Page 1 2
Moderators: trustno1
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
In the spirit of the social hour thread, here's another off-topic thread about politics.
Let's try to keep it civil, I know we will, but just saying. So I'll start it out with a reply that I sent to Shaggy:
I've tried many times to see this side of the arguement, but I'm still not convinced. Without getting too involved, tell me why you like Bush...and "his religion" doesn't count cause that's a realm outside of politics. I'm talking about the issues man, the issues...  Off we go! |
||
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Okay, I'll be right with you. I have to go deliver some projects to some people but will be right back.
I do support Bush but think you will be a bit surprised by my reasoning. Back soon. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Okay, poppa, I'm back. I'm going to start this on a limited, abbreviated basis to see how it goes.
First, I need a few basic statements about my deepest political and social beliefs. 1. I do not EVER take a party view on anything. I research each and every issue that I care about on my own and take action based on that research. 2. My Republicanism is in part in support of the Repub agenda and in part a statement against the Democrats. It has little or nothing to do with left wing or right wing. 3. My vote is often difficult because I am torn between not the spoken agendas but the actual actions taken by the two parties on very specific issues. As such, it becomes easier to explain my support for the Republican party and George W. based on my feelings on a few key issues. The war in Iraq I believe strongly in history. If you read about both the Germans and Japanese at the onset of WW II you will quickly see that in both cases, they used expansionism to extend their borders. The surrounding countries were afraid to take a stand (England, France, China, US). When the United States pushed an economic embargo of Japan for its expansion onto the mainland it resulted in Pearl Harbor. Germany kept placating England and France that the particular country they had just invaded was the last one until they finally invaded France and the world had to accept the truth. What I mean by all of this is that if a leader takes actions within his own border (Saddam gassing civilians) while I am outraged, I feel it is up to the citizens to take action, as the Americans did in the revolutionary War. When they extend outside their borders, however, as in Kuwait, I fear that it won't stop and I prefer immediate action over another impending WW II. I do not believe that Saddam would have stopped. That said, while I am not necessarily in favor if the US troops now in Iraq, I have to accept it as an extension of the halt to what I feel was Saddam's expansionism, like Hitler and whoever you want to say was running Japan in the late 30's. Okay, next point, government I am anti-government. While I do not necessarily think the Republican Party has done the best job of minimizing government, I believe the Democrats would allow and encourage endless government expansion. Next, personal rights I am torn on this one. I lean to the Republican Party because there is at least a hint of personal responsibility. I feel the Democratic social agenda leads to an absolute lack of personal accountability and a generational programming of social support for entire communities. Note that this fits the abortion debate. While I am exceptionally torn by this (yes, I go the church) I do not feel that I can take control over the individual right of a woman and her body. That discussion could and should go much farther but I'll let it drop for now with the understanding that there is lots more there. Government in general I think that all candidates in all parties are pretty much useless. I generally vote on who will accomplish the least as I feel that most of what is accomplished harms the common man (or woman) more than it helps. Okay, enough fodder for now. There is lots more but this should start some serious debate. Specific issues that I feel VERY strongly about but will save for later except for a thumbnail. the environment I dream of owning a Russian submarine and sinking the Japanese whaling boats. I would chain myself to a redwood. I drive a car, use gas and live in a wooden house. Conntradictions? I think the environmentalists bought their houses and now don't want anyone else to build one. Crime Sorry, I am a bit harsh here Illegal immigration Sorry, harsh again The move of production to overseas I think strong union activism has backfired and priced production out of America and led to unemployment in America. Okay, Poppa, get at it! |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Whoa - I've gotta hear this reasoning.
Sadly, I think history is going to prove that Bush is the worst president that we've ever had and that his brand of 'governing' will prove the downfall of our country as we know and love it. But, you can just label me a left-wing elitist liberal from the New England - and darn proud of it! Please let me know why you support Bush - I really don't get it and would like to understand. |
|||
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
So much for brief starters.
Iraq - I agreed with the necessity of stopping Hussein. However, I don't believe W had or has an exit plan, and this is going to be another Vietnam. Personal rights - I have a serious problem in this country because I am a minority. People in the majority do not often realize that their majority group is influencing their conscious thought processes. Yes, I am speaking about abortion. My religion asserts that life begins at birth. A fetus is a potential life. We REQUIRE abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. We allow it for many reasons (although not indiscriminately). We allow stem cell research. W's bans in this area make no sense to us. They are not logic-based, they are religion-based, and as such, not permitted by the Constitution, since they restrict my right to practice freely. Govt - I agree with you on the Democrats fostering dependence. But you look at that "No Child Left Behind" crap, and it's just a waste. Same shit, different name. On the same topic, I hate welfare. Just encourages laziness & drug abuse. First glance, looks like I agree with you on your remaining thumbnails. I always vote, but I'm never happy with the choices. Not too many people do much of what they promise, either because they lied or they're just ineffective. That was less painful than I anticipated. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Whoa, I really got to get home so I can join this thread.
Pagecarl, I feel we're both going to find we're coming from basically the same place in our political feelings. I'll try to get online later so I can elaborate. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
I suspected this would be the case. I'll look forward to later. Darn, this thread is going to end up being a love fest after all. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Wow, Hurling, I thought we would never see you here. Now you see my challenge in all of this. I am a far left wing environmental Republican. I simply thing Goerge W. is less a burden that most Demos would be. I agree with the Iraq exit policy but have not yet come up with a better alternative. You want to start a thread, I really feel the military and George W. are trapped by what has become a militant terrorist (radical Islam) attack on everyone else. How can you get out when the radical element is going to essentailly kill off everyone who doen't support them? It will be interesting to see how countires who have not supported the US will react when the terror occurs in their country (France, Egypt, etc.) I absolutely agree about your majority/minority ideas. That is such a difficult one. I often have to keep my church side apart from my decision side. There is another side to it, however. I left California forever because the powerful minority sub-groups have essentially taken over the state through the use of liberal courts, generally at the expense of the "common" middle ground. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pagecarl:
Wow, Hurling, I thought we would never see you here. Now you see my challenge in all of this. I am a far left wing environmental Republican. I agree with the Iraq exit policy but have not yet come up with a better alternative. You want to start a thread, I really feel the military and George W. are trapped by what has become a militant terrorist (radical Islam) attack on everyone else. How can you get out when the radical element is going to essentailly kill off everyone who doen't support them? It will be interesting to see how countires who have not supported the US will react when the terror occurs in their country (France, Egypt, etc.) QUOTE] I didn't expect to comment here, but you were so not extremist, I felt safe. (Besides, none of you yet know my full name or where I live.  )Now the rest of the US is getting a taste of what it's like to be Jewish. People hating us just because they can, destroying good things we've done, lying and having others believe their unbelievable lies. It's a tough place. That's why I no longer enjoy books & movies that make me think. I do enough thinking in real life. I need escape! |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Yes, I have always thought it interesting that so many groups could be so supportive (and still are) of the Palestinians. Now that vitually everyone is being bombed it will be interesting to see where world opinion goes. I fear this will be the next global conflict (and it scares me deeply). |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Wow. Great conversation in here. I feel so educated reading it.
