US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[symphonious7]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

What Vallen said. It's not so much that they're "pro-life," as they are "pro-fetus." And apparently once said fetus is out of the womb and growing up, many of them just stop giving a damn about it. Hence the severe cognitive dissonance. I generally chalk it up to a theistic fetish for "innocence," a la the obsession so many religions have with virginity, and purity.

It's always why I refuse to call groups like the Church or those who share that position on the issue "pro-life." That implies the other side of the aisle is "pro-death." The more accurate terms are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice."



"Religious" in these cases meaning "Christian." God knows the GOP needed themselves a waaaambulence or several over that Muslim center by Ground Zero. And let's not forget those Muslims trying to overthrow Oklahoma government and install...Shariah law...

Soon they might be up to .9% of the state's population

First off, the death penalty is for humans who have forfeited their right to being human. They already had their chance and they blew it by destroying the lives of enough other people that they were deemed too dangerous to stay on this planet. Now I'm not actually for the death penalty, NOT because I don't believe there are people who have committed crimes that are worthy of being killed, but because I don't trust anybody running this country to make that decision justly. But to say that supporting killing a mass murderer is somehow comparable to wanting to save an innocent life that has all the potential to be as good or bad as it wants, is not a fair comparison.

Then you say that it shouldn't be considered "pro life" because abortionists aren't pro death... Well, they are pro jamming a sharp object into the head of a child as it sees it's first light of day and then sucking it's brains through a tube, that sounds pretty pro death to me.

Now, if you're talking about earlier stages of abortion, the kind that is not quite so gruesome, then I at least UNDERSTAND your position, but I still don't agree, once that baby starts being formed to any degree I consider it an innocent citizen guilty of no crime who should have all the rights to life that any citizen should have. And this has nothing to do with me being a christian, it's common sense right and wrong in my opinion.

Edit: I just realized I quoted the wrong post... sorry, it should be obvious who I meant to quote.

[Vexx]

I think that's a good call.... some of my relatives are "pro fetus" but to hell with them after they're born. And yeah --- deloading the labels is a Good Idea (choice, anti-choice).

Deep down I think a boatful of these folks just want to punish anyone for having sex. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

edit: I too have some qualms after the nervous system is fully formed and taking sensory input. But the "morning after" pills and contraception completely sidestep that kind of issue. Hence the difficulty in not thinking its more about busybodies wanting to control access to sex in some twisted way.

[symphonious7]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I think that's a good call.... some of my relatives are "pro fetus" but to hell with them after they're born. And yeah --- deloading the labels is a Good Idea (choice, anti-choice).

Deep down I think a boatful of these folks just want to punish anyone for having sex. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

edit: I too have some qualms after the nervous system is fully formed and taking sensory input. But the "morning after" pills and contraception completely sidestep that kind of issue. Hence the difficulty in not thinking its more about busybodies wanting to control access to sex in some twisted way.

There's nothing wrong with the morning after pill or birth control, but surely you're not saying you support partial birth abortion? Sigh... I'm gonna go ahead and post this, but I probably will just leave the conversation after this statement, I really don't want to get into anything heated when I've just joined the site. I just... I just don't understand this line of thinking, it seems so... so obviously wrong to me.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by symphonious7

There's nothing wrong with the morning after pill or birth control, but surely you're not saying you support partial birth abortion?

Why are you asking that question to a post that includes this?

I too have some qualms after the nervous system is fully formed and taking sensory input.

I don't want to rule out the option of later abortion for medical reasons... but I want to work hard and provide good solid options outside of abortion in non-medical cases. People make errors, the pill has a statistical failure rate, condoms fail even more often.

I'd be much more inclined to listen to the anti-choice people if they were fully committed to the newborn and children and not just the fetus. There's a deep systemic hypocrisy in the self-proclaimed "religious" faction (Catholic/evangelical hyper-conservatives)... I should re-assemble my old "Jesus would kick the shit of these folks because..." quotes the Bible credits him with.

[symphonious7]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Why are you asking that question to a post that includes this?

Somehow that part didn't register. Like I read it, but it didn't compute as to what that means. I'll chalk it up to a brain fart.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

.

"Religious" in these cases meaning "Christian" (the right type of Christian anyway) God knows the GOP needed themselves a waaaambulence or several over that Muslim center by Ground Zero. And let's not forget those Muslims trying to overthrow Oklahoma's government and install...Shariah law...

I mean, soon they might be up to .9% of the state's population

I'll point out that Tim Kaine is a Democrat.

