McCain: "I do not support Roe v Wade, it should be overturned"

[mawilson 2,133]

Stir it baby stir it!

Is he, or is he not, fervently anti-choice?

He isn't anti-choice. He feels that this is a state rights issue. He feels, as I do, this isn't something the federal government should be into. If a state wants legal abortions then that is fine. If they don't then that is also fine. Overturning Roe V Wade isn't going to make abortions illegal but just put the issue where it belongs, in the states.

[nana_356 0]

Stir it baby stir it!

Is he, or is he not, fervently anti-choice?

He isn't anti-choice. He feels that this is a state rights issue. He feels, as I do, this isn't something the federal government should be into. If a state wants legal abortions then that is fine. If they don't then that is also fine. Overturning Roe V Wade isn't going to make abortions illegal but just put the issue where it belongs, in the states.

It should not be a state choice but a woman's choice. That is all that there is to it. Every woman in the US has the right to do as she wishes, the rest is between her and god. Have you thought of the possible outcomes of making abortions illegal

Making abortion illegal, except when a woman's life is threatened, does not protect women or their lives.

It will cause much deadlier consequences, because woman will go to illegal abortionist.

Edited June 8, 2008 by nana_356

[Amby 490]

anyone who believes that women shouldn't have the right to choose should have their d*ck tied into a knot

if the woman can do that with her tongue, i'm all for it.

[Chuckles 0]

Perhaps it should be overturned-

to make way for legislation that safeguards a woman's right to choose.

That way we won't have a panel of 9 ideologically-appointed judges deciding the constitutionality of women's reproductive rights.

I am suprised to see such a stupid post like this from you, considering your scientific background. Science has no way to define when life begins in the womb, and the desicion to abort shifts from the mother to the baby.

I am not anti-abortion, but I wouldn't make a stupid statement like this, because we do not know. Maybe you thought the subject was birth control or something??? I'm dissapointed.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even-the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." ...............Source

In other words, John McCain was against overturning Roe vs. Wade before he was for it.

Let's hear it for the the Double Talk Express.

Edited June 8, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[nana_356 0]

DOG

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Stir it baby stir it!

Is he, or is he not, fervently anti-choice?

He isn't anti-choice. He feels that this is a state rights issue. He feels, as I do, this isn't something the federal government should be into. If a state wants legal abortions then that is fine. If they don't then that is also fine. Overturning Roe V Wade isn't going to make abortions illegal but just put the issue where it belongs, in the states.

That's what's wrong with America. State sovereignty is a joke and is an outdated standard written into the constitution that should be amended. Right now we have state laws that totally contradict federal laws and in most cases what happens. Nothing! Perfect example is medicinal weed in California. Last time I checked, federal law indicates that weed is illegal, but state laws (voted on by the people in the state of California) permit medicinal growth and distribution of weed. We are the United States. One state does this, another does that, it's all bullsh!t. This permits candidates from weaseling out of having genuine discussions that the average citizen wants to hear. Now back to Row vs. Wade, we all know which progressive states are going to write a women's right to choice into law and it’s some of the same states that permit civil unions “gay marriage”. Whatever...

Edited June 8, 2008 by Sheriff Uling

[dalegg 143]

I love it when I see local city council candidates stating whether they are pro-choice and pro-life. As if that means anything.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I love it when I see local city council candidates stating whether they are pro-choice and pro-life. As if that means anything.

You'd be surprised how much it means to some. Remember, for many their stance on this issue speaks to the candidate's morals. Or lack thereof. To others is reflects on the candidate's progressiveness. Or lack thereof. It's one of those wedge issues and it shouldn't be.

[nana_356 0]

I love it when I see local city council candidates stating whether they are pro-choice and pro-life. As if that means anything.

Totally agree, personal views are just that, personal views, no one cares. A great leader does what is best for their country, and Mccain is obviously not willing to do so.

Edited June 8, 2008 by nana_356

[mawilson 2,133]

That's what's wrong with America. State sovereignty is a joke and is an outdated standard written into the constitution that should be amended. Right now we have state laws that totally contradict federal laws and in most cases what happens. Nothing! Perfect example is medicinal weed in California. Last time I checked, federal law indicates that weed is illegal, but state laws (voted on by the people in the state of California) permit medicinal growth and distribution of weed. We are the United States. One state does this, another does that, it's all bullsh!t. This permits candidates from weaseling out of having genuine discussions that the average citizen wants to hear. Now back to Row vs. Wade, we all know which progressive states are going to write a women's right to choice into law and it’s some of the same states that permit civil unions “gay marriage”. Whatever...

