Let's just cut to the chase. I have initiated a discussion here on hubpages forum regarding the media and conservatives but here is the bottom line.
This is an appeal to all liberals and progressives...and libertarians...and moderates...
What specific conservative belief, policy, or ideals do you disagree with?
Not what you perceive conservativism to be but what we conservatives say we belief?
I hope you understand the question before posting....
This is an honest appelal on my part. If you need clarifications, please ask.
There is no trick question here. I genuinely want to know.
I'll give you several big ones that drove me away from the GOP and the neo conservatives of today:
1. Insisting on a huge defense budget while demanding even more massive tax cuts at a time when we have massive national debt.
2. Denying climate change and fighting worldwide support for managing it.
3. Refusing to compromise in any way on gun control laws.
4. Stripping away financial regulations that triggered the Great Recession.
5. Making health care a political football and totally botching any attempts to improve the current system.
That is a good list and I will take it on one by one...
Before I begin, the GOP is not conservative so please don't confuse the two.
1. Strong national defense is what keeps us a safe and peaceful nation. It is one of the primary functions of our federal govenment...read the constitution. The idea is simple, a strong military is a deterrent for war. Who in their right mind will challenge the US Military? No one.
The tax deficit is a ruse. Conservatives believe in a small limited federal government. A tax of 25% max should be sufficent to handle all expenses...it is also an incentive for business to re-invest. One of the reason we had such a slow recovery last few years is the high business captal gain tax, compared to other countries. Lowering it in the long run will create more wealth for our treasury. I know it is counter intuitive but it is true. When Reagan reduced all tax brackets in the 1080s, we had a surge in revenue. The deficits is another story. He was promised cuts in domestic expenses that never materialized. Even though we had record revenues, Congress spent more money leading to the deficits.
2. Climate change is up my ally. I am an engineer who has been follwing climate change science for quite some times. If you read some of my articles, you will see that. I actually attend colloquiums at the Lamont Observstory here in NY. I attended many lectures and asked basic questions of scientists. They don't have a good answer. That is why I am a skeptic. I have not seem convincing wvidence that we humans have created this problem or any indication we can solve it one way or another. The best wr can do is to mitigate the regular cycle of warming and cooling of our planet, just as we have done for thousands of years. Do you know why Greenland is called greenland? At one time in our past history, Greenland was warmer than today and had green vegetation before it became a frozen land.
The other problem is how climate change has been politicized by the environmental movement. They have been smart in convincing people that they are one and the same. They are not. I can be for a clean planet, clean water, clean air with all the EPA regulations and still not supporting climate change reducing fossil fuel...
3. Gun control is another issue that is based on our unique history and our constitution. The 2nd amendament is crutial to our survival. I write about this in my hub American Civics 101. It is our insurance policy that a over zealot government will apply tyranny to control the populace.It has happen before in Germany 1930s, and there is no reason it can't happen again. Our founding fathers. Knew human nature well and put in the 2nd amendament to protect our freedom.
Besides, any laws to limit guns only apply to law abiding citizens. The criminals do not follow any laws.
4. Wall street financial regulations. Here, I agree more can be done and should be done. The SEC should do its job and keep wall street working for all people and not just the well connected hedge funds...as a conservative, I disagree with the Bush administration's bailout of wall street back in 2008.
The concept of too big to fail does not work in a free and capitalistic society. You need the free competition to incentivize companies to improve... crony capitalism as practiced today by both parties is where we went off the rail.
5. Healthcare was not politicized by the GOP or conservatives. The ACA was clearly a Democratic idea designed to fail. No republicans voted for it. We are here because they forced it down our throat in a partisan fashion. When they had the majority, they voted it in and scheduled it to kick in after 7 years. They knew full well thst it was unsustainable in the long term. The math just didn't work out. They subsidized 80% of the newly insured with expanded medicaid to be withdrawn jn 2020. Guess what, these exchanges are all going under as we speak.
Who politicized this issue? Mot comservatives. We believe it should be a market driven solution, that will lead to better care and lower cost. Economics 101.
Odd, then, that we have hundreds of gun control laws, all without any compromise. The REAL problem is that the libs won't compromise until all privately owned guns are gone from the country - every time there is a new law they promptly begin work on another, more restrictive, one.
One of my biggest problems with the GOP is their constant barrage on the rights of women.
I am assuming you are talking about abortion, or a women's rights to choose. Or is there other women's rights I am not aware of?
This is is simple. We conservatives believe the rights of the unborn are to be protected. It comes down to when does life begins. We believe it begins at conception. Because that is the most logical time. Some believe it is when the fetus is viable on its on, sometimes in the last trimester... in either case, when does the right of the mother conflict with the rights of the baby?
We conservative do not believe the Supreme court should decide on this huge issue. It should have been done under the Constitution as an amendment. It was such an important decision that the majority of the people should decide. Instead, after 40 years, we are still a divided nation on this very topic. Roughly 50% of the people are still against it on moral grounds.
Also, if you read the original supreme court decision, it was suppose to be rare and be the last option, not the first. Instead, we have evolved to a state where over 1 million are aborted each year. How sad that they could not be adopted...or some other way...
Why do we even have to debate late term abortions... don't all people agree that late term abortion is murder?
By your reasoning the Constitution would have had to be a giant tome, thinking of every contingency and ensuring that those contingencies were addressed within the document. Although I do think that when a fetus is able to survive on its own outside of the womb abortion should not be an option the point is that a woman should not be forced into decisions, by others, which would change her life forever. There are many ways to minimize the number of abortions but the bottom line is that whatever the circumstances a woman should have the right to make decisions for her own body.
I do not have a problem with your belief that life begins at conception. You should live by your beliefs. But, when your beliefs are used to infringe on the rights of others that becomes a problem. Don't even attempt to argue that you are in defense of the life of the child. Your involvement ends with your interference. The woman you lord your belief over would be left to live with your choices, not her own.
You are making a huge leap... the constitution is just fine the way it was written. It was not meant to be the law that covers everything...
It is a principle document that follow a set of rules...which stands the test of time...
We used the amendment process to make major changes as it should be...
The only thing I am saying with abortion is that it should have been debated and voted by the people with large majority... that way, it may have taken a little longer to pass, but at the end it would be better for all. Instead, we have debates until today, 40 plus years since the Supreme court ruling of roe vs. wade.
By your thinking, where does the fetus come in? Are you saying the mother has the right to end the fetus at any time because it is in her body? What about 1 day before birth? That is late term abortion...
