Originally Posted by
fook
seems to me this amendment is designed for one thing, defining a person at conception thus defining abortion as murder. how do you rationalize being pro-choice and pro-life at the same time? doesn't one make you morally opposed to the other?
How I rationalize my pro-choice/pro-life stance is fairly simple(in my eyes). I'm for a woman being in control on her body. I'm for it being between her and her doctor and the man she made the baby with. I'm for a pro-choice stance if there is complications either to the woman or child, also in cases of rape or incest. Now I know the TV ads kept saying it would ban abortion and prosecute rape and incest cases. But I think you have to take some commercials with a grain of salt.
How I read the amendment, was that it just was to clarify when a person is a person. And nothing more, again this is how I read it.
Now as far as me being Pro-life, here's why. I don't believe in using abortion as a means of birth control because of wreckless behaviour. If you're adult enough to fool around with sex, then you're adult enough to accept the responsibilities that come with sex(i.e. pregnancies, or std's). And I believe that destroying a life you created just to get you off the hook is wrong and immoral.
So while I am for a woman's right to choose what happens to her body for medical reasons or reasons beyond her control, I'm Pro-Choice. But for someone to just use it as a means of birth control I'm against, and I'm Pro-Life.
Inevitably it's not me whom any woman answers to and the ramifications of such a decision will be delt with by her and her alone. Whatever physical or mental damage is caused, is unfortunately the nature of the beast.
i'm for it too, but annoyed that they have restrictions on where the funds go.
It's kind of what of those, you can't have your cake and eat it too scenerios. I'm a huge fan of Cripple Creek(it's a beautiful town) and I think it greatly adds to their tourism. Also I think it's a persons choice to spend as much as they see fit. So that's why it go a YES from me.
yes, except that if you read the details it was a bit wacked out, employers would be pretty anxious to leave colorado altogether, luckily this and the rest of the labor union proposed amendments(53,55,56,57) to counter 47 were dropped... they were all piss poor and anti business, last thing we need is to become france.
Well the choice of the worker is what I'm for. As said earlier, I think it should be up the worker to choose whether or not to join a Union. I'm all for a company having a Union, but I don't think it's right to force someone to join, in order to receive employment.
you just voted to keep giving oil companies the tax subsidy? you're already footing the bill.. this just would have taken the foot and shoved it up someone elses ass(education)... either way you didn't vote for "enough with taxes", you just voted to keep the incentives rolling into the oil/gas industry.
The way I look at it, is Oil companies employ people too, lots of people. If we run them out of Colorado, that just means more jobs lost. Gov. Ritter already wants to shut companies down 3 months out of the year, just to stifle production. Can you imagine what that will do to families who need to put food on the table those 3 months? Oil is here to stay, we just need to find ways of using less of it.