What percent of your life has the US been at war?

[Sope Creek]

Interesting chart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fe-the-united-states-has-been-at-war/?hpid=z5

During my lifetime the US has been at war 41% of the time . . .

. . . 56% of my oldest's life has been during war time . . . and 61.5% of my youngest's . . .

. . . 37% of my mother's life has been when the US has been at war, at that include WWII, the Korean conflict, Viet Nam, both Iraqs and Afghanistan . . .

So, why are we more at war now than before? Is it because of our technological advances that make the world small enough and inexpensive enough for societies to decide to go to war almost on a whim? (This reminds me of Patton's disdain for war without glory.) Is it because our ability to communicate has exceeded our capacity to digest the information we receive and make decisions based on long-view perspectives and wisdom? Is it because of population increases that outstrip short-term ability of societies to develop economies that fully support quality lives of their societies' members?

Or is the seeming increase simply an illusion . . . because the data included is too small of a sample . . . and societies have been at war far more often and far more violently than we are today?

 

[davegolf]

The Judge who is still alive although failing in health lived through WW!, WWII, the Korean conflict, Viet Nam, both Iraqs and Afghanistan Even though I am older than Sope I would assume our percentages are the same except maybe the Korean War during which I was alive and vaguely have recollection of the Armistice.

 

[Sope Creek]

The Judge who is still alive although failing in health lived through WW!, WWII, the Korean conflict, Viet Nam, both Iraqs and Afghanistan Even though I am older than Sope I would assume our percentages are the same except maybe the Korean War during which I was alive and vaguely have recollection of the Armistice.

Dave, what percentage of the judge's life has been lived during war time?

I'm gonna guess that even though he's lived through more wars, he's also seen much more peacetime than folks who are 20 to 25 years old today.

Someone born in 1941 would have been alive during war time only 12 years by the time they were 25 years old.

Is that proportion of peacetime behind us now?

 

[davegolf]

What years are you using for each war. My numbers appear by percentage to be a little different.

 

[Sope Creek]

What years are you using for each war. My numbers appear by percentage to be a little different.

4 for WWII, 2 for Korean and 6 for Viet Nam . . . up to 1966.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Interesting chart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fe-the-united-states-has-been-at-war/?hpid=z5

During my lifetime the US has been at war 41% of the time . . .

. . . 56% of my oldest's life has been during war time . . . and 61.5% of my youngest's . . .

. . . 37% of my mother's life has been when the US has been at war, at that include WWII, the Korean conflict, Viet Nam, both Iraqs and Afghanistan . . .

So, why are we more at war now than before? Is it because of our technological advances that make the world small enough and inexpensive enough for societies to decide to go to war almost on a whim? (This reminds me of Patton's disdain for war without glory.) Is it because our ability to communicate has exceeded our capacity to digest the information we receive and make decisions based on long-view perspectives and wisdom? Is it because of population increases that outstrip short-term ability of societies to develop economies that fully support quality lives of their societies' members?

Or is the seeming increase simply an illusion . . . because the data included is too small of a sample . . . and societies have been at war far more often and far more violently than we are today?

I think it may be more accurate to qualify "war" as "declared war", because we are pretty much always somewhere shooting at someone. Some of these places just aren't officially war zones or in countries with whom we've officially declared war even though we have soldiers or drones shooting at someone. To me that's warfare and by extension war.

 

[Sope Creek]

I think it may be more accurate to qualify "war" as "declared war", because we are pretty much always somewhere shooting at someone. Some of these places just aren't officially war zones or in countries with whom we've officially declared war even though we have soldiers or drones shooting at someone. To me that's warfare and by extension war.

Nope. Congress hasn't been asked to declare war on another country since WWII. Korea? Nope. Viet Nam? Nope. Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Nope. Iraq II? Nope.

Not even Grenada . . . .

 

[hoot1]

If you include The Cold War which was a period of economic, political and military tension between the United States and Soviet Union which lasted from 1945 to 1991 the percentages change dramatically.

The Cold War was in many ways an extension of WWII and took the United States from a non-military nation to our current superpower status. As the world's military and economic superpower we have assumed the role as the world's policeman. When the Cold War ended in 1991, many of our leaders warned us that the world was still a dangerous place. Most will argue these fears were correct as the war against terrorism has come along to perpetuate the requirement that we remain the world's policeman.

