Debate Tonight - Meadors verses Bryant

Are you committed to reforming our state in all areas including administration of government, the state tax system, and education in order to bring South Carolina into the 21st Century, or will you be an agent for the liberal, big spending status quo coalition of liberal Democrats and Jimmy Carter Republicans that currently run our state?

-lee-cole

What are you, SSHM, the biggest "Me" in the "Me Generation?"

Actually, there's a very good reason for abortion, at least, to be a state issue. IF - and I repeat IF - Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, it will put the question of whether abortion will or will not be allowed in South Carolina (and/or what restrictions will be placed on it) squarely in the laps of the S.C. General Assembly.

Overturning Roe will NOT outlaw abortion, no matter what the hysterics try to tell you. It'll just put it back to a state-by-state issue as it was prior to 1973, when about half the states already allowed it.

Sooooo ... for voters for whom the abortion question NATIONALLY looms large, whether they're for or against, it is, indeed, important to know where a candidate for the S.C. Senate stands - regardless of what your little pyramid shows.

By the way, did you know "sex" is included twice in your pyramid - once under "physiological" and again under "love/belonging." At my age, once is quite enough, regardless of which category you put it under. Of course, for all I care, you can put it in there three times - it also fits under self-actualizaton: problem solving. 

What are you, SSHM, the biggest "Me" in the "Me Generation?"

Actually, there's a very good reason for abortion, at least, to be a state issue. IF - and I repeat IF - Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, it will put the question of whether abortion will or will not be allowed in South Carolina (and/or what restrictions will be placed on it) squarely in the laps of the S.C. General Assembly.

Overturning Roe will NOT outlaw abortion, no matter what the hysterics try to tell you. It'll just put it back to a state-by-state issue as it was prior to 1973, when about half the states already allowed it.

Sooooo ... for voters for whom the abortion question NATIONALLY looms large, whether they're for or against, it is, indeed, important to know where a candidate for the S.C. Senate stands - regardless of what your little pyramid shows.

By the way, did you know "sex" is included twice in your pyramid - once under "physiological" and again under "love/belonging." At my age, once is quite enough, regardless of which category you put it under. Of course, for all I care you can put it in there three times - it also fits under self-actualizaton: problem solving. [image]

-jdtippett

Obviuosly Prevail has never had to deal up close and personal with not having a job...or suddenly losing a breadwinner....

when you worry about whether you will have a job next month, the viewpoint on gay marriage is not "of critical importance" any more.

Jack, it has nothing to do with "my way." It's a practical consideration based on the direction the U.S. Supreme Court is moving in. And all of your points are valid, although I suspect Georgia, North Carolina and possibly Florida would maintain the abortion on demand option if it came to that and several others (including South Carolina) would retain it in specified circumstances.

And your comment about Bryant is on-target, although I don't think he's "scary, scary" in any way, shape or form. I was simply making the observation that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the debate over abortion will, indeed, return to the state level - simply because if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe on the argument that abortion is not a Constitutional right (the original decision declared that it IS a Constitutional right), then that same court, by extension, is saying the Federal government has no right to outlaw the practice in all 50 states either.

THEREFORE, where Marshall Meadors stands on the abortion question is, indeed, a legitimate issue for a debate over a State Senate race. That was my only point - it has nothing do do with where I stand on the issue. I've said before that my personal stance on the abortion issue doesn't please either of the extremes. That hasn't changed.

Hey, hey, what's wrong with sex being on every level? I knew I liked that Maslow dude.

-ibvirginia

Nothing wrong with it on every level, Virginia, but I get nosebleeds if I'm too high when I try it (usually from being punched - you don't usually get punched at the lowest level of the pyramid unless you're in Anderson and don't have the required four bucks. You do run the risk of getting maced, though.)

Actually, there's a very good reason for abortion, at least, to be a state issue. IF - and I repeat IF - Roe v. Wade is ever overturned . . .

-jdtippett

Yeah, well, remind me to partner with Hankey or someone the next time I need a prediction on any "landslide" elections. Even Hankey gets one right occasionally.

Like it or not, SSHM, the overturning of Roe v. Wade is NOT a "billion-to-one" scenario. There's a very real possiblity it could happen in the next four years, at which time the makeup of the S.C. General Assembly WILL matter.

And for what it's worth, I really haven't heard exactly where Meadors stands on the abortion. I have friends who are physicians who are opposed to the practice except to save the life of the mother. How tough is it to ask him, just to humor those who think it's an important issue if nothing else?