[Kevin]

Black is White, White is Black

BTW we teach our children not to respect human life, and they will not.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

Then again if you guys cared so much about women, you would not beg for sex then the women would not get pregnant.

That's just it Monique, the women beg me for sex
BTW it takes two to tango. BOTH people should be responsible. Just not the male, or just not the female.

If you are not ready to be a father and pay all the bills get a vasectomy or use condoms.

Just like I would say to you, if you are not ready to be a mother, get fixed or get on the pill, or force your partner to wear a condom or don't give him sex.

If you don't and unfortunatly the woman you were with does get pregnant because of your indifference toward her, well it is her decision to do whatever she pleases afterward.

What an absurd reasoning. "It's your fault she got pregnant so she is going to do what she wants with it"

Monique dear, you have a problem with taking responsibilities for your own actions.

Unless it was rape, if someone gets pregnant, it's BOTH their doings. Not just the male, not just the female.

So if you willingly have sex with someone, and you get pregnant, it's just as much your fault as it is his.

And anything inside my body belongs to me.

So you don't give the penis back? And that is not true, there are many cases where the state has taken babies away from mothers at conception because they were bad mothers. (Drugs etc)

You do not want women to have abortions, stop making babies

Well Monique dear, you make them as well.

Now think for a change all conservatives, there is 1 million abortions in the U.S. right now according to your calculations, so it is 1 million babies to be adopted, then in 10 years 10 million babies; you really think that there are enough families to adopt all those babies. What about living children that were abused and are looking for a family; are you guys going to toss them around because obviously a conservative couple need a baby to brainwash him or her.

How about people just start being more responsible? Men and Women alike.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Black is White, White is Black

BTW we teach our children not to respect human life, and they will not.

Not sure if you're responding to me, but if you are (and even if you're not ) : I agree completely about respecting human life. And there are very clear ways to respect people. We could, as a society, decide that we value people so much that we guarantee them health care. That we don't kill untold thousands in wars unless we're absolutely sure of what we're doing. That we value their jobs more than the stock price of the companies they work for. That we respect families enough to allow them to choose when to become parents. That's how we respect human beings.

The religious right have focused on the extremes of life - the embryos, the fetuses, the Terry Schiavos. What does that really teach children? IMO, it only teaches them fuzzy thinking about morality. There are absolute rights and wrongs, and this SD law is absolutely wrong and immoral. A government forcing a pregnant woman to give birth is wrong and immoral.

I'm curious - does anyone participating in this thread actually support this SD law?

[Kevin]

What about the Iraqi people?

I can spin all day long too, like you just did.

My point still stands.

[Spliffdaddy]

I fully support South Dakota's effort to restrict abortion. I expect many other states to follow their lead.

[Y3a]

Where is MOnique? She's been awful quiet.

[Kevin]

Well Y3, there are lost of conservative men out there asking for sex...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Not sure if you're responding to me, but if you are (and even if you're not ) : I agree completely about respecting human life. And there are very clear ways to respect people. We could, as a society, decide that we value people so much that we guarantee them health care.

No one in the US is denied healthcare. Done.

That we don't kill untold thousands

We ended the practice of economic sanctions against Iraq only serving to slowly starve the Iraqi poor to death while their leader conceives another palace or weapon to keep up with Iran. Done. We'd need another 10 years of insurrection and civil war at the current pace to equal the number of dead due to failed UN policy.

in wars unless we're absolutely sure of what we're doing.

The only thing we could've known in this particular war for certain was that we're seeking to remove a dictator. We knew there would be insurgency, but it's impossible to know of the degree beforehand. This is a war in which you must react to information and events, both of which can be sketchy at times as evidenced by the complications in Iraq. You can make a decision that these ambiguities should not cause the degree of fear that would paralyze us to inaction or you can decide to stay the course.

That we value their jobs more than the stock price of the companies they work for.

Unfortunately, parents also have to show their children that they care enough about themselves to either leave these conditions or change them. When you leave it up to someone else to do this for you, you teach your children that you don't need self-respect, the government will give it to you. You don't need a good job, someone else will take care of that for you. We teach children self respect. No one else can.

That we respect families enough to allow them to choose when to become parents. That's how we respect human beings.

In this, it seems the message our children have gotten is that you don't need men. The rate of single motherhood has skyrocketed since the inception of Roe V Wade. It seems the lesson abortion has taught us has not panned out as you'd like us to believe. This is what we've learned; Reported cases of child abuse has increased 1,497%. Violent juvenile offenders arrest rates have almost doubled, and the number of children living in poverty has increased from approximately 15% to 20%. STDs rate has skyrocketed primary throughout those ages 15-25 years and the number of teen pregnancies has more than doubled, and ironically the number of teen births has increased to almost 40 per thousand from 22. The number of single parent families since the legalization of abortion has increased from 10% to almost 25%.

The religious right have focused on the extremes of life - the embryos, the fetuses, the Terry Schiavos. What does that really teach children?

I believe it's entirely possible the religious right has gotten it correct, evidenced by the numbers above. If they had it wrong, they still had it better than where we find ourselves today with the legal ability to control our families. How is it we find ourselves in the above conditions, now with the ability to control our families and make decisions that are best for our bodies??? When we worry more about our bodies than the bodies of others, we seem to become a little more que sara sara about our sexual behavior, we seem to care less about beating the crap out of kids, and seem to care less about raising the kids we do have. At the end of the day, after all this concern over our own bodies, we've put our bodies in worse condition than they were.

IMO, it only teaches them fuzzy thinking about morality.

The only thing that's fuzzy about morality is teaching them about greater good, teaching them about self-respect and discipline, then teaching them where to get an abortion should they not follow rules 1,2, and 3.

There are absolute rights and wrongs, and this SD law is absolutely wrong and immoral. A government forcing a pregnant woman to give birth is wrong and immoral.

It is wrong for you to impose your morality on me.

Currently, the Federal government has usurped authority over the State. The Federal government has decided that it is "wrong" to legislate against abortion. Morality can be summed up as an innate knowledge of right and wrong. For whatever reason, the Federal government has in fact taken it upon themselves to deem something wrong, and require the States to be in lock step. If you say that it is "wrong" to impose your morality on others, by what sense of morality have you deemed this behavior "wrong" and are you not making that assertion yourself and imposing it on others? By what moral compass have you decided legislating against abortion is wrong? I believe there is more legislative accountability at the local level. I believe there is more representation at the local level. By laying a Federal foundation, they are taking accountability for representation away from those at the local level, where it's more effective and convoluting it to the national level where at least half have lost their voice in a representative democracy. This is still an issue of "right and wrong" and no matter which way you cut it, you are imposing your ideal of it upon another. Either it is "wrong" to impose morality or it is not, you are still forced to use some compass of morality in the decision.

I'm curious - does anyone participating in this thread actually support this SD law?

I support it, but for perhaps different reasons. I'd be interested to see how their model works. I'd be interested to see the statistics after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. I'd like to see how wrong its opponents are about how illegalized abortion will manifest in society. I'd like to see child battery numbers come down, I'd like to see teen pregnancy come down, I'd like to see the rate of STDs decrease, single motherhood, and children born into poverty all decrease. Then, once the naysayers have been proven wrong, the model can flourish throughout the remainder of the country returning us back to a more healthy condition overall. Afterall, if you're going to impose some morality on society, it should at least be an imposition that works for the betterment of society and not facilitate its decline.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Nicko

And who are you to be entitled to make other people's choices for them? One of the main points of democracy is free choice is it not? Or are you a proponent of fascism, totalitarianism, or perhaps a theocracy?

So you feel that abortions are abhorent. Fine. Get over yourself. Other people don't feel the same way.

IMO the whole debate on abortion in the US isn't about abortion at all. Its about a minority group of right wing evangelicals who want to control what everyone thinks and does.

Perhaps the whole movement is just a reaction to globalization, in which case it will be a short lived one. Bush did after all state in India the other day that outsourcing was good and should be embrased by Americans. WOW.

The fact that most Americans have never travelled outside their own country probably just compounds the fear of change and fear of "the other". The whole "war on terror" thing only serves to add to this general paranoia and uncertainty.

Creationism in the classroom, neo-conservativism, Dubai ports deal controversy, war on terror, anti-abortion, restriction of civil rights, gitmo --- it all adds up if you think about it. Every one of these examples is to one degree or another a reaction (driven by fear) by those in power against what is happening in the world today.

What the world needs are constructive and inclusive solutions, not more wars or oppressive dogma spreading FUD.

One would think that the failures in Iraq would give pause to those in washington with a neoconservative agenda that one cannot remake the world so easily. Still, its interesting (if not tragic) to observe from a distance.

I feel abortions are murder, not just abhorent. If you feel a murder is going to happen you try to stop it. Period.

As for turning the tables and pointing at other issues, let's stick to this one, shall we?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Wtf does Christianity have to do with this thread - or his post?

