South Dakota House oks abortion ban to overture Roe v. Wade in Supreme Court

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Nationally most support keeping abortion legal, though most oppose 3rd trimester abortions.[/quote]
I just wanted to see the statistic, which now that I have seen will gladly concede the point. Doesn't change the fact that the national public still hasn't had a say on the matter in any meaningful way.

As much as it's fashionable to make that argument, if you really want to look at the voting record you'll notice something interesting. Southern democrats were more likely to favor civil rights than southern republicans, and northern democrats were more likely to favor civil rights than northern republicans. That being the case, it's no wonder that the republican party took in many of those democrats. If it was the democrats opposing civil rights, and not the south, then you would find democrats (at least southern democrats) were more opposed to civil rights than republicans, but that isn't the case.

Ummm, no. You're completely and utterly wrong. That's so backwards that I'm actually a little embarassed for you drinking that kool-aid. That's Democratic mantra in is purest and most destructive form. The black community falls for it and have fell for it since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in the 1964 (which happened to be a great achievement as well that was filibustered by Senate Democrats) The Democratic party still has a former KKK member in their Congressional leadership for goodness sakes.

Speaking of that monster:

July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee's Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill's passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.

In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."

In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."

What responsibility should a woman have to accept who was raped, or was married and had protected sex but can't care for the baby? The reasoning for abortion is essentially to protect yourself, not to take from others. Now if you want to argue that they're taking someones life then fine, but it's a bad argument since many who undergo abortions do not agree, and therefore that argument doesn't apply to them. It's not your reasoning that matters, but theirs.

Protected sex is never 100%, anyone will tell you that. The only way you don't get pregnant is through abstenience. Rape is an unfortunate practice, and I believe rapist should be punished to the full extent of the law and then some, but the baby shouldn't be punished for the crime. Only 4% of rapes even turn up pregnancies to begin with, it's not nearly as likely of a scenario as the spin doctors would have you believe.

But making robbery and murder illegal in countries makes them significantly less likely to occur, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in rates when abortion is legal or illegal. I would guess (not based on evidence) that differences do occur when certain types of restrictions are in place, but when abortion is completely illegal (or only illegal in rare circumstances), there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in rates.

Again, I'd like to see where you got that abortions were just as likely to occur if they were illegal. I just cannot believe that woman would even go to the trouble of reporting it had they even done it illegally. If you want to argue that they'll go across the border and have it done, that's a different story.

Are you going to waste all that money on jails, the court system etc. to arrest people for crimes when such practices have absolutely no benefit to society at all? And only bring more harm? That is what you'd be doing here, unlike with murder and robbery.

It's a deterrent. It's unfortunate we live in a society that thinks abortion should be an option, but I would agree that it isn't a perfect world. When the individual makes a stupid choice, the state has to make it illegal to defend the fabric of our society. The same ideas can be found in relation to speed limits, drunk driving laws, etc... These are limits on freedom meant to protect the public, in this case those that cannot defend themselves.

[quote name='mykevermin']65% of people don't want to see RvW overturned: http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=119[/quote]

Again, all I wanted was the statistic. I concede the point.

There are 25 Republicans and 10 Democrats in the South Dakota state senate: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/senrost.htm

There are 51 Republicans and 19 Democrats in the South Dakota state house: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/hourost.htm

So, while you want to claim that the bill passed handily, you can't generalize when you have a state congress that is 73% Republican and 27% Democrat, because that is clearly not the political makeup of the rest of the nation. Of course it passed; you have a congress that *may* be representative of South Dakota, but you can make no argument as to how such a congress is typical in this nation. I don't see any reason why the governor, you guessed it, a Republican too, won't sign it.

That's the government we live under, the people elect their own representatives. Our representatives are de facto the voices of the people in a democratic republic like ours. If the people elected a congress that was 73% Republican, than that is the measurement of the state. Obviously it isn't perfect, but we don't run our government under a pure democratic ideal, do we?

Nationally, of course I can't. The people of South Dakota only have as much voice nationally as the number of Senators and Representatives they have in Congress.

Any way, what was that you were saying about numbers out of people's asses? Last I checked, 65% wasn't just a majority, but by the George W Bush standard of measurement, where 54% is a "mandate," 65% should make the motherer set in stone, no?

Oh, going to talk like a big man now? dafoomie didn't cite his source, you did. I had every right to question it just like you have every right to question any claim I make. The ing vanity of you people.

What a legacy those racist democrats were, no? Funny how the south, as an entity of itself, tends to vote pure red Republican these days, unless you count blacks. You guys totally stole Zell Miller, the last living dixiecrat, from us. Your lame political barb is a vestige of 40 years ago, and if more people could recognize the pisspoor enforcement of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act and it's kinfolk, the Fair Housing Amendment (though I must concede that the FHA was made virtually unenforcable through the efforts of Robert Byrd) make the ideology of a "color-blind" society one of the most absurd and ill-conceived notions of denying systematic racism at every level. anyway, that's not the topic at hand.

Spoken like a true liberal. For those that didn't feel like translating all of his needless verbosity, he basically said equality is inherently unequal. The reflection of the GOP rings true since it's inception as a party of equality despite the false reality you choose to pull over the eyes of the unattentive public. To glorifiy the Democratic party's platform over the scope of it's existance would be to say it's sent a mixed message about civil rights. From racist demagoguery to affimative action, the party will continue to keep the minorities down in one way or another until it changes it's policies. Either through supporting limits to basic freedoms or giving false privileges to folk based solely on color, it has always been a party of inequality.

I think you are a very young child who has no idea how people get pregnant; the myth of the woman who wantonly has abortion after abortion after abortion, treating each episode more flippantly than the previous, is completely and totally unsubstantiated. Somehow, every last person who gets pregnant did soo because they didn't use protection, because they consented to sex, and because they are just completely and totally careless? Perhaps you could back that up with data, lest it end up on the scrapheap of useless stereotypes, alongside old classics like Ronald Reagan's quiet racism in the form of the "welfare queen." You make many presumptions about the circumstances of who goes to abortions clinics, and too many assupmtions about what they think (or don't think) prior to pregnancy and after the procedure. Too many assumptions for my taste.

Without even knowing my age, as if it even made a difference other than to bloat your ego even more, you make a ridiculous statement that someone who is pro-life doesn't understand the process of abortion. Here it is for you: the child is killed. That's all that anyone needs to know about the process. Assumptions are many in a moral debate, one filled to the brim with ethical and emotional pandering on both sides. One thing is for sure, in all instances an abortion is done through convenience. Necessity only rings true in one of those instances, and thankfully this bill made exception for it.

Did this bill prohibit abortions *even* in cases of rape/incest? So much for choice in those circumstances, eh? It's only a false trap because you don't like to discuss sex. Guess what? A majority of adults have sex, have multiple sexual partners, and some even get pregnant. The average age for first intercourse is 17 years; it's 18.5 for those who had "abstinence-only" education, but those people, while they may delay sex, are far less likely to use protection that those who had other forms of sex ed. There are plenty of things that people can do to reduce the spread of disease and pregnancy, and if you think that you can stop people from ing (which is a historically persistent sort of behavior, given that we're here), best of luck to you, and I hope you don't frustrate easy.

Why is it that you want to alter/prohibit/punish people for engaging in the one thing that they've proven themselves capable of doing for as long as humans have been around? You've chosen to take on a task in futility greater than climbing Mount Everest in your jockey shorts alone.

No, there is no choice when a woman gets raped. There is, however, the choice over whether to keep the baby or give it up to one of the the many, many infertile couples desperate for a baby to call their own. Sex is, in all other cases, a choice. While those lacking foresight and careful behavior tend to have unwanted pregnancies more often, that is not the fault of the child or the state. If you aren't aware of the consequences and prepared to deal with them should they arise, it's foolish to participate in the practice. You take a risk, you understand the risk, you take responsibility. You cannot convince me that people just accidently get pregnant when they're eating an apple, they do it because they willingly made the decision to be in a situation where the can get pregnant.

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Ummm, no. You're completely and utterly wrong. That's so backwards that I'm actually a little embarassed for you drinking that kool-aid. That's Democratic mantra in is purest and most destructive form. The black community falls for it and have fell for it since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in the 1964 (which happened to be a great achievement as well that was filibustered by Senate Democrats) The Democratic party still has a former KKK member in their Congressional leadership for goodness sakes.

Speaking of that monster:

July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee's Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill's passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.

In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."

In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."[/quote]
The republicans were seen as "the party of Lincoln", and most of the time the south essentially voted Democrat as a large bloc. It wasn't until Nixon that the south essentially switched from always voting Democrat to always voting Republican. I think you should also note that in 1865-1866, the parties that we see today are completely different than the parties of then. The republicans were considered to be in cahoots with the slaves, and the Democrats were for slavery. That switched at about the turn of the century. This sort of information isn't exactly well-hidden either. Go ahead and look at voting records for the 20th century. I learned about this stuff in 11th grade.

THe problem is that the south voted Democrat, despite the major switch switch in party ideology that happened in the 1900s, and thus the only way to win a position in the south was to be on the democrat ticket, whether or not you believe in the ideals. You might note that in 1994, when Newt became speaker of the house, the last of the southern democrats finally switched over to the republican party.

I find it interesting that you demonize the Democratic party for this. Try looking at who was voting against civil rights legislature. It just about always is the south, regardless of party.

 

[mykevermin]

AoW thinks that people actually have equal opportunities in this society regardless of race.

I guess that contradicts the mountains of data that show pervasive and consistent discriminatory treatment in hiring and housing more than 40 years after the civil rights act. I guess that "color-blind racism" or "racism without racists" (copyright Eduardo Bonilla-Silva) is just something totally fabricated and made up. Racism's totally gone in this day and age; after all, there's *one* black person in the administration! Isn't that great!

