Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Vice President debate

Posted by Anonymous   + Show Post
I thought the debate was terrible, the moderator was a complete idiot and was obviously for Obama. She asked stupid questions about abortion which isn't a main topic, she should been asking questions about the economy. Also Biden was laughing and interrupting nonstop, he completely embarrassed himself. I thought Ryan did good he kept it together. I thought the debate was poorly put together though they shoulda never had that woman be the moderator she was terrible.
Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 12, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Replies (101-110):
AdellesMom
by on Oct. 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM
I don't send my kids to public school because the public schools suck where I live. That has nothing to do with the Feds and everything to do with the state and area that I live in though. There are great public schools where I'm getting ready to move to. But, my husband likes private school better.
Quoting bmw29:

LOL That doesn't even make sense. So you think the federal government is doing a fine job with the PS system but won't ever send your children there? I don't send my child to PS either but it's partly because I believe that they are failing at an alarming rate mostly due to federal involvement.

Quoting AdellesMom:

Oh, I know what the constitution says. Abortion isn't a state issue. If it was, then Roe v. Wade would be unconstitutional. As it stands, it isn't unconstitutional. Also, states already have a say with abortion because abortion laws vary state by state.





I disagree about the schools. But, I don't send my kids to public school and I never will.




Quoting bmw29:

Schools need lots of help because the federal government has been sticking their nose in it for years. LOL Nothing our federal government has ever touched has not turned into shit.







State rights are protected by the constitution. It really doesn't matter if you agree/disagree with that it's simply fact. Abortion should be a state issue and the people of that state should worry about electing people that will see things their way.






Quoting AdellesMom:

Well, I disagree. The Feds are supposed to step in when states are in over their heads. ;) I don't want people having a say on what I can and cannot do with my body. I don't want it overturned. Also, schools need lots of help. lol







Quoting bmw29:

I agree with him on this issue and I'm not even against abortion. The simple fact is that it never should have been a federal law anyway. Constitutionally this is a state matter that the federal government needs to butt out of. Just like they need to keep their incompetent noses out of schools.









Quoting AdellesMom:

" But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. "













http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values












Quoting hautemama83:

Link it













Quoting AdellesMom:

That's not true. Romney's website says that they'd overturn it, and Ryan said that they'd overturn it if they could last night.

















Quoting hautemama83:

They've already said they wouldn't. But aside from that to you honestly believe roe v wade would be turned over after standing for years? What would be the basis for overturning it?
Quoting Sunshinebee0502:

 I'm just curious why do you think they couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade?


Quoting Anonymous:

Abortions are not an issue!!!! They would have a snowballs chance in hell overturning Roe v. Wade. I enjoyed the debate it was lively and much better than the presidental debate.

 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
AdellesMom
by on Oct. 12, 2012 at 11:57 AM
There's plenty lax in your understanding. No, I'm not "campaigning."

You're saying that the choice won't e taken away if one state outlaws abortion. My point is that the choice would be taken away for the residents of that state. You're arguing on a technicality. Technically, the choice wouldn't be taken away because they could go somewhere else. That's a weak argument.

Why is that argument weak? Well, the choice has still been taken away for the residents of that state--which is the point.

To answer your question: shit happens. It's not feasible for someone to drive across the country (the only reason I said "drive across the country" is because MS is in the Bible Belt and the other states in the belt would likely follow suit) for an abortion. Shit happens.

It's erroneous to think that you should have a say in someone else's life because of your personal beliefs.

Going elsewhere may not be a big deal to you. But, it very likely is a big deal for someone else.


Quoting hautemama83:

There's nothing lax about my understanding. You're simply to busy "campaigning" to see my point. But with that said, why would having to go elsewhere be a huge deal?



Its not.




Quoting AdellesMom:

*Facepalm*





You have reading comprehension issues. I'm saying that if one state outlaws abortion, it takes away choice in that state. Why can't you understand that? If all 50 states outlawed abortion, the choice would be taken away in all 50 states.





No, my argument isn't weak. You're lax in your understanding.






