Interested in the upcoming election? Vote Ron Paul! [Archive] - WannaBeBig Bodybuilding and Weightlifting Forums

Organichu

07-09-2007, 12:04 PM

Of course, anyone can chip in... but I aim this mostly at young Americans, since they are a critically neglected group of the voting population.

Do ya'll have favorite candidates? How many of you plan on voting?

I don't want to turn this into an enormously hostile debate, but I am sick and tired of my peers not caring and spitting out tired lines (it doesn't matter, pay taxes then you die, life sucks, votes don't count, etc.).

I'm hoping you all are as concerned with the future of our country as I am.

My vote is going to Ron Paul. He is often described as a political 'freedom fighter' aiming to bring us back towards smaller Constitutional government. For all of you young people who look around and see miles of red tape and bloated programs and unnecessary, destructive government involvement in our lives, you should give Ron Paul a look.

You can find his website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ . I implore you to do some research and get his name out there.

edit: of course, if you support another candidate, go right ahead. This isn't a Ron Paul thread... this is an '08 election thread.

I make no secret of the fact, though, that I am definitely pushing for Paul haha. Please vote for him.:french:

sharkall2003

07-09-2007, 12:16 PM

My girlfriend and I are both considering voting for Ron Paul if he is one of the primary candidates. His views and my own, without the involvement of religion, are nearly identical.

markdk86

07-09-2007, 12:28 PM

Al Gore, yeah... I'm super duper cerial.

Chubrock

07-09-2007, 12:30 PM

Man Bear Pig.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 12:33 PM

Organichu

07-09-2007, 12:42 PM

I like some of his views, particularly about less government, more privacy, private property, etc. but I am critically at odds with his anti-abortion stance and him being a Texan Republican I think I'm safe in assuming what his stance is on non-heterosexual issues.

You hit the nail exactly, Mike- those are my two major hangups with him. He is very pro-life and while not overtly homophobic, I fear that his 'country boy' sensibilities might lead to legislation that alienates homosexuals.

I do still find him infinitely better than the other candidates, though.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 12:52 PM

You hit the nail exactly, Mike- those are my two major hangups with him. He is very pro-life and while not overtly homophobic, I fear that his 'country boy' sensibilities might lead to legislation that alienates homosexuals.

I do still find him infinitely better than the other candidates, though.

I agree that overall he does seem more interesting than the vast majority of the runners. Is Giuliani still in the race?

Organichu

07-09-2007, 01:12 PM

Yeah, he is.

I really, really hope he doesn't make it through the primaries.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 01:15 PM

Hmmm.... I'm sorta fond of Giuliani, except for his pro gun-control stance.

Organichu

07-09-2007, 01:21 PM

Rudy is strongly anti-marriage for gays (though he permits partnerships), and my main problem with him is his gung-ho, scare-tactic campaign with Terror. I do not want to be blown up- but I don't want to forfeit my life for (IMO) a false sense of protection.

I've spent a lot of my life in the Middle East, and IMO Giuliani's policies would hurt us.

BilltheButcher

07-09-2007, 01:23 PM

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 01:25 PM

Which of Giuliani's proposed policies do you think would hurt us?

I know Giuliani is anti-gay-marriage, but he at least views gays are normal people and is open about having gay friends.

Organichu

07-09-2007, 01:25 PM

Yup.

Just like with abortion, I believe that marriage is an issue best decided by the states, not the federal government. I’m opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage, but it also goes both ways: I’m against the courts at the federal level pressuring the states into accepting same-sex marriage licenses. What we’re talking about in both cases is the redefinition of an ancient social institution by the federal government that’s best left to the people to decide at the local level. I have introduced legislation called the We the People Act to remove deeply personal social issues like marriage and abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts so the states and local governments can make the decisions, as the Constitution intends.

That stance is sufficient for me.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 01:28 PM

Doesn't Ron Paul want the States decide on abortion and same sex marriages and keep the federal gov't out of it?

I don't think that he wants states to decide on abortion... from what I understood he supports a federal definition of life as beginning at conception. This in effect codifies abortion as murder.

Ron Paul also supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which doesn't really leave gay marriage to the states like all other issues are left to the states. Homosexuality is still treated like the redheaded step-child under DoMA.

Also, Ron Paul seems to think that Don't Ask Don't Tell is a "decent" policy. That's a federal issue.

Organichu

07-09-2007, 01:29 PM

Which of Giuliani's proposed policies do you think would hurt us?

Rudy Giuliani believes winning the war on terror is the great responsibility of our generation. America cannot afford to go back to the days of playing defense, with inconsistent responses to terrorist attacks, because weakness only encourages aggression. Americans want peace. We’re at war not because we want to be, but because the terrorists declared war on us - well before the attacks of September 11th. Rudy understands that freedom is going to win this war of ideas. America will win the war on terror.

There are quite a few missteps and strawmen in that stance. 'Winning the war on terror' is an impossible task. It's like killing the boogey man. I'm not denying that there are bad things in the dark and people trying to hurt us, but his usage of a dark, vague term like that can only cheapen the integrity of our struggle for survival- and our chance of surviving.

'We're done playing defense' translates to: more offense! What kind of offense? Against whom?

He won't tell us. Terrorists is what he tells us. Brown people? Muslims? Suicide bombers? What are their names? Why do they hate us? How will bombing their countries stop them?

I'm terrified of the slippery slope that is the war on terror. It's a bunch of buzz words that can only endanger our personal liberties and eventually our personal safety.

bjohnso

07-09-2007, 01:32 PM

Ron Paul looks like a better and better candidate every day. He's the only candidate willing to get tough about border control (along with Fred Thompson I think). I disagree with him on some issues but his willingness to shut down the border and eliminate the IRS and the UN are why he will probably get my vote.

I do believe he has never voted to raise taxes and never voted for gun control measures, EVER. His consistency is astounding, if that is true.

bjohnso

07-09-2007, 01:36 PM

I'm terrified of the slippery slope that is the war on terror. It's a bunch of buzz words that can only endanger our personal liberties and eventually our personal safety.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I see what you're saying. 6 years after September 11 we're still clinging to PC policies that allow people from "high risk" nations to come over and learn how to fly jumbo jets, and we're still letting millions of people walk across the border (and then giving them social security and driver's licenses when they get here), but then we're supposed to give up some of our freedoms to feel safe. I think Rudy Guliani is more of the same, and I'm tired of it.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 01:39 PM

Yup.

That stance is sufficient for me.

As long as Ron Paul is for the removal of the DoMA, which would force all states to accept same-sex marriage licences from states where it is legal, I'm for it. The way it stands now he is also trying to have it both ways. He's preaching states' rights, but he still has a federal wrench in there.

mikey4402

07-09-2007, 01:40 PM

anyone else think al gore is going to be running soon. He was shown alot of support for his live earth concert and campain. hes even trying to loose weight. I would vote for him.

I would never vote for Giuliani, hes a scumbag. Everytime he gets the chance to speeks its about 9/11 terrorism blah blah blah...Terrorism is NOT the most important threat for this country. I do not know why this country is so obsessed with this view war or terror.

I know Giuliani is anti-gay-marriage, but he at least views gays are normal people and is open about having gay friends.why would you care what giuliani's feelings are about homosexuals, i mean your not going to be hanging out with him. i would think you wouldnt support a hopfull if he was anti-gay-marriage.

I dont know who is going to win. Clintion is getting alot of attention, but i dont think america is ready for a women president nor a black one for that matter.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 01:44 PM

why would you care what giuliani's feelings are about homosexuals, i mean your not going to be hanging out with him. i would think you wouldnt support a hopfull if he was anti-gay-marriage.
Every hopeful at this point is anti-gay-marriage. I'm not a single issue voter, but Giuliani's treatment of gays in his personal life and politically is a character sign that is somewhat appealing to me.

Organichu

07-09-2007, 01:47 PM

As long as Ron Paul is for the removal of the DoMA, which would force all states to accept same-sex marriage licences from states where it is legal, I'm for it. The way it stands now he is also trying to have it both ways. He's preaching states' rights, but he still has a federal wrench in there.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue... if he doesn't touch a law that forbids the Federal government from recognizing gay marriage, and does instate a law that allows the states to decide...

We potentially have a situation where states will allow gay marriage and the Fed will not recognize it.

Do 'marriage rights' and amenities come from the state or the Fed?

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 01:49 PM

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue... if he doesn't touch a law that forbids the Federal government from recognizing gay marriage, and does instate a law that allows the states to decide...

We potentially have a situation where states will allow gay marriage and the Fed will not recognize it.

Do 'marriage rights' and amenities come from the state or the Fed?

There are both federal and state protections, rights, and obligations in the current institution of marriage.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 01:53 PM

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue... if he doesn't touch a law that forbids the Federal government from recognizing gay marriage, and does instate a law that allows the states to decide...

We potentially have a situation where states will allow gay marriage and the Fed will not recognize it.

Do 'marriage rights' and amenities come from the state or the Fed?

DoMA is not a law about federal recognition of same-sex marriage. It's a law about states which are opposed to same-sex marriage not having to recognize same-sex marriage licences from states that allow it.

Organichu

07-09-2007, 01:56 PM

DoMA is not a law about federal recognition of same-sex marriage. It's a law about states which are opposed to same-sex marriage not having to recognize same-sex marriage licences from states that allow it.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

It's a bisectional document... one half says that states do not need to recognize gay marriage... the other half is what I posted above.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 02:03 PM

It's a bisectional document... one half says that states do not need to recognize gay marriage... the other half is what I posted above.

See? It's teh suck all around!

I totally forgot that the damn thing also defines marriage. :( It's even worse than I remembered.

BilltheButcher

07-09-2007, 02:56 PM

I don't think that he wants states to decide on abortion... from what I understood he supports a federal definition of life as beginning at conception. This in effect codifies abortion as murder.

Ron Paul also supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which doesn't really leave gay marriage to the states like all other issues are left to the states. Homosexuality is still treated like the redheaded step-child under DoMA.

Also, Ron Paul seems to think that Don't Ask Don't Tell is a "decent" policy. That's a federal issue.

First, I think Ron Paul has gay men and women's best interests at heart. Not allowing them to marry - take it from a married guy. Hey I'm happy, but it is a lot of work. Here is my issue with gay marriage. I am Catholic and I could care less if you are gay, straight, bi, whatever, however, once same sex individuals are allowed to marry, how long do you think it will take a law suit against the Catholic church for discrimination to occur? Their non-profit status would be attacked, their tax exemptions etc.etc.

Also what is wrong with the Don't Ask Don't Tell? It worked for hundreds of years. I get it, you shouldn't have to hide your sexual preferrance, but come on while 90% of soliders are going to be ok, it only takes a few idiots to haze and beat up on a gay guy to have a huge law suit. Hate crimes I believe would be very high.

In my opinion a lot of the policies are to protect gays from violent crimes. However, this is like me commenting on a black guys problems, or a Jewish guys issues or muslim. etc.etc. I don't know first hand what it is like.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 03:09 PM

First, I think Ron Paul has gay men and women's best interests at heart. Not allowing them to marry - take it from a married guy. Hey I'm happy, but it is a lot of work.
LOL thanks for your concern, but I'll take the marriage rights. ;)

Here is my issue with gay marriage. I am Catholic and I could care less if you are gay, straight, bi, whatever, however, once same sex individuals are allowed to marry, how long do you think it will take a law suit against the Catholic church for discrimination to occur? Their non-profit status would be attacked, their tax exemptions etc.etc.
Civil marriage has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Not a single darn thing. I can grab any female friend and we can skip down to City Hall and get a marriage license. No Church involved. We will be married. This is what homosexuals are asking for: the right to marry the consenting adults of their choice. The state has no business enfringing on religious practice, and as long as the Church remains a private institution and not a government entity, I don't see a problem.

Also what is wrong with the Don't Ask Don't Tell? It worked for hundreds of years. I get it, you shouldn't have to hide your sexual preferrance, but come on while 90% of soliders are going to be ok, it only takes a few idiots to haze and beat up on a gay guy to have a huge law suit. Hate crimes I believe would be very high.
Don't Ask Don't Tell has only been around since the Clinton era. The prohibition on homosexuals worked as well as the prohibition on blacks serving did. Not to say that it didn't achieve a certain goal (keeping certain "undesirables" out of the military), but in the end, there was no actual need for it. The vast majority of the country supports an end to Don't Ask Don't Tell. I don't see why the military has to lag behind. Yes, there will be morons who will cause trouble- and they will be dealt with. There are numerous gays serving now, not all are closeted, and for the most part soldiers don't seem to care. Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't protect homosexuals.

In my opinion a lot of the policies are to protect gays from violent crimes. However, this is like me commenting on a black guys problems, or a Jewish guys issues or muslim. etc.etc. I don't know first hand what it is like.
LOL Denying marriage licences to life-long gay partners who are effectively married but lack legal spousal rights is protection? From what? What people fail to realize is that gays coupling off, forming families, having children, adopting, spending their lives effectively "married" will not all of a sudden start up if gay marriage is legalized. These folks exist and have existed, only as second-class citizens, without spousal protections from the .gov.

BilltheButcher

07-09-2007, 03:26 PM

Civil marriage has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Not a single darn thing. I can grab any female friend and we can skip down to City Hall and get a marriage license. No Church involved. We will be married. This is what homosexuals are asking for: the right to marry the consenting adults of their choice. The state has no business enfringing on religious practice, and as long as the Church remains a private institution and not a government entity, I don't see a problem. .

Ya, but a churches tax breaks and non-profit status are all gov't controlled and since this is the case it is only a matter of time before those will be attacked based on discrimination. I believe there is a huge portion of the gay community that hates the Catholic church, and rightfully so, which leads me to believe that it is something that will be gone after. If they can compose a law which prohibits law suits against churches, then by all means get married.

Don't Ask Don't Tell has only been around since the Clinton era. The prohibition on homosexuals worked as well as the prohibition on blacks serving did. Not to say that it didn't achieve a certain goal (keeping certain "undesirables" out of the military), but in the end, there was no actual need for it. The vast majority of the country supports an end to Don't Ask Don't Tell. I don't see why the military has to lag behind. Yes, there will be morons who will cause trouble- and they will be dealt with. There are numerous gays serving now, not all are closeted, and for the most part soldiers don't seem to care. Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't protect homosexuals. .

Clinton put a name to it, but its been around forever. Also there was a good article about a homosexual serving in Iraq, wish I could find it. Like you said you go through training together you depend on one another and you become brothers. Just like growing up with friends or playing sports, you find out they are gay, who cares. Just b/c the country doesn't support it doesn't mean anything, most of the country has never been in the military either, so they have no clue. Most of the country wants us out of Iraq, and they think Bush is terrible and the Congess is even worse then bush. I don't know if is really good or not, but in a time of war why rock the boat.

LOL Denying marriage licences to life-long gay partners who are effectively married but lack legal spousal rights is protection? From what? What people fail to realize is that gays coupling off, forming families, having children, adopting, spending their lives effectively "married" will not all of a sudden start up if gay marriage is legalized. These folks exist and have existed, only as second-class citizens, without spousal protections from the .gov.

My uncle who passed away of cancer was gay and had a partner for 20 so yrs. Chuck didn't lose any money, house or anything. Everything was jointly held, I just am at a loss of what the issues are. Jointly filing taxes, claiming dependents? not real positive.

Rock

07-09-2007, 03:35 PM

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 03:51 PM

Ya, but a churches tax breaks and non-profit status are all gov't controlled and since this is the case it is only a matter of time before those will be attacked based on discrimination. I believe there is a huge portion of the gay community that hates the Catholic church, and rightfully so, which leads me to believe that it is something that will be gone after. If they can compose a law which prohibits law suits against churches, then by all means get married.
Church marriage has no legal standing, so I don't see that being attacked. Catholic churches get to discriminate against non-Catholics in offering communion, as far as I know, and they're yet to have a challenge for dicrtimination based on religion... (amd I wrong on this?). I really don't foresee the issue that you are afraid of.

Clinton put a name to it, but its been around forever. Also there was a good article about a homosexual serving in Iraq, wish I could find it. Like you said you go through training together you depend on one another and you become brothers. Just like growing up with friends or playing sports, you find out they are gay, who cares. Just b/c the country doesn't support it doesn't mean anything, most of the country has never been in the military either, so they have no clue. Most of the country wants us out of Iraq, and they think Bush is terrible and the Congess is even worse then bush. I don't know if is really good or not, but in a time of war why rock the boat.
Wait... I'm not clear here. One the one hand, you're saying that gays in the military can be perfectly fine- the focus is work, guys bond, brothers, someone comes out and all is cool. On the other hand you're saying that public opinion doesn't matter and you support Don't Ask Don't Tell... but why?

My uncle who passed away of cancer was gay and had a partner for 20 so yrs. Chuck didn't lose any money, house or anything. Everything was jointly held, I just am at a loss of what the issues are. Jointly filing taxes, claiming dependents? not real positive.
Issues are several, and they have to do both with state and federal equality. Collection of deceased partners' pensions (if the deceased was a public employee or an employee of a firm that doesn't care for same-sex partners), right to not testify against your spouse in court, having automatic guardianship over your spouse if they're incapacitated and their remains (meaning that a disapproving family can't just trump your partner status on a whim and push you out of the picture in the ER or if your partner dies), automatic inheritance, etc. A lot of this you can't circumvent with creative paperwork.

BilltheButcher

07-09-2007, 04:11 PM

Church marriage has no legal standing, so I don't see that being attacked. Catholic churches get to discriminate against non-Catholics in offering communion, as far as I know, and they're yet to have a challenge for dicrtimination based on religion... (amd I wrong on this?). I really don't foresee the issue that you are afraid of.

We'll see. Its a big fear at least in my area.

Wait... I'm not clear here. One the one hand, you're saying that gays in the military can be perfectly fine- the focus is work, guys bond, brothers, someone comes out and all is cool. On the other hand you're saying that public opinion doesn't matter and you support Don't Ask Don't Tell... but why?

I am not saying everything will be fine. I think a majority of soliders won't have an issue b/c of the things said above. But those outside their unit, I think there will be high cases of hate crimes. When it comes to a lot of things with the public I don't look at polls. They all seem like crap to me, what if they just polled people in the cities, obviously they'd be skewed. I don't support it since I believe coming out would be dangerous for the gay man and even though they want to come out and show everyone they are proud to be gay, I think there going to get the crap kicked out of them by a small minority.

