So...what is a liberal...what is a conservative?

If you are against the killing of children, why do you continually vote people into office that are for it?

BLD

 

I have never, not once, helped vote into office -- nor have I, or any liberal, ever once voted for -- any person who was or is (or, most likely, ever will be) "for the killing of children."

(Oy. Just when I thought it couldn't possibly get any more absurd.)

 

BLD: I think it was a collection of presidents and senators who "voted into office" the seven people who voted in the law on "killing the babies" (and who did so by outvoting two other people similarly voted into office).

 

BLD: Come on now, you're trying to take a thread that began with what is esentially a rhetorical question on generalities and turn it into a debate on one issue.

Fuggetaboudit ... it is pointless.

The two sides of that particular issue, especially if either party has any possible extremist leanings, are never going to agree or even find common ground on that issue. So it is pointless to even begin the argument.


So BLD, how's the weather been where you are? It's been grand here ... the sad retreat of summer but the dawn of autumn ...leaves dressed in color, crisp cool evenings, skies alight with stars, and tonight a harvest moon.

Kit

 

Why do the fundies make abortion into the one and only litmus test of political philosophy? (We see it in the Supreme Court nominations as well.)

Personally, I don't believe that fetuses are children (potential children, perhaps) and I support abortion.

I'll even go farther than that. I think that a lot of our social problems, including school failure, crime, poverty, welfare dependency and so on, are exacerbated by people having children that they are unable or unwilling to care for properly. So I would favor making abortion more available, particularly to teenage mothers.

I've always looked at that as an eminently conservative position since it emphasizes the poor's own behavior in contributing to their plight and highlights the need for them to act responsibility in their own best interest.

But somehow I find myself put in the position of agreeing with Gregg DesElms, a guy who dismissed me as an "America love-it-or-leave-it type" in the very first post he made to me. I'm sure that this strange bedfellows act is uncomfortable for him as it is for me.

What it does illustrate though, and pretty well too, is a point that I tried to make early in the thread: that there isn't any single issue litmus test that separates "liberals" and "conservatives".

 

I think this issue is confused by conservatives, and I am a consevative. THe reason Roe v. Wade should be overturned is because THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! Now, if we want one, and i do, there is a means to get one. That is to add an amendment for it, not via some know it all judge with a political agenda. This has led us to so many of the fights we engage in now.

Most of the Liberal agenda HAS to be pushed via the courts because they know if we just voted on it they would never get anything they want. Just a fact. This a major differance betwees Cons and Libs. I personally believe that it is NOT a living document as that idiot Gore said. WE have the right to change it, not the court. Im personally against abortion ( i saw my daughters in the womb at several week, and THEY WERE ALIVE), but I dont think it the Fed Govts job to tell you what to do. It is the states duty to make up these rules. Obviously some state would make it legal and some would not, but that is how our system was designed. I think this is missed by alot of people.

THis applys across the board. Most so called Conservatives are against gay marriage, but it is a States job to determine it, and not the Feds. The rule are not just convient to what people want. They apply the same to all issues regardless of how someone feels on the issue.

Sorry for preachin my libertarian views, but I think both Sides, Dems and Repubs, have really lost sight of this...

 

I don't think that making abortions more available is the answer.

One thing is for sure though. Every baby that is unwanted by someone is wanted by someone else. Adoption waiting lists in this country are very long.

I've said before on this board that the greatest act of unselfishness is to take 9 months out of your busy life to give your baby the chance to be raised by loving parents.

 

No, unfortunately not every baby. The wanted babies are healthy, white, less than one year in age, and with a fair amount of preference shown for males. In the meantime there are literally thousands of adoptable children being raised as wards of the state, with no one lining up to adopt them. Their "sins" include being older, non-white, female, mixed race, non-English speaking, handicapped, emotionally disturbed, learning disabled, born drug or alcohol addicted, and other myriad conditions not of their choosing. The reason adoption waiting lists are so long is that far too many potential adoptive parents refuse to even consider any of "those" children.

Absolutely! But the real question is should such an extreme act of personal unselfishness be mandated by government? That's the real question, and not any individual's personal feelings on the issue. Mandated imposition by law removes any "unselfishness" from the equation, as it then becomes merely an action to avoid criminal charges.


Kit

 

The Right to Privacy is embedded in the Constitution and comes from the provision that protects us Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures in the Bill of Rights. It is not legislating from the bench like many conservatives like to argue. Whether or not it extended to a woman right to choose may be open to judicial interpretation.