Quoting hautemama83:

Because ultimately the choice is still there. No one is saying one would have to drive across the country to obtain an abortion, but the melodramatics are entertaining. Yes your argument is weak. Very weak in fact. One state allowing the legality of abortion go to vote and possibly be outlawed, does not take away the choice everywhere.
Quoting AdellesMom:

LOL! My argument isn't weak. You can disagree. But, that doesn't make my argument weak. Nice try at fallacious logic.



I'm not arguing just for myself, I'm arguing for everyone. If Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal (if Romney got his way) then that choice would be taken away from the residents of Mississippi. You're being illogical here.



I mean, who's going to drive all the way across the country for an abortion? Certainly don't know anyone that would, and I think that it's erroneous and just plain dumb to think that it's not feasible to have someone drive across Te country for an abortion.



So, the choice wouldn't be there if Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Quoting hautemama83:

It takes away *the* choice (since you don't plan on abortion) for who? What's stopping individuals from going elsewhere? Nothing. The choice is still there. Your pro-choice argument is weak.



Quoting AdellesMom:

I'm not pregnant. So, no. lol







Outlawing it does take away my choice. That's the truth. Plus, forcing people to do something they don't want to do never works out well.






Quoting hautemama83:

You plan on aborting?









Outlawing it in one state doesn't take away your choice. The choice is still there, just less accessible.








Quoting AdellesMom:

Because no one should have a say over what I do with my body.









Quoting hautemama83:

Why is that unacceptable?











Quoting AdellesMom:

He wants to overturn it. If it becomes a "voter issue" it's at risk of being outlawed in some states. That's unacceptable.













Quoting hautemama83:

So in other words it should be a voter issue. What's wrong with that?















Quoting AdellesMom:

" But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. "



















http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values


















Quoting hautemama83:

Link it



















Quoting AdellesMom:

That's not true. Romney's website says that they'd overturn it, and Ryan said that they'd overturn it if they could last night.





























Quoting hautemama83:

They've already said they wouldn't. But aside from that to you honestly believe roe v wade would be turned over after standing for years? What would be the basis for overturning it?
Quoting Sunshinebee0502:

 I'm just curious why do you think they couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade?


Quoting Anonymous:

Abortions are not an issue!!!! They would have a snowballs chance in hell overturning Roe v. Wade. I enjoyed the debate it was lively and much better than the presidental debate.

 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
hautemama83
by Emerald Member on Oct. 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM
But why is it a big deal? That's the question. Why wouldn't it be feasible?

You're basing your argument here on an assumption. There's no way any of us know whether or not other states would follow suit.


Quoting AdellesMom:

There's plenty lax in your understanding. No, I'm not "campaigning."



You're saying that the choice won't e taken away if one state outlaws abortion. My point is that the choice would be taken away for the residents of that state. You're arguing on a technicality. Technically, the choice wouldn't be taken away because they could go somewhere else. That's a weak argument.



Why is that argument weak? Well, the choice has still been taken away for the residents of that state--which is the point.



To answer your question: shit happens. It's not feasible for someone to drive across the country (the only reason I said "drive across the country" is because MS is in the Bible Belt and the other states in the belt would likely follow suit) for an abortion. Shit happens.



It's erroneous to think that you should have a say in someone else's life because of your personal beliefs.



Going elsewhere may not be a big deal to you. But, it very likely is a big deal for someone else.




Quoting hautemama83:

There's nothing lax about my understanding. You're simply to busy "campaigning" to see my point. But with that said, why would having to go elsewhere be a huge deal?





Its not.






Quoting AdellesMom:

*Facepalm*







You have reading comprehension issues. I'm saying that if one state outlaws abortion, it takes away choice in that state. Why can't you understand that? If all 50 states outlawed abortion, the choice would be taken away in all 50 states.







No, my argument isn't weak. You're lax in your understanding.








Quoting hautemama83:

Because ultimately the choice is still there. No one is saying one would have to drive across the country to obtain an abortion, but the melodramatics are entertaining. Yes your argument is weak. Very weak in fact. One state allowing the legality of abortion go to vote and possibly be outlawed, does not take away the choice everywhere.
Quoting AdellesMom:

LOL! My argument isn't weak. You can disagree. But, that doesn't make my argument weak. Nice try at fallacious logic.