Yes... state sovereignty is not a joke.

Federal laws are a joke. What do the Feds do that's so f#cking useful? Yet they get 20-40%

of our money in Federal taxes? ####### man.

F#ck the Feds. The Federal tax should be eliminated or limited to 5-10%, tops. Just enough

to run the FBI, CIA and the Armed Forces.

Everything else should go to the States, which can then use the money to improve the

infrastructure and services to its citizens, run state-wide healthcare or whatever.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Perhaps it should be overturned-

to make way for legislation that safeguards a woman's right to choose.

That way we won't have a panel of 9 ideologically-appointed judges deciding the constitutionality of women's reproductive rights.

I am suprised to see such a stupid post like this from you, considering your scientific background. Science has no way to define when life begins in the womb, and the desicion to abort shifts from the mother to the baby.

I am not anti-abortion, but I wouldn't make a stupid statement like this, because we do not know. Maybe you thought the subject was birth control or something??? I'm dissapointed.

It was not a stupid post.

maviwaro's point is that the current ruling, which is based on the right to privacy, could still be overturned by a subsequent Supreme Court (hence, all the attention given to Roe v. Wade when the topic of Supreme Court appointees comes up). Many people on both sides of the issue acknowledge that the right-to-privacy foundation of the ruling could be considered flimsy and that a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy would have more robust protection if the ruling were based on something else, such as the right to control one’s body (or, as Eileen McDonagh has suggested, the right to consent to pregnancy).

Inherent in this rights position is the notion that such rights must be guaranteed to all, not just to people who live in certain states.

[dalegg 143]

I love it when I see local city council candidates stating whether they are pro-choice and pro-life. As if that means anything.

Totally agree, personal views are just that, personal views, no one cares. A great leader does what is best for their country, and Mccain is obviously not willing to do so.

Maybe the best thing for this country is for this to stop being such a huge debate. No matter which way the Federal Government goes on this, you are going to have half of the country upset and the debate and protests will just continue. If this was placed in State's hands its really less of a debate and more of a non-issue. As the Sherrif said, you already know which states would make it illegal and which would keep it legal, and the people of those states by and large would be happy with those decisions. With so many states keeping abortion legal all a girl would have to do is go to another state.

People on the left really should welcome the idea more than conservatives. Republican candidates rely heavily on issues like this to get elected. As a Republican I suppose I should be happy that we are almost always guaranteed the vote in the Southern Bible Belt states because of this, but it really shouldn't be that way. If states know they have the right to keep abortion legal despite who the President is or where he stands on the issue, they can start looking at other issues.

[HAL 9000 96]

Perhaps it should be overturned-

to make way for legislation that safeguards a woman's right to choose.

That way we won't have a panel of 9 ideologically-appointed judges deciding the constitutionality of women's reproductive rights.

I am suprised to see such a stupid post like this from you, considering your scientific background. Science has no way to define when life begins in the womb, and the desicion to abort shifts from the mother to the baby.

I am not anti-abortion, but I wouldn't make a stupid statement like this, because we do not know. Maybe you thought the subject was birth control or something??? I'm dissapointed.

Perhaps it can be clarified:

A woman's right to choose. Not birth control, not anything else. I mean, where it says "to make way for legislation that safeguards a woman's right to choose. " I think the statement is pretty clear in itself no?

Or- the part where Roe v Wade is the de facto legalizer of the constitutionality of the right to choose to abort or not. Hence it was brought up before the Supreme Court as a matter of Constitutionality. Not legality. Now it perhaps should be legislated, which would codify it- and not in such a way as to legalizize it or illegalize it but rather to safegard a woman's right, not someone else's set of beliefs.

If you'd like to get into the science of life and when it starts, go ahead but that is another topic.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

F#ck the Feds. The Federal tax should be eliminated or limited to 5-10%, tops. Just enough to run the FBI, CIA and the Armed Forces.

And each state then starts their own diplomatic missions around the world - and perhaps with each other? Different passports and immigration services for each state? Hence, immigration checkpoints on state borders and on interstate flights? Extradition proceedings for fugitives where non death penalty states won't extradite to death penalty states unless the petitioning states agrees not to pursue capital punishment? Just to name a few minor issues this approach would bring about. But yeah, that would be so much more efficient and so much cheaper.