In our Cold War conflict with communism the U.S. set out to prove that a capitalist/democracy could provide prosperity to its people more effectively than communism. Consequently we continually raised benefits under such programs as Social Security along with adding Medicare. Both of our political parties for the most part supported these social programs. Thus the Cold War period in many ways has shaped our budget to this very day with its entitlements and defense spending.

So in the final analysis, war and the preparation for war against feared threats has dominated almost 100% of my life.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Nope. Congress hasn't been asked to declare war on another country since WWII. Korea? Nope. Viet Nam? Nope. Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Nope. Iraq II? Nope.

Not even Grenada . . . .

That's right, they are called "extended engagements" or something like that. I still think it's closer to 100% for everyone. We have "combat equipped and ready" troops everywhere helping with and engaging in warfare. Look at all the African nations we send combat troops into. You never hear much because it's only around 100 at a time, but they are there to help fight in whatever is going on. To me that's war. I just wonder how much better this country could be if we didn't spend so much on war. I may not have the number exactly right, but I think we spend more on defense (war) than the next 12-13 countries combined. I say "war" because the "defense dept" used to be the "war dept" and it was headed by the secretary of war, not defense. They just found you could sell it to the American people much much easier if you called it defense. "Defense spending!!!", "defense budget!!!", "see!?!?, look at the name!!! We're defending ourselves!!!" It easier when it sounds like we're the victim. I know you and everyone else is aware of this...it's just a rant.

 

[davegolf]

I think it may be more accurate to qualify "war" as "declared war", because we are pretty much always somewhere shooting at someone. Some of these places just aren't officially war zones or in countries with whom we've officially declared war even though we have soldiers or drones shooting at someone. To me that's warfare and by extension war.

This is not meant by any mean to be a dig but I think you are using a politically correct term for the left because they abhor conflict and don't want to take a responsibility unless it is "declared".

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

This is not meant by any mean to be a dig but I think you are using a politically correct term for the left because they abhor conflict and don't want to take a responsibility unless it is "declared".

Any civilized human beings "abhor" conflict. I thought that was especially true for Christians. I vote and I am therefore "responsible" for what my government does.

 

[Ladoga]

"Conflict". Does the left abhor conflict or war? Conflict, unless there exists armed engagement is not war. The left, however, does abhor 'conflict' - those events in which someone disagrees with the spread of international socialism. Today's 'left' has the same definition of peace that the old Soviet Union had - absence of active resistance to communism/socialism.

I just wish some one on that side had the balls to admit the left's commitment to and adoration of socialism. If its a good idea, stand for it and be honest about your intentions. Then we'll see if the electorate agrees.

But the left only abhors war when waged against their darlings around the world.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This is not meant by any mean to be a dig but I think you are using a politically correct term for the left because they abhor conflict and don't want to take a responsibility unless it is "declared".

"Conflict". Does the left abhor conflict or war? Conflict, unless there exists armed engagement is not war. The left, however, does abhor 'conflict' - those events in which someone disagrees with the spread of international socialism. Today's 'left' has the same definition of peace that the old Soviet Union had - absence of active resistance to communism/socialism.

I just wish some one on that side had the balls to admit the left's commitment to and adoration of socialism. If its a good idea, stand for it and be honest about your intentions. Then we'll see if the electorate agrees.

But the left only abhors war when waged against their darlings around the world.

These are two of the most worthless posts I've seen on here in some time, and show very clearly why our conversations tend toward animosity instead of engagement.

Here's an idea Dave, Ladoga, and all others who have demonstrated that you have absolutely no respect for your political opponents and no desire to have genuine conversations with them: go the hell away. You are ruining this board.

 

[Ladoga]

These are two of the most worthless posts I've seen on here in some time, and show very clearly why our conversations tend toward animosity instead of engagement.

Here's an idea Dave, Ladoga, and all others who have demonstrated that you have absolutely no respect for your political opponents and no desire to have genuine conversations with them: go the hell away. You are ruining this board.

Well, its you raising all the hell and calling names. Earn some respect. You don't earn it by just getting a password and showing up. Nothing associated with the left and its political intentions is a respectable direction for the country. I don't hate the left, I just have utter disdain for their policies. They're counter America.