I'm not arguing just for myself, I'm arguing for everyone. If Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal (if Romney got his way) then that choice would be taken away from the residents of Mississippi. You're being illogical here.



I mean, who's going to drive all the way across the country for an abortion? Certainly don't know anyone that would, and I think that it's erroneous and just plain dumb to think that it's not feasible to have someone drive across Te country for an abortion.



So, the choice wouldn't be there if Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Quoting hautemama83:

It takes away *the* choice (since you don't plan on abortion) for who? What's stopping individuals from going elsewhere? Nothing. The choice is still there. Your pro-choice argument is weak.



Quoting AdellesMom:

I'm not pregnant. So, no. lol







Outlawing it does take away my choice. That's the truth. Plus, forcing people to do something they don't want to do never works out well.






Quoting hautemama83:

You plan on aborting?









Outlawing it in one state doesn't take away your choice. The choice is still there, just less accessible.








Quoting AdellesMom:

Because no one should have a say over what I do with my body.









Quoting hautemama83:

Why is that unacceptable?











Quoting AdellesMom:

He wants to overturn it. If it becomes a "voter issue" it's at risk of being outlawed in some states. That's unacceptable.













Quoting hautemama83:

So in other words it should be a voter issue. What's wrong with that?















Quoting AdellesMom:

" But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. "



















http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values


















Quoting hautemama83:

Link it



















Quoting AdellesMom:

That's not true. Romney's website says that they'd overturn it, and Ryan said that they'd overturn it if they could last night.































Quoting hautemama83:

They've already said they wouldn't. But aside from that to you honestly believe roe v wade would be turned over after standing for years? What would be the basis for overturning it?
Quoting Sunshinebee0502:

 I'm just curious why do you think they couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade?


Quoting Anonymous:

Abortions are not an issue!!!! They would have a snowballs chance in hell overturning Roe v. Wade. I enjoyed the debate it was lively and much better than the presidental debate.

 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Apollos82
by Silver Member on Oct. 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM
1 mom liked this
AdellesMom, you are touting party lines, and poorly so. I suggest more research and fact-checking on your own before you continue to allow such nonsensical blathering to spew from your mouth.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
AdellesMom
by on Oct. 12, 2012 at 12:10 PM
I answered your question. Why? Because shit happens--just like I stated earlier. People don't have transportation...anything is possible.

Uhmm...yes, there's a way to know. It's the Bible Belt--red states with ass backwards views. Really?


Quoting hautemama83:

But why is it a big deal? That's the question. Why wouldn't it be feasible?



You're basing your argument here on an assumption. There's no way any of us know whether or not other states would follow suit.




Quoting AdellesMom:

There's plenty lax in your understanding. No, I'm not "campaigning."





You're saying that the choice won't e taken away if one state outlaws abortion. My point is that the choice would be taken away for the residents of that state. You're arguing on a technicality. Technically, the choice wouldn't be taken away because they could go somewhere else. That's a weak argument.





Why is that argument weak? Well, the choice has still been taken away for the residents of that state--which is the point.





To answer your question: shit happens. It's not feasible for someone to drive across the country (the only reason I said "drive across the country" is because MS is in the Bible Belt and the other states in the belt would likely follow suit) for an abortion. Shit happens.





It's erroneous to think that you should have a say in someone else's life because of your personal beliefs.





Going elsewhere may not be a big deal to you. But, it very likely is a big deal for someone else.






Quoting hautemama83:

There's nothing lax about my understanding. You're simply to busy "campaigning" to see my point. But with that said, why would having to go elsewhere be a huge deal?







Its not.








Quoting AdellesMom:

*Facepalm*









You have reading comprehension issues. I'm saying that if one state outlaws abortion, it takes away choice in that state. Why can't you understand that? If all 50 states outlawed abortion, the choice would be taken away in all 50 states.









No, my argument isn't weak. You're lax in your understanding.










Quoting hautemama83:

Because ultimately the choice is still there. No one is saying one would have to drive across the country to obtain an abortion, but the melodramatics are entertaining. Yes your argument is weak. Very weak in fact. One state allowing the legality of abortion go to vote and possibly be outlawed, does not take away the choice everywhere.
Quoting AdellesMom:

LOL! My argument isn't weak. You can disagree. But, that doesn't make my argument weak. Nice try at fallacious logic.