Limiting abortion does not have to be a death sentence for women... there are other options which apparently planned parenthood does not entertain... what about adoption? There are plenty of people who can't have children biput want to have children...why can't we make it easier for them to adopt rather than have abortions on demand...
I am not for violating women's rights. But I am for the rights of the unborn. Unfortunately, we need to have a solomon's wisdom here...which comes first?
Can you answer me one question which I have never received a satisfactory answer ...
With all the sex education and free condoms and day after pills and IUDs... why is abortion still big business in 2017? You think we would have solved this problem by now... only people or women who wants kids gets pregnant... in the few cases when a mistake or accident happen, why can't they get the day after pill or other means to end it? Why do they need to wait till the last trimester to abort?
And, I commented on that, but as with all conservatives you didn't listen; but, simply assumed that I think something different.
Well, if adoption were the end all answer to the problem we wouldn't have orphanages. We wouldn't have foster care. You are assuming that all of these pregnancies that you want to force into full term would equate to a happy ending for the product of that pregnancy. That is a pipe dream, at best.
I would respond with the fact that there are many, many children without parents in the U.S. today. They aren't adopting them. Why not?
Here, again, the religious miss the point. They miss the value of the teachings. It is easy to love God, but not your fellow human beings. It is easy to argue in defense of the what ifs instead of the what ares.
Let's think about this Jack. We have a society that sells sex at every turn. It is sold on our tv sets, on our movie screens, in our music and in our product advertising. We have men who could very easily carry condoms. Why don't they? We have a society which allows men to consider themselves free until marriage so if a woman does get pregnant they have no legal obligation to be a part of that child's life and when divorce happens they can easily walk away. We have insurance companies which fund things such as Viagra but not birth control. We have companies (religious ones, mind you) which will fund Viagra but not birth control for women. We are screwed up from top to bottom but it is always the woman's fault if she becomes pregnant. I'm sorry, you are (as with most things conservative) only interested in attacking the problem from the wrong angles and expecting the wrong people to pay the price.
And, again, why are you bringing up last trimester abortion when I already responded to that? It is a rhetorical question because I know why you bring it up. It is what everyone appears to use in order not to have a real conversation on fair rights for women.
As far as I know, contraception is covered by ACA?
So why is abortion so prevalent?
It is the fault of society...of men who don't carry condoms...of our culture of sex...
Of everything except personal responsibility....
What conversation do you want to have with women's right that are not addressed?
Did you hear about the first women who signed to to be a navy seal, just quit....
We have women serving in the military, we women in every job and in combat, we have women at top CEO in many tech companies, IBM, and others...
What other issues might there be?
Feminism have achieved its goal.
Are we better off in a society that is equal in every which way...and yet we know nature is not equal is it? Somethings men are better at just as others women are better at. They complement each other by design.
No Jack. Men are not 'better' at some things any more than women are. That mentality kept society unequal and its ghost is keeping the remnants alive. That mentality caused the recent memo at Google. It's funny because if you truly believed that you wouldn't be attempting to interject your opinion into an issue that you believe women are better at.
Not all men could be Navy Seals. Not all men have the physical ability to do so. Not all women look better in dresses than all men. And, we all know that equality is an often used word but, across the board, is still miles and miles away. Pay inequities abound.
But, I believe you read the news. The courts have upheld companies rights not to allow contraceptives to be part of their insurance plans. And, how many teenage girls will take advantage of the insurance coverage their parents provide when it comes to birth control? How many women who believe they are in a committed relationship, but find otherwise when they news of pregnancy is discussed, are prepared emotionally and financially for the journey alone?
Only the individual can decide if they are ready. I suppose you are of the belief that souls are created through the act of sex. I am not. So, I cannot agree that forcing a life to come into an existence where it may not be wanted, it may grow up in abject poverty, it may be warped by growing up in a hostile environment is in its best interests. Honestly, I'd rather wait for a good opportunity to join the living and navigate the perils of existence than have the deck stacked against me by a group of nosey nellies .
Ok , I give up. You are right. I have no business telling others how to live their live. I therefore should not be expected to pay taxes to perpetuate this entitlement mentality.
Why should I care? It does not affect me one bit...
Why do I want to invite grief? And be called names...
and be accused of "conservative" as if it is a dirty word?
You are free to live your life the way you see fit.
I am entitled to my opinion... or is that not in the cards?
Liberals claim they are for freedom of expression except when the expression is something they disagree with, that's when the thought police shows up on campuses and we have free speech zones...
My motto is live and let live... and the Constitution is supreme...
When in doubt, check the constitution... it is a guiding principle that has served us well for over 200 years despite of mis-steps...
Take care and be well.
I am glad we had this discussion.
I hope we both learned from each other.
Caring is one thing. There is nothing wrong with that. Go forth and make a difference. Adopt a child. Help a struggling unwed mother. Work toward a society where young girls are not taught to believe their worth lies within their looks and their sex appeal. Do something to change the symptoms which result in the problems we are discussing.
I am a conservative on many levels. But, it seems odd that a true conservative wants government out of their lives yet they want government in the bellies of women. It doesn't make sense and it is one of the reasons I choke every time I have to make a choice on a candidate.
We all have a right to an opinion. When we attempt to sway the legislative process to enforce our opinions onto the lives of others that isn't really just having an opinion. Is it?
I'm a firm advocate of free speech and healthy debate. And I am aware that we, as a nation, are evenly divided on the issue of abortion. However, we would be better advised to show compassion for our fellow humans. We would be better advised to work toward alleviating the symptoms and, in so doing, reduce the problems. Showing love and compassion instead of vitriol toward those who are victims of the world we (all of us collectively) have allowed to come into existence.
I agree. But, I am a firm believer that the Constitution has some fluidity. It is a living document and should reflect the spirit of the nation.
Good one. Check it out. Let me know if there is anything about this issue. I'd be very interested to hear it.
"It comes down to when does life begins. Because that is the most logical time."
But it isn't about when life begins (a cancerous tumor is alive and so was the wart you froze off), but about when that life is a person. And no, it is not logical that a single cell be called a person; the only similarity is a genetic code (the blood you sold and the beating heart you gave away has that). It may or may not become a person, but it is completely illogical to call a zygote a person.
I can see where you are coming from. If all it is is a tissue sample, than if follows that abortion is just cutting out something you don't want...or selling it for medical research as Planned parenthood has done with fetus. But it had the potential to grow to be a human being. Here is where your analogy falls apart... a cancerous cell is just that cancer. It has a defect where it does not know when to stop growing... a fetus, on the other hand, given the chance will grow to a human being with a soul.
