Abortion and Gay Marriage

[Anonymous]

I think I already know the answer to this- but is there a single republican candidate who I can live with on these issues? I can't find the abortion policies of Romney or Hunstman on their sites...

[Anonymous]

If you are asking the question, then the answer is no.

[jsteele]

For Romney it depends on the day of the week. Huntsman is opposed to both. Keeping in mind that even Obama opposes gay marriage, the only Republican you might find agreeable is Ron Paul.

[takoma]

jsteele wrote:For Romney it depends on the day of the week. Huntsman is opposed to both. Keeping in mind that even Obama opposes gay marriage, the only Republican you might find agreeable is Ron Paul.

Huntsman at least supports civil unions. I think he may be the only one of the anointed candidates who does so. I say anointed to mean the ones allowed in the debates. Gary Johnson supports civil unions for all and wants the federal government out of marriage altogether. Fred Karger is openly gay and supports legalizing same-sex marriage.

Maybe keeping them out is a liberal plot to keep alive the idea that all Republicans are bigoted wing-nuts by not allowing us to see the two who have the sanest positions on LGBT issues.

[Anonymous]

abortion is today's slavery. future generations will regard this age as repugnant as we think of the plantation age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:abortion is today's slavery. future generations will regard this age as repugnant as we think of the plantation age.

Right, because abortions have only occurred in "this age."

[Anonymous]

OP here- I caught part of the debate and thought Hunstman sounded so reasonable...but those two issues are things I feel strongly about supporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:abortion is today's slavery. future generations will regard this age as repugnant as we think of the plantation age.

Um, no. People have been aborting their babies for thousands of years. To equate abortion with the buying and selling of humans as livestock is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:For Romney it depends on the day of the week. Huntsman is opposed to both. Keeping in mind that even Obama opposes gay marriage, the only Republican you might find agreeable is Ron Paul.

Not Ron Paul.

He is against abortion and believes that federal recognition of gay marriage but believes in the right for states to recognize it. That puts it on a par with black civil rights before the 1960's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:abortion is today's slavery. future generations will regard this age as repugnant as we think of the plantation age.

Completely agree. And to the PP that justifies abortions by saying they've gone on for thousands of years - newsflash - so has slavery! Neither abortion nor slavery are American inventions but as our relatively young country continues this democratic experiment in which declarations of equality are made, we continue to refine our sense of who is protected under these sentiments. It took a bloody war to end slavery, it took sustained efforts for women and minorities to be equal, it looks like the gay marriage thing is happening before our eyes, it can only be supposed that in time abortions (since most people believe that babies count as a class of people who need protection) will become either a state's domain or federally limited to extreme cases.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:And to the PP that justifies abortions by saying they've gone on for thousands of years - newsflash - so has slavery! Neither abortion nor slavery are American inventions but as our relatively young country continues this democratic experiment in which declarations of equality are made, we continue to refine our sense of who is protected under these sentiments. It took a bloody war to end slavery, it took sustained efforts for women and minorities to be equal, it looks like the gay marriage thing is happening before our eyes, it can only be supposed that in time abortions (since most people believe that babies count as a class of people who need protection) will become either a state's domain or federally limited to extreme cases.

I'm pro-choice, but I agree with this up until the last clause. The fact that humans have done something for a long time or doesn't mean that it's OK or that we won't come to think of it as wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:abortion is today's slavery. future generations will regard this age as repugnant as we think of the plantation age.

Completely agree. And to the PP that justifies abortions by saying they've gone on for thousands of years - newsflash - so has slavery! Neither abortion nor slavery are American inventions but as our relatively young country continues this democratic experiment in which declarations of equality are made, we continue to refine our sense of who is protected under these sentiments. It took a bloody war to end slavery, it took sustained efforts for women and minorities to be equal, it looks like the gay marriage thing is happening before our eyes, it can only be supposed that in time abortions (since most people believe that babies count as a class of people who need protection) will become either a state's domain or federally limited to extreme cases.

But only anti-abortionists call fetuses babies, so you are arguing by terminology, not by facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:abortion is today's slavery. future generations will regard this age as repugnant as we think of the plantation age.

Completely agree. And to the PP that justifies abortions by saying they've gone on for thousands of years - newsflash - so has slavery! Neither abortion nor slavery are American inventions but as our relatively young country continues this democratic experiment in which declarations of equality are made, we continue to refine our sense of who is protected under these sentiments. It took a bloody war to end slavery, it took sustained efforts for women and minorities to be equal, it looks like the gay marriage thing is happening before our eyes, it can only be supposed that in time abortions (since most people believe that babies count as a class of people who need protection) will become either a state's domain or federally limited to extreme cases.

But only anti-abortionists call fetuses babies, so you are arguing by terminology, not by facts.

No "facts" would've ever confirmed that all of the above would happen at a future date, either. It's just the way the momentum is building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:abortion is today's slavery. future generations will regard this age as repugnant as we think of the plantation age.

Completely agree. And to the PP that justifies abortions by saying they've gone on for thousands of years - newsflash - so has slavery! Neither abortion nor slavery are American inventions but as our relatively young country continues this democratic experiment in which declarations of equality are made, we continue to refine our sense of who is protected under these sentiments. It took a bloody war to end slavery, it took sustained efforts for women and minorities to be equal, it looks like the gay marriage thing is happening before our eyes, it can only be supposed that in time abortions (since most people believe that babies count as a class of people who need protection) will become either a state's domain or federally limited to extreme cases.

But only anti-abortionists call fetuses babies, so you are arguing by terminology, not by facts.

Semantics itself makes for a very weak argument, friend.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Semantics itself makes for a very weak argument, friend.

It's the anti-abortionists playing semantic games, begging the question by referring to fetuses as "babies." The question is obviously whether they have the status of humans, i.e. if they count as "babies."