Issues are several, and they have to do both with state and federal equality. Collection of deceased partners' pensions (if the deceased was a public employee or an employee of a firm that doesn't care for same-sex partners), right to not testify against your spouse in court, having automatic guardianship over your spouse if they're incapacitated and their remains (meaning that a disapproving family can't just trump your partner status on a whim and push you out of the picture in the ER or if your partner dies), automatic inheritance, etc. A lot of this you can't circumvent with creative paperwork.

Yes, thanks. Duh - didn't even think of all those. Anyways if they can get a law on the books that protects other organizations that do not believe in gay marriage and won't make them perform those unions, I am totally game.

Jordanbcool

07-09-2007, 04:29 PM

How can a grown man be antiabortion? isnt that 60s ******ness.

What ever is in your body is yours, you contorll that.

When you go to the toilet and crap, you kill thousands of cells...when you take an abortion you kill thousands of cells...wich have not yet been developed into a human.

Not everyone shares your views.

1) I'm am strongly anti-abortion. It is not a collection of cells. If you want to use that argument then we are all just a collection of cells and we should all be put to death if our parents don't want to take care of us.

2) Who's place is it to say when a person becomes a person. When they look like us? When they are born? When they can talk? No, a person is always a person. There is never a set point when someone magically comes into existence. No one. Not god, man or any other institution has the right to decide when someone can be considered a human.

3) Is it fair that convicts get a trial before death? Yet an unborn child had no say if it can live or not. Doesn't that seem messed up. The child has never hurt no-one. Never hurt anyone. It doesn't even have the chance to exist. Its all up to the mother. Wouldn't you want to exist if someone wanted to kill you? Its sad that we care more about serial killers then we do children.

4) Instead of taking responsibility for our own actions we take the easiest and most convenient way out. What ever happened to growing up? Being a man or a women and making responsible or irresponsible choices and living with the consequences. Does this teach us anything about the real world? When did human life become so worthless?

5) Babies in general go through various stages of development. When a baby is first born it can't do much of anything. What makes a baby inside a womb so much different then a baby outside a womb? Is it simply its location? Do we rationalize development by where the child is simply located?

6) Someone once told me unborn babies can't think, or feel or remember anything. Do you think a new born child remembers being born? Do YOU remember being born? So, since you cannot remember it. People rationalize that you wouldn't really care about dying.

7) The world sucks. Its an awful place. There are so many ways of dying. Sadly our own mothers are the people most ready to dispose of us.

Just thought I'd spit out another view point. Don't really care to argue about it. Not everyone agrees with you and not everyone supports abortion.

VikingWarlord

07-09-2007, 04:37 PM

Ron Paul is the closest a Libertarian will ever get to being elected to anything at the Federal level. I like most of his policies as well as his voting record, not to mention his record of public service.

I've got a feeling that "the gay thing" is smoke and mirrors. He's got to take some position in order to get the support of the people that regularly have the highest voter turnout...Republicans. Adopt some position that allows people to relate without actually doing anything. ****, politicians have been doing that for a long time anyhow.

Passing official abortion or gay marriage legislation would be like a death sentence for the careers of some of these guys, and they know it. If there's final word brought down, then there isn't any other really incendiary issue. These things are used to distract from the problems that need fixed but can't be...like Social Security, unemployment, education reform, and budget control.

Organichu

07-09-2007, 04:39 PM

Its truly very sad that some people have such low moral standards.

This is not cool.

It's one thing to disagree and put forth an argument (like you did). It's really uncool for you to tell someone that they have low moral standards. It's not as though he's apathetic to the issue. He just has a different stance. No reason to go all attackish.

Jordanbcool

07-09-2007, 04:41 PM

This is not cool.

It's one thing to disagree and put forth an argument (like you did). It's really uncool for you to tell someone that they have low moral standards. It's not as though he's apathetic to the issue. He just has a different stance. No reason to go all attackish.

Its a very upsetting issue. I will delete that comment I guess.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 04:46 PM

Not everyone shares your views.

1) I'm am strongly anti-abortion. It is not a collection of cells. If you want to use that argument then we are all just a collection of cells and we should all be put to death if our parents don't want to take care of us.
We are all a collection of cells. Once you are born you can be given away. While a pregnancy is in progress, especially if it's early, what are you going to give away and to whom? Keep in mind that early abortions happen naturally and fairly frequently- at least a quarter of pregnancies end in miscarriages, usually early on.

2) Who's place is it to say when a person becomes a person. When they look like us? When they are born? When they can talk? No, a person is always a person. There is never a set point when someone magically comes into existence. No one. Not god, man or any other institution has the right to decide when someone can be considered a human.
O'RLY? Where did you get the idea that no one has the right to decide when something is "alive" or "a person"? We define absolutely everything we deal with, therefore we have to define this also.

3) Is it fair that convicts get a trial before death? Yet an unborn child had no say if it can live or not. Doesn't that seem messed up. The child has never hurt no-one. Never hurt anyone. It doesn't even have the chance to exist. Its all up to the mother. Wouldn't you want to exist if someone wanted to kill you? Its sad that we care more about serial killers then we do children.
Is it fair that a woman should be forced to carry to term a zygote or fetus she doesn't want and never tried to get?

The second half makes no sense. If you were to be born into an existence of misery, would you still want it? A zygote has no idea (as far as we know) about life, the world, etc. I'm not even sure that it possesses any qualities that would term it "alive", scientifically speaking. Can't kill that which isn't living.

4) Instead of taking responsibility for our own actions we take the easiest and most convenient way out. What ever happened to growing up? Being a man or a women and making responsible or irresponsible choices and living with the consequences. Does this teach us anything about the real world? When did human life become so worthless?
Not every pregnancy is the result of choice and voluntary action on the part of the mother. The real world, in case you were wondering, is one where women will seek and find abortions if they don't wish to carry to term, regardless of whether abortions are legal. This practice is as old as pregnancies.

Its truly very sad that some people have such low moral standards. Just thought I'd spit out another view point. Don't really care to argue about it. Not everyone agrees with you and not everyone supports abortion.
I don't see abortion, especially in the first term, as a moral issue. At all. :shrug:

VikingWarlord

07-09-2007, 05:06 PM

Not everyone shares your views.

1) I'm am strongly anti-abortion. It is not a collection of cells. If you want to use that argument then we are all just a collection of cells and we should all be put to death if our parents don't want to take care of us.

2) Who's place is it to say when a person becomes a person. When they look like us? When they are born? When they can talk? No, a person is always a person. There is never a set point when someone magically comes into existence. No one. Not god, man or any other institution has the right to decide when someone can be considered a human.

3) Is it fair that convicts get a trial before death? Yet an unborn child had no say if it can live or not. Doesn't that seem messed up. The child has never hurt no-one. Never hurt anyone. It doesn't even have the chance to exist. Its all up to the mother. Wouldn't you want to exist if someone wanted to kill you? Its sad that we care more about serial killers then we do children.

4) Instead of taking responsibility for our own actions we take the easiest and most convenient way out. What ever happened to growing up? Being a man or a women and making responsible or irresponsible choices and living with the consequences. Does this teach us anything about the real world? When did human life become so worthless?

5) Babies in general go through various stages of development. When a baby is first born it can't do much of anything. What makes a baby inside a womb so much different then a baby outside a womb? Is it simply its location? Do we rationalize development by where the child is simply located?

6) Someone once told me unborn babies can't think, or feel or remember anything. Do you think a new born child remembers being born? Do YOU remember being born? So, since you cannot remember it. People rationalize that you wouldn't really care about dying.

7) The world sucks. Its an awful place. There are so many ways of dying. Sadly our own mothers are the people most ready to dispose of us.

Just thought I'd spit out another view point. Don't really care to argue about it. Not everyone agrees with you and not everyone supports abortion.

Wow. This is so full of Limbaugh logic, I don't even know where to start. Glad Mike already started it.

d'Anconia

07-09-2007, 06:37 PM

On gay rights Ron Paul has voted twice against a federal amendment banning same sex marriage. As for Don't Ask Don't Tell, RP said in the second debate that inappropriate behavior whether from a heterosexual or homosexual should be dealt with by the military.
In all honesty I think the problem with same sex marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality or marriage itself but rather that we have accepted the government's regulation of the religious entity. For all those who oppose Church and State, these are the sticky issues that arise when you think the government can legislate morality of this sort.

As was said earlier I doubt Ron Paul gives two ****s about protecting the "sanctity of marriage" but realizes that he is running under the GOP banner and he needs to have some (apparent) compromises to gather support.

As for abortion... I don't see how anyone can pick a candidate based on this one issue. I'd like to think that I'm pro-life but I don't doubt I'd compromise my integrity if a female companion got pregnant and opted for an early abortion. In all honesty though a pro-life position taken by the government will create a larger demand for more effective contraceptives and then perhaps down the road it would become a non-issue.
I'd still trust Ron Paul more on this issue than perhaps any other candidate because he spent years as an obstetrician. He delivered over 4,000 babies.

Yes I'm supporting Ron Paul. I've put a lot of effort into it so far and it's incredibly frustrating when his national poll ratings are going up so slowly. He has more cash in hand than John McCain right now though so that's good. He's also been a frugal spender thus far. He is by no means perfect but for now I'm willing to support the lesser of two evils because he's so much better than all the others.

I can't even think of all the different ways this country is going down the ****ter and to be honest even if Ron Paul got elected it might be still too late and all he'd be able to do is soften the blow. But if things did get really bad he's the person I'd want in the White House.

PS I've made a dozen Ron Paul Revolution banners, bought two Ron Paul Revolution shirts, have a sweet Ron Paul for President 2008 bumper sticker on my jeep, and have donated some $200 to his campaign. This is among all the other times I've emailed and telephoned different organizations regarding him.

I'm the dude in the sandals and the tan shorts.
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/danconia/highres_1667998.jpg
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/danconia/highres_1668001.jpg
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/danconia/n3408897_34554850_1714.jpg

razorcut

07-09-2007, 07:34 PM

I'm the dude in the sandals and the tan shorts.
LOL. Good for you. My vote's not going to Paul, but good for you for getting involved.

Jordanbcool

07-09-2007, 07:40 PM

We are all a collection of cells. Once you are born you can be given away. While a pregnancy is in progress, especially if it's early, what are you going to give away and to whom? Keep in mind that early abortions happen naturally and fairly frequently- at least a quarter of pregnancies end in miscarriages, usually early on.

O'RLY? Where did you get the idea that no one has the right to decide when something is "alive" or "a person"? We define absolutely everything we deal with, therefore we have to define this also.

Is it fair that a woman should be forced to carry to term a zygote or fetus she doesn't want and never tried to get?

The second half makes no sense. If you were to be born into an existence of misery, would you still want it? A zygote has no idea (as far as we know) about life, the world, etc. I'm not even sure that it possesses any qualities that would term it "alive", scientifically speaking. Can't kill that which isn't living.

Not every pregnancy is the result of choice and voluntary action on the part of the mother. The real world, in case you were wondering, is one where women will seek and find abortions if they don't wish to carry to term, regardless of whether abortions are legal. This practice is as old as pregnancies.

I don't see abortion, especially in the first term, as a moral issue. At all. :shrug:

1) But the miscarriages are unintentional not planned. Bad things happen. Thats life. We shouldn't be the cause of it. The child has an extremely high chance of survival if given the chance. Thanks to modern technology a babies survival rate is much much higher in modern times.

2) You have your opinion. I have mine. When does the baby get to make one?

3) Yes. Its a child. Do we have the right to kill that child? Or any person for that matter. They call that murder in the States. Which is punishable by death.

4) You're argument makes no sense. If its a collection of cells it must be alive by definition. Cells are the smallest biological form of life. Can't really argue with that. My point was that it is likely that a new born child has no recollection of itself being born and probably isn't self aware for a couple months outside the womb. I.E. The baby is unaware that it exists or that it is alive etc. etc. Yet a pro-choice person would make that argument that an unborn fetus has no memory, thoughts etc. etc. Where do we draw the line? Do we even have a right to draw that line?

5) And people will snort crack. Should we just legalize it because they will do it anyways?

Jordanbcool

07-09-2007, 07:42 PM

My views again are not from religion either. You can be a conservative atheist. They DO exist. Contrary to popular belief.

I take a highly humanistic outlook on life. I don't know why we exist and I don't think anyone can really know......atleast 100%. But life is hard for many people and all we have is ourselves to depend on. I'm sick of praying to clouds all day hoping things will improve. If we want to make sociological, political, lawful and other advancements in our lives we should do them on our own. I feel life; especially human life is extremely rare and precious. It is my opinion that we shouldn't be throwing it away so carelessly. For all we know we could be the only blue ball in the entire universe with intelligent life. And look what we are doing with it.

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 07:56 PM

1) But the miscarriages are unintentional not planned. Bad things happen. Thats life. We shouldn't be the cause of it.
Why is an early miscarriage a bad thing in any way other than that the parents, if they actually wanted a baby, may be disappointed?

2) You have your opinion. I have mine. When does the baby get to make one?
After it's capable of forming an opinion.

3) Yes. Its a child. Do we have the right to kill that child? Or any person for that matter. They call that murder in the States. Which is punishable by death.
It isn't a "child" until it's born. Forget the argument from emotion. It's a lump of cells, or as a friend of mine who had a miscarriage not too long ago phrased it, "a raspberry with wings". Murder is the taking of a life. A zygote isn't alive by any scientific definition that I'm aware of.

4) You're argument makes no sense. If its a collection of cells it must be alive by definition. Cells are the smallest biological form of life. Can't really argue with that. My point was that it is likely that a new born child has no recollection of itself being born and probably isn't self aware for a couple months outside the womb. I.E. The baby is unaware that it exists or that it is alive etc. etc. Yet a pro-choice person would make that argument that an unborn fetus has no memory, thoughts etc. etc. Where do we draw the line? Do we even have a right to draw that line?
Kill any vegetables recently? Until certain points in development, a zygote/fetus doesn't even have the means for self-awareness, thought, feeling, etc. What exactly is your attachment to a zygote?

5) And people will snort crack. Should we just legalize it because they will do it anyways?
How we treat drugs is something to ponder. The issue at hand is abortion, however.

You didn't address the following question:

"Is it fair that a woman should be forced to carry to term a zygote or fetus she doesn't want and never tried to get? " (read: rape victim)

TwiloMike

07-09-2007, 08:00 PM

I feel life; especially human life is extremely rare and precious.
Human life is rare? On the moon, maybe. Human life is precious, but it's far from rare. If anything, a human population decrease would be a good thing for Earth's inhabitants.

It is my opinion that we shouldn't be throwing it away so carelessly. For all we know we could be the only blue ball in the entire universe with intelligent life. And look what we are doing with it.
What makes you think that abortions are about carelessly throwing away life? There are two problems with your assertion:
1- the claim that abortions are a careless throwing away of life.
2- that abortions throw away life.

Jordanbcool

07-09-2007, 08:10 PM

Why is an early miscarriage a bad thing in any way other than that the parents, if they actually wanted a baby, may be disappointed?

After it's capable of forming an opinion.

It isn't a "child" until it's born. Forget the argument from emotion. It's a lump of cells, or as a friend of mine who had a miscarriage not too long ago phrased it, "a raspberry with wings". Murder is the taking of a life. A zygote isn't alive by any scientific definition that I'm aware of.

Kill any vegetables recently? Until certain points in development, a zygote/fetus doesn't even have the means for self-awareness, thought, feeling, etc. What exactly is your attachment to a zygote?

How we treat drugs is something to ponder. The issue at hand is abortion, however.

You didn't address the following question:

"Is it fair that a woman should be forced to carry to term a zygote or fetus she doesn't want and never tried to get? " (read: rape victim)

1) Why wouldn't you want the baby!! I love children :)

But you're right. If they didn't want the baby it wouldn't be bad. I was on the assumption that you were talking about a person who wanted a baby.

2) But you can't argue that cells or a zygote isn't alive and then say that it is. You CAN'T have it both ways. Either its not alive or it is. A zygote is alive, maybe a very basic form of life but it's still alive.

3) I think we can all agree that a vegetable and person are totally different things. Hell, a animals cells and a plants cells are totally different! I don't think tomatoes can grow up to cure cancer :rolleyes:

4) You know the point I was making. Just because people do it doesn't make it right or that we should encourage it.

5) Yes I did. I said it is right that she should have to carry it. Its a person in my opinion. It shouldn't have to die because its not wanted. If we did that to a dog or cat we would be jailed. Whats more valuable?

Now. Maybe the mother shouldn't have to take care of it. You cannot force someone to be a good mother but I don't think the solution is to just give up and kill the baby.

Jordanbcool

07-09-2007, 08:13 PM

Human life is rare? On the moon, maybe. Human life is precious, but it's far from rare. If anything, a human population decrease would be a good thing for Earth's inhabitants.

What makes you think that abortions are about carelessly throwing away life? There are two problems with your assertion:
1- the claim that abortions are a careless throwing away of life.
2- that abortions throw away life.

I was talking about the grand scheme of things. So far we haven't found any other forms of intelligent life anywhere. We could be the most precious things in existence.

It is carelessly throwing away life. If the doctors didn't remove the cells or baby or whatever you want to call it, it would grow up to be something great. Maybe not, maybe it would suck ass or be a murderer. The point is that it would atleast be given the chance to live. To love, to think, feel. To drive a car or make friends. To cry or feel ashamed. It would atleast have the chance of experience which is the entire reason for existence.

Organichu

07-09-2007, 08:15 PM

I had a very, very cool Russian teacher for Ethical Philosophy last semester- Vadim Batitsky.. He used to stress one thing about this topic:

"I teach Ethical Philosophy... so all day I need to hear about the popular debates in this country. The one that bothers me most is the one about abortion.

The popular debate in America about abortion is very misunderstood because of certain emotional responses from either side. People use terms like 'pro choice', and 'pro life', and 'right to life', and 'murder', and 'infringe on rights'. None of these really apply to the heart of the disagreement. I hate when people tarnish my beloved area of study- philosophy- by mislabeling this discussion.

Neither side likes murdering children or standing on the heads of young mothers. The only difference- the primary, singular, all deciding difference- between whether you're 'pro life' or 'pro choice' is whether one believes a fetus at any particular moment to be a human being. If you do, you're against abortion; if you don't, you're not.

Therefore, the abortion debate has nothing to do with Ethical Philosophy- the abortion debate has to do with SCIENCE. Don't confuse it- neither side is immoral.

It is a matter of biology. Who's a better scientist, not a better person."

