This is Politics?

[fitbabits]

(CNN) — Some supporters of the Republican ticket stole a share of the spotlight at Monday campaign rallies with controversial attacks aimed at Barack Obama.

In Albuquerque, New Mexico, John McCain pushed his campaign’s most recent line of attack against Obama: that the Democratic nominee represents a relatively unknown risk. “All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama?” Someone in the crowd responded by yelling: “Terrorist!” The crowd roared, and McCain seemed startled, but it is unclear whether he actually heard what the man shouted. He did not respond to the attack.

And before GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin entered a campaign rally in Estero, Florida, Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott took aim at “Barack Hussein Obama.” “On November 4, let’s leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened,” he said. As the crowd cheered, he gave a forceful salute.

The McCain-Palin campaign immediately distanced itself from Scott’s remark. “We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric, which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November,” said campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.

In March, McCain rebuked conservative radio talk show host Bill Cunningham for repeatedly referring to the Illinois senator as “Barack Hussein Obama” while warming up the crowd at a campaign event in Cincinnati, before the Arizona senator took the stage.
They've laid their bed, now lets see them lie in it.

[Karmakin]

I see a great deal of fail on the horizon...

One may even call it...epic...

I can't see this going over well at all. The Obama campaign is going to shove the "turn the page" frame so far down their throats they'll be crapping splinters for days. It's a loser. But at this point, they may just be looking to get the base out in the hopes of salvaging something out of the race. People are looking for serious leadership. This sort of thing isn't serious.

BTW. I really like the Founder icon there.

[Midrael]

Mmmm hate politics. Welcome to the America.

I can't remember ever feeling so incredibly worn down by the news. I was really disappointed to watch both campaigns starting to spiral down into all this negativity. It'd been bad up until now, but it's just getting ridiculous. In the meantime, the economy continues to crash, we're still stuck in the Middle East, and world opinion of us goes down every day. Yay?

[VerseD]

Who is the real Barack Obama?

What about the real John McCain? He completely shifted a lot of his positions between the 2000 primaries and the 2008 election.

Or the real Sarah Palin? She ignored a subpoena and is living the Cheney dream of no transparency.

I hate to be so critical, but really, some people need to look in the mirror once in a while. And what happened to the issues?

[Johan]

Who is the real Barack Obama? Or the real Sarah Palin?

I don't know, but their accomplishments are about equal (in the LACK of them), but only one of them is at the top of their ticket. That's a reality.

[VerseD]

I don't know, but their accomplishments are about equal (in the LACK of them), but only one of them is at the top of their ticket. That's a reality.

It's not about accomplishments, it's about knowing who they are and what they intend to do.

McCain changed a lot of his positions coming into this election to be more in line with Bush and the Republican party. Does he intend to follow those politics, or the politics that defined most of his career as a maverick?

I used to really like John McCain, but after seeing him through this campaign -- saying one thing and doing another, constantly laying blame or taking credit undeservedly -- I don't trust him anymore. If you asked me, "Who is the real John McCain?" I couldn't answer.

[BlackPete]

I don't know, but their accomplishments are about equal (in the LACK of them), but only one of them is at the top of their ticket. That's a reality.

By that logic, Obama and McCain has an equal amount of lack of accomplishments.

I really don't understand your logic :confused:

Obama's a senator. Palin isn't.

[Johan]

Obama's a senator. Palin isn't.

Name a significant piece of legislation from Obama (one he's authored/coauthored, not one he's blocked, like the born-alive bill he blocked in IL that would have provided medical care for aborted babies who are born alive, rather than leaving them to die...a bill that subsequently passed the Senate 98-0 in Washington).

Palin has executive experience. Obama has books he's written about himself. He's one of the most partisan members of the senate, near the furthest edge of the liberal continuum (which, with the problems we face, seems to work against the moderate approach we need), with no history of bipartisan compromise to speak of.

He also voted for the bailout, as did McCain; a vote I believe they will rue.

He also requested of Iraq's government that it DELAY a deal to remove US soldiers from Iraq (yes...the man who says we should leave requested a delay in leaving). Why? Ask him. Perhaps he's more interested in getting credit rather than having principles.

Edit: Besides, politics isn't about logic. If it were, would we have a Congress with an approval rating that roughly equals their reelection/recidivism rate? And would our only two choices for president who have a chance of winning BOTH be from the very Congress Americans supposedly despise to such a degree?

Yes, we can! And we do!

[Bingley Joe]

Name a significant piece of legislation from Obama

Look who thinks he's Katie Couric all of a sudden! ;)

[Siraris]

Name a significant piece of legislation from Obama (one he's authored/coauthored, not one he's blocked, like the born-alive bill he blocked in IL that would have provided medical care for aborted babies who are born alive, rather than leaving them to die...a bill that subsequently passed the Senate 98-0 in Washington).

Palin has executive experience. Obama has books he's written about himself. He's one of the most partisan members of the senate, near the furthest edge of the liberal continuum (which, with the problems we face, seems to work against the moderate approach we need), with no history of bipartisan compromise to speak of.

He also voted for the bailout, as did McCain; a vote I believe they will rue.

He also requested of Iraq's government that it DELAY a deal to remove US soldiers from Iraq (yes...the man who says we should leave requested a delay in leaving). Why? Ask him. Perhaps he's more interested in getting credit rather than having principles.

Wow, do you have any more Fox News/Republican talking points to spew? Congrats on making the most ignorant post I've seen on this site so far.

Here is a bill (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1977is.txt.pdf) that was passed that addresses nuclear proliferation, and dealing with rogue nuclear weapons.

Here is a bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:s.1.es:) that has been called the largest sweeping ethics reform bill in decades.

Is that enough, or do you want more?

Your post is VERBATIM, a factually inaccurate Republican talking point. Palin has executive experience? Did she accumulate all that experience during the 312 days out of 397 days (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13736.html) that she spent at home while acting as Governer?

Obama is not bi-partisan? How about the bill he worked on with Dick Lugar (http://obama.senate.gov/press/070628-obama_lugar_sec/), or the bill he worked on with Tom Coburn (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121202701.html?nav=rss_politics/fedpage)? Or the previous bill I posted that was authored with Chuck Hagel?

Keep up with the bogus talking points, Johan. It's really working in the polls! Which state is it that McCain is up in now? Because it certainly isn't Ohio, Virgina, New Mexico, Colorado, Virgina, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, or Florida.

Can I also point out that Palin could not name one supreme court case, or one newspaper that she reads. Obama was a constitutional professor, and editor of the Harvard law review, and would have no problem naming dozens of supreme court cases, any number of periodicals that he reads, and will have no problem appropriately interpreting the constitution.

I know that Joe Sixpack being the President of the United States is very appealing to many Republicans, but it sure as hell isn't for me. We had Joe Sixpack for the past 8 years, and now we're staring down the barrel of one of the most desperate times in recent US history.

[Johan]

Wow, do you have any more Fox News/Republican talking points to spew? Congrats on making the most ignorant post I've seen on this site so far.

Congrats on sauntering in and spewing personal invective and insults. I thought that was frowned upon here.

Yes, we can!