They've been trying to change the subject for a while now...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No one in the US is denied healthcare. Done.

Wow that was easy wasn't it? That was the sound of a conscience cleansing itself, I guess. The ~50 million Americans without health insurance are denied health care all the time. I recommend that you have a look at this book if your moral conscience doesn't get a twinge because you believe that "no one is denied health care." Being uninsured is decidedly unhealthy.

We ended the practice of economic sanctions against Iraq only serving to slowly starve the Iraqi poor to death while their leader conceives another palace or weapon to keep up with Iran. Done. We'd need another 10 years of insurrection and civil war at the current pace to equal the number of dead due to failed UN policy.

The only thing we could've known in this particular war for certain was that we're seeking to remove a dictator. We knew there would be insurgency, but it's impossible to know of the degree beforehand. This is a war in which you must react to information and events, both of which can be sketchy at times as evidenced by the complications in Iraq. You can make a decision that these ambiguities should not cause the degree of fear that would paralyze us to inaction or you can decide to stay the course.

Again, it's astounding how some people that are supposedly so concerned about morality can be so glib when it comes to dismissing crystal clear moral issues like war. Moral fuzziness does not teach our children right and wrong.

Unfortunately, parents also have to show their children that they care enough about themselves to either leave these conditions or change them. When you leave it up to someone else to do this for you, you teach your children that you don't need self-respect, the government will give it to you. You don't need a good job, someone else will take care of that for you. We teach children self respect. No one else can.

How does that address my point that we live in a culture that doesn't value people? The conservative philosophy that I've encountered holds that people get what they deserve, that the less fortunate just have to suck it up because they're not working hard enough, that you take what you can get and screw other people, and that money and materialism are the most important values in life. That's not a philosophy that values people.

In this, it seems the message our children have gotten is that you don't need men. The rate of single motherhood has skyrocketed since the inception of Roe V Wade. It seems the lesson abortion has taught us has not panned out as you'd like us to believe. This is what we've learned; Reported cases of child abuse has increased 1,497%. Violent juvenile offenders arrest rates have almost doubled, and the number of children living in poverty has increased from approximately 15% to 20%. STDs rate has skyrocketed primary throughout those ages 15-25 years and the number of teen pregnancies has more than doubled, and ironically the number of teen births has increased to almost 40 per thousand from 22. The number of single parent families since the legalization of abortion has increased from 10% to almost 25%.

I believe it's entirely possible the religious right has gotten it correct, evidenced by the numbers above. If they had it wrong, they still had it better than where we find ourselves today with the legal ability to control our families. How is it we find ourselves in the above conditions, now with the ability to control our families and make decisions that are best for our bodies??? When we worry more about our bodies than the bodies of others, we seem to become a little more que sara sara about our sexual behavior, we seem to care less about beating the crap out of kids, and seem to care less about raising the kids we do have. At the end of the day, after all this concern over our own bodies, we've put our bodies in worse condition than they were.

Hmmm. It is well known that we are currently at an all-time low in recorded crime in the US. Violent crime rates and property crime rates are about 1/3 of what they were in the early 1970s. A well-known theory attributes this incredible drop in crime to the fact that the government stopped forcing pregnant women to become mothers. But I agree with you that the single parenting numbers are a disaster and the cause of a great many social problems. Marriage and planned parenthood should be the bedrock of our culture, and I believe one of the ways to ensure it happens is to make sure abortion is legal.

The only thing that's fuzzy about morality is teaching them about greater good, teaching them about self-respect and discipline, then teaching them where to get an abortion should they not follow rules 1,2, and 3.


It is wrong for you to impose your morality on me.

Currently, the Federal government has usurped authority over the State. The Federal government has decided that it is "wrong" to legislate against abortion. Morality can be summed up as an innate knowledge of right and wrong. For whatever reason, the Federal government has in fact taken it upon themselves to deem something wrong, and require the States to be in lock step. If you say that it is "wrong" to impose your morality on others, by what sense of morality have you deemed this behavior "wrong" and are you not making that assertion yourself and imposing it on others? By what moral compass have you decided legislating against abortion is wrong? I believe there is more legislative accountability at the local level. I believe there is more representation at the local level. By laying a Federal foundation, they are taking accountability for representation away from those at the local level, where it's more effective and convoluting it to the national level where at least half have lost their voice in a representative democracy. This is still an issue of "right and wrong" and no matter which way you cut it, you are imposing your ideal of it upon another. Either it is "wrong" to impose morality or it is not, you are still forced to use some compass of morality in the decision.

The pro-life people - and in fact, the Republican party - supports a human life amendment that would make abortion illegal across the nation, just like they supported making gay marriage illegal across the nation. They certainly aren't interested in federalism. In any case, there's a difference. Making laws against abortion imposes something on pregnant women. It uses the government to force a change in their behavior. Making abortion legal doesn't impose anything on pregnant women. It does the opposite. Saying that making abortion legal imposes morality is saying that increasing freedom reduces freedom. Social conservatives seem to feel their freedoms are restricted when they aren't allowed to force other people to do what they want.

I support it, but for perhaps different reasons. I'd be interested to see how their model works. I'd be interested to see the statistics after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. I'd like to see how wrong its opponents are about how illegalized abortion will manifest in society. I'd like to see child battery numbers come down, I'd like to see teen pregnancy come down, I'd like to see the rate of STDs decrease, single motherhood, and children born into poverty all decrease. Then, once the naysayers have been proven wrong, the model can flourish throughout the remainder of the country returning us back to a more healthy condition overall. Afterall, if you're going to impose some morality on society, it should at least be an imposition that works for the betterment of society and not facilitate its decline.

We don't need your little "experiment." Abortion rates have already been decreasing dramatically, and are not below what they were before Roe, but are about 2/3 of the rate they were in the early 1980s. Why don't we keep abortion legal, and at the same time promote education and contraception and try to reduce poverty (which is the leading "risk factor" for abortion and single-parenthood)? How's that for a moral experiment?

[Monique]

I was watching a show on life network and it talked about fertility and it showed an embryo 8 weeks old and it is just a bunch of cells so you guys who do not respect women, talked about a thing that is just one inch long and does not have human form.

And I guess in your house not a home, your wife has to do everything because you are too lazy to do anything and you do not respect her. By the way how many children have you adopted so far and how many will you adopt when women are forced to have children and men like you ripped them out of their arms.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

And I guess in your house not a home, your wife has to do everything because you are too lazy to do anything and you do not respect her.

You're right I don't respect her. She stayed home and got fatter and fatter while I worked my ASS off to take care of her and our two kids. 13 years of junk food and television sucked my respect right out of the lazy selfish bitch.

By the way how many children have you adopted so far and how many will you adopt when women are forced to have children and men like you ripped them out of their arms.

I haven't adopted any. I actually take care of MY OWN. Don't really care about some lazy sluts cast offs.

[as2]

Here in the UK abortion is legal before a certain time in pregnancy.

http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/17/44/

It's disappointing to hear that the right to choose is being taken away from women in the USA.

Just because it's legal for a woman to have an abortion, doesn't mean that she will. But at least there will be the choice. Surely denying that choice is an infringement of the woman's rights.

[Dakar]

Getting a little chippy in here.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush

You're right I don't respect her. She stayed home and got fatter and fatter while I worked my ASS off to take care of her and our two kids. 13 years of junk food and television sucked my respect right out of the lazy selfish bitch.



I haven't adopted any. I actually take care of MY OWN. Don't really care about some lazy sluts cast offs.

The pimp hand is well respected in my household. She don't eat unless I tell her she can eat. And even then I make her buy her own food - with her own money. And she ain't allowed to have money. She don't watch no TV, either. If she asks - she's not allowed to do whatever it is she asks. As far as I'm concerned, she's lucky just to breathe the air in my house. If I do something for her, like buy her some Miss Clairol "Blonde Red" hair dye, I do it because I care. About myself.

Yeah, the pimp hand is heavy and often used. If you don't keep your woman in line, the next thing you know she'll be running off at the mouth and disrespecting you. Women are selfish by nature. You can fix that, however, by generous applications of pimpsmack.

Yeah, she damn well better look after my kids. And my baby's momma's kids. And my girlfriend's kids when I take my girlfriend out on the town. As long as I don't see or hear no kids, then I'm happy. Kids are a woman's responsibility - 'cause they ain't responsible for too much of nuthin else. Except making sure I don't run out of beer.

peace out, brotha.

*flashes the conservative brothahood gang sign*

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And don't go outside until you're ready to get shot or run over by a car.

Interesting argument, but you actually have to go out in order to go to school, to work, to buy things, to visit friends..., while there is no other practical way of doing it any safer than to simply go out and be attentive.

On the other hand, you don't have to have sexual intercourse if you don't want to and it doesn't cause any financial or other problems, unless off course if you are a professional.

