Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 172 Old 10-01-2011, 06:38 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
OK, U.S. voters. Since we've been given the green light to engage in respectful political discussion, what are your thoughts on the coming election?

Here are some discussion starters. You can run with any or none of these!

1. Whether or not you're a Republican, one *could* end up President in 2012. Whom do you think will end up running? Is there anyone you're hoping to see win the primaries?
2. If you voted for Obama, how has he measured up? Is he what you hoped for in 2008? What strategies do you think he needs to adopt to win 2012 votes?
3. What are the BIGGEST issues that will affect your voting decisions in 2012?
4. Independents, who's your candidate and why?

Sorry this isn't more focused. I'm sure our discussions will get there in the coming months! thumb.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#2 of 172 Old 10-04-2011, 09:01 AM
 
Imakcerka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

Ok I'll bite.  These elections make a mockery or our intelect... I'm not excited about this at all.  It's more Hollywood to me now and akin to watching Dancing with the stars hoping Nancy Grace rips through her dress.  It's all about who is the star Megalomaniac in the Circus.  Who can make people believe in them.  Since they've done such a lovely job... collectively this Disabled Veteran will not vote.  Unamerican?  Then give me back the time I served. 

Imakcerka is offline  
#3 of 172 Old 06-04-2012, 03:50 PM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm voting for Obama, for the same reason I've always voted for Democrats:  he's better than the Republican.  

 

Romney is my nightmare.  He's been Numero Uno on my s*** list since his infamous firing of the Mass. Public Health Council members in the Spring of '06 when the council tried to halt the practice of infant formula being marketed in hospital maternity wards.  (Quote from article in Mothering Magazine: "Less than two weeks later, Romney announced a deal with Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's largest formula manufacturer, to build a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts."  Coincidence?)  http://banthebags.org/27

 

I never expected Obama to be the messiah that many people hyped him as, so I have not been disappointed in him.  In fact, I think he has accomplished a surprising number of progressive measures, considering how much the Republicans have fought him.  

 

 

The issues I vote on are the usual suspects:  health, education, human rights, etc.

 

The polls are frighteningly close, so I think it's high time we had this conversation.  I hope more people will participate.


-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#4 of 172 Old 06-04-2012, 05:50 PM
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,811
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)

Whoa....blast from the past!  Hi Sustainer! :) Nice to see you.

 

I'll jump in. LOL

 

I voted for Obama in 2008.  Am I 100% happy?  Nah. But then I don't think I would be with anyone. I am however satisfied enough that I will vote for him again. I think he has done what he could with the amount of opposition he has faced, and I would love to see what he can do with another 4 years.

 

Romney makes my eye twitch.  And that's all I can say about that.

 

I also don't watch network TV, so I am not getting bombarded with ads, which I think lets me do my homework more, and from a lot of different sources..

 

But, I know I'm a big, fact liberal, so I know I am biased. ;)


winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
#5 of 172 Old 06-05-2012, 06:12 AM
 
anjsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 490
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am somewhat of a political moderate, although I usually lean towards conservative and consider myself a Republican, I tend to lean heavily toward liberal when it comes to issues of human rights. 

 

I voted for Obama in 2008, not because I liked what he presented at all, but rather because I saw the McCain/Palin team as the world's fastest route to destroy the country. 

 

I will not vote for Obama in 2012. I also absolutely will not vote for Romney, who as a PP said, makes my eye twitch!  Truthfully, I was really hoping that Ron Paul would run independently if he didn't win the Republican nomination, and I think he would be one of the first outside of the two parties to have a legitimate chance. However, his campaign maintains he will not run independent. I will not try to vote "lesser of two evils" again... what a broken system.

 

I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012 even if I have to write it in, because he is the only person in the current political system I believe has the best interests of both the people and the world in mind. He is not blind to what is happening around us, nor is he trying to cover it. In fact, he has predicted the financial collapse and the food crisis and has proposed solutions to both. He has an open stance on health freedom as well - that Americans should be allowed to make our own choices involving food, vaccines, and medical interventions or lack there of.  My vote probably won't "matter" in a true sense, but I won't contribute to the election of either Obama or Romney.

swede likes this.

sleepytime.gifjog.gifSleepy, running, wife to superhero.gif DH 08/09 -  Mama to jog.gif DS 8/08 & love.gif DD 1/11

"Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. " - Japanese Proverb

 

anjsmama is offline  
#6 of 172 Old 06-10-2012, 01:35 PM
 
imagine21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anjsmama View Post

Ron Paul in 2012 ...He has an open stance on health freedom as well - that Americans should be allowed to make our own choices involving food, vaccines, and medical interventions or lack there of. 