I'm not arguing just for myself, I'm arguing for everyone. If Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal (if Romney got his way) then that choice would be taken away from the residents of Mississippi. You're being illogical here.



I mean, who's going to drive all the way across the country for an abortion? Certainly don't know anyone that would, and I think that it's erroneous and just plain dumb to think that it's not feasible to have someone drive across Te country for an abortion.



So, the choice wouldn't be there if Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Quoting hautemama83:

It takes away *the* choice (since you don't plan on abortion) for who? What's stopping individuals from going elsewhere? Nothing. The choice is still there. Your pro-choice argument is weak.



Quoting AdellesMom:

I'm not pregnant. So, no. lol







Outlawing it does take away my choice. That's the truth. Plus, forcing people to do something they don't want to do never works out well.






Quoting hautemama83:

You plan on aborting?









Outlawing it in one state doesn't take away your choice. The choice is still there, just less accessible.








Quoting AdellesMom:

Because no one should have a say over what I do with my body.









Quoting hautemama83:

Why is that unacceptable?











Quoting AdellesMom:

He wants to overturn it. If it becomes a "voter issue" it's at risk of being outlawed in some states. That's unacceptable.













Quoting hautemama83:

So in other words it should be a voter issue. What's wrong with that?















Quoting AdellesMom:

" But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. "



















http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values


















Quoting hautemama83:

Link it



















Quoting AdellesMom:

That's not true. Romney's website says that they'd overturn it, and Ryan said that they'd overturn it if they could last night.

































Quoting hautemama83:

They've already said they wouldn't. But aside from that to you honestly believe roe v wade would be turned over after standing for years? What would be the basis for overturning it?
Quoting Sunshinebee0502:

 I'm just curious why do you think they couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade?


Quoting Anonymous:

Abortions are not an issue!!!! They would have a snowballs chance in hell overturning Roe v. Wade. I enjoyed the debate it was lively and much better than the presidental debate.

 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
AdellesMom
by on Oct. 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Seriously? LOL

I literally LOL'D!!

You haven't contributed anything of substance in this thread. Give me a break.

I'm not touting party lines and I've done plenty of research and fact checking.

I'm not the one being nonsensical.

Good lord.
Quoting Apollos82:

AdellesMom, you are touting party lines, and poorly so. I suggest more research and fact-checking on your own before you continue to allow such nonsensical blathering to spew from your mouth.



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Apollos82
by Silver Member on Oct. 12, 2012 at 12:15 PM
1 mom liked this
Just because they aren't your views, they are backwards? Nice.

Typical liberal fashion, thinking that anyone that doesn't agree with them is PURPOSEFULLY being "ass backwards" when in reality, their convictions are just as strong as yours, and just as well researched and founded--though I doubt you have researched as much as you claim.


Quoting AdellesMom:

I answered your question. Why? Because shit happens--just like I stated earlier. People don't have transportation...anything is possible.



Uhmm...yes, there's a way to know. It's the Bible Belt--red states with ass backwards views. Really?




Quoting hautemama83:

But why is it a big deal? That's the question. Why wouldn't it be feasible?





You're basing your argument here on an assumption. There's no way any of us know whether or not other states would follow suit.






Quoting AdellesMom:

There's plenty lax in your understanding. No, I'm not "campaigning."







You're saying that the choice won't e taken away if one state outlaws abortion. My point is that the choice would be taken away for the residents of that state. You're arguing on a technicality. Technically, the choice wouldn't be taken away because they could go somewhere else. That's a weak argument.







Why is that argument weak? Well, the choice has still been taken away for the residents of that state--which is the point.







To answer your question: shit happens. It's not feasible for someone to drive across the country (the only reason I said "drive across the country" is because MS is in the Bible Belt and the other states in the belt would likely follow suit) for an abortion. Shit happens.







It's erroneous to think that you should have a say in someone else's life because of your personal beliefs.







Going elsewhere may not be a big deal to you. But, it very likely is a big deal for someone else.








