The Political Discussion Thread

[Rudy Pena]

I understand what your saying, but another fact is, that no matter how you try to argue the topic, a HUMAN LIFE is still being ended by abortion. Now, one CAN make the argument that there are justifiable reasons for ending that life, but regardless, a HUMAN LIFE is ending. Personally, I think there ARE good reasons for abortion in certain specific cases. What I personally object to, is abortion being used as a mere birth control convenience. Contraceptives are available, and ought to be used rather than the way Planning Parenthood has been doing it, merely to control the sex of the child. When does the argument become not JUST about the woman's 'body', and also about the FACT that a LIFE is being ended. The child in the womb is a seperate being with it's own genetic code, NOT just another organ in the woman's body. It isn't just a 'Woman's Rights' issue. It is a HUMAN Rights issue. Granted, some Republican policiticans have said some idiotic things from time to time, but that doesn't take away from the central issue.

The Reps has said many things about womens right in this past year alone than the last 10 years.

They believe all this stuff about rape and god, why else would they state who theories on rape and women getting/not getting pregnant? Its cause they believe it and think everyone does, thats why they say all these things and not knowing its completely false.

Any women or young girl who can vote and votes for any republican in anything is a moron!!!

[aretood2]

The Reps has said many things about womens right in this past year alone than the last 10 years.

They believe all this stuff about rape and god, why else would they state who theories on rape and women getting/not getting pregnant? Its cause they believe it and think everyone does, thats why they say all these things and not knowing its completely false.

Any women or young girl who can vote and votes for any republican in anything is a moron!!!

Paternalism. I don't think that's what women have in mind when they ask for their rights. Is this like saying that if something bad happens to a woman it's her fault for voting for a republican? That she should have not made up her own mind and just gone ahead and listen to what a man thinks? Or that women are incapable of voting based on anything but their sexuality? This idea that all women agree on abortion (as expressed by fems) seems to border on this. It really kills female individualism and yet another reason why I have to agree with feminists, socially women are a long way from being treated as equals. Especially when you have a man calling millions of republican women morons and another person implying that a womb dictates political opinions.

As for outsourcing, I have to ask. How much of this debate is based on actual economic theory versus knee jerk nationalism? What ever happened to all those people who used to harvest wheat until we found mechanical means of doing it? Did people protest the invention of the tractor saying that it cost American jobs? What about law enforcement? if it becomes more effective and thus preventative, wouldn't that cost prison related jobs? How many people really understand how international economics really works? The end result is simple, for every action, someone will lose. You keep all Jeeps produced in the US, someone in Japan might just outsource a new Jeep-like product and produce it in China and the competition of a more economically efficient product could defeat Jeeps on the world market, thus those Saved American jobs would be loss either way.

[mad_gater]

Well, if it's all so wonderful then why are there still so many (unplanned/unwanted) teen pregnancies and abortions in the US, hm?



Opinions differ about that and I'm not about to go into a whole is/isn't debate about when a fetus is a life because I won't change my mind and people who think a life starts at conception rarely listen to any other opinion anyway.



Well, gee, how very generous of you! Like I said before; if it's not for you then don't opt for it but don't forbid it for others who might need it. The whole pro-choice/pro-life thing is so tiring and I really don't see why pro-lifers are so incredibly meddlesome. It's none of your business what other people (or in this case women) do with their bodies. Just because abortion is allowed doesn't mean everyone is forced to undergo it.

But then, I guess the same could be said for euthanasia or even gay marriage, which are two other topics that are very controversial in the US. I don't see why. Just live and let live and if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, abort an unexpected child and/or choose for euthanasia when you're terminally ill/losing your mind to dementia then you don't have to. But others might want to.




Well, I'm sure that's just fascinating but anecdotal evidence is one of the weakest things one can use in a discussion.

not their body that is being harmed.....it's the unborn baby's body that is ultimately being harmed.....scientific fact....the moment sperm touches egg a new human being has been created, a human being in the first stages of human development but a human being nonetheless

[Seastallion]

You're right, Fiat does own a majority share of Chrysler. Fiat was also the only company willing to make an offer for Chrysler and probably saved it from going under. So boo-hiss at them nasty Italians!