 

But, Ron Paul doesn't believe in women having reproductive freedom of choice.  I wouldn't call that health freedom. I could never vote for someone who is anti-choice.  I'll be voting for Obama, like I did in 2008.  Is he perfect?  No, but he beats the alternatives.

imagine21 is offline  
#7 of 172 Old 06-10-2012, 01:57 PM
 
Adaline'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'll bite. I voted for Obama in 2008 and Ill vote for him again. Im not completely satisfied with him, but I wouldn't be completely satisfied with anyone. I honestly dont think our country is run on true democracy, and Im not a big believer in our cooperate sponsored American government, but I vote because women fought for my right to do so and I feel like if I don't get my ass to the polls they fought for absolutely nothing. I vote primarily on reproductive freedom keeping as many social services as we can- so it's pretty unlikely that a republican candidate will ever get my vote.

Holly and David partners.gif

Adaline love.gif (3/20/10), and Charlie brokenheart.gif (1/26/12- 4/10/12) and our identical  rainbow1284.gif  twins Callie and Wendy (01/04/13)

SIDS happens. 

Adaline'sMama is offline  
#8 of 172 Old 06-14-2012, 10:30 PM
 
MrsMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I voted for Obama in 2008. I will vote for Obama in 2012. I think he has done well, especially given what he has had to work with/against in Congress. The thought of a Romney presidency makes me shudder. He is bad, bad news.
 


Jenn treehugger.gifmama to Monkeylearning.gifSquishyenergy.gif& Riverangel1.gif(8wks)Wife to Mikejog.gif See you at the rainbow1284.gif Bridge, Abigael cat.gifand McKenna dog2.gifgd.gifnamaste.giffamilybed2.gifbellyhair.gifcaffix.gifcrochetsmilie.gifom.gifknit.gifcomputergeek2.gif

MrsMike is offline  
#9 of 172 Old 06-19-2012, 07:37 AM
 
moonshoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagine21 View Post

But, Ron Paul doesn't believe in women having reproductive freedom of choice.  I wouldn't call that health freedom. I could never vote for someone who is anti-choice.  I'll be voting for Obama, like I did in 2008.  Is he perfect?  No, but he beats the alternatives.


Different strokes for different folks:) I could be et vote for a candidate who doesn't believe in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, I will not vote for Obama. He supported legal infanticide as a senator, and is so deep in the pocket of Planned Parenthood it is downright sickening. He also has deliberately stepped on religious freedom rights for Catholics with the HHS Mandate.

This is NOT meant to start a debate on abortion and/or. Planned Parenthood, I am simply stating my point of view. Anyway, I will vote for Romney.

Catherinepraying.gif traditional Catholic mama to bikenew.gifjammin.gifdiaper.gif wife to an amazing man.selectivevax.gifnocirc.giffamilybed1.gif

moonshoes is offline  
#10 of 172 Old 06-19-2012, 08:26 AM
 
moonshoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry for the typos iPad keyboarding issues.

Catherinepraying.gif traditional Catholic mama to bikenew.gifjammin.gifdiaper.gif wife to an amazing man.selectivevax.gifnocirc.giffamilybed1.gif

moonshoes is offline  
#11 of 172 Old 06-20-2012, 05:23 AM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Before we start throwing around words like "infanticide" I'd like you to clarify whether we're talking about a baby that has been born and whose body is therefore independent of the mother's body.  I strongly doubt he would support the legalized termination of the life of such.


-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#12 of 172 Old 06-20-2012, 05:48 AM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
He also has deliberately stepped on religious freedom rights for Catholics with the HHS Mandate.

 

I'm the one paying for your health insurance so I get to dictate your medical options?  I think it's stretching it to call that religious freedom.

