Ben Carson on CNN: Topic Planned Parenthood
I do really appreciate this man temperament and intelligence. This country can do far worse than this level headed, intelligent man for its next President.
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
I've pretty much given up on wondering how a rational, principled person can cloud up their minds with religious fantasy. I like Carson. Compared to most candidates, I find him refreshing, and while he seems very mild-mannered I detect a steely spine under it all. You are right about him to an extent, but ain't none of them perfect. There will have to be compromises on all of the candidates. The question is, what is it that you are willing to compromise on?
It is entirely appropriate to denounce claimed moral or political "accountability" to religious duties at any time. When religion dominates a culture, it's politics follows.
If you take that approach, it is the same as condoning drunk driving. Every two minutes someone is involved in a drunk driving accident here in the US (MADD). I would find it difficult to believe that any of these people thought to themselves - I'm going have a few drinks and then try to kill someone with my car on the way home. No, they are simply too preoccupied with the decision at the time to enjoy in a few too many drinks to think about the consequences later. Reality, however, is not subject to whims or desires. Choices have consequences.
I would also point out that the apparent onus here is solely on the female, yet it takes both sexes to induce pregnancy. Responsibility for this is not limited to the female gender alone.
Here is another interview where the interviewer did try to follow up on questions to get him to explain his position and he wouldn't do it. He takes the stance that once he says something there can be no further discussion on topics he doesn't want to talk about, as if questions from a "liberal" are not worthy of a "conservative" taking seriously. That won't work past the religious conservative base in a primary, if he gets even that fare. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/20...
The "ideological viewpoint" of this forum is Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. Your religious proselytizing has no place here at all, let alone demanding that rejecting your religion be regarded as "hijacking". Neither do your personal attacks of "zealotry", "temper tantrum", "beating people over the head", and demands that people who reject your religious attacks against Ayn Rand's philosophy leave belong here.
Where is the right of a doctor to say no, I will not do this procedure. Completely gone. I am surprised she failed to recognize this shortcoming and removal of the doctors right.
The poor guy would be chewed up in the media and frontline politics by those that lay all the relativistic traps honest folk fall prey to. BUT, in the analogy, wouldn't it be cool if he could stand firm and send various frustrated high power politicians to go and shoot themselves?
A nice day dream.
Should the woman be forced, in effect, to endure nine months of discomfort and pain (facetiously, nine months of cruel and unusual punishment), plus the rigors and risks of childbirth, plus 18 years of involuntary servitude (unless she finds an appropriate adoptive family)?
Reducing this position to its base, apparently a woman should not have sex unless she wishes to become a mother.
If abortion wasn't such an easy option, I suspect more care would be taken on the front end, or maybe just saying "no" to getting it on until you have the measures in place may work too...
Load more comments...