Fox & Friends guest claimed young voters "more conservative" on abortion, "racial preferences"
On the July 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, during a discussion of a June 15-23 New York Times/ CBS News/ MTV poll, co-host Brian Kilmeade did not challenge the assertion by Young America's Foundation spokesman Jason Mattera that "young people, as opposed to the general public, are more conservative on the issue of abortion and racial preferences. ... [T]hey'd rather ban abortion and they are opposed to racial preferences as well." In fact, Mattera's claim regarding abortion is not supported by the Times/ CBS News/ MTV poll discussed during the segment, which surveyed 17-29 year-olds. As a June 27 New York Times article about the poll noted, respondents' "views on abortion mirror those of the public at large: 24 percent said it should not be permitted at all, while 38 percent said it should be made available but with greater restrictions. Thirty-seven percent said it should be generally available."
A May 18-23 New York Times/CBS News poll of adults of all ages found that 21 percent of respondents said "abortion should not be permitted," 37 percent said it "should be available but under stricter limits then [sic] it is now," and 39 percent said "abortion should be generally available to those who want it." The margin of error for the June 15-23 poll was +/-4 percentage points while the margin for the May 18-23 poll was +/-3 points, and thus there was not a statistically significant difference between the responses of young voters and adults of all ages.
While The New York Times/ CBS News/ MTV poll did not contain a question on, in Mattera's words, "racial preferences," on March 22, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported that a "majority of people ages 18-29 endorse preferences (54%), compared with no more than three-in-ten in other age groups."
From the July 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KILMEADE: Young voters lean left: this according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, CBS News, and MTV. But does this poll truly give the pulse of America's youth? Representing both sides of the pulse, the budding electorate, is Jason Mattera for the Young America's Foundation and Malia Lazu with the Young Democrats of America.
[...]
MATTERA: What this trend doesn't take in effect is how young people are going to vote in the future. And we know, as they get older, they vote more conservative because they are starting to vote with their purses and they're starting to vote with their wallets. What this poll doesn't point out is that young people, as opposed to the general public, are more conservative on the issue of abortion and racial preferences.
They look to -- they'd rather ban abortion and they are opposed to racial preferences as well, which this doesn't take into account. But, yeah, I mean, it's no surprise that young people are more liberal on the issue of -- say -- of health care, because health care really doesn't affect them at a young age.
Thanks mmfa...
The MTV poll states that 62% favor greater restrictions on abortions...the CBS poll stated that 58% favor greater restrictions on abortion...versus 38-39% who favor no restrictions.
Oh those darn polls.
Big difference between restrictions and outright bans.
The real difference is that if this were settled as a states rights issue...rampant, unchecked abortions would come to a screeching halt.
So I'm sure that since you're a "States Rights" kind of guy, you were against the attempt by the congress and president to interfere in the Schiavo case, correct?
You're correct...I'm a state's rights guy.
I'm also a conservative that does not follow republican leadership blindly.
Wes,
If I could count how many times someone here has tried to hang the Schiavo debacle on every conservative as a hypocritical gotcha when states rights are being advocated, I'd be countin' for days.
The Congressional Republicans who inserted themselves into her case were wrong. Can we put this to bed now?
Welcome back...and my sentiments exactly.
Thanks, the south of France was glorious this time of year.
;)
Well, I got a few more for ya.
How about medical marijuana, assisted suicide and gay marriage?
It seems like every time a state tries to pass any of those ideas into law, the conservatives go racing to the federal government to intervene and stop them.
Social conservatives are, by their very nature, the biggest pro-government folks around.
On the issues you raised...I am fervently opposed and would campaign like hell against them.
But, I don't have a problem with those issues being decided by the states...we are controlled too much by the federal government today.
I don't think any of those issues should be decided by the federal government or the states.
We know. You want the Supreme Court to force their liberal views on the rest of us, rather than letting us actually vote on these controversial issues.
I want everyone to make those decisions for themselves. It should have nothing to do with the federal government, the states or the courts.
In order to get that the Supreme Court would have to strike down laws banning these things. So the issue would involve the courts. There is no constitutional right to the things that you mentioned, and it would be anti-democratic and anti-constitutional for the Supreme Court to force a liberal agenda on the American people.
“In order to get that the Supreme Court would have to strike down laws banning these things.”
If the laws weren't in place then there would be no need for the Supreme Court to decide anything. Each individual would be making those decisions if the states did not impose those beliefs on everyone.
“There is no constitutional right to the things that you mentioned”
This is where we disagree.
“Supreme Court to force a liberal agenda on the American people.”
We’re not forcing anyone to do anything. If you don’t believe in use of medical marijuana, don’t use it; if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t get married to someone of the same sex; if you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one."We’re not forcing anyone to do anything. If you don’t believe in use of medical marijuana, don’t use it; if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t get married to someone of the same sex; if you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one."
