Democrats & Republicans Switch Sides

[crb]

I find it somewhat refreshing.

Tim Kaine, a probable Obama veep choice, is pro-life.

Tom Ridge, a probable McCain veep choice, is pro-choice.

How would it play out?

[Drew]

I'm already on the fence about voting for McCain, but if his VP was pro-choice I wouldn't vote for him.

[Back]

There should only be one side. The human race squabbling against each other is counter-productive. If we are supposedly the only living organisms in the Universe then we need to populate it. Imagine the profits?

And if there is other life in the Universe I nominate tequila body shots as an introduction to our continued success.

[Ashliana]

The personal beliefs of government officials are irrelevant to me.

Given that I believe the purpose of a government is not to enforce the religious beliefs of one group on another, I don't believe that any religious opposition to abortion being a legal choice is appropriate. An official can state that they think abortion is wrong, and yet realize that it's not their or any legislative body's job to tell citizens whether or not they should be allowed to do something they personally find morally offensive.

There's a difference--at least for rational people--between being for or against something personally and for thinking it's the government's job to tell citizens how to make their own moral choices.

Do you believe gay marriage is an abomination before the Lord? That's great, if misguided, in my opinion. But do you believe your religious beliefs should dictate how someone else whom doesn't necessarily share your beliefs should be forced to follow the life that you dictate?

Are you also willing, conversely, to accept the possibility that their religious beliefs will be or might be imposed upon you? I believe religion has absolutely no place in government.

Tim Kaine, to this point, has not supported any unreasonable denial of a woman's self-deteriministic right to her body. Which is why I voted for him, and would vote for an Obama/Kaine ticket.

[ClydeR]

I'm already on the fence about voting for McCain, but if his VP was pro-choice I wouldn't vote for him.

No need to worry about that. McCain has already assured (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/McCain_says_would_be_difficult_to_have_prochoice_r unning_mate.html) GOP primary voters that he would not pick a pro-abortion running mate.

[Ashliana]

Just like it would be difficult for Obama to pick a VP favoring anti-choice legislation.

[BigWorm]

Just like it would be difficult for Obama to pick a VP favoring anti-choice legislation.

You know Obama is basically Pro-Life, right?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You know Obama is basically Pro-Life, right?

Obama is personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. He's said he personally disagrees with abortion but does not feel like outlawing abortion is any responsible way to go about reducing or stopping them.

[Gan]

There should only be one side. The human race squabbling against each other is counter-productive. If we are supposedly the only living organisms in the Universe then we need to populate it. Imagine the profits?

And if there is other life in the Universe I nominate tequila body shots as an introduction to our continued success.

Well said comrade.

Well said.

http://www.russianlife.com/archive/StalinLead.jpg

[Nieninque]

No need to worry about that. McCain has already assured (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/McCain_says_would_be_difficult_to_have_prochoice_r unning_mate.html) GOP primary voters that he would not pick a pro-abortion running mate.

I know this has been said many times before, but you're a fucking idiot.

Pro Choice is not the same as Pro Abortion.
You don't see Pro-choice campaigners outside pregnancy clinics urging women to have abortions. Do us all a favour and STFU.

[Drew]

The personal beliefs of government officials are irrelevant to me.

Given that I believe the purpose of a government is not to enforce the religious beliefs of one group on another, I don't believe that any religious opposition to murder being a legal choice is appropriate. An official can state that they think murder is wrong, and yet realize that it's not their or any legislative body's job to tell citizens whether or not they should be allowed to do something they personally find morally offensive.

There's a difference--at least for rational people--between being for or against something personally and for thinking it's the government's job to tell citizens how to make their own moral choices.


See what I did there?

[crb]

Obama is personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. He's said he personally disagrees with abortion but does not feel like outlawing abortion is any responsible way to go about reducing or stopping them.
Or, in other words, Obama is a savvy politician.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Or, in other words, Obama is a savvy politician.

Yeah, and in general. He's smart enough to realize that outlawing abortion or even overturning Roe v. Wade isn't going to stop it. At all.

[crb]

Actually, I believe studies have shown otherwise (and I say that as someone who is pro-choice).

I was referring, however, to his mastery of the hair splitting manuever. A must for any slimey politician. (I did not have sexual relations with that woman, she had them with me?).

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Actually, I believe studies have shown otherwise (and I say that as someone who is pro-choice).

Proof on that, please. All the studies I've read have found a much larger correlation between lower abortion rates and comprehensive sex ed with available contraceptives, but if you have the data I would be interested in seeing that.


I was referring, however, to his mastery of the hair splitting manuever. A must for any slimey politician. (I did not have sexual relations with that woman, she had them with me?).

I happen to know quite a few people (my father included, just off the top of my head) who are personally Pro-Life and politically Pro-Choice. Just because you would never want an abortion for yourself and/or your family and friends (nor would you advocate it to them) doesn't mean you can't believe that other people should have the right to.

Kind of like how straight people can still be for gay marriage even though they personally wouldn't marry someone of the same sex.

[Ashliana]

It's not political maneuvering. It's a very clear distinction--personal beliefs don't necessarily translate into thinking it's the government's job to enforce my beliefs on others.

I believe parents should be responsible in what they buy for their children--movies, books, games, etc. Does that translate into thinking the government should tell kids what they should or should not have access to? No.

Do you call that "splitting hairs"?

[BriarFox]

There's a difference--at least for rational people--between being for or against something personally and for thinking it's the government's job to tell citizens how to make their own moral choices.

Do you believe gay marriage is an abomination before the Lord? That's great, if misguided, in my opinion. But do you believe your religious beliefs should dictate how someone else whom doesn't necessarily share your beliefs should be forced to follow the life that you dictate?


These are excellent points, Ashliana.

[CrystalTears]

I happen to know quite a few people (my father included, just off the top of my head) who are personally Pro-Life and politically Pro-Choice. Just because you would never want an abortion for yourself and/or your family and friends (nor would you advocate it to them) doesn't mean you can't believe that other people should have the right to.

Kind of like how straight people can still be for gay marriage even though they personally wouldn't marry someone of the same sex.
Agreed. I'm the same way.

[crb]

Right... I'm sure political expediency doesn't enter into Obama's position at all.

Consequently... I find his positions on the issue extreme, or atleast they used to be before he was running for president. I honestly doubt he is at all pro-life, politically, personally, or in any way. Disagree with me, but that is my measure of the man.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html



But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

The Illinois State Senate vote in particular, I remember reading about that last fall.



In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”


Personally, I am pro-choice, I find it a matter of public health. I think abortions are cheaper than unwanted babies for society. Callous, but practical.

However, I personally also draw the line at crushing a living baby's head. I cannot see how Obama can claim to be personally pro-life and support that. I think he is a liar.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

So you just "don't believe it" because you have a feeling he's lying about it. Awesome. Again though, you seem to be confusing his POLITICAL view with his PERSONAL one. Not everyone agrees with legislating their morality or their ethics.

As far as his comments about his daughter-- again, I'll cite my dad as a reference. He is personally Pro-Life, and has told me that if I got pregnant on accident, that he would be more than supportive and happy if I decided to keep it. He also said that he believes it's my body and my choice and that ultimately, if I got an abortion he would also respect that.. even though it isn't what he would recommend. To me, that's exactly how Obama feels to his own daughter. That ultimately, while he would really not want her to get an abortion, he would similarly not want to see her choice taken away and a baby used as a punishment.

As far as the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. That ban was an utter failure for the Pro-Life movement. This was a rare and extreme procedure done only in times of medical crisis. And now instead of crushing the skull, they simply dismember the fetus in-utero before removal. Frankly, you should research it more before you make a judgment call on it.

[crb]

So you just "don't believe it" because you have a feeling he's lying about it. Awesome. Again though, you seem to be confusing his POLITICAL view with his PERSONAL one. Not everyone agrees with legislating their morality or their ethics.

As far as his comments about his daughter-- again, I'll cite my dad as a reference. He is personally Pro-Life, and has told me that if I got pregnant on accident, that he would be more than supportive and happy if I decided to keep it. He also said that he believes it's my body and my choice and that ultimately, if I got an abortion he would also respect that.. even though it isn't what he would recommend. To me, that's exactly how Obama feels to his own daughter. That ultimately, while he would really not want her to get an abortion, he would similarly not want to see her choice taken away and a baby used as a punishment.

As far as the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. That ban was an utter failure for the Pro-Life movement. This was a rare and extreme procedure done only in times of medical crisis. And now instead of crushing the skull, they simply dismember the fetus in-utero before removal. Frankly, you should research it more before you make a judgment call on it.
Are you really this dumb? How can you be so poor at reading comprehension?

I'm not confusing anything.

I understand Obama says he is personally against abortion.

I understand, by voting record, he is as pro choice as they come.

I said I think he is lying about his personal position. My opinion is that he is a liar.

Now, tell me, how can one be confused about one's own opinion?

You're welcome to say you have a different opinion, but don't tell me I'm confused about mine.

[Parkbandit]

Personally, I would never consider a child "punishment".. and I'm pro-choice.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Are you really this dumb? How can you be so poor at reading comprehension?

I'm not confusing anything.

I understand Obama says he is personally against abortion.

I understand, by voting record, he is as pro choice as they come.

I said I think he is lying about his personal position. My opinion is that he is a liar.

Now, tell me, how can one be confused about one's own opinion?

You're welcome to say you have a different opinion, but don't tell me I'm confused about mine.

You're definitely one with the shitty reading comprehension, but hey, that's no longer a surprise to me.

Obviously we who you at least seemed to be responding to, are AWARE of his voting record, as well as what he's said about his personal moral beliefs.

And yet you still post his voting record (including his vote against banning partial-birth abortion) even though again, we know. And you post it right after you state that you just have a feeling that he's lying, as well as a clip from an article negatively commenting on something Obama said about not wanting his daughter to be forced into staying pregnant.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist that his voting record and his comment about not forcing his daughter to do what she doesn't want to do were she ever in the situation of an un-planned pregnancy are supporting "evidence" for your "he's a liar!" theory.