Fiat bought those shares from the U.S. Treasury only ONE day after the Supreme Court lifted a hold on the sales. There was barely any time for other offers to be made. Buying those shares that quickly doesn't suggest a hesitancy in purchase. Rather, it suggests a strong desire to make the purchase. Don't make it out like Fiat was doing a favor for anyone besides themselves. They weren't. They saw an opportunity, and they struck. Fiat has made several disturbing indications to slowly move manufacturing out of the U.S. Such as an article from Bloomberg... http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?...AQ4V29VO2LAOJD

"To counter the sever slump in European sales, Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America." In other articles it is suggested that newer models would be built in Italy, while older models would continue to be manufactured in the U.S. which would slowly be phased out. Fiat does in fact plan a full Merger with Chrysler over the next few years. The point being, it will no longer be a U.S. company, controlled by U.S. interests. Rather disturbing for American Taxpayers who spent Billions to bail the company out.

Well, if it's all so wonderful then why are there still so many (unplanned/unwanted) teen pregnancies and abortions in the US, hm?

According to recent statstics Teen pregnancy and abortions are at an all time low not seen since 1972. They still happen, but not like they have been. My sister WAS a pregnant teen, but she didn't abort her son. She isn't even a Christian. She's a pagan. Even if someone doesn't want their baby, there are a great many couples that very much want children but can't have any. There are available homes, if the situation is handled correctly.

Opinions differ about that and I'm not about to go into a whole is/isn't debate about when a fetus is a life because I won't change my mind and people who think a life starts at conception rarely listen to any other opinion anyway.

If you only look at it from a purely scientific point of view, then it isn't that hard to figure out. Every unborn CHILD is a unique individual, that only happens to be in the earliest stages of human development. They aren't going to be ducks or mice. They are human. It's genetics. Using the term 'fetus' is just a way to try and dodge the central point that they are STILL human children. It is illegal for a woman to kill a newborn or a toddler. The only difference is that they have been birthed. Babies don't magically become living individuals the moment they leave the womb. They were already living humans before that.

Well, gee, how very generous of you! Like I said before; if it's not for you then don't opt for it but don't forbid it for others who might need it. The whole pro-choice/pro-life thing is so tiring and I really don't see why pro-lifers are so incredibly meddlesome. It's none of your business what other people (or in this case women) do with their bodies. Just because abortion is allowed doesn't mean everyone is forced to undergo it.

People get locked up all the time for doing drugs or even attempting suicide. They say they are only hurting their own bodies, so why should they be locked up? I suppose the mean way of looking at things is to just say, "Let them kill themselves", but societies don't generally do that. The problem with abortion, is that the bodies being hurt ISN'T neccessarily the woman's body, it is someone else's body that doesn't have the ability to object. I suppose the heartless way of looking at it is to just say, "They aren't human beings yet, so who cares?" However, those 'fetuses' CAN feel pain after only about 20 weeks from conception, and they certainly do during abortions. They react to 'touch' by only 8 weeks. They have pain receptors throughout their entire bodies by no later than 16 weeks. During the abortion process, the unborn children are literally torn apart.

I think a very great many people are 'okay' with abortion because they don't really know what it entails. Or maybe they don't want to know. They just see it as a woman removing an inconvienience, not as a brutal way of killing a human life. Maybe people should at least learn how abortions are done, and the other facts involved. I can't HELP but be pro life when I know the facts.

WARNING- The video in the spoiler section may be DISTURBING. It illustrates the abortion procedure of a 23 week old fetus. I think I have a fairly strong stomach, but quite frankly I found it rather sickening, and the illustrations are relatively mild and not TOO graphic at all.

Spoiler:

But then, I guess the same could be said for euthanasia or even gay marriage, which are two other topics that are very controversial in the US. I don't see why. Just live and let live and if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, abort an unexpected child and/or choose for euthanasia when you're terminally ill/losing your mind to dementia then you don't have to. But others might want to.

I have no problem with Civil Unions. I could care less about that. If homosexual individuals want to do that, they have my blessing. I don't really care.

Euthanasia is a very hard subject indeed. I have mixed feelings on it. Generally, I'm not for anyone being killed, but I can understand circumstances where a person might find death to be preferable. I don't think that topic will ever be easily resolved, if ever. Those in pain may want to die, but there loved ones don't want to lose them. It is very different from abortion, because it really IS a personal choice about one's body, although it would affect others in a non-physical indirect way.

