• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

WakeandBake said:
So you are wholly anti-war, anti-death penalty, and anti-euthanasia? No exceptions.

I think all three of those things are horrible and make me sick, but I understand certain exceptions and accept them with a heavy, heavy heart.
Click to expand...

War and death penalty are not or should not be the intentional destruction of innocent life. I edited my statement earlier to rephrase that. I am against euthanasia but am ok with justified war and the death penalty (which should both be aiming to save lives in the long term).

Abortions end goal is to end life. Thus I have no tolerance for it. Even in the horrendous case of rape.

ETA I am not a passionate for either war or death penalty but can accept that in a world of great evil that gray choices need to be made. Abortion is not gray because one side is completely innocent. There is and never will be an excuse to kill a child that has literally done nothing wrong.
 
Last edited:
Wrangor said:
War and death penalty are not or should not be the intentional destruction of innocent life. I edited my statement earlier to rephrase that. I am against euthanasia but am ok with justified war and the death penalty (which should both be aiming to save lives in the long term).

Abortions end goal is to end life. Thus I have no tolerance for it. Even in the horrendous case of rape.

ETA I am not a passionate for either war or death penalty but can accept that in a world of great evil that gray choices need to be made. Abortion is not gray because one side is completely innocent. There is and never will be an excuse to kill a child that has literally done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Can't give that little bugger the chance to start a war. Abort mission.
 
Wrangor said:
War and death penalty are not or should not be the intentional destruction of innocent life. I edited my statement earlier to rephrase that. I am against euthanasia but am ok with justified war and the death penalty (which should both be aiming to save lives in the long term).

Abortions end goal is to end life. Thus I have no tolerance for it. Even in the horrendous case of rape.

ETA I am not a passionate for either war or death penalty but can accept that in a world of great evil that gray choices need to be made. Abortion is not gray because one side is completely innocent. There is and never will be an excuse to kill a child that has literally done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Justifiable war is a strange thing, I guess the only kind being one fought totally in defense from an oppressive aggressor hell-bent on genocide. I'm certain, based on that term, that you re firmly against wars fought for natural resources and other booty, or against political philosophies that aren't genocidal. right?
 
Speak for yourself, there is nothing wrong with going to war over some booty.

game-of-war-fire-age-kate-upton.jpg
 
WakeandBake said:
Fair enough. Justifiable war is a strange thing, I guess the only kind being one fought totally in defense from an oppressive aggressor hell-bent on genocide. I'm certain, based on that term, that you re firmly against wars fought for natural resources and other booty, or against political philosophies that aren't genocidal. right?
Click to expand...

Yeah that would be a fair assessment. Certainly for Natural Resources or 'booty'. I think you probably get a little more gray when you are discussing political philosophies, but the litmus test for me would be whether the wars were advancing life, and liberty (probably not the pursuit of happiness). I agree that justifiable war is a strange bird, and none of it is comfortable to me, but I can recognize the grey in that and accept it. There is no gray in abortion. You either recognize it as murder (and are pro-life) or you view the action as a surgical procedure (and are thus pro-choice). The person that states they are anti-abortion but pro-choice is either fooling themselves or is just an awful human being. To recognize abortion as the intentional ending of an innocent child's life, and be willing to condone that in any scenario takes a pretty dark heart.

I Think PH is generally a really good guy, which is why I think he is playing linguistic games with himself in order to feel better about his political stance. I don't think he is alone. I would guess that if you had the country put their names anonymously on the dotted line of either pro-choice or pro-life then the majority would choose life because deep down most people are VERY uncomfortable with abortion, even if they are too afraid to stand up against it. I think that is because deep down most people know we have chosen poorly, and my hope is that as science develops that reality will become more clear. I guess we shall see.
 
Wrangor said:
Yeah that would be a fair assessment. Certainly for Natural Resources or 'booty'. I think you probably get a little more gray when you are discussing political philosophies, but the litmus test for me would be whether the wars were advancing life, and liberty (probably not the pursuit of happiness). I agree that justifiable war is a strange bird, and none of it is comfortable to me, but I can recognize the grey in that and accept it. There is no gray in abortion. You either recognize it as murder (and are pro-life) or you view the action as a surgical procedure (and are thus pro-choice). The person that states they are anti-abortion but pro-choice is either fooling themselves or is just an awful human being. To recognize abortion as the intentional ending of an innocent child's life, and be willing to condone that in any scenario takes a pretty dark heart.

I Think PH is generally a really good guy, which is why I think he is playing linguistic games with himself in order to feel better about his political stance. I don't think he is alone. I would guess that if you had the country put their names anonymously on the dotted line of either pro-choice or pro-life then the majority would choose life because deep down most people are VERY uncomfortable with abortion, even if they are too afraid to stand up against it. I think that is because deep down most people know we have chosen poorly, and my hope is that as science develops that reality will become more clear. I guess we shall see.
Click to expand...

Of course I am trying to pin you down and expose some hypocrisy because, well, Im a dick like that. :)

I think you've done a pretty good job here, but the idea of war "advancing life" is paradoxical in terms of any non-genocidal force. One could argue that communism, lets say, advances life moreso than capitalism (the power of the collective, sharing of all wealth/resources with the proletariat etc etc etc). In that case, warring against communist forces would be out, but you conceded the gray area.
 
jhmd2000 said:
And none of them were community organizers with no executive experience! Oh the huge Manatee...
Click to expand...

This is why Walker will point this this out that these bums shouldn't be elected due to lack of current experience. That's one sad list.
 