Quoting hautemama83:

There's nothing lax about my understanding. You're simply to busy "campaigning" to see my point. But with that said, why would having to go elsewhere be a huge deal?









Its not.










Quoting AdellesMom:

*Facepalm*











You have reading comprehension issues. I'm saying that if one state outlaws abortion, it takes away choice in that state. Why can't you understand that? If all 50 states outlawed abortion, the choice would be taken away in all 50 states.











No, my argument isn't weak. You're lax in your understanding.












Quoting hautemama83:

Because ultimately the choice is still there. No one is saying one would have to drive across the country to obtain an abortion, but the melodramatics are entertaining. Yes your argument is weak. Very weak in fact. One state allowing the legality of abortion go to vote and possibly be outlawed, does not take away the choice everywhere.
Quoting AdellesMom:

LOL! My argument isn't weak. You can disagree. But, that doesn't make my argument weak. Nice try at fallacious logic.



I'm not arguing just for myself, I'm arguing for everyone. If Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal (if Romney got his way) then that choice would be taken away from the residents of Mississippi. You're being illogical here.



I mean, who's going to drive all the way across the country for an abortion? Certainly don't know anyone that would, and I think that it's erroneous and just plain dumb to think that it's not feasible to have someone drive across Te country for an abortion.



So, the choice wouldn't be there if Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Quoting hautemama83:

It takes away *the* choice (since you don't plan on abortion) for who? What's stopping individuals from going elsewhere? Nothing. The choice is still there. Your pro-choice argument is weak.



Quoting AdellesMom:

I'm not pregnant. So, no. lol







Outlawing it does take away my choice. That's the truth. Plus, forcing people to do something they don't want to do never works out well.






Quoting hautemama83:

You plan on aborting?









Outlawing it in one state doesn't take away your choice. The choice is still there, just less accessible.








Quoting AdellesMom:

Because no one should have a say over what I do with my body.









Quoting hautemama83:

Why is that unacceptable?











Quoting AdellesMom:

He wants to overturn it. If it becomes a "voter issue" it's at risk of being outlawed in some states. That's unacceptable.













Quoting hautemama83:

So in other words it should be a voter issue. What's wrong with that?















Quoting AdellesMom:

" But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. "



















http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values


















Quoting hautemama83:

Link it



















Quoting AdellesMom:

That's not true. Romney's website says that they'd overturn it, and Ryan said that they'd overturn it if they could last night.



































Quoting hautemama83:

They've already said they wouldn't. But aside from that to you honestly believe roe v wade would be turned over after standing for years? What would be the basis for overturning it?
Quoting Sunshinebee0502:

 I'm just curious why do you think they couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade?


Quoting Anonymous:

Abortions are not an issue!!!! They would have a snowballs chance in hell overturning Roe v. Wade. I enjoyed the debate it was lively and much better than the presidental debate.

 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
hautemama83
by Emerald Member on Oct. 12, 2012 at 12:19 PM
1 mom liked this
LOL if they don't have transportation how are the going to get to any clinic, in their state or not? You keep saying "shit happens" so like what? Quit talking out of your ass and prove your point.

Quoting AdellesMom:

I answered your question. Why? Because shit happens--just like I stated earlier. People don't have transportation...anything is possible.



Uhmm...yes, there's a way to know. It's the Bible Belt--red states with ass backwards views. Really?




Quoting hautemama83:

But why is it a big deal? That's the question. Why wouldn't it be feasible?





You're basing your argument here on an assumption. There's no way any of us know whether or not other states would follow suit.






Quoting AdellesMom:

There's plenty lax in your understanding. No, I'm not "campaigning."







You're saying that the choice won't e taken away if one state outlaws abortion. My point is that the choice would be taken away for the residents of that state. You're arguing on a technicality. Technically, the choice wouldn't be taken away because they could go somewhere else. That's a weak argument.







Why is that argument weak? Well, the choice has still been taken away for the residents of that state--which is the point.







To answer your question: shit happens. It's not feasible for someone to drive across the country (the only reason I said "drive across the country" is because MS is in the Bible Belt and the other states in the belt would likely follow suit) for an abortion. Shit happens.







