|
|
Post by SpasticChicken on Oct 17, 2004 0:47:41 GMT -5
I thought I'd never say this but i'm kinda glad i can't vote  I have no idea who to vote for...well thats not true. I don't like Bush but Kery scares the hell out of me. He has no back bone, grr! I'm really shocked that he took the stand on pro chioce, now he's gonna get thrown out of the catholic church...ha. I think it's sorta funny how they try to skip over the gay issue. Bush and Kerry agree that marriage should be between a man and a women but Kerry thinks gay people should still have their rights. He just loves throwing the fact that Chaney's daughter is a lesbian ^_^ And OMG all Bush can harp on is education. ohkay ohkay i have one. One of the worst educations systems: NY. So to mask the stupidity they make us take regents grr! AND!!! I just found out that if you apply to a community college they HAVE to take you...hmmm lol But anyways, At the last dabate Bush made sure he got his education issues out there but like Kerry said he kept changing the subject to that! grrr. I think Kerry's a little too optiamistic and unrealistic when it comes to what he says he's going to do "for the people" AHhh i should go do something productive now, comment please! I always love to hear other sides 2 everything!
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Oct 17, 2004 16:31:42 GMT -5
Actually, I agree with a lot of what you said. *waits for Bass or Scythe to post so we can get the extreme right-wing viewpoint  * |
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Oct 17, 2004 16:49:19 GMT -5
Yea, i'm kinda stuck in between aswell. I think they both lie out of the arse way to much. Sure, Kerry has a PLAN for everything...but will any of it happen? I doubt it. And then Bush, well, he's just done a bunch of stupid crap druing his term  |
|
|
|
Post by Scythe on Oct 17, 2004 17:39:11 GMT -5
*waits for Bass or Scythe to post so we can get the extreme right-wing viewpoint * Actually, there's not much for me to add as far as extreme right-wing stuff. They both pretty much stink, so the real issue of this election is which one is at least marginally capable of leadership. Bush really isn't all that great, but I'd still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry is...undecisive. It's true that he appears to be taking stands on issues now, but I'm have some doubts that that change is anything true or long-lasting. As a somewhat conservative thinker, I also don't agree with some of his views (babies having their brains mashed, being ripped out of women and shoveled into furnaces is not a pretty image. Yes, thats an extreme example, but it's the same basic concept to me) Yeah, this election suxors. I still wish I could vote in it though. It's beginning to appear that landslide or clear-majority elections are a thing of the past... |
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Oct 17, 2004 18:01:02 GMT -5
As a somewhat conservative thinker, I also don't agree with some of his views (babies having their brains mashed, being ripped out of women and shoveled into furnaces is not a pretty image. Yes, thats an extreme example, but it's the same basic concept to me) Yes, some of these are pretty scary, but it's still better than having women do it themselves with a coathanger. The one thing I don't understand is about people not trusting Kerry. You've the Bush administration lie to you. How much worse can Kerry be? |
|
|
|
Post by Scythe on Oct 17, 2004 18:53:17 GMT -5
I guess that's true. I think with any presidency these days, the out-of-power party is going to accuse the president of witholding information or lying regardless of which one it is for 3 reasons. (A) It's probably true. A lot of people lie. (2) It's a highly effective political maneuver that the opposing party can't afford to not exploit. (D) It makes a good news story.
Yes. Bush has lied. Clinton lied. Bush "Senior" probably lied, as did most of the preceding presidents. It's not a trend I expect Kerry to break. Don't blow me up now; I'm not saying he's a liar. Lying is just something most people do to benefit themselves, regardless of their public visibility or power or status or anything.
About the abortion thing though...morally, I think it's wrong, but moral issues are dangerous things to talk about in relation to politics.