And even if you deem sexual intercourse as essential to feel as a whole human, then you have the safe way of first getting married, and then if you don't want children, which I personally find a pretty absurd notion, can either observe the biological cycle of the wife and practice sexual intercourse during the times she can't conceive or use condoms.

Many people view the institution of marriage with mixed feelings, but you have to remember that marriage is a protection of the rights of the woman, so that she doesn't get exploited by men for lower desires and then simply left alone when she gets pregnant.

That's the way it currently is in the west among teenagers and twentie-somethings, and why abortion is still in practice.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

And what most people forget is, most abortions aren't done at 8weeks. Most are done when there is already a beating heart etc.

Would any of you agree to ban abortions once those "cells" turn into a human form?

[himself]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Would any of you agree to ban abortions once those "cells" turn into a human form?

damn... is there an echo in here?

Originally Posted by Moderator

The best solution I see is to legalize abortion before the fetus is a living, feeling, being..that is before it has a central nervous system and a brain. And to make it illegal after.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Wow that was easy wasn't it? That was the sound of a conscience cleansing itself, I guess. The ~50 million Americans without health insurance are denied health care all the time. I recommend that you have a look at this book if your moral conscience doesn't get a twinge because you believe that "no one is denied health care." Being uninsured is decidedly unhealthy.

Anyone who needs healthcare and knows where to go to get assistance can get assistance. The painful fact of the matter is that if you're not getting healthcare in this country, you're not trying. Are you somehow vastly more capable of prosperity than anyone else in having health insurance? I don't need to read a book to understand there's a problem with healthcare and the problem has many fronts. Most States that I'm aware of; (you can google that until you're blue in the face) will NOT deny healthcare to those without insurance. The policy most States have adopted is; services provided on a sliding fee scale for those who qualify based on income. No one is denied services because of inability to pay. No insurance necessary. Services provided include: Primary Care, X-Ray, Immunizations, Laboratory, Medicaid Eligibility, Prenatal Care, Dental, Vision Care, HIV/AIDS Counseling/Testing/Treatment, Pharmacy, and Translation Services.

Now, if you want to talk about undocumented immigrants, we can talk about the skyrocketing rate of uninsured. i.e. I derail your derailing with yet another partisan talking point. We can do this all day long. If you fail to understand that it is impossible to care more for a person than they care for themselves, you may indeed have a big heart, but a small brain. At some point, common sense must prevail. The numbers of those uninsured fluctuates wildly with people dropping and grabbing coverage every day. i.e. Per the Congressional Budget office; Between half and two-thirds of the people who experienced a period of time without insurance in 1998, for example, had coverage for other portions of the year.. In other words, you may not have been covered in June, but you were covered in August. The 40+ million uninsured from 3 years ago, are completely different people than the uninsured today. Per a recent study at the Cato Institute, the consistently uninsured are mostly young. 39% are under the age of 25 and another 22% are under age 35. 86% of these respondents claimed their health was good, very good, or excellent. There are also a great many small business owners who do not sign on to a formal healthcare package because the premiums they feel are prohibitive. They are private payers and in fact part of the staggering statistics your book likely cites with no balance of information.

Again, it's astounding how some people that are supposedly so concerned about morality can be so glib when it comes to dismissing crystal clear moral issues like war.

Conversely, it's amazing to me how people can cite the horrors of war while ignoring the humanitarian nightmare of starving a country's poor to death because of the failed actions of their leader. Moral fuzziness indeed. Just because you happen to have a wartime axe to grind doesn't mean you're any more or less concerned about morality.

Moral fuzziness does not teach our children right and wrong.

You're right. We do. Not the Federal government.

How does that address my point that we live in a culture that doesn't value people?

I agree that we live in a culture that doesn't value people as evidenced by abortion numbers and the subsequent decline in civility and prosperity since the legalization of it. This is what I've been trying to say. Since the thread topic is abortion and you're talking about culture that doesn't value people, I'm left wondering how abortion increases culture's valuation of people. Can you address this or have you fallen so far off topic that you didn't realize this was your connection here?

The conservative philosophy that I've encountered holds that people get what they deserve,

That you get out of life, what you put in and generally to equal degree, yes. Conservatives believe you should not render yourself a piglet suckling on the government nipple when you could be a contributing member to society and the betterment of all. They believe the truly humanitarian thing to do for a starving man is not only to give him a fish, but teach him to fish. We've learned this since elementary school yet somehow screaming chicken littles citing misleading statistics about how evil human nature is, is more progressive policy.

that the less fortunate just have to suck it up because they're not working hard enough,

In many cases this is true, you don't agree? There are a great many people capable of working that don't. They've found it much easier to consume the handouts than providing for themselves. Why would they work? It starts at home with a sense of self-worth and pride and manifests in doing well for yourself. Often times, we're asking you and I to care more for one than they care for themselves. This is impossible.

that you take what you can get and screw other people,

The poor aren't funding philanthropic organizations and the poor are among the least giving to charitible causes. The poor do not insure nor employ you. In your world of black and white, lets try not to throw around blanket generalizations that wreak of ignorance. Perhaps you should leave your gated community to visit a poor person instead of indicting conservatives.

and that money and materialism are the most important values in life.

Is that a G5 you're typing on there Richy Rich? Where do you live? What do you drive? Are you doing what YOU can to redistribute wealth or are these machine-gun indictments of ideals you happen to disagree with convicting you to give more???

That's not a philosophy that values people. Hmmm.

I don't believe "saying" things does much good at all. I find the left is quick to lodge indictments, quick to accuse others and they love to get attention for "caring". Eating bon-bons and shedding a tear over travesty on CNN does not constitute compassion. If the zealous left spent half as much time in philanthropic activity that they do picketing, bickering, complaining, and indicting, the world would be a much better place. There's plenty of blame to go around.

It is well known that we are currently at an all-time low in recorded crime in the US. Violent crime rates and property crime rates are about 1/3 of what they were in the early 1970s. A well-known theory attributes this incredible drop in crime to the fact that the government stopped forcing pregnant women to become mothers.

A theory authored and given thrust by Planned Parenthood themselves interested in genocide and a few bucks. Blacks are 3 times more likely to have an abortion and Hispanics 2 times more with the majority of the remainder considered at poverty level, but see I don't believe killing blacks, Hispanics, and the poor is compassionate. I believe it's a wholly racist supposition to even cite this stat. Suffice it to say, with single motherhood at an alltime high, teen pregnancy having more than doubled (How could that be now that they have a choice???) and arrest-rate of children having more than doubled, and with the skyrocketing rate of STDs and child-battering I fail to see abortion as the bedrock of our culture in teaching morals and compassion. It's no surprise to me that a child locked up for shooting a store-owner will not be out in time to commit crime as an adult. There are many things to attribute to crime reduction. Juliani is hailed for a severe reduction in crime rate in New York City and it wasn't because he authorized the killing of poor people.

But I agree with you that the single parenting numbers are a disaster and the cause of a great many social problems.

Just when I was beginning to think common sense was not going to prevail in this.

Marriage and planned parenthood should be the bedrock of our culture, and I believe one of the ways to ensure it happens is to make sure abortion is legal.

The marriage piece I agree with though you'd be hard-pressed in saying Planned Parenthood is a bedrock of our culture.

The pro-life people - and in fact, the Republican party - supports a human life amendment that would make abortion illegal across the nation, just like they supported making gay marriage illegal across the nation.

I am a Republican and may not be in lock-step with my party then. I believe these complex social issues are nothing for the Federal Government to control. These decisions should be made at the State level and most Republicans I've talked to agree.

They certainly aren't interested in federalism.

That's for sure.

In any case, there's a difference. Making laws against abortion imposes something on pregnant women.

Conversely, making laws upholding abortion imposes death on children, a devaluation of life in general and does society nor the abortees no good at all.

It uses the government to force a change in their behavior.

...and forces others to make philosophical concessions by using their money to create the problems we have today.

Making abortion legal doesn't impose anything on pregnant women.

No, but it imposes a death sentence on a baby and is doing society no good at all. Currently, the sentiment is that it is wrong to impose a culture of life using a moral compass of their own and imposing it on society that would rather not fund or contribute to an archaic practice that has proven bad for society.

It does the opposite. Saying that making abortion legal imposes morality is saying that increasing freedom reduces freedom. Social conservatives seem to feel their freedoms are restricted when they aren't allowed to force other people to do what they want.

When you act on the Federal level, no matter which way you cut it, you are in fact imposing your view on others. i.e. it goes both ways. Either I'm forcing you to concede or you're forcing me to concede.

We don't need your little "experiment." Abortion rates have already been decreasing dramatically, and are not below what they were before Roe, but are about 2/3 of the rate they were in the early 1980s. Why don't we keep abortion legal, and at the same time promote education and contraception and try to reduce poverty (which is the leading "risk factor" for abortion and single-parenthood)? How's that for a moral experiment?