Wow, we learn something new everyday don't we?
No, it may grow into a person with a soul (depending on your definitiono of "soul"). A large percentage of pregnancies end with miscarriage, others die from violence, accident, etc. And some are aborted.
But I intended no analogy; a zygote is not a cancerous tumor or even close. That was just an example of killing life as opposed to killing a person. We kill life all the time, from cancer to warts to the living lens in my eye that I had removed to a chunk of bowel my wife had removed. But we don't kill people, not with a scalpel and not as an abortion (excepting late term abortions, which I highly disagree with).
*edit* if you can prove a zygote has a soul you will have convinced me it is a person
Wilderness, here is another thought...
Why do we have laws on the book against a person killing a fetus in the womb of a pregnant women?
If it is just a tissue, why do we call it manslaughter?
When a man punches his pregnant lady in the stomach, and she has a miscarriage... is this a crime?
How about a drunken driver causing a miss carriage of a pregnant driver in an accident?
Should he be charged with a crime or is this just a piece of tissue to be dicarded at will?
Think it through my man...
Because lawmakers don't have brains. Two conflicting laws - which one is wrong? The one that denies a fertilized egg with no brain, no heart or other organs and no sensations is a person in their own right?
Its a matter of choice... If a woman has obviously decided to keep a baby, there should be some legal accomodations if she loses it because of someone else's accidental or angry actions. Not so much because of the baby, but because of the distress caused to the mother (who is ALSO a person). I think the courts currently take into consideration 'how far along' the mother is. It doesn't have to be a big complicated mystery. Common sense works nicely.
You are missing my point. Do you agree a life has intrinsic value irregardless of other forces?
If a fetus in the womb is a potential for life, it has value. That value is considered by our court system and protected. When someone takes a life, on purpose or due to irresponsible behavior, there are penalties to be paid.
You cannot extend this right to the mother merely because it is the host for this new potential life. She cannot decide when a fetus is viable.
In fact, we also have laws against suicides at least in most countries. Why?
Don't people have a right to kill themselves? In most court of law, no.
I refer back to my original point and question. Why is abortion still so popular today?
We have the technology to prevent 99% of unwanted conception and yet, we still have so many abortions. Can you at least recognize the fact that it is a money making business for some...
I object to abortion not because I want to control women as you clearly claim. I want it to be rare because I am trying to protect the life of the unborn. Who knows?. One of them could be the next Einstein or Princess Diana?
Do you honestly think abortion is popular? I doubt there is one woman thinking 'man, I hope I can get pregnant so I can have an abortion. It's so in at the moment.'
I didn't mean it in that sense. I mean popular in the sheer numbers. There are over 1 million abortions performed each year in America. I am willing to bet the Supreme Court that ruled on Roe vs. Wade would be shocked at how extensive their ruling has impacted our society...
If you care, please go and read their ruling. It was suppose to be rare and the last resort, not the way it has become - almost a form of contraception after the fact.
The Supreme Court did not deliberate by what might or might not shock them. They were attempting to determine what was constitutionally correct. They determined that a prohibition on abortion was in violation of not one, not two, but three amendments. Common law showed that abortion in the first trimester was not historically considered a crime, by what most within religion and on the side of the law considered the moment that life began.
The views of many on the pro life side are not supported by historical understanding, scientific understanding or anything else. It is just a made up line in the sand in order to stir controversy.
Here is what the women in the Roe v. wade case said after she changed her mind and became an activist:
Norma McCorvey became a member of the anti-abortion movement in 1995; she supported making abortion illegal until her death in 2017. In 1998, she testified to Congress:
It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[16
Another article on this controversial supreme court decision -
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … te-fiction
This is who made the Roe v. Wade decision. Surprise! It wasn't the LEFT: A 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. ... The only Democrat appointee, Byron White, voted against Roe v. Wade. In fact, in every year since 1969, the United States Supreme Court has been controlled by a majority of Republican-appointed judges.
However, it was an updated decision women NEEDED, so I'm going to guess that God allowed for a little crazy to happen. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring my push to figure out WHY so many young girls wind up with unwanted pregnancies (not a new thing) as a way to diminish them. Admittedly, that is so much harder to do than just creating a law about it. A law that will leave some young girls DEAD (like used to happen).
A fetus does not receive a 'soul' to be worried very much about 'murdering' it until closer to the time of being born - usually a month to 3 months ahead of time; and sometimes even a couple days AFTER it is born. While I realize that isn't what most Christians in this country believe - that doesn't make it inaccurate.
I'm not pushing 'for abortion' - I've known too many young Christian girls (my friends!) who have had them because they were too afraid to put themselves - and moreso their families - into an embarrassing situation with our small, midwest community. Here is my story about them: Why Do Christian Girls Have Abortions; and Why Are Christian Adults Out of Touch?
http://misfitchick.blogspot.com/2016/02 … tions.html
When we tackle the causes - I'll even give you a boost here - when we tackle the mentality that young girls have no meaning in this world unless & until they find a guy to love, nurture and take care of them and have their babies as soon as possible or they will be NOTHING... It will be a start. Many young girls KNOW they aren't supposed to have sex; but they OFTEN do it to hopefully 'catch' the guy with a pregnancy - sort of a backwards mentality that (also often) works! When it doesn't, abortion is often (of course, not always) the solution.
And that is only one scenario of an explanation - there are many more. We could talk about 'romantic rape' that young girls often get themselves into by not realize a man is grooming them into a sexual corner inappropriately until its too late - and then, because the guy was so 'romantic' about it, they feel as if it was THEIR fault and say nothing. Actual rape & molestations are probably just as common.
We need to start caring about young people beyond abortion, itself - not just girls, where do young men get their pervasive 'locker room mentality' about sex? Young boys are encouraged to go out and have sex with as many girls as possible; while young girls are taught to be virginal & pure until marriage. What a crazy juxtaposition - and we WONDER why there are so many abortions!
It doesn't explain the huge numbers of abortions. What do you think is an acceptible number of abortions per year?
Given we have free condoms, birth control pills, and day after pills...and sex education in middle school...no fault divorces...
Everything the progressive asked for, we have implemented and yet, why still have so many abortions?
Could it be the society has degraded to the point where human life and dignity is no longer valued?
Or religion is taken out of schols? And these social relations are closely tied to human behavior?
Maybe they had it right in the first place? Family and monagomy are the best path for individuals to succeed in life and avoid poverty...
