# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  GOP National Convention

## Pete Hanlin

Now this is more like it...  Actually, I missed the speeches- but caught the completely unbiased (drip, drip) post-coverage on CNN as their open-minded commentators attempted to tell America what to think of what they had just seen...

Rudy and McCain are decidedly not my favorite Republicans, but I thought they both carried off tremendous speeches that show how unified the GOP, even though we're currently more diverse than the party of liberalism (jab, jab).  Of course, if you aren't a Republican you probably didn't like much of what you heard (but this is the GOP convention).  The real question, naturally, is what independent-minded voters thought.

So, one more speaker to get by and I can relax.  I'm not sure just how Gov. Ahh-nold is going to do this evening in his first nationally televised political speech.  Senator Dole will knock it out of the park, and the finest first lady of the past 12 years (all I have to say, is- thank God Laura Bush is our First Lady!) will surely impress as well.  Basically, it looks like a night of conservative women on the horizon!

Anyway, after listening to the media talk more about the "protesters" than the actual convention, its relaxing to see the GOP strut its stuff.  Go get 'em, guys and gals!

----------


## chip anderson

Pete:


Who you think gonna git the nomination?

----------


## chm2023

From a crazed liberal POV:  McCain was very good;  Rudy was excellent.  Don't worry about Arnold, he's too shrewd to screw up his big night.  Guiliani does bother me sometimes, in that the honest truth is that 9/11 was a big political break for him.  Prior to that as you may recall, he was quickly becoming Mr persona non gratis in New York.  Not his fault of course that the timing was fortuitous for him, and he did do a masterful job in the aftermath.  Just a personal creeps thing for me I guess.

I rather miss the tension and drama of the "real" conventions.   These things are getting to be more like coronations.

(Favorite moment:  McCain's reference to Michael Moore!  Gee poor Mike is laughing all the way to the bank!!)

----------


## EyeManFla

John's was good, Rudy's was better!

----------


## chm2023

> Basically, it looks like a night of conservative women on the horizon!


Don't forget the address being given by Miss America 2003 (I am not making this up).  Add Phyllis Schafly--sp?-- to the mix and it's all good.  (Oops forgot, Phyllis is being kept in the attic with the rest of the right wing meat eaters!!!)

----------


## mrba

> Don't forget the address being given by Miss America 2003


 I detect a hint of jelousy...

----------


## shanbaum

I just caught a few seconds of it tonight. Pete! Karen! I had no idea! Are _all_ you guys black?

----------


## mrba

I am sitting here listening to Laura Bush, and just heard Arnold.


Republicans are just better.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

It would have been interesting to let Laura Bush speak from a classroom setting (seriously, I think it would have been more her element).  Her address was pleasant, but I'd have to say Hillary did better during the Dem convention.  The daughters?  Well, if that's what I have to look forward to as the parent of a daughter, I think I'm going to need some valium or something...  I suppose they showed how "normal" they were or something, but...

Anyway, then came Ah-nold.  Homerun, grand slam, out of the park, get this guy out on the circuit.  I take back about 4.8% of my criticism of the fine citizens of California.  Take off all the silly health labels you seem to place on everything Americans use, and there might be hope for you yet!  Seriously, while Ah-nold isn't my cup of tea as a Republican, I did like what I saw last night.

If conventions are supposed to make you feel better as a partisan, mission already accomplished.  Let's get the election out of the way, send Kerry back to his humorless life in MA, and get on with the business of being Americans.  Oh, and for all the asinine protestors screaming "Shut up Fox" in the streets of NYC, pleaaaase keep it up!  You help my cause every day.  (Oh, and if the media questions you, be sure to have an answer to the question- "What are you protesting?") 
;)
Hmmm, I've seen major portions of each speech thus far, and the main message I take away is that the GOP is trying to project inclusiveness in 2004.  Then, I pick up the New York Times and the headline is "Republicans speak out against Gays & Abortion."  Excuse me?  Of course, the article goes on for several paragraphs and I see no mention of any of these supposed tirades...  Needless to say, I didn't put out a "please deliver the NY Times" slip on my door last evening.

PS- If I were a glutton for punishment, I might tune in to see how Judy Woodruff is managing to negatively spin all this.  Happily enough, this time I have an alternative to CNN...

----------


## Lee Prewitt

I can't help but keep saying that the GOP is now the party of inclusion!  I watched both parties and have to say the Rep are doing a much better job. I am GOP but try to keep open about what both parties have to say.  It is better to know thine enemy.


I keep hearing locally that the GOP is showcasing not the "true" party but listen to what they are saying!  You don't have to believe in everything the party stands for.  It shows how far the GOP has come in being more inclusive to many thoughts.  Have to admit, the GOP has been far more entertaining to watch.  About the twins, how many 18 and 19 year old voters are out there?  Hey our Dad is like yours but he's not too bad.

4 more years...4 more years...4 more years

----------


## shanbaum

> I can't help but keep saying that the GOP is now the party of inclusion!


Hey, Lee, send me your e-mail address.  I've got a bunch of messages - mostly from Nigeria - that you'll be real interested in pursuing.

----------


## Lee Prewitt

> Hey, Lee, send me your e-mail address. I've got a bunch of messages - mostly from Nigeria - that you'll be real interested in pursuing.


So you are the source of all that spam!  I knew it!  But really Shanbaum, if you compare the 2 conventions, the GOP really showed a broader scope of participants.  Meaning not the usual hard core but the moderate element as well.

On the emails,  I will be getting my check any day now!!  :Nerd:

----------


## shanbaum

> So you are the source of all that spam! I knew it! But really Shanbaum, if you compare the 2 conventions, the GOP really showed a broader scope of participants. Meaning not the usual hard core but the moderate element as well.
> 
> On the emails, I will be getting my check any day now!!


To be fair, I haven't been able to watch much (though I did see Ahnold, and the "girlie-man on the economy" line was truly enjoyable, its meaninglessness notwithstanding). Those moments on which I have been home this week with the TV on, I've been struggling with bouts of nausea.

Can't explain it.

On the other hand, the assertion that the demographics of the GOP are actually more _diverse_ than the Dems - wow, you need to write that one up; it certainly contradicts conventional wisdom. 'Course, I have to respect that, since I'd argue that the conventional wisdom about the GOP (smaller government, personal freedom) is as bass-ackwards as it can be. I'd say the GOP is the party of faster-growing, more intrusive government. But what the heck, I'm just considering recent history... I suppose we really should be talking about the 60's and 70's. It's not like the intervening years actually _happened_, or anything like that.

I guess that the Potemkin village being served up at MSG may actually achieve its desired effect in some cases... why am I not surprised...

----------


## Jim Schafer

I pulled myself away from the 22-zip thrashing of the Yankees to watch Arnold address the convention. I particularly loved his immigrant view of the 1968 race. 
His first impression of America is very close to what my grandparents saw in 1924. 

I think the twins are in big trouble with Grandma. It looked to me like they trashed the script and adlibbed. Their attempt at comedy was pretty bad. 
W, take a note, the girls should be there as All American Girl Next Door window dressing. 

Jim

W in 04!

----------


## shanbaum

> I pulled myself away from the 22-zip thrashing of the Yankees to watch Arnold address the convention. I particularly loved his immigrant view of the 1968 race. 
> His first impression of America is very close to what my grandparents saw in 1924. 
> 
> Jim
> 
> W in 04!


Please read this:  http://slate.msn.com/id/2106025/

----------


## Lee Prewitt

I did not say that the deomgraphics are more diverse.  Viewing both conventions, the Rep are putting forth a more diverse, inclusive front.  They are not keeping to the same speakers that have been put forth in past conventions.  Everyone agrees that McCain, Arnold, are not mainstream.  They have differences with the party but were allowed to speak.  Did the Dems do that?  I don't recall seeing but the tried and true front.  Bill and Hillary.  I will admit that Bill is one he** of an orator and enjoy his delivery if not the message.

----------


## Judy Canty

I must admit that Sen. McCain was the one Republican that I could tolerate, however after his convention speech, I'm pretty much over him as well.

----------


## mrba

> I did not say that the deomgraphics are more diverse. Viewing both conventions, the Rep are putting forth a more diverse, inclusive front. They are not keeping to the same speakers that have been put forth in past conventions. Everyone agrees that McCain, Arnold, are not mainstream. They have differences with the party but were allowed to speak. Did the Dems do that? I don't recall seeing but the tried and true front. Bill and Hillary. I will admit that Bill is one he** of an orator and enjoy his delivery if not the message.


Yes but Lee, you don't understand, that to the dems your skin color is more important than you opinion, or that you can even think at all!

----------


## chm2023

Pete, I think the NYT headline referred to the Republican platform, that was an article I read anyway.

Agree Arnold was absloutely great, he has it, no doubt. Thought he made a mistake in the "girly-man" comment. That was the soundbite everyone ran with, so people who didn't see the entire speech only saw the one buffoonish moment. Laura did well, I thought better than Hillary--let's face it, it's by definition a mushy job. The girls were pretty bad, the Kerry girls were exponentially better, these girls acted like they were 13 not 23. I still don't get the point of this offspring stuff. We now know that John K and George B loved their little girls. Alert the media.

Though Cheney did a good job last night, he's not a particularly talented speaker, but made his points--twisted lies, but points made nonetheless!!   Thought Miller made a huge mistake: as keynote speaker to go so negative is a big risk.

More depressing economic news out today, is anyone going to talk about the domestic issues?

On another note, does anyone remember Ralph Reed? And is not that congressman from Georgia who is always on CNN and Fox his double?

----------


## chm2023

> I did not say that the deomgraphics are more diverse. Viewing both conventions, the Rep are putting forth a more diverse, inclusive front. They are not keeping to the same speakers that have been put forth in past conventions. Everyone agrees that McCain, Arnold, are not mainstream. They have differences with the party but were allowed to speak. Did the Dems do that? I don't recall seeing but the tried and true front. Bill and Hillary. I will admit that Bill is one he** of an orator and enjoy his delivery if not the message.


Al Sharpton spoke as did Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean. These are the liberal voices of the party and they were given a chance to speak.

I would propose that Arnold and McCain are mainstream, the current leadership of the Republican party is not. Or why would the party put them on front and center?

----------


## chm2023

*Mr. Bush and the Truth About Terror*



hile Republican delegates have been meeting in New York City, terrorist bombs have been exploding in the rest of the world. The horrific pictures of victims on an Israeli bus and slain airplane and subway passengers, as well as of a school held hostage in Russia, are a stark reminder to Americans that terrorism is not all about us. It is the tactic of preference for the self-obsessed radical movements of our age.

President Bush was absolutely right when he said it was impossible to win a war against terrorism - it's like announcing we can win a war against violence. Terrorism can only be minimized and controlled, and that can be done only with a worldwide strategy, joined by all of the world's sensible and peaceful nations. We hope that when Mr. Bush accepts his party's nomination for re-election tonight, he makes that argument. 

The chances of a serious dialogue about terror took a blow, of course, when Mr. Bush retracted his completely sensible statement about terrorism after the Kerry-Edwards campaign attacked it. So far, this has been an election season of monumental simple-mindedness, in which the candidates start each day by telling us this is the most important election in the history of the planet, then devote the rest of their waking hours to meaningless sniping. But it's certainly not too late to elevate the conversation.

Tonight we do not need Mr. Bush to remind us that he went to ground zero and spoke through a bullhorn. It was a fine gesture that any president would have made. As far as judging his leadership, it is as irrelevant as the famous extra minutes he spent in a classroom in Florida during a reading of "The Pet Goat" after the World Trade Center was attacked. 

We do not need to hear further justification of his invasion of Iraq. It seems clear to us that the whole war is a mistake, a detour from hunting down terrorists that was undertaken on the basis of wrong information and is likely in the end to do far more harm than good when it comes to ending fanaticism in the Middle East. But the president is certainly not going to admit any of that, and as far as the future goes, he and John Kerry are in agreement about staying the course in Iraq.

What Mr. Bush should really talk about tonight is staying the course in Afghanistan, which is a case study in the perils of battling groups like Al Qaeda as if they were nation-states. The American-led invasion was a success to the degree that a government friendly to the United States and opposed to terrorist groups has been installed in Kabul. But armed opponents of the government are still all over the rest of Afghanistan, including Qaeda remnants and a revived Taliban. 

So are the people who sponsor them, like Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, a notorious warlord and savage fundamentalist who in the 1980's and 1990's served as the chief mentor and protector of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the Qaeda mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Incredibly, Mr. Sayyaf has been a major beneficiary of the American-led invasion and is now one of the country's leading power brokers. All of the main candidates in the coming presidential election in Afghanistan, including the American-backed incumbent, Hamid Karzai, actively seek his endorsement. 

If Mr. Bush is going to speak seriously about terrorism tonight, he also needs to talk about Israel. With its fixation on Iraq, the administration has allowed the situation in Israel to turn into a stalemate in which the Sharon government continues to expand its suicidal West Bank settlements while attempting to keep the Palestinians under control with sheer military force. The West Bank is not just a breeding ground for terrorists; it is the perpetual wound Arabs use to justify supporting and financing violent extremists. 

Iraqis can go to the polls to vote, but the Middle East will still be a hotbed of terrorism if Palestinians cannot grow up with hopes for a decent life in a land over which they have some control. There is no way that the current mess is going to improve without the very aggressive intervention of United States diplomacy.

The Bush campaign is betting the ranch on the idea that Americans, in the end, will vote for the candidate they think is most likely to keep the nation safe from terrorism. The president has been honest about saying we will never be totally safe. He has been much less frank about explaining that even relative safety depends on our ability to create international alliances and to pick our fights not on the basis of where our armies can successfully fight, or of settling old scores, but where the gravest dangers lie. There are few venues less promising for truth-telling than a political convention, but there are also few better opportunities to make the public listen.

Good analysis.

----------


## shanbaum

Here's an interesting perspective on Miller's speech, from _conservative_ (and geez, I'd swear he _used_ to be a Republican) columnist Andrew Sullivan:


THE MILLER MOMENT: Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude. 






THE "OCCUPATION" CANARD: Miller first framed his support for Bush as a defense of his own family. The notion that individuals deserve respect regardless of their family is not Miller's core value. And the implication was that if the Democrats win in November, his own family would not be physically safe. How's that for subtlety? Miller's subsequent assertion was that any dissent from aspects of the war on terror is equivalent to treason. He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats. He said the following:Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile. 







OPPONENTS OR ENEMIES?: Here's another slur:No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.Yes, that describes some on the left, but it is a calumny against Democrats who voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and whose sincerity, as John McCain urged, should not be in question. I have never heard Kerry say that 9/11 was America's fault; if I had, it would be inconceivable to consider supporting him. And so this was, in truth, another lie, another cheap, faux-patriotic smear. Miller has absolutely every right to lambaste John Kerry's record on defense in the Senate. It's ripe for criticism, and, for my part, I disagree with almost all of it (and as a pro-Reagan, pro-Contra, pro-SDI, pro-Gulf War conservative, I find Kerry's record deeply troubling). But that doesn't mean he's a traitor or hates America's troops or believes that the U.S. is responsible for global terror. And the attempt to say so is a despicable attempt to smear someone's very patriotism. 




THE FOREIGN AGENT: Another lie: "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide." Miller might have found some shred of ancient rhetoric that will give him cover on this, but in Kerry's very acceptance speech, he declared the opposite conviction - that he would never seek permission to defend this country. Another lie: "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war." Kerry didn't want to do that. Yes, he used his military service in the campaign - but it was his opponents who decided to dredge up the divisions of the Vietnam war in order to describe Kerry as a Commie-loving traitor who faked his own medals. What's remarkable about the Republicans is their utter indifference to fairness in their own attacks. Smearing opponents as traitors to their country, as unfit to be commander-in-chief, as agents of foreign powers (France) is now fair game. Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.

----------


## chm2023

Vile is the perfect work to describe this horrible, horrible little man. My secretary says he reminded her of Mr Burns (of Simpson fame). That, I told her, is an insult to Mr Burns!!!

Here's my question: why in the world doesn't he join the Republican party? We certainly don't want him!! I suspect Sullivan is right, this is the bitterness of a tired old man who saw his party embrace civil rights; it's also easier for him to get the limelight this way. Were he a Republican, he would be just another face in the crowd. I too thought of the comparison to Obama. Nonetheless, Bush will with a perfectly straight face tell us tonight that his is the party of optimism. Go figure.