Also, the largest sweeping ethics reform would be campaign finance reform from McCain, which Obama doesn't believe in, given his penchant for refusing to hold to his pledge for public financing!

Also, Obama (of the "we must leave Iraq" Obama), wants to delay leaving! Interesting...very interesting... (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m?&page;=0)...

His history of bipartisan efforts is thin at best.

He blocked protections for infants born alive from abortions...so they could be left to die. Fact. (http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/080403/1/)

I also see no defense of his vote for the bailout in your screed.

You focus on one aspect of my post; legislation, which you find he had a major role in and I do not.

Well done. It's called obfuscation and, led in with insults, it's called "insulting."

[Midrael]

Name a significant piece of legislation from Obama (one he's authored/coauthored, not one he's blocked, like the born-alive bill he blocked in IL that would have provided medical care for aborted babies who are born alive, rather than leaving them to die...a bill that subsequently passed the Senate 98-0 in Washington).

Just to clarify, you do realize that there was already a law in place in Illinois at the time of that bill which made sure that aborted babies born alive received care don't you?

From this FactCheck.org article (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_alive_baloney.html):

And Illinois law has long stated that if an abortion is performed when the fetus is deemed to be viable, the doctor must:

* Choose the method of abortion least likely to harm the fetus.

* Have in attendance a second doctor who can immediately take over care of the child if it's born alive.

* Use every available means to keep any born-alive child living and healthy.

To do otherwise constitutes a Class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to five years in prison. That's been the law in Illinois since 1975, two years before Jessen was born. What Obama voted against was legislation that would have extended the law's protection to any aborted fetus that shows any sign of life, even if doctors are certain that it cannot survive.

For the record, Obama says he would have supported "born alive" legislation in Illinois if framed in a way that did not pose a threat to abortion rights granted by the Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision. Abortion-rights groups opposed the two early bills, saying they could be used to challenge a woman's right to an abortion.

Now, feel free to disagree with Obama's stances on abortion. I do to an extent. However, this was a change to an already existing law which already protected born-alive fetuses. Obama wasn't supporting infanticide.

[Johan]

Obama wasn't supporting infanticide.

I recommend reading this link to get your facts in order. (http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/080403/1/)

An Illinois lawmaker offered the first draft of the state’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 after I revealed publicly that Christ Hospital left babies who survived abortion — viable babies whose delivery was induced, and whom the abortionist intended to kill but somehow survived — in a utility room to die.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Patrick O’Malley of Oak Lawn defined “born alive” using language identical to that of federal legislation introduced in 2000 by Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., who in turn drafted wording developed by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955:

But Obama revealed his constitutional blind spot in his book The Audacity of Hope:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [emphasis added] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

… (T)he essential idea behind the Declaration — that we are born [emphasis added] into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will — is one that every American understands.

Note Obama’s choice of the word “born” over the word “created.” Perhaps that helps explain his support for unrestricted abortion. Also note that our "bundle of rights” can be “taken away” with “just cause.”

Obama clearly considers abortion a “just cause.” Here is how he argued against Born Alive during Illinois Senate debate in 2001:

… I just want to suggest … that this (legislation) is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — child, a 9-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.



Any way you define it, abortion ends a life. He wouldn't even offer medical assistance to babies that survived abortion; something 98 of his colleagues DID offer in the Senate. To Obama, those babies should die. Period.

[Siraris]

Congrats on sauntering in and spewing personal invective and insults. I thought that was frowned upon here.

Yes, we can!

Also, the largest sweeping ethics reform would be campaign finance reform from McCain, which Obama doesn't believe in, given his penchant for refusing to hold to his pledge for public financing!

Also, Obama (of the "we must leave Iraq" Obama), wants to delay leaving! Interesting...very interesting... (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m?&page;=0)...

It's insulting to suggest that your ignorant post is ignorant? You can try and deflect all you want, but as you can see, your lies only work on the uninformed. How quickly you back off when the evidence is truly in your face.

And keep riding that one trick pony about Obama wanting to delay troops leaving. I'm supposed to believe total conjecture from the NY Rag about this? Since I'm not on some fanatical Republican quest to smear Obama, I'd much rather believe the people who were ACTUALLY AT THE MEETING (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/undermining-mcc.html), like Chuck Hagel, and Ryan Crocker.

Attendees of the meeting back Obama's account, including not just Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., but Hagel, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers from both parties. Officials of the Bush administration who were briefed on the meeting by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad also support Obama's account and dispute the Post story and McCain attack.

I focus on one aspect of your post? I refuted every single argument you made in your post, from Palin, to lack of bi-partisanship, to not one bill passed, to delaying the withdrawal, and I focus on one aspect?

Midrael already handled your lob about right to life. I'm glad you think that a man with 2 children is a supporter of infanticide, but based on every other baseless claim you have made, I'm not really surprised. The assertion has been disproven by numerous fact checking sites, which I trust a lot more than Johan D. Anonymous from the messageboard.

[Johan]

It's insulting to suggest that your ignorant post is ignorant?

More insults? Tsk tsk...from a leader of the site, even. Tsk tsk...for shame.

I've already pointed out I find your legislative list unimpressive. That's ALL you offered of any substance.

He did indeed request a delay in exiting Iraq; I'll believe a journalist over anyone in Congress.

He blocked any medical assistance for surviving aborted babies; something that passed 98-0 in the Senate!

He took on as VP a beltway insider; apparently change isn't so significant after all.

He voted FOR the biggest taxpayer ripoff in modern history (the bailout), as did McCain and far too many other "leaders."

I refuted every single argument

Need a little time away from the keyboard? You seem upset. It's okay; really! I find your few arguments thin. Of course, Chicago politics are a bit different from elsewhere, so that may skew your view.

[Psykoboy2]

Boy. I'm so glad we don't have a P&R forum here. Really keeps out the...oh wait.

Damn. :(

[Johan]

Boy. I'm so glad we don't have a P&R forum here. Really keeps out the...oh wait.

Damn. :(

You guys may want to huddle up and talk about leading by example! :)

[Rakael]

That's politics for you.

Also, Johan is here? Fuck a duck!

[Norse]

Ah, just like the good old times :)

[Johan]

Ah, just like the good old times :)

Not quite. I've been a gentleman and have absorbed the insults without responding in kind! :)

I'm a new man!

[Midrael]

I recommend reading this link to get your facts in order. (http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/080403/1/)

Any way you define it, abortion ends a life. He wouldn't even offer medical assistance to babies that survived abortion; something 98 of his colleagues DID offer in the Senate. To Obama, those babies should die. Period.

Well for one, you're getting your information from a pro-life site. I'm getting my information from a more hopefully unbiased source.

Here's another FactCheck article (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html) discussing this issue more in depth. Some of the information from your article is contained in there.

Here's the important paragraphs I gleaned from it.

Same Words, Different Effect?

Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.

But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." That's technically true; though the "neutrality clause" was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.
A Matter of Definition

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

Now, I can understand disagreeing with Obama's pro-choice stance. But suggesting outright that he favors infanticide I believe takes it too far, especially when it's pretty clear that he was worried about the language of the bills in question.