It is my contention that we created this secular society in revolt to a religious influenced one so that man can claim control over his own destiny...and found out it is no picnic either.
You didn't even read any of what I wrote, did you? If you had, you wouldn't be CONTINUING to ask these innane questions that accomplishes NOTHING except to divert the reality of the issue - while making accusations about a group of people you have 'generalized' in your mind.
That is what you and those of your ilk are 'programmed' to do - continue the fighting.
And by the way... This stuff you have listed is a OFTEN a direct result of some of the stuff I was talking about!!!!
Yes. I know this. I see it quite frequently. I have two sisters who each had abortions. One who, quite frankly, (although I'd never tell her) once she found out she was pregnant used a pregnancy as a means to an end and has dealt with it quite easily. Although I lament her choices and I hope she does too, she understands that women have the right to make their own choices. I don't know the circumstances surrounding the other but she is very, very anti abortion and has raised a son who irritates the heck out of me with his overly opinionated views.
As I told you. No one (although, as my first sister may be evidence this is not a steadfast rule) sees abortion as a preferred means of birth control. Norma McCorvey had her reasons, at the time, to believe it was the right thing for her. She later changed her mind. It is very difficult for me to understand women who have had abortions who fight to limit the rights of other women. They have forgotten the fundamental rules of liberty of the individual and have joined the ranks of those who think they know better than you do as to what is the right path for you and are willing to force women to bend to their beliefs. It is just as wrong as if I walked up to a young man headed for college and forced him to dig ditches in Uraguay for $1 a day in wages. Yes, he could find a way to overcome this imposition on his free will but it would be a long and hard fight not of his own making.
I think you need to understand what was decided in 1973 regarding abortion rights and what is being practiced today by planned parenthood are very different.
Thst is the source of the controversy even beyond the religious aspects.
There is legitimate concerns about the abuse of abortion...
No one wants to go back to the old days but some want abortion on demand even late term...
That is just wrong.
Continue to avoid my big point about this issue, Jack - that is why nothing different ever happens. Sure, abortion may very well be a subject that needs to be tinkered with - I know about the 'research' and 'fetus sales' that conservatives are also concerned about.
But, we can't even SORT of deal with those aspects of things UNTIL the THREAT of removing 'choice' is GONE.
WHAT THREAT? You are paranoid beyond belief. Have you been reading what I've been saying...?
What is so scary that your side have to take the extreme position that is indefensible?
Typical 'extreme' conservative response - denial & playing dumb...
The threat comes from the GOP pulling stunts like this (see image) - JUST so that they can use the subject of abortion to manipulate the hearts of their base to vote for them. They make them believe (and yeah, they can accomplish it) that they will overturn Roe v. Wade.
That is actually one of the main reasons why so many conservative women (and men) felt that they HAD to vote for Trump - despite their repulsion of him. Like I've told you, I've been a conservative - I know why they vote the way they do based on their religious beliefs. This is NOT NEW.
In reality, the GOP doesn't really care about this issue (not at the shadow-core of the party, certainly 'individuals' do) - its just a point of manipulation, one that doesn't matter (for them) if it ever comes to pass, or not. Because if they CAN'T get it overturned - they can just continue to blame the opposing side (a side that ALSO has a shadow-core that is perfectly-willing to be the 'one being kicked'. In fact, both parties 'take turns' with each other to keep us fighting - cuz its PROFITABLE for our country AND it keeps our attention diverted with them ALL in POWER).
And if the GOP does manage to overturn this utterly SINFUL behavior - WOOT!!
I seriously hope that helped. I'm done arguing with you for today, Jack. I'm sure you'll have a predicible, brainwashed response. You do a good job for your side; and we both make great reading for people trying to make good decisions. This is what Free Speech is all about.
Late term abortion is not something I am an advocate for, except in extreme cases. I believe anyone can determine if they want to have a baby early on enough to avoid this scenario. That, we can agree on.
What I cannot agree with is your comment about abortion on demand not being allowed. What is a woman to do if she finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy? Ask you for permission? Ask anyone? That idea of yours is absurd and invasive.
"I want it to be rare because I am trying to protect the life of the unborn."
No you aren't. You are trying to protect the life of what you falsely choose to define as an unborn person. You have set your opinion above that of the only other person (excluding the male contributor) that actually has a stake in the matter.
In addition, you have to be aware that the same argument supports the banning of condoms; it prevents the possible development of a human life.
You have no idea what my motivations are except to listen to what I said.
The same argument against condom use was not used my me. I am catholic but I never bought into the no use of contraception. It was an archaic rule made up by clergy in the past and have no basis in scripture.
For the record, I support the unborn on pure right to life arguments which extends our human rights to the unborn. We have extended this right to animals and to others but have avoided calling a fetus a life for politicsl reasons. From a medical perspective, if a fetus can survive outside the womb on its own without assistance, it is alive and has basic human rights.
By the way, I am not the only one making this argument. There are many women who believes this as well. Therefore, it is not a man vs. women argument.
Do you believe in the dignity of life? Or a piece of tissue like any other flesh?
That is the crux of the case. If a human fetus is nothing more than a tissue sample, I can see why some have no problem with abortion. It is like cutting out a cancer growth ot a tumor.
If however, a human is unique with 23 unique genes combined from each parent, it has its unique finger print, an a soul... then abortion is murder of the innocent. The sins of the parent being unleashed on the child. Where is the justification for this?
You can argue this in the olden days where we had no other recourse. Today, however, we have many social safety net and charities that will help the mother either with adoption or other benefits...why we have abortions on demand is pure selfishness.
"You have no idea what my motivations are except to listen to what I said."
That's right, but you said you were trying to save lives. What you didn't mention is that those lives don't exist and never existed. You forget to include that it is only your definition that you refer to; a definition that is contrary to reality (just ask the pro-choice group).
"The same argument against condom use was not used my me."
That you didn't use it does not mean it is any less valid than the identical one used to "protect" life. The exact same logic can be used, making it just as valid.
"We have extended this right to animals and to others but have avoided calling a fetus a life for politicsl reasons."
No we didn't - that is just your excuse for it. We haven't extended human protections to non human life because it isn't human. Again, just ask the pro-choice group.
"From a medical perspective, if a fetus can survive outside the womb on its own without assistance, it is alive and has basic human rights. "
From your medical perspective, not from reality. Not only is assistance required for many years, but you can once more ask the pro-choice people and get a far more reasonable answer.