 

The patient is the one whose freedom is at stake and who should not be subject to the personal religious beliefs of the employer as far as health care options.

 

What if someone's religion involved the belief that women should not receive any health care at all?  Would they have the "right" to provide health insurance only for their male employees?


-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#13 of 172 Old 06-21-2012, 10:26 AM
 
moonshoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No, non no. You are incorrect, but this is not the place for a debate over health insurance.

Obama, as a state senator, voted against a law which would require a doctor, other than the abortionist, to determine if a baby should be given life-sustaining treatment should he/she survive an abortion. This is common in late-term abortions. But again, this is not a place to debate abortion and it is not my intention to do so. I am simply stating that while many will vote a straight pro-abortion ticket, many of us will vote pro-life.

And before you are offended by my use of "pro-abortion" - it is just as annoying when I am called"anti-choice."

Catherinepraying.gif traditional Catholic mama to bikenew.gifjammin.gifdiaper.gif wife to an amazing man.selectivevax.gifnocirc.giffamilybed1.gif

moonshoes is offline  
#14 of 172 Old 06-21-2012, 10:41 AM
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,811
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)

Abortion debate is not allowed.  Hasn't been, for like....ever.  :)  So, let's leave that out.  

 

For respect's sake, and the sake of being able to continue the conversation -  stick to the terms pro-choice, pro-life.  If you have used pro-abortion/anti-life or anti-choice, please edit accordingly and ASAP.

 

I think another thread can be started for the discussion of health insurance - let's just keep this on the presidential candidates/election.  


winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
#15 of 172 Old 06-22-2012, 09:24 AM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Not to debate abortion itself but simply to clarify terminology:

 

Presumably we may say "against my right to choose" if we're not allowed to use the term "anti-choice"?  

 

("Anti-choice" is, at least, accurate... I don't think a person on that side of the debate would deny that they oppose women having a legal choice.)

 

"Pro-abortion" is inaccurate because pro-choice individuals are NOT pro-abortion.

 

Do you really think that "pro-life" is a neutral term?  You don't think it implies that pro-choice individuals are "anti-life"?

 

Personally I reserve terms like "anti-abortion" for those people who are personally against the procedure, and therefore would not have one HERSELF.  Anti-choice only describes those who think they should have the right to make that choice for all women by outlawing the procedure outright.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshoes View Post
Obama, as a state senator, voted against a law which would require a doctor, other than the abortionist, to determine if a baby should be given life-sustaining treatment should he/she survive an abortion.
 

Just for clarity's sake, since infanticide is a serious charge, this is not the same as supporting infanticide. 


-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#16 of 172 Old 06-22-2012, 10:28 AM
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,811
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Extending the respect to other posters by identifying them as they choose to identify themselves goes a long way toward furthering the conversation - and ensuring that it doesn't go down in flames.

None of the terms are neutral. None.

I would say that people would argue that they are not anti-choice. In fact I have seen that very argument on this board. smile.gif
Storm Bride likes this.

winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
#17 of 172 Old 06-23-2012, 08:53 AM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdinaL View Post

Extending the respect to other posters by identifying them as they choose to identify themselves goes a long way toward furthering the conversation - and ensuring that it doesn't go down in flames.

 

I do see the value in that.  Of course, when the phrase "anti-choice" was used in this conversation, it was in reference to a politician, not a poster.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdinaL View Post

None of the terms are neutral. None.
 
I think pro-choice is pretty straightforward, and doesn't imply that those on the other side are against something they aren't against.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdinaL View Post
I would say that people would argue that they are not anti-choice. In fact I have seen that very argument on this board. smile.gif
 
Of course, some people who have an ethical problem with abortion and wouldn't have the procedure themselves are NOT anti-choice, and I don't object to calling them something else (although I wouldn't, voluntarily, call even them "pro-life" because that term would still be offensive in its implications about the other side).  But if a person's position is that women should not have a legal choice, I don't know how they could disclaim the term "anti-choice."  
 
