Why Bush will win again

[Faithless]

When the election rolls around, I will put my vote down for Kerry, and so will almost everyone in my family. But it will be all for not. Bush will win again.

OK, so there are the polls that say Kerry did well against Bush in the debates. So, there are the polls that say Bush's lead over Kerry in election polls is dwindling. So, there is a lot of high profile support for Kerry, as well as opposition to Bush. It's not enough.

Bush has got the conservatives and heartland or middle-America wrapped up. They stand behind him and his empty words that the war is just, blah. They believe that he must be in office in order for America to preserve some sort of stance against gay marriages, abortion, family values -- liberalism.

If you look at the rhetoric behind the support for the war, you see that it flies in the face of all those opposed to the war have been arguing about. Despite PNAC (the Cheney / Wolfowitz plan for invasion of Iraq that evolved during the Clinton administration); the total lack of evidence against WMD; the lack of international support; the fact that there are still American soldiers dying after the end of the war; despite the fucking cost -- war supporters will still say that this war is just.

Middle America and the conservatives are a stubborn lot. They are not willing to say the war was wrong, despite all of the above. This group of Americans stood behind Reagan Bush senior, and now the same sort of empty pride occupies them.

And with no fault of his own, Kerry has just not proven himself convincing enough to this same group. It has been said hear in various threads, as well as probably perceived by a lot of Americans, Kerry is just not all that charismatic. Sure, he has been right on the mark with his criticisms of Bush policy, but the conservatives and middle America just aren't letting the message seep through. They looked to make sure that Bush held his own and looked decent doing so, and turned a cold shoulder to Kerry's performance in the recent debates.

I don't think you'll see a democratic administration until 2008. I think that it is going to take that long for the conservatives and middle America to turn away from their man. That's just the way it is. It will probably take seeing the problems in Iraq extending into the next administration. It will probably take hearing from a growing number of disgruntled soldiers and their families about the extended tours and occupation, and the deaths. It will probably take hearing the bleakest news about the cost of the war and its effect on the economy.

Sorry to burst your bubbles.

[ism]

Okay, I can respect that analysis. After all, I find it very hard to vote for Kerry (I haven't decided what I'm going to do on Nov 2, actually) even with how much I detest the Bush administration. Going back to the Democratic primaries, I found it odd that even with Dean's early push, registered Dems still selected Kerry. At that point, I lost a great deal of hope for unseating Bush. I agreed that Dean was not viable, mostly due to his Civil Union legislation, and Kucinich, Sharpton, et. al., wasn't either. That left Clark and Edwards, who dosn't have as much record (in terms of what Middle America cares about) to attack. And when you're factoring Karl Rove into the equation, that's what you really have to think about. I think a Clark-Edwards ticket (in either order) would have been the true contender.

They chose Kerry over Dean because Kerry is the old guard. Even with the young voters, who generally don't care about politics, getting totally involved in the political process, signalling for a change, the registered Dems decided to ignore this. Those young voters were the ones that didn't want to align themselves to any party, most like the undecided swing voters; the voters the party needs.

A quick look at the PoliticalCompass map of the 2004 candidates explains the problem with the Dems. The distance between Kerry and Bush is smaller than the distance between Kerry and Cobb, or Kerry and Nader, or Bush and Badnarik. By selecting Kerry, the Dems have made themselves largely irrelevant. By shortening the gap between the two parties, the Dems are no longer differentiating themselves by ideology but by name, forcing voters to choose between Bush and NotBush.

Of course, this is along the same lines of what the Greens are saying, with rhetoric like "The Democrats are where progressive politics goes to die." But you figure the Dems would have learned that while the "New Democrat" centrist-approach of the 80's worked for some time, it's the same thing that left the 2000 election up to the Supreme Court.

[Faithless]

Well, with the selection of Kerry, you could see where the dems were heading. It was inevitable.

Dean's strong opposition from the get-go to Bush's war was just not going to lead the dems to victory. There was just too much momentum on the other side in support of the war. Plus Dean was perceived as a weak potential Commander in Chief. (For the record, my union puts large gobs or money into supporting Dean, but I thought that Kerry would win the democratic ticket.)

Kerry and Clark were the only options in the war regard, but who the heck wanted to take a chance on political neophyte Clark? Kerry was the closest thing to a potential Commander in Chief with a strong enough political background.

Like it or not, this war is probably the central issue for those who will decide this election. Bush has pushed all the right buttons in terms of --
* It being important to preserving national security.
* It being key on the war on terrorism.

At this point, there is too much pride at stake for the war supporters to admit that the war was a bad idea. It also probably provides a false sense of security -- keeping on the offensive and all.

[Shuriken]

When the election rolls around, I will put my vote down for Kerry, and so will almost everyone in my family. But it will be all for not. Bush will win again.

If what you say is true, I'll be interested to see whether Bush wins outright or due more to Karl Rove's gaming of the electoral system, as with the last presidential election.

Personally, I'm sorry that so many people are buying into Bush's arguments. I think that the failure of his policies should be self-evident. But I guess that not everyone agrees with me (imagine that!).

On the bright side, at least Bush will have to clean up his own messes. Many will regard the apparent narowness (that polls show) of any victory as a rebuke. And by the time he leaves office, I imagine that he will be one of our most unpopular presidents ever.

[ism]

His legacy will affect us for the rest of Pax Americana, and will be the end of it.

Unilateral pre-emptive strike will come back to haunt us. It is unfortunate that this blatant disregard of international law is not reason enough to get him out of office.

[Kuchana]

Well, with the selection of Kerry, you could see where the dems were heading. It was inevitable.

Dean's strong opposition from the get-go to Bush's war was just not going to lead the dems to victory. There was just too much momentum on the other side in support of the war. Plus Dean was perceived as a weak potential Commander in Chief. (For the record, my union puts large gobs or money into supporting Dean, but I thought that Kerry would win the democratic ticket.)

Kerry and Clark were the only options in the war regard, but who the heck wanted to take a chance on political neophyte Clark? Kerry was the closest thing to a potential Commander in Chief with a strong enough political background.

Like it or not, this war is probably the central issue for those who will decide this election. Bush has pushed all the right buttons in terms of --
* It being important to preserving national security.
* It being key on the war on terrorism.

At this point, there is too much pride at stake for the war supporters to admit that the war was a bad idea. It also probably provides a false sense of security -- keeping on the offensive and all.

I think at this point it's a little too close to call who is going to win. As much as I'd like Bush (yep!) to win, I can't say for certainity that he will.

For me I don't see or think of it as a source of pride in supporting the war. My ideals happen to go along with Bush more than Kerry's.

[Tao]

For me I don't see or think of it as a source of pride in supporting the war. My ideals happen to go along with Bush more than Kerry's.
not to make you repeat anytihng you posted before, but i was curious. what ideals are you talking about?

[Kuchana]

not to make you repeat anytihng you posted before, but i was curious. what ideals are you talking about?

Ugh. You really want me to repeat it all???? :(

Ok in brief:
1) Supporting the war, supporting the war on terrorism, and believing in Bush's ability to lead better than Kerry
2) Anti-abortion

[kasia]

Ugh. You really want me to repeat it all???? :(

Ok in brief:
1) Supporting the war, supporting the war on terrorism, and believing in Bush's ability to lead better than Kerry
2) Anti-abortion

i'm not sure which thread you went into detail about your reasons, so i'll just respond here.

1) supporting the war and supporting the war on terrorism are two separate (but maybe related) reasons, i'm guessing, right? because it's been clear that saddam hussein wasn't responsible for 9/11 or even on good terms with osama bin laden. i know bush and cheney are still confused on this point - the fact that bush said in a speech, "osama...oh, haha, i mean saddam" is quite indicative of this confusion. but i think the rest of america is smart enough to realize now that osama bin laden is not saddam hussein. osama bin laden and 9/11 are not why we invaded iraq.

why did we go into iraq then? why did Congress give our President the authority to wage war on that country? because the bush administration was adamant that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. that is the only reason. let's not confuse the issue here. it wasn't because saddam hussein was a bad man or that he was treating his people poorly. those factors may have existed, but they were not the reason why our government gave Bush the power to enter Iraq. the reason: weapons of mass destruction. so there should be no more statements from bush supporters about how horrible saddam was. it doesn't matter. the fact is that there were no weapons of mass destruction AND, on top of that, the bush administration lacked enough proof to reasonably conclude that there were no weapons of mass destruction, yet invaded the country anyway. don't forget, approximately six months to a year ago, bush supporters were still insisting that we would eventually find weapons of mass destruction. hopefully, you all have not turned a blind eye to the recently released report declaring otherwise.

"bush' ability to lead better than kerry." to avoide making you repeat yourself, i'd appreciate it if you be so kind as to point me to the thread where you explain this. or, if you haven't already, perhaps you can elaborate here. from where did you get this notion that bush is a better leader? the guy can't even speak properly.

