The New Republician Guide to America

POSTED BY: fredgiblet
UPDATED: Friday, July 25, 2025 18:57
VIEWED: 8664
PAGE 1 of 1

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 19, 2006 5:56 AM

Just stole this off of MySpace, if the guy who posted it on MySpace is here sorry but I couldn't pass it up.

Quote:

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support states' rights, but the Attorney General can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

Can't wait to see the reaction to this.

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, May 19, 2006 6:43 AM

I've seen this before and I laughed my ass off then. Much like I'm doing right now. I have one regarding God holding a press conference and it's pretty good as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OLDENGLANDDRY

Friday, May 19, 2006 7:27 AM

I'ts funny because it's true.
And it's sad because it's true.

JONUS

Friday, May 19, 2006 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
I'ts funny because it's true.
And it's sad because it's true.

My thoughts exactly.

WORKEROFEVIL

Friday, May 19, 2006 1:19 PM

That's great. Another satirical list people might get a kick out of can be found here: http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html. Enjoy!

HERO

Friday, May 19, 2006 1:57 PM

I think that it should be called "A Liberal Guide to What We Think Republicans Think". I'm pretty sure it was written by one of the writers for West Wing...those guys never wrote one convicing Republican. The closest they got was Alan Alda and he played a pro-choice moderate who didn't believe in God.

H

CITIZEN

Friday, May 19, 2006 3:10 PM

You can't blame the left because you guys can't get a coherent message out

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

ANTHONYT

Friday, May 19, 2006 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I think that it should be called "A Liberal Guide to What We Think Republicans Think". I'm pretty sure it was written by one of the writers for West Wing...those guys never wrote one convicing Republican. The closest they got was Alan Alda and he played a pro-choice moderate who didn't believe in God.

H

Would you care to rebut each of the comedy statements with a statement accurately reflecting the Republican position?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, May 19, 2006 3:45 PM

Hero

It may not be what rational everyday Republicans think, but unfortunately, it is what the current administration thinks as evidenced by its conduct and decisions. As well as the loud mouth "voices" of the Republican party like their "wonderful" Mr Limbaugh.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, May 19, 2006 3:49 PM

Brilliant! Just brilliant!

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

HERO

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:19 PM

Quote:

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton, yes. Homosexuals are welcome, but not entitled to special consideration or protections. In other words...its nobody's business.

Quote:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him,

Saddam was the lesser evil in a world dominated by the ideological struggle against communism and the more recent conflict against the Islamafascists in Iran.

Quote:

a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him

In 1991 the Soviet Empire had collapsed and the Soviet Union was on its last legs. Likewise Iran had begun to gravitate to a more moderate position. Neither country posed an immediate threat to the world's oil supply and neither had conquered a small defenseless neighbor. So Iraq, by virtue of America's success against its enemies and its own failure to recognize the changing times, moved itself to the top of the list.

Quote:

, a good guy when Cheney did business with him,

You are not going in chronilogical order. We delt with Iraq in the '70s and '80s to counter both the Soviet influence and Iranian aggression. We also had similar efforts in Egypt and Jordan, both of which were much more successful. The strategy was to court moderate beligerant states and move them to moderate or friendly positions. In many ways our efforts encouraged Iraqi agression towards a longs and costly war with Iran, rather then another conflict with Isreal that could have sparked a broader confrontation between regional or world power blocs. So good job, Reagan and company prevented another war with Isreal, neutralized the Iranian and Iraqi threats by getting our enemies to fight each other and in the meantime removed the larger ideological conflict from getting in the way. We ended 1991 with the possibility of a real and lasting peace in the Middle East...unfortunately Clinton and his Secretary of State fumbled that away.

Quote:

and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Some people say it was a diversion, some people say it was planned long before 9/11. The truth is Saddam was responsible for the 2003 war. He never backed off his policy of confrotation. After 9/11 our policy changed to one in which we no longer allow these people to sit back and poke us with sticks year after year...we hit back.

Quote:

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Reagan was blasted because he wanted to trade with South Africa, but his plan was to use trade as the means of moving them in the direction we want them to go. Such is the case with Vietnam. In China's case we have trade with them because for several decades we courted them as a possible ally against the Soviet Union. When the Soviets fell we continued to encourage reform. They have economically reformed, but politically they are mired in 20th Century thinking. We continue to push reform and cannot ourselves afford to be isolated from such a large potential market. We nust be involved in China's future path or else we risk them courting their allies and partners with those who are our more aggressive enemies...also an isolated China might become desperate and a desperate near superpower is very dangerous. Such dangers led to Japan's attack on the US in WW2, and thats also why we sold low priced grain to the starving Soviets, even at the height of the cold war.

Quote:

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

The world needs a UN that is effective. That means an end to corruption and an end to meaningless gestures. In the 90's the UN became a debating society whose words meant nothing. Likewise the corruption grew so bad as to make the UN completely ineffective and helped foster the biggest fraud in human history under its oil for fo

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:23 PM

Hero writes "Everyone has the right to make decision about their own body. Its when those decisions affect others that the government needs to step in. I have no objection to a woman signing a DNR, donating a kidney, or getting huge fake boobies (who doesn't love big breasted organ doners who don't want to live on some machine). But when she becomes pregnant, another life is involed and that person has rights that may conflict with those of the mother. In such cases the State has the duty to intervene. The question is when does a collection of cells become life. Some believe at conception, some believe not until 9 people in black robes say they do. Most Republicans believe such a decision is a social or religeous matter and thus it should be decided by majority vote...at the State level. "

Hero - when you and anyone else that shares this view are willing to take on the financial and custodial responsibilty of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy and child - THEN you can "step in". Until that time - what a woman does with her body is none of your business.

DAYVE

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:23 PM

not an especially religious person myself... but to the above diatribe.... i offer a hearty... AMEN....

HERO

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Hero - when you and anyone else that shares this view are willing to take on the financial and custodial responsibilty of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy and child

Deal. You can abort all you want, we get to unilaterally end all forms of welfare, childrens services, and aid to families with dependent children. Or we can go the other way. Either choice fits some part of the Republican agenda.

Edit: Oops, the lawyer in me wants you to compensate the owner of the sperm who has a half interest in the property you are destroying. Whats the earning power of an American baby in todays market, divided by two?

H

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:35 PM

Thats a load of and you know it.

Lets see how you feel about the issue when a loved one is raped and then becomes pregnant.

A womans right to choose has nothing to do with childrens services and welfare.

If you had your way, we would need MORE. We already don't have enough resources to properly care for the poor and orphaned. Thanks to the oh so christian Republicans need to line the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor and working poor.

Instead of anti-abortion laws, why not enact a law that says a man is NEVER to ejaculate EVER again unless for the sole purpose of creating a life.

Lets see how well that one would go down.

Oh and BTW - there is a reason the Constitution separates Church and State. It is not up to this government to legislate religion or morals.

HERO

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Lets see how you feel about the issue when a loved one is raped and then becomes pregnant.

One, the rapist would either end up dead or in jail...or both, I know people who know people. Two, that's not the child's fault. I think most Republicans will make an exception for the health of the mother. Many will also make an exception for rape, I find myself undecided on the issue and favoring a case-by-case analysis that is completely unworkable.

Quote:

Instead of anti-abortion laws, why not enact a law that says a man is NEVER to ejaculate EVER again unless for the sole purpose of creating a life.

If you don't believe that's already the case, you don't understand men at all. Men are'nt nearly as complicated in this area as woman. See woman, make baby, watch TV...not always in that order.