Well, I'm sure that's just fascinating but anecdotal evidence is one of the weakest things one can use in a discussion.

You are speaking to certain assumptions about the American education system, and I gave you a personal past EXPERIENCE of having going through it myself. It wasn't just some story. Personal Experience is NEVER a weak discussion point.

[Seastallion]

Paternalism. I don't think that's what women have in mind when they ask for their rights. Is this like saying that if something bad happens to a woman it's her fault for voting for a republican? That she should have not made up her own mind and just gone ahead and listen to what a man thinks? Or that women are incapable of voting based on anything but their sexuality? This idea that all women agree on abortion (as expressed by fems) seems to border on this. It really kills female individualism and yet another reason why I have to agree with feminists, socially women are a long way from being treated as equals. Especially when you have a man calling millions of republican women morons and another person implying that a womb dictates political opinions.

As for outsourcing, I have to ask. How much of this debate is based on actual economic theory versus knee jerk nationalism? What ever happened to all those people who used to harvest wheat until we found mechanical means of doing it? Did people protest the invention of the tractor saying that it cost American jobs? What about law enforcement? if it becomes more effective and thus preventative, wouldn't that cost prison related jobs? How many people really understand how international economics really works? The end result is simple, for every action, someone will lose. You keep all Jeeps produced in the US, someone in Japan might just outsource a new Jeep-like product and produce it in China and the competition of a more economically efficient product could defeat Jeeps on the world market, thus those Saved American jobs would be loss either way.

I agree that Women are indeed FAR more concerned about more political topics than just 'their bodies'. Women care about basically the same things that men do. Jobs, Living Expenses, National Security, etc. Multiple polls in the last few years show that the U.S. has become overwhelmingly pro-life. There has been a considerable shift in opinion in the last few decades. Women's opinions were also specifically included in these polls.

As to the economic side of things; who is building what, where, is less the point, than is that GM Chrysler was bailed out by U.S. taxpayers with the expectations that the company (among other bail outs) would remain American controlled entities benefitting Americans. The reality is NOT what Americans had in mind when the bail outs were approved. The American citizens expect the Billions of dollars of THEIR money would be spent to THEIR benefit. Not that it would be bought by a foreign entity with further development occuring outside of the U.S., rather than inside. They had the expectation that those developments WOULD be inside the U.S. Those are the points. If the bail out situation were removed as a factor, then Americans wouldn't really object as much. It's the billions of dollars they spent, and won't be getting back they care about.

[Goose]

Fiat bought those shares from the U.S. Treasury only ONE day after the Supreme Court lifted a hold on the sales. There was barely any time for other offers to be made.

It's not like other companies weren't able to express an interest in buying Chrysler even when there was a hold on sales. Don't think that the whole process of buying Chrysler took place in one day.

[KEK]

not their body that is being harmed.....it's the unborn baby's body that is ultimately being harmed.....scientific fact....the moment sperm touches egg a new human being has been created, a human being in the first stages of human development but a human being nonetheless

Human in the sense that it's a blob of cells made of human DNA, but that's about it. It's certainly not a person. Most people would agree that the right of the mother to do what she likes with her own body trump the rights of what is essentially just a potential person.

[Goose]

Most people would agree that the right of the mother to do what she likes with her own body trump the rights of what is essentially just a potential person.

Actually, and sadly, I don't think that's true, certainly not in America.

[Seastallion]

Human in the sense that it's a blob of cells made of human DNA, but that's about it. It's certainly not a person. Most people would agree that the right of the mother to do what she likes with her own body trump the rights of what is essentially just a potential person.

By the time a baby is 3 months from conception, they already have fingerprints and look very much like a baby, and not a 'blob of cells'. Dehumanizing an unborn child doesn't make them any less human. Certainly they are at the very beginnings of their development, but that only makes them more vulnerable, not less deserving of life. Animal Rights activist would be aghast if people applied the standared of 'person' to an animal's right to live. Yet again, it is NOT the mother's body at stake, it is the body of the unborn child in the balance. Seriously, you should check out the video I shared in the above post. I think people would be shocked and horrified if they actually realized just what abortions actually entailed, rather than ignoring that aspect of it and mindlessly blabbing about "women's rights". The unborn child is literally ripped apart, piece by piece, and then reassembled again outside of the womb to make sure they didn't miss any of the body parts. It is some gruesome stuff. Ugh. Talk about inhumane...