 
I'm only posting this for the record, though.  I'm happy to let the matter drop and concede your restrictions.  Thank you for clarifying.  :)

-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#18 of 172 Old 06-24-2012, 07:15 AM
 
sarafi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sustainer View Post

 

although I wouldn't, voluntarily, call even them "pro-life" because that term would still be offensive in its implications about the other side).  But if a person's position is that women should not have a legal choice, I don't know how they could disclaim the term "anti-choice

 

Either one, "pro-life" or "pro-choice" can be taken as offensive by either side. You stated that you have a hard time accepting your opposition's views as anything but "anti-choice", and yet another person can have a hard time with the fact that they feel a fetus is a life, and so therefore can't see themselves as anything but "pro-life". There's no sense arguing about people's feelings :-)

 

The point is to move on, use the names each groups uses to self-identify, and then have an actual conversation about the issue.

Storm Bride likes this.
sarafi is offline  
#19 of 172 Old 06-24-2012, 08:03 PM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarafi View Post
another person can have a hard time with the fact that they feel a fetus is a life, and so therefore can't see themselves as anything but "pro-life". 

The problem with "pro-life" isn't that the "pro-life" people are motivated by their belief in the sanctity of life.  The problem is the implication that the people on the other side of the issue are against life.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarafi View Post
The point is to move on, use the names each groups uses to self-identify, and then have an actual conversation about the issue.

I already expressed my readiness to move on, abide by Adina's stipulations, and continue the conversation about the 2012 Presidential election.  smile.gif


-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#20 of 172 Old 06-24-2012, 10:51 PM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Love Obama. He's a smart man and a good father. He's had a tough road with the economy and the split between the houses but he's hanging in. Love that he is pro-choice and for gay marriage, too! joy.gif
philomom is offline  
#21 of 172 Old 06-25-2012, 04:00 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

I hope this doesn't cross the abortion-debate line, but I can respond to this:

Quote:
The problem with "pro-life" isn't that the "pro-life" people are motivated by their belief in the sanctity of life.  The problem is the implication that the people on the other side of the issue are against life.

The problem applies both ways. "Pro-choice" implies that the people on the other side are against choice. Both "life" and "choice" are very powerful connotation words. No-one wants to consider herself against life - it connotes frolicking children and smiling babies and verdant pastures and what-have-you; and nobody wants to consider herself against choice, especially in a country which prides itself on freedom and individuality.

 

"Anti-choice" is, for one thing, a negative statement of the position (we talk about people being "anti-", as in negative, angry and bitter); for another, it connotes people who are anti-choices in general. "Anti-choice" sounds like pro-uniformity, pro-drones and clones, pro-Big Brother and mindless sheeple, anti-forty-one-flavours, anti-creativity, anti-individuality.

 

I am pro-life, and I call myself pro-life because the point is that I believe in the humanity of the unborn child. Yes, this thinking leads to laws which prevent women exercising one choice (not choices in general), to kill said child; but the point is not to deprive women of choice just for the heck of it, it is to protect to lives of unborn children. Similarly, you are (I'm assuming) pro-choice, and call yourself that because you believe in women's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. That thinking leads to laws which cause the deaths of unborn children (ending those lives, but not life in general); but (again, I assume) the point is not to kill fetuses just for the heck of it, it is to protect women's rights not to carry a pregnancy to term. The name of the movement should reflect the philosophy of the movement, not its necessary consequences.

 

For the record, I also strongly dislike the use of the term "anti-life". I believe pro-choicers are sincerely advocating for what they believe to be the rights and welfare of women, and that they generally believe deaths of the fetuses to be a regrettable consequence, necessary for the greater good but by no means desirable. I also believe pro-lifers are sincerely advocating for what they believe to be the rights and welfare of unborn babies, and that they generally believe the distress of an unwanted pregnancy to be a regrettable consequence, necessary for the greater good but by no means desirable. There are a few extremists on both sides (the woman who had multiple abortions for an art project, people who believe women should not have access to contraceptives or higher education) who can legitimately be called "anti-life" and "anti-choice"; but very few.

 

And any discussion of abortion in which the other side is referred to as "anti-[positive connotation word]", in my experience, gets everyone's hackles up very quickly and results in each side demonizing the other and a flame war (or mod slap, heh).

