Obama vs McCain

Project 2501 posted earlier reasons why I do like McCain. I'm anti Abortion and Gay Marriage. He's who I'll vote for.

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

Project 2501 posted earlier reasons why I do like McCain. I'm anti Abortion and Gay Marriage. He's who I'll vote for.

If we ban abortion, then women will look up unsafe, illegal ways, which could lead to something happening to them or the baby. When its legalized, its safer and its done by someone the woman can trust.

And as for the gay marraige issue, that seems to be opposed by only religious people and sexist homophobes. So it's pretty safe to saay that you are going for McCain because he is the same religion as you. :/

"Because they'll still do it anyway" is never a valid reason for keeping something legal. I'm not totally against all abortion, as I believe early term abortion is fine. However, people tend to like to throw that statement out there like it's a big discussion ender. It doesn't matter if they'll still do it anyway. That kind of thought doesn't even hold water with me, and others I'm sure.

As far as Mcain goes, I'm only really worried because I heard he's pro illegal immigration. I don't really keep close track on politics anyway. I went and voted for someone who's currently out of the running. I don't remember his name, though.

Originally Posted by Wolfen

If we ban abortion, then women will look up unsafe, illegal ways, which could lead to something happening to them or the baby. When its legalized, its safer and its done by someone the woman can trust.

Or... they could do what my real mom did and put me up for adoption and give their child to parents who really DO want children...

And as for the gay marraige issue, that seems to be opposed by only religious people and sexist homophobes. So it's pretty safe to saay that you are going for McCain because he is the same religion as you. :/

I'm voting for him because his values are close to mine. He's not the same religion.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

"Because they'll still do it anyway" is never a valid reason for keeping something legal.

It is if the rate of incidence doesn't change at all and if making it illegal costs lives.

That's a big problem with making abortion illegal, the number of them doesn't seem to appreciably drop, but the number of mothers dying sure the hell does.




However, I find it unlikely that anyone could make abortions illegal in the US, aren't they legal because such laws were found to be unconstitutional?

However, I find it unlikely that anyone could make abortions illegal in the US, aren't they legal because such laws were found to be unconstitutional?

Only because the Supreme Court said so. Get five Conservatives on the court and that could well change.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

However, I find it unlikely that anyone could make abortions illegal in the US, aren't they legal because such laws were found to be unconstitutional?

Yes, in Roe v. Wade it was found to violate the constitutional "right to privacy", which I find to be one of the most ridiculous reasoning in Supreme Court history.

I'm sort of in-between when it comes to abortion, but I don't think it should be such a big issue anyways. Besides being mostly trivial in nature compared to everything else a president has to do, the only real areas where the president has any influence is mainly foreign policy, with a bit of economic policy thrown in there.

Originally Posted by Noscreenname

Yes, in Roe v. Wade it was found to violate the constitutional "right to privacy", which I find to be one of the most ridiculous reasoning in Supreme Court history.

Sounds like a case of "it's a person's own business what they do to, or have done to, their body", but I'm sure S&M is illegal in America too.

Originally Posted by Noscreenname

Yes, in Roe v. Wade it was found to violate the constitutional "right to privacy", which I find to be one of the most ridiculous reasoning in Supreme Court history.

Whether or not you disagree with abortion, what is so unreasonable about protecting a right to privacy?

The fourth amendment provides some Constitutional basis for what can loosely be construed as privacy. It doesn't explicitly state abortion should be legal, but it does protect against unreasonable search and seizure. Like so many Constitutional issues, it comes down to the interpretation of the judges.

There was precedent as well. Griswold v. Connecticut explicitly established that contraceptive use was legal and thereby reinforced the notion of a right to privacy.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

However, I find it unlikely that anyone could make abortions illegal in the US, aren't they legal because such laws were found to be unconstitutional?

What Ron said. And even outside of that, this administration has proven just how much the GOP cares about the Constitution, and McCain has done little to dispel the assumption that his thought processes are in line with theirs. So far this year he's voted with Bush every time there's been a congressional vote.

For the conservatives here: Is getting a ban on abortion and gay marriage enacted worth living in a surveillance state?

Wait, wait, wait.

Something can be found unconstitutional by the supreme court and then all it takes to change it is to ask the court again?

Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of precedent and challenging laws?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Wait, wait, wait.

Something can be found unconstitutional by the supreme court and then all it takes to change it is to ask the court again?

Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of precedent and challenging laws?

Technically, yes. In essence, what does the Constitution and any given law mean? Whatever the Supreme Court say they mean.

However, justices usually respect precedent, so once a decision is made, it won't normally be changed.

Since we're talking about abortion, though . . .

One major goal of many Conservatives is to overturn Roe v. Wade. They would do this by stacking the court with Conservatives and then eventually finding a case that challenges the current decision. In theory, this court could then rule that abortion is illegal. The Supreme Court's word is final--there is no higher appeal.

Do I expect this to happen? No. As I said, precedent is usually respected, and judges, while not immune to ideology, are less partisan than legislators.

For the conservatives here: Is getting a ban on abortion and gay marriage enacted worth living in a surveillance state?

Excellent point. Traditional conservatives preach that the government should not intervene in our lives. Yet bans on abortion and gay marriage (and marijuana for that matter) do just that.

This inconsistency in the economic and social philosophies of modern conservatives has always perplexed me. They seem to hate the government and want to keep it out of our lives, but demand that it legislate morality on deeply personal issues.

If the Supreme Court is anything like the House of Lords here, it is not bound by itself. And I think the highest court in the country should be anything BUT bound by itself, only binding on lower courts. It was only because the House of Lords is not bound by itself that we were able to get marital rape made illegal in 1991. Times change, societal values change, and so must the law.

Originally Posted by Ron_Mexico

Whether or not you disagree with abortion, what is so unreasonable about protecting a right to privacy?

Nothing. I'm just saying that abortion and privacy are completely unrelated issues.

Are they?

I agree that the issues are not related explicitly, but they do seem connected to me. For the government to step in and say, "you Miss cannot have this abortion," could be seen as an invasion of privacy. It does not seem far removed from "you Sir may not use this condom." And I think that is the reasoning the Court applied.

Then you could ask what makes this different from "You Stoner may not smoke this weed." It's sticky, but the difference is that smoking weed is not as personal or intrinsically private--it is not related to the body. In theory, the government reserves the right to prohibit marijuana use under the Commerce Clause, though it would seem that the same justification could be used to regulate abortion . . .

What have we learned? Only that government is immensely complicated, confusing, arguably inconsistent, and always maddening.

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

Or... they could do what my real mom did and put me up for adoption and give their child to parents who really DO want children...

But not all women will want to do that. Its freedom of choice, and illegalizing abortion would be taking away that freedom. Some women won't want to go through birth because maybe they are unable to find a foster couple they like, or that they are afraid of childbirth and how much it will hurt (altho, I've heard testimonies of the abortion hurting FAR worse than childbirth). Or maybe they were raped, and that child was conceived during that traumatic experience. Can you imagine how hard it would be for the mother to know that her rapist has left a part of himself in her? She probably wouldn't even be able to look at the baby.

I am all for saving the baby, but in the end, it should be the mother's choice.

/offtopic.

I can understand you liking McCain because he has similar values, but what I would rather vote for someone who will try to see thew world from everyone's point of view, not in just one shade of black and white.