Printable View
Anyone see the ad for McGrath with ole Rex fully supporting her.
During the political season her ads have changed greatly from the beginning until now.
She now is a spiritual lady who does not support full term abortions but mind you she has been caught saying she did.
I find political ads annoying and I find hers especially annoying.
She plays on being a Marine and combat pilot, but her record is exaggerated, and I can tell you I don't know a single Marine vet who likes her or is voting for her.
Besides the fact she is extremely liberal she's also been very selective in wording about her military record, which is a big deal to veterans.
I keep getting one on youtube that focuses on her being a mom. OK, lots of women are mothers, lots of men are dads, not sure how that helps me think you are qualified for the US Senate.
Evidently Trump is leading KY by over 15% per polls...that has to mean McGrath is toast.
No way she was ever going to win.
What is an example of a full term abortion? It is not a medical term nor a legal one that I can see.
Infanticide's on the other hand is illegal and not supported by any sane person.
Now, my grandmother while giving birth many years ago, developed huge complications and my grandfather was given a choice on the spot to save either mother or child. He stated he could have another child but not another 'Birdie (her name). The doctor aborted the delivery. Classified as a late term abortion.
Why would a woman willfully carry a baby full term and then abort that child? Maybe in a horror film where someone is possessed by satan or the like, but in real life neither a doctor or parent would choose or support such a thing. Yet, to accommodate the saddest of situations that arise, it may be medically necessary, and the decision is not an easy one I am certain. Then again, there may be some women who choose to naturally deliver a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb for medical reasons. But how rare would that have to be?
The word "term" often refers to how far along a woman is in her pregnancy, with common uses being "full-term pregnancy," meaning a woman reaches the due date that a doctor expects her to give birth. An "early-term pregnancy" or "late-term pregnancy" references any delivery outside the expected birth week, according to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Abortions in such later stages of pregnancies (which typically are 38 to 42 weeks full term) could be performed because of congenital anomalies. But late-term abortions are rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 1.3 percent of abortions in the U.S. were performed after 21 weeks gestational time.
There is much needed room for compromise among both sides. No one I know is pro abortion because its a sad thing. Many are pro choice because it's required. If your twelve or thirteen year old relative is raped or a victim of incest how many would support forcing the child to bear such a thing? It happens. If a daughter was in real danger of losing her life carrying a child full term, can we be certain what we would want?
If a child is not a viable candidate for living outside the womb because of extreme malformity, what would you choose to do?
Now, that's not to say that because of the hard line some chose to take it hasn't become all too easy for some young women to consider it no more than a form of birth control. That will need to be addressed in some other way because it deals with a lack of education and a lack of common sense regulation. But mainly having no moral compass to limit sexual partners and sexual promiscuity.
That cant really be legislated on the federal level even though the potential to do so makes for good political fodder. Meanwhile, republican's and democrats alike, pastors and poets, and rich or poor, are secretly making use of legal abortions. Before they were legal they were making use of other more grotesque methods.
I am not pro abortion, I am pro choice..but let them be good choices. But I am certainly appalled at any politician who would use it for financial and political benefit. And I certainly do not want to see the federal government represent the rights of a fetus from inception. That is a deadly and slippery slope only once travelled before.
The States have laws, let them stand, within reason.
Speaking as a Christian, the walk that we should all aspire to would make it a non issue. It is a result of promiscuity.
And even birth control comes into question for the spiritual minded if we are honest.
According to Gods law prior to the dispensation of Grace, a woman found to be carrying a child not belonging to her husband, could be stoned to death if the husband so desired. How to rationalize such a thing is mind boggling if you truly think about it. Even Christ did not say that is wrong or the like, (not that she was yet pregnant) but He instead said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" But the law was such that it would have made no difference.
So there are many factors that weigh in the balance of a mans view on this subject. If he is honest with himself.
McGrath is pretty extreme for pro-choice. The interview that was done with her on WVLK with Larry Glover runs in an ad against her, but it's not edited badly.
He asked if a woman on the way to the hospital in labor to give birth could simply change her mind and have an abortion instead, and her answer was that the government should not have any say in a woman's body. that's a polite way of saying "yes".
That's disturbing. Obviously if the life of the mother is at risk, or deformity, of course in rape/incest cases, etc. there is a lot of room for compromise. But the idea that a child can be viable and healthy and fully developed ready to be born and have no rights whatsoever under the law is a disturbing approach at best, gruesome at worse.