[Ledgem]

symphonious, one of the nice things about this site is the fact that we can get into heated discussions and it doesn't degenerate into flame wars or hatreds. If you argue strongly enough across a number of threads you may develop a follower or following of people who look out for you specifically to pick arguments with, but that's the worst that would happen. If you want to leave the thread it would be understandable, given that the views you're defending are generally not very popular among internet-goers, but otherwise I'd invite you to stay and express your thoughts. At the very least, I find it valuable because it gives me some insight into how "the other side" thinks.

Originally Posted by symphonious7

First off, the death penalty is for humans who have forfeited their right to being human. They already had their chance and they blew it by destroying the lives of enough other people that they were deemed too dangerous to stay on this planet. Now I'm not actually for the death penalty, NOT because I don't believe there are people who have committed crimes that are worthy of being killed, but because I don't trust anybody running this country to make that decision justly. But to say that supporting killing a mass murderer is somehow comparable to wanting to save an innocent life that has all the potential to be as good or bad as it wants, is not a fair comparison.

You're right, but it shows a double-standard all the same. The idea behind saving a fetus is because it has the potential to be innocent, is that it? Let's suppose we have someone on death row who is, without a doubt, guilty. Who is to say that this man or woman can't turn their life around? After all, people can change, right? If we want to get into the religious aspects of it, didn't Jesus preach about forgiveness? If saving a fetus is about saving an innocent life, then shouldn't we abolish the death penalty in order to save a life that could become something wonderful to society? Let God do the judging, and let humans try the rehabilitation?

My own personal view is that the death penalty is warranted in a number of cases, but the justice system needs to be way more careful about who it puts there. However, I don't have this idea that all fetuses represent life. To me, forcing people to have an unwanted child seems absolutely cruel. You have forced someone to bear the burden of a child, but more importantly, you have brought a child into the world who already has a mark against them from day one. Those children may never know what it is to grow up in a "normal," loving, supportive family. I won't say that their lives are destined to ruin and misery, because nobody can say that for certain - they might grow up to love their life, even. However, I can say for certain that as a fetus, they won't care whether they're aborted or not, because they do not have feeling, thought, or self-awareness.

Originally Posted by symphonious7

Then you say that it shouldn't be considered "pro life" because abortionists aren't pro death... Well, they are pro jamming a sharp object into the head of a child as it sees it's first light of day and then sucking it's brains through a tube, that sounds pretty pro death to me.

What you are describing is pure fantasy. Abortions do not take place this way... unless, perhaps, you're forcing women to get "back alley" abortions. Of course, if you think that's really how abortions occur, then I'm not surprised to hear that you oppose them.

Originally Posted by symphonious7

Now, if you're talking about earlier stages of abortion, the kind that is not quite so gruesome, then I at least UNDERSTAND your position, but I still don't agree, once that baby starts being formed to any degree I consider it an innocent citizen guilty of no crime who should have all the rights to life that any citizen should have. And this has nothing to do with me being a christian, it's common sense right and wrong in my opinion.

I don't see how it's common sense. You're saying that just because it has human genetics, human form, and offers the capability to become a full-fledged human, that it is a full-fledged human? That a bundle of cells that could just as easily be growing in a Petri dish is a human?

What does it mean to you to be human?

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I'll point out that Tim Kaine is a Democrat.

Indeed he is; then I probably shouldn't have quoted that post specifically, because my point was more that Christianity usually appears to be the only religion afforded any consideration by most politicians, using that largely Republican talking point about the center as an example.

[Ithekro]

One thing I discovered in College was that Abortion is really an undebatable subject.

The reason for this is that the two primary sides (Right-to-Life and Pro-Choice) do not argue against each others points. They have two completely different point they are debating, so they pass each other on the debate floor without managing a counter argument to each others points...since that is now what each side is debating.

One side is debating on the rights of the fetus to life.

The other is debating on a woman's choice (and control of her body).

The problem is...the Right-to-Life groups are not interested in debating about a woman's choice. They focus on the fetus.

Likewise the Pro-Choice group is not interested in debating about the fetus. They focus on the woman.