Now, it appears he shifted his reasoning behind not supporting the original bill a few times. At first he states that the language wasn't the same, but then says that it's because it was a state-level bill. There's some question there I suppose, but it's apparent to me that his intentions were to make sure that Roe v Wade wasn't being impeded.

[Johan]

But suggesting outright that he favors infanticide I believe takes it too far

I don't believe so. Fundamentally, he was more concerned with the potential for an infringement upon a woman's right to an abortion than he was with the actual deaths of babies who, born alive during abortion, were left to die horribly.

I find that unconscionable. It's the fundamental reason I've turned against Obama. I cannot fathom a man of faith supporting such policies. Also, fundamentally, abortion draws a line at life that I believe is illogical, arbitrary, immoral, and cruel.

McCain, however, is no winner either. I care for neither of them. They both make me sick.

[Straximus]

Name a significant piece of legislation from Obama (one he's authored/coauthored,

His history of bipartisan efforts is thin at best.


Let's see if we can kill two birds with one stone... and then repeat the feat.

The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Obama and Republican Senator Dick Lugar . Passed into law.

The Coburn-Obama bill, co-sponsored by Obama and Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. Bi-partisan bill, passed into law that set up a online database that tracks where federal dollars are being spent.

Feel free to disagree over the qualifier word 'significant' you threw in there.

[Johan]

an online database that tracks where federal dollars are being spent.

Does he track his own campaign contributions? I'm interested in that one...

Good night and good posting! Keep it civil, Siraris!

[OrangePulp]

Does he track his own campaign contributions? I'm interested in that one...

So, you get proven wrong, and then make insinuations about his campaign contributions. Awesome.

[Midrael]

I don't believe so. Fundamentally, he was more concerned with the potential for an infringement upon a woman's right to an abortion than he was with the actual deaths of babies who, born alive during abortion, were left to die horribly.

I find that unconscionable. It's the fundamental reason I've turned against Obama. I cannot fathom a man of faith supporting such policies.

Yeah, I remember you were suggesting supporting Obama. Having seen you bring this up across several sites, I figured this was your reason for changing your mind.

Again, you're overstating the case, as there was already a law on the books that said that babies born alive during an abortion must be cared for by a physician on hand. It's not like without this law, there was 0 protection for them. That law had been in place since 1975, so obviously this wasn't exactly some sort of emergency scenario that had to be handled immediately. He was and is a legislator whose job it is to write good laws that don't break others or create loopholes for others. Again, I'm not even really pro-choice, but I can't find that much fault with what he did.

Basically, it boils down that this issue is not so cut and dried as you paint it. There's a lot of gray area. Then again, I suppose the entire pro-choice/pro-life argument is moral gray area. Now, if you're of the mind that pro-choice is equivalent to infanticide, I'm not going to risk arguing that point at all. :)

[Rogue_hunter]

And this is why we (well, myself and others. I changed my mind again) don't want a P&R forum. It fosters animosity. We're here to talk gaming, movies, comics and TV, and the occasional funny story. Animosity does not make a community. A true community would have no need for an ignore list, but this thread could make an easy argument for them.

I know, there's the option of not going into that forum, but these kinds of things always leak out (Anyone remember the "Golden Compass" thread last year?)

Please, keep it at least civil, or take it to PMs or blogs. We've got plenty of both here.

[Midrael]

For what it's worth, I'm doing my best to keep it civil. :) There's nothing wrong with debate. It's once it devolves into name calling and insults that you start to have issues.

[Food Nipple]

You'd think that both of you would have been through this enough times that you'd realize that you're never going to change each other's mind. Moving the goalposts in an argument, and name calling aren't going to win either of you any points.

[Norse]

While I strongly disagree with Johan, he has behaved like an angel in this thread.

[cp#]

Here's your politics

http://i35.tinypic.com/dztob9.jpg

[pomeroy]

Here's your politics

http://i35.tinypic.com/dztob9.jpg

Nicely played.

Btw, guys...nice bitch fit in the thread. :)

[VerseD]

And this is why we (well, myself and others. I changed my mind again) don't want a P&R forum. It fosters animosity. We're here to talk gaming, movies, comics and TV, and the occasional funny story. Animosity does not make a community. A true community would have no need for an ignore list, but this thread could make an easy argument for them.

I see this thread as a reason we should have a P&R forum. People are going to want to talk about politics so let's set up a separate sub-forum for that purpose, so people who just want to shoot the shit in "The Lounge" don't have to dodge bullets. "The Lounge" isn't the place for political threads, but there isn't any other place to start one.

And really this whole discussion has been pretty civil. Everyone respectfully gave their position and provided evidence, with minimal name-calling and ad hominem attacks. I think that CoG is a mature enough community to have conversations about this stuff without balkanizing the community, and this thread proves it.

I don't mean to derail the thread. This (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=228) is really the place to talk about a P&R forum.

[Johan]

I didn't come in here to piss in anyone's cornflakes! In fact, I kept away from making any insulting points/comments toward others. However:

Wow, do you have any more Fox News/Republican talking points to spew? Congrats on making the most ignorant post I've seen on this site so far.

Is that really the way we want to disagree here? The way we begin our first post in a thread disagreeing with someone? :confused:

Remember above all else that no matter how much you may disagree with an opinion, don't take it out on the person expressing that opinion. Insults, slurs, name-calling, threats and the like will not be tolerated.

I'm following that. I've followed that in every post on this board so far and plan on continuing to follow that.

You'd think that both of you would have been through this enough times that you'd realize that you're never going to change each other's mind.

I approve this message and echo itl

Moving the goalposts in an argument,

I admit to doing this on the "any" legislation bit. Nothing else, however.

and name calling aren't going to win either of you any points.

This did not come from me at any point in this thread. I'm being a good boy. I didn't start, middle, or end any of my posts with declarations of anyone's ignorance or any personal insults. I think we can disagree without having to declare the "other" the worst moron on the boards. :)

Ultimately, it comes down to this for me: neither McCain or Obama offer me what I truly want to see in a leader, because I am quite convinced that whichever one wins office, nothing will be substantially different than it is now; our economy is in systemic and I would say permanent decline/stagnation, our foreign policy is not what I believe it should be (retraction of our forces from all foreign territory excepting where absolutely necessary and welcomed by national popular vote), our country is broke (ten trillion in national debt, a like number in consumer debt, and the house of cards is tumbling down), our legislators have been asleep at the switch for decades (barring waking up to take money from someone), and, frankly...

that won't change.

[civil]

While I strongly disagree with Johan, he has behaved like an angel in this thread.
Agreed. I'm surprised Siraris came out swinging. However you may want to excuse yourself, this:

Wow, do you have any more Fox News/Republican talking points to spew? Congrats on making the most ignorant post I've seen on this site so far.

was uncalled for and beneath what I expect of a community leader. Disappointing. We don't need this. :(

[Karmakin]

Johan, you need to move to the left, not to the right to find what you're looking for :)

I largely agree with you. The problem is that in general societies at large are not capable of dealing with the huge issues that lay before us. That's a problem of democracies I think...not that I'm proposing a dictatorship or anything.

