Future of Politics

[mindido]

Tex,

"I have a better understanding of the issue than you do."

I sincerely doubt that, having councelled a few women in the past faced with the issue.

"If you think otherwise you are one sick bastard."

Now that is the typical response for someone that only sees one side of the issue, AKA, Eric Rudolph.

 

[Texan]

Dont start a war you can't win.

If some states can charge a person with double homicide if they kill a person with child, then why can't doctors who perform abortions, because the child is unwanted, be charged with murder.

 

[Cman]

Texan, the answer to your question is: because they're different situations.

Abortion is a subjective issue and depends largely on your personal beliefs. A child who is already born is classified as murder because they were definetely alive and now they are dead. An unborn fetus can be classified as a "real person" or not, depending on your definition and personal beliefs.

One is a black and white issue, where as the other one is grey.

 

[mindido]

CMan,

Bingo! You are correct.

 

[Iceberg]

Ice, When I come face to face with a pro-choice person, I ask one and just one question, "What did your mom choose?"

Exactly! CHOOSE!!! My mother chose to have a child. Many women don't have a choice about becoming pregnant (i.e. they've been raped or pressured by some overbearing lout into having sex while unprotected).

I have a better understanding of the issue than you do.

Ummm. No, you don't. You're not a woman, first of all. Neither of us (mindido, included) are. Only women or doctors have a better understanding of the issue than us. What are your qualifications for saying such gobbledygook?

Abortion should not be a birth control, bottom line. If you think otherwise you are one sick bastard.

I agree that abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control. However, there are situations (i.e. if the would-be mother was raped, a victim of incest, or far too young to take care of the child) where abortion should be available if the woman/girl chooses to have one (and prior to being brainwashed by some religious right group not to have one).

Dont start a war you can't win.

What war? Are you going to go Eric Rudolph on us and bomb us for thinking abortion should be an available public health service?

 

[Cman]

I don't really want to choose a side here, which I why I worded my own post above so diplomatically, but as far as who is "winning" the argument, I don't think either of you are.

Tex, despite the fact that you think you are, you aren't, because you're not providing a very valid debate. Yours is more of an "I'm right, so there" type argument, with very little substance and the other side of the argument consists mostly of quote what Texan said and countering with, "you're wrong"

Bottom line, I think you all need to go to debate class and learn how to argue properly :mrgreen:

 

[Texan]

I would have to submit a thesis to explain my point, however since I do not have the time for that I will give you a rough outline.

1. Abortion should not be a form of birth control. If you make a choice to have sex then you will accept the responsibility for your actions and not use abortion as a " do over".

2. Abortions should be allowed in extreme cases, for the same reasons as Ice said (did I say that).

3. Abortions that are allowed should be performed prior to the first trimester.

4. Parents should be given a choice after the first trimester if it is determined that the child has a terminal disease or similar life threatening condition.

I am not a bible thumping right winger.

Eric Rudolph is a sick bastard who was brainwashed by the bible thumpers, and in no way do I agree with his actions. Why take life as form of protest for people taking life. Doesnt make sense.

 

[cableguy]

tex, there is no "prior to the first trimester"

i am pro-choice..
i believe third trimester abortions are abhorrent, and should be outlawed completely, excepting the well being of the mother being at issue..
i also believe that roe v wade is a bad decision and should definitely be overturned...

abortion, like so many other things, is a states issue, not a federal issue... there are arguments to be made both ways, but until there is agreement on what a fetus is, and what constitutes "life," there simply is nothing in the constitution about abortion... there is nothing about privacy, either.. you have a constitutional right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, but no right to privacy... IF there is a federal argument to be made here, it would go counter to roe v wade because of the "right to life..." thing... therefore, roe v wade is flawed doubly, and needs to go...

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Totally off the subject here. I haven't seen anyone mention or even know if anyone cares, that there was a recent debate with PETA and the NRA on of all places....Pay Per View. Anyways the purpose is to vote on who you thought won. Until i believe the 26th of this month they will be taking the votes. I believe the website is huntingnet.com Which kind of sounds fishy, but i don't know the site. Anyways it happened 2 days ago in London. I'll be watching it this weekend, and if anyone cares, i can feel you in. Hopefully you'll be able to get it on p2p soon. Here is what i stole from some other forum about it:

Live from prestigious King’s College in London, England, Andrew Butler, a spokesman for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals),and the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, Wayne La Pierre, will debate regarding the controversial issue of sport hunting. The debate is expected to be impressive and passionate with both sides being aware that they have an international platform to defend their convictions in this debate. Don’t miss two of the strongest advocates of their cause face off in The Hunting Debate – on Events iN DEMAND pay-per-view!

 

[Iceberg]

"Miers family received 'excessive' sum in land case":

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12973371.htm

By JACK DOUGLAS JR. and STEPHEN HENDERSON

Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers collected more than 10 times the market value for a small slice of family-owned land in a large Superfund pollution cleanup site in Dallas where the state wanted to build a highway off-ramp.

(Continued...)

 

[mindido]

Ice,

I really hate to say this, but, so what else is new? Graft and corruption are pretty much standard operating procedure around D.C. nowadays. Anyone that thinks otherwise is either living in a dream world or is part of the problem.

