General Discussion

dsc

(52,668 posts)

20. A couple of things

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 10:53 PM

Jun 2012

One, a person can be pro choice but not think there is a federal right to abortion embedded in the right to privacy. So one can answer the poll question yes and still be a member of DU in good standing.

Two, this poll is intended to be an analogy of Kagan's statement in regards to marriage equality.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please answer this question "yes" or "no." [View all] Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 OP

No TeamPooka Jun 2012 #1

No. Aristus Jun 2012 #2

Yes. nt AJTheMan Jun 2012 #3

Thank you for your honesty. (nt) Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #4

Don't feed the trolls lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #5

Answer the question. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #8

No. Meaning "no, I won't answer your question." lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #9

Okay. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #10

So you don't like Kagan. lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #14

Fallacy. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #17

The jurist is not anti-gay...nt SidDithers Jun 2012 #28

So ProSense Jun 2012 #51

It's not a "right to abortion" but a "right to privacy" HubertHeaver Jun 2012 #6

No prevarication. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #7

You are barking up the wrong tree. HubertHeaver Jun 2012 #12

Then would you tolerate a Democratic nominee who would say Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #13

Now you are changing the original statement. HubertHeaver Jun 2012 #22

Thank you. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #31

I took your bait. As someone up-thread implied, HubertHeaver Jun 2012 #47

Three reasons. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #61

This poll isn't about abortion at all... SidDithers Jun 2012 #26

A simple yes or no answer... kentuck Jun 2012 #16

No prevarication. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #18

I would not tolerate such a divisive question... kentuck Jun 2012 #24

Answer the question. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #34

Your question is not worthy of a yes or no answer. kentuck Jun 2012 #35

Then you have no right to discuss Elena Kagan. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #36

That is not what you asked in your poll. kentuck Jun 2012 #37

I don't think that word means what you think it means kdmorris Jun 2012 #48

I was about to post the same thing. Chiyo-chichi Jun 2012 #56

I think that was what my caffeine deprived brain kdmorris Jun 2012 #57

Answer this question first... SidDithers Jun 2012 #11

No. Chorophyll Jun 2012 #15

You don't. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #19

I believe I just did that. Chorophyll Jun 2012 #21

My apologies. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #23

A couple of things dsc Jun 2012 #20

Not entirely. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #29

The civil right of a person to own and posses a firearm for self defense (per Heller) is attacked kelly1mm Jun 2012 #43

To be honest? Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #60

And to clarify and emphasize: Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #33

I agree GCP Jun 2012 #52

Nope. And I find the entire idea absurd that they would need say anything... clang1 Jun 2012 #25

Pass.... this is a moot and irrelevant question Gman Jun 2012 #27

No prevarication. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #30

Sorry to disrupt your black and white world Gman Jun 2012 #42

That word does not mean what you think it does. Ikonoklast Jun 2012 #50

I know which word I used Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #58

HRC on Elena Kagen... SidDithers Jun 2012 #32

+100 n/t Tx4obama Jun 2012 #39

The HRC does not speak for the majority of LGBT Americans n/t FreeState Jun 2012 #41

Neither does Pab...nt SidDithers Jun 2012 #55

The Beatles! TlalocW Jun 2012 #38

No. EFerrari Jun 2012 #40

Yes. Nye Bevan Jun 2012 #44

You're good Brother Buzz Jun 2012 #46

Thank you. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #59

The question is ambiguous. geek tragedy Jun 2012 #45

I agree with that Douglas Carpenter Jun 2012 #66

This is like ProSense Jun 2012 #49

Not every good thing is a Constitutional right Macoy51 Jun 2012 #54

I voted 'no' but obviously it is not for me to 'tolerate' another country's judges or otherwise LeftishBrit Jun 2012 #53

No nominee would say it to begin with... cynatnite Jun 2012 #62

Yet, a nominee DID say that Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #63

That's disingenuous... cynatnite Jun 2012 #64

Civil rights are civil rights Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #65

You are still being disingenuous... cynatnite Jun 2012 #79

I can see there is no discussing things logically with you. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #82

That is not true... cynatnite Jun 2012 #84

No Bettie Jun 2012 #67

No JonLP24 Jun 2012 #68

This is sort of a trick question, I think. I voted 'no' then realized coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #69

As you doubtless know, you give too little info for a rational choice to be made dmallind Jun 2012 #70

Just answer the question. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #71

Just ask a question that makes sense dmallind Jun 2012 #76

It makes sense. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #78

No, but the Supremes don't usually check with me. Vidar Jun 2012 #72

Yes One_Life_To_Give Jun 2012 #73

Yes sarisataka Jun 2012 #74

Kick for Elena Kagen... SidDithers Jun 2012 #75

It depends. AngryAmish Jun 2012 #77

This is really about gay marriage... cynatnite Jun 2012 #80

Not at all. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #81

You cannot expect to get the answer you want when you are being so disingenuous. n/t cynatnite Jun 2012 #83

I have no idea whether or not abortion is a constitutional right RZM Jun 2012 #85