PS, I attended a fund raiser the other evening where Bill Clinton spoke. He makes a good point: the Republicans don't want to talk about the Bush record: 40% increase in healthcare, 35% increase in college tuition, 2.5 million children left behind in the ironically named "No Child Left Behind" program, an outrageously expensive prescription drug plan (that people aren't using) that gives $40 billion of handouts to drug companies, our reputation at an all time low abroad, net job loss, enviromental back pedaling, wild over spending and the giant deficit and on and on. So they talk about the way the other guy is going to allow the country to be attacked and how their guy is tough on terror. Tough on terror being largely symbolism--still no plan or money to protect our ports, still no reasonable way to allocate homeland security funds, no leadership to attack the core problem, the Palestinian issue. 

And let's not forget that Bush was against establishing the Homeland Security Dept and against the 9/11 commission.  He of course came around--this in Republican parlance is flip-flopping.  Not possible that he came to better understand the situation I guess.......

Here's something interesting from the news the other day: Greenspan is now warning that baby boomers need to be advised to "re-examine" their retirement plans as SS is going broke (this being the same SS that was solvent under Clinton). Re-examine meaning to not count on SS and look at an increased retirement age for Medicare benefits. But really, what is this compared to John Kerry knowing someone who knew Jane Fonda?

----------


## mrba

> Vile is the perfect work to describe this horrible, horrible little man.


How tall is he?... Is he a girlie man?

----------


## mrba

> Here's an interesting perspective on Miller's speech, from _conservative_ (and geez, I'd swear he _used_ to be a Republican) columnist.


I just read the Zell Miller speech.  I think this article is not accurate.

----------


## coda

> I just read the Zell Miller speech. I think this article is not accurate.


How so?  Support your position.

----------


## chip anderson

How come you folks be done to gittin' so stirred up.  I have seen presidents and parties and platforms come and go since FDR.  Not a damn one of them has  made iota's difference in my life.   I still have to get up and go to work every day.  I still do whatever is needed there.

No one is providing me with anything, I do quite often feel that many are taking things away from me (especially at tax time).  But basicly my life stays the same.

Do any of you think that Kerry is going to put a chicken in your pot, or think that Bush can protect you?

Get real, read a book on optical repair.  You'll find it a lot more usefull than politics.

Chip

----------


## chm2023

> How come you folks be done to gittin' so stirred up. I have seen presidents and parties and platforms come and go since FDR. Not a damn one of them has made iota's difference in my life. I still have to get up and go to work every day. I still do whatever is needed there.
> 
> No one is providing me with anything, I do quite often feel that many are taking things away from me (especially at tax time). But basicly my life stays the same.
> 
> Do any of you think that Kerry is going to put a chicken in your pot, or think that Bush can protect you?
> 
> Get real, read a book on optical repair. You'll find it a lot more usefull than politics.
> 
> Chip


You crack me up!!  Good to keep your sense of humor though, not to mention perspective.

----------


## shanbaum

Miller's speech:

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4599

He takes the odious position that America cannot make mistakes in matters of foreign policy, and that to criticize the actions of the Commander-in-Chief is unpatriotic.

Of course, the objection to this should be self-evident: any president could put himself beyond criticism simply by going to war. Yep, that's a good plan.

----------


## chm2023

"I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone at home."


This has enormous potential as a country/western ballad!!!:D (On the downside, it does have the unfortunate affect of bringing to mind W's embarrasssing comment about Putin.)

----------


## mrba

> He takes the odious position that America cannot make mistakes in matters of foreign policy


 They are only mistakes if they are bad for us.  That has yet to be shown.

----------


## karen

> "I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone at home."
> 
> 
> This has enormous potential as a country/western ballad!!!:D (On the downside, it does have the unfortunate affect of bringing to mind W's embarrasssing comment about Putin.)


\

I liked the "spitball" line best myself... Think I will start calling Kerry "Spitball" from here on out...  I guess chm this illustrates the difference between us.  I LOVED that speech, makes me want to move to Georgia!  (also, Mr Burns is probably a Republican-all those rich guys are!  ;) )

P.S. To Shanbaum-that's the great right wing conspiracy- We're ALL black!!

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Once again, I've not had much time to actually see any of the convention live, but it looks like its been running pretty well...

I saw one line from Cheney last night that ranks as my zinger of the convention.  _"Kerry says he sees two Americas... the feeling is mutual."_  Witty humor without being crass, that's why I like Cheney.

----------


## mrba

I had an appreciation of Bush's commentary on Kerry's conservative moral values...

----------


## rinselberg

AP wire service photo


If you turn up the sound on your PC or Mac and then point and click on the photo (above), you can hear a few seconds of audio that was supposed to cap off W's big GOP convention speech, but was never aired due to a technical problem.

The audio is from the First Cav's sector in Iraq (exact location withheld), relayed via JSTARS to CENTCOM (Qatar) and then via commercial satellite to NYC.

A guy I used to work with pulled it out of an Internet frame buffer or something (that part was over my head) and E-mailed it. I converted the audio data into a WAV format that works on OptiBoard. Background noise -- I had to listen to it about four times before I could make out all the words.



*rinselberg* has posted more than twenty photo essays on OptiBoard, including Attitude, You could have seen it coming and The M-16 is a marvelous gun.

----------


## chm2023

Though Bush's speech was not so hot (I know this because I watched the Fox guys afterwards and they were NOT gushing--Hume actually said it was not one of Bush's better speeches. Well shut my mouth). The first part, the domestic part was the big problem--no central message, a laundry list of tired ideas (not to mention stolen, portable health care, where have I heard that before). He is clearly more in tune and much more engaged with the Iraq and terrorist themes.

Do you think they milked 9/11 enough? That video before Bush spoke was unbelievable: "look Maude, he went to a Yankees game and threw out the first pitch, what a leader, call Mount Rushmore." Are people really this easily manipulated?

Funniest lines from Jon Stewart, after Zell's diatribe: "I've never heard the anger of the enfranchised before" and my favorite, showing a clip of a number of Republicans (all noted homophobes, e.g. Santorum and Frist): "This is what happens when you won't let gay people touch your hair"

And hey--speaking of bad hair--where the heck was Tom DeLay? 

There is something so phony about this--the Dems as well. I can see why the networks have cut back their coverage.

----------


## shanbaum

Funny, I thought Bush did a better job of _delivering_ that speech than any I've seen him do. The _content_ was bizarre - I can't believe they're recycling the same old lines from the 2000 campaign, especially given the way that things have transpired. And the litany of promises - strange what constitutes conservatism nowadays. Tilt the tax system in favor of the rich, and they brush some more crumbs off the table. Of course, to see it that way, one has to distinguish between that which is _done_ and that which is _claimed to be done_.

What was really bizarre, given that just about every black person in America who was willing to do so was given an opportunity to address the convention in prime time - where was Colin Powell? I wonder if they were concerned that his presence might have served as a reminder of the existence of that parallel universe outside the Bizzaro one they so skillfully created... like that modern coin in _Somewhere in Time_, which hurled Christopher Reeve back to the present, a spark of truth could have caused the illusion to unravel?

Nah.

----------


## chm2023

I heard Powell announcing a couple weeks ago he would not be attending the convention, thought he said something about not attending something political at time of war, though I might be confusing this with Ridge's statement that he felt he should not participate in anything partisan.

I am enjoying the Zell/Chris M "dual" bit. Spitballs at 20 paces? Well I guess crazed old men need their moment in the sun as much as anyone else.:D  Ah statesmenship!!!

----------


## chm2023

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp


You gotta love Cheney, going after Kerry for voting against weapons systems he himself voted against as senator and sought to trash can as SOD. Thank God we have integrity back in the White House.

I don't know how the debates will be structured, if history is a guide, the Bush camp will push for limiting follow up and anything that requires thinking on one's feet, but I would love to see Edwards call Cheney on this.

For pure chutzpah, you cannot top this guy.  Here is a man who was asked by the Bushies to vet possible veep candidates and ended up recommending himself!!  In a twisted sort of way, you have to admire the sheer gall of the man.  His "softer" approach to gay unions is very telling--"I will back the most right wing agenda, regardless of how this agenda may hurt other citizens, but when it hits close to home, well that's different."  Talk about hypocrisy.

----------


## karen

> like that modern coin in _Somewhere in Time_, which hurled Christopher Reeve back to the present, a spark of truth could have caused the illusion to unravel?


Now that was a good movie....stood in line next to Hal Holbrook to see that one long ago.  Seriously, I don't think Colin agrees with much of Bush's agenda and therefore stayed away.  It's not like they haven't bumped heads once or twice already.  That was another guy I would have voted for...

----------


## rinselberg

I think that the real reason that neither Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell went to the GOP Convention is that they hold the two Cabinet positions that have the highest visibility internationally. It would not be advisable to have foreign policy too closely connected with partisan politics, especially with the current state of things around the world. I would think that Colin Powell is still closer in his ideas to President Bush than he is to Senator Kerry.

----------


## shanbaum

> It would not be advisable to have foreign policy too closely connected with partisan politics, especially with the current state of things around the world.


YAAAAAAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA...

----------


## rinselberg

Yo' shanbaum, Howard Dean musta gotta holda u OptiBoard password!

----------


## mrba

:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

----------


## rinselberg

I think that those "smilies" that *mrba* just posted probably belong on *shanbaum's* side of the scoreboard. The more I look at his post, the more I think that the DEAN SCREAM is _exactly_ what *shanbaum* had in mind. Which makes *shanbaum* the ventriloquist and *rinselberg* the _dummy!_

  :hammer:   :cry: 

Post Script:

----------


## mrba

Oh I got the Dean Scream, and if I could spell ventriloquist I would lob that at The Shanbaum as well.The funny thing is is most here didn't get it!



Gaaaaaaaaarrrrhhhh!!! (cross eyes for full effect)

----------


## chm2023

Kitty Kelly is publishing her expose on the family Bush in the next couple of weeks.  I read her book on Nancy Reagan and the one on Sinatra and I am here to tell you they are completely without redeeming social value and vulgar to boot.  I of course will buy it as soon as it hits the news stands!!!  (My husband calls this the car accident effect--you know you shouldn't look, but you just can't help yourself).  I am just finishing up a biography of Shakespeare so I feel I am due some trash!

----------


## chm2023

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6163467

Competitive bids, what a concept.

----------


## mrba

> Kitty Kelly is publishing her expose on the family Bush in the next couple of weeks. I read her book on Nancy Reagan and the one on Sinatra and I am here to tell you they are completely without redeeming social value and vulgar to boot. I of course will buy it as soon as it hits the news stands!!! (My husband calls this the car accident effect--you know you shouldn't look, but you just can't help yourself). I am just finishing up a biography of Shakespeare so I feel I am due some trash!


The KK(K) book is all old news on the Bush family.  If you learn anything new from it, your liberal leanings are truly weak.

----------


## chip anderson

MRBA:  Liberals have leanings.  They are incapable of learning.

----------


## karen

Chip, If I weren't already married ( and Darris wasn't next in line, just in case! :D ) I think I might have to ask you out on a date.  Do you know how often you say out loud what I am thinking??

----------


## chm2023

> MRBA: Liberals have leanings. They are incapable of learning.


Another thoughtful insight from the right wing. Remember: never say anthing that won't fit on a bumper sticker.

More news today: W's camp is trying to get the LWV to back off of 3 debates to 2. Perhaps they'll let Cheney come with him, 9/11 mtg redux? (This still tickles me, try to imagine a real president, say Truman or Teddy Roosevelt, only agreeing to testify before a special committee if they could take their VP with them.)

Also, W claims he would sign legislation extending the assault weapons ban that is due to expire this month (which ban is supported across the board by law enforcement); of course, neither the Republican leadership in the house nor Senate will bring the bill forward so W can have his cake and eat it too. Of course if he really meant what he said, he could force the bill to a vote, but why ruffle feathers when you can stick to your story and hide behind Hastert's skirts?

As always, the leadership of this guy takes my breathe away.


http://www.freep.com/news/nw/guns12e_20040812.htm

----------


## chip anderson

CHM2023:  What is an assault weapon?  This has never been defined so no such bill could be enforced.

----------


## Blake

> CHM2023: What is an assault weapon? This has never been defined so no such bill could be enforced.


People have been assaulted with all kinds of weapons... baseball bats, frying pans, you name it!

:D

----------


## mrba

> Also, W claims he would sign legislation extending the assault weapons ban that is due to expire this month (which ban is supported across the board by law enforcement);


All law enforcement?  Really?  And if that were true, is law enforcement's opinion holy?  Do they get to determine our civil rights?  Should law enforcement run the country?

I thought libs were about power to the people...

Power to law enforcement baby.


Face it Chm, you have a thing for men in uniform, and you hate it.

----------


## chm2023

> CHM2023: What is an assault weapon? This has never been defined so no such bill could be enforced.


Oh please.  The gun lobby deliberately works to make the law rife with loopholes and nebulous definitions, then they point to these shortcomings as reasons why the bill is no good.

You want a definition?  How about any firearem deemed inappropriate for civilian use by federal and local law enforcement.

----------


## Blake

> ... 
> You want a definition? How about any firearem deemed inappropriate for civilian use by federal and local law enforcement.


So if the FBI says no to BB guns, millions of eight year old boys will never have to worry about shooting their eyes out.

----------


## Spexvet

> People have been assaulted with all kinds of weapons... baseball bats, frying pans, you name it!
> 
> :D


Luckily, the collective conservative wit is not sharp enough to be lethal.;)

----------


## Spexvet

> So if the FBI says no to BB guns, millions of eight year old boys will never have to worry about shooting their eyes out.


Possibly millions of eyes saved - not bad. Or we could sell them plano poly lenses!

----------


## chm2023

> So if the FBI says no to BB guns, millions of eight year old boys will never have to worry about shooting their eyes out.


Your local fire department tells you how many people are legally allowed in public buildings--do they routinely rule only 3 people are allowed in the local cinema?  Your local speed limits are set by local authorities--again, is the speed limit on your street 5 MPH?

The assumption that all controls are unreasonable is absurd.  Let's be adults shall we.

----------


## mrba

> Your local fire department tells you how many people are legally allowed in public buildings--do they routinely rule only 3 people are allowed in the local cinema? Your local speed limits are set by local authorities--again, is the speed limit on your street 5 MPH?
> 
> The assumption that all controls are unreasonable is absurd. Let's be adults shall we.


Instead of "all" what about "most"?

----------


## Blake

CHM:  You haven't seen the traffic circles and "speed lumps" around here.

In all seriousness, I do agree that it is the government's proper role to make rules that protect us, without imposing undue or arbitrary restrictions.  And honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about average citizens owning high powered rifles.  Here in Alabama, they're still debating whether or not to allow folks to hunt deer with crossbows - I don't see the need for a semiautomatic, and most hunters don't either.  

My beef is with the "assault weapon" title these things are given, I suppose to make people think of Rambo jumping out of a helcopter spraying bullets everywhere.  Of course. it makes good sound bites.

My apologies for being childish...

----------


## chm2023

> CHM: You haven't seen the traffic circles and "speed lumps" around here.
> 
> In all seriousness, I do agree that it is the government's proper role to make rules that protect us, without imposing undue or arbitrary restrictions. And honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about average citizens owning high powered rifles. Here in Alabama, they're still debating whether or not to allow folks to hunt deer with crossbows - I don't see the need for a semiautomatic, and most hunters don't either. 
> 
> My beef is with the "assault weapon" title these things are given, I suppose to make people think of Rambo jumping out of a helcopter spraying bullets everywhere. Of course. it makes good sound bites.
> 
> My apologies for being childish...


My knowledge of weapons is pretty slim;  I do know that you can now legally purchase an AK47 which is just nuts.  (Crossbows??? How quaint!  How about one of those round things covered with spikes--a mace?  The deer will probably laugh themselves to death!!!:D )

----------


## Blake

Even under the ban you could purchase an AR-15, which is basically an M-16 without automatic capability - the AK47 just looks scarier I guess.  It's still illegal to get a fully automatic.

The deer around here probably have more to worry about from the SUV's trucking down the highways at night.

----------


## Spexvet

> People have been assaulted with all kinds of weapons... baseball bats, frying pans, you name it!
> 
> :D


Ok, I choose the AK47, you get the frying pan, at twenty paces. You in?:bbg:

----------


## chip anderson

What we need are not laws against weapons but laws against people too stupid to use them properly.  How can you outlaw fools?  Todays society is so permissive, it conciders them to be people (voters even).

----------


## Spexvet

> What we need are not laws against weapons but laws against people too stupid to use them properly. How can you outlaw fools? Todays society is so permissive, it conciders them to be people (voters even).