Jordanbcool

07-09-2007, 08:18 PM

True. I guess. Makes sense.

Thats why its not an easily solved topic. It just comes down to personal opinion.

Majestic

07-09-2007, 08:36 PM

Brawl

07-09-2007, 08:44 PM

I love abortions .. I'd have 27 kids if there were no abortions .

As for gay dudes ... I dig chicks like no other and if a gay guy looks at another dude like I look at chicks ... how can I tell him he's wrong . Go for it bro .

d'Anconia

07-09-2007, 10:30 PM

I'd say the abortion issue is the one issue in my book that can go both ways. I won't hold it against a person for being pro-life and I won't hold it against a person for being pro-life.

I still stand by my point that it will eventually become a null point when better contraceptives come around. They're learning to be able to reverse vasectomies, pills and whatnot are getting better, and I swear some day they'll come out with a decent condom (big bucks to whoever figures that one out... big big bucks).

KingJustin

07-09-2007, 11:11 PM

I think Libertarians as a whole are generally pretty on-the-fence about abortion. It doesn't fit into our life-liberty-property thing really, because nobody can really say whether or not the "unborn baby" should be considered human or not.

Anyway, my vote is going to the only candidate that can make a true change in Washington. I want the government to stop spending money, and the only person that I believe will do that is Ron Paul.
Giuliani increased taxes by 2.3%, on average, each year in New York
John McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts.
Mitt Romney worked to expand the budget in Massachusetts by $1 billion, and increased taxes.

Ron Paul has never voted for an increase in taxes. Rather than "fiscally conservative" Republicans that "only" increase taxes by a couple percentage points a year, Ron Paul is the guy that I trust to cut spending in half. If he is elected you can expect to stop paying ~50% of your income in taxes, and expect for the government to stay out of your life.

anelka

07-10-2007, 03:38 AM

Hmmm.... I'm sorta fond of Giuliani, except for his pro gun-control stance.

Plus his pro-terrorism stance.

anelka

07-10-2007, 03:46 AM

Also what is wrong with the Don't Ask Don't Tell? It worked for hundreds of years. I get it, you shouldn't have to hide your sexual preferrance, but come on while 90% of soliders are going to be ok, it only takes a few idiots to haze and beat up on a gay guy to have a huge law suit. Hate crimes I believe would be very high.

But come on while 90% of soldiers are going to be ok, it only takes a few idiots to haze and beat up on a black guy to have a huge law suit. Hate crimes I believe would be very high.

Don't you have discipline in the US military anyway? I'm pretty sure that the MPs wouldn't tolerate hate crimes.

TwiloMike

07-10-2007, 05:06 AM

1) Why wouldn't you want the baby!! I love children :)

But you're right. If they didn't want the baby it wouldn't be bad. I was on the assumption that you were talking about a person who wanted a baby.
I'm considering various options, not just the emotionally convenient one. If it isn't a bad thing when an early miscarriage happens, then what is wrong with an early abortion?

2) But you can't argue that cells or a zygote isn't alive and then say that it is. You CAN'T have it both ways. Either its not alive or it is. A zygote is alive, maybe a very basic form of life but it's still alive.
Huh? Where did I say that a zygote is alive? :scratch:

3) I think we can all agree that a vegetable and person are totally different things. Hell, a animals cells and a plants cells are totally different! I don't think tomatoes can grow up to cure cancer :rolleyes:
We're talking about a clump of cells with no brain, heart, ability to think, have an opinion, feel pain, etc., and you're saying that such a clump of cells, is somehow alive. What you seem to be emoing over is the potential that a human zygote possesses. As such, the possibilities for that zygote's future are infinite regarding the kind of person that will result. Coonsider all of them.

4) You know the point I was making. Just because people do it doesn't make it right or that we should encourage it.
Who is encouraging abortions? Abortions are "right" because the pregnant mothers who have rights over their bodies say that they are "right" and we have no scientific evidence to prove them wrong.

5) Yes I did. I said it is right that she should have to carry it. Its a person in my opinion. It shouldn't have to die because its not wanted. If we did that to a dog or cat we would be jailed. Whats more valuable?
So a rape victim should be forced to carry to term? Based on what do you assign greater rights to a clump of cells with potential than to an actual person?

Now. Maybe the mother shouldn't have to take care of it. You cannot force someone to be a good mother but I don't think the solution is to just give up and kill the baby.
I think that you will do much better if you cut the emotional arguments in a subject that is all science.

TwiloMike

07-10-2007, 05:09 AM

I was talking about the grand scheme of things. So far we haven't found any other forms of intelligent life anywhere. We could be the most precious things in existence.
And your point is? Even the most precious things overbreeding and destroying their planet in the process is moronic.

It is carelessly throwing away life. If the doctors didn't remove the cells or baby or whatever you want to call it, it would grow up to be something great.
Again, where is the "careless" part?

Maybe not, maybe it would suck ass or be a murderer. The point is that it would atleast be given the chance to live. To love, to think, feel. To drive a car or make friends. To cry or feel ashamed. It would atleast have the chance of experience which is the entire reason for existence.
What is your attachment to this "chance" and why should a woman have to deal with the pregnancy and the consequences of the pregnancy (when she doesn't want to) just for this "chance"? I see the emo, I don't see a logical explanation.

TwiloMike

07-10-2007, 05:10 AM

TwiloMike

07-10-2007, 05:13 AM

Stop spreading common-sense. It's dangerous!
Sorry. :(

I'd say the abortion issue is the one issue in my book that can go both ways. I won't hold it against a person for being pro-life and I won't hold it against a person for being pro-life.

I still stand by my point that it will eventually become a null point when better contraceptives come around. They're learning to be able to reverse vasectomies, pills and whatnot are getting better, and I swear some day they'll come out with a decent condom (big bucks to whoever figures that one out... big big bucks).
Even the best contraceptives will not prevent unwanted pregnancies, so the issue of abortion will always be around.

Plus his pro-terrorism stance.
:rolleyes:

Jorge Sanchez

07-10-2007, 01:20 PM

2) Who's place is it to say when a person becomes a person. When they look like us? When they are born? When they can talk? No, a person is always a person. There is never a set point when someone magically comes into existence. No one. Not god, man or any other institution has the right to decide when someone can be considered a human.

3) Is it fair that convicts get a trial before death? Yet an unborn child had no say if it can live or not. Doesn't that seem messed up. The child has never hurt no-one. Never hurt anyone. It doesn't even have the chance to exist. Its all up to the mother. Wouldn't you want to exist if someone wanted to kill you? Its sad that we care more about serial killers then we do children.

Right on. Now all we have to do is ban masturbation, vasectomies, tubal ligations, contraceptives, sex for pleasure, wet dreams and periods.

Rock

07-10-2007, 01:41 PM

Yes and going to the toilet and doing number two.

And also tell other people what they cant and can do with their bodies.

Jordanbcool

07-10-2007, 02:52 PM

Right on. Now all we have to do is ban masturbation, vasectomies, tubal ligations, contraceptives, sex for pleasure, wet dreams and periods.

This has absolutely nothing to do with abortions at all.

I like masturbating. I like having sex. I like using condoms. I have no problem with birth control. I have had wet dreams. I'm thankful that I don't have periods.

My thing is this. An egg is an egg IMO. Sperm is sperm IMO. You can shoot it in the air. Make a smoothie or keep it in a bottle for storage. I don't care. I just think that when sperm and egg join into one it's a human being, a person. And none of this lame sarcasm will change that.

Jordanbcool

07-10-2007, 03:00 PM

I'm considering various options, not just the emotionally convenient one. If it isn't a bad thing when an early miscarriage happens, then what is wrong with an early abortion?

Huh? Where did I say that a zygote is alive? :scratch:

We're talking about a clump of cells with no brain, heart, ability to think, have an opinion, feel pain, etc., and you're saying that such a clump of cells, is somehow alive. What you seem to be emoing over is the potential that a human zygote possesses. As such, the possibilities for that zygote's future are infinite regarding the kind of person that will result. Coonsider all of them.

Who is encouraging abortions? Abortions are "right" because the pregnant mothers who have rights over their bodies say that they are "right" and we have no scientific evidence to prove them wrong.

So a rape victim should be forced to carry to term? Based on what do you assign greater rights to a clump of cells with potential than to an actual person?

I think that you will do much better if you cut the emotional arguments in a subject that is all science.

1) A miscarriage is a bad thing if you wanted the baby. It is a good thing if you did not want the baby. I cannot force people to have babies or to like having them or to treat them right. There is a huge difference between unintentional complications and premeditated actions. Sometimes babies die naturally, thats not what is at debate here. I cannot change that. My mother had a miscarriage and she was devastated. It depends on if you want the baby or not.

2) You said it was just a collection of cells. Again. The lowest form of biological life are CELLS so unless you want to rewrite scientific fact it must be alive.

You're confusing life with intelligent life or sentient life. A cell is still alive even if its only a cell.

3) So you're saying that there is a chance that the "zygote" will grow up to be a mass-murderer? Well then. I guess the world should stop reproducing if you're honestly afraid of that outcome.

4) They do not have the right to kill. No one does.

5) Thats life. Its not the child's fault or the mothers fault that she was raped. Should the baby have to die because of it? You cannot rid the world of bad people. Rapes will continue to happen if the baby is born or aborted. I don't think we should outright kill the baby because of bad circumstances.

O please. Arguments are arguments. If you can't handle a discussion then stop typing.

KingJustin

07-10-2007, 06:42 PM

Majestic

07-10-2007, 06:50 PM

I just think that when sperm and egg join into one it's a human being, a person.

You are completely entitled to this opinion, however, this is where you will run into a brick wall when it comes to logic, science, fact, behavior analysis, and common-sense.

But you're not alone. Millions of people agree with you.

Majestic

07-10-2007, 06:56 PM

Wow, this went relatively off-topic!

Anyway, I took an internet test a couple months ago, and sure enough, Ron Paul was rated #1 in compatibility with my beliefs. Interesting.......

Songsangnim

07-10-2007, 07:00 PM

You are completely entitled to this opinion, however, this is where you will run into a brick wall when it comes to logic, science, fact, behavior analysis, and common-sense.

But you're not alone. Millions of people agree with you.

Which could be said about any person on the other side of the debate.

TwiloMike

07-10-2007, 07:07 PM

I just think that when sperm and egg join into one it's a human being, a person.
Right away it's a person? Based on what?

jdeity

07-10-2007, 07:10 PM

The abortion discussion is stupid unless you are strictly discussing whether or not the "unborn baby" is a person or not.

If it is a person, then an abortion is the same thing as a mom killing her baby.

If it's not a person, then an abortion is the same thing as a mom killing a hair cell.

At what point does it become a baby? If the child is out of the mother but the umbilical chord is not cut, is it still a "clump of cells"? What about if its head is out of the mothers? What about when a mom is 9 months pregnant and it's fully developed? At what point can you conclusively say that it is or is not a baby?

Personally, I'm not going to pretend I know the line at which it would become 'human', but aren't abortions only allowed during 1st trimester anyways? I mean, I just don't understand how someone could put a 3 minute old, meeting of sperm/egg, in a position to be considered on par with a living, breathing human. To those that do, do you feel differences between these 'several celled humans' that were just conceived and a person who has come out of the womb? Do you put the same amount of value on that little clump of cells as you would a 3 year old boy? (that wasn't meant to inflammatory or rude, it's an honest question that I don't know the answer to). Do you feel as awful hearing about an abortion as you do a 2 year old getting ran over and killed? If so, then I guess I understand those who are so fervent in their ideas. If I believed that once sperm/egg met it was a person, would I feel it was a person of the same magnitude as a born child? If so, then I'd be in full understanding of why some people are stuck on this issue, and further, if they truly believe that it is murdering a regular human, one like you or I, I can see where they're coming from with their extreme views on teh subject. (just like I am atheist/agnostic/confused/whatever, but I see where the bible thumpers are coming from since they truly believe they're right).

Clearly I disagree with the 'sperm meeting egg equals human, right there on the spot' idea. However, I am a little unsure where I'd place that change from lump of cells to a human being. When it develops a brain? When it develops consciousness? That's a tricky issue, wish I knew more about it.

jdeity

07-10-2007, 07:16 PM

I just think that when sperm and egg join into one it's a human being, a person. And none of this lame sarcasm will change that.

I just dictionary'd person, human, etc, and some wikiness on it too. I just don't see how you can qualify a sperm meeting an egg as a person. It just seems like waaaaay too much of a stretch imo.

jdeity

07-10-2007, 07:19 PM

TwiloMike

07-10-2007, 07:27 PM

1) A miscarriage is a bad thing if you wanted the baby. It is a good thing if you did not want the baby. I cannot force people to have babies or to like having them or to treat them right. There is a huge difference between unintentional complications and premeditated actions. Sometimes babies die naturally, thats not what is at debate here. I cannot change that. My mother had a miscarriage and she was devastated. It depends on if you want the baby or not.
We're going in circles here. Not every woman is devastated by a miscarriage and not every woman is devastated by an abortion. Some are, some aren't. There isn't anything to prove with this. I don't see any harm in a woman deciding that the unthinking/unfeeling/unaware cells that are in her body should be cast out if she doesn't want them there.

2) You said it was just a collection of cells. Again. The lowest form of biological life are CELLS so unless you want to rewrite scientific fact it must be alive.

You're confusing life with intelligent life or sentient life. A cell is still alive even if its only a cell.
Not confusing anything at all. I'm specifically talking about sentient/intellingent life... I didn't realize that I had to specify that in a debate on abortion. If you consider a zygote to be alive by the mere classification of cells as "alive", then you're a murderer for the sperm you admittedly waste intentionally, since by your own logic sperm, which is alive, should be spared due to its sentient/intelligent life-making potential, except in cases where it is "unintentionally" and "naturally" cast out of your body.

3) So you're saying that there is a chance that the "zygote" will grow up to be a mass-murderer?
Yes. Just like you use the example that the zygote might grow up to cure cancer, the counter-example (and a more likely one at that), is that it will grow up to be a mass murderer. Btw, no need to put zygote in quotation marks- everyone starts out that way, murderer or healer.

Well then. I guess the world should stop reproducing if you're honestly afraid of that outcome.
Where did I say that I'm afraid of that outcome or that I don't want people to reproduce to avoid a certain outcome?

4) They do not have the right to kill. No one does.
Can't kill that which isn't alive (in the sentient/intelligent manner). Be consistent- either a zygote isn't "alive" by the terms of this debate, or you are a mass murderer of countless things.

5) Thats life. Its not the child's fault or the mothers fault that she was raped.
Oh that's life, is it? Then by the same token, "that's life" that the mother wants the cells out of her body. Women get raped (by definition, without permission), zygotes get cast out. Life.

Should the baby have to die because of it?
It can't die since it isn't alive (early pregnancy).

You cannot rid the world of bad people. Rapes will continue to happen if the baby is born or aborted. I don't think we should outright kill the baby because of bad circumstances.
Can't kill that which isn't alive.

O please. Arguments are arguments. If you can't handle a discussion then stop typing.
Some arguments are rational and logical, based in science/fact. Other arguments are emo hand-waving, often inconsistent due to their irrational emo basis. You're free to present your hand-waving, but like I said, you'd benefit from forming an argument based in science instead of emotions.

Arguments are arguments, but not all arguments are equal. Your arguments suck.

TwiloMike

07-10-2007, 07:34 PM

TwiloMike

07-10-2007, 07:38 PM

Wow, this went relatively off-topic!

Anyway, I took an internet test a couple months ago, and sure enough, Ron Paul was rated #1 in compatibility with my beliefs. Interesting.......

Do you have a link to that test? I wonder who my match is.

Majestic

07-10-2007, 08:57 PM

I've lost it! Damn!

I'm almost positive I identified the site from these forums! It may require a search! Possibly all hope is lost!

d'Anconia

07-10-2007, 10:25 PM

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 07:51 AM

This has absolutely nothing to do with abortions at all.

I like masturbating. I like having sex. I like using condoms. I have no problem with birth control. I have had wet dreams. I'm thankful that I don't have periods.

My thing is this. An egg is an egg IMO. Sperm is sperm IMO. You can shoot it in the air. Make a smoothie or keep it in a bottle for storage. I don't care. I just think that when sperm and egg join into one it's a human being, a person. And none of this lame sarcasm will change that.

But...

2) Who's place is it to say when a person becomes a person. When they look like us? When they are born? When they can talk? No, a person is always a person. There is never a set point when someone magically comes into existence. No one. Not god, man or any other institution has the right to decide when someone can be considered a human.

:scratch:

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 07:52 AM

But...

:scratch:

Interesting observation. Not surprising, either.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 07:55 AM

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 08:00 AM

Relax I'll find it within 2 minutes. He was 2nd to top for me, some Ken McManigal guy that no one has heard of was my #1... give me a minute.

Edit: Here you go...
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

My results:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Kent McManigal (51%) Information link
3. John McCain (50%) Information link
4. Joseph Biden (50%) Information link
5. Hillary Clinton (48%) Information link
6. Michael Bloomberg (48%) Information link
7. Tom Tancredo (46%) Information link
8. Dennis Kucinich (45%) Information link
9. Alan Augustson (45%) Information link
10. Mike Gravel (45%) Information link
11. Rudolph Giuliani (45%) Information link
12. Ron Paul (44%) Information link
13. Duncan Hunter (43%) Information link
14. Jim Gilmore (42%) Information link
15. Newt Gingrich (42%) Information link
16. Al Gore (40%) Information link
17. Tommy Thompson (38%) Information link
18. Wesley Clark (37%) Information link
19. Fred Thompson (37%) Information link
20. Sam Brownback (36%) Information link
21. John Edwards (36%) Information link
22. Barack Obama (36%) Information link
23. Mitt Romney (36%) Information link
24. Christopher Dodd (35%) Information link
25. Bill Richardson (34%) Information link
26. Chuck Hagel (33%) Information link
27. Mike Huckabee (30%) Information link
28. Elaine Brown (17%) Information link

sharkall2003

07-11-2007, 10:17 AM

My Results, and they for some reason are right on:
1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Ron Paul (76%) Information link
3. Kent McManigal (62%) Information link
4. Tom Tancredo (54%) Information link
5. Duncan Hunter (53%) Information link
6. John McCain (52%) Information link
7. Newt Gingrich (51%) Information link
8. Mitt Romney (50%) Information link
9. Chuck Hagel (49%) Information link
10. Christopher Dodd (48%) Information link
11. Barack Obama (48%) Information link
12. Al Gore (47%) Information link
13. Fred Thompson (46%) Information link
14. Bill Richardson (42%) Information link
15. Dennis Kucinich (40%) Information link
16. Sam Brownback (40%) Information link
17. Tommy Thompson (40%) Information link
18. Jim Gilmore (39%) Information link
19. Mike Gravel (39%) Information link
20. John Edwards (37%) Information link
21. Hillary Clinton (37%) Information link
22. Rudolph Giuliani (37%) Information link
23. Wesley Clark (36%) Information link
24. Michael Bloomberg (35%) Information link
25. Joseph Biden (31%) Information link
26. Alan Augustson (30%) Information link
27. Mike Huckabee (27%) Information link
28. Elaine Brown (20%) Information link

BilltheButcher

07-11-2007, 10:37 AM

My position is that abortion is acceptable up until the point that the baby can and does survive independent of the mother's body. That's just as arbitrary as any other point, but at least it doesn't infringe on a woman's right to do whatever she pleases with her own body.