Nevermind that half our prison population is comprised of a racial classification that's 12% of our population. Nope; no racism there.

The William Julius Wilsons, the Elijah Andersons, John Yingers and Devah Pagers, the Douglas Masseys and Nancy Dentons? They're all dead wrong; the data, if we just ignore race away all the problems will go away. As long as the intent is there to treat races equally, things will fall in place, right? So many things in life work out flawlessly because of intent.

Yow, this ought to be another topic.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='Sarang01']I respect your opinion of the idea of people being treatly equally in a Fair Society except I don't respect people that have deprived people of one of those things such as a criminal may do.
And you ARE seeing things blatantly in B&W hence you'd never have a chance running for office which is great. Your stance on Abortion would completely kill any of your chances.[/QUOTE]

What the hell are you talking about? Do you think I talk politics on the Internet with the intent of running for office? Most of you guys probably aren't old enough to vote anyway, much less reside in my state or locality. Of the few that do, like Quackzilla, if I ever did want to run for office I'd definitely think I was doing something wrong if I attracted his vote.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='kakomu']Really? Point out where I started making absolute divisions.[/QUOTE]

Evidently you can't remember what you posted the last time you posted, so sure, we can go over it again quickly. Here's what you said in response to my post:

[quote name='kakomu']I'm also not surprised in the right faction's ability to lump everything into a simple comparison of black and white.[/QUOTE]

Clearly this was referring to my post. Leaving aside your foolish attempt to classify me in the "right faction," you are saying I see everything in black and white. It is a natural response that you can't, therefore, see the issue in black and white, even when it is.

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='elprincipe']Clearly this was referring to my post. Leaving aside your foolish attempt to classify me in the "right faction," you are saying I see everything in black and white. It is a natural response that you can't, therefore, see the issue in black and white, even when it is.[/quote]
Gee, that statement is neither absolutist nor making divisions. It's meant to show that you as well as whatever faction you claim to be a part of (we know you're part of the right) feels it necessary to divide things into black and white. EVERYTHING has a continuum. If you can't see that, you're blind or naive, or both.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, not everyone else. But popular opinion means nothing in terms of what is scientifically accurate. Hell, the majority of the world has believed that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, that races were biologically distinct and some inferior/superior etc. I'm not directly comparing any one to any other, but pointing out that popular opinion makes no distinction between accurate or inaccurate views.[/quote]

True popular doesn't equal true, but in this case the 99.9999% view is the correct one. In any case, how does science define "value" in this context? It really can't, so I don't see what science has to do with it.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']You don't understand my reasoning. I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I don't want to kill animals is because they think and are aware, or may realistically possess some of those attributes even in some rudimentary form (ie. insects). While I can't 100% disprove I won't wake up sleeping next to god tomorrow morning, I'm basically certain that won't happen. Same with plants and the microscopic organisms you discussed, no evidence suggest they are thinking or feeling. There's also the issue of what can realistically be done, even if such things did feel, there's no avoiding killing what you can't see, and you have to eat something to survive (and some plants can't survive without being eaten, like apples). There's nothing hypocritical in that, as those animals that fit the description of why I don't kill things I don't eat or kill intentionally. And there's nothing hypocritical about harming those (even if, contrary to all evidence, they did feel) which you cannot do anything but harm.[/quote]

I understand your reasoning all too well, and your hypocrisy. But it does follow from your position on abortion, so at least it is consistently hypocritical. And I can make sure you don't step on any more bugs: kill yourself or stay in bed for the rest of your life. Of course those are idiotic solutions to the "problem," but that's my point.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']But, in all that, I noticed that you can't defend your position, only attack the opposing one. Good to know.[/QUOTE]

What needs defending? That humans are inherently more valuable than animals? What else to say that we are concsious, self-aware and have evolved beyond mere instinct? If we are equal, why not complain about how bears eat fish when they could survive on fruit and nuts? Your position is the one that needs explaining I would say.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='kakomu']Gee, that statement is neither absolutist nor making divisions. It's meant to show that you as well as whatever faction you claim to be a part of (we know you're part of the right) feels it necessary to divide things into black and white. EVERYTHING has a continuum. If you can't see that, you're blind or naive, or both.[/QUOTE]

Just because I have an opinion on a single issue that happens to agree more with one part of the political spectrum as opposed to another doesn't mean that such a classification can be made. You are just overzealous when it comes to attempting to fit my square peg into the circle hole of the right or the triangle of the left.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='dafoomie']So, when it comes to gay marriage, assisted suicide, marijuana, gambling, consumer laws, and eminent doman, states rights are bad. But when it comes to abortion, guns, and the death penalty, states rights are good? No one actually supports states rights unless the states support their agenda. Don't believe anyone that says they believe in states rights. Anyone who says they do is full of shit. Same thing with 'activist judges'. They're only activists if they disagree with your position.[/quote]

Agree. Hypocrisy from both major political parties is especially rife with regard to these issues.

[quote name='dafoomie']Its not worth debating abortion with people that believe its murder. You can't have a rational debate when someone has an entirely emotional and religious viewpoint. Not that their opinion is right or wrong, but its impossible to argue.[/quote]

So believing it's murder is "emotional and religious" while believing it's not isn't? Strange opinion. My conclusions on the subject are neither emotional nor religious, yet it is clearly murder in my view. Since the science is inconclusive on this issue, how can you claim one side is merely emotion and religious viewpoints?

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='dafoomie']The difference is, most people are not in favor of murder or robbery. If the vast majority of people believe something should be legal (65% favor current abortion laws) then it should be legal. If a great deal of people disagree with the law, and choose to break that law, then there is something wrong with the law.[/QUOTE]

Curious and morally bankrupt viewpoint. If 51% of the country thought stealing, murdering or raping should be legal, should they be? After all, the majority supports that. What about if more than 50% of the population thought Jim Crow laws were a good idea?

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='mykevermin']The main point of contention that dafoomie brought up was the irony that this bill was brought up by the party that champions "states' rights" as a means of intentionally challenging a bill on the federal level.[/QUOTE]

Gotta point out here, myke, that if the movement to overturn Roe v Wade succeeds, that will be a victory for states' rights because since January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court has imposed legalized abortion on all states. Overturning it would merely turn the issue back to the states, which means some like South Dakota would outlaw it and some would make it legal. So if you are pro-states' rights, you should be for overturning Roe regardless of your abortion viewpoint.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='elprincipe']Gotta point out here, myke, that if the movement to overturn Roe v Wade succeeds, that will be a victory for states' rights because since January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court has imposed legalized abortion on all states. Overturning it would merely turn the issue back to the states, which means some like South Dakota would outlaw it and some would make it legal. So if you are pro-states' rights, you should be for overturning Roe regardless of your abortion viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

Haven't others, including yourself, pointed out that RvW is a privacy issue, and not directly related to explicitly legalizing abortion?

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Actually, humans are evolving very slowly. We have protected ourselves from the forces that would cause significant evolution and have slowed the process to a crawl. Fit or unfit, genes get passed on almost indiscriminately. Barring unforeseen circumstances, what you see will be what you get for a long, long time.[/quote]

Genes don't get passed on indiscriminately, while the bar has been lowered there is still plenty of natural selection with the less attractive / effective characteristics being screened out.

However from the viewpoint of external physical characteristics, I would say you are mostly correct. Yet look at the progress of the mind, as an example it is theorized that the average person of the middle ages could not conceive of the "future" in the same flexible methods that our minds can. Also, we now have 6 billion people and growing on the planet - this makes for many more mutations, some of which will be the super-people of the next generations. Add to that the methods (physical and otherwise) by which a select group of pioneers is learning that they can artificially re-engineer their personal cranial computation centers to jump ahead of the average joe.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, the consumption of a larger amount of meat is believed to be one of the reasons humans evolved the way they did. Also, excluding buddhism, I'm not sure where you get that people like Jesus, Mohammed, Confucious etc. opposed the consumption and subjugation of animals. [/quote]

I know not of Confucious (and personally I don't put him in the same class) however I believe Judaism (Kosher - remember Jesus was a Jew) and Islam (Halaal) had laws that in part attempted to make the slaughter of animals for sustinence more humane. They didn't see animals as meatbags that could be treated inhumanely as if they were inanimate inventory and then be killed in the most profitable way possible.

I believe that the rest of the food laws were either superstition or a way to ward off diseases (don't eat bottom feeders, pigs that carry trigonosis, etc) that, not having science, the spiritual gurus didn't have a practical reason to overturn.

Kobe cows are massaged and given beer, their entire lives - if that's not a fair trade then it can't be done. Looks so goooood - unfortunately I can't afford a $100-per-pound steak.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Ummm, no. You're completely and utterly wrong. That's so backwards that I'm actually a little embarassed for you drinking that kool-aid. That's Democratic mantra in is purest and most destructive form. The black community falls for it and have fell for it since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in the 1964 (which happened to be a great achievement as well that was filibustered by Senate Democrats) The Democratic party still has a former KKK member in their Congressional leadership for goodness sakes. [/quote]

That monster recently scored a 100% voting record (link) for civil rights according to the NAACP in 2004, and, regardless of whether he's personally racist or not, does not bring racism or racist policies to the floor. He has repeatedly denounced his past and racism.

Speaking of that monster:

July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee's Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill's passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.

The 1964 civil rights act by party and region:

By Party and Region

The Original House Version:

• Southern Democrats: 7-87
• Southern Republicans: 0-10

• Northern Democrats: 145-9
• Northern Republicans: 138-24

The Senate Version:

• Southern Democrats: 1-21
• Southern Republicans: 0-1
• Northern Democrats: 46-1
• Northern Republicans: 27-5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_Party_and_Region

In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."

In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."