Hence why I am pointing out that A- his voting record absolutely has nothing to do with it, and B- Him not feeling it's okay for his daughter to be coerced into unwanted motherhood, is not proof or even good evidence that he is personally pro-choice.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Personally, I would never consider a child "punishment".. and I'm pro-choice.

I personally wouldn't either, but forcing someone to keep a pregnancy and have a child because "that's what they get for having sex without the intent to become parents/failsafe contraceptive/period!" is a punishment mindset and is not uncommon among groups of Pro-Lifers.

Also, for some people, forced pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood would be a punishment. Call it harsh but not everyone is cut out to be or ready to be a parent.

[crb]

You're just babbling now.

You think its wrong for me not to believe everything Obama says? That is what your posts boil down to right? Obama says he is personally pro-life, therefor it is true, and I am wrong to question him?

Do you realize how crazy that sounds? You think everyone should have implicit trust in what Obama says?

I didn't realize that suspecting a politician of lying was so controversial..... someone should send a memo to every comedienne out there, no more jokes about politicians lying! Narcissiia will have a fit!

Really Narcissiia, I post his voting record because it is relevant to the discussion, and really... when someone is not arguing facts and is explicitly stating something as their opinion what do you gain from so vehemently attacking them for it?

[TheWitch]

It's not a punishment, if you're equipped to deal with it.

And by "it" I don't just mean the bundle of joy.

I mean the medical costs associated with the pregnancy and birth, the physical costs associated, the psychological costs, etc etc etc. And by "equipped", I do not mean having the rest of society end up paying for it via handouts.

Having had two children, I'm fairly well versed in these costs, and they're not for a 15 year old to handle, or a crack adict, or an abused woman, or a silly gal whose parents insisted on not telling her anything about sex deeming she wasn't ready when in fact her body told her otherwise and the list goes on. Far too often, no one comes out ahead in these situations - not the mother, not the child.

It isn't a choice easily made, or carried out.
But it does need to remain a choice.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You're just babbling now.

You think its wrong for me not to believe everything Obama says? That is what your posts boil down to right? Obama says he is personally pro-life, therefor it is true, and I am wrong to question him?

Do you realize how crazy that sounds? You think everyone should have implicit trust in what Obama says?

I'm saying before you call someone a liar, you should have some sort of evidence unless you want to be called out as a total dumbass.


I didn't realize that suspecting a politician of lying was so controversial..... someone should send a memo to every comedienne out there, no more jokes about politicians lying! Narcissiia will have a fit!

It's not controversial. And frankly, you're not a commedienne so calling a politician a liar simply because you feel it in your heart is really not the same.


Really Narcissiia, I post his voting record because it is relevant to the discussion, and really... when someone is not arguing facts and is explicitly stating something as their opinion what do you gain from so vehemently attacking them for it?

Wow, it must have been purely coincidental that you posted his voting record with certain very liberal votes that go against the Pro-Life movement bolded by you, right below an excerpt from an article that calls into question him being personally pro-life, followed by you saying that even partial-birth abortions are too extreme for you.. and not all supposed to be viewed as you trying to use it as evidence. SO sorry.

But in that case, why exactly do you think he's lying about being personally pro-life besides this "gut feeling"? Or are you just inclined to think he's liar because he's a Democrat?

[crb]

I don't need evidence for my opinions. I said what they were, I said why they were.

I say "I think he is lying"

It means... "I think he is lying"

WTF woman, I'm not doing a cross examination on him, this is an Internet discussion forum. This isn't a court of law, I don't need to prove he is a liar for me to think he is a liar.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I don't need evidence for my opinions. I said what they were, I said why they were.

I say "I think he is lying"

It means... "I think he is lying"

WTF woman, I'm not doing a cross examination on him, this is an Internet discussion forum. This isn't a court of law, I don't need to prove he is a liar for me to think he is a liar.

You're the one getting your panties in a twist, not me. And yeah, you don't have to prove anything, never said you absolutely had to. Though it's certainly amusing watching you freak the hell out over me asking "So why?".

[Latrinsorm]

Do you believe gay marriage is an abomination before the Lord? That's great, if misguided, in my opinion. But do you believe your religious beliefs should dictate how someone else whom doesn't necessarily share your beliefs should be forced to follow the life that you dictate?

Are you also willing, conversely, to accept the possibility that their religious beliefs will be or might be imposed upon you? I believe religion has absolutely no place in government. What is your belief that fetuses are part of a woman's body rather than individuals deserving of Constitutional protection based upon?

[TheWitch]

What is your belief that fetuses are part of a woman's body rather than individuals deserving of Constitutional protection based upon?

Not answering for her but myself when I say, yea, pretty much.

The physical burden of that pregnancy is on the the mother 100% - not the father, not government, not the rich white guy in his fancy house nor the Aytollah of Iran.

That pregnancy does not produce a viable human being until around 28 weeks, and even at that point will need serious medical intervention to survive. You can deduce from this that no, I'm not in favor of all the medical bullshit that goes on prolonging a vegetative existance, nor prolong old age into absurdity, and yes, I am pro-capital punishment.

Never mind how the woman got pregnant in the first place - at the point abortion becomes a consideration that is no longer relevant. Did her parents fail her, did her birth control fail her, did society fail her, did the schools fail her? It does not matter.

Facing an unwanted pregnancy, however it happened, the choice needs to be available for a safe, medically managed termination of that pregnancy.

The alternative is punative, sexist and regressive.

All of this is my opinion, so you Latrin may ask for documentation all you want. I will tell you to shove it.

[Ashliana]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the moment an egg is fertilized, that the woman's vagina and developing life inside transform into "property of the state."

As a pragmatic reality, you're never, ever, ever going to be able to stop women from having abortions. Babies have been aborted for as long as there have been babies. People are impulsive and irresponsible. Not everyone is ready for a baby.

Do I advocate abortion? No, I don't. It's a tragic thing. But for one reason or another, women are going to continue to seek abortions. Trying to outlaw them only makes the procedure riskier for everyone, when we should be concentrating on how to help potential mothers deal with their pregnancy, and give opportunities and alternatives to women seeking abortions.

Under a desire to protect citizens or potential citizens--If you want to tell a woman that she has to carry her unborn child to term, against her will, you'd better be absolutely ready to provide the resources to care for it. You don't get to afterwards sit there, scratching your head when that mother didn't have the resources, inclination or experience to properly care for it and then turn around and prosecute them for neglect/etc.

A religious objection, I believe, has no place in government.

[Tsa`ah]

Pro-life, pro-choice ... the distraction is here again.

It won't make a difference unless people believe the VP will be able to overturn RvW.

[TheWitch]

Do I advocate abortion? No, I don't.

For the record, neither do I.

But it is not government's place to make that choice for anyone.

No, I don't think the VP will be able to get RvW overturned. However, as we slide farther and farther into the stupor that seems to be setting over this country where we let the goverment tell us what we can and can't eat, that we must wear seat belts, where we are regulated virtually into submission and people like Mike Savage and Imus loose their freedom of speech to the politically correct - I will take any opportunity, any, to advocate for a return of personal responsibility and call for government to stay the hell out of the personal lives of the people of this country.

Yes, it is a distraction but less that, than it is indicative of religious beliefs and politcal correctness taking the place of the Constitution.

[Latrinsorm]

All of this is my opinion, so you Latrin may ask for documentation all you want. I will tell you to shove it.You don't feel at all disingenuous saying that your opinion is right (for America) and the opinion of others is wrong (for America)?
As a pragmatic reality, you're never, ever, ever going to be able to stop women from having abortions. Babies have been aborted for as long as there have been babies. People are impulsive and irresponsible. Not everyone is ready for a baby.

Under a desire to protect citizens or potential citizens--If you want to tell a woman that she has to carry her unborn child to term, against her will, you'd better be absolutely ready to provide the resources to care for it. You don't get to afterwards sit there, scratching your head when that mother didn't have the resources, inclination or experience to properly care for it and then turn around and prosecute them for neglect/etc.It is similarly pragmatic to point out that we are never, ever, ever going to be able to stop women from terminating the existence of their children after birth, yet we go to great lengths to prosecute that. I'm aware that you don't think religious motivations are appropriate for deciding which biological lifeforms warrant Constitution protection, I'm asking what sort of motivations you do feel are appropriate.

[Stanley Burrell]

For the record, neither do I.

But it is not government's place to make that choice for anyone.

No, I don't think the VP will be able to get RvW overturned. However, as we slide farther and farther into the stupor that seems to be setting over this country where we let the goverment tell us what we can and can't eat, that we must wear seat belts, where we are regulated virtually into submission and people like Mike Savage and Imus loose their freedom of speech to the politically correct - I will take any opportunity, any, to advocate for a return of personal responsibility and call for government to stay the hell out of the personal lives of the people of this country.

Yes, it is a distraction but less that, than it is indicative of religious beliefs and politcal correctness taking the place of the Constitution.

One soldier who has died under this fucking pretense (one U.S. soldier, since you're so helplessly hellbent on secularness) is a greater cost than "buckle up, it's the law" ads. What were you inhaling when you typed this out? You honestly make my teeth hurt.

You aren't a Libertarian just because you hold onto these utterly stupid set of values that link Don Imus to the ethnic cleansing of McDonalds, btw. You really think the government has controlled what we eat? HAVE YOU FUCKING SEEN WHAT WE LOOK LIKE? I will skin faces if I see one more snerty comment well past its age group being dished out with a political twist.

[Ashliana]

You don't feel at all disingenuous saying that your opinion is right (for America) and the opinion of others is wrong (for America)?It is similarly pragmatic to point out that we are never, ever, ever going to be able to stop women from terminating the existence of their children after birth, yet we go to great lengths to prosecute that. I'm aware that you don't think religious motivations are appropriate for deciding which biological lifeforms warrant Constitution protection, I'm asking what sort of motivations you do feel are appropriate.

