The Next President of the USA will be?

[wanna be drummer]

srplane....no probs, and I'm not being combative but....guess what? If you had been aborted I don't think you'd give a shit...you woulnd't have even known...and guess what else? The world wouldn't have suffered for it either...sorry if that sounds cruel but it's the truth.

50 million babies have been killed because of abortion.

Yet liberals bitch about the shortage of teachers.

2% of peopl become teachers.

Thats about 1 million killed off teachers.

Killed Fetus FTW

[Medhb]

Do you have some problem with people who treat their pets as though they were human members of the family? I don't see why you would or why you should. Nothing in Medbh's post deserved any kind of mocking or derision.

Thank you Elizabeth...I appreciate your understanding. Not everyone has the kind of compassion I do. Believe me, I probably contribute more to various charities than srplane does, I have compassion for lot's of people....others...NONE! I have compassion for Viet Nam vets who never recovered from the horrors of war and need assistance, I contribute to the Veterans in many ways. The older Veterans that served in World War II (such as my father in law) who can't afford the medications needed in their advancing years. I contribute to the Heifer organization that helps people in third world countries become self sufficient through agriculture....I've paid for a a village to get chickens that will lay eggs that they can sell and feed themselves with. For the Winter Solstice instead of gifts for people at work I buy a cow for a village so they can have milk and breed more cows. I feel really good about that. I give every poor person who is begging money. I contribute my time to the senior citizen center helping serve meals or provide holiday entertainment to people who are old and appreciate those contributions. I contribute to food drives and clothing drives.

Maybe I'm in a financial situation where I'm able to do that because...I have the luxury of expendable income becuase I made a concientious decision to not have children.

srplane, I'd LOVE to know what your charitable contributions to the world are...please share!!

OH! I did forget, of course....I contribut a LOT to the Humane society also....money for pet food and assorted needs. To the retired Standardbred Racehorse fund and to other assorted charities that protect our natural wildlife such as wolves and the wild mustangs. Oh, and the Brazilian Rainforest too because....well if anyone doesn't know why, they shouldn't be in this debate to begin with...

[Medhb]

50 million babies have been killed because of abortion.

Yet liberals bitch about the shortage of teachers.

2% of peopl become teachers.

Thats about 1 million killed off teachers.

Killed Fetus FTW

Drummer, you know I luv you bud but...THAT has to be the stupidest post I've ever seen you make. THAT is 49 million less kids we've not been able to NOT educate!! DUH!!!!!

Edited for clarity

Edited August 24, 2008 by Medhb

[pickenpieces]

Curiously, more and more couples are deciding together that they dont want to either bring children into the world or parent a child. For whatever reasons....between my husbands family and mine....6 kids...only one of them has children, my brother! My husband and I dont have children, both of my husbands sisters dont have children, and my sister doenst have children....and its not like any of us couldnt provide for children. We are upper middle class and have our reasons for not having children.

I wish this decision was more widespread. Especially with the 3rd World countries and immigrants for the most part, bucking this reproductive conservation. Its been said caucasians need to start reproducing more, for instance in Europe (Italy especially), to counter the minority populations rise. NO, everyone needs to reproduce less.

[wanna be drummer]

Drummer, you know I luv you bud but...THAT has to be the stupidest post I've ever seen you make. THAT is 49 million less kids we've not been able to NOT educate!! DUH!!!!!

Edited for clarity

We could educate them. You figure we have 74 million teachers in a population of 300 million. We'd be able to do it...

[Medhb]

That's fine Medheb. You may not believe me when I say that I figured out a while back that you seem to be a person around here that cares. While we may not agree on much, I do think that you are a good honest person. I never had any intention of causing you any grief, sorry if I did.

Not at all Sweetie...I know in the end, we all have the best intentions. We are having a lively debate. I don't hold grudges and I respect your opinion and appreciate that you respect mine.

[wanna be drummer]

Not at all Sweetie...I know in the end, we all have the best intentions. We are having a lively debate. I don't hold grudges and I respect your opinion and appreciate that you respect mine.

You're assuming that those kids were all born at the same time. This is over decades, we'd be able to educate a couple million more every year, especially if we get that sort of help from another million educators. So yes, we'd be able to.

[pickenpieces]

50 million babies have been killed because of abortion.

Yet liberals bitch about the shortage of teachers.

2% of peopl become teachers.

Thats about 1 million killed off teachers.

Killed Fetus FTW

Its bad enough now, can you imagine 50 million more people in our country today? By 2040 its estimated there will be 400 million in the US, now its about 300 million. OH boy, jeepers!!!!!!

