United States Presidential Election, 2012

[Kong Rong]

What I'm saying is that just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean you can force others to make that right available to them.

Let's say being a doctor went out of style for whatever reason (please bear with me, I have a point to this), and suddenly there are no doctors in the US whatsoever. Should common citizens be forced to go to school and become doctors just to provide people with contraception simply because they have a right to it?

...no you can't force someone to become a doctor but you can force someone to do their job (also that was wonderful example using the least likely scenario kudos)

 

[Dr. Javelin]

you can force someone to do their job

Forcing someone to do anything pretty much goes against the principles of democracy and free rights.

 

[Kong Rong]

you can force someone to do their job

Forcing someone to do anything pretty much goes against the principles of democracy and free rights.

Your a doctor your job is to help people (as long as it's legal) this woman wants a legal abortion you can't just say no. Just like how a hotel owner can't refuse to give rooms to black people (perfect example of a loaded scenario)

 

[Dr. Javelin]

That's different though; in the hotel case, the owner is discriminating against the black people whereas in the abortion case the doctor is not discriminating. He's simply choosing not to provide the service to anyone, which is not discriminatory in the least.

 

[Kong Rong]

But is it not refusing to grant someone a right
(By the way this conversation is pretty much pointless neither one of us is going to change their mind)

 

[Xiahou Dun]

Wouldn't that discriminate against women?

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Wouldn't that discriminate against women?

Women are the only people who can get abortions, so...

 

[Snowstalker]

This is a Senate candidate, but I'd like to tell you all about the next senator from Virginia.

http://hankforsenate.com/AboutHank.aspx

 

[Kong Rong]

you can force someone to do their job

Forcing someone to do anything pretty much goes against the principles of democracy and free rights.

Your a doctor your job is to help people (as long as it's legal) this woman wants a legal abortion you can't just say no. Just like how a hotel owner can't refuse to give rooms to black people (perfect example of a loaded scenario)

Both situations are supposed to be illegal. :\

Forcing a doctor to give an abortion is forcing them to do something. Governmental force should never be used to make people do things/not do things against their will (and if you say that they should, then you are justifying the drug war, the draft, etc.). Doctors take an oath to cause harm to no person: if a doctor personally believes that a fetus is life, then abortion is harming another person. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment and is also causing a doctor to disregard their interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath (which is sort of like a contract).

Forcing a hotel owner to give a room to a black people is an invasion of property rights. It is the owner's property, and they must make their own choices with what to do with their own property (as well as suffer the consequences of those actions, such as losing revenue and being protested against).
[/quote]I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

 

[Toad Eightyfive]

Also, contraception is still a big pro-life/pro-choice debate, so it amounts to the same topic.

Not really.

Uh, yes it does.

Find me significant statistics that show that people who are pro-life/pro-choice differ on their opinions with contraception and abortion.

In other words, how many pro-life people are okay with contraception but not abortion? If it's a significant number, then you have a point, but otherwise...

Sure.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/politics/americans-divided-on-birth-control-coverage-poll-finds.html
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/march/01/contraception-rule-poll.aspx

Overall Support: 63%, margain of error plus or minus 3.
Women: 66%
Men: 60%

63 is a lot bigger than 45, is it not?

 

[Kong Rong]

you can force someone to do their job

Forcing someone to do anything pretty much goes against the principles of democracy and free rights.

Your a doctor your job is to help people (as long as it's legal) this woman wants a legal abortion you can't just say no. Just like how a hotel owner can't refuse to give rooms to black people (perfect example of a loaded scenario)

Both situations are supposed to be illegal. :\

Forcing a doctor to give an abortion is forcing them to do something. Governmental force should never be used to make people do things/not do things against their will (and if you say that they should, then you are justifying the drug war, the draft, etc.). Doctors take an oath to cause harm to no person: if a doctor personally believes that a fetus is life, then abortion is harming another person. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment and is also causing a doctor to disregard their interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath (which is sort of like a contract).

Forcing a hotel owner to give a room to a black people is an invasion of property rights. It is the owner's property, and they must make their own choices with what to do with their own property (as well as suffer the consequences of those actions, such as losing revenue and being protested against).

I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung
[/quote]
Egregious misinterpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court are not uncommon.

The Court also, at one time, said that public segregation is Constitutional (which it isn't: the government and government agencies and services must be fair in terms of race, religion, ethnicity, age, etc.).

The true regulatory power for these sorts of things should fall, again, under the Tenth Amendment. I don't mind if these sorts of things are done on the state-level, but we really need to be careful with how loosely we interpret federal powers.
[/quote]Yes the Supreme Court screws up occasionally but what i'm saying is that the Supreme Court that under the Constitution you can't discriminate against people based on there race

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

Uh... no. Santorum thinks that contraception should be illegal, so most women won't vote for him

>implying that women are less likely to oppose abortion than men

Allow me to quote some statistics to share light on that issue.