2) the issue of abortion. why are you against abortion? because of your faith? our country guarantees the separation of church and state. wouldn't you find it to be a step backwards to allow a president to impose his religion (which, if you're fortunuate, may be your religion) on the entire American population? and don't you find it disturbing that a president either doesn't know that this is our right under the Constitution or does know it but feels it is at his discretion to disregard them? i bet you anything that if we put bush on the spot - prohibiting any preparation beforehand - he would not be able to recite our bill of rights. at the second debate - he almost said that our constitutional stated that "all men are created equal." then he caught himself but could not remember that it was from our declaration of independence, so he just stopped mid-sentence. this is our President!

i am not against abortion. i was at one point, but right now i'm not. but regardless of how i felt about abortion for myself, i always believed in the right for a woman to choose. why should it be up to you or the rest of the public to decide another person's fate? are you going to raise that baby? do you have to deal with the consequences? are you willing to adopt the baby? are you willing to put in any effort to make that woman's life easier if you are so willing to impose your feelings about abortion on her? it's very easy for bush to make that decision because it is just like him to have no empathy whatsoever for a single mother addicted to crack with a eighth grade education who got knocked up after she was raped by a parking lot attendant.

and adoption may not be an option for many of us for reasons just as moral as bush may have for being against abortion. more honorable than wanting to save an embryo is a mother's refusal to allow her own child to be born when she knows she is not able to raise it and is not comfortable with the fact that she will never know where or how her child will end up. that sort of feeling of responsiblity is why many women are against abortion.

so, in light of all of this, absent religion, tell me why we should deny a woman the right to choose.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

the issue of abortion. why are you against abortion? because of your faith? our country guarantees the separation of church and state. wouldn't you find it to be a step backwards to allow a president to impose his religion (which, if you're fortunuate, may be your religion) on the entire American population? and don't you find it disturbing that a president either doesn't know that this is our right under the Constitution or does know it but feels it is at his discretion to disregard them? i bet you anything that if we put bush on the spot - prohibiting any preparation beforehand - he would not be able to recite our bill of rights. at the second debate - he almost said that our constitutional stated that "all men are created equal." then he caught himself but could not remember that it was from our declaration of independence, so he just stopped mid-sentence. this is our President!

i am not against abortion. i was at one point, but right now i'm not. but regardless of how i felt about abortion for myself, i always believed in the right for a woman to choose. why should it be up to you or the rest of the public to decide another person's fate? are you going to raise that baby? do you have to deal with the consequences? are you willing to adopt the baby? are you willing to put in any effort to make that woman's life easier if you are so willing to impose your feelings about abortion on her? it's very easy for bush to make that decision because it is just like him to have no empathy whatsoever for a single mother addicted to crack with a eighth grade education who got knocked up after she was raped by a parking lot attendant.

and adoption may not be an option for many of us for reasons just as moral as bush may have for being against abortion. more honorable than wanting to save an embryo is a mother's refusal to allow her own child to be born when she knows she is not able to raise it and is not comfortable with the fact that she will never know where or how her child will end up. that sort of feeling of responsiblity is why many women are against abortion.

so, in light of all of this, absent religion, tell me why we should deny a woman the right to choose.

I think it is difficult for a religious man/woman to separate his/her beliefs from his/her decisions regarding what they feel is the best for the public. Yeah, Bush may be using religion to push his own agenda or interests but I wouldn't know since I'm not him and I don't know what he's thinking. However, I'm talking about your notion that somehow everyone regardless of their organized belief system can or should make politicial decisions without taking their religion into consideration. It seems as if you're implying that people who follow certain religions (particularly people in power) should have a separate moral framework while using religious tenets or rules simply as a supplement or add-on. While acknowledging the existence of legions of blind devotees, there are those people who believe in a certain faith because they agree with the rules and base ideology prescribed within the faith (as in my case). Religion is part of who they are, not just a book they look to when they're feeling guilty and need to know that God is still on their side.

Couldn't you also make the argument then, that...politicians have no right to decide whether or not something is right or wrong for anyone? Assuming for the sake of argument that you're an individual in power, why should it be up to you and your moral framework to decide what other people can or cannot do? Why do you get to have more influence in the realm of policy-making and not the custodian working down the street? Do you consider yourself morally superior or more qualified to decide what is good and what is bad? By making or supporting laws and policy, you are in essence limiting the freedom of choice for certain portions of population or the entire population.

[kasia]

I think it is difficult for a religion man/woman to separate his/her beliefs from his/her decisions regarding what they feel is the best for the public. Yeah, Bush may be using religion to push his own agenda or interests but I wouldn't know since I'm not him and I don't know what he's thinking. However, I'm talking about your notion that somehow everyone regardless of their organized belief system can or should make politicial decisions without taking their religion into consideration. You're assuming that people who follow certain religions (particularly people in power) should have a separate moral framework while using religious tenets or rules simply as a supplement. While acknowledging the existence of legions of blind devotees, there are those people who believe in a certain faith because they agree with the rules and base ideology prescribed within the faith (as in my case). Couldn't you also make the argument then, that...politicians have no right to decide whether or not something is right or wrong for anyone? Assuming for the sake of argument that you're an individual in power, why should it be up to you and your moral framework to decide what other people can or cannot do? Why do you get to have more influence in the realm of policy-making and not the custodian working down the street? Do you consider yourself morally superior or more qualified to decide what is good and what is bad? By making or supporting laws and policy, you are in essence limiting the freedom of choice for certain portions of population or the entire population.

i think i understand what you're saying. however, when it comes to something so explicit as believing that life begins at a certain point because of your religion, and then using that belief to form policies, that's when i believe there is a violation of the 1st amendment.

[Faithless]

I think at this point it's a little too close to call who is going to win. As much as I'd like Bush (yep!) to win, I can't say for certainity that he will.

For me I don't see or think of it as a source of pride in supporting the war. My ideals happen to go along with Bush more than Kerry's.
That's fine, but I don't think you're part of the main demographic that will really vote him in.

.
His legacy will affect us for the rest of Pax Americana, and will be the end of it.

Unilateral pre-emptive strike will come back to haunt us. It is unfortunate that this blatant disregard of international law is not reason enough to get him out of office.
Really!

But I think it is too abstract for most Americans to understand as important.

.
If what you say is true, I'll be interested to see whether Bush wins outright or due more to Karl Rove's gaming of the electoral system, as with the last presidential election.
I think it will be an outright win. Just look at the Fahrenheit 9/11 movie. His people really have in fear of terrorism.
Personally, I'm sorry that so many people are buying into Bush's arguments. I think that the failure of his policies should be self-evident. But I guess that not everyone agrees with me (imagine that!).

On the bright side, at least Bush will have to clean up his own messes. Many will regard the apparent narowness (that polls show) of any victory as a rebuke. And by the time he leaves office, I imagine that he will be one of our most unpopular presidents ever.
He will try to clean up his messes. It will just get messier.

I think there will be more attention paid to returning vets in the next administration.

Fahrenheit 9/11 talked about the problems returning vets will/have encountered -- one of them being the lack of support after some have returned injured, and the other being the missing bene's that were cut.

[Yeahman]

i think i understand what you're saying. however, when it comes to something so explicit as believing that life begins at a certain point because of your religion, and then using that belief to form policies, that's when i believe there is a violation of the 1st amendment.
It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It's a 5th amendment issue.
These babies are being deprived of their right to life without due process of law.

We cannot allow your personal belief that life doesn't begin at conception, to form policy. It works both ways. Personal beliefs MUST be used to form policy.

why should it be up to you or the rest of the public to decide another person's fate?
EXACTLY!
Stop killing the babies!

[BigLew]

It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It's a 5th amendment issue.
These babies are being deprived of their right to life without due process of law.
Well I have decided that they are actually babies before conception. In the male case, sperm swimming around in my balls. Since I am evil I like killing millions of potential lives every time I jerk off or have sex with a condom. So we should outlaw condoms and jerking off so evil people like me can't kill babies. The pill too since that renders my ball babies useless.

[rice cracker]

What about abortion in the case where if the baby is brought to full term the mother's life is in jeopardy? What if there's a high chance both mother and baby will die in delivery? What about cases of incest and pedophilia? Drug addicted mothers giving birth to dangerously addicted babies? Being pro-life doesn't mean you have to be pro-abortion, but abortion is an option that must remain open to women.

Also, de-legalizing abortion doesn't mean women are going to stop getting them. Back alley illegal abortions have been around forever. It just means more women are going to die by coathanger.

[kasia]

It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It's a 5th amendment issue.
These babies are being deprived of their right to life without due process of law.


i feel really snotty saying this, but it's just like a bush supporter to believe that the 5th amendment guarantees a right to life.

5th amendment = right against self-incrimination. you know, your Mirandas. hence, the phrase, "i take the 5th." you don't have to be a lawyer to know that.

our President is confused about what the constitution says, and it's not surprising that his supporters are also simlarly confused. please, i urge you to learn about your rights before november 2, so that you will be voting for a president who will actually honor them.

Also, de-legalizing abortion doesn't mean women are going to stop getting them. Back alley illegal abortions have been around forever. It just means more women are going to die by coathanger.

i agree completely.

[Mr.Lum]

We cannot allow your personal belief that life doesn't begin at conception, to form policy. It works both ways. Personal beliefs MUST be used to form policy.


The government should have nothing to do with it. Just don't fund it. What makes your personal belief any better than kasia's? Not a thing. Don't get an abortion if you're that excited about it. Very simple.

Ok in brief:
1) Supporting the war, supporting the war on terrorism, and believing in Bush's ability to lead better than Kerry
2) Anti-abortion


You sound quite militant.

[kitty]

yeah.. isn't the fifth amendment the 'i don't have to say anything that will incriminate me' amendment? not sure how that could be interpreted as a baby's right to life.

and let's just call it like it is... anti-abortion/pro-life supporters are pretty much just anti-women.

there has yet to be any discussion on what it says about the rights of a woman to make choices about her own body. in cases of rape, incest, or where the baby is deformed, or maybe just if the woman feels she cannot offer any real life for her child because she lives in extreme poverty, the government should not have the power to force her to have a baby. that creates a system in which we are not in control of our own bodies -- instead we've got some orwellian protesters who want the government to legislate their morality onto us; it's just funny to me that the same people who advocate everyone having the right to GUNS... want to deny women the right to choose what happens in their own uteruses.

and btw, no one's thinking of offering government funded abortions -- so if you don't like abortions, just don't have them. that's better than my situation -- i fundamentally disagree with government-sanctioned religion, and yet my tax dollars go to helping out churches around the country.

[deez nuts]

i feel really snotty saying this, but it's just like a bush supporter to believe that the 5th amendment guarantees a right to life.

5th amendment = right against self-incrimination. you know, your Mirandas. you don't have to be a lawyer to know that.

our President is confused about what the constitution says, and it's not surprising that his supporters are also simlarly confused. please, i urge you to learn about your rights before november 2, so that you will be voting for a president who will actually honor them.



i know the fifth amendment and know my rights and i now consider myself a bush supporter. please don't generalize and stereotype.

[kitty]

oh, regarding the subject of this thread -- bush will win because kerry can soundly whoop his butt in debates, and it still doesn't matter; the polls still show them even. americans aren't looking for intelligence, they're looking for a cowboy.

[Faithless]

oh, regarding the subject of this thread -- bush will win because kerry can soundly whoop his butt in debates, and it still doesn't matter; the polls still show them even. americans aren't looking for intelligence, they're looking for a cowboy.
That about sums it up.