[Medhb]

We could educate them. You figure we have 74 million teachers in a population of 300 million. We'd be able to do it...

Oh Honey, we can't even properly educate the current population...not to mention feeding and clothing them and putting roofs over their heads. Does anyone see the irony that republicans don't want to spend very much money on social programs yet...they don't want to allow most of the people that rely on those programs to have an abortion??

[Electrophile]

Oh Honey, we can't even properly educate the current population...not to mention feeding and clothing them and putting roofs over their heads. Does anyone see the irony that republicans don't want to spend very much money on social programs yet...they don't want to allow most of the people that rely on those programs to have an abortion??

The kicker is, they don't want universal health care that would allow those women denied abortions the ability to receive health and neo-natal care, that would allow them to deliver a healthy child to term, to then give up for adoption. And if those women don't want to give the kids up, they don't want to provide social programs for those mothers, either through day care, Head Start, anything else like that.

"If you're pre-born, you're great. If you're pre-school, you're fucked."

[Medhb]

You're assuming that those kids were all born at the same time. This is over decades, we'd be able to educate a couple million more every year, especially if we get that sort of help from another million educators. So yes, we'd be able to.

No. I'm not.

Please see pickenpeices post below. Hello???!! Is anyone home????

[Medhb]

The kicker is, they don't want universal health care that would allow those women denied abortions the ability to receive health and neo-natal care, that would allow them to deliver a healthy child to term, to then give up for adoption. And if those women don't want to give the kids up, they don't want to provide social programs for those mothers, either through day care, Head Start, anything else like that.

"If you're pre-born, you're great. If you're pre-school, you're fucked."

[pickenpieces]

If youre pre-school, youre fucked.

There is something quite unsettling about that.

[Del Zeppnile]

Funny you should bring that up Del, see I think that's infringing on a persons right to a quality and meaningful life. I, personally, have made a living will to ensure that I will NOT be recesutated or put on life support sytems. AND I already have the plan for taking my OWN life if it ever comes to the point where I feel my life is no longer a 'quality' life...and I will define the term quality.

That's fine, but what about people who have not made a living will or an advance directive? I have no problem with YOU making a determination on your own quality of life, but do you really think it's okay for someone else to make that decision?

Have you ever had an old pet? My dog, who I had since he was 6 weeks old died, finally, at 17. The last year of his life I agonized daily about whether he should be put to 'sleep'. He had dementia, had lost all control of his internal functions (if you know what I mean) and couldn't eat anymore. I made him special homemade food every day, cleaned up his messes, cleaned him up and agonized...is he in pain? Is he enjoying life as it is? Thanfully, one painful night, nature took it's course and he passed. In my arms on the way to the emergency vet clinic at 3 a.m. I've also had to make the hard decision to take the life of many other pets based on their physical condition and ability to live a happy life.

But you are talking about an animal not a human being. I have had to put animals down too, I know it is not a pleasant experience. But animals are not entitled to equal protection under the law... they are not persons. I respect your sensibility on this issue, but it has no bearing in the debate over human fetuses.

Now I know I will get beat up for comparing an animals life with a persons life however...who's to say which form of life is more important?! I, personally, have more empathy for animals than people since they have no 'choice'.

The laws of most societies say that human life is more important than animal life.... obviously. I could buy a cow and have that as a pet (as long as my city was zoned for that). And then at some point I could decide to butcher the cow and eat it... doesn't matter how the cow may feel about that.

I believe very strongly that the inability to distinguish between the sanctitiy of 'human life' over animal life may be part of the problem in this debate. But as it stands, murder is defined (at least in my state) as: the unlawful killing of a human being OR A FETUS, with malice aforethought.

There are no murder laws for killing animals. Why? Because they are not human beings.

By taking away 'choice' from a woman whether or not to give 'life' to a developing cell system...

You see this gets to the heart of the issue for me. When you say a "developing cell system" you seem to gloss over the fact that it is a 'developing HUMAN being.' Cancer is a "developing cell system" but it doesn't end up as a living, breathing, crying infant child. It's not like that "developing cell system" is going to be a another foot sprouted out of a woman's womb. And that is why I believe that at the moment of conception that "developing cell system" is a special kind of development; it contains all the genetic and special information that makes for a unique individual... even if it may not be unrecognizable to the eye, or our senses as that... at least not at that point. It still is what it is --- a developing HUMAN fetus.

A friend sent me this short 4 minute video from youtube; I think it pretty much illustrates a good point on when life begins.

...in fact two lives may be forced to live without quality....