 

In other words: yes, I think there's good reason for the rule. It's not just about courtesy, but about understanding the point of view of the other side.

Storm Bride and JollyGG like this.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#22 of 172 Old 06-25-2012, 10:24 AM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
double post

-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#23 of 172 Old 06-25-2012, 10:52 AM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

The problem applies both ways. "Pro-choice" implies that the people on the other side are against choice. Both "life" and "choice" are very powerful connotation words. No-one wants to consider herself against life - it connotes frolicking children and smiling babies and verdant pastures and what-have-you; and nobody wants to consider herself against choice, especially in a country which prides itself on freedom and individuality.

 

But the people on the other side ARE against women having a legal choice.  I'm not saying that they should have to identify *themselves* as anti-choice, but when *we* refer to them as anti-choice, it is not inaccurate in the way that it is when they call us "pro-abortion."  If they truly pride themselves on American freedom and individual responsibility, all that says is that they may want to rethink their position on this issue. If they're going to stand behind an assertion that women should be denied access to a medical procedure that allows us control over our own reproduction, they should at least acknowledge that they are proposing a limit on freedom and individual choice.

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokering

 

I am pro-life, and I call myself pro-life because the point is that I believe in the humanity of the unborn child. 

 

 

But a pro-choice person may also believe that the fetus is human.  What distinguishes a pro-choice person is the understanding that there is no thing nor no ONE whose right to live extends to a right to live inside of a person's body without her consent.

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokering

The name of the movement should reflect the philosophy of the movement, not its necessary consequences.

 

There is a distinction, though.  There are two groups of people who find abortion to be more negative than positive.  One group think it is ethically questionable and claim that they would never choose to have an abortion themselves.  The other group believes that every woman should be denied the legal opportunity to make the choice for herself.  I think these groups should have different and appropriate names.

 

I also cannot concede that every person who wants to outlaw abortion is motivated by a desire to protect life.  There is, unfortunately, a large group of sexists on your side of the argument, who are motivated by a desire to keep women from controlling our own reproduction or our own bodies, and most of these sexists could quite frankly give a hang about the fetus itself.  They may try to use the fetus to forward their argument, but only as an attempt to hide the fact that their actual motivation is misogyny.

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokering

And any discussion of abortion in which the other side is referred to as "anti-[positive connotation word]", in my experience, gets everyone's hackles up very quickly and results in each side demonizing the other and a flame war (or mod slap, heh).

Once again, I've already conceded this and expressed a desire to move on.  I think it's a good idea to get away from this topic now.  We're walking too close to the line.  Let's discuss the candidates and the election in general.


-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#24 of 172 Old 06-25-2012, 01:18 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

I'm sorry, I can't respond to your statements without getting into abortion-debate territory, but I think you're still missing the point. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this further.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#25 of 172 Old 06-26-2012, 07:16 AM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I comprehended what you said.  Continuation of the topic between us is unnecessary. We just disagree with each other.


-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#26 of 172 Old 06-26-2012, 08:59 AM
 
loveandgarbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

First, thumb.gif to Sustainer. That's all I'll say on that topic!

 

I voted for Obama in 2008 and will do so again this election. I'm a born and bred democrat but these days identify more with liberalism because we all know democrats aren't all that liberal (Obama included). I think many of us who were Obama supporters in 2008 are disappointed with his term in office. But he was dealt a tough hand-- failing economy, two wars, and of course the usual pressures and compromises of being head of state. I do fault him for not speaking out sooner on gay marriage, though.


Jean, feminist mama raising three boys: W (7), E (5) and L (2.15.13)

loveandgarbage is offline  
#27 of 172 Old 06-26-2012, 05:40 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
I comprehended what you said.

I'll accept that if you admit that your own argument in paragraph 1, post #23 undercuts your objection to "anti-life", making the terms "anti-life" and "anti-choice" equally acceptable (in general discourse; not on MDC, obviously, due to the UA). Otherwise, no, I don't think you have comprehended my point at all. That doesn't mean we have to keep discussing it; but don't just claim victory and walk away. That's rude.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#28 of 172 Old 06-27-2012, 11:45 AM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

I'll accept that if you admit that your own argument in paragraph 1, post #23 undercuts your objection to "anti-life", making the terms "anti-life" and "anti-choice" equally acceptable (in general discourse; not on MDC, obviously, due to the UA). Otherwise, no, I don't think you have comprehended my point at all. That doesn't mean we have to keep discussing it; but don't just claim victory and walk away. That's rude.

