We need to have a clear understanding of Roe v Wade. Overturning it, which will never happen because it is too much ingrained in our legal system, would not "outlaw" abortions. It would merely return the issue to the states. That's how it was prior to Roe v Wade. Some states held the practice to be legal and some did not.

 

Roe (Norma McCorvey) could have gone to any of several states for an abortion. However, she was recruited by the usual liberal groups seeking to have the Texas law declared unconstitutional and, thus, the similar laws of any other state declared unconstitutional. They were successful although, by the time the case was decided 7-2 by the US Supreme Court, Roe's (McCorvey's) baby boy was long ago born, placed for adoption, and adopted. Roe (McCorvey) was merely the vehicle used by the abortionists to get their issue in court and they were successful.

 

Also, Roe recanted her support of the lawsuit and said she was FLAT WRONG and that abortion is FLAT WRONG for this country and for the females of this country.

The last two posts help sum up why abortion is not a big issue to me when I go into the voting booth. Although I agree with LBBC that it is one of the most important issues in our world, because of the politicts of the issue, it doesn't enter my head in the voting booth. Politicians on the left and the right have used peoples strong feelings on the issue of abortion to hide other things they stand for, and trick people into voting for them. I cannot stand the thoughts that a hypothetical pro-life president would nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court, just so that the Justice would be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and not truly follow the law. And the same for a hypothetical pro-choice president. I think the politicians have turned the abortion issue into a game, and they care more about who wins, than the real root of the issue.

 

You post that like it is the only issue that they do that with.

 

The Dems have been doing it with the African American vote for awhile, painting the Reps as wanting to hold them back.

The Reps have done it with the paintbrush that the Dems hate rich people when most of the big Dem supporters and the Dems themselves are RICH PEOPLE.

 

Same with national defense, illegal immigration, taxes, etc, etc. Pick a topic that is important to you and they are trying to play you like a well-tuned instrument with that topic.

 

Look at the same sex marriage ban. If memory serves me right, Bush won every state that had a same sex constitutional marriage ban on the voting block in 2004, INCLUDING THE PIVOTAL state of OHIO. I think these bans were the reason that Bush was elected. They got the evangelical vote out and those votes mostly went Bush in the Presidential election.

You post that like it is the only issue that they do that with.

 

The Dems have been doing it with the African American vote for awhile, painting the Reps as wanting to hold them back.

The Reps have done it with the paintbrush that the Dems hate rich people when most of the big Dem supporters and the Dems themselves are RICH PEOPLE.

 

Same with national defense, illegal immigration, taxes, etc, etc. Pick a topic that is important to you and they are trying to play you like a well-tuned instrument with that topic.

 

Look at the same sex marriage ban. If memory serves me right, Bush won every state that had a same sex constitutional marriage ban on the voting block in 2004, INCLUDING THE PIVOTAL state of OHIO. I think these bans were the reason that Bush was elected. They got the evangelical vote out and those votes mostly went Bush in the Presidential election.

 

My post was more directed at the topic of the thread, but for the rest of your response, could not agree with what you say more!

 

I consider myself a part of a small minority in this country- the Educated Electorate. So many don't vote, and of those that do, many are played by both the left and the right. We that are part of the Educated Electorate (of which I see some evidence of some members of BGP) not only have a duty to cast an intelligent, informed vote; but also have a duty to educate others to do the same.

Big difference between the two, Jim, is choice.

 

The adult had a choice and made it. Consequences is death. They knew that going in.

 

The child had zero choice in the matter.

 

We here over and over and over on here about letting adults make their own choices. The adults on death row made their choice.

 

The person who had sex and ended up getting pregnant made their choice.

 

What is wrong with having to live with your choices instead of having another person's life have to end because of it?

 

I do firmly believe that any Roe v Wade overturn needs to come with legislation to shore up child health care, kids in poverty, adoption programs, education programs in the schools, etc, etc.

 

I was thinking about this, LBBC.

 

If it is all about choices for you, what is your view on Euthanasia? The person is choosing they would like their life to be ended, correct?

I was thinking about this, LBBC.

 

If it is all about choices for you, what is your view on Euthanasia? The person is choosing they would like their life to be ended, correct?

 

Good question. I have not given Euthanasia much thought, so I honestly don't have a true position on it or an answer to your question.