Are you willing to kill the fetus because it "may be forced to live without quality." How can anyone make that big of an assumption? In fact, despite all sorts of "quality of life issues," how many people are jumping off of buildings because they aren't living in the Hamptons or get a new bike every Christmas. We don't know what the qualitiy of anyone's life is going to be, or how that person feels it is to them. That is for individuals to decide. I'm sure you have known many people who were unplanned pregnancies, or who were adopted. Lots of people who's "qualities" have made a difference in all of our lives despite any adversitiy in their childhood, or problems their parent (mother) may have experienced.

I think a woman should have the right to determine if her child deserves to have a 'quality' life and sometimes that means not having a life at all. How many of the starving children in other countries do you think would really rather not be alive? They don't even have the energy to swat the flies off themselves....yes, let's just keep producing more and more lives....regarless of the quality becuase 'God' says so.

My problem with this kind of logic is that it is pretty much the same arguement, to some degree, that Nazi's and Stalinists used in determining which lives should be terminated as well. I hate using that type of extreme comparison, but it is true that some of the same logic was applied. In the end, dictators made the determination on what the "quality of life" was for individuals, their own society, and the societies of those nations that they conquered.

That aside, as Elizabeth has pointed out, it is a religious based decision. While I respect your dedication to your beliefs I'm rather disappointed in you that you can't seperate religion from government and that the abortion issue is a deal breaker for you. Why bother to even find out ANTHING about the candidates then? If you were the press, you'd have one question only for the candidates...yeah, that makes sense.

Of course you have to vote with your heart but let the rest of us who believe in seperation of religion and government vote with our brains.

Everyone is free to arrive at their own moral beliefs, but allow me to make another kind of arguement on this. Over 150 years ago while this nation and other European nations were still involved in the slave trade. It was primarily the voices of 'religious people' who raised the opposition to the inhuman act of enslaving people on the basis of their race. And while much of slavery was supported by the false belief that black Africans were sub-human and therefore not entitled to the same protections as whites. It was religious people who made the arguement that "the light of humanity" was just as bright in a black as in a white, and that slaves were worthy of all the same protections. These dissenters, the Abolishinists and other people with a religious conscience like them, were villified for their cause. Yet they were the heroes of their time as history has now demonstrated. We don't lesson their legacy just because they were arriving at their worldview based on their religious beliefs. But unfortunatly we don't seem to acknowledge that religious connection in this day and age either. Something completly glossed over by modern historians and apologists. Such a shame.

Were they correct or where they wrong? If they recognized the sanctity of humaness in a black person, based on the obvious genetic and logical "personhood" of people of color. What is so different in religious and other moral people making the "personhood" issue, based on the obvious human genetic development in a human fetus? But the fact is, the logic can be arrived at by science and how we attatch our secular laws to that science. Scientific fact is that it is a human being in development, just as in the other debate over slavery, it was a scientific fact that the black African human being is just a person with a different amount of melanin in their skin. Not less human, or less of a person.

In this country there has always been a connection between religion and government and our political leaders. From our founding fathers, to the abolishionists and civil rights leaders; to the two canidates now running for President. It is right to consider their beliefs. And just as Rev. Rick Warren pointed out in his debate forum two weeks ago; "everyone has a worldview", so it is important that voters have a chance to consider what that view is. And that is why the stand on abortion is a perfectly acceptable question to raise in any political race for national, state, or any office where the laws affecting abortion may be impacted, one way or the other.

I appreciate your opposing viewpoint. You are perfectly entitled to that viewpoint. But I reject the idea by some here that this issue has no place in this discussion or this thread. Especially since this one topic just might be the deciding factor in who will hold the most powerful public office in the world.

Cheers,

Del

Edited August 24, 2008 by Del Zeppnile

[Medhb]

That's fine, but what about people who have not made a living will or an advance directive? I have no problem with YOU making a determination on your own quality of life, but do you really think it's okay for someone else to make that decision?

But you are talking about an animal not a human being. I have had to put animals down too, I know it is not a pleasant experience. But animals are not entitled to equal protection under the law... they are not persons. I respect your sensibility on this issue, but it has no bearing in the debate over human fetuses.

The laws of most societies say that human life is more important than animal life.... obviously. I could buy a cow and have that as a pet (as long as my city was zoned for that). And then at some point I could decide to butcher the cow and eat it... doesn't matter how the cow may feel about that.

I believe very strongly that the inability to distinguish between the sanctitiy of 'human life' over animal life may be part of the problem in this debate. But as it stands, murder is defined (at least in my state) as: the unlawful killing of a human being OR A FETUS, with malice aforethought.

There are no murder laws for killing animals. Why? Because they are not human beings.