The parties in the 1800's bear little to no relation to the modern day political parties, and were not what I was debating. The republicans were essentially the more liberal party at that time. The parties have essentially flipped.

Protected sex is never 100%, anyone will tell you that. The only way you don't get pregnant is through abstenience. Rape is an unfortunate practice, and I believe rapist should be punished to the full extent of the law and then some, but the baby shouldn't be punished for the crime. Only 4% of rapes even turn up pregnancies to begin with, it's not nearly as likely of a scenario as the spin doctors would have you believe.

To stamp out all non reproductive sex you are fighting an impossible battle. And you are punishing rape victims and various other people who are forced, or who will suffer non life threatening damage to their health by carrying out a pregnancy. You are also derailing the futures of many women who do not currently have the means to care for their child, and would have been much more succesful, both financially and in child raising, had they been able to wait.

Again, I'd like to see where you got that abortions were just as likely to occur if they were illegal. I just cannot believe that woman would even go to the trouble of reporting it had they even done it illegally. If you want to argue that they'll go across the border and have it done, that's a different story.

In 54 countries (61% of the world population) abortions are legal.
In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal.
There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted eacy year, 20 million of them obtained illegally.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

43% percent of abortions happen where abortion is illegal, while only 39% of the population lives in such countries.

It's a deterrent. It's unfortunate we live in a society that thinks abortion should be an option, but I would agree that it isn't a perfect world. When the individual makes a stupid choice, the state has to make it illegal to defend the fabric of our society. The same ideas can be found in relation to speed limits, drunk driving laws, etc... These are limits on freedom meant to protect the public, in this case those that cannot defend themselves.

What has society lost? Poor mothers dropping out of school? Abusive parents? I'm not sure how you are defending society.

But they are not considered human in the full moral sense. Therefore there is nothing to protect. You can't argue a position without understanding the opposing side, and your argument isn't going to convince anyone other than those who already agree. There's nothing in science that indicates unborn children (before 6 months) are capable of thought, pain, awareness etc. You are defending an organism that has human dna and (for most of the time) resembles a human, but lacks all the psychological aspects of humanity. Your argument is based on assumptions that many don't agree with, and you're using it without backing up that contested basic assumption.

No, there is no choice when a woman gets raped. There is, however, the choice over whether to keep the baby or give it up to one of the the many, many infertile couples desperate for a baby to call their own. Sex is, in all other cases, a choice. While those lacking foresight and careful behavior tend to have unwanted pregnancies more often, that is not the fault of the child or the state. If you aren't aware of the consequences and prepared to deal with them should they arise, it's foolish to participate in the practice. You take a risk, you understand the risk, you take responsibility. You cannot convince me that people just accidently get pregnant when they're eating an apple, they do it because they willingly made the decision to be in a situation where the can get pregnant.

Kid: Mommy, why was I born?
Mommy: Because I had sex and you're my punishment.

Babies should not be punishments.

 

[mykevermin]

While the CRA vote clearly shows a HUGE separation of ideology based on north/south (and I think that's what you were arguing), the numbers of "southern republicans" aren't large enough to warrant any sort of certainty about a Dem/Republican split. If you ignore party, your stats look like this:

House:
South: 7 - 97
North: 283 - 33

Senate:
South: 1 - 22
North: 73 - 6

It's clearly not a party thing there, and almost purely a region effect. To debate otherwise is foolish and shows that one's allegiance is greater to party and ideology than fact.

I'm glad I noticed that AoW cited outlawing abortion as a deterrent effect, given that there's no statistical support for anything resembling a deterrent effect in our prison system. It sure did wonders for drugs, didn't it?

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='elprincipe']True popular doesn't equal true, but in this case the 99.9999% view is the correct one. In any case, how does science define "value" in this context? It really can't, so I don't see what science has to do with it.[/quote]

No, it doesn't, and I don't think there's any overriding thing granting any "inherent" value in the ultimate sense. But, awareness, pain, emotions etc. should be respected and treated as inherent value and just as we wouldn't inflict such harm to a human, we shouldn't inflict such harm to another animal that can feel things in the same way a human can. The pain a 5 year old goes through when abused isn't going to differ from what an adult chimp goes through, yet somehow there is a tremendous difference in your mind (again, I can understand preferring one over the other, but not the black and white distinction many seem to make). Suffering is suffering, I'm not sure what different appearance makes when the mental aspect is there.

I understand your reasoning all too well, and your hypocrisy. But it does follow from your position on abortion, so at least it is consistently hypocritical. And I can make sure you don't step on any more bugs: kill yourself or stay in bed for the rest of your life. Of course those are idiotic solutions to the "problem," but that's my point.

What exactly is hypocritical? You want to accuse me of being a hypocrite, you should be able to back up such statements. And use my own words, not the assumptions you may have of someone with my beliefs. My point was to try to avoid killing when possible, and to avoid killing beings that are conscious. If an organism is not conscious, or cannot avoid being killed, then what exactly is hypocritical?

What needs defending? That humans are inherently more valuable than animals? What else to say that we are concsious, self-aware and have evolved beyond mere instinct? If we are equal, why not complain about how bears eat fish when they could survive on fruit and nuts?

First off I'm not the one complaining about people eating meat, camoor comes closest to that argument (as I haven't mentioned anything about the meat industry here). Second, I did not say bears were equal, my argument was that if a bear has a similar intellectual capacity to a human (say a 3 or 4 year old child, or whatever is roughly equivalent to bear intelligence) then it should be at least treated with some respect and we should take such intelligence into consideration. I did not argue they should be treated identically.

Your position is the one that needs explaining I would say.

Well, it seems to be the only one than can be explained. If yours has a logical reason then you obviously don't know it.

So believing it's murder is "emotional and religious" while believing it's not isn't? Strange opinion. My conclusions on the subject are neither emotional nor religious, yet it is clearly murder in my view. Since the science is inconclusive on this issue, how can you claim one side is merely emotion and religious viewpoints?

Well, not caring is emotionless, and people who don't care are unlikely to want it outlawed. But science is about as conclusive as it can be in stating that thinking, consciousness and pain isn't present in the first trimester. Science isn't going to take a moral position, which is what the argument of abortion is.

Genes don't get passed on indiscriminately, while the bar has been lowered there is still plenty of natural selection with the less attractive / effective characteristics being screened out.

Is that true? Attractive, and intelligent people (add succesfull for men) have the easiest time finding mates, yet they also make more money, and economic status correlates inversely with birth rates.

However from the viewpoint of external physical characteristics, I would say you are mostly correct. Yet look at the progress of the mind, as an example it is theorized that the average person of the middle ages could not conceive of the "future" in the same flexible methods that our minds can. Also, we now have 6 billion people and growing on the planet - this makes for many more mutations, some of which will be the super-people of the next generations. Add to that the methods (physical and otherwise) by which a select group of pioneers is learning that they can artificially re-engineer their personal cranial computation centers to jump ahead of the average joe.

Many differences in intelligence are simply down to learning, nutrition etc., not genetics. Your middle ages example says nothing about evolution, even I agreed with it. That's why there are differences between ethnic and cultural groups, and those differences can be quite dramatic. Second, our brain size has shrunk:

A standard picture of human evolution holds that our lineage evolved gradually and inexorably toward a bigger, brainier human. But a new study of the bones of 163 early members of Homo who lived 2 million to 10,000 years ago suggests that after a peak in the last ice age, our bodies--and brains--have shrunk by about 10%.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/276/5314/896

Evolution occurs when populations are isolated, and/or when there is reproductive advantages to certain traits. Neither is true of our current state. There is no definate improvement, evolution can be a benefit or a loss. There is no evolution towards anything, let alone "super people". It's whatever is most beneficial for survival.

Now maybe if you want to argue that in places like Uganda evolution would still be taking place, due the very high mortality rates, then you may have a point. But in the west, where practically everyone survives, there is nothing to stop less adaptive genes from being passed on. About the only way we'll evolve is genetic engineering, or some minor physical changes (and added resistance to some diseases) through the continued mixture of the worlds populations.

I know not of Confucious (and personally I don't put him in the same class) however I believe Judaism (Kosher - remember Jesus was a Jew) and Islam (Halaal) had laws that in part attempted to make the slaughter of animals for sustinence more humane. They didn't see animals as meatbags that could be treated inhumanely as if they were inanimate inventory and then be killed in the most profitable way possible.

Jesus was a jew, but he did not follow the same teachings in regards to clean and unclean animals. Halal is to avoid the consumption of blood, which is forbidden. Ethical issues often come up (both pro and con), but that's unlikely to have been a primary reason behind its initial use, and it is no longer more humane than modern techniques. Humane treatment is not a reason for kosher meat production, even if it is sometimes used.

I believe that the rest of the food laws were either superstition or a way to ward off diseases (don't eat bottom feeders, pigs that carry trigonosis, etc) that, not having science, the spiritual gurus didn't have a practical reason to overturn.

Practical concerns often become spiritual issues. It's not really a science issues once it becomes a religious one.

 

[dafoomie]

[quote name='elprincipe']Agree. Hypocrisy from both major political parties is especially rife with regard to these issues.



So believing it's murder is "emotional and religious" while believing it's not isn't? Strange opinion. My conclusions on the subject are neither emotional nor religious, yet it is clearly murder in my view. Since the science is inconclusive on this issue, how can you claim one side is merely emotion and religious viewpoints?[/QUOTE]
The belief that an embryo is a human life on par with a baby, is religious and emotional. The belief that it would be murder if thats true is logical. If you believed the first part, but didn't believe it was murder, you'd either be completely immoral or disingenuous. I respect your position, I simply disagree that an embryo is a human life.