 

[Ladoga]

These are two of the most worthless posts I've seen on here in some time, and show very clearly why our conversations tend toward animosity instead of engagement.

Here's an idea Dave, Ladoga, and all others who have demonstrated that you have absolutely no respect for your political opponents and no desire to have genuine conversations with them: go the hell away. You are ruining this board.

And while on the subject, you might want to memorize this. It appears to apply directly to you. Fortunately for you and the likes of you there are people - lots of people - who will keep you safe.


"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And while on the subject, you might want to memorize this. It appears to apply directly to you. Fortunately for you and the likes of you there are people - lots of people - who will keep you safe.


"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill

Right over your head.

 

[Sope Creek]

Well, its you raising all the hell and calling names. Earn some respect. You don't earn it by just getting a password and showing up. Nothing associated with the left and its political intentions is a respectable direction for the country. I don't hate the left, I just have utter disdain for their policies. They're counter America.

With every post you presume to represent America. You do not. You think America is you, and anything not you can't be America.

Well, you're wrong. It's why I have no respect for you, Iron. And let's be clear; you have earned that - no respect - every day you have appeared here.

You're in no position to tell Goat or anybody else what to do here. So . . . for yet another time . . . pound sand.

 

[hoot1]

Ladoga and Dave,

I really don't think the American left has any fondness for socialism or communism as in government ownership, but instead prefers private ownership as in capitalism. This doesn't mean, however, that the left doesn't accept some government regulation of business (especially to promote competition along with protecting consumers) and generally promotes what has been referred to as safety net programs. Thus the left and right share many of the same values, but differ on the extent to which government becomes involved.

The same can be said about war and peace and military deployment. The Democrat president Harry Truman's administration initiated the Cold War. John Kennedy took us into Vietnam, and Lyndon Johnson greatly expanded our troop involvement and loss of lives. On the other hand Democrat George McGovern was against our involvement in Vietnam. Lately Barack Obama was elected at least partly to withdraw our troops from the Middle East.

Thus Democrats, often called the left, have a mixed bag on the subject of war and peace from my perspective. Nevertheless, this isn't to say Republicans haven't consistently prided themselves on wanting a strong military and being willing to use it. I don't recall any Republicans being called peaceniks. Interestingly this could change with libertarian Republicans such as Rand Paul questioning military deployments.

So if the subject is capitalism versus socialism/communism I don't see much of a difference between the American left and right. As to war and peace, Democrats and the left are a mixed bag with the right holding steady for the time being.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Well, its you raising all the hell and calling names. Earn some respect. You don't earn it by just getting a password and showing up. Nothing associated with the left and its political intentions is a respectable direction for the country. I don't hate the left, I just have utter disdain for their policies. They're counter America.

Believe me, Goat doesn't need me or anyone else to defend him, but I'll say he's earned far more respect on this board than you have. He takes the time to present well thought out and articulated arguments that you likely write off as "liberal elitism", when everyone else reads it and says "that makes sense". In a sense I've simply chosen to sink to your level most of the time. It's all you understand. I know I could have you eating out of my hand if started appealing to you with racist and bigoted undertones in my posts, especially if I sprinkled a little Jesus on top. Just know that when I do include Christians and Jesus in some posts, I'm not making fun of them, I'm making fun of you and people like you.

 

[Noodle]

Should we also count the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the War on Obesity, the War on Stupidity, etc.?

 

[VanPastorMan]

Ladoga and Dave,

I really don't think the American left has any fondness for socialism or communism as in government ownership, but instead prefers private ownership as in capitalism. This doesn't mean, however, that the left doesn't accept some government regulation of business (especially to promote competition along with protecting consumers) and generally promotes what has been referred to as safety net programs. Thus the left and right share many of the same values, but differ on the extent to which government becomes involved.

The same can be said about war and peace and military deployment. The Democrat president Harry Truman's administration initiated the Cold War. John Kennedy took us into Vietnam, and Lyndon Johnson greatly expanded our troop involvement and loss of lives. On the other hand Democrat George McGovern was against our involvement in Vietnam. Lately Barack Obama was elected at least partly to withdraw our troops from the Middle East.