:withstupi Pretty much my view on this. I am Pro-Choice, I believe a woman has the right to decide for herself and it should remain legal so we do not have back alley abortions. But it just shows the sad state of people and peoples views on the value of life. I do not agree with it as a type of birth control and it just goes to show that people are completely selfish and selfcentered and only think about themselves and not about their actions.

CrazyK

07-11-2007, 10:50 AM

We currently have legally established criteria for determining when someone is alive or dead (or as good as dead): heartbeat and brain activity. Both can be applied to fetuses. If there isn't a heart/brain activity, it isn't alive yet. As soon as it exists, you're dealing with a living thing. This is just an opinion, not necessarily mine. Another thing to consider: even when a fetus is technically alive by the above criteira but isn't self-aware, doesn't feel pain, etc. and is still in the mother, is it as high a life form as the mother?Those criteria contradict each other. The baby exists in the womb once the sperm have fertilized the egg. The baby is in it's initial form of life so it does exist. Therefore abortion would be wrong according to you. However, you say because a baby isn't self aware it then may be eligible to be aborted. If that is the case then abortions should be legal up until about 1 1/2-2years of age after birth, according to your logic. Also if that's the case then I don't see why murdering the mentally incapible would be wrong as well. Some do not have self awareness or the mental capacity to understand or interpret pain, therefore it should be ok to terminate them as well? Tell me if I'm correct.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 11:13 AM

:withstupi Pretty much my view on this. I am Pro-Choice, I believe a woman has the right to decide for herself and it should remain legal so we do not have back alley abortions. But it just shows the sad state of people and peoples views on the value of life. I do not agree with it as a type of birth control and it just goes to show that people are completely selfish and selfcentered and only think about themselves and not about their actions.

Definitely. It's not something I would ever resort to and I would be furious if I found out a child of mine was aborted. However, it's not my place to make that value judgement for others.

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 11:14 AM

Those criteria contradict each other.
I didn't list those criteria as the beliefs I subscribe to, and I didn't list them in support of each other or to necessarily be taken together. They're separate considerations, food for thought, if you will. I listed what I understand to be the legal definition of "alive" and then something to consider about another way to think about what is "alive".

The baby exists in the womb once the sperm have fertilized the egg. The baby is in it's initial form of life so it does exist. Therefore abortion would be wrong according to you.
In that example, the "it exists" refers to the heart and brain function. (I should have written "they exist"). Sorry for the confusion. When the sperm just meets the egg there is neither heart nor brain function. You have a zygote, not a living baby.

However, you say because a baby isn't self aware it then may be eligible to be aborted. If that is the case then abortions should be legal up until about 1 1/2-2years of age after birth, according to your logic. Also if that's the case then I don't see why murdering the mentally incapible would be wrong as well. Some do not have self awareness or the mental capacity to understand or interpret pain, therefore it should be ok to terminate them as well? Tell me if I'm correct.
You're ignoring a very important distinction I drew in several posts, including the one you quoted: that you can't kill something that hasn't lived. Regardless of which of my listed criteria you use, the heart/brain function or self-awareness, neither newborns nor the mentally challenged are OK to "abort".

CrazyK

07-11-2007, 11:21 AM

You're ignoring a very important distinction I drew in several posts, including the one you quoted: that you can't kill something that hasn't lived. Regardless of which of my listed criteria you use, the heart/brain function or self-awareness, neither newborns nor the mentally challenged are OK to "abort".So your definition of life is heart and brain function, correct?

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 11:52 AM

So your definition of life is heart and brain function, correct?

Of the beginning of human life, more or less. It's part of my definition of the beginning of life.

CrazyK

07-11-2007, 12:15 PM

Of the beginning of human life, more or less. It's part of my definition of the beginning of life.Why is human life distinct then from Animal life? If it is not ok to kill something because it has heart and brain function then you must be a vegetarian.

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 12:25 PM

Why is human life distinct then from Animal life. If it is not ok to kill something because it has heart and brain function then you must be a vegetarian.
Read my post again. I hadn't addressed non-human life at all.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 12:29 PM

Right away it's a person? Based on what?

Well. Let me ask you this. Why would you not think its a person?

1) If you say its just a collection of cells and not a person then that is wrong. We are all made up of millions of cells. So if you're argument would stand then no one with biological origins is a person.

2) If you say that the "zygote" is unaware of its existence. I would argue that newborn babies aren't necessarily aware of there own existence for a few weeks. After which time they start to experiment with emotion, learning etc. and doing more activities associated with higher thought. Yet if a baby is born outside of the womb it would be considered immoral to kill it.

3) If you would say that the zygote isn't conscious. The scientific community as a whole isn't 100% sure what consciousness actually is or can be defined as. There is continuing debate to this day as to how we define consciousness.

4) If you say the zygote looks nothing like a human then you should try watching the discovery health channel. I've seen many instances where people have various genetical flaws that distort their physical features so much that they look like an alien or different species of animal. For example. The person may be born with an abnormally large head, they may be missing various limbs, they may be born without skin (or very little of it) etc. etc. Yet those people are considered humans and to kill one of them would be murder even though they only have the basic shape of a person.

CrazyK

07-11-2007, 12:34 PM

Read my post again. I hadn't addressed non-human life at all.Yes, but you referred to human life as heart and brain function. I want your stance on animal life because for the most part they share these functions as well, and in a morally rational state of affairs everything must work out logically. This is why issues like abortion, gay marriage, and others are very hard to work out. They aren't so cut and dry as what some posters in here try to make it seem.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 12:35 PM

I won't post another consecutive post, promise. But through basic semantics and basic science, can't we very easily determine whether or not sperm+egg = human? I don't pretend to know what stage becomes human, but it seems to me that the word human means more than a sperm and an egg becoming one. Does that mean that by jacking off, I'm throwing away a million half babies every time? Shoudl I feel bad for that?

No. Sperm is just half of the genetic code required to make a person. Again. I've said this numerous times. Sperm is sperm in my opinion. Egg is an egg. Alone they don't qualify as a person in my opinion, since they obviously haven't joined. Once they join, that is when I think it is a person.

I don't think its fair for the government, society or anyone to tell us when someone/something exists or not. You either exist or you don't. There is no magical time window. Once you come into the world the only way out is death. Thats what we do every time a child is aborted. I am here arguing and being a pain in the ass because those children don't have a chance to speak out for themselves.

zen

07-11-2007, 12:41 PM

yay! abortion debate!

I used to care about unborn babies.
I used to think, that of all the murders that happen on this planet, the most innocent victims were the ones who have absolutely no chance to fight for themselves... or speak for themselves, or even cry, so that their mother could hear their pain. They usually don't even have a name yet.

But then I got cynical, and I know this whole world is evil. We are all evil, and one way or another, we will all suffer and die because of our evil and the evil around us (I am not necessarily using "evil" in a religious way, here).
Now, I don't care of people want to kill their own offspring. I am cold to the pain. Who better to take away an unlived life besides the one whose responsibility it was bestowed to bring it upon them.

Everyone must die. If you never knew what you missed, perhaps it is easier.

May all unborn babies die quickly and without pain.

jdeity

07-11-2007, 12:51 PM

However, you say because a baby isn't self aware it then may be eligible to be aborted. If that is the case then abortions should be legal up until about 1 1/2-2years of age after birth, according to your logic.
No, he didn't say that, he asked it hypothetically based upon his statement of brain/heart being the starting point of a human. You can tell that because he started that statement with "Another thing to consider" and ended it with "is it as high a life form as the mother?" He didn't state that that's the case, he was asking you.

Why is human life distinct then from Animal life? If it is not ok to kill something because it has heart and brain function then you must be a vegetarian.

you're twisting his words. He's saying that once a HUMAN develops heart/brain, it's human (or his example said so anyways). You then make it seem like he should be vegetarian, you're misunderstanding what he means. He means that if, according to that definition, once heart/brain have developed in a human fetus, it is human, and that at that point abortion would equal murder. Extrapolating that to his opinion on animals is absurd. Regardless of whether he is vegetarian/vegan/beefeater, is irrelevant to his view on when a HUMAN fetus is considered human.

jdeity

07-11-2007, 12:53 PM

3) If you would say that the zygote isn't conscious. The scientific community as a whole isn't 100% sure what consciousness actually is or can be defined as. There is continuing debate to this day as to how we define consciousness.

That may be true, but I'm pretty sure having equipment such as a brain is a requisite for consciousness.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 12:55 PM

I don't think its fair for the government, society or anyone to tell us when someone/something exists or not.
It's not. That's why the woman who's body the fetus is a part of should be given that choice.

zen

07-11-2007, 01:08 PM

It's not. That's why the woman who's body the fetus is a part of should be given that choice.

Yeah, it's just a tumor, right?

Mind you, politically speaking, I am pro-choice, but I don't get the logic of most pro-choicers.

Seriously, just admit you want the convenience of not having to deal with your mistakes.

It is silly to say that a baby is kill-worthy just because it is inside it's mother.
What difference is there from that, and when an newborn baby is in it's mothers arms, suckling at her breast?
1) the baby is still 100% dependent on it's mother's nurturing care
2) the baby is still being warmed and protected by it's mother's body
3) the baby is hardly any more self aware than it was in the womb, and is not going to start contemplating existentialism

yet, somehow, once it passes through the birth canal, it magically transforms from a pointless lump of tissue into a full blown human being.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 01:18 PM

Yeah, it's just a tumor, right?

Mind you, politically speaking, I am pro-choice, but I don't get the logic of most pro-choicers.

Seriously, just admit you want the convenience of not having to deal with your mistakes.

It is silly to say that a baby is kill-worthy just because it is inside it's mother.
What difference is there from that, and when an newborn baby is in it's mothers arms, suckling at her breast?
1) the baby is still 100% dependent on it's mother's nurturing care
2) the baby is still being warmed and protected by it's mother's body
3) the baby is hardly any more self aware than it was in the womb, and is not going to start contemplating existentialism

yet, somehow, once it passes through the birth canal, it magically transforms from a pointless lump of tissue into a full blown human being.

That's not my position at all.

No matter at what point you decide to label a fetus a person, it is arbitrary - there is (and probably never will be) any clear scientific or any other consensus on the issue. I believe that the only fair way to resolve this problem is to allow the mother to decide this issue because the baby is dependent on its mother for life - it is essentially a part of her body; without her it would die. The mother should be able to decide that she no longer wants the fetus, just as she is able to decide that she no longer wants her pinky fingers.

Once a child is born, despite what you say, it is no longer dependent on the mother. If the mother dies the child can survive. It is no longer part of her body and can easily be forfeited to someone else if she no longer wants it. At that point it would be murder to kill the baby.

You can try to paint me as irresponsible if you like, but I would never personally resort to an abortion, nor do I condone them. In fact, I even agree that abortions are often used simply as a way to escape responsibility and I think that is absolutely abhorrent. Regardless, my position stands.

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 01:21 PM

Well. Let me ask you this. Why would you not think its a person?
Well... let's see... maybe because a zygote lacks the essential qualities that differentiate humans from inanimate clumps of cells?

1) If you say its just a collection of cells and not a person then that is wrong. We are all made up of millions of cells. So if you're argument would stand then no one with biological origins is a person.
Try again. Did I say anywhere that a zygote isn't a person because it's a collection of cells, or did I say that it's not human because it's no more than a collection of cells (essentially lacking the qualities that separate us from lettuce, which is also made up of cells)?

2) If you say that the "zygote" is unaware of its existence. I would argue that newborn babies aren't necessarily aware of there own existence for a few weeks. After which time they start to experiment with emotion, learning etc. and doing more activities associated with higher thought. Yet if a baby is born outside of the womb it would be considered immoral to kill it.
And your point is?

3) If you would say that the zygote isn't conscious. The scientific community as a whole isn't 100% sure what consciousness actually is or can be defined as. There is continuing debate to this day as to how we define consciousness.
What are you carrying on about? Without a brain and without a heart... where do you see a possibility of consciousness?

4) If you say the zygote looks nothing like a human then you should try watching the discovery health channel. I've seen many instances where people have various genetical flaws that distort their physical features so much that they look like an alien or different species of animal. For example. The person may be born with an abnormally large head, they may be missing various limbs, they may be born without skin (or very little of it) etc. etc. Yet those people are considered humans and to kill one of them would be murder even though they only have the basic shape of a person.
And more useless rhetoric that does not make a scientific or well thought out point against abortion. You are appealing to emotion. Again.

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 01:23 PM

Yes, but you referred to human life as heart and brain function. I want your stance on animal life because for the most part they share these functions as well, and in a morally rational state of affairs everything must work out logically. This is why issues like abortion, gay marriage, and others are very hard to work out. They aren't so cut and dry as what some posters in here try to make it seem.

What does the animals' beginning of life have to do with morality? What does gay marriage have to do with the beginning of life in the animal world? I'm thoroughly confused.

Organichu

07-11-2007, 01:24 PM

Hah, I actually got McManigal first, then Paul second.

Edwards, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and Huckabee were all in the bottom twenty.

zen

07-11-2007, 01:25 PM

That's not my position at all.

No matter when point you decide to label a fetus a person, it is arbitrary - there is (and probably never will be) any clear scientific or any other consensus on the issue. I believe that the only fair way to resolve this problem is to allow the mother to decide this issue because the baby is dependent on its mother for life - it is essentially a part of her body; without her it would die. The mother should be able to decide that she no longer wants the fetus, just as she is able to decide that she no longer wants her pinky fingers.

Once a child is born, despite what you say, it is no longer dependent on the mother. If the mother dies the child can survive. It is no longer part of her body and can easily be forfeited to someone else if she no longer wants it. At that point it would be murder to kill the baby.

You can try to paint me as irresponsible if you like, but I would never personally resort to an abortion, nor do I condone them. In fact, I even agree that abortions are often used simply as a way to escape responsibility and I think that is absolutely abhorrent. Regardless, my position stands.

So, what you are saying is that, even though that argument is often presented in way wrapped up in science, it's really a philosophical argument. It is a philosophical concept that seems quit ironic...That, if a baby is dependent on someone to live, a willful act to end that life is not murder because it is in fact not a life, because of the fact that the life is singularly dependent on another life for survival?

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 01:32 PM

So, what you are saying is that, even though that argument is often presented in way wrapped up in science, it's really a philosophical argument. It is a philosophical concept that seems quit ironic...That, if a baby is dependent on someone to live, a willful act to end that life is not murder because it is in fact not a life, because of the fact that the life is singularly dependent on another life for survival?

I would say it is practical rather than philosophical.

But that is the gist of the argument.

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 01:33 PM

No. Sperm is just half of the genetic code required to make a person. Again. I've said this numerous times. Sperm is sperm in my opinion. Egg is an egg. Alone they don't qualify as a person in my opinion, since they obviously haven't joined. Once they join, that is when I think it is a person.
Based on what magic?

I don't think its fair for the government, society or anyone to tell us when someone/something exists or not.
The debate isn't about whether something exists, but about what that existing something is. We're talking about definitions, and we have to define the "something" in order to discuss it. If we are to be honest with ourselves then we have to define it strictly, scientifically, based on the criteria that we are aware of.

You either exist or you don't. There is no magical time window. Once you come into the world the only way out is death. Thats what we do every time a child is aborted. I am here arguing and being a pain in the ass because those children don't have a chance to speak out for themselves.
Want to speak for the lettuce that hasn't been picked yet? Everything exists or doesn't exist, but whether something is alive in the human sense, depends on whether it possesses the qualities that make "living humans". A zygote does not possess those qualities.

zen

07-11-2007, 01:39 PM

Just keep saying that!

"It's not a baby! It's not a human!"

"It's not a baby! It's not a human!"

"It's not a baby! It's not a human!"

"It's not a baby! It's not a human!"

"It's not a baby! It's not a human!"

"It's not a baby! It's not a human!"

You'll believe it, and all will be well.
Denial and rationalization are powerful tools.

That's what I did. I convinced myself that it's not my job to save other people's babies. I don't care about other people's children.

It's not my baby.

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 01:43 PM

Yeah, it's just a tumor, right?

Mind you, politically speaking, I am pro-choice, but I don't get the logic of most pro-choicers.

Seriously, just admit you want the convenience of not having to deal with your mistakes.
Whoa whoa whoa... that's a load of assumptions there. Not every pregnancy is a result of a "mistake" on the part of the mother, and abortion is essential to preserve for such women. Also, regarding the women who do use abortion as a way to end a pregnancy they may have fairly knowingly started, factors may be such that the abortion isn't only for the sake of the mother. It may well be for the sake of the future baby (say, serious disease).

It is silly to say that a baby is kill-worthy just because it is inside it's mother.
Those of us who are pro-choice are usually more precise than that with the language we use to describe the "baby"... because what is inside the mother for a decent while during the beginning of the pregnancy doesn't share essential characteristic of a living "baby".

What difference is there from that, and when an newborn baby is in it's mothers arms, suckling at her breast?
1) the baby is still 100% dependent on it's mother's nurturing care
2) the baby is still being warmed and protected by it's mother's body
3) the baby is hardly any more self aware than it was in the womb, and is not going to start contemplating existentialism
The suckling baby is indisputably alive. A zygote isn't alive by any legal or scientific measure that we have.

yet, somehow, once it passes through the birth canal, it magically transforms from a pointless lump of tissue into a full blown human being.
Nice... but incorrect.

d'Anconia

07-11-2007, 01:46 PM

Here's a good podcast that gives an anarcho-capitalist point of view on the subject of abortions:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_294_DROs_And_Abortion.mp3

"DRO" means "Dispute Resolution Organization" and refers to private organizations that are kinda like insurance companies, etc.