[quote name='elprincipe']Curious and morally bankrupt viewpoint. If 51% of the country thought stealing, murdering or raping should be legal, should they be? After all, the majority supports that. What about if more than 50% of the population thought Jim Crow laws were a good idea?[/QUOTE]
Most of the country thinks that stealing, murder, and rape should be illegal, thats the point. If we start imposing moral values on everyone that only a minority support, then we'll have another Prohibition disaster.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='kakomu']The republicans were seen as "the party of Lincoln", and most of the time the south essentially voted Democrat as a large bloc. It wasn't until Nixon that the south essentially switched from always voting Democrat to always voting Republican. I think you should also note that in 1865-1866, the parties that we see today are completely different than the parties of then. The republicans were considered to be in cahoots with the slaves, and the Democrats were for slavery. That switched at about the turn of the century. This sort of information isn't exactly well-hidden either. Go ahead and look at voting records for the 20th century. I learned about this stuff in 11th grade.[/quote]

I always hear that bullshit excuse from the left when they are called out for their racist history and racist present. You can claim that all you want, with these two parties there is only one party that has always pushed for true equality, and one party that has always pushed for white supremacy in one form or another. Be it through slavery, black codes, affirmative action, or degradation of black Republicans, the Democratic party is and always has been the party of racism. Just because the social ideals of the parties met with a 360, doesn't mean that the political perspective toward race changed. Equality is the only solution, those who do not believe in that are bigots.

I find it interesting that you demonize the Democratic party for this. Try looking at who was voting against civil rights legislature. It just about always is the south, regardless of party.

If they weren't invested in judging people by color instead of merit any chance they get I wouldn't have to demonize either party.

[quote name='mykevermin'] AoW thinks that people actually have equal opportunities in this society regardless of race.[/quote]

Absolutely. I'm proud to say I believe all people are equal and that no race is inferior to any other because they have a darker shade of skin. I refuse to believe that white people are inherently smarter, quicker, and more talented because of their color. I know Democrats don't agree and that they know they must cater to a specific race because they think they're always at a disadvantage being a different color at all, but that's why I can never ever be supportive of what this party believes in.

Maybe I can say that in a language that you mgiht be more familiar with: Why dem dere negroes done got duh same smarts like us reglar white folk. I reckon they ought naught be look down pon by us here seein as how plenty of suck-sess-ful negroes gone an maked an awful fine name fer demselves.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']That monster recently scored a 100% voting record (link) for civil rights according to the NAACP in 2004, and, regardless of whether he's personally racist or not, does not bring racism or racist policies to the floor. He has repeatedly denounced his past and racism.[/quote]

As well he should. He'll never be able to rid himself of his past though, I don't care how many times that now worthless organization gives him awards or good scores. Politics may very well be unfair to Byrd, but it's a cruel mistress. No politican is ever able to escape their ghosts, and I won't ever be satisfied with some has-been Klansman if he apologizes a million times. Thems the breaks, Byrd is a monster.

The parties in the 1800's bear little to no relation to the modern day political parties, and were not what I was debating. The republicans were essentially the more liberal party at that time. The parties have essentially flipped.

I see. Your outrageous cheap shots don't fly to well when you've got someone willing to stand up to them and show people the truth. "Well... uhhhh uhhhh parties change... this isnt relevent anyways... you dumb head!" Not so high and mighty making bullshit accusations trying to smear Republicans when you know it's completely the other way around. Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Democrats voted in very high majorities to stop the 13th amendment, and Democrats unanimously voted to stop the 14th amendment.

To stamp out all non reproductive sex you are fighting an impossible battle. And you are punishing rape victims and various other people who are forced, or who will suffer non life threatening damage to their health by carrying out a pregnancy. You are also derailing the futures of many women who do not currently have the means to care for their child, and would have been much more succesful, both financially and in child raising, had they been able to wait.

Calling for responsible sex is not calling for stamping out all sex, that's just silly hyperbole that you don't have to bother with. I don't care if couples 20 times a day, as long as they know there is the chance. No one is that absent minded to think that when they have sex there's a 100% chance they will not get pregnant. You don't just get fertilized one day when you're eating an apple, you get it because you made a conscious decision to accept that risk for the pleasure you get from intercourse.

As far as rape goes, they have the option whether or not they wish to care for the child. I wouldn't support forcing the heavy responsibility of a child on a girl or woman not prepared to handle it. If they don't there are numerous couples waiting and wishing for a little baby to call their own.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

43% percent of abortions happen where abortion is illegal, while only 39% of the population lives in such countries.

Most of the nations where abortion is illegal are largely developing, patriarchal nations with particularly poor citizens.

Be that as it may, this is a world statistic. I wouldn't like Canada to practice abortion, but let's be realistic man. I don't expect a backward ass country like that to value human life any more than they value a ing moose. Jabs at our neighbors to the north aside, you wouldn't happen to have a national statistic?

What has society lost? Poor mothers dropping out of school? Abusive parents? I'm not sure how you are defending society.

Please, if the baby is kept by their biological mother then there are several ways that that girl can get assistance from just about everywhere. You put down you're a teenage and/or single mother on any application, resume, or transcript and you've already got a better shot than most. I think a child is just a little more important than some frat party too. Abusive parents is speculative and not specifically related to the topic. I know kids that were abused in nuclear families with parents that were in their late 30's.

But they are not considered human in the full moral sense. Therefore there is nothing to protect. You can't argue a position without understanding the opposing side, and your argument isn't going to convince anyone other than those who already agree. There's nothing in science that indicates unborn children (before 6 months) are capable of thought, pain, awareness etc. You are defending an organism that has human dna and (for most of the time) resembles a human, but lacks all the psychological aspects of humanity. Your argument is based on assumptions that many don't agree with, and you're using it without backing up that contested basic assumption.

blah blah blah. Let's save the trouble and not bother with the conception debate. I know I can't convince you to stop supporting sticking a pair of scissors into the back of a baby's head, and I accept that as your failure to value life. I also know you don't agree with that statement, if that's the case go cry to planned parenthood or some other bullshit organization that might give a shit.

Kid: Mommy, why was I born?
Mommy: Because I had sex and you're my punishment.

Babies should not be punishments.

No, they shouldn't. They shouldn't be treated like punishments and killed off because some slut can't keep her legs closed either. Likewise, if on the off chance a woman is raped and impregnated, then she still has the choice on whether to keep the child or not. Outside of that, I consider myself very pro-choice. The woman has the choice whether or not she wants to have sex.

Children are a responsibility, not a punishment. I would never refer to a child as a bad thing that needs to be destroyed immediately.

Also:
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Who's forcing you to marry a black person? Last time I checked you could choose decide who to marry and who not to marry (well, assuming they're the opposite sex and of age), who to associate with and who not to associate with. Unless you want to bring up examples of white people who are only attracted to black people, and can only form romantic relationships with black people, then there's no reason to suggest that they couldn't date members of their own race, and that if they didn't associate with members of other races the risk of falling in love would be virtually nonexistent. No ones punishing anyone for being black, or for being white, only for the choices they make.[/quote]

I apologize that I missed this point earlier, that was a mistake on my part.

Well I said so under the assumption of that adage that love is blind and you can't choose who you fall in love with. If the love is interracial than so be it. So, again, you can't choose what race you are. If you fall in love with someone that isn't the same race, you can't choose their race either.

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I always hear that bullshit excuse from the left when they are called out for their racist history and racist present. You can claim that all you want, with these two parties there is only one party that has always pushed for true equality, and one party that has always pushed for white supremacy in one form or another. Be it through slavery, black codes, affirmative action, or degradation of black Republicans, the Democratic party is and always has been the party of racism. Just because the social ideals of the parties met with a 360, doesn't mean that the political perspective toward race changed. Equality is the only solution, those who do not believe in that are bigots. [/quote] It's your ignorance of history that makes all your points invalid. Anyways, this reminds me of a quote by Jason Kidd:

“We're going to turn this team around 360 degrees.”

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Absolutely. I'm proud to say I believe all people are equal and that no race is inferior to any other because they have a darker shade of skin. I refuse to believe that white people are inherently smarter, quicker, and more talented because of their color. I know Democrats don't agree and that they know they must cater to a specific race because they think they're always at a disadvantage being a different color at all, but that's why I can never ever be supportive of what this party believes in.

Maybe I can say that in a language that you mgiht be more familiar with: Why dem dere negroes done got duh same smarts like us reglar white folk. I reckon they ought naught be look down pon by us here seein as how plenty of suck-sess-ful negroes gone an maked an awful fine name fer demselves.[/QUOTE]

I'm not certain what you're trying to accomplish with that second paragraph. Are you trying to expose how racist you are, or is this some kind of approach of yours that supports that "equality" stance you remarked upon earlier?

At any rate, you're answering a different queston from what I stated. I pointed out, and if you want supporting evidence, then you can consider the following texts:

William Julius Wilson: "The Declining Significance of Race," "The Truly Disadvantaged," or "When Work Disappears."
Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton: "American Apartheid"
Thomas Sugrue: "The Origins of the Urban Crisis"

You won't read them, but they are full of data that support my contention that blacks may be equal (as you say), but they are most certainly NOT treated the same in our society. They are treated differently in education (Patricia Hill Collins' work addresses that), housing (see Sugrue of John Yinger's "Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost"), policing (Joe Feagin has many journal articles on that), incarceration (where do I ing begin?), and in terms of wealth distribution.

I'd most like to recommend Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's "Racism Without Racists," as it provides an excellent and thorough account of why the kind of mentality you support (pretending that race doesn't exist and paying no attention to aggregate level inequality or discriminatory treatment in this day and age, thinking that somehow racism isn't a problem anymore) helps perpetuate existing traditions of inequality.