[fems]

[COLOR="#000080"] This idea that all women agree on abortion (as expressed by fems) seems to border on this.

Where did I say this? You're putting words in my mouth; I never even implied all women agree on abortion. I was merely stating that it should be available to all women, whether they want one or not; the option should be there. If men were able to have babies I'd say they should have the option available to them too, even if there are plenty (perhaps even more than women) that oppose abortion.

not their body that is being harmed.....it's the unborn baby's body that is ultimately being harmed.....scientific fact....the moment sperm touches egg a new human being has been created, a human being in the first stages of human development but a human being nonetheless

No, it hasn't been created yet otherwise it wouldn't need 9 months to develop. It's not a magical process in which a sperm touches and egg and voila, a tiny human appears like pulling a rabbit out of a head or a stripper jumping out of a cake.

The moment a sperm has entered an egg and provides the means for the zygote to start dividing you have a developing lump of cells that becomes an embryo, which will eventually develop into a fetus if everything goes well and upon birth, when its body fully functions on its own it's a baby.

[QUOTE=Seastallion;13554843]
According to recent statstics Teen pregnancy and abortions are at an all time low not seen since 1972. They still happen, but not like they have been. My sister WAS a pregnant teen, but she didn't abort her son. She isn't even a Christian. She's a pagan. Even if someone doesn't want their baby, there are a great many couples that very much want children but can't have any. There are available homes, if the situation is handled correctly.[quote]

It may be at an all time low but it's still much higher than in other developed/Western countries. Teen (15-19 yrs old) abortion rates for example are 3-5 higher and teen pregnancy rate is also still 3-6 times higher than in many European countries (although the UK seems to be following the American trend, no doubt due to the benefit culture there).

Granted, the use of contraceptives appears to have risen as well in the US but there are still much more unplanned pregnancies than in many other Western countries. It's still not common to practice safe sex it seems and if it is, they're obviously doing something wrong. So again, it goes back to sex ed.

If you only look at it from a purely scientific point of view, then it isn't that hard to figure out. Every unborn CHILD is a unique individual, that only happens to be in the earliest stages of human development. They aren't going to be ducks or mice. They are human. It's genetics. Using the term 'fetus' is just a way to try and dodge the central point that they are STILL human children. It is illegal for a woman to kill a newborn or a toddler. The only difference is that they have been birthed. Babies don't magically become living individuals the moment they leave the womb. They were already living humans before that.

The definition of living is exactly why people who kill a (highly) pregnant woman and her "unborn child" can't be prosecuted for murdering the unborn child, unless it has actually taken a breath outside of the womb. There is still no consensus about when exactly a fetus should be considered alive. Are they already complete human beings when they can't function outside of the womb (without medical assistance like is used for preemies)? Some people will say yes, some will say it's "alive" the moment of conception despite it not being anything more than a few cells and others will say no, it's not alive yet.

An embryo may have unique DNA material but that doesn't mean it will turn into a human being; less than 50% of fertilized ova survive even before women are aware they were pregnant and about 15-20% of embryos end in miscarriage in the first trimester alone.

People get locked up all the time for doing drugs or even attempting suicide. They say they are only hurting their own bodies, so why should they be locked up? I suppose the mean way of looking at things is to just say, "Let them kill themselves", but societies don't generally do that.

There are cases when committing suicide should be a crime, yes; a lot of times people jump in front of a train or other moving vehicle or off a building, thereby endangering and/or troubling bystanders. However, if someone wants to overdose on pills/drugs, hang themselves or slit their wrists etc in the comfort of their own house then I'm not going to stop them. It's their life, their choice. Just as long as they don't endanger/trouble others (or expect other people to foot the bill if it doesn't go as planned and they end up surviving in the hospital).

Doing drugs (or alcohol for that matter) often does endanger other people because you lose your inhibitions and/or your reaction time is affected, thereby making it easier to hurt/kill other people in an argument, car accident and so on.

I think a very great many people are 'okay' with abortion because they don't really know what it entails. Or maybe they don't want to know. They just see it as a woman removing an inconvienience, not as a brutal way of killing a human life. Maybe people should at least learn how abortions are done, and the other facts involved. I can't HELP but be pro life when I know the facts.

