Statements like, “you don’t have a clue” in a discussion like this are what make talking about politics unpleasant with some people. But I’ll join in long enough to say that Nate Dogg has a clue. So does Huck (and so, probably, do all the people interested enough to read this thread of posts). My two ? are that Huck is not “pretending” to be anything, and I definitely don’t think he’s even implying that we need a “new regime.” He’s acting responsibly and taking a hard look at the way society works. That’s the way our country works the best–when people think carefully about where they stand. Aside from that, I have to say that I’m a completely moral person, and I’m also pro choice. Additionally, I wept for the people that died on 9/11, and I’ll weep for people who die in the repercussive efforts. I’m not “whining” about going to war, but as an American citizen, I still have the right to ponder and discuss the motives behind it.
Clubber, I am not pretending. My views are passionately held. I am dead serious concerning political and philosophical issues, and anyone who has debated me on this forum will attest to that. I do not believe either party has my best interests at heart, or those of the country as a whole. In my own life, I have done all I can reasonably do to separate myself from the gov’t: I do not participate in medicare or social security, to the extent allowed by law. I live in a rural area, and use no utilities except the phone and electricity. I try to pay the absolute minimum legal tax. All political parties are about one thing: The aquisition and prevervation of power. Once they have it, they start trying to make you live the way they want you to. If you gathered together all the pols in this country and set their heads on fire, I wouldn’t piss in their faces to save their lives. Now on to quotations: I love them. The odds are always that someone somewhere has expressed your point of veiw with more clarity and eloquence than you could muster, and when I find a good one, I save it. As to the abortion issue, it is insoluble. The pro lifers beleive in a ghost in the sky who says that a few ml of goo is a person. The pro choicers want to kill babies that would live, if delivered vaginally or by C section. I find both positions abhorrent and stupid. The defining issue is this: What is a person? People have rights, and cannot be killed out of hand. To solve this issue would require that we establish an objective, testable standard for personhood. This standard, one established, would have consequences that far exceed the abortion issue in scope (for instance, euthanasia). I cannot imagine that any agreement on “personhood” would be possible given the wildly disparate views held by those in the debate, and the problem is therefore insoluble. What we can expect is pretty much the status quo, with periodic shifts in either direction as various factions gain and relinquish power. " The three branches of government are money, television and bullshit." - P. J. O’Rourke… “What we are witnessing is the systematic destruction of modern civilization” “That’s true, Robert, it will take some time, and it is still possible to live well during the decline.” …from "Slouching Towards Gommorahh
Nate, what about partial birth abortions? The fetus is about six months along, able to survive on its own, labor is induced, when the head pops out, a needle is stuck into the back of the head and the brain sucked out. Or what about burning the fetus in the womb with saline solution? How can any moral person think that is only about the woman’s body? I don’t choose who I vote for based on abortion politics (because it doesn’t affect me or my family directly), but I can’t understand how anyone could say it’s only about the woman’s body.
I think I am going to run for president next time around. I will be an independant running on the “Fuck the Children” platform. I’ll explain if you want.
Savage, I’ll be sure to vote so I don’t have to see people like you in leadership positions that tend to get abused. Great constructive criticism buddy! As for the war issue, yeah, I have a clue. And yes, there are always many factors to review when going to war. Like I said, I don’t totally oppose it. There are good reasons for and against war.
As for abortion, no, I don’t think partial-birth abortions should be legal. And from what I last heard, I thought there was a bill passed that said they were illegal. But I’m all for abortions that are done correctly and within the first trimester (as long as someone isn’t abusing the system). And I’d be all for getting RU486 legal in the U.S.
Doogie, I don’t vote for people based soley on their abortion stand, I vote for who I think will do the best job…which tends to be the lesser of two evils these days. You’re right, there is more than one person to consider when thinking of having an abortion. But ultimately, it is the woman’s body and the woman’s choice. Others may have a say (potential father, etc), but ultimately it is up to the woman. I don’t want to get into a debate about abortion because it’s not going to solve anything. It is my opinion. Just as you have yours. You aren’t going to change my beliefs, and I won’t change yours. Stand where you will on the issue. Get active in supporting your view if you decide. But I have stated my opinion, and others have stated theirs. End of story.
OK, there’s something we absolutely must be completely clear on. Anybody out there waiting for an elected official to make your life better will always, ALWAYS be severly disappointed.
