Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/16/2012 5:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 10/13/2012 5:25:00 AM (view original):
<<It is possible to believe that Roe v Wade is bad law and set a bad precedent for America and still be pro-life or pro-choice.>>

Nonsense....show me anyone who is Pro-Choice that disagrees with Roe v. Wade. And show me anyone who is Pro-life and supports Roe v. Wade. I'll wait.

And just to be clear, Roe v. Wade is not a law. And are you saying that Judicial Review is bad? You would have to go back to Marbury v. Madison to argue against that precedent, not Roe v. Wade.

I am one such person.

I am whole heartedly pro-life, and believe that abortion shouldn't be used as contraception.

However, the fact is people will continue to act irresponsibly, and if abortion was banned there would still be abortions, they just would be done illegally with many many more health hazards to the women having them. That is/was a major point in the decision process that was made in the Roe vs Wade ruling.

We cannot go backwards in that regard, and as much as I despise the abuse of the system and what it has devolved into, it was the right call.

We can only be responsible for own our lives and hopefully instill those values in our children, we cannot force our sentiments and beliefs on others. It was pretty ugly for women intent on aborting in the years before Roe v Wade.

McHale...i agree with you wholeheartedly on this point, but I suspect that the number of people who hold such a nuanced view is very small. I totally agree that we can only hold ourselves accountable to the moral/ethical standards that we hold on things like this. But by the same token, we must also have some values that we adhere to as part of the social contract as well. For example, I don't think it is in the best interest of society to let someone starve if the person next to them is throwing food away.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/19/2012 2:22:00 AM (view original):
There is never a reason in my mind to make investment in the economy less attractive.

In reality it is a feel good issue for the occupy people, but it would not result in a lot more revenue each year.

By extension then, you are making "working" less attractive. In my mind...there is never a reason to make working less attractive.

MITTSTER WILL LOSE HIS STATE BY 25 POINTS

HIS DADDY'S BY 8-10

Rudy who?

See you jumped over the meida bias one again. The 2nd one is just funny names and funny pictures. Most of the Obama theme since the start.

Again can anyone who wants to explain why an important state newspaper would endorse the candiadte that is going to lose by a landslide in their state?

Do we need anymore evidence of media bias?