Perhaps the real problem is the participation of the state in this issue...

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 01:52 PM

Edit: Quick fingers Fatrb!

zen

07-11-2007, 01:53 PM

Perhaps the real problem is the participation of the state in this issue...

If the government does not use force to protect a human life, then what should it use force for?

Are there any rights higher than life?

Just curious.

A government that backs up none of its responsibilities with force is anarchy.

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 01:54 PM

sharkall2003

07-11-2007, 01:54 PM

Pro-life(r's) use the term baby, pro-choice uses fetus.

Ron PAUL FTW!

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 01:58 PM

If the government does not use force to protect a human life, then what should it use force for?

Are there any rights higher than life?

Just curious.

A government that backs up none of its responsibilities with force is anarchy.

When life begins, barring any scientific breakthrough, is a value judgement. The pro-life camp seeks to have the state use force to promote its value judgement.

zen

07-11-2007, 02:07 PM

Cut the emo, dude. Apply some science to the issue and see where it gets you.

Wow, we are going in circles. See above.
I backed someone out of the science already.
You can't win on the science argument.
A fetus is the DNA product of two human beings. While it is the womb, it is dependant on it's mother for survival. While it is outside the womb, it is dependent on it's mother for survival. The difference between the two states, SCIENTIFICALLY, is relative. The fact is, the change that occurs when it is born is that it becomes disconnected from it mother (the umbilical cord) and makes no sudden scientific transformation from an inanimate object (or animal or parasite or tumor or alien lifeform) into a human being. The only significant change that occurs is the process of delivery. Arbitrary changes are the terms that people use to identify it. Baby, fetus, zygote, newborn, etc.

After backing out of science, they retreated into philosophical and moralistic judgements and concepts.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 02:07 PM

It's not. That's why the woman who's body the fetus is a part of should be given that choice.

But then you would have to say that it is unfair that the baby does not have the same say?

For instance. My mother had me at 19 years. She could have had an abortion just as easily as anyone else. But she chose to keep me. Am I grateful for that? Everyday. Who wouldn't want to right to live if given the chance? If you were that baby, would you want your own MOTHER to jump at the chance to get rid of you? I think not.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 02:10 PM

Based on what magic?

The debate isn't about whether something exists, but about what that existing something is. We're talking about definitions, and we have to define the "something" in order to discuss it. If we are to be honest with ourselves then we have to define it strictly, scientifically, based on the criteria that we are aware of.

Want to speak for the lettuce that hasn't been picked yet? Everything exists or doesn't exist, but whether something is alive in the human sense, depends on whether it possesses the qualities that make "living humans". A zygote does not possess those qualities.

1) The magic of life. When sperm and egg join they have the entire genetical makeup of a person. A human being.

2) Then that criteria should be re-evaluated to include children.

3) Lettuce cannot grow up to be sentient. To dream or love, etc.

What qualities do you think make a person a person? When you can look at it and feel guilty enough not to kill it outright?

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 02:11 PM

But then you would have to say that it is unfair that the baby does not have the same say?

For instance. My mother had me at 19 years. She could have had an abortion just as easily as anyone else. But she chose to keep me. Am I grateful for that? Everyday. Who wouldn't want to right to live if given the chance? If you were that baby, would you want your own MOTHER to jump at the chance to get rid of you?

I have already expressed my distaste for abortion. You are not going to sway my with that kind of argument.

I've also expressed that I think it is unfair that a fetus is terminated, but as far as I know it's not possible to ask a fetus what it thinks.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 02:12 PM

I have already expressed my distaste for abortion. You are not going to sway my with that kind of argument.

I've also expressed that I think it is unfair that a fetus is terminated, but as far as I know it's not possible to ask a fetus what it thinks.

I was just trying to give a hypothetical question that if given the chance everyone would want to exist.

It is impossible to ask a dog what it thinks yet it would be animal cruelty to have it killed without cause.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 02:13 PM

While it is the womb, it is dependant on it's mother for survival. While it is outside the womb, it is dependent on it's mother for survival. The difference between the two states, SCIENTIFICALLY, is relative. The fact is, the change that occurs when it is born is that it becomes disconnected from it mother (the umbilical cord) and makes no sudden scientific transformation from an inanimate object (or animal or parasite or tumor or alien lifeform) into a human being. The only significant change that occurs is the process of delivery. Arbitrary changes are the terms that people use to identify it. Baby, fetus, zygote, newborn, etc.

The difference is not arbitrary at all. In the womb, a fetus is dependent on its mother. Once born a baby is dependent on anyone who decides to take care of it.

In the womb, the biological life processes of the fetus are dependent on the mother. once born, the biological life processes of an infant are dependent only on its own body.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 02:16 PM

I was just trying to give a hypothetical question that if given the chance everyone would want to exist.

It is impossible to ask a dog what it thinks yet it would be animal cruelty to have it killed without cause.

Actually, and this is very off-topic, that is not considered animal cruelty. In fact, the Humane Society does that every day.

And by your logic - again - you would have to ban masturbation, sex for pleasure, periods, etc. etc. Because those cells, just as a fetus, have the potential to form into a baby, and if they had a choice they would want to be alive.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 02:16 PM

The difference is not arbitrary at all. In the womb, a fetus is dependent on its mother. Once born a baby is dependent on anyone who decides to take care of it.

In the womb, the biological life processes of the fetus are dependent on the mother. The biological life processes of an infant are dependent only on its own body.

Yet the child is still dependent regardless of who or what it is dependent on so this is a self-defeating argument. You still do not rid yourself of dependence. The child will be extremely helpless for many years.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 02:17 PM

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 02:20 PM

Actually, and this is very off-topic, that is not considered animal cruelty. In fact, the Humane Society does that every day.

And by your logic - again - you would have to ban masturbation, sex for pleasure, periods, etc. etc. Because those cells, just as a fetus, have the potential to form into a baby, and if they had a choice they would want to be alive.

1) Depending on the circumstances. But if I stomped out a cat I would probably go to jail.

2) But sperm is only half of the genetic code. I.E. not the full biological tools to make a person. I consider sperm and egg the biological tools to MAKE a person by themselves but once they join, then I consider that a person.

A sperm would never want to be alive. It will always be a sperm. When it stops being a sperm. Two things happen. Either it dies or it joins an egg to form a human. Its like a marriage. Marriage is incomplete with just one person. Marriage takes two people just like a person takes an egg and a sperm.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 02:23 PM

1) Depending on the circumstances. But if I stomped out a cat I would probably go to jail.

2) But sperm is only half of the genetic code. I.E. not the full biological tools to make a person. I consider sperm and egg the biological tools to MAKE a person by themselves but once they join, then I consider that a person.

A sperm would never want to be alive. It will always be a sperm. When it stops being a sperm. Two things happen. Either it dies or it joins an egg to form a human. Its like a marriage. Marriage is incomplete with just one person. Marriage takes two people just like a person takes an egg and a sperm.

A fertilized egg would never want to be alive, it will always be a fertilized egg. Two things happen. Either it dies or it becomes a fetus with the possibility of becoming a human.

A person takes an egg, a sperm and nine months.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 02:23 PM

Jordan, you are missing my point entirely.

Because a fetus cannot exist without the mother's body, it is part of her body to do with as she pleases. Once a baby can exist independently of its mother's body it is an independent human being, with all the rights that that entails.

So the child is basically a victim of circumstance?

Would it be any different if the child did not gestate in the womb? Would your argument be any different if we were born from....a hard shelled egg? Like a chicken or crocodile?

So again. Your argument is simply about location. Depending on where the child is located constitutes if its a human being or not.

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 02:24 PM

Wow, we are going in circles. See above.
I backed someone out of the science already.
You can't win on the science argument.
A fetus is the DNA product of two human beings.
So is a corpse.

While it is the womb, it is dependant on it's mother for survival. While it is outside the womb, it is dependent on it's mother for survival. The difference between the two states, SCIENTIFICALLY, is relative.
Scientifically, a breathing, thinking, walking, talking, sleeping human being possesses qualities and actual means to facilitate those qualities that a sperm that had just made its way inside an egg do not. They aren't even comparable. That said, the focus in the abortion debate is on the beginning point of life, not anything else, really.

The fact is, the change that occurs when it is born is that it becomes disconnected from it mother (the umbilical cord) and makes no sudden scientific transformation from an inanimate object (or animal or parasite or tumor or alien lifeform) into a human being.
Waitaminute... look through my posts. At no point do I advocate abortion of a late development fetus. In all the discussions about when I consider life possibly beginning I specifically talk about early/mid development. Please don't muddy the debate by attacking concepts I didn't endorse.

The only significant change that occurs is the process of delivery. Arbitrary changes are the terms that people use to identify it. Baby, fetus, zygote, newborn, etc.
"Baby" is an emotional terms. Fetus and zygote are scientific terms that refer to a fairly precise stage of development.

After backing out of science, they retreated into philosophical and moralistic judgements and concepts.
?

Paul Stagg

07-11-2007, 02:25 PM

Just wanted to jump in here and make a few remarks:

1) I didn't read everything, but in skimming through it's nice to see we are pretty much not hurling insults at each other when this topic is so remarkably volitile.

2) Someone mentioned the Libertarian view on abortion. Libertarians are split, much for the reasons you guys outline - it all depends on when property rights exist, and when the property rights of the child/fetus/zygote/cells usurp those of the mother/parent/host organism. It's a tough question.

3) The logically sound position to hold from a property rights perspective is extreme if you are anti-abortion, in that if property rights start at the moment of conception, they start regardless of any other mitigating factor, which means there are not rape/incest/health of mother exceptions. This is why many of us, regardless of our personal belief, find anti-abortion politics distasteful, as the idea that there are exceptions makes it pretty clear this is legislation of a particular behavioral morality, not of actual rights.

4) Regardless of any of this, abortion is not a federal issue, just like murder isn't. It's my understanding that is the position of Ron Paul on the issue, as well, although I don't know that for sure.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 02:25 PM

A fertilized egg would never want to be alive, it will always be a fertilized egg. Two things happen. Either it dies or it becomes a fetus with the possibility of becoming a human.

A person takes an egg, a sperm and nine months.

What about premature babies? They do not take 9 months. Is it ok to abort a fetus 8 months and 29 days old?

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 02:32 PM

So the child is basically a victim of circumstance?

Would it be any different if the child did not gestate in the womb? Would your argument be any different if we were born from....a hard shelled egg? Like a chicken or crocodile?

So again. Your argument is simply about location. Depending on where the child is located constitutes if its a human being or not.

The relationship to location is only coincidental.

I would liken the issue to someone on life support.

An individual on life support is dependent on machines for some (if not all) of its vital biological processes.

Likewise, a fetus in the womb is dependent on its mother for all of its vital biological processes.

Now, regardless of your moral position on life support, I don't think you would consider it murder if someone were taken off life support. You are not actively killing someone, but simply removing that which enabled them to survive in the first place.

Likewise, it is not murder to remove a fetus from the mother's womb. You are simply removing that which enabled it to survive in the first place.

Now, in either of these cases, if the person/fetus in question was able to survive independently it would be wrong to end its life - that would be murder.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 02:34 PM

What about premature babies? They do not take 9 months. Is it ok to abort a fetus 8 months and 29 days old?

As outlined in my previous post, it is wrong to kill a human being when they can survive independently (and by this I mean perform vital biological processes).

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 02:35 PM

But then you would have to say that it is unfair that the baby does not have the same say?
Do you ask a table its opinion every time you wish to move it? The zygote can't have an opinion no matter how much you ask it.

Who wouldn't want to right to live if given the chance?
The future kid of an abusive/****ty parent, most kids in severely impoverished countries, etc.

If you were that baby, would you want your own MOTHER to jump at the chance to get rid of you? I think not.
Please don't project sentient and intelligent qualities to something that doesn't even possess a brain.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 02:37 PM

After backing out of science, they retreated into philosophical and moralistic judgements and concepts.

I never advocated a scientific argument. Me thinks you are confusing Twilomike's and my arguments.

Science doesn't have an answer for this question. It is de facto a moralistic/philosophical issue.

zen

07-11-2007, 02:43 PM

Twilo, I will re-iterate again. I am pro-choice. You can kill your babies all you want. It's not my problem.

I just think that most pro-choicers should stop trying to use science as a rationalization tool to mask the responsibility that it is in fact a HUMAN LIFE that is being exterminated.
All the science you use does not change the fact that it is a living organism that is a human life. It is not an animal. It is not dead. And even if you call it a collection of cells, it it still LIVING cells (not dead ones) that in a human stage of development.

Someone who is in a coma cannot feel pain and is not even consciously aware of is own existence. Thusly, there are some cicrumstances where the "plug can be pulled". Even still, no one is denying that it is a human life, just that it may be at the end of one, and the only justification for doing so is the good faith belief that they will never have a quality life. This cannot be said for "a fetus". Everyone who aborts a "fetus" knows that there is less than a 1% chance that they do not have a quality opportunity for life.

So, call it a fetus all you want. You can call someone in a coma a "vegetable" all you want, but doctors will tell you that they can recover. It happens a lot. If you pull the plug, it's your responsibility.

I just want the pro-choicers to admit responsibility. Stop the denial. You know you want to give people the choice to terminate a life (before it has lived one).

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 02:45 PM

1) The magic of life. When sperm and egg join they have the entire genetical makeup of a person. A human being.
So does a corpse. Abortion isn't about whether something is a person, it's about when life begins.

2) Then that criteria should be re-evaluated to include children.
Children are alive. Next topic.

3) Lettuce cannot grow up to be sentient. To dream or love, etc.
... or be sick, feel pain, dispair, etc. So we're back to you being upset over the ending of potential of life, not just life?

What qualities do you think make a person a person? When you can look at it and feel guilty enough not to kill it outright?
A born product of male/female reproduction. Until then it may be alive but I wouldn't consider it a person until it's out of the mother and breathing.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 02:49 PM

zen

07-11-2007, 02:53 PM

I just want the pro-choicers to admit responsibility. Stop the denial. You know you want to give people the choice to terminate a life (before it has lived one).

I am not in denial about anything. I admit that I want women to be able to choose what to do with their own body. If that includes killing part of it, so be it.

hahaha! denial on display.
Stop the tricks. You're doing it to yourself.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I promise you I wont jump all over you with a guilt trip if you just admit you are ending a life. Just say it. It's the ending of a human life.

I can do it, and I am pro-choice.

It is the ending of a human life.

TwiloMike

07-11-2007, 02:56 PM

A sperm would never want to be alive.
Did you ask it? What sperm wouldn't want to combine with an egg to create life?

It will always be a sperm. When it stops being a sperm. Two things happen. Either it dies or it joins an egg to form a human. Its like a marriage. Marriage is incomplete with just one person. Marriage takes two people just like a person takes an egg and a sperm.
Now, where do you get off deciding for that sperm whether it's going to be given a chance to mate with an egg or it will die in a condom or paper towel or the shower drain? Every one of your healthy sperm has all the potential necessary to become a full human being if only you give it a chance to mate with an egg. What makes you think that if asked it wouldn't choose to mate with an egg every time?

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 03:05 PM

It may or may not be a human life depending on the point of development and one's definition of the beginning of human life. No matter what point you take life to begin, I would have to agree that based on your definition, abortion any point after that is the termination of human life. However, the point at which life begins is hotly debated (as evidenced by this thread).

I will not take a position on when human life begins because that is an empirical question without an empirical answer. I will, however, take a position on when it is wrong to take a human life, because that is a moral question and I have made a moral judgement.

It is wrong to take a human life at any point after it can survive independently (as I have outlined above). At any point before that, I think it is alright to terminate a human life at the discretion of the mother.

Happy? I choose my words carefully in order to be precise. I was not trying to deny anything.

d'Anconia

07-11-2007, 03:12 PM

If the government does not use force to protect a human life, then what should it use force for?

It is my personal belief that the initiation of force is actually not acceptable. So when you create an entity that has a monopoly on force then you end up in a bit of a pickle.

Are there any rights higher than life?

Well in my opinion, as Stagg pointed out, the idea of "life" is very controversial and looking at things from the standpoint of property rights tends to be more effective. If you had listened to the podcast I linked then you would find that given an absence of a coercive state that abortions would be likely to be minimized. A right to life occurs because a body can belong to an individual, right? It's their property. Forcing away a portion of someone's income (property) to support either side of the issue is unethical IMO. Forcing away income to try to force the right to life is inferior to using consensual contracts to advocate the right to life.

A government that backs up none of its responsibilities with force is anarchy.

Ding ding ding! Not to be confused with "chaos" which seems to be what you're hinting at.

I'm not saying we should just abolish the state today but certainly the more privatization that occurs, the smaller the government becomes, the more effective our society will be at dealing with the ethical issues we perceive as potential problems.

HahnB

07-11-2007, 03:16 PM

d'Anconia

07-11-2007, 03:35 PM

HahnB

07-11-2007, 04:44 PM

^^ I definitely agree to a certain extent. If there is one thing that I have learned from watching the race so far it's that the politicians who are high up in the administration are really locked in there. They have the big banks and mainstream media on their side and they are more powerful than most US citizens would realize.

Yep. The people donating money to campaigns are who select our presidents, not the voters. Once the handful of candidates is selected by the people financing them, it doesn't matter to them which one is elected.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 04:46 PM

The relationship to location is only coincidental.

I would liken the issue to someone on life support.

An individual on life support is dependent on machines for some (if not all) of its vital biological processes.

Likewise, a fetus in the womb is dependent on its mother for all of its vital biological processes.

Now, regardless of your moral position on life support, I don't think you would consider it murder if someone were taken off life support. You are not actively killing someone, but simply removing that which enabled them to survive in the first place.

Likewise, it is not murder to remove a fetus from the mother's womb. You are simply removing that which enabled it to survive in the first place.

Now, in either of these cases, if the person/fetus in question was able to survive independently it would be wrong to end its life - that would be murder.

Some people may not be able to look at the situation that way.

Life support is also an unnatural way of life. Would you argue that a womb is unnatural? The point is that without your intervention the child would live to be a healthy baby. But instead you decided to intervene and kill it or end its biological existence where it was perfectly capable of living had it been left alone. Someone on life support is having death taken away from them by artificial means. Had you left the patient alone. They would have died naturally and on their own.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 04:55 PM

So does a corpse. Abortion isn't about whether something is a person, it's about when life begins.