Depends on what you're trying to claim. The constitution limits the rights recognized not to citizens, but to people. I don't think many people would recognize a fertilized egg as a "person." At what point does that fertilized egg become a person?

As mentioned earlier, sometimes we like to use the point of viability--the point at which a baby can, with advanced healthcare, survive outside the womb and mature into a functioning adult. That point has moved further and further back as our ability to save earlier and earlier pregnancies has advanced. But that point of viability is dependant on our technology. Who gets to decide when it stops being a fertilized egg and becomes a person that has recognized rights?

In any case, I'm not sure why you're focusing on "constitutional" rights--the constitution doesn't afford many rights which would be relevant to abortion or unborn life--if you're referring to the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase commonly attributed to the constitution, it's actually in the Declaration of Independence.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Personally, I'm Pro-Choice because of the argument of bodily domain above all else. I believe upon conception that a zygote/embryo/fetus has the complete individual DNA of a human and is therefore a separate "person". I do not think that being a fetus should allow it to occupy a woman's womb against her will, however. That's where bodily domain comes in.

Anyway, in response to Tsa'ah.. even if RvW was overturned (and I don't think it will be), it wouldn't make abortion immediately outlawed everywhere. It would simply mean that women in red states would probably have to go to blue states to get their abortion, and women in blue states would carry on as usual.. so even then I don't see it as being the end of the Pro-Choice movement, merely a step back.

[TheWitch]

One soldier who has died under this fucking pretense (one U.S. soldier, since you're so helplessly hellbent on secularness) is a greater cost than "buckle up, it's the law" ads. What were you inhaling when you typed this out? You honestly make my teeth hurt.

You aren't a Libertarian just because you hold onto these utterly stupid set of values that link Don Imus to the ethnic cleansing of McDonalds, btw. You really think the government has controlled what we eat? HAVE YOU FUCKING SEEN WHAT WE LOOK LIKE? I will skin faces if I see one more snerty comment well past its age group being dished out with a political twist.

What the hell are you talking about.
You get asked that fairly frequently, don't you.

[TheWitch]

You don't feel at all disingenuous saying that your opinion is right (for America) and the opinion of others is wrong (for America)?

I would ask you the reverse.

My opinion counts for just that - my opinion.
Which will determine how I vote, and what I type in places such as this.

It is not incumbant upon you to agree with me. Frankly, I don't think it is possible for it to matter less to me whether you agree with me or not.

[Gan]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the moment an egg is fertilized, that the woman's vagina and developing life inside transform into "property of the state."

As a pragmatic reality, you're never, ever, ever going to be able to stop women from having abortions. Babies have been aborted for as long as there have been babies. People are impulsive and irresponsible. Not everyone is ready for a baby.

Do I advocate abortion? No, I don't. It's a tragic thing. But for one reason or another, women are going to continue to seek abortions. Trying to outlaw them only makes the procedure riskier for everyone, when we should be concentrating on how to help potential mothers deal with their pregnancy, and give opportunities and alternatives to women seeking abortions.

Under a desire to protect citizens or potential citizens--If you want to tell a woman that she has to carry her unborn child to term, against her will, you'd better be absolutely ready to provide the resources to care for it. You don't get to afterwards sit there, scratching your head when that mother didn't have the resources, inclination or experience to properly care for it and then turn around and prosecute them for neglect/etc.

A religious objection, I believe, has no place in government.

/Agreed.

:help:

[crb]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the moment an egg is fertilized, that the woman's vagina and developing life inside transform into "property of the state."

Correction: It is her uterus, not her vagina. Her vagina remains the property of her husband.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't think many people would recognize a fertilized egg as a "person."I think this especially should sound alarm bells for you. It wasn't too terribly long ago that another class of what we now recognize as people were denied their rights on a similar basis.
Who gets to decide when it stops being a fertilized egg and becomes a person that has recognized rights?This is precisely what I'm asking you: you say a religious definition is no good, where does yours come from?
In any case, I'm not sure why you're focusing on "constitutional" rights--the constitution doesn't afford many rights which would be relevant to abortion or unborn life--if you're referring to the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase commonly attributed to the constitution, it's actually in the Declaration of Independence.Yeah.
I would ask you the reverse.I would say it's not a matter of "opinion"; that there is a fact of the matter (that is, when personhood begins). That there is controversy in no way indicates that a factual answer does not exist to be discovered.
Which will determine how I vote, and what I type in places such as this.If that is the case, would it be correct to say that you not only tolerate but would strongly defend the right of other people to vote a certain way because the Pope told them to espouse a particular opinion?

[Ashliana]

It doesn't ring alarm bells. It's a common sense issue, and I don't believe a comparison to racial prejudice of the past is an apt comparison. If you're going back that far, why not further? What makes a fertilized egg so special compared to the basic egg and individual sperm that made it?

If those eggs and sperm also count as a "person," then every male that masturbates is a genocidal maniac, and every woman who doesn't become pregnant at every opportunity since puberty is a murderer.

There's a clear distinction between human life and POTENTIAL human life that you seem to be missing. The point of viability is commonly used as the line to be drawn when it "counts" as a person or not. But that changes with our technology, and seems rather arbitrary. There is no perfect answer to this.

In any case, all you're doing by following this logical train is leading me to my personal objection to abortion. Even if I find it morally wrong, I still don't think it should be the government's responsibility to enforce my sense of morality on the populace.

[TheWitch]

If that is the case, would it be correct to say that you not only tolerate but would strongly defend the right of other people to vote a certain way because the Pope told them to espouse a particular opinion?

Absolutely, as I would not only tolerate but defend people's right to say things even though I might find the things they say to be reprehensible, ie Imus. I may hate what he said, but I absolutely defend his right to say it.

The exceptions are if that person is in voting in the process of making and/or defining laws (ie Congress, Senate, President, SCOTUS) that bind every other person in this country, including those who do not share that person's belief in the supremacy of the Pope.

[Latrinsorm]

It's a common sense issue, and I don't believe a comparison to racial prejudice of the past is an apt comparison.I was referring to women, but yes, a similar argument was used for racial prejudice. "Common sense" is really not appropriate in matters of (potential) life and death, and even if it was I doubt very much you would support anti-abortion laws should the majority of people feel that way at some point.
If you're going back that far, why not further? What makes a fertilized egg so special compared to the basic egg and individual sperm that made it?For one thing, eggs and sperm individually are haploid cells rather than the diploid cells that we all have (minus our eggs and sperm, of course). For another, a woman's eggs have her DNA and a man's sperm have his DNA, but if they were to reproduce the fertilized egg would have neither of their DNA but some combination thereof.

In short, there are very clear biological differences. There is no question that a fertilized egg is biologically alive - but it is certainly not the case that everything alive gains human rights.
In any case, all you're doing by following this logical train is leading me to my personal objection to abortion. Even if I find it morally wrong, I still don't think it should be the government's responsibility to enforce my sense of morality on the populace.What I'm attempting to do is to get at what you feel is a legitimate definition of personhood either in your eyes or in the eyes of the government, and why you feel the particular definition you espouse is legitimate and another is not.
The exceptions are if that person is in voting in the process of making and/or defining laws (ie Congress, Senate, President, SCOTUS) that bind every other person in this country, including those who do not share that person's belief in the supremacy of the Pope.In that case I have the same sort of question for you as I've asked Ashliana: what is a legitimate motivation for the government?

[Ashliana]

I was referring to women, but yes, a similar argument was used for racial prejudice. "Common sense" is really not appropriate in matters of (potential) life and death, and even if it was I doubt very much you would support anti-abortion laws should the majority of people feel that way at some point.

For one thing, eggs and sperm individually are haploid cells rather than the diploid cells that we all have (minus our eggs and sperm, of course). For another, a woman's eggs have her DNA and a man's sperm have his DNA, but if they were to reproduce the fertilized egg would have neither of their DNA but some combination thereof.

Again, addressing the actual issue.. This isn't something you're going to convince me of, nor am I going to convince you. The line that would need to be drawn to settle this would need to be drawn regardless of your irrelevant personal and religious beliefs.

Science attempts to draw the line by using the "point of viability," which is ever-changing as our techniques develop. It's a start, but an imperfect line.


In short, there are very clear biological differences. There is no question that a fertilized egg is biologically alive - but it is certainly not the case that everything alive gains human rights.

I'd agree, that a fertilized egg has life. I'd also say that an unfertilized egg, and the sperm which fertilize it, are life. Is the destruction of any life immoral for a human? I wouldn't say so. If you go that far, masturbation is genocide, and simply living is genocide (you're killing millions of bacteria a day.)

The question is when the fertilized egg becomes a person. No one yet has a definitive answer for that, scientifically. Religiously, some groups insist it's at conception--the fertilization. I don't support that theory. But again, this is irrelevant, because whether or not I personally think it's wrong isn't going to change it's happening--and neither will legislative efforts to restrict people's rights to self-determination.


What I'm attempting to do is to get at what you feel is a legitimate definition of personhood either in your eyes or in the eyes of the government, and why you feel the particular definition you espouse is legitimate and another is not.In that case I have the same sort of question for you as I've asked Ashliana: what is a legitimate motivation for the government?

Okay. I'll give you the longest, most thorough answer possible about my opinion of legitimate motivation of the government:

I personally don't know--and don't think anybody knows--at what point a fertilized egg truly becomes a "person." In my view, the purpose of a government is to (non-exclusive list):

Primarily:

1) maintain public order and civil liberties (police, fire, courts, etc)
2) provide security for the nation (military, economic oversight)

Secondarily:

1) provide basic ammenities (water, trash-pickup, telecommunications)
2) maintain individually expensive, but universally beneficial systems (roads, highways, airports)

Tertiarily:

1) provide relief for the homeless, mentally ill and disabled

---

Nowhere do I see that the purpose of a government is to enforce my sense of morality on others. Laws prohibiting certain behaviors, an obvious infringement on civil liberties, are necessary to maintain public order and the greater whole of civil liberty.