I know and TOTALLY UNDERSTAND why a whole lot of people don't like George. I didn't say I thought he was the best president ever of all time, but I like him. I COULDN'T stand John Kerry or John Edwards and voted for Bush because of lack of choice, but I do like him and he is our President whether we like him or not. He deserves some respect. Just because we don't agree with everything doesn't make him a "bad person." The war in Iraq is completely out of control and we just need to get our soldiers out of there. However, I believe, and I know that this will sound back woods and stuff but the big corporations (oil companies, insurance cos., just to name a few) control most of what goes on. I don't know that any president could have any control over that. Besides, congress is just as important if not more than the pres. Shouldn't we blame them for some of the problems??? |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
No, Shaggy, it doesn't sound weird at all. There is lots of thought that world economics control pretty much everything at some level. That is why there are massive riots every time the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank, the FTAA and the G8 countries meet. The trouble is that the control is likely at a very global level and cannot be seen to control our daily lives. Local unrest and dis-satisfaction in our own front yards and high visibility world events (militant Islam bombings, for instance) tend to garner most of our attention. It is a complicated puzzle and a tangled web. Interestingly, many have proposed that the Lord of the Rings, written some time ago, mirrors some of the current events. Ayn Rand has also written about similar circumstances. I know with certainty that my dad, in his youth, saw better times ahead. I have a bit more trouble knowing that and I don't have as much "time ahead" as you to look forward to. Our circumstances are similar. I had Vietnam. You have Iraq. The song remains the same (and the same military suppliers are making boatloads of money again). |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Of course it's world econ ("it's the oil, stupid!") If it weren't econ, we'd be doing the same things in Africa & South America. Anyone hear any GOOD news from Darfur or Ivory Coast recently? there's a big rally in DC for Darfur this Sun. My synagogue is sending a busload of people. (I will be selfishly recovering from my hangover, but I do write checks.)
|
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Funny, but my pastor's wife did lots of missionary time in (at) the Ivory Coast. I can say with some certainty that no good news is to be found. And yes, it's the economy. How many people really believe that theier leaders, elected or not, really care for them? If Bill Clinton had not been President he would have gone to jail for real estate scams and George W. was not a very good oil man. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Pagecarl, I keep getting side-tracked. I was writing my political orientation last night and I got distracted, to say the least. That's still coming, I didn't forget you. I thought I'd add some quick thoughts though since there's some good discussion here with intelligent beings on board.
What are everyone's thoughts on Iran? It's a BIG issue that has me closely watching the tele as well as profoundly freaked out. There's a fundamental problem now with the USA trying to police countries viewed as "hostile and nuclear-armed." First of all, we just initiated a war of our own. Second, our intelligence credibility took a major blow with Iraq and the WMD's (although I do believe Saddam possessedd them prior to our invasion). Another problem is that we're the only country in history to use nuclear weapons on an enemy and to this day we're developing more nuclear warheads and creating new, modified nuclear weapons. How can a country like us, with our global reputation and continuing nuclear proliferation, tell another country that they can't pursue these same goals just cause we label them "evil"; especially when we're knocking on their doorstep in the Middle East. However, having said that, I feel strongly that Iran definitly should not have WMD's. And that's the biggest problem - we're the only country who can step up and do something about them...European countries most likely won't act without the UN, which has proved itself somewhat inadequate on the matter. The prospect of us invading Iran scares me as much as us not invading Iran. The other day I watched a press conference where Rumsfeld was verbally repremanding the press for alleged reports of an attack on Iran, which he said weren't true. I nearly shit my pants...I generally hear what Rumsfeld says and know the opposite to be true. |
|||
|
Esteemed Member |
I fear that my posting here my fall on deaf ears/blind eyes. Well, less than open minds… But, it’s a forum and a dull day @ the job, so in I jump.
Pagecarl, reading everything you have posted here, methinks you aren’t a Republican at all. You are a Libertarian who largely identifies with conservative thought. Nothing to shake a stick at and I agree with you on some things. However, I differ in many other respects, greatly. I must strongly disagree with your rationalization of the justifications of the current Iraq War. While Saddam was an aggressive expansionist with regards to Kuwait in the first Gulf War, he had neither ability nor means with which to pursue those goals preceding the onset of this present, unjust war. I agree with you that his gassing of people within his borders was wrong and that it was not our business to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign state on that sole basis. However, that same reason is now being employed to rationalize the current war effort as a just cause. What people seem to find very ambiguous is that, in reality, and proven so, Saddam had no appreciable nor viable or active ties to al Queda. What was the silver lining to having a genocidal despot in power is that Iraq, for all its ills, was a stable state devoid of Islamic fundamentalist activity. Did Saddam support terrorism? Yes. He paid funds to suicide bombers and the like from Palestine and elsewhere that were out to get Israel. This was his tip of the had to his constituents. As long as they held the same enemy in their sights, the sights were not on him. However, he was a two bit despot that post no threat to our borders, sovereignty or vital interests. I say vital interests only because oil, in my estimation, is not vital. Merely essential for the time being. Now those who would support al Queda are growing in number at a viral pace. Regarding your sentiments on Government. I think that there are few who would disagree with you philosophically. I am in your camp, but a practical dissenter at the same time. The Bush administration has created more government and, consequently, government redundancy and waste in efforts to support the image of effectiveness than any other chief executive in this nation’s history. The tools needed to solve the problems were already there and simply needed to be modified. I feel that Homeland Security will be a short-lived agency. With respects to privacy, I have two words. Domestic. Wiretapping. The FISA courts, in their 20 or 30 years+ of existence have only turned down 6 requests. And they have judges on call 24/7. Bypassing FISA wasn’t a measure to reduce government. It was a measure to reduce accountability and oversight. That is completely antithetical to the checks and balances system of government that has served this nation so well for over 200 years. That candidates in both parties are pretty much useless is fair to say. There are exceptions. While I was not thrilled with Al Gore, I thought he was, at the least, tried and tested in executive circles. However, it should be noted that I worked for and supported Bill Bradley until his withdrawal. Bush was not a choice merely because he wasn’t “smart” or he was a Christian or he was even a Republican. He didn’t have viable, hashed out ideas. He was just a knee-jerk reaction to the sleaze of the Clinton years. As a side note, despite his moral and personal miss-steps, Clinton was an effective chief executive who was for the use of force to protect this country. Also, he was exonerated in the Whitewater deal. The Lewinski scandal only came to be because Kenneth Star couldn’t prove malfeasance beyond a reasonable doubt with regards to the real-estate dealings. But I digress… I am RIGHT WITH YOU on the Russian sub thing. Again, I think that generalizing with the Dems is a weak piece of ice to stand on. While there are those