It's erroneous to think that you should have a say in someone else's life because of your personal beliefs.







Going elsewhere may not be a big deal to you. But, it very likely is a big deal for someone else.








Quoting hautemama83:

There's nothing lax about my understanding. You're simply to busy "campaigning" to see my point. But with that said, why would having to go elsewhere be a huge deal?









Its not.










Quoting AdellesMom:

*Facepalm*











You have reading comprehension issues. I'm saying that if one state outlaws abortion, it takes away choice in that state. Why can't you understand that? If all 50 states outlawed abortion, the choice would be taken away in all 50 states.











No, my argument isn't weak. You're lax in your understanding.












Quoting hautemama83:

Because ultimately the choice is still there. No one is saying one would have to drive across the country to obtain an abortion, but the melodramatics are entertaining. Yes your argument is weak. Very weak in fact. One state allowing the legality of abortion go to vote and possibly be outlawed, does not take away the choice everywhere.
Quoting AdellesMom:

LOL! My argument isn't weak. You can disagree. But, that doesn't make my argument weak. Nice try at fallacious logic.



I'm not arguing just for myself, I'm arguing for everyone. If Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal (if Romney got his way) then that choice would be taken away from the residents of Mississippi. You're being illogical here.



I mean, who's going to drive all the way across the country for an abortion? Certainly don't know anyone that would, and I think that it's erroneous and just plain dumb to think that it's not feasible to have someone drive across Te country for an abortion.



So, the choice wouldn't be there if Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Quoting hautemama83:

It takes away *the* choice (since you don't plan on abortion) for who? What's stopping individuals from going elsewhere? Nothing. The choice is still there. Your pro-choice argument is weak.



Quoting AdellesMom:

I'm not pregnant. So, no. lol







Outlawing it does take away my choice. That's the truth. Plus, forcing people to do something they don't want to do never works out well.






Quoting hautemama83:

You plan on aborting?









Outlawing it in one state doesn't take away your choice. The choice is still there, just less accessible.








Quoting AdellesMom:

Because no one should have a say over what I do with my body.









Quoting hautemama83:

Why is that unacceptable?











Quoting AdellesMom:

He wants to overturn it. If it becomes a "voter issue" it's at risk of being outlawed in some states. That's unacceptable.













Quoting hautemama83:

So in other words it should be a voter issue. What's wrong with that?















Quoting AdellesMom:

" But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. "



















http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values


















Quoting hautemama83:

Link it



















Quoting AdellesMom:

That's not true. Romney's website says that they'd overturn it, and Ryan said that they'd overturn it if they could last night.



































Quoting hautemama83:

They've already said they wouldn't. But aside from that to you honestly believe roe v wade would be turned over after standing for years? What would be the basis for overturning it?
Quoting Sunshinebee0502:

 I'm just curious why do you think they couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade?


Quoting Anonymous:

Abortions are not an issue!!!! They would have a snowballs chance in hell overturning Roe v. Wade. I enjoyed the debate it was lively and much better than the presidental debate.

 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
AdellesMom
by on Oct. 12, 2012 at 12:22 PM
No. They're ass backwards because certain views would set this country back at least 60 years.

Anyhow, this isn't "typical liberal fashion." Produce something of substance and then I'll take you seriously.

I've done plenty of research. Tell that to my computer hard drive, word documents, spreadsheets, and jump drives...


Quoting Apollos82:

Just because they aren't your views, they are backwards? Nice.



Typical liberal fashion, thinking that anyone that doesn't agree with them is PURPOSEFULLY being "ass backwards" when in reality, their convictions are just as strong as yours, and just as well researched and founded--though I doubt you have researched as much as you claim.




Quoting AdellesMom:

I answered your question. Why? Because shit happens--just like I stated earlier. People don't have transportation...anything is possible.





Uhmm...yes, there's a way to know. It's the Bible Belt--red states with ass backwards views. Really?






Quoting hautemama83:

But why is it a big deal? That's the question. Why wouldn't it be feasible?







You're basing your argument here on an assumption. There's no way any of us know whether or not other states would follow suit.








Quoting AdellesMom:

There's plenty lax in your understanding. No, I'm not "campaigning."