 So permissive it allows assault weapons?

 I believe that Republican bill HR2004-345-23A reads "and henceforth all fools, whether citizens of these United states or not, are heretofor outlawed post haste, notwithstanding blah blah blah"   :Rolleyes: just kidding, I made that up. 

 Just as you don't let a two year old get into the knife drawer, you shouldn't let fools have assault weapons. And let's face it: everybody is a fool in someone's eyes.

----------


## rep

```
My knowledge of weapons is pretty slim; I do know that you can now legally purchase an AK47 which is just nuts.
```

Your information on Ak-47's is wrong. 

Foreign rifles like the AK-47 and Uzi were prohibited in _1989_ under the firearm importation law,26 which is more restrictive than the Clinton ban.27 "Assault pistols" were prohibited from importation in _1993_. Street Sweeper and Striker-12 revolving cylinder shotguns, and the USAS-12 semi-auto shotgun, were restricted under the National Firearms Act28 six months _before_ the Clinton ban. When the Clinton ban expired, all of those guns will remain prohibited under those other laws.

26. 18 USC 925(d)(3).
27. BATF prohibited such rifles having one attachment. The Clinton ban *allowed* comparable rifles to have one attachment. (Note 3.) ("Report and Recommendation of the ATF Working Group on the Importability of Certain Semiautomatic Rifles.") In 1998, BATF prohibited importation of any such rifle capable of using a military magazine over 10 rounds capacity (www.atf.gov/pub/treas_pub/assault_rifles/index.htm).
28. 26 USC 5801-5872.


Claiming people "can`t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles, President Bill Clinton championed the federal "assault weapon" and large ammunition magazine ban, and signed it into law on Sept. 13, 1994. 

I personally am glad it is gone. It should never have been enacted. It was written by the anti gun lobby as a step to eliminate all guns. 


Rep

----------


## eromitlab

what more firearms than hunting rifles or pistols do people need?? I mean, c'mon... who in their right mind needs a high-powered or automatic assault rifle outside of law enforcement or the military? They are weapons designed and made for those two groups, not the redneck gun nut down the street or the gang banger in the 'hood.

My feeling is and always will be that if it isn't designed and intended for target shooting, hunting or piece of mind that it's not neccesary or protected by that blanket clause of the First Amendment.

Furthermore, if there's one thing as far as firearms go, there should be a stiffer training, screening and control system in place to further assure that guns are not getting into the hands of the wrong people... and since it's bound to happen anyway, stronger penalties for crimes involving the use of a firearm. Guns don't kill people, no, it's the nutjobs that use them that do kill people.

----------


## Blake

> Ok, I choose the AK47, you get the frying pan, at twenty paces. You in?:bbg:


I thought only Zell Miller was still challenging people to duels.  But if we must, I'd rather have the AR-15 (see my previous post).

----------


## mrba

> They are weapons designed and made for those two groups, not the redneck gun nut down the street or the gang banger in the 'hood.


Are you suggesting that passing more laws would take guns out of the hands of these people you have stereotypically described?




> My feeling is and always will be that if it isn't designed and intended for target shooting, hunting or piece of mind that it's not neccesary or protected by that blanket clause of the First Amendment.


How does one determine the intention of a gun design?  I can put riot shot in a hunting shot gun and cut you in half at close range, or make sure I hit a deer at a distance.  Which activity was this gun desighned for?



> Furthermore, if there's one thing as far as firearms go, there should be a stiffer training, screening and control system in place to further assure that guns are not getting into the hands of the wrong people...


Such as rednecks and gang bangers?  Do gang bangers aquire guns by legal means?  Just curious how you would end illegal gun dealing?

Perhaps pass another law, to make illicit guns more illegal?

----------


## mrba

> My knowledge of weapons is pretty slim; I do know that you can now legally purchase an AK47 which is just nuts.


Your knowledge of weapons is slimmer than you admit to.

----------


## mrba

Just something more to add to the discussion.  it is unconstitutional for the military to act as a police force within the US boarders.  Even under martial law that falls to the national guard.

I heard a reporter on the radio telling about asking a room full of 50 military personel, if ordered to fire on civilians would they? 1/3 said YES!

I look at history, and argue that it is important to have private ownership of automatic weapons.  The constitution was not writen solely to protect hunters.  Our military would fire on us.  No question.

----------


## Spexvet

> I thought only Zell Miller was still challenging people to duels. But if we must, I'd rather have the AR-15 (see my previous post).


Ok, I'll choose the deadly, dreaded spoon, the most lethal of all so-called "weapons".

----------


## chm2023

> ```
> My knowledge of weapons is pretty slim; I do know that you can now legally purchase an AK47 which is just nuts.
> ```
> 
> Your information on Ak-47's is wrong. 
> 
> Foreign rifles like the AK-47 and Uzi were prohibited in _1989_ under the firearm importation law,26 which is more restrictive than the Clinton ban.27 "Assault pistols" were prohibited from importation in _1993_. Street Sweeper and Striker-12 revolving cylinder shotguns, and the USAS-12 semi-auto shotgun, were restricted under the National Firearms Act28 six months _before_ the Clinton ban. When the Clinton ban expired, all of those guns will remain prohibited under those other laws.
> 
> 26. 18 USC 925(d)(3).
> ...


There is a "civilian" version of the AK 47, manufactured domestically, that is now legal to sell. (Check the internet, the sellers call it an AK 47).  Though your point is a good one,  I'm sure the people killed by this weapon will find comfort in the fact that it's not the original military weapon.

I don't know why you think this is a plot to eliminate all guns.  I believe I am with the majority of citizens who want a reasonable amount of gun control, without eliminating guns entirely.   This notion of no restrictions is absurd on its face:  shall we begin to allow people to own tanks?  Rocket launchers?  How about an Apache?

----------


## coda

> I don't know why you think this is a plot to eliminate all guns. I believe I am with the majority of citizens who want a reasonable amount of gun control, without eliminating guns entirely. This notion of no restrictions is absurd on its face: shall we begin to allow people to own tanks? Rocket launchers? How about an Apache?


I expect that the presumption that this is a 'plot' to eliminate all guns is a result of the anti-gun lobby saying that their approach to the ultimate elimination of the legal ownership of firearms in the US is the prohibit one gun or class of guns at a time.  I don't have time to search for citations but guarantee it's been said on a number of occasions by a number of leaders in the gun control lobby.  This is no different than the attempt by the anti-abortion lobbies attempt to make all abortions illegal one procedure at a time.  It's a very effective strategy hence it's popularity on both sides of the political spectrum.

I'm in favor of performing abortions with guns (that oughta get both sides riled up).

I'm of the opinion that the framers of the Constitution, remember the bad old days of oppressive government and the need for a rebellion, wanted to ensure that a potentially oppressive government wouldn't restrict the tools of it's own demise.  To that end, yes, I think private ownership of tanks is not unreasonable.  Of course in the real world there are some obvious complications.  I do know that, should it become necessary to a majority of our populace, I want the people to have enough firepower to overthrow a corrupt centralized government.  It's that an unlikely scenario?  Sure but keep an eye on Putin in Russia right now and remember that any democracy is a fragile, fragile thing.

----------


## chm2023

> I do know that, should it become necessary to a majority of our populace, I want the people to have enough firepower to overthrow a corrupt centralized government. It's that an unlikely scenario? Sure but keep an eye on Putin in Russia right now and remember that any democracy is a fragile, fragile thing.


_So comes the revolution, it's gonna be you and Billy Bob and the rest of the gun freaks against the nuclear arsenal of the US government. Gosh, wonder how that will turn out???_ 

_Actually democracy is a remarkably resilient thing--look how many nitwits and villians it has survived!  (And is still surviving!!)_

----------


## coda

> _So comes the revolution, it's gonna be you and Billy Bob and the rest of the gun freaks against the nuclear arsenal of the US government. Gosh, wonder how that will turn out???_ 
> 
> _Actually democracy is a remarkably resilient thing--look how many nitwits and villians it has survived! (And is still surviving!!)_


Sticks and nukes may break my bones but calling me a 'gun freak' is just funny.

Your arguement is a specious one particularly in the case of a mass popular uprising.  Of course I was speaking hyperbolically but I stand by the statement.  If there's reason enough for a popular uprising I certainly hope it turns out well.  I expect you'd be hoping the same thing.

Finally, if you think all the southern states were democracies during Jim Crow I'd hazard there are a number of people besides myself who would disagree.  Germany was a democracy before WWII, infact Hitler was a popularly elected leader who effectivly dismantled the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic.  We are now watching the possible end to democratic rule in Russia.  Democracy is a fragile, fragile thing which must be protected by the citizens who hold it so dear.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Entertaining thread...  I'd just echo the reference to the similarity of the NRA to the Anti-Life lobby (whoops, I meant "_Pro_-Choice").  Basically, each group views _any_ restriction of their "rights" to be unreasonable.  This is what happens in "absolute" conflicts- that is, arguments where there are absolute positions with little room for compromise.  Perhaps the most blatant example of an absolute conflict would be Israel vs. Palestineans (neither side is ever going to truly compromise, because compromise in an absolute conflict is equivalent to losing).

Anyway, I don't know why Bush would even hesitate to debate Kerry.  Kerry will no doubt be more eloquent (as was Al Gore), but I firmly believe the more the American public knows about John Kerry, the less likely he is to win the election.  So, LET KERRY SPEAK!!!  Perhaps even more interesting, though, would be having Kerry debating _himself_.  He certainly has enough issues where he has alternatively advocated both sides to make for at least three or four debates all by himself!
;)

----------


## coda

> Entertaining thread... I'd just echo the reference to the similarity of the NRA to the Anti-Life lobby (whoops, I meant "_Pro_-Choice").


Pete, I'm curious, where do you stand on capital punishment?

----------


## Spexvet

> [HTML] 
> ...
> I personally am glad it is gone. It should never have been enacted. It was written by the anti gun lobby as a step to eliminate all guns. 
> 
> 
> Rep


The same way that restricting stem cell research is a step toward eliminating all freedom of a woman's choice.

----------


## Spexvet

> Entertaining thread... I'd just echo the reference to the similarity of the NRA to the Anti-Life lobby (whoops, I meant "_Pro_-Choice").


That's right - Pro-choice and anti-choice.;) 




> ... 
> Anyway, I don't know why Bush would even hesitate to debate Kerry. Kerry will no doubt be more eloquent (as was Al Gore), but I firmly believe the more the American public knows about John Kerry, the less likely he is to win the election. So, LET KERRY SPEAK!!! Perhaps even more interesting, though, would be having Kerry debating _himself_. He certainly has enough issues where he has alternatively advocated both sides to make for at least three or four debates all by himself!
> ;)


Our President speaks:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040413-20.html


"Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it? THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, *with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer*, but it hadn't yet."

It's a shame they removed all the "umm"s and "err"s.

The "both sides of the issue" line is becoming cliche. Others have posted examples of W, himself, flip-flopping. If Kerry voted for "no child left behind" because it sounded like a good idea, then found that in practice it was not working, shouldn't he speak out against it? It looks like he's taking "both sides" ha, ha, ha. But I'd rather someone correct their mistake than continue down the wrong path with "strong leadership", like you-know-who.

----------


## Spexvet

> I'm in favor of performing abortions with guns (that oughta get both sides riled up)..


I believe that only unborn fetuses should be allowed to own assault weapons.;) 




> I'm of the opinion that the framers of the Constitution, remember the bad old days of oppressive government and the need for a rebellion, wanted to ensure that a potentially oppressive government wouldn't restrict the tools of it's own demise. To that end, yes, I think private ownership of tanks is not unreasonable. Of course in the real world there are some obvious complications. I do know that, should it become necessary to a majority of our populace, I want the people to have enough firepower to overthrow a corrupt centralized government. It's that an unlikely scenario? Sure but keep an eye on Putin in Russia right now and remember that any democracy is a fragile, fragile thing.


I imagine assault weapons in the hands of The Black Panthers, Aryan Nation, and Kent State Rioters would be ok by you, then? They all were "fighting" against what they percieved to be an evil government.

----------


## coda

> I imagine assault weapons in the hands of The Black Panthers, Aryan Nation, and Kent State Rioters would be ok by you, then? They all were "fighting" against what they percieved to be an evil government.


Well the Aryan Nation and Black Panthers certainly had weapons and would have had them regardless of our national gun legislation.  The Kent State STUDENTS were not rioting.

Certainly in the case of the Aryan Nation and to an only very slightly lesser degree the Black Panthers these were not popular uprisings.  In the case of the Kent State students they were not rising up against oppresive government nor a nondemocratic one though I will concede that they were participants in the closest thing to a popular uprising in a very long time.

In as far as many in the Aryan Nation and Black Panthers were convicted felons, then no, I don't believe they should have been able to legally own or posses weapons.  The non-felons should have been able to.

But to go back to the point I generally think you were trying to make, yes I belief that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." IMHO the framers were clearly distinguishing between an Army controlled by the federal government (well covered in the Consitution) and independent (or State not Federal) militias.  The National Guard is no longer independent from the federal armed services and states no longer field militias.  That leaves the burden on the people.  Ideally I'd like to see states organize "well regulated Militia"s with citizen volunteers owning THEIR OWN WEAPONS.

Finally, I do believe that ANY errosion of our civil rights, be it of speach, religion, gun ownership, etc., is a move in the wrong direction.

----------


## Spexvet

> Well the Aryan Nation and Black Panthers certainly had weapons and would have had them regardless of our national gun legislation. The Kent State STUDENTS were not rioting.


I beg your pardon and stand corrected. Let me restate as "demonstrating students".




> Certainly in the case of the Aryan Nation and to an only very slightly lesser degree the Black Panthers these were not popular uprisings.


I imagine a "popular" uprising would start in a similar way, though.




> But to go back to the point I generally think you were trying to make, yes I belief that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." IMHO the framers were clearly distinguishing between an Army controlled by the federal government (well covered in the Consitution) and independent (or State not Federal) militias. The National Guard is no longer independent from the federal armed services and states no longer field militias. That leaves the burden on the people. Ideally I'd like to see states organize "well regulated Militia"s with citizen volunteers owning THEIR OWN WEAPONS.


While I Believe that the framers had some great ideas, and were ahead of their time, I don't think they were perfect, as constitutional ammendments support. Slavery, omitting a woman's right to vote, and having to own land to vote are some issues on which I feel they erred. It has also been a long time, and the framers could not conceive of assault weapons. I support an American's right to own a front loading musket. :Rolleyes:  Actually, I have no problem with rifles or shotguns. I am on the fence regarding hand guns. I believe that anybody having an assault weapon should be shot with one.;) 




> Finally, I do believe that ANY errosion of our civil rights, be it of speach, religion, gun ownership, etc., is a move in the wrong direction.


How do you feel about the Patriot Act?

----------


## coda

> I imagine a "popular" uprising would start in a similar way, though.
> 
> 
> While I Believe that the framers had some great ideas, and were ahead of their time, I don't think they were perfect, as constitutional ammendments support. Slavery, omitting a woman's right to vote, and having to own land to vote are some issues on which I feel they erred. It has also been a long time, and the framers could not conceive of assault weapons. I support an American's right to own a front loading musket. Actually, I have no problem with rifles or shotguns. I am on the fence regarding hand guns. I believe that anybody having an assault weapon should be shot with one.;) 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about the Patriot Act?


I stand strongly against the Patriot Act and have from the beginning when I protested it at a number of rallies both during the 'debate' in congress and after it's raitification.

Sure the framers made mistakes I just don't believe that the second ammendment is one of their more aggregious ones.  It would have been nice if they were a little clearer in their justification though. ;)

----------


## Spexvet

> I stand strongly against the Patriot Act and have from the beginning when I protested it at a number of rallies both during the 'debate' in congress and after it's raitification.
> 
> Sure the framers made mistakes I just don't believe that the second ammendment is one of their more aggregious ones. It would have been nice if they were a little clearer in their justification though. ;)


I agree with you on the Patriot Act.

I think the framers were as clear as they could be from their point in time. So much has changed since then. If they had specifically excluded things like bombs and cannons, I don't think there would be much debate about assault weapons.:cheers:

----------


## coda

> I think the framers were as clear as they could be from their point in time. So much has changed since then. If they had specifically excluded things like bombs and cannons, I don't think there would be much debate about assault weapons.:cheers:


Hmmm, excellent point.  I may have to use that one myself one of these days.