You may have forgotten, my biggest gripe is against those who use abortion as birth control. I would legislate one legal abortion. I would do this in concert with giving fish, teaching how to fish, and teaching abstinence. This would ensure abortion is truly given careful consideration, reduce its numbers by half, and allow a diverse culture of prosperous people to grow.

[Monique]

Kevin, it is in your brainwashing church but if you look at biology it is just a complex serie of cells.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Monique

Kevin, it is in your brainwashing church but if you look at biology it is just a complex serie of cells.

Well, so are you Monique.

So exactly "WHEN" is it no longer a complex series of cells, and a baby?

Why does any woman think that they are more important than their child?

Why do so many women ignore the fact that they ARE killing SOMETHING.

Why should women be given a pass on making decisions and changing their minds?

[BRussell]

ebuddy,

You're simply incorrect that no one is denied health care in our country. You're again trying to clear your conscience of this massive moral failure on the part of our country, a failure enabled by the political ideology and party that you support. Yeah right, they're young or not Americans or have insurance some of the time, and that makes it OK. Every other wealthy country guarantees their people health care. We could too, if you and the people you vote for weren't opposed to doing so. Show us how you value people ebuddy, rather than defending this. Don't dig in and get defensive. Take a clear moral stand.

Same with the war. Are you seriously arguing that we had to go to war because it was the only way to stop the humanitarian crisis caused by sanctions, sanctions that we ourselves had imposed? That is truly fuzzy thinking. This is another clear moral question about the value of people. This was a war that the Catholic Church, as well as many other churches, like my own, and President Bush's Methodists, opposed on moral grounds. But not ebuddy. He digs in and defends all of these unnecessary deaths and dismemberments, all the while arguing for the critical moral importance of embryos. There are ways to value people, to be humanistic. Your way, the American religious conservative way, is most certainly not it. The primary message of the founder of our religion is a humanistic one. I find it very telling that he neither supported wars nor condemned abortion.

No, the only conclusion that I can draw is that religious conservatives' attitudes on abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with a culture of life, and it's definitely not about the fundamentals of Christianity. It is about sex, sex, sex. The same people opposed to contraception are opposed to abortion. They don't like sex, they want it to be tied with procreation rather than dirty, lusty pleasures. They'd deny that, I'm sure, but I can't see any other explanation.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

ebuddy,

You're simply incorrect that no one is denied health care in our country.

No he isn't. It's the law.

and you're trying to change the subject again.

[Monique]

There is basic health care and more complex health care.

Unfortunatly the United States are governed by insurance companies that dictate which test or treatment a person can receive depending on the wealth of the patient.

It is true that anyone can go to an emergency and have a wound taken care of, but this is about it if you do not have good insurance plan or deep pockets.

Y3a

It changes significantly about 16 weeks and since most abortions are done within 8 weeks the women only abort complex set of cells which are visible in a dish when they are fertilize for infertile couple. And you need a very powerful microcospe to see anything going on.

Because it is my right and since people like you do not care about me; why should I give up my life, make myself miserable, just because it makes you happy to see women suffer.
And since you conservative guys do not want to use any contraceptive devices like condoms because it cuts down a little on your selfish pleasure. Let's see who has to live with this accident. But, you would never understand this because you think only men can make mistakes; here a wake up calls look like on this panel the women are a lot more human than you conservatives.

Of course, the women are alone in the bed and the guys have nothing to do with anything; that is how your parents raised you up. My dear conservatives boys do not take any responsibilities, do not respect women and do not at any time think that they are intelligent humans that can take difficult decisions.

And why can't a woman have an abortion, if she knows she cannot raised a child alone (because you conservative guys won't be there to help in anyway) or give up a child for adoption when it will hurt her so much. But, again this is not something you can understand being conservative because you enjoy it when a woman suffers.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

There is basic health care and more complex health care.

Unfortunatly the United States are governed by insurance companies that dictate which test or treatment a person can receive depending on the wealth of the patient.

It is true that anyone can go to an emergency and have a wound taken care of, but this is about it if you do not have good insurance plan or deep pockets.

10 years ago my 8 month old son had a malignant brain tumor the size of an adult fist. He received treatment at large university medical center in Chicago. I DID have insurance but it was crappy insurance that I paid out the nose for. At the time I made about 24,000 a year.

He ended up having 3 brain surgeries, 9 months of intensive chemotherapy and a nurse that visited our home several times a week. I NEVER EVER felt like we were treated like second class citizens, we were denied NOTHING and they saved my son's life.

All in all we had about $600,000 in total bills when the chemo was finally done. Care to guess how much of the bill WE had to pay?

ZERO. My son still has and MRI every year. We don't pay for that either. He has hearing aids due to hearing loss caused by the chemo. Those are free too. The chemo and other medicines ruined his teeth and he required extensive oral care. Free.

You think my case is unique? It's NOT! Happens everyday all over the country.

Once again your stereotypes and generalizations don't bear any fruit.

[Chuckit]

And by what means was all this made free?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No he isn't. It's the law.

and you're trying to change the subject again.

There are laws requiring emergency rooms to admit patients without health insurance. They still charge them - more than patients with insurance, who get discounts - and they can send them packing as soon as the emergency is over. That's a fair way away from "no one is denied health care." People are denied it all the time. But that's the way it should be, according to the conservative religious perspective. Jesus lives!

And it's not changing the subject - we're discussing abortion and how it fits into moral humanitarian values. If you don't want to take part, well, given the quality and informativeness of your typical posts, I doubt it will be a big loss to us. But don't tell us what we shouldn't discuss. Thanks.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

There are laws requiring emergency rooms to admit patients without health insurance. They still charge them - more than patients with insurance, who get discounts - and they can send them packing as soon as the emergency is over. That's a fair way away from "no one is denied health care." People are denied it all the time. But that's the way it should be, according to the conservative religious perspective. Jesus lives!

And it's not changing the subject - we're discussing abortion and how it fits into moral humanitarian values. If you don't want to take part, well, given the quality and informativeness of your typical posts, I doubt it will be a big loss to us. But don't tell us what we shouldn't discuss. Thanks.

Cheap shot, typical. *yawn* Think you could actually debate like a man instead of an amoeba?

Read smacintush's post, that happens every day and is very common. However, that contradicts your liberal whine fest, so you'll likely just ignore it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And by what means was all this made free?

Probably St. Jude's, the RCC, the Shriners, the Christian Children's Fund, or any other of the multitude of organizations who exist to provide such aid... many of which receive $thousands$ per year from me.

[Chuckit]

So then not everyone is elligible for the aid his son received? Because I think those are all children's funds, not a general route available to everyone.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So then not everyone is elligible for the aid his son received? Because I think those are all children's funds, not a general route available to everyone.

Some do, and there are other funds/charities for adults, you simply have to apply.

http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Cheap shot, typical. *yawn* Think you could actually debate like a man instead of an amoeba?

Oh did I huwt your wittle feewings? Stop whining about "cheap shots" like a sissy, and try providing some content like ebuddy did if you really want to engage in a debate. Empty one-liners do not constitute debate.

Read smacintush's post, that happens every day and is very common. However, that contradicts your liberal whine fest, so you'll likely just ignore it.

1. smacintush said he had insurance, and 2. one instance of someone receiving care doesn't contradict the fact that many don't, according to, you know, basic laws of logic. Or is logic just another liberal elitist notion, along with empiricism?

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Monique

Unfortunatly the United States are governed by insurance companies that dictate which test or treatment a person can receive depending on the wealth of the patient.

This is yet more of your poor Canadian education, or were you brainwashed??

Originally Posted by Monique

It is true that anyone can go to an emergency and have a wound taken care of, but this is about it if you do not have good insurance plan or deep pockets.

Any what does any of that blather have to do with contraception?

Y3a

Originally Posted by Monique

It changes significantly about 16 weeks and since most abortions are done within 8 weeks the women only abort complex set of cells which are visible in a dish when they are fertilize for infertile couple. And you need a very powerful microcospe to see anything going on.

Originally Posted by Monique

Because it is my right and since people like you do not care about me; why should I give up my life, make myself miserable, just because it makes you happy to see women suffer.

perhaps you miss the option of taking the pill, or saying "NO" or even (gasp!) having some self control over your own body so you WON'T END UP PREGNANT. DUH! Your assumption that it's a conservative 'thing' to want women to suffer again suggests you have no idea of the truth. I think you are confusing chauvanistic A**h01e's with conservatives, which I assure you are different.

Originally Posted by Monique

And since you conservative guys do not want to use any contraceptive devices like condoms because it cuts down a little on your selfish pleasure.

More simpleton assumptions and urban ledgends spouted as if they were facts? Jeez.

