Posted by James on 10/3/2007, 12:59 pm, in reply to "Re: Religious right threatens to run own candidate" And how long would it take for these proceedings to take place? And what guarantee do we have that the boards or panels will not consist of people whose views are so biased as to go constantly toward one extreme of the spectrum? That is a dangerous idea, and it is far too easily abused to restrict rights in either direction, even without the possibility of delayed proceedings. This idea of yours is one that sounds good at first, but even a cursory analysis of the potential problems shows that it is unwieldy and ultimately unworkable. "Simple due process would validate both the woman's needs, AND the child's humanity. Whether or not this process prevented any particular abortion, it would at least honor our nation as a nation where fairness and compassion play at least some role." Simple due process far too often takes too long and has some major drawbacks, a couple of which I barely mentioned. Mine is a far better compromise as far as feasability goes. "That is one of my "single-issue" decision points, and no candidate who flatly refuses to respect human life, at least to this minor extent, has any more hope of getting my vote than a KKK advocate of returning to slavery." I have absolutely zero single-issue decision points. I loathe candidates who pander to single-issue voting blocs. Just as I loathe candidates who go on and on about their family values and personal religious beliefs, as those have no bearing on their qualifications for office. I look at the stands the candidate makes on every issue, compare their statements with their voting track records where possible (to determine trustworthiness), and then compare that against my stances on the issues, obviously giving greater weight to some. Then I make a decision based on which candidate best matches my overall political viewpoints. I never let a single issue keep me from the best representative of my overall views.
199.80.67.241
"My personal view on abortion is that there are times when it is necessary. But the central issue should not be the woman's right to choose. It should be the right to life. To that end, I would simply require that the abortion be preceded by a fair hearing, one in which the woman's needs are fully expressed, and in which the unborn child has a voice through an advocate."