Should that apply to gun ownership as well? After all, if you don't want an assault weapon, then don't buy one. Nobody is forcing you to own one. Liberals are so inconsistent on these "choice" issues.
"Should that apply to gun ownership as well?"
No because your right to own a gun can cause my death.
That's ridiculous. Many people are simply gun collecters and don't actually use them. Guns don't do harm by themselves, but only when evil people use them in the wrong way. Also, your right to take drugs could cause my death. You could get in a vehicle when you're high and hit me when I'm driving on the road.
That's ridiculous. Many people are simply gun collecters and don't actually use them. Guns don't do harm by themselves, but only when evil people use them in the wrong way.
I don't care. Guns were designed for one reason only and that's to kill. You don't have a right to a weapon that could potentially kill me or my family.
That being said, I don't agree with banning them outright. I just think the gun industry should be regulated vigorously.
"You don't have a right to a weapon that could potentially kill me or my family"
Huh? Why would I want to kill you or your family? That makes no sense at all. I have many guns and I use most of them to go hunting with. I'm just minding my own business. If you think that banning certain types of guns will keep them out of the bad guys' hands, you are sadly mistaken. Most bad guys will find a way to get a gun illegally, even if the type of gun is banned.
These weapons which were designed to kill could harm me and/or my family either purposefully or mistakenly.
Unless you're planning on walking through my field when I'm going hunting, I think you'll be pretty safe.
I'm afraid your assurances aren't sufficient. If you read the 2nd Amendment that it cannot deny you the right to bear any arms then you are mistaken. We can establish this by affirming that you do not have a right to nuclear, biological or chemical arms. Assuming you agree this is true, you agree that what "arms" are available can and should be regulated at some level. The only question is where to draw the line. Our elected representatives decide where to draw that line.
Some nefarious evildoer can break into your home, steal your guns, and, in the course of committing a crime, kill somebody. Happens a lot.
Or, one of your kids could develop a mental disorder, raid your gun cabinet, and go wipe out his high school (or college). Happens all too frequently.
Or some member of your family (or you) could accidentaly discharge your weapon and kill themselves (or yourself) or somebody else. Happens a lot.
Even to the most careful and conscientious of gun owners, among whom I shall count you.
And that's not even speaking to the careless or nefarious gun owners. Or gun dealers.
Because not only are guns designed to kill, they are designed as a commodity, i.e. to be sold to make money for the seller. And when money gets involved, good intentions have been known to take a back seat to greed.
Rino,
The second amendment refers to "arms" not guns. Is it your position that we should be able to own any "arms" or type of "arms" we want or can afford and that would have no effect on the safety of our neighbors?
There ISNT? And you know that HOW? Where did you get your degree in constitutional law again? Oh you dont have one? Imagine my suprise that means you are tossing out baseless assertions on a subject you have no expertise in to MAKE such observations right? Or should we just disband the Supreme Court and just ask YOU whenever we have a constitutional question?
Nice ad hominem attack. That was a classic. Nice way to dodge the actual issue. And I presume that you're not one of the liberals who have been criticizing the Supreme Court for some of the recent decisions that have come out? Or are you just another hypocritical liberal who thinks that you have the right to criticize the Supreme Court but conservatives don't have that right?
Right, because we all know how "liberal" the Supreme Court is these days. And isn't it the fundamental job of the Court to oversee laws and interpret their constitutional merit? I suppose you would have states be allowed to pass all kinds of unconstitutional laws. Personally, knowing that, for a case to reach the Court, it generally has to be extremely complex, I don't mind the most esteemed legal scholars in the country taking some of the decisions out of the hands of Joe Dropout. If 2000 and 2004 proved anything, it's that the American public highly polarized, and half are quite possibly morons.
Look at an issue like campaign finance reform. If there was one issue that has the most potential to clean up government and make it more representative, it would be the public financing of elections. at the very least it couldn't make politics any dirtier. But when the public reads the ballot and sees "Public Financing," the lightbulb goes off. "Wait a minute. I am the public. I don't want to pay for some guy's TV ads." What they fail to realize is that the whole election is moot anyway if the elected representative pays back his/her campaign contributors at the expense of the constituency. In California (not exactly a red state), a Clean Money measure on the ballot in 2006 failed miserably. Ironically, it was loads of corporate money poured into the opposition campaign that sank the measure.
So, no, I don't think the voting public are always the one's to make all of our decisions. As devoutly conservative as the Supreme Court is today, I still trust it's members to do the right thing more often than the voting public.
The Supreme Court isn't conservative. We're still one vote away from that. Right now the court is as evenly divided as you can possibly get. There's four conservatives, four liberals, and one moderate swing voter. The McCain-Feingold law was a blatant violation of free speech rights. A portion of the law even went so far as to ban issue ads on television. Ordinary citizens couldn't even criticize their own representatives on certain issues. Thankfully the Supreme Court struck that down. The McCain-Feingold law would be better named "The incumbent protection act." Also, I agree that the Supreme Court has an obligation to strike down certain laws that are unconstitutional. My point is that the Supreme Court should simply let the people vote on issues that the Constitution is silent on such as abortion and gay marriage.