You're saying that the choice won't e taken away if one state outlaws abortion. My point is that the choice would be taken away for the residents of that state. You're arguing on a technicality. Technically, the choice wouldn't be taken away because they could go somewhere else. That's a weak argument.









Why is that argument weak? Well, the choice has still been taken away for the residents of that state--which is the point.









To answer your question: shit happens. It's not feasible for someone to drive across the country (the only reason I said "drive across the country" is because MS is in the Bible Belt and the other states in the belt would likely follow suit) for an abortion. Shit happens.









It's erroneous to think that you should have a say in someone else's life because of your personal beliefs.









Going elsewhere may not be a big deal to you. But, it very likely is a big deal for someone else.










Quoting hautemama83:

There's nothing lax about my understanding. You're simply to busy "campaigning" to see my point. But with that said, why would having to go elsewhere be a huge deal?











Its not.












Quoting AdellesMom:

*Facepalm*













You have reading comprehension issues. I'm saying that if one state outlaws abortion, it takes away choice in that state. Why can't you understand that? If all 50 states outlawed abortion, the choice would be taken away in all 50 states.













No, my argument isn't weak. You're lax in your understanding.














Quoting hautemama83:

Because ultimately the choice is still there. No one is saying one would have to drive across the country to obtain an abortion, but the melodramatics are entertaining. Yes your argument is weak. Very weak in fact. One state allowing the legality of abortion go to vote and possibly be outlawed, does not take away the choice everywhere.
Quoting AdellesMom:

LOL! My argument isn't weak. You can disagree. But, that doesn't make my argument weak. Nice try at fallacious logic.



I'm not arguing just for myself, I'm arguing for everyone. If Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal (if Romney got his way) then that choice would be taken away from the residents of Mississippi. You're being illogical here.



I mean, who's going to drive all the way across the country for an abortion? Certainly don't know anyone that would, and I think that it's erroneous and just plain dumb to think that it's not feasible to have someone drive across Te country for an abortion.



So, the choice wouldn't be there if Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Quoting hautemama83:

It takes away *the* choice (since you don't plan on abortion) for who? What's stopping individuals from going elsewhere? Nothing. The choice is still there. Your pro-choice argument is weak.



Quoting AdellesMom:

I'm not pregnant. So, no. lol







Outlawing it does take away my choice. That's the truth. Plus, forcing people to do something they don't want to do never works out well.






Quoting hautemama83:

You plan on aborting?









Outlawing it in one state doesn't take away your choice. The choice is still there, just less accessible.








Quoting AdellesMom:

Because no one should have a say over what I do with my body.









Quoting hautemama83:

Why is that unacceptable?











Quoting AdellesMom:

He wants to overturn it. If it becomes a "voter issue" it's at risk of being outlawed in some states. That's unacceptable.













Quoting hautemama83:

So in other words it should be a voter issue. What's wrong with that?















Quoting AdellesMom:

" But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. "



















http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values


















Quoting hautemama83:

Link it



















Quoting AdellesMom:

That's not true. Romney's website says that they'd overturn it, and Ryan said that they'd overturn it if they could last night.





































Quoting hautemama83:

They've already said they wouldn't. But aside from that to you honestly believe roe v wade would be turned over after standing for years? What would be the basis for overturning it?
Quoting Sunshinebee0502:

 I'm just curious why do you think they couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade?


Quoting Anonymous:

Abortions are not an issue!!!! They would have a snowballs chance in hell overturning Roe v. Wade. I enjoyed the debate it was lively and much better than the presidental debate.

 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
AdellesMom
by on Oct. 12, 2012 at 12:25 PM
...because public transportation doesn't exist in some areas! *Sarcasm*

Shit happens. I was trying to make it clear. I was trying to make it easy for you to understand. I'm not talking out of my ass and I have made my point. I've made it on more than one occasion. You just disagree--that's fine. I don't care.

Like what? Like tragedies. It's not feasible because it's wrong to expect someone to live the way you think they should live. I've already stated this.

This is thoroughly entertaining.


Quoting hautemama83:

LOL if they don't have transportation how are the going to get to any clinic, in their state or not? You keep saying "shit happens" so like what? Quit talking out of your ass and prove your point.