Unless you want to use this law to outlaw homosexual sex...then I'm going to have to disagree, after all what those people do in their own bedrooms is their own business. You liberals need to get your nose out of it and keep you homophobic hands off. (Log Cabin Republicans out there...I can hear your cheers.)

H

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:47 PM

As the mother of a gay son. Let me just say that it is not liberals that cause him problems, its Republicans and an overzealous christian coalition.

As for your response about men WTF? Makes no sense.

edit: and of course we are all so appreciative of Republicans "making exceptions" for things that are none of their business.

DAYVE

Friday, May 19, 2006 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
(Log Cabin Republicans out there...I can hear your cheers.)

gee, that's funny, cause during the last GOP convention i didn't hear a peep from them.... or maybe they were relagated to the "Free Speach Zone"....

CITIZEN

Friday, May 19, 2006 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Hillary Clinton, yes. Homosexuals are welcome, but not entitled to special consideration or protections. In other words...its nobody's business.

You forgot about not letting them get married because they're not real couples Hero. Very remiss of you.

Quote:
I suggest its the Democrats who are trying to short change not only the veterans, but also the troops in the field. Bush might have to make hard choices about spending the money, but its the Democrats that force those choices on them.

Let me check, yep right here:
Book of Conservatives Chapter 2 "Personal Responsibility" verses 12 to 18
"And lo he spake 'Whenever one screws up,
It is someone else’s fault!'
And the conservatives doth rejoice and he spake
'And whenever you screw someone over,
Remember this: it is someone else’s fault!'
And there was much rejoicing."
Chapter 2 verses 45 to 53
"And lo he brought an end to the feast
'When it is somebody else’s fault,
Let them not shirk their responsibilities!
For it is always someone else’s fault!
For our personal responsibility is great!
For our personal responsibility is for all-,
Others!'
And there was much rejoicing!"

Quote:
Everyone needs regulation. Such regulation needs to be designed to foster growth, make safe products, etc. Who cares if the enviroment is bad if your enemployed?

Or more importantly rich, and the problems are, you know, somebody else’s.

Quote:
Children need all the facts...including adstenance.

You forgot the last bit:
And the only fact is Abstinence.

And last but by no means least:

Quote:
Creationism should be taught in schools alongside other theories.

Okay, and I'll elaborate so everyone knows exactly what we're talking about:

Since you obviously want a fair open and even handed approach, not just forcing people to become Christian...
We need to teach creationism in all its forms:

Christian/Jewish,

Islamic (similar but there are differences),

Egyptian Creationism (One of these includes Amun masturbating out the universe to relieve his loneliness, so you've got sex education in that for free to!)

Greek/Roman Creationism (Comes from chaos, involves lots of dancing),

Hindu Creationism (Take one Golden egg, split it in half, viola),

Shinto Creationism (Eggs again, separating the In from the Yo, heavens from the Earth, then wait for the Bomb for a fry up, sorry couldn't resist),

Norse/Teutonic Creationism (Fire Ice, gods kicking seven colours outta each other, all that good stuff),

Let's not forget the creation 'theories' of the Meso/Native Americans, Pagan tribes from across Europe, Australian Aborigines, Sumerians and so on.

Also lets not forget the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster and his noodly appendage.
http://www.venganza.org/

I mean these are all theories, and you can't say they're any less valid than Christian creationism, as you say, we weren't there!

Hmm but there is a problem. Where the hell are we going to get all this lesson time from. Obviously other subjects will suffer.

Well hang on! Schools are now doing part of the job of the Church, so why don't we make the churches do part of the job of schools in the same way!

A Perfect and fair trade, Schools teach creationism, churches teach physics!

Or we can keep religion in church and lessons in school where they belong, but that's just crazy talk I suppose.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, May 19, 2006 7:20 PM

Quote:
But when she becomes pregnant, another life is involed and that person has rights that may conflict with those of the mother.

Prior to this, you state that I have a right to donate a kidney if I want. Do I also have a right to withold donation of said kidney, even if another person dies? Prior Supreme Court decisions say I do. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn is a person doesn't have to use his or her body in fashion that benefits someone else, even if that person dies. Extrapolating this to pregnancy, it means I don't have to use my womb for the fetus's benefit.

I'm a woman, not an incubator.

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, May 19, 2006 7:24 PM

I saw a guy wearing this t-shirt the other day that said "South Dakota--turning rape victims into mothers since 2006!".

I have real problem with what happened in South Dakota, but that can be found in the South Dakota thread or my myspace blog.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, May 19, 2006 7:40 PM

Sassalicious for President!

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, May 19, 2006 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Sassalicious for President!

YES!

What's really funny is at the age of 4-9, when all the other little girls were talking about how they wanted to be princesses, teachers, horse trainers, or whatever else little girls always say, I was talking about how I was going to be a pilot, an astronaut, and then the first woman president. Good to know there's someone else in my corner.

But now I'm going to be a doctor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, May 19, 2006 8:47 PM

darn it! I was going to be the Limerick advisor to POTUS!

I had my office in the West Wing all planned and everything.

Curses! foiled again!

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, May 19, 2006 11:07 PM

You're welcome to come with me on my doctoring adventures abroad. I'm sure the children of war-torn and poverty-stricken areas would love a good limerick or two.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ANTHONYT

Friday, May 19, 2006 11:32 PM

Hello all,

I do not agree with everything Hero said, but I can at least understand his point of view on most things. (It's important that even if you don't agree with someone, you at least understand why they believe what they believe.)

Except for one thing.

Quote:
"There is no speech protection for obsenity."

I do not agree with this. Not even a little bit. All speech must be protected, or no speech is protected. There are forms of obscenity I hate and despise... But I am comforted by them nontheless. I know that as long as they exist, then speech in general is safe. Once someone starts whittling away at free speech, declaring "this" acceptable but "this" unacceptable or obscene, it starts a very slippery slope.

I myself do not believe in anti-abortion laws. I feel that casual abortions are horrific (and sadly, too-frequent.) Many women who get abortions are not raped. Nor are they the innocent victims of lamentable illness. Rather, most abortions go along the lines of, "I probably won't get pregnant" to "Oops! I got pregnant!" to "I'm not ready for kids" to "Time to get an abortion." I really do see it as a kind of careless murder in many cases.

But I don't believe in legislating something that is difficult or impossible to enforce. I call it the 'impractical law syndrome.' Some places have a law making suicide illegal. That is a rediculous, unenforcable law. The war on drugs has some parellels. In fact, given our great and mighty failure to end the 'problem' of marijuana, I say class it as a combination of cigarettes and alcohol and make it legal. (Smoke it outside and don't smoke and drive.)

The same holds true for abortions. There will always be a coathanger, a ripperdoc, a poison, or a beating which will 'solve' the 'problem' of pregnancy. It is difficult to adequately enforce anti-abortion laws, and the end result is that women will have abortions anyway, and some of them will die.

I will let God decide when it was or was not a sin. Until the baby is born, it is impractical to protect its life.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Homosexuals are welcome, but not entitled to special consideration or protections. In other words...its nobody's business.

I agree they should not have special privileges OR RESTRICTIONS, they should be treated the same as everyone else (such as being allowed to be considered a couple by law).

Quote:
The truth is Saddam was responsible for the 2003 war. He never backed off his policy of confrotation.After 9/11 our policy changed to one in which we no longer allow these people to sit back and poke us with sticks year after year...we hit back.

So we should invade everyone who pisses us off? I'm sure the rest of the world will love that. I take it you will be enlisting after thousands die in Iran, Syria, North Korea, and the innumerable African countries we don't like right?