Nonsense. The rights of others should NEVER be decided by a majority vote.
Do you support having the rights of women and minorities decided via referenddum?
I support the right of THE PEOPLE to VOTE on controversial issues that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about. The Constitution says nothing about the abortion issue one way or the other, and the issue should be decided by the people of each individual state.
"The Constitution says nothing about the abortion issue one way or the other, and the issue should be decided by the people of each individual state."--rino hunter
Why not let each individual decide for themselves? Just because it isn't in the US Constitution (although the Supreme Court disagrees with you), doesn't mean the states necessarily need to deal with it either. Why not trust people to do the right thing?
OK I get where we disagree on assisted suicide and Gay marriage but medical marijuana???? Are you kidding me? So a doctor ought to be able to prescribe morphine but marijuana is too dangerous?
I'm not sure who you're talking to, but I support medical mariguana. I agree that it should be legal for medical purposes when doctors prescribe drugs which are much more powerful than mariguana.
Its a valid point when someone begins talking about states rights. In this case I believe Wesley wasnt in here backing the rightwing position on Schiavo, which is different but it DOES become a valid argument when the discussion is about states rights
You're to be commended, then. I was pretty sure that you would say that, but I wanted to see.
Though you didn't ask me I'll answer anyway. A big waste of governement time and resources. Schiavo was clearlynot a federal matter.
As far asabortion, can't we all agree the fewer the better?
That's the first sensible post I've seen from you yet. Thank you. I think you will find that MOST people agree with Bill Clinton that abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, AND RARE. The right-wing media (O'Reilly, Hannity, et al) would have us believe that "Liberals" are foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to have an abortion "on demand".
I'm gald you found my one sensible post. :)
Put your body on the line Wesley. Offer to have an unwanted fetus implanted in your abdomen, and bring it to term. After a health check of course.
If possible...please explain "unwanted fetus".
I guess that's a result of irresponsible adults who don't give a damn.
Yep. Those rape and incest victims need to be more responsible. Good call.
Say Pete, why don't you tell us how many abortions are performed annually because of rape or incest...and how many are performed simply to terminate pregnancy...
How would anyone know the real statistics if a woman can get an abortion without admitting that the pregnancy was a product of rape or incest?
How 'bout we at least start with some premise...other than you and Pete don't know...but are intent on making your argument without basis.
For all we know, a great proportion of abortions could have done due to rape or incest.
That's absurd and I'm sure you know it's absurd.
I'm almost sure it is.
"Say Pete, why don't you tell us how many abortions are performed annually because of rape or incest...and how many are performed simply to terminate pregnancy..."
I was replying to Tommy, who already painted unwanted pregnancy with a single broad brushstroke:
"I guess that's a result of irresponsible adults who don't give a damn."
How come you're not grilling Tommy for some hard data instead? All I did was counter him with two reasons why abortion must be made safe, legal and rare. I wasn't making ridiculous assertions that blame females for all unwanted pregnancies.
I'm not putting all the blame on the women either.
You ranted about rape and incest...I just want to see your info...to see if you have any basis for your loud position...so far you're only loud...not informed.
So that qualifies as a rant?
Again, my rant was in reply to Tommy, not you. So don't accuse me of accusing you.
You ranted that you wanted an "explanation" of "unwanted fetus". Tommy offered you his oversimplified, rightwing-blinded blanket explanation. I offered up a couple reality-based explanations in response, and I'm the one who's ranting??? I also offered the same explanations directly to you with two simple, one-word responses, and that's ranting???
Now you want to shift gears and grill me for numbers??? To what end??? Are you asserting that pregnancy by rape or incest simply never happens??? Or that it's not even possible???
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
- To what end??? - pete
Simple...to see if you have any basis for your reasoning.
As to your last two questions...nope...nope...but you knew that.
To be fair there didn't seem to be evidence of a basis for Tommy's argument either.
Well, let me see. Republican priorities: 1st, ban condoms. 2nd, ban abortions. Leading us to 3rd, no condoms + no abortions = 100% woman's fault for unwanted pregnancies.
White wing america, ditching responsibility one protection at a time...
Rape.
According to Planned Parenthood's own statkeeper, AGI, rape and incest combined are given as a reason for 1% of all abortions.
1. First of all, you are arguing from the extreme exception.
2. Studies show that most victims of these crimes (~70-85%) do not choose abortion. (See the book Victims and Victors, edited by D. Reardon, J. Makimaa, and A. Sobie.)
3. In a survey of 192 women who became pregnant from rape and/or incest, "nearly all of the sexual assault victims who had undergone abortions report that abortion only compounded their problems" (bold by me). "Of those who expressed an opinion, over 90% stated that they would discourage other sexual assault victims from having an abortion."