I do not accept that "anti-life" and "anti-choice" are equally acceptable.  Pro-choice people are not in any way anti-life.  However, the people who I, in general discourse, refer to as "anti-choice" ARE against a woman's right to choose.  I did not "claim victory" in that argument.  I said that you and I disagree.

 

As far as here on MDC in the discussion of the 2012 presidential election, I appreciate(d) Adina's arguments that, for the sake of a smoother debate, we shall not use the terms "anti-choice," "anti-life" or "pro-abortion."  I concede(d) that.

 

I'd like to move on with the discussion of the candidates.


-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#29 of 172 Old 06-27-2012, 12:35 PM
 
CatsCradle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Okay, I'll jump in!

 

I've been alive under 9 different presidents (could have been 10, but Kennedy was assassinated a week before I was born).  I guess I've become somewhat jaded about the political process after all these years, given that local government, the judicial branch and Congress tend to have more impact on my personal life (and I believe the lives of others) than a single figurehead like the president.  That being said, presidents can influence the course of all these branches by appointments  and/or rhetoric.  These days, when choosing someone, I tend to look at what I think is the big picture as opposed to specific ideologies espoused by these individuals. 

 

I have voted Democratic throughout the years and will probably continue to do so as long as the party's position is in vague line with my overall values.  Like someone upthread said, I didn't view Pres. Obama as any kind of savior in 2008 even though I voted for him, so while I don't agree on all the things he has done, I think he has done a decent job with the tools (or lack thereof) that he has had given the economic mess that we were in four years ago.  I'm not particularly fond of some of his policies (the Drone issue bothers me a lot), but I think overall he is an intelligent, decent human being who really can connect to the people on a lot of levels.  I have absolutely no feelings about the individual Romney (other than the hilarious etch-a-sketch analogy and what I perceive to be his total deer-in-headlights view of working class and poor people), but if he does get into office, we can expect more Citizens United and Wisconsin union-busting thinking to prevail and that bothers me a lot.  And no, I'm not a communist or a socialist, but I do believe that slow erosion of "We the People" is a result of special interests, especially corporate interests.  Maybe Pres. Obama is not the best person to steer us from this, but he's the best person in this election cycle. 


"Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." Charles Lamb.
CatsCradle is offline  
#30 of 172 Old 06-27-2012, 06:16 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
I do not accept that "anti-life" and "anti-choice" are equally acceptable.  Pro-choice people are not in any way anti-life.  However, the people who I, in general discourse, refer to as "anti-choice" ARE against a woman's right to choose.

Sigh. Let's recap the arguments, shall we? You denied or ignored my argument that "choice" and "life" are powerful connotation words; meaning, presumably, that you are in favour of the words "choice" and "life" being used with the assumption that everyone knows they're referring to the specific political issues.

 

Then you stated that you think it's acceptable to refer to a group not by its stated overriding principle ("pro-life" or "pro-choice"), but by a consequence of the legal ramifications of that principle, as phrased by the opposition. Then you went so far as to say that the other side should be OK with that. So, to turn your own argument on its head, blue text mine:

 

Quote:
But the people on the other side ARE against fetuses having a legal right to life.  I'm not saying that they should have to identify *themselves* as anti-life, but when *we* refer to them as anti-life, it is not inaccurate .... If they're going to stand behind an assertion that fetuses should be denied access to legal rights which prevent them being killed, they should at least acknowledge that they are proposing to take away life.

Tomayto, tomahto.

 

Quote:
I did not "claim victory" in that argument.  I said that you and I disagree.

You also claimed to have comprehended my argument, which I do not see from your replies to have been the case. It came off as a very condescending "I know what you're saying, although I won't demonstrate that in my response, but I'll be the bigger person and move on now, because I just had the last word". If you want to rebut my arguments, that's cool; if you want to stop discussing it, stop discussing it; but please don't ignore my points while claiming you know what I meant.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off