----------


## mrba

> There is a "civilian" version of the AK 47, manufactured domestically, that is now legal to sell. (Check the internet, the sellers call it an AK 47). Though your point is a good one, I'm sure the people killed by this weapon will find comfort in the fact that it's not the original military weapon.


You just keep hittin on a dead horse. YOU OBVIOUSLY DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. The civilian version of the AK 47 as you call it, functions differently, and is a different gun in terms of ability to mow down people.

----------


## Spexvet

> Hmmm, excellent point. I may have to use that one myself one of these days.


The point, or the assault weapon?

----------


## chip anderson

Some of you folks just don't get it.  No one was ever killed by a weapon (unless it was defective and destroyed the user).   Guns, Rocks, Fishing Poles, Ropes, dynamite, bows-and-arrows, catapults etc. don't kill hurt or maim people.  People do these things

Now do I think the average civilian needs cannons, machine guns, bazookas, etc?  
No.   
Do I really believe the "Right to keep and bear Arms" exhists for the individual as an "inalienable" (definition: Granted by God, not the law) right?  Do I think this is in the Constitution to protect the citizen from the Government and other threats?
Yep.
Do I think in today's world the citizenry could really defend or destroy a corrupt government with the weapons he could procure?
No.
Do I think all (sane) citizens should possess and be trained in the public education system to use, firearms?
Yep.
Do I think a crime problem would exist if every citizen were known to be armed or able to be armed?
No, at least not on a violent or physical level.  Or at least not at a high incidence rate.
 Do I think if none of the citizens were armed crime would be less?  Do I think the Government or the police would protect the citizenry better?
No.

The founding fathers knew what they were talking about.  Too bad we don't seem to have people that smart anymore.

Chip

----------


## chm2023

> Some of you folks just don't get it. No one was ever killed by a weapon (unless it was defective and destroyed the user). Guns, Rocks, Fishing Poles, Ropes, dynamite, bows-and-arrows, catapults etc. don't kill hurt or maim people. People do these things
> 
> Now do I think the average civilian needs cannons, machine guns, bazookas, etc? 
> No. 
> Do I really believe the "Right to keep and bear Arms" exhists for the individual as an "inalienable" (definition: Granted by God, not the law) right? Do I think this is in the Constitution to protect the citizen from the Government and other threats?
> Yep.
> Do I think in today's world the citizenry could really defend or destroy a corrupt government with the weapons he could procure?
> No.
> Do I think all (sane) citizens should possess and be trained in the public education system to use, firearms?
> ...


Chip, did you ever see Bowling for Columbine?  You should, it presents a very interesting POV on this whole gun thing;  I would be interested in your take on it.

----------


## Spexvet

> Some of you folks just don't get it. No one was ever killed by a weapon (unless it was defective and destroyed the user). Guns, Rocks, Fishing Poles, Ropes, dynamite, bows-and-arrows, catapults etc. don't kill hurt or maim people. People do these things


Can we agree that it is the combination of weapon and user that causes the killing. Since we can't get rid of the people (legally, Chip), we need to cut down on the weapons.




> Now do I think the average civilian needs cannons, machine guns, bazookas, etc? 
> No. 
> Do I really believe the "Right to keep and bear Arms" exhists for the individual as an "inalienable" (definition: Granted by God, not the law) right? Do I think this is in the Constitution to protect the citizen from the Government and other threats?
> Yep.
> Do I think in today's world the citizenry could really defend or destroy a corrupt government with the weapons he could procure?
> No.
> Do I think all (sane) citizens should possess and be trained in the public education system to use, firearms?
> Yep.
> Do I think a crime problem would exist if every citizen were known to be armed or able to be armed?
> ...


Welcome to Tombstone, or Dodge City - keep your six gun ready.




> The founding fathers knew what they were talking about. Too bad we don't seem to have people that smart anymore.
> 
> Chip


Your consistency is reassuring. Those who don't agree with you are not "that smart anymore". Couldn't be we just disagree with you, could it? If Albert Einstein was pro gun control, would he be not "that smart anymore"?

----------


## chm2023

> Sticks and nukes may break my bones but calling me a 'gun freak' is just funny.
> 
> Your arguement is a specious one particularly in the case of a mass popular uprising. Of course I was speaking hyperbolically but I stand by the statement. If there's reason enough for a popular uprising I certainly hope it turns out well. I expect you'd be hoping the same thing.
> 
> Finally, if you think all the southern states were democracies during Jim Crow I'd hazard there are a number of people besides myself who would disagree. Germany was a democracy before WWII, infact Hitler was a popularly elected leader who effectivly dismantled the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic. We are now watching the possible end to democratic rule in Russia. Democracy is a fragile, fragile thing which must be protected by the citizens who hold it so dear.


But you are making my point--Germany is now a democracy, the southern states (and northern to be honest!) do provide the benefits of democracy to all;  re Russia, well who is to say this is the end game?  Though frankly, given that Putin got about 90% of the "vote" in the last election, I think that ship has sailed.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Pete, I'm curious, where do you stand on capital punishment?
Basically, I am pro death penalty- but I do take pause at the fact that capital punishment in America does seem to be unequally and, at times, unjustifiably administered in our justice system.

As to whether this stance is contradictory with my pro-life beliefs (which, I assume, is the reason you raise the question), I believe not.  I am "pro-life" (or "anti-choice" depending upon one's leanings) because I believe an unborn child is a living being who should be afforded the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- just like everyone else.  Regarding choice, a woman (and man) makes a choice whether to procreate.  That choice takes the form of deciding to have intercourse.  If a new life is the result of that act (and nature dictates it sometimes is), then the choice has been made.  At that point, the child is being sheltered and raised by the mother in her womb (not altogether different than the shelter and care expected after a baby emerges from that womb).

Regarding capital punishment, it comes down to choice as well.  Basically, the criminal has made a choice to take the life of another person (murder is by far the most prevelent crime to which capital punishment is applied).  This choice has consequences, and- in some states- those consequences may include the possibility of capital punishment.  I fail to see what conscious decision an unborn child has made which merits its termination.  If my children become inconvenient to the point that I choose to no longer parent them, should I be permitted to have them surgically terminated?  I think not.  How then, is it justifiable to terminate the life of a child- a child who, if left alone to develop, will continue to grow and develop much like a child outside the womb?

This just happens to be my stand- I'm not advocating that anyone else should share them.  In our country, it would seem the majority feels that the obligation of a woman (and man) to raise a child is subjective and inferior to the "right" to choose not to parent the child they have conceived.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court of our country has deemed this "right" to be actual.  I think any argument against abortion would have to be done on behalf of the rights of the unborn child to life, liberty, etc.  However, since unborn children do not vote (yes, that's cynical- but that's about the sum of it, isn't it?).

Furthermore, I don't really feel that those who are pro-abortion are morally "inferior" to those who are pro-life.  Based on their belief system, they are comfortable with this stance.  I am not to judge between my opinion and theirs- I can only speak from what I personally believe.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I'd rather someone correct their mistake than continue down the wrong path with "strong leadership", like you-know-who.
I would rather a leader define what s/he believes the right path is, lay down their rationale, and then stick to his/her course of action.  In my opinion (and obviously you do not share this opinion, which is fine), the Bush administration has done exactly that.  You may not like, agree, condone, feel pride in, or otherwise support the administration's actions or policies, but I believe the positions of this administration are both consistent and fairly discernable.  For me, that represents good leadership.

Regarding the "wrong path" speculation, I tend to disagree with that assessment.  I believe- by and large- the policies of this administration have been correct ones.  I would rather we hadn't expanded Medicare to cover medications (huge and costly mistake and misappropriation of federal- I mean "my"- dollars), and I would have liked to have seen stronger tax cuts (but the GOP Congress didn't have the hutzpah to enact the package asked for by the admin), but overall I'm quite satisfied.  That, I suspect, is why I will vote to re-elect the administration.

Assuming you disagree, I invite you to express that disagreement by voting for John Kerry (or better yet, for Ralph Nader).
:cheers:

----------


## Spexvet

> ...This just happens to be my stand- I'm not advocating that anyone else should share them. In our country, it would seem the majority feels that the obligation of a woman (and man) to raise a child is subjective and inferior to the "right" to choose not to parent the child they have conceived. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of our country has deemed this "right" to be actual. I think any argument against abortion would have to be done on behalf of the rights of the unborn child to life, liberty, etc. However, since unborn children do not vote (yes, that's cynical- but that's about the sum of it, isn't it?).
> 
> Furthermore, I don't really feel that those who are pro-abortion are morally "inferior" to those who are pro-life. Based on their belief system, they are comfortable with this stance. I am not to judge between my opinion and theirs- I can only speak from what I personally believe.


Pete,
This _sounds_ like you are pro-choice. I don't think anyone is really "pro-abortion". That would be someone who encourages women to have abortions, or who seeks legislation requiring women to have an abortion. You are like me. I would never try to convince a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy, but I would never make that choice for her, either. I would even discourage her from that path. 

It really comes down to a power struggle. Those who are anti-choice want to impose their values on others, those who are pro-choice want to retain the to choose. This is very similar to my interpretation of your fiscal philosophy. Who can best judge what should happen with your money? Who can best judge what should happen to her body.

Rather than the negative position of "you can't have an abortion", I would like to see anti-choice supporters take a positive position, where they promote adoption, or a support women. It could be that some financial support, a place to live healthcare coverage or day care would convince a woman to continue a pregnancy.

----------


## mrba

> This _sounds_ like you are pro-choice. I don't think anyone is really "pro-abortion". That would be someone who encourages women to have abortions, or who seeks legislation requiring women to have an abortion.


 Planned parenthood is well documented to have done this for years.

----------


## Spexvet

> Planned parenthood is well documented to have done this for years.


They offer all the alternatives (that they are allowed to, thanks to the repressive regime in the white house). Document where they have encouraged women to have abortions, or seek legislation requiring women to have an abortion, as I said.

----------


## mrba

Not sure I could document it, and I am not the person to ask.  However if you ask anyone at crisis pregnancy center, who counsels post abortion women, you will learn a great many things on the topic I'm sure.

----------


## Spexvet

Is crisis pregnancy center anti-choice?

----------


## Jana Lewis

I'd like to know, how any MAN can tell me what to do with MY BODY? How can some stuffed suit ( government) tell me that I HAVE TO CARRY A PREGNANCY regardless of "how" or "what" happened?

Scenario #1: I've been raped.... YOUR GONNA FORCE ME TO CARRY THE BABY? Thanks... I can tell you care... 

Scenario #2: I have 20 kids and I am on welfare and no insurance.... Your STILL gonna force me to carry to term? On your dime? 

Scenario #3: I am 14 years old and made a tragic mistake, I am entering middle school. YOU WANT ME TO HAVE THE BABY? I'll have to sign up for welfare and drain the public hospital of valuble recourses and time. 

Now... Tell me.... Why are you Pro-lifers so adamant about me not having an abortion?

----------


## coda

> But you are making my point--Germany is now a democracy, the southern states (and northern to be honest!) do provide the benefits of democracy to all; re Russia, well who is to say this is the end game? Though frankly, given that Putin got about 90% of the "vote" in the last election, I think that ship has sailed.


I'm not making your point at all.  Germany is a democracy because they lost a war not because of some inherent strength of democracy.  Speaking from a historical standpoint Germany is a democracy because Hitler was a terrible military strategist.  The south is more of a democracy because of a popular uprising which, at times, was violent.

----------


## keithbenjamin

Jana,

Only since you asked, so don't jump all over me...

Because I believe the life inside you is not merely "your body" but an individual. The evidence for me was seeing my son's heart beat, fingers, and toes just weeks after conception; seeing him put foot in his mouth, smile on a 4-d ultrasound, and hearing him hiccup in the second trimester; and seeing his profile looked just like mine in the third; then immediately after his birth seeing him look directly into my eyes as I held him, passing him to my wife and seeing him look directly into her eyes. You see, I don't understand how someone cannot consider that a life, regardless of how or why it was conceived. Adoption would seem to me to be the best option in your scenarios for both the child and some lucky couple.

Spexvet,

You argue that the anti-abortion crowd is simply wishing to impose their morality on others, but can the same not be said of most laws? Can the same not be said about social welfare programs?

-K

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet,
> 
>  You argue that the anti-abortion crowd is simply wishing to impose their morality on others, but can the same not be said of most laws? Can the same not be said about social welfare programs?
> 
>   -K


 Not just the anti-choice crowd, I think it is part of conservative thinking for them to try to make everyone else be like them. Just read some of the posts on this board. 

 I would say that most laws don't impose morality. Stopping at a stop sign is not a moral issue, for instance. Is the law against stealing a moral issue? Perhaps. I could do without most "morality" laws. I can choose to follow my own morals, and I would allow you to follow yours. If prostitution were legal, I wouldn't use their services, but feel free to go to town. If all parties are aware, and agree, legalizing bigamy would be ok with me. Certainly, there would be a limit - human sacrifices are a no-no for me

 The only imposition of social programs is the tax end - and please, mrba and Chip, let's not debate taxes again. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse all social programs. But no one is saying "you must be on welfare", "you must use medicaid". 

 I think Jana's point is not whether abortion is right or wrong. Her point is that she, rightfully, gets to make the decision. As much as you were awed by the reproductive experience, not everybody is and not everybody wants it. As a woman, SHE should choose. Could you imagine someone telling you that you MUST have more children?

----------


## Bev Heishman

Everyone should have a choice.  I should be allowed to wear slacks if I want. I should be able to worship differentry than my spouse.  I should be able to choose who I wish to vote for and not for whom my spouse says I should. I should be able to attend college and be educated and not have my fate be dictated to me by my husband or father. I could go on and on.

I have an intelligent mind and I should be free to make the choices and live with them. I do not need to have a government tell me I am wrong. Many years ago at 25, I decided not to have more children due to my heart problem.  I was brow beat by many who said it was wrong.  I did not make the wrong decision for I am still here. I even needed my husband to stop work and come and sign off for the state papers.  He thought it was a real pain.

To me Pro-choice is all of the above.

----------


## mrba

So Bev, you should have the choice to jump off of a cliff as well?  I think choosing the clothes you wear versus choosing to end a living being's life are two very different things.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Pete,
This _sounds_ like you are pro-choice. I don't think anyone is really "pro-abortion". That would be someone who encourages women to have abortions, or who seeks legislation requiring women to have an abortion. You are like me. I would never try to convince a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy, but I would never make that choice for her, either. I would even discourage her from that path. 

It really comes down to a power struggle. Those who are anti-choice want to impose their values on others, those who are pro-choice want to retain the to choose.

First, let me say I recognize this is a very deeply felt issue- so I understand why people react with passion (most absolute conflicts are like this). Basically, those who are pro-choice are being labeled as "murderers" by pro-life proponents (and I can see where someone might take that personally).

Second, speaking as someone who is "pro-life" (I suppose that label would loosely fit), I don't think it comes down to a power struggle (at least not for me). For me, it comes down to a fairness issue. Let's take our instance of rape, for example. There is no doubt that rape is a horrible crime and that one that results in pregnancy would be emotionally and physically challenging. However, I cannot understand how terminating an unborn child is fair to that child. I do understand that it may give closure to the victim- but at what cost? Extending the point, when the child is a week old, would it be acceptable for the mother to kill the child (since it serves as a constant reminder of the rape)?

Obviously, it comes down to a question of when life begins. I happen to be of the opinion that life begins at conception. Personally, I think there is pretty good supporting evidence for this- but I realize other people may view the same evidence and reach other conclusions.

Anyway, I'm not into forcing anyone to do anything- the law of the land indicates that an unborn child has no right to life, so who am I to keep people from engaging in a legal activity? Apparently the Supreme Court feels as if an unborn child is not a person. Of course, if the mother is murdered and the unborn child dies as well, the criminal can be convicted for two murders. So I guess our laws really say the unborn person is a person- if the mother decides s/he is a person (that seems a bit convoluted and inconsistent to me, however). 

I do think its a bit lugubrious to complain about society placing "limitations" on our choices, however. Society _does_ place limitations on our "choices" all the time. For example, why can't I choose to drive my sports car as fast as I please on the highway without having my actions judged and condemned by others? Why can't I choose to smoke my pipe in a restaraunt? Why can't I choose to dispense high index glass in the US? For that matter, why can't I choose to remove the label on mattress? Just kidding there- only the reseller is prohibited from removing the label.

