Roe v. Wade-It scares me....

[Anonymous]

I'm sure this probably going to spark a pro-life vs. pro-choice conversation, but does it concern anyone that a McCain win could put an end to the rights of women to choose? I'm definitely pro-choice, THAT DOES NOT MEAN PRO-ABORTION, but I can't wrap my mind around the possibility of gov't coming into people's personal lives, & governing. I also don't get 'pro-life' women, are they not 'choosing' to keep their baby? So, if pro-life women get to choose, does that mean if you don't think the same way, you're right to choose should be taken away.

I don't know, it scares me. What's next, women's right to vote, and God knows what else??

[Anonymous]

I agree with you. I also find it scary. I also don't think pro-choice equates to pro-abortion, but I do think every woman should have the ability to make the choice for herself.

And yes, I do think the evangelicals and ultra-conservatives would like to see women barefoot and pregnant.

Ultimately on this election I'm not voting for a person, but I am voting for the supreme court and my fear of what could happen if the right-wingers get their way.

[Anonymous]

I happen to be pro-choice, but I also happen to have a husband who is in counter-terrorism and has an inside track on the good work we are doing in this administration. It's trite, and has been said too many times, but you really have no idea what kind of success we are achieving in disrupting terrorism cells and plots. Big and little, every day there is always something.

So, for me, it comes down to this: who will best ensure we get critical information we need to disrupt plots, to deport terrorists, and eliminate threats? I wish there was a candidate who could represent both pro-choice and national safety, but I'm afraid Obama would take away many of the powers and tools from our national intelligence agencies. Pro-choice concerns would become pretty trivial after say, a nuclear attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I happen to be pro-choice, but I also happen to have a husband who is in counter-terrorism and has an inside track on the good work we are doing in this administration. It's trite, and has been said too many times, but you really have no idea what kind of success we are achieving in disrupting terrorism cells and plots. Big and little, every day there is always something.

So, for me, it comes down to this: who will best ensure we get critical information we need to disrupt plots, to deport terrorists, and eliminate threats? I wish there was a candidate who could represent both pro-choice and national safety, but I'm afraid Obama would take away many of the powers and tools from our national intelligence agencies. Pro-choice concerns would become pretty trivial after say, a nuclear attack.

Sounds like the scare tactics that kept Bush in office for 8 years....Also, I know some folks in the same field as your husband, & what i understand, he isn't supposed to be sharing this information w/you anyway...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I happen to be pro-choice, but I also happen to have a husband who is in counter-terrorism and has an inside track on the good work we are doing in this administration. It's trite, and has been said too many times, but you really have no idea what kind of success we are achieving in disrupting terrorism cells and plots. Big and little, every day there is always something.

So, for me, it comes down to this: who will best ensure we get critical information we need to disrupt plots, to deport terrorists, and eliminate threats? I wish there was a candidate who could represent both pro-choice and national safety, but I'm afraid Obama would take away many of the powers and tools from our national intelligence agencies. Pro-choice concerns would become pretty trivial after say, a nuclear attack.

So do you think if McAlzheimer drops dead, Pander-lin will take up the slack on counter terrorism. I'm pretty confident that she could not find Iran or Pakistan on the world map. I question if she can even find the United States given that she's held a passport for only 2 years and has not used it yet.

[Anonymous]

I agree with this concern about the future of choice. It is telling that Palin makes much of her choice to carry a baby with Downs to term, but if she had her way the law in the country would be that when women who get an amnio with that devastating news the couple would no longer have the option of not continuing the pregnancy. Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of women who get such bad news in an amnio now make the decision to terminate the pregnancy we all likely know a family who has been faced with this wrenching choice and did not take the same course as Palin. I certainly have no problem with her choice, but it seems invasive for every family to be forced to go forward with the preganancy whether they want to or not.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like the scare tactics that kept Bush in office for 8 years....Also, I know some folks in the same field as your husband, & what i understand, he isn't supposed to be sharing this information w/you anyway...

Like I said in my earlier post, I know it's trite and people like yourself call it 'scare tactics' which is why I prefaced it that way. I know people want to believe it's not true that the danger is real. And fwiw, my husband doesn't share classified information with me, but when he's called overseas and then a headline (often more like a byline on A25) comes out in the Post a week later... it's no longer all classified. I'm glad the current administration allows him the latitude to do his job, and I don't think a Democratic one would. For me, that trumps Roe v. Wade despite my own pro-choice concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I happen to be pro-choice, but I also happen to have a husband who is in counter-terrorism and has an inside track on the good work we are doing in this administration. It's trite, and has been said too many times, but you really have no idea what kind of success we are achieving in disrupting terrorism cells and plots. Big and little, every day there is always something.