4. Of the 133 women who carried their baby to term (from the same survey above), "none of the women stated that they did not want their child or wish they had chosen abortion instead" (emphasis by me again).
Again, the book is Victims and Victors, edited by D. Reardon, J. Makimaa, and A. Sobie. In it, besides the survey's results, you will read powerful testimonies from women who have actually gone through these difficult episodes. The book is definitely worth checking out if this is an issue that you genuinely care about.
I made absolutely no assertion as to how many abortions are attributed to rape. Wesley asked for an explanation for unwanted fetus. I offered up rape or incest. If there is only one rape victim or one incest victim in any given year who does not wish to be legally obligated to bear the child, then it is my opinion that abortion must remain safe, legal and rare.
"Studies show that most victims of these crimes (~70-85%) do not choose abortion."
Good for them. It's great that they had that choice isn't it? The same choice that the remaining 15-30% also had. A choice that is difficult, agonizing, personal, private and belongs to them.
"It's great that they had that choice isn't it?"
Uh, no. It isn't. Again, from the survey: "[N]early all of the sexual assault victims who had undergone abortions report that abortion only compounded their problems" (bold by me). "Of those who expressed an opinion, over 90% stated that they would discourage other sexual assault victims from having an abortion."
In other words, the vast majority clearly conclude that it's not a "great" choice to have. Listen to the women themselves!
You also don't create law based on the extreme exception, but on the principle of the matter.
Incest.
A fetus which will be aborted. If I'm stepping into a rhetorical trap, I' just not that sohpistcated in the various subtlies used by the pro life population. It seems fairly clear to me why do I feel an urg to go buy an ointment for near future use?
To quote conleytgwinn on another thread talking about the geico caveman...uh...WHAT?
Sorry, I'm really having trouble zeroing in on a proper amount of complexity tonight.
You did avoid the major question, s'ok. Let me present it in a less threatening manor. There are potentially two, possibly a future third choice beyond woman gets pregnant, woman produces child ~ nine months later. Surrogate motherhood exsists. I'm not sure in what quanities. It was proposed that a baby could grow to term implanted into a male abdomen. A side effect would be a body that could support this child after birth. Maybe more than manboobs, I don't know. It could be very popular with a transexual and give the following life some base as an operating female. Otherwise, its availiblity wouldn't bring the average prolife male out in droves. You'd have to be very sure that supporting human life this way is really what you want to do. I'd respect any mans opinion on abortion who went though it. Fourth artificial wombs. They can't be to far over the horizon. When I see prolife doing work in support of the two later options. I'll be more ready to believe they are are working in the right directions for everybody.
I surrender...I'm off to have a beer and some conversation with the Geico Caveman.
OK: one that occurs because of a birth control failure.
Rampant, unchecked abortions? There ya go again, subjugating and denigrating the ability of women to exercise privacy rights and to make personal, deep life altering choices for themselves.
Certainly not...I am suggesting women and men should make those "deep life-altering choices" before pregnancy.
It's impossible anyway, especially when one's libido and a bottle of Chablis get in the way.....who can be responsible for that?
Ooooo... A harbinger of "someone's" tale of his French getaway?
Should we begin knitting a tiny beret?
Ahh, the keep it zipped argument because responsible people never have unintended pregnancies.
Thats' probably true 95% of the time.
I'm not so sure about that. I still remember my mom cursing the catholic church for all the sorry information they gave her of rythm method vs. contraceptives. She swallowed it hook line and sinker because she was taught to believe the church always.
If you're uneducated on this issue today it's by choice(at least in this country).
maybe so, but my point is about religion playing a significant role in that "lack of education" about the issues. What % of the population would you say are "true" or "hard" believers - 30% maybe? Who do you think they will listen to 1st, science and education or their preacher?
And how many of those fooled around and got pregnant anyways?
Have to disagree with you there LOLO. You do remenber the sexual abstinence education our chidren have been recieving in years past. Which the authers of the program admitted was more about teaching sexual guilt. Then asked for another 1.5 Billion to contiue their good work. If they got a good sexual education, it wasn't in the classroom
If you have to rely on the public schools for your sex ed then you're in trouble.
I suppose you prefer kids learning about it from other kids instead of teachers?
I would prefer for them make those “deep life-altering choices” before pregnancy but it’s none of my business what they do.
Yeah, darn those women and girls who "choose" to get raped or victimized by incest.
You repeat the same thing over and over but it's a red herring and I'm sure you klnow this.
No. The real distraction is those who insist that unwanted pregnancy is always attributed to females who are irresponsible or make "poor choices". I'm giving two very rare but very real reasons why a female would choose to end a pregnancy. Unless you can prove to me that rape or incest never, ever results in pregnancy, it's no red herring
"I am suggesting women and men should make those "deep life-altering choices" before pregnancy"
Who are you to tell anyone when to make "deep life-altering choices". And by the way, pregnancy IS a "deep life-altering choice"...
