People with disabilities vote

[Person Man]

Kind of typical that the politics of disability = autism and abortion to people here.

That's what almost anyone thinks is "sexy" to talk about when it comes to disability. Have you seen Bruno? Though that was like 4 years ago. But hey. The economy has been slow and thusly new fads have been as well. Hell, the only way Twilight was so popular is that it started just before we ran out of money.

[memphis]

Just about everybody has some sort of disability. Many are extremely common. Dyslexia. Inattention. Obesity. This thread needs a working definition to be meaningful. Perhaps people who receive Social Security. Or those who were classified as Special Education in school (though national special ed legislation wasn't passed until the 1970s; olds never had a chance under modern guidelines)

[nclib]

Well considering what the Republicans want to do to them, it is hard to imagine very many would vote that way.  Perhaps the few wealthy ones...

And before you talk about "what Republicans want to do to them", please consider thay Democrats want to abort them (at least if their impairmemts are known before birth.)

We pro choicers support the right to choose, not a modern day vision of eugenics. If they female wants to abort her baby with down syndrome that is all up to her decision, not what you or any of us think.

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome. Even if the raw numbers of Down Syndrome fetuses being aborted (other disabilities are harder to detect in the womb) were higher among Democrats, this would only be due to abortion access overall, and wouldn't disproportionately be an issue to people with disabilities.

Shifting away from abortion, the GOP attitude is not good towards people with disabilities, at best they say that if one works hard, they can achieve what they want (people with disabilities have good reason to not go for this rhetoric), and at worst actively discriminate and/or are insensitive to such people's needs.

All that said, people with disabilities would lean leftist (esp. on issues where the free market would not work in their best interests), but in actuality less so than one may think.

[DC Al Fine]

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome.

I concur, and it bugs me immensely.

[memphis]

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome.

I concur, and it bugs me immensely.

Perhaps you should then learn to mind your own business. For the party of "small government" Republicans sure do want to get involved in people's personal lives.

[DC Al Fine]

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome.

I concur, and it bugs me immensely.

Perhaps you should then learn to mind your own business. For the party of "small government" Republicans sure do want to get involved in people's personal lives.

Do you really think it's that weird that people want the government to stop what they consider murder? Even Ron Paul/Gary Johnson support that as a legitimate roe of government.

[memphis]

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome.

I concur, and it bugs me immensely.

Perhaps you should then learn to mind your own business. For the party of "small government" Republicans sure do want to get involved in people's personal lives.

Do you really think it's that weird that people want the government to stop what they consider murder? Even Ron Paul/Gary Johnson support that as a legitimate roe of government.

You want to prosecute women who have an abortion for murder? Or do you want to charger the doctor with murder and charge the mother with hiring a hit man? That doesn't strike you as crazy?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why does this thread's title keep switching between "disabled" and "people with disability"? I don't care about PC either way, but let's settle on one or the other phrases.

[DC Al Fine]

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome.

I concur, and it bugs me immensely.

Perhaps you should then learn to mind your own business. For the party of "small government" Republicans sure do want to get involved in people's personal lives.

Do you really think it's that weird that people want the government to stop what they consider murder? Even Ron Paul/Gary Johnson support that as a legitimate roe of government.

You want to prosecute women who have an abortion for murder? Or do you want to charger the doctor with murder and charge the mother with hiring a hit man? That doesn't strike you as crazy?

Your question is irrelevant. What seems crazy to society has nothing to do with it's moral correctness. The abolition of slavery struck a lot of people as crazy, but it didn't make it any less right.

[memphis]

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome.

I concur, and it bugs me immensely.

Perhaps you should then learn to mind your own business. For the party of "small government" Republicans sure do want to get involved in people's personal lives.

Do you really think it's that weird that people want the government to stop what they consider murder? Even Ron Paul/Gary Johnson support that as a legitimate roe of government.

You want to prosecute women who have an abortion for murder? Or do you want to charger the doctor with murder and charge the mother with hiring a hit man? That doesn't strike you as crazy?

Your question is irrelevant. What seems crazy to society has nothing to do with it's moral correctness. The abolition of slavery struck a lot of people as crazy, but it didn't make it any less right.

Just so we're clear, you'd want to charge women who have an abortion with either murder or hiring a hit man, both of which are extremely serious felonies? You think that would be the "morally correct" thing to do?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Abortion is one of those things that's very difficult to justify from first principles yet almost completely impossible to ban with any degree of political or social success in the world, or at least this country, as it actually is.

[DC Al Fine]

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome.

I concur, and it bugs me immensely.

Perhaps you should then learn to mind your own business. For the party of "small government" Republicans sure do want to get involved in people's personal lives.

Do you really think it's that weird that people want the government to stop what they consider murder? Even Ron Paul/Gary Johnson support that as a legitimate roe of government.