prominent Dems, like Hillary and Schumer, who are centrist and really unpalatable, there are others who are quite astute and worthy of legitimate consideration from the electorate. While I did not like Kerry, I voted for him for reasons that, if you have read this rant, should be obvious. However, my chief reason in voting for him was Edwards. While this is a roundabout method, I thought getting Edwards into a VPs spot would be an excellent testing ground. Again, my reasons for doing this were chiefly that his message of there being two Americas resonated with me greatly. Katrina reinforced my belief in that message. And I still think that Edwards might be the Dems best bet in ’08. More on that elsewhere. The best, most effective way to fight terrorism is to eliminate, or at least work to eliminate its causes. What causes terrorism? Not Islam or crackpots in the desert espousing fighting the great white devil… Poverty, suffering and ignorance. Nip those puppies and you have the foundation knocked off of the terrorism bug entirely. I hate to say this, but I am not a fan of Israel at all. They are the second biggest liability that the United States has. They give us nothing and basically run roughshod over those around them that would want to do them harm without regard for the long term solution to their problems. We support them because so many of the children of Israel are here. I don’t see us rushing to aid Latin American countries or African nations in a similar manner. We need to adjust our diplomatic alignments to reflect a more true proportionality. Shaggy, like who you like. Its fine. However, a President who does not consider dissent, critical thought and opposing opinions is not a good one to have in a democracy, let alone someone you’d want as a friend or ally. That’s my two bits. LOTR can be grafted as allegory to a great many subjects. However, scholarship on Tolkien suggests that his story was an allegorical response to the horrors of WW1 and the forces that caused it, i.e. rapid industrialization with no regard for humanity. Which Ayn Rand? On Iran, having read a bit on the current state of affairs, I would be willing to bet, if the situation continues on its current trajectory and Bush is not reigned in, we will be conducting air strikes on Iran within three years. Its wrong, but likely. That is, unless we do it strictly by the book and with the full cooperation of the UN, solely for legitimacy. However, for a man who campaigned in 2000 against nation building George W. Bush sure is bent on doing a lot of it. BTW, if you haven’t fallen asleep yet, think about this. Democracies are learned and earned and cannot and should not be installed. It is a sure fire recipe for failure if they are. Don’t you think? |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
OK. I love political debates, especially since I'm always right (just kidding). I'm on the fence about George and the war, so I'll steer clear of that topic. I will definately address Hurley's comment on abortion, however.
1. George W. Bush is NOT trying to ban stem cell research, just the GOVERNMENT funding of stem cell research. This is a huge difference and the majority of the left doesn't get this. Government should stay out of controversial research that allows tax payer money to support something that goes against MANY tax payers' fundamental religious beliefs. 2. Hurley, you said George Bush's stance on abortion is "not logic-based" but is "religion-based." I beg to differ. As a physician, I can confidently say that every ounce of science supports the concept that life begins at conception. There is NO debate in the realm of medicine on this. It may be a dependent life, but so is a newborn. If you take your own ideology/religion out of the picture and replace it with logic, science, and the constitution, then abortion can not be allowed. Science supports life at conception. The constitution protects life and liberty. Therefore, under the constitution, abortion is undermining an individual's right to life. Even pro-choice law professors agree that abortion is not really allowed under the constitution. You can disagree with George Bush's religious beliefs, but the pro-choice arguement can't be made on either a logical, scientific, or constitutional platform. The pro-choice stance is simply elevating the personal ideology that a woman's convenience is more important than an unborn child's life. This arguement can be made and debated, however, this is an arguement based on your values NOT logic. I think its interesting to hear pro-choicers claim that pro-lifers are mixing religion/personal values with politics when its quite the opposite. Sorry, for going off...but hey, it said enter at your own risk... I will say that I voted for Bush first term and Kerry last election, I mostly agree with Admiral, I think the Iraq war is unjust but we shouldn't get out now, I'm scared shitless over Iran, I'll support McCain if he runs again. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
EDIT -- Opps, two people snuck inside of my post while I was writing it. Sorry for the apparent discontinuity. I look forward to reading these posts. Poppa, I'm working so I will only answer with my thoughts on a part of what you wrote. I'm sort of stepping on Hurling's toes here, but .... To take the argument away from the United States I will instead use Isreal and the surrounding countries. Isreal is nuclear. The Palistinians, as far as we know, are not. To put it VERY simply ('cause to me, it is at a basic level) Isreal has almost since its inception maintained a large inventory of weapons capable of destruction. At first it was simply their willpower and will to survive against all odds. After that they bought weapons from America (M-60 tank, Phantom F-4, the list is endless) and vastly improved them. My point? Isreal NEVER used their force as a method of aggression. If you want to argue the Golan Heights, for instance, or any other "ground" taken by aggression I think you will find it was not "taken" but merrely "held" or maintained after Isreal fought an invading army and won. Isreal almost lost the six-day war due to an unreal belief that their neighbors really wouldn't attack. They have not made that mistake since. Now we have weapons far beyond the limited capability of a fighter-bomber or a tank, which can take destruction to a new level. The question I ask myself is, which counties have shown a willingness to use such weapons as forces of aggression and terror and which have not? Isreal has shown incredible restriant in the face on non-stop terror bombing of its civilian population. The extremists in many countries have vowed to use ANY WEAPON they can get their hands on to destroy the US and anybody else they do not like. Those extremists are now the political leaders of, at minimum, Iran and the Palastinians. What will the world do? I reject outright the comparison with Hiroshima and Nagasaki for two reasons. First, it may be a poor excuse looking at it NOW, but Then, nobody had a clue of the effects, short and long term, of the a-bomb. Heck, we tested it on our own troops in Nevada. Innocence is bliss. Secondly, my dad and many, many of his freinds fought in WWII. My dad came back to have sex with my mom, hence me. I am happy with that. The decision to use the a-bomb was made to limit the American losses upon invading the Japanese homeland, maybe 50,000 more men. this is against a Japanese people who invaded west to the Asian mainland and applauded the attack on Pearl Harbor. They were given a chance to surrender after the first bomb and refused. After seeing the destruction of the first bomb and refusing to quit, how vigorously do you think they would have defended against an invasion? Many decisions judged in today's light seem harsh. Ask any people from about 70 years old and up what they think. You might get a lesson. This applies to many things. My dad STILL, to this day, refuses to set foot on the Arizona memorial because he feels the Japanese tourists are descendants of the men who sunk it and killed 1725 men (as I remember the number). I spent four years in Germany. I often travelled in the country and the anti-US sentiment sometimes found in the cities was not to be found in the country where most people LOVED the Americans for saving them from the invading Soviet force at the end of the war. As those people die, perspective changes. This got longer than I had originally planned. Sorry. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
I'd love a response to my post (just before pagecarl's) if anyone has the time or the interest. Just remember, we all love Lost!