Children are alive. Next topic.

... or be sick, feel pain, dispair, etc. So we're back to you being upset over the ending of potential of life, not just life?

A born product of male/female reproduction. Until then it may be alive but I wouldn't consider it a person until it's out of the mother and breathing.

1) Ahhhh! So its not about when the zygote becomes a person? Thats odd, I thought that was one of your main arguments. :scratch: The zygote is alive the moment of conception.

Again. Sounding like a broken record. The LOWEST from of biological life are cells. I think I learned that in 3rd grade.....Anyways, cells are considered alive. Bacteria is considered "alive". So the zygote is alive. Had it been "dead" it would never grow into a person even if we left it alone. Inanimate objects are incapable of growing into biological organisms. Its a very basic fact of science.

2) I know. I love children :)

3) I hope that you would agree with me when I say a fetus/zygote is much more...complex even in its earliest stages then a head of lettuce at any stage. The simple fact that it is human/animal cells should give a hint to its complexity.

4) Yet this opinion varies GREATLY from person to person. Others would disagree with you and say that aborting the baby past a certain age (months) is wrong. Some people think its when the baby is born (you) others think its when it develops human physical features (the basic shape) etc. etc. There are a million different people with a million opinions on what is considered an actual baby. Since there is so much variation in public opinion, I don't think we have the right to even attempt to make that distinction.

Jordanbcool

07-11-2007, 05:02 PM

jdeity

07-11-2007, 05:57 PM

Why does the American public focus on such insignificant issues like abortion? The only purpose debating these issues serves is to distract us from real issues-like the pointless war we're fighting. Who cares what candidates are running, we don't select them. We get to "select" a candidate from a group of pre-choosen candidates that, for all intensive purposes, are the exact same.

I don't know if this was your intent, but upon reading your post, I thought to myself 'my, what a slick way to stop this never ending, unwinnable abortion discussion, and refocus on the actual topic of the thread'. Kudos if that was your intent.

Jorge Sanchez

07-11-2007, 06:33 PM

Jorge. You can have your opinions. I'm just trying to explain mine too. Its all good man. Its not like I/we take any of this personally. Its just a bunch of meat heads expressing higher thought.

I was just bored at work. I'm not even American so I don't have any say in who you guys elect anyways.

CrazyK

07-11-2007, 06:48 PM

What does the animals' beginning of life have to do with morality? What does gay marriage have to do with the beginning of life in the animal world? I'm thoroughly confused.If you give moral patienthood as to your definition of life then you must consider that across the board. You can't say life is defined as heart and brain function then not consider the killing of animals who have both functions. Why is there a difference between the definition of when a human is alive versus an animal? If there is a difference can you explain that to me?

Gay marriage is just another topic that people think is cut and dry yet has quite strong non-emo arguements on both sides that people just seem to look past.

TwiloMike

07-12-2007, 07:57 AM

1) Ahhhh! So its not about when the zygote becomes a person? Thats odd, I thought that was one of your main arguments. :scratch: The zygote is alive the moment of conception.
Quote me where I said that that's my main argument.

Again. Sounding like a broken record. The LOWEST from of biological life are cells. I think I learned that in 3rd grade.....Anyways, cells are considered alive. Bacteria is considered "alive". So the zygote is alive. Had it been "dead" it would never grow into a person even if we left it alone. Inanimate objects are incapable of growing into biological organisms. Its a very basic fact of science.
If you consider a zygote to be alive by virtue of its composition of cells then you are a mass murderer since you kill living cells all the time and you even brag about it.

3) I hope that you would agree with me when I say a fetus/zygote is much more...complex even in its earliest stages then a head of lettuce at any stage. The simple fact that it is human/animal cells should give a hint to its complexity.
Source?

4) Yet this opinion varies GREATLY from person to person. Others would disagree with you and say that aborting the baby past a certain age (months) is wrong. Some people think its when the baby is born (you) others think its when it develops human physical features (the basic shape) etc. etc. There are a million different people with a million opinions on what is considered an actual baby. Since there is so much variation in public opinion, I don't think we have the right to even attempt to make that distinction.
So what the heck have you been doing in this thread arguing over when something is alive and/or a person?

TwiloMike

07-12-2007, 08:16 AM

If you give moral patienthood as to your definition of life then you must consider that across the board.
Where have I considered moral patienthood as part of my definition of life?

You can't say life is defined as heart and brain function then not consider the killing of animals who have both functions. Why is there a difference between the definition of when a human is alive versus an animal? If there is a difference can you explain that to me?
Irrelevant because it's extrapolated from an assumption not based in what I said.

Gay marriage is just another topic that people think is cut and dry yet has quite strong non-emo arguements on both sides that people just seem to look past.
Huh? It is quite cut and dry. What's the non-emo argument against same-sex marriage?

jdeity

07-12-2007, 09:33 AM

so, like, do people who think it's a being once the egg meets the sperm, feel guilty when eating caviar? I mean damn, you're eating how many fish per bite?

zen

07-12-2007, 09:50 AM

so, like, do people who think it's a being once the egg meets the sperm, feel guilty when eating caviar? I mean damn, you're eating how many fish per bite?

what does that have to do with anything. Caviar is not human and cannot become human. Unless you are vegetarian, you are eating conceived animals in various stages of development all the time.

People go out on some really odd limbs to try to make a point.

Jorge Sanchez

07-12-2007, 10:11 AM

jdeity

07-12-2007, 10:24 AM

what does that have to do with anything. Caviar is not human and cannot become human. Unless you are vegetarian, you are eating conceived animals in various stages of development all the time.

People go out on some really odd limbs to try to make a point.

I wouldn't say it's that much of a limb - I'm a meat eater, but I wouldn't want to hurt animals anymore than is necessary. I also don't have a problem with abortions. However, if I did have a problem with abortions, because I believed that as soon as egg met sperm there was life, I'd have a lot of trouble eating caviar, because although I don't mind taking animals' lives for food, I'd be doing so in a very very inefficient way - those eggs could've been many fish that would've given many meals. If I believed that once the egg was fertilized the being was then there, I'd feel the same way about eating caviar as I did about killing a cow just to eat 1 little steak from his dead body and throw the rest of him away.

jdeity

07-12-2007, 10:25 AM

CrazyK

07-12-2007, 10:50 AM

Where have I considered moral patienthood as part of my definition of life? You must consider this when determining whether it is right to abort said baby/fetus. That's what the whole debate is about.

Irrelevant because it's extrapolated from an assumption not based in what I said. It's quite relevant because life is life, but we'll leave this one for another time.

Huh? It is quite cut and dry. What's the non-emo argument against same-sex marriage?Responses to the first two in bold. Here are some non-emo arguments against same sex marriage. It's not really a topic I personally hold too many qualms about but it's food for thought.

Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that heterosexual unions provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that is the chief social building block of civilization. Libertarians and others may see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs."[23] They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. These sides of the argument may refer to themselves as "defenders" of traditional marriage. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage", some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children.

A common objection to same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is a result of naturally occurring sexual attraction that leads to procreation and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability. Others argue that because the law does not prohibit marriage between sterile heterosexual couples, or to women past menopause, the procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriage, particularly since technological advances allow gay couples to have their own related biological children.[25]

Another view is that all marriages should thus be viewed legally as "civil unions". These civil unions would then only receive the benefits of marriage which do not require expenditures from the government (e.g. tax breaks), and any monetary benefits would only be awarded based on the number of children living in a household.

Jordanbcool

07-12-2007, 03:19 PM

For those of you who think life begins at conception, or any point before birth, do you believe that someone has died when there is a miscarriage?

This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

Yes.

Most people don't have a funeral or anything for the baby/fetus but I would still consider it a person that had died. My mother has a picture of a child when she had a miscarriage.

Jordanbcool

07-12-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote me where I said that that's my main argument.

If you consider a zygote to be alive by virtue of its composition of cells then you are a mass murderer since you kill living cells all the time and you even brag about it.

Source?

So what the heck have you been doing in this thread arguing over when something is alive and/or a person?

1) Just look back a few pages ago. You've been arguing that for many many posts.

2) I would hope that a human fetus is worth more to you (or anyone) then bacterial cells. No matter the stage of development.

But if I'm a murderer of bacteria. Then yes. I'm cold. :thumbup:

3) See sources.

4) I was simply making the point that for most people; when they consider a "fetus" a person is highly individualistic and varies greatly, often having absolutely nothing to do with science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

TwiloMike

07-14-2007, 11:12 AM

You must consider this when determining whether it is right to abort said baby/fetus. That's what the whole debate is about.
No. The debate is not about whether it's right to abort a zygote because the main variable in determining any righthood (from our living human perspective) is whether it's alive. That is what the debate is about. Once we have successfully determined whether it's alive or not, then we can consider other matters.

It's quite relevant because life is life, but we'll leave this one for another time.
LOL If life is life then every pro-lifer is a major hypocrite since they have no issue killing off non-human life... but life is life, right?

Responses to the first two in bold. Here are some non-emo arguments against same sex marriage. It's not really a topic I personally hold too many qualms about but it's food for thought.

"Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that heterosexual unions provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that is the chief social building block of civilization. Libertarians and others may see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs."[23] They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. These sides of the argument may refer to themselves as "defenders" of traditional marriage. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage", some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children."
That position fails as soon as you consider the following:

1- Procreation is not a requirement in marriage.
2- Marriage is given out to any two consenting opposite-sex adults regardless of whether they are even capable of procreating.
3- Legalizing same-sex marriage in no way takes anything practical away from opposite-sex marriage. Legal same-sex marriage doesn't prevent opposite-sex couples from marrying, having children, and continuing on in the same way that they've been forming families.
4- The position that marriage should be out of the realm of .gov is fine, but as long as it remains an institution with the .gov finger in it, it ought to be granted to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.
5- The "affront to social value and the responsibility of parenting one's own children" is a bull**** argument because:
a)homosexuals do have their own children as well as adopt.
b)as the US is not a homogeneous society the respect for differing social values is one of the core highlights of what it is to be an American. Some people too quickly forget that.

"A common objection to same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is a result of naturally occurring sexual attraction that leads to procreation and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability. Others argue that because the law does not prohibit marriage between sterile heterosexual couples, or to women past menopause, the procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriage, particularly since technological advances allow gay couples to have their own related biological children.[25]"
One correction: technological advances aren't necessary for gays to produce direct offspring. Gay men can summon the will to impregnate (plenty do this), and gay women can summon the will to be impregnated. Neither is actually difficult. Therefore, gays having children and raising them long predates modern technological advances.

"Another view is that all marriages should thus be viewed legally as "civil unions". These civil unions would then only receive the benefits of marriage which do not require expenditures from the government (e.g. tax breaks), and any monetary benefits would only be awarded based on the number of children living in a household."
That seems fair to me, and is not an argument against same-sex marriage in the lease.

TwiloMike

07-14-2007, 11:17 AM

1) Just look back a few pages ago. You've been arguing that for many many posts.
Quote me.

2) I would hope that a human fetus is worth more to you (or anyone) then bacterial cells. No matter the stage of development.
Nu uh. Don't even. Even the most basic cells are alive, so life is life, remember?

But if I'm a murderer of bacteria. Then yes. I'm cold. :thumbup:
The word you're looking for is hypocrite.

3) See sources.
And they are supposed to show me what? Explain your position, don't just throw links about.

4) I was simply making the point that for most people; when they consider a "fetus" a person is highly individualistic and varies greatly, often having absolutely nothing to do with science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote
And when you consider a zygote a "person", it has something to do with science? Explain.

zen

07-14-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote me.
And when you consider a zygote a "person", it has something to do with science? Explain.

if it's a human zygote, it's a human life. if it's an eastern Himalayan orange brush lemur zygote, then it's not a human life.

How does this have to do with science?
A scientist could do an DNA test on your zygote and show that it's human.

How is this more than science?
Because, science or not, that zygote is human and if you kill it, it will be a human who never got a chance at life.

This is all common sense. It's not really that hard to follow.
Read it again, and see how simple it is:

A zygote with human DNA that resulted from human propagation is a human life.

Wow, amazing, isn't it?

It only gets complicated in people's minds because they have built up all of these denial complexes and rationalization constructs in order to fuzzy things up morally and justify the killing of a human fetus.

Then, when they hear the word "zygote" or "fetus", their mind stops, and avoids the issue, because they have their denial mechanism solidly in place. They don't have to use COMMON SENSE to reason out the fact that killing the live human "zygote" is the premature ending of a human life.

CrazyK

07-14-2007, 01:09 PM

No. The debate is not about whether it's right to abort a zygote because the main variable in determining any righthood (from our living human perspective) is whether it's alive. That is what the debate is about. Once we have successfully determined whether it's alive or not, then we can consider other matters. That is what I said. It's about giving moral patienthood to the fetus/baby or not based on where one believes life begins.

LOL If life is life then every pro-lifer is a major hypocrite since they have no issue killing off non-human life... but life is life, right? Yes. I'm not fully decided on the issue myself but I think politics have a lot of hypocrits.

That position fails as soon as you consider the following:

1- Procreation is not a requirement in marriage.
2- Marriage is given out to any two consenting opposite-sex adults regardless of whether they are even capable of procreating.
3- Legalizing same-sex marriage in no way takes anything practical away from opposite-sex marriage. Legal same-sex marriage doesn't prevent opposite-sex couples from marrying, having children, and continuing on in the same way that they've been forming families.
4- The position that marriage should be out of the realm of .gov is fine, but as long as it remains an institution with the .gov finger in it, it ought to be granted to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.
5- The "affront to social value and the responsibility of parenting one's own children" is a bull**** argument because:
a)homosexuals do have their own children as well as adopt.
b)as the US is not a homogeneous society the respect for differing social values is one of the core highlights of what it is to be an American. Some people too quickly forget that.

One correction: technological advances aren't necessary for gays to produce direct offspring. Gay men can summon the will to impregnate (plenty do this), and gay women can summon the will to be impregnated. Neither is actually difficult. Therefore, gays having children and raising them long predates modern technological advances.

That seems fair to me, and is not an argument against same-sex marriage in the lease. You're spewing emotion about the topic. Ignoring a lot of sociological facts about marriage with your own views. It's not a very important topic to me, but I can see as a gay man how emotion can get in the way of logic for you. It happens on both sides of the debate.

TwiloMike

07-14-2007, 01:49 PM

You're spewing emotion about the topic. Ignoring a lot of sociological facts about marriage with your own views. It's not a very important topic to me, but I can see as a gay man how emotion can get in the way of logic for you. It happens on both sides of the debate.

Points 1-3 are not based in any emotion whatsoever. They're pure fact. Point 4 can be taken either way, and point 5 is a mix of fact and subjective value.

TwiloMike

07-14-2007, 02:00 PM

if it's a human zygote, it's a human life. if it's an eastern Himalayan orange brush lemur zygote, then it's not a human life.

How does this have to do with science?
A scientist could do an DNA test on your zygote and show that it's human.
Sure. He can do the same thing with a human corpse. I don't see why this is even relevant. I don't see anyone claiming that a zygote is unrelated to humans.

How is this more than science?
Because, science or not, that zygote is human and if you kill it, it will be a human who never got a chance at life.
Not so fast. Never got a chance at life? As in never got to live? It is not possible to kill that which hasn't lived, and whether or not it's alive isn't proved by the presense of human DNA.

This is all common sense. It's not really that hard to follow.
Read it again, and see how simple it is:

A zygote with human DNA that resulted from human propagation is a human life.
It's a zygote, but you've yet to show that it's "a human life".

Wow, amazing, isn't it?
Not really. I don't see what you're excited about.

It only gets complicated in people's minds because they have built up all of these denial complexes and rationalization constructs in order to fuzzy things up morally and justify the killing of a human fetus.
Can't kill that which isn't alive.

Then, when they hear the word "zygote" or "fetus", their mind stops, and avoids the issue, because they have their denial mechanism solidly in place. They don't have to use COMMON SENSE to reason out the fact that killing the live human "zygote" is the premature ending of a human life.
Assume much? Common sense dictates that something that's never had a heart, brain, or other features that when operational constitute someone being alive, isn't a life that can be ended prematurely.

Organichu

07-14-2007, 03:13 PM

Curious, ya'll.

Who do you plan to vote for?

Jordanbcool

07-14-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote me.

Nu uh. Don't even. Even the most basic cells are alive, so life is life, remember?

The word you're looking for is hypocrite.

And they are supposed to show me what? Explain your position, don't just throw links about.

And when you consider a zygote a "person", it has something to do with science? Explain.

1) Ok.

2) That is not the point. You're sidestepping everything. The point is that human life should be worth more then any sort of plant, animal or microbial life. I don't think I've ever met someone who feels otherwise. I never said that plant cells or any other type of cells for that matter are not life.

3) Not likely. Again look at the above argument.

4) That animal cells are typically more complex in their roles in relation to human biology.

5) It has all the available genetic information and capabilities to form a human being. Plain and simple science. Does it have the DNA of an elephant at conception?

Didn't think so. Therefore genetically it is human. Hows that for science?

Mike if anyone is disregarding science it is you.

Jordanbcool

07-14-2007, 03:49 PM

Well... let's see... maybe because a zygote lacks the essential qualities that differentiate humans from inanimate clumps of cells?

Try again. Did I say anywhere that a zygote isn't a person because it's a collection of cells, or did I say that it's not human because it's no more than a collection of cells (essentially lacking the qualities that separate us from lettuce, which is also made up of cells)?

And your point is?

What are you carrying on about? Without a brain and without a heart... where do you see a possibility of consciousness?

And more useless rhetoric that does not make a scientific or well thought out point against abortion. You are appealing to emotion. Again.

Page 4

1) If you'd like to read it for yourself. You've been arguing that a zygote isn't a person for many pages now. To top it all off you won't even own up to it.

2) Again cells are life. They are the lowest form of definable life. You're denying basic elementary science.

You are having a hard time distinguishing between life and life that you would consider "human". I.E. The zygote had ALWAYS been life. But your argument is that it isn't human enough (certain physical attributes) for you to define it as human life. But the basic principle still stands. It is life no matter what your personal prejudices are.

I shouldn't have to clean up your arguments.

CrazyK

07-14-2007, 04:01 PM

Curious, ya'll.