Security of life and property (against murder, theft) are necessary to maintain that public order.

Where do the controversial issues of today come in, under my point of view?

1) The death penalty. The most final punishment a criminal can receive. Looking at the facts--it most likely doesn't deter crime. We live in a society that favors due process over anything else. Meaning that we give people increased due process given the severity of their possible punishment. You're not entitled to a jury trial for a parking ticket, for instance, but if possible jail time is on the table--you are, but not a guaranteed appeal. If you're up for the death penalty, you get an automatic appeal. If we've decided that it's worth executing people to reduce crime (when numerous other countries with lower crime rates do not execute people), we'd better be absolutely sure that they're guilty. We've been proven wrong way too many times by evidence post-conviction for me to put any faith in the process. With the automatic appeals process and due process we've decided they deserve, and the complicated nature of these cases--only 1/3rd of people convicted of capital crimes are ever executed. It also costs around 3-5x more to execute someone (because of the appeals) than lifetime incarceration. Pragmatically, life imprisonment serves the purpose of maintaining public order as efficiently and cheaply as possible far better than execution.


2) Gay marriage. What's my stance, given my previously stated goals?

Which stated goal does legislation against gay marriage further? None. It's discrimination--and religiously based discrimination--and accomplishes absolutely nothing except enforcing one group's beliefs upon another. An ideal compromise would be removing the state from "marriage" altogether. Marriage, as a legal agreement, exists to provide numerous legal conveniences and obligations to the other party. As the churches lost authority, the secular government took over and provided the same obligations/more benefits. As I believe religion has no place in government, I'd suggest removing the word "marriage" altogether from the government's vocabulary. Give everyone--gay or straight--a civil union. Let the church, mosque, temple, community, whatever, that they live in and recognize as a spiritual authority, grant them "marriage."


3) Abortion.

What is the stated goal most often used to oppose the freedom to choose abortion? Pro-Lifers, politically, don't just target the end-result of abortion. They attack the FREEDOM to CHOOSE that abortion. I personally believe that abortion is tragic and should be avoided if possible. But which stated goal is furthered by limiting the inherent self-deterministic right of a woman? You could argue that it helps "maintain public order"--but I disagree. Denying the right to choose abortion, and enforcing that denial of rights, also means that children will be born into unwelcome homes, adding more pressure to likely already-pressured situations. Given the pragmatic fact that abortions have taken place, regardless of their legality, since babies have existed, what does trying to enforce that denial of rights accomplish? It makes it more dangerous (in terms of legal consequences and physical safety/facilities for the woman), or, again, pragmatically--a loss of revenue. Before Roe v. Wade, citizens of states that banned it would travel to more free states and get it done there. We'd see the same thing to Mexico and Canada if the Pro-Lifers had their way.

If simply preventing abortions was the focus of the Pro-Life movement, there are plenty of ways to further their goals: establishing and promoting the more widespread adoption of children, lessening the harsh life of America's poor, and promoting safe sex techniques, which actually work, compared to the very ineffective, "abstinence only" approach. Much of their resources are wasted trying to promote their religious ideals--abstinence before marriage, which furthers absolutely none of my stated goals (which is why I disagree with it.)

In the end, my stated goal of civil liberties (self-determination) outweigh any interest the state could have.

4) Physician-assisted Suicide

I don't believe that denying a person their self-deterministic right to ending their own life threatens any other state interest--including maintaining public order. My previously stated interest in helping the mentally ill, disabled and poor helps prevent the kind of suicidal behavior that causes this. Given the case of the terminally ill wishing to more quickly end their lives--that person's self-deterministic right should not be denied because other people's irrelevant religious objections to suicide exist.

People are free, in my stated world, to follow their own personal beliefs--but they have no place in the GOVERNMENT. If they believe abortion is wrong under any circumstance, don't have one. If you believe gay marriage (or gay relationships) are wrong, don't have one. If you believe suicide is wrong, don't do it.

But your objections over what is wrong and right don't matter to someone living two thousand miles away or two hundred feet away. Self-determination that doesn't negatively impact any other stated goal is paramount.

Kudos to anyone that actually read that.

[radamanthys]

I agree with Ash. I'd go so far as to say that if two consenting adults want to stage a fight to the death, then by all means.

The setup of government I may not totally agree on, though. I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of a government to help the mentally ill, homeless or disabled. It might be for ours, though. We like that kinda stuff- it's 'good'. It'd be more efficient to kill them off. But I don't advocate that. It depends on the values of the society.

On-topic (I think):
The "right to life" idea is bible-thumping hooey disguised as compassion. If a woman wants to get rid of the thing living parasitically inside her, then she's got the right. It's a parasite, not a human. "No killing it- it's human murderarar!!11"? Then why not just induce rather than terminate the pregnancy? Let's see if that motherfucker will survive on its own. I'm guessing little miss/mister zygote in there would be hard pressed to breathe without, well, lungs.

An abortion is a bit more... humane to all involved. Especially considering the alternative if they're banned.

[Gan]

Abortion, not so bad when you consider the alternative...

http://www.themagazine.info/56/Pictures/Briner%20inc/HangerChromeThree.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Kudos to anyone that actually read that.

Seriously.

[Clove]

Abortion, not so bad when you consider the alternative...

http://www.themagazine.info/56/Pictures/Briner%20inc/HangerChromeThree.jpgYou mean Backlash?

[Keller]

crb subscribes to the Obama is a liar fallacy. Ignore him.

[Clove]

crb subscribes to the Obama is a liar fallacy. Ignore him.Yeah, that's easy rhetoric to ignore. The problem is I don't see either Obama or McCain addressing economic issues with any plan that satisfies me; and if I were forced to list one single most important issue, the economy would be it.

Both candidates have strengths I consider desireable in a President- but both fall short where I really need them.

[Parkbandit]

Politician is a liar? NO FUCKING WAY!

I'd love to meet a politician that didn't lie actually.

[crb]

crb subscribes to the Obama is a liar fallacy. Ignore him.
You're not so crying about the smackdown on taxes I've twice given you are you? Need a tissue?

[CrystalTears]

You gave Keller a smackdown on taxes? I seriously doubt that.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Politician is a liar? NO FUCKING WAY!

I'd love to meet a politician that didn't lie actually.

I'd love to meet anyone who didn't lie, considering on average every single person lies at least seven times a day.

[crb]

You gave Keller a smackdown on taxes? I seriously doubt that.
Did you not read the threads or have short term memory problems?

I twice answered one of his claims with numerous unbiased sources and statistics. He was unable to mount a response and waffled both times. to a cop out of "You're wrong." He couldn't find a single source to support his claims or counter mine.

He's just a keynesian douche living in the past.

[CrystalTears]

Did you not read the threads or have short term memory problems?
It would be great if you didn't resort to insults when I haven't done so.


I twice answered one of his claims with numerous unbiased sources and statistics. He was unable to mount a response and waffled both times. to a cop out of "You're wrong." He couldn't find a single source to support his claims or counter mine.

He's just a keynesian douche living in the past.
I tend to believe Keller regarding tax discussions. I don't remember the waffling you're referring to. Then again I'm not one of those who feel that not responding means a victory for you.

[TheEschaton]

In terms of public order, I think the government might have a duty to preserve the dignity of its citizens. Even if there is no dignity inherent to a zygote, the dignity of the people involved in the act itself is important. Does an abortion make you a better person? Does it make us a better society? No. I've known a few people who've gotten abortions, and not one of them wasn't traumatized by it. I've known one girl who was raped, got pregnant, and DIDN'T have an abortion, and her baby girl is the light of her world.

Obviously, that's all just anecdotal evidence that PB wouldn't even shake his dick at. The question to me, becomes - do we (as society) have a right to make people do something to uphold a) primarily, their own dignity, and b) secondarily, our own dignity? The Catholic Social Thought movement (on which I am drawing from for the idea of "the dignity of the human person") would say we do have a right to insist, but that's because it's a hierarchical, top-down organization. I am not so sure. We make drugs illegal for many of the same reasons, and I've never been one for the legalization of hard drugs.

Personally, I believe in "the common good", which is why I find it funny that liberals are the ones who denounce possible restrictions against abortion, as they seem to me, to be for the common good. Of course, I also find it laughable that conservatives would proclaim these anti-abortion stances are for the common good, but then don't care about the common good of people once they are actually born. I have no problems with the needs of society overriding the desires fo the individual - that's liberal philosophy right there. I just wonder if this is something society needs or not.

-TheE-

[crb]

It would be great if you didn't resort to insults when I haven't done so.


I tend to believe Keller regarding tax discussions. I don't remember the waffling you're referring to. Then again I'm not one of those who feel that not responding means a victory for you.
Saying you seriously doubt me is an insult. So yes, you insult me, I insult you back.

And he did respond, he just copped out, twice, twice, on providing any source, statistic, or any other thing other than his opinion and in insult. Then another time recently he tried to argue that capital gains tax cuts didn't result in short term tax receipt gains, and vice versa. Until he realize I knew what I was talking about and wasn't going to be confused on his talk of motivations, and he was forced to agree.

Keller is just a biased liberal spin machine. When comparing tax cuts liberals look at the raw amount received to show what they want to show, namely that tax cuts favor the rich, thats what he keeps wanting to do. Objective people, and conservatives, look at percentages. Tax rates aren't flat, they are a percentage of income, everything with taxes is percentages, it makes no sense to measure them in other ways. 5% of 100 is more than 5% of 10, but both are still 5% and 95/9.5 == 100/10.