|
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Okay, Admiral, it's now lunch so I can discuss your post a bit. First, let me say that I agree with MOST of your thoughts (and respect ALL of them)) Let's see, Iraq expansionism. I disagree and believe that history supports me. Germany and Hitler did not have the material resources to expand and fight a global war. Their initial invasions delivered the needed resources to them. Iraq's possesion of additional oil reserves AND a port would allow the the huge resources needed to develop a military capable of much, much more expansion. Read up on Hitler a bit. Note that, like Saddam, Hitler used a persecuted minority as the whipping post to gain support of the majority (oh, yeah, you are anti-Isreal. - sorry - you won't like tis comparison  ).Did Saddam support terrorism? Of course. And I understand why. Oil is not vital? Do you drive? Do you heat your house? The goverment? My thoughts were and are philosophical. The governmnet of either major party is so out of hand that it is likely not possible to save. I could go on at legth of why I feel this but will spare you. It goes much, much deeper than the upper echelons. Certainly the original intent of three separate powers balancing together has been lost. The judicial branch is making policy. The executive branch is deciding constitutional law. The legislative branch is, well, for sale - opps, I mean bought out! Privacy? I agree. I think, however, that it is much, much more than wiretapping. It goes down to police powers at every local level. Clinton? Sorry, I will agree to disagree. I feel morals have a part and Clinton has none, and lied like Nixon. It depends on what your definition of is, is. Russian sub? Check your wallet. Let's do it! The Dems? See government, above. They are all pretty well useless. Fighting terrorism by eliminating poverty. Until we get to Star Trek where we can turn particle mass to food, I am waiting to hear your thoughts. Soon the terrorism due to poverty will be from our own people in America. And, as far as I can tell, and I do kep track, it IS a bunch of wackos in the desert. Am I missing something about the nature of suicide bombing here? Isreal? Again, I will agree to disagree and leave it at that. As far as LOTR, I agree with the original interpretations. That is the time during which it was written. It can be extended beyond those limits to embraces today's world condition. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, talk about your rapid industrialization. You might not like her message. I do. Got to go eat. Read you later. |
|||
|
|
Esteemed Member |
Some nice, gentle digs there, pagecarl. Nice indeed.
Agreement is moot from here on in w/ you and me. Its all about appreciating differences. And they are so worth appreciation. History supports the trend and the potential for what you are arguing. The facts “on the ground” however, were not so. At least, that is what many would have us believe. Sanctions were working. We had air supremacy over Iraq. The nation, w/ the exception of the military, was nearly impoverished. Saddam was tied up on nearly all ends, really. Suppressing the Kurds, controlling his people, holding off pro-Iranian Shia and ripping off international aid efforts. Remember oil for food? He was about as much a threat as Hugo Chavez is. And that’s not much. And don’t read subtext that isn’t there. I am not anti-Israel. I am just of the opinion that we should not consider supporting them an automatic default. Aside from being a pro-US diplomatic foothold (and they are only that when it serves them) they don’t really give us anything aside from tons of money for military machinery. Oh! Money… that’s it! Anyhow. They are more of a liability than an asset in my, admittedly, uninformed estimation. I don’t drive and our building is heated the same as any other. There need to be alternatives. Put the “conserve” back in conservative… The “vital” thing is just subjective. It also happens to be my way of using language to bolster my progressive hopes. I a dreamer. And I have to work. More to come... |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
(sigh) Unfortunately, I don't think Hurling will ever get back in here to make my topic of debate nearly as interesting as your back and forth, Admiral/Page. I would say I am in the middle of you two. Since my topic has died I'll pose a question relating to your discussion. Don't you both agree, that (in hindsight) the Iraq war has backed us into a corner regarding Iran? Attacking two Arab nations would be unthinkable in the current climate and Iran knows it.
|
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Admiral, I tend to agree with most of your points. That is the real challenge. During intelligent discourse many points come to center.
Unless, of course, we want to discuss the origin of the universe. I agree on many points from a purely conceptual point. Reality, however, does not allow many concepts. Right now it's oil. Period. There is some hydro but remember, environmentalists want to tear down all the dams to allow the rivers to once again run free. Dreaming is wonderful. I do it all the time. It serves little practical purpose, however, unless it leads to practical alternatives. I'm sorry about thought of Isreal. I thought I read that you were anti-Isreal when you actually said you are not a fan of Isreal. This will be an agree to disagree on points beyond, say, arguable evidence. I hope you know I was never trying to be insulting, just playful in a written conversation that doesn't allow verbal interplay. I respect your thoughts and do give them consideration. Admiral, I don't know you enough to put you in a box, nor you me. It seems, however, that we are quite alike with one serious difference. I think I dream and hope just as much as you do. At the end of it all, however, I either let it go or need to recognize the practical reality of any given situation. If the dream cannot be realistically engagd, in the end I let it go until such time as it becomes more practical. I do not hold the world or any sub-set thereof responsible for not fulfilling my potentiality. I don't say that as an insult to you. Dreamers are much needed in our practical world. I merely write it as a differentiation between some thoughts between us that will likely not come together. CRU It is an interesting topic to consider. I think there will be an attempt to involve the United Nations (a fairly useless body, in my opinion) or the EU. I think neither will be effective. Unfortunately, the very real thought that we cannot engage in another land war seriously reduces our options to some very difficult ones. It seems that much of the world "wants something done" but by somebody else (the US) so they can insult our actions, regardless the outcome. Vietnam was a terrible mistake but historically should not cloud future decisions. Historical precedent goes much farther back than the early 60s. This will be an interesting one to watch. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
i'm sorry but i have to chime in on this one: but you have to take the following caveats:
i come from a country with an export surplus of oil, in the american context, i would be a bleeding heart liberal, but here in canada, i'm more moderate. i truly believe that environmentalism should and is effective on a grass roots level. i understand that oil is a very large motivating force in the world right now, but i think the willful reliance on it is very ignorant. Hydro power is a stopgap, but there are other alternatives that would supplement our power needs, such as wind, nuclear, and as pagecarl suggested in a previous post, wave generation. right now, our energy reliance is built upon familiarity and greed. this absolutely needs to be changed. i don't own a car. i don't need to. i cycle every day of the year, including winter, which can get nasty (especially in canada) but it's a sacrifice i'm willing to make for the planet. as for the middle east: i think if every country refused to fund these wars, there would be no problem. the biggest problem between israel and palestine is the influence of foreign military equipment. get rid of that and you have a level playing field (that i still don't want to get involved in) that is somewhat fair and could be resolved diplomatically. as for the war in iraq: i don't think it was justified, but given canada's current government, i can see canadian participation in the future, so i think it might be prematurely hypocritical (did i just invent a new term??) to criticize, though personally, i don't think anyone should be meddling in a country that hasn't shown a tendancy towards force in a decade. afghanistan: i don't support any troops there and i write my MP regularly to tell him. I do respect all the opinions here, i think these are some of the best arguments on the internet, and this is why i come here regularly. you are all very rational people, and i respect all opinions. thank you all. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Sorry, Cru, very busy day. I'm not too eloquent on war, let's go back to abortion. (What a flippant opening for such a serious topic. There, I flamed myself.) A fetus cannot sustain itself. Before the point of viability (which gets earlier every decade), it cannot supersede the rights of the person bearing it. Don't argue about newborns; that's completely specious. Anyone can pick up a baby and feed it, it doesn't matter who. A fetus is a potential life - you have no way of knowing whether it will survive to term, or even die during birth. What's creepy about this topic is the way politicians will insist that any abortion is wrong - but as soon as the interviewer says, "What if it were your daughter?" they backpedal and mumble about "family decisions." And of course, they can all afford to fly to a country where it's legal. I have seen this a dozen times in the last few presidential elections. And of course they do that with gay rights as well. I see these as personal decisions that are none of anyone's damn business. I'm really tired and must go to sleep. I hope to have more time to argue on Sun. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Sorry, everyone, but I am staying away from the abortion issue. There are about four issues that I will NEVER argue with a woman, and this is the tops among them.