Thus Democrats, often called the left, have a mixed bag on the subject of war and peace from my perspective. Nevertheless, this isn't to say Republicans haven't consistently prided themselves on wanting a strong military and being willing to use it. I don't recall any Republicans being called peaceniks. Interestingly this could change with libertarian Republicans such as Rand Paul questioning military deployments.

So if the subject is capitalism versus socialism/communism I don't see much of a difference between the American left and right. As to war and peace, Democrats and the left are a mixed bag with the right holding steady for the time being.

I see today's language from liberals as very telling. When I hear the word regulation,which comes mostly from the left what I really hear is control. If the EPA can tell someone because they have a pond on their land what they can and can't do then I like most Americans are uncomfortable with that kind of control. Isn't control the essence of socialism? It's not government ownership,but government control over land,products,and people. As far as war goes. I think both parties have to understand that this is a dangerous world. There really are groups out there that hate us and would destroy our way of life if given the chance, hence a strong military makes sense. It's not warmongering. It's protecting ourselves and our interests. People who have guns in their home aren't warmongers. They don't want someone to enter their home to steal and harm them. But they are prepared if it does happen.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I see today's language from liberals as very telling. When I hear the word regulation,which comes mostly from the left what I really hear is control. If the EPA can tell someone because they have a pond on their land what they can and can't do then I like most Americans are uncomfortable with that kind of control. Isn't control the essence of socialism? It's not government ownership,but government control over land,products,and people. As far as war goes. I think both parties have to understand that this is a dangerous world. There really are groups out there that hate us and would destroy our way of life if given the chance, hence a strong military makes sense. It's not warmongering. It's protecting ourselves and our interests. People who have guns in their home aren't warmongers. They don't want someone to enter their home to steal and harm them. But they are prepared if it does happen.

Your pond seeps into the groundwater my well draws from. It's not about controlling you; it's about protecting me.

 

[hoot1]

I see today's language from liberals as very telling. When I hear the word regulation,which comes mostly from the left what I really hear is control. If the EPA can tell someone because they have a pond on their land what they can and can't do then I like most Americans are uncomfortable with that kind of control. Isn't control the essence of socialism? It's not government ownership,but government control over land,products,and people. As far as war goes. I think both parties have to understand that this is a dangerous world. There really are groups out there that hate us and would destroy our way of life if given the chance, hence a strong military makes sense. It's not warmongering. It's protecting ourselves and our interests. People who have guns in their home aren't warmongers. They don't want someone to enter their home to steal and harm them. But they are prepared if it does happen.

When it comes to such matters such as the attractive nuisance doctrine whereby laws (regulations) involving this doctrine are passed, shouldn't government be given the right to make sure landowners have some responsibilities? Shouldn't ownership require owners of say land and businesses to take precautions when their actions may put people and the community at risk?

Pastor, I would bet you aren't much concerned about laws which prohibit bars from having naked dancers. Is this any worse than a pond which can contaminate the environment for neighbors living nearby?

I spent several years of my life fighting local government restrictions on the use of commercial property before zoning boards. These restrictions (regulations) were passed to serve the interests of the community. In order to gain exemptions from these regulations we had to prove to a board that an exemption was in the best interest of the community. The point I am trying to make is that all regulations supposedly serve the public; and when they don't, there are courses of action which can be taken to end the regulations.

 

[VanPastorMan]

When it comes to such matters such as the attractive nuisance doctrine whereby laws (regulations) involving this doctrine are passed, shouldn't government be given the right to make sure landowners have some responsibilities? Shouldn't ownership require owners of say land and businesses to take precautions when their actions may put people and the community at risk?

Pastor, I would bet you aren't much concerned about laws which prohibit bars from having naked dancers. Is this any worse than a pond which can contaminate the environment for neighbors living nearby?

I spent several years of my life fighting local government restrictions on the use of commercial property before zoning boards. These restrictions (regulations) were passed to serve the interests of the community. In order to gain exemptions from these regulations we had to prove to a board that an exemption was in the best interest of the community. The point I am trying to make is that all regulations supposedly serve the public; and when they don't, there are courses of action which can be taken to end the regulations.