And yet, our country is more or less half and half split, liberal and conservative. So all tax cuts the government creates aren't always pure percentages, there tend to be flat ones mixed in as well, or ones limited to people below certain income levels. When you do that, when you change the ratio, it shifts the tax burden, generally in the direction of more to the rich.

Which is why, despite the so called "bush tax cuts for the wealthy" there is a long term trend of the rich paying more and more of the federal tax burden, AND it is higher now, after the cuts, than before.

The other thing liberals claim is that any cut on capital gains tax is a cut for the wealthy. This is a weak claim considering the majority of US households have investments of some sort, so we're all wealthy? Additionally, you can compute actual tax rate, they did this for the presidential candidates for instance. You look at total income and taxes paid and figure out the total rate, thus including capital gains. When doing this you still don't see a larger tax cut for the rich. the 20-40th percentile (lower middle class) had the biggest cut, everyone else is equal or differ only by insignificant amounts.

This of course ignores the greater issue with capital gains, that capital gains is a tax on business investment, and business investment is what allows for business expansion and job creation, which grows the economy and increases, long term, income tax receipts. If you increase the capital gains tax you are effectively increasing the "price" of business investment. And when things cost more, people buy less of them (basic economics there).

All of this I explained to keller, with multiple sources, facts, and figures, objective, conservative, and liberal, and all he could respond with was a "You're wrong, you're dumb, I don't have time."

So ya, I'd call that a smackdown. Or maybe "shock and awe" where the enemy loses his will to fight.

See, the thing about liberal economic spin, is that it tends to only work on the uninformed.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Personally, I believe in "the common good", which is why I find it funny that liberals are the ones who denounce possible restrictions against abortion, as they seem to me, to be for the common good. Of course, I also find it laughable that conservatives would proclaim these anti-abortion stances are for the common good, but then don't care about the common good of people once they are actually born. I have no problems with the needs of society overriding the desires fo the individual - that's liberal philosophy right there. I just wonder if this is something society needs or not.

-TheE-

I'm trying to remain calm about how freakish this seems to me, but you realize this same point of thought can be used to force women to be raped, be pregnant, and give birth against their will? This "common good" argument?

This kind of argument is exactly why I wish more people would adopt the bodily domain stance over any other. To me liberal doesn't mean "common good" comes over personal liberty.. it means personal liberty absolutely overcomes "common good".

[Latrinsorm]

Science attempts to draw the line by using the "point of viability," which is ever-changing as our techniques develop.Can you show me a single scientist that gives any scientific rationale for "viability" being the dividing line between human persons and pre-human beings?
The question is when the fertilized egg becomes a person. No one yet has a definitive answer for that, scientifically.This is because science is ill-equipped to answer such a question. Personhood is a philosophical concept shoehorned into a legal framework, and neither field is governed by science.
People are free, in my stated world, to follow their own personal beliefs--but they have no place in the GOVERNMENT.This clearly is unworkable, though. Let us take "provid[ing] security for the nation". One solution we've seen proposed on this board for that goal is that all brown people ought to be subjected to intense security upon entering the country, and it surely is the case that should one of those brown people turn out to be a terrorist, security will have been provided. At the same time, I feel confident in stating that you and I both would be bitterly opposed to such a government tactic - should our objections over what is right and wrong have any merit in such a situation? If so, why?

[Parkbandit]

In terms of public order, I think the government might have a duty to preserve the dignity of its citizens. Even if there is no dignity inherent to a zygote, the dignity of the people involved in the act itself is important. Does an abortion make you a better person? Does it make us a better society? No. I've known a few people who've gotten abortions, and not one of them wasn't traumatized by it. I've known one girl who was raped, got pregnant, and DIDN'T have an abortion, and her baby girl is the light of her world.

Obviously, that's all just anecdotal evidence that PB wouldn't even shake his dick at. The question to me, becomes - do we (as society) have a right to make people do something to uphold a) primarily, their own dignity, and b) secondarily, our own dignity? The Catholic Social Thought movement (on which I am drawing from for the idea of "the dignity of the human person") would say we do have a right to insist, but that's because it's a hierarchical, top-down organization. I am not so sure. We make drugs illegal for many of the same reasons, and I've never been one for the legalization of hard drugs.

Personally, I believe in "the common good", which is why I find it funny that liberals are the ones who denounce possible restrictions against abortion, as they seem to me, to be for the common good. Of course, I also find it laughable that conservatives would proclaim these anti-abortion stances are for the common good, but then don't care about the common good of people once they are actually born. I have no problems with the needs of society overriding the desires fo the individual - that's liberal philosophy right there. I just wonder if this is something society needs or not.

-TheE-


While I kind of agree with most of your philosophical diatribe, I find it disingenuous that you somehow actually believe that conservatives don't care about people.. and that liberals do.

[crb]

Red states donate more to charity than blue states.

[CrystalTears]

Red states donate more to charity than blue states.

WTFSource?

[Sean]

I thought that study showed donation amounts weren't so much about liberal vs conservative but instead religious (mainly christian) vs non-religious.

[CrystalTears]

Oookay, nevermind. Thanks Sean.

[Stanley Burrell]

What the hell are you talking about.
You get asked that fairly frequently, don't you.

I really don't have to spell it out for you, you stupid bitch.

[Clove]

Did you not read the threads or have short term memory problems?

I twice answered one of his claims with numerous unbiased sources and statistics. He was unable to mount a response and waffled both times. to a cop out of "You're wrong." He couldn't find a single source to support his claims or counter mine.

He's just a keynesian douche living in the past.Keller hasn't responded to you yet, but he's promised to. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Additionally (even though I'm speculating as well) I don't think you have enough basis to label Keller a Keynesian. While taxes are Keller's specialty, I doubt he follows a specific school of economics.

[crb]

Keller hasn't responded to you yet, but he's promised to. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Additionally (even though I'm speculating as well) I don't think you have enough basis to label Keller a Keynesian. While taxes are Keller's specialty, I doubt he follows a specific school of economics.
I won't hold my breath.

[Stanley Burrell]

I find it somewhat refreshing.

Tim Kaine, a probable Obama veep choice, is pro-life.

Tom Ridge, a probable McCain veep choice, is pro-choice.

How would it play out?

I'd say White Flight when Democrats and Republicans actually switched their political bias was more akin to The Gemstone IV Players' Corner > Socializing > Politics > Democrats & Republicans Switch Sides.

But in the land of freedom fries, you're entitled to your dumbass opinion :clap:

[Ashliana]

Can you show me a single scientist that gives any scientific rationale for "viability" being the dividing line between human persons and pre-human beings?This is because science is ill-equipped to answer such a question. Personhood is a philosophical concept shoehorned into a legal framework, and neither field is governed by science.This clearly is unworkable, though. Let us take "provid[ing] security for the nation". One solution we've seen proposed on this board for that goal is that all brown people ought to be subjected to intense security upon entering the country, and it surely is the case that should one of those brown people turn out to be a terrorist, security will have been provided. At the same time, I feel confident in stating that you and I both would be bitterly opposed to such a government tactic - should our objections over what is right and wrong have any merit in such a situation? If so, why?

As I said, the line being drawn by "viability" isn't absolute, and I don't think it determines the so-called "morality" of the process. The important part is that personal morality, as it relates to the denial of rights of others, is irrelevant.

I believe the common sense objection to your racial profiling question is best reflected, in my earlier stated ideal government, by civil liberties being paramount.

In this case, there are two conflicting goals: security of the nation, and the interest in privacy (a civil liberty). In the US, we all give up certain aspects of privacy in order to maintain the greater public order--camera systems are common, especially in urban areas. The hope is that the cost to the civil liberty is low, while the gain of security is high, and it ends up being a net positive.

In the case of racial profiling--the infringement of liberty (subjecting all people or only dark skinned people to extra scrutiny) versus the interest in being "let alone." Which is more important? Many would argue security is more important, and that everyone should face increased scrutiny in dangerous times (which we are), but also agree that specific racial profiling is too high a cost for too little gain.

Back to abortion, I believe the bottom line is that your religiously based motivation for enforcing your opinion on others is selfish, ignorant and inappropriate. Why would you want to deny others the ability to do what you consider a "sin," in the first place, if it doesn't negatively impact you? Are you hoping to save that person's soul from the wrath of your god? Are you trying to please your god by spreading their supposed beliefs? I'll kindly thank you, and every other person trying, not to try pushing their religion on me. Especially ones I personally consider antiquated, based on superstition, gullibility and ignorant attempts at explaining the world through magic or supernatural occurences. I'll return the favor and not push my religious beliefs on you.

[Latrinsorm]

I'll return the favor and not push my religious beliefs on you.This is my point. What are you doing to people who support racial profiling, some of whom no doubt find your objections antiquated, gullible, inappropriate, and ignorant? Put another way, from their perspective, if racial profiling is a permissible thing to do, it will absolutely eventually contribute to security because some terrorists do happen to have brown skin (supposing that scrutiny is not decreased towards non-brown peoples). "What kind of madness is it to permit the deaths of thousands for the sake of your delicate sensibilities?", the objection might go, even if "many" happen to share such sensibilities.

Can you in good conscience maintain your objections (to that or similar issues) without putting the lie to the notion of not pushing your personal beliefs on others?

[Ashliana]

This is my point. What are you doing to people who support racial profiling, some of whom no doubt find your objections antiquated, gullible, inappropriate, and ignorant? Put another way, from their perspective, if racial profiling is a permissible thing to do, it will absolutely eventually contribute to security because some terrorists do happen to have brown skin (supposing that scrutiny is not decreased towards non-brown peoples). "What kind of madness is it to permit the deaths of thousands for the sake of your delicate sensibilities?", the objection might go, even if "many" happen to share such sensibilities.

