@akuma587

I am not saying in this part of the discussion that abortion should be outlawed (which I don't think it should be fully), I am referring to his stance that government should leave people to do as they will.  I believe it is one of ignorance, and is completely independant of the abortion issue.  And as far as lawyers helping others,  I am referring to my home town and the counties in the area in which I live.  I have seen many cases where poor people had a very good case against an organization and yet could do nothing because the lawyers preferred to protect their interests because they had clients that were somehow connected to these organizations and companies. 

I'm talking about school boards, health organizations, construction companies, city government, etc.  Each one protecting the other because of vetted interest and benefits thus created an almost impenetrable network for an average person.  Even the immediate counties surrounding the county in question wouldn't have anything to do with these cases because of the level at which it transcended.  In one particular case, even lawyers and organizations in the next state continued to defend the case of the original county and/or refused to have anything to do with it.  Now these people who have found themselves in these situations could definitely WIN their cases, but because of the magnitude of the cases, they would have to somehow raise enough money to hire a lawyer outright or get enough public support for an outcry that might generate lawyer interest somewhere in the globe.  But the thing with these organizations and companies is that rarely do these things happen to where it is obvious.  They use verbal communication instead of written, PR spin, individual intimidation, and legal tricks to manipulate their employees and the public.  They get cocky and slip up occasionally though which makes these cases, but they still are secretive enough that they get away with all kinds of misjustices.  And with those secretive methods, even with firm evidence, it is hard to get lawyers to take the task unless they have the huge amounts they request or if somehow you get lucky enough to get the media on your side.  Either way it is much harder than it should be and it shows that the gap between the poor and those in power is much bigger than it should be.

And according to your first comment about drug cartels, I was referring to the natural setup when anybody gets too much money.  The drug cartels could be another example of a company or militant group or mofia or anything that would have power if the government would stop doing anything.  They would become the NEW government of sorts.

But in regards to your comment that the government caused the drug cartel situation as it is, so you are saying that you would rather people to be killed by drugs than for people to be killed by drug dealors as we are trying to stop them?  Do you know what most of the drugs do to you?  Have you been completely sober and been around people doing drugs or overdosing, etc.  Have you ever worked in a hospital and seen people convulsing, bleeding, vomiting, dying?  Don't you know that alcohol is a leading cause of death in the US and it is legal?  What if we made all substances legal?  Do you think less people would die from using them?  lol.  I guarantee if we legalized all drugs, that we would see a MASSIVE increase in the deaths in this country and that it would far outweigh the deaths and homocides caused by the drug market today.  The main difference is that instead of being a black market situation the drug cartels would resemble, as mentioned, companies, but because of the addictive nature of the drugs, they would end up becoming far more powerful and definitely begin to influence what would end up being the new government.  This influence would make the government even more corrupt, not because a drug itself makes a dealer corrupt, but because making money off of people's addictions and declining health when you know it is wrong makes them corrupt and willing to do anything for power and money.  Also when dealing with an addictive substance, it is natural for someone to become accustomed to satisfying needs regardless of your situation or people's welfare.  Eventually we would have another government, but one almost "completely" ruled by people who crave power instead of the checks and balances that we have now.

Edited:  Oh and you seem to have assumed about me, I actually lean far Liberal, and even though I'm pro-life, I don't think that abortion should be outlawed in its entirety as I said.  I'm pro-life in the same way that I believe in equal rights for all.  I believe they go hand-in-hand.  And as for the Republican and Democratic parties specifically, I think it is ridiculous that people think things are so black and white that we should only have two parties.  Hardly anything is black or white.  However, I do acknowledge that this is the current setup that we have and that it is the only way to get people elected at the current time.  In some ways, I think the current setup could be a result of our affinity toward sports teams.  We like to see two sides battling it out for the win.  We like to have the competition and unity it creates amongst ourselves.

If you haven't realized by now that neither major political party is on your side, it's time to remove your head from the sand.  Both parties will do what's best for the party first and what's best for the country second when those things conflict.  It's time we killed off our abominable pair of sacks 'o shit.