Honestly I think the problem stems from having an almost paranoid view of inflation that's really blinded a lot of otherwise smart people from potential solutions. The answer to a lot of the problems is in having an economy that actually..you know..makes stuff. Actually does things of value and importance that actually makes more value. That keeps the circle flowing. Which is why I think Obama is the best choice for one reason alone.

His policy, his theory, is that the economy can be revived into something a lot healthier via new spending and job creation in the alternative energy sector. Be it making solar panels, turbines, fuel cells, mass transit or whatever new technology may come, and installing them. That's a lot of actual value creation.

In any case, a lot of those issues are going to require social change and a refocus on long-term thinking. Socially. I'm just not a fan of blaming politicians for the shortcomings of the public.

BTW. The problem with the whole "personal attack" thing is that accusing people of supporting a "baby-killer" is in and itself a personal attack, which opens the door wide open. Hell, at this point supporting McCain could be seen as a physical attack considering his health care policy if you have a pre-existing condition that requires medical treatment. And that goes both ways, I'm sure.

Anything involving politics is going to be a "personal attack". Which is why you shouldn't clutch your pearls too tightly if you want to get involved in it IMO.

[Johan]

Karmakin, to find what I'm looking for (actual leadership on the economy, foreign policy, and several significant social issues) I'd have to create my own party. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats truly represents me. On the most significant moral issue of our time in my view (abortion), with approximately 45 million babies dead in the U.S. alone, Obama is clearly for protecting ANY encroachment on a woman's right to choose that option. Life is full of encroachments; every right we have is encroached upon in some way or another, including the right to even life (capital conviction can take that right away). Unfettered access to abortion is, in my view, a morally bankrupt position which has absolutely no logic to it.

Why is abortion okay up to a certain point in a pregnancy? Is it because of the lack of viability of the baby? Why do we arbitrarily designate one day as allowable for abortion, and the next as not? Is there a magical "humanizing" point of a pregnancy? Should babies who survive abortion be left to die? Why?

JAnything involving politics is going to be a "personal attack". Which is why you shouldn't clutch your pearls too tightly if you want to get involved in it IMO.

That may be, but only one individual began both of his first two posts in here directly calling out the supposed "ignorance" of another. It's quite clear who attacked whom, and suggesting otherwise is merely an example of how anything can be open for disagreement on a forum...

I pointed out what I dislike about a candidate, and the reality is his policies let babies die, just as the reality is Bush's policies have killed innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians. I'd say that's quite a bit different from calling someone here on the boards the most ignorant poster. Twice.

I suppose if I'm truly that stupid, I need the message repeated! :)

[Wilkz07]

be thankful you yanks only have 2 people fighting for top spot. we have 3 incompetent boobs reaching for the keys to kingdom. The current leader who hasn't done much other than spend money, another who wants to tax everything and looks like he got picked on a lot in school, and a 3rd whos platform is basically 'c'mon guys, when's it going to be my turn'. lol

[Goronmon]

That may be, but only one individual began both of his first two posts in here directly calling out the supposed "ignorance" of another.Maybe, but I do think you word your posts specifically to incite people to anger and respond with the reactions you are getting. I'm not sure why you pretend like you are surprised when it happens.

Anyways, I'm not trying to take sides, but I also don't think the "He started it!" line is a clear as you make it out to be.

[Johan]

I'm not trying to take sides,

You must be Swiss? Swedish? :)

but I also don't think the "He started it!" line is a clear as you make it out to be.

Sure it is. I made comments regarding my opinion of a politician, not an individual on the boards here.

Siraris dropped in and, at the beginning of his posts, rather than merely disagreeing and laying out his opinion, flamed me as, I quote:

"making the most ignorant post I've seen on this site so far."

followed by

"It's insulting to suggest that your ignorant post is ignorant?"

That's not disagreement; that's flaming and personal insults.

And we can't even agree on that? I'm sure we'd agree if I had posted it in reference to him. :rolleyes:

[Rakael]

Maybe, but I do think you word your posts specifically to incite people to anger and respond with the reactions you are getting. I'm not sure why you pretend like you are surprised when it happens.

Anyways, I'm not trying to take sides, but I also don't think the "He started it!" line is a clear as you make it out to be.

It never is with Johan. He stokes the fire in very subtle ways and then steps back to say that he didn't do anything wrong and has no idea why people are picking on him.

[civil]

It never is with Johan. He stokes the fire in very subtle ways and then steps back to say that he didn't do anything wrong and has no idea why people are picking on him.
I disagree with Johan sometimes. As I disagree with others. Disagreeing with someone's beliefs - no matter how they may be worded - should not lead to personal attacks. If one person opens that door then more are sure to follow, including posts such as yours that claim fact but are in truth subjective opinion.

I do believe we as a community should hold each other accountable, though accountability must accompany maturity and respect. I would hope that those who populate these boards understand that.

[Khrymsyn]

It never is with Johan. He stokes the fire in very subtle ways and then steps back to say that he didn't do anything wrong and has no idea why people are picking on him.

And your post isn't stoking the fire?

I for one think Johan's improved and back to the old thinking through conversationalist Johan again. Whether you agree or disagree with the man, he's allowed to have his opinion and stand by it. Some people need to let old "personality clashes" go. Now, can we please go back on topic?

It just really bums me out that what I was tought each party was supposed to be about, is completely different now. I was taught the republican concept was more "small government" and keeping taxes low with less regulation and more protection of privacy. I was taught the democratic party was about "large government", raising taxes to pay for programs to help those whom cannot help themselves.

Now, both parties seem completely full of crap, only consistant on certain issues (i.e. Repubs = Pro Life, Demos = Pro Choice), but everything else is getting more and more the same (i.e. based on polls). More controls on our daily lives. More big spending, but not to help the "little man". More decisions in which the welfare of people outside of this country are more important than the people INSIDE this country. It's so very frustrating to me. When are we, as a people, going to wake up and realize the government is supposed to work FOR US. Not be some autonomous group that does what they want and we eat the shit sandwich leftovers?

[Midrael]

Obama is clearly for protecting ANY encroachment on a woman's right to choose that option. Life is full of encroachments; every right we have is encroached upon in some way or another, including the right to even life (capital conviction can take that right away). Unfettered access to abortion is, in my view, a morally bankrupt position which has absolutely no logic to it.

Why is abortion okay up to a certain point in a pregnancy? Is it because of the lack of viability of the baby? Why do we arbitrarily designate one day as allowable for abortion, and the next as not? Is there a magical "humanizing" point of a pregnancy? Should babies who survive abortion be left to die? Why?

If abortion is the single deciding issue for you, then I can agree that you should not vote for Obama. He is the pro-choice candidate. McCain actually has flip flopped on his support of Roe v Wade, but currently he says he doesn't support it. That's backed up by the presence of Palin on his ticket.

For me, while I'm pro-life personally, I view abortion as more of a gray area than I'm prepared to commit to law. What do you do to a pregnant girl who's had an abortion? What do you do to the doctor? What exceptions, if any, do you allow?

However, also for me, abortion is not the deciding issue. In fact, it's beneath both foreign policy and economic policy in this election. It's also beneath a few other domestic policies as well such as education and science. As that economic crazyman Jim Cramer recently said (http://nymag.com/news/businessfinance/bottomline/51007/): "Obama is a recession. McCain is a depression."