"If however, a human is unique with 23 unique genes combined from each parent, it has its unique finger print, an a soul... then abortion is murder of the innocent."
But your fetus has no finger print and all life has genes unique to that life. Many even have the same number (23) of chromosomes. Even a tumor has that. And finally, your fetus has no soul. There[fore[/i] abortion is not "murder of the innocent".
Bottom line here is that you are making up a host of definitions and claims, none of which can be show to match reality. This is followed by claiming that any other definition is false...because it doesn't match yours. Doesn't work, and for the life of me I can't figure out why that is so hard to understand. You don't have the right to make definitions binding the human race to whatever you choose to - it's really that simple. You say that you can understand the position - why can't you understand that your position is your opinion and no more "right" than the one where fetal tissue is just that - tissue.
A little bit of education for you and a bit of history. Did you know in Chinese almost 5000 years of history, a person is counted as 1 year old the minute they were born. Even they known the life of a fetus growning in the womb is alive. They rounded the 9 month into a full year for simplicity.
This concept is not my definition as you claim. Many Doctors also see it this way, who studies genetics and biology and DNA.... That is why some surgeons refuse to perform abortion in the 3rd trimester. Why?
New sonograms technology have discovered fetuses especially twins seem to communicate with each other while in the womb. How can they do thst if they are not alive as you claim?
The more scientists study human cells and organs, they find it more incredible and complex than we were lead to belief. Can all this just happen by chance? Or evolution?
Or survival of the fittest?
The theory has holes and we are just one fossil away from finding this whole theory flawed.
The theory of evolution requires a long time period for all this change to take place. What if we find a fossil that is much older than currently exist. What happens to that theory? The answer is obvious.
If you know math and study statistics, you will find the incredibly probability of how molecules and elements and organic compounds form and interact.
All work against a random evolution theory...
"That is why some surgeons refuse to perform abortion in the 3rd trimester."
But you know neither you nor I are talking late term abortions. Yet you bring it up as if it's meaningful - why? Because you can't justify banning abortion of a day old zygote?
"Can all this just happen by chance? Or evolution?"
Yes. To the best of our knowledge that's exactly what happened. Of course random theories based on imagination are another story (pun intended).
"What if we find a fossil that is much older than currently exist. "
What if we do? Not seeing your point, unless you are trying to say that if human remains are older than thought it proves a god that inserts a soul into every fertilized egg...and then destroys half of them. And what if we don't?
"If you know math and study statistics, you will find the incredibly probability of how molecules and elements and organic compounds form and interact. "
I do. Do you? And if you do, have you calculated the probability of a strand of DNA forming somewhere in the thousands of cubic miles of water over a billion year time span? I'd be interested in seeing the calculations...and the assumptions that went into them.
Sorry, but evolution is hardly "random" (it's call "survival of the fittest" for a reason) and time and probabilities both work for it.
Suit yourself. I guess I touched on subject you feel strongly about.
I don't have to convince you.
I dd not agree with how abortion became the law of the land and how it was ruled by the supreme court. It is still a contested issue 5o years later.
I would have preferred it to be debated and voted by the majority.
Given that it is the law, I have no problem with following it and it is not my intent to reverse it.
Wha I do want and everyone should want is for abortion to be rare and the last resort., just as the Supreme court wrote about in its decision.
Also, with the technology we have, we should minimize late term abortions and reduce people getting pregnant when they don't want it or are not ready to raise a child.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Peace. I am done arguing with you. Have a nice day.
While I agree with much that you have said, it needs to be made clear that basic rights for people are not determined by majorities, that is why I cling to the Bill of Rights. That is why we libs prefer the courts in many cases. Were we all supposed to wait for legislatures or voting majorities to abolish slavery, the very practice of which violates the very foundation of the American creed?
If that's true, then Democrats can't complain when Hillary wins the majority vote but Trump wins the Electoral College ...
Slavery was different. We fought a civil war and many people died. It was settled by force. A less desirable path. Ideally, people should be able to debate with civility all big issues and work out a solution. If they had done so with abortion, perhaps it would not be so contested till today. The founding fathers realize this and put a high bar for amendments. I rather take a little more time to sway people instead of by judicial fiat. Our history have show even 9 intelligent judges can get it wrong at times such as dred scott decision. Don't you agree?
Good points, Jack. Have you contemplated what and how it would have been possible to end slavery in the U.S. without war? Yes, nine intelligent judges got it wrong in the Dred Scott Decision and later in Ferguson vs. Plessy, the foundation for "Jim Crow". But the 9 did get it right in the Board of Education decision some 50 years later. Abortion is different as the personal body and the integrity of the choice people like to have with their own bodies is touchy at the basic level. We could not wait for people to sway legislatures to end Separate but Equal or Abolish Slavery. The damage to the rights of so many have already been done. Our opponents in the racial area always used the excuses 'we need more time for people to make adjustments, or things are moving along just fine down here'. I like the court because I believe certain things should not be given the luxury of endless waiting for people to see the light as there were plenty of reasons for them to prefer to continue in the darkness.
"Wha I do want and everyone should want is for abortion to be rare and the last resort., just as the Supreme court wrote about in its decision.
Also, with the technology we have, we should minimize late term abortions and reduce people getting pregnant when they don't want it or are not ready to raise a child."
On this we are 100% in sync with no disagreements...given that "minimize" means "reduce to very nearly zero". Sadly, I don't see us seriously reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies but that's another issue.
Good answer, but of course it opens the question of a woman that kills a man's child. That's going to have to be addressed one day as well.
Groovy. We get to go round & round about these issues again, Jack - cuz you didn't understand the opposing perspective any previous time we've discussed them? LoL!
This seems to be the latest twist you've come up with: "Before I begin, the GOP is not conservative so please don't confuse the two."
I will agree that the GOP is currently somewhat oddly-mixed with portions of the radical left in this country due to people's fascination with Trump at the moment - but their platform has always been 'conservative'; and it is what they PRIDE themselves on. I used to be one, don't try to distort things in order to 'make the rest of us seem wrong'. We're not stupid. GOP and conservatives largely agree on everything. What sets you apart from GOP idealogy?
You already know I can blow your conservative arguments regarding things like abortion, healthcare, Obama, Trump and so many other specific topics - out of the water. So, I'll give you a break for a while and let you chew on this most recent 'GOP is not conservative' issue. It is a LOT more difficult to pull the wool over someone eyes who has lived in a deeply-entrenched conservative/GOP household.