*The answer, of course, is because our freedom of choice is limited by the rights of others to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without being encumbered by our personal decisions on how to live our own life.* My point is this: in deciding to have an abortion, a person's personal decisions (which s/he is free to make) is limiting the ability of another person to live life. No one has explained to my satisfaction how elective abortion is by any stretch of the imagination fair to the person who is being killed in the process.

I could do without most "morality" laws.
Okay, so we can repeal the minimum wage (after all, why should an employer have any moral obligation to pay a living wage). Also, child labor laws should be tossed (no moral obligation to our kids). Child abuse should no longer be prosecuted (who's to say if its wrong to beat your child- abortion would seem to be the most extreme example of child abuse- no?). We can also do away with drunk driving laws (alcoholism is a disease, so why should we judge actions that spring from it- we don't punish people with hypertension for having heart attacks). In fact, all laws involve morality- since you have to appeal to morality in saying that it is "wrong" to disobey a law.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Jana,
> 
> Only since you asked, so don't jump all over me...
> 
> Because I believe the life inside you is not merely "your body" but an individual. The evidence for me was seeing my son's heart beat, fingers, and toes just weeks after conception; seeing him put foot in his mouth, smile on a 4-d ultrasound, and hearing him hiccup in the second trimester; and seeing his profile looked just like mine in the third; then immediately after his birth seeing him look directly into my eyes as I held him, passing him to my wife and seeing him look directly into her eyes. You see, I don't understand how someone cannot consider that a life, regardless of how or why it was conceived. Adoption would seem to me to be the best option in your scenarios for both the child and some lucky couple.
> 
> Spexvet,
> 
> You argue that the anti-abortion crowd is simply wishing to impose their morality on others, but can the same not be said of most laws? Can the same not be said about social welfare programs?
> ...


Keith-

I am not going to jump all over you. I liked your post, well said. :) Here's where our opinions differ: You and your spouse made a CHOICE to have a baby and enjoy the awesome effects of human conception. Bravo! 

Please don't get me wrong, I don't believe that abortion should be used as birth control, I truely believe that young girls should excersize abstinence (sp?) I also believe that people who are beyond their means financially should excersize more resposible behavior. 

My whole point is that I should be able to make a CHOICE about what happens to my body. Carrying a pregnancy to term takes a huge toll on the female body, not to mention the emotional, hormonal aspects. So, if I was raped and a pregnancy resulted, I am stuck with months of emotional and pysical baggage. How is this fair? To me? 

Pete-

You asked that no one has mentioned the fairness of the unborn. Here's a hypothetical situation. I am 14, and had sex that resulted in pregnancy, I had no choice but to have the baby. I am now a high school drop out, I am not contributing anything to society. I am unemployed, and now uneducated. I have no insurance, so I am going to drain the local hospital of important recourses as well as the doctors who treat me before and after. 

Flash forward- The baby is born, I have no money or job, my parents are broke, I have no one to help me care for this child. He barely eats except for federally funded programs that supply us with formula/food. 

Years pass- I am 16, still uneducated, trying to just live my life. No one cares what happens to me now, or my child. 

The child grows up, through emotional strains and ups and downs. This child becomes an emotional mess and has a hard time dealing with society, because his/her young Mother didn't know any better. This child begins the cycle of irresponsible behavior, and it starts all over again. It just wasn't fair that this child had to live that kinda life. 

All of this could have been avoided, had I made the CHOICE to terminate my pregnancy. 

This issue is not about abortion per say, it's about my ability to choose. This is not a nazi-femi statement, but I fail to understand just how a male can understand what a female goes through during preganacy and after. This is my body, keep your hands off it! :)

----------


## keithbenjamin

Jana that's really not such a quandry. The 14 year old having no means to raise a child has a moral obligation [to the child] to give it to someone who does have the means and ability to properly raise that child.

-K

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Jana that's really not such a quandry. The 14 year old having no means to raise a child has a moral obligation [to the child] to give it to someone who does have the means and ability to properly raise that child.
> 
> -K


True.... but who tells her she has the "moral obligation" to do so? Even with adoption ( which I don't think is a bad thing BTW) the 14 year old still has to deal with the emotional and pysical aspects of pregnancy. She should be able to make the choice to either give the baby up or abort. 

Personally- I would have preferred her to give the child up for adoption, but then again, that would be in a perfect world where we wouldn't have the hypothetical issues posted above. 

Choice is the key word here... I am not saying that everyone should go and have an abortion, but given "certain" circumstances, I think we should all have the right to choose.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

All of this could have been avoided, had I made the CHOICE to terminate my pregnancy.
I have no problem with your being able to choose one thing or another.  However, I do wish to be clear on the matter.  Basically, the proposition is that one person should be able to terminate the life of another person.  That's not a moral judgement, that's just an assessment of the facts.  Follow me for a moment...  You're 14 and pregnant- in some cases, childbirth may have less complications than an abortion procedure.  So, why not give birth and then have the baby terminated?  Seems a natural extension of the choice for which you argue.  Realistically speaking, this is what late term abortion is anyway.

Point being, you are definitely free to choose what you do with _your_ body.  However, the baby is a _different person_ with a different body.  S/he has his/her own unique brain waves, blood type, genes, and potential as an individual.  All you are doing is providing shelter and nourishment for the first 9 months of that unique individual's life.  Really, not much changes after the child emerges (I've been providing shelter and nourishment for my two children for the past 8 and 10 years, respectively, so I'd like to think I have some insight).

Couch it however you like- I don't care what you do with your body.  I have reservations about what you do with the unique and seperate body of a child.  However, until the laws of the land change to recognize a child as a person, terminating an unborn person's life is perfectly legal.

Of course, all this is sanctimonious babbling.  Fact is, we have plenty of children who have been born for whom society seems to care little.  In my opinion, the biggest hypocrasy of the pro-life movement is this- while they are so keen to protect children during the first 9 months of their lives, many seem to take little action to provide for children who survive beyond.  Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of friends who have adopted children, contributed to educational and other programs, etc.  However, by and large, Americans turn their backs on children.

You may recall the episode where a mom whaled on her kid in the mall parking lot and was caught in the act on camera.  Everyone was so "appalled."  Well, how many kids in your neighborhood do you see and just know they are being abused?  How many times does a child visit your home and you have suspicions?  How many times do you go out of your way to offer assistance to one of the mothers who has decided to make a go of parenthood?  Don't get me wrong, I put myself right in the crowd I'm griping about.  I would argue that nearly everyone shares equally in the neglect of the American child.

I've tried to say this repeatedly- I believe a child is a child is a child.  Therefore, for ME it would be wrong to have an abortion (and although it is a woman in whom the child is nurtured for the first 9 months, the father is every bit as responsible for that life and shares in any responsibility for that life- maybe not always by law, but by the law that transcends all law).  If you happen to believe in "out of sight out of mind" (i.e., an unborn child is not a child), then perhaps abortion is a just that- a viable choice.  Furthermore, if you believe the child is a child- but also believe that you should be able to choose life or death for that child based upon your convenience (or the child's future prospects), then you are left with the choice you so seem to desire (but it seems an awful choice to have).

One of my favorite verses of the Bible is- _"Let each work out their own salvation with fear and trembling." _

----------


## Jana Lewis

Amen Pete! 

Nice post! I agree with almost everything you said! 

The difference here is that no one is pushing their morals on you. And no one is pushing their morals on the unborn child either. 

I have a question: Is it mainly christians that have the "moral" issue with abortion?  Just curious..... is it in Japan that they have mandatory abortions for the 1 child limit thing?  I wonder how those folks over there deal with forced abortions and how it deals with religion and or morals. Any optiboarders wanna take that on?? :)

----------


## keithbenjamin

It would probably be a safe bet to assume that the majority of pro-lifers in the US are Christians. Then again the majority of people in the US claim to be Christians. However, I would argue that one probably doesn't have to be a Christian to think taking another life is wrong, just as one doesn't have to be Christian to think taking another's property is wrong.

Again with the moral pushing argument, it just doesn't hold water because the same can be said of so many laws and government policies. 

Its actually Communist China not Japan that has 1 child policy. Communist govenements typically aren't real big on religion, so its completely irrelevant as far as the government is concerned. And since to people of China have no say in what the government does, their opinions/beliefs aren't of any concern either.

BTW, this is probably one of the most civil and rational discussions on this topic I've ever encountered. Bravo to all involved. I wonder how long it will last. ;)

-K

----------


## Pete Hanlin

BTW, this is probably one of the most civil and rational discussions on this topic I've ever encountered. Bravo to all involved. I wonder how long it will last.
Total agreement on that point, Keith!  I have been astounded at how well this extremely sensitive point has been debated from both sides.  As we approach a hotly contested election, I hope we can all continue this level of stimulating debate in such a civilized manner!

----------


## shanbaum

You all might find it interesting to read _Roe v. Wade_: 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=410&invol=113 

There's a bit of procedural clutter (like, who really had the right to sue) you can safely ignore. It's pretty clear that the court saw the issue as one of conflicting rights, that is, the right of a woman to exercise control over her person, free of governmental intrusion, opposed not so much to any right of the unborn, as to the right of the _State_ to protect the potential life she bears.

I really doubt that, if there simply were no abortion, anyone would be advocating the rights of the unborn. I think it's safe to say that the law abhors ambiguity and speculation (you can see an example of this in _Roe_), and the result of treating zygotes like people would be extensive; for example, lots of wills have specified multiple inheritance scenarios in which heirs are selected based on their having or not having children (or "issue" - hmmm...) - a miscarriage could have a significant effect on the property rights of lots of people.

As it is, there is abortion, and its opponents see an opportunity in elevating the _unestablished_ "rights of the unborn" to better compete with the _established_ rights of the mother. Thus the recent laws which increment the counts against the murderer of a pregnant woman. If the point was to simply provide a special measure of protection to pregnant women, it would have been easy enough to characterize such killings as being invariably murder in the first degree; that surely would have sufficed. But that wasn't the point (at least, not the whole point) - the point was to impute some legal significance to the unborn child.

Pete, your argument seems to rest on the notion that when a woman gets pregnant, she waives her right to control over her person in favor of the potential child's right to life. Well, OK, but _I'm_ certainly not going to advocate that; in fact, as Jana may have suggested, I think there's something inappropriate about men making that judgment at all. I wish there were a way we could simply leave it up to the women. Let them decide; they can just let us know. I don't believe that a man can understand the relationship between a woman and the zygote, embryo, or fetus she carries (I note that Pete referred to these entities as "unique and separate" - to _you_, maybe), and in that sense, I think men are unqualified to make decrees which impair women's rights in that regard.

'Course, the Supremes would disagree with me on that last bit...

----------


## keithbenjamin

> Pete, your argument seems to rest on the notion that when a woman gets pregnant, she waives her right to control over her person in favor of the potential child's right to life.


Robert, but isn't that essentially true of parenthood in general? 

-K

----------


## Jana Lewis

BRAVO!  Shanbaum! I couldn't have said it better myself! 

I noticed that no one (except shanbaum! )  has commented on the man/woman aspect of this. Any takers?

----------


## shanbaum

> Robert, but isn't that essentially true of parenthood in general? 
> 
> -K


Sure, sometimes people choose undertakings which they know will require them to assume duties which may impair their liberties in some way.

Parenthood can be one of those. There _may_ be circumstances in which parenthood is forced on someone. There are _certainly_ circumstances in which pregnancy is forced on someone (and not just in cases of rape). 

I don't believe that the act of getting pregnant constitutes, in and of itself, a waiver of "personal dominion". _Absolutely_ not, if it's involuntary.

And even if it _is_ voluntary, as I said, I refuse to make a judgment that balances a woman's right to personal dominion against whatever rights may accrue to a zygote. I can understand that if one believes that a zygote (or an embryo, or a fetus) is in some fundamental sense the same as a human being, one might argue, as has been done here, that a life is a life, and as such, the right to life is superior to the right to personal dominion (that's my term, which I use because I find "privacy" inadequate). 

It so happens I don't believe that. I believe that there's a difference between a clump of cells that may become a human being, and a human being.

But even were I to believe differently, I would be unwilling to rule over the relationship of which I spoke.

I'm not qualified.

----------


## keithbenjamin

Robert,

A zygote refers to the single celled organism created through the combination of an egg and sperm and only exists for as long as it takes for it to travel down the Fallopian tube (already multiplying) and to the uterine wall, at which point it becomes an embryo, long before a woman even knows she is pregnant, and might even consider an abortion. So the term zygote seems hardly relevant to our discussion on abortion unless we start to discuss exactly when does a human life begin. 

It also may be interesting to note, by the time a woman knows she is pregnant, the baby is likely to already have a developing brain, heart, lungs, flowing blood vessels, eyes, ears, fingers, toes, bones, hair folicles, all other essential organs, and quite possibly has gone past the embryonic stage and is now termed a fetus ...or a lump of cells. 

-K

----------


## shanbaum

> Robert,
> 
> So the term zygote seems hardly relevant to our discussion on abortion unless we start to discuss exactly when does a human life begin.


Sorry, I thought that _had_ been mentioned.

----------


## mrba

Roe V Wade is the biggest stretch of the imagination the court has ever espoused to completely go around the constitution.

----------


## chip anderson

Someone should sentance Jana Na Shanebaum to six-months of listening to 

Dr. Laura.  She knows right from wrong.  Lots of women appearently hate her fro pointing  out that they do not.

Chip

----------


## fvc2020

After reading all of the posts here, I felt a need to put my two cents in.  I am a woman who belives in the rights of an unborn child.  I state that first, so that anyone stating men are imposing on the will of woman are wrong.  I and my doctor(as well as other woman we know)are having trouble having babies.  Let's reiew the law prior to roe vs wade.  

Abortion was allowed in the following incidences: In case of rape, incest, and if the health of the mother was in danger.  Jana your example of rape is invalid due to the above.  Bev is made a educated decision about children due to her health.  I know it was hard, but a wise decision.(Bless you).  I have know no one to mention incest, so I can't comment on that one.  So what does it leave?

Let's see the 14 year old girl who "got"pregant?  What the heck was she doing having sex?  So played like an adult, act like an adult and take responsiblity for your stupid action.  Oh I forgot, we have abortion.  Why does her life have to be toast?  Can she be responsible and give the baby up and go on with her life?  Can the baby grow up to be responsible?  So she'll be "fat and ugly" for nine months, so what it's called responsiblity.  Also where is her right to have be informed about birth control?  Is she going to say "I didn't know where babies come from"  Gimme a break.   If a child is going to have sex, then she can learn about birth control and use it.  to heck with birth control for the sake of no babies, what about aids, stds etc.  She decided not to use condoms because of what?  

People(men and women)need to look at the big picture.  Do I think a woman has a right to choose what is best for her and her body?  Of course I do, but what about the child inside?  I read a real good thought on this recently.  It asked what if the child inside is a girl?  You know have taken her right to choose.  Is the right thing to?

Jana, I'm not sure why you think the only resolution to unwanted babies are abortion.  I have friends who were adopted and they have turned out great.  I think of my friends who want a "baby"and can't.  When I bring a new person to my family, it won't matter the age.  My husband and I want a toddler or older.  Adoption for us will be easier.  However there are millions of couples who want infants, abortion takes that option away to those couples.  How would you feel if you wanted a baby and couldn't no matter what?  What would you do?  The waiting lists are huge for an infant.  You do become selfish and hate abortion even more.  Believe me.

As for government regulation.  I hate the fact that I am forced to endure the culture that abortion on demand has made.  We created birth control(good thing if used)and then legalized abortion.  The Sexual Revolution was born.  No more responsible people.  Do what you want with no consequences.  Since the late 60's it has been a spiraling downfall of despair.  I'm not saying purity is going to happen, but as Pete said, why have laws in place for anything.(Sorry Pete, edited alittle)I could list all sorts of issues, but that would take forever.  

This was a great thread:-)  It made people be strong in their words.  Strong in their beliefs.