Thus they cannot actually debate each other properly. We found this out when we tried to hold a mock debate in Political Sciences. In a debate, you are suppose to take up a single issue and debate the pros and cons of the issue. With Abortion, the two sides fail to have a debate because they are not debating the pros and cons of the same issue, but only one side each of two different issues.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by symphonious7

First off, the death penalty is for humans who have forfeited their right to being human. They already had their chance and they blew it by destroying the lives of enough other people that they were deemed too dangerous to stay on this planet. Now I'm not actually for the death penalty, NOT because I don't believe there are people who have committed crimes that are worthy of being killed, but because I don't trust anybody running this country to make that decision justly. But to say that supporting killing a mass murderer is somehow comparable to wanting to save an innocent life that has all the potential to be as good or bad as it wants, is not a fair comparison.

Petitio principii. On what basis do you consider an embryo an 'innocent life', or a 'life' in the first place?

Then you say that it shouldn't be considered "pro life" because abortionists aren't pro death... Well, they are pro jamming a sharp object into the head of a child as it sees it's first light of day and then sucking it's brains through a tube, that sounds pretty pro death to me.

Misleading vividness arising from hasty generalization. Not all abortions are performed late-term, as your spiel would seem to indicate. Please do some research of your own into how abortions are typically carried out, for your own sake. In any case, nice attempt at an ignoratio elenchi, but I'm not sold.

Now, if you're talking about earlier stages of abortion, the kind that is not quite so gruesome, then I at least UNDERSTAND your position, but I still don't agree, once that baby starts being formed to any degree I consider it an innocent citizen guilty of no crime who should have all the rights to life that any citizen should have. And this has nothing to do with me being a christian, it's common sense right and wrong in my opinion.

Once again, you make a petitio principii; this time, that an developing embryo is an 'innocent citizen' who somehow have a claim on some undefined 'rights to life'. On what basis do you make that assertion?

P.S. Mods, maybe it's been long enough that we might consider reviving the Abortion thread again. No, I do not have any ulterior motives. Why do you ask?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

edit: I too have some qualms after the nervous system is fully formed and taking sensory input.

I belive than many country do have restriction about how late they can do a abortion when it not the doctor than have their own ''X-weeks''limit.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

One thing I discovered in College was that Abortion is really an undebatable subject.

The reason for this is that the two primary sides (Right-to-Life and Pro-Choice) do not argue against each others points. They have to completely different point they are debating, so they pass each other on the debate floor without managing a counter argument to each others points...since that is now what each side is debating.

One side is debating on the rights of the fetus to life.
The other is debating on a woman's choice.

The problem is...the Right-to-Life groups are not interested in debating about a woman's choice. They focus on the fetus.

Likewise the Pro-Choice group is not interested in debating about the fetus. They focus on the woman.

Thus they cannot actually debate each other properly. We found this out when we tried to hold a mock debate in Political Sciences. In a debate, you are suppose to take up a single issue and debate the pros and cons of the issue. With Abortion, teh two sides fail to have a debate because they are not debating the pros and cons of the same issue, but only one side of two different issues.

I think it can be debated.

The big, major issue in my mind is why the anti-choice crowd should get to dictate the national agenda. I don't like the thought of killing animals, but do I try to make hunting illegal? No - I just don't hunt. I think putting children up for adoption is terribly sad, but do I try to shut down orphanages or make it illegal for parents to give up their children? No - if I have a child, I simply will not put him or her up for adoption. If you don't like abortion, then don't get an abortion - leave other people alone.

The reason why it gets tricky, as I understand it, is because these people view a fetus as if it were the exact same as, say, a toddler. Nobody would support the notion of a parent killing their child. I can sort of get where these people are coming from, but it just seems inane to me. You're going to put a bundle of cells, incapable of thought or feeling, above the woman who is necessary for their survival? That seems to be lacking in common sense to me (let's put this potential future person above a person who is currently living, thinking, and feeling). It's tempting to even call it anti-feminist, but that just heightens the name-calling I suppose.

[DonQuigleone]

I'm pro-Choice, but Anti-Abortion.

Let's face it, if abortion is illegal, women are just going to find other ways to end their pregnancies, usually in a way that's less safe and less secure.

I don't think the average woman going for an abortion does so lightly, often they're afraid they're families will stigmatize them (if the pregnancy is out of wedlock), or they're simply financially or emotionally unprepared.

Women need to have all options at their disposal. As a society, we should never accept abortion, we should allow it, but work with women to ensure they use proper birth control, so that women don't have to be faced with that choice in the first place.

I have a family member who got pregnant at 14, if she had borne that baby to term, it would have not been good for her. She was stupid enough to get pregnant in the first place, she certainly wouldn't have properly dealt with a baby. And being pregnant would have destroyed her social standing, on top of that, she would have been shunned by society at large.