[Telefrog]

Here's the problem. Abortion, to a portion of the populace, is a black or white, cut-and-dried issue. There is no grey area if you are pro-life. You're either killing babies, or you're not.

To the opposition, it's all grey area. Pro-choice people don't condone the murder of infants (at least not the sane ones) but have disputes over the definition of murder, infants, and life itself. To them, as a group, nothing is clear-cut except the idea that the potential mother should choose.

As I see it, the abortion issue is something that will never really be settled without some kind of fundamental change in how we commonly reproduce.

[Midrael]

As I see it, the abortion issue is something that will never really be settled without some kind of fundamental change in how we commonly reproduce.

I suggest budding! :D

[Khrymsyn]

Here's the problem. Abortion, to a portion of the populace, is a black or white, cut-and-dried issue. There is no grey area if you are pro-life. You're either killing babies, or you're not.

To the opposition, it's all grey area. Pro-choice people don't condone the murder of infants (at least not the sane ones) but have disputes over the definition of murder, infants, and life itself. To them, as a group, nothing is clear-cut except the idea that the potential mother should choose.

As I see it, the abortion issue is something that will never really be settled without some kind of fundamental change in how we commonly reproduce.

This is 100% my feelings as well. You can never convince one the other is right because the argument itself is different between the two.

[Inspector Fowler]

This is why we either need a P&R forum, or we need to outlaw topics like this. I'd like the chance to shoot the breeze with my fellow gamers without a bunch of these topics floating all over.

This kind of stuff does not attract new community members unless they want to argue about politics, which isn't the focus of the site.

[Goronmon]

This kind of stuff does not attract new community members unless they want to argue about politics, which isn't the focus of the site.The problem, I think, is that it's hard not to talk about important current events. And a lot of the current events, especially around election time, revolve around politics.

[Karmakin]

It just really bums me out that what I was tought each party was supposed to be about, is completely different now. I was taught the republican concept was more "small government" and keeping taxes low with less regulation and more protection of privacy. I was taught the democratic party was about "large government", raising taxes to pay for programs to help those whom cannot help themselves.

Now, both parties seem completely full of crap, only consistant on certain issues (i.e. Repubs = Pro Life, Demos = Pro Choice), but everything else is getting more and more the same (i.e. based on polls). More controls on our daily lives. More big spending, but not to help the "little man". More decisions in which the welfare of people outside of this country are more important than the people INSIDE this country. It's so very frustrating to me. When are we, as a people, going to wake up and realize the government is supposed to work FOR US. Not be some autonomous group that does what they want and we eat the shit sandwich leftovers?

I think the mistake that's often made is not realizing that at least when it comes to economic issues, it's the bigger ideology that's at play, and not the methodology.

Republicans believe that economic growth is caused by capitalized investments creating goods and services, which people then purchase.

Democrats believe that people have a demand for goods and services, which are then satisfied via business.

Everything else ties into those core beliefs. The whole "size of government" thing is a canard, more or less, it's always been about promoting your economic ideology.

Of course, I subscribe to the latter. I just don't see how business does business without a market to sell to. I'm not a radical...both have to be in some degree of balance. But at least for my balance, I'd weigh more on the demand side than the supply side. But your opinion may differ.

[ThanksButNoThanks]

Wow, do you have any more Fox News/Republican talking points to spew? Congrats on making the most ignorant post I've seen on this site so far.



I am going to have to say that this is the most ignorant post I've seen on the site so far. I was thinking about joining the site today (for reals) since Ev Av is pretty dead right now. However, if the site founders are going to insult their members and post without objectivity, I am going to pass for now. Isn't this the reason you left EvAv or does this need to denegrate into thread deletes and bans before you realize your new home looks exactly like your old home?

[Johan]

^^^TBNT, give it a chance. Good people here. :)^^^

The thread title has become ironically fitting! :(

My problem with both candidates and political parties is as others have mentioned; the differences between them have been blurred (Democrats voting to blow hundreds of billions on a corporate bailout? Successive Republican administrations blowing any pretense at fiscal responsibility and conservatism?). I don't see either party or either candidate improving my daily lot in life. Nor, frankly, do I see abortion going away any time soon. I believe seven of the nine current Supremes were Republican nominees...and Roe v. Wade continues.

On abortion in particular, I just don't get how one can logically/rationally defend any 'gray' line on the issue. If it's not a simple case of "it's a life, and that's that" and somehow it's more complex than that, how do we decide where to draw that line?

Some legitimate questions for those who are pro-choice:

Since abortion is legal, there must obviously be a deadline to when it can be performed. How is that not an arbitrary distinction? I believe it is. If the legality of abortion is based on the viability of the fetus, that changes based upon the technology available (viability has been creeping ever lower in terms of weeks for as long as technology has been improving). If a baby can be aborted up until it is viable, but NOT after viability, isn't this a tacit admission that eventually, abortion will be illegal? Eventually, technologically, it is conceivable that an external womb could be created. If abortion is allowed up until birth, would this not allow for the abortion of fully formed babies with merely a foot in the birth canal (since their birth is not complete yet)? And if viability is the distinction between legal and illegal in abortion, then how do we explain surviving aborted children who live? Or are left to die?

On a question of life or death, it certainly seems to me that one should err on the side of life. People say that we shouldn't legislate others choices. ALL laws legislate choices. People say we shouldn't legislate morality. ALL laws legislate morality (what is right/approved in society, and what is wrong/illegal in society). The question isn't whether we legislate choices and morality, it's which choices we allow, and therefore what morality we decide to impose upon ourselves as a society.

Ultimately, as to this election, neither of these candidates offers what I believe is real change for our grim future. Obama chose the ultimate insider for his VP, and has tens of millions in undeclared-source donations. McCain is pandering and lacks the fortitude I thought he had, as he switches positions like a hummingbird with hemorrhoids.

Perhaps I'll skip the vote, like so many of our 'leaders' do when we send them to Washington. :(

[Inspector Fowler]

The problem, I think, is that it's hard not to talk about important current events. And a lot of the current events, especially around election time, revolve around politics.

Well, it's not "hard", necessarily. The community just bans it. I've been part of other websites that politely asked people to "take it outside".

Political discussions often don't stay civil online. The P&R forum at EvAv is a good example. The easiest way to deal with the problem is to simply create an optional area where people can discuss it any way they want without the other site guests having to wade through the often incendiary topics.

[Goronmon]

Since abortion is legal, there must obviously be a deadline to when it can be performed. How is that not an arbitrary distinction?To put my stance simply, any distinction when it comes to abortion is arbitrary. The Pro-Life side just make the distinction earlier than Pro-Choice. That's my take on the subject.

[Troggles]

I have a real objective question. How does the president actually change the law on abortion if the reason it's legal now is due to the supreme court's decision? I don't know too terribly much about the way the government works (beyond the basics) but I didn't think the president has the power to override supreme court decision. Well, unless they are the current administration...

[Rock Bandit]

What we should do is have a P&R forum but make it anonymous, no usernames. That way people who want to really hash it out can do so without any sort of anomosity spilling out into other forums.

edit: @ Troggles

The president has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices who would share his views on Roe v. Wade. It's very possible we'll see 2 or more justices leave in the next 4-8 years so they would have the chance to "stack the bench" as it were.