Hoot your nudie bar example is a local concern. I am for all local municipalities voting on what kind of life they want as long as it doesn't offend constitutional laws. If a local government decided that a pond was causing health concerns then they should act by local law. Local laws are where it's at in my view because this is where we live, and the government in the local arena has to look into the faces of their constituents. It is a lot easier to make laws perhaps 1000's of miles away in Washington.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Hoot your nudie bar example is a local concern. I am for all local municipalities voting on what kind of life they want as long as it doesn't offend constitutional laws. If a local government decided that a pond was causing health concerns then they should act by local law. Local laws are where it's at in my view because this is where we live, and the government in the local arena has to look into the faces of their constituents. It is a lot easier to make laws perhaps 1000's of miles away in Washington.

Local law might work for nudie bars. It doesn't work for environmental protections.

 

[mjvcaj]

Interesting chart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fe-the-united-states-has-been-at-war/?hpid=z5

During my lifetime the US has been at war 41% of the time . . .

. . . 56% of my oldest's life has been during war time . . . and 61.5% of my youngest's . . .

. . . 37% of my mother's life has been when the US has been at war, at that include WWII, the Korean conflict, Viet Nam, both Iraqs and Afghanistan . . .

So, why are we more at war now than before? Is it because of our technological advances that make the world small enough and inexpensive enough for societies to decide to go to war almost on a whim? (This reminds me of Patton's disdain for war without glory.) Is it because our ability to communicate has exceeded our capacity to digest the information we receive and make decisions based on long-view perspectives and wisdom? Is it because of population increases that outstrip short-term ability of societies to develop economies that fully support quality lives of their societies' members?

Or is the seeming increase simply an illusion . . . because the data included is too small of a sample . . . and societies have been at war far more often and far more violently than we are today?

Doesn't it depend on your definition of war? I'd say 100% of the time.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Here's an idea Dave, Ladoga, and all others who have demonstrated that you have absolutely no respect for your political opponents and no desire to have genuine conversations with them: go the hell away. You are ruining this board.

There are also several on your side that have amply demonstrated they have absolutely no respect for their political opponents and have no desire for legitimate conversations. Many on both sides have gotten increasingly disrespectful and hard headed on nearly every issue. This place has become seriously irritating all around and I've been visiting less and less because of it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There are also several on your side that have amply demonstrated they have absolutely no respect for their political opponents and have no desire for legitimate conversations. Many on both sides have gotten increasingly disrespectful and hard headed on nearly every issue. This place has become seriously irritating all around and I've been visiting less and less because of it.

That's a shame. When the good posters post less, that just exacerbates the problem. Like a positive feedback loop. Runaway global warming, but instead of warming, assholes.

 

[Ladoga]

When it comes to such matters such as the attractive nuisance doctrine whereby laws (regulations) involving this doctrine are passed, shouldn't government be given the right to make sure landowners have some responsibilities? Shouldn't ownership require owners of say land and businesses to take precautions when their actions may put people and the community at risk?

Pastor, I would bet you aren't much concerned about laws which prohibit bars from having naked dancers. Is this any worse than a pond which can contaminate the environment for neighbors living nearby?

I spent several years of my life fighting local government restrictions on the use of commercial property before zoning boards. These restrictions (regulations) were passed to serve the interests of the community. In order to gain exemptions from these regulations we had to prove to a board that an exemption was in the best interest of the community. The point I am trying to make is that all regulations supposedly serve the public; and when they don't, there are courses of action which can be taken to end the regulations.

The socialism of today's Democratic Party isn't about government ownership. It is the control of intrusive laws and regulations, far too often enacted by the unelected bureaucrats appointed by federal, state and local administrations. It is control without the risk/responsibility of ownership. It is as harmful as the old socialism of government ownership of enterprise. The left whole heartedly embraces it. What appears to be the objective of the new socialism as we see it in leftist policy is control of too much capital, control and effective ownership of people's lives in order to obtain their votes keeping them dependent on the controllers and control of those votes by redistribution from earners to non-earners. It works just fine if all you want from them is the certainty that they will vote for the guy who will give them stuff. But the harm it does to individual people and society as a whole is readily seen and easily measured in dependency on government, people not working and the tumult we see in the areas where the largest control is practiced. The horror stories of St. Louis, Baltimore, parts of New York, Detroit and too many other places like those is the direct result of liberal policies in place.