My point was not, as you might claim judging by your comments, that there are inherent differences. Your reading comprehension is either dramatically lacking, or you are merely and antagonist, or a troll, with no intention of actually engaging in meaningful discourse. My point is that racism still exists, it exists to a tremendous degree, and just because Jim Crow laws don't exist anymore, that doesn't mean racism is a remnant of the past. My point is that if you ignore race, you make the mistake of ignoring disparate racial treatment, and thus participate in a social structure that supports bigotry.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Absolutely. I'm proud to say I believe all people are equal and that no race is inferior to any other because they have a darker shade of skin. I refuse to believe that white people are inherently smarter, quicker, and more talented because of their color. I know Democrats don't agree and that they know they must cater to a specific race because they think they're always at a disadvantage being a different color at all, but that's why I can never ever be supportive of what this party believes in.

Maybe I can say that in a language that you mgiht be more familiar with: Why dem dere negroes done got duh same smarts like us reglar white folk. I reckon they ought naught be look down pon by us here seein as how plenty of suck-sess-ful negroes gone an maked an awful fine name fer demselves. [/quote]

You don't believe blacks and minorities are discriminated against, yet you believe democrats discriminate against blacks and minorities. Smart.

As well he should. He'll never be able to rid himself of his past though, I don't care how many times that now worthless organization gives him awards or good scores. Politics may very well be unfair to Byrd, but it's a cruel mistress. No politican is ever able to escape their ghosts, and I won't ever be satisfied with some has-been Klansman if he apologizes a million times. Thems the breaks, Byrd is a monster.

So belonging to a massive, politicaly powerful organization in the 40's, an organization far from the fring group it is today, and publicly holding racist views up until the 60's, is an unforgiveable offense, yet having those same views, like Lott, is okay? Hell, Lott spoke in front of a white supremacist organization, the council of conservative citizens, twice in the 1990's, and later went on to praise thurmonds segregationist campaign. Yet, somehow, the one who has not only denounced his past, but actively fought against his past, is unforgiveable and evidence of democrat racism, yet someone like Lott is acceptable, or at least a step above Byrd?

I see. Your outrageous cheap shots don't fly to well when you've got someone willing to stand up to them and show people the truth. "Well... uhhhh uhhhh parties change... this isnt relevent anyways... you dumb head!" Not so high and mighty making bullshit accusations trying to smear Republicans when you know it's completely the other way around. Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Democrats voted in very high majorities to stop the 13th amendment, and Democrats unanimously voted to stop the 14th amendment.

Funny, didn't most of the ones who filibustered run towards the republican party soon after? They were a little to willing to take them in if they were the anti-racist party. And, if I remember correctly (not that you actually read what I posted), I posted voting totals showing that a higher percentage of northern democrats voted for civil rights than northern republicans, and the same was true in the south.

Also, read this and then explain to me how the republican party of lincoln and the democrats of that time are represenative of their current parties:

As a minority party the GOP had two wings: "liberals" supported most of the New Deal while promising to run it more efficiently. "Conservatives" opposed the New Deal and managed to repeal large parts during the 1940s in cooperation with conservative southern Democrats in the Conservative coalition. Liberals, led by Thomas Dewey of New York, dominated the Northeast, Conservatives, led by Robert Taft of Ohio, dominated the Midwest. The West was split. (the South had few Republicans.) Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists in the Conservative wing opposed the United Nations, and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Dwight Eisenhower, a NATO commander, defeated Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. The conservatives made a comeback under the leadership of Barry Goldwater who defeated Nelson Rockefeller as the Republican candidate in the 1964 presidential convention. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy.

Goldwater's electoral success in the deep South, and Nixon's successful Southern strategy in 1968 and 1972, represented a significant political turnabout, as Southern whites began moving into the party. Liberal Democratic support for liberal social stances such as abortion, criminal law issues such as abolition of the death penalty, and same-sex marriage drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In The Emerging Republican Majority, Kevin Phillips, then a Nixon strategist, argued (based on the 1968 election results) that support from Southern whites and growth in the Sun Belt, among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral realignment. Today, the South is still solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates, and no Democratic presidential candidate who wasn't from the South has won a presidential election since 1960.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party#Early_twentieth_century

The remains of lincoln's legacy left the republican party when conservatives became dominant.

Calling for responsible sex is not calling for stamping out all sex, that's just silly hyperbole that you don't have to bother with. I don't care if couples 20 times a day, as long as they know there is the chance. No one is that absent minded to think that when they have sex there's a 100% chance they will not get pregnant. You don't just get fertilized one day when you're eating an apple, you get it because you made a conscious decision to accept that risk for the pleasure you get from intercourse.

Responsible sex is protection. Expecting humans to suddenly only have sex when they can care for a child is unrealistic. There is no example of a policy such as that being succesful. People are sluts, they've always been sluts, and they always will be sluts.

As far as rape goes, they have the option whether or not they wish to care for the child. I wouldn't support forcing the heavy responsibility of a child on a girl or woman not prepared to handle it. If they don't there are numerous couples waiting and wishing for a little baby to call their own.

But yet you would force a woman to care for her rapists "child" for the 9 months that it's in her womb? And to endure the agony of birth just because a clump of cells (which it is early in pregnancy) is in her?

Be that as it may, this is a world statistic. I wouldn't like Canada to practice abortion, but let's be realistic man. I don't expect a backward ass country like that to value human life any more than they value a ing moose. Jabs at our neighbors to the north aside, you wouldn't happen to have a national statistic?

Ya, what a backward country. I mean they actually have a health care system that treats everyone, one where your value isn't determined by your wallet. And they have this crazy idea that homosexuals should be treated equally. What a bunch of wackos.

A national statistic of legal vs illegal abortions? Even if I did dig that up, there's no point since abortion is legal currently.

Please, if the baby is kept by their biological mother then there are several ways that that girl can get assistance from just about everywhere. You put down you're a teenage and/or single mother on any application, resume, or transcript and you've already got a better shot than most.

So balancing a job, a child, and an education is realistic?

I think a child is just a little more important than some frat party too.

According to science a 4 week old embryo is not a child.

Abusive parents is speculative and not specifically related to the topic. I know kids that were abused in nuclear families with parents that were in their late 30's.

Parents who are stressed, lack social networks, unhappy with their situation etc. often do not have as good parenting abilities, and are less likely to be able to cope with problems (such as premature births) that arise, and therefore hinder the development of their children. Domestic violence increases in stressful situations.

Poverty, stress, depression etc. are significant risk factors for a wide range of developmental problems.

Saying I know someone who was abused in X doesn't mean much. Overall likelihood is the issue, not individual differences. Just because more of A goes with B, doesn't mean that one result is exclusive to either side.

blah blah blah. Let's save the trouble and not bother with the conception debate. I know I can't convince you to stop supporting sticking a pair of scissors into the back of a baby's head, and I accept that as your failure to value life. I also know you don't agree with that statement, if that's the case go cry to planned parenthood or some other bullshit organization that might give a shit.

Since your the one who seems to have lost their temper, I think you could use the comforting more than I could.

You also seem to be unable to debate calmly, and without using emotionally charged language.

No, they shouldn't. They shouldn't be treated like punishments and killed off because some slut can't keep her legs closed either.

You really should go on tv as the face of the republican party.

Likewise, if on the off chance a woman is raped and impregnated, then she still has the choice on whether to keep the child or not. Outside of that, I consider myself very pro-choice. The woman has the choice whether or not she wants to have sex.

Children are a responsibility, not a punishment. I would never refer to a child as a bad thing that needs to be destroyed immediately.

So how is forcing someone to endure 9 months of pregnancy for something they don't want, for a mistake they made, anything but punishment? Your opinion of what it should be is irrelevent when compared to how the woman percieves it.

Well I said so under the assumption of that adage that love is blind and you can't choose who you fall in love with. If the love is interracial than so be it. So, again, you can't choose what race you are. If you fall in love with someone that isn't the same race, you can't choose their race either.

But wasn't it a choice to associate with blacks in the first place?

And just because you really want to get married doesn't mean you have to. A woman may really want an abortion, but she doesn't have to get it.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='mykevermin']Haven't others, including yourself, pointed out that RvW is a privacy issue, and not directly related to explicitly legalizing abortion?[/QUOTE]

The direct result of RvW was to prohibit the states from outlawing abortion. Later, Casey took a more middling view, simply saying an "undue burden" couldn't be placed on a woman having an abortion (whatever that means). So RvW directly took away states' rights because it stopped states deciding for themselves whether to legalize or criminalize abortion.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='dafoomie']Most of the country thinks that stealing, murder, and rape should be illegal, thats the point. If we start imposing moral values on everyone that only a minority support, then we'll have another Prohibition disaster.[/QUOTE]

My point was that there are absolute moral values. Murder is wrong whether most people say it's wrong or not. Stealing is wrong whether most people say it's wrong or not. Big Brother is not my friend whether most people say that or not. If we take your viewpoint to its ultimate conclusion, if 50.1% of the country thought cannibalism was acceptable morally, it would be acceptable morally. As I said, this is a morally bankrupt viewpoint.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']What exactly is hypocritical? You want to accuse me of being a hypocrite, you should be able to back up such statements. And use my own words, not the assumptions you may have of someone with my beliefs. My point was to try to avoid killing when possible, and to avoid killing beings that are conscious. If an organism is not conscious, or cannot avoid being killed, then what exactly is hypocritical?[/quote]

You're being hypocritical because you claim to value animal life as much as human life, yet you don't do everything you could possibly do to avoid killing animals. If animal life is as valuable as human life, logic dictates that you should be put to death because that would save more than 1 animal lives.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, it seems to be the only one than can be explained. If yours has a logical reason then you obviously don't know it. [/quote]

Human beings are on another level from other animals. We've evolved to a point where we are self-aware, conscious and able to think beyond mere instinct. Other animals do not have this ability. If we use your philosophy, we should not eat meat or plants because they are equal to us, and a human child should have no more rights than a chicken (actually less given your abortion stance). That to me is incredibly illogical.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']According to science a 4 week old embryo is not a child.[/QUOTE]

Is that so? Where is your evidence? What study has been done that proves that a fertilized egg that has been implanted and growing for four weeks is not a baby?

http://www.babycenter.com/mybabycenter/104.html

This week marks the beginning of the embryonic period. From now until ten weeks, all of your baby's organs will begin to develop and function. As a result, this is the time when she'll be the most vulnerable to anything that might interfere with her development.

