McCain: I do not support Roe v. Wade

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   


McCain goes to say he does not support Roe V. Wade and it should be overturned.




posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


It's funny that his stance has changed on this as well.

This guy flip flops more than the sandals section at payless
/end cheesy joke


Flipology straight from the elephants trunk.



edit:
why does this happen often:

it'll say "last post by anonymous ATS user" but when u come to the post ,there is not a reply.....strange....

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Personally, I would love not to have Bush for another 4 years, but I dont want Obama either, sooooo ... lesser of two evils anybody?
Roe v Wade should be left to the states (Ron Paul)



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
If he is going to court the Christian vote, then he needs to take a stand on abortion. This is just political posturing. It truly doesn't matter who you vote for, or who wins. We're on the fast track to the NWO. The political leaders have learned to play ball or be eliminated.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
He supports the idea of Abortion in the event of rape.

But is against the idea that rape test should be required to prove up for an abortion.

So why oppose abortion?

All the woman has to do is say she got raped to get an abortion.

McCain is just leaving a loophole for him to escape through whenever someone asks him which group of American citizens he represents on the matter of Abortion.

Its not McCains job to vote based off of his own beliefs.
Its McCains job to vote based on those he represents.

But i suppose that ideal has long since been lost.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
This guy flip flops more than the sandals section at payless


And yet not quite as much as Mr. Obama.

Darn one-liners. These are going to kill me eventually.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76

McCain goes to say he does not support Roe V. Wade and it should be overturned.


Sounds good to me.


Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
He supports the idea of Abortion in the event of rape.

But is against the idea that rape test should be required to prove up for an abortion.

So why oppose abortion?


Yeah, that does seem kind of silly. I personally don't support abortion in cases of rape.


Its not McCains job to vote based off of his own beliefs.
Its McCains job to vote based on those he represents.

But i suppose that ideal has long since been lost.


Actually, that's not really true. He is elected based on his beliefs and those who put him in office expect him to vote that way, meaning in line with his beliefs.

Senators once represented and were elected by the state legislators (something I really think we should return to), not the people so I don't think there is much president to say even now that they do. They still seem to represent the state.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by KrazyJethro]

[edit on 6-8-2008 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


He doesn't because he needs those conservatives fundamentalist votes.

And beside, does McCain look like he should be worrying about unwanted pregnancies anyway.


Is just a politician scraping for votes.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Abortion is a womans right.

The child is not considered human until the child is born. (legally speaking)

So (legally speaking) how can the child be (legally) said to be human as it applies to this (legally controversial) decision?

Abortion.

I can prove to you that children are not considered legal until after birth. (as it pertains to the laws in this country, the USA)

They have no SS#.
They have no legal documentation. (at all)
If they were considered legal, upon the earliest possible time available, the government would have not know the sex of the child.

Since knowing the sex of the child is an option - the child could be male or female until birth.




All of that being said:

Is "late abortion" morally acceptable? To me. no.

But its not up to me to decide. Its up to the woman.

Conservatives blame liberals for acting with emotion and not logic.

This is a big 'kick in the face' for conservatives.

Legally speaking - the woman has 100% control over her body. Until a child is BORN - that child is a PART of the womans' body.

LEGALLY speaking - she has every right to remove any part of her body she so chooses to.

EMOTIONALLY speaking - she's morally wrong.

But by conservative standards, you have to leave the emotion out of it...

or is that only applicable when its not beneficial to the republican standard?



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Abortion is a womans right.

The child is not considered human until the child is born. (legally speaking)

So (legally speaking) how can the child be (legally) said to be human as it applies to this (legally controversial) decision?



Let's compare a unborn child to a endangered sea turtle egg. If the unborn child is not human, couldn't you say the unhatched egg of a sea turtle is not a sea turtle?

Abortion for some reason is legal, yet just try to lay one hand on that sea turtle egg. They would throw you under the jail.

What sense does it make that a sea turtle fetus is protected yet a human fetus is not?



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


Dang, must admit I have never thought of it in those terms. If people were honest they would admit that what you are saying is correct. They can keep their belief but what you say is true.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


So let me get this straight, it's bad that McCain doesn't approve of the Roe decision????

But no one cares that "Roe" herself has changed her mind also. lol!!!!!!





(CNN) -- Norma McCorvey won't be celebrating the 25th anniversary of the historic Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

McCorvey is "Jane Roe," the pseudonym she assumed to remain anonymous as the lead plaintiff in the case that legalized abortion in the United States.

"I'm very sad (about the anniversary)," she told CNN Interactive in a telephone interview. "But this year, I've got so much to do, I don't have time to sit down and be sad."

Once an abortion-rights supporter, the 50-year-old McCorvey has switched sides: She's now a vocal anti-abortion activist. She has started a ministry called Roe No More to fight against abortion rights with the aim of creating a mobile counseling center for pregnant women in Dallas.


Roe changes her mind



[edit on 6-8-2008 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No, Actually - it doesnt matter.

"roe" isnt the enforcer of that law.

The justice system is. The courts decided it.

The courts say its a woman's right. What roe says becomes a moot point after the courts decision. (legally speaking)

When they talk about roe vs wade

they're not talking about being buddies with roe and buying her flowers.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No, Actually - it doesnt matter.

"roe" isnt the enforcer of that law.

The justice system is. The courts decided it.

The courts say its a woman's right. What roe says becomes a moot point after the courts decision. (legally speaking)

When they talk about roe vs wade

they're not talking about being buddies with roe and buying her flowers.
You'd have a point if McCain said he would issue an executive order to overturn Roe V. Wade or something similar.

He says he doesn't agree with it. Coincidently so does the victor in the court ruling in question. If it's permissible for the original plaintiff, then it's permissible for McCain.

Helllooooo



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So...you ask if it matters if Roe says she changed her mind....

i said no, it doesnt....

then you say it does....

but you don't offer us an explanation as to how it matters?

"helloooo" yourself.


Maybe you could shed some light on this logical void you present us.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Abortion, to me, is morally repugnant, BUT, it is none of my business if a woman wants one. Nor is it any of the state's business. It is between the woman and her doctor. PERIOD!

So, I would have to say No to overturning Roe.

The plain, simple fact is that even if Roe is overturned, women that want an abortion will either travel to a place where they can have one or will do some
"do it yourself" with a coat hanger or something.

The Fundies need to understand that IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


How can you not support abortion in cases of rape? you would rather that child have to deal with the torment and abuse that it will get by it's mother for being a rape baby? the fact that when anyone learns of that childs beginning, people will damn that chid everywhere it goes?





 
3

log in

join