Not necessarily...when abortions are cheap and quick...it can make the pregnancy pretty irrelevant...without having to face that "deep life-altering choice".
Again with the marginalization of a woman's ability to consider the long-term emotional and spiritual implications of a life changing decision.
Sorry sweetheart, but you've missed the boat again. I am not putting down "all" women...just those that make thoughtless, uninformed and greedy decisions.
There is plenty of evidence that many abortions are done for the mother's convenience and little else...those are the ones that I would consider marginalizing.
so why don't you post that number as a percentage of the whole for all of us to see? You make it sound like it's the majority, so humor us and show some data to back your claim.
I don't make it sound like anything...I just want to see if those crying about abortion and rape have any idea what they are talking about.
I'm patient...but not interested in trading barbs with someone too lazy to bring facts to the table...got milk?
That sounds like Pee Wee Herman - "I know you are but what am I?". I'm patient too, but if you really got something to show, let's see it. I'm curious about what % of pregnancies are aborted by women getting wild and then covering their butts out of convenience? How many were done by women who did the abortion out of convenience for the guy who talked her into it?
Yet you still refuse to support any of YOUR opinions paraded as facts.... still waiting...
it's like a shootout at the OK corral, but no one wants to shoot
"I am not putting down "all" women...just those that make thoughtless, uninformed and greedy decisions."
What's it to you? So long as nobody else is harmed, it's none of your business what a woman does with her own body.
There is a difference, but polls show that most Americans want abortion to be much less available than it is now. A majority believe that abortion should only be legal in the 1st trimester, and a few polls even show that a majority favors an outright ban on abortion if exceptions are made for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
Fundamentally. it doesn't matter what the majortiy thinks is proper. Abortion is a personal matter.
Abortion is murder, and the people should have the right to VOTE on such a controversial issue. There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. It doesn't exist. Roe v. Wade will be overturned sooner or later, and democracy will finally reign and the people will finally get a voice on this issue.
Why? Why should there be a vote? We didn't vote to outlaw or legalize murder.
All of those who have been born are granted protections by the government. The Constitution outlaws murder for those who have been born. I'll admit that the Constitution gives no protection to the unborn. But at the same time, it also doesn't give women the right to kill their unborn babies. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about the issue of abortion, which is why the people should be able to vote for it or against it. If the people want abortion then they should be able to have it, and if they want it outlawed they should be able to have it outlawed.
Your characterization: KILLING babies is quite disengenious, if i spelled that right. Is a zygote a baby?
WARNING: AD HOMINEM ATTACK (BUT STILL VALID) WILL FOLLOW...
You wanna talk about Killing babies, how about actually killing people... Most of these traditionally red, so called "values" states have the highest rates of executions since 1976.
Texas, of all states, is an executioners paradise leading with a record 394 executions since 1976.... BTW, wasn't Bush Governor of texas??? talk about inconsistent.... PRO-LIFE my fat black arse!!!
The difference between abortion and the death penalty has to do with the difference between innocence and guilt. Unborn babies are completely innocent and deserve to be protected by law, and convicted murderers are guilty of horrific crimes and deserve to be punished for what they've done. The death penalty is a deterrent and actually saves more lives than it takes away. Supporting the death penalty is consistent with a pro life ideology.
"The death penalty is a deterrent and actually saves more lives than it takes away."
No it doesn't.
Nice in depth analysis of my post. That was a classic.
RINO!!! The majority of studies have shown that the 'living challenged' penalty has ZERO deterrent effect upon peoples' decisions that may, as a result, end in that penalty.... YOU ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT... and did you know that eating fatty fat foods actually HELPS people become more healthy...?? Crazy, I know- oh,... wait... it doesn't... just like KILLING PEOPLE DOESN'T HELP KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE!!
Considering that you give a death penalty for a crime already committed I have to wonder if saying it "saves lives" is how the right wing deals with the fact that the death penalty is clearly a revenge oriented punishment.
convicted murderers are guilty of horrific crimes and deserve to be punished for what they've done. Rino
Are you sure that lady justice is ALWAYS correct? So all who have been killed in the name of justice were guilty?
So a life that's been established is okay to take, but not one that doesn't exist? Well, that's abhorrent in the extreme. How nice to know that you have no regard for actual lives.
It's nice to know that you protect the guilty while condemning the innocent. That a way to get things backwards like most liberals.
Right, because innocent people have NEVER been put to death. What about the executions of juveniles and mentally retarded prisoners?
The gov. of Illinois put in place a moratorium on the death penalty a few years back because DNA testing revealed that several death row inmates were innocent of the crime they were convicted of committing.
You tell us.
"you tell us"
I'm not the one claiming all abortion is murder...
