jross

That is very true. We can't make decisions for women like this. There is a living person growing in her body. Its intetended to stay there until it is fully developed. Why does anybody have the right to mess around with this? In my eyes, aborting a fetus is killing a person, no matter what stage of development. This is no different than killing mentally or physically deficient adults for the argument of "its not really a person" (absolutely no offence intended to said individuals, just making a point.

←

Actually, I see a pretty big difference in killing a "mentally deficient" adult and "killing" an early-term fetus. Even mentally deficient adults are capable of cognitive processes, which early-term fetuses are not. No offense, but in my eyes, your arguement is akin to arguing that it is unethical to euthanize animals, because we don't euthanize people. We're mixing apples and oranges.

(For the record, I don't support the euthanasia of strays and other animals, and I really wish people would be more responsible pet owners. I do support medically-based euthanasia to prematurely end suffering in terminal or debilitating illness, in both people and animals -- however, in the case of people, it has to be something the patient sincerely wants (and the patient should be of sound mind).)

[edit: On the comment "It's intended to stay there until it's fully developed": you are aware that human babies are born before they're fully developed, yes? "Full development" does not occur until the baby is some months old; we are one of the few mammals that gives birth to babies which cannot fend for themselves within ~ 24 hrs. And where do premature babies fit in your arguement? Are they intended to come out early, and as such, intended to die? Should we then not attempt to keep them alive and thus deny them their best (and only) shot at life? Medicine -- and abortion is medicine -- is not about nebulous intent. If it was, I know I would already be long dead, as would many others.]

Chuck, I think you're wasting your time posting in this thread, .

←

Gee Matt, you're so supportive.. <_<

odd.

←

We're talking about Americans, don't expect clear/logical thinking. It's not in the cards.

See, alot of us (who were having the discussion, and make up the majority of it) feel it was part of the previous issue (conservative/ liberal). You don't agree, but you appear to be alone on that. Again, please at least consult us before splitting our threads, we prefer to leave these things in context.

Blow me.

←

I'll pass on that offer, thanks.

Also, while I understand you may feel this merits it's own discussion, could you at least consult those of us actively participating in the discourse before splitting out parts of the conversation?

Add teachers to that list of Police/Firefighters/Rescue workers.  Good, hardworking, honest teachers are worth their weight in gold.  And please keep politics out of the classroom.

←

Amen. I can't believe I forgot teachers!

I agree with Doug/Jross on most of their points.  I have no problems with people getting rich.  However the greed I see on a daily basis in my industry is shocking.  I don't like wealth redistribution, but the compensation packages of V.P.s and C.E.O.s are way out of line for their intelligence level and what they do.  There is no way they can by 10x smarter and better at what they do so why should we pay them 100x more than the best technical worker.  The ones who actually make what these guys sell.  Workers benefits go down and the pay raises suck, but the big guys get double digit raises and bonuses worth more than we make in years.  I have no problem with them making reasonably better money.  I do have a problem with them taking away from workers to make their bonuses bigger.

←

I don't know that this is a political stance, but I agree with you here too. I'm a big believer in people being paid what they're worth, and I don't think most CEOs are worth much.

I am totally against partial birth abortion.  The fact that it is ok to kill a baby as long as the umbilical cord is attached is unthinkable to me and the height of hypocracy for liberals.  Don't kill cold blooded killers, but kill 9 month term babies.  If you carried it to term suck it up and put the kid up for adoption.

←

There's a huge difference between partial-birth abortion, and early term abortion. I think most pro-choice supporters (like myself) support early term abortion, but I don't know of anyone that condones partial-birth or even late term (final trimester) abortion.

nice guy == idiot

On a more positive note, it's nice to know we're free to have [and share] these views.

←

This is true.. and thankfully, we both agree on that!

(And that Matt's a retard)

After reading your latest points it is obvious that we essentially disagree on what is or isn't human life and at what point it begins. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I agree too that adoption is not as easy as it appears and is quite difficult, but ultimately IMO a much better decision.

I do have to comment on your last point. As the laws exist today, your views/beliefs ARE imposed on me. And because this is a free country, I have the right to stand up for what I believe in, as do you. I'm afraid I can't sit idley by. You're also free to ignore me.

←

I guess part of my arguement is that the government really has no right being in our lives in the first place, so part of my last point is that it's a human decision that should be left to the individual.

And, to touch on your point... I think the problem is that we do indeed disagree on when life begins. I guess the big problem is that you believe life begins much earlier than I do, and that it's wrong to kill. In that situation, I understand - you can't just watch people abort the lives of their (unborn) children. That's the crappy thing about this arguement, is that you've got people who feel very strongly either way about both sides, and both have very good reasons why one can or cannot abort.

I apologize for being too personal ... got I little fired up. I'll edit as necessary.

←

It's alright, I know how it feels to be outnumbered :-\ and it's all to easy to get defensive, and go from there.

