Maco wrote:
If any Republican wins (I hope not...), looks like it better be McCain based on that. Based on other stuff, I've no idea. I'm not going to vote for a Republican, and I'm not going to bother picking one out to vote against before primaries.

I'm with you. I wanted to discuss the abortion questions, and since the site won't let me recommend a story twice, or reply twice to the same post, I guess I'll do it here...

And I think that's the thing we've got to really look at here, is, what are we doing? We talk about abortion, but abortion is a procedure. This is a life that we're talking about. And it's a terrible situation where there's a rape that's involved or incest.

But it nonetheless remains that this is a child that we're talking about doing this to, of ending the life of this child. Will that make the woman in a better situation if that's what takes place? And I don't think so, and I think we can explain it when we look at it for what it is: a beautiful child of a loving God, that we ought to protect in all circumstances in all places, here in the womb, somebody that's struggling in poverty, a family that's struggling. We should work and look at all life, be pro-life and whole-life for everybody.

I want some pro-lifers who share the aforementioned mindset to square that opinion with the universal Republican tenet of personal responsibility and a federal government that provides little to no entitlement programs.

I hear the above over and over again, and I've never once heard a mainstream candidate discuss the social and financial burden that child represents, and what the country's going to do about that. If someone has, I'd love a link or transcript.

Instead, it's all about protecting the life of the child and in other places about dismantling social programs in order to reduce taxes. How is it protecting a child to ensure that it must come to term in an environment that hasn't put into place a support structure to pay for it's existence?

You want to blame the kids who got drunk and got pregnant and say "Well, that was your fault... deal with the repurcussions." well, that's bad enough, but I'll call it ok for now. But in the case of a rape? You say the woman must come to term, then I say -- well, of course, I actually say that's bullshit and oppose it, but for the sake of this experiment, let's say -- that *AT LEAST* the government has a responsibility to ensure that funds exist for pre-natal care, child support for a woman who's raising this kid she didn't ask for or want, counseling services, daycare, medical benefits where necessary, educational stipends, etc. etc.

You *can* *not* force someone to do something against their will, due to an act that not only wasn't their fault, but in which they were a victim of a violent crime, and then cut them loose with regards to the costs inherent in that. I still don't consider such a situation morally sound, but even from the standpoint that abortion is murder I can't imagine less than what I've described could be considered an acceptable situation. "It's up to the community" is a bullshit non-response I've heard -- we all know just how open and supportive most people are when they don't have to be.

For once I'd like to see someone express a consistent support for "life" when they take a pro-life stand. As it is, they're not pro-life at all, just anti-abortion, and there is a WORLD of difference.

RE: Republican Presidential Candiates on Torture