Sounds like another person with their own organs developing. But according to people who want to rationalize their own murderous convenience, another person developing their own organs is not a person because he/she is inside the mother.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='elprincipe']You're being hypocritical because you claim to value animal life as much as human life[/quote]

I have not argued that. I have not even said a 5 year old human should be considered equal to a chimp. I have said that animals of equivalent intelligence should recieve considerable respect, and considerable efforts should be made not to kill them. I have not said they should be treated equally.

yet you don't do everything you could possibly do to avoid killing animals. If animal life is as valuable as human life, logic dictates that you should be put to death because that would save more than 1 animal lives.

Going back to what I keep insisting, I have not made such a blanket statement. I said those of similar intelligence should recieve levels of respect that take that into account, but not necessarily treated as identical.

But I have stated that there is nothing wrong in killing that which is not conscious or aware, and that value is loosely (and I emphasize loosely) based on consciousness, awareness and intelligence. Therefore, while I find killing an ant wrong, it is nowhere near the same as killing a pig. I have also said it is acceptable to kill when there's no way to avoid it, that would include accidents (ie. hitting a squirrel with your car even though you made attempts to avoid it) and things that simply are out of your control (ie. if, for some reason, someone had to eat meat to survive then it would be acceptable).

Your contention that more animals die by my being here may technically be accurate, if you count things I've accidentally stepped on. But, for more intelligent animals, the ones I've been emphasizing, that's not true. I don't kill or eat animals. While it's unavoidable that some foods or products will have animal material in them (not everything is properly labelled), it is negligable, and people like me help to provide a market to alternative, non animal based, products. And the more visible such products are the more people will know about and buy them, and that won't happen without people who actively look for them. Another thing is almost all my pets that I've had come from kill shelters, some of which had been there a long time and were candidates for being euthanized. Those are animals that may have been killed if not for me. Even my pet rats are from shelters, and small animals have extremely high kill rates due to most people not even realizing shelters have such animals. I've also helped friends and family notice medical problems in their pet that they were unaware of, resulting in them seeking veterinary treatment.

I've also directed at least 2 people to adopt animals I found online, animals which were due to be euthanized within days. I've also tried to increase visibility for such animals, including a recent attempt to save a 19 year old cat from being euthanized, which may or may not have been succesful. I have also directed people who needed to give up pets to no kill shelters, and groups that can help find people to adopt them.

Human beings are on another level from other animals. We've evolved to a point where we are self-aware, conscious and able to think beyond mere instinct. Other animals do not have this ability.

So a chimp that can communicate with humans through sign language, can use tools etc. is only acting on instinct and isn't conscious? Chimps even exhibit the basics of culture, passing on certain techniques from generation to generation, and these techniques vary by region.

Researchers have counted 39 separate regional chimp habits of dining, social grooming, attracting mates and using tools. Welcome then, chimpanzee, to the once exclusively human culture club.

Such conclusions come from studies at the seven longest ongoing chimp research field sites in Africa. Their data, amounting to 151 years of research, were recently pooled by Andrew Whiten of Scotland´s University of St. Andrews, along with the field researchers, in a landmark article published last year in the journal Nature. "All in all, the evidence is overwhelming that chimpanzees have a remarkable ability to invent new customs and technologies, and that they pass these on socially rather than genetically," wrote anthropologist Frans B. M. de Waal, of Yerkes Regional Primate Center at Georgia´s Emory University, in the same journal.

http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/2000/chimpso.html

Even with rats they have distinct personalities. You may have one that takes everything that it can get and bosses everyone around, while you have another that will actively aid those that need help. For example, many will groom, aid in walking, and bring food to sick and/or injured rats, and will often spend weeks acting visibly different when another rat dies (this period is lessened when you allow the rat to actually see its dead friend, suggesting a recognition of what has occured). Different rats exhibit significantly different levels of intelligence, social competence (both towards humans and other rats) etc.

There are also many other examples, such as dolphins being able to count, observational learning in octopus, crows making tools to reach objects outside their cage etc.

Human babies do not begin to form attachments until around 1-2 months, and do not really distinguish between people before that either, they react to what is being done and not the person. A 2 week old baby does not show emotion, but reflexive, uncontrolled, behavior is often interpreted as such. A 3 month old baby cannot understand even the basics of object permanence. It even takes about a month before babies begin to understand cause and effect.

I'd like to know what scientific evidence you can present showing that animals, such as chimps, elephants, dolphins, are not conscious, aware, thinking beings. And, if they are not conscious and aware (if you decide they are then ignore the next part), I'd like to know what evidence you have that places a young infant in a higher intellectual category.

If we use your philosophy, we should not eat meat or plants because they are equal to us, and a human child should have no more rights than a chicken (actually less given your abortion stance). That to me is incredibly illogical.

A human child is already born, my abortion stance has absolutely nothing to do with children who are outside the womb. And, I have stated in previous arguments, I find the child to have some inherent value around 6 months, around the time evidence suggests it has some basic awareness, when it feels pain, and when it is viable. But, since I view an adult to be far superior to an unborn child, the will of the adult always overrides any value the unborn child may have, since she is being forced to carry it in her womb.

I have stated that intelligence, consciousness etc. are essential to what should not be killed, and I have in no way stated that any animal is equal to humans. I have said that, if we are dealing with an animal that we know is of equivalent intelligence to some humans, then that should be taken into consideration when deciding how we treat it.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I have not argued that. I have not even said a 5 year old human should be considered equal to a chimp. I have said that animals of equivalent intelligence should recieve considerable respect, and considerable efforts should be made not to kill them. I have not said they should be treated equally.[/QUOTE]

Then we agree. I was under the distinct impression you (and several others) had advocated a much more extreme (and foolish) viewpoint. I think all animals should be treated with respect and not wantonly killed or harmed.

On your chimp point, just because chimps in different regions have different behavioral patterns does not mean they are on par with humans even in rising above instinct.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='elprincipe']Is that so? Where is your evidence? What study has been done that proves that a fertilized egg that has been implanted and growing for four weeks is not a baby?[/quote]

I've had courses that used distinct definitions, zygote, embryo, fetus, infant etc. While I don't agree with the definition below, especially since some seem to willingly interchange infant and fetus (which is scientifically incorrect), I can't provide a 100% scientific distinction.

1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. An unborn infant; a fetus.
3. An infant; a baby.

http://www.answers.com/child

Sounds like another person with their own organs developing. But according to people who want to rationalize their own murderous convenience, another person developing their own organs is not a person because he/she is inside the mother.

In the beginning of the embryonic period the embryo has no major organs, is not aware, cannot feel pain, has no brain waves, and has no thought. All of which, except the organs, aren't present throughout much of the foetal period.

On your chimp point, just because chimps in different regions have different behavioral patterns does not mean they are on par with humans even in rising above instinct.

If the evidence suggests a 4 year old is above instinct, then the evidence suggests a chimp is. Basics of abstract thought, language, conscious choices etc. are all conscious decisions. Instinct are powerful forces in all animals, and many argue (correctly in my view) that instincts form the structure for human interactions, and conscious choices exist on top of them, but the root of behavior is still heavily biological.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='kakomu']It's your ignorance of history that makes all your points invalid. Anyways, this reminds me of a quote by Jason Kidd:

“We're going to turn this team around 360 degrees.”[/quote]

Listen to this guy, quoting professional basketball players as retorts. UR IGNORANT AND SO UHH UR RONG ON EVRYTHING... I WIN!!!

Hopefully that's your closing argument. I might just have to pull out the "Your momma" jokes if you keep it up.

[quote name='mykevermin']My point was not, as you might claim judging by your comments, that there are inherent differences. Your reading comprehension is either dramatically lacking, or you are merely and antagonist, or a troll, with no intention of actually engaging in meaningful discourse. My point is that racism still exists, it exists to a tremendous degree, and just because Jim Crow laws don't exist anymore, that doesn't mean racism is a remnant of the past. My point is that if you ignore race, you make the mistake of ignoring disparate racial treatment, and thus participate in a social structure that supports bigotry.[/quote]

Oh, of course, how could I confuse actual racism for giving lip service to racists? Maybe what threw me off was you finding funny the notion that whites aren't superior to blacks. You can point out all the statistics you'd like and have a field day with patting yourself on the back because I'll admit to not now or ever reading them. You know why? I don't need a book to tell me that life isn't fair and people aren't perfect. That's the way it works and unless we're machines there ain't nothing going to change it.

If people like you were in charge, not only would people still have their biases and imperfections, but so would the state. Institutional racism isn't going to make people be more accepting of everyone, it's only going to set us further apart by advancing common stereotypes indefinetely. If people like you were in charge minorites would never get jobs based on their own performance and merit, or at least no one would believe they could. Resentful behavior would no doubt escalate, belittleing minorities that did get jobs as workers only there to fill a quota. You are the bigot, sir. You can deny it and parade around in rose-colored glasses with all your buddies in the forum talking about how much of a utopia it would be if we let the government have complete control of all private enterprise, but don't expect me to swallow that diatribe for a second. You might put on a pretty term like Affirmative Action or Institutional Diversity to equivicate your MO, but I'll just call you out for what your really support. In your world minorities cannot function on their own and need mommy government to hand them education and careers on a silver platter. You contend that the real world is unfair to minorities and that competition is a harsh system that shouldn't be used. It's all a load of silly socialist mantra that is and always will be proven wrong time after time it's tried.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']You don't believe blacks and minorities are discriminated against, yet you believe democrats discriminate against blacks and minorities. Smart.[/quote]

Thank you. It didn't take me long to realize the fundamental defects in liberalism, but I'm sure you gathered that by now despite your sarcasm.

