Ronald Reagan Was A SOCIAL Conservative

[MrsSmith]

Wow. Imagine you on a messageboard a couple hundred years ago.

Slavery is out of play. Let it go.
Women can't vote. It's out of play. Let it go.

Or further back. The world is flat. It's out of play. Let it go. Etc, etc.

I have a current one for you though. Gays can't marry. It's out of play. Let it go.

[Adam Wood]

I think you're right. Truth is every time I ever hoped for a social Republican moderate to get nominated in a primary, it doesn't happen. It's usually somebody a lot like Reagan on a social basis.

Apparently you missed that guy who was running last time around.

[Novaheart]

I have a current one for you though. Gays can't marry. It's out of play. Let it go.

What is the Supreme Court decision which would place marriage equality in the same category with abortion? There isn't one. Moreover, Justice Scalia himself is on record having said that the decision in Lawrence v Texas would mean that the Court would also have to side with equality on marriage.

The greater point is that even if abortion were to have some remote chance of being banned at some point in the future, it's not a good reason to vote for or against a candidate.

[Novaheart]

A .........the law that allows the wholesale slaughter of any human below a certain age must be changed. So the first definition of a social conservative is "someone that understands all human life has value."

The eligible point in gestation for abortion is pre-viability. Medical science hasn't backed up the point of viability significantly or beyond the point of restriction. There is no reason to change the abortion laws at the moment. The only change you might see in what time you have left on this planet, is a change in viability and for that to happen technology will have to advance significantly in the area of artificial lungs and then artificial lungs for infants. There is no wholesale slaughter of persons, unless of course you consider spontaneous abortion in previable state to be a mass murder by God?

Of course until we can somehow figure out when personhood actually starts, we're all arguing in ignorance, but there is still more merit to arguing from science than guilt from something one did as a teenager.

[noonwitch]

The eligible point in gestation for abortion is pre-viability. Medical science hasn't backed up the point of viability significantly or beyond the point of restriction. There is no reason to change the abortion laws at the moment. The only change you might see in what time you have left on this planet, is a change in viability and for that to happen technology will have to advance significantly in the area of artificial lungs and then artificial lungs for infants. There is no wholesale slaughter of persons, unless of course you consider spontaneous abortion in previable state to be a mass murder by God?

Of course until we can somehow figure out when personhood actually starts, we're all arguing in ignorance, but there is still more merit to arguing from science than guilt from something one did as a teenager.

You can't argue about abortion with those who are opposed to it-they don't see it the same way as the pro choice side sees it, and you will just end up being angry with nice people who you disagree with on this issue.

[Lanie]

Apparently you missed that guy who was running last time around.

Against abortion. Check.

Against gay marriage. Check.

Against gays in the military. Check.

For increasing national security. Thinks we should have stayed in Iraq. Voted on going in too I think. Check.

What was the problem?

[Lanie]

The eligible point in gestation for abortion is pre-viability. Medical science hasn't backed up the point of viability significantly or beyond the point of restriction. There is no reason to change the abortion laws at the moment. The only change you might see in what time you have left on this planet, is a change in viability and for that to happen technology will have to advance significantly in the area of artificial lungs and then artificial lungs for infants. There is no wholesale slaughter of persons, unless of course you consider spontaneous abortion in previable state to be a mass murder by God?

Of course until we can somehow figure out when personhood actually starts, we're all arguing in ignorance, but there is still more merit to arguing from science than guilt from something one did as a teenager.

Okay, I could understand why some question it in the first trimester. I will point out that all of the baby's organs (heart, brain, etc) are growing. The baby is more than just a gob of goo.

However, by the third trimester (and actually at the end of the second trimester), we have consciousness. The baby can hear, feel, etc. That's a person to me.

And here's been my thing about this subject. If viability, consciousness, and independence can be used to determine person hood before birth, then why not after birth?

Okay, I worked with kids which by many people's standards were "vegetables." However, they had their own personalities. I knew they were people no matter how little they could talk, focus, etc.

I also read a story recently about the parents asking the hospital not to take their kid off of life support. Why should parents have to do that?

And let's discuss the "Do no resuscitate" idea. That's fine if you're brain dead. Otherwise, why are we doing this?

[MrsSmith]

The eligible point in gestation for abortion is pre-viability. Medical science hasn't backed up the point of viability significantly or beyond the point of restriction. There is no reason to change the abortion laws at the moment. The only change you might see in what time you have left on this planet, is a change in viability and for that to happen technology will have to advance significantly in the area of artificial lungs and then artificial lungs for infants. There is no wholesale slaughter of persons, unless of course you consider spontaneous abortion in previable state to be a mass murder by God?

Of course until we can somehow figure out when personhood actually starts, we're all arguing in ignorance, but there is still more merit to arguing from science than guilt from something one did as a teenager.

Viability does not affect humanity. The unborn human is still human before he or she is able to live outside the womb. If viability were the measure, we wouldn't make ventilators, dialysis machines, pacemakers, or thousands of other medical items. When Dad or Grandma or your firstborn child isn't viable any more, let them go!

There is wholesale slaughter of infants by human hand.

Do you count every heart attack victim as being murdered by God? When God takes a life, we call it "natural causes." The age of the human has no bearing on it, just as the age of the human doesn't make older humans more human than infants, or middle aged people more human than the elderly.

Science makes it quite clear that every human starts at conception. It is only man's ignorance and worship of money and convenience that places any doubt on whether that is the start of personhood also. If it cost more to abort than to birth a child, millions of people would suddenly decide that personhood starts at conception.

[Novaheart]

Viability does not affect humanity.

Abortion is a paradox. If it is murder then it is always murder and is always immoral. But by what twist on morality could the state force a women or girl who has been raped to carry to term the child of her rapist? It doesn't matter what the incidence is, if it's one thousandth of one percent, you still have the paradox.

So are you pro forcing a rape victim to carry her rapist's child to term?
Are you for charging women who have abortions, or cause the abortion of their fetus with murder?
Or are you simply looking for a platform of self-righteousness?

[mike128]

I have been reading the replies on this thread, and I fully agree 100% with MrsSmith's responses. The issue of abortion will never end until abortion gets outlawed, and those millions of children that get dismembered and killed each year before they're born have a right to live.

The whole point of starting this thread was to prove that social conservatives can win elections, and win in landslides, like Reagan did TWICE. I will never support Flip Romney, because he's lying about being pro-life. He funded Planned Parenthood in Romneycare after his so-called "pro-life" conversion. Abortion is a no-compromise issue for me, and I'm NOT going to compromise this year for Flip Romney, just to beat Obama.

Hopefully, either Santorum or Newt can overtake Flip in the SC primary, before it's too late.