You want to prosecute women who have an abortion for murder? Or do you want to charger the doctor with murder and charge the mother with hiring a hit man? That doesn't strike you as crazy?

Your question is irrelevant. What seems crazy to society has nothing to do with it's moral correctness. The abolition of slavery struck a lot of people as crazy, but it didn't make it any less right.

Just so we're clear, you'd want to charge women who have an abortion with either murder or hiring a hit man, both of which are extremely serious felonies? You think that would be the "morally correct" thing to do?

Personally, I'd create a crime like "procuring an abortion" which would carry a less severe punishment than a standard hit man felony. The doctor of course would be charged with 1st degree murder.

[memphis]

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome.

I concur, and it bugs me immensely.

Perhaps you should then learn to mind your own business. For the party of "small government" Republicans sure do want to get involved in people's personal lives.

Do you really think it's that weird that people want the government to stop what they consider murder? Even Ron Paul/Gary Johnson support that as a legitimate roe of government.

You want to prosecute women who have an abortion for murder? Or do you want to charger the doctor with murder and charge the mother with hiring a hit man? That doesn't strike you as crazy?

Your question is irrelevant. What seems crazy to society has nothing to do with it's moral correctness. The abolition of slavery struck a lot of people as crazy, but it didn't make it any less right.

Just so we're clear, you'd want to charge women who have an abortion with either murder or hiring a hit man, both of which are extremely serious felonies? You think that would be the "morally correct" thing to do?

Personally, I'd create a crime like "procuring an abortion" which would carry a less severe punishment than a standard hit man felony. The doctor of course would be charged with 1st degree murder.

Why the lesser charge? You said it was murder. The woman has hired a professional to carry out the murder. Dy definition, that's hiring a hit man. Sounds to me like you think that abortion is wrong, but not murder.

[DC Al Fine]

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome.

I concur, and it bugs me immensely.

Perhaps you should then learn to mind your own business. For the party of "small government" Republicans sure do want to get involved in people's personal lives.

Do you really think it's that weird that people want the government to stop what they consider murder? Even Ron Paul/Gary Johnson support that as a legitimate roe of government.

You want to prosecute women who have an abortion for murder? Or do you want to charger the doctor with murder and charge the mother with hiring a hit man? That doesn't strike you as crazy?

Your question is irrelevant. What seems crazy to society has nothing to do with it's moral correctness. The abolition of slavery struck a lot of people as crazy, but it didn't make it any less right.

Just so we're clear, you'd want to charge women who have an abortion with either murder or hiring a hit man, both of which are extremely serious felonies? You think that would be the "morally correct" thing to do?

Personally, I'd create a crime like "procuring an abortion" which would carry a less severe punishment than a standard hit man felony. The doctor of course would be charged with 1st degree murder.

Why the lesser charge? You said it was murder. The woman has hired a professional to carry out the murder. Dy definition, that's hiring a hit man. Sounds to me like you think that abortion is wrong, but not murder.

Different crimes beget different punishments. The lesser offense is more to keep lefties from getting their panties in a bunch anytime a woman wants to abort a rape baby or is too poor or whatever. I aware of the logical inconsistency.

[memphis]

But you just said that it wasn't a different crime. You said that it was muder. You chose that word, not me. Either it is murder or it isn't. We're not dealing with a logical inconsistancy. We're working on developing a consistent definition. Is abortion muder or not?

[DC Al Fine]

But you just said that it wasn't a different crime. You said that it was muder. You chose that word, not me. Either it is murder or it isn't. We're not dealing with a logical inconsistancy. We're working on developing a consistent definition. Is abortion muder or not?

Yes

[memphis]

But you just said that it wasn't a different crime. You said that it was muder. You chose that word, not me. Either it is murder or it isn't. We're not dealing with a logical inconsistancy. We're working on developing a consistent definition. Is abortion muder or not?

Yes

Ok. Hiring somebody to perform a murder is an extremely serious crime. You're advocating locking up women who seek abortion for decades. And they don't even have to have had the abortion. Just a sincere meeting with somebody who offers the service.  If you want to make it a lesser crime, you need to call it something else. Or advocate cfor lessening penalties for all murders for hire.

[DC Al Fine]

But you just said that it wasn't a different crime. You said that it was muder. You chose that word, not me. Either it is murder or it isn't. We're not dealing with a logical inconsistancy. We're working on developing a consistent definition. Is abortion muder or not?

Yes

Ok. Hiring somebody to perform a murder is an extremely serious crime. You're advocating locking up women who seek abortion for decades. And they don't even have to have had the abortion. Just a sincere meeting with somebody who offers the service.  If you want to make it a lesser crime, you need to call it something else. Or advocate cfor lessening penalties for all murders for hire.

