ncmom wrote:...I also find it amusing that the NOT ALL but a lot of the same people who are pro killing unborn babies are the people who are anti death penalty. We can kill our children but not our criminals?...
Not interested in debating this topic (that's why my replies have been on topic until now), but I was thinking yesterday, as I read, how it's interesting that those who are pro-life are almost always pro-death penalty. That makes no sense either--why one and not the other? Yes, the plan is to put to death a murderer, but innocent people can and are put to death--even if one innocent life is taken in that situation, isn't that just as horrific?
I think the definition of an "unborn child" is where this argument seems to go awry. To have a logical debate about something, the basic starting point needs to be the same. It's not in this case. Those who are pro-life believe that a sperm and egg meeting constitutes a person, whereas an "unborn child" to someone who is pro-choice is a fetus that can live outside the mother.
So this will be an endless discussion with people going back and forth restating the same things over and over again with no conclusion.
But getting back to politics...
...the parties owning issues makes for a two-party system in which people often vote for someone in an attempt to prevent the other from winning, not because they passionately stand behind a politician. A Democrat who is pro-life would NEVER get the nomination and a Republican who is pro-choice will definitely lose. It's really unfortunate that the parties are so strictly defined. And people have been brainwashed into believing that a third-party candidate will never win--it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's what happened the first time Ross Perot ran--everyone I spoke to said that they would have voted for him, but they didn't want to "throw away their vote" (a media quote). I was registered Independent for years and have voted for Independents, Republicans, and Democrats (depending on the CANDIDATE), but a few years ago I gave in and changed my registration so I could vote in the Primaries. I don't always vote my party, though. I think that's rare.
Also, I think polls should be banned--they are proven to be subjective: a nun standing on a corner asking people if they are for the murdering of unborn children will get a far different poll result than a casually dressed woman asking people if a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions no matter what--the results would be totally different, even polling the same exact people. Also, psychologically speaking, there is a strong "group mentality"--and people want to be part of the "winning" team. It's been proven that poll results sway people--that's why in England, polling is (or at least was when I lived there) banned for 30-60 days prior to an election. I wish they would do that here in America.
It's sad that you won't find a Democrat who is totally on board with home schooling. I have written to candidates locally (running for Governor, Senator, etc.) asking them their views and I always get replies saying they are ok with it as long as there is strict government regulation. For some reason, that freedom of choice mentality goes by the wayside with regard to education.