If we want to have some interesting discussions we still have world overpopulation, Katrina after-effects (and before-effects - not as simple as people make it) and the current favorite, yes, illegal immigration. I am also in for religion as long as everyone can respect each other. Pick one, any one, or pick another or extend one of those above. Gordonkid, I would like to respond to your thoughts, but would like to do it tomorrow after some sleep. Myspace takes it out of me. Oh, I mean work. I seem to be one of the minority of western people here so my day starts when most are considering lunch. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
[QUOTE] I don't know that any president could have any control over that. Besides, congress is just as important if not more than the pres. Shouldn't we blame them for some of the problems???[QUOTE] Posted by Shaggybebe This thread makes for great reading! My simple two cents is this: I've seen this happen time after time, election after election. The candidates usually do amount to no more than the lesser of two evils when it comes down to the final vote. And in many cases they DO lie and make such grandiose promises that anyone can tell they will be unable to keep. And then there are the poor fools who, I think, really and sincerely believe they can make a difference and really believe the promises they make are possible to achieve. Where they all seem to fail is in remembering the balance of power. Once they take office, it must come as a hard slap with the ice water to realize all the other people involved are going to control much of the process. The legislative and jucicial branches do not necessarily have to support his promises and can, in fact, thwart his efforts. So in fact, it appears he was "lying" when he is powerless to act. The same is true for us, as voters, to pass a propositon only to have it tied up in court challenges for so many years that it becomes long forgotten. I always study all the issues and vote my beliefs, as well. It is frustrating to realize that what should have become law is simply cut off at the knees by those tactics. Hope you don't mind that I jumped in here, but I took you at your word to "pick one" to expand. Sometimes the back and forth is so great that I don't feel I should intrude! But there you have it. Great discussion, everybody! |
|||
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
I've been lurking and staying quiet, but I have to know what the other three are. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Hurling,
I feel that I do understand the pro-choice stance fairly well. And I do respect your comments, so please don't be too offended by what I am about to say. I will not comment on the behavior of politicians. I try not to base my support of an issue on the particular representative's personal beliefs and behavior. I certainly understand the resistance to change one's opinion on abortion. That is why the topic is so volatile. However, I have to say some final thoughts and then I'll be done. You were criticizing George Bush (for which I have many criticisms) about mixing religion with politics on the abortion issue. But your belief that a life is potential before it is born is simply that, a belief that has NO grounding in fact. Your belief is affecting your decision as well. Whether it is a religious belief or not doesn't matter. Define a life. An unborn child has its own DNA, beating heart, immune system, etc. Ok, so we don't truly know if it will come to term, but 99% of unborn babies DO make it to term after 10 weeks of gestation. Thats like ignoring 99 civilian casualties to target one soldier. In the womb, an unborn is dependent on its mother for warmth, food, and shelter. Hmmm...seems a lot like a newborn to me. I think if a woman's body was transparent, and one could see the child inside of her, this debate would not even happen. I just get frustrated with the blinders that people put on in regard to issues like this. Many make arguements for decisions they've already made, and then sugar coat the facts to make them feel ok. I feel like pro-lifers want abortion to be right for the freedom, convienince, and the choice that it gives to mothers. Therefore, they come up with a decision about when life begins (totally devoid of medical evidence or objective criteria) and say abortion is justified and a right. When others oppose the decision, its "none of your damn business," and refuse to look at the issue objectively. If one is to debate the issue, then it needs to be debated on the common ground of science, a predefined societal sense of morality, and reason without religion or PRECONCIEVED beliefs. For once I would like to see a pro-choicer say, "I know that abortion leads to the death of an unborn child, but this is ok and the benefits outweigh the price the unborn child pays. It is good for society and the mothers who do not want their unborn child to have that choice." I can handle that arguement and then we can debate the issue and the societal implications it has. But, most aren't comfortable with that and sugar coat it by defining life on their own terms, without objective, scientific evidence to support it. Its kind of like supporting a war without admitting, "We are going to kill 40,000+ Iraqis to retaliate for our 2,000+ civilians who died in the world trade center." We have to first see war/abortion for what they really are to make morally informed decisions about them. We may make the same decisions, but they would be informed and our blinders would be off. Remember, this is life and death we are dealing with and its worth exploring the facts, debating it on a common ground, and being open to changing our minds if we are led. In the medical profession, it is very rare to find anyone who will say that a fetus is not a human life. Even among pro-choicers. I think the only real arguement is whether we, as a society, put value on that life. Our current value system creates equality for all human life, this is where it gets tricky and where the consitution goes against abortion. Soon, medical science will have the ability to sustain a premature child even into the first trimester. How will you then define life? Does your definition of life change? |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Four things that Carl will absolutely NOT argue with ANY woman about 1. Abortion 'nuff said 2. "I have to pee, can we stop somewhere (NOW)?" proper answer - stop NOW always, ALWAYS in the middle of nowhere (remember, I live in the BIG COUNTRY in the west, there is a lot of nowhere) 3. "I am hungry, can we stop for a bite?" proper answer - no problem, will Chucky Cheese work or should we hit that Red Lobster on the corner? Concert? No problem. After all, I saw Tower of Power only 35 years ago in Oakland. What could have changed? once again, always, ALWAYS in the middle of nowhere and always when you left 45 minutes late for the BEST concert of the year, five hours away in Phoenix, not counting parking, and you now have 4 hours to get there 4. home decoration in any form or shape, including, but not limited to, furniture, pictures, paint color, texture, bedding, carpet, color of napkins or flavor of air freshener That's it, patcon. I have a few more but these are the absolutes. The rest have some wiggle room. Now, for some more blistering fun, guess my top 5 pleasurable acts. I'll give you a hint. They ALL start with the letter "s". Order doesn't matter. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Cru, I STILL refuse to discuss abortion but will address my ideas regarding life on the other end. My Democrat and Liberatarian sides have come out. Here comes my Republican side. By the way, I DO respect your views and your arguments. I just have some different thoughts.