Christina

----------


## mrba

I don't understand the "being born into a bad situation" argument.  Adoption solves that.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> After reading all of the posts here, I felt a need to put my two cents in. I am a woman who belives in the rights of an unborn child. I state that first, so that anyone stating men are imposing on the will of woman are wrong. I and my doctor(as well as other woman we know)are having trouble having babies. Let's reiew the law prior to roe vs wade. 
> 
> Abortion was allowed in the following incidences: In case of rape, incest, and if the health of the mother was in danger. Jana your example of rape is invalid due to the above. Bev is made a educated decision about children due to her health. I know it was hard, but a wise decision.(Bless you). I have know no one to mention incest, so I can't comment on that one. So what does it leave?
> 
> Let's see the 14 year old girl who "got"pregant? What the heck was she doing having sex? So played like an adult, act like an adult and take responsiblity for your stupid action. Oh I forgot, we have abortion. Why does her life have to be toast? Can she be responsible and give the baby up and go on with her life? Can the baby grow up to be responsible? So she'll be "fat and ugly" for nine months, so what it's called responsiblity. Also where is her right to have be informed about birth control? Is she going to say "I didn't know where babies come from" Gimme a break. If a child is going to have sex, then she can learn about birth control and use it. to heck with birth control for the sake of no babies, what about aids, stds etc. She decided not to use condoms because of what? 
> 
> People(men and women)need to look at the big picture. Do I think a woman has a right to choose what is best for her and her body? Of course I do, but what about the child inside? I read a real good thought on this recently. It asked what if the child inside is a girl? You know have taken her right to choose. Is the right thing to?
> 
> Jana, I'm not sure why you think to unwanted babies are abortion. I have friends who were adopted and they have turned out great. I think of my friends who want a "baby"and can't. When I bring a new person to my family, it won't matter the age. My husband and I want a toddler or older. Adoption for us will be easier. However there are millions of couples who want infants, abortion takes that option away to those couples. How would you feel if you wanted a baby and couldn't no matter what? What would you do? The waiting lists are huge for an infant. You do become selfish and hate abortion even more. Believe me.
> ...


Christina-

I respect your beliefs. However... I never said that I think that abortion is "the only resolution " I would prefer that adoption be a viable option for women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. I will agree that my scenario only pointed to abortion as an option. Faux paux on my part. 

My biggest point here, is that I thouroughly believe that I/any woman should HAVE A CHOICE as to what to do with their bodies. 

Let me ask the Pro-life crowd out there.....when was the last time you volunteered for a mis-placed child organization? When have you volunteered your time to a food bank to help needy children? Big brothers? Big sisters? If you have....BRAVO to you! Too bad there are not more of you who share that ideaology.... if there was, perhaps the Pro-life/pro-choice debate would be null. 

Here's the deal.... no government/ no man/ no woman/ should ever tell me that I have to carry a pregnancy to term. Bottom line.....

----------


## mrba

> So Bev, you should have the choice to jump off of a cliff as well? I think choosing the clothes you wear versus choosing to end a living being's life are two very different things.


Regarding this post someone put the following negative points in my reputation

..."If she wants to jump off a cliff, so be it"...

I used to think the reputation points were totally stupid, but they have revealed how totally stupid participants truly are, when they don't have to admit to their stupidity by showing their identity.

Bev, I want to be very clear, I do not want you to jump off of a cliff.

mrba

----------


## chip anderson

Jana: 

You have a right to  your beliefs and do not worry about a man/woman/government telling weather or not it's all right to murder your own unborn child.  You need not worry about the judgement of any of these.  

But I would worry forever about whose judgement You will have to face.  And unless I have read His book wrong, He has said it's a no, no..  And yes, He does have the right to "tell" you and judge you.

Chip:hammer:

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Jana: 
> 
> You have a right to your beliefs and do not worry about a man/woman/government telling weather or not it's all right to murder your own unborn child. You need not worry about the judgement of any of these. 
> 
> But I would worry forever about whose judgement You will have to face. And unless I have read His book wrong, He has said it's a no, no.. And yes, He does have the right to "tell" you and judge you.
> 
> Chip:hammer:


Sorry Chip.... can't agree with you there. This all boils down to "when life begins" I personally do not think it begins at conception. Does the bible mention when life begins? ( please excuse me for my arrogance) I'll admit I am not very well-versed as far as the bible is concerned.  :Rolleyes:  

Let me ask you this.... do you think birth contol is wrong? Or against God's judgement?

----------


## chip anderson

Jana:  Doesn't matter what I think, matters what God thinks.

But yes, I think abortion is murdering your own child.  But my opinion doesn't matter.

----------


## Spexvet

> Anyway, I'm not into forcing anyone to do anything- the law of the land indicates that an unborn child has no right to life, so who am I to keep people from engaging in a legal activity?


 This is why you are pro-choice. There is a distinction between pro-life and anti-choice. You don't condone abortion, but you won't compel others to behave the way you would or the way you want them to behave. Big difference.




> I could do without most "morality" laws.
>  Okay, so we can repeal the minimum wage (after all, why should an employer have any moral obligation to pay a living wage). Also, child labor laws should be tossed (no moral obligation to our kids). Child abuse should no longer be prosecuted (who's to say if its wrong to beat your child- abortion would seem to be the most extreme example of child abuse- no?). We can also do away with drunk driving laws (alcoholism is a disease, so why should we judge actions that spring from it- we don't punish people with hypertension for having heart attacks). In fact, all laws involve morality- since you have to appeal to morality in saying that it is "wrong" to disobey a law.


 Luckily, I included the all-important "most" clause.

----------


## Spexvet

> Jana that's really not such a quandry. The 14 year old having no means to raise a child has a moral obligation [to the child] to give it to someone who does have the means and ability to properly raise that child.
> 
>  -K


 Who's morals makes her obligated?

----------


## Spexvet

> S/he has his/her own unique brain waves, blood type, genes, and potential as an individual.


 Just when does a zygote/fetus have brain waves? Does a 4 cell embryo? This is the ambiguity that causes the conflict. _You_ _believe_ that life begins at conception. I will say that I don't _know_ when life begins. And I would say that you really don't _know_, either. But we all can agree, I think, that a child is a child when it is born. Ask yourself this: does a first trimester miscarriage get teated the same as a child who has passed away. Is there a funeral, burial, last rites? Probably not. Depending on your belief system, the embryo, that you call a child, may not go to heaven, because it has not been baptised or accepted Jesus.




> Of course, all this is sanctimonious babbling. Fact is, we have plenty of children who have been born for whom society seems to care little. In my opinion, the biggest hypocrasy of the pro-life movement is this- while they are so keen to protect children during the first 9 months of their lives, many seem to take little action to provide for children who survive beyond. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of friends who have adopted children, contributed to educational and other programs, etc. However, by and large, Americans turn their backs on children.


 My point from a previous post. Let the pregnant woman know that you'll care for her during the pregnancy, and adopt the baby afterward, and you'll reduce abortions. It doesn't seem to be that hard of a strategy, yet the anti-choice movement just wants to compel others.

----------


## Spexvet

> ...Again with the moral pushing argument, it just doesn't hold water because the same can be said of so many laws and government policies.


 In this case, I think it does hold water.
 There are two sides to every argument. In this case, one side is
 - you cannot have an abortion.

 Logically, the opposite of that argument is
 - you must have an abortion.

 Yet the "liberal" side is
 - You can decide if you should have an abortion.

 The difference? Anti-choice does just what Jana said: it PUSHES its values on others. IMHO conservatives tend to do this, and maybe they don't realize it. They seem to think "this is the way I see things, so everybody else should, too". They don't see that someone else's view is as legitimate as theirs. 




> BTW, this is probably one of the most civil and rational discussions on this topic I've ever encountered. Bravo to all involved. I wonder how long it will last. ;)
> 
>  -K


 I was so tempted to be rude, just to mess with you, but I won't.:bbg:
 :cheers:

----------


## Spexvet

> BRAVO!  Shanbaum! I couldn't have said it better myself! 
> 
>  I noticed that no one (except shanbaum! )  has commented on the man/woman aspect of this. Any takers?


 I believe that's sexist. These rights should extend to any man who gets pregnant!

----------


## Spexvet

> After reading all of the posts here, I felt a need to put my two cents in. 
> 
>  Let's see the 14 year old girl who "got"pregant? What the heck was she doing having sex? So played like an adult, act like an adult and take responsiblity for your stupid action.


 I think it's a lot to expect a 14 year old, who gave in to "pleasures of the flesh", to take on the rest of the responsibilities an adult has. 




> Oh I forgot, we have abortion. Why does her life have to be toast? Can she be responsible and give the baby up and go on with her life? Can the baby grow up to be responsible? So she'll be "fat and ugly" for nine months, so what it's called responsiblity. Also where is her right to have be informed about birth control? Is she going to say "I didn't know where babies come from" Gimme a break. If a child is going to have sex, then she can learn about birth control and use it. to heck with birth control for the sake of no babies, what about aids, stds etc. She decided not to use condoms because of what?


 Would you give your 14 year old daughter condoms? Isn't it conservatives who fight sex education in school? But I'm sure they teach it home, right?




> As for government regulation. I hate the fact that I am forced to endure the culture that abortion on demand has made. We created birth control(good thing if used)and then legalized abortion. The Sexual Revolution was born. No more responsible people. Do what you want with no consequences. Since the late 60's it has been a spiraling downfall of despair. I'm not saying purity is going to happen, but as Pete said, why have laws in place for anything.(Sorry Pete, edited alittle)I could list all sorts of issues, but that would take forever. 
> 
>   This was a great thread:-)  It made people be strong in their words.  Strong in their beliefs.
> 
>   Christina


  I would hate to have to endure a culture where choice was taken away from women who want to end a pregnancy.

----------


## Spexvet

> Jana:  Doesn't matter what I think, matters what God thinks.
> 
>  But yes, I think abortion is murdering your own child.  But my opinion doesn't matter.


 Chip, Please answer Jana's question. I'd also like to know where the bible says abortion is against God's law.

----------


## Spexvet

The question really comes down to "when does "it" become a human?". Animals exhibit post-birth behavior in-utero, but that doesn't make them human, does it? For all any of us knows, a "soul" may only enter a body when that body leaves the uterus. Since we don't know, leave it up to the pregnant woman to decide!

----------


## Spexvet

> Jana: 
> 
>  You have a right to your beliefs and do not worry about a man/woman/government telling weather or not it's all right to murder your own unborn child. You need not worry about the judgement of any of these. 
> 
>  But I would worry forever about whose judgement You will have to face. And unless I have read His book wrong, He has said it's a no, no.. And yes, He does have the right to "tell" you and judge you.
> 
>  Chip:hammer:


 Then it's between a pregnant woman and her God, so stay out of it.

----------


## chip anderson

Does anyone who would murder a child, born or unborn thiers or anothers have a God?

----------


## Pete Hanlin

One question I'd like to ask of the "let the woman decide" side of this debate...  

If I understand the argument, _women_ have a choice whether to become parents- but not _men_.  This is because the baby- although it carries the characteristics of both parties- happens to be solely supported by the mother for the first 9 months of its life.  

The weakness in this position seems to be in the inequality of it all.  If a man objects to becoming a parent, the woman can ignore the objection and carry the child to term- and then sue for support.  It would seem to me that- in this "let the woman determine whether its a child or a zygote" mentality- the man should also be able to express his "choice" by signing a statement that he does not wish to become a father any time prior to the child's birth.  From that moment on, he is absolved from any responsibility for the child.  

After all, the argument is that the woman has no particular "contract" with the child that precludes her from ending its life- even though the behavior which resulted in the child may have been completely voluntary in nature.  Given the call for "equal rights" and all that, I would think men should have the same opportunity to choose whether they wish to be "inconvenienced" with a child.  Why is it that a man is 100% committed to being a parent at conception, but a woman is not?

I'm not buying the medical argument either...  As many times as I hear the _"its my body"_ mantra, what it most often boils down to is convenience- elective abortion isn't one of the healthier things you can do to your body.  Once a baby is born, there are laws which state that no legal action can be taken against a mother who wishes to give up responsibility for the child.  So, it becomes more an argument of _"its my life."_  For the man, I would think it would be stated as an _"its my wallet"_ argument (that's a crass way of putting it, but that's the same rationale taken by the woman who would rather finish college, get back to a career, etc.).

Note, I continue to believe both the man and woman are obligated once a pregnancy occurs, but thought I'd take on the "man/woman" dimension of the argument.

Regarding moral laws...
Luckily, I included the all-important "most" clause.
Ah, I see- you could do without the "morality" laws with which you don't agree- but believe everyone else should have to live by the morality laws with which you do agree.  Wow, that's pretty convenient.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Does anyone who would murder a child, born or unborn thiers or anothers have a God?


This is simple..... I don't agree that it's murder.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> I believe that's sexist. These rights should extend to any man who gets pregnant!


Agreed spexvet.....

I guess I didn't make myself clear.... 

What I don't understand is Men who prostest in front of clinics, protesting abortion! They have NO IDEA what my position is ( as a man) anyway... 

I do believe that Men should be actively involved in any aspects of "their"  pregnancy... after all it takes two. 

Sorry for the mis-communication. I am not as eloquent as some of you guys! ;)

----------


## Spexvet

> Regarding moral laws...
> Luckily, I included the all-important "most" clause.
> Ah, I see- you could do without the "morality" laws with which you don't agree- but believe everyone else should have to live by the morality laws with which you do agree. Wow, that's pretty convenient.


Pete,

Sarcasm noted.

Isn't that what we all do? You would like laws prohibiting the choice of abortion, and probably laws prohibiting the use of federal taxes for local use. But I'm guessing that you would not want laws limiting gun posession or legalizing same sex marriage. I think I already illustrated in post #134 that conservatives do this "all the time".

But, more specifically, when _I_ refer to moral laws, I refer more to "vice" laws. Where consenting, informed adults are involved and no one is injured or exploited.

----------


## Spexvet

> Agreed spexvet.....
> 
> I guess I didn't make myself clear.... 
> 
> What I don't understand is Men who prostest in front of clinics, protesting abortion! They have NO IDEA what my position is ( as a man) anyway... 
> 
> I do believe that Men should be actively involved in any aspects of "their" pregnancy... after all it takes two. 
> 
> Sorry for the mis-communication. I am not as eloquent as some of you guys! ;)


Actually, I was attempting a little levity.:bbg:

----------


## shanbaum

Pete,

I wasn't speaking about an individual instance in which a man and woman decide whether or not to have an abortion. I was speaking of the general case, that is, whether abortion should be prohibited or not, and if it should, under what circumstances. If women were to decide that it should be prohibited (which I don't believe they would do), well, that would be that. Perhaps if the Congress and the legislatures were composed of roughly equal parts men and women, I'd feel differently. As it is, any prohibition would, as a matter of fact, be dictated by men.

I certainly did not assert that a woman has _no_ duty to (though, it's certainly not a "contract" with) her unborn child. Neither does _Roe v. Wade_, which, if you would read it, you might be struck by the way the court struggled to balance the competing rights and duties involved.

The "health of the mother" exception provides a baseline of sorts - no court will rule that a woman must sacrifice her health in favor of her unborn child. That would be to invert the current (and traditional) state of the law that provides no rights to the unborn; that would mean that the only rights that matter _are_ those of the unborn, and the woman would have none.

And regarding "moral laws", only those moral imperatives on which there is broad agreement (or perhaps, broad acquiescence to the beliefs of an intense minority) find expression in the law in any case; convenience doesn't have much to do with it. The "rights of the unborn" are mostly _disagreed_ about, which is a principal reason why they're not recognized. At least, not yet.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Sarcasm noted.
;) Sarcasm is, at times, my favorite form of communication.

You are correct- most people tend to favor their own brand of "morality." I think some call this existentialism- which is one of the most misguided philosophies of all time (in my opinion). In the case of abortion, I believe secular humanism also plays a large role. 

Given that expression of morality is found in the laws of a society, morality quickly becomes a political issue.

As for _laws_ prohibiting abortion, to be honest I am rather ambivalent regarding a politician's stand on abortion. I find it unlikely that _Roe v. Wade_ is going to be overturned anytime in the foreseeable future, and- since I believe it quite probable that the majority of the population desires legalized abortion- its probably best that abortion remain legal (well, unless you're an unborn baby- sarcasm again). 

Being as consistent as possible, I don't even vigorously oppose partial birth abortions. A child is a child, so an abortion at 2 months is no different than abortion at 8.5 months. It makes everyone more squemish to see that a late-term aborted baby is so completely formed, but either way, the child is terminated. If the country is accepting abortion as an agreeable form of birth-control, we should be honest enough with ourselves to recognize what it is... that is, the termination of a unique human being.

As for Roe v. Wade itself, I have read parts of it, and I can see where being a Supreme Court Justice may not be such a pleasant occupation. I continue to disagree with the decision, but this is based on a belief that an unborn child is a child. Aborting a child is fundamentally _not_ the same as electing to have a tumor removed. The child is _not_ part of the female body. No integral part of your body leaves you after growing for 9 months. 

As for stem cell research (a topic which I'm suprised hasn't arisen), why the heck not? As long as society has decided to terminate babies, it seems there should be some benefit to the rest of us (resigned sarcasm).