The founding fathers would weep if they could see what American politics have become...oh well, they're dead. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by SpasticChicken on Oct 17, 2004 20:25:50 GMT -5
The funny thing is, when America got it's independece they wanted to make Washington an "elected" king...bah. Anyways, i'm totally pro choice. I pray i will never have to be put in the positon but come on it's a women's prerogative. Bush is basically saying if a woman is raped they should live with it by giving bith to some rapist child. Next thing ya know getting rape is gonna be the woman's fault also. We're suppose to have church and state separate, But when it comes to abortion or homosexualty people let their religion rule them...bah. I still have friends who won't stand up to the pledge because it has "under god..." in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scythe on Oct 17, 2004 20:47:28 GMT -5
Bush is basically saying if a woman is raped they should live with it by giving bith to some rapist child. Next thing ya know getting rape is gonna be the woman's fault also. The thing is that Kerry wants abortions for anybody, not just for rape victims or people whose health is endangered by a pregnancy. For some couple to randomly go off an have unprotected sex, then expect to just go ahead and use abortion as birth control, just decideto kill off the child for convenience...well...thats just sick. In all cases, even those of rape, what about the child? Doesn't the child have rights? A month-old infant can't think or do anything for itself any more than a fetus, but there's no question about the illegality of terminating THAT child. You cant argue that its for the "good of the child," or that it's "better off dead." Living at all, even living in an orphanage with the knowledge that your father is a raping criminal or that your parents didn't want you is better than dying. In the case of rape, its a sad thing, but I don't think saving the woman 9 months of shame and toil (that she'll recieve monetary compensation for in most cases) is worth murdering an innocent for. there's new sciences on the verge of coming out now. Surrogate motherhoods, fetus trasplants, etc... Soon, we won't need abortions for the rape cases due to these methods. And theres no excuse at all that merits abortion in any others, so it will make legal abortions merely a vanity issue and a post-conception birth control method, which is murder. heehee being allowed to have opinions rocks!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Oct 17, 2004 21:09:47 GMT -5
Actually, there is one more case that you've ignored. That case is when the delivering woman's life is at risk. This is why Clinton had to veto anti-abortion measures twice. Every proposal that was put in front of him was drafted by people who didn't care about whether or not the woman's life was in danger, which is something that we should care about. Here's the thing though, Scythe. Not everyone will agree that the fetus is life. Do you feel entirely comfortable imposing your views on them. I'm not in favour of abortion; I think it's awful, but I do think that I shouldn't impose my views on others in cases like this where it's not clear-cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by SpasticChicken on Oct 17, 2004 22:22:48 GMT -5
I for one don't agree that a fetus is life. Many others feel the same way as i do when it's an inconvenience to them. When that fetus comes out then it is a living breathing child. I feel the two are totally different. I'm not sitting here trying to change people to my way of thinking cuz that will probably never happen i'm just saying. abortion should be a right. even if abortion is made illegal do you REALLY think thats gonna stop people? I don't think people should use abortion as a birth control but if they do, they're the ones who have to live with themselves but then again some people just don't care. Me as well as you guys can sit here and say blah and blah but it's neither here nor there because you guys will NEVER expreince that(unless you have a sex change) And hopfully neither will I. I'm just saying lets not judge until we take a walk on the other side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scythe on Oct 18, 2004 10:09:57 GMT -5
I love your current sig, Spastic Chicken
Yeah...there's lotsa ways to look at it. I think I came across a bit wrong though. I don't mean to devalue the role of women in a pregnancy or the pain and hardships involved. Its just that more life will be lost than saved by allowing abortions
The way I think is that if you end a life, even before it technically begins, you're still ending someone's life, which is a nicer way to say killing someone. Lets say for a second, like you say, that the fetus isn'ta life, it isn't alive. When you destroy the fetus, you are still destroying the life it would have been...that it should have been.
In the case of women who are endangered by pregnancy, once again there are such things as fetus transplants and surrogate motherhoods...abortion is easier, yes.
Bell rang. I'll rant some more later.
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Oct 18, 2004 11:07:50 GMT -5
But still, it isn't the government's role to place moral (especially religious) judgement on anyone. Scythe, perhaps you can enlighten me, since I just don't understand why people like you have to live other people's lives for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by SpasticChicken on Oct 18, 2004 15:57:15 GMT -5
Scythe, perhaps you can enlighten me, since I just don't understand why people like you have to live other people's lives for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Scythe on Oct 18, 2004 16:18:50 GMT -5
Because you can at least give the kid a chance. Any chance is better than none at all... But still, it isn't the government's role to place moral (especially religious) judgement on anyone. Scythe, perhaps you can enlighten me, since I just don't understand why people like you have to live other people's lives for them. I highly doubt that anyone has a problem with ending lives being against the law... It's a concept which everyone of every faith (or lack thereof) can embrace. By the argument that ending all chances of a fetus at future life is merely a moral issue, then laws forbidding killing under any circumstance have no reason to exist either. Some people don't see anything wrong with killing, so why press our values on them? Hey, some people don't think it's morally wrong to steal, so why should there be laws about that? It's a moral issue of whether Muslim extremists want to murder thousands of Americans, who are we to interfere? Stealing and killing are even mentioned in the 10 commandments! What are they doing in law?! They're "moral issues!" Why can't we steal, kill, trick, lie? Because that would lead to the degeneration of society in the nation, and eventually the world. Its not just about abortion. It's about the continued stability of American society. If we're not allowed to make laws about moral issues, then the basis of social order evaporates. Theres all sorts of "moral issues" in many, many laws. If the government refuses to take a stand on any of these sort of things, we may have legitimate challenges to laws concerning killing and stealing and lying. It'll start with littler things like abortion and moderated duels and euthanasia, but it won't end there. Chaos will ensue. And believe me, people are that stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by SpasticChicken on Oct 18, 2004 16:29:47 GMT -5
They're "moral issues!" Why can't we steal, kill, trick, lie? Because that would lead to the degeneration of society in the nation |
|