Crime. I will take just one area, although I could and would expand this to others. Child Molestors. Proven. Guilty. No question. I would kill them without a moment's hesitation. I would not ask anyone else to do it. I am willing to risk my soul (and I do believe in God and Heaven). You can make all the argument you might (I won't pre-suppose) about any basis of discussion or right of society or anything else. Child molestors. I am willing to kill them. That is a right of life discussion on the other end. I apparently believe there are some limits. On a side note, a moral question. If you had future knowledge and had run into, say, a young Hitler in, say, the late 1920s, would you have done anything? I am guessing you know my answer. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
pagecarl,
Very excellent points. And I must say that I have enjoyed all your comments. I am always VERY open to changing my opinions on issues, the door is NEVER closed (although I have agreed with 95% of your comments). That is why I generally don't get angry at debates, unless the person I'm debating is irrational, then I just give up. I tend to look at moral arguements in two parts. First part, define whether a single act is truly "moral" in an idealistic sense. Some base these decisions on a belief in God and His rules, others do so based on a societal moral code, more of a humanistic approach. No matter, I think we all tend to have a moral code we live by. I am honest as I can be about an action's morality and take my WANTS out of the equation. I may WANT to kill the person who molested my child and still think that it is completely immoral to do so. The second part is to put that "single action" in context. For instance, I have decided that the single act of abortion is immoral. Now I must decide whether that action, in the context of society, contributes more to the common good or detracts from it. I believe killing anyone is immoral, but I do believe some wars are justified in the proper context. Getting to your comment on molestation, I tend to take it case by case. I do believe many of the offenders are sick and not evil. This is where Hurling makes a good point on hypocrisy. If it was my child, I might kill the guy, but I would still want my act (of killing him) to be illegal. I can support certain laws and moral codes while knowing that I may not, at times, live up to them. Society needs boundaries to keep us in check. We all probably support speed limits, it decreases the accident rate, but I speed from time to time. Do you? In terms of Hitler, ever read Dietrich Bonhoeffer's biography? Here was a devout christian theologian who was a part of a plot to assasinate Hitler. He even comments in his writings that his salvation might be in jeopardy by his actions. He was willing to risk salvation to end an evil. Interesting... This message has been edited. Last edited by: Cru Jones, |
|||
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Tolkien specifically said he did not like allegory (I believe the quote goes something like "I cordially detest allegory and have ever since I grew old enough and wary enough to detect its presence"). He preferred applicability, which he framed as the freedom of the reader to apply the written word, rather than allegory, which he felt was directed by the author rather than the reader. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
still short on time, but hate to miss the fun.
Cru - I don't believe that an unviable fetus counts as life, since it cannot be sustained outside the womb. There, that's my science. I don't care about its beating heart or separate DNA - it is a parasite. When it is possible to transplant an embryo from one woman to another, then I would support that, but not legislate it. On a personal note, having been pregnant (on purpose), if I were ever to become pregnant again, I would have an abortion so fast no one would notice I'd been gone. I was so sick I truly thought I would die. Details on request, but it's rather boring. Carl, I love your list. Do you ever have opinions on home decorating, or do you really not care? I'd expect that most people would at least want to see if a particular sofa is comfortable. Gotta go, I have to pee.  |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Oh, wait, almost forgot Carl's list.
Sucking, sodomy, shtupping, slurping, scuba diving. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
There is that tricky word again...believe. Just remember that your beliefs are no more science/logic based than someone else who happens to have a faith based set of values (i.e., Bush). Therefore, I wouldn't be quick to criticize bringing religious ideology into politics. Your beliefs have no more or less merit to them. By the way, the last time I looked, even a parasite was considered a life. Again, I think we are confusing the "value" of a life with actual life. The value is what everyone disagrees on. A fetus is a human life on every scientific measuring stick. One final comment. You said that you didn't think a fetus "counts" as a life. In my opinion, humanities greatest evils have begun with someone deciding which lives do and don't "count." |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Semantics. An unviable fetus is unviable. It can't live without its life support. Not life. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
[/QUOTE]
Semantics. An unviable fetus is unviable. It can't live without its life support. Not life.[/QUOTE] Interesting choice of words...can't live without life support = not life. You're right...semantics. So, I take it you are against abortion after 24 weeks gestation since the fetus is viable? This is kind of fun Hurley, I'll stop when you want to,just say so. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Not even close, but good! I might use these instead of mine. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Semantics. An unviable fetus is unviable. It can't live without its life support. Not life.[/QUOTE] Interesting choice of words...can't live without life support = not life. You're right...semantics. So, I take it you are against abortion after 24 weeks gestation since the fetus is viable? This is kind of fun Hurley, I'll stop when you want to,just say so.[/QUOTE] Yes, at 24 wks I generally would not allow an abortion. At that point, I would get into a discussion about the mother's life being at risk if the pregnancy would continue, or the fetus being severely deformed, particularly if it is not expected to go to term or die shortly after birth. More gray areas would be a fetus that would be severely handicapped, but could still live many years, or a teenage girl who was raped by her stepfather and was afraid to tell anyone she was pregnant. Then we get into those other areas you mentioned, which don't take into consideration whether the fetus is a human being with rights. We could go on for years on those examples, so I'm just as happy to stop here. On the semantics, a similar category is someone on life support. If they're "brain dead," are they dead? The heart is beating. Pull the plug and the heart stops. Can't live without life support. This is different because this had been an independent person that was already born & functioning. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Ahhh. Now we are getting to where I think the discussion on abortion always needs to go before any real debate can be had. Life support for someone who is brain dead is a reasonable comparison in my book, but I think it goes to support my contention. A brain dead person certainly is alive using objective, medical criteria, just as a fetus is. We are getting back to a "value" approach to life. When I talk with my patients, the decision of whether to use any kind of life support is based on the potential to achieve a reasonable quality of life for a reasonable amount of time. A truly "brain dead" person has a 0% chance to achieve either of these things. In fact, the potential for harm is far greater than the potential for benefit in these cases. Since the sensation of pain is one of the brain's most basic functions, its far more likely that a brain dead person would experience pain before any kind of joy. Therefore, the decision to turn off life support in these cases is simple in my book. However, if I were to say to a family that using short term life support would give the person a 98-99% chance of having a healthy life for possibly 80+ years, what would you say to that? I would say that is a life worth saving, even if it wasn't "viable" at the time. I would also say that the "non-viable" individual would choose to be saved, if they had a voice. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Ack. As much as I've tried to stay out of the abortion debate, I have to put my two cents' worth in. Cru, perhaps you don't mean to come across this way, but IMO your tone is that of a debater who is enjoying scoring points on the way to winning. Your initial contention that "logically, life begins at conception," is fine in the realm of total objectivity. The problem lies in that an unplanned pregnancy doesn't lie in the realm of total objectivity; in fact, logic flies out the window entirely. I speak from experience, as I'm the result of an unplanned pregnancy & shotgun marriage, pre-Roe days. My parents "did the right thing" & got married, but their marriage was very unhappy & that has affected my entire life. Logically, of course I know that it's not my fault that I was conceived, but that doesn't affect the emotional results. Many people seem to think that "choosing life" is always better, but what sort of life? I don't see that my "right to existence" trumped their right to decide what's best for them. No one is forced to get an abortion if it's not the right decision for that person (at least not in the US). In the end, choosing whether to continue a pregnancy or not is an intensely personal decision, & IMO should be made ONLY by the people involved.