Finally, as for judging those who have and will have abortions- how presumptuous! I refer anyone who feels the moral authority to cast such judgements to Romans chapter 2. I'm not saying abortion isn't wrong, but I am suggesting that we are all guilty of so many things that condemning others should be the last of our concerns. Perhaps if I ever reach a point where I've conquered my own shortcomings, I'll find time to dwell on those of others (given the nature of progressive sanctification, I'll be gone from this world before that day dawns).

Abortion is wrong for _me_. Personally and religiously, I also think it is wrong in general. Civically speaking, I believe it is wrong for our country. However, I'm convinced most people in my country favor abortion (or at least the availability of it). That doesn't make me happy, but that's the society in which I live. Perhaps abortion isn't "wrong" for someone else. To be honest, I don't envy anyone who chooses to have an abortion. I have a hard time believing anyone considers it a positive choice. I can only assume that it is a decision that is reached out of fear, desperation, or despair- so anyone who has been forced to make such a decision should receive my sympathy, not my condemnation.

----------


## Spexvet

> Abortion is wrong for _me_. Personally and religiously, I also think it is wrong in general. Civically speaking, I believe it is wrong for our country. However, I'm convinced most people in my country favor abortion (or at least the availability of it). That doesn't make me happy, but that's the society in which I live. Perhaps abortion isn't "wrong" for someone else. To be honest, I don't envy anyone who chooses to have an abortion. I have a hard time believing anyone considers it a positive choice. I can only assume that it is a decision that is reached out of fear, desperation, or despair- so anyone who has been forced to make such a decision should receive my sympathy, not my condemnation.


Well put, and incredibly liberal of you!:cheers:

----------


## mrba

> This is simple..... I don't agree that it's murder.


Can you prove that the unborn is not alive?  And if so what percent are you sure?  99%?

----------


## chm2023

It's heartening to see that many of the OBers recognize this is a complex and perplexing issue. For myself, I think abortion is a serious sin, but I have real difficulty imposing my personal values on others, especially in a case where the alternatives can be mighty grim. I do feel strongly that not providing info on reproduction and exclusively preaching the virtues of abstinence is a horrible idea--is abortion a better form of birth control than the pill or condom, because that's what this approach eventually leads to. Ideally, all efforts, including encouraging abstinence, should concentrate on making young people aware of the consequences of sexual activity. If people spent more time and resources on this as opposed to flapping their gums about pro-life/pro-choice, we would all be better off.

(There is one thing that intrigues me. Were Roe v Wade overturned, and abortion prohibition was made the law of the land, and a woman had an illegal abortion, who would be prosecuted? The woman or the doctor, and possibly her husband?)

----------


## Spexvet

> Can you prove that the unborn is not alive? And if so what percent are you sure? 99%?


Can you prove that the unborn is alive? And if so what percent are you sure? 99%?

----------


## chm2023

> Can you prove that the unborn is alive? And if so what percent are you sure? 99%?


Spexie,

I don't think this is provable/unprovable if by alive you mean being a person--after all, what's the definition of that? That is the crux of the whole issue I suppose. For myself, there are degrees of being alive--is someone on life support "alive"? Most people have no problem with this limited form of euthanasia, i.e. taking someone off life support. Well if you want to be a purist, this is taking a life. I guess my point is, it's not as black and white as the extremists on both sides suggest.

The depressing thing is we are becoming a society that hasn't the will or brain or God help us, the attention span, to fully consider issues. It's all yes or all no and bombs away. It's not the meek that are inheriting the earth, it's the simple-minded who sit at the feet of demagogues.  Every fallen civilization fed its own decline, why should ours be different?  (I've been reading up on Iraq, it tends to put one in a black mood!! :Eek:  )

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexie,
> 
> I don't think this is provable/unprovable if by alive you mean being a person--after all, what's the definition of that? That is the crux of the whole issue I suppose. For myself, there are degrees of being alive--is someone on life support "alive"? Most people have no problem with this limited form of euthanasia, i.e. taking someone off life support. Well if you want to be a purist, this is taking a life. I guess my point is, it's not as black and white as the extremists on both sides suggest.
> 
> The depressing thing is we are becoming a society that hasn't the will or brain or God help us, the attention span, to fully consider issues. It's all yes or all no and bombs away. It's not the meek that are inheriting the earth, it's the simple-minded who sit at the feet of demagogues. Every fallen civilization fed its own decline, why should ours be different? (I've been reading up on Iraq, it tends to put one in a black mood!! )


I was just throwing mrba's question right back at him. Seems he doesn't realize that this question, if provable, would settle the everything - but it truly can't be answered by either side.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Well put, and incredibly liberal of you!
Well, I've been called a lot of things, but "liberal" is a first. 
;) 

Regarding prosecution, I do not believe abortion has ever resulted in murder charges- even pre- Roe v. Wade. Of course, that's before my time, so perhaps someone with a better knowledge of history in this area can enlighten us.

Concerning abstinence, while I agree that it cannot be the only message sent to our young people (for practical reasons), it does dismay me that many educators scoff at the idea of even mentioning abstinence. Speaking religiously, the funny thing is that people view the moral prescriptions of the Bible as being overly "restrictive" or "unrealistic." Viewed objectively, however, following these rules does usually lead one to a much happier life. I mean, imagine if everyone actually waited until they were married to have sex. It wouldn't solve all problems- but could you imagine how much better off society would be? "Abstaining" from adultery, drunkeness, and other sins generally leads to a happier life as well. Just an observation.

I plan to tell my son and daughter (on a day that will come all too soon, unfortunately) _"Look, if you want to avoid any chance of contracting a STD or becoming/causing a pregnancy, abstinence is the only guaranteed way. Furthermore, speaking from experience, sex is absolutely one of the greatest and funnest activities in the world- but nothing that lasts only 1-2 hours is worth paying for the rest of your life. That said, if you DO decide to engage in sexual activity, understand there are real consequences to your behavior. While I will always be here to love and support you, some of these consequences could be beyond my power to help. Now, go talk to your mother if you have any particular questions!"_

----------


## chm2023

> Well put, and incredibly liberal of you!
> Well, I've been called a lot of things, but "liberal" is a first. 
> ;) 
> 
> Regarding prosecution, I do not believe abortion has ever resulted in murder charges- even pre- Roe v. Wade. Of course, that's before my time, so perhaps someone with a better knowledge of history in this area can enlighten us.
> 
> Concerning abstinence, while I agree that it cannot be the only message sent to our young people (for practical reasons), it does dismay me that many educators scoff at the idea of even mentioning abstinence. Speaking religiously, the funny thing is that people view the moral prescriptions of the Bible as being overly "restrictive" or "unrealistic." Viewed objectively, however, following these rules does usually lead one to a much happier life. I mean, imagine if everyone actually waited until they were married to have sex. It wouldn't solve all problems- but could you imagine how much better off society would be? "Abstaining" from adultery, drunkeness, and other sins generally leads to a happier life as well. Just an observation.
> 
> I plan to tell my son and daughter (on a day that will come all too soon, unfortunately) _"Look, if you want to avoid any chance of contracting a STD or becoming/causing a pregnancy, abstinence is the only guaranteed way. Furthermore, speaking from experience, sex is absolutely one of the greatest and funnest activities in the world- but nothing that lasts only 1-2 hours is worth paying for the rest of your life. That said, if you DO decide to engage in sexual activity, understand there are real consequences to your behavior. While I will always be here to love and support you, some of these consequences could be beyond my power to help. Now, go talk to your mother if you have any particular questions!"_


Well there you go, I totally agree with you. I don't have the answer to the prosecution thing and am too lazy to look it at the moment. I suspect there is a grayness in this area that reflects the real moral dilemna this issue represents to a lot of people. (PS, I think the "let Mom do it" is in every husband's genetic code. My husband couldn't deal with the girls because he felt he would embarrass them; couldn't deal with the boys because he felt he would intimidate them. Oh please!!)

1-2 hours?  Alright, whatever you say.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Can you prove that the unborn is not alive? And if so what percent are you sure? 99%?


Look... you've read my responses here, you know where I stand... I am not wrong in my beliefs, as you are not either. If I choose to have an abortion ( which I hope I never do ) I will have no problem knowing what I did for my myself and anyone else involved was the right choice. 

Simply put MRBA- I am EXTREMELY happy that your not making any decsions about me and my body! Thank goodness! :p

----------


## fvc2020

I must respond to the questions posed:  Yes I would take my 14 year old daughter for a full exam by a gyn and if need be supply her with condoms if she desired to give in to "pleasure of the flesh"  I would hope that she would make better decisions then this, but I would stand up with her.

----------


## Spexvet

> I must respond to the questions posed: Yes I would take my 14 year old daughter for a full exam by a gyn and if need be supply her with condoms if she desired to give in to "pleasure of the flesh" I would hope that she would make better decisions then this, but I would stand up with her.


deleted

----------


## chm2023

> Someone should sentance Jana Na Shanebaum to six-months of listening to 
> 
> Dr. Laura. She knows right from wrong. Lots of women appearently hate her fro pointing out that they do not.
> 
> Chip


This would be the Dr Laura who is divorced, slept her way to the top, who was estranged from her mother (who, you will recall was apparently murdered and found, alone in her apartment, and estimated dead for a couple weeks)--that Dr Laura???? Knowing right from wrong is only half the battle; living it is the other.

I can see why this person would be considered a guru of good old fashioned family values; nonetheless as I have not been divorced and have my mother living with me, perhaps I should give her advice??;)

----------


## Pete Hanlin

1-2 hours? Alright, whatever you say.
:p Hey, just wanted to see if anyone actually reads these posts...

Anyway, I don't anticipate having any trouble talking to my kids about the birds and the bees (given what's on TV these days, they'll be able to tell ME a few things in a couple years- my 10 year old son was actually dismayed to hear Brittany Spears is now married- the boy apparently has high aspirations, if somewhat faulty taste)...  

I won't mind laying down the basics and giving some fatherly advice to both of them, but I can _definitely_ see myself referring my daughter to the wife for any "follow-up" questions.  I have a feeling the teenage years are a lot easier for the guys than the gals (then again, I come from a family of all boys, so I don't really have anything to compare).  

For now, I'm just enjoying actually being able to use the phone, car, and bathrooms whenever I want- before my two hit their _teens_!!!

----------


## mrba

> Can you prove that the unborn is alive? And if so what percent are you sure? 99%?


I am 100% sure that given an EEG and a heartbeat the unborn baby is definately alive. 

If you were knocked unconcious in a car accident you would want to be held to the same standard?

----------


## Jana Lewis

> I am 100% sure that given an EEG and a heartbeat the unborn baby is definately alive. 
> 
> If you were knocked unconcious in a car accident you would want to be held to the same standard...


Talk to your congressman... :)

----------


## karen

> Rather than the negative position of "you can't have an abortion", I would like to see anti-choice supporters take a positive position, where they promote adoption, or a support women. It could be that some financial support, a place to live healthcare coverage or day care would convince a woman to continue a pregnancy.


Wow,I ignore this thread for a couple of days and it gets wild and crazy.

Spexvet, I submit to you that the folks at Planned Parenthood could try this as well and I know from personal experience that they don't offer these options. No one counsels you on other alternatives there. I admit to not liking the idea of the government telling me what I can and can't do with my body but since I happen to think that in this particular instance it is murder it makes the "choice" issue a moot point. Let me tell you a story..When I was 8 weeks pregnant with my now 11 year old son I had what they call a "threatened abortion"-they thought I might lose the baby. I was rushed in to the doctors office, drank a million gallons of water and hooked up to the ultrasound machine. I was reassured by the technician that the baby was fine because she could see it's heartbeat, which she turned around and showed me on the monitor. This happened 2 more times before they figured out I needed some more progesterone but by 9 1/2 weeks I had had 3 ultrasounds where each time I could see the baby's heartbeat. Somewhere in the middle of that first visit I flashed back to my personal visit to Planned Parenthood several years before where at 8 weeks pregnant I made a decision that suddenly seemed like the wrong "choice". No one there ever talked to me about what the fetus whould be like developementally at that stage or offered any other options. They took my money and did their job-the people standing outside with signs offerered other alternatives but I did not listen. So for me, having been on both sides I have personal experience that colors my opinions on a very passionate ( on both sides) issue. I wish that as Pete said the choice took place when people decided whether to keep their clothes on or to use protection. I don't think that is unreasonable. That was probably too much info but I figured I should defend my point before hand...

----------


## chm2023

Karen, if I understood your post, you approached PP because you had made a decision to have an abortion.  You expected them to give you info that would make you uncomfortable with your decision?  Is this their job?

Perhaps I misunderstood.

----------


## Spexvet

> Rather than the negative position of "you can't have an abortion", I would like to see anti-choice supporters take a positive position, where they promote adoption, or a support women. It could be that some financial support, a place to live healthcare coverage or day care would convince a woman to continue a pregnancy.





> Wow,I ignore this thread for a couple of days and it gets wild and crazy.
> 
> Spexvet, I submit to you that the folks at Planned Parenthood could try this as well and I know from personal experience that they don't offer these options. No one counsels you on other alternatives there. I admit to not liking the idea of the government telling me what I can and can't do with my body but since I happen to think that in this particular instance it is murder it makes the "choice" issue a moot point. ...


Karen,
I think the difference is that PP is not trying to force people to have an abortion, whereas anti-choice people are trying to force people to continue their pregnancy. My advice was to help anti-abortion activists acheive their goal without imposing their values on others. It isn't PP's goal to remove a woman's right to choose, it's to carry out a woman's choice.

IMO opinion, there is a difference between anti-choice and anti-abortion. Pete discribed it well. I have no issue with anyone being anti-abortion, just don't take the choice away from those who choose differently.

----------


## chm2023

Check out the Calvin Trillin book "Obliviously On He Sails:  The Bush Administration in Rhyme."  Sample verse re Ashcroft's statement that we in the US have no king but Jesus:

The only king we have is Jesus
And I feel blessed to bring the news
The only king we have is Jesus
I can't explain why we got Jews.

I am a big Trillin fan, and this is exceptionally clever stuff.

----------


## Judy Canty

So now that we've opended this can of worms...how do we feel about those poor souls in a persistant vegetative state?

----------


## coda

All this discussion of abortion (which I should note I instigated with a humerous aside) has me wondering how far apart we really are.  I think a good core question is as follows:

Given that other forms of birth control are available do you believe that solely using abortion as a method of birth control is acceptable (i.e. no form of birth control is used except abortion)?

----------


## Pete Hanlin

If I'm that poor vegetative soul, please yank the plug ASAP!  As much as I enjoy this life, I have no qualms in departing when my time has come (just remember- its not an end, just a new beginning).

Florida recently had a big bru-haha over a young woman whose husband decided to terminate life support.  The family lobbied in court to keep her on support indefinitely.  I was watching a show about finances, and the lady (who gives financial advice on TV- I forget her name) indicated you should definitely have a stipulation in writing that you do not wish to be supported indefinitely.  Apparently, the insurance eventually runs out and your family can be left with devastating bills.

----------


## chm2023

> All this discussion of abortion (which I should note I instigated with a humerous aside) has me wondering how far apart we really are. I think a good core question is as follows:
> 
> Given that other forms of birth control are available do you believe that solely using abortion as a method of birth control is acceptable (i.e. no form of birth control is used except abortion)?


Heavens no!!!  Every effort should be made by parents, teachers, gov't to inform sexually active people of their options.  In a perfect world abortion would go away because unwanted pregnancies would go away.

----------


## chm2023

> If I'm that poor vegetative soul, please yank the plug ASAP! As much as I enjoy this life, I have no qualms in departing when my time has come (just remember- its not an end, just a new beginning).
> 
> Florida recently had a big bru-haha over a young woman whose husband decided to terminate life support. The family lobbied in court to keep her on support indefinitely. I was watching a show about finances, and the lady (who gives financial advice on TV- I forget her name) indicated you should definitely have a stipulation in writing that you do not wish to be supported indefinitely. Apparently, the insurance eventually runs out and your family can be left with devastating bills.


I was stunned to see Jeb Bush interfere in this on behalf of the parents.  Talk about the government getting in your business.

----------


## Spexvet

> If I'm that poor vegetative soul, please yank the plug ASAP! As much as I enjoy this life, I have no qualms in departing when my time has come (just remember- its not an end, just a new beginning).
> 
> Florida recently had a big bru-haha over a young woman whose husband decided to terminate life support. The family lobbied in court to keep her on support indefinitely.