So, for me, it comes down to this: who will best ensure we get critical information we need to disrupt plots, to deport terrorists, and eliminate threats? I wish there was a candidate who could represent both pro-choice and national safety, but I'm afraid Obama would take away many of the powers and tools from our national intelligence agencies. Pro-choice concerns would become pretty trivial after say, a nuclear attack.

So do you think if McAlzheimer drops dead, Pander-lin will take up the slack on counter terrorism. I'm pretty confident that she could not find Iran or Pakistan on the world map. I question if she can even find the United States given that she's held a passport for only 2 years and has not used it yet.

Wow! You are so cleaver with your name calling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sounds like the scare tactics that kept Bush in office for 8 years....Also, I know some folks in the same field as your husband, & what i understand, he isn't supposed to be sharing this information w/you anyway...

Like I said in my earlier post, I know it's trite and people like yourself call it 'scare tactics' which is why I prefaced it that way. I know people want to believe it's not true that the danger is real. And fwiw, my husband doesn't share classified information with me, but when he's called overseas and then a headline (often more like a byline on A25) comes out in the Post a week later... it's no longer all classified. I'm glad the current administration allows him the latitude to do his job, and I don't think a Democratic one would. For me, that trumps Roe v. Wade despite my own pro-choice concerns.

I disagree that you don't think Dems will let your husband do his job, but I do think the difference is under Dems I believe we'd actually go after who really attacked us, not against someone who the prez has a personal vendetta to settle for his daddy, dragging an unnecessrary war out for 7 years.

[Anonymous]

PP, thank you. For the party that is always talking peace and love, the nastiness from Democrats on this board is breathtaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, thank you. For the party that is always talking peace and love, the nastiness from Democrats on this board is breathtaking.

Not so much nastiness as frustration that after 8 years of nonsense, home foreclosures, job losses, insane gas prices, & the list goes on, that America is even considering putting someone in office that will continue this cycle that is out of control...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I happen to be pro-choice, but I also happen to have a husband who is in counter-terrorism and has an inside track on the good work we are doing in this administration. It's trite, and has been said too many times, but you really have no idea what kind of success we are achieving in disrupting terrorism cells and plots. Big and little, every day there is always something.

So, for me, it comes down to this: who will best ensure we get critical information we need to disrupt plots, to deport terrorists, and eliminate threats? I wish there was a candidate who could represent both pro-choice and national safety, but I'm afraid Obama would take away many of the powers and tools from our national intelligence agencies. Pro-choice concerns would become pretty trivial after say, a nuclear attack.

So do you think if McAlzheimer drops dead, Pander-lin will take up the slack on counter terrorism. I'm pretty confident that she could not find Iran or Pakistan on the world map. I question if she can even find the United States given that she's held a passport for only 2 years and has not used it yet.

Wow! You are so cleaver with your name calling.

Wow, you are so articulate with your response.

[Anonymous]

Pro-Choice professional here (meaning I have been working to defend Roe v Wade professionally for 10+ years).

The Democrats will have 60 Senate seats after this election. Any Supreme Court nominee McCain comes up with who does not support Roe can be and should be blocked by the US Senate. The Dems won't tell you this now because they depend on holding Roe over our heads to get our votes....however, why do we vote for them if they won't stand up and block anti-choice nominees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro-Choice professional here (meaning I have been working to defend Roe v Wade professionally for 10+ years).

The Democrats will have 60 Senate seats after this election. Any Supreme Court nominee McCain comes up with who does not support Roe can be and should be blocked by the US Senate. The Dems won't tell you this now because they depend on holding Roe over our heads to get our votes....however, why do we vote for them if they won't stand up and block anti-choice nominees?

I've been waiting for someone to state the obvious. Thanks for doing so, pro-choice professional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro-Choice professional here (meaning I have been working to defend Roe v Wade professionally for 10+ years).

The Democrats will have 60 Senate seats after this election. Any Supreme Court nominee McCain comes up with who does not support Roe can be and should be blocked by the US Senate. The Dems won't tell you this now because they depend on holding Roe over our heads to get our votes....however, why do we vote for them if they won't stand up and block anti-choice nominees?

If this is true, how did the last 2 appointees get through?