Which genius in that campaign decided having a guy who is at risk of being fired from his role as running mate be surrounded by people holding up signs saying “You’re Fired”? 
Reminds me of The Thick of It
The after birth part of the statement was bizarre. I am personally against both extremes, as I think are most people (No abortions allowed or No limits). I think the part of his segment on abortion (during the debate, and excluding the bizarre reference) was well put, in that he personally does not agree with abortion, yet people should decide through their conscience/heart (something like that). He might have also mentioned that he hoped some of the states would relax thier stance.
I am also curious about the definition between conservative/liberal in a list pov.
e.g.
Guns.
Free speech.
Freedom of religion.
Gay rights.
Abortion.
Illegal immigration.
Size of government.
What else am I missing?
exceptions that fall into three categories: when there is risk to the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and when there is a lethal fetal anomaly.
Not sure on the reliability of that link. And obviously this is only relevant to certain states that do have restrictions.
From that link it shows there are 19 states in the US right now where women would not have access to healthcare in the circumstances my wife’s friend went through.
What you seemingly refuse to understand is that if a state imposes strict abortion limits on an ideological basis, any exceptions that theoretically exist are policed vigorously. The totality of the situation in such states backs medical providers into a position where they cannot safely perform them without threat of punishment from the state even when they deem them necessary meaning that access is drastically curtailed.
There are no hard and fast rules about those things. Some may be tougher on one and harder on another.
As I have explained above, I’d probably be regarded as Left/Liberal in the US and my positions are:
Guns.
Should be regulated like cars (both are potentially deadly). ie Test, license which can be revoked for misuse.
Free speech.
Up to the point that it becomes incitement to violence.
Freedom of religion.
Up to the point that it impinges on the rights of other religions or non-religious people.
Gay rights.
LGBTQ people should have the same rights as everyone else not to be discriminated against or disadvantaged.
Abortion.
Should be available if necessary. Should not be a form of contraception (I strongly doubt that it is from my experience of seeing women go through it). As a man I’m very uncomfortable with men legislating women on this topic.
Illegal immigration.
If someone has entered a country illegally they should be returned to their country of origin unless that country is unsafe. There should be an efficient path to asylum for those in life threatening situations. Legal migration paths should be fair and transparent.
Size of government.
Not sure what that means, but there are certain things that are best dealt with by the government and it should be as large or small as necessary. Does this include the military?
What else am I missing?
Tax?
Policing?
Education?
Health?
I understand that, I think you misread my post and inserted what you though my interpretation of what your post was about(exerpt).
Same answer to you. I understand that, I think you misread my post and inserted what you though my interpretation of what your post was about (excerpt).
The Establishment Clause is the portion of the constitution where this comes from and it is written in a way that makes a far clearer argument for freedom FROM religion than it does for freedom of religion.
No I read your post and have done again - I’m struggling to see what the relevance to my post is other than to imply that the current system is fine because there are exceptions for fatal fetal anomoly, which is why I pointed out that there are not those exceptions in nearly half of the country.
Mostly the same as you on your stance. “Big” government essentially more rules/governing/bureaucracy. At least that’s my interpretation. Libertarian are for smaller government, once again my interpretation, I might be wrong.
The last 4 on your list also seem relevant.
And obviously this is only relevant to certain states that do have restrictions.
So if they were in one of those states it would be considered an exception. I have no idea where they live. I actually agree with you, which is why I think you misinterpreted my stance on the issue. Maybe my mistake on not being explicit enough.
I didn’t misread anything. I am pointing out that in many states the exceptions exist within a system that is designed to make the exceptions unobtainable. They are a distraction designed to make the ideologues imposing them appear more reasonable than they are
What does that mean? Religion can not be inserted into your life and/or you can choose your religous beleifs?
Same answer to you. So if they were in one of those states it would be considered an exception. I have no idea where they live. I actually agree with you, which is why I think you misinterpreted my stance on the issue. Maybe my mistake on not being explicit enough.
The issue is in you not acknowledging what you are responding to, not in the clarity of what you are saying.
An exception on paper does not mean the procedure is practically available when the state also places a very high burden on the provider to justify their decision and is clear about their intention to police the issue. The goal of the state in these situations is not to provide actual exceptions, but to create a big gap between what reasonable people or even medical people think qualifies as an exception vs what cases providers are willing to intervene on.
You cannot just point to the existence of exceptions without acknowledging the difficulty of qualifying for them. You and I do not get to police that. The state does.
It is pretty straight forward. There are loads of ways the state can impose religious practices on people if it not barred from doing so. Freedom from religion prevents that. So no prayer in school. No promotion of any set of religious teachings in public state places. No religious tests for civic roles.