Voting for a lawyer to improve your economic situation is as helpful as voting for Richard Simmons to help your body fat percentage. You and you alone must take that responsibility. T-men should understand this better than anybody.
Are there those pre-disposed to excess weight, yes. Are there those who have difficult time building mass. I am one of them. Are the those who have small breasts, of course, but it doesn’t stop them from being able to rocking the twigs off of your love nest. The point is regardless of circumstances, we have to be responsible for us because nobody else will care enough to take that responsibility as serious.
Then we cry about political freedoms. I live in the most morally uptight, pious area in the U.S. and even I can find a good stroke mag in 10 seconds.
Policital freedoms are important, but are merely a stepping stone to all other true freedoms - freedoms that we must achieve for ourself. Health freedoms - anybody here believe the guy waiting a heart transplant has more choices than you?. Spiritual freedoms - Who thinks your neighborhood crack whore is overflowing with choices. Economic freedoms - how many here would double thier workout if they could just afford the time off? All of these must be achieve individually by the individual.
Any time I hear a Politician talk about how they are going to make life better for me, I have to check the mirror to see if anybosy’s tattoed “Insert screw here” on my ass.
The most they can do is protect the paths that lead to opportunities for us to become what we are fully capable of. Whatever that may be. Anything else is a sales pitch for ab-energizer.
For the record I am a conservative. So the repubs controlling congress does make me smile. However its not because of what they will do, it what they won’t do. What they won’t do, hopefully is try to legislate the hell out of my life for the sake of Wally welfare who is more that capable of doing something for his meal.
I know it sounds cold hearted, face it. It is. But when is the last time you wept with twinkie the Kid next door because he was to fat to get laid. Its the same thing. Those who want it bad enough will find it. Those that don’t will cry about it and hope the next increase on my taxes will allow them to buy a microwave for their prepared meals because their too damn ignorant to learn how use the oven.
I like the republicans because the say clearly, that Government just doesn’t work. And then they get elected and prove it.
Nate, thanks for clarifying on the war issue. Regarding abortion though, I think we have some fundamental disagreements. How can I, as a man, tell women what to do with their bodies? By no means am I attempting to control their bodies. Rather, I want control on the actions of that other body (the baby) in the womb. Scientists have proven that life begins at conception and thus, every abortion is the ending of life, hence, a murder. This is not about the woman’s body, it is about the other human life. Also, so what if I am a man? Last time I checked, it takes a man to get a girl pregnant too. Not to mention, on an issue of this nature, why should one be silenced because they cannot be pregnant. It does not mean that their perspective is incorrect. Regarding rape, my position is the same as above. Does rape denigrate the human dignity that possesses the child in the womb? Of course not. If the woman does not want the baby, she should put the baby up for adoption, not kill it for something that happened which was not it’s fault. One last thing, several people have said that they are personally against abortion but as it does not affect them, why would they vote on a pro life basis? I beg to differ. How can the murder of children not affect everyone in society? When 4,500 innocents are killed a day, the society has reached a level of immorality that affects every citizen. Lastly, you mention the Catholic Church and its teachings on homosexuals. The teaching has always been the same, being gay is not a mortal sin in itself but homosexual activity (acting on one’s gay disposition) is considered a mortal sin. That teaching, as with all teachings on faith and morals, has not and will never change in the Catholic Church. Thanks for listening guys, this discussion has been enjoyable.
Huck, thanks for clearing up my misconception. But, what would you have politicians do as opposed to running our lives as you said? Would you rather have no government or just a drastically reduced one? Thanks for your time.
A drastically reduced federal govt, with power to do only those things which state govts cannot. Ex: Defense of our borders, immigration, treaties. Anything that could be handled at the state level would be. The states would only address issues that could not be handled locally. Maximum personal freedom, limited only with regard to direct effects on others. A congress only in session about 3 months per year. Sounds radical, I know. These wacky ideas were first presented by John Adams and his gang of long haired radicals.
I vote Republican almost always, but that’s just because I think they will do less damage to the country than will the Dems. Overall, Huck is right – politicians, and, even more scarily, the unaccountable bureaucrats on whom they download authority for controversial policy making so no one can hold the politicians accountable, live to expand their own authority at the expense of our freedoms. Their so-called solutions are more often than not in response to media-generated “crises” that don’t even exist, and to the extent they do government solutions tend to make things worse rather than better. I trust people to take care of themselves far more than I trust the government to take charge of resources to “fairly” (BTW, I’d love for someone to define that one for me) take care of everyone.