|
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Alais, I do enjoy debating and I'm sorry if I came across as crass. I'm truly sorry to hear your circumstances, but it seems that most of the emotional baggage you're speaking of has to do with an unhappy marriage. I'm not so sure you would feel the same way if you were adopted by two happily married and loving parents, but I could be wrong. I think your personal indifference in regard to your own existence puts you in the minority. However, the fact that your still here tells me you put a higher value on your life than you are alluding to. Either way, that is beside the point.
I think decisions cease to be "personal" when they involve life and death as this issue does. As a society, we interfere with personal decisions all the time. If I abuse my child in the privacy of my own home, he will be taken away by the governement. It may be "personal" and only involves my family, but it doesn't make it ok. I was using logic and science to define a human life. This is where I believe we need to be EXCEPTIONALLY objective. If we are not, we are letting our own personal beliefs and biases decide when a life begins, thus deciding when it is ok to end it. This allows ourselves to put a value on someone else's life. Hitler did this and we say it was an atrocity. We arbitrarily put a value on an unborn human life and we call it "personal" and a "right." I am not naive to the implications this has for our society. I know there are difficult situations that will never be remedied. But, I do know that abortion is not the answer. |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Cru - I have kept out of this one but at this point I will add simply that I support and agree with Alias. I read and respect your arguments, BUT; Trying to solve real world difficulties with pure logic has never worked and never will. To me (and only to me) you do not come across as crass, instead, you come across as exceptionally arrogant by even suggesting to Alias how she might feel "if this or if that". Just my perception. I personally have no interest in discussions that resemble a college debate team competition. Been there, done that. Theoretical arguments rated and judged through a system of logic rules derived from Aristotle, Plato and Aristophanes (Greek comedies, since this is somewhat humorous to me) hold no interest for me, personally. Again, I do read your discussions. I prefer, however, to enter into and continue discussions with people who argue from a point of passion, personal involvement and yes, personal baggage. Keep up the debate! |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Cru, I'm not quite sure how to respond here. I have the feeling that I missed making any of the points I was hoping to in my first post. I'll give it one more try.
Certainly my parents' unhappy marriage caused a huge amount of emotional baggage. My point was that, had they not been faced w/the unintended pregnancy, they possibly 1) would have figured out they weren't suited & not married, 2) married w/o all the guilt & approbation that early 1960s society & family members heaped on them, or 3) been just as unhappy, married to each other or not. There's really no way of knowing what the outcome could have been. In any case, an unintended pregnancy at that time (& still nowadays) placed a major handicap on their abilities to fashion the sort of life they had envisioned. The point I was trying to make here is that I see no argument, logical or emotional, that gives more weight to "the right to my existence" than to their right to decide what life path was best for them. I'm not sure what your comment "the fact that your (sic) still here tells me you put a higher value on your life than you are alluding to" is getting at. At first read, what I inferred was that as I was indifferent to my own existence, I should have "disappeared" myself at some point. However, I'm sure that I misread you, &, as you said, it's entirely beside the point. I agree that a physical human life begins when a sperm meets an egg. However, I also agree w/Hurling's statement that an embryo is not a viable life w/o a support system; in this case, a uterus (let's leave Huxley's Brave New World out of the equation for now). Both of these statements are logical & scientifically correct, & I don't find either to be contradictory. Where we end up differing in how we view what could/should happen in an unplanned pregnancy. If I read your position correctly, you believe that a physical human life begins at the moment of conception & the embryo is instantly invested w/all the same rights as an adult human being, & that you base this belief on logic & science. Therefore, you oppose abortion because it violates the rights of the embryo. Is that correct, or have I missed something? My take is just what I said before: no one is being forced to get an abortion if it's not the right decision for that person (or people). It's an intensely personal decision, & should be made only by the people involved. Where I differ from you is that while in my viewpoint you're free to decide that you don't want to have an abortion, in your viewpoint I'm not free to make that decision for myself. In other words, you're saying that your viewpoint trumps mine, even though you don't know anything about me, my life, or my situation (other than that I like Lost). Furthermore, and again this is just my opinion, you appear to state that your belief system is superior because it is based on logic & science. However, I don't think it's possible for a person to have a belief system w/o including one's own values & biases. I would guess that everyone believes his/her belief system is inherently logical, especially in the Western world, where logical thought is particularly prized. Can we agree to disagree on the topic of abortion, & leave it at that? Many apologies for the length of this post, & for its very personal nature. I rarely talk about this issue, but I felt that Cru's statement ("I would also say that the 'non-viable' individual would choose to be saved, if they had a voice") needed an answer from someone w/life experience in this area. Now returning to regularly scheduled programming... |
|||
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
IRAQ:
I think the time to invade Iraq and depose Saddam was during the Gulf War when Saddam had begun a war of aggression and we had international support. But that didn't happen. I think you can not impose a republic/democracy on a people who are not ready for it. I think our invasion of Iraq was shameful. I believe we ought to have given the UN inspectors more time because frankly I never believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and I don't know squat. I think the reason radical Islam has such a devout following is because the people of the middle east detest our continued intrusion into their affairs. And God knows we have intruded. We ousted the duly elected president of Iran in 1953 and put the Shah back on the throne because President Mossadeq intended to nationalize Iran's oil. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing for the president of Iran to do. We didn't give a fig about democracy in the region back then. Today's Islamic radicalism was born in that CIA/SIS coup. Home grown politics: I am registered as "non-partisan" and have been for 25 years. Republican/Democrat its all the same thing. I don't like George W. I am embarrassed by and for him. Finally: I hate that they call all the ex-presidents "President". "Here with us today are President Carter and President Ford" Makes me crazy! "Here with us today are former presidents Mr. Carter and Mr. Ford." |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
You're right, they should be presented as "former president" (as opposed to Nixon, who was "ex-president"). But if I met one of them, I would address him as "Mr. President." Even the ones I despise. It's just the respect due to someone who worked very hard in a very difficult job. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Wow. Ok, I've obviously crossed the line without knowing it. Pardon my own arrogance on the issue, Pagecarl. I wasn't trying to presume to know how some person would actually feel, I was simply trying to separate the issue of abortion from that of a bad family life. It doesn't matter what I was trying to communicate, however, and I apologize if I offended you Alais. I think email tends to feel more impersonal which makes it easier to debate this difficult issue and yet harder to see how one might offend another.
