out of touch republicans

pj1981 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

pj1981 wrote:

But why debate when life begins if you agree? It makes no difference it is about choice
and the right to choose.

No, it's about laws pertaining to abortion, which is why the debate persists.

So when Science is able to save and sustain life outside the womb much earlier,
which will happen, then the laws will change as to when life begins?
And if in the future, granted far future,
it is found that life begins at conception then abortion will not be allowed?
or will the debate be a matter of a women's choice, alone?
as in my opinion it should be.

butterjam wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I'm not going to give the GOP any credit whatsoever for how they vote on anything. But, here is the explanation from Republican House member Justin Amash, who is often compared to Ron Paul, for his vote against VAWA. Amash explains all of his votes every time he votes. This is from his FB page:

"I voted no on S 47, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a 1994 law that, among other things, created new federal crimes to mirror crimes already on the books in every state pertaining to certain domestic violence offenses.

S 47 reauthorizes VAWA and also increases federal criminal penalties for certain types of assault, expands the federal definition of stalking and cyberstalking to include conduct that would be "reasonably expected to cause" emotional distress, and includes a provision granting Indian tribes some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The bill also spends $3.86 billion over the next five years primarily on grants to local governments to address domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking—subjects over which the federal government has no general jurisdiction.

The Constitution does not permit Congress to pass criminal laws like the ones created under VAWA and expanded under this bill. It explicitly authorizes Congress to criminalize only a few activities, which relate to matters that are clearly federal in nature (counterfeiting, crimes on the high seas, treason). All other criminal activities are punishable at the state level. My home state of Michigan, like every other state, has criminal laws punishing domestic violence and sex offenses.

The Framers of the Constitution recognized the dangers of federalizing criminal law. The potential benefits of federalization—instant, consistent law throughout the country—are easily outweighed by the negative, unintended consequences and the threat to life and liberty that federalization poses.

First, a critical component of due process is that the accused not be tried for the same crime multiple times. With the federalization of crime, however, a person may be charged in both state court and federal court for essentially the same crime.

Second, as Congress encroaches on more areas of criminal law, budget-constrained state governments may be increasingly inclined to leave the prosecution of many criminal matters to the federal government. But there are substantial benefits to having competing, functional state laws rather than one federal law. The Constitution's approach encourages states to experiment with different systems—providing for more innovation and less risk than Congress's imposing one law on everyone.

Third, the more criminal laws the federal government must enforce, the more federal police officers it needs. This federal force is not nearly as accountable to local voters or taxpayers as are state and local police. Federal police take their orders from Washington, and they often have little connection to the communities in which they operate.

Finally, the primary mission of federal courts is to judge matters that are national in scope and not properly handled in state courts. With the increased federalization of crime, however, federal courts now spend most of their time and resources handling matters that traditionally are the purview of state courts. Consequently, the ability of federal courts to deal with federal matters in an efficient and effective manner has been diminished.

The Framers wrote the Constitution to protect against these dangers. When Congress ignores the Constitution, we harm our constituents in ways that may not be immediately apparent to the eager advocates of greater federal involvement.

The Constitution properly leaves the states the responsibility of defining and prosecuting most criminal activities, including crimes pertaining to domestic violence offenses. This bill continues and expands upon the inappropriate federalization of what are traditionally and appropriately state and local functions. The bill passed 286-138."

Sounds reasonable to me.

Go figure, someone makes a reasonable response and it gets lost in an abortion debate.

I guess it can't be reasonable because all Republicans are out of touch and they all hate women.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

butterjam wrote:

Go figure, someone makes a reasonable response and it gets lost in an abortion debate.

I guess it can't be reasonable because all Republicans are out of touch and they all hate women.

i am not going to support anybody from the party that has not just been wrong, but absolutely-dead-fucking-wrong on every major issue whether foreign, domestic, social, or economic, in the last 20 years.

just sayin'..

PJ_Soul wrote:

I said "I think human life in the context of abortion" starts at 20 weeks. That is completely different from what you're saying. OBVIOUSLY life exists down to single cell organisms. Since we kill those pretty much just by moving, I think talking about this in the context of when human life in the womb becomes something we need to protect by virtue of its development and viability is the whole point, don't you??
I think my fish comment is completely relevant, because a fetus without a functional nervous system is life that logically warrants no more protection than the life of a fish (even less so - fish and all the other animals we eat DO have functioning nervous systems).... not to say there isn't a difference emotionally. But that really isn't the point.

PJ_Soul wrote:

What do you mean if they find out life begins at conception? There is no argument that life begins at conception.

pj1981 wrote:

When you carry a child to term it really changes your perspective on life,
on abortion, but not necessarily on the right to choose. For me this is the only
logical debate for abortion... choice.