You're theone claiming it's not. This is matterofpersonalbelief. You don't believe a "zygote - (and I think your sp was good) is a human life and I respect your opinion. It's unfortunate that your side doesn't seem to return that respect.
AWWWW.... now you think I disrespected you by answering your petty, juvenile response...
You cons are sensitive.... how pathetic.
And I guess you're a tad immature.
I rest my case.
Don't backpedal, Rino. Where's that backbone?
You believe abortion is murder. Murder is illegal, punishible by death in some states. No vote is needed, lets' just round up the doctors and mothers, prosecute them like the law mandates.
As I stated earlier, the Constitution doesn't provide any protections for the unborn. The Constitution is silent on the issue, and the people should have the right to vote on it through the democratic process.
Your exact words were, " abortion is murder."
It's not personal opinion, it's science. Science is not a democracy.
Unlivng balls of cells != human beings. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU DREDGE UP THAT LIE.
Now kindly be quiet and let the adults talk.
You should try using your right hand. Your left hand seems to be broken.
Okay RINO .. I've got a deal for you ...
Let's apply to the abortion issue the same respect for the "will of the majority" that our current President does to all other issues.
Work for you?
The will of the majority was shown when Bush was re-elected in 2004. As President of the United States, Bush has the right to pursue policies that he feels are best for this country.
He's pursuing a policy that's best for him and his base (the elite), not the country.
Then why did the majority of the American people vote for him in 2004?
Rino then by your assertion of let the majority decide we should get our troops out of Iraq since the MAJORITY of americans want us out of Iraq. Does that work in your narrow worldview?
You still don't seem to get it. The American people get the chance to choose who they want the President to be, and once elected the President gets to choose whatever policies he wants. People get to vote during elections. They don't get to tell the President what policies he can and can't pursue.
Read Greg Palast if you think the majority of people really voted for Bush...it's bad enough that so many people voted for him twice, but so much election fraud happened to flip the elections that he was actually selected, not elected.
Then read the Declaration of Independence and the crimes of King George to see the awful parallels to today's George.
Rino, making life altering decisions makes you "master" a ,man who has control over something specific, which woman have been fighting for years.
When in pregnancy do most women have abortions?
In the United States, nearly nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and 56% occur in the first eight weeks
How hard is it for U.S. women to reach an abortion provider?
Eighty-seven percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider; a third of women aged 15–44 live in those counties. Nearly one in four women obtaining an abortion travel more than 50 miles to reach a provider, and 8% travel more than 100 miles. It is not known how many women are unable to obtain an abortion because of distance from a provider.
Does the U.S. government help poor women who need abortions pay for them?
Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy, or in cases of rape or incest. As of November 2006, 17 states used their own funds to subsidize abortion for poor women. In actuality, however, about half of these states provide little to no funds to cover these services.
Does making abortion illegal stop it from occurring?
No. Abortion rates are much less related to legal status than they are to levels of unintended pregnancy. In many countries in which abortion is illegal but unintended pregnancy is widespread—for example, Chile, Peru, Nigeria and the Philippines—the abortion rate is higher than in the United States. Some of the world’s lowest abortion rates are in Western European countries, where abortion is legal and covered by national health insurance systems, but where levels of unintended pregnancy are very low.
How many women who had an abortion in 2000 were using contraceptives?
Fifty-four percent of U.S. women who had an abortion in 2000 were using a method in the month they became pregnant.
The Guttmacher Institute
."they'd rather ban abortion"
Mattera interpreted "more restrictions" to mean "ban".
I'll bet 50% of those 62% who favor greater restricitions will change their minds when they experience an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.
Did this person just say, in effect, that liberal minded people just don't know any better? That we just haven't done enough real world livin' to get it?
What an elitist snob.
Round,I wonder if Fox has started thinking about long term planning. I understand Fox's audience is quite old, so they'll lose some viewers due to attrition and a recent poll reveals that young people in the age group 19-29 overwhelmingly more Liberal and consequently more supportive of Progressive ideas and candidates. I guess these guys are reaching for anything. The truth is I’m quite Liberal, but I believe abortions should be limited to the first trimester except in medical emergencies. So I guess I like some restrictions too, but I’m still Liberal. There is no point being made by these bozos, none at all.
Yeah, I'm alright with some restrictions too.
Mostly, I take exception with this guy prattling on about healthcare costs. How youngsters get behind universal healthcare because they're too stupid to recognize the perils of a well funded, well organized, publicly sponsored and accountable healthcare system.
As if our sons and daughters can't recognize the struggles we go through, the sacrifices we make just to be able to afford the outrageous costs of medical insurance.
Please. This cat is a blue-blood snob.
"well funded, well organized, publicly funded..."
Right, because we have so many examples of well organized, publicly funded...NOTHING!
Don't get mad at me because conservatives have ripped up the social contract we have with the government, the government we own.