Quote:
They have economically reformed, but politically they are mired in 20th Century thinking.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think that Republicans have a right to criticize anyone else for not adapting their ideology with the times.

Quote:
The world needs a UN that is effective. That means an end to corruption and an end to meaningless gestures. In the 90's the UN became a debating society whose words meant nothing. Likewise the corruption grew so bad as to make the UN completely ineffective and helped foster the biggest fraud in human history under its oil for food program.

True, but what we have is the U.N. as it is now. If you can change it be my guest, but for now the U.N. is seen as the authority by most of the world, if we do not follow the rules of the authorty then we become the rogue states that we accuse others of being.

Quote:
Everyone has the right to make decision about their own body. Its when those decisions affect others that the government needs to step in. I have no objection to a woman signing a DNR, donating a kidney, or getting huge fake boobies (who doesn't love big breasted organ doners who don't want to live on some machine). But when she becomes pregnant, another life is involed and that person has rights that may conflict with those of the mother. In such cases the State has the duty to intervene. The question is when does a collection of cells become life. Some believe at conception, some believe not until 9 people in black robes say they do.

I agree with Sassalicious on this (it was Sassalicious right?), As long as the baby is literally connected to the mother I see it as one life and the mothers right to do what she pleases with her body.

That being said I do believe that safe sex is the best bet, the number of abortions in the country is staggering but banning abortion doesn't help society at all.

Quote:
Most Republicans believe such a decision is a social or religeous matter

Keep your church out of my state.

Quote:
and thus it should be decided by majority vote...at the State level.

Agree, but Republicans keep trying to get it banned country-wide, in South Dakota the new law was introduced specifically because of the Conservative Justices that Bush nominated. They want the case to go to the SC so that Roe V. Wade can be reversed.

Quote:
Everyone needs regulation. Such regulation needs to be designed to foster growth, make safe products, etc. Who cares if the enviroment is bad if your enemployed?

And what good is having a job if you can't breathe the air? Regulation goes beyond environmental considerations as well. Consider Enrons collapse, greater regulation of financial consierations might have gone a long way towards preventing that.

Quote:
Republicans praise soldiers in every way, not just speeches. We sing their songs, wave the flag, cry at funerals, and try and make sure they have everything they need to fight the wars of today and recover from the wars they return from.

As does almost everyone the Republicans are not special in this regard.

Quote:
I suggest its the Democrats who are trying to short change not on

KHYRON

Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Prior to this, you state that I have a right to donate a kidney if I want. Do I also have a right to withold donation of said kidney, even if another person dies? Prior Supreme Court decisions say I do. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn is a person doesn't have to use his or her body in fashion that benefits someone else, even if that person dies. Extrapolating this to pregnancy, it means I don't have to use my womb for the fetus's benefit.

I'm a woman, not an incubator.

Of all the pro-choice arguments I've seen, this is one of the best. Nice!

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

CITIZEN

Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:33 AM

Yes Sassalicious has a weird way of coming up with these arguments.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:48 AM

Hello all,

First, that IS the best Pro-choice argument I've ever seen.

Now on to some other quotes:

Quote:
I take it you will be enlisting after thousands die in Iran, Syria, North Korea, and the innumerable African countries we don't like right?

This is a poor argument, and I see it frequently.

Why is it that when there is a pro-war person and an anti-war person, the anti-war person always says, "If you like the war so much, why don't you enlist?" A person who wants the military in X war shouldn't have to sign up to hold that opinion. Likewise, a person who doesn't want the military in X war shouldn't have to drop out of military service to hold that opinion. What a chaotic military we would have if people were forced to sign up or drop out based on their opinion of the moment!

Every taxpayer supports the military, and every voter controls it.

"As for it baing man-made, who knows? The Earth does have cycles which may be causing it, but that does not mean that we should not try to stop it."

Actually, in my opinion, if the global warming of the Earth is a natural cycle, we should probably seek to survive it, not stop it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:56 AM

Sassy - YOU ROCK

We need a Sassy President !

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CITIZEN

Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Actually, in my opinion, if the global warming of the Earth is a natural cycle, we should probably seek to survive it, not stop it.

The global climate has changed by a greater degree that it has today. The global climate has not ever changed as quickly or as drastically.

I think any natural change is being accelerated and exasperated by Human action, and this is not a good thing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

RUE

Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:01 AM

Quote:
I myself do not believe in anti-abortion laws. I feel that casual abortions are horrific (and sadly, too-frequent.) Many women who get abortions are not raped. Nor are they the innocent victims of lamentable illness. Rather, most abortions go along the lines of, "I probably won't get pregnant" to "Oops! I got pregnant!" to "I'm not ready for kids" to "Time to get an abortion." I really do see it as a kind of careless murder in many cases.

And yet, abortions are actually more reponsible. "Oops! I got pregnant!" to "I'm not ready for kids". to "I'll have to stay up nights, feed them clothe them, take care of them for a long, long time. I expect myself to be a good mom. I know it'll take a lot to be a good mom. And I'm not ready to be a GOOD mom." It's not careless. Careless is having a kid anyway and then neglecting it.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

RUE

Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:09 AM

"Every taxpayer supports the military, and every voter controls it."

I'd really like to see the tax code with a line-item veto on it - you know, education, health, environment, military, corporate hand-outs, etc. And though it wouldn't affect the total tax bill, the taxpayer could decide where the money should go. You'd be voting with your pocket.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:16 AM

"It's not careless. Careless is having a kid anyway and then neglecting it."

I can see the bumper sticker now: 'Abortion - The Most Responsible Thing an Irresponsible Person Can Do.'

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:
I take it you will be enlisting after thousands die in Iran, Syria, North Korea, and the innumerable African countries we don't like right?

This is a poor argument, and I see it frequently.

Why is it that when there is a pro-war person and an anti-war person, the anti-war person always says, "If you like the war so much, why don't you enlist?" A person who wants the military in X war shouldn't have to sign up to hold that opinion.

A person who doesn't want the military in x war shouldn't be accused of wanting dead American soldiers, either.

It's a sort of sarcastic counter-argument to the GOP tack of "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops."

Therefore, if the right is so gung-ho to support the war, then instead of sending the poor (because facts show that recruitment is higher out of impoverished areas) send yourself in their place. It is a volunteer army, after all.

In other words, we don't want to see people die who might not think it's a great idea to invade, but who serve out of love for their country. If you have all the love and you have all the gung-ho, then Johnny get your gun.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This is a poor argument, and I see it frequently.

Why is it that when there is a pro-war person and an anti-war person, the anti-war person always says, "If you like the war so much, why don't you enlist?"

Because if they are pro-war they should fight in the war, if you are pro-taxes you pay taxes willingly, if you are pro-capitalist you modify your activities to promote capitalism, if you are pro-religion you attend religious activities, if you are pro-environment you practice eco-friendly activities. I don't see why this shouldn't extend to war.

Quote:
A person who wants the military in X war shouldn't have to sign up to hold that opinion.

Agreed. My point was that there is a large group of people who are quite willing to send others out to be maimed (physically or emotionally) or killed in their favorite war, but who are not willing to risk their lives for the same cause.

KHYRON

Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
I myself do not believe in anti-abortion laws. I feel that casual abortions are horrific (and sadly, too-frequent.) Many women who get abortions are not raped. Nor are they the innocent victims of lamentable illness. Rather, most abortions go along the lines of, "I probably won't get pregnant" to "Oops! I got pregnant!" to "I'm not ready for kids" to "Time to get an abortion." I really do see it as a kind of careless murder in many cases.
And yet, abortions are actually more reponsible. "Oops! I got pregnant!" to "I'm not ready for kids". to "I'll have to stay up nights, feed them clothe them, take care of them for a long, long time. I expect myself to be a good mom. I know it'll take a lot to be a good mom. And I'm not ready to be a GOOD mom." It's not careless. Careless is having a kid anyway and then neglecting it.