What is your point? What am I doing to people with whom I disagree about racial profiling? I am simply disagreeing with them: that the cost to civil liberty in that case outweighs the potential gain. It's a net loss, in my opinion. Disagreement is fine, but there's nothing "antiquated, gullible, inappropriate or ignorant" about the stance I'm taking. My objections aren't based on religious beliefs; they're based on cost vs. benefit, for the most part.


Can you in good conscience maintain your objections (to that or similar issues) without putting the lie to the notion of not pushing your personal beliefs on others?

There's a difference between advocating something, with good reason and soundly based on facts and empirical evidence, and trying to force your personal version of morality on people. For the government to act, in my opinion, a compelling interest in infringing on someone's civil liberties is required, and that interest must outweigh the cost. For instance, the government's interest in reducing crime does not justify executing anyone whom commits a crime, or imprisoning all blacks because blacks are tried and convicted proportionately more than others (the source of that is another discussion).

Similarly, the government's interest in increasing safety on airlines does not justify taking extreme measures against dark skinned people on airlines simply because a handful of them have used or tried to use airplanes as weapons. If the concern is the vulnerability of the plane--THAT should be addressed. If the government can provide a strong enough case, in that their benefit would outweigh the cost of the disparate infringement of civil liberty, I'd consider it, even if it meant "racially profiling."

[Keller]

You're not so crying about the smackdown on taxes I've twice given you are you? Need a tissue?

You posted two bar graphs and an opinion.

I told you I didn't have the time to educate you on them at the time.

Are you that hard-headed?

[crb]

http://astrology.earthlyreturns.com/Doctor%20offering%20a%20box%20of%20tissues.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

There's a difference between advocating something, with good reason and soundly based on facts and empirical evidence, and trying to force your personal version of morality on people. My point is that you are in fact trying to force your personal views on people. You don't call them morality, but they are in fact moral concerns; for instance, that civil liberties warrant protection and consideration (more on this later). You don't consider what you're doing "pushing" your beliefs on anyone, but should you and people like you elect a like-minded official this is exactly what you would be doing. You believe that your positions are very reasonable and soundly based and that a particular opposed set of beliefs is wholly ridiculous; I can assure you that you are not the only person with this belief.

I believe I can convince you of the truth of this with the following question (in two parts): why are civil liberties so important that they head your list of what governments ought to do? What makes them trump, for instance, providing food and water to all American citizens (at the expense of all)?

[Tsa`ah]

http://astrology.earthlyreturns.com/Doctor%20offering%20a%20box%20of%20tissues.jpg

Are you related to Mabus? Until now, he's the only one who has posted lengthy retardation and claimed some sort of victory.

Is this the new "texting for tards" program where the participants are told they're all winners?

[Ashliana]

My point is that you are in fact trying to force your personal views on people. You don't call them morality, but they are in fact moral concerns; for instance, that civil liberties warrant protection and consideration (more on this later). You don't consider what you're doing "pushing" your beliefs on anyone, but should you and people like you elect a like-minded official this is exactly what you would be doing. You believe that your positions are very reasonable and soundly based and that a particular opposed set of beliefs is wholly ridiculous; I can assure you that you are not the only person with this belief.

You're incorrectly trying to label me a hypocrite for rejecting your "beliefs" and advocating my own "beliefs." Your objections to abortion are religious in nature. Given that religion has absolutely no place in an ideal (again, in my opinion) government, they're inappropriate.

Having an opinion on something, however, in and of itself, is not necessarily inappropriate. The burden of proof lies on the government's side. Again, in my view of an ideal government--the government does not have unlimited authority "except" in certain cases. It's the OTHER WAY around.

We only give the government authority over us when it serves a compelling purpose. We surrender the autonomy that any person, as a free-willed human being, has, to the government for our own benefit.

My objections are when other people, such as yourself, try to limit my own personal sovereignty and civil liberty without a good reason--i.e., reasons that are scientifically baseless, religious, what have you. The government, in my mind, has absolutely no business telling me what to do based on what YOU think is moral or not. Unless there's a compelling reason, stay the hell out of my life and I'll stay the hell out of yours.


I believe I can convince you of the truth of this with the following question (in two parts): why are civil liberties so important that they head your list of what governments ought to do? What makes them trump, for instance, providing food and water to all American citizens (at the expense of all)?

Again, it's not that the government is protecting something it's given me. People have complete sovereignty over themselves, and choose (or are coerced) to give some of it up, presumably for the greater good. Civil liberty is the basic human condition--you have control over your own body and what you choose to do with it.

Given that other people have the same ability--we, as a society, decide that in order to get along (as we inevitably interact), we must give up some of that chaotic, supreme liberty in order to maintain safety, convenience and opportunity for all. That's why "civil liberties are so important."

The government should only take as much of that liberty away as is necessary. That necessity is proven by making a case for a compelling interest. The state has little to no compelling interest in restricting the freedom of self-determination by outlawing abortion. That would be a significant imposition on the government's part for no gain, and thus unacceptable. Especially based on irrelevant religious beliefs.

[Parkbandit]

Are you related to Mabus? Until now, he's the only one who has posted lengthy retardation and claimed some sort of victory.

Is this the new "texting for tards" program where the participants are told they're all winners?


That's untrue Tsa'ah. You perfected the practice.

Shall I once again prove you are being a complete hypocrite?

[Tsa`ah]

::coughs:: supertuesday ::coughs::

[TheEschaton]

Disagreement is fine, but there's nothing "antiquated, gullible, inappropriate or ignorant" about the stance I'm taking. My objections aren't based on religious beliefs; they're based on cost vs. benefit, for the most part.



Are you serious? Who says the argument against abortion is "antiquated, gullible, inappropriate or ignorant"? You do? What makes you think the anti-abortion view can't be based on a cost vs. benefit analysis? Of course, we're talking a cost vs. benefit analysis of dignity, but I'm sure the Great Hope that is Obama would not be against such an analysis as unreasonable.

I mean, honestly, "religious" does not automatically mean "retard". Plus, as a liberal, you should realize, like I said in my post, most of liberal philosophy consists of pushing a belief on a whole society in hopes that it achieves "a common good."

[Parkbandit]

::coughs:: supertuesday ::coughs::

Your lack of balls somehow equates to you not posting huge 10,000 word paragraphs of bullshit?

I do hope you have something better.

[Ashliana]

Are you serious? Who says the argument against abortion is "antiquated, gullible, inappropriate or ignorant"? You do? What makes you think the anti-abortion view can't be based on a cost vs. benefit analysis? Of course, we're talking a cost vs. benefit analysis of dignity, but I'm sure the Great Hope that is Obama would not be against such an analysis as unreasonable.

I mean, honestly, "religious" does not automatically mean "retard". Plus, as a liberal, you should realize, like I said in my post, most of liberal philosophy consists of pushing a belief on a whole society in hopes that it achieves "a common good."

Granted, I'm being slightly more cynical here than I usually am, towards religion. Religious beliefs are fine--I don't necessarily think that they're completely unfounded. But I do believe they have absolutely no place in government. I'm only a social liberal; I'm much more of a libertarian in other matters, but tend to agree with the Democrats far more often than the current incarnation of the Republicans.

People need to stop thinking of the government as a vehicle for enforcing their religion on the rest of the populace. The colonies were founded exactly to get AWAY from those types of people. But they're now in charge of our government, again.

[Parkbandit]

Granted, I'm being slightly more cynical here than I usually am, towards religion. Religious beliefs are fine--I don't necessarily think that they're completely unfounded. But I do believe they have absolutely no place in government. I'm only a social liberal; I'm much more of a libertarian in other matters, but tend to agree with the Democrats far more often than the current incarnation of the Republicans.

People need to stop thinking of the government as a vehicle for enforcing their religion on the rest of the populace. The colonies were founded exactly to get AWAY from those types of people. But they're now in charge of our government, again.

As an Atheist, I somewhat agree.. until the crazy liberals start telling people we need to ban phrases like "In God We Trust" or "God Bless America". I don't see these as signs of religion as much as historical traditions.

[Stanley Burrell]

There is no fucking way you made the decision to become an Atheist on your own without having your religious backbone shattered in some way, shape or form.

If you didn't grow up with religion, which you later rejected as you grew spiteful, I bite my tongue. Off.

[TheEschaton]

People need to stop thinking of the government as a vehicle for enforcing their religion on the rest of the populace.

Ah, but the people who are against abortion don't think it's a particularly religious issue, but a human issue. IE, it arises out of natural law, but it just so happens certain religions have also adopted it.

Using government to force my beliefs on everyone else would be the government making the proclamation that Mary was a Virgin her whole life.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

There is no fucking way you made the decision to become an Atheist on your own without having your religious backbone shattered in some way, shape or form.

If you didn't grow up with religion, which you later rejected as you grew spiteful, I bite my tongue. Off.

11:52am is too early to start shooting up.

And I didn't reject religion out of spite, you dumb bitch. I rejected it because it was stupid. Much the same way I reject most of your posts.

[Stanley Burrell]

11:52am is too early to start shooting up.

And I didn't reject religion out of spite, you dumb bitch. I rejected it because it was stupid. Much the same way I reject most of your posts.

Sure you did.

[Stanley Burrell]

11:52am is too early to start shooting up.

And I didn't reject religion out of spite, you dumb bitch. I rejected it because it was stupid. Much the same way I reject most of your posts.

Allow me to use my free time to entertain you in my 5 minute opiate hiatus:

Genuinely, think about what a great father you are; one who knows he's doing the right thing for his children, undoubtedly, by either hiding behind the "let my kids decide for themselves" or "I'm teaching my children Atheism."

Now then, having seen your type before, let me explain to you why your being deprived of candy canes and your own loathsome rage at one or more of your own parents for starving the child-part of your brain (that has refused to develop, btw) later seeks to create its own paternal instinct that "knows better" within the confines of its own laughable results of procreation, using the same doppelganger effect through transference, akin to how forced religion would.

.

That was the explanation, Michael.