Prior to conservative control, FEMA was extremely efficient, well managed and accountable.
Our armed forces are pretty efficient, except in Iraq, where privatized military companies are bilking the taxpayers. Yeah, privatized profit and socialized costs. God bless conservative economics.
The military is the only example you can give of a well run government org...well maybe the IRS.
It has nothing to do with conservatives, A huge beauracracy run by unaccountable people with too much job security will always be innefficient and inneffective.
A government is only as good as the people who run it. Conservatives have been elected on a platform of "Government is bad and can't do anything right" and have succeeded in making that a reality.
OSHA, FDA, EPA, CDC... All work pretty well too. At least until Republicans ruin them in their attempt to prove public entities are bad.
WTF is a "racial preference"?
Oh, it's Mr. Mattera again. The same guy who said he didn't want to fight in Iraq because he's fighting "the war of ideas" here. Looks like he's losing the war of ideas too.
"health care really doesn't affect them at a young age"
If they're healthy.
Younger people tend to be "conservative" on.... "race issues"? WTF?
So acording to FAUX NOISE, young people tend to be race baiting liars, that hate gays, love states rights, but not bedroom privacy rights etc traditional (UTAH) values blah, blah...
They're joking right??
Actually, I believe the point was that young people generally oppose reverse discrimination and believe people should be judged according to the content of their character and not the color of their skin. I don't know if young people really believe that way or not, but that was the point they were trying to make.
Correct Rino,
they sure didn't support that assertion...
"reverse discrimination"?
DOES NOT COMPUTE
DOES NOT COMPUTE
I'm talking about the government discriminating against whites to try to make up for past discrimination.
I find it amazing that the only way some people ever discover that discrimination is bad is when a minority or a woman is seemingly promoted in their place. It is then a full-blown tragedy. The question I have is where were all of these white males when it was happening to minorities and women in the past 400 or so years? I don't really have much sympathy for these "johnny come latelies" to the discrimination game to be honest.
Reverse discrimination has little to no effect on society especially when compared to our ugly history of discrimination against women and minorities.
meant to say "racial preferences"
OK, Wesley or anybody else, my answer got lost amid the chablis and the berets. Here's a situation that happens all the time: Couple are in a sexual relationship. They don't want kids. So she's on the pill, or has an IUD, or a diaphragm, and/or he uses a condom. But she gets pregnant anyway.
Now they've already expressed thei intent not to have a child; thtey've taken responsibility and steps to avoid pregnancy. But if thte regimen fails, then she should have to stay pregnant?
Why?
What happened was clearly an accident, contrary to their intentions. And let's furthher stipulate that they're married, just to remove that 'eeevil fornication' factor.
Why should the woman be punished because they experienced an accident?
My mother was an "accident", her mother was supposed to be too old to conceive but she did anyways. Life doesn't always deal you the hand you think it will despite taking precautions. I would hope that if the couple absolutely did not want children that they would put theirs up for adoption, rather than aborting it. That would seem to be the ultimate responsible choice if you ask me, and you did.
You would hope?
That's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about you ordering them.
Not allowing them to consider.
Forcing them.
If there were a birth control method available that was 100% certain to prevent pregnancy, would you support a total abortion ban except in cases where the mothers life or health were in danger?
Abortion will never be banned, in my view, strictly on the immorality of it. But medical technology will advance to the point where we will be able to eliminate unwanted pregnancies with near 100% certainty which will, in effect, end abortions except for the cases where the mothers life or health is at risk. Or conversely, a developing fetus will be able to be removed from a woman without killing it and it will be placed in an alternative development chamber. Either way, it's just a matter of time before this sad procedure is outdated and unnecessary.
We look at slavery today with incredulity that people could actually believe back then that it was okay to own slaves. The concept is horrific on its face. In the same way, a future society will look back on our time and wonder with the same credulity how we could abort our own flesh and blood for the sake of convenience.
Why should the baby be punished because of something that he or she didn't do?
If you believe a fetus is life and it has a soul and believe in a religion where an afterlife is one of the tenets then all these fetuses are in heaven, paradise or whatever else is similar to those in other religions.
The Bible makes it clear that very young children who die go to heaven automatically as well. Should it be all right to kill a 4 year old kid as well simply because he or she will automatically go to heaven?
I don't believe in the bible.
Is there an equivalent to Godwin's law for using the Bible as a source in a legal and ethical discussion?
Just call it "Huntington's Corollary."
Kill all 4-year olds! Oops.
This is the first sensible post I've seen fromyou.
I would consider a 4 year old a human being. I don't consider a zygote, an embryo or a fetus (up until viability) a human being.
Where in the Bible?
The Bible also says that children should be stoned to death for disobeying their parents.
As for abortion: Exodus 21:22 If men strive an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
According to the Bible, causing a woman to miscarry is a civil offense payable by a fine determined by the wronged party (the husband, of course...)