Women
Pro-choice - 50%
Pro-life - 43%

Men
Pro-choice - 49%
Pro-life - 46%

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/107458/Abortion-Issue-Laying-Low-2008-Campaign.aspx

It is a 2008 poll, but that's fairly recent.

There are still more pro-choice than pro-life, though, both male and female (even though it's narrow), and there are people who oppose abortion but think that contraception is fine (since contraception doesn't kill a fetus).

[quote author=redacted]
Forcing a hotel owner to give a room to a black people is an invasion of property rights.
[/quote]

It is, but it had to be done. The Civil Rights Act essentially forced people to treat blacks equally, and it worked. If it had not passed, we would be in the exact same place today as we were then, or close, anyway. Was it a violation of people's rights? Yes, but it was the lesser of two evils: violate the rights of racist jackasses or continue to allow the violation of the rights of all black people in America.

The first one was chosen, and America was all the better for it.

 

[Xiahou Dun]

It really makes sense that more women want abortion rights than not because they're the one with the baby. Men don't know how women feel when women have a baby. People who don't promote contraception usually don't promote abortion either, but what makes them really ignorant is that contraception can lower the chances of being pregnant, thus the basis of abortion.

Also, refusing to provide abortion services is discrimination on the woman's part.

 

[Mario4Ever]

Usually, people who oppose contraception encourage pregnancy (sometimes in accordance with the mandate "be fruitful and multiply"), which is why the former is frowned upon.

 

[Xiahou Dun]

They're in the minority.

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

(sometimes in accordance with the mandate "be fruitful and multiply")

What's funny is that I'm pretty sure that "be fruitful and multiply" was meant as in "go have sex and enjoy yourselves" rather than "you MUST do THIS and THIS and THIS."


of course i don't know God's thoughts but there was a time period when i had to study the Bible at school and we read that chapter I think and it never occurred to me that anyone would interpret it as a command rather than a blessing

anyway

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Also, refusing to provide abortion services is discrimination on the woman's part.

It's not discrimination though if they are refusing to provide those services to anyone.

[quote author=dictionary.com]Workplace Discrimination www.corporatetrainingmaterials.com/ HR training materials to teach workplace discrimination workshops.
What Is Discrimination www.findlaw.com/Discrimination Legal Definition Of Discrimination. FindLaw - A Free Legal Resource.
Whistleblower's Handbook www.whistleblowers.org/ A Step-by-Step Guide to Doing What's Right & Protecting Yourself
Ads
dis·crim·i·na·tion
/dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. [/quote]
They aren't making any distinctions, therefore it isn't discrimination.

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

It's not discrimination though if they are refusing to provide those services to anyone.

No, that's even worse.

 

[Snowstalker]

I'm pro-choice, but remember that most doctors are either general practitioners (more suited for check-ups than surgical procedures like abortion), or they perform specific types of surgery. A brain surgeon and an abortion doctor are probably being trained specifically in the neuroscience and reproductive science fields, respectively.

Fundamentally, however, it's about the economy. Romney needs to hold the votes of white-collar "professionals", the group that Obama nabbed from Republicans in 2008. If he focuses on social issues, he'll turn out the vote in safe Republican states like Alabama and Tennessee, but turn off socially moderate, fiscally conservative voters in white-collar states like Virginia and Colorado. Obama, meanwhile, can exploit Romney's perceived out-of-touch, "I like firing people" Romney in blue-collar states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

 

[Mario4Ever]

What's funny is that I'm pretty sure that "be fruitful and multiply" was meant as in "go have sex and enjoy yourselves" rather than "you MUST do THIS and THIS and THIS."

Well, the sort of people to which I'm referring don't see it that way.

 

[Post-Damage Invincibility]

People talk about how much influence Rush Limbaugh has. But I don't think he has much. He hated John McCain in 2008 and didn't want him to get the nomination. In 2012, he clearly favored Santorum over Romney. But Romney still got it. So how much sway does Rush really have?

 

[Red Barchetta]

People talk about how much influence Rush Limbaugh has. But I don't think he has much. He hated John McCain in 2008 and didn't want him to get the nomination. In 2012, he clearly favored Santorum over Romney. But Romney still got it. So how much sway does Rush really have?

I think the reason people say that Rush has so much influence is because those people see Rush as the sort-of "leader" of the Republican Party. Now, even though I'm a conservative and I like Rush a lot, I don't see him as the leader of the party (if we want to say a conservative radio host is the leader, I'd lean towards Sean Hannity more because I like him more).

Also, when it comes to media, I don't think Rush is enough to sway the race - MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News all seem to have enough power to sway the race, but not Rush alone.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Rush lost all his credibility with nearly everyone recently, so...

Also, you have to realize that the media hypes practically every aspect of the race. You wouldn't believe how many articles there were on how super important Iowa was to the race. Now you couldn't pay someone to write on its significance.

 

[Xiahou Dun]

Rush makes me scoff always.

I don't understand how networks like Fox News can even sway people. Too bad there are more idiots than not.

 

[Kong Rong]

Please let's not start this conversation (MSNBC is the worst news channel and i'm a liberal)