Read into it if you will, or be your usual cowardly self and hide behind a barrage of what-you-know I'm doing with heroin at 11:52AM, Eastern Standard Time, Saturday, August 2nd, 2008 -- Because you aren't spiteful or a "dumb bitch", like myself, or stupid. Tell me it's not out of personal spite while you're at it, please.

[Stanley Burrell]

By the way, PB, if I told you that your kids are absolutely inclined to reach out and try and fill the religious void, because your being a great dad is so evident; seeing as how you know best, having refrained from stupidity due to your own decline in a belief system, I know your not caring about Internet vBulletins and my stupidity is the sole reason this post doesn't irk you, in the real world ;)

Usual Stanley babble, duh.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Ah, but the people who are against abortion don't think it's a particularly religious issue, but a human issue. IE, it arises out of natural law, but it just so happens certain religions have also adopted it.

Using government to force my beliefs on everyone else would be the government making the proclamation that Mary was a Virgin her whole life.

-TheE-

Which is why the viability debate is one that as a pro-choice person, I stay away from. Bodily domain, at least from the morality standpoint, has much more "even ground", if not the upper-hand.

[Stanley Burrell]

In the nicest way possible, I personally feel that arguing religious obscurities, in and of themselves, to be an unbelievably decent tactic in ignoring almost all data that would question their (prophets, walking Gods, Jesus, demons, etc.) existing in the first place.

We-know-they-existed-based-on-a-tangential-argument-that-fails-to-discern-their-basic-origins is exactly how I personally would invest in the church coffers, especially using the semi-modern facade of circular argument that still doesn't acknowledge whether or not these idols were Earthly objects in the first place.

[Parkbandit]

Usual Stanley babble, duh.

Seriously.

I guess I need a few drinks to translate your typical bullshit retardese..

Unfortunately, I'm going to my cabin on the river.. I'll be back late tonight.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

In the nicest way possible, I personally feel that arguing religious obscurities, in and themselves, to be an unbelievably decent tactic in ignoring almost all data that would question their (prophets, walking Gods, Jesus, demons, etc.) existing in the first place.

We-know-they-existed-based-on-a-tangential-argument-that-fails-to-discern-their-basic-origins is exactly how I personally would invest in the church coffers, especially using the semi-modern facade of circular argument that still doesn't acknowledge whether or not these idols were Earthly objects in the first place.

Morality != Religion.

If you take the religion away from it, all of our laws are based at least some part on morality. So the issue becomes agreeing on morality rather than religious particulars.

Bodily Domain arguments are much less religiously-loaded than viability arguments because there's a lot less grey area on your examples, etc.

[Stanley Burrell]

Morality != Religion.

If you take the religion away from it, all of our laws are based at least some part on morality. So the issue becomes agreeing on morality rather than religious particulars.

Bodily Domain arguments are much less religiously-loaded than viability arguments because there's a lot less grey area on your examples, etc.

I had, thank God, a Reform movement rabbi who; in a secular temple, proposed the idea of it being nearly impossible for Moses to have traveled the desert for more than a day. I am very culturally Jewish, but I believe God to be whatever it is that science hasn't defined yet. I think it's a grey area to most people. Most people have a very concrete description of what religion is, whether or not they're Atheist, religious, or everything in-between. I don't have any concrete example of religion existing other than anything regarding phenomenon -- And that which can't readily be explained as a side-effect. If someone believes that they are religious, more than just culturally, there is no grey area as long as the person believes it. Active religion itself being unquantifiable means that any argument based upon it has that much more scientific probability of being accurate. There isn't any inherently "more grey" area, to me, anyway.

Personally, I think what-happens-after-death and the space-time continuum, being what I see as the two impossibly scientifically identifiable mediums in our universe as what God will be narrowed down to. And that we will realize this if we don't spontaneously self-explode before we can accomplish this.

I don't believe a postulation of whether or not people and objects physically existed is any less or more tied into religion than side-arguments involving the discarding of non-existence and then inherently arguing over more petty specifics.

Oh yeah, morality, in most instances, != religion, I think that's pretty self-evident.

Anyway, your ginormous asphyxiating boobs win the thread.

[Stanley Burrell]

Seriously.

I guess I need a few drinks to translate your typical bullshit retardese..

Unfortunately, I'm going to my cabin on the river.. I'll be back late tonight.

I had a bunch of other retarded crap typed out. Let me use small, readable words, so you can understand my unfathomable rage:

If, I swear to the Atheistic discipline, you ever reference your cabin + bodies of water being involved in your daily activities, without failing to acknowledge your RX-7 and smokin' bitches, and what a great human being you are...

Then the God of Atheists will rain down your throat with hot acid and dissolve your testicles and turn your guts into snakes and make your life more miserable than it already is.

[Clove]

Ah, but the people who are against abortion don't think it's a particularly religious issue, but a human issue. IE, it arises out of natural law, but it just so happens certain religions have also adopted it.

Using government to force my beliefs on everyone else would be the government making the proclamation that Mary was a Virgin her whole life.

-TheE-Agreed, it isn't a religious issue on either side of the fence, it's a morality issue.

For the record, according to the Bible Mary was without sin, no claims were made concerning her virginity. :D

[Clove]

Back to abortion, I believe the bottom line is that your religiously based motivation for enforcing your opinion on others is selfish, ignorant and inappropriate. Why would you want to deny others the ability to do what you consider a "sin," in the first place, if it doesn't negatively impact you? Are you hoping to save that person's soul from the wrath of your god? Are you trying to please your god by spreading their supposed beliefs? I'll kindly thank you, and every other person trying, not to try pushing their religion on me. Especially ones I personally consider antiquated, based on superstition, gullibility and ignorant attempts at explaining the world through magic or supernatural occurences. I'll return the favor and not push my religious beliefs on you.And we'll kindly thank you not to discount a persons objection as "pushing religion" simply because you assume that all moral determinations are based on "antiquated" and "superstitious" attempts to explain the world.

There's nothing superstitious about someone who believes in the supremacy of bodily domain, any more than someone who believes in the supremacy of the sanctity of life.

Attack the argument, not the person.

[Clove]

People need to stop thinking of the government as a vehicle for enforcing their religion on the rest of the populace. The colonies were founded exactly to get AWAY from those types of people. But they're now in charge of our government, again.Clearly you never tried to buy liquor on Sunday in New England.

[Parkbandit]

I tried to understand WTF Stainley was saying... But still can't even after a 6 pack.

So stainley, please tell me you didn't just equate all non religious parents to being bad parents. I'll have to laugh at you harder than ever.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Clearly you never tried to buy liquor on Sunday in New England.

QFT.

[Ashliana]

And we'll kindly thank you not to discount a persons objection as "pushing religion" simply because you assume that all moral determinations are based on "antiquated" and "superstitious" attempts to explain the world.

There's nothing superstitious about someone who believes in the supremacy of bodily domain, any more than someone who believes in the supremacy of the sanctity of life.

Attack the argument, not the person.

Meaningless. Why am I not surprised that you don't realize that you don't need religion to make morality? In any case, it's not about whether people have moral OR religious objections. Have an objection to a behavior, practice or custom? Don't participate in it. Your objection doesn't warrant the denial of my or anyone's civil liberty.

You may believe that sanctity of life is paramount; you may believe that the color red is the best color in the world; you may believe peanut butter is the best food; those stances have nothing to do with me. Live your own life and leave me to live mine.


Clearly you never tried to buy liquor on Sunday in New England.

Stupid laws. What's your point? There are plenty of examples of people making poor choices in legislating; you're an advocate of numerous examples. The colonies were founded to begin with so that people could practice their religion without the influence of others telling them how they should live. It's tragic, and hypocritical, that they turned around and did it to each other--but they lived in small towns, and imposed the limits on themselves. It wasn't the case of today, where an enormous federal government imposes the will of a majority on the innumerable smaller groups that disagree, with authority and jurisdiction over anywhere you could move.

[Stanley Burrell]

I tried to understand WTF Stainley was saying... But still can't even after a 6 pack.

So stainley, please tell me you didn't just equate all non religious parents to being bad parents. I'll have to laugh at you harder than ever.

I just honestly thought you were using the log cabin as some kind of "Enjoy your petty e-moaning as I get the last word in" and that you used a cabin with a riverview as the ultimate I'm-better-than-you-bitch sneer. Which seriously: Made me think of SeanyD talking about his wealth of ... wealth. And that is why I must stab people until my arm gets tired.

[Stanley Burrell]

I tried to understand WTF Stainley was saying... But still can't even after a 6 pack.

So stainley, please tell me you didn't just equate all non religious parents to being bad parents. I'll have to laugh at you harder than ever.

Actually, I'm not aware at all of your parenting skills: It's not like anybody can give you "That's how good/bad/in-between you are at parenting."

What I was saying, was that people have a tendency to rebel when they make decisions (about religion) earlier on in life -- I've seen a greater number of kids who were raised devoid of religion when their parents/caretakers/guardians/etc. made sure religion was off-limits, and the kids, more often than not, usually branched out and adopted some sort of religious practice, from Paganism to Christianity, later in life. The same is true when parents force religion on their children -- And forced religion, just like forced Atheism, is absolutely going to push the kids of parents who force any belief system down their child's throats running towards the opposite end of the spectrum (more often than not.)

[Clove]

Meaningless. Why am I not surprised that you don't realize that you don't need religion to make morality? In any case, it's not about whether people have moral OR religious objections. Have an objection to a behavior, practice or custom? Don't participate in it. Your objection doesn't warrant the denial of my or anyone's civil liberty.Sure it does, we don't allow prostitution or suicide. And as usual you missed the entire point of my post. You... were... profiling, rather than stating your argument.


Stupid laws. What's your point?Only that the same colonists you were praising put blue laws on the books based on their religious beliefs.

[Ashliana]

Sure it does, we don't allow prostitution or suicide. And as usual you missed the entire point of my post. You... were... profiling, rather than stating your argument.