As my family has grown, along with it my spirituality....I am having some serious internal dilemma's with the thought of capital punishment.

As my family has grown, along with it my spirituality....I am having some serious internal dilemma's with the thought of capital punishment.

 

Ditto for me.

I'm pro-life and anti-death penalty. Whether it's right or wrong, I feel more strongly about abortion, but the question in post #24 is the reason I can't be for the death penalty. There are extreme cases, like Dahmer or Bundy were it's 100% clear that the right person was caught. In those cases, I'm OK with a death sentence...however, if there is any doubt, no matter how miniscule, I just think a person should be left alive.

I'm pro-life and anti-death penalty. Whether it's right or wrong, I feel more strongly about abortion, but the question in post #24 is the reason I can't be for the death penalty. There are extreme cases, like Dahmer or Bundy were it's 100% clear that the right person was caught. In those cases, I'm OK with a death sentence...however, if there is any doubt, no matter how miniscule, I just think a person should be left alive.

 

To get on death row, don't you have to have 12 people on a jury found you guility? Does that remove the miniscule doubt?

To get on death row, don't you have to have 12 people on a jury found you guility? Does that remove the miniscule doubt?

 

No. There have been plenty of cases where a person was convicted by a 12 person jury only to have the case overturned later. Did you look at the links from gooch on post #22?

 

OJ was found innocent by a 12 person jury? Do you have any doubts about his innocence in his ex-wife's murder?

No. There have been plenty of cases where a person was convicted by a 12 person jury only to have the case overturned later. Did you look at the links from gooch on post #22?

 

OJ was found innocent by a 12 person jury? Do you have any doubts about his innocence in his ex-wife's murder?

 

Answer I was looking for.

 

So how do you or CAN you ever remove the doubt? Why is Dahmer and/or Bundy good ones for the death penalty while others who were also convicted by 12 jurors who agreed on their guilt are not?

Great question. I can rationalize this by saying that if its "me or you" or "police or bad guy" in a showdown of survival, I'm all for it. If the criminal is going to force the issue, he/she does so at their own risk.

 

The difference is once you have them in custody and behind bars they're no longer a threat so why the need to execute? There are way too many arguments on both sides of the "does the death penalty work" debate to convince me one way or the other, thus, I fall on the side of perpetual lockdown.

 

:thumb:

 

It shouldn't be hard to see the difference in making a split second decision when you're a police officer, sworn to protect the public, and you're in a situation where someone is a threat to take your life, or someone else's. Police officer's are trained for these things and they have to make what they think is the best decision to protect themselves and others.

 

It's a completely different situation than someone who's locked up and no longer a threat to society.

Answer I was looking for.

 

So how do you or CAN you ever remove the doubt? Why is Dahmer and/or Bundy good ones for the death penalty while others who were also convicted by 12 jurors who agreed on their guilt are not?

 

I'm pretty sure Dahmer and Bundy confessed to their crimes, right?

 

Maybe it's just me, but that makes a big difference. :thumb:

 

In any case, I should clarify my original statement of being OK with the death penalty in those cases. That's not saying I would personally vote for those people to be executed...just saying that, right or wrong, I don't have a big problem with people in examples like that being sentenced to death. That's all.

:thumb:

 

It shouldn't be hard to see the difference in making a split second decision when you're a police officer, sworn to protect the public, and you're in a situation where someone is a threat to take your life, or someone else's. Police officer's are trained for these things and they have to make what they think is the best decision to protect themselves and others.

 

It's a completely different situation than someone who's locked up and no longer a threat to society.

 

The last statement is true only if you feel we have no responsibility to the inmates serving in prison or are you putting them all in solitary confinement. They may not be a threat to you and me outside the walls, but they could still be a very real threat to the Americans that are within those walls. Even the ones in there for non-violent crimes.

I'm pretty sure Dahmer and Bundy confessed to their crimes, right?

 

Maybe it's just me, but that makes a big difference. :thumb:

 

In any case, I should clarify my original statement of being OK with the death penalty in those cases. That's not saying I would personally vote for those people to be executed...just saying that, right or wrong, I don't have a big problem with people in examples like that being sentenced to death. That's all.

 

So confession to the crime becomes paramount to getting the death penalty? I could see that, but sure is probably going to cut down on the confessions that the court system might get.