Originally Posted by Monique

Let's see who has to live with this accident. But, you would never understand this because you think only men can make mistakes; here a wake up calls look like on this panel the women are a lot more human than you conservatives.

Actually BOTH live with the accident. Both sexes make mistakes too, and just because you excuse all the mistakes the lefties made telling you those fairy tails doesn't make you any less wrong.

Originally Posted by Monique

Of course, the women are alone in the bed and the guys have nothing to do with anything; that is how your parents raised you up.

MORE ASSumptions? You don't even know me OR my familty, so anything you are saying is of course more bitter "Moniqueisms"

Originally Posted by Monique

My dear conservatives boys do not take any responsibilities, do not respect women and do not at any time think that they are intelligent humans that can take difficult decisions.

and you beleive that YOU are intelligent because you are a liberal??

Originally Posted by Monique

And why can't a woman have an abortion, if she knows she cannot raised a child alone (because you conservative guys won't be there to help in anyway) or give up a child for adoption when it will hurt her so much.

But, again this is not something you can understand being conservative because you enjoy it when a woman suffers.

Again, you don't know the meaning of "no" ??? maybe you are a poor judge of character and just attract those type of people. Perhaps you see things that way because of the way you are?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Oh did I huwt your wittle feewings?

No, just disappointed that you're incapable of actual debate. That's all, carry on.


Edit: The fact that you invariably resort to namecalling, as well as acting like a little bitch (not namecalling, just a fact), is no doubt the reason I only use "one-liners" when addressing you. Now, doesn't that make sense?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, just disappointed that you're incapable of actual debate. That's all, carry on.


Edit: The fact that you invariably resort to namecalling, as well as acting like a little bitch (not namecalling, just a fact), is no doubt the reason I only use "one-liners" when addressing you. Now, doesn't that make sense?

That does make sense, but what actually happens is the opposite of what you're saying. Look at this thread: I had just made two several-hundred-word posts to ebuddy that took me quite a while to put together, when you chimed in with a ~10-word post saying "stop changing the subject" about what I had just written. You're an intelligent poster and I respect what you have to say, especially about religion. But I'm not sure how else to respond to a post like yours above other than dismissively. There's certainly nothing for me to debate. How about this: Give me something to debate, something I can agree or disagree with, or try to refute or confirm, and I won't just bitch at you.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by himself

damn... is there an echo in here?

Yeah I was wondering how many people would support that.

I keep hearing "A bunch of cells do not = baby, but most abortions are performed when it's more than a "bunch of cells" so that argument is more or less irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Monique

Kevin, it is in your brainwashing church

Monique, I belong to no church.

but if you look at biology it is just a complex serie of cells.

If you look close enough, we are all a bunch of complex cells.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

ebuddy,

You're simply incorrect that no one is denied health care in our country.

No I'm not. Anyone who needs healthcare can get it if they're trying. There may be reasons why one would not try, but this does not warrant a change in healthcare.

You're again trying to clear your conscience of this massive moral failure on the part of our country,

I'm not responsible for the alleged failure of people unwilling to get healthcare. Even it was a failure of the system itself, it would not reflect a failure for which my conscience would need clearing. I would simply do what I could to serve the greater good. Killing babies is not serving the greater good.

a failure enabled by the political ideology and party that you support.

If you'd take your blinders off you'd realize our current state of health care is the combined result of action and inaction among all those throughout history within the legislative system. This is not exclusively a Republican problem. I'm a little surprised at your simplistic vision of this complex issue.

Yeah right, they're young or not Americans or have insurance some of the time, and that makes it OK.

I never said that makes it OK. There are many factors to consider when counting uninsured. The vast majority of uninsured are those under the age of 35 who are either still under their parent's coverage, have decided the cost in premium is prohibitive, or have decided they're not worried about it as they consider their health good, very good, or excellent. Your vision of Elmer the 95 year old man laying face down in a sewer as cruel conservatives step over his limp body is simplistic, ignorant, and wreaks of the type of partisan bickering that will ensure your party of choice never attains office. I try to serve the greater good. Killing babies is not serving any greater good.

Every other wealthy country guarantees their people health care.

Tell this to the folks at the Mayo clinic as they treat yet another foreigner from these supposedly ideal countries. Healthcare in the US is guaranteed to anyone trying to get healthcare. Now if they'd rather remain anonymous because they are undocumented, then it only follows that they would also be uninsured. I'm a firm believer in improving border security. An issue the left has been dismally silent about for many years now. I mean, as long as we're throwing around political indictments here. Do you appreciate the growing numbers of undocumented immigrants so you can then cite their lack of income and health insurance, to bolster your desire of increasing government welfare programs? Do you see how assinine it is to continue derailing this thread with partisan talking points, blanket generalizations, and indictments against political ideology?

We could too, if you and the people you vote for weren't opposed to doing so. Show us how you value people ebuddy, rather than defending this. Don't dig in and get defensive. Take a clear moral stand.

You're in no position to challenge me Brussell. Come armed with something other than a political chip on your shoulder. Otherwise, I'll simply caste you in the same lot as the rest of the naysaying, religiophobic, knee-jerk hypocritical, leftist zealots I silence on a regular basis around here.

I have taken a clear moral stand. You disagree with that stand which is generally acceptable. What I have a problem with is your arguments, void of any substantive data, seem to be centered around nothing other than opposition to who you think is behind the ideal. Not the ideal itself. You win no battle of ideals with your vitriolic nature neither here nor abroad and will continue to watch those who share your ideals lose time and again at the polls. All I can do is keep trying to help you by opening your eyes. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

Same with the war. Are you seriously arguing that we had to go to war because it was the only way to stop the humanitarian crisis caused by sanctions, sanctions that we ourselves had imposed? That is truly fuzzy thinking. This is another clear moral question about the value of people. This was a war that the Catholic Church, as well as many other churches, like my own, and President Bush's Methodists, opposed on moral grounds.

For obvious reasons, churches hold to a set of absolutes. This is a representative democracy and not all can fall in lock step with traditional religious values at all times. I urge you not to look at complex global issues in such simplistic ways. Each of the churches mentioned above have also endured their share of scrutiny for issues such as gay marriage, polygamy, and other ideals. I'm not sure why you're trying to invoke faith here as some kind of strawman as you'd likely disagree with some of their other stances right? C'mon BRussell, take a stand man!!!

There were necessary battles in my doctrine of faith. It would be silly for me to assume there won't be necessary battles today and/or tomorrow. Human nature is imperialistic. This is unfortunate, but true. The world is going to come to a head of ideals. I believe some ideals are more compassionate in the long-term than others. I would like to see our ideal fortified enough to withstand the test of time. I believe the greater good does not stop at the end of today, but can look forward a couple of decades. This requires some vision however and I understand that not all are capable of having it. Rolling over and playing dead so others will think you're a nice guy is not effective foreign policy. All you can do is serve the greater good. IMHO, killing babies is not serving the greater good.

But not ebuddy. He digs in and defends all of these unnecessary deaths and dismemberments, all the while arguing for the critical moral importance of embryos.

I believe there are times when war produces death that is not unnecessary. Not everyone shares this long-term vision, but then we do live in a microwave meal world.

There are ways to value people, to be humanistic.

Yes and you've certainly shown a peculiar ineptitude in this area.

Your way, the American religious conservative way, is most certainly not it. The primary message of the founder of our religion is a humanistic one. I find it very telling that he neither supported wars nor condemned abortion.

I presume you're talking about Jesus who claimed He did not come to the world to bring peace, but a sword. While He was referring not to a literal sword, but of truth it seems you have taken it upon yourself to denounce both. The same Jesus that claimed to uphold the events and writings of the Old Testament which details several necessary battles. I don't expect you to trouble yourself over this point. This won't make sense to everyone. I don't recall Him saying anything about abortion, that's true, but then I can't imagine Him being indifferent to the practice of sucking a babies' brains from its head because two people couldn't keep their legs shut for one hour's feel goodz. All you can do is try to serve the greater good. Bringing up religious founders in error to bolster a feeble argument and killing babies for one hour's feel goodz does not serve the greater good.

No, the only conclusion that I can draw is that religious conservatives' attitudes on abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with a culture of life, and it's definitely not about the fundamentals of Christianity.

Coming from you BRussell, your idea of what is and is not fundamentally Christian is highly suspect. Forgive me if I don't place a great amount of weight on your ideal of compassion.

It is about sex, sex, sex.

You finally got it right. Your arguments are entirely about defending sex. It's about defending irresponsible sex, It's about defending unprotected sex, and it's about defending unadulterated, unfettered, guilt free sex. It's not about woman's rights at all. If it were more about protecting woman's rights instead of exploiting their sexuality, perhaps you'd see the issue a little more clearly than you indicate below.

The same people opposed to contraception are opposed to abortion.

I have no problem at all with contraception. I oppose abortion.