You can characterize my dismissal of religious motivations of denying other people their liberty however you want; you're still full of it.


Only that the same colonists you were praising put blue laws on the books based on their religious beliefs.

Again, those blue laws are based on small communities enforcing their religion on their own community, not all of which even had courts or "the law." There's a difference between that, and legislating it to all, unrelated groups. People did have recourse (as they do today, from state laws)--which is moving to a different place. The existing laws, I believe, are still wrong, because they deny a natural liberty for no rational or reasonable gain. You have accomplished pointing out that the colonists were hypocrites in several regards. Um.. Congrats?

An even bigger problem is that the people of the so-called "Pro-Life" (which should rightly be called "Anti-Freedom") movement wants to deny that inborn liberty, nationwide. Not just leaving it up to the states. Live your own life the way you think is right, and leave me the hell out of it. This isn't complex--even you should be able to understand, even if you'll cling to the very walls of the door you're being dragged through.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

An even bigger problem is that the people of the so-called "Pro-Life" (which should rightly be called "Anti-Freedom") movement wants to deny that inborn liberty, nationwide. Not just leaving it up to the states. Live your own life the way you think is right, and leave me the hell out of it. This isn't complex--even you should be able to understand, even if you'll cling to the very walls of the door you're being dragged through.


The problem with this argument is that we have laws against murder. Sure, you can live your life the way you want to, but if you murder someone else, you're breaking a law. Pro-Lifers believe that abortion is murder-- for whatever reason, religious, scientific, because their mom told them so, whatever.

So "live and let live and don't force your morality on me!" doesn't work in this scenario because the way Pro-Lifers see it, murder is illegal and if abortion = murder, then abortion should be illegal too. It's not about religion or forcing morality or religion on others, in a way it's about consistency in our morality-based laws.

[Clove]

You can characterize my dismissal of religious motivations of denying other people their liberty however you want; you're still full of it.I can characterize it as such because you have no basis for dismissing a person's stance on this issue as religious- simply because it opposite of yours. It has no place and you're even more full of it.

[Clove]

This isn't complex--even you should be able to understand, even if you'll cling to the very walls of the door you're being dragged through.And I've about had it with your superior attitude (along with most of the PC posters that have interacted with you). Even me? Even YOU should understand that even civil liberty laws are based on moral destinctions. Even a paralegal should understand that moral distinctions are not necessarily indicative of a person's religion. Even YOU should learn when to admit when she's WRONG.

[Ashliana]

The problem with this argument is that we have laws against murder. Sure, you can live your life the way you want to, but if you murder someone else, you're breaking a law. Pro-Lifers believe that abortion is murder-- for whatever reason, religious, scientific, because their mom told them so, whatever.

So "live and let live and don't force your morality on me!" doesn't work in this scenario because the way Pro-Lifers see it, murder is illegal and if abortion = murder, then abortion should be illegal too. It's not about religion or forcing morality or religion on others, in a way it's about consistency in our morality-based laws.

The law is written that killing "people," (also, animals, under different laws) is the crime, however. A fertilized egg, under the law, isn't considered a person. A rational, or compelling interest is necessary to justify the denial of an inborn freedom--self-determination of one's own body. Nothing stops you from making the argument for whatever you believe in, but I personally won't accept an argument for denying the rights of the whole based on one group's religious belief.

Murder, under a secular and utilitarian perspective, is illegal because if left unpunished, it introduces chaos and a lack of safety. Abortion does not result in the same thing, and in fact--the very people they're trying to stop from having abortions by altering the law won't be stopped by ANY law. It's an unnecessary denial of civil liberty for no secular gain (as it doesn't accomplish it's stated goal) and is a waste of state resources.


I can characterize it as such because you have no basis for dismissing a person's stance on this issue as religious- simply because it opposite of yours. It has no place and you're even more full of it.

I simply disagree. You, perhaps, think that the purpose of a government is to enforce one group's religion on the other. I do not. You're welcome to your own, mindless opinion. My religious beliefs are irrelevant as they relate to government.


And I've about had it with your superior attitude (along with most of the PC posters that have interacted with you). Even me? Even YOU should understand that even civil liberty laws are based on moral destinctions. Even a paralegal should understand that moral distinctions are not necessarily indicative of a person's religion. Even YOU should learn when to admit when she's WRONG.

What you've "had it" with is none of my concern. Laws deny the civil liberty--the autonomy--we're all born with, which is why they should be kept to a minimum of what's necessary. Morality does not require religion. I'm not wrong--you most unequivocally are, from my point of view. But this isn't something you can "prove" to anyone. But like I said, drag your feet all you want. You've admitted before that you simply seek to contradict people. I hope you're having the fun you apparently so desperately need.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

The law is written that killing "people," (also, animals, under different laws) is the crime, however. A fertilized egg, under the law, isn't considered a person. A rational, or compelling interest is necessary to justify the denial of an inborn freedom--self-determination of one's own body. Nothing stops you from making the argument for whatever you believe in, but I personally won't accept an argument for denying the rights of the whole based on one group's religious belief.

Murder, under a secular and utilitarian perspective, is illegal because if left unpunished, it introduces chaos and a lack of safety. Abortion does not result in the same thing, and in fact--the very people they're trying to stop from having abortions by altering the law won't be stopped by ANY law. It's an unnecessary denial of civil liberty for no secular gain (as it doesn't accomplish it's stated goal) and is a waste of state resources.

Religion is not the only thing behind the Pro-Life movement. There are plenty of non-religious Pro-Lifers.

A fertilized egg technically has all of the DNA of a human being. To me, that's a human being.. because if a fertilized human egg isn't a human, then what exactly is it? Mind you, that doesn't make it necessarily bad that it can be killed.

Murder is also illegal because it violates another's personal rights... like you said, "Live and let live." And again, Pro-Lifers believe an abortionist and a pregnant woman who allows an abortion to happen are violating the personal rights of the fetus and murdering it. That makes this whole "don't push your beliefs on me" stance almost irrelevant.

Pro-Life believes in the sanctity of all human life, regardless of its stage of life.

Pro-Choice believes in a woman's right to bodily domain-- the right to deny access and use of her body to other beings.

I *am* pro-choice so it's not like I'm saying your stance is wrong, I'm just saying that I think you're focusing in on things that aren't totally relevant or else they're too flimsy of arguments to stand up against opposition.

[Ashliana]

That logic still assumes that a fertilized egg is a person with rights. They're not, under the current framework of the law. Whether it's right or not, I'm not saying--there is no authority to give an absolute answer to that--scientific, religious or otherwise. I'd concede that they're "potential people," but then again, so are the millions of sperm the male body destroys a day, and each time a woman has a period. The religious notion that "life begins as conception," I don't ascribe to.

But the argument is moot, as the intent of the denial of civil liberty is a wasted effort; you're never, ever going to be able to stop people women from getting the abortions they want. Trying to restrict the right just makes it riskier and more expensive. People need to stop relying on the government to tell people how to live their lives.

[RichardCranium]

The difference is that sperm alone will become nothing more than a stain. The same goes for blood from a period. But a fertilized egg will more times than not become a child. And I'm not what you would call religious. Well, YOU probably would.

So if Pro-Life should be Anti-Freedom does that make Pro-Choice Pro-Murder?

I disagree with abortions and think they should be illegal with a few exceptions. Rape, incest, and the possible death of the mother being three.

[crb]

A fertilized egg technically has all of the DNA of a human being. To me, that's a human being.. because if a fertilized human egg isn't a human, then what exactly is it? Mind you, that doesn't make it necessarily bad that it can be killed.

So does a single cell of skin scratched from your ass. You can take the nuclear from that cell, remove the nucleus from an egg, put the skin one in, zap it, and get a baby.

Don't base it on DNA.

[Gan]

An ass baby?!?!

[Clove]

An ass baby?!?!A five assed monkey.

[Parkbandit]

I just honestly thought you were using the log cabin as some kind of "Enjoy your petty e-moaning as I get the last word in" and that you used a cabin with a riverview as the ultimate I'm-better-than-you-bitch sneer. Which seriously: Made me think of SeanyD talking about his wealth of ... wealth. And that is why I must stab people until my arm gets tired.

If you saw my 'cabin', you would almost laugh at your leap. It's basically a run down house on Crystal River that has a nice dock and a rope swing that go to on some weekends. The plumbing and electric are probably older than me and we have a TV with those bunny ears. No phone and the cell phones have no signal. If it weren't for the window unit AC, it would be considered 'roughing it'.

I need to sell the place, but in this market.. good luck.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, I'm not aware at all of your parenting skills: It's not like anybody can give you "That's how good/bad/in-between you are at parenting."

What I was saying, was that people have a tendency to rebel when they make decisions (about religion) earlier on in life -- I've seen a greater number of kids who were raised devoid of religion when their parents/caretakers/guardians/etc. made sure religion was off-limits, and the kids, more often than not, usually branched out and adopted some sort of religious practice, from Paganism to Christianity, later in life. The same is true when parents force religion on their children -- And forced religion, just like forced Atheism, is absolutely going to push the kids of parents who force any belief system down their child's throats running towards the opposite end of the spectrum (more often than not.)


Early on in my life, I went to Sunday school every Sunday, followed up by the Methodist church service. This went on from like age 8-16. Once I got a job "miraculously" on Sundays, I couldn't attend anymore. I kept that job until I went off to College and pretty much the only time I ever went back to Church was to get married (I know.. hypocrite.. but my wife is from a pretty religious Catholic Italian family.. her father would have shot me in the leg I think) and to baptize our two kids (ditto). My children occasionally go to church with their grandparents and/or their uncle and aunt.

My choice to not attend church had zero to do with any spite you are trying to imply... and 100% due to my disbelief in a 'God' type figure.

[crb]

I think most atheists are atheists out of a belief in science, as opposed to a bad religious experience.