At the risk of dragging this discussion too much into the abortion debate, I just want to quickly say that I think Anthony brings up a good argument. Rue obviously has a good point too, but going with what Anthony said, it's important that abortion doesn't become some alternative choice of pregnancy-prevention and an excuse for women (and their partners) to become lazy with their prevention methods. The first choice should always be the usual methods of prevention, and abortion just in case the methods that were tried during intercourse didn't work.

This idea is not at all worked out yet, but maybe there should be like some sort of limit to how often a non-rape victim may have an abortion, some mandate like "Barring uncontrolled circumstances, a woman may have up to 3 abortions in her lifetime". Or 5, or whatever. Just something that stops the more careless and negligent to constantly have unprotected sex and think an abortion will get rid of the consequences. Because while I'm pro-choice, I do NOT want to see abortion becoming standard practice and a normal event in daily life.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
It's a sort of sarcastic counter-argument to the GOP tack of "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops."

One of my favorite things to hear, right up there with "all Liberals are communists"

Quote:
Therefore, if the right is so gung-ho to support the war, then instead of sending the poor...

And saying "we'll pray for your safe return"

Quote:
In other words, we don't want to see people die who might not think it's a great idea to invade, but who serve out of love for their country. If you have all the love and you have all the gung-ho, then Johnny get your gun.

Except that most Republicans prefer to fight things that don't fight back (deer, elk and the like). Please note I am not saying that hunting is bad just that people who hunt must be incredibly courageous to attack something that will run away if it catches your scent as opposed to things that shoot back.

RUE

Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:37 AM

AnthonyT,

Quote:
I can see the bumper sticker now: 'Abortion - The Most Responsible Thing an Irresponsible Person Can Do.'

Since I suspect you've never been pregnant, I hope you'll give some thought to analogies you might be able to understand.

Have you ever turned down a job b/c you didn't think you could do it well? You might have thought about all the time you'd have to spend evenings and weekends studying the new field. Or you might have realized the boss would require long odd hours that wouldn't fit in with your existing responsibilites. You realized that you could take the job and be a slacker; but honestly accepting the job was a commitment that you just weren't up to.

Now I can see your mind spinning off some trite snippy comment. A child is not a job! And that's why I asked you to bear with an analogy or two since you're not now, nor will you ever be, in a position to get pregnant.

A woman who gets pregnant measures what she thinks she will have to do for the future child. The higher her standards, the lower her resources, the more daunting the future. And the more responsible having an abortion becomes.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
At the risk of dragging this discussion too much into the abortion debate...

Now why wouldn't you want to do that?

Quote:
but going with what Anthony said, it's important that abortion doesn't become some alternative choice of pregnancy-prevention and an excuse for women (and their partners) to become lazy with their prevention methods. The first choice should always be the usual methods of prevention, and abortion just in case the methods that were tried during intercourse didn't work.

Which is why comprehensive sex ed is so important. I think that it is interesting that the people who want abstinence-only education are also the people who want to ban abortion.

Quote:
This idea is not at all worked out yet, but maybe there should be like some sort of limit to how often a non-rape victim may have an abortion, some mandate like "Barring uncontrolled circumstances, a woman may have up to 3 abortions in her lifetime". Or 5, or whatever. Just something that stops the more careless and negligent to constantly have unprotected sex and think an abortion will get rid of the consequences.

Hmmmm...perhaps an abortion tax? One that increases exponentially with each "convenience" abortion? Say $0 for the first, $20 for the second, $100 for the third and so on? What do you think?

Quote:
Because while I'm pro-choice, I do NOT want to see abortion becoming standard practice and a normal event in daily life.

Completely agree.
EDIT: I particularly like how some conservatives seem to think that the goal of pro-choice people is to make so that every woman has an abortion every weekend.

CITIZEN

Saturday, May 20, 2006 3:12 AM

The problem with abortion is that who is to say what is and what is not vital. Moderate "pro-lifers" say "it's okay in exceptional circumstances" but who decides the exceptional circumstances? Me? You? The guy down the road? The mother? Isn't she doing that already?

The exceptional circumstances that I've heard just don't cover it.

To go into a real life circumstance a friend of mine had an abortion. She was more or less forced into it by an abusive boyfriend. None of the exceptional circumstances would cover her, but whether or not abortion was legal she would have had one, because she would have been forced into it.

If abortion was illegal, except for exceptional circumstances, she would have been forced to go to a back street abortionist, where her chances of dying are dramatically increased, and her chances of becoming infertile even more so.

She’s since had two daughters (in another relationship) so given the fact that "pro-lifers" would force her to the backstreets, rather than having a safe regulated procedure in a licensed hospital which would have good chances of leaving her dead or infertile, wiping out 2 or 3 lives that I know for the possibility of 1 that would never exist anyway, I know where I stand.

You’re not going to stop abortion by making it illegal, not matter how much you want to force people to be better people. You will make the problem worse and far more damaging though.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 20, 2006 3:18 AM

Hey there,

I won't be trite or snippy. And that bumper sticker analogy was a fair representation of the counter-argument.

A child is a job. A child is the hardest and most taxing job a person is ever likely to have. (Assuming, as you say, they want to do it right.)

I know this because I am a parent. A parent who has paid for his wife to have an abortion.

My first child was a son. We were using protection, but it turned out to be ineffective. Neither of us was financially prepared for the burden of raising a child. (We were both earning close to minimum wage at the time.)

We had an important decision to make. We could give it our best shot, we could give it away to someone else who would give it their best shot, or we could kill it.

We made one good and one bad decision at that time. We decided to have the baby. We also decided to get married.

I still have a beautiful son. I'm no longer married.

Now, about the abortion.

It was the second child of my first wife and I. A son. He had a medical condition. I no longer remember the name of it, but it essentially caused his head to fill with fluid and expand like a balloon. His brain was pushed into a thin paste on the exterior of the cranium. He would either die in the womb, or immediately after birth.

If allowed to grow in the womb, he would be a health risk to my wife. So we got an abortion. The abortion wasn't covered by our medical plan, even though it was medically necessary. It was me, waiting with my wife and holding her hand in an 'abortion clinic.' The only abortion clinic in town that would handle such a late-term abortion. It was a sick feeling, and a sickening procedure. But it was necessary.

It was about a year later that we got divorced, for reasons that had nothing to do with children... Except perhaps that we had married because of them.

I don't know where other people live, and what things are like there. But where I live, anyone can surrender their child to the government for adoption. Babies have a high adoption rate, as opposed to older children or teenagers. You can't be sure that the people who adopt your child will love it... But nothing is sure in this world, is it?

If you make a mistake, I believe it's your responsibility to own that mistake if you can. If you make a life, I think it's your responsibility to give that life everything you've got. If you can't? Find someone who can.

The alternative is to kill it. Kill it because you might not be the best possible parent. Or because someone else might not be. Or because pregnancy sucks.

I understand alternative views on this topic. I don't like abortion. I don't think it's practical to legislate against abortion. And I'm not speaking out of my rectum.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SASSALICIOUS

Saturday, May 20, 2006 4:36 AM

Quote:
The problem with abortion is that who is to say what is and what is not vital. Moderate "pro-lifers" say "it's okay in exceptional circumstances" but who decides the exceptional circumstances? Me? You? The guy down the road? The mother? Isn't she doing that already?