[kasia]

i know the fifth amendment and know my rights and i now consider myself a bush supporter. please don't generalize and stereotype.

normally, i'd say you're right. we shouldn't stereotype. but i truly believe that you're the exception.

[deez nuts]

normally, i'd say you're right. we shouldn't stereotype. but i truly believe that you're the exception.


i was just giving you a hard time.

it's ok. stereotypes are sometimes true.

[ChinaLama]

i think i understand what you're saying. however, when it comes to something so explicit as believing that life begins at a certain point because of your religion, and then using that belief to form policies, that's when i believe there is a violation of the 1st amendment.

what about non-religious pro-life people like me? Recognizing the value of a fetus's humanity doesn't have to be a religious issue. I'd like to think of it as being humanist. That's why I don't quite buy women have a right to choose in abortion, because I don't think a fetus is a "part" of a woman's body the way an ovum is.

[ism]

what about non-religious pro-life people like me? Recognizing the value of a fetus's humanity doesn't have to be a religious issue. I'd like to think of it as being humanist. That's why I don't quite buy women have a right to choose in abortion, because I don't think a fetus is a "part" of a woman's body the way an ovum is.Sticking purely to reproductive rights as a superset of civil liberties, as the owner of the reproductive system, the woman has the right to do whatever she wants with it. I know this country doesn't like it, but suppose we stick to the ideal of complete civil liberties given to a person extend as far as someone else's face. How this applies to an entity that, for the purposes of this argument, was created by the owner of the reproductive system, would have to be under the uniform laws that govern other created entities. The only other type of laws that seem to apply here deal with corporations.

Now the question is, is a fetus a subsidiary or a spin-off? I'd like to think that as long as it's in the womb, it's a subsidiary. Once it leaves the womb, it's a spin-off. A parent corporation has 100% control over a subsidiary, but not a spin-off. So as long as the fetus is in the womb, a woman, under the same laws that govern corporations, should be able to do anything they want with it.

This has the added bonus of protecting fetuses. The way the laws Bush is trying to push -- that of pinning double murder on someone who kills a pregnant mother, or murder on killing a fetus, is overvaluating the fetus and assuming the parent's wishes. Under corporate law, the value of the fetus can be calculated as a percentage of the parent, and the parents can seek uniform remedies.

Instead of trying to frame fetuses in black and white terms such as "murder" or "life", we already have a defined set of rules for these grey-area entities. If corporations are considered as pseudo-people, then so can fetuses. Here is an excellent way to reconcile your humanist beliefs with the American spirit.

[nola]

Kerry surges back to tie Bush in poll


WASHINGTON (AFP) - John Kerry has overcome a 14-point deficit in a new opinion poll showing the Democratic White House hopeful in a statistical dead heat with President George W. Bush.

The USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll gives Kerry a 49 to 48 percent lead over Bush among likely voters three weeks before the November 2 presidential election. A prior poll had given Bush a 54 to 40 percent edge in mid-September.

A majority of Americans polled, 49 percent, say they disapprove of the way Bush is handling the presidency, while 47 percent say they approve. In late September, 54 percent approved of Bush's handling of the job.

Kerry beats Bush on honesty (44 to 42 percent) and on which contender expresses himself more clearly (57 to 38 percent).

Still, 56 percent say Bush is a strong and decisive leader, while only 38 percent believe Kerry is a better leader.

Kerry's comeback comes on the heels of the first two presidential debates, both of which Kerry is considered to have won.

The poll showed that 45 percent of Americans believe Kerry won the second debate, which took place Friday, while 30 percent say Bush won.

The third and final debate will be held Wednesday, and 54 percent predict Kerry will win again, compared to 36 percent for Bush.

The poll, which gives independent candidate Ralph Nader one percent of support, was conducted October 9-10 among 1,015 US adults. It has a three-percentage-point margin of error.


YES! YES!! YES!!!

[Napoleon Chynamite]

The government should have nothing to do with it. Just don't fund it. What makes your personal belief any better than kasia's? Not a thing. Don't get an abortion if you're that excited about it. Very simple.

And so we meet yet again :biggrin: Anyways, Yellowman's point is exactly that. What makes my personal belief better than yours and vice versa? Not a thing. So it makes no sense to say that the government should have nothing to do with it since in that case you can just say "what makes the beliefs of government members any better than the beliefs of the public?" Someone always can complain then anytime decisions are made that affect them by people in power. Well, who gave HIM the right to decide that I couldn't do this? What gives people in Congress the right to say that I can't damage public property if I'm having a particularly bad day? What gives them the right to say that I can't go and assault and beat the shit out of some guy who committed adultery with my wife? Who gave the government the right to FUND it? Well who gave the government the right NOT to? That's what we mean when we say personal beliefs is a NATURAL factor in the process of forming and supporting policy... Unless you support a society where everyone just does whatever they want and nobody has any type of legal or binding power to make decisions or impose rules on anybody else.

[Yeahman]

i feel really snotty saying this, but it's just like a bush supporter to believe that the 5th amendment guarantees a right to life.

5th amendment = right against self-incrimination. you know, your Mirandas. hence, the phrase, "i take the 5th." you don't have to be a lawyer to know that.

our President is confused about what the constitution says, and it's not surprising that his supporters are also simlarly confused. please, i urge you to learn about your rights before november 2, so that you will be voting for a president who will actually honor them.
You're a Bush supporter?
I'm not a Bush supporter and I know my Constitution. Kitty is not a Bush supporter and just like you doesn't know her Constitution. So I don't think you can generalize.

The 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The government should have nothing to do with it. Just don't fund it. What makes your personal belief any better than kasia's? Not a thing. Don't get an abortion if you're that excited about it. Very simple.
OK good, so we both agree that Kerry is wrong in saying that we should publically fund abortion.

[kasia]

You're a Bush supporter?
I'm not a Bush supporter and I know my Constitution. Kitty is not a Bush supporter and just like you doesn't know her Constitution. So I don't think you can generalize.

hahah. ok, i have to admit that is a very clever interpretation. the only problem is that it isn't the government depriving the embryo a chance at life, it is the mother - who is not a government entity. therefore, there is no violation of the Constitution.

[Yeahman]

yeah.. isn't the fifth amendment the 'i don't have to say anything that will incriminate me' amendment? not sure how that could be interpreted as a baby's right to life.

and let's just call it like it is... anti-abortion/pro-life supporters are pretty much just anti-women.
So the majority of women in America are anti-women? But having proven your lack of knowledge of the Constitution, I wouldn't expect you to know that stat.

there has yet to be any discussion on what it says about the rights of a woman to make choices about her own body. in cases of rape, incest, or where the baby is deformed, or maybe just if the woman feels she cannot offer any real life for her child because she lives in extreme poverty, the government should not have the power to force her to have a baby. that creates a system in which we are not in control of our own bodies -- instead we've got some orwellian protesters who want the government to legislate their morality onto us; it's just funny to me that the same people who advocate everyone having the right to GUNS... want to deny women the right to choose what happens in their own uteruses.
The right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution (please do read it sometime). The right to murder is not.

and btw, no one's thinking of offering government funded abortions -- so if you don't like abortions, just don't have them. that's better than my situation -- i fundamentally disagree with government-sanctioned religion, and yet my tax dollars go to helping out churches around the country.
Sigh...
Despite our differences, I once thought very highly of your intelligence, kitty. You disappoint.
Abortion is covered by Medicaid.
And why are you opposed to your tax dollars going to social services? Because they're administered by religious organizations? Personally I think investing in faith-based social services like Alcoholics Anonymous benefit everyone in society.

hahah. ok, i have to admit that is a very clever interpretation. the only problem is that it isn't the government depriving the embryo a chance at life, it is the mother - who is not a government entity. therefore, there is no violation of the Constitution.
Government funding of abortion is depriving life.

[Faithless]

Interesting all this discussion about abortion in this thread.

I would have discounted it as a factor as something that could decide a Bush victory. He had been pretty quiet about the subject, and with good reason. It is probably the single-most issue that could take a victory away from him.

Now comes this out of transcript of the second debate:

Why Bush Opposes Dred Scott: It's code for Roe v. Wade. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/)

I mentioned this in the 2nd-debate thread when I heard about it Friday night.

I think it is an issue like this that could change the Bush momentum.

By speaking to Roe v. Wade in the way he did, he invites all sorts of criticism from moderate Republicans (with pro-choice slants) to liberals.

In the Oct. 8 debate, President Bush baffled some people by saying he wouldn't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who would condone the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott was, of course, the famous 1857 Supreme Court decision that affirmed slaves remained the property of their owners even when taken to free territories and that prohibited even free African-Americans from becoming U.S. citizens. Since the Civil War and the subsequent passage of the 13th and 14th amendments, Dred Scott v. Sandford has been a dead letter in American jurisprudence. Yet Bush felt compelled to reassure TV viewers that he wanted no truck with its legal reasoning:

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all—you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year—the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

What was the meaning of this borderline-incoherent ramble? Apparently, it was an invisible high-five to the Christian right. "Google Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade," various readers instructed me, and damned if they weren't on to something. To the Christian right, "Dred Scott" turns out to be a code word for "Roe v. Wade." Even while stating as plain as day that he would apply "no litmus test," Bush was semaphoring to hard-core abortion opponents that he would indeed apply one crucial litmus test: He would never, ever, appoint a Supreme Court justice who condoned Roe.

You're skeptical. You think your faithful Chatterbox is drifting into "Abraham Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy" territory. Perhaps you've even done a little Googling of your own and discovered that while, yes, it's true, George Will once called Roe "the most imprudent act of judicial power since the Dred Scott decision," he has similarly compared Dred Scott to Brown v. Board of Education and even to France's attempts to slow down the United States' entry into the Iraq war. (One imagines Will, looking out the window from his office, could on any given afternoon identify three or four cloud formations that remind him of Dred Scott.)

But keep Googling, and you'll soon discover that Will is hardly the only conservative commentator who's compared Roe to Dred Scott. There's Paul Greenberg, the Arkansas columnist famous for nicknaming Bill Clinton "Slick Willie." There's Jeff Jacoby, house winger at the Boston Globe. There's Michael Novak, the theologian-turned-think-tank-hack. There's Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter to Ronald Reagan (also Reagan himself, in his essay, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation"). Several conservative legal commentators have made the comparison, too, including Michael McConnell of the University of Utah, now a federal judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

If, in the mainstream conservative media, the Dred Scott trope is common, in Christian right propaganda it is, like the Good Lord Himself, omnipresent.

Sometimes it's used to decry judicial activism. "Dred Scott shows us two things," writes Robert S. Sargent Jr., on EnterStageRight.com. "The mischief that 'activist' judges always do, and the fact that people are sometimes willing to resort to a Constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court ruling."

Sometimes it's used to put the destruction of fetuses on a moral plane with slavery. From an unsigned essay on the Web site Unbornperson.com:

In a previous case, the Dred Scott decision, (1857) fully-grown men and women (because their skin was black?) were declared "non-persons" by the Court, by denying them the status of free men. In Roe v. Wade the offspring of human parentage who are waiting to be born, simply because they are not yet born, are called non-persons ("not persons in the full sense") by the Court. In the former instance the legal consequence was slavery. In this present case, the legal consequence is death.

Sometimes it's used to encourage the troops to keep hope alive. "Like Dred Scott, Roe has the potential to be overturned, given the right circumstances and the right make-up of the Supreme Court," says the Republican National Coalition for Life.

Sometimes it's used to inspire fear. Here's an editorial in Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity:

Some, recalling that the Dred Scott ruling itself set the stage for the Civil War, may wonder—if it was true in yesteryear that "every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword"—whether some yet worse retribution will be exacted of our country by a righteous God righteously stirred at the murder of unborn children in their millions. And wonder they should.

The Weblog Daily Kos has a few additional examples, and if you go looking yourself, I promise you'll find all the evidence you could possibly need.

Bush has a history of addressing the Christian right in code. In the Sept. 17 Washington Post, Alan Cooperman pointed out many phrases Bush has used to deliver a religious message over the heads of plodding secular humanists like me. "Culture of life," Cooperman reported, means "abortion is murder." Bush used the phrase in an Aug. 3 speech to the Knights of Columbus. "Wonder-working power" refers to the power of Christ, though Bush used it in a seemingly secular context ("Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people") in his 2003 State of the Union address.

Now, don't get me wrong. Religious faith can be a very fine thing. Some of my best friends believe in God, and some of their best qualities derive, at least in part, from their faith. But let's not forget that Bush actually believes that God told him to become president. In an age less prone to religious hysteria than our own, this would be judged impious. Even now, it's pretty frightening to a significant minority, and Bush is going to need every last vote he can get. Hence the use of code phrases and jargon.

It's a basic principle of politics that you dance with the one that brung ya. The Big Guy has apparently made clear to Bush that he doesn't want any Roe-lovers, or even Roe-wafflers, on the Supreme Court. If Bush is elected, don't expect any. And if you happen to believe that abortion should remain legal in the United States, don't even think about giving Bush your vote.

Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.

[Yeahman]

What about abortion in the case where if the baby is brought to full term the mother's life is in jeopardy? What if there's a high chance both mother and baby will die in delivery?
This one's always brought up even though pro-lifers all agree that the death of a person is permissible if it was in the process of saving another.

What about cases of incest and pedophilia? Drug addicted mothers giving birth to dangerously addicted babies? Being pro-life doesn't mean you have to be pro-abortion, but abortion is an option that must remain open to women.
No it isn't.
Punish the incestuous person or the pedophile, not the baby.
If we are going to allow addicted babies to be killed, why not kill the addicted adults too?

Also, de-legalizing abortion doesn't mean women are going to stop getting them. Back alley illegal abortions have been around forever. It just means more women are going to die by coathanger.
I agree. Murder happens even though it's illegal. That doesn't mean we should legalize it.

[truMp]

The 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Interesting; I never noticed that.

So far, I agree with everything that ye110man has stated.
I whole heartedly believe in the women's right to having choice, but if they choose to murder, then it would be wrong. They can kill as they wish; we'll just send them to jail on the account of homicide.

[kasia]

Government funding of abortion is depriving life.

the mere fact that an organization receives government funding does not make an act by that organization an act by the state. otherwise, many religious schools would not be able to receive government funding.

Interesting; I never noticed that.

So far, I agree with everything that ye110man has stated.
I whole heartedly believe in the women's right to having choice, but if they choose to murder, then it would be wrong. They can kill as they wish; we'll just send them to jail on the account of homicide.

normally, i wouldn't disagree with one's agreement with another's opinion. but yellohman's interpretation of the Constitution is just incorrect, and i'd hate for you to be misled by it. the 5th Amendment guarantees the due process of law by the government. that is why the 5th Amendment is typically only applicable in criminal cases when the state is about to put someone behind bars or on death row. it is absolutely not applicable to one person taking another's person's life. otherwise, every single murder - every single crime - would be considered a 5th Amendment violation.

This one's always brought up even though pro-lifers all agree that the death of a person is permissible if it was in the process of saving another.


No it isn't.
Punish the incestuous person or the pedophile, not the baby.
If we are going to allow addicted babies to be killed, why not kill the addicted adults too?


I agree. Murder happens even though it's illegal. That doesn't mean we should legalize it.

you know - that's really great that you hold life in such high regard. but let me ask you this, after all that you've said, what are you personally willing to do to help out these teenage moms or their children who are later put in foster care? it's easy to talk about another person's life when you're not living it and don't have to deal with it.

[lethal]

You're a Bush supporter?
I'm not a Bush supporter and I know my Constitution. Kitty is not a Bush supporter and just like you doesn't know her Constitution. So I don't think you can generalize. The embryo would not have standing and is therefore not protected by the 5th Amendment.

Only living persons can have standing, and while I hesitate to cite Dred Scott, it is one of the parts of Taney's opinion that still stands. Under prevailing case law (Roe v Wade, Casey v Planned Parenthood, etc...), embroys are not considered living persons.

Are you sure you want to get into a legal Constitutional interpretation debate with a bunch of lawyers and lawyers to be?

[Yeahman]

the mere fact that an organization receives government funding does not make an act by that organization an act by the state. otherwise, many religious schools would not be able to receive government funding.
Huh? Religious schools can receive government funding for secular applications. The schools cannot use the money to buy Bibles.
Abortion coverage under Medicaid is mandated by federal law.
Tax dollars cannot be used for unconstitutional purposes.

normally, i wouldn't disagree with one's agreement with another's opinion. but yellohman's interpretation of the Constitution is just incorrect, and i'd hate for you to be misled by it. the 5th Amendment guarantees the due process of law by the government. that is why the 5th Amendment is typically only applicable in criminal cases when the state is about to put someone behind bars or on death row. it is absolutely not applicable to one person taking another's person's life. otherwise, every single murder - every single crime - would be considered a 5th Amendment violation.
If it was government funded, yes.

you know - that's really great that you hold life in such high regard. but let me ask you this, after all that you've said, what are you personally willing to do to help out these teenage moms or their children who are later put in foster care? it's easy to talk about another person's life when you're not living it and don't have to deal with it.
I agree. I assume you oppose the war in Iraq? What do you do to help the poor victims of the war?
I admit that I don't do enough, though my parents do. We should all do more to help those who we believe have been the victims of injustice.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

let's just call it like it is... anti-abortion/pro-life supporters are pretty much just anti-women.

Wow that's an interesting um....statement. Not sure what else I have to say about this other than...this doesn't apply to me. I guess all the pro-life female supporters are also anti-women. I don't have the exact citations, but I'm pretty sure I've heard more than a few times that there is a surprisingly small disparity in opinions between men and women on the abortion issue, simply because what makes people form their opinions is largely based upon their upbringing, moral framework, and acquired values.

Edit: Lethal Weapon's data cites 42% of women as being pro-life in comparison with 47% of the total population.

[Yeahman]

The embryo would not have standing and is therefore not protected by the 5th Amendment.

Only living persons can have standing, and while I hesitate to cite Dred Scott, it is one of the parts of Taney's opinion that still stands. Under prevailing case law (Roe v Wade, Casey v Planned Parenthood, etc...), embroys are not considered living persons.

Are you sure you want to get into a legal Constitutional interpretation debate with a bunch of lawyers and lawyers to be?
Of course I know that it has been decided that the unborn don't have legal standing. I did not argue otherwise.

[kasia]

I agree. I assume you oppose the war in Iraq? What do you do to help the poor victims of the war?

i opposed the war. therefore, i did not place the victims of the war in the position that they are now.

you are anti-choice. therefore, you would place teenage mothers in the positions that they would be in if they had the baby. i.e., dropping out of high school, getting minimum wage jobs if that, etc. btw, bush is strongly opposed to increasing minimum wage. so what would you propose to help these girls?

[lethal]

Of course I know that it has been decided that the unborn don't have legal standing. I did not argue otherwise.
You argued that the unborn were protected by the 5th Amendment, but since they do not have legal standing, they are not protected by that law.

If you did not argue otherwise, then what is your argument? You said These babies are being deprived of their right to life without due process of law.
Due process only protects those who have standing.

Also, when you cite the 5th Amendment, let me point something out about statutory construction here:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Notice the ;'s and ,'s? The phrase you bolded, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" follows a "," rather than a ";". Therefore, it modifies the pre "," part, "any criminal case" rather than standing by itself if it were separated by a ";".

These embryos are not facing a criminal case. Regardless of standing (or my claim that there is no standing), the 5th Amendment does not apply in this situation. You cite absolutely nothing in your case that it does apply. Care to put forth some evidence or precidence? The US legal system does operate on a system of stare decisis. Perhaps you disagree with that system altogether? Why no prior cases to support your position?

[Kuchana]

Of course I know that it has been decided that the unborn don't have legal standing. I did not argue otherwise.

And it doesn't mean that anti-abortion people have to agree with it either.

There are only a few instances where "I" (being the female of course), would think abortion acceptable. 1) If the mother's or child's life was in danger, 2) Incest, and 3) Rape. Just because I'm a female does not mean that I support abortion and I'm sure there are a good majority of other females who believe or share the similar beliefs. Thus, why the issue of abortion is so difficult. You can't say that the majority of anti-abortion/pro-life people are males. That's sexist and wrong in my opinion.

I'd like to point out that not only do I view abortion in a humanistic approach as does ChinaLama, but I also view it in a religious sense as well. However, I know that there are a number of people on this board that scorn at the notion of using religion as one of the reasons in opposing abortion.

[Yeahman]

i opposed the war. therefore, i did not place the victims of the war in the position that they are now.

you are anti-choice. therefore, you would place teenage mothers in the positions that they would be in if they had the baby. i.e., dropping out of high school, getting minimum wage jobs if that, etc. btw, bush is strongly opposed to increasing minimum wage. so what would you propose to help these girls?
I put teenage mothers in the position that they are in? I didn't impregnate any teenagers.
We all have an obligation to help the needy. That is not an obligation to kill the unwanted.
I would adopt if I thought I had the money to raise another child.
I also oppose raising the minimum wage. I've outlined my tax plan in another thread. You can do a search for it. It includes a progressive welfare system that eliminates the need for a minimum wage.

[kasia]

There are only a few instances where "I" (being the female of course), would think abortion acceptable. 1) If the mother's or child's life was in danger, 2) Incest, and 3) Rape.

but why would you oppose it if the woman were raped? she could still have the baby and give it up for adoption.

[lethal]

And it doesn't mean that anti-abortion people have to agree with it either.

There are only a few instances where "I" (being the female of course), would think abortion acceptable. 1) If the mother's or child's life was in danger, 2) Incest, and 3) Rape. Just because I'm a female does not mean that I support abortion and I'm sure there are a good majority of other females who believe or share the similar beliefs. Thus, why the issue of abortion is so difficult. You can't say that the majority of anti-abortion/pro-life people are males. That's sexist and wrong in my opinion.

I'd like to point out that not only do I view abortion in a humanistic approach as does ChinaLama, but I also view it in a religious sense as well. However, I know that there are a number of people on this board that scorn at the notion of using religion as one of the reasons in opposing abortion. I never mentioned religion. I'm only arguing ye110man's (flawed) legal analysis of the 5th Amendment.

If religion's your argument, I'm not getting into that debate.

A flaw in your argument is your statement that "You can't say that the majority of anti-abortion/pro-life people are males. That's sexist and wrong in my opinion." That's actually proven by statistical fact. Check here (http://www.sage.edu/newsevents/newsatsage/fullstory.php?id=%2729%27). The pertenent section states Fifty-one percent of women identify themselves as pro-choice versus 42% who say they are pro-life. Also check these poll here: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?"

Pro-choice Pro-life Both/Mix Not Sure
4/04 44 47 6 3
Now, if 42% of women are pro-life and 47% of the overall population (according to the FoxNews poll cited) is pro-life, I'd say that the percentage of men who are pro-life is higher than the percentage of wmen who are pro life. "Sexist and wrong in" your "opinion." Well, I've given you facts and I'd say that you're wrong. Can you prove otherwise? And how is that sexist? I'd like to see some evidence here.

[Yeahman]

You argued that the unborn were protected by the 5th Amendment, but since they do not have legal standing, they are not protected by that law.

If you did not argue otherwise, then what is your argument? You said
Due process only protects those who have standing.
You mentioned Dred Scott. Same deal.

Also, when you cite the 5th Amendment, let me point something out about statutory construction here:

Notice the ;'s and ,'s? The phrase you bolded, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" follows a "," rather than a ";". Therefore, it modifies the pre "," part, "any criminal case" rather than standing by itself if it were separated by a ";".

These embryos are not facing a criminal case. Regardless of standing (or my claim that there is no standing), the 5th Amendment does not apply in this situation. You cite absolutely nothing in your case that it does apply. Care to put forth some evidence or precidence? The US legal system does operate on a system of stare decisis. Perhaps you disagree with that system altogether? Why no prior cases to support your position?
I see.

[lethal]

You mentioned Dred Scott. Same deal.
Please elaborate. Care to put forth some evidence?


I see.
Please elaborate. Care to put forth some evidence?

[Yeahman]

Pro-life women shift to majority (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030701-115636-9509r.htm)

[lethal]

Pro-life women shift to majority (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030701-115636-9509r.htm)

My poll from Zogby (http://www.sage.edu/newsevents/newsatsage/fullstory.php?id=%2729%27) was conducted September 20 to 23, 2004. The Washington Times article is from July 3, 2003. My 2004 numbers postdate your 2003 poll. Try again.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Now, if 42% of women are pro-life and 47% of the overall population (according to the FoxNews poll cited) is pro-life, I'd say that the percentage of men who are pro-life is higher than the percentage of wmen who are pro life. "Sexist and wrong in" your "opinion." Well, I've given you facts and I'd say that you're wrong. Can you prove otherwise? And how is that sexist? I'd like to see some evidence here.

I think she was referring actually to Kitty's comment asserting that pro-lifers are anti-women, which I addressed earlier either on this page or the previous. Regardless, it was probably a mistake on Kuchana's part because while Kitty did equate pro-lifers with people against the interests of women, she never said anything about percentages or statistics.

Please elaborate. Care to put forth some evidence?

I think it means he gets your point and he agrees. Damn why does everyone have to be so combative in here, or is it just me?

[Yeahman]

http://www.gallup.com/content/login.aspx?ci=11461
Consistent with this, an aggregate of abortion surveys from 2001-2003 finds no statistical difference in the percentage of men and women identifying with the pro-choice and pro-life labels.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

If he agrees, then he is contradicting his earlier statement.

And if that is the case, perhaps he either had a slip of the tongue or didn't see something which you so clearly pointed out to him. Happens all the time in debate. I see no point in trying to squeeze some type of 'confession' out of him.

Regarding the issue of abortion, I am currently undecided.

[Yeahman]

If he agrees, then he is contradicting his earlier statement. I actually think he's being condescending with his remark.

Regardless. I believe ye110man is articulate enough to speak for himself. I'd like to hear his elaboration.
"I see" is condescending? Geez, what's up your ass? Seriously.

I think it means he gets your point and he agrees.
That's exactly what I meant.

[lethal]

And if that is the case, perhaps he either had a slip of the tongue or didn't see something which you so clearly pointed out to him. Happens all the time in debate. I see no point in trying to squeeze some type of 'confession' out of him.

Regarding the issue of abortion, I am currently undecided. Note, I've yet to state my position on any issue in this thread. I'm arguing legal interpretation, not positions here. My interest is factual accuracy and intellectual honesty.

And Hube...trust me, now is not the time. Don't lecture me.

"I see" is condescending? Geez, what's up your ass? Its 4:30 AM. I'm cranky. Superman's dead. :-( Your intellectual dishonesty is what's up my ass.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Note, I've yet to state my position on any issue in this thread. I'm arguing legal interpretation, not positions here. My interest is factual accuracy and intellectual honesty.

And Hube...trust me, now is not the time. Don't lecture me.

Now is not the time for what? The heck is that supposed to imply? "Don't lecture me?" If that's not condescending, I don't know what is. That because you're a lawyer with more knowledge of law interpretation that somehow I can't tell people to calm down because I sense there's more flying through the air than simply facts and statistics? But as you wish, I'm out.

[lethal]

Now is not the time for what? The heck is that supposed to imply? "Don't lecture me?" If that's not condescending, I don't know what is. That because you're a lawyer with more knowledge of law interpretation that somehow I can't tell people to calm down because I sense there's more flying through the air than simply facts and statistics? But as you wish, I'm out. See ya.

I read something this week. "Do not argue with a person who is crazy. He cannot hear you."

Tonight, I am the crazy one. Best to avoid it.

[Arex]

Interesting read. Honestly, I think this is just one of those issues where people will have to agree to disagree. To some, myself included, that lump of cells that results when the sperm inserts its genetic material into the egg is just a lump of cells with the potential to one day become a living, breathing person. For others, that lump of cells is a living person entitled to all the rights of any other person. With the exception of Gumby, who's stated he's undecided on the issue, I imagine most people have made up their minds and no amount of debating or "reasoning" on either side is likely to get anyone to budge from their respective positions. So I don't see a point of all this contentiousness.

Me, personally, until someone hooks up an embryo to some sort of magical device which makes it clear that the embryo is capable of complex thought processes such as perceiving physical pain along the same lines as a later term fetus or newborn, I will never agree that that embryo's right to life should trump the mother's right to choose.

Like Kasia, I personally find it ridiculous that the same people that would take away or diminish welfare benefits, or would eliminate education about contraception, would also mandate that mothers bring their unwanted embryos to full term, irrespective of the burden on the mother, the unwanted child and society as a whole. Just how I believe every person in support of the war in Iraq has an affirmative duty to enlist or, at the very least, provide personal financial backing for the war (beyond tax payments), I think every person who would vote to take away a woman's right to choose should personally have to foot the bill for the approximate 1,300,000 additional babies we're going to have on our hands annually if that right is ever taken away. (Of course, this figure wrongfully assumes sexual behavior will not change and that women will not seek illegal abortions, both of which will undoubtedly occur and reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.)

Here's a question for all the anti-choicers out there: even though embryonic cells have the potential to become a full fledged person under the right conditions, such stem cells also have the potential to become nothing more than a mass of skin cells, a kidney or hair follicles if those conditions are changed. These living cells are not killed by being transformed into a singular organ but are simply coaxed along a different developmental path. So then, how can those cells alone be considered a "person?"

RX

[ChinaLama]

Here's a question for all the anti-choicers out there: even though embryonic cells have the potential to become a full fledged person under the right conditions, such stem cells also have the potential to become nothing more than a mass of skin cells, a kidney or hair follicles if those conditions are changed. These living cells are not killed by being transformed into a singular organ but are simply coaxed along a different developmental path. So then, how can those cells alone be considered a "person?"

RX

Can you tell me how often that happens in nature? I also don't think, as you mentioned previously, ability to feel pain or "complex thought processes" are good criteria for determining "personhood." If the former is the case, are you saying it's ok to kill babies with sleeping pills? They won't feel any pain when they die! And I don't think babies are capable of more complex thought processes than say a pig. So by that criteron, we should go by Peter Singer and allow parents to kill their children up to the age of 1.

[SunWuKong]

It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It's a 5th amendment issue.
These babies are being deprived of their right to life without due process of law.

not exactly correct. the 5th Amendment was written to restrict the power of the American justice system, not to restrict what a woman can do with her own body or any embryos or fetuses that may be inside of her body. it is saying that the government cannot deprive someone their right to life without due process of law. and also, correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the American legal system considers someone legally a person with rights only after he or she has been born. it's pretty much a losing argument to say that abortion is un-Constitutional.

We cannot allow your personal belief that life doesn't begin at conception, to form policy. It works both ways. Personal beliefs MUST be used to form policy.

the difference here is that banning abortion because of personal beliefs actually deprives other people of their rights, whereas legally allowing abortion because of personal beliefs would be giving people the freedom to choose abortion or not to choose abortion. and yes, this is inherently a religious argument and i liked what Kerry had to say about it when he was asked this question at the town hall debate. the abortion issue never fails to eventually boil down to when a fetus is considered a living person, and that is where religious differences will surface. we cannot legislate as to restrict people their freedom by imposing our beliefs on others who do not share them. murder is different because the overwhelming majority of the American public believes that murder is taking away a person's right to live, however such is not the case with abortion. when the overwhelming majority of the American public believes that abortion is also taking away a person's right to live, then we can legislate to ban abortion.

[Yeahman]

the difference here is that banning abortion because of personal beliefs actually deprives other people of their rights, whereas legally allowing abortion because of personal beliefs would be giving people the freedom to choose abortion or not to choose abortion. and yes, this is inherently a religious argument and i liked what Kerry had to say about it when he was asked this question at the town hall debate. the abortion issue never fails to eventually boil down to when a fetus is considered a living person, and that is where religious differences will surface. we cannot legislate as to restrict people their freedom by imposing our beliefs on others who do not share them. murder is different because the overwhelming majority of the American public believes that murder is taking away a person's right to live, however such is not the case with abortion. when the overwhelming majority of the American public believes that abortion is also taking away a person's right to live, then we can legislate to ban abortion.
So if the majority of Americans believe that murdering a full-fledged human is not murder, it is then morally permissible? So the holocaust was morally permissible?
If you believe that life begins at conception, supporting abortion is identical to saying "I believe it's the woman's right to murder."

[kasia]

I think she was referring actually to Kitty's comment asserting that pro-lifers are anti-women, which I addressed earlier either on this page or the previous. Regardless, it was probably a mistake on Kuchana's part because while Kitty did equate pro-lifers with people against the interests of women, she never said anything about percentages or statistics.



I think it means he gets your point and he agrees. Damn why does everyone have to be so combative in here, or is it just me?

i don't think it's combative; it's just the nature of debating. nothing personal.

[Yeahman]

Like Kasia, I personally find it ridiculous that the same people that would take away or diminish welfare benefits, or would eliminate education about contraception, would also mandate that mothers bring their unwanted embryos to full term, irrespective of the burden on the mother, the unwanted child and society as a whole. Just how I believe every person in support of the war in Iraq has an affirmative duty to enlist or, at the very least, provide personal financial backing for the war (beyond tax payments), I think every person who would vote to take away a woman's right to choose should personally have to foot the bill for the approximate 1,300,000 additional babies we're going to have on our hands annually if that right is ever taken away. (Of course, this figure wrongfully assumes sexual behavior will not change and that women will not seek illegal abortions, both of which will undoubtedly occur and reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.)
OK then you pay for Social Security and public schools beyond taxes since you probably believe in them. Using this logic, libertarians could just lay back while the rest of America pays for everything.
BTW I'm pro-life and for expanding welfare and I'm fine with contraception education.

[SunWuKong]

So if the majority of Americans believe that murdering a full-fledged human is not murder, it is then morally permissible? So the holocaust was morally permissible?

firstly, you forget, what is "legal" is not necessarily the same as what is "morally permissible". there are laws that are based on widely accepted standards of morality, but there has not been widely accepted standards of morality in the US concerning abortion.

secondly, if the majority of Americans believe that murdering a full-fledged human is not murder (by the way, the act of murdering someone would, by definition, be considered a "murder"), and that the act is morally permissible, then yeah... uh... of course it would be morally permissible.

If you believe that life begins at conception, supporting abortion is identical to saying "I believe it's the woman's right to murder."

sure, but not everybody consider life to begin at conception, so like i said before, we can't legislate as to impose our religious beliefs on others who don't share them. when we come to an agreement that abortion is murder, then we can legislate it so.

[truMp]

Here's a question for all the anti-choicers out there

RX
I don't think we're promoting anti-choice here; we'll give you the choice of whether or not you wish you want to kill, but with this will obviously come legal consequences.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I don't think we're promoting anti-choice here; we'll give you the choice of whether or not you wish you want to kill, but with this will obviously come legal consequences.

That's the same thing as anti-choice, if you're going to legally punish people for making certain choices LOL

[kasia]

I don't think we're promoting anti-choice here; we'll give you the choice of whether or not you wish you want to kill, but with this will obviously come legal consequences.

are you anti-bush, then? because he's killing all of us slowly with his environmental policies.

[SunWuKong]

I don't think we're promoting anti-choice here; we'll give you the choice of whether or not you wish you want to kill, but with this will obviously come legal consequences.


uhh...

:confused:

[kasia]

uhh...

:confused:

he's right. you still have a choice. "do it or die." that's giving you a choice, too.

[kitty]

i think andy did fine with the 5th amendment thing, which originally had me riled. i think it's been successfully quashed though.

regarding my anti-woman quote, perhaps i wasn't clear -- basically for anti-abortion advocates, fundamentally, it seems like in a choice between the rights of a woman and the rights of a baby, the baby seems to win out, and i've seen no one actually come out and SAY: y'know what, if you get pregnant, than tough shit -- if you die, if you become impoverished, if you suffer ailing health, if you become homeless, if you can't care for your child at all -- that's fine, because we are going to force you to have that baby anyways -- your rights are meaningless. As far as I can tell, anti-abortion people are usually Christian conservatives who not only believe that babies' lives are sacrosanct, but that a woman who got herself 'knocked up', committed some sort of crime and deserves it -- with no scientific or really even logical basis for why they draw their line at conception. it's absolutely a religious argument.

not everyone believes that life begins at conception -- for me, a fertilized egg is simply two cells that have fused together, providing two sets of genes. There's nothing magical about it -- and there's no guarantee that that fertilized egg will do anything more than wash through the woman's system and exit her body. But for thse who DO believe this is where life begins, than fine... believe it. But since when is it okay to force YOUR morality, your religiousity, your perceptions of the world, onto me?

and if i've been grumpy, well, i'm sorry, but yell0, i'm disappointed that you feel the need to resort to ad hominen grumblings to try and 'prove' your point....

i think andy did fine with the 5th amendment thing, which originally had me riled. i think it's been successfully quashed though.

regarding my anti-woman quote, perhaps i wasn't clear -- basically for anti-abortion advocates, fundamentally, it seems like in a choice between the rights of a woman and the rights of a baby, the baby seems to win out, and i've seen no one actually come out and SAY: y'know what, if you get pregnant, than tough shit -- if you die, if you become impoverished, if you suffer ailing health, if you become homeless, if you can't care for your child at all -- that's fine, because we are going to force you to have that baby anyways -- your rights are meaningless. As far as I can tell, anti-abortion people are usually Christian conservatives who not only believe that babies' lives are sacrosanct, but that a woman who got herself 'knocked up', committed some sort of crime and deserves it -- with no scientific or really even logical basis for why they draw their line at conception. it's absolutely a religious argument.

not everyone believes that life begins at conception -- for me, a fertilized egg is simply two cells that have fused together, providing two sets of genes. There's nothing magical about it -- and there's no guarantee that that fertilized egg will do anything more than wash through the woman's system and exit her body. But for thse who DO believe this is where life begins, than fine... believe it. But since when is it okay to force YOUR morality, your religiousity, your perceptions of the world, onto me?

and if i've been grumpy, well, i'm sorry, but yell0, i'm disappointed that you feel the need to resort to ad hominen grumblings to try and 'prove' your point....

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Not everyone believes that life begins at conception -- for me, a fertilized egg is simply two cells that have fused together, providing two sets of genes. There's nothing magical about it -- and there's no guarantee that that fertilized egg will do anything more than wash through the woman's system and exit her body. But for thse who DO believe this is where life begins, than fine... believe it. But since when is it okay to force YOUR morality, your religiousity, your perceptions of the world, onto me?

Just to make a note, I am still undecided on this abortion issue. But again likewise, if you were an individual in power assigned to participate in decision-making processes affecting the masses, what makes it okay to force YOUR morality, your perceptions, and your beliefs of the world onto us (being the public)? Just because somehow you're not Christian or religious? If you're saying people shouldn't use their own moralities and beliefs and perspectives then who else's should they use?

regarding my anti-woman quote, perhaps i wasn't clear -- basically for anti-abortion advocates, fundamentally, it seems like in a choice between the rights of a woman and the rights of a baby, the baby seems to win out, and i've seen no one actually come out and SAY: y'know what, if you get pregnant, than tough shit -- if you die, if you become impoverished, if you suffer ailing health, if you become homeless, if you can't care for your child at all -- that's fine, because we are going to force you to have that baby anyways -- your rights are meaningless. As far as I can tell, anti-abortion people are usually Christian conservatives who not only believe that babies' lives are sacrosanct, but that a woman who got herself 'knocked up', committed some sort of crime and deserves it -- with no scientific or really even logical basis for why they draw their line at conception. it's absolutely a religious argument.

I still don't see how all this makes pro-lifers "anti-women" in any way shape or form, other than perhaps placing the value of the life of the baby over the value of women's interests. And I don't remember scientific basis being a necessity for efficient or moral policy-making. So what makes your faith in science better than someone else's faith in religious doctrine? Both elements can and do contribute to one's personality and overall perspective.

[SunWuKong]

he's right. you still have a choice. "do it or die." that's giving you a choice, too.


right. well technically abortion is not killing because the fetus is just transcending into another life form after the medical procedure.

Just to make a note, I am still undecided on this abortion issue. But again likewise, if you were an individual in power assigned to participate in decision-making processes affecting the masses, what makes it okay to force YOUR morality, your perceptions, and your beliefs of the world onto us (being the public)? Just because somehow you're not Christian or religious? If you're saying people shouldn't use their own moralities and beliefs and perspectives then who else's should they use?

but she would not be. pro-choice people do not force people to have abortions. people have the choice to have their babies for believing that life begins at conception.

[truMp]

That's the same thing as anti-choice, if you're going to legally punish people for making certain choices LOL

killing exacts punishment doesn't it? It's always been like that.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

But she would not be. pro-choice people do not force people to have abortions. people have the choice to have their babies for believing that life begins at conception.

My point is, people who make policy are going to force or impose limitations on people's freedoms (complete freedom being people being allowed to do whatever the hell they want with no consequences for their actions) based on their moral framework, regardless of whether they are religious or not. For instance, whoever supports and makes the laws saying I can't murder people is depriving me of the choice to murder should I feel the need or desire to.

[truMp]

are you anti-bush, then? because he's killing all of us slowly with his environmental policies.

Yes, but for many other reasons also.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

killing exacts punishment doesn't it? It's always been like that.

Well when people say pro-choice in reference to abortion, it emphasizes the value of the woman's right to 'choose'. You don't say pro-choice or pro-life when dealing with murder because it's pretty much implied that the murderer chooses to kill, and would be ridiculous to re-emphasize so.

[SunWuKong]

My point is, people who make policy are going to force or impose limitations on people's freedoms (complete freedom being people being allowed to do whatever the hell they want with no consequences for their actions) based on their moral framework, regardless of whether they are religious or not. For instance, whoever supports and makes the laws saying I can't murder people is depriving me of the choice to murder should I feel the need or desire to.


not exactly. there are plenty of policies that have been made to protect people's freedom and their right to live life the way they choose. the freedom of speech clause in the 1st Amendment is the perfect example. these policies protect people's rights, instead of imposing restrictions on them, just the same as keeping abortion legal would be a protection of women's rights, but does nothing to limit the choices of or impose beliefs on individuals who believe that life begins at conception.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

not exactly. there are plenty of policies that have been made to protect people's freedom and their right to live life the way they choose. the freedom of speech clause in the 1st Amendment is the perfect example. these policies protect people's rights, instead of imposing restrictions on them, just the same as keeping abortion legal would be a protection of women's rights, but does nothing to limit the choices of or impose beliefs on individuals who believe that life begins at conception.

Okay that's fine, but somewhere down the line policies will have to be either made or supported which impose restrictions, or do you support an approach towards lawmaking that seeks primarily to protect or promote freedoms instead of telling people what they can and cannot do? Without having put much thought into this statement, I do believe that imposing restrictions is inevitable if you want society to run smoothly.

Nevertheless, if you're a politician, regardless of what type of policy or bill you are pushing, it all comes down to the fact that how you act and decide things is based largely (if not entirely) upon the values you've acquired throughout your lifetime as well as any type of outside or selfish motives or interests you may harbor (which in turn is largely influenced by your values and morals). If people are going to complain about pro-life politicians imposing their beliefs upon the masses by promising legal consequences for anyone who gets an abortion, then they should also be complaining that politicians impose their beliefs upon the masses by promising legal consequences for anyone who murders or performs any type of action deemed undesirable or prohibited by the government.

[kitty]

we live in a democracy in which, ideally, our personal freedoms are emphasized. having choice to believe as much as we can as an individual is preferable to a politician using his own morality to limit the choices of others.

I still don't see how all this makes pro-lifers "anti-women" in any way shape or form, other than perhaps placing the value of the life of the baby over the value of women's interests.


Value of the baby's life and civil liberties is chosen over the woman's life and civil liberties. That's 'anti-women'... in the sense that the baby is more important than the woman in the eyes of the anti-choice advocates.


And I don't remember scientific basis being a necessity for efficient or moral policy-making.


I think we've already established where I stand on 'moral' policy-making in a previous thread.


So what makes your faith in science better than someone else's faith in religious doctrine? Both elements can and do contribute to one's personality and overall perspective.


None. That's why I'm into choice -- you choose for YOURSELF whether you want an abortion or not. It's none of my business. As a scientist, I know where I stand... but i'm not pro-abortion -- I wouldn't want to FORCE women who want to have their children to have an abortion...

the whole point of law is to protect our freedoms... not to impose morality onto society. unless, of course, we're looking for an authoritarian dictatorship.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

we live in a democracy in which, ideally, our personal freedoms are emphasized. having choice to believe as much as we can as an individual is preferable to a politician using his own morality to limit the choices of others.

Democracy has nothing to do with personal freedoms being emphasized, at least not in the loosest and most basic sense. The U.S. is not representative of democracy. Democracy simply means participation on the part of all the citizentry in the area of influencing and making policy (usually via regular elections and polls), which also necessitates the tolerance and acceptance among all that sometimes if your opinion isn't supported by the majority, then better luck next time, even if the majority consists of a bunch of hicks or religious fanatics. Many democratic governments around the world greatly vary in how liberal (for lack of better term) they are in terms of allowing people to enjoy more freedoms or pursue the fulfillment of their individual capacities.

Value of the baby's life and civil liberties is chosen over the woman's life and civil liberties. That's 'anti-women'... in the sense that the baby is more important than the woman in the eyes of the anti-choice advocates.

In the eyes of pro-lifers, an aborted baby kills the baby. An unaborted baby does not kill the woman. And once again putting the priority of one thing over another does not mean that you are anti-anything. Affirmative action is in essence putting the interests of minority groups and women over the interests of white men (because the interests of white men are ignored or deemed not as important because they are believed to already have an advantage). Does this mean people who support affirmative action are anti-white men?

None. That's why I'm into choice -- you choose for YOURSELF whether you want an abortion or not. It's none of my business. As a scientist, I know where I stand... but i'm not pro-abortion -- I wouldn't want to FORCE women who want to have their children to have an abortion...

See above post/reply to SWK If you're so into choice, why don't you also support the choice for people to do whatever they want whenever they want? The fact is that the government will always limit our choices in various ways, out of necessity IMHO.

[truMp]

Value of the baby's life and civil liberties is chosen over the woman's life and civil liberties. That's 'anti-women'... in the sense that the baby is more important than the woman in the eyes of the anti-choice advocates.


I think that's quite too great of an assumption to generalize all advocates of pro-life as favoring the child > mother (assuming of course that "anti-choice advocates" = "pro-life advocates"). Maybe you've met lots of people who hold that view, but I have never even met one that feels the child is more important than the mother.

[kasia]

I still don't see how all this makes pro-lifers "anti-women" in any way shape or form, other than perhaps placing the value of the life of the baby over the value of women's interests. And I don't remember scientific basis being a necessity for efficient or moral policy-making. So what makes your faith in science better than someone else's faith in religious doctrine? Both elements can and do contribute to one's personality and overall perspective.

not necessarily anti-women, but anti giving women a choice in the matter. and it's really interesting whenever a man would come out and say he's anti-choice, since he'd never be the one to be placed in the situation of having to choose.

it's kinda like voting on whether we should have an all-male draft. sure, i'm for it.

[SunWuKong]

Okay that's fine, but somewhere down the line policies will have to be either made or supported which impose restrictions, or do you support an approach towards lawmaking that seeks primarily to protect or promote freedoms instead of telling people what they can and cannot do? Without having put much thought into this statement, I do believe that imposing restrictions is inevitable if you want society to run smoothly.

give me an example how policies that seek to protect freedoms would result in the imposition of restrictions instead?

for example, what kind of restrictions would the freedom of speech place on people? speech that is expressed on private properties or private channels can still be censored by the owners of said properties or channels. policies can be made to say that these owners must provide freedom of speech, but that is a different policy altogether and it would be perfectly normal for people to support the freedom of speech (in which case, in the public arena) and yet protect private owners the right to moderate and censor speech made at their own properties or channels.

in the case of pro-choice people, what they support is keeping abortion legal, plain and simple. they do not want to legally force pregnant women to get abortions, they do not want to legally force doctors to perform abortions if they choose not to perform them, they do not want to legally force pro-life people to not advocate banning abortion, etc etc. how would this specific example impose restrictions on individuals' lives?

Nevertheless, if you're a politician, regardless of what type of policy or bill you are pushing, it all comes down to the fact that how you act and decide things is based largely (if not entirely) upon the values you've acquired throughout your lifetime as well as any type of outside or selfish motives or interests you may harbor (which in turn is largely influenced by your values and morals).

you still don't see the difference. policies that protect people's freedoms would not impose these personal values on others because they don't legally force people to do or not do anything. they reserve the right for individuals to make decisions for their own individual lives.

If people are going to complain about pro-life politicians imposing their beliefs upon the masses by promising legal consequences for anyone who gets an abortion, then they should also be complaining that politicians impose their beliefs upon the masses by promising legal consequences for anyone who murders or performs any type of action deemed undesirable or prohibited by the government.

the difference being that the overwhelming majority of us agree that the act of murder deserves punishment. a murderer is usually someone who believes that murder is a wrongful act but commits it anyway. whereas there are plenty of people in the American population that do not see abortion as a wrongful and punishable act. and you know what? i'm no lawyer, but there are probably cases where it was proven in a court of law that a murderer did not see murder as a wrongful act and pled insanity.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

give me an example how policies that seek to protect freedoms would result in the imposition of restrictions instead?

Huh? I never said policies seeking to protect freedoms would result in the imposition of restrictions. I said the imposition of restrictions is inevitable and necessary in every society, while acknowledging your examples of the existence of policies that in fact protect freedoms (e.g. freedom of speech). Both types of policies, those seeking to impose restrictions and those seeking to protect freedoms, are made based on the moralities of the individuals involved in the policy-making process.

you still don't see the difference. policies that protect people's freedoms would not impose these personal values on others because it doesn't legally force people to do or not do anything. it reserves the right for individuals to make decisions for their own individual lives.

I still don't see your point. I never said these policies don't exist. My point is that it's pretty ridiculous to use the "You shouldn't use your own morals and beliefs to make policy" argument, or are you suggesting we should rely more on our own morals and beliefs when dealing with policy that PROTECTS freedoms and then discard them or rely on them to a lesser extent when dealing with policy that RESTRICTS?


the difference being that the overwhelming majority of us agree that the act of murder deserves punishment. a murderer is usually someone who believes that murder is a wrongful act but commits it anyway. whereas there are plenty of people in the American population that do not see abortion as a wrongful and punishable act. and you know what? i'm no lawyer, but there are probably cases where it was proven in a court of law that a murderer did not see murder as a wrongful act and pled insanity.

So it's all up to numbers. So what about those few individuals who don't agree? My point is in the argument. You can't say "oh it's okay that we restrict this cause MOST PEOPLE agree with the restriction" but then say "oh but it's not okay here because there's more of a divide in opinions of the population". But perhaps you don't want to deal with murder. How about laws that simply prohibit minors from drinking or buying cigarettes? Sure there is the health issue, but it's not like suddenly after you hit legal age, drinking and smoking become good for your health.

[Mr.Lum]

That's what we mean when we say personal beliefs is a NATURAL factor in the process of forming and supporting policy... Unless you support a society where everyone just does whatever they want and nobody has any type of legal or binding power to make decisions or impose rules on anybody else.

I do. I don't want the beliefs of others stuffed down my throat or anyone elses views or beliefs for that matter.

[SunWuKong]

Huh? I never said policies seeking to protect freedoms would result in the imposition of restrictions. I said the imposition of restrictions is inevitable and necessary in every society, while acknowledging your examples of the existence of policies that in fact protect freedoms (e.g. freedom of speech). Both types of policies, those seeking to impose restrictions and those seeking to protect freedoms, are made based on the moralities of the individuals involved in the policy-making process.

ok, but your original argument was to say that being pro-choice would also be an imposition of one's beliefs onto others who do not share those beliefs:

Just to make a note, I am still undecided on this abortion issue. But again likewise, if you were an individual in power assigned to participate in decision-making processes affecting the masses, what makes it okay to force YOUR morality, your perceptions, and your beliefs of the world onto us (being the public)? Just because somehow you're not Christian or religious? If you're saying people shouldn't use their own moralities and beliefs and perspectives then who else's should they use?

i was saying that it's not the same. in fact, it's almost completely the opposite. or do you now agree that being pro-choice does not impose beliefs on other people for what they can do with their own lives?


I still don't see your point. I never said these policies don't exist. My point is that it's pretty ridiculous to use the "You shouldn't use your own morals and beliefs to make policy" argument, or are you suggesting we should rely more on our own morals and beliefs when dealing with policy that PROTECTS freedoms and then discard them or rely on them to a lesser extent when dealing with policy that RESTRICTS?

no, it's not just "you shouldn't use your own morals and beliefs to make policy". it's "you shouldn't legally force your own morals and beliefs onto other people who do not share them in what they can do with their own individual lives." that's pretty much the gist of what Kerry said in how he answered the abortion issue in the Town Hall debate.




So it's all up to numbers. So what about those few individuals who don't agree? My point is in the argument. You can't say "oh it's okay that we restrict this cause MOST PEOPLE agree with the restriction" but then say "oh but it's not okay here because there's more of a divide in opinions of the population". But perhaps you don't want to deal with murder. How about laws that simply prohibit minors from drinking or smoking? Sure there is the health issue, but it's not like suddenly after you hit legal age, drinking and smoking become good for your health.

yes, actually it's all up to the numbers. if as many people believe that abortion is murder as there are people who believe that murder is a wrongful act, then too bad to those who disagree. fortunately that is not the case. we legislate to shape our society, where our society is made up of a collection of individuals, so we legislate on what we can agree on. and also, by default, policies that protect freedoms should be the way to go if there is a divide in opinion, as they do not force people to do anything or not do anything they do not want.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I do. I don't want the beliefs of others stuffed down my throat or anyone elses views or beliefs for that matter.

Give me a break. Seriously, with all due respect, where do you think you got your own beliefs? You came up with them independently without any type of outside influence or 'throat-stuffing'? It's kinda ridiculous to think this world would be just fine if everyone could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. Damnit, who needs agriculture which ultimately lead to the forming of political entities and formal decision-making, right? Anyways, I'm gonna go eat lunch now. I have a project to finish so I look forward to reading your rebuttal(s) later. :biggrin:

ok, but your original argument was to say that being pro-choice would also be an imposition of one's beliefs onto others who do not share those beliefs

Did I say that? I might have, but my main bone of contention was Kitty's (and other people's) objections to the imposing of restrictions upon people via their own beliefs (which is either good or bad depending on the individual, but completely natural and unavoidable).



i was saying that it's not the same. in fact, it's almost completely the opposite. or do you now agree that being pro-choice does not impose beliefs on other people for what they can do with their own lives?

I agree. But like I said regardless of what kind of policy it is, personal beliefs are involved and there is nothing unnatural or wrong (imho) about that. When freedoms are protected or promoted, personal beliefs are involved in making the decisions. When certain freedoms of choice are restricted, personal beliefs are also involved.

no, it's not just "you shouldn't use your own morals and beliefs to make policy". it's "you shouldn't legally force your own morals and beliefs onto other people who do not share them in what they can do with their own individual lives." that's pretty much the gist of what Kerry said in how he answered the abortion issue in the Town Hall debate.

But by definition and default, you cannot avoid the broad legal implications that your (for the sake of conversation) actions as a politician have upon the public. It's not 'forcing', it's basically just using who you are and your personal beliefs to live life and do your job. Why do people become politicians in the first place? Assuming it's not always for greedy self-serving reasons, it's most likely to make a positive difference. And most people believe they make a positive difference through ways supported by their own perspectives and views regarding how things should be. Perhaps you think I'm too naive and giving politicians too much credit.

yes, actually it's all up to the numbers. if as many people believe that abortion is murder as there are people who believe that murder is a wrongful act, then too bad to those who disagree. fortunately that is not the case. we legislate to shape our society, where our society is made up of a collection of individuals, so we legislate on what we can agree on. and also, by default, policies that protect freedoms should be the way to go if there is a divide in opinion, as they do not force people to do anything or not do anything they do not want.

I'm not sure what you mean here exactly, I think I just need to read it through again. Anyways it's lunch time. I'll get back to this later ^^

[kitty]

not necessarily anti-women, but anti giving women a choice in the matter.

yes... that is what i'm saying. and ... at least as far as i'm concerned, in america, denying a woman her civil liberties (e.g. her choice over her own body) is anti-women...

In the eyes of pro-lifers, an aborted baby kills the baby. An unaborted baby does not kill the woman.

not necessarily. the baby could physically damage/kill the woman. it could also financially ruin her and bring the baby into a household of abject poverty. the affirmative action analogy also isn't really applicable because the white men are not being denied the choice over their own bodies, possibly in a life or death situation.

Democracy has nothing to do with personal freedoms being emphasized, at least not in the loosest and most basic sense. The U.S. is not representative of democracy. Democracy simply means participation on the part of all the citizentry in the area of influencing and making policy (usually via regular elections and polls), which also necessitates the tolerance and acceptance among all that sometimes if your opinion isn't supported by the majority, then better luck next time, even if the majority consists of a bunch of hicks or religious fanatics. Many democratic governments around the world greatly vary in how liberal (for lack of better term) they are in terms of allowing people to enjoy more freedoms or pursue the fulfillment of their individual capacities.


Well, America is founded upon the principle of freedom of thought, religion and individuality. Our democracy is based upon the idea that we all have individual thought and opinion and that we come together into a cohesive society in which the government infringes as little as possible upon these basic rights -- I realize that American democracy is not THE definition of democracy -- I think you're playing a semantics argument when it's pretty obvious I was talking about America's principles...

As far as the majority-rule thing... America is based largely upon majority-rule, but there are many checks and balances out there for minorities -- ethnic communities are a numerical minority, but that doesn't mean they are, or should be, written off. We don't HAVE to listen to the majority... especially if the majority is wrong.

I think that's quite too great of an assumption to generalize all advocates of pro-life as favoring the child > mother (assuming of course that "anti-choice advocates" = "pro-life advocates"). Maybe you've met lots of people who hold that view, but I have never even met one that feels the child is more important than the mother.

Well, then please, explain to me how telling the woman she MUST give birth to the baby DOESN'T place the baby's 'rights' over the woman's? (assuming a we're calling the foetus a baby, and that a pre-birth foetus has rights)

I do. I don't want the beliefs of others stuffed down my throat or anyone elses views or beliefs for that matter.

Me neither. In fact, the gov't has no business using the religious beliefs of some to make decisions for all, in the first place.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Me neither. In fact, the gov't has no business using the religious beliefs of some to make decisions for all, in the first place.

I think this is my last post in this thread cause it's apparent we're not getting anywhere. So what kind of beliefs does the govt. have business in using when making decisions for all? Let's not forget the fact that people who are pro-life aren't necessarily religious in the first place. I think it's inescapable (for like..the 100th time) that personal beliefs NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE POPULATION are going to be used to make decisions. Basically, if you're going to criticize certain individual values people have then you have to criticize all of them. You can't be like, "Oh, your opinions that gay marriage is wrong and abortion is wrong are unacceptable because you probably got that engrained into you from going to church when you were young, but your opinions regarding smoking or drinking are valid because they probably didn't mention that in church."

Regarding you and Lum's objection against beliefs stuffed down your throat. You and I have had beliefs stuffed down our throat, regardless of its source, all throught the years we've been alive. In your case maybe the ideals of the American Dream (for lack of better term cause I'm not sure how to describe individuality, freedom of choice, other liberal values, etc.) have made a larger impact. I'm not promoting close-mindedness or resistance to change, but ironically people who always seem to like to object to what is inside the box (and in turn promote thinking out of the box) only think that way because of that the box itself has provided them during their upbringing.

Final word (directed somewhat at SWK) regarding policy which promotes or protects freedoms. All in all, you still impose restrictions on another's freedom, because you restrict and prohibit individuals from denying other people of those freedoms. For example, if you have the freedom of speech, you deny me the right to go over to someone's who talking and legally condemn them for doing so (or perhaps to commit assault). From a secular standpoint, there still is no standard of morality so who ar