And here, I thought Jeb got all the brains in that family!:) 

BTW, has Jeb started his campaign for 2008 presidency?

----------


## Spexvet

> Heavens no!!! Every effort should be made by parents, teachers, gov't to inform sexually active people of their options. In a perfect world abortion would go away because unwanted pregnancies would go away.


Perfect answer!

----------


## Pete Hanlin

BTW, has Jeb started his campaign for 2008 presidency?
Not a chance in the world, in my opinion... The day George called up and said he was running for President eliminated any chance for Jeb- and I'd imagine there'd have to be some regrets for Jeb in it all.

The aforementioned affair with the parents aside, Jeb has done a simply fantastic job as Florida's governor. The Florida One initiative is one of the best social policies I've ever seen, and I'd have to say if there's any Republican I'd like to think I'm similar to, it would be Jeb. I certainly hope this young man finds some way to stay in public service after his second term is up (perhaps a run for Senator, if he decides to go up against Katherine Harris, who will probably run next go round).

My future GOP dream ticket is Santorum/Jeb Bush. That would be one to get me back into active campaigning (last time I actively campaigned was for Al Gore in his Tennessee Senate run).

----------


## rinselberg

> BTW, has Jeb started his campaign for 2008 presidency? Not a chance in the world, in my opinion... The day George called up and said he was running for President eliminated any chance for Jeb...


I almost never venture into OB politics, aside from my national security and foreign policy interests, but I am curious about the comment here from *Pete.* Is Jeb Bush effectively precluded from running in 2008 because the electorate would not like the idea of too much of one family as President: George 1, George 2 -- just can't accept the idea of a third "President Bush"? Or is it more complicated than just that?

----------


## Pete Hanlin

That's basically it- I just don't see America going for a third Bush.

BTW, I'm going to be speaking in Sunnyvale, CA (up near San Jose, right?) next week.  Do you happen to know the way to San Jose?  (Couldn't resist that!)

----------


## Judy Canty

But that poor soul has a heartbeat.  What right does anyone have to end its life?

----------


## rinselberg

> That's basically it -- I just don't see America going for a third Bush. BTW, I'm going to be speaking in Sunnyvale... near San Jose... next week.


Speaking at an Essilor or optical/professional function --? To the west of San Francisco Bay, they call this the "Peninsula". San Francisco on the north end and San Jose on the south end, about forty miles apart. A line of smaller cities all the way from one end to the other. Sunnyvale, a little closer to the San Jose end of the line. Yes, I consider San Jose as just about next door. I don't know how the likes of me ("rinselberg can only hope to improve...", so say all of my recent fortune cookies) could be of service to the likes of you, but if for whatever reason you would need to consult a local about something or other, please feel free. There's only one Ronald Inselberg in the Area Code 408 telephone book. Hope it's a very pleasant trip for you. Haven't had a real hurricane here yet!

----------


## Spexvet

> My future GOP dream ticket is Santorum/Jeb Bush. That would be one to get me back into active campaigning (last time I actively campaigned was for Al Gore in his Tennessee Senate run).


 Funny you should say that. I was thinking about volunteering to work on the campaign of whoever might run against Archie Bunker - I mean Rick Santorum. I don't believe he represents the philosophy of the majority of us Pennsylvanians. Hopefully, the same machine that got (democrat) Ed Rendell into the governor's office will get Santorum out. 

 I hope you don't support Curt Weldon, our congressman. He fought Cheney, back when Cheney was Sec of Defense and Senator, and kept the Osprey project going. This Osprey helicopter has cost way too many millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions. Why does Curt support it? Because it is made right here in his constituency. BTW, It still doesn't work and several marines were killed testing it a few years back.

 Then there's Arlen Specter. I'm ok with him, politically. But he originated the "single bullet theory" when he was on the Warren Commission.

 What a group!

----------


## karen

> Karen, if I understood your post, you approached PP because you had made a decision to have an abortion.  You expected them to give you info that would make you uncomfortable with your decision?  Is this their job?
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstood.


No, you didn't misunderstand me but I think that a more comprehensive presentation of the options that are available to anyone would make sense.  I would think that part of their job would be to educate about every option-be it abortion, adoption, birth control, abstinence etc.  Is it just their job to do abortions??

Spexvet, I don't expect people to be forced to continue their pregnancies so much as not put themselves in the position to need an abortion.  It's not like public school hasn't been telling them since 7th grade how it happens and even providing contraception.  I don't think there are many circumstances where an unwanted preganacy should have to occur.  Like chm said-In a perfrect world there would be no unwanted pergnancies and therefore no abortions (paraphrasing).

On a lighter note, Pete-are you only up there in Northern Cal or are you coming down here too??

----------


## Spexvet

> No, you didn't misunderstand me but I think that a more comprehensive presentation of the options that are available to anyone would make sense. I would think that part of their job would be to educate about every option-be it abortion, adoption, birth control, abstinence etc. Is it just their job to do abortions??


 Would you also like to see abortions discussed in adoption centers? Bush has yanked funding for organizations that perform abortions and made it illegal for some to even talk about it. Is that the culture you want for America?

----------


## mrba

> Would you also like to see abortions discussed in adoption centers? Bush has yanked funding for organizations that perform abortions and made it illegal for some to even talk about it. Is that the culture you want for America?


On the other hand a close friend of mine came home to see her 17 year old daughter covered in blood from a legal abortion. The law in CA says she didn't have to tell her parents. What do you think of that? I don't think Bush is the only one stifling the discussion .

----------


## Jana Lewis

> On the other hand a close friend of mine came home to see her 17 year old daughter covered in blood from a legal abortion. The law in CA says she didn't have to tell her parents. What do you think of that? I don't think Bush is the only one stifling the discussion .


That's unfortunate. However, I am sure there are thousands of abortions preformed daily with no problems. I do feel fo rthe young woman, too bad she felt she couldn't communicate with her parents. Atleast she had a CHOICE to do what she thought was the right thing, regardless of the aftermath. Bless her.

----------


## mrba

> That's unfortunate. However, I am sure there are thousands of abortions preformed daily with no problems. I do feel fo rthe young woman, too bad she felt she couldn't communicate with her parents. Atleast she had a CHOICE to do what she thought was the right thing, regardless of the aftermath. Bless her.


I think that dependant children should have to involve their parents in all medical decisions. That is the only right thing. If my friend's daughter's parents had not been home, she would have died. That is not the right thing in my opinion.

Yeah, at least she had the freedom to choose to take a risk she shouldn't have, without supervision.




> However, I am sure there are thousands of abortions preformed daily with no problems


Yes girls are less desireable than boys.  Infanticide is the unsung theme of abortion, a practice older than the trees.  Korea and India don't hide the dirty secret behind the veil of medicine.  At least they have integrity about their murder.

Here is 10 zillion links on that subject for those who have never heard of what I am talking about.

http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/sex_selection.htm

----------


## mrba

> Then there's Arlen Specter. I'm ok with him, politically. But he originated the "single bullet theory" when he was on the Warren Commission.


Thank you for that.  I have never liked Spector.  Now we know one more senator for sale.

----------


## chm2023

> Would you also like to see abortions discussed in adoption centers? Bush has yanked funding for organizations that perform abortions and made it illegal for some to even talk about it. Is that the culture you want for America?


The AIDS/Africa $15 billion that Bush talks about (spending is another matter) has an attachment that no money can be spent on abortion and that a significant portion has to be spent (get this) teaching the glories of abstinence--given that the main means of tranferring the disease in Africa is the prostitute/truck driver trade, how do you think this will go over?  How can someone be so clueless and walk upright?

----------


## chm2023

Check out the NYT today.  Article about chemical plants in US still significantly unprotected.  The Congress and Homeland Security are trying to get the chem companies to agree to safety measures (gates, cameras etc) but the chem companies are loathe to do so.  Quiz:  guess which side the Bush admin is on?

----------


## mrba

> The AIDS/Africa $15 billion that Bush talks about (spending is another matter) has an attachment that no money can be spent on abortion and that a significant portion has to be spent (get this) teaching the glories of abstinence--given that the main means of tranferring the disease in Africa is the prostitute/truck driver trade, how do you think this will go over? How can someone be so clueless and walk upright?


No. For such a liberated woman your information is poor. One of the main causes of the spread of aids in Africa is rape, followed by superstions revolving around sexual intercourse (which by the way can only be solved by education).

It is disturbing that the media is effectively flushing Africa down the toilet by not reporting on the problem.

As far as your issues with abstinence, The only country in Africa that has seen a reduction in AIDS cases did it with an abstinance program, and a program to stress monogamy.

----------


## Spexvet

Quote:
Originally Posted by *chm2023*
_The AIDS/Africa $15 billion that Bush talks about (spending is another matter) has an attachment that no money can be spent on abortion and that a significant portion has to be spent (get this) teaching the glories of abstinence--given that the main means of tranferring the disease in Africa is the prostitute/truck driver trade, how do you think this will go over? How can someone be so clueless and walk upright?_






> No. For such a liberated woman your information is poor. One of the main causes of the spread of aids in Africa is rape, followed by superstions revolving around sexual intercourse (which by the way can only be solved by education).
> 
> It is disturbing that the media is effectively flushing Africa down the toilet by not reporting on the problem.
> 
> As far as your issues with abstinence, The only country in Africa that has seen a reduction in AIDS cases did it with an abstinance program, and a program to stress monogamy.


The point and question is:
If you are committed to helping Africans overcome AIDS, why would you put conditions on the financing???

----------


## mrba

> The point and question is:
> If you are committed to helping Africans overcome AIDS, why would you put conditions on the financing???


Some methods are proven. Education and condoms, don't work. Ask anyone in San Francisco, where AIDS is increasing, despite the free condom jar at some of my favorite eyedoctor's offices.

----------


## karen

> Would you also like to see abortions discussed in adoption centers? Bush has yanked funding for organizations that perform abortions and made it illegal for some to even talk about it. Is that the culture you want for America?


To be honest, no I would not like to see abortions discussed in adoption centers but I see the parallel you are drawing and the logic behind it.  W happens to think abortion is wrong-are we talking about federal funding?  Should the government fund what he (and I) think is killing?  I am curious about it being illegal to talk about it, seeing as how it is not illegal to DO it, could you please tell me where that info is from? Thanks.

----------


## Spexvet

> To be honest, no I would not like to see abortions discussed in adoption centers but I see the parallel you are drawing and the logic behind it. W happens to think abortion is wrong-are we talking about federal funding? Should the government fund what he (and I) think is killing? I am curious about it being illegal to talk about it, seeing as how it is not illegal to DO it, could you please tell me where that info is from? Thanks.


My memory isn't what it used to be, but I recall reading or hearing that government agencies were prohibites from even mentioning abortion as an alternative. I'll research and see if I can document this.

----------


## rinselberg

All these posts about a woman's freedom of choice, abortion, zygotes and such just rang a bell: I clearly remember several months ago on MSNBC ("rinselberg's sole source for news") that the Defense Department awarded a research contract for a _stem cells_ project. Research to be conducted in _Sweden_ because the current restrictions on Embryonic Stem Cell Research in the United States made it more desirable (if not absolutely necessary) to conduct the research abroad.

_Rummy is no dummy ..._

----------


## coda

> I can imagine certain ways that this post might continue, but all I want to say at the moment is, MAYBE *Rummy* is no dummy!


Having worked on DARPA research projects in the past I believe I can guarantee that they have little or no individual visibility to the Sec. Def.  Second how much smarts does it take to choose the best place to do any development based on the ability of any particular research group to perform the work?  It's like saying "gee he was smart to go to an auto mechanic to fix his car rather than an psychologist".  Clearly the mechanic, like the Swedes, had the right tools for the job.

----------


## rinselberg

> Having worked on DARPA research projects in the past, I believe I can guarantee that they have little or no individual visibility to the SecDef. [And] how much smarts does it take to choose the best place ... based on the ability of [a] particular research group to perform the work? It's like saying "Gee - he was smart to go to an auto mechanic to fix his car [instead of] a psychologist." Clearly the mechanic, like the Swedes, had the right tools for the job.


Well Coda, considering what SOME OptiBoarders (and many other Americans, I'm sure) have said about Donald Rumsfeld, I would say that "Gee - he was smart to go to an auto mechanic" would be quite a compliment. Really, the Rumsfeld part of my post was not that central to my point. I just thought it was an interesting thought to put into the conversation, about DoD going overseas for stem cells research.

I can't say that I followed Rumsfeld much before nine-eleven and Afghanistan. I have not actually read "The Rumsfeld Way" and perhaps never will. Unlike what I would guess are many people, I was very favorably impressed with his way of handling the DoD press conferences when they were a hot item on TV. I thought his answers were remarkably lucid, witty, engaging, quick, articulate, imaginative, scholarly and often downright funny. _After all, it's just a war going on ... no reason for anyone to lose their sense of humor._ Whatever best fit the question.

Was he RIGHT? I don't want to start on that again, at least not right now. I honestly don't know how Rumsfeld stands on some of the social policy issues like abortions and stem cell research. If Bush is reelected, I would not be surprised to see Rumsfeld step down shortly after the election. I mean the guy is how old --? I think he'd probably want to do it just for personal reasons. Right or wrong, I'm surprised he  hasn't just dropped dead from wear and tear by now, especially after the Abu Ghreib scandal. That's why I used to sign my posts *Another Rumsfeld groupie ...*




> Rinsel Tinsel,
> Tell me your favorite 10 things Rummy has done!

----------


## mrba

> Well Coda, considering what SOME OptiBoarders (and many other Americans, I'm sure) have said about Rumsfeld, I would say that "gee he was smart to go to an auto mechanic" would be quite a compliment! Really, the Rumsfeld part of my post was not that central to my making it. I just thought it was an interesting thought to put into the conversation, about the DoD going overseas for the stem cells research. I can't say that I followed Rumsfeld much before nine-eleven and Afghanistan. I have not actually read The Rumsfeld Way and perhaps never will. Unlike what I would guess are many people, I was very favorably impressed with his way of doing the DoD press conferences when they were a hot item on TV. I thought his answers were generally very lucid, witty, engaging, quick, articulate, imaginative, scholarly, often downright funny (well, after all, it's just a war going on .... no reason to lose one's sense of humor) -- whatever best fit the question. Was he RIGHT? I don't want to start on that again, at least not right now. I honestly don't know how Rumsfeld stands on some of the social policy issues like abortions and stem cell research. If Bush is reelected, I would not be surprised to see Rumsfeld step down shortly after the election. I mean the guy is how old --? I think he'd probably want to do it just for personal reasons. Right or wrong, I'm surprised he hasn't just dropped dead from wear and tear by now, especially after the Abu Ghreib scandal. That's why I used to sign my posts "Another Rumsfeld groupie ...". See ya!


RT,
Tell me your favorite 10 things Rummy has Done!

----------


## chip anderson

Show me a woman that had an abortion 20 years previous (and now that she has grown old enough to have some sense and *values*) doesn't regret her decision.  Show me one that doesn't say that in retrospect it ruined the rest of her life.

Yes, I know that there are those who have had thier abortions for lesser periods of time who will get on thier soap box and defend "a woman's right to have control over her own body".  But mostly these are those who are trying to convice themselves that they didn't really murder thier own child and didn't really make a tragic decision.  Even the principals in Roe vs. Wade now regret both the abortion and the court ruling.

Chip

What should a woman do that has already made such a decision and come to realize it was a mistake?  Go out and hang herself.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Show me a woman that had an abortion 20 years previous (and now that she has grown old enough to have some sense and *values*) doesn't regret her decision. Show me one that doesn't say that in retrospect it ruined the rest of her life.
> 
> Yes, I know that there are those who have had thier abortions for lesser periods of time who will get on thier soap box and defend "a woman's right to have control over her own body". But mostly these are those who are trying to convice themselves that they didn't really murder thier own child and didn't really make a tragic decision. Even the principals in Roe vs. Wade now regret both the abortion and the court ruling.
> 
> Chip
> 
> What should a woman do that has already made such a decision and come to realize it was a mistake? Go out and hang herself.


Thank you Chip....for staying on topic... Bless you!

----------


## Steve Machol

I have cleaned up this thread and removed the extremely off-topic posts from yesterday's diversion. I would like to thank the people who did show some respect and understanding and who took the time and consideration to write.

----------


## Spexvet

> I have cleaned up this thread and removed the extremely off-topic posts from yesterday's diversion. I would like to thank the people who did show some respect and understanding and who took the time and consideration to write.


Thank you, Steve

----------