Hmmm, then why has Obama already passed two pro-labor bills...I guess he must have forgot...

I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty too.

The death penalty costs way too much money.  There are 2 ways to lower the costs: abolish the death penalty entirely, which will save tons of money (good) and never accidentally kill an innocent person again (very good), or allow for speedier executions with fewer appeals, which will save money (good), but leads to more accidental executions of the innocent (very bad).

I think the abortion argument is unrelated.

The death penalty is actually more expensive than not having it, rubang is right. The amount of money the state has to spend while the defendant uses all his appeals (which if you are against then you should look at the amount of murder cases that have been thrown out after a person has been executed based on forensic evidence showing they were innocent) is pretty high in terms of what it costs them to put on their case. Not to mention its constitutionally guaranteed through the Due Process clause that they can exercise whatever means available through the law.

I mean look at the Constitution, do you see any provisions making it EASIER to convict people of crimes? No, and there are at least 10 different instances where the Founding Fathers expressly made it HARDER to convict people of crimes. They were hostile towards law enforcement because they themselves had been abused by that very type of authority.

So from a practical standpoint, the death penalty isn't even that efficient. However, it is true that there are some people out there who are so utterly insane that they should never be released back into society. I'm kind of torn on whether or not we should be able to kill them. I'm still neutral on the issue, though if I was on a jury I would probably have a hard time condemning someone to death.

Yes, I'm sure his executive orders you are referring to were done because they were good policy, not because labor unions are almost unanimously behind Democrats and contributed huge amounts of money to Obama's campaign (and other Democrats).  Wake up.  If anti-union people had contributed more money, they would make changes to please them, getting more campaign contributions and making it more likely they would stay in power.

Actually anti-union people donated a lot of money to Obama too, more than they did to John McCain. And he ran on a campaign of raising their taxes! Man, that's pure genius! Its like me becoming the president of the NRA by saying I hate guns!

You're absolutely right about labor giving a lot of money to Obama and Democrats in general, I'm not arguing with you. But you are only looking at things from one side of the coin. Corporations typically have no loyalty. They will support whoever they think can benefit them most. And frankly, businesses didn't do as great as you would expect under a Republican administration considering how much favoritism they were given. Maybe businesses realized that it can actually HURT them if they are just left to run wild and do as they please. They were ready for change too.

Obama didn't even have to court them. They came running to him. And frankly you are completely ignoring how loyal both Democrats and Republicans are to the party itself and its ideology. Those are just the things they genuinely believe. I'm not faulting them for that. Its good to have strong beliefs (obviously with good reasons mixed in for those beliefs). I don't even believe that the hardest core Republicans would start supporting labor if labor started throwing money at them. Frankly, people in Washington may be a bit crazy, but they typically do believe pretty strongly in their ideals, for better or for worse.

Why do you think that it is so rare that the party's flip flop on issues? Its because the people in those parties actually do believe in those issues. Fundraising is an extremely important part of politicking, but most people don't get involved in politics unless they actually do have a pretty good idea of what their stand on the issues is. Your underestimating the degree to which people personally identify with the issues their parties stand on.

Why do you think we are all in here debating abortion like crazy even though probably no one has been convinced to change their mind? Its because its something we actually believe in. If pro-choice people offered you $10,000 to be pro-choice, would you change? I know I wouldn't change to pro-life for that. Its just not who I am.

That makes sense because you're looking at it from an entirely financial perspective. I may have assumed incorrectly that the original poster was looking at it from a moral perspective, which makes no sense to me in any way.

Morally it makes sense too. Who do you think should live: a fetus that will probably be born with defects and into poverty, dying in infancy, or someone who is ALREADY BORN and who is often innocent, but will be killed by the government for it?

i think each circumstance is different. but prospective parents need to stop seeing the creation of a new life as just an even for themselves, that they can switch off if its not suitable. life is everything.