I never said that I didn't believe they weren't discriminated against, I know they are. Every race is discriminated against, that's the way life is. If you feel like you were dealt a shitty hand then you don't cry on the government's shoulder, you pick yourself up and press on. All Democrats want to do is make the discrimination worse by institutionalizing it. Not only do they make an impartial state partial, they beg resentment from whites. Minority success will not be realized because the state succeeds for them. Why bother working hard if your employer will get in trouble for firing you?

So belonging to a massive, politicaly powerful organization in the 40's, an organization far from the fring group it is today, and publicly holding racist views up until the 60's, is an unforgiveable offense, yet having those same views, like Lott, is okay? Hell, Lott spoke in front of a white supremacist organization, the council of conservative citizens, twice in the 1990's, and later went on to praise thurmonds segregationist campaign. Yet, somehow, the one who has not only denounced his past, but actively fought against his past, is unforgiveable and evidence of democrat racism, yet someone like Lott is acceptable, or at least a step above Byrd?

Oh, refresh my memory, I can't find where I passed judgement down on Trent Lott positively or negatively... could you quote that for me? Not to mentioned Lott was reprimanded for these actions fair or unfair. I don't see how saying something nice about a fellow Senator comes anywhere near leading an active campaign advocating death of blacks, but I guess in the mind of a partisan they are exactly the same offense.

We're not talking about Trent Lott, we're talking about the former Klansman turned Democratic leader. He led the fight to kill the Civil Rights Act with the support of several of his other Democratic Senators. Refresh my memory again, is he a Republican now?

Funny, didn't most of the ones who filibustered run towards the republican party soon after? They were a little to willing to take them in if they were the anti-racist party. And, if I remember correctly (not that you actually read what I posted), I posted voting totals showing that a higher percentage of northern democrats voted for civil rights than northern republicans, and the same was true in the south.

Fulbright, Gore, Byrd... All Democrats throughout their career.

We can argue statistics all day, but just look at the party make up. 80% of House Republicans v.s. 61% of House Democrats and 82% of Senate Republicans v.s. 68% of Senate Democrats.

The remains of lincoln's legacy left the republican party when conservatives became dominant.

Says you and some anonymous poster at wikipedia. I guess you would agree that Democrats shouldn't be credited for FDR or Truman or Wilson either? It's ridiculous to try and find some demarcation point to pinpoint where this political party was disagreeable with this idea. In reality we're all individuals, and just because we find we agree with one party's basic principles more than the other doesn't mean that we have to agree with everything 100% as the founder of the party says.

Responsible sex is protection. Expecting humans to suddenly only have sex when they can care for a child is unrealistic. There is no example of a policy such as that being succesful. People are sluts, they've always been sluts, and they always will be sluts.

If you're willing to forego the risk, then you do so at your own disgression. The government shouldn't be held responsible because you don't know that condoms aren't fool-proof. To a Democrat expecting citizens to prepare for potential outcomes has always been unrealistic. Social Security, Abortion, Unions, Socializing Healthcare, Sexual Education, etc. The list goes on and on, and while you're right to say that we can expect human's to error, we must also demand they take responsibility for that error. That's the disconnect between us. If a girl who doesn't want to get pregnant does, you think it's the fault of nature for making us driven to want to have sex, you think it's the fault of the government if they try and ban abortion, you think it's the fault of the contraceptive that promised to work in almost all situations, but I think it's the fault of the girl for not considering the possibility.

Once again, it's a risk. If you take the risk, shouldn't you take the responsibility?

But yet you would force a woman to care for her rapists "child" for the 9 months that it's in her womb? And to endure the agony of birth just because a clump of cells (which it is early in pregnancy) is in her?

Like I said, it's trivial to go through the contraception debate. We're just going to butt heads. I firmly believe the rapist, not the baby, should not be punished for the crime. I can tell you that as many times as you'd like.

Ya, what a backward country. I mean they actually have a health care system that treats everyone, one where your value isn't determined by your wallet. And they have this crazy idea that homosexuals should be treated equally. What a bunch of wackos.

Patient: But I need the transplant in a week or I'll die!

Receptionist: Sign these papers and wait eight months, we've got a broken finger in the ER right now!

A national statistic of legal vs illegal abortions? Even if I did dig that up, there's no point since abortion is legal currently.

You brought it up. Like I said, I don't think many woman would admit to having an illegal abortion. If you insist on taking into a global context, I can only contend that I do not wish to pass a global resolution.

So balancing a job, a child, and an education is realistic?

Of course. It takes a big hit out of the number of parties you can go to, but apparently sex was more important than finishing school to whoever was in the situation.

According to science a 4 week old embryo is not a child.

Like I said, it's trivial to go through the contraception debate. We're just going to butt heads. I can tell you that as many times as you'd like.

Parents who are stressed, lack social networks, unhappy with their situation etc. often do not have as good parenting abilities, and are less likely to be able to cope with problems (such as premature births) that arise, and therefore hinder the development of their children. Domestic violence increases in stressful situations.

Losing a job is a stressful situation, poverty is a stressful situation, losing a parent is a stressful situation, a robbery of your belongings is a stressful situation. You cannot single out teenage pregnancy as the only factor for child abuse.

Since your the one who seems to have lost their temper, I think you could use the comforting more than I could.

You also seem to be unable to debate calmly, and without using emotionally charged language.

Did you see what happened when I tried to talk to Msut like a rational person? I've grown a thicker shell, and I'm going to have to start treating liberals with more contempt than compassion. You can continue to whine though if you'd like, I've heard it all before.

You really should go on tv as the face of the republican party.

You know that's my dream, baby. I'd love to get up there and make an RNC speech.

So how is forcing someone to endure 9 months of pregnancy for something they don't want, for a mistake they made, anything but punishment? Your opinion of what it should be is irrelevent when compared to how the woman percieves it.

Woe is her. I mean, cry me a ing river. It's unfortunate to see someone with an unwanted pregnancy, but we must remember that it isn't the child's fault that her mother is a whore. If the mother isn't ready for a child, a perfectly understandable position, she doesn't have to care for it. She can take comfort in the fact that the baby will be loved and that she didn't kill it. If she had, she would've much more likely to suffer from real physical and psychological damage from the decision as earlier studies I posted allude to.

But wasn't it a choice to associate with blacks in the first place?

And just because you really want to get married doesn't mean you have to. A woman may really want an abortion, but she doesn't have to get it.

I don't understand... should we be segregated to prevent interracial marriage? What's wrong with associating with someone outside of your race?

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Listen to this guy, quoting professional basketball players as retorts. UR IGNORANT AND SO UHH UR RONG ON EVRYTHING... I WIN!!!

Hopefully that's your closing argument. I might just have to pull out the "Your momma" jokes if you keep it up. [/quote]
A) You're ignorant.
B) Your ignorance perpetuates wrong notions and colors your posts with inaccuracies
C) The line I quoted matches your own "360" line. Newsflash: 360 = full circle.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Oh, of course, how could I confuse actual racism for giving lip service to racists? Maybe what threw me off was you finding funny the notion that whites aren't superior to blacks. You can point out all the statistics you'd like and have a field day with patting yourself on the back because I'll admit to not now or ever reading them. You know why? I don't need a book to tell me that life isn't fair and people aren't perfect. That's the way it works and unless we're machines there ain't nothing going to change it.

If people like you were in charge, not only would people still have their biases and imperfections, but so would the state. Institutional racism isn't going to make people be more accepting of everyone, it's only going to set us further apart by advancing common stereotypes indefinetely. If people like you were in charge minorites would never get jobs based on their own performance and merit, or at least no one would believe they could. Resentful behavior would no doubt escalate, belittleing minorities that did get jobs as workers only there to fill a quota. You are the bigot, sir. You can deny it and parade around in rose-colored glasses with all your buddies in the forum talking about how much of a utopia it would be if we let the government have complete control of all private enterprise, but don't expect me to swallow that diatribe for a second. You might put on a pretty term like Affirmative Action or Institutional Diversity to equivicate your MO, but I'll just call you out for what your really support. In your world minorities cannot function on their own and need mommy government to hand them education and careers on a silver platter. You contend that the real world is unfair to minorities and that competition is a harsh system that shouldn't be used. It's all a load of silly socialist mantra that is and always will be proven wrong time after time it's tried.[/QUOTE]

There really needs to be a :yawn: smilie. You can try to call me bigoted all you want, and your ad hominems will get you nowhere in getting my ire or attention.

You completely ignored what I pointed out about racism existing in this day and age; your brain can not handle *both* the existence of racism *and* a desire to ignore race as a means of eliminating racism. Instead you pull out the tired old "if we don't treat races differently, it'll all go away; you're the bigot because you want to treat people differently."

Instead, your contribution to the "let's all pretend race doesn't exist" club was to actually retype a paragraph in something that (I believe) was to resemble ebonics. With that in mind, your philosophy can't even hold true among one person who truly believes it, let along a society in which socially-created racial differences are crystallized.

You can't deal with the fact that denied employment, denied advancement for those who are employed, and denied housing outside of "their" neighborhoods are examples of how racism is covertly enacted in this day and age. This leads to real differences in race among unemployed percentages, income, wealth, and crime statistics; if you want to make blacks the sole agents for that, you sure have a limited view of how the world works, and again, I urge you to *read* something. The data don't lie. Would you tell me that there is no discrimination in hiring, or no discrimination when seeking a house, and apartment, or a loan? That you seem to think that "treating people equally" is equivalent to "not paying any attention to race whatsoever" that is positively the most absurd mentality that you have (of a growing collection of absurd philosophies).