You see this gets to the heart of the issue for me. When you say a "developing cell system" you seem to gloss over the fact that it is a 'developing HUMAN being.' Cancer is a "developing cell system" but it doesn't end up as a living, breathing, crying infant child. It's not like that "developing cell system" is going to be a another foot sprouted out of a woman's womb. And that is why I believe that at the moment of conception that "developing cell system" is a special kind of development; it contains all the genetic and special information that makes for a unique individual... even if it may not be unrecognizable to the eye, or our senses as that... at least not at that point. It still is what it is --- a developing HUMAN fetus.

A friend sent me this short 4 minute video from youtube; I think it pretty much illustrates a good point on when life begins.

Are you willing to kill the fetus because it "may be forced to live without quality." How can anyone make that big of an assumption? In fact, despite all sorts of "quality of life issues," how many people are jumping off of buildings because they aren't living in the Hamptons or get a new bike every Christmas. We don't know what the qualitiy of anyone's life is going to be, or how that person feels it is to them. That is for individuals to decide. I'm sure you have known many people who were unplanned pregnancies, or who were adopted. Lots of people who's "qualities" have made a difference in all of our lives despite any adversitiy in their childhood, or problems their parent (mother) may have experienced.

My problem with this kind of logic is that it is pretty much the same arguement, to some degree, that Nazi's and Stalinists used in determining which lives should be terminated as well. I hate using that type of extreme comparison, but it is true that some of the same logic was applied. In the end, dictators made the determination on what the "quality of life" was for individuals, their own society, and the societies of those nations that they conquered.

Everyone is free to arrive at their own moral beliefs, but allow me to make another kind of arguement on this. Over 150 years ago while this nation and other European nations were still involved in the slave trade. It was primarily the voices of 'religious people' who raised the opposition to the inhuman act of enslaving people on the basis of their race. And while much of slavery was supported by the false belief that black Africans were sub-human and therefore not entitled to the same protections as whites. It was religious people who made the arguement that "the light of humanity" was just a bright in a black as in a white, and that slaves were worthy of all the same protections. These dissenters, the Abolishinists and other people with a religious conscience like them, were villified for their cause. Yet they were the heroes of their time as history has now demonstrated. We don't lesson their legacy just because they were arriving at their worldview based on their religious beliefs. But unfortunatly we don't seem to acknowledge that religious connection in this day and age either. Something completly glossed over by modern historians and apologists. Such a shame.

Were they correct or where they wrong? If they recognized the sanctity of humaness in a black person, based on the obvious genetic and logical "personhood" of people of color. What is so different in religious and other moral people making the "personhood" issue, based on the obvious human genetic development in a human fetus? But the fact is, the logic can be arrived at by science and how we attatch our secular laws to that science. Scientific fact is that it is a human being in development, just as in the other debate over slavery, it was a scientific fact that the black African human being is just a person with a different amount of melanin in their skin. Not less human, or less of a person.

In this country there has always been a connection between religion and government and our political leaders. From our founding fathers, to the abolishionists and civil rights leaders; to the two canidates now running for President. It is right to consider their beliefs. And just as Rev. Rick Warren pointed out in his debate forum two weeks ago; "everyone has a worldview", so it is important that voters have a chance to consider what that view is. And that is why the stand on abortion is a perfectly acceptable question to raise in any political race for national, state, or any office where the laws affecting abortion may be impacted, one way or the other.

I appreciate your opposing viewpoint. You are perfectly entitled to that viewpoint. But I reject the idea by some here that this issue has no place in this discussion or this thread. Especially since this one topic just might be the deciding factor in who will hold the most powerful public office in the world.

Cheers,

Del

Ahhhh, Del, it's clear we disagree but you really have made some compelling comments! If I were on a debate team I'd certainly want you on my side! I totally respect your opinion....and even agree with so many of the points you made, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Namaste my Friend!

[Del Zeppnile]

Ahhhh, Del, it's clear we disagree but you really have made some compelling comments! If I were on a debate team I'd certainly want you on my side! I totally respect your opinion....and even agree with so many of the points you made, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Namaste my Friend!

That's fine. I'm glad that you at least take the time to argue your beliefs. I don't agree with your logic, but I respect the manner in which you express your points of view.

The kicker is, they don't want universal health care that would allow those women denied abortions the ability to receive health and neo-natal care, that would allow them to deliver a healthy child to term, to then give up for adoption. And if those women don't want to give the kids up, they don't want to provide social programs for those mothers, either through day care, Head Start, anything else like that.

"If you're pre-born, you're great. If you're pre-school, you're fucked."

Healthcare/social programs and the sanctity of human life are two seperate issues. You are only deflecting the issue with this arguement.