Quoting AdellesMom:

I answered your question. Why? Because shit happens--just like I stated earlier. People don't have transportation...anything is possible.





Uhmm...yes, there's a way to know. It's the Bible Belt--red states with ass backwards views. Really?






Quoting hautemama83:

But why is it a big deal? That's the question. Why wouldn't it be feasible?







You're basing your argument here on an assumption. There's no way any of us know whether or not other states would follow suit.








Quoting AdellesMom:

There's plenty lax in your understanding. No, I'm not "campaigning."









You're saying that the choice won't e taken away if one state outlaws abortion. My point is that the choice would be taken away for the residents of that state. You're arguing on a technicality. Technically, the choice wouldn't be taken away because they could go somewhere else. That's a weak argument.









Why is that argument weak? Well, the choice has still been taken away for the residents of that state--which is the point.









To answer your question: shit happens. It's not feasible for someone to drive across the country (the only reason I said "drive across the country" is because MS is in the Bible Belt and the other states in the belt would likely follow suit) for an abortion. Shit happens.









It's erroneous to think that you should have a say in someone else's life because of your personal beliefs.









Going elsewhere may not be a big deal to you. But, it very likely is a big deal for someone else.










Quoting hautemama83:

There's nothing lax about my understanding. You're simply to busy "campaigning" to see my point. But with that said, why would having to go elsewhere be a huge deal?











Its not.












Quoting AdellesMom:

*Facepalm*













You have reading comprehension issues. I'm saying that if one state outlaws abortion, it takes away choice in that state. Why can't you understand that? If all 50 states outlawed abortion, the choice would be taken away in all 50 states.













No, my argument isn't weak. You're lax in your understanding.














Quoting hautemama83:

Because ultimately the choice is still there. No one is saying one would have to drive across the country to obtain an abortion, but the melodramatics are entertaining. Yes your argument is weak. Very weak in fact. One state allowing the legality of abortion go to vote and possibly be outlawed, does not take away the choice everywhere.
Quoting AdellesMom:

LOL! My argument isn't weak. You can disagree. But, that doesn't make my argument weak. Nice try at fallacious logic.



I'm not arguing just for myself, I'm arguing for everyone. If Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal (if Romney got his way) then that choice would be taken away from the residents of Mississippi. You're being illogical here.



I mean, who's going to drive all the way across the country for an abortion? Certainly don't know anyone that would, and I think that it's erroneous and just plain dumb to think that it's not feasible to have someone drive across Te country for an abortion.



So, the choice wouldn't be there if Mississippi decided to make abortion illegal. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Quoting hautemama83:

It takes away *the* choice (since you don't plan on abortion) for who? What's stopping individuals from going elsewhere? Nothing. The choice is still there. Your pro-choice argument is weak.



Quoting AdellesMom:

I'm not pregnant. So, no. lol







Outlawing it does take away my choice. That's the truth. Plus, forcing people to do something they don't want to do never works out well.






Quoting hautemama83:

You plan on aborting?









Outlawing it in one state doesn't take away your choice. The choice is still there, just less accessible.








Quoting AdellesMom:

Because no one should have a say over what I do with my body.









Quoting hautemama83:

Why is that unacceptable?











Quoting AdellesMom:

He wants to overturn it. If it becomes a "voter issue" it's at risk of being outlawed in some states. That's unacceptable.













Quoting hautemama83:

So in other words it should be a voter issue. What's wrong with that?















Quoting AdellesMom:

" But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. "



















http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values


















Quoting hautemama83:

Link it



















Quoting AdellesMom:

That's not true. Romney's website says that they'd overturn it, and Ryan said that they'd overturn it if they could last night.





































Quoting hautemama83:

They've already said they wouldn't. But aside from that to you honestly believe roe v wade would be turned over after standing for years? What would be the basis for overturning it?
Quoting Sunshinebee0502:

 I'm just curious why do you think they couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade?


Quoting Anonymous:

Abortions are not an issue!!!! They would have a snowballs chance in hell overturning Roe v. Wade. I enjoyed the debate it was lively and much better than the presidental debate.

 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured