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

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

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."

[sandra]

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

[sandra]

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:

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

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 are you to say that I can't beat this guy's ass cause I don't like what's coming out of his mouth and he offends me? Who is to decide what freedoms should be protected and promoted and what freedoms should not?

[Yeahman]

kitty is making no sense whatsoever. For the pro-lifer it's a choice between the woman's imaginary right to be pregnant or not and the life of a baby. kitty continues to ignore the fact that pro-lifers are not opposed to the death of a baby if it was the unintended result of trying to save the mother's life. Pro-life is exactly what it says; pro-LIFE. We value life over immoral choices.

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.

[QUOTE=SunWuKong]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.
Popular opinion decides morality? So slavery was morally permissible? Wrong is wrong even if even if you're the only one to think so.

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.
Suppose tomorrow you wake up and half of America believes that killing babies until age 3 is OK and the courts agree. Would you still take this hands-off approach or do everything you can to overturn the decision and change the laws and public perception?

There is absolutely no way that you can believe that abortion is murder and believe that the decision to murder should be left up to the mothers.

[Mr.Lum]

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.

American Dream my ass. That's a load of crap. That's just a way for those crackpots in Washington to get you to do what they like and fall in line. It leads nowhere. The American Revolution has been dead for a long time. As for thinking "inside" or "outside" the box, the only box I promote thinking outside of is the state which is nothing more than a means of control. The "box" has not "provided" me with anything during my upbringing. The only thing the "box" provides is a bullshit dream to make people think they can get anywhere and a bunch of "values" I don't have and unatainable positions of power that are presented as if anyone can get them. Americans overrate their country and themselves and their "dream'. It's a bunch of nonsense. The only difference between Americans and lets say Libyans is that Americans are fat and rich and Libyans are skinny and mostly poor. There is about the same ability to affect change or move upwards socially. Every state is a slave state. Every box is a cage.

Suppose tomorrow you wake up and half of America believes that killing babies until age 3 is OK and the courts agree. Would you still take this hands-off approach or do everything you can to overturn the decision and change the laws and public perception?


I wouldn't really care as if nobody wants those kids they're probablly just going to end in a foster home/in the system and just become fucked up in the head and hastles for society.

There is absolutely no way that you can believe that abortion is murder and believe that the decision to murder should be left up to the mothers.

Suicide is "murder" too and is one of the stupidest things to punish someone for. Just let them do it. Mind your own bloody business. I don't like suicide. But if someone wants to kill themself they should be able to do it. As soon as that baby comes out of the womb in my view, that woman has no right to infringe upon it's right to life. But when itis in the womb, for the most part, that to me is the same a suicide. It's her decsion. The only reason I am against abortion at all is because it is double murder to kill a pregnant woman. Do I think it is double murder personally? No. Is that the way it is? Yes. Is it going to change? Prolly not.

[Arex]

Can you tell me how often that happens in nature?I would assume rarely to never. But you didn't answer the question. The question was, if an original clump of living cells that would ordinarily develop into a living, breathing person if left in the uterus can be tricked into developing instead into a living, beating human heart, does it make sense to call that original lump of cells a "person" with the same rights to "life" as every other man and woman on the street? And, if so, is the process by which the cells are tricked into developing into a heart considered "murder" even though the cells are still alive and well? These are simply questions posed for discussion. I don't intend to convert any pro-lifers into pro-choicers by asking them, they aren't trick questions, I'm just curious to hear your viewpoints.

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!The ability to experience and perceive "pain" is my own personal criterion for determining whether an embryo's or fetus's right to "life" should trump the right of the mother to choose what she does with her baby/body. Your sleeping pills example doesn't fit within that framework because presumably, if the baby was not doped up on sleeping pills, it would have the ability to experience "pain."

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.Who said anything about pigs setting the benchmark? I'm talking specifically about the ability of fetus to experience pain. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but the ability to perceive pain is the complex thought process I was speaking of. I assume there is some point during the developmental process where the fetus's brain becomes sufficiently developed that it has the ability to experience what we perceive as pain. I'm sure to you it's arbitrary to draw my line there, but it's really no more arbitrary than saying a single embryonic stem cell in a blastocyst is a person, whereas sperm and egg, right up until the moment of fertilization are not.

As for everything else being said here, I agree with Gumby that it's impossible to not legislate based in some way on one's personal values. BUT, I think it's also important for politicians to do their best to at least attempt to separate their faith from policy making and avoid making decisions that are based solely on their religious beliefs. I know it may not always be possible, particularly because for so many, notions of "right" or "wrong" are inextricably intertwined with their faith, but the attempt should be made to separate the two given the mandate of the Constitution. Basically, if an elected politician is asked to give a justification for a particular policy, the first thing out of that politician's mouth should not be "because God would want it that way." If that politician cannot articulate some good secular reasons for a policy, reasons that even those without faith can agree with, then perhaps that policy should be rethought. I think Bush has done a particularly poor job of separating the two whereas Kerry has already provided one example of where he won't let his religious beliefs explicitly dictate his policies.

RX

Can you tell me how often that happens in nature?I would assume rarely to never. But you didn't answer the question. The question was, if an original clump of living cells that would ordinarily develop into a living, breathing person if left in the uterus can be tricked into developing instead into a living, beating human heart, does it make sense to call that original lump of cells a "person" with the same rights to "life" as every other man and woman on the street? And, if so, is the process by which the cells are tricked into developing into a heart considered "murder" even though the cells are still alive and well? These are simply questions posed for discussion. I don't intend to convert any pro-lifers into pro-choicers by asking them, they aren't trick questions, I'm just curious to hear your viewpoints.

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!The ability to experience and perceive "pain" is my own personal criterion for determining whether an embryo's or fetus's right to "life" should trump the right of the mother to choose what she does with her baby/body. Your sleeping pills example doesn't fit within that framework because presumably, if the baby was not doped up on sleeping pills, it would have the ability to experience "pain."

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.Who said anything about pigs setting the benchmark? I'm talking specifically about the ability of fetus to experience pain. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but the ability to perceive pain is the complex thought process I was speaking of. I assume there is some point during the developmental process where the fetus's brain becomes sufficiently developed that it has the ability to experience what we perceive as pain. I'm sure to you it's arbitrary to draw my line there, but it's really no more arbitrary than saying a single embryonic stem cell in a blastocyst is a person, whereas sperm and egg, right up until the moment of fertilization are not.

As for everything else being said here, I agree with Gumby that it's impossible to not legislate based in some way on one's personal values. BUT, I think it's also important for politicians to do their best to at least attempt to separate their faith from their secular values and avoid making decisions that are based solely on their religious beliefs. I know it may not always be possible, particularly because for so many, notions of "right" or "wrong" are inextricably intertwined with their faith, but the attempt should be made to separate the two given the mandate of the Constitution. Basically, if an elected politician is asked to give a justification for a particular policy, the first thing out of that politician's mouth should not be "because God would want it that way." If that politician cannot articulate some good secular reasons for a policy, reasons that even those without faith can agree with, then perhaps that policy should be rethought.

RX

[nola]

It's not a life until it's born. Then we should start worrying about its next 80 years of life.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

It's not a life until it's born. Then we should start worrying about its next 80 years of life.

Disclaimer: Currently undecided on the abortion issue

I'm just feeling petty and annoying today, but since you used the word 'next' that implies that you believe there was life previously as well. Can't really worry about the next 80 years of life if it's killed off before that :biggrin:

[kuilong]

I'm fine with contraception education

How do you square this with the Church's teaching on contraception?

I think a surprising number of people are missing the point here, especially those who claim that pro-lifers are "anti-woman". Let's pretend we're pro-life for a moment and think about this -- if we take it as a postulate that a fetus has a right to life, then it's certainly not anti-woman to want to legislate against abortion, any more than it's anti-woman to prohibit women from killing adults.

That's why the whole thing boils down to whether a fetus has a right to life. As far as I can see, if it can be demonstrated that it does, then it follows that it should be criminalized, regardless of how many people share that opinion. So the only valid tactic I can see for arguing the pro-choice position is to contend that a fetus does not, in fact, have a right to life (for whatever reason). Similarly for the pro-life position (they have to show that a fetus does have a right to life. Any other argument (e.g. Kerry's "killing a fetus is murder but it shouldn't be criminalized") seems contradictory to me.

(Oh yeah... I'm too lazy to change it, but for "fetus" above read "prenate")

[SunWuKong]

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.

but as i've been saying again and again, the difference is that personal beliefs are being imposed on others who don't share them when you ban something like abortion. it would basically mean that a specific religious or personal belief system is being made into law and all citizens must abide by it, too, when you use the basis of "life at conception" to ban abortion - because many people do not share the view that life begins at conception.

and similarly, there are other things that are socially restrictive in our legal system that i do not like. for example, the fact that smoking or owning weed is illegal.

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.

well, actually, legislatively, majority does rule. the reason that there are protective measures for minorities and women is because there are enough people to agree with those points of views as to put it into law.

[BigLew]

I hate to say this, but somewhere in the course of this thread, someone took it away from being a thread about why Bush will/will not win the upcoming presidential election to being a tiresome thread about pro-choice/anti-abortion.Yup!

[SunWuKong]

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 are you to say that I can't beat this guy's ass cause I don't like what's coming out of his mouth and he offends me? Who is to decide what freedoms should be protected and promoted and what freedoms should not?

what? :confused:

firstly when we talk about individual freedoms we are talking about what we can do with our own lives, and not what we can do to other people's lives, especially when your actions imposes upon other people's rights. secondly, you can legally condemn people for simply talking, that is your freedom of speech. and then those people have the freedom to either shut up or keep talking. anybody can tell anybody else to shut the hell up in a public arena without facing legal prosecution.

[truMp]

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.

I'm not sure if you're getting the point here. Pro-choice and Pro-Life both give the mother a choice, but if she chooses to kill then the mother would receive punishment thus for.

[SunWuKong]

Popular opinion decides morality? So slavery was morally permissible? Wrong is wrong even if even if you're the only one to think so.

ok, let me rephrase. what i mean is that popular opinion decides legality.


Suppose tomorrow you wake up and half of America believes that killing babies until age 3 is OK and the courts agree. Would you still take this hands-off approach or do everything you can to overturn the decision and change the laws and public perception?

There is absolutely no way that you can believe that abortion is murder and believe that the decision to murder should be left up to the mothers.


no i would not take the hands-off approach, nor do i think pro-lifers should also just agree with pro-choicers either. but how is that relevant to what i was saying? i was supposing the theoretical situation where the overwhelming majority of the American population agree that abortion is murder.

[Yeahman]

How do you square this with the Church's teaching on contraception?
I'm not about to call for a law to make everyone go to church on Sundays. I believe everyone should be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Abortion infringes on the rights of the unborn.

I think a surprising number of people are missing the point here, especially those who claim that pro-lifers are "anti-woman". Let's pretend we're pro-life for a moment and think about this -- if we take it as a postulate that a fetus has a right to life, then it's certainly not anti-woman to want to legislate against abortion, any more than it's anti-woman to prohibit women from killing adults.

That's why the whole thing boils down to whether a fetus has a right to life. As far as I can see, if it can be demonstrated that it does, then it follows that it should be criminalized, regardless of how many people share that opinion. So the only valid tactic I can see for arguing the pro-choice position is to contend that a fetus does not, in fact, have a right to life (for whatever reason). Similarly for the pro-life position (they have to show that a fetus does have a right to life. Any other argument (e.g. Kerry's "killing a fetus is murder but it shouldn't be criminalized") seems contradictory to me.
Exactly. The pro-aborts are zealous ideologues who not only have no respect for the beliefs of others but also want to force their beliefs upon unwilling babies.

no i would not take the hands-off approach, nor do i think pro-lifers should also just agree with pro-choicers either. but how is that relevant to what i was saying? i was supposing the theoretical situation where the overwhelming majority of the American population agree that abortion is murder.
So murder is only murder if most people agree?
Please explain how one can believe that people should be allowed to murder innocent humans beings. Because the murderers don't believe it's murder and so it's up to them to decide? That doesn't fly with me. Murder is murder even if the murderer doesn't think it is.

Here is a real life example. 200 years ago many Americans thought that blacks were subhuman. My position would be "No they're human and you can't enslave them. We need to change the laws and public perception to save these people." The other side would say "No they are not fully human. You believe what you want to believe just don't make me free my slaves." At least the later point is understandable even though it's dead wrong IMO. The Kerry position and the one you seem to be presenting is "Yes they are fully human and I don't like slavery but it's every white man's right to decide from himself whether or not to have a slave. We shouldn't ban slavery. If you don't want to have a slave just don't have one." That is the most ridulous position of all.

[SunWuKong]

So murder is only murder if most people agree?
Please explain how one can believe that people should be allowed to murder innocent humans beings. Because the murderers don't believe it's murder and so it's up to them to decide? That doesn't fly with me. Murder is murder even if the murderer doesn't think it is.

legally speaking, yes. the only reason murder is illegal is because most people have come together and agree to legislate it so. and no, most murderers actually believe that murder is morally wrong as well as illegal, yet they still commit murders. but as i've said before there are cases where they can argue in a court of law that the murderers are legally insane when they think that what they did was not morally wrong.

[kitty]

kitty is making no sense whatsoever. For the pro-lifer it's a choice between the woman's imaginary right to be pregnant or not and the life of a baby.


I'm sorry... but what? You stopped being intelligible a long time ago. A pro-lifer is choosing between a woman's ... imaginary right... to be pregnant? WTF are you talking about? A woman has no right to be pregnant... it's not like the Constitution says 'no citizen shall be denied their right to pregnancy...' or perhaps in your hallucinatory interpretation of the 5th amendment, you tacked on the 28th amendment, right to pregnancies...



kitty continues to ignore the fact that pro-lifers are not opposed to the death of a baby if it was the unintended result of trying to save the mother's life. Pro-life is exactly what it says; pro-LIFE.

you don't speak for the pro-life side, which is why i largely ignored this point. most pro-lifers vary widely on this subject. but if you insist on dogmatically yammering away for attention -- meanwhile insinuating that i'm an idiot or something, than here:

let's argue that you are okay with abortion if the mother's life is at stake. alright, what if the mother's FISCAL life is at stake? What if she will be horribly injured but probably not killed from having a baby? What if she will have to sacrifice further attempts at education, getting a decent job, etc, for a child who will be brought into a life of poverty? What if the mother is in an abusive relationship, and she knows that she and her child's lives will be in danger if she has the baby -- I know these are all hypotheticals, but they're all designed to illustrate one point. It's convenient to say 'only if the mum's life is in danger' ... but there are many factors that could constitute harmful, even life-threatening for mother or child, that may be improved by an abortion.

Fundamentally, no woman's circumstances are identical... thus, they are the best experts of their own situation so they should be able to be given a CHOICE as to what will be the best decision for all concerned, and not the government. so what part of all this confuses you?

We value life over immoral choices.


That's nice. But it's still your definition of 'immorality'... not mine. Why are you trying to force your definitions onto me?

I think a surprising number of people are missing the point here, especially those who claim that pro-lifers are "anti-woman". Let's pretend we're pro-life for a moment and think about this -- if we take it as a postulate that a fetus has a right to life, then it's certainly not anti-woman to want to legislate against abortion, any more than it's anti-woman to prohibit women from killing adults.



okay, i'm feeling a bit like kerry here, being quoted and characterized out of context...

as i CLARIFIED earlier -- i went out on a limb and called the anti-choicers out there out about being 'anti-women' because a) i was frustrated and b) because no pro-lifer out there has actually talked about where their priorities lie. Fundamentally if you have two citizens with equal rights, pro-lifers feel that a woman's right to life or prevent personal injury to their own bodies (basically to dictate what happens in their own uteruses) comes second to a baby's theoretical right to life. you can't get around that -- if you believe abortion is wrong, you HAVE to believe that a woman's rights over her own body are not as important.

funny, how no one has the balls to actually say that...

Bringing the point home, is that anti-women, like pro-lifers want women to die or something? no... I never said that. But it IS placing all women's rights to their own bodies second to the baby's. So, kuilong, your analogy is false -- and I suspect only out to mislead -- it is not analogous because a woman is not carrying the man in her body and is not having her right to dictate what happens to her own physical form threatened.

And... I used such strong language in direct response to yell0man's insistance on not using 'pro-choice' to refer to pro-choicers, but anti-baby, anti-life, and pro-abortion... all of which are as mischaracterizations of 'my side' of the debate, as a strong term like 'anti-women' mischaracterizes 'his side'.

I'm not sure if you're getting the point here. Pro-choice and Pro-Life both give the mother a choice, but if she chooses to kill then the mother would receive punishment thus for.

that offers no meaningful choice, and so is irrelevant.

[truMp]

that offers no meaningful choice, and so is irrelevant.

please elaborate so I don't mistaken your statement for a different meaning. thanks.

[kitty]

you can't offer a choice, but give punishment for one. that's like saying "you have a choice, the red pill or the blue pill, but if you choose the blue pill, you get a bullet in the head." no meaningful choice, so it's politically irrelevant.

[truMp]

you can't offer a choice, but give punishment for one. that's like saying "you have a choice, the red pill or the blue pill, but if you choose the blue pill, you get a bullet in the head." no meaningful choice, so it's politically irrelevant.

then how do you justify stealing and related crimes with this argument? For example, stealing. Society gives the individual, in this case Mary, a choice: she can choose not to steal which would result in no negative consequences, or she may steal to her heart's content that would then result in punishable consequence equivalent to the degree of her actions. So is it irrelevant to castigate someone for a choice they have made? I don't see how it could be. This is how the justice system is run, so that everything is in order. Wait, I know what you're going to say next.

"This example couldn't work because abortion is not a crime?"

Well, the killing of a fetus; is it a crime or not? Through my perspective, it definitely is an action against the value of 'life' and therefore can receive the resulting consequence thereof. Although the pro-choicers will then argue about the point in which life is actually conceived; bringing the whole argument back to point one, speaking in circles over and over. I am beginning to find this debate concerning abortion pointless as a result of our perspective of things; it is literally impossible to change the mindset of the 'opposing view' since they have already set strong their own belief of how things work. Add to this, the recalcitrant behavior typical of eloquent debaters; then one comes to realize that debating such as this is really pointless.

[kitty]

exactly, you are offered no choice when it comes to stealing: the government doesn't say 'you have the choice to steal or not'... that is not a political right we have. thus it's irrelevant to talk about a citizen's choice to steal. thus your argument is rendered moot.

abortion is trickier. you think it's a crime. i don't. science doesn't support that a fertilized egg has the same kind of complexity of life (thus rights) as a human being. religion states that a fertilized egg is a magical thing that should be protected. citizens in the U.S. have the right to protection of their property, thus citizens are not given the right (thus choice) to steal.

The jury's still out on whether a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a citizen of the U.S., and since people differ based upon their fundamental definition of life, pro-choice advocates believe that it should be the mother's decision.

Add to this, the recalcitrant behavior typical of eloquent debaters

hey... who you callin' recalcitrant?!? :tongue:

then one comes to realize that debating such as this is really pointless.


I agree. Fundamentally, I see this as a science vs. religion argument. I've never had much luck arguing against fervent believers in organized religion. (and no, i'm not saying that all pro-lifers are religious zealots. don't kerry me again)

[Yeahman]

I'm sorry... but what? You stopped being intelligible a long time ago. A pro-lifer is choosing between a woman's ... imaginary right... to be pregnant? WTF are you talking about? A woman has no right to be pregnant... it's not like the Constitution says 'no citizen shall be denied their right to pregnancy...' or perhaps in your hallucinatory interpretation of the 5th amendment, you tacked on the 28th amendment, right to pregnancies...
Thank you for proving my point. There is no right to end pregnancies in the Constitution.

you don't speak for the pro-life side, which is why i largely ignored this point. most pro-lifers vary widely on this subject. but if you insist on dogmatically yammering away for attention -- meanwhile insinuating that i'm an idiot or something, than here:

let's argue that you are okay with abortion if the mother's life is at stake. alright, what if the mother's FISCAL life is at stake? What if she will be horribly injured but probably not killed from having a baby? What if she will have to sacrifice further attempts at education, getting a decent job, etc, for a child who will be brought into a life of poverty? What if the mother is in an abusive relationship, and she knows that she and her child's lives will be in danger if she has the baby -- I know these are all hypotheticals, but they're all designed to illustrate one point. It's convenient to say 'only if the mum's life is in danger' ... but there are many factors that could constitute harmful, even life-threatening for mother or child, that may be improved by an abortion.
None of those hypotheticals is a good excuse for murder. We should help those people through financial support and adoption but not murder.

That's nice. But it's still your definition of 'immorality'... not mine. Why are you trying to force your definitions onto me?
Because you believe that the murder of innocent people is permissible. I do not have to sit back and let people murder each other just because you think it's OK.

okay, i'm feeling a bit like kerry here, being quoted and characterized out of context...

as i CLARIFIED earlier -- i went out on a limb and called the anti-choicers out there out about being 'anti-women' because a) i was frustrated and b) because no pro-lifer out there has actually talked about where their priorities lie. Fundamentally if you have two citizens with equal rights, pro-lifers feel that a woman's right to life or prevent personal injury to their own bodies (basically to dictate what happens in their own uteruses) comes second to a baby's theoretical right to life. you can't get around that -- if you believe abortion is wrong, you HAVE to believe that a woman's rights over her own body are not as important.
Yes, a woman's imaginary "right" to kill a human growing inside of her is not as important as a baby's right to life.
And stop bringing up the "woman's life" crap. That just shows a complete misunderstanding of the pro-life position. And yes I do speak for the vast majority of pro-lifers when I say that.

funny, how no one has the balls to actually say that...
Now that I said it, please come out and say what you must feel judging from all that you've said; that half of all women in America are anti-women.

Bringing the point home, is that anti-women, like pro-lifers want women to die or something? no... I never said that. But it IS placing all women's rights to their own bodies second to the baby's. So, kuilong, your analogy is false -- and I suspect only out to mislead -- it is not analogous because a woman is not carrying the man in her body and is not having her right to dictate what happens to her own physical form threatened.
Damn it kuilung, the woman's right over the unborn trumps the life of the baby. The master's right to his slave trumps the slave's right to liberty. Let women have abortions and master's keep their slaves! If you don't like it, don't have an abortion and don't keep a slave. Just don't force your opinions on kitty. She has the right to have an abortion and a slave.

I agree. Fundamentally, I see this as a science vs. religion argument. I've never had much luck arguing against fervent believers in organized religion. (and no, i'm not saying that all pro-lifers are religious zealots. don't kerry me again)
I'm so tempted to call you an idiot.
But at least you are making clear that you have no understanding of the underlying factors of this important issue.

[ChinaLama]

I would assume rarely to never. But you didn't answer the question. The question was, if an original clump of living cells that would ordinarily develop into a living, breathing person if left in the uterus can be tricked into developing instead into a living, beating human heart, does it make sense to call that original lump of cells a "person" with the same rights to "life" as every other man and woman on the street? And, if so, is the process by which the cells are tricked into developing into a heart considered "murder" even though the cells are still alive and well? These are simply questions posed for discussion. I don't intend to convert any pro-lifers into pro-choicers by asking them, they aren't trick questions, I'm just curious to hear your viewpoints.



Given that an embryo is genetically unique from either the mother or father, I don't think it could be considered a PART of a woman's body. I think it is DEPENDENT on a woman's body. So the question is, is it "human" enough to at least have some right to life? I don't think its right to life trumps its mother's. In fact, I am for abortion if it's to save a mother's life. But I do think, if it's HUMAN and not merely a part of a woman's body, its right to live must at least in some cases trump the mother's right to choose.

So the question for me is, are embryos human because of their unique genetic makeup, or are they not? Up till now, I've always thought it was. But Alex asks a good question. I've avoided answering it directly because I don't have a facile answer. :-) However, I think, if in nature most of the time the embryo ends up becoming a full-fledged human being, then it should be considered human rather than as mere "potential."

The reason why I chose conception as the criterion for humanity is because I feel it's a better criterion than ability to feel pain or sentience.

The reason I don't buy "pain" as a criterion of humanity is because regardless of one's ability to perceive pain, actual pain can be nullified. And I would think it's the actual pain that matters rather than the ability to perceive it. The reason I don't buy sentience is because I think if we went by that standard, then it makes no sense why we couldn't kill babies. And I don't buy "viability" because we may one day, if we don't already, have the technology to grow an embryo to a full-fledged baby in a machine, so that's not a very fast criterion.

A non-religious conservative brought up a good point. If we have no definite way of telling when "humanity" begins, shouldn't we err on the side of safety so that we don't become guilty of killing another human being? That would be another reason why I would rather be strict and use conception as the criterion for life, because I feel the other criteria allow us to justify immoral extremes (killing babies, killing the comatose, killing the mentally ill, for instance).

It's also a pet peeve of mine that so many pro-choice people frame the pro-life vs pro-choice question as one between "science and religion" or some other bullshit. Science can't tell you when "humanity" begins, just as science can't tell you what's right or what's wrong. Science isn't a normative field. On the other hand, many pro-life people, including myself, are not religious. We simply want a strict criterion of what constitutes humanity because we want to have human life to have a strong value.

[Yeahman]

^ Let's ask kitty since she claims that science proves you wrong.

[BigLew]

Round and round we go...

[ChinaLama]

I'm so tempted to call you an idiot.
But at least you are making clear that you have no understanding of the underlying factors of this important issue.

Let's keep it civil between you two. :-) But Yell0 and Kitty need to calm down a bit. Thanks.

I hate to say this, but somewhere in the course of this thread, someone took it away from being a thread about why Bush will/will not win the upcoming presidential election to being a tiresome thread about pro-choice/anti-abortion.

Sort of my fault, for feeding the fire and not directing the thread to why Bush will or will not win. I don't think Bush is definitely going to win, which is why I never contributed on that topic, because I have nothing to say on it.

But hey look on the bright side-- it makes your thread longer for people to argue over abortion. And isn't that what life is all about? Making a long thread so you can call yourself a YW master? :wink:

[lethal]

Thank you for proving my point. There is no right to end pregnancies in the Constitution.
You misunderstand the American legal system then.

Rights are not expressively granted by US laws.

Common law countries, like the US, allow people under its jurisdictions to do whatever they want, as long as it is not prohibited by its laws. Civil law countries, like most European countries, prohibit actions unless people are granted those rights.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It prevents governments from taking away certain rights.

[kitty]

Thank you for proving my point. There is no right to end pregnancies in the Constitution.

There's a lot of things that aren't explicitly in the Constitution. Do you honestly believe that the government should be in charge of a person's body? Should the gov't have a say over my own uterus, kidney, etc? Do you honestly believe that a person should not have any responsibility or say over what happens to their own bodies?

That's a surprising denial of civil liberties for someone who is such a libertarian.

Incidentally, the Constitution also doesn't say that every foetus has the right to be born.


None of those hypotheticals is a good excuse for murder. We should help those people through financial support and adoption but not murder.


Except that it's still YOUR definition of murder, not mine. YOUR definition of life, not mine. So you really can't say that any of these are good excuses for murder, because I'm arguing that they are options that must be considered for abortion... not murder. Your sweeping definitions are not absolutes in this debate, and to act like they are is to illustrate the very idiocy of your side of the argument -- that you are forcing your, unsupported, arbitrary definition of life onto others -- which is my FUNDAMENTAL problem...

the fact that you can't see how a woman's choice might be complicated is really secondary on my priority list. Fundamentally, what makes you think you know better for a woman than she does?


Because you believe that the murder of innocent people is permissible. I do not have to sit back and let people murder each other just because you think it's OK.


Again, a foetus is not defined as a person, nor an 'innocent person'. And stop playing the martyr. To me, a fertilized egg is just a nonspecific diploid cell, obviously to you it's different. What's so difficult in respecting a diversity of opinion, Mr. Libertarian?


Yes, a woman's imaginary "right" to kill a human growing inside of her is not as important as a baby's right to life.


Again, it's not legally defined as a human, or a baby. And shouldn't have the right over their own body parts? By the same logic, should the gov't not also force all people to give up one of their kidneys to save all those people who are dying due to lack of kidney transplants? After all, if the gov't knows better about your own body than you do, they could save a LOT of lives by allocating the ones that you're not using, and you really only need (a third of) one kidney to function at full efficiency. Lemme see your organ donor card, yell0.


And stop bringing up the "woman's life" crap. That just shows a complete misunderstanding of the pro-life position. And yes I do speak for the vast majority of pro-lifers when I say that.


No you don't. The vast majority of pro-lifers DIFFER on this position -- while some do agree that abortion should be considered viable if the mother's life is at stake, enough didn't think that the case to include it in the partial-birth abortion ban. Fundamentally, I don't speak for all pro-choicers, so stop painting yourself as the messiah of the anti-choice side.

Moreover, you show a complete ignorance to the civil liberties of women. Again, I ask, would you advocate that governments force all citizens with two viable kidneys to donate their kidneys? How about a lung? That spleen is looking pretty attractive to me.


Now that I said it, please come out and say what you must feel judging from all that you've said; that half of all women in America are anti-women.


If you honestly can't understand my further clarifications, than heaven help you because logic sure as hell can't.

And that stat about half the women in America has, I believe, been debunked by Andy. You've been charged to find a new study, if I recall correctly. One that is dated post this summer.


Damn it kuilung, the woman's right over the unborn trumps the life of the baby. The master's right to his slave trumps the slave's right to liberty. Let women have abortions and master's keep their slaves! If you don't like it, don't have an abortion and don't keep a slave. Just don't force your opinions on kitty. She has the right to have an abortion and a slave.


Wow... now you're spouting gibberish. The logic centers in your brain call in sick today or something? I want to own slaves now?

Grow up.


I'm so tempted to call you an idiot.


...

I hadn't realized that I had wandered into the pre-school sandbox. Name-calling is so beneath you.

But then again, with the sanctimonious bullcrap that's been spouted in this thread, I'm really not surprised.


But at least you are making clear that you have no understanding of the underlying factors of this important issue.

Actually, you're proving that you have NO fundamental respect for differing opinion. I find it so ironic that you're such a libertarian and yet a basic right to religious freedom, no imposition of religious beliefs of one sect of the population onto another, could so elude you. Your definition of life, again, is a) unsupported by science so doesn't particularly convince me... (yet you think if you call abortion murder enough times, you'll somehow make it true) and b) until that time should not be forced upon me.

Now, the day when the gov't decides that a fertilized egg (which has a small probability, in nature, of successfully implanting and becoming a foetus, btw) has the same rights to own property, personal freedom and free speech that the Constitution gives to the woman carrying it, then you'll have something to say. Until then, it's just my definition vs. your definition and one side (yours) who wants to force their definition onto the other (mine).

All this stuff also got me thinking. If a foetus is to be characterized as a human life deserving of better rights than the woman carrying it, than what's to prevent laws being enacted that place a woman liable for endangering a foetus? Given that almost ANY physical activity can lead to miscarriage, including but not limited to... walking, running (in cases of women with reproductive issues, any upright activity can lead to a miscarriage), sky-diving, smoking, and drinking -- wouldn't your logic demand that the government also outlaw these acts for pregnant women in that it might be 'recklassly endangering' the person inside of her? Should a woman be jailed for smoking, if it leads to a miscarriage, because she committed 'pre-natal homicide'? Should she be charged with 'accidental manslaughter' if she has a miscarriage while doing something reckless like running after her other children, and falling?

Hell, why not just forcefully hospitalize women during the entire nine months, and keep them lying in beds, to provide the optimal growing conditions for the baby?

It's just a (I recognize, somewhat absurd) thought, here.

[kuilong]

okay, i'm feeling a bit like kerry here, being quoted and characterized out of context...

Sorry if I mischaracterized your opinion. If you don't, in fact, believe that a pro-lifer is anti-woman simply by virtue of the fact that they're pro-life, then I have no dispute with you.

Bringing the point home, is that anti-women, like pro-lifers want women to die or something? no... I never said that. But it IS placing all women's rights to their own bodies second to the baby's. So, kuilong, your analogy is false -- and I suspect only out to mislead -- it is not analogous because a woman is not carrying the man in her body and is not having her right to dictate what happens to her own physical form threatened.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere (and I'll ignore your implication about my motivations). Let me try to restate your point (and correct me if I'm wrong), but you're agreeing with Judith Jarvis Thomson in that if another adult human being was attached to you in such a way that to remove them would cause them to die, it wouldn't be immoral to separate them -- in other words, that bodily integrity always supersedes the right to life.

I disagree; as Kenneth Himma pointed out in his article "Thomson’s Violinist and Conjoined Twins" (in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 8, no. 4 -- you can probably find it in your university library) this is sort of analogous to siamese twins -- and not only is it illegal for a siamese twin to detach their twin if it would cause the twin to die, but at least for me, it seems prima facie immoral.

Oh, and let me also say that it's pretty disingenious to characterize all pro-choicers as "pro-abortion", "pro-death", or some variation thereof. It reminds me of rightists back in the day who couldn't see any difference between Ted Kennedy and Stalin. (And before someone jumps at me for allegedly comparing pro-choicers to Stalin or something, I didn't -- I'm pro-choice, incidentally).

[kitty]

Given that an embryo is genetically unique from either the mother or father, I don't think it could be considered a PART of a woman's body. I think it is DEPENDENT on a woman's body. So the question is, is it "human" enough to at least have some right to life? I don't think its right to life trumps its mother's. In fact, I am for abortion if it's to save a mother's life. But I do think, if it's HUMAN and not merely a part of a woman's body, its right to live must at least in some cases trump the mother's right to choose.


If you go by the genetics of it, a foetus is genetically a mixture of a sperm and an egg. However, if you say 'anything with human genes should be human', you'd have to toss into that mix cancerous tumour cells -- which are also exponentially replicating cells with a human genetic basis...


So the question for me is, are embryos human because of their unique genetic makeup, or are they not? Up till now, I've always thought it was. But Alex asks a good question. I've avoided answering it directly because I don't have a facile answer. :-) However, I think, if in nature most of the time the embryo ends up becoming a full-fledged human being, then it should be considered human rather than as mere "potential."


Fertilized eggs still have a rather long, relatively low probability of becoming a foetus. It has a potential, but as it currently stands, it's just a specialized cell like any other, with a potential to become anything. For about... eight days... (?) the cell replicates nonspecifically... and really is nothing more than a cluster of cells. If you were to stimulate it the right way, you absolutely could have it replicate into a mass of tissue and nothing more.

To me, fertilization is a fairly arbitrary place to start the designation of human life. At that point, it really resembles like a single-celled organism, or low-complexity multi-cellular mass than anything else. If I were to singlehandedly decide where humanity begins, I might more place that designation at the point when brain cells begin developing (3rd month?) since the size and complexity of human brains is really what distinguishes us from our fellow primates.


The reason why I chose conception as the criterion for humanity is because I feel it's a better criterion than ability to feel pain or sentience.


I don't think pain is a very good sensation. Most multicellular with basic nervous systems experience pain sensations. It doesn't really distinguish us as a species much from slime mold.


A non-religious conservative brought up a good point. If we have no definite way of telling when "humanity" begins, shouldn't we err on the side of safety so that we don't become guilty of killing another human being? That would be another reason why I would rather be strict and use conception as the criterion for life, because I feel the other criteria allow us to justify immoral extremes (killing babies, killing the comatose, killing the mentally ill, for instance).


Not if it's about denying or limiting the existing, already defined rights of other individuals, in my opinion. It's like saying, should we err on the side of safety and imprison anyone we suspect of a crime? It would make people safer... but it also treads all over the rights of the innocent guy we just sent to death row.


It's also a pet peeve of mine that so many pro-choice people frame the pro-life vs pro-choice question as one between "science and religion" or some other bullshit. Science can't tell you when "humanity" begins, just as science can't tell you what's right or what's wrong. Science isn't a normative field. On the other hand, many pro-life people, including myself, are not religious. We simply want a strict criterion of what constitutes humanity because we want to have human life to have a strong value.

no we can't because, well, at least in my strict understanding of science, humanity is kind of a meaningless concept.

But I do apologize for characterizing this as a science vs. religion debate. I realize it's more complicated than that, but it's also frustrating when some pro-lifers completely disregard science as unimportant, in favour of their faith-based interpretation of the world, which is not very well rooted in scientific understanding.

Regarding toning things down, I agree to be more peaceable, but I don't take being called an idiot lightly. Still, my apologies, yell0, if I crossed the line with you.

Sorry if I mischaracterized your opinion. If you don't, in fact, believe that a pro-lifer is anti-woman simply by virtue of the fact that they're pro-life, then I have no dispute with you.


correct. i went deliberately extreme because of the stated mischaracterizing that was coming on my end. I want the other side to actually explicitly state that they find the rights of the woman second to the rights of the baby. Pro-lifers who refuse to 'paint themselves into that corner' are, imo, hiding from the consequences of their position. I was trying to point out that side of the argument. I certainly don't believe that a pro-lifer is anti-woman simply by virtue of being anti-woman -- that's an oversimplification that does a disservice to BOTH sides of the debate.

I will choose my sarcasm a little more carefully in the future.


Okay, now we're getting somewhere (and I'll ignore your implication about my motivations).

Again, my apologies. I think I misread your intentions, since I had already stated what I meant earlier.


Let me try to restate your point (and correct me if I'm wrong), but you're agreeing with Judith Jarvis Thomson in that if another adult human being was attached to you in such a way that to remove them would cause them to die, it wouldn't be immoral to separate them -- in other words, that bodily integrity always supersedes the right to life.


I'm not familiar with the case, but yes, given your characterization, I agree. Like, with siamese twins, if you have two twins joined at the head, and neither can lead a productive life, I don't think it's immoral if one is removed, and possibly sacrificed, to save the other. Notice however, that I qualify this not only with 'life-saving' but 'quality of life'. Two lives are wasted if both the twins are confined to a bed for the duration of their lives -- but if one can be successfully saved and allowed to live a productive life, and the other is sacrificed, I don't find that immoral because I see that as one life saved and improved.

Perhaps that is immoral to some. Here's my point though -- regardless of whether *I* find it immoral or moral is irrelevant. instead, if you can, you shouldn't force the twins to be separated, nor force them to remain together. You should give them (or... usually, their parents, since babies are, in our legal system, spoken for by their parents) the choice to decide for themselves what they want to do.

[ChinaLama]

re: kitty,

I meant unique genetic combinations should be considered unique human life. Not cancer cells or blood or sperm or eggs. If a woman wanted to kill all her eggs, by all means.

BTW are we ever going back to the topic of "Is a Bush victory inevitable?"

[kitty]

oh, i'm sorry. i missed the unique part. it's an interesting theory... i haven't really heard it before. one would wonder though... would identical twins then count as one person?

oh, and cancer cells are mutated-y... we might have to turn to oncologist to find out how the genetic makeup of a tumour cell differs from the person it originated out of, but i do know that some of the genes controlling uncontrolled replication are turned on... i dunno if that complicates things or not.

and a bush win is inevitable, but let's see how he does tonight. maybe he'll trip and choke on a pretzel.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Well I was thinking of posting/responding again but out of respect for the people that actually wanna discuss what this thread was originally meant to discuss, I think I'll just stop. But...if anyone wants to open up a new thread to continue this discussion or start a related one I'd be all for it.

[achtungbaby]

Middle America and the conservatives are a stubborn lot. They are not willing to say the war was wrong, despite all of the above.
I would have to disagree with this point -- not that conservatives are a stubborn lot (something I wish Democrats would emulate from time to time) but that the majority of America is unwilling to, in essence, accept the truth. I think in any given campaign on any given issue, one side will always be fighting against some sort of entrenched belief or perception but I don't believe the response is to simply concede that particular territory. The challenge is put on us to articulate the message in ways for them to understand and agree -- sounds easy but obviously Kerry hasn't had the easiest time doing so, and this is something I wish Democrats would be a little bit more stubborn on, instead of playing to the immediacy of exit polls following a speech or debate.[/quote]

And with no fault of his own, Kerry has just not proven himself convincing enough to this same group.
The challenge for the Kerry camp from day one has always been the task of summarizing all of the facts, data and evidence that point overwhelmingly to the President's foreign and domestic policy failures...and in addition, be able to wither some of the President's attacks on his record in the Senate, etc. It's like writing a friggen paper. Kerry just needs to hone his thesis.

One last thing to add (and may this be an ominous warning to Kerry supporters:P): while I'm certainly not advocating some sort of Bush-esque belief system, the sort of "you're either for us or against us" rhetoric that keeps his supporters spell-bound, I do believe that our attitudes -- and more importantly, our expectations -- of this election will play a role in the final outcome. It sounds silly, but everything counts, everything indeed is self-fulfilling.

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.
I happen to think that Gore campaign strategists -- hell, Gore himself -- were the reason why 2000 was lost.

[Arex]

Just as I held onto hope long after election day, 2000, that the recount in Florida would progress to completion and show Gore the winner, or that investigation of complaints of voting irregularities and disenfranchisement would render the Florida count uncertifiable, I refuse to acknowledge that we're going to have to live another four years under the Bush administration until the vote tallies are in.

It's a much closer race than it was just three weeks ago with some polls even showing Kerry in the lead. And we've still got tonight's debate--maybe Bush'll come down with a case of the runs and will look even shiftier than usual behind the podium. Kerry just needs to stay on the offensive and paint Bush as the dismal failure he is. As cynical as I am about America and the fact that so many people still align themselves with Bush and his administration, I'm still somewhat hopeful that after the American people are bombarded with enough facts, people will start to realize how stupid and dangerous Bush really is. *crosses fingers*

RX

[Faithless]

Polls, schmoles.

It's all about the ill-fated electoral college, my tomodachi.

Electoral College Swings Back to President Bush 296-242 (http://www.washingtondispatch.com/page2/archives/000647.html)
October 12, 2004 01:19 PM


State polls continue roll out in rapid fire fashion, but this time two states have flipped. Strategic Vision and Rasmussen both have President George W. Bush ahead now in the crucial battleground state of Ohio.

Strategic Vision has President Bush ahead of Senator John Kerry 51%-45% in Ohio.

Rasmussen has Mr. Bush ahead 50-45%.

That adds 20 Electoral College votes to the president. The state of Iowa also goes into the Bush column—with President Bush holding a slim 2% lead in that state. That shifts 7 Electoral College votes to Mr. Bush as well.

According to David Johnson of Strategic Vision four other updates are forthcoming in these battleground states:

IOWA
Bush 49%
Kerry 47%

PENNSYLVANIA
Bush 46%
Kerry 46%

WISCONSIN
Bush 49%
Kerry 45%

NEW JERSEY
Kerry 47%
Bush 41%

These polls should be up on the Strategic Vision Web site shortly; all were conducted October 9-11. I asked Mr. Johnson to comment on Strategic Vision’s reputation as a “Republican polling firm.” He explained that they had indeed done polling for Republican clients, but Strategic Vision is conducting these polls for no specific client, only to get their company name in the news for “name recognition.”

That’s a fair statement and probably a good strategy. And it’s obvious they will have nothing to gain from skewing these polls one way or the other. Page 2 Politics will continue to use them in the Electoral College Update.

[ChinaLama]

In electoral votes, Kerry has the #1, #3, and it seems quite likely he'll have PA, too. The problem is, I think Bush at the moment has more states, but a lot of them are very close, so he still stands to lose them.

[Arex]

Polls, schmoles.
It's all about the ill-fated electoral college, my tomodachi.

True dat. I wonder what the margin of error is on those state polls. It looks like Ohio may be pretty much wrapped up 'less either Kerry does particularly well or Bush does particularly poor in tonight's debate, or unless something really bad happens in the next two weeks. But the other states are too damn close to give up hope just yet.

Another four years of Bush is really going to suck for this country.

[Faithless]

he latest Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Electoral%20College%20Projection.htm)
October 11, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projection shows George W. Bush with 240 Electoral Votes and John Kerry with 194. There are now nine states with 104 Electoral Votes in the Toss-Up category.
...
.
This one says Bush over Kerry, 274 to 264 (http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html)

[achtungbaby]

he latest Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Electoral%20College%20Projection.htm)

.
This one says Bush over Kerry, 274 to 264 (http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html)
Let's see what Rasmussen has to say in a week.

[Faithless]

Let's see what Rasmussen has to say in a week.
I hear you. (Let the dust settle in after the debate?)

But even though people are saying that Kerry seems like he won the three debates, that they'd still have to give a slight lead to Bush.

[Shuriken]

DOES HE THINK THINGS THROUGH?


Los Angeles Times editorial

Thursday 07 October 2004

Although neither group likes to say so, some Americans who support President Bush and many who don't support him have concluded over four years that he may not be very bright. This suspicion was not allayed by Bush's answers in the first presidential debate a week ago.

Even Bush's most engaged critics shy away from publicly challenging his intelligence for many reasons, most of them good. To raise the issue seems snooty and elitist. This is an image no American wants because seeming snooty is even worse than seeming stupid. Just ask Bush's opponent, Sen. John Kerry. Furthermore, the concept of brainpower or IQ as a single, measurable trait is generally, though not universally, rejected by scientists. And the obsession with IQ has been responsible for all sorts of political mischief.

Then there is Ronald Reagan. We know now that he had incipient Alzheimer's for at least part of his presidency. Many of his supporters at the time and even more of his retrospective admirers acknowledge that he was a few jelly beans short of a jar. But he was a spectacularly successful politician anyway, and many believe he was more than that: one of America's greatest leaders.

The smartest candidate is not necessarily the best candidate. The candidate's belief system and character matter more. Similarly, the smartest surgeon is not necessarily the best surgeon. But if all you knew about two surgeons was that one was smarter than the other, there's not much question which one you'd pick for your operation.

Actually, we would not frame the question as one of abstract brainpower, a dubious concept. You don't go through America's top schools, serve as governor of a major state and occupy the presidency with even mixed results if you're not reasonably smart, no matter how thoroughly your way is eased by others.

The issue might better be described as one of mental laziness.

Does this man think through his beliefs before they harden into unwavering principles? Is he open to countervailing evidence? Does he test his beliefs against new evidence and outside argument? Does his understanding of a subject go any deeper than the minimum amount needed for public display? Is he intellectually curious? Does he try to reconcile his beliefs on one subject with his beliefs on another?

It's bad if a president is incapable of the abstract thought necessary for these mental exercises. If he is capable and isn't even trying, that's worse. It becomes a question of character. When a president sends thousands of young Americans to kill and die halfway around the world, thinking about it as hard and as honestly as possible is the least he can do.

Bush's Iraq policy is full of contradictions, often rehearsed on this page and elsewhere. But so is Kerry's. It isn't routine political mendacity that makes many people - many more than will admit it - wonder about Bush's mental engagement. It is a combination of things: his stumbling inarticulateness, the efforts his advisors make to protect him from unscripted exposure, his extreme reluctance to rethink anything.

Does it matter? Yes, it matters. There are those who say that Reagan's mental laziness was actually a plus. It prevented a lot of competing signals from causing static on the lines, and kept his principles clear. We do not buy that. We state boldly that thinking hard is a good thing, not a bad thing, even in a president. If that sounds snooty, so be it.

And maybe George W. Bush will reassure us by his performance Friday night that he is thinking as hard as he should about the issues the president will face in the next four years. Especially the issues resulting from his own failure to think hard during the last four.



!

[Faithless]

Some articles that make a case for Bush winning again.

All the Bush supporters have to keep repeating to themselves is "Kerry = flip flop" and "Bush = the War on Terror offensive".

Trevor Bothwell in Feb 2004 (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Bothwell20040222.shtml)
Which leads to my final point. Whereas President Bush possesses clarity of vision, John Kerry shifts positions frequently. Kerry voted against the Gulf War in 1991, but now says he favored it; he voted for the Iraq war, but now says he’s opposed; he says he favors reconstruction in Iraq, but voted against the $87 billion to fund it; he used to think the Patriot Act was the best thing since marrying a gazillionaire, but now condemns it as an assault on civil liberties. Look, it’s one thing to change your mind after history proves you wrong; it’s totally another to be an opportunist willing to talk out both sides of your mouth.

America is finally on the offensive in confronting terrorism, led currently by a president who has strayed from his base on occasion, but who nonetheless remains true to his convictions where it counts -- keeping us alive.

Whether the Democrats can convince enough Americans to buy into their irrelevant accusations before the November elections is not the issue. The fact that their rhetoric is being used to conceal their complete absence of a better war strategy, or a better overall path for the security of the country, is.

The Democrats know this is their problem. I’m betting that most Americans know this, too. And that’s why President Bush will win. Again.
.
Next set of things that Bush supporters have to remember: "Bush = tax cuts" and "Bush = strong defense".

Trevor Bothwell in July 2004 (http://www.americandaily.com/article/4333)

Unfortunately, faulty political rhetoric often takes precedence over even basic economic understanding during election season. One reason American companies are forced to outsource jobs or operate overseas is precisely because they are already at a competitive disadvantage due to high corporate tax rates. Indeed, reducing the tax burden on corporations would in itself discourage them from relocating.

Conversely, George Bush wants to make his tax cuts permanent. Inasmuch as it’s not even a president’s job to “create jobs,” Bush’s tax cuts are largely -- though hardly solely -- responsible for the one million new jobs we’ve created in the past three months alone.

.
Terrorism and Iraq more important than healthcare and jobs. But also Kerry hammering on the missing explosives issue? :rolleyes:
Dick Morris Oct. 29, 2004 (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31249.htm)
Then it began to explode in Kerry's face. Soon we heard that there were only three tons of explosives . . . and they weren't there when we occupied the dump . . . and they were removed by the Russians before we got there . . . and, perhaps, there are satellite photos to prove it.

All of a sudden, Kerry seems just not ready for prime time.

The backfire is amplified by the involvement of CBS and The New York Times. The plans of "60 Minutes" and Dan Rather to break the story on the Sunday before the election reflect overt partisan bias — an overt conspiracy of these leading outlets to stack the deck in favor of Kerry.
You talk about uninformed voting. What about the folks who are being informed wrong and then holding on to this shit?

[Arex]

^ The only thing worse than an uninformed voter is a misinformed voter. Too many people continue to see Bush as an effective leader in this "war on terror" because they're clueless as to what's going on on the other side of the globe. It's a damn shame.

RX

[kimpossible]

I have to admit I'm surprised at the electoral count at this point. 39 for Bush, 3 for Kerry.

[hooligan]

I have to admit I'm surprised at the electoral count at this point. 39 for Bush, 3 for Kerry.

it's all right cnn sucks, not all the precincts are reporting.

[Faithless]

^ Yeah.

I am hating on CNN right now with that misleading bullshit. :mad:

[A.R.A.M.]

it's all right cnn sucks, not all the precincts are reporting.

Some of the states they've called only have ten percent of the precincts reporting. Seems a little early to be calling them.

[ism]

Chill. Those states are the same ones Bush won handily in 2000, they're no surprise. Even Zogby gave those same states to Bush.

[deez nuts]

^ The only thing worse than an uninformed voter is a misinformed voter. Too many people continue to see Bush as an effective leader in this "war on terror" because they're clueless as to what's going on on the other side of the globe. It's a damn shame.

RX


then tell us ol' sagacious one. what is the golden fleece answer of answers to the war on terror?

[lethal]

Its early. No surprises so far and no battleground states (except for maybe NJ) have been called.

CNN has Kerry leading 77-66 now.

No one wants to call a state early and wrong like they did Florida in 2000.

[John0101]

Bush made a lot of enemies in his Presidency he alienated many libertarians and isolationalist. Also Nadar supports now know not to put their votes behind Kerry inorder to avoid the 2000 election all over again.

Bush was just too far right and alienated many moderates. Kerry will win.

[stunninglyAsian]

I think Bush will win. And it won't be the nailbiting, count up the votes again win.
It sucks, I couldn't make it to the polls in time... oh well. My state is staunchly pro-Bush anyway.

[BigLew]

Bush made a lot of enemies in his Presidency he alienated many libertarians and isolationalist. Also Nadar supports now know not to put their votes behind Kerry inorder to avoid the 2000 election all over again.

Bush was just too far right and alienated many moderates. Kerry will win.It doesn't look like it so far, unfortunately.

[BigLew]

I just looked at the yahoo front page and they have it 169 to 112 for bush.

[lethal]

9:45 EST. Still no surprises and no swing states have reported in yet.

OH, PA, FL, MI, MN, IA, NM, NV, NH, and WI are going to decide the election and none of them have reported yet.

[yoMAMA]

Exit poll shows Kerry winning minnesota [my state].

wooohooooooooo!

[sageb1]

if Bush is winning now, it's cos the election machines are rigged.

[hooligan]

if Bush is winning now, it's cos the election machines are rigged.

actually, it's not surprising, but i hear bush that has been able to mobilize a lot of the voters from the white protestant community.

[nonamerasian]

I have been ignoring the counts so far.

I'll wait until all the numbers are in.

actually, it's not surprising, but i hear bush that has been able to mobilize a lot of the voters from the white protestant community.

More Christians in general, I think.

[lethal]

I think its over. I'm calling it for Bush as of right now.

[BigLew]

Bush just took florida. Big suprise.

[missmeow]

Bush has it. yipeee. not.

[Faithless]

Actually, a quick survey of the different major media networks, the electoral votes are all over the board, but leaning toward Bush.

CNN is the lone hold out at giving Bush 200 electoral votes, calling it 199 to 188 for a while now, while the other media outlets say Bush has over 200 votes.

CBS has even called Florida in favor of Bush, while the outlets have not.

But if Bush does win, look at the middle of America in a lot of the pictoral graphs, they all have favored Bush through the majority of the election result evening. :frown:

[John0101]

Bush does have Florida by MSN watch, Arizona just went to Bush, not good.

[John0101]

ok, nevermind, Bush just got Florida. FUCK

[lethal]

Its all going to depend on Ohio. And Bush is leading by 130K in Ohio.

[Faithless]

It seems that a few of the media outlets are using AP reports.

I can see sfgate.com cspan.org, ABC News, and (a lesser known one, because I'm trying to catch local coverage) the Contra Costa Times.

[yoMAMA]

kerry can still win ohio!

[Faithless]

Even though it looks good for Bush in Ohio, too, it looks like Kerry might carry the remaining states around it -- Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

This shit might be as close as the pundheads have been putting it.

[Craig]

Bush looks like he's going to get Ohio, New Mexico and Alaska. That'll put him over the top.

[hooligan]

Even though it looks good for Bush in Ohio, too, it looks like Kerry might carry the remaining states around it -- Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

This shit might be as close as the pundheads have been putting it.

agreed, with ohio = 20 EV
alaska = 3 EV

246 + 23 = 269 not enough to win, please, please, plase.

[Faithless]

agreed, with ohio = 20 EV
alaska = 3 EV

246 + 23 = 269 not enough to win, please, please, plase.
NBC appears to be one of the first to call Ohio for Bush. Fawkers! Still 10-12% of the precincts to go.

[etcj]

http://photos.yafro.com/pics3/i/20041102/19/f/d/e/fde5f81bedf47eb4606498fc2bd05fa20_full.jpg
http://photos.yafro.com/pics3/i/20041102/19/8/8/4/88471033dab34c3fb50b7de21d6391a70_full.jpg
http://photos.yafro.com/pics3/i/20041102/19/c/f/5/cf575b626606de6bbc99dc0095b44c240_full.jpg

In case you don't notice what I'm trying to show:
http://photos.yafro.com/pics3/i/20041102/19/1/7/f/17f9c7bdb601101652c77f2bf1af0e320_full.jpg
In the land of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, this is probably one of the few young people who's actually happy about what' happening.

[Craig]

In the land of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, this is probably one of the few young people who's actually happy about what' happening.Maybe he has a job at Halliburton ?

[Tao]

agreed, with ohio = 20 EV
alaska = 3 EV

246 + 23 = 269 not enough to win, please, please, plase.


eh, even if kerry squeezes out the 269 from bush, bush'll still win when the decision is left up to the house of rep, since republicans dominate the number of seats.

face it guys, dubya's gonna be here for another 4 years. and this time it's not gonna be a fluke either. he's getting nearly 4 million more total votes than kerry.

on a brighter note, at least the daily show will be as entertaining as it is now.

[Faithless]

I'm hoping by the time I wake up tomorrow morning (about 5 o'clockish) that the numbers will look at little different.

Some of the states that have been placed in the Bush corner have really only reported about less than 65% of their precincts.

[Tao]

but for ohio, the counties reporting in already include democratic strong-holds, while some of those of the republicans haven't

[AMWD]

It's 3am in NYC. I'm still watching the return.

So far, NBC and FOX, these two are the ones who declared Bush win for Ohio. CNN called "too close to call". ABC and CBS are not calling anything for Ohio.

I understand if FOX jumped on, saying Ohio win before anyone else... But NBC?

I guess NBC turned sharp right within the last 4 years.

And now Iowa is experiencing a technical problem. The final result may not be in till after tomorrow.

Plus Kerry is not conceding tonight. This is going to be another disputed election.

The thing is, Ohio has a substantial amount of "provisional ballots", meaning, absentee ballots, overseas ballots plus Ohio allows mail-in ballots. And Ohio law requires 10 day wait for these ballots to be counted.

We may not know for another 11 days.

Remember, President will not be decided by popular vote.

JF

[Kuchana]

It's 3am in NYC. I'm still watching the return.

So far, NBC and FOX, these two are the ones who declared Bush win for Ohio. CNN called "too close to call". ABC and CBS are not calling anything for Ohio.

I understand if FOX jumped on, saying Ohio win before anyone else... But NBC?

I guess NBC turned sharp right within the last 4 years.

And now Iowa is experiencing a technical problem. The final result may not be in till after tomorrow.

Plus Kerry is not conceding tonight. This is going to be another disputed election.

The thing is, Ohio has a substantial amount of "provisional ballots", meaning, absentee ballots, overseas ballots plus Ohio allows mail-in ballots. And Ohio law requires 10 day wait for these ballots to be counted.

We may not know for another 11 days.

Remember, President will not be decided by popular vote.

JF

You're saying NBC is right now just because they're calling for a Bush win in Ohio??? Please. :rolleyes:

But some of the provisional votes may not be counted and as for the absentee and overseas votes, remember the military and the military votes Republican usually. Plus Bush already has a considerable lead over Kerry anyways in Ohio. All in all, it does not look likely Kerry will win Ohio. With that, Bush will only need one vote to win the popular vote.

True but Bush didn't win by the popular vote in 2000. He won by the electoral vote. The same could be said in this case.

[robotic]

bush is leading, electorial vote-wise.
ohio results are still not very clear.

cnn/bbc/most other broadcasters have said that bush is leading electorial votes by 254 to kerry, 242. but fox news says its 269?

[Kuchana]

bush is leading, electorial vote-wise.
ohio results are still not very clear.

cnn/bbc/most other broadcasters have said that bush is leading electorial votes by 254 to kerry, 242. but fox news says its 269?

and nbc. they're projecting an ohio win for bush, giving bush the 20 needed votes for 269. he would need only one more vote to win the popular vote. the kerry camp is arguing it's too premature to call and to wait for the provisional, absentee, and overseas ballots. they're saying that would make a difference.

[deez nuts]

regardless of the outcome in ohio, the important thing is that we as a nation stand as one.

and if kerry does indeed lose the presidency as predicted by the news channels. i think kerry ran a tough hard fought campaign. he rose from the ashes to win the democratic party nomination and ran a tough campaign against bush.

i'm just happy i don't have to see anymore of that idiot p. diddy wearing that "vote or die" t-shirt and have to endure anymore of his public tom foolery.

[SunWuKong]

In the land of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, this is probably one of the few young people who's actually happy about what' happening.

hahhah yeah i notice him on TV last night. he kept holding up 4 fingers - i think to indicate "four more years". he looked like such a dork.

i'm just happy i don't have to see anymore of that idiot p. diddy wearing that "vote or die" t-shirt and have to endure anymore of his public tom foolery.

oh seriously. he kept interrupting Pimp My Ride while it's on.

[hooligan]

You're saying NBC is right now just because they're calling for a Bush win in Ohio??? Please. :rolleyes:

But some of the provisional votes may not be counted and as for the absentee and overseas votes, remember the military and the military votes Republican usually. Plus Bush already has a considerable lead over Kerry anyways in Ohio. All in all, it does not look likely Kerry will win Ohio. With that, Bush will only need one vote to win the popular vote.

True but Bush didn't win by the popular vote in 2000. He won by the electoral vote. The same could be said in this case.

actually most mainstream networks are right. it's hard to see since most of them lean to the right, but nbc and to a lesser extent abc, are learning conservative. notice, at a time, there was no way to avoid the negativity about the kerry campaign.

[Kuchana]

Kerry has conceded Ohio and the Presidency to Bush. He gave the call to Bush. Bush has won the presidency.

[yoMAMA]

This fucking sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad:

[Kuchana]

The people have spoken. *shrug*

[yoMAMA]

The people have spoken. *shrug*

HE IS STILL illegitemate, and he is NOT my president.

[kitty]

why bush won: my theory is that with the end of the clinton years (clinton being an intelligent president who maintained such a convincing, down-to-earth, hick facade) and that period of prosperity, and then with dubya, who was genuinely a 'down-to-earth hick', the role of president has been redefined in the past several years. Presidents aren't seen as intelligent leaders who spearhead foreign and domestic policies, intelligent representatives of our country to those abroad.

Dubya won because his presidency redefined what people think the president is: they saw a president who was a figurehead, dumb as a brick but a movie star ("oh my god! he visited me and shook my hand! eeeeek!! i want a president i could drink a beer with, etc etc etc") and so when presented with a more traditional presidential option, many balked at the presentation of someone who threatened that black and white perception with a presentation of nuance and a smart candidate. the fact that it was all moral issues in this election sort of hammers that point home: a figurehead only needs to believe, but what happened to the president with the ideas and intellect?

are we electing a president or prom king?

[yoMAMA]

why bush won: my theory is that with the end of the clinton years (clinton being an intelligent president who maintained such a convincing, down-to-earth, hick facade) and that period of prosperity, and then with dubya, who was genuinely a 'down-to-earth hick', the role of president has been redefined in the past several years. Presidents aren't seen as intelligent leaders who spearhead foreign and domestic policies, intelligent representatives of our country to those abroad.

Dubya won because his presidency redefined what people think the president is: they saw a president who was a figurehead, dumb as a brick but a movie star ("oh my god! he visited me and shook my hand! eeeeek!! i want a president i could drink a beer with, etc etc etc") and so when presented with a more traditional presidential option, many balked at the presentation of someone who threatened that black and white perception with a presentation of nuance and a smart candidate. the fact that it was all moral issues in this election sort of hammers that point home: a figurehead only needs to believe, but what happened to the president with the ideas and intellect?

are we electing a president or prom king?

That's an interesting perspective.

The thing with dumbya is that he acts like a country hick/redneck while in reality he is just as a part of the despised "east coast establishment" as those in the democratic party.

Too bad those working class voter were so blind to all this......
:frown:

[Kuchana]

HE IS STILL illegitemate, and he is NOT my president.

Well he is mine as well as this country's so tough. Live with it.

[deez nuts]

well i can only speak for myself.

as i get older i find myself siding with the alleged "dark side of the force" aka those evil evil bad bad republicans, i'm not exactly jumping for joy here that bush is the president for the next four years. i'm just glad kerry is not the president for the next four years.

[sinisterpanda]

I am okay with Bush being president if he stops bothering other people and starts fixing our economy, i didn't just get my american citizenship to get it fucked up by some child with a wet dream.

[Faithless]

Looks like New Mexico just fell to Bush, leaving Iowa.

[deez nuts]

The people have spoken. *shrug*

i think spoken might be kind of an understatement. bush did win by the highest popular vote margin in presidential election history.

[TB4000]

I love ya to death, Kuchana baby...but I'm afraid I'm going to have to come get you. :mad:

[Arex]

Well he is mine as well as this country's so tough. Live with it.
So sad. While most of us have to live with this troubling fact, at least the 1,000+ American troops and 10,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians that've died in Iraq (not to mention the 100s or 1,000s of casualties to come) won't have to. Yay for Bush! And to think, if only Gore had won in 2000, none of those lives would have been lost.

i'm just glad kerry is not the president for the next four years.Aside from his proposed tax increases for the wealthy, and the fact that he looked kinda funny, what about Kerry was so bad?

I am okay with Bush being president if he stops bothering other people and starts fixing our economy, i didn't just get my american citizenship to get it fucked up by some child with a wet dream.For the sake of our country, we can only hope so. But considering that the majority of Americans are apparently okay with everything that's happened in the past four years, I highly doubt it. Most Bush supporters STILL see the war in Iraq as a positive event in the war on terror despite the mountains of evidence suggesting otherwise. These people are complete morons.

Bush's reelection pisses me off even more than when the supreme court stole it for him in 2000. At least in 2000, we had no idea how much havoc he would wreak on the world. However, despite everything that has happened in the last four years, and despite his horrible approval rating, he has more support now than he did four years ago. WTF?! Who knows what the hell this fucker is capable of now that he's got a real mandate and the Republicans have even greater control of Congress.

Someone please tell me that what I witnessed last night was just a big, super elaborate practical joke. America is really not this stupid, is it?? Hopefully Bush doesn't do anything stupid or drastic in the next four years. But if so, don't say we didn't warn you...

RX

[kitty]

it was all moral. who cares about your job because the other guy might let a man and another man get married!! *gasp* *shock*

[s1eve]

Yup, it was all about morals, all thanks to those cultural conservatives who came out to vote for Bush.

[Kuchana]

i think spoken might be kind of an understatement. bush did win by the highest popular vote margin in presidential election history.

Well yes...even better than Clinton! Quite impressive.

I love ya to death, Kuchana baby...but I'm afraid I'm going to have to come get you. :mad:

Don't be mad :frown:

Yup, it was all about morals, all thanks to those cultural conservatives who came out to vote for Bush.

And? Is there anything wrong with that?

[s1eve]

^ Nothing wrong with that. Just a very smart strategy that worked, courtesy of Rove.

[Mr.Lum]

And? Is there anything wrong with that?


If you pay more attention to "values' ie depriving homos of rights, worrying about abortion, etc. you're bound to be distracted from other things. It's mostly neocon stratigery-- get the people thinking about religion and 'values" so you can go about your agenda. It's a smoke screen.

[Bhodi_Li]

If you pay more attention to "values' ie depriving homos of rights, worrying about abortion, etc. you're bound to be distracted from other things. It's mostly neocon stratigery-- get the people thinking about religion and 'values" so you can go about your agenda. It's a smoke screen.Why is everything always a conspiracy theory? Am I the only one that sees this trend?

This election I was in the comfortable position of feeling safe with either candidate. I preferred Bush for my own reasons, but also felt that Kerry could have adequately led the country. I did feel that Bush was the stronger candidate, particularly during the middle of a war, therefore I am quite pleased with the results :biggrin:

[Mr.Lum]

Why is everything always a conspiracy theory? Am I the only one that sees this trend?



Mostly because the administration works on the neoconservative ideology heavily influenced by Leo Strauss who taught that religion/values were best used as a means of pacification. I don't see that as a 'conspiracy theory" I see it more as a ideological fact as well as a tactical one. Put complicated things in terms that simple folks can understand.

[SunWuKong]

it was all moral. who cares about your job because the other guy might let a man and another man get married!! *gasp* *shock*

oh no shit. no offense to those of you that voted for Bush, and i understand the economic motives behind voting for Bush, but i don't understand the moral motives behind voting for him at all.

how does two gay people marrying each other affect your own marriages or lives? how do you base opposition to stem-cell research and free choice in abortion because you think it kills unborn lives, while supporting the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent lives in Iraq? i don't get it.

Why is everything always a conspiracy theory? Am I the only one that sees this trend?

i don't think everything is a conspiracy, but plenty of things about the Bush administration raise a lot of eyebrows. the major one being the Bush family's business dealings in the Middle East.