The exceptional circumstances that I've heard just don't cover it.

Bill Napoli in South Dakota seems to think that he's the one to decide what an exceptional circumstance is. And it is appallingly inflexible:

Quote:
BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

from: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/abortion_3-03.html

Aside from the fact that he decided he was in a position to quantify how much trauma a rape victim experiences, there are other conditions that would have severe psychological ramifications stemming from pregnancy.

My story:
(I'll preface this by saying I am on birth control--my mother was intelligent enough to discuss sex with me, answer my questions, and then send me off to the doctor for pills when it was time).

I'm not anti-children. On the off-chance that my maternal instinct ever kicks in, I really would like to adopt. I could technically get pregnant and give birth to my own child, but that probably wouldn't be a good idea. Why? Because if I'm going to be a parent, I want to be the best one I can be and that would include doing everything I could to ensure a healthy pregnancy. I refuse to change my pre-pregnancy behavior at this point in my life because I don't want to be pregnant, but if I were to get pregnant, I would want to do it "right". However, doing it "right" involves gaining anywhere from 25-40 lbs. Not really a big deal, unless you're like me and you have an eating disorder. I'm mostly in recovery right now, but I absolutely refuse to gain the weight. If I don't gain the weight, I probably wouldn't have a healthy pregnancy, but if I did gain the weight, I could easily slip back into disordered eating patterns and that would be equally unhealthy for me. And that's not something I would want to risk. You may call it vanity, but I call it mental illness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SASSALICIOUS

Saturday, May 20, 2006 4:41 AM

Thanks to everyone who gave me props for my argument. It would be fun to shake up the White House, but unfortunately I probably wouldn't even get as far as being chosen for party candidate. I'm just a little too opinionated and incapable of being a party tool.

Maybe if those that ran as independent every really stood a chance . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RUE

Sunday, May 21, 2006 12:36 PM

AnthonyT,

I appreciate your response. I understand that it came from personal experience and deep emotion.

I was arguing in the more general sense. Once a woman is pregnant she will have the baby just by doing nothing. There are many decorations on the same result - from love and hope to being so drugged you don't care. I'm just pointing out that once pregnant having the baby is foregone, no matter how good or bad the reasons.

OTOH, an abortion comes from thought, decision and effort. And it's based on concern for the child to be, even if it's unformulated and unconscious.

And that is why I say abortion can be more responsible that having a child due to unconcern and inaction.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

FLETCH2

Sunday, May 21, 2006 5:29 PM

I have two adopted sisters one of whom just sent me an invite to her wedding. I'm horribly conflicted on this issue so I offer this.

I believe my possition is pro-choice, I just think that there should be more than two choices available. There are plenty of people more than happy to adopt an otherwise unwanted child.

KPO

Monday, May 22, 2006 3:09 AM

Indeed, a very clever pro choice argument Sassa.

Quote:
It would be fun to shake up the White House, but unfortunately I probably wouldn't even get as far as being chosen for party candidate. I'm just a little too opinionated and incapable of being a party tool.

Yeah, young and zealous has its charm, but i prefer a more jaded and disenchanted character in a politician (or spaceship captain

). The lady who gets my vote for president can be heard in the link in this thread:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=20551

An illustrative extract of dialogue:

Quote:
JC: It's weird that you don't seem to be moved by all this that's taking place in Nepal. What happened to my radical mother of Padma Kanya Campus 2022 Bikram Sambat?

Muwa: She grew up to understand that hope too has an expiration date

JC: I remember you were so excited in 1990.

Muwa: I was only 45. I was naïve.

Muwa for president!

As for your abortion analogy Sassa; I don't like abortion so I'm going to try to pick it apart:

Quote:
Do I also have a right to withold donation of said kidney, even if another person dies? Prior Supreme Court decisions say I do. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn is a person doesn't have to use his or her body in fashion that benefits someone else, even if that person dies. Extrapolating this to pregnancy, it means I don't have to use my womb for the fetus's benefit.

The difference with abortion is that you are killing the fetus, not letting it die by inaction. And if you consider it to be a human being that's murder, and there are laws against that. I'm not suggesting that all aborting mothers and abortion clinics be tried for first degree murder, i'm just saying this is a legal grey area that warrants its own legislation.

Therefore I'd say that you have to look at the morality of the case in hand. I think only religious types and (including?) staunch atheists can make a black or white call on this one - the rest of us draw a wobbly line somewhere down the middle, and then maybe cross it if circumstances press us.

I can understand the horror of religious people who see abortion as the slaying of a soul, and I guess they have a right to lobby for state intervention on behalf of the child, as you would if a mother was abusing her newborn baby. On this issue I think you have to give them a break, concede the moral high ground and concentrate on keeping a numerical majority over them wherever you live.

As for the 'mother doing the responsible thing' argument; I also have a sister who is adopted. She had almost as irresponsible a mother as you could imagine. Her life in my family has been rocky, as many adopted cases are. But hey, I can ask her, but I don't think she wishes she had been aborted. She wouldn't consider that to be her mother 'doing right by her'. Adoption always seems to be a valid way out for unwanted pregnancy. So unless you believe that an aborted fetus is reincarnated as another baby in a more favourable womb, this 'being responsible' argument doesn't wash - unless I'm missing something - something less obvious than reincarnation...

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, May 26, 2006 7:49 AM

I've been sick the past 2 weeks and thus unable to do anything besides dance in the party thread and promote the heathen ways of The Forsaken.

And now I'm drunk, so I'm not going to be the most rational person, but I'll come back tomorrow if I remember.

Quote:
I don't like abortion

Then,
1: Don't have one
2: Don't sleep with anyone who is pro-choice. I have a policy of not sleeping with anyone who is pro-life, thereby avoiding any potential disagreements.

Quote:

The difference with abortion is that you are killing the fetus, not letting it die by inaction.

When you really pick apart the pro-choice arguments and the pro-life arguments (my friends philosophy class did this), you'll find that the two sides aren't arguing about the same thing. One side says "it's my damn body" and the other side says "egads! BABY-KILLER!!!!". I also read somewhere, and I'm trying valiantly to find where, that one of the primary reasons abortion as outlawed in the U.S. was the Protestants didn't want the Catholics to irresponsibly and wantonly reproduce and eventually outnumber the Protestants. So it never really was about the fetus. It was just more religious politicking, which is always annoying.

Interesting article: http://www.counterpunch.org/bollinger10222005.html

I'm a woman, NOT an incubator!

HIPPIEBROWNCOAT

Friday, May 26, 2006 5:55 PM

I've got one good friend who is a staunch Republican. I tease him all the time; "You're pretty cool...for a Republican." Gotta show him this.

Gotta give props to all the cool pro-choice arguments. Sassy, your kidney thing is the bombshit!

But since this pretty much has turned into an abortion debate, i've gotta weigh in. Abortion has been around for a long, long, time. Women all over the world have been and still are drinking poisions, shoving objects up themselves (cow dung and ground glass in Africa, i believe), subjecting themselves to beatings or unskilled and dangerous underground abortion providers for hundreds, probably thousands of years to abort their pregnancies. Until humanity stops having heterosexual intercourse and men stop raping women, there will be women who are pregnant who don't want to be. There will be abortions. Make them illegal or dole them out like Halloween candy, i don't care. They will always be around.