Now, as to this whole “oil” line of reasoning, it shouldn’t even be an issue. While it is true the only reason we care about that reason at all is because it has oil, it would have been far easier to just open up trade with Iraq if we wanted to get access to the oil – Saddam would have given his left nut for such an easy solution to opening the borders and leaving him in power. He would have practically given the oil away. However, it’s about stability of the whole region, and what would happen to it were one aggressive, unstable leader in the region to possess a nuke. That would be catastrophic.
Doogie, I agree with you. It is a glorious day. Republicans won, and I helped. This makes me feel a little bit better about the fact that here in NY we are stuck with Hillary Clinton.
Let me try to clear something up… Nobody in their right mind is “PRO-ABORTION”. However, if a woman NEEDS an abortion, the decision should be hers primarily, and not the federal government’s. The correct phrase is “PRO-CHOICE” and NOT “pro-death”. People who are pro-choice do not take abortion lightly, it is still ending a life, however the important thing is that when it is deemed necessary, it is the MOTHER’S decision, and not some bueraucrat’s. Thank you.
Lumpy, you said: “People who are pro-choice do not take abortion lightly, it is still ending a life, however the important thing is that when it is deemed necessary, it is the MOTHER’S decision, and not some bueraucrat’s.” That is interesting logic. In fact, if we use your same logic for a guy like the Washington D.C. sniper, we must also say: “he may not take it lightly, since it is still ending a life, but when it is deemed necessary, it is the SNIPER’S decision, not some bureaucrat’s.” I guess this justifies every murder. That’d be quite the interesting society we would have if everyone implemented that thinking into their daily lives. And how would someone who knows that abortion ends a life not be classified as “pro abortion” or “pro death?” If they know it’s ending a life, if they support it or do it, it sounds like they are pro-something, and that something is abortion.
Nice try with your analogy, except for one important factor…the mother’s life and the baby’s life are completely intertwined, especially when the mother is pregnant. The needs of the adult mother also supercede the needs of the unborn baby. If a woman gets an abortion for superficial reasons, that is not good. But it is still her decision and her right. Hey, I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the party of “less government”. That’s just not true, the Republicans want MORE government when it suits their agendas, such as the abortion issue, the War on Drugs, etc. Then the Republicans want to try to legislate women’s uteruses, people’s bloodstreams etc. You can’t legislate morality, it doesn’t work. And I wouldn’t want to live in a country that tried.
I am a pro-choice Republican. There are many things I do not like about both parties and there are many things I do like about both. I am not the pessimist that most seem to be about our government. I believe that 99% of the elected officials (from both parties) are doing what they believe is best for the country and for the people that elected them. Republicans and Democrats have the same end goals (a better America), they just see different means of accomplishing those ends.
For me the Republican “means” are closer to what I consider right for America (at least now) than the Democratic “means.” Right now, the world is a far more dangerous place than at any time I can remember in my life. I trust the Republicans to act more like Winston Churchill than Neville Chaimberlain (with the exception of Collin Powell, whom I used to like but who has become a disappointment). Perhaps I am a bit biased (I was in the Marine Reserves during the 90s), but I think that there is little wrong with exerting military muscle early and often against threats. It is best to take out a threat early on before it becomes a large threat (think of the numerous chances that the Britain and France had to stop Hitler throughout the 1930s). Right now, we are in a war (although undeclared) with militant Islam as well as with secular militancy in the ME (i.e., Saddam). There are a lot of people actively seeking to cause us harm, either directly (as in 9/11) or to hurt our interests and allies. Saddam is one of those people. Because of this, I feel a preemptive strike is necessary. Frankly, I don’t think the Republicans are going far enough. My personal view is that the US ought to behave more like Israel when it comes to battling terrorism and nations seeking to do us harm. The Israelis don’t give two shits about the U.N. because they (rightfully) see the U.N. as groups of angry third-world countries and cowardly appeaser Europeans with oil interests in the Middle East (France and Russia have lucrative contracts with Iraq, BTW) who are voting solely based on their self-interest. If the tiny country of Israel can go it alone without any support except from the U.S., then surely the U.S. can go it alone as well. Does anyone remember the world and UN condemnation of Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Nuclear factory in Osirak in 1981? Well the worl breathed a (silent) sigh of relief 10 years later. The same will be true of unilateral U.S. action against Iraq and every other terrorist/rogue country that poses us a threat. The world (particularly Europe) will whine and cry and try to pass toothless resolutions condemning us for our actions, but the bottom line is that some day they will thank us for making the world a safer place. If we lead, the others will follow, eventually. I nice sign that we are becoming more Israel-like was out “targeted killing” last week of 6 Al Quada operatives. That’s what we need to see more of. Yeah, our targeted killing might end up killing civilians at times (particularly when the terrorists try to hide among civilians), but such is the price of war. This ain’t paddy-cake and the other side will not make nice and play by the rules. The Republicans understand this better than the Democrats. Democrats are a little too idealistic and optimistic about the way our world works. Democrats care too much about world opinion of our actions. Sorry, but that ain’t the way the world works. Sometimes there is no reasoning with your enemy. Sometimes motherfuckers have to die. It ain’t pretty, but neither is the world in which we live. We are sheltered from it living here in the US as we do, so for many of us, its hard to imagine that “they” could be all that different from “us”. To quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, “I firmly believe that inside every Gook, there is an American trying to get out.” While that is a funny line, it isn’t true. Our enemies do not want to be like us at all. They want to destroy us and impose their twisted way of life on the rest of world/region. They need to be destoyed.
