FP Caucus

Soma response

 

I will say this: I think it's a travesty of the conservative movement that under their past three Presidents, we have accumulated some 7 trillion dollars in debt. And that the last time the budget was balanced was under a liberal Presidency.

Two of those presidencies included war time spending and one of them included the cold war. Exclude defence spending and the pitcure would look a bit different I bet.

 

Abortion - I believe that abortion itself is a symptom of greater problems, not a problem of its own creation. I personally would never advocate for the termination of a pregnancy to any friends or family. While it hasn't happened yet, I may have to advocate it for a client of mine in the future, which I won't have a problem doing. I believe that the best way to reduce abortions is not to outlaw it, but to rather work on underlying factors of poverty and sexual education. Abstinence only education is a failure, plain and simple.

My opinion on this changed in high school when someone close to me had one. I was very religious then and against abortion. Like most things I think it is a States right issue and should be up to individual states, but it should remain a legal option for those States that want it. It is one of the biggest things I disagree with republicans on. I hate that so many of them are single issue voters and that this is their single issue. The solution is accepting the fact that young people are going to have sex regardless, proper education, and availability of birth control. For some abortion is the best or only viable option and it should remain an option. Abstinence only education is a proven failure like you said.

 

Budget & Economy - more appropriate than the conservative "spend and spend" policy.

That is not the typical conservative policy. There are a lot of conservatives that want to change that spend and spend policy in washington.

Corporations - I just read somewhere that corporations don't pay taxes, which is pretty appropriate. Any tax increases to corporations will fall on the consumer as higher prices. So competition, competition, competition. And lots of oversight to prevent collusion and monopolies.

Corporations are just groups of people (employees). The taxes are paid out of their paychecks. When politicians (usually dems) talk about increasing taxes on corporations all that means is you're going to pay more in the end. Either from your paycheck or from the goods/services you buy.

 

Death Penalty - State sanctioned murder is till murder; abolish the death penalty.

Should be up to the States IMO, as it is now. I do think however that it should only be allowed in cases where there is irrefutable evidence such as DNA. A single witness testimony is not enough.

 

Foreign Policy - Al Qaeda didn't attack America because our women wear bikinis and freedom of worship; they attacked because we have troops in Saudi Arabia, our unwavering support of Israel, and generally meddling in Middle Eastern affairs (such as, say, the Iraq War). Our foreign military operations should be much more invested in humanitarian affairs (the Sudan, Rwanda, etc.) then geopolitical and religious disputes.

While we are dependent on foreign oil we have interests in the Middle East and we need to protect them. That's why we are in Saudia Arabia and the Kingdom wants us there for the same reason. To protect their interest. Us. Their major customer. And I wouldn't call our support of Israel unwavering. If that were the case we would have taken out Palestine and Iran along time ago. We do as much as we have to to protect them and I think that's fair.

 

Free Trade - The "invisible hand of the free market" will sometimes give a big ole middle finger. We have a right to protect ourselves with tariffs and the like just as any other nation does. Maybe some protectionism against cheap slave labor goods will make consumers more fiscally and environmentally responsible, while keeping manufacturing jobs local to the US.

The industrial age in the US is over, and it's just beginning in a lot of foreign countries. As a result manufacturing jobs are leaving for overseas. Unfortunately we have a lot of middle aged blue collar workers that didn't get the memo and they will be without jobs. It's unfortunate but to keep their jobs or even restore them at the expense of the consumer and the economy is not the right thing to do. Tax subsidies for education of those workers, sure, that I can go with. Making it harder for companies to get goods manufactured elsewhere so that they have to do it in the US thereby spending more and making consumers pay more? I don't agree with.

 

Government Reform - Ya know, I really think the first step should be voting reform. Democrats and Republicans have no need to reform themselves as it stands, so they won't. But then, they have no incentive to reform voting, so they probably won't. I think we're going to have to wait for some calamitous recession for real reform.

I don't think either party will do anything that will risk losing their 2 party stranglehold on the system, and that includes voter reform. The only thing that will change this sadly is a major crisis. Economic depression, world war, or civil war. None of which are likely to happen.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Hykos

I'm really really tired of hearing people complain about the Clinton scandal. I realize what happened was immoral and wrong, but that doesn't alter the fact that when he was president (and wasn't too busy slamming co-workers) he did a pretty handy dandy job imo. President or not he's still human and we ALL make mistakes. Plain and simple. We all lie, we all do things we shouldn't, and I'm sure everyone's done something that could possibly be considered immoral.

 

I simply don't agree with Hillary Clinton and thus why I'd rather not see her as president. I don't hate her, but I severly dislike her.

 

It wasn't "scandal" it was "scandals". 8 years of them. Many of which Hillary was actively involved in, yet neither of them were ever prosecuted for anything. That still amazes me more than 10 years later. Also, what did Bill do that was so great? There were no major or monumental policy changes domestically or internationally that I can remember. The unemployment rate was only moderate (higher than any point in the Bush terms), interest rates were higher than they are now, and there was still a lot of tax and spending. Some would claim