Who do you plan to vote for?I will not vote. US politics are too corrupt for me to justify voting.

d'Anconia

07-14-2007, 05:43 PM

^^ If Ron Paul does not get the nomination then I will possibly refrain from voting until there's another respectable candidate (not for a long time, it's a stretch for me even voting for Ron Paul).

jdeity

07-14-2007, 06:05 PM

Curious, ya'll.

Who do you plan to vote for?

Ron Paul if he's a choice, based on what I know about him... need more research, but love his views on drugs, limited government, and adherence to the constitution. I've also *read* that he has an insanely consistent voting record, which I view as an important, strong attribute for a president to have.

BilltheButcher

07-14-2007, 07:15 PM

Tough to say whom I am voting for. Between now and then I still think Gore and Thompson are going to get into the race. I need to see the candidates from this group. Since I doubt Paul would get the nod, right now I would vote for Guiliani, he has similar social views I have and I think he will do the best at securing the borders.

CrazyK

07-14-2007, 07:25 PM

^^ If Ron Paul does not get the nomination then I will possibly refrain from voting until there's another respectable candidate (not for a long time, it's a stretch for me even voting for Ron Paul).I don't think Miss Rand had a very pleasant opinion about the Libertarian party ;)

zen

07-14-2007, 08:15 PM

Sure. He can do the same thing with a human corpse. I don't see why this is even relevant. I don't see anyone claiming that a zygote is unrelated to humans.

Not so fast. Never got a chance at life? As in never got to live? It is not possible to kill that which hasn't lived, and whether or not it's alive isn't proved by the presense of human DNA.

It's a zygote, but you've yet to show that it's "a human life".

Not really. I don't see what you're excited about.

Can't kill that which isn't alive.

Assume much? Common sense dictates that something that's never had a heart, brain, or other features that when operational constitute someone being alive, isn't a life that can be ended prematurely.

There's a lot of 'philosophy' in your answers.
Basically, what you are trying to do is say is "what (s)he doesn't know doesn't hurt".
Like I said before you even replied to me, it's all about denial and rationalization. Out of sight, out of mind. As long as you don't see someone before you, then you don't feel an ounce of guilt taking their life away from them. You even go so far as to imply that they never existed in the first place, as if some alternate reality crosses the stitches of dimension and makes a new reality when after the abortion.
Who cares if they had their life taken away from them before they ever got a chance to live? They never got to consciously contemplate their own loss, so it doesn't matter. As if, it would be okay to take peoples lives if you did it in their sleep, humanely, so that they never knew what they lost.

BilltheButcher

07-14-2007, 08:51 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

shootermcgavin7

07-14-2007, 08:56 PM

I have no idea who I'll vote for. Despite their very different views on Iraq, I have liked both Richardson & McCain for a long time.

I don't know if I could choose on in a general election (although I doubt either would make it that far).

sharkall2003

07-14-2007, 11:04 PM

I'll vote for Ron Paul, unless he's not on the ballot. Then I have to go with probably John McCain.

Rock Steady

07-15-2007, 12:15 AM

Man Bear Pig.

Probably already been posted: Pig Bear Man! Bear Pig Man!

KingJustin

07-15-2007, 12:50 AM

On the democratic side I like Richardson. I don't think he has any chance though.

I like Ron Paul by far the most on the Republican side. After him, John McCain is the most likely to actually cut spending significantly. Romney has a history of socializing medicine and adding billions of dollars to an already heavily inflated budget. Giuliani spent an average of 2.5% more every year in New York as mayor. Fred Thompson is OK, but his voting record is very moderate fiscally.

None of these candidates are going to have anything to do with whether or not abortions are permitted. If you want to reduce federal spending, then vote for Ron Paul or John McCain. Otherwise, the other candidates have the exact same platform as George W. Bush.

d'Anconia

07-15-2007, 01:29 AM

I don't think Miss Rand had a very pleasant opinion about the Libertarian party ;)

In all honesty I loved Rand after I read Atlas Shrugged, especially considering she made arguments not just based on what *worked* but provided a MORAL argument for her stances.
Fast forward 6 months and I found out that she was incredibly arrogant and would write people off for not liking a specific composer over another. Apparently she had also tried making the argument that the cigarette is the pinnacle of human achievement. While in a relationship apparently she told her significant other that she was going to have an affair and spent time telling him the rationale behind why it makes sense for her to have an affair. I'm sorry but that just kinda creeps me out.

Plus the Rand Institute supports the Iraq War. The Objectivist movement has decided to wage war on Islam and of course that crusade will be funded by taxes collected at the point of a gun.

Atlas Shrugged = Awesome. Objectivism = *almost* there but not quite. Rand can say whatever she wants about Libertarians but most anarcho-capitalists (who, to me, have been the most rational group out of any) treat her like a complete joke and rightfully so.

d'Anconia

07-15-2007, 01:32 AM

On another note I'm skeptical of Thompson as he's being backed by and hiring the same people who were involved with Bush's campaign. To be honest I'm very skeptical of anyone on the Council of Foreign Relations.

With regards to voting for Ron Paul in the general election... try your best to vote for him in the primaries so he's able to make it into the general election.

PS I went to my first Republican Party meeting this last week and boy was that an experience... tried to make sure no one saw me not say the words "under God" during the pledge. Most of the members are still unwilling to show dissent against Bush and it's like morality or integrity aren't even in these people's vocab.

Songsangnim

07-15-2007, 05:43 AM

PS I went to my first Republican Party meeting this last week and boy was that an experience... tried to make sure no one saw me not say the words "under God" during the pledge. Most of the members are still unwilling to show dissent against Bush and it's like morality or integrity aren't even in these people's vocab.

Hmmm....sounds eerily like the Democratic party.:evillaugh

"Vote for us...we'll cut off the funding....uhh we were only kidding"

KingJustin

07-15-2007, 10:33 AM

Jordanbcool

07-15-2007, 10:43 AM

My roommate went to the young republican national convention in Miami as well as the college republican national convention here in Washington. He is a socially moderate Republican, and he said that the people he met were very against that. Several people apparently very seriously wanted to "send all them mexicans back" "round 'em up and put 'em in box cars!"

Although it sounds harsh I pretty much agree with that stance.

sharkall2003

07-15-2007, 11:26 AM

My roommate went to the young republican national convention in Miami as well as the college republican national convention here in Washington. He is a socially moderate Republican, and he said that the people he met were very against that. Several people apparently very seriously wanted to "send all them mexicans back" "round 'em up and put 'em in box cars!"

That's why I no longer say I'm Republican. They're not all bad, and they're not all good. This is in regards to all nationalities/races/ethnic backgrounds.

d'Anconia

07-16-2007, 12:15 PM

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_is_the_US_Military_s_1_Choice

Yes you heard me right. Now that all Q2 financial reports from both sides are publicized we can see who is getting money from where.

It has been no surprise that the contributions from the US Navy, US Army, US Air Force, and US Veterans tends to favor the Republican Party but what might be a little surprising is that Congressman Ron Paul leads the pack overall with more contributions than even Senator John McCain. Here are the numbers (in dollars) as compiled by eaglescout over at TheSpinFactor.com:

NAME: TOTAL [ARMY] [NAVY] [AIRFORCE] [VETERAN]

RON PAUL: 23,465 [6,975] [6,765] [4,650] [5,075]
McCain: 15,825 [6925] [6305] [1795] [800]
Romney: 3,551 [2,051] [0] [1500] [0]
Rudy: 2,320 [1,450] [370] [250] [250]
Hunter: 1000 [0] [1000] [0]
Richardson: 800 [50] [750] [0]
Huckabee: 750 [250] [0] [500]
Tancredo: 350 [350] [0] [0]
Brownback: 71 [71] [0] [0]
Thompson: 0 [0] [0] [0]

Units are contributions in dollars by employees of the respective military organizations (all numbers can be found via the FEC Website ).

I would have jumped to the conclusion that our soldiers are ticked off that they have to be fighting an unecessary war against an invisible enemy in 120+ degree weather BUT that would certainly not explain why many veterans would be supporting Ron Paul. This sentiment probably stems from Congressman (and US Air Force veteran) Paul's honesty, as well as his ability to both use and communicate solid reasoning. Soldiers must not like how they are being used for the whims of corrupt politicians and I'm sure would like to get back to the days when they were used in the honorable role of protecting freedom... something Dr. No has consistently done from his seat in Congress and would undoubtedly do from his seat in the Oval Office.

(Please let me know if there are any major errors in data or facts)

sharkall2003

07-16-2007, 02:15 PM

Ron Paul FTW!

d'Anconia

07-19-2007, 04:19 AM

For those of you who know what my real name is and where I"m from... you will especially enjoy this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014191.html

Chubrock

07-19-2007, 06:54 AM

If that was you, that's awesome. Soooo yea, take a guess... hahaha.

Jorge Sanchez

07-19-2007, 09:13 AM

"Let me first say that you are a great American." I love it.

Was that actually you, or was it just a coincidence?

bjohnso

07-19-2007, 09:45 AM

Somebody should start a list of Ron Paul facts, like those Chuck Norris facts that everybody loves so much.

d'Anconia

07-19-2007, 09:03 PM

"Let me first say that you are a great American." I love it.

Was that actually you, or was it just a coincidence?

Hhahahaha yeah it was me. Took me a while to get on but I got him GOOD.

KingJustin

07-19-2007, 09:33 PM

Haha that was a really smart move.

Also, I think Ron Paul should consider focusing maybe a bit more on the fact that he will make real reductions in government spending and size. He's the only candidate that will actually do it, and in a Republican primary, that's really a great way to reach out to voters.

TwiloMike

07-20-2007, 05:11 AM

For those of you who know what my real name is and where I"m from... you will especially enjoy this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014191.html

Is that your natural accent or were you faking it?

Jorge Sanchez

07-20-2007, 09:56 AM

Is that your natural accent or were you faking it?

I was wondering that, too.

01011991

08-22-2007, 08:29 PM

The value of having Ron Paul isn't that he might win - of course he won't. But his ideas are so clear and make so much sense that it makes everyone else look ridiculous and might get the audience (in "debates" for example) to actually think.

Itsnotaboutme

08-22-2007, 08:37 PM

Didn't Ron Paul hire a stripper? lol it was on the news today....hehe

d'Anconia

08-22-2007, 08:44 PM

I didn't see it but something about a former stripper supporting him or something.

Ron Paul has the support of both strippers AND gamblers. Ron Paul is legend.

shootermcgavin7

08-22-2007, 09:28 PM

I think it would be pretty entertaining if he tried to give a speech tomorrow wanting a constant money supply.

The markets would love that one...............

CrazyK

10-11-2007, 02:59 AM

He's an honest man. My vote will go to Ron Paul in the upcoming elections.

razorcut

05-21-2008, 02:19 PM

My vote's not going to Paul, but good for you for getting involved.

Well...almost a year later I made a liar out of myself (at least in the primary). We finally got around to voting here in KY yesterday. As a registered republican, I had a whole two choices remaining. My original candidate (Rudy) was gone long ago. I will under no circumstance bring myself to vote McCain, thus it was Paul by default.

Having said that, I'll be one of many Republicans voting Obama come November. That's if I haven't re-registering Democrat/Independent before then. My fiscally conservative views likely aren't enough to keep me in the GOP much longer. Flame away if you will....

zen

05-21-2008, 02:23 PM

I was just thinking about all the Ron Paul-ites here today.

What made me think of it is hearing about all the Hillary supporters saying that they will not support Obama, and already knowing how many republicans who can't stand McCain's lack of conservative backbone, what a great year it would be for a 3rd party..... Everything is splintered on both sides, and if Nader came out and stole some of the greenies too, a constitutionalite like Ron Paul would be in perfect position to cherry-pick voting blocks from the many many blocks that will be out there this time around.

KingJustin

05-21-2008, 03:31 PM

I don't think it will be good for a third party candidate at all.

Obama and McCain are very appealing to Independent voters. Most the Dems that dislike Obama are just racists. A lot of them openly admit it, as the exit polls in West Virginia and Kentucky clearly show.

I don't see these people voting for Ron Paul at all. They are big government idiots.

On the other side, the people that don't like McCain had their chance with Ron Paul, and generally they ridiculed him. Most of these people are social conservatives who like to referee the Middle East. This is basically exactly opposite of what Ron Paul stands for.

I really have no idea who I'm voting for: Obama, McCain or Bob Barr (pseudo-Libertarian).

ncsuLuke

05-21-2008, 04:58 PM

Well...almost a year later I made a liar out of myself (at least in the primary). We finally got around to voting here in KY yesterday. As a registered republican, I had a whole two choices remaining. My original candidate (Rudy) was gone long ago. I will under no circumstance bring myself to vote McCain, thus it was Paul by default.

Having said that, I'll be one of many Republicans voting Obama come November. That's if I haven't re-registering Democrat/Independent before then. My fiscally conservative views likely aren't enough to keep me in the GOP much longer. Flame away if you will....

lol

how can you even put fiscally conservative and voting for obama in the same paragraph? i dont get these people who supported ron paul and now that he isnt in it say they are going to vote for obama. candidates like obama are SO far off from what ron paul stands for it is ridiculous.

KingJustin

05-21-2008, 05:35 PM

By far my #1 criteria for who I will vote for boils down to one question...
"Who will cut spending more overall?"

Barrack Obama will have worthless social programs, while John McCain will stay in Iraq without making any progress. I'm pretty sure McCain's war costs will be much, much higher than Obama's social programs in the short term, but long term it may change.

Anyway, my point is that I think it makes sense to be pro-Paul before and leaning Obama now.

(Other reasons include the fact that Obama's stances on social issues are pretty good)

razorcut

05-21-2008, 06:35 PM

how can you even put fiscally conservative and voting for obama in the same paragraph?
Never said Obama was fiscally conservative. I said that's the only thing keeping me hanging on to the GOP at this point.

i dont get these people who supported ron paul and now that he isnt in it say they are going to vote for obama. candidates like obama are SO far off from what ron paul stands for it is ridiculous.
My primary concern this election cycle is removing ourself from the Iraq situation (Obama/Paul have similar stances here);
My secondary concern is social issues (Obama/Paul are similar here as well);
My fiscal views are still a concern, but taking somewhat of a backseat to other issues currently.

BilltheButcher

05-21-2008, 07:50 PM

My primary concern this election cycle is removing ourself from the Iraq situation (Obama/Paul have similar stances here);

I have yet to hear Obama give his startegy for Iraq. I have heard him say that he is going to continue fighting in Afgahnistan and possibly Pakistan. Yes, he was against a war HE DIDN'T HAVE TO VOTE for or against.

My secondary concern is social issues (Obama/Paul are similar here as well);

Wow, this is so far off its crazy. Obama is hugely anti-2nd amendment it is scary. Listen to his wife speak and you become scared *****less that anyone can think like that. You would think the American dream is so impossible to reach that you shouldn't even bother. He is a huge socialist and the most liberal member of Congress. He is pro abortion, Paul is an OB. Obama is a tax payers worse nightmare and as Paul has said he is a tax payers best friend since he votes against most taxes.

ncsuLuke

05-21-2008, 09:29 PM

Never said Obama was fiscally conservative. I said that's the only thing keeping me hanging on to the GOP at this point.

My primary concern this election cycle is removing ourself from the Iraq situation (Obama/Paul have similar stances here);
My secondary concern is social issues (Obama/Paul are similar here as well);
My fiscal views are still a concern, but taking somewhat of a backseat to other issues currently.

you mean they are completely opposite on social issues right?

good lord that is so far off

CrazyK

05-21-2008, 09:35 PM

you mean they are completely opposite on social issues right?

good lord that is so far offTrue but my campaign slogan this year is "Anybody but McCain 08!". Obama FTW!

blackboard

05-21-2008, 11:41 PM

I have yet to hear Obama give his startegy for Iraq. I have heard him say that he is going to continue fighting in Afgahnistan and possibly Pakistan. Yes, he was against a war HE DIDN'T HAVE TO VOTE for or against.

Wow, this is so far off its crazy. Obama is hugely anti-2nd amendment it is scary. Listen to his wife speak and you become scared *****less that anyone can think like that. You would think the American dream is so impossible to reach that you shouldn't even bother. He is a huge socialist and the most liberal member of Congress. He is pro abortion, Paul is an OB. Obama is a tax payers worse nightmare and as Paul has said he is a tax payers best friend since he votes against most taxes.

Still attacking Obama? Why don't you just come out and say Obama might be Muslims OMG! I rather have my tax dollars going to social programs vs funding
Middle Eastern wars. If you took 10 sec to check out his website etc you can read up on his Iraq plans. Your post pretty much sums up Fearmongering.

ProLogic

05-21-2008, 11:45 PM

Songsangnim

05-22-2008, 12:59 AM

CrazyK

05-22-2008, 01:05 AM

This is very true. She has made comments about benefitting the black community "first and foremost". Hello, you're not running for president of the black community.

And remember her remarks about Americans being ignorant and about being proud of America for the first time in her life?Is Obama's wife or Pastor Wright running for President?

zen

05-22-2008, 06:57 AM

Is Obama's wife or Pastor Wright running for President?

Yes.

blackboard

05-22-2008, 07:11 AM

mrelwooddowd

05-22-2008, 08:02 AM

Every time i see Obama, it makes me think of that passage in the book of Revelation where it talks about the coming of the anti-christ, and refers to him as 'silver-tongued."

Now, that's an extrememe, of course. But, I just get this feeling that he's all show, and he'll get elected, sit down in the oval office and say "uhhhh...what now?"

And, it'll be one bad decision after another, made by him and a group of poorly -chosen associates.

SDS

05-22-2008, 08:23 AM

Good grief......overcomplicate things why don't we? Your vote doesn't mean ****. Studying and researching candidates is worthless and a waste of time. Even if you do find one that aligns with your belief system, he/she is most likely lying about their position.
Just go vote for Ron Paul in the general. A vote for McCain or Obama will get you 4 years of the same, period. A vote for Paul isn't a wasted vote, a vote for McCain or Obama is.

zen

05-22-2008, 09:48 AM

A vote for McCain or Obama will get you 4 years of the same, period. A vote for Paul isn't a wasted vote, a vote for McCain or Obama is.

quoted for great truth

if you vote for one of the two party candidates (as usual) your vote is drown with the masses and you can take as much credit for change as yet another front-runner who roots for the Yankees can take credit for their success.

blackboard

05-22-2008, 10:54 AM

Am I missing something here? I like Paul but isn't he part of the Republican party
for people arguing about how its doesn't matter what party you vote for?

zen

05-22-2008, 11:05 AM

Am I missing something here? I like Paul but isn't he part of the Republican party
for people arguing about how its doesn't matter what party you vote for?