[Widgetcraft]

I have a real objective question. How does the president actually change the law on abortion if the reason it's legal now is due to the supreme court's decision? I don't know too terribly much about the way the government works (beyond the basics) but I didn't think the president has the power to override supreme court decision. Well, unless they are the current administration...

By appointing new judges with their ideology.

Doesn't matter though, no one at the top is really anti-abortion anyway; it's just something some people say to get votes.


Also: Even 4chan isn't dumb enough to have a politics/religion forum. There is a very good reason for that. There are plenty of sites out there for that kind of discussion, but the subject is an infectious vortex of negativity; it should not be brought into this community unless people want this place to be a flaming shithole. Politics, religion, and platform wars are all subjects that I'd like to see pushed out of here.

100th post!

[fitbabits]

The thread title has become ironically fitting! :(

I chose the title for a reason... No irony involved here.

[National Kato]

How did this thread get derailed into an abortion discussion?

[fitbabits]

What we should do is have a P&R forum but make it anonymous, no usernames. That way people who want to really hash it out can do so without any sort of anomosity spilling out into other forums.

It's still a long ways off, but I can say that if we do end up with a P&R forum here, anonymity will not be an option. If you feel strongly about something, you should be prepared to put your name to it.

[Goronmon]

What we should do is have a P&R forum but make it anonymous, no usernames.Oh god no. People love being anonymous because it allows them to be as ridiculously trollish as possible without people having any idea who they are.

[Goronmon]

How did this thread get derailed into an abortion discussion?I blame mightbe.

[fitbabits]

How did this thread get derailed into an abortion discussion?

It's politics and religion.

[Rock Bandit]

O.k. no anonymity (just don't won't to see people getting sour with each other. I hate conflict. And TheFlyingOrc. Mostly conflict though.)

Well, as long as it has a good mod COUtorrefactionGH I'm sure we'll be alright.

[Johan]

How did this thread get derailed into an abortion discussion?

That's my fault, I'm sure. In discussing why I've turned from considering Obama, that's the fundamental reason for me (linked with his work in IL on bills related to the issue). It was apropos at the time, but has perhaps taken on a life of its own. Feel free to re-rail/de-rail/third-rail it.

Also, I too believe that politics and religion should stay at PiRi. I've said so before.

Edit: Troggles, a legal principle known as stare decisis is usually held to by courts so that decisions are not revisited ad nauseum and forever by each subsequent court (since judges don't serve forever; they die or retire). In other words, stare decisis basically says that previously decided issues are just that; decided. It's hard to overturn prior court decisions at the Supreme Court's level. They generally work within the framework of the previous Court's decisions (excepting really bad decisions, like Plessy v. Ferguson being overturned by Brown v. Board of Ed.).

[Troggles]

What we should do is have a P&R forum but make it anonymous, no usernames. That way people who want to really hash it out can do so without any sort of anomosity spilling out into other forums.

edit: @ Troggles

The president has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices who would share his views on Roe v. Wade. It's very possible we'll see 2 or more justices leave in the next 4-8 years so they would have the chance to "stack the bench" as it were.

Isn't the court currently stacked with people who would be in favor of making abortion illegal? Like I said, I don't follow every detail as much as I should, but it seems that the Republicans are almost always against abortion and they have appointed 7 of the last 9 judges.

[Mot Wakorb]

I am going to have to say that this is the most ignorant post I've seen on the site so far. I was thinking about joining the site today (for reals) since Ev Av is pretty dead right now. However, if the site founders are going to insult their members and post without objectivity, I am going to pass for now. Isn't this the reason you left EvAv or does this need to denegrate into thread deletes and bans before you realize your new home looks exactly like your old home?

Politics tends not to be terribly objective, so you'll have to forgive me for saying that's sort of moot. That said, I do agree that the name calling and such isn't needed, but give the site a chance, I wouldn't exactly start gauging a gaming website on a post called "This is Politics?" I'd check other parts of this wonderful site first.

[Goronmon]

Isn't this the reason you left EvAv or does this need to denegrate into thread deletes and bans before you realize your new home looks exactly like your old home?Oh give me a break. If you just want to create drama, you can stick with EvAv honestly.

[Bingley Joe]

Here's the problem. Abortion, to a portion of the populace, is a black or white, cut-and-dried issue. There is no grey area if you are pro-life. You're either killing babies, or you're not.

To the opposition, it's all grey area. Pro-choice people don't condone the murder of infants (at least not the sane ones) but have disputes over the definition of murder, infants, and life itself. To them, as a group, nothing is clear-cut except the idea that the potential mother should choose.

Agreed. This is why I, and a lot of other people, much prefer the term "anti-choice" over the term "pro-life".

It's entirely possible to be against abortion on a personal level and still be "pro-choice" in terms of how you feel society as a whole should view the issue; a person may not ever elect to get an abortion themselves, but that doesn't automatically mean they don't feel others should have the right to determine what's right for them.

In that regard, it's possible to be both "pro-choice" and "pro-life".

The term "anti-choice" more accurately describes the side of the issue a person who opposes the right to choose to have an abortion falls on.

[Johan]

The term "anti-choice" more accurately describes the side of the issue a person who opposes the right to choose to have an abortion falls on.

Only if the term "anti-life" more accurately describes the side of the issue a person who agrees with the right to choose to have an abortion falls on.

And I'd be interested to read an explanation of how someone can be for abortion and simultaneously declare they are for life. Fundamentally, abortion ends a life. There's no getting around that, unfortunately. The question, then, is whether that life has value. I say it does. Intrinsically.

[Goronmon]

Only if the term "anti-life" more accurately describes the side of the issue a person who agrees with the right to choose to have an abortion falls on.Pro-Choice people are not fundamentally Anti-Life. Pro-Life people are fundamentally Anti-Choice on the subject of abortion. That's the main difference.

And I'd be interested to read an explanation of how someone can be for abortion and simultaneously declare they are for life. Fundamentally, abortion ends a life. There's no getting around that, unfortunately. The question, then, is whether that life has value. I say it does. Intrinsically.Because I honestly don't understand how the Pro-Life stance works. How can someone who is Pro-Life support birth control? They must be against masturbation for males too. They've just chosen an arbitrary point in time during reproduction, taken a firm stance and decided that no one should ever be allowed to disagree with them.

[NoName]

And I'd be interested to read an explanation of how someone can be for abortion and simultaneously declare they are for life. Fundamentally, abortion ends a life. There's no getting around that, unfortunately. The question, then, is whether that life has value. I say it does. Intrinsically.

I think using the term "life" is the issue here.

Someone who's pro-life is using life in it's strictest since. As someone who's pro-choice, if I said I'm still for life I would be referring to cognitive life.

I had a small house plant that died once. I didn't feel bad for it. This is the same reason I consider early abortions ok. They aren't thinking organisms (yet). Same reason if I ever end up in a vegetable like state I hope someone pulls the plug. I would not consider myself alive at that point, even if my heart was beating.