 

[Sope Creek]

Doesn't it depend on your definition of war? I'd say 100% of the time.

It does, and that's a good question regarding the methodology used for the results. My guess - and it's only a guess - is that the study was done using a definition of "war" that is similar to what the Veterans Administration uses for determining eligibility for certain War-Time benefits. See the War-Time or Peace-Time service description linked below.

http://www.veteranaid.org/docs/Periods_of_War.pdf

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

The socialism of today's Democratic Party isn't about government ownership. It is the control of intrusive laws and regulations, far too often enacted by the unelected bureaucrats appointed by federal, state and local administrations. It is control without the risk/responsibility of ownership. It is as harmful as the old socialism of government ownership of enterprise. The left whole heartedly embraces it. What appears to be the objective of the new socialism as we see it in leftist policy is control of too much capital, control and effective ownership of people's lives in order to obtain their votes keeping them dependent on the controllers and control of those votes by redistribution from earners to non-earners. It works just fine if all you want from them is the certainty that they will vote for the guy who will give them stuff. But the harm it does to individual people and society as a whole is readily seen and easily measured in dependency on government, people not working and the tumult we see in the areas where the largest control is practiced. The horror stories of St. Louis, Baltimore, parts of New York, Detroit and too many other places like those is the direct result of liberal policies in place.

LMAO!!! You mean intrusive government laws like wanting the government to tell women what the can and can't do with their bodies? Wanting the government to tell certain people they can't get married? Wanting the government to force women to have trans vaginal ultrasounds?

Small government? Right. You can blow that right out your ass.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

LMAO!!! You mean intrusive government laws like wanting the government to tell women what the can and can't do with their bodies? Wanting the government to tell certain people they can't get married? Wanting the government to force women to have trans vaginal ultrasounds?

Small government? Right. You can blow that right out your ass.

They mostly mean environmental regulations. Let's call it what it is. Environmental controls cost money and restrict business. That's a fact. I don't care that they do, because I think a clean environment is more important than unlimited economic growth, but "small government" doesn't really mean "small government." It means "I don't want the government restricting my ability to run my business simply to protect my neighbor from having his well water become flammable."

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

They mostly mean environmental regulations. Let's call it what it is. Environmental controls cost money and restrict business. That's a fact. I don't care that they do, because I think a clean environment is more important than unlimited economic growth, but "small government" doesn't really mean "small government." It means "I don't want the government restricting my ability to run my business simply to protect my neighbor from having his well water become flammable."

You and I know that. People like Lagoda (IronWorks) and Dave simply don't see it that way. If it's what they want passed, it can't possibly be "big government" because they listen to blow hards like Palin and Limbaugh who constantly spout "small government" and "freedom and liberty", yet they are in favor of extremely intrusive laws. I can't think of many things more intrusive than wanting to make a woman have to get a probe shoved up her vagina.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You and I know that. People like Lagoda (IronWorks) and Dave simply don't see it that way. If it's what they want passed, it can't possibly be "big government" because they listen to blow hards like Palin and Limbaugh who constantly spout "small government" and "freedom and liberty", yet they are in favor of extremely intrusive laws. I can't think of many things more intrusive than wanting to make a woman have to get a probe shoved up her vagina.

That is intrusive by definition.
The way the abortion debate is divided between the parties makes no ideological sense. It's simply the result of the fact that, during the late 70s and early 80s, the social conservatives latched onto one party. But there is nothing inherently liberal about being pro-choice and nothing inherently conservative about being pro-life.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

That is intrusive by definition.
The way the abortion debate is divided between the parties makes no ideological sense. It's simply the result of the fact that, during the late 70s and early 80s, the social conservatives latched onto one party. But there is nothing inherently liberal about being pro-choice and nothing inherently conservative about being pro-life.

I know what you mean, but I will never call anyone like that "pro-life". I would call them "pro-birth" at best. Anyone who wants to go to war as often as they do can't possibly be pro-life. Anyone who is ok with the environment being poisoned all to hell can't possibly be pro-life. Personally, I hate the fact that abortions happen. I think most people do, but that is my own personal belief and since I'll never have to make that terrible choice, I won't push that belief on anyone else.