They don't like sex,

I absolutely love sex. I love sex from chandeliers and any other position I can get myself in. You're absolutely wrong.

they want it to be tied with procreation rather than dirty, lusty pleasures.

I haven't had a child in 11 years, but I guarantee you I've been engaged in a sexually healthy marriage for the last 11 years. I don't think it needs to be tied to procreation at all. I think it needs to be responsible. Otherwise you find yourself making arguments like; "You need to help me engage irresponsible sex and wreckless abandon with my body and you need to smile while you help me fund my next escapade!"

I can't see any other explanation.

Well, you certainly finished with remarkable blindness.

[Spliffdaddy]

smack

[Spliffdaddy]

down

[BRussell]

ebuddy, you have an immoral world view. That's harsh, but I want to state it as clearly as I can. On war - your "long-term vision" is that death is sometimes "not unnecessary." On the health of your fellow human beings - "I'm not responsible for the alleged failure of people unwilling to get healthcare." It just stinks of the doublespeak of immorality and avoidance and self-deception: "I'm not responsible." "Alleged failure." "Not unnecessary."

This is not the language of a philosophy that values human beings. And even your position on abortion is reprehensible - everyone can have one freebie! I want to see all abortions gone. Every one. Not just second ones. You may disagree with my suggestions about education and access to birth control and day-after pills, I don't know. But at least suggest something other than this disgusting "one abortion" nonsense.

Maybe I shouldn't care about the morality of your world view, but I do. I care because others view not only my country but also my religious tradition, the tradition of the founders of my country, through your statements. No wonder there are so many who are anti-American and anti-Christianity. They think we are as you portray us: Bitter and immoral.

I'm sorry ebuddy, I don't mean to be dramatic, and I like you. But to me this as an issue of good and evil, morality and immorality. I don't think you're immoral or evil, but I do think you're furthering an immoral and evil philosophy that infects my religion and my country right now. And so I'm going to be straight with you about how I see it, because I think you can handle it. And I suppose it's just a liberal failing, but I also think that maybe, someday, you'll even turn away from this immorality, if the truth is laid out clearly for you. I can always hope.

[Y3a]

A national healthcare system would be scammed the same way as all the other welfare systems have been. the big difference is the COST to everyone for this. Go after the lawyers, and make the loosing side lawyers pay all the court costs, and that they are not allowed to pass it on thru contracts etc to the ones they represent. You got the Democratic VP candidate as a prime example of why the health care costs are so high, and malpractice insurance costs too.

Would you take the risk of loosing everything, including your livelyhood because a patient of yours didn't follow instructions for a medicine dosage or something and YOU get sued bcause of it?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Y3a

A national healthcare system would be scammed the same way as all the other welfare systems have been. the big difference is the COST to everyone for this. Go after the lawyers, and make the loosing side lawyers pay all the court costs, and that they are not allowed to pass it on thru contracts etc to the ones they represent. You got the Democratic VP candidate as a prime example of why the health care costs are so high, and malpractice insurance costs too.

Would you take the risk of loosing everything, including your livelyhood because a patient of yours didn't follow instructions for a medicine dosage or something and YOU get sued bcause of it?

I don't think that is the way it goes in Canada...

Yes, it is costly, but no lawyers involved so far...

Also, Canadians made the choice of sharing, and pretty much none of them want to separate from that system.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

ebuddy, you have an immoral world view. That's harsh, but I want to state it as clearly as I can. On war - your "long-term vision" is that death is sometimes "not unnecessary." On the health of your fellow human beings - "I'm not responsible for the alleged failure of people unwilling to get healthcare." It just stinks of the doublespeak of immorality and avoidance and self-deception: "I'm not responsible." "Alleged failure." "Not unnecessary."

You're reading through a filter that lacks common sense. I can't make you love yourself, that's the point. It does no good at all to hand an alcoholic who's down on his luck $1,000.00 and hope he decides he's going to buy a suit, get a job, and put the rest down on a deposit for his own apartment. A friend told me he approached a man holding a sign "Will Work For Food" and offered him lunch and dinner for helping him out. My friend was managing a restaurant kitchen at the time and may have been able to help him with more than just a couple of meals. What did he say? "I'm not leaving this corner." Guess what BRussell, he's decided that this particular street corner was more important to him than signing on to a health insurance package through an employer to make the statistic look prettier for you. I can do what I can to help you, but at the end of the day you simply must try to help yourself. It is not compassionate to run about half-cocked like a chicken little screaming about the death toll in Iraq when Detroit itself has been doing a pretty good job of keeping up. Mind you, death here is not occurring on a daily basis as a struggle for freedom and prosperity, it's happening over some booze and a few bucks. I don't blame one party for making Christianity look bad, I blame human kind and human nature. I don't blame Republicans or Democrats for illegal immigrants crossing the border en masse to userp benefits belonging to legal US citizens, I blame human kind. I don't blame Republicans or Democrats for health care issues, I blame human kind. I don't blame Republicans or Right-wing Christians for the war in Iraq, I blame Saddam for 12 years of non-compliance and a leadership that thumbed it's nose at an International body trying to peacefully resolve an issue. I don't blame the Republicans or Democrats for many years of economic sanctions against a country serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of them to death slowly with no hope for a future and no hope for change. I blame an International body more interested in concessions and tough talk than progress. You can ignore the volatility of the world and continue to bury your head in a field of posies if it makes you feel more humanitarian, the rest of us will be busy working on a better future. In the years since terrorists attacked us, your tax dollar has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. To me, this is a more effective use of resource and humanitarian than making sure you have a way out of knocking up the girl you met last night at the bar. You may call me aggressive, cruel, and chalk full of double-speak if you want. I happen to know from history that paralysis through fear, naysaying, pessimism, and shedding a tear over travesty on CNN doesn't get the job done.

You may look humanitarian to your friends over a steak and some caviare while you talk about how selfish and greedy those damned Republicans are, just try to keep your feet out of the aisle of progress. Unless of course, in your humbled and humanitarian ways you're secretly hoping someone may trip, fall, and fail so you can take another sip and say; "I told you so."

This is not the language of a philosophy that values human beings. And even your position on abortion is reprehensible

Is it? I came prepared with some facts to back the claim that my view is not reprehensible. What have you provided other than blanket generalizations and vitriol against a particular political party. See, I'm not worried about political parties, I'm concerned with progress. Come back next time armed with more data and perhaps you can make a better case. Until then, you're doing people of like-mind a great disservice.

- everyone can have one freebie! I want to see all abortions gone.

So you're in favor of the S.Dakota ruling? I defended it here on MacNN, did you?

Every one. Not just second ones. You may disagree with my suggestions about education and access to birth control and day-after pills, I don't know. But at least suggest something other than this disgusting "one abortion" nonsense.

You got a better idea for cutting abortions in half starting tomorrow???

Maybe I shouldn't care about the morality of your world view, but I do. I care because others view not only my country but also my religious tradition, the tradition of the founders of my country, through your statements.

It's entirely possible you're concerned about how others view your religious tradition because you are not comfortable enough with your faith. Period. At some point you'll realize that the only excuse one needs to hate you is for you to speak. Once you realize this, you may be less concerned about what people think of you. I've defended just about every aspect of our culture seeking to bolster the ideal upon which this nation was founded and am constantly running into people like you who question my motives. Tell ya what, you worry more about what you're doing to help.

No wonder there are so many who are anti-American and anti-Christianity. They think we are as you portray us: Bitter and immoral.

At some point you'll realize that the only ones who have a distaste for my views were already anti-American and anti-Christian out of the gate. It is not me that creates this vitriolic mentality, they have their own set of chips. One who indicts religion as the cause of strife is one who cannot see the incredible good that has also come from religion. I remind them and they are silenced. If I had just held on to the IMs and PMs of those who worship as I do telling me how refreshing it was to see a voice of reason for them and to keep it up. Christians aren't generally the ones most vocally opposed to me. Some introspect might be in order for you BRussell.

I'm sorry ebuddy, I don't mean to be dramatic,

I wish you were more dramatic. I wish you were more passionate. I wish you had come to this table of ideals with more statistics, data, and substantive reasons for your views. You've given us nothing in this thread BRussell. You are adversarial to causes not because of the causes themselves, but because of a political party you feel is somehow exclusively behind the cause. You do so in complete failure to acknowledge that we all hold some responsibility in this and that the social ills we have today are vast, varied, and quite complex. Pointing a finger at one political idealogue does not resolve the issues, but propogates the illness. In this world there are under-achievers and over-achievers. Some are more willing than others to pick up a shovel. Some will use the shovel to dig their own graves and others will use the shovel to help dig you out, but there's a limit to how much shoveling the compassionate can do. At some point you also have to help dig yourself out of your hole. That's all I've been saying and you're simply not getting it. You don't know me and continue to project some type of evil nature to me that simply doesn't exist. I understand why and it has nothing to do with being humanitarian.

and I like you. But to me this as an issue of good and evil, morality and immorality. I don't think you're immoral or evil, but I do think you're furthering an immoral and evil philosophy that infects my religion and my country right now.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not seeing a whole lot of other ideas on the table. Naysaying, pessimism, and paralysis through fear never accomplished anything worth fighting for, but then you may feel there is nothing in this world worth fighting for. I disagree.