Now this is where things get tricky. Make abortion illegal, let's just say. Make all the women who seek abortion criminals. Make all the abortion providers criminals. Let's spend what would undoubtedly be millions of dollars that we DON'T have seeking, arresting, trying, and jailing them. (Because some people in power think it's morally wrong.) Who here wants to see their girlfriend, mother, sister in jail for something that they may have done years ago that you may have never known about? Would you now condemn that person, too? Let's force all the women illegally seeking abortions to unsafe back-alley, underground 'doctors' and risk their health and their lives, too. And while we're at it, since they're already probably pondering their decision, maybe thinking "I'm a bad person/I'm going to Hell/I'm sorry/I just can't have this baby/What would my parents think if they knew/But i used protection/God forgive me/Why?" let's add to their light and fluffy thoughts by making them cope with the fact that they are now, and forever will be, criminals. Yeah. That'll help.

But, what? You say make abortion illegal but make it legal in cases of rape and incest? Oooh, good idea! Women have never lied about who the father of their unborn baby is or the circumstances initiating the pregnancy! So, now, abortion is okay if you were raped. Great. Let's make innocent MEN suffer, too! Who doesn't think that there's a woman out there, somewhere (maybe you already know her) who would say ANYTHING if she knew that telling that lie would buy her access to a clean, safe, legal abortion, even if she knew damn well it could destroy someone else's life. Remember, all that sex offender stigma crap stays with a man for the rest of his life, even if he serves his time in prison. His neighbors can look him up on sex offender websites, employers can take his status into consideration, the possibilities are endless. (must note that i'm only sympathetic for the innocent ones in case anyone assumed i was gettin all lovey on rapists.) I believe that one man in prision wrongly convicted of rape is too many. The number of these men will only increase if women now have a very strong motive to accuse. And, c'mon, who here thinks a genuine rape/incest victim wants to go singing her sorrowful and very personal tales on the mountaintop just so she can have an abortion and get on with her life? Here's some fun info: Three women that are either my very dear friends and my cousin, aged 11, 15, 17, and 18, have been raped. The 11 year old by her uncle. Repeatedly. Not one of these women has pressed charges, and i think only one ever reported it. (Thank God, none of them got pregnant.) So it's been my experience that genuine rape/incest victims don't particularly wish to discuss their stories with the authorities.

Abortion needs to be legal. I don't want my little girl cousins, or friends hurt or jailed should they ever become pregnant and find abortion to be the best option for them. I damn sure don't want some shmoe in a suit thumping a Bible making choices for me should i ever become

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, May 26, 2006 7:09 PM

It's good to be tweaked.

Another thing about abortion: when it's illegal the poor suffer more because the wealthier people can find a decent doctor to perform it OR leave the country.

Quote:
Who doesn't think that there's a woman out there, somewhere (maybe you already know her) who would say ANYTHING if she knew that telling that lie would buy her access to a clean, safe, legal abortion, even if she knew damn well it could destroy someone else's life.

I would certainly go to the hospital and say I was raped. I don't know that I would actually name a person, but I would not be above lying about it. Want me to come up with some injuries to prove it? I'd be glad to come up with those as well.

This link includes info on how, why, and when abortion became illegal in the U.S. http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html
I especially love the vigilante pro-lifers that blow up abortion clinics (there's a documentary I keep meaning to watch about this). Do they even realize that in doing such an act, they're killing the very thing they claim to protect? But I suppose the woman and the doctor don't matter because they are vile murderers.

The very same people who want to make abortion illegal again are, for the most part, trying to limit access to birth control. I think everyone can agree that abortion is never a GOOD thing and it's a difficult choice to make, there are usually psychological repercussions for a short time afterward, and that in a perfect world it wouldn't be viewed as simply a form of birth control (though I don't think many women have multiple abortions). If we lived in a perfect world, there would be comprehensive sex education, NOT merely reproductive biology. It's really good to know that when an egg and sperm meet, they fuse together and eventually turn into a zygote. However that knowledge doesn't stop it from happening. We need to teach people about safe sex, birth control techniques, the varieties of pills vs. shots vs patches vs whatever else there is. We need to instruct people in the proper way to use the different methods of contraception, thus reducing human error. We need over the counter morning after pills (it's not an abortion pill, it's more like birth control pills on steroids). We need the FDA to approve the abortion pill. We need EDUCATION. We need politicans to stop touting abstinence only education because it's been scientifically disproven as effective. We need FREE AND EASY ACCESS to birth control. PREVENTION in the first place will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Parental consent. We need a society where teens are comfortable discussing things of a sexual nature with their parents. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine after consent laws for minors seeking abortions went into effect, Texas had a decrease abortion rates. That's all well and good, but there was an increase in second trimester abortions because girls who ended up pregnant a few months before their 18th birthdays just waited and got one later, despite the fact that there are increased emotional, financial, and physical costs.

What is choice? Choice is the power to choose between different options. Women should be able to choose whether or not to keep their child and whether or not they want to be pregnant in the first place, whether that decision is made via abortion or birth control and contraceptives. Right now women can choose to deliver naturally or deliver on a scheduled date and time via C-section. C-sections have increased risk. After she has the C-section, a number of doctors don't let women go back to natural birth because there are "risks". If the woman wants to take the risk, let her. It's her body. If a woman is pregnant and some health complication comes up, generally speaking doctors let her choose whether or not the continue the pregnancy, even if she ends up dying. It's commonly called altruistic suicide. However, if someone is dying of a terminal illness, we force them to live out their last days in

SIGNYM

Friday, May 26, 2006 8:21 PM

Quote:
The difference with abortion is that you are killing the fetus, not letting it die by inaction. And if you consider it to be a human being...

I don't consider a fetus to be a human being. Why would you?

---------------------------------
It don't make no sense.

MOTHERMOLE

Friday, May 26, 2006 10:12 PM

"Homosexuals are welcome, but not entitled to special consideration or protections. In other words...its nobody's business."

interesting. i did not realize that wanting to have the same rights as everyone else was asking for "special considerations/protections", especially in a country that brags about such things as "freedom" and "equality". i guess that only means freedom and equal rights for some people. if only we could practice what we preach.

CITIZEN

Friday, May 26, 2006 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mothermole:
interesting. i did not realize that wanting to have the same rights as everyone else was asking for "special considerations/protections", especially in a country that brags about such things as "freedom" and "equality". i guess that only means freedom and equal rights for some people. if only we could practice what we preach.

So what else is new?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

RUE

Friday, May 26, 2006 11:09 PM

Quote:
The GOP's message to straight Americans: If you have sex, we want it to fuck up your lives as much as possible. No birth control, no emergency contraception, no abortion services, no life-saving vaccines. If you get pregnant, tough shit. You're having those babies, ladies, and you're making those child-support payments, gentlemen. If you get HPV and it leads to cervical cancer, well, that's too bad. Have a nice funeral, slut.

This is breath-takingly blunt and on target.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 26, 2006 11:57 PM

Quote:
The GOP's message to straight Americans: If you have sex, we want it to fuck up your lives as much as possible. No birth control, no emergency contraception, no abortion services, no life-saving vaccines. If you get pregnant, tough shit. You're having those babies, ladies, and you're making those child-support payments, gentlemen. If you get HPV and it leads to cervical cancer, well, that's too bad. Have a nice funeral, slut.

This is breath-takingly blunt and on target.- Rue

Well It's very much in line with this from

Quote:
BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated.

It's very clear to me that his interest in granting abortion is a reward for being a religious virgin and his interest in w/holding abortion is punitive. It has NOTHING to do with either the sanctity of fetus (the fetus would still be human even if resulting from rape of a virgin) and nothing at all to do with the health of the mother.