Murdering a baby is punishable by death.
Q.E. D.
The US has killed plenty of Iraqi children.
The economic sanctions imposed by the US and UN on Iraq led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children at or under the age of 5. I don't remember the pro-lifers holding vigils for them.
Pro-lifers only care about a baby until it is born. Then it to hell with it. They don't care that 1 in 5 children lives in poverty in this country or that the US ranks in the 40s in infant mortaility rate.
Why is killing an embryo punishing it?
Faux Noise should interview the new Republican Candidate from South Dakota and get his take on incest and abortion.
Jul 5 2007 4:03PMAssociated PressSIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) A state representative from Canton is the first Republican to step forward in the race for his party's 2008 U-S Senate nomination.Joel Dykstra says he has filed declaration of candidacy forms with the Federal Election Commission that are required for preparation of a Senate campaign.The seat is now held by two-term Democrat Tim Johnson, who has not been on the Senate floor since suffering a brain hemorrhage in December. Johnson is recovering at home and has not yet said whether he's running for re-election.Dykstra was elected to the South Dakota House in 2002 and is in his third term.
Republican Dykstra Described Rape, Incest as “Buzzword,” Said not Everybody “understands what it means”South Dakota State Representative Joel Dykstra, who last year described rape and incest as a “buzzword” and said that “not everybody who says that really understands what it means,” declared his intention to run for the United States Senate today.
“Once again, the Republican party has turned to the fringes of the far right to find a candidate for Senate,” DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. “Joel Dykstra showed how out of the touch with the mainstream he is when he belittled victims of rape and incest last year. With one comment, he showed that while he may be a fitting recruit for the Republican Party, he’s not fit for the United States Senate.”
Joel Dykstra’s Macaca Moment:
"I think 'rape and incest' is a buzzword. It's a bit of a throwaway line and not everybody who says that really understands what that means. How are you going to define that?” --South Dakota state Rep. Joel Dykstra (R-Lincoln County) on why the state legislature didn't include those exceptions in its abortion ban, April 20, 2006.
More dumbing down of the Republican Party I guess..
How about discussing whether or not abortion is a conservative issue?
"21 percent of respondents said "abortion should not be permitted," 37 percent said it "should be available but under stricter limits then [sic] it is now," and 39 percent said "abortion should be generally available to those who want it."
I interpret this to mean 21% are the right wing, 39% are the left wing, and 37% are the moderates. Since the right wing is the conservative base of today, I'd say they are outnumbered by the liberals by 18%. And since recent studies show us that moderates are currently leaning left, that obviously means that 76% of the country favor a more liberal position on abortion.
You should always post supporting facts to base your assertions on...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/05/independent-voters-swing-_n_55118.html
This one's for you, Wes!
The moderates are not leaning left when it comes to abortion since the 37% you have pegged here as "moderates" support more abortion restrictions than we currently have. I don't believe that is the liberal position but you can correct me if you can show me where liberals favor more abortion restrictions than we currently have.
From the link I provided:
A major survey [pdf] seeking to identify characteristics of independent voters, conducted by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University, found that unaligned voters view the Democratic Party favorably by a 55-41 margin, and the Republican Party unfavorably, 55-41. Independents were asked which party they prefer on 10 different issues, and they chose the Democrats on nine issues, including healthcare, 48-20; the situation in Iraq, 44-28; global warming, 49-21; and on such social issues as abortion and gay marriage, 43-26. The only issue on which independents preferred Republicans was "the U.S. campaign against terrorism," 39 GOP, 30 Democrat.
Very well, the Independent voters cited in your survey favor Dems on abortion. The problem is that the Dem-Rep positions on abortion are not the same as the liberal/conservative positions. For example, the Republican Party position is mainly pro-life and the Democratic Party position is mainly pro-choice so it's easy to see how the Democrats win that issue. But citing the survey above when 37% favor legalized abortions with MORE restrictions than we currently have that is not the liberal position. That is a more conservative position to move towards greater restrictions, which makes Jason Mattera essentially correct in his analysis with the exception that he should not have said "ban" he should have said "more restrictions".
No, I think it's a more moderate position. The conservative position of today pushes for a total ban of abortions and favors abstinance only education, positions no one else supports. today's conservative is not a true conservative, and this guy is not speaking for the conservative of yore, he's speaking for the conservative party of today.
HI, My name is Mattera.... since I've been voted student activist of the year for two years, I'm entitled to SAY WHATEVER THE HECK I WANT!!
The vagina police are out in full force today. RinoHunter, would you be willing to serve as one of the first vagina police in the US that forcibly take a woman to a medical facility to have her uterus examined to see if she had an abortion? How long should her prison sentence be?
In all countries where abortion are illegal, the police examine womens' vaginas if they suspect her of having an abortion. I think the Constitution would not support such a gross violation of individual freedom. It violates the FOURTH amendment.