I want you to know Alais, that I respect your stance on the issue. I don't pretend that the world is black and white, or that all suffering can ever be made right. I do have a very personal experience with abortion. It has just pushed me in a different direction than you. Please don't blow off my opinions because you think my life experience is not enough. My own personal experience has everything to do with a "forced" or at least "coerced" abortion so I think it goes both ways on the issue of choice. However, I prefer to debate the issue minus the baggage. That doesn't mean my method is better, its just my preference. I find that a debate is generally unfruitful and quickly turns into an arguement if this approach is not taken. Again, thats my experience, it may not be yours. Finally, and I really do mean finally as I will not post again in this thread. Alais, you have pretty much read my position on abortion correctly. In addition, if you read the thread from the beginning, you will see that I was actually arguing one of your points (about viewpoints being equal). Hurling said she disagreed with the conservative stance on abortion because she felt that is was not at all based on logic or reason but based on a belief in God. I was arguing (thus my EXTREME emphasis on logic and science) quite the opposite. I was trying to argue that her stance was just as much, if not more, based on a belief system than say, Bushs' belief in God. Neither belief system is greater than the others'. I do happen to feel that my position is more grounded with evidence, but that doesn't make my veiwpoint "trump" yours. This is a democracy and in the end, logic/reason/science get thrown out the window. The majority rules. However, I took issue with Hurling's statement and that started the debate. Just to make my position clear, and the arguement I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make, I will summarize it. 1) I believe life begins at conception (this is where I was using science). 2) I believe the abortion debate should be centered around the VALUE of life, not whether it is an actual human life. If we try to select a week of gestation where life actually begins, it gets very gray and, thus, I feel the need for objectivity/science on this point and this point alone. 3) I believe all life has value and that only the individual has the right to decide his/her fate. I do not have the right to determine another person's value. THIS is where we disagree. You place your rights in the hands of the mother and I place them in the hands of the unborn child. BOTH positions on this are opinion and belief system based. BOTH are valid. BOTH have serious consequences for the mother and the unborn child. Yes, we can agree to disagree on this. 4) I can't accept the notion that this is all "personal." If one thinks a great injustice is being done (as I do), can you fault that person for protesting it or trying to change the law? Wouldn't you do the same if you felt an indvidual's rights were being abused? For the record, I wasn't trying to change your mind or anyone elses. I respect your position, I really do. I was simply trying to have a spirited debate. Pagecarl, I understand your point about my method of debate not being personal. Arguing from passion/personal baggage has its place, but I don't like to make serious decisions based on emotion. I think it clouds the issue. I'd hate to see our leaders decide to drop an A-bomb on an enemy b/c of passionate reasons after 9/11 or b/c one of them had some baggage from Vietnam. I'd like to hear sound arguments on how an A-bomb would solve the problem and whether it is a moral solution. If you have a better way to talk about such issues than point/counterpoint, I'd really like to know. I still won't bring my baggage into it, however. I'll read any responses, but I won't post again. If I offended anyone by my above statements, I didn't mean to. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Cru Jones, |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Wow, I've been away for a couple of days and you guys have really kept this thread going. Well done chaps!
On the issue of abortion: screw the whole pro-life, pro-choice debate. I'm pro-awareness, or maybe more specifically pro-prevention. Everyone wants to talk about what happens after a person becomes pregnant, which in the case of abortions, is usually due to an unwanted pregnancy of some kind. Just as important is HOW that person got to this unwanted pregnancy in the first place. First off I tend to agree that life begins sometime after conception when the egg has been fertilized. I must confess my ignorance that I don't hold any definite timeframe of my definition of "sometime after conception" but I don't think that life begins at conception. At that point, the simple organism brewing inside a woman is not developed enough to distinguish it from another microscopic lifeform such as bacteria (besides the chromosomes and DNA obviously). This can be argued though and I'm sure it will. I just get outraged when I hear of rape victims being denied emergency contracptives. In this case, a fetus, at any stage, should be destroyed at the victim's wishes. Then the rapist should be charged with rape AND first degree murder. I realize that I just said that after conception, the fetus isn't in my mind considered human, so with my logic how can we charge the rapist with killing a human?...but there should be this exception to punish rapists to a greater extent. We make exceptions on minors who commit crimes and charge them as adults, so why not? On to prevention. Bush has done a great amount of work and poured a lot of money into programs to deter unwanted pregnancy and abortions. Unfortunately the Decider, as he likes to be called now, thinks that the only form of birth control is abstinance. This is a prime example of how Bush's religion blinds him of common sense and robs our country of policies that work. Kids/adults are going to have sex no matter what the president says. If we're not responsibly teaching them about this, there is a greater chance for unwanted pregnancy. I know people that have tons of kids that shouldn't be procreating at all and I truly believe that's due to the lack of education; and I'll admit, a little common sense. If Bush really wants to help against unwanted pregnancies, he'd have poured money into awareness programs designed to teach our citizens responsible methods of birth control and general sex awareness. Plus he'd make birth control free to anyone who wants it. My girlfriend gets free birth control at Planned Parenthood...simple as that. The problem is that there are programs in place, but the funding is limited and the programs themselves get minimal, if any, attention by our policy makers. Our government is already in bed with the drug companies, but I guess the love is a one way street; the street that leads right up the common man/woman's ass. But here's Bush giving away money to Faith-based initiatives designed to teach abstinance. Many people believe that this has led to increasing numbers of STD's among young people because they think that since they shouldn't have sex till they're married, then oral or anal sex is fine. Yeah, you can't get pregnant from anal sex, but you can still get AIDS just like you can get a plethora of STD's from oral sex as well. The U.S. is the greatest country in the world, and we have all the resources available to curb our unplanned pregnancy problem, thus reducing the number of abortions. It's not like Bush is afraid to spend money, he's like a natural born Democrat with spending. Plus he's already borrowed more money from foreign countries than ALL THE U.S. PRESIDENTS IN HISTORY COMBINED! Throw a little love our way, guy! |
|||
|
|
Wicked Awesome Member |
Cru, I'm sincerely sorry about your experience. It sounds silly, but if I had a magic wand & could change it for you, I would.
Poppa, I agree that prevention would do more than anything else to reduce the sorts of situations that Cru, myself, & many, many others have found ourselves in. On that topic, has anyone else seen the news headlines about a possible male contraceptive pill? |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© 2000-2007, The Fodder Network. All Rights Reserved. Don't steal our stuff.