People really are stupid if they think the far right has any interest at all in that sort of thing.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

RUE

Saturday, May 27, 2006 12:35 AM

Quote:
BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's very clear to me that his interest in granting abortion is a reward for being a religious virgin and his interest in w/holding abortion is punitive. It has NOTHING to do with either the sanctity of fetus (the fetus would still be human even if resulting from rape of a virgin) and nothing at all to do with the health of the mother.

People really are stupid if they think the far right has any interest at all in that sort of thing.

SignyM: Thank you for that comment. It is realy true: Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

RUE

Saturday, May 27, 2006 12:35 AM

Quote:
BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's very clear to me that his interest in granting abortion is a reward for being a religious virgin and his interest in w/holding abortion is punitive. It has NOTHING to do with either the sanctity of fetus (the fetus would still be human even if resulting from rape of a virgin) and nothing at all to do with the health of the mother.

People really are stupid if they think the far right has any interest at all in that sort of thing.

SignyM: Thank you for that comment. It was right in front of me but I never noticed. And yet it's vital. It really is true: Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

HERO

Saturday, May 27, 2006 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mothermole:
interesting. i did not realize that wanting to have the same rights as everyone else was asking for "special considerations/protections",

Thats understandable. Its a common misconception. It comes from the liberal notion that the "same rights as everyone else" means having rights superior to others in order to artificially correct real or perceived injustice.

H

SASSALICIOUS

Saturday, May 27, 2006 12:53 AM

How is wanting to get married and have a recognized homosexual union in any way trying to have rights superior to others?

Pretty sure the injustice is real.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RUE

Saturday, May 27, 2006 12:58 AM

Zero,

Quote:
Thats understandable. Its a common misconception. It comes from the liberal notion that the "same rights as everyone else" means having rights superior to others in order to artificially correct real or perceived injustice.

Are you having a happy friday alone at home by yourself? This made even less sense than normal. At least, as normal as you get.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

MOTHERMOLE

Saturday, May 27, 2006 2:15 AM

Thats understandable. Its a common misconception. It comes from the liberal notion that the "same rights as everyone else" means having rights superior to others in order to artificially correct real or perceived injustice.

H

i could be missing out on things so could you give some examples of some rights that are being asked for that are superior to other's? i don't see how the right to marry (and to get the benefits that come along with marriage) is asking for superior rights so i must be missing something.

KPO

Saturday, May 27, 2006 3:27 AM

Quote:
I don't consider a fetus to be a human being. Why would you?

??? Surely you can understand why many people consider fetuses to be human beings? You must be baiting me but I can't for the life of me figure out what clever argument you have up your sleeve, now that you've lured me out.

Well, meanwhile, could you explain to me at what point exactly we achieve 'human being' status?

SASSALICIOUS

Saturday, May 27, 2006 4:39 AM

The case can also be made that a fetus is merely a parasite, despite human qualities.

Not baiting, just an observation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REAVERMAN

Saturday, May 27, 2006 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Homosexuals are welcome, but not entitled to special consideration or protections.

Did they ever ask for special consideration? All I heard them ask for was the ability to legally marry like any heterosexual couple. Doesn't sound too extreme, does it?

Quote:
Saddam was the lesser evil in a world dominated by the ideological struggle against communism and the more recent conflict against the Islamafascists in Iran.

Very true. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Quote:
After 9/11 our policy changed to one in which we no longer allow these people to sit back and poke us with sticks year after year...we hit back.

The only poking I saw from Iraq was Saddam's birthday where he mocked us. There has been no reliable evidence that Saddam had anything to do with the terrorists. That intel was brought to you by the same folks who brought us the WMD fiasco...

Quote:
Reagan was blasted because he wanted to trade with South Africa, but his plan was to use trade as the means of moving them in the direction we want them to go. Such is the case with Vietnam. In China's case we have trade with them because for several decades we courted them as a possible ally against the Soviet Union. When the Soviets fell we continued to encourage reform. They have economically reformed, but politically they are mired in 20th Century thinking. We continue to push reform and cannot ourselves afford to be isolated from such a large potential market. We nust be involved in China's future path or else we risk them courting their allies and partners with those who are our more aggressive enemies...also an isolated China might become desperate and a desperate near superpower is very dangerous. Such dangers led to Japan's attack on the US in WW2, and thats also why we sold low priced grain to the starving Soviets, even at the height of the cold war.

You are correct in your analysis, but how does that explain not trading with Cuba?

Quote:
Who cares if the enviroment is bad if your enemployed?

Your grandchildren.

Quote:
Children need all the facts...including adstenance.

Kids do need to know about abstinence, but we all know that some aren't going to listen. So why take their protection away because its "morally wrong" to the religious right?

Quote:
Creationism should be taught in schools alongside other theories.

This is what many in the Right are uncomprehending on: Creationism isn't a theory! By definition, a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, and that there is a hell of a lot of evidence for. Creationism does not meet that standard because it is just a guess with ZERO evidence. THAT is why it doesn't belong in the classroom any more than the belief that Overlord Xenu dumped billions of frozen aliens into Earth's volcanoes, creating life (for those of you who dont know, that is Scientology)

Quote:
Its a moral failing and a crime for everyone and its an illness whose victims need prayer for recovery.

If doing drugs is a moral failing, then so is watching Firefly, or any show for that matter, or going to the movies, or doing anything to distract yourself from the depressing monotony of life.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

SASSALICIOUS

Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:37 AM

Quote:
belief that Overlord Xenu dumped billions of frozen aliens into Earth's volcanoes, creating life (for those of you who dont know, that is Scientology)

Ewww. Is that really true? That's some f***ed up shit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:41 AM

Quote:
??? Surely you can understand why many people consider fetuses to be human beings? You must be baiting me but I can't for the life of me figure out what clever argument you have up your sleeve, now that you've lured me out.

No, I'm not baiting at all. I'm truly curious sicne I really don't know when we DO become "human".

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

KPO

Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:41 AM

Quote:
Not baiting, just an observation.

Err, I wasn't meaning the type of baiting that you do to bears, more baiting a trap and luring someone into it. Observe all you like

Quote:
The case can also be made that a fetus is merely a parasite, despite human qualities

I don't like the word 'merely' in there. Otherwise your sentence is fine. Being a parasite and a human being are not mutually exclusive though. You can argue the same (being a parasite) for any dependent child, from a suckling baby to a sponging teenager.

KPO

Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:55 AM

Quote:
Quote:
??? Surely you can understand why many people consider fetuses to be human beings? You must be baiting me but I can't for the life of me figure out what clever argument you have up your sleeve, now that you've lured me out.

No, I'm not baiting at all. I'm truly curious.

Okay... you still got to answer my question though.

They have DNA that shows they are human (I think - unless 'Heart of Gold' has lied to me...), and they are alive, so they are in a state of 'being'. Hence 'human being'.

And also I can't think of a way for you to neatly disqualify them... but that's where your trap comes into play...

PIRATEJENNY

Saturday, May 27, 2006 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
??? Surely you can understand why many people consider fetuses to be human beings? You must be baiting me but I can't for the life of me figure out what clever argument you have up your sleeve, now that you've lured me out.
No, I'm not baiting at all. I'm truly curious sicne I really don't know when we DO become "human".