[LordDon]

I had a small house plant that died once. I didn't feel bad for it. This is the same reason I consider early abortions ok. They aren't thinking organisms (yet). Same reason if I ever end up in a vegetable like state I hope someone pulls the plug. I would not consider myself alive at that point, even if my heart was beating.

I think you've spelled out my feelings on the subject well, NoName. I don't believe in a mind-body dualism, and I don't believe we have a soul. At the point of conception you're just a bunch of dividing cells and if you ever end up braindead you're just a bunch of cells.

Then we open up pandora's box to the questions of sentience and cognition.

[Midrael]

Only if the term "anti-life" more accurately describes the side of the issue a person who agrees with the right to choose to have an abortion falls on.

And I'd be interested to read an explanation of how someone can be for abortion and simultaneously declare they are for life. Fundamentally, abortion ends a life. There's no getting around that, unfortunately. The question, then, is whether that life has value. I say it does. Intrinsically.

Actually, I fall precisely into that group. I'm personally pro-life. Were it my wife or girlfriend that was pregnant, I would not support her getting an abortion. However, I recognize that, in my opinion, it is a gray enough area that others may feel they need to choose differently. It's not impossible to make a scientific case suggesting an embryo/fetus isn't sentient yet. I also understand the reasoning behind allowing abortion for rape and incest cases. I don't think I could be the one to tell a rape victim she has to carry her attacker's child to term. And I don't believe the choice can be taken away without realizing that in doing so, you're saying that the mother and doctor are guilty of murder and should be charged with it. I couldn't make the call of putting a mother in jail for having an abortion. I simply couldn't make that call.

[Telefrog]

And I'd be interested to read an explanation of how someone can be for abortion and simultaneously declare they are for life. Fundamentally, abortion ends a life. There's no getting around that, unfortunately. The question, then, is whether that life has value. I say it does. Intrinsically.

See what I mean? No grey area. ;)

And I'm not particularly calling you out Johan. Certainly, many pro-choice folks can be just as intractable.

It's just that as a group, pro-life folks are united by their belief that life begins at conception. Period. Meanwhile, pro-choice people are all over the map. Some pro-choice folks think life starts at different times, some believe that circumstances such as rape, incest, severe abnormality influence the decision, some are opposed personally, but support the principle of choice, etc. There isn't much unity among pro-choice folks other than the basic idea of choice.

There won't be any agreement on this issue precisely because the basic issue is different to both sides. They aren't even arguing over the same thing.

[Johan]

Pro-Choice people are not fundamentally Anti-Life.

Pro-choice people are fundamentally anti-life on the issue of abortion, just as pro-life people are fundamentally anti-choice on the issue of abortion. It follows a similar logic to your own, no? Yes?

How can someone who is Pro-Life support birth control?

Why not? I can only think of one major religion that frowns upon it officially, and I'm not a member. Birth control doesn't destroy a life (I oppose RU-486...see below); there never was one.

I don't get it...

They must be against masturbation for males too.

I'm not! ;)

They've just chosen an arbitrary point in time during reproduction, taken a firm stance and decided that no one should ever be allowed to disagree with them.

You can call it arbitrary, but what isn't debatable about that "arbitrary" point is that it is before there is/was a life. There's not "life...then no life" with typical birth control. There are a few exceptions which I would be opposed to (RU-486...it disrupts what is already a life).

I think using the term "life" is the issue here.

Someone who's pro-life is using life in it's strictest since. As someone who's pro-choice, if I said I'm still for life I would be referring to cognitive life.

I had a small house plant that died once. I didn't feel bad for it. This is the same reason I consider early abortions ok. They aren't thinking organisms (yet). Same reason if I ever end up in a vegetable like state I hope someone pulls the plug. I would not consider myself alive at that point, even if my heart was beating.

This does get to a very important point! I would argue that cognition is not necessary for life to have value. Ethically, if you argue that human life requires certain "factors" prior to assuming value, you enter some very, very sticky ethical situations. Comatose patients (they awaken at times!). Severely retarded individuals. And on...

I see it simply as life, and human life has value. That's not terribly refined, but I can point to serious logical/ethical dilemmas with drawing the line anywhere else, too.

[Goronmon]

You can call it arbitrary, but what isn't debatable about that "arbitrary" point is that it is before there is/was a life. There's not "life...then no life" with typical birth control.So, a sperm and an egg are not life...until they are together, then they suddenly become life at that instant? I just don't see see how that's not just choosing a point in time arbitrarily to determine that something is now "life".

[Midrael]

There won't be any agreement on this issue precisely because the basic issue is different to both sides. They aren't even arguing over the same thing.

Telefrog is a sage, and I adhere to his wisdom. :)

[Johan]

So, a sperm and an egg are not life...until they are together, then they suddenly become life at that instant? I just don't see see how that's not just choosing a point in time arbitrarily to determine that something is now "life".

A sperm carries the DNA to create a life, but it isn't a life in itself...it's a part of my life. It's from me; my DNA; my chromosomes; me (and as I get older, the little suckers carry more errors, too! Grrr!).

An egg carries the DNA to create a life, but...(you get my point, I'm sure!) :)

Besides, if you wanted to talk about "arbitrary" we'd have to talk about why it's okay to abort one day, and the next it's not. Where do you draw the line? A line does get drawn...but where? The most elegantly simple line is the pro-choice line, honestly. It's not refined, but it is clear and defensible. I don't see how any other line is defensible. Viability is determined by technology, not the baby. Technology improves, as does viability, every year.

[Troggles]

Every sperm is sacred.

[Johan]

Every sperm is sacred.

Then forgive me, father...for man, have I sinned. :D

South Park, right? Can't remember...foggy...distant, wanton, debauched past...hazy...

[Troggles]

You and me both. Good thing there are no laws against that. :P

[Goronmon]

The most elegantly simple line is the pro-choice line, honestly. It's not refined, but it is clear and defensible. I don't see how any other line is defensible.Picking a line that's marginally more defined than others isn't good enough, in my opinion, to make that line the one written into law. Especially when that line removes choice from the problem.

[Telefrog]

Then forgive me, father...for man, have I sinned. :D

South Park, right? Can't remember...foggy...distant, wanton, debauched past...hazy...

South Park!? Blasphemy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085959/)!

[Johan]

Picking a line that's marginally better than others isn't good enough, in my opinion, to make that line the one written into law. Especially when that line removes choice from the problem.

I understand your perspective. Mine is that the choice has already been made (to have sex). The child is a life that deserves to live, in my mind. Prior to sex, make choices to avoid pregnancy; spermicide, and IUD, tubes tied, vasectomy, condom, sexual contact without intercourse, and on and on...

The number of abortions that are a result of rape and incest are infinitesimally small, as well...so that is a very difficult issue, but not a broad issue. Very low numbers.

South Park!? Blasphemy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085959/)!

I'm a moron...a forgetful one.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The number of abortions that are a result of rape and incest are infinitesimally small, as well...so that is a very difficult issue, but not a broad issue. Very low numbers.


I disagree very heavily with instances of rape being treated differently. Either it's a child or it's not. If it is a child, then you don't get to kill it just because it exists due to nebulous circumstances. If it isn't, then it's just genetic material like everything else.