Wow. That is one of the more ingnorant, close-minded, nonsensical things I have ever read. Are you stupid? No one is asking me? No reason for me to impose my morals?Well why don't we all just go ahead and do whatever the eff we want?

Why vote? Why have a say? Why stand up for anything? Let's just tolerate everything.

Do you realize how misguided your argument is? "Let's not bother to make abortion illegal, because murder is illegal and that law doesn't work?" So should we just do away with laws because laws impose apon our rights? "Stop it those laws hurt my feelings, I don't like them."

Are you retarded? I think you are. Laws exist to protect our freedoms.

Newsflash... abortion is a conservated / liberal issue you dolt. Do some homework and you will notice that accross the board, liberals are mostly pro-choice... conservatives are mostly pro-life. This is what I have observed. If you haven't... I'm sorry, but before you begin a post like this do some research.

You can't just split peoples views evenly without getting into issues... nice try though.

←

Hey, go easy on Matt... I mean, since when do you look for coherent arguements from the village nice guy?

(Also, you're starting to sound like you're making alot of personal attacks in general. You might want to tone it down a little.)

1) I do take the view that largely, people are animals. I'm not saying I treat them both the same, but I don't see us as being all that different.

2) Babies are people, in potentia. However, I don't really think they're human until they are sufficiently developed (sometime in the 2nd trimester). Until that point, I don't see much difference in a human fetus and any other animal fetus.

3) Adoption is a great idea on paper. It doesn't always work out. When it does, I'll support that instead.

I'm not saying you can't have your views, you're allowed to. I just feel that:

1)As men, we cannot tell women what to do or what not to do when it comes to their reproductive system.

2) You have your beliefs, I have mine. I don't impose mine on you, and I expect you not to impose yours on me.

Pro-choice is nothing but selfishness.

←

Not really. I think that people have a right to choose, up to a point. For the first few months, it's not really a human (biologically), so why not? Not bringing a child into a world where it's not wanted seems much less cruel than wontonly imposing your own believes and values onto others. If the mother feels an abortion is alright, I think that's her decision, and she has to live with it. I understand that alot of people feel that the baby has a right to life, and I agree with that... but if it's not human yet, why exempt it from the way we treat all the other animals in our lives?

Doug, I can't tell you how odd it was reading your post. I'm with you 100%, point by point. It looks like I'm going to be going into the nuclear power industry now, and part of my choice was the fact that I feel I can help (through research) get clean(er), low cost energy. It's all about the pebble bed, baby.

Now that my essay is done (it was due at midnight), here's an expansion of my take on taxes.

1) We need to first decide what merits public funding. I nominate the following as being essential to the good of the nation, and so meriting funding:

A) Police/ Fire/ Public Services.

-Some form of social security/ welfare plan, but streamlined and actually effective.

-Health care?

-Enough said, no?

Military/ Intelligence

-See previous. (Note: I believe Rumsfeld is on the right track in his quest for a smaller, more flexible army. We don't need a huge standing force.)

-Includes CIA/NSA. FBI technically under sec. A

C) Infrastructure

-Power lines & transformers <-- should not be business run

-Telecomm lines (?) <-- could be business run

-Roads and Highways (SUPER IMPORTANT)

-Railways (Also very important)

Other than that, the government can monkey off and stay out of my life. I'm sick of paying high taxes so that gas companies (who charge me close to $3.00/gal still) can get tax breaks and subsidies. And the salaries we pay our politicians? I'm sorry, but has everyone forgotten politics is NOT supposed to be a career in this country? Regardless, I don't honestly think their job merits their pay. They're a bunch of underacheiving :monkey:s who just take our money and run. Enough, I say!

Not terrorism.

The country definitely isn't at more risk now then before, the risk has always been there, you just weren't as aware. I think that's an obvious fact a lot of people ignore.

Ignorance is bliss. George W. Bush took some of your bliss away by making you less ignorant of the terror situation in our country at any given time. Now you're in denial, pretending the threat wasn't there before and that you were never ignorant. This denial means pretending the threat is greater now than it was before (because, you know, they never tried to knock the WTC down BEFORE bush was in office). Because you deny this you feel that George W. Bush is at fault for our countries terror threat level, when in fact its the lifestyle of our entire country that the middle eastern terrorist organizations hate. Quite frankly, if you became president you'd be hated just as much as GW is, and if you make John Kerry our president he is going to be hated just as much and I highly doubt he will put up as strong a fight against that hate and terror as George W. Bush does, and his message will certainly not be as strong.

PS By you I mean everyone else, not necessarily jross.