But if, say, I was in a stable loving relationship, and through a some accident got my wife/GF into an unplanned pregnancy, I'd personally prefer to keep the baby(though this would partially depend on whether I want to stay with the GF long term or not), but would ultimately leave it up to her. She's the one who's going to have carry the baby for 9 months.

Likewise, I'd agree there should be limits on how late in the pregnancy a baby can be terminated, but most pro-choicers would agree on that anyway...

[Vexx]

I found this discussion quite interesting about the "new hate - same as the old hate" vitriol permeating the GOP rhetoric and who it appeals to.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/inside_the_new_hate/

I'll say again I'm of the opinion some of this is the death rattle of world views that are failing to adapt... but it doesn't mean it couldn't be violent on the way out.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

House speaker vows to stop Obama contraceptive rule

Someday I really hope Evangelical Christians learn how to read the Torah.
I understand and accept it for what it says and means, not what the Holy Roman Empire's state religion of Catholicism interprets it to mean.

THIS is why I'm pro-choice/abortion.

Psalm 137:9

I should also note that this psalm is referring to doing that to one's enemies, but that doesn't change the reality of it, nor the reason why most Hebrews/Jews have no qualms about abortion, or the death penalty for criminals.

Back on track with the US 2012 election.

Here is the main reason I will NOT vote Obama.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/08/ho...s-to-ban-guns/

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

THIS is why I'm pro-choice/abortion.

Psalm 137:9

I should also note that this psalm is referring to doing that to one's enemies, but that doesn't change the reality of it, nor the reason why most Hebrews/Jews have no qualms about abortion, or the death penalty for criminals.

While I'm pleased to see that we're on the same wavelength on this issue, I looked at your link and have to admit, I'm drawing a blank as to how that makes you pro-choice. Can you explain it a bit further?

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I think it can be debated.

Can be, but usually isn't for the reason I gave.

If they focus entirely on the issue from their platform's point of view (either of the two major sides) then they do not debate their opponent's issue at all. There are smaller groups that focus on other issues and can debate, but the two big groups? Not a chance...not with the way their agendas are written.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

While I'm pleased to see that we're on the same wavelength on this issue, I looked at your link and have to admit, I'm drawing a blank as to how that makes you pro-choice. Can you explain it a bit further?

It is an example of how the Tanakh is far harsher than what many Christians claim it says.
In other words, if it's okay to smash the skull of your enemies children during the conquest of their lands, then the value on life is (in my opinion) not nearly as high as current Evangelicals are preaching.

Put yet another way, if it's okay to kill adults and children for the number of reasons listed in the Torah, then how can any Christian claim to worship/acknowledge the same diety/entity as the Hebrews?

It's something that Theosophists and Thelemists have talked about for years, and while I am no longer among their ranks some of their observations about Christianity have stuck with me.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

It is an example of how the Tanakh is far harsher than what many Christians claim it says.
In other words, if it's okay to smash the skull of your enemies children during the conquest of their lands, then the value on life is (in my opinion) not nearly as high as current Evangelicals are preaching.

Put yet another way, if it's okay to kill adults and children for the number of reasons listed in the Torah, then how can any Christian claim to worship/acknowledge the same diety/entity as the Hebrews?

It's something that Theosophists and Thelemists have talked about for years, and while I am no longer among their ranks some of their observations about Christianity have stuck with me.

A lot of those from the Catholicism branches have apparently chosen to make a gross separation between the God of the Old and New Testaments. I don't remember offhand which Christian Council it came from (Nicea?), but modern Catholic identity is almost solely based on the God of the New Testament because the God of the Old Testament was found to be... well... much too violent and bloodthirsty which looks to be very diametrically opposed to the loving and sacrificing God of the New Testament, but I think you know that already.

But I think we both know that like today, a lot of the Church leadership at the time chose to ignore the wrathful God of the Old Testament because it didn't seem to be in line with the God that Jesus spoke off, and this is the same Jesus that went apeshit on the money lenders and tax collectors in the temple.

[DonQuigleone]

Let's also remember that Catholicism (and Orthodox Christianity) put church "tradition" above what is written in the bible. Where the Bible and tradition disagree, tradition wins. For instance, the holy trinity is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the bible, it is a product of tradition. Likewise, the catholic emphasis on the Rosary, or the Nicene Creed are not in the bible. Both of those elements are present in the other "old style" Orthodox church.

The idea of following the Bible absolutely without any value placed on Church tradition, is solely a Protestant thing. Most Christians do not do so.