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

you know I don't know at what point we become human beings either, but it has been reported by some people that there soul(pure consiousness) has hovered over or watched the mother right up until it was time to be born before they entered into physical existence. I'm only relaying what I've read and heard, (and although I don't remember at what point I entered into my mom's womb I have experienced being out of body on one occassion so I am personally familar with being in a state of pure consiousness) but if its true, then the fetus isn't alive, so if its true that most souls don't enter the womb until lets say the last month or two of preganancy or maybe the majority of souls wait right up until its time to be born before they entered into physical existence,then in the early stages of preganancy when most people abort, they wouldn't be killing a human being.

if it takes a soul to animate a human body, then the fetus or even the baby wouldn't be human until the soul entered into it.

just some food for thought

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 27, 2006 1:03 PM

Quote:
They have DNA that shows they are human (I think - unless 'Heart of Gold' has lied to me...), and they are alive, so they are in a state of 'being'. Hence 'human being'.

If I understand my biology correctly (biologists are welcome to step in and correct me) the fertilized human egg becomes BOTH the placenta AND the embryo. But the development can go awry and only a placenta develops. So here we have some tissue that is "alive" and it has the human genome but it clearly is not human. In fact- I can say the same thing of my liver, which is alive and has a human genome but is certainly not a human being. So being alive and having human genes is an insufficient definition to describe
"human being".

I hope you realize that I'm not trying to be tricky. I'm trying to reach a definition.

http://info.med.yale.edu/obgyn/kliman/placenta/articles/EOR_Placenta/T
rophtoplacenta.html
www.med.unc.edu/embryo_images/unit-bdyfm/bdyfm_htms/bdyfm003.htm

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

HERO

Saturday, May 27, 2006 1:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
How is wanting to get married and have a recognized homosexual union in any way trying to have rights superior to others?

Because they are already free to marry. A man, homsexual or not, can marry a woman, homosexual or not. But straight or gay, they cannot marry the same sex. Thus there is no discrimination to correct. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, as a lawyer, I support the idea of creating a mechanism, similar to marriage, by which couples can form a homosexual union. In fact I think such unions could benefit non-homosexuals such as elderly siblings, life-long friends, etc, by allowing them to more efficiently pool resources.

H

HERO

Saturday, May 27, 2006 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
The case can also be made that a fetus is merely a parasite, despite human qualities.

Thats true of my older brother too.

H

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 27, 2006 2:12 PM

Quote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Since the dispute revolves around the definition of marriage you're using the thing to be proved as proof. I forget the name of this fallacy. But perhaps you can enlighten us about the legal nature of marriage... what benefits and obligations accrue to being married, whether the expectation of exclusive sexual relations is a religious, customary or legal expectation etc. I know this varies state by state, but to start things off...

Obviously you can file your taxes as "married, filing joint" if you are married.
Social Security benefits come into play, since wives can draw from their husband's retirement (but not the other way around- seems like guys should fight this one).
Insurance (state law) benefits can extend to married partners. Some states recpgnize "domestic partners" as well.
Community property (state law) is also part of some marriage contracts.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

SASSALICIOUS

Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:13 PM

Why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman? I know that's what most, if not all, lawbooks say. However, there are many many laws that we commonly disregard because they are lame. Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman, but traditional marriage was more about giving away the woman/female child to the highest bidder. There is still evidence of this in the ceremony.

And what the Bible says shouldn't have any bearing on what happen's in the courtroom.

Furthermore, you're acting as though homosexuality is a choice, when it's not. There have been studies done on mice that have generated homosexual mice. Without going into complexities, Gender Identity Disorder can result in a homosexual pairing from external views but heterosexual when internally viewed. Sexual reassignments for children with non-discernible genitals. What if you get it "wrong"? He's genetically male and has been raised female his whole life. If environment exerts a strong enough force, he might continue to believe he's female. Regardless of who he marries it's arguably a homosexual relationship. "As Nature Made Him: The Story of the Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl" is an interesting read about a boy who was sex-changed to a girl around 1 year of age. He experienced a lot of internal conflict growing up that only resolved itself when his parents confessed and he had a sex-change back to male.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CITIZEN

Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by KPO:
They have DNA that shows they are human (I think - unless 'Heart of Gold' has lied to me...), and they are alive, so they are in a state of 'being'. Hence 'human being'.

So does the skin on my arm.

I burnt my arm in an accident involving me and some very hot cooking oil. I've got a pretty bad burn now and many, many cells died in this tragedy, they all had Human DNA, they were all alive until I mercilessly cut them down with my carelessness.

I guess that makes me guilty of multiple counts of manslaughter.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

RUE

Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:37 PM

Zero: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

SignyM: Since the dispute revolves around the definition of marriage you're using the thing to be proved as proof.

SignyM,

Don't pay attention to Zero. He's just aping an intellect. It's pitiful. It's like watching a dog try to talk.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

RUE

Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:40 PM

I'm still sticking with my definition of a human life as 'normal cortical brain activity'. It works for the end of human life, 'brain dead' = dead. Both logic and biology demand it be applied to the beginning as well as the end.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, June 1, 2006 2:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm still sticking with my definition of a human life as 'normal cortical brain activity'. It works for the end of human life, 'brain dead' = dead. Both logic and biology demand it be applied to the beginning as well as the end.

I second this.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, June 1, 2006 2:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
This is what many in the Right are uncomprehending on: Creationism isn't a theory! By definition, a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, and that there is a hell of a lot of evidence for. Creationism does not meet that standard because it is just a guess with ZERO evidence.

The problem is that Creationists don't care about science. They are willing to take their beliefs and modify then slightly to make them sound scientific (Intelligent Design my ass), but they are not willing to accept that their beliefs do not hold up to scientific study.

Quote:
THAT is why it doesn't belong in the classroom any more than the belief that Overlord Xenu dumped billions of frozen aliens into Earth's volcanoes, creating life (for those of you who dont know, that is Scientology)

Wait..you mean that isn't real????? What have I been wasting all my money on???? Hold on...I was told that anyone who wasn't at least O.T. 3 would die if they heard about that...oh god...you just killed everyone who read this thread.

Anybody who wants more info on the reality of Scientology should go to this website:
http://www.xenu.net/
it's amazing what the Scientologists believe.

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, July 18, 2025 5:04 AM

Johnson gives ‘glory to God’ for Trump’s big bill but others say God is mocked

https://baptistnews.com/article/johnson-gives-glory-to-god-for-trumps-
big-bill-but-others-say-god-is-mocked/

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, July 25, 2025 6:57 PM

Donald Trump halts more than $300bn in US green infrastructure funding
https://www.ft.com/content/fcaf50dc-6779-44d2-a7fa-264df798a4c1
New president’s order to pause federal disbursements cuts critical loans and grants to developers

Israeli War on Gaza Infrastructure, Trump Tariff Economic Hit, Myanmar Mining Pollution, Runaway Global Arms Race
https://gijn.org/stories/trump-tariff-economic-hit-myanmar-mining/

More than 200 NASA employees sign letter opposing Trump budget cuts: Here's what it said

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2025/07/23/nasa-workers-letter-bug
et-cuts-trump/85325642007/

After Trump cuts NASA's funding, will China dominate the space race?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/video/2025/07/18/after-trump-cuts-nasas-funding
-will-china-dominate-the-space-race/

Hundreds of NASA Employees Blast Trump Over “Wasteful Changes” to Agency

https://truthout.org/articles/hundreds-of-nasa-employees-blast-trump-o
ver-wasteful-changes-to-agency/

NASA employees break silence, blast Trump's budget cuts

https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/nearly-300-nasa-employees-r
ebuke-trump-s-budget-cuts/story

‘We dissent’: NASA staff declare opposition to Trump cuts

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02296-1

Trump tax bill averts one debt crisis but makes future financial woes worse
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tax-bill-averts-one-debt-crisis
-makes-future-financial-woes-worse-2025-07-03/