You keep asking these questions different ways because you can't comprehend the most simplified explanations - that's brainwashing, Jack. I know you hate that I keep bringing that up. ANYONE - whether they are on 'the right' OR 'the left' (Oh yeah, I've seen some brainwashed lefties) who is SO SURE that ONE side is so much worse than the other - and everything is all the OTHER side's fault - that is a telltale sign. I've told you this before, look up the symptoms of brainwashing if you don't believe me. I've had to dig my own mind out of brainwashing (check out my 1st spotlight article). I know how hard it is JUST to face it, much less do something about it.
I would advise walking away from things for awhile to try to get a grasp on your own mind again. I didn't just say that to be mean. I think it would be good for you; and you would feel better. In fact, here is another indicator... If you can't walk away for a few days without experiencing withdrawal symptoms similar to an addict, you have an obsession/addiction going on: also a brainwashing symptom (but not necessarily).
You'll notice that you don't see me for days, sometimes. I would rather walk away - I am honestly not nearly as interested in politics as most of you are; although I've never quite been uninvolved, either. Sort of a mediocre American like most of us are - but I've stepped up my game, as so many of us have. I keep coming back because I obviously have things to say; and I DO want to help my country heal. I know there are other people listening aside from those of us who are doing the talking. Sometimes that means 'tough love' on my part - a lot of you call it something else, LoL!
I am so far beyond caring what any of you think of me... I see you ALL as amazing with varying degrees of lunacy, which is NORMAL (and often adorable) among communities of people UNTIL some jerks decide to stir and incite division and hate.
I support Promisem’s points, 1-5.
Insisting on a huge defense budget while demanding even more massive tax cuts at a time when we have massive national debt.
2. Denying climate change and fighting worldwide support for managing it.
3. Refusing to compromise in any way on gun control laws.
4. Stripping away financial regulations that triggered the Great Recession.
5. Making health care a political football and totally botching any attempts to improve the current system.
6. I support Wilderness point of view in regards to the conservative’s idea of religion's intrusion on those that do not subscribe to their Evangelatin point of view.
Jack, Your God is not my God, and until someone can definitively prove otherwise, this kind of absolutist stuff has no place in American law and jurisprudence.
I fully support L to L position's regarding the complaint directed to conservatives where continued discrimination and oppression of women in our society is shrouded in their idea of paternalism which is neither wanted nor desired. While, I cannot speak for her, I suspect that a lot of the anti-choice abortion activism has a natural effect of minimizing the rights and prerogatives of women in society in general.
Finally, I have a grab bag of my own. I know that you accused me of stating that Conservatives are racists. I correct that assumption, while they may not be racists they use race baiting for political advantage and expediency. Where do we start; States Rights, “law and Order”,The Southern Strategy, Welfare Queen, (a term constantly referred to by Reagan when the actual individuals reflecting the term never existed), “Willy Horton”. Now in the age of Trump, the worst of the worse are invited as a part of his cabinet. That does not win a lot of friends for conservatives among the Black community who if not the source, are quick to ally with those that are the source of the trouble. So, I blame them just as much.
That ought to be enough for you to chew on for now….
Disagree with the discrimination and oppression of women. The right to life movement isn't about women; it's about the murder of unborn babies, male or female. Turning it into women's rights is like saying that because the majority of people arrested in a black neighborhood are black it is a sign of racism.
Women do not have the right to murder other people - to say that it is about women's rights is simply a refusal to acknowledge the reasoning behind the movement.
I thought that Roe vs Wade is established law and that those that insist on controlling the process of birth considering life to begin at conception are not working within the spirit of compromise that was the basis of that ruling. When the pro-life people go beyond this established law as they have been attempting to do in many states, who is it that is now being imposed upon? The "movement" has the effect of limiting choices otherwise available to women.
Do you really think that "compromise" entails changing religious beliefs or "obvious" definitions? It has nothing to do with the law - it has everything to do with murdering helpless babies and until the rest of us figure this out the debate, violence and legal machinations will continue. Only by recognizing, by empathizing if you will, with the opposition and truly understanding their position can understanding and thereby true compromise happen. Calling them women haters that only wants to control women doesn't accomplish a thing. Don't ever forget that because a person has a uterus does NOT give them the option to kill at will.
Of course, the pro-life group has the same problem. An utter failure to recognize that opinion differ, that theirs is only an opinion, not fact, and that it is no more true than that of their opposition. Only by recognizing that the pro-choice is not out to murder children will they make it possible for any compromise.
isn't that what I said? Why should the absolute of one side dominate the debate. So, destroying a fertilized egg in the utero is murder? That is a matter of opinion. If I were female, I do not appreciate religious hypocrite, yes, religious hypocrites intervening in this matter. The law of the land has defined at what point the 'states' interests in preserving life can be considered on par with the options of the mother, who are the conservatives or you to question otherwise?
Because they're right. Because God told them so. Because they know when human life begins.
You're missing the whole point, Credence. It isn't about hypocrites that know things you don't and it isn't about options for the mother. There ARE no "options" to murder. And if the law allows murder then the law is wrong (this one I would agree with, with few exceptions). If you want to talk hypocrisy it must include the mother that intentionally murders her child while saying murder is wrong.
How often have you discussed when "personhood" occurs with a pro-lifer? And how did the discussion go? Can you accept the stance that it begins with the first breath? With a heartbeat? With fertilization? With exit from the womb? Why can't (won't) we have reasonable, rational discussions about the matter without the name calling and vilification inherent with terms like "murderer", "hypocrite", "bully" or even "control women's bodies"?
The problem with that, Wilderness, is I don't care what they KNOW. I KNOW as well, so there is your impasse.
According to these 'people' in the know, murder occurs when a fertilized egg is removed by the mother at conception.
The question remains when does the fertilized egg become viable as a fetus and becomes an independent and separate human being? The religionists say at conception and while even I would have problems with late term abortions, I am not the one carrying the child or the one who would be responsible for its life once it is born. These evangelatins certainly do not volunteer to care for the children once they are born, but they are good with their babble and preaching.
Yes, I have spoken with a pro-lifers. They are adamant that their God defines what life is and when it begins. Do you think that it stops there? No. They get involved in birth control, morning after pills, etc.
That is correct; that you both KNOW is the impasse. An impasse that will not be discussed.
"They are adamant that their God defines what life is and when it begins."
Agreed. The objective must be to convince them that a man-made definition must be found, a rational definition that depends on reason and not pure opinion. From both sides: your question of when a zygote becomes an independent and separate human being, for instance, carries an answer of around 18-20 years after birth.
