsters who wrote the law and the right-wing court that upheld it understood this, but just didn't care.
I agree, Dogger. Great post on the subject. I doubt it will have any effect on Shogun. I'm almost convinced he wouldn't care if the mother was guaranteed to die because in his mind he is saving babies from being strangled at birth.
If he's a lawyer, I'm a ballerina.
Thanks.
I'm not trying to influence Shogun. I've seen cocker spaniels with a higher learning capicity.
There are rational people who read these posts, and will consider other points of view. That's my target.
I figured. Sometimes I just can't resist pointing out the idiocy of Shogun.
You math skills are almost as amazing as your ability to admit the futility of your position. Feel free to believe that the pro-life crowd is just about to roll over and accept your blank check for dead babies.
NO consensus sure IS usually defined as an easy majority FOR the restriction of abortions.. yup.
enjoy the litmus test vetting of the next scotus judge, dude. It's probably not a giant knee-slapper this side of your insistance that America loves abortions.
yea.. because ONLY republicans are against abortions!
and, stupid, it was pretty easy to fucking change in the 60s given the social outcry for equality, eh? It was pretty easy to change befor and after prohibition, eh? Yet, here we are almost 40 fucking years outside of RvW and YOU seem to think that the will of the American people CANT pull the rug out of your baby stomping feet.
Like I said, keep thinking that. You are going to be REAL pissed off when vetted testimony doesn't match the majority ruling of its eventual overturning.
Long enough to thank you for bringing up the second, an amendment CLEARLY indicating a particular right, which doesn't rely on scotus interpretations since, and Im sure you must have forgotten, IS a restricted right that is happily limited by you gunhating token liberals.
Property rights are actually stated in the constitution. Where do you see mention of baby killing again? I don't recall reading anything about baby murder at all in our little group charter. Maybe you can point that out for me...
yap, yap, yap, yap, blah, blah, blah, . . . Im quite sure that the people voting against killing babies know exactly what they are doing.
I am pretty sure he is a lawyer, and I have more faith that you were a ballerina than that you were ever a journalist - high school newspaper aside.
