Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
needlefishaddict

Micheal Steele: Abortion is an "indivudual choice"

Rate this topic

32 posts in this topic

Wow. poop is going to hit the fan over that comment Mr. Steele.

 

http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqedit...construct.html

 

 

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?

 

 

Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that-I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it... Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

 

Explain that.

 

 

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

 

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

 

 

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice.

 

You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.

 

Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I think Roe v. Wade-as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

 

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states.Let them decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so its an individual's choice on whether to have an abortion....except for the fact that a state has the right to say you can't have an abortion.

 

 

kooky.gif cuckoo kooky.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee added the highest-profile voice yet to the chorus of conservative criticism of RNC Chairman Michael Steele's suggestion that he supports "individual choice" on abortion:

Comments attributed to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele are very troubling and despite his clarification today the party stands to lose many of its members and a great deal of its support in the trenches of grassroots politics.

Since 1980, our party has been steadfast and principled in believing in the dignity and worth of every human life. We have supported a Constitutional amendment to protect life and the party has taken the position that no one individual has the supreme right to own another person in totality including the right to take that life. For Chairman Steele to even infer that taking a life is totally left up to the individual is not only a reversal of Republican policy and principle, but it's a violation of the most basic of human rights--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

His statement today helps, but doesn't explain why he would ever say what he did in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostThe republican party needs to stop identifying itself with the abortion issue.

 

 

If they did that, then there would be no tangible difference between them and the Dems. The GOP hinges on the abortion issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?

Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay." It's like saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."

 

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.

I mean, I think that's the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there's some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don't know, I can't say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostI like this dude.

 

The Reps surely don't...wink.gif

 

here is another condemnation of Mr. Steele.

 

Former Ohio Secretary of State and RNC chair candidate Ken Blackwell responded to Michael Steele's abortion comments in an interview with Townhall.com this morning

"
Chairman Steele, as the leader of America's Pro-Life conservative party, needs to re-read the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, and the 2008 GOP Platform. He then needs to get to work -- or get out of the way."

During his campaign for chairman, Blackwell had trouble expanding his appeal on the RNC beyond a small band of dedicated, strongly ideological conservatives. But those are exactly the people Steele's GQ interview may have frustrated most, and Blackwell's comments about "get[ting] out of the way" won't help calm things down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostComments attributed to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele are very troubling and despite his clarification today the party stands to lose many of its members and a great deal of its support in the trenches of grassroots politics.

 

 

How about that support in the trenches eh? Didn't work out too well in this last election.

 

Maybe they lose some.

If the anti choice stance were thrown out of the party platform,

they might pick up more than they lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostIf I am forced to pay for abortions of those who will not pay, it is not an individual choice.

 

Next.

 

This will always be the case for taxpayers... We will always pay, or shall I more correctly say, our money will be used for things we do not agree with, but since we are stuck paying taxes, should we be able to rule on other peoples religious beliefs because of the money we pay?

Let;s face it, the main reason many folks believe there should be no abortion, is that is goes against their religious beliefs.

Let's take a more black and white case... We have a woman who is going to die if her child comes anywhere near term, but we do not abort the fetus, because God obviously wanted it to be this way?

I feel that, so long as people are not using abortion as a method of birth control, and not simply abusing it, there are very good reasons to perform the procedure. Perhaps we should allow the uninsured to have abortions only for medical reasons, and those that can afford it, can pay for the procedure for their own reasons, so long as the fetus is under "X" number or weeks.

I had a girlfriend who I was going to marry, we were serious, she got pregnant, didn't tell me, freaked out and began doing a lot of drugs and drinking heavily, under the premise of it being summer, and it was party season. I was drinking a lot with her, as were all of my friends, but I did not partake in any drug use.

She became very screwed up, and I finally couldn't take her antics, and broke off the relationship. A few months later, she told me she was pregnant, and our twins were forming with no spines. crying.gif I was devastated, but she was going to get an abortion. Should we have had the babies, brought them into this world so they could die in a hospital?

According to the religious right, YES... This is what God wanted, and we must have the strength to deal with this, and to love these children.

We both would have been in financial ruin, and most important, two children would have lived a short and extremely painful life.