[torrefaction]

You know...I'm just going to chime in here...and this is as someone who was not a fan of P&R Johan.

1.)Siraris...as a founder of the site, you shouldn't be the one to lead with insults.
2.)I've been extremely impressed with Johan in this thread. I disagree with a lot of his points, but he's making them in a sensible and civil way. You guys who have baggage from EvAv really need to let that shit go.

[Slack3r78]

The number of abortions that are a result of rape and incest are infinitesimally small, as well...so that is a very difficult issue, but not a broad issue. Very low numbers.
Something similar could be said about the partial-birth abortion issue, which was blown up to sound like those procedures were happening with any kind of regularity.

My big issue with making abortion illegal is this -- abortions will and do occur regardless of legal status. When they're outlawed two things happen: there's a rise in dangerous do-it-yourself home abortions and women with the financial means will simply travel to jurisdictions where it is legal.

Now you have a situation where you've created an issue of access to care based on class. Given that I view the elimination of abortion as a basically impossible task (though I do wish there were no need for it), my stance is that it's better to have the option of a safe abortion available rather than limiting that only to those wealthy enough to obtain one.

[Johan]

Something similar could be said about the partial-birth abortion issue, which was blown up to sound like those procedures were happening with any kind of regularity.

Very statistically true.

My big issue with making abortion illegal is this -- abortions will and do occur regardless of legal status. When they're outlawed two things happen: there's a rise in dangerous do-it-yourself home abortions and women with the financial means will simply travel to jurisdictions where it is legal.

I may sound cynical when I say this, but I oppose abortion with absolutely little to no hope of ever seeing it outlawed. I believe my opposition is principled, rational, and at least in view of my own personal faith, the right thing to do, so I'm obligated (and I want to) oppose it...

but I don't see it ever becoming illegal. Does that make sense? It's just not going to happen. Seven of nine justices are Republican-appointees, and it's still legal. It's not going anywhere. What will happen is the two sides will nibble at the edges of what is and is not permissible, but the broad legality will remain.

I'm pragmatic. I'm also bitter, old, and wracked by intestinal pains from diverticulitis. But that's another story.

[Goronmon]

1.)Siraris...as a founder of the site, you shouldn't be the one to lead with insults.Agreed on this.

[QueQueg]

1.)Siraris...as a founder of the site, you shouldn't be the one to lead with insults.


Suggesting that someone has posted something that is ignorant is not an insult. It's not a direct judge of character. You can disagree with what someone has said without indicting them directly.

Siraris did not say "You are ignorant." In so many words he said "That was an ignorant thing that you said."

I, for one, agree with his opinion.

[Slack3r78]

I may sound cynical when I say this, but I oppose abortion with absolutely little to no hope of ever seeing it outlawed. I believe my opposition is principled, rational, and at least in view of my own personal faith, the right thing to do, so I'm obligated (and I want to) oppose it...

but I don't see it ever becoming illegal. Does that make sense? It's just not going to happen. Seven of nine justices are Republican-appointees, and it's still legal. It's not going anywhere.
You're making fine sense. Like I said, it's definitely not something I like but rather something I see as a reality. I don't think I could advise anyone I was close to to exercise that option outside of, perhaps, extreme health risk to the mother or indication that the child would suffer their life with debilitating defect, for example.

What will happen is the two sides will nibble at the edges of what is and is not permissible, but the broad legality will remain.
Like I said, my greatest issue with outlawing it outright is the fact that it creates a defacto access to care issue directly related to wealth. I definitely there's a lot of middle ground to be covered legally, though, so really, in a practical sense, our opinions aren't too far separated.

[Slack3r78]

Suggesting that someone has posted something that is ignorant is not an insult. It's not a direct judge of character. You can disagree with what someone has said without indicting them directly.

Siraris did not say "You are ignorant." In so many words he said "That was an ignorant thing that you said."

I, for one, agree with his opinion.
It was definitely inflammatory in an uncalled for manner. It also pinned a number of strawmen on Johan for views that it'd be clear he doesn't hold given a little familiarity with his posts in the past.

I don't think Siraris necessarily meant any harm, but the point is that everyone needs to make a point of being as civil as we can around here; especially community leaders.

[BlackPete]

Er. Wow. This thread certainly exploded since the last time I visited here.

And uh... I think I'll just sidestep that little drama at the beginning. Moving on ;)

On to the abortion angle -- one interesting point that was brought up here is that "life is sacred no matter what form it takes." So allow me to bring up... Terry Schiavo! :D

By all intents and purposes she was as vegetative as you can get. Her brain was gone. Not just damaged, but gone. Her skull was filled with fluid that used to be her brain. Ergo, no chance of recovery unless the brain could somehow regenerate itself.

At that point, was her life more valuable than, say, a tree?

[Telefrog]

My big issue with making abortion illegal is this -- abortions will and do occur regardless of legal status. When they're outlawed two things happen: there's a rise in dangerous do-it-yourself home abortions and women with the financial means will simply travel to jurisdictions where it is legal.

Now you have a situation where you've created an issue of access to care based on class. Given that I view the elimination of abortion as a basically impossible task (though I do wish there were no need for it), my stance is that it's better to have the option of a safe abortion available rather than limiting that only to those wealthy enough to obtain one.

Hmm. That's an interesting line of thought. Now, I'm pro-choice so don't take this as an outright attack, but you're arguing that you believe making the procedure illegal would make it so only the wealthy could afford to travel to get one, and/or we'd see a rise in dangerous unlicensed folks doing it, correct?

Would you use this same line of reasoning for other crimes? Say, for example, illegal heroin use? Would you (in reverse) advocate legalizing the use of heroin to the general public because outlawing it has caused the rise of ancillary crimes and because only the wealthy can afford the illegal habit?

[BlackPete]

Would you use this same line of reasoning for other crimes? Say, for example, illegal heroin use? Would you (in reverse) advocate legalizing the use of heroin to the general public because outlawing it has caused the rise of ancillary crimes and because only the wealthy can afford the illegal habit?

That's actually the exact reasoning behind the "safe injection sites" we have here in Vancouver. The general reasoning is, "If it's going to happen anyway, we may as well try to make sure it's done safely."

[Johan]

I, for one, agree with his opinion.

Thanks! As you said, indirect indictments are so much better! :) So, I'm not actually ignorant, and therefore wasn't actually insulted (I suppose I am too stupid to have seen that at first), it's just my ideas that are ignorant.

I'm speechless. That's saying a lot!

[Midrael]

Here's a question I have for those that are staunchly pro-life. It's a legitimate question, so please don't take it as the powder keg that I know it can be. This is something that I've wrestled with though, and has in fact been influenced by my pro-life stance.

Are you for or against capital punishment? In my case, I'm against it. My reason is that if I'm going to support life at the beginning, I need to support life through all stages. This is especially true given the documented instances where death row inmates are given stays of execution or proven innocent as new evidence comes to light.

[QueQueg]

I am too stupid
my ideas that are ignorant.

You said it. :D

[BlackPete]

You said it. :D

You just proved torrefaction's point for him. :rolleyes:

[fitbabits]

On the above two notes, this thread is now closed.

I think the topic has run its course, and it's now just a vehicle for personal insults.