[Arex]

And? Is there anything wrong with that?
There's absolutely something wrong with that when it leads people to completely ignore arguably much more universally pressing matters such as:
1) Iraq
2) the economy
3) the war on terror
4) failure of education
5) lack of health care
6) poverty
7) the environment
8) corporate corruption
These are all areas where Bush has demonstrated ineptitude or disinterest. Is limiting the rights of gays and lesbians to wed really more pressing than any of the above issues? According to the majority of voters, it is. That's stupid. Unlike gay marriage and abortion, the above issues have real effects on every single person in this country. I've said it once and I'll say it again: Americans are morons. We need to get our fucking priorities straight.

Bhodi - It's not a conspiracy, just good campaign strategy--a strategy that only works because Americans in general are dumbasses.

RX

[yoMAMA]

Well he is mine as well as this country's so tough. Live with it.

no, he is not my president.

I live fine with that.



:rolleyes:

i think spoken might be kind of an understatement. bush did win by the highest popular vote margin in presidential election history.

oh so its worthwhile to mention he won the popular vote now?

so what happens when al gore won the popular vote?

he still get dissed by the "supreme court"!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Kuchana]

There's absolutely something wrong with that when it leads people to completely ignore arguably much more universally pressing matters such as:
1) Iraq
2) the economy
3) the war on terror
4) failure of education
5) lack of health care
6) poverty
7) the environment
8) corporate corruption
These are all areas where Bush has demonstrated ineptitude or disinterest. Is limiting the rights of gays and lesbians to wed really more pressing than any of the above issues? According to the majority of voters, it is. That's stupid. Unlike gay marriage and abortion, the above issues have real effects on every single person in this country. I've said it once and I'll say it again: Americans are morons. We need to get our fucking priorities straight.

Bhodi - It's not a conspiracy, just good campaign strategy--a strategy that only works because Americans in general are dumbasses.

RX

While my morals weren't the most important issue (although it was up there), I can understand why some people decided to vote on their morals alone. Who is to fault them for that? Who should we be the judge of such people? While some people may not think of morals as a pressing issue, others definitely do and there's nothing wrong with that. It's their opinon and they're perfectly entitled to it. I happen to have a high opinion of morals yet that wasn't my driving issue but it was a factor in my decision. Just because this is an election doesn't mean that we all have to agree to vote pertaining to a certain issue or another. As you see, there was an obvious divide between those who voted for morals/terrorism and for those who wanted a change. Am I faulting people who voted for the latter? On the contrary. It shows a difference of opinion. This is one of the reasons why our country is a democracy because we don't have to agree on everything.

no, he is not my president.

I live fine with that.



:rolleyes:



oh so its worthwhile to mention he won the popular vote now?

so what happens when al gore won the popular vote?

he still get dissed by the "supreme court"!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

I didn't say he was your president but he is this country's and that's a fact.

Al Gore didn't win by the electoral vote. And don't rehash the Bush-stole-presidency-SupremeCourt argument. C'mon:P

[yoMAMA]

While my morals weren't the most important issue (although it was up there), I can understand why some people decided to vote on their morals alone. Who is to fault them for that? Who should we be the judge of such people? While some people may not think of morals as a pressing issue, others definitely do and there's nothing wrong with that. It's their opinon and they're perfectly entitled to it. I happen to have a high opinion of morals yet that wasn't my driving issue but it was a factor in my decision. Just because this is an election doesn't mean that we all have to agree to vote pertaining to a certain issue or another. As you see, there was an obvious divide between those who voted for morals/terrorism and for those who wanted a change. Am I faulting people who voted for the latter? On the contrary. It shows a difference of opinion. This is one of the reasons why our country is a democracy because we don't have to agree on everything.



I didn't say he was your president but he is this country's and that's a fact.

Al Gore didn't win by the electoral vote. And don't rehash the Bush-stole-presidency-SupremeCourt argument. C'mon:P

sight......

[SunWuKong]

Bhodi - It's not a conspiracy, just good campaign strategy--a strategy that only works because Americans in general are dumbasses.

RX

Democrats need to realise this and next time shoot some music videos for their candidates or throw the first pitch at some baseball games or something like that.

[Mr.Lum]

While my morals weren't the most important issue (although it was up there), I can understand why some people decided to vote on their morals alone. Who is to fault them for that? Who should we be the judge of such people?

Well they tend to be the folks who want to judge us.

[SunWuKong]

Well they tend to be the folks who want to judge us.

exactly. again, no offense to those who voted on morals, but doing so is basically imposing your moral standards on others who don't live by it.

[DragonKnight]

exactly. again, no offense to those who voted on morals, but doing so is basically imposing your moral standards on others who don't live by it. Werd, not all of America has conservative Christian values. Come to think of it, it never begun as a Christian country. Oh yeah, that's right...Native Americans were here first. But then wiping out over 90% of their population sorta solved that problem. :rolleyes:

[deez nuts]

hoozah.

i found a cut off point.

anyways a thread devoted for those that want to discuss gay marriages:

http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=20004

[Shogun Empress]

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.From this same group of people, I heard they weren't convinced of Kerry's patriotism because of what Kerry had to say about the Vietnam War when he was in the service. I remember seeing in a non-partisan, Vietnam Veteran's sponsored commercial that those who were in the service with him during those times, had a lot of bad things to say about him. He won all those medals and it still wasn't good enough to add to his reputation. That's even worse than no one even remembering what you did, in Bush's case.

[nola]

He was annoying! I like Howard Dean alot better. He's back in the picture lately, running for Democratic Party something. He can rile up our anger and hopefully channel it positively.

[Shogun Empress]

He was annoying! I like Howard Dean alot better. He's back in the picture lately, running for Democratic Party something. He can rile up our anger and hopefully channel it positively.Howard Dean should've ran for President and Kerry should've been Vice-President. Howard Dean is as charsimatic as Clinton and Kerry is as dull as Gore. I think thats why Democrats lost so miserably because they didn't have their shit straight.

[kpih]

Howard Dean should've ran for President and Kerry should've been Vice-President. Howard Dean is as charsimatic as Clinton and Kerry is as dull as Gore. I think thats why Democrats lost so miserably because they didn't have their shit straight.

Dean 2008!

That will never happen unfortunately. Dean had integrity and did not play the political game well. He is not a politician and the political machine (parties, lobbyists, media etc) does not accomodate a non-politician approach. I like him for that. He fights for ideas, not votes.

In fact, he was way ahead of almost everyone else to suggest nation building through assistance over using force.

Other than Dean, Kucinich also had integrity and a distinguished record as a public servant.

[nola]

Kucinich and Dean were my faves too. The ones with too much integrity for their own good.

[bluemonq]

can we close this thread, unless you're thinking that the amendment will be repealed and bush will get a third term? every time i see this thread, i'm like, "what? AGAIN???"

[Shogun Empress]

Dean 2008!

That will never happen unfortunately. Dean had integrity and did not play the political game well. He is not a politician and the political machine (parties, lobbyists, media etc) does not accomodate a non-politician approach. I like him for that. He fights for ideas, not votes.

In fact, he was way ahead of almost everyone else to suggest nation building through assistance over using force.

Other than Dean, Kucinich also had integrity and a distinguished record as a public servant.That sucks. If Dean had ran for President, I would've voted for him. I voted for Bush instead. I can't stand Kerry.

[nola]

You coulda voted for Nader or Badnarik. Bush?

[sOKaLiBoY]

That sucks. If Dean had ran for President, I would've voted for him. I voted for Bush instead. I can't stand Kerry.


You could have just not voted for President

[Shogun Empress]

You coulda voted for Nader or Badnarik. Bush?That's almost the same as not voting since they had no chance of winning.

[Arex]

You would've voted for Dean had he been nominated, but since he wasn't, you voted Bush? What the hell were your primary considerations in voting?? Certainly not policy, principles or ideology. Lunacy, perhaps?

And elections aren't always about choosing the winners, by the way. If the polls showed that Bush was leading with 65% of the prospective vote the day before the election, are you saying that it would've been pointless to cast a vote in favor of Kerry? If every Kerry supporter stayed home, then the election would've showed Bush with 100% of the popular and 100% of the electoral vote. That moron already thinks that his "landslide" victory with 51% of the popular vote (the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in history) gives him completely free reign to enact whatever idiotic policies his administration can brainstorm. Imagine if he perceived a 100% victory.

It's important for the democratic process that elected officials be given a real sense of the popularity of their policies. While voting for a candidate that earns less than 1% of the popular vote may not necessarily guarantee that your voice is heard, abstaining from voting simply because your candidate isn't going to win guarantees that your voice will not be heard.

Now if you were talking specifically about a vote to unseat the current administration, then yes, a vote for one of those candidates would've been a vote wasted.

[deez nuts]

You would've voted for Dean had he been nominated, but since he wasn't, you voted Bush? What the hell were your primary considerations in voting?? Certainly not policy, principles or ideology. Lunacy, perhaps?


shhhhhh...people say she's a dude.

[hooligan]

shhhhhh...people say she's a dude.

And she'll bukkake on you.

[deez nuts]

And she'll bukkake on you.


don't you mean it?

and it'll bukkake on you?

[Arex]

But wait, isn't he pretending to be a she so confused guys can bukkake on him??

[Napoleon Chynamite]

What is this thread about again?

[Tao]

sour grapes

[truMp]

huh? wtf? isn't the purpose of this thread completed. DIDNT IT ALREDY COME TRUE!?

[Yeahman]

That moron already thinks that his "landslide" victory with 51% of the popular vote (the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in history) gives him completely free reign to enact whatever idiotic policies his administration can brainstorm.
Nobody is calling it a "landslide." Just a majority, which says a lot actually. Clinton never got a majority.

It's important for the democratic process that elected officials be given a real sense of the popularity of their policies. While voting for a candidate that earns less than 1% of the popular vote may not necessarily guarantee that your voice is heard, abstaining from voting simply because your candidate isn't going to win guarantees that your voice will not be heard.
And maybe that's what some people want. There is nobility in abstaining in protest of the candidates or the process itself. But that is the ONLY good excuse I can see for choosing not to vote.