You might begin by defining "human being", or "person"; the attempt can be illuminating (if a neanderthal was not a human being what is the hybrid of a neanderthal and cro-magnon? And if it WAS a person, why isn't a chimpanzee?)
But, I thought that Roe verses Wade constituted that "man made definition...? Why does the Right continue to move the goal posts?
Each species begets its own kind. The fact that an Eskimo and a African can successfully mate is a strong indicator that homo sapiens, human beings are a species that can be defined. I am certainly not qualified to say the same or no with other humanoid species of the past
Obviously not. Or maybe it's just that RVW is a "bad" law that must be rescinded because of what God says.
If so, explain mules, ligers, dogotes, etc. The world is full of hybrids. What is a homo "sapzee" - human, chimp or other? Is a fetus without limbs or forebrain still a person?
I'm not convinced that having each both halves of our genetic code from humans is enough to define what a "person" is. Given that a dolphin has as much intelligence as a "person" (unknown at this time), is it also a "person" and has the rights of any other "person"?
I would challenge the statement that women are murdering other people. And, again, I would state that it is easier to defend a what if and spew hatred than it is to be kind to a what is.
Of course you would. So would I. But that simply shows that you don't understand or empathize with the opinion that such events are happening in the millions as people (zygotes) are dragged from a womb.
The discussion has to be about "what is a human life", not about murder or women's choices. But nobody wants to do that - one side because their opinion is "obvious" and the other because it might end up limiting choice.
I don't think that conversation can be had. Primarily because those who believe an egg and a sperm joining creates a soul aren't going to listen to anything else. And, those on the other side aren't going to give any amount of consideration to any studies implying that a fetus is anything but that.
But, I think we would all agree that in a perfect world abortion would not be a part of the equation. There is the problem I see. Those who want to scream murder and force others to live by their beliefs simply want to bully others. They aren't in the least bit interested in helping to find solutions to the problem. Not allowing abortions is not an all encompassing solution. To do that simply creates more problems.
You may be right (that such a conversation is not possible). Certainly it can't happen until both sides recognize that there IS no answer; than anything we come up with is opinion only...and that opinion is no better than the next one.
But statements like "Those who want to scream murder and force others to live by their beliefs simply want to bully others." are a big part of the problem as well, and the thrust of my comment. The root is not an attempt to "bully others" - it is an attempt to prevent murder, and that is something we should ALL be concerned about.
And as I said, those beliefs are but opinions and those with such opinions MUST recognize that and truly accept that there are other, equally valid, opinions. That may be the most difficult for they are not opinions in the mind of the believer, but hard, proven facts.
Wow, nice intellectual discussion about abortion among men - LoL! (Sorry, I read to the end; but chose to respond to this one.
The abortion discussion needs to be taken completely off track to women's choices - WHY are there so many unwanted pregnancies? What causes young girls (especially Christian/religious ones) to become pregnant despite being sequestered within their 'saving' religious belief structures? Since the majority of women obtaining abortions fall under Catholic or Christian juristictions - discovering & solving that issue would significantly diminish abortions without doing the dangerous thing of removing 'choice'.
The problem is, conservatives can't get past the word 'abortion' to discuss the issue. Its all just about 'murdering a baby'; and they seem to have absolutely no interest in ministering to their own flock when it comes to this topic. They would have to admit that something is wrong within their congregations; so just changing the law to make it illegal would at least remove the imaginary guilt from their hands. (Essentially that means, when it comes to God, what we don't see or take responsibility for won't hurt us, ha!)
Abortion has been only ONE of several issues used by right-wing propaganda-ists to manipulate & divide their 'base' from the rest of the country - by using the EXCUSE that anyone who is pro-choice is EVIL - and therefore does not deserve respect, generally speaking - American, or not. The GOP doesn't respect (or even seem to acknowledge) other opinions beyond their own dogma.
So yeah, this is yet another issue that we will probably all go on fighting over forever.
I'll only comment on your first line. I'm a woman. I suppose as a man you simply assume everyone is a man?
Actually, I already know you are a woman - every post after this is by men; and I am responding to a man's remark about "The discussion has to be about "what is a human life"... Sorry, I certainly did not mean to make you feel excluded. Btw, I am also a woman.
The insistence that their religious beliefs be incorporated into the laws, schools and government properties of the nation.
Which religious laws are you reffering to? That of gay marriage?
For thousand of years of human history, we have abided by laws that were set down by God, such as thou shall not kill, and thou shall not steal, or bear false witness...
Our legal system was established with the 10 commandments as the bedrock...
It has served us well for the most part.
I do not support gay marriage. There are other legal means to achieve the same results, such as civil unions and various rights that can be extended to a partner...
It changes the tradition of man/women definition of marriage. Where does it ends? We are already seeing many new classes of gender identity....
We conservatives are against it not from an equality view point. We believe in equal rights, we just don't want to change the definition of marriage.
It should be reserved for man women interaction for the purpose of a family to produce the next generation... All sociologic studies has indicated a stable family on mom and dad, is the most desirable form for nurturing a child. Do you deny it?
Also, from a child point of view, sex identity is so important in the development of a child. I do not personally, want a child to be faced with confusion at such early ages. Having a traditional family would remove these confusion...let the child grow up and learn about sex when it is approprate. We do this in all area of education...in reading material, in movie ratings...
Why does a four year old have to deal with gay and sex identity issues at such early age. It just add to the confusion. Let them grow up first...
Let me in addition address the equality factor...
I don't believe or condone any form of discrimination.
We cannot discriminate based on sex, age or sexual orientation or religious affiliation...
I have some first hand experience in this area.
I grew up for the first 10 years of my life in Taiwan. I also happened to be left handed.
If you know asian culture or the Chinese language, it is biased towards right handedness.
I was born left handed and to this day, I write with my right hand. I do just about everything else with my left hand...
My penmenship is horrible. I was forced to use my right hand under physical punishmemt.
Scientists don't know why some 10 percent of the population are left handed. It is not a genetic trait.
Very similar to gays, there is no gay gene. Some believe it has to do with how the fetus develops in the womb. Some small percent of the people develop the left dominant hand, some some are ambidextous and most are right handed. I suppose it is the same with being gay or straight or bi-
What laws? How about gay rights, most certainly including the right to marry. How about prohibition? How about blue laws still in existence in this country? How about not selling alcohol on Sunday? How about putting religious icons on government property? How about insistence in teaching religious beliefs in grade school, and as a scientific theory? How about exempting religious club houses (churches and the people operating them) from taxes? How about religious rituals (prayer) in both schools and government? How about requiring "proper" dress, according to religious tenets?