On the domestic front, I am a strong free-market sorta guy. I detest tinkering with markets too much (some regulation and oversight is needed, but it should be focused oversight in critical areas like pollution and fraudulent reporting practices). While genuine cases of sexism and racism should be dealt with harshly, affirmative action programs cause more harm and racial discord than they do good. Affirmative action had its time and place in the 1960s and 1970s (and maybe even the 1990s). The time for it has come to an end. Let poeple rise or fall on their merits, not their race. To some extent, I believe there should be some form of affirmative action, but it should be based on economic conditions for entrance into college (not graduate school) rather than race. In general, I believe in a less intrusive government in most aspects of our everyday life. The government’s purpose should be to deal with externalities created by the free market of ideas and business. In a sense, that means I actually have a number of libertarian views (at least for domestic politics). Just as I believe the government should not regulate just about every aspect of our economic life, I do not like the regulation of our personal lives either. Frankly, I think that drugs, prostitution and homosexual marriage should all be legalized (for adults). The first two are victimless crimes. Alcohol and tobbacco are drugs too, but they are legal even tho they are equally devastating (and in many ways more devistating) as illegal drugs. Listen, if a guy commits a crime while on drugs, bust him for the crime. But don’t bust someone for making a personal decision as to what to do to his own body. Frankly, the drug war is a losing battle that diverts our resources from more important criminal activity, like violent crimes. I see a direct parallel with Prohibition. Much of the violent crime we see is drug related. By keeping drugs illegal, we give a great deal of wealth and power to the criminal element. Eliminate the illegality and much of the violence associated with it will dry up (along with cutting off the flow of money to the criminal element). The same thing happened at the end of prohibition. I guess I am more like William F. Buckley, Jr. when it comes to issues like this and not with mainstream Republicans or Democrats.
I also believe that the government has no business pushing religion. This is one of the main issues I have with the Republican party (my party). I think that they try to foist religion into schools and politics. Republicans, much to my chagrin, seem to ignore the First Amendment when it comes to the establishment of a national religion (Democrats ignore the First Amendment too, when it suits them, particularly when it comes to non-PC speech). We are free to practice our religion (or to not practice any religion) or to believe in God (or Gods) in the manner of out choosing. But there should be and is a division between religion and govenment. The govenments job is to govern the people, not to preach religion. Your personal religious beliefs may guide your decisions of the manner in which you govern, but that is a far cry from designated periods of school prayer, “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance recited in schools and “in God we trust” printed on legal tender. Some people dont’ believe in God. Others believe in more than one God. Some believe that it is wrong to write the name God (i.e., religious Jews write “God” as “G-D”) or to call him by that name. Why even open this Pandora’s box? Just keep displays and proselytizing of religion out of our public institutions and government.