I know what an abortion entails and I also know how traumatic it can be for a woman to be forced to endure a pregnancy because the life of an unborn child is valued above hers. Women still die in childbirth these days, you know. Not to mention the changes to a woman's body and psyche undergo and the traumatizing experience birth (or even the pregnancy itself) can be. But as long as she gets that baby out of her alive that's all fine, right? No matter how it harms the woman herself. Because everyone knows childbirth doesn't hurt at all, right? There are also other complications that can occur during pregnancy/childbirth that can leave life-long consequences for the woman.

And yeah, babies can be put up for adoption if women don't want them after birth; because there are no such things as orphanages where children end up if no one wants them and they live miserable lives, right? Yeah, cute little healthy babies (especially white ones, although it appears to become 'trendy' for interracial adoptions in the US now as well because of all the celebs) can often find a home, but what happens to those with complications or serious life-complicating/endangering conditions? Or the unattractive babies that don't look cute and might have a whole slew of problems as well.

Euthanasia is a very hard subject indeed. I have mixed feelings on it. Generally, I'm not for anyone being killed, but I can understand circumstances where a person might find death to be preferable. I don't think that topic will ever be easily resolved, if ever. Those in pain may want to die, but there loved ones don't want to lose them. It is very different from abortion, because it really IS a personal choice about one's body, although it would affect others in a non-physical indirect way.

You're right; it's a very personal choice and one that everyone should be allowed to make for themselves. But again, here you seem to find other people's opinions more important than what an individual wants. Yes, they might have loved ones but it's selfish to want someone you love to endure pain, suffering, a slow loss of their mind/intellect etc because you can't bear the idea of living without them.

It's kinda ironic when people say that parents know what's best for their child, when apparently such decisions are only allowed to be made once they are actually parents to a born child. There are pregnant women/couples, for example, expecting a baby with a severe medical condition that will only cause the child to suffer throughout it's short life once it's born. Yet by prohibiting abortion they aren't allowed to choose the less painful method of ending their unborn child's life. Heck, they aren't even allowed to choose euthanasia when the kid is a few days, weeks or years old and suffering, with a very low or non-existent quality of life.

The same also goes for people expecting a child with certain genetic defects that will require life-long medical care, something they might not be able to afford or cannot cope with mentally; they should have the option of abortion, in my mind. I'm not saying that handicapped kids are somehow worth less than healthy ones and I know many Down's kids for example can bring much joy to parents, with some saying they wouldn't have wanted their kid to be normal if it was possible. But what happens if the parents don't want and/or can't afford to raise such a child and will grow to resent it? Just look at all the orphanages in certain parts of the world where all the disabled kids are being dumped because their parents don't want them.

Human in the sense that it's a blob of cells made of human DNA, but that's about it. It's certainly not a person. Most people would agree that the right of the mother to do what she likes with her own body trump the rights of what is essentially just a potential person.

Actually, and sadly, I don't think that's true, certainly not in America.

I agree with both statements.

[mad_gater]

Human in the sense that it's a blob of cells made of human DNA, but that's about it. It's certainly not a person. Most people would agree that the right of the mother to do what she likes with her own body trump the rights of what is essentially just a potential person.

so am I......made up of nothing but cells carrying bioelectrical impulses.....someone's logic is faulty and I highly doubt it's mine

so if an unborn child in his earliest stages of development is not a human being to you, when will he become a human being, because once he leaves his mother's womb his body and mind are still growing and developing

so tell me, when do you figure that persons obtain their status as human beings? when their bodies stop growing and developing? that doesn't happen until well into adulthood for most people

no pro-"choicer" to date has ever been able to answer that question, at least not with an answer that makes any sort of reasonable sense

[Goose]

so am I......made up of nothing but cells carrying bioelectrical impulses.....

Yes, you are.

[mad_gater]

Yes, you are.

you love snipping people's post and taking each little bit out of context don't you?

[Goose]

you love snipping people's post and taking each little bit out of context don't you?

When in Rome...

[Gatefan1976]

so tell me, when do you figure that persons obtain their status as human beings? when their bodies stop growing and developing? that doesn't happen until well into adulthood for most people

no pro-"choicer" to date has ever been able to answer that question, at least not with an answer that makes any sort of reasonable sense

When they can survive (biologically) independant of thier mothers?