And that position is born of the pro-choice side that wants to say there are no rights for the unborn child at all, period, b/c if they give on that a little it's a slippery slope for them.
Likewise pro-life will argue that life begins at conception, and the most extreme of that view is that there are no exceptions for rape/incest, risk to mother, etc. b/c that's a life like any other, equal to any grown person walking around, and they do that b/c of that same slippery slope in the other direction.
Most people on either side aren't so extreme and will fall somewhere in the middle, with some protections for the child and some exceptions that allow termination. But for there to be any restrictions, i.e. the mother cannot in the process of giving birth decide to terminate the child (surely a rare hypothetical but a valid test for the law), then by definition the as yet unborn child has some rights, and yes those rights are represented by the state just as the rights of a person who is killed is represented by the state.
McGrath didn't lie IMO when she said she was more liberal than anyone else in Kentucky. As candidates go that's absolutely the case, including on this issue, where she's out in Hollywood land on the issue. If she were pro-choice but moderate on the issue then that may not be quite a majority in Kentucky but it wouldn't be out of step. IMO she's out of step even with those who are pro-choice in this part of the country, b/c most that I know on both sides are far more reasonable and don't want to see travesty done in either direction for the sake of pure ideology.
I agree Chuck. I do believe she could have been mistaken with her answer, or maybe had rehearsed her answer without given it the proper thought. Or possibly the scenario was so far fetched she felt it deserved no answer and just repeated her position.
But that answer was the wrong one imho.
A few doctors need to reaffirm the sanctity of life. Both for the young and the old imo. It is a moral dilemma which started downhill in the nineties imo. And has perpetually disguised itself under the umbrella of palliative care, comfort care, hospice, etc..
Some doctors do not fear death..unless it's them or one of their own. Others feel the same but can more easily justify unnecessary care taking a different approach.
But the vast majority are fine individuals who care. Similar to law enforcement, and every other such profession out there.
And I have completely got off topic I know.
Her current ads have done a 360 but she is not winning so it won’t matter.
I've never seen a path in Kentucky that led to her victory. Honestly, no woman period ever could.Quote:
Originally Posted by catmanjack
Martha Layne Collins and Alison Lundergan Grimes would disagree with that statement. Collins won statewide office nearly 40 years ago, Grimes just recently left office. The right candidate would have no issue winning a statewide office, McGrath is not the right candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
I think representing Ky. in Washington is viewed differently than holding an office in State.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
In Kentucky's history, no woman has been elected to represent Kentucky in the United States Senate.
In the House of Representatives Kentucky is divided into six Congressional Districts and currently all representatives are men. Although we have elected two women throughout it's history to Congress. In 1927 and 70 years later in 1997.
Just to be clear, I do not think that phenomenon is party based. Older rural Ky. dems and republicans are just the type to prefer a man represent this state imho. Southern states with big cities are somewhat different
Pro choice? Really? We convict people every day who make bad choices. ABortion on demand is a bad choice and should be treated as such.
Those folks just to the north of you along the river gonna be disappointed when they hear you do not think they are a big city.Quote:
Southern states with big cities are somewhat different
Well....it’s not getting any bigger. Folks are leaving Louisville at the moment. Lack of law and order and a wussy mayor are causing the exodus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
Collins may have been the best Governor in my lifetime. I’m biased. I knew her when she taught at Seneca. But, what she did for education and economic development has not been matched in 35 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
I remember people howling about giving a big rich company like Toyota all those tax breaks, and how that money shouldn't go to big corporation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MickintheHam
From time to time I get to ask one of them if they would rather Toyota hadn't come or that they now pack up and leave.
She was IMO by far one of the best governors of the century, if not the best, simply for having accomplished some basic economic and educational development in this state rather than just paying lots of lip service to it.
Back to the original post, does Rex still have celebrity status in KY? I haven’t lived in KY in years but my sense is that he pissed a lot of people off with some of his antics.
He has more detractors than fans at this point IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by TNCat
Most people don't care to be condescended to and he's developed that Hollywood "people are fans of me so they must want to hear me pontificate on the world" thing.
Combine that with his obvious self-absorbed moves like tweeting about Cal leaving right before a huge game, etc. and no he has few fans of which I am aware.
I see Rex's twitter videos get some traction from non-Kentuckians (and non-basketball fans) on Twitter, which I find interesting.
For me, I hope his rehab is going well but I have no love for him.