 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment

 

No,No,No. Most of our right in the constitution are very SPECIFIC. Search and Seizure is not this mythical right ot privacy that most of the liberal agenda is based on. In reality what people want to avoid is any for of guilt. That right is VERY specfic to Police Powers, not to this stretching. Think about the 3rd that says we dont have to keep soldier as tentant in our homes. Why was this SOOO exact and the 4th was loose??? If was to interpet the second amendment in this way I should be albe to have artilary or a Tank in my yard....I find it funny that most libs think the 4th amendment covers abortion, but the 2nd doesnt apply to my right to have a firearm. The funny thing about this arguement is you MAY be right. The example i used about the 2nd amendment may be true. Most of the weathly in the late 1700s had cannons on there property, whcih was the "big gun" of the timeframe. So you may be right, but i prefer a rigid interpetation of the document with folks like me and you adding amendments and not a judge making a intreptation. The Supreme Court is now taking it a step farther and using Laws from other countries to base SOME opnion, which is absolutly insane. I have to go back to my statement that the liberal agenda only chance is to judicially push what they believe in because they KNOW that if we vote on it they would lose hands down.

I personally would support an amendment for the RIght ot privacy, but that hasnt happend, and I dont think we could agree on anything with the split state of politics in this country...

 

The Ninth Amendment (see above) says that those rights that the people already had before the Constitution still exist regardless of whether or not they were explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. So maybe you could build yourself a time machine and go back and asked the Founding Dudes if they thought they had a right to privacy. Or maybe we should just let the government create a sex police and let any repressed individuals like Edwin Meese or Kenneth Starr and their ilk start peering into people's bedroom windows and decide solely based on their own personal prejudices what sorts of sexual practices are sufficiently sick and twisted to be used as a basis for hauling you and your significant other down to the station house.

 

on this issue (the constitutional one)

I agree with Ted.

Also, to give you just one example of how conservatives (even though I don't think Bush is a true conservate....he spends too much and they usually hire competent people) use the courts to their advantage, see the (privacy related?) case in the Supreme Court right now...Chief Roberts first case, I believe....

Notice how THE PEOPLE of the state voted TWICE to allow such a method of mercy killing, but it was the current administration that challenged the law and took it all the way to the SC...this is the same admin. that attempted to introduce the only amendment to the Constitution that would restrict individual, civilian rights (oh the priorities)...

I wonder if Roberts worked on this specific case when he worked there...now he's reading his own arguments...nah, I give much more credit than that...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/05/assisted.suicide.ap/index.html

-------------------------------------
Voters in Oregon have twice endorsed doctor-assisted suicide, but the Bush administration has aggressively challenged the state law, the only one of its kind in the nation.
-------------------------------------


Anyway, more food for thought and hopefully more thoughtful discourse of the issues....

 

I think your missing my point. Im not advocating the "sex police". For the record a real conservative, no an angelical conservative, does not care what you do with your time, money, or body. The Repubs are NOT really a conservative party, they just like to hide behind the banner. The SC mercy killing, Medical Pot, and gay marriage are things for the states to decide and particullarly in the case of the medical pot laws the based the ruling on a total BS interpetation of the interstate commerce clause since its grown and distrubuted inside a state its none of the feds business. It seems like both sides have lost real site of states rights and like to conviently invoke it when it works for them and not when it works against them. I remeber janet reno saying she didnt care what the people of california voted for.

I think the founding "dudes" felt and expressed in writing the desire to allow most of the rules to be made at the state not federal level. Let face it, most of the govt is totally incompetant and could find there way out of a wet paper bag. Why would anyone want to give them more power? Thats the real difference between cons and libs. REAL conservatives (not Repubilicans) believe the Fed has VERY VERY limited powers of the federal govt. It seems, and i could be wrong, alot of "liberals" have this idea that its the govt job to fix everything thats wrong with the world, which is bunk. The truth is the actually break everything and cause most of the problems. The source is usally just so far removed that its not very visable. Ask a farmer about price fixing on there wares...

Ill re-read the 9th amendment and check my facts. I could be totally off base. I just feel that its the people that change or modify the constitution and not the judcial branch and Im pretty sure that was the original intent. I do realize that we are trying to apply a 200 year old document to modern problems and thats tough, but we have a vehicle to fix any problem. We can change it by voting. Thats the way, not the court. Sorry if thats my mantra..


L

 

You are incredibly naive. By denying the existence of a right to privacy, you are saying that the government can invade your private life. And when the government can do something, it is only a matter of time before they actually do that aforesaid something. Count on it.