I felt, and still feel horrible about this, but I am thankful that abortion was an option for all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostThis will always be the case for taxpayers... We will always pay, or shall I more correctly say, our money will be used for things we do not agree with, but since we are stuck paying taxes, should we be able to rule on other peoples religious beliefs because of the money we pay?

Let;s face it, the main reason many folks believe there should be no abortion, is that is goes against their religious beliefs.

Let's take a more black and white case... We have a woman who is going to die if her child comes anywhere near term, but we do not abort the fetus, because God obviously wanted it to be this way?

I feel that, so long as people are not using abortion as a method of birth control, and not simply abusing it, there are very good reasons to perform the procedure. Perhaps we should allow the uninsured to have abortions only for medical reasons, and those that can afford it, can pay for the procedure for their own reasons, so long as the fetus is under "X" number or weeks.

I had a girlfriend who I was going to marry, we were serious, she got pregnant, didn't tell me, freaked out and began doing a lot of drugs and drinking heavily, under the premise of it being summer, and it was party season. I was drinking a lot with her, as were all of my friends, but I did not partake in any drug use.

She became very screwed up, and I finally couldn't take her antics, and broke off the relationship. A few months later, she told me she was pregnant, and our twins were forming with no spines. crying.gif I was devastated, but she was going to get an abortion. Should we have had the babies, brought them into this world so they could die in a hospital?

According to the religious right, YES... This is what God wanted, and we must have the strength to deal with this, and to love these children.

We both would have been in financial ruin, and most important, two children would have lived a short and extremely painful life.

I felt, and still feel horrible about this, but I am thankful that abortion was an option for all of us.

 

 

 

CD,

 

As you may or may not know, I am pro-life and have been since I heard my son's heartbeat in his mother's womb at 8 weeks (ultrasound). My son is now 30 years old. Also, my daughter unmarried, became pregnant at 20, not a rare story, right? I now have a 21 year old grandson. He is heading for the coast guard. Finally, I found after my mom passed away, that she did not plan on me. I was a "whoops"smile.gif A lot of people would have had me killed today. My mom had me and was a great mom.

 

There is so much uninformed opinion here from you that I don't know where to start.

 

First, your story about you, your girlfriend and the abortions. Sad and in the scheme of things, the abortions were probably justified. But your girlfriend was obviously a damaged and very weak person.

 

Second, most people who are against abortion on demand are against abortion because it kills a human being. It is morally wrong. This isn't about not eating meat on Fridays or going to Church on Sunday. This is about the deliberate killing of human beings for selfishness. Do you think people oppose rape for "religious" reasons? Or do all religious oppose rape because it is morally wrong?

 

It is a conveniet excuse to say that opposition for abortion is "religious" so then you don't have to "believe". You could say the same about killing someone in cold blood, too (just religious belief). But it is much more complex than that. Personally, I became pro-life when I considered myself agnostic. And there are pro-life athiests.

 

All of us came to life the same way. Having been a "fetus" once myself, I understand that and loving life as I do, it is important to me that I got here in one piece.smile.gif How about you? Do you wish you were never born?

 

I feel that, so long as people are not using abortion as a method of birth control, and not simply abusing it,

 

Now, you also said that. So tell me, how does what you say square with this? There have been 50,000,000 +++ abortions since RvW in 1973. According to the Center for Desease Control and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, approximately 4% of abortions are obtained for life of the mother, rape/incest or terminal damage to the fetus. Roughly 95% are obtained for "lifestyle" choices which is really, using abortion as birth control and abusing it. Am I wrong? Those are your words up there.

 

If you are serious about what you said and you oppose those 95%, you are pro-life. Shocking, isn't it.wink.gif

 

In the end, what most pro-lifers want is for RvW to be overturned. Then the question would go back to the states and the people of each state would be able to make laws which best reflect the attitudes of the people of that state. From Utah to New York, the laws would be more conservative or more liberal. Do you have a problem with letting the people decide?

 

Well, I have to get back to work. Please don't take offense. Just trying to clear some things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post

There is so much uninformed opinion here from you that I don't know where to start.

 

I think its kinda disingenuous and rude to tell people that their opinions are uninformed, when their opinion is just that...an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.