Election Predictions and LiveBlog

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ah... the wonders that are personal liberty... according to a libertarian.

 

[Sabine Grant]

The issue is being raised because of all the attempts in various States with a GOP administration or/and GOP majority legislators to pass bills which obstruct women from accessing women's health care clinics.Bills which attempt to declare fetuses endowed with Constitutional Identity.(by claiming that they are to be protected and declared a person from the time of conception) Bills which obstruct same gender persons from the validation of their marriage legalized in other states. And let's not forget the GOP attempts to modify the 14th Amendment. That would of course change under which conditions a person born in the US would automatically acquire US citizenship. The GOP target here being whom is referred to as "anchor babies" and is certainly of great concern for Hispanics.

Are you that unaware of how the Texas legislature has been maneuvering to shut down a majority of women's health care clinics which can only greatly affect women in Texas? Are you that unaware that the moment they are abortion providers, they become the target of suppressing funding which in returns not only affect their ability to remain opened but also affects all the other women's health services they provide? The Democrats have been the voice of behalf on women against such oppression and repression orchestrated by the GOP. Are you expecting them to be silent about it?

It is possible that you do not give a rat's behind about whether women in this nation have the right to be the sole party to make a choice regarding pursuing or terminating a pregnancy. Whether they should be able to access other services which offer at low cost or no cost at all contraception , Paps, mammograms etc... It is possible you do not give a rat's behind about same gender couples and whether their wedding license obtained in a state which legalized gay marriage is to carry over and be validated in any other State. Possible you do not give a rat's behind whether a baby born in the US should automatically benefit of being a US citizen instead of contemplating its deportation based on his/her parents being illegal immigrants. Possibly you do not give a rat's behind about the number of such babies who were raised as Americans and are today fighting to be accepted as such instead of facing deportation.

Guess which political party has been the voice of all those folks?

I certainly do give a rat's ass about whether or not a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy. I believe quite strongly that she should not legally be allowed to kill her baby while it is in the womb any more than she can legally kill it when it is out of the womb. If her life is threatened by the pregnancy that, of course, is another question. I don't think she should be required to die for her child who might not survive anyway. I fail to see how people who want to claim the high ground on issues of compassion and caring can believe any other way.

Making my point here that the Democrats have been the VOICE for people, who contrary to you, do care about the bodily integrity of women. That is why they raise that issue. Since you complained that the Democrats raise "issues".

I see no reason why Texas should provide or protect health care services of women rather than for men. What does being a woman have to do with it?

Most people with a basic knowledge of the human anatomy are aware that gynecology addresses women's health rather than men's health. Once more, it appears that the Democrats who raise the issue of obstruction to women's health care services are aware of such reality. It appears you are not. As a result of their awareness they will justifiably raise that issue. Which you complained about their raising issues. Once more they are an educated voice for women who are obstructed to accessing health care services addressing specifically women's health.

Gay marriage is little more than a political ploy. There is no need and not reason to change the definition of marriage just because a few activists have decided to make it a political litmus test. If marriage discriminates against single people, then lets change those laws. Gay marriage preserves that inequality. Now you have to get married to gain equal rights? That makes no sense. What about gays who don't want to get married? What about straights who don't want to get married? Must they remain some kind of underclass. But if you get rid of the underlying discrimination which is used to justify gay marriage, then there is no need to redefine the institution of marriage.

Once more, making my point that the Democrats are a voice for GLBT folks and a voice who does NOT trivialize gay marriage as you just did. Thus justifiably raising that issue. Since you complained about them raising that issue.

I see no reason why birthright citizenship should be sacrosanct. Do I want to abolish it? No. I don't think it creates a problem. We do not have enough immigration into this country. I think we should secure the borders and raise the immigration quota, but I don't think we should legalize illegal immigrants. That encourages more illegal immigrants and these people could be terrorists. They could be drug runners or various other criminals. They could carry ebola or other diseases. So it is absurd to say that we shouldn't control the borders. It is reasonable to debate the issue of birthright citizenship and one should be allowed to do that without being accused of racism. However, I think, personally, it is close to being irrelevant to the larger issue of border security and immigration reform. But who knows? Maybe someone will change my mind? But that can't happen if the issue doesn't get debated.

And all those issues are being raised by the Democrats who , as an aside, do not give in to claims of "immigrants who could carry ebola" as they are well aware that neither Central America nor Southern America are a reservoir for Ebola...and since the GOP target has been Hispanics who represent the highest flow of immigration into the US. Once more, you make my point that the Democrats have been a voice for children of illegal immigrants, children born on US soil who should not be threatened with deportation based on the GOP attempting to modify the content of the 14th Amendment. Since you complained about the Democrats raising issues.

On one hand you claim "But that can't happen if the issue doesn't get debated" while on the other you complain that the Democrats raise the issues.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I certainly do give a rat's ass about whether or not a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy. I believe quite strongly that she should not legally be allowed to kill her baby while it is in the womb any more than she can legally kill it when it is out of the womb. If her life is threatened by the pregnancy that, of course, is another question. I don't think she should be required to die for her child who might not survive anyway. I fail to see how people who want to claim the high ground on issues of compassion and caring can believe any other way.

Making my point here that the Democrats have been the VOICE for people, who contrary to you, do care about the bodily integrity of women. That is why they raise that issue. Since you complained that the Democrats raise "issues".

Having been through my wife's pregnancy and birth (and the typically unspoken immediate side effects of giving birth) of our child (nearly 4 hours of pushing), I think one has to be a pretty sick minded person to force any woman to have a baby because they simply got pregnant.