You are aware of extenuating circumstances correct? Someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed their family and someone who steals a Gucci Bag are both guilty of theft, but they should be punished differently. If we use the standard liberal case of a single mother, their hiring a hit man is different from a mob boss hiring a hit man to kill a witness meant to testify against him.

Ideally I would create a 1st and 2nd degree of "hiring a hit man". Most cases of women seeking abortions would be 2nd degree. Both would be felonies and both would carry jail sentences, but the 1st degree would have a much longer sentence than the 2nd.

[Person Man]

But you just said that it wasn't a different crime. You said that it was muder. You chose that word, not me. Either it is murder or it isn't. We're not dealing with a logical inconsistancy. We're working on developing a consistent definition. Is abortion muder or not?

Yes

Ok. Hiring somebody to perform a murder is an extremely serious crime. You're advocating locking up women who seek abortion for decades. And they don't even have to have had the abortion. Just a sincere meeting with somebody who offers the service.  If you want to make it a lesser crime, you need to call it something else. Or advocate cfor lessening penalties for all murders for hire.

You are aware of extenuating circumstances correct? Someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed their family and someone who steals a Gucci Bag are both guilty of theft, but they should be punished differently. If we use the standard liberal case of a single mother, their hiring a hit man is different from a mob boss hiring a hit man to kill a witness meant to testify against him.

Ideally I would create a 1st and 2nd degree of "hiring a hit man". Most cases of women seeking abortions would be 2nd degree. Both would be felonies and both would carry jail sentences, but the 1st degree would have a much longer sentence than the 2nd.

People are not loaves of bread unless you live in some sort of 19th century 3/5ths a person world.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I'd love to know how people who were expelled from school vote.

[DC Al Fine]

I'd love to know how people who were expelled from school vote.

I suspect they have pretty low turnout and those that do vote, lean heavily Dem.

[Blackacre]

I'd love to know how people who were expelled from school vote.

I suspect they're low-turnout, low-information voters. They probably vote however their parents did or are undecideds.

[nclib]

I know this thread has turned into an abortion debate, but my point was about how people with disabilities wouldn't vote disproportionately about abortion:

Well considering what the Republicans want to do to them, it is hard to imagine very many would vote that way.  Perhaps the few wealthy ones...

And before you talk about "what Republicans want to do to them", please consider thay Democrats want to abort them (at least if their impairmemts are known before birth.)

We pro choicers support the right to choose, not a modern day vision of eugenics. If they female wants to abort her baby with down syndrome that is all up to her decision, not what you or any of us think.

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome. Even if the raw numbers of Down Syndrome fetuses being aborted (other disabilities are harder to detect in the womb) were higher among Democrats, this would only be due to abortion access overall, and wouldn't disproportionately be an issue to people with disabilities.

Shifting away from abortion, the GOP attitude is not good towards people with disabilities, at best they say that if one works hard, they can achieve what they want (people with disabilities have good reason to not go for this rhetoric), and at worst actively discriminate and/or are insensitive to such people's needs.

All that said, people with disabilities would lean leftist (esp. on issues where the free market would not work in their best interests), but in actuality less so than one may think.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Kind of typical that the politics of disability = autism and abortion to people here.

This forum makes me sick sometimes.

[DC Al Fine]

I know this thread has turned into an abortion debate, but my point was about how people with disabilities wouldn't vote disproportionately about abortion:

Well considering what the Republicans want to do to them, it is hard to imagine very many would vote that way.  Perhaps the few wealthy ones...

And before you talk about "what Republicans want to do to them", please consider thay Democrats want to abort them (at least if their impairmemts are known before birth.)

We pro choicers support the right to choose, not a modern day vision of eugenics. If they female wants to abort her baby with down syndrome that is all up to her decision, not what you or any of us think.

That all sounds good in theory, but in practice 90%+ of Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. For all the talk about what the GOP won't do for the disabled, at least they want them to make it out of the womb.

That would imply plenty of (otherwise) pro-life women aborting their Down Syndrome fetus (i.e. hypocrites). If one believes the fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's right to control her body, then they are hypocrites if the same doesn't apply to a fetus with Down Syndrome. Even if the raw numbers of Down Syndrome fetuses being aborted (other disabilities are harder to detect in the womb) were higher among Democrats, this would only be due to abortion access overall, and wouldn't disproportionately be an issue to people with disabilities.

Shifting away from abortion, the GOP attitude is not good towards people with disabilities, at best they say that if one works hard, they can achieve what they want (people with disabilities have good reason to not go for this rhetoric), and at worst actively discriminate and/or are insensitive to such people's needs.

All that said, people with disabilities would lean leftist (esp. on issues where the free market would not work in their best interests), but in actuality less so than one may think.

Fair enough. I'll go back on track.

I agree that most would lean left, but I also think a minority would be voting on abortion, euthansia etc. Some of the better off groups, particularly those with aspergers may have a libertarian lean.