Everyone is hung up on and blinded by "party".
That's what's wrong with politics.
Ron Paul is the closest I've hard to a constitutional purist (among any candidates that ever got legitimate recognition) in my lifetime.

razorcut

05-22-2008, 02:16 PM

Wow, this is so far off its crazy.

you mean they are completely opposite on social issues right?
Not really. I didn't say the Obama/Paul social stances were identical....just similar in some respects.

Among Paul's social stances:
*voted to legalize medical marijuana
*against the Patriot Act
*against the Marriage Amendment
*against immigrant ID cards
*voted no on prohibiting flag desecration
*opposes the death penalty

The above-stances are hardly rightward leaning.

He is pro abortion, Paul is an OB.
He is an OB, yes. His personal view is pro-life. However, he wants the federal government completely out of the abortion debate & would rather it be left to the states.

Obama is a tax payers worse nightmare and as Paul has said he is a tax payers best friend since he votes against most taxes.The current US debt is now approximately 9.3 trillion. You do realize a tax hike is likely going to be needed to chip into that, don't you?

BilltheButcher

05-22-2008, 03:04 PM

You do realize a tax hike is likely going to be needed to chip into that, don't you?

No, but maybe cutting spending would be a better answer.

BilltheButcher

05-22-2008, 03:09 PM

Still attacking Obama? Why don't you just come out and say Obama might be Muslims OMG! I rather have my tax dollars going to social programs vs funding
Middle Eastern wars. If you took 10 sec to check out his website etc you can read up on his Iraq plans. Your post pretty much sums up Fearmongering.

Not attacking, jsut pointing out the usual stuff, but I understand a white guy is not allowed to say any thing about Obama, thats racist right?

blackboard

05-22-2008, 03:38 PM

Not attacking, jsut pointing out the usual stuff, but I understand a white guy is not allowed to say any thing about Obama, thats racist right?

Who said anything about you being racist...... but I do understand this seems to be the opening line for some before attacking Obama. Its kind of like reverse psychology, throw in the race card before attacking him.

BilltheButcher

05-22-2008, 03:47 PM

Who said anything about you being racist...... but I do understand this seems to be the opening line for some before attacking Obama. Its kind of like reverse psychology, throw in the race card before attacking him.

Why do you like him so much? I have pointed out in numerous threads why I disagree with him. But usually I get your usual response of oh, attacking Obama well what about McCain he did this, this and this. BTW I am not voting for McCain, so not sure why you think I'm voting Republican.

blackboard

05-22-2008, 04:20 PM

Why do you like him so much? I have pointed out in numerous threads why I disagree with him. But usually I get your usual response of oh, attacking Obama well what about McCain he did this, this and this. BTW I am not voting for McCain, so not sure why you think I'm voting Republican.
I knew from past threads that you didn't support Mccain. I like Obama because I think he brings great hope and change to our country.
The last 8 years for the U.S. have been terrible domestically and internationally. I know some may not care but our international image is probably somewhere between the toilet and the floor. Obama seems to draw a favorable international image, something I think the country needs after Bush. I'm African America, so it's also historical to maybe see the first black president despite the History of slavery. Blacks have supported white democrats at a 90% rate for years, it would be nice to support our own for once.

He also kept off the red, white and blue blinder when it came to supporting the Iraq war. I know you like to hate on Barrack spending but like i said earlier, I'd rather spend money helping the country vs fighting Iraq and probably Iran if Mccain is the President.

razorcut

05-22-2008, 04:27 PM

No, but maybe cutting spending would be a better answer.Part of the solution, absolutely. Not spending 10-12 billion/month in Iraq would be a good start. However, it's going to take a lot more than just frugal spending at this point to erase a $9.3 trillion deficit.

method115

05-22-2008, 05:01 PM

CrazyK

05-22-2008, 05:54 PM

Songsangnim

05-22-2008, 07:03 PM

Songsangnim are you being just as critical about McCain's agenda and Wife? Last time I check a President is suppose to be running for the American people; not backed by lobbyist who only interest is to whatever foreign country or dictatorship they represent. You should do some research on Charlie Black.

Why should I care about McCain? HE is not against NAFTA. Obama wants to use American influence and clout to revise a signed and agreed upon treaty. Sorry, just because you are more powerful doesn't give you the right to revise a treaty that gives you more advantages.

Lets not forget Cindy suddenly scrambling to get rid of her Sudan investments. We could also talk about her drug problem since she's apparently running for president. Do we trust a Woman who steals drugs?

Cindy is not running for president. Plus she doesn't make stupid statements that make people wonder if she's going to be the one making the decisions

If Obama wife said something about Helping black people, so freaking what! Last time I checked she is African America. I know OMG, a black person is very interested in helping black people, get rid of her now before she paints the White House black, gives black citizens 40 acres + a mule and Make Sharpton the Sec of Defense.

Don't try and spin this. She was about helping black people "FIRST AND FOREMOST". That kind of attitude has no business being anywhere near the White House. If you are president or the president's wife, your concern should be for ALL the citizens of America and not based on skin colour. That is just plain WRONG. And if you can't see that...well then there is no point in debating this.

This is the same attitude that tried to make Obama unpatriotic because of a silly flag pin vs half of congress not even supporting a GI Bill to help American troops<- that is what I call unpatriotic.

Supporting a pastor who called upon God to punish America seems pretty unpatriotic to me. But that aside I really don't care about his patriotism as much as his actions and the actions of his wife.

KingJustin

05-22-2008, 07:43 PM

I think the wives of the two candidates need to be taken a bit differently.

Isn't this McCain's third wife? She is pretty hot for someone that old. I don't think he married her because he agrees with her views. She's pretty stupid.

Barrack's wife, on the other hand, has been with him for quite some time. She is very vocal in her support, has debated for him, etc. I don't see McCain letting his wife do nearly as much. I don't think it's far off to say that if we have videos of Barrack's wife saying absolutely ridiculous **** then he probably shares some of those same ridiculous views.

One of the big appeals of Obama, to me, is that he can be a black president who works to make the country see past and ignore race. If, however, I find out that he is secretly another Reverend Wright, who thinks white people invented aids to kill black people, then I'm going to be completely turned away. I find it hard to swallow the fact that he sat through hundreds of sermons from Wright, many of which were blatantly over-the-top racist. I also find it hard to swallow the fact that his wife, as well as Wright, is not afraid to espouse over-the-top racist conspiracy views.
BUT, the man has been in the Senate for several years. He seems very genuine (which many politicians can do very well, granted) and everything I have heard him say indicates that he wants the country to see past race. So, who knows. I'll wait a it longer.

CrazyK

05-22-2008, 10:09 PM

Supporting a pastor who called upon God to punish America seems pretty unpatriotic to me. But that aside I really don't care about his patriotism as much as his actions and the actions of his wife.That's fine but realize McCain and his wife are no better. The Pastor of McCain is ridiculously anti-islamist, and he was a confedant of the late Jerry Fallwell. Who I might add said God did punish America for gays and abortionists right after 9/11 happened.

anelka

05-22-2008, 11:28 PM

Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in hell. The civil unrest in the middle east can be tracked back to Wilson Woodrows time. Its been crazy for a long time, and remains crazy. Its pretty much Britain and Frances fault, yet they're doing very little to help the cause.

Yes, it's Britain and France's fault that a load of muslims want to kill each other because they belong to different sects.

Songsangnim

05-23-2008, 12:00 AM

That's fine but realize McCain and his wife are no better. The Pastor of McCain is ridiculously anti-islamist, and he was a confedant of the late Jerry Fallwell. Who I might add said God did punish America for gays and abortionists right after 9/11 happened.

That is not McCain's pastor. McCain has referred to him as a "spiritual advisor". Nor is he only the only pastor who has endorsed McCain.

And what Jerry Fallwell said has no bearing on McCain, unless McCain implictly supported those views.

CrazyK

05-23-2008, 12:35 AM

That is not McCain's pastor. McCain has referred to him as a "spiritual advisor". Nor is he only the only pastor who has endorsed McCain.

And what Jerry Fallwell said has no bearing on McCain, unless McCain implictly supported those views.When did Obama come out in public and implicitly support Wright's views? And really..."spiritual advisor"...come on now you're smarter then to believe that attempt at framing an issue.

ProLogic

05-23-2008, 12:43 AM

Yes, it's Britain and France's fault that a load of muslims want to kill each other because they belong to different sects.

Do you not know what happened? There was an entire movie on this.. Basically Britain and France drew lines on a map symbolizing borders. They each got their own territory. Ethnic groups were forced out of their lands into anothers. Conflict. decades later we have this.

rdkraus

05-23-2008, 06:52 AM

Here's what's different about looking at the wives.

McCain has a long and detailed record. You can look at it and know pretty much what you're getting. You don't need to listen to his wife. When I look at his record, I know I won't vote for him.

Obama has almost no record. So, for insight into what we might really be getting there (as opposed to the PR campaign that he is running), you have to look at other things: his pastor and mentor, his wife, etc. Doesn't matter to me though, because if you listen to him, and read his positions, he's just another big gov't liberal socialist. So I can't vote for him either.

Then there's Hillary. She is the devil. Can't vote for the devil.

zen

05-23-2008, 07:17 AM

Here's what's different about looking at the wives.

McCain has a long and detailed record. You can look at it and know pretty much what you're getting. You don't need to listen to his wife. When I look at his record, I know I won't vote for him.

Who cares how much of their record is on record. If wives speak in public, then it can be held against them and their husband. It has nothing to do with political party.

rdkraus

05-23-2008, 07:21 AM

Who cares how much of their record is on record. If wives speak in public, then it can be held against them and their husband. It has nothing to do with political party.

Do whatever you want. I'm saying it's not necssary to know McCain to look at his wife. Obama is a guy who liked to vote "present" and has really no record of substance. You have to look harder.

zen

05-23-2008, 07:36 AM

Do whatever you want. I'm saying it's not necssary to know McCain to look at his wife. Obama is a guy who liked to vote "present" and has really no record of substance. You have to look harder.

I understand and dont' disagree with you.

I think I used the occasion of your point to make mine against all those people who contend that candidate's spouses are off limits. I would say, if spouses are out speaking in public, then what they say is fair game.

Look, do you honestly believe that if Laura Bush had said something politically incorrect during a campaign that the lefty news orgs like the NY Times or CNN wouldn't jump ALL OVER that sheyt??

rdkraus

05-23-2008, 07:43 AM

I understand and dont' disagree with you.

I think I used the occasion of your point to make mine against all those people who contend that candidate's spouses are off limits. I would say, if spouses are out speaking in public, then what they say is fair game.

Look, do you honestly believe that if Laura Bush had said something politically incorrect during a campaign that the lefty news orgs like the NY Times or CNN wouldn't jump ALL OVER that sheyt??

Agreed.

anelka

05-23-2008, 10:32 AM

Do you not know what happened? There was an entire movie on this.. Basically Britain and France drew lines on a map symbolizing borders. They each got their own territory. Ethnic groups were forced out of their lands into anothers. Conflict. decades later we have this.

What's stopping them from readjusting the borders to fit all the ethnic groups/muslim sects? But yeah, just like Africa, they find it easier to blame Europe for their own problems.

ProLogic

05-23-2008, 01:06 PM

What's stopping them from readjusting the borders to fit all the ethnic groups/muslim sects? But yeah, just like Africa, they find it easier to blame Europe for their own problems.

We are. We can not leave, because they will go into a civil war. Which pretty much solves their problems, but is just the beginning of ours.

Songsangnim

05-24-2008, 03:41 AM

When did Obama come out in public and implicitly support Wright's views? And really..."spiritual advisor"...come on now you're smarter then to believe that attempt at framing an issue.

I've just read in the news today that McCain has publicly refuted this so called "pastor". He said that this fellow is NOT his pastor and that he neither goes to his church nor agrees with his views.

Constrast this with Obama who practically had to be forced to let go of Wright and who sat in Wright's church for YEARS listening to him demonize whites.

CrazyK

05-24-2008, 11:54 AM

zen

05-24-2008, 12:47 PM

Obama's no angel but many people including me have sat through many religious services in which they/I have disagreed with the speaker on a number of topics.
For 20 years?
Listen, the truth is, Obama may not have the same views as his pastor, and he probably went to that church for socio-political reasons more so than actually adopting every view of his pastor. He had a political career and that was probably the church that helped him the most getting credibility with his constituents.
The problem is, how much of what his pastor believes does he believe? Half? 75%? 25%? ... and which parts?
These are questions that will never fully be answered, I think.

If you think Obama is a racist then prove it with what he has said. I can point to some things McCain has said that are extremely racist and derogatory.
Do you really think that obama is going to say anything racist on purpose on during the campaign????
Seriously, he wouldn't get elected to dog catcher if he was that dumb.
What is MUCH more revealing is what he says when he thinks the microphones are turned off.
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

You may or may not agree with this statement about rural americans, and you may not think this is a sign of racism, but what do you think would happen if Bush or McCain said something like this about urbanites:

"And it's not surprising the they get bitter, they cling to handguns or gangsta rap or antipathy toward people from the suburbs or anti-european sentiment or anti-white culture as a way to explain their frustrations."

The media would be all over him for stereotyping urban blacks. I think it would probably mean the end.

Obama let's things slip that show he resents white people. His wife does even more than him, and his pastor even more then her, but he is the slick one and he usually knows not to say these such things. He wants to be president.

If he does it again, he will not become president, particularly if he does it after he is nominated. You can't get elected president with only the black vote. Democrats carry 80% to 90% of the black vote in most presidential elections anyway, which means that a black candidate cannot improve his numbers in the black voting block any more except to get a higher turn out, but if he alienatess his white voting block, he's screwed.

shootermcgavin7

05-24-2008, 01:33 PM

However, it's going to take a lot more than just frugal spending at this point to erase a $9.3 trillion deficit.

Absolutely correct.

Especially when you take into account what a drop in spending will do to employment.

shootermcgavin7

05-24-2008, 01:35 PM

What's stopping them from readjusting the borders to fit all the ethnic groups/muslim sects?

Well, garsh, the same people who carved up the borders in the first place.

Unless you leave the entire 20th century out of your analysis.

zen

05-24-2008, 02:31 PM

Well, garsh, the same people who carved up the borders in the first place.

Unless you leave the entire 20th century out of your analysis.

The 20th century isn't as big as the earlier centuries of imperialism. Africa and the middle east have been hacked by colonialism for centuries. You can go back to various greco-roman empires for a added bonus. :ninja:
It seems to me that ethno-religious factors are not dominant as imperialist forces for millennia.
Personally, I thought that the kurds should get their own nation when the U.S. went in, because the turks, shia and sunnis will always outnumber them.

CrazyK

05-24-2008, 04:26 PM

...Didn't want to quote your entire post to save space.

The point I was attempting to make is that you can only really go off what the candidates have said and their voting record. McCain has said explicitly racist comments, Obama has associated himself with some that are explicitly racist. You decide which is the better of the two on that platform.

I'd like to also bring up policy making in relation to this topic. McCain's anti-islamist connections and comments are a direct reflection of his war mongering policy which he openly supports. This is not the case for Obama as his policy's reflect FDR's new deal. None of his policy's explicitly target a group of people based on religion or regional factors, McCain's do.

As I see it Obama will get us out of a futile war, and cut the national debt. The raise in taxes he proposes are bothersome but it won't directly effect the middle class and at least he's spending the money on the national debt and in house social programs. Saving us conservatives a lot of mess when we finally get a Ronald Reagan or Ron Paul in the oval office.

Finally, I want a President who is going to look out for the security of the USA. Not the security of Israel. They pose no strategic benefit to us anymore and only inspire more terrorism with their arrogant policies and complete abstentation of adhering to international law.

Songsangnim

05-25-2008, 02:59 AM

So McCain now flip flops on another issue/person and says he was no longer his pastor or "spiritual advisor" but never had anything to do with him? I love blatant lies, they're funny.

McCain never said that he "never had anything to do with him." Where are you getting this kind of stuff from?:tuttut:

Obama's no angel but many people including me have sat through many religious services in which they/I have disagreed with the speaker on a number of topics. If you think Obama is a racist then prove it with what he has said. I can point to some things McCain has said that are extremely racist and derogatory.

I know of only one. He has already admitted that he referred to his captors as "gooks" while they were torturing him.

I doubt that ANYONE on here would have dissimilar views had they gone through similar treatment. Put yourself in his shoes before judging him.

If Obama is against racist views then why did he sit through YEARS of listening to that garbage? Why did he disassociate himself from Wright only after mounting public pressure forced him to? Sounds just the same as any other politician would act.

PS: When replying please stick to the facts. (see comments in bold). It's hard enough to follow you as it is. Thanks.

anelka

05-25-2008, 06:37 AM

Well, garsh, the same people who carved up the borders in the first place.

So if the middle east tried to change their borders, the British would come in and tell them not to? I'm pretty sure we'd have no objection.

shootermcgavin7

05-25-2008, 07:11 AM

So if the middle east tried to change their borders, the British would come in and tell them not to?

Western nations were involved in most of the domestic wars in the Middle East and Africa in the Post-WWII era in trying to preserve the status quo that they had created.

Yet, when something identical happens in their own backyard (former Yugoslavia) they seem more than happy to help break the country apart.

So, to repeat my previous post, that is exactly what happened.

blackboard

05-25-2008, 07:55 AM

I've just read in the news today that McCain has publicly refuted this so called "pastor". He said that this fellow is NOT his pastor and that he neither goes to his church nor agrees with his views.

Constrast this with Obama who practically had to be forced to let go of Wright and who sat in Wright's church for YEARS listening to him demonize whites.

Actually your wrong. Mccain already knew about Hagee and company radical views such as calling Catholics the great ****** and calling Islam the religion of evil. The Truth is Mccain didn't give a crap about Islam or Catholics being offended. Once the Jews became offended about Hitler doing Gods work suddenly Mccain denounce his comments. This is why Mccain doesn't get a free pass.

I know of only one. He has already admitted that he referred to his captors as "gooks" while they were torturing him.

I doubt that ANYONE on here would have dissimilar views had they gone through similar treatment. Put yourself in his shoes before judging him.

Take your own advice and put yourself in Wright's shoe. A former Marine who grew up during times where blacks where treated like **** for decades. Just maybe after 20+ years of legal discrimination Wright became bitter against white people. Again, if you're handing out waivers do it fairly.