You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. It is a little childish what this has become.
1. Obama didn't give a straight answer. Why? Because he knows it's a no win answer. No matter what he says,
1. Obama didn't give a straight answer. Why? Because he knows it's a no win answer. No matter what he says, he hurts himself. He wants to appeal to the evangelicals that believe he's a muslim who hates America, but he doesn't want to upset his fragile (at this moment) base. He's worried about the reaction on both sides so he tried to play it in the middle. It wasn't the perfect answer, but considering the circumstances. . .it was the best.
2. Obama was in a MUCH more difficult situation than McCain on that question. McCain only has one side to appeal to, and he knew what his answer would be. Those on the left weren't voting for him anyway, and his answer is safe on the right because, they weren't going to vote for that commie Obama regardless of McCain's position on abortion.
3. There isn't an "easy" answer for the question anyway. Leave it up to the doctors. Personal beliefs on abortion shouldn't factor into a Presidential race. If the question was, "Do you want to overturn Roe vs. Wade?", that's a fair question. Asking when life begins. . .well, who gives a ****? The President shouldn't factor in to that one bit.
I always believed that Pro-Choice thinking was this: The right to choose when/if to terminate the pregnancy trumps the birth rights of the baby. Using this Pro-Choice definition, it's perfectly reasonable to allow for ambiguity about defining a baby's birth rights. Couple this with scientific thinking, and you can easily be in the position of "I don't know, it's above my pay-grade."
It's unfortunate that Pro-Lifers require any unscientific definition to such a delicate question. I like to use the analogy of when does the sky start? Is the air an inch off the ground considered sky? How about a mile off the ground? What about 100 feet above the tallest sky scraper, is that sky?
SmytheKing