←

You know, you're assuming alot. We've always been at risk, yes. The WTC incident didn't come as a huge surprise -- their methods, yes, but not their intent. I've spent alot of time living outside the US, and I'm not oblivious to how most of the world feels about us. We're not loved, and we havn't been for a long time. Bush really has done alot to further the animosity of alot of the world towards the US, and in doing so, has made terrorism an even greater threat than it was already. Half-jerk and botched incusions into Afghanistan and Iraq will not wipe out terrorism, but only spread it more. You can tell yourself you're safer now, if it helps you sleep at night, but you're really not. Nothing has been done to beef up security in our ports, and believe me when I say a determined terrorist could easily build domestically or import nukes into this country (remember where I work when I say this. It is possible).

Honestly, you wanna know what I want the government to do?

1) Get the monkey out of other countries -- we're just wasting money, and not making any friends

2) Quit with the "Homeland Security" charade. Either get serious about it, or get rid of it.

3) monkey frivolous tax cuts, and frivolous. Certain things are necissary -- tax us to pay for these, and nothing more.

4) Get the monkey out of our lives. I don't need to be told how to live, and what I can and can't do (for the most part).

5) If we still insist on changing the world, provide humanitarian support. No more "military incursion" bullcrap.

There's more, but I'm pressed for time.

No offense, but Inline, I disagree almost completely with your analysis, from just after the Vonnegut quote on. I think that Bush has only inflamed the majority of world opinion against us, and has only made the terrorist threat much, much worse. Al-Qaeda is not dead, and is not in shambles -- we've barely touched them. The Taliban is making a comeback in parts of Afghanistan, where people have decided that rule on the Taliban is better than rule under the warlords. I have friends who are Afghani, and one of them just moved back to take care of his family there. I have family and friends in the armed forces there and in Iraq. (Most of my friends are actually Persian/ Middle-eastern, and alot of them have family there or live there themselves at least part of the year). I think that the American people are being misled as to the actual situation in the rest of the world, because I know for a fact that what I hear from the people who are actually there does not jive with what I hear and see on the newswire.

However, I will say, I don't envy Kerry. Even if he wins, he's got a long, hard road ahead of him still. This country has been mismanaged for well over 2 decades now (thought I honestly think Clinton did a good job in a lot of areas), and I don't really think that's going to change in this election. My vote's going to Kerry, not because I like him, but because I dislike Bush alot more.

According to InlineTurbo's list, I'm conservative. However, according to how I would vote in this coming election, I'm a liberal.

The big problem is that neither party is actually filling the position they claim they do, and are both instead jousting over some illusory "middle ground". They both sold out, and both suck jerk.

PRC no thanks. Weird smog laws, OJ, hippies everywhere and you cannot own a gun thats not black

←

Muh? What's this about the guns? And we don't have hippies EVERYWHERE... they seem to disappear from areas with guns ^__^

<-- is falling behind on gun laws (not that I follow those things anyway :-\ )

Look, I'm all for Kerry/ Edwards, but I'll be honest and admit it's only because they're not Bush/Cheney. I'd be happy to see both of them eat stuff and live. I side with the Nader stance that this is the evil of two lessers, but he can suck my nutz -- I'm not voting for him. I'd be happy if they just left us alone for the next four years. And no offense, Charles, but I don't think we really need them to shelter us at all.

ANYONE votes for Naders, I'll come visit them personally, and shove a double-barrel 12-gauge down their throat like the big, black cock of death. That man is a danger to society...

I'm not going to bother to read most of this thread, but here's my 2 cents. There are really only two things I'm afraid of right now. The first is Bush winning the election. The second is Kerry winning the election.

They're usually pretty quick.. longest one I know of was the Northridge one (a 1/4 mi. from my house) in '94, that lasted over a minute. Most of the time, 'quakes are ~ 10 sec. I much prefer them to hurricanes or tornadoes (I've only been in hurricanes, though), I don't like how they drag on.

All I can say is that I'm glad I live in sunny CA, where all we have to worry about is the earth periodically shifting slightly in the night.

You know, it's a sad day when the average citizen is so poorly informed, so grossly misled, and so apathetically unwilling to pursue the truth that the government feels it both can lie, and has to lie to protect the populace from itself.

I think to a large degree N. Korea is already isolated, so further isolation will probably not do much. They do get alot of food from international aid programs, but I suspect that refusing them food supplies would create a groundswell of domestic nationalism in N. Korea, and would make any further political actions much more complicated.

An alternate is to undermine the government by INCREASING aid, but doing so in a fashion that clearly cannot be claimed by the N. Korean government as being a result of their actions. Extending a helping hand to the populace will make them more ameniable to American concerns, and will in due time (and without too much prompting by us, I suspect) lead to the N. Koreans as a whole to take care of the problem of Mr. Kim.

Also, my apologies to EricF. I use Shrub because I can't bring myself to call him "President" Bush, and quite frankly, dislike him to the extent that I would rather demean him through the name I use for him than to use his given name. I understand that this may not be savory to alot of people (and it really does not belong in this discourse), so I'll try and avoid doing so in the future.