Just another example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/25leak.html

It looks like the truth is starting to come out in the Plame case. The VP was involved in leaking her name in an attempt to discredit her husband. These people could care less about the average person.

 

[cableguy]

duke, i would be curious, though i suspect i know the outcome... peta champions an undefensable position, and lapierre is quite good in a debate...

mindido, the truth in the valerie plame case:
--the name "valerie plame" appeared in the book "who's who in America" before the "leak" is alleged to have happened.. (wwia is a self congratulatory crap concept where one pays to have their name published and feel important, it has no bearing on anything other than ones ability to pay for the listing)
--the law about outing covert cia operatives requires several things not present in this case.. the subject must be covert, or have been so in the past 5 years (might be 6, but either way, she was outside the actual limit).. the person leaking the name must be doing so while knowing said op is covert..
--the source of the name "valerie plame" cannot be agreed on.. the originator of the story has been conspicuously absent from the news..

so far, no crime has been alleged, much less committed... the accusations of wrongdoing, like in the case of tom delay, rely on applying a law to a time period to which it is invalid.. this is merely another fishing expedition, regardless of the outcome...

 

[mindido]

cartman,

I take it you must read comic books for your news. As far as the Plame case is concerned, it looks like we'll know within a few days. I'll be interested to see if the prosecutor has the balls to go after Cheney. Now wouldn't that be a hoot!

 

[cableguy]

ok... scooter libby (who?) was hit with 5 counts of misdirecting and misleading, perhaps even lying, to a grand jury about something that wasnt even a crime!!! this should truly be interesting... one person indicted only... hmmmm... perhaps there isnt much of a story here after all...

in other legal news, the idiot prosecutor who vowed to "get" tom delay is now facing a legal challenge from his supposed prey, and the democrat judge has been removed from the case... any bets on this one getting tossed out or ending in complete exhonoration for the senator??

republicans get in trouble for obeying the law, while democrats get away with breaking it... anyone care to explain that one to me??

 

[mindido]

cartman,

"scooter libby (who?)"

The right hand man of the Vice President!! The VP's primary neo-con advisor. The highest person in the white house to be indicted in 130 years. Get out of your cave once in a while.

"perhaps even lying, to a grand jury about something that wasnt even a crime!!!"

Charged with lying to a grand jury twice and the FBI twice. Also charged with sending the FBI on wild goose chases in order to obfuscate the investigation. And outing a CIA agent isn't a crime? Seems to me, and George Bush Sr. (former head of the CIA), that your wrong.

"one person indicted only..."

The investigation isn't complete. Karl Rove isn't out of the trees yet. The prosecutor made that very clear.

"perhaps there isnt much of a story here after all... "

Well, if high ranking White House officials outing a CIA agent to get back at her husband isn't an important story, I don't know what is.

"republicans get in trouble for obeying the law"

I think you'd better recheck your facts. Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Tom Delay and Bill Frist are all Republicans. And Delay and Frist are (or were) the majority leaders.

 

[mindido]

cartman,

"perhaps there isnt much of a story here after all... "

Heh, heh. Discussions are now underway to pull Karl Roves security clearance. Nope, no story here!

 

[cableguy]

the law in question regarding cia covert ops is NOT in play... she was not covert at the time of the "outing," nor had she been for a time longer than that specified in said law...

two weeks ago, no one had heard of scooter libby... now he is your poster boy... also, might i mention that an indictment is not a conviction... given the right group of people, someone can be indicted on a ham sandwich... the case of earl vs delay is a shining example of this...

joe wilson is a compulsive liar.. most of what he said is easily proven to be untrue... he is either stupid, very ill informed, or a pathological liar... strangely, the same media that wants to crucify rove has let this one slip by unannounced... funny, isnt it??

the sad thing here is that libby, if convicted, will be guilty of covering up something that was in no way illegal... not smart, but time will tell... conspicuously absent in recent news is one bob novak, the FIRST person to publicly mention "valerie plame." anyone care to address that oddity??

minnie, discussions are also underway that hillary clinton brutally sodomized the last President with a cactus, but discussions are meaningless without validation or merit... in your case, i believe "discussions" can be replaced with "wishes" and the statement would carry the same weight... happy hunting, i shall enjoy the next 3 years very much, i believe...

 

[mindido]

cartman,

Straight out of lumbaughs mouth. Learn to think for yourself.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

wooooooooo

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47174

 

[Iceberg]

Duke, big deal.

I'm no fan of Michael Moore, nor most of the people in the article (with the exception of Pelosi), though I appreciate him bringing issues to the forefront.

Moore is not fully honest and he is rather naive at times when it comes to race issues. (He once hired just black guys as his assistants to combat "discriminatory hiring practices" of groups and businesses who, he claimed, hired whites just because the employer was more comfortable with them or got along better with them.) Also, his haranging of the mother who lost her son in Iraq was excessive.

As for Nader, his views are refreshing, though he is politically stubborn and naive as well, since he is the one who made it much more difficult for Gore to win the 2000 election. Had he withdrawn, the last five years from hell would never had happened.