I'm against universal/socialized healthcare because it is not a good value to me. It only makes healthcare worse (as the Canadian system demonstrates), and besides, I don't believe it is the role of government to be involved in it to that degree. It has nothing to do with the right of a human being to not be killed in the womb.

People need to be responsible for their own lives... without resorting to killing innocent babies.

[59LesPaul]

What I don't understand though is why those people oppose comprehensive sex education, birth-control education, and programs that would make birth control available to as many sexually active women (and teenagers) as possible.

Religon

[Electrophile]

Religon

Primarily. Also in my opinion, basic ignorance. They think that by supplying teenagers with either contraception (in the form of condoms at the nurse's station) or education about contraception, they will cause the rates of teen sex and pregnancy and by default infection with STDs/STIs to increase tenfold. What they fail to understand is that teenagers will be sexually active, either through oral sex, vaginal sex or the always popular anal sex. I know a couple girls who think they can still be considered "pure" for God if they don't let a penis enter their vagina, but everything else is okay. We call them, the "Anything but...." girls. If you give them education and information about how to do this adult act with a modicum of responsibility, then perhaps the rates of teen pregnancy and infection would go down. If you don't, they rely on backwater urban legends like jumping up and down after sex, or sneezing hard or the truly funny, "you can't get pregnant your first time."

But you have the Religious Right crowing about how this decimates the family, promotes unhealthy values.....etc. The only thing it promotes is safe and educated sexual practices, which should be what ALL people have, regardless of age and orientation. If you know your kid is going to ride their bike, you want them to be protected. You give them a helmet, elbow pads, knee pads, and you make sure the bike works and the brakes are in working order. Well, if you know your teenager is going to have sex regardless of what you or God have to say about it, give them a condom, get them on the Pill, make sure they understand what they're doing and why they're doing it. Education is key in any society to prevent the ignorant from taking over. Education is what uplifts society, not drags it down.

[Electrophile]

Going back to a point I brought up earlier, off the subject of abortion/sex ed/health care, Joe Biden had made a slightly snarky comment about John McCain not knowing what it's like to sit down at his kitchen table after the kids are to bed, and worrying about bills and such, because he doesn't know what kitchen table to sit down at. A play on the fact he doesn't know how many houses he owns.

Well, naturally McCain had to respond with a reference to his POW status during Vietnam, proving my point that it is his fallback response for anything that gets said in his direction. He said something to the affect of once he was some place that had no kitchen table or chairs.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_.../pow-watch.html

I wish someone in his campaign would tap him on the shoulder and tell him that enough is enough. I remember when Joe Biden went after Rudy Guiliani for the whole "verb, noun, 9/11" fiasco a few years back.

[~tangerine~]

Yeah, I do. They want every single baby born, but after that they don't give

a shit what happens to those children. It's ironic, hypocritical, and.. truly sad.

Exactly.

[Dzldoc]

Though I made my position earlier, One thing that is kinda ironic for all of us is that fact that our momma's were pro-life

[Medhb]

Though I made my position earlier, One thing that is kinda ironic for all of us is that fact that our momma's were pro-life

Ahhhh, not neccessarily....many women who have had abortions have also had children...

[wanna be drummer]

Its bad enough now, can you imagine 50 million more people in our country today? By 2040 its estimated there will be 400 million in the US, now its about 300 million. OH boy, jeepers!!!!!!

Maybe next year, we'll just abort every baby.

That'll slow down that pesky population problem

Oh Honey, we can't even properly educate the current population...not to mention feeding and clothing them and putting roofs over their heads. Does anyone see the irony that republicans don't want to spend very much money on social programs yet...they don't want to allow most of the people that rely on those programs to have an abortion??

First of all, we could properly educate them. No Child Left Behind shit on everybody. Get rid of it, and we might be fine. And if over the years, a million new teachers arrived, we could help bring up the quality of teachers, and thus, education.

Secondly, I don't want to see half the abortions I see today. I don't care if you're rich or poor. And hell no I don't want to lose my money because the government needs it for some abortion, simply because somebody can't pay for it. If they can't pay for the child, then they can give it away. But why the hell should they be allowed to mooch off our money to pay for their mistake? If someone wants to start a charity to collect money to give it poor people who need an abortion, thats one thing. But why in the hell should people be forced to pay for others mistakes? Thats the stupidest thing i've ever heard

[wanna be drummer]

double

Edited August 25, 2008 by wanna be drummer

[Dzldoc]

Ahhhh, not neccessarily....many women who have had abortions have also had children...

Yes this is true, usually when they were younger and not ready then later on in life started a family.