Our law books are chock full of laws that have no more reason for being than that the church says their god requires them. That they have been there for hundreds of years is NOT a reason to keep them.
That is where you are wrong my friend. These laws, though religious based, are good for the people and for society and for our country. Look to any communist, atheist country and see what moral defficient their country is having non of these religious traditions...
God's law is superior to Man's law any day of the week.
Really, you have to admit all these liberal policies and the free love of the sixties and the drug culture and the no fault divorce laws have devasted our country in so many ways...
Given a choice between religious laws and secular non judgemental laws... I think time has proven which is superior...
Besides, just because a law is religiously based, does not automatically disqualify it does it?
For example, resting on the sabbath is a good idea for all. Don't you agree? Or are you one of the workaholics that work 7 days a week...have a nice day.
"God's law is superior to Man's law any day of the week."
Neatly illustrating my dislike of religion being forced onto a non-believing public, for there IS no "god's law" - just rules that a power hungry priesthood made to control their constituency. I repeat: keep your religious beliefs to yourself and out of my government.
"For example, resting on the sabbath is a good idea for all. Don't you agree?"
I do not. I want a gas station on the sabbath (whichever day your particular religion declares as the sabbath along with all the other "sabbath's"). I want a pharmacy. I want a grocery store. I might even want a liquor store (horrors!). And as those stores may operate, so may any and all other business - even the clergy passing the plate to be paid for their services. That you wish everyone would take a day off, to be designated by you, because your god said to simply is not a reason to do so. Keep your beliefs to yourself.
Oh please... it is not about religion. Your disbelief is your perrogstive... we have a freedom of Religion and you are free to be an atheist in our country. What is common sense and established over millennium is the fsct that humans needs rest to be recharged. A day of rest does not mean you have to attend chirch services. It is nature's way to heal...
Your hatred for religion is inexplicable...
Religion and charities does a lot of good all over the world... something liberals want government to do and yet private charities does much better at lower costs...
No one is claiming religion is perfect as practiced... it is run by humans and we all know humans are flawed unless you think you are the exception...
What arrogance on your part. Does everything religious make you sick?
It is an irrational position that you can't defend...
You may not like it but the alternative is chaos...
Look to Cuba. Venezuela, and former East Germany and North Korea...they all have one thing in common, atheist and communist.
I agree that humans need rest (although I have worked as much as 7-18's). But that does NOT mean that all business need shut down on a day picked by a church VIP somewhere. If you want a law, limit work weeks to 6 days and let the business rotate laborers. Not require they conform to your religious beliefs.
Sure thing. And look to Syria, Saudia Arabia and Afghanistan...they all have one thing in common, a group demanding everyone conform to their religion. Indeed, look to ANY country where religion rules, past or present, and you will find a total mess.
No one here is demanding conformity. what country do you live in?
Do you know what America is about?
It is ruled by the people with consent of the people...
if a local community, for example Bergen County NJ, wants to vote and close all shops on Sunday...they have a right to do so... that is democracy in action.
If you don't like it, you can drive to another county nearby or move...its a free country.
the difference, in case it is not obvious to you, between us and afghanistan or Saudia Arabia...
is that they are ruled by a religious Iman or King...they get to decide what they want not the people.
You need a lesson in civics my friend. I have just the article for you. American Civics 101. read it and learn...have a great day!
Of course you are demanding conformity. Your god says you should not work on Sunday...everyone else must conform to that and refrain from working (except for workers in your religious club). Your god says marriage is between male and female...everyone must conform and 2 males may not marry. You like religious icons on public property...everyone must not only conform but help pay for it while keeping their own icons off that property.
And no, Bergen County does not have the (ethical) right to force conformity with religious beliefs of a majority. And likely not even a legal one - the constitution expressly forbids that. That's what our freedom of (and from) religion is all about - not the freedom of a majority to force their religion on a minority. But yes, if you insist that everyone join your religion, why then, start your own country!
All of this is exactly why I made the first comment; the religious conservatives of the country are sure they have all the answers (God gave it to them!) and are willing and eager to force those answers onto others. "God's law is better than man's". As long as it is your concept of God, not someone else's.
And as far as "changing the definition of marriage", well, that is your definition, and one grounded in religious dogma. It is not the definition that gays have and it isn't even the definition that the majority of non-religious people have.
Yes, you can come up with lots of excuses and lots of variations (don't want children exposed to the evil of homosexuality, give it a name different than the one you want reserved for your own marriage), but none of them hold a candle to your own statement of "I don't believe or condone any form of discrimination."...even as you say gays should be discriminated against.
You can even say there is no "gay gene", while recognizing that something (fetal growth, chemicals, combination of 50 genes, radiation, whatever) causes a propensity for homosexuality in some individuals. Individuals that should never, ever be given the opportunity to even recognize it is possible until adulthood. Good grief, man - you would put all gays back in the closet!
Do men have the right to choose? What about the female child in the womb ? Does it have the right to choose? Guess equal rights doesn't apply to pro choice people.
Now if only conservatives gave a damn about the rest of that child's life.
by Kathryn L Hill 55 seconds ago
In the name of justice, the founding fathers of this nation's constitution encouraged the formation of a democratic republic for the establishment of a self-governing nation. They distrusted pure democracy and this distrust is reflected in The Constitution. It was a basic premise of the founders...
by mbuggieh 4 years ago
Until I began paying attention to religious and conservative secular perceptions of marriage I had no idea that marriage could be so easily debased by so many. To value marriage as a space entirely reserved for sexual propagation of the species is, it seems, a debased sense of what marriage...
by My Esoteric 5 years ago
Do Conservatives believe in a United States or a united States of America?The Declaration of Independance refers to the united States while the Constitution uses the phrase United States, with a capital 'U'. The Ariticles of Confederation and the Continental Congress epitomize a united States...
by Credence2 5 years ago
Oh yes, boys and girls, I am back, like a bad penny. I wonder what are conservative poster's positions on this topic is; are they really for freedom of religion or should children be hogtied and forced to participate in loyalty tests? I have studied with Jehovah's Witnesses and I say that their...
by crankalicious 6 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
by Dan Harmon 3 years ago
For some reason I've been getting emails from Mike Huckabee, running for President. They include such statements as:"I, Mike Huckabee, pledge allegiance to God, the constitution, and the citizens of the United States.""I will stand for the sanctity of all human life from the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|