Seriously, "ignoring race" as a project or goal is about as realistic as fighting a "war on terror." You can't eradicate an abstract, a strategy; likewise, racial divides are a historical fact (though the people in one racial group or another change over short-term and long-term contexts, like the goddamn race question on the decennial census) that change over time. If you think that you're going to do away with a social definition (particularly when you've given evidence that you can't even do it yourself) is a laughable task. Between ignoring race to create equality and demanding people stop having sex, you've created quite a sizable portion of social engineering for yourself there, kiddo.

 

[evanft]

I bet the same groups who pushed for this are also the ones who try to do everything they can to limit a woman's access to birth control.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Did you see what happened when I tried to talk to Msut like a rational person? I've grown a thicker shell, and I'm going to have to start treating liberals with more contempt than compassion. You can continue to whine though if you'd like, I've heard it all before. [/quote]

I had a response to the rest, but I decided this is all I'll respond to. I'm not msut, and I don't argue like msut. You have a tendency to ignore the information posted, you see everything as black and white, one or the other, to the point where you can't even distinguish between me and msut.

You've joined Thagoat as the only 2 people I've ever ignored. Maybe in a week or so I'll unignore you and see if anything has changed.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='evanft']I bet the same groups who pushed for this are also the ones who try to do everything they can to limit a woman's access to birth control.[/QUOTE]

Some groups yes, like traditional Catholics for instance. But that is where I differ from them. I'm all for all the birth control anyone wants to use being available. I think it's crazy to be against abortion but also against birth control. News flash: more birth control = less abortions, legal or illegal. I think this is an area where even people diametrically opposed on most parts of this issue can agree.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='elprincipe']Some groups yes, like traditional Catholics for instance. But that is where I differ from them. I'm all for all the birth control anyone wants to use being available. I think it's crazy to be against abortion but also against birth control. News flash: more birth control = less abortions, legal or illegal. I think this is an area where even people diametrically opposed on most parts of this issue can agree.[/QUOTE]

I had this conversation with my father (a staunch Catholic) well over a year ago over dinner out (not a good idea to debate politics with two opinionated and assertive people in a public place).

Anyway, as I pointed out that, despite the commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" (fairly straightforward), the church does approve of certain wars. These are known as just wars; it is premised upon the recognition that in some cases (WWII being a prime example), going to war results in a lesser loss of human life than avoiding war.

In short, I argued, that the church reconciled a position of difficulty/potential hypocrisy by adding a caveat to one of its top ten tenets, and by adopting a position that specifically contradicts one of its teachings.

Thus, the church should rethink its position on birth control/sex education relative to the issue of abortion. While promoting knowledge hasn't always been the Catholic church's strong suit (har HAR!), if it can rationalize away one dissonant perspective (with the laudable goal of saving human lives, then it can bloody damn well do the same thing regarding education as a means of preventing unwanted pregnancies that will later become abortions).

Of course, trying to rationalize with the religious often makes one feel like you might if you've just shown a dog a card trick.

What people need to realize (and I presume you to be of the enlightened few, el) is that eliminating abortion will only invoke a whole new host of problems, and that without planning for those side effects of overturning RvW, they are complicit in the social problems and suffering that will result as a consequence of their shortsightedness combined with their insistence upon influencing social policy.

Well, I just turned around to see my wife watching a show in which Sebastian Bach was singing "Hollaback Girl." My brain is just a ing vapid wasteland right now..............:shock:

 

[dafoomie]

[quote name='elprincipe']Some groups yes, like traditional Catholics for instance. But that is where I differ from them. I'm all for all the birth control anyone wants to use being available. I think it's crazy to be against abortion but also against birth control. News flash: more birth control = less abortions, legal or illegal. I think this is an area where even people diametrically opposed on most parts of this issue can agree.[/QUOTE]
This is why I like you, you can think logically.

There are these people that want to ban abortions, ban birth control, ban sex education (other than don't do it), ostracize unwed mothers, and get rid of foodstamps, WIC, housing assistance, and welfare. What exactly do they think is going to happen?

 

[Msut77]

Alonzo, Ace did nothing but misquote me and then stop responding.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

What does a broken record, a pussy, and a white supremacist have in common? They all despise me.

[quote name='kakomu']A) You're ignorant.
B) Your ignorance perpetuates wrong notions and colors your posts with inaccuracies
C) The line I quoted matches your own "360" line. Newsflash: 360 = full circle.[/quote]

Please, kakomu. Your attacks are even more brutal when you use them twice in a row. I surrender, I'll never be able to refute "UR IGNERANT!!!!!!!111" if you just keep repeating it.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I had a response to the rest, but I decided this is all I'll respond to. I'm not msut, and I don't argue like msut. You have a tendency to ignore the information posted, you see everything as black and white, one or the other, to the point where you can't even distinguish between me and msut.

You've joined Thagoat as the only 2 people I've ever ignored. Maybe in a week or so I'll unignore you and see if anything has changed.[/quote]

I'm a little disappointed that you had to put me on that list of yours, but I'm not too surprised. Once people have found their lock-step, they tend not to stray too far from the hive. Anyone who disagrees with you must be censored I suppose. I sincerely hope you took something from what I said and at least open your mind a bit more to other ideas outside your comfort zone.

[quote name='mykevermin']You can't deal with the fact that denied employment, denied advancement for those who are employed, and denied housing outside of "their" neighborhoods are examples of how racism is covertly enacted in this day and age. This leads to real differences in race among unemployed percentages, income, wealth, and crime statistics; if you want to make blacks the sole agents for that, you sure have a limited view of how the world works, and again, I urge you to *read* something. The data don't lie. Would you tell me that there is no discrimination in hiring, or no discrimination when seeking a house, and apartment, or a loan? That you seem to think that "treating people equally" is equivalent to "not paying any attention to race whatsoever" that is positively the most absurd mentality that you have (of a growing collection of absurd philosophies).[/quote]

You can call me any name in the book, doesn't change the fact that you're a bigot who sees skin color as a determining factor of intelligence or success. You can sugarcoat it by saying you have to call blacks inferior because the statistics say they are, but you're the one perpetrating it. You can accuse me of not reading what you had to say and that I don't acknowledge differences in statistics you provide, but I agreed and stated more than once that people have biases. Those biases can and will always include race. As ignorant as it is, you agree that these biases need to continue and that the state should start doing it as well. That doesn't change the fact that life will never be fair, we don't live in a perfect world. We all try our best to get along and work together the best way we know how. Strictly by your attitude one can see that some groups of people will always see color so that they may catagorize people before every meeting and understanding the individual. It's a real shame, because you gloss over so many wonderful people when you do or support these racist causes. It doesn't matter if you do it because you think whites are inherently smarter or blacks are inherently dumber or because some politican or book tells you one of them is true... what matters is you do it despite the fact that we're all human beings.

I don't just disagree with you, I utterly loathe your position. It is very racist and cannot ever be justified as public policy. There is no way I'll ever understand the mindset of using two wrongs to make a right, it goes against everything true and sound in this country. So you can sit there and call me idiotic to think whites and blacks or whites and hispanics or blacks and hispanics or whatever and whatever are truely equal, because you'll never prove that one color is scientifically dumber than another color.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='mykevermin']What people need to realize (and I presume you to be of the enlightened few, el) is that eliminating abortion will only invoke a whole new host of problems, and that without planning for those side effects of overturning RvW, they are complicit in the social problems and suffering that will result as a consequence of their shortsightedness combined with their insistence upon influencing social policy.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, agree, no doubt that criminalizing abortion would lead to other societal problems that would need to be addressed. Of course, I fully think it's worth it since saving a life is worth having some other problems/costs to deal with. But it would be dumb to deny that if a low-income single mother had a baby instead of killing him/her, that brings up social issues like child nutrition, child care, health care, education, etc. for that child. I wholeheartedly share the goal of eliminating or at least minimizing those kinds of difficult situations, but I can't accept killing an innocent child as an acceptable method to remedy them.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']You can call me any name in the book, doesn't change the fact that you're a bigot who sees skin color as a determining factor of intelligence or success. You can sugarcoat it by saying you have to call blacks inferior because the statistics say they are, but you're the one perpetrating it. You can accuse me of not reading what you had to say and that I don't acknowledge differences in statistics you provide, but I agreed and stated more than once that people have biases. Those biases can and will always include race. As ignorant as it is, you agree that these biases need to continue and that the state should start doing it as well. That doesn't change the fact that life will never be fair, we don't live in a perfect world. We all try our best to get along and work together the best way we know how. Strictly by your attitude one can see that some groups of people will always see color so that they may catagorize people before every meeting and understanding the individual. It's a real shame, because you gloss over so many wonderful people when you do or support these racist causes. It doesn't matter if you do it because you think whites are inherently smarter or blacks are inherently dumber or because some politican or book tells you one of them is true... what matters is you do it despite the fact that we're all human beings.

I don't just disagree with you, I utterly loathe your position. It is very racist and cannot ever be justified as public policy. There is no way I'll ever understand the mindset of using two wrongs to make a right, it goes against everything true and sound in this country. So you can sit there and call me idiotic to think whites and blacks or whites and hispanics or blacks and hispanics or whatever and whatever are truely equal, because you'll never prove that one color is scientifically dumber than another color.[/QUOTE]

I believe I asked you this earlier; if not, I'll repeat myself.

Are you truly this dense, or do you just prefer to present yourself as such in order to be antagonistic?

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']What does a broken record, a pussy, and a white supremacist have in common? [/QUOTE]


They all vote for Bush?