And so I'm going to be straight with you about how I see it, because I think you can handle it.

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, you've been everything, but straight with me or yourself.

And I suppose it's just a liberal failing, but I also think that maybe, someday, you'll even turn away from this immorality, if the truth is laid out clearly for you. I can always hope.

You've not laid any truths out there BRussell. Not one morsel. If you seek to change hearts and minds using the truth, you'll have to speak something truthful. The truth usually comes with data, a goal, and a firm plan on how to attain that goal. Status quo is not progress. Silence, isolationism, naysaying, pessimism, and fear all wreak of a lacking of faith. Complacency is not compassion regardless of what your friends think of you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

That does make sense, but what actually happens is the opposite of what you're saying. Look at this thread: I had just made two several-hundred-word posts to ebuddy that took me quite a while to put together, when you chimed in with a ~10-word post saying "stop changing the subject" about what I had just written. You're an intelligent poster and I respect what you have to say, especially about religion. But I'm not sure how else to respond to a post like yours above other than dismissively. There's certainly nothing for me to debate. How about this: Give me something to debate, something I can agree or disagree with, or try to refute or confirm, and I won't just bitch at you.

Why? Do you believe anyone actually changes their views based on discussions in this forum? Not hardly. I realized that some time ago.

Furthermore, you're trying to complicate the issue (abortion) by bringing in the war. One of which represents an ultimate individual moral crisis, and the other does not.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You're reading through a filter that lacks common sense. I can't make you love yourself, that's the point. It does no good at all to hand an alcoholic who's down on his luck $1,000.00 and hope he decides he's going to buy a suit, get a job, and put the rest down on a deposit for his own apartment. A friend told me he approached a man holding a sign "Will Work For Food" and offered him lunch and dinner for helping him out. My friend was managing a restaurant kitchen at the time and may have been able to help him with more than just a couple of meals. What did he say? "I'm not leaving this corner." Guess what BRussell, he's decided that this particular street corner was more important to him than signing on to a health insurance package through an employer to make the statistic look prettier for you. I can do what I can to help you, but at the end of the day you simply must try to help yourself.

You're really doing your best to rationalize your misanthropy: They're just lazy. They don't love themselves. Helping them won't help them. Sell what you possess and give to the poor. Oh wait, you didn't say that last one did you. ebuddy, rationalization is a trap. We all have nasty, immoral tendencies, it's part of being human. What differentiates people is whether they spend more time rationalizing and justifying those tendencies or acknowledging that they are nasty and immoral and trying to fight them.

It is not compassionate to run about half-cocked like a chicken little screaming about the death toll in Iraq when Detroit itself has been doing a pretty good job of keeping up.

Right. A moral person doesn't run around like a chicken little when it comes to these things. By the way, I spend volunteer time in a half-way house that helps offenders find jobs and hopefully getting them on a path where they won't be using drugs or stealing stuff or molesting kids. I also volunteer to teach online correspondence courses to soldiers fighting in Iraq, so they can get a college degree. My church sets up shop for the temporarily homeless to live - among many, many other things. What do you do to help alleviate this problem in our country that you're so concerned about? You know, other than oppose policies that might do something positive because, after all, it's YOUR money and not the socialists'?

Mind you, death here is not occurring on a daily basis as a struggle for freedom and prosperity, it's happening over some booze and a few bucks. I don't blame one party for making Christianity look bad, I blame human kind and human nature. I don't blame Republicans or Democrats for illegal immigrants crossing the border en masse to userp benefits belonging to legal US citizens, I blame human kind. I don't blame Republicans or Democrats for health care issues, I blame human kind. I don't blame Republicans or Right-wing Christians for the war in Iraq, I blame Saddam for 12 years of non-compliance and a leadership that thumbed it's nose at an International body trying to peacefully resolve an issue. I don't blame the Republicans or Democrats for many years of economic sanctions against a country serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of them to death slowly with no hope for a future and no hope for change. I blame an International body more interested in concessions and tough talk than progress. You can ignore the volatility of the world and continue to bury your head in a field of posies if it makes you feel more humanitarian, the rest of us will be busy working on a better future. In the years since terrorists attacked us, your tax dollar has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. To me, this is a more effective use of resource and humanitarian than making sure you have a way out of knocking up the girl you met last night at the bar. You may call me aggressive, cruel, and chalk full of double-speak if you want. I happen to know from history that paralysis through fear, naysaying, pessimism, and shedding a tear over travesty on CNN doesn't get the job done.

You may look humanitarian to your friends over a steak and some caviare while you talk about how selfish and greedy those damned Republicans are, just try to keep your feet out of the aisle of progress. Unless of course, in your humbled and humanitarian ways you're secretly hoping someone may trip, fall, and fail so you can take another sip and say; "I told you so." [/quote] Yeah, it's just CNN, it's not real. The fact is, there are alternatives to war other than your false choice of "paralysis." The alternatives are harder and not nearly as much fun or hi tech as satellite weapons and aircraft carriers. They involve setting a moral example for others to follow. The problem in the Middle East is fundamentally a moral and spiritual one. There are millions of good people there, who want us to be their allies. It could have happened. We had a chance to divide the good from the evil in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11. Instead, we chose - you chose - a policy of war and torture and incompetence that set even the people of good will in the Middle East against us.

Is it? I came prepared with some facts to back the claim that my view is not reprehensible. What have you provided other than blanket generalizations and vitriol against a particular political party. See, I'm not worried about political parties, I'm concerned with progress. Come back next time armed with more data and perhaps you can make a better case. Until then, you're doing people of like-mind a great disservice.

So you're in favor of the S.Dakota ruling? I defended it here on MacNN, did you?

You got a better idea for cutting abortions in half starting tomorrow???

Yes, your idea is reprehensible. I have a better idea, and I have stated it repeatedly - better education, alleviation of poverty, access to contraception and morning-after pills. I'm not interested in cutting abortions in half either. Unlike you, I want all abortions to stop. And unlike you, I don't want them to stop because I fetishize embryos, I want them to stop because it would mean that adults have gained control over their lives.

It's entirely possible you're concerned about how others view your religious tradition because you are not comfortable enough with your faith. Period. At some point you'll realize that the only excuse one needs to hate you is for you to speak. Once you realize this, you may be less concerned about what people think of you. I've defended just about every aspect of our culture seeking to bolster the ideal upon which this nation was founded and am constantly running into people like you who question my motives. Tell ya what, you worry more about what you're doing to help.

At some point you'll realize that the only ones who have a distaste for my views were already anti-American and anti-Christian out of the gate. It is not me that creates this vitriolic mentality, they have their own set of chips. One who indicts religion as the cause of strife is one who cannot see the incredible good that has also come from religion. I remind them and they are silenced. If I had just held on to the IMs and PMs of those who worship as I do telling me how refreshing it was to see a voice of reason for them and to keep it up. Christians aren't generally the ones most vocally opposed to me. Some introspect might be in order for you BRussell.

Yes, you are quite a victim ebuddy. All those mean people

I wish you were more dramatic. I wish you were more passionate. I wish you had come to this table of ideals with more statistics, data, and substantive reasons for your views. You've given us nothing in this thread BRussell. You are adversarial to causes not because of the causes themselves, but because of a political party you feel is somehow exclusively behind the cause. You do so in complete failure to acknowledge that we all hold some responsibility in this and that the social ills we have today are vast, varied, and quite complex. Pointing a finger at one political idealogue does not resolve the issues, but propogates the illness. In this world there are under-achievers and over-achievers. Some are more willing than others to pick up a shovel. Some will use the shovel to dig their own graves and others will use the shovel to help dig you out, but there's a limit to how much shoveling the compassionate can do. At some point you also have to help dig yourself out of your hole. That's all I've been saying and you're simply not getting it. You don't know me and continue to project some type of evil nature to me that simply doesn't exist. I understand why and it has nothing to do with being humanitarian.

I judge you simply on what you post here. Unless you're simply being dishonest - perhaps you don't really believe everyone can have one abortion and people without access to health care have only themselves to blame - I have accurately characterized your views. Ideas do matter ebuddy.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not seeing a whole lot of other ideas on the table. Naysaying, pessimism, and paralysis through fear never accomplished anything worth fighting for, but then you may feel there is nothing in this world worth fighting for. I disagree.

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, you've been everything, but straight with me or yourself.