Wrangor said:
There is no gray in abortion. You either recognize it as murder (and are pro-life) or you view the action as a surgical procedure (and are thus pro-choice). The person that states they are anti-abortion but pro-choice is either fooling themselves or is just an awful human being.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps, an anti-abortion but pro-choice voter believes that the (primarily male) government shouldn't legislate women's bodies.
 
wakephan09 said:
Or, perhaps, an anti-abortion but pro-choice voter believes that the (primarily male) government shouldn't legislate women's bodies.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone wants to tell someone else what to do with their own body. It is the body of the tiny human that is the one being siphoned out and thrown away, which is the point.
 
WakeandBake said:
Of course I am trying to pin you down and expose some hypocrisy because, well, Im a dick like that. :)

I think you've done a pretty good job here, but the idea of war "advancing life" is paradoxical in terms of any non-genocidal force. One could argue that communism, lets say, advances life moreso than capitalism (the power of the collective, sharing of all wealth/resources with the proletariat etc etc etc). In that case, warring against communist forces would be out, but you conceded the gray area.
Click to expand...

I agree. But not if communism is being used to destroy life. That is where the gray comes in. Democracy is great too, but it can be used to destroy (as we have all seen). It isn't the political ethos as much as how it is used. Communism is the purest form of government on this earth IMO, but it is absolutely unsustainable IMO because humanity at its core is full of wickedness. We are all eager to do bad stuff, and thus communism will never work. Democracy will never work perfect either, but it is a better system because it is designed to provide checks and balances. You know that I am a Jesus freak / conservative Biblical interpreter and to be honest the Bible shades a lot more communist than it does democracy. Because it is trying to show a life that is best lived. If we could make everyone unselfish and honest I would sign up for communism, but unfortunately I am not certain that is a promise I could make of myself much less the rest of humanity.
 
wakephan09 said:
Or, perhaps, an anti-abortion but pro-choice voter believes that the (primarily male) government shouldn't legislate women's bodies.
Click to expand...

No, you fall into my second category in that you don't see abortion as murder. If you did you wouldn't define abortion as a woman's medical choice. There are only two sides.

Pro-life: Abortion is murder (that's me)

Pro-choice: Abortion is a surgical procedure on a woman (you and all the other pro-choicers that are decent human beings)

I guess you could add the third choice, but I doubt there are many in this category (or atleast I hope it is a small population) - Abortion is murder but I am ok with murdering little babies.
 
Wrangor said:
No, you fall into my second category in that you don't see abortion as murder. If you did you wouldn't define abortion as a woman's medical choice. There are only two sides.

Pro-life: Abortion is murder (that's me)

Pro-choice: Abortion is a surgical procedure on a woman (you and all the other pro-choicers that are decent human beings)

I guess you could add the third choice, but I doubt there are many in this category (or atleast I hope it is a small population) - Abortion is murder but I am ok with murdering little babies.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps, a legitimate third choice:

Anti-abortion and pro-choice: abortion is a surgical procedure on a woman (i.e. not murder), but the voter is still anti-abortion for whatever personal reason(s).
 
I can wrap my head around no abortion for just choice, even some mental gymnastics to no abortion for incest and rape, I can't ever see no abortion for when the mothers life is in danger and also no abortion for when the child is going to have a severe defect that leads to immediate death anyways and therefore is an unnecessary risk for child birth. Sorry but Jesus isn't riding his dinosaur to come perform some miracle and fix the undeveloped heart isn't happening.
 
Wrangor said:
No, you fall into my second category in that you don't see abortion as murder. If you did you wouldn't define abortion as a woman's medical choice. There are only two sides.

Pro-life: Abortion is murder (that's me)

Pro-choice: Abortion is a surgical procedure on a woman (you and all the other pro-choicers that are decent human beings)

I guess you could add the third choice, but I doubt there are many in this category (or atleast I hope it is a small population) - Abortion is murder but I am ok with murdering little babies.
Click to expand...

Black and white zero sum thinking is why abortion will remain an issue. Can't see an argument for choosing a child over a mother if the pregnancy puts her life in danger. Viability outside the womb is a reasonable standard for life, even if it's not ideologally pure enough for some. Governments can accurately record birth dates. Conception, not so much.
 
Deadbolt said:
Sometimes when altering a sentence I forget to proofread. You got me. My entire point is invalidated. Hopefully the grammar police don't give me the Baltimore special, amirite?
Click to expand...

How would one "guarantee" child care? What does that mean?
 
wakephan09 said:
Or, perhaps, a legitimate third choice:

Anti-abortion and pro-choice: abortion is a surgical procedure on a woman (i.e. not murder), but the voter is still anti-abortion for whatever personal reason(s).
Click to expand...

Why would you be anti surgical procedure on someone else's body? Are you anti appendectomy as well? It makes no sense. Either it is surgery or it is murder which is it? I don't understand. Explain your personal reasons to be against someone else having an elective surgery (well over 90% of abortions are elective and not scenarios where the mothers life is at risk).
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
I can wrap my head around no abortion for just choice, even some mental gymnastics to no abortion for incest and rape, I can't ever see no abortion for when the mothers life is in danger and also no abortion for when the child is going to have a severe defect that leads to immediate death anyways and therefore is an unnecessary risk for child birth. Sorry but Jesus isn't riding his dinosaur to come perform some miracle and fix the undeveloped heart isn't happening.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think that is legit. When another life is at stake you have to weigh life vs. life. I get that. That is a microscopic percentage of abortions though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top