When it comes to abortion, all I can say is that this is a tough issue. It is one that I feel strongly about, but I am not so blinded by my pro-choice feelings that I cannot truly understand why the pro-life people feel the way they do. In many ways, it comes down to a question of when do you believe someone becomes a human being. Life is a continuum. It has a discrete ending, but no discrete beginning. Sperm and ova are alive. Human cells are alive. On the most extreme ends of the spectrum are those that believe that a human being does not exist until birth and on the other side those that believe that a human being is created at conception. Frankly, appeals to what “scientists have proven” is misleading at best and outright propaganda at worst. This issue of when does someone become a human being is definitional in nature and will never be “proven” by scientists (as I said, life is a continuum). For me, I believe that a fetus is a human being when it becomes viable outside the womb (i.e., when it can survive without its “female life support system”). Now, one can scientifically prove when this occurs, but this is not scientific evidence of when a human being exists. As I said, when a human being exists is definitional in nature. Lest anyone think that I speak in a vacuum, I accidently got a girlfriend pregnant several years ago (a condom broke). Although I am and was pro-choice (as she was), the decision to opt for abortion was the hardest I have made in my life (I imagine it was even more difficult for her). Prior to that, I had always thought that if I were in the situation, I would choose the abortion option without batting an eye. When faced with the reality of it, my reaction was far different – I was racked with doubt and guilt after it happened. The choice to abort is not an easy one to make. Did my choice (and that of my GF) make me immoral? I guess so in some of your eyes. To me (having lived through it) it is not such a clean issue of right and wrong, black and white. For this reason, as well as many others, I think that (at least early in the pregnancy), the decision is a personal one to be made by each couple who are faced with the situation. It is far too easy to throw around platitudes and simplistic, uni-factored solutions to far more complex and multi-factored issues. I say this respectfully to both the pro-life and pro-choice advocates.
Anyway, these are my thoughts, for what they are worth.
Lumpy, I don’t think my analogy is wrong at all. Nobody is denying that the mother’s and baby’s lives are intertwined. The question is, however, why do you think that this gives the mother the right to kill the child? What do you base this supposed hierarchy of life on?
Is how defensive and aggressive people get when speaking about politics. Further, the fact that they often have developed these elaborate political theories, while having done little to no real research or reading into the question. The sooner they start studying the issues from both sides, the sooner they realize there are no simple answers.
Cross-Relational Logic is something that seems to escape most people in this here forum. I am not going to comment directely on the issue which has now become abortion. I am just going to comment on the logic used, because the lack of it is rearing it’s ugly head in many places.
Logic works like this: If A=B and B=C that means must also equal C. And a futher conclusion is that both A & B equal C. What I see is this: A=B and B=c therefore B=C but A does not equal C because I don't like it. I agree that B=C and I agree that A=B sometimes if it fits in to my comfort zone/ paradigm of how life should be. Or I also see this: A=B and B=C therefore A and B both equal C, but B equaling C is clear but A even though it equals C is none of my buisness and a handy backup in case I fuck-up sometime in the future.
From a logical stand point, those who operate on the model of A=B, B=C, therefore A & B=C are 'winning' the argument. The only way to disprove this logical eqation is to disprove that A equals B or that B equals C. The only other way to defroc the premises 'A is not true' or 'B is not true'.
Matt, I read your post with great interest and certainly share in your admiration for William F. Buckley. However, I would like to address some of your points on when human life begins. You said regarding human life: “Life is a continuum. It has a discrete ending, but no discrete beginning.” This is simply untrue. First, if life was a continuum, you would not be able to say that it has a discrete ending as the definition of a continuum is that of a whole of which no part can be distinguished except by arbitrary division. If you say we know when someone dies, life cannot be a continuum. Also, if we know when someone dies, that means that they have lost some characteristics of life. Thus, if they have lost these characteristics, we can somehow find out what these principles of life were in the first place. Thus, life can be defined at a certain point, it is not arbitrary. You also spoke of when you think life begins: “For me, I believe that a fetus is a human being when it becomes viable outside the womb (i.e., when it can survive without its “female life support system”).” The question arises, however, can a baby survive outside its “female life support system” when it leaves the womb. Of course not! The baby is completely dependent on the parents for sustenance for many years. And what of a quadripilegic, an elderly person suffering from dementia or some terminal disease, they are outside the “female life support system” but by no means are they viable. In the end, Matt, science is not “misleading” or “propaganda” but rather, provides us with the knowledge that the baby is no more human five minutes after birth than he is five minutes before birth. In fact, he is just as human at conception. There is absolutely no point prior to conception that one can find where a baby was human at one moment but not at the previous moment. That moment simply does not exist because the baby is a human being since conception. Matt, if you are interested, I am including a couple of websites that deal specifically with life after abortion procedures. They might give you some helpful information.
www.marquette.edu/rachel/
Thank you Matt for putting your thoughts into this discussion.
WHY?