You've not laid any truths out there BRussell. Not one morsel. If you seek to change hearts and minds using the truth, you'll have to speak something truthful. The truth usually comes with data, a goal, and a firm plan on how to attain that goal. Status quo is not progress. Silence, isolationism, naysaying, pessimism, and fear all wreak of a lacking of faith. Complacency is not compassion regardless of what your friends think of you.

You claim that you believe some things are worth fighting for. I doubt that, my friend. All I hear from you is that you'd like to sit in your home and let other people fight wars and pass laws that rapists can force their victims to become mothers against their will. All I hear is bitterness and vitriol towards those who want to actually better our country and world. Some positivity - on what to do about our health care problem, for example, rather than denying it exists - would be a start. But it's all negativity and blaming and avoidance of responsibility. Come on, you can do better.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Why? Do you believe anyone actually changes their views based on discussions in this forum? Not hardly. I realized that some time ago.

Furthermore, you're trying to complicate the issue (abortion) by bringing in the war. One of which represents an ultimate individual moral crisis, and the other does not.

I'm not quite as pessimistic as you about changing views. Usually in the heat of an argument, you're not going to change. But if good points are made, sometimes they creep in and produce a change that occurs later. At least, I hope that I would be able to do so. I think that you've made some posts about religion that have changed or informed me about things.

[Spliffdaddy]

page 9 - and this debate is just now starting to get interesting.

carry on, folks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

You're really doing your best to rationalize your misanthropy:

You still don't get it.

They're just lazy. They don't love themselves. Helping them won't help them. Sell what you possess and give to the poor.

Is that a G5 you're typing on my poor child? Oh wait, you haven't sold all your belongings to the poor yet? You cruel heartless evil conservative selfish man you.

ebuddy, rationalization is a trap.

exactly BRussell. That's why I don't try to rationalize abortion by citing the less than 3% as my argument for continuing a status quo you claim to oppose.

We all have nasty, immoral tendencies, it's part of being human.

Ahhh. some humility afterall. I was beginning to think I was talking to Ghandi or something.

What differentiates people is whether they spend more time rationalizing and justifying those tendencies or acknowledging that they are nasty and immoral and trying to fight them.

Which is what I'm doing. You disagree with my stance and have taken it upon yourself to project a nature on me that simply does not exist.

Right. A moral person doesn't run around like a chicken little when it comes to these things. By the way, I spend volunteer time in a half-way house that helps offenders find jobs and hopefully getting them on a path where they won't be using drugs or stealing stuff or molesting kids. I also volunteer to teach online correspondence courses to soldiers fighting in Iraq, so they can get a college degree. My church sets up shop for the temporarily homeless to live - among many, many other things. What do you do to help alleviate this problem in our country that you're so concerned about?

I do a great many things generally centered around children and sharing my faith. I also coach and volunteer time working with others in church activities and have organized several activities for local shelters in my area.

Yeah, it's just CNN, it's not real. The fact is, there are alternatives to war other than your false choice of "paralysis."

Right and we tried those. Didn't work. Only starved hundreds of thousands of people to death, but hey as long as it helped you sleep in your gated community at night.

The alternatives are harder and not nearly as much fun or hi tech as satellite weapons and aircraft carriers.

Very true. In fact the alternatives were much harder on the ones you're trying to save. Look, we disagree it's as simple as that.

They involve setting a moral example for others to follow. The problem in the Middle East is fundamentally a moral and spiritual one.

They enjoy morality the likes of which our nation could only hope to achieve. The problem there is oppression. The oppressed need an enemy and the dictator is always happy to provide one. In this case it was the West. The Middle East needs hope and change. You may disagree with how it's being delivered, but the status quo wasn't working to improve conditions. Again, just because you could sleep at night knowing nothing was being done doesn't place you on some greater humanitarian plain than I. I'm not sure I know who you think you are in this.

There are millions of good people there, who want us to be their allies. It could have happened.

In fact, the majority are good people not only in Iraq, but also Iran. The change is underway. Votes are being held in parts of the country where they never had been and freedom is on its way. It is difficult, but then sometimes the right answer is.

We had a chance to divide the good from the evil in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11. Instead, we chose - you chose - a policy of war and torture and incompetence that set even the people of good will in the Middle East against us.

wreaks of xenophobia and ignorance. The people of the Middle East are perfectly able to enjoy peace, prosperity, freedom, civility, and democracy. There are a great many opposed to this ideal and they must first be removed from the equasion. Starving an entire country to death because of one leader and a couple of siblings, compassion makes not.

Yes, your idea is reprehensible.

According to who, you? I'm not impressed and I'll tell you why in a minute.

I have a better idea, and I have stated it repeatedly - better education,

...but what of those not interested in learning? What of those who know and still decide not to conform to your Utopian and unrealistic goal? Is there a "compliance" drug or State-sanctioned hypnosis program in your agenda?

alleviation of poverty,

We're already the richest country in the world. Poverty in the US is two cars, two television sets, a gaming system, a fridge, microwave, and cable television.

access to contraception and morning-after pills.

Planned Parenthood already providing these things. Problem still exists. We're not at 0 abortions yet buddy. Got anything else?

I'm not interested in cutting abortions in half either.

No, it seems you're not. In fact, you're not even in favor of cutting them by 10% with your proposal of more status quo.

Unlike you, I want all abortions to stop.

Your ideas haven't even gotten to abortions yet.

And unlike you, I don't want them to stop because I fetishize embryos, I want them to stop because it would mean that adults have gained control over their lives.

Again, it is up to adults as to whether or not they want to control their own lives. As screwed up as our society is, it is the most prosperous and successful model we have in this world. You aren't going to find less poverty, more opportunity, and less oppression than you'll find here and yet ironically, here we are with social ills. How can that be?

Yes, you are quite a victim ebuddy. All those mean people

I never claimed to be a victim. Is this the Christian attitude you're touting so self-righteously?

I judge you simply on what you post here. Unless you're simply being dishonest - perhaps you don't really believe everyone can have one abortion and people without access to health care have only themselves to blame - I have accurately characterized your views.

I'm not going to attempt to over-turn an entire system over night because less than 1% are unfortunate. All we can do is continue to conduct our philanthropic and charitible work at the local level. Federalism does not work and leaves way too many people behind in bureacracy and contrived compassion.

Ideas do matter ebuddy.

I agree and good ideas have information behind them, a goal in front of them, and a gameplan to give them thrust along the way. You've offered none of these.

You claim that you believe some things are worth fighting for. I doubt that, my friend. All I hear from you is that you'd like to sit in your home and let other people fight wars and pass laws that rapists can force their victims to become mothers against their will.

You can fight as hard as you want for the .0001% rape victims seeking their third abortion. I'm going to stand up for the remaining 99.9998% of society including the least of these, our children, our babies, and our livelihoods.

All I hear is bitterness and vitriol towards those who want to actually better our country and world. Some positivity - on what to do about our health care problem, for example, rather than denying it exists - would be a start. But it's all negativity and blaming and avoidance of responsibility. Come on, you can do better.

You've not been paying attention. I was very poor. My now wife, then girlfriend became pregnant because we were irresponsible. We went to Planned Parenthood to get an understanding of our options because we were scared teens. The 50+ year old lady we spoke to claimed if she had it to do over again she would've aborted her baby. She explained what our options were and told us that if we were unable to pay for an abortion, it would be funded. My girlfriend and I looked at one another and we were both thinking the same thing. "I wonder if her son knows how mom feels about him." My girlfriend and I decided that we were going to have the child, but we were absolutely broke with little income and no insurance. Medicaid would not cover me because I worked full time and made too much money. How much? $600.00/month. My wife was going to need considerable medical coverage for her pregnancy and to us the answer was clear. We both cut our work hours in half to be covered by Medicaid, get WIC, and foodstamps. What we learned is that as long as you give up, the government will hand out. If you cut your hours and work less, the government will work harder for you and they'll even help you get an abortion if that's what you want. This I find reprehensible. I then decided to drop the government handouts and work my butt off. This took time and it was difficult, but I didn't want to be made dependant upon a government entity for my livelihood. It required a bit of pride and self-determination and my wife and I are doing very well now, but we've not forgotten. The experience taught us the value of our ideals. I've held strong to these ideals for a long time now because the experience was profound. I find all too often, the ones living in gated communities or other lifestyles of the self-proclaimed "compassionate" haven't the foggiest idea what begets poverty. It starts with a low self worth and manifests in poor decisions that lead to societal ills. Ills that can be fostered by those like you who want to give handouts instead of what it is their hands really need. Accomplishment, productivity, a sense of investment in themselves and in society.

For you to jump in and project what you think I am based on a couple of posts is reprehensible to me. To think you believe somehow you're the template of compassion, reason, and progress. Spare me the tripe. I'm not buyin'.

[Dakar]

I'll give you this ebuddy; You have the will of an ox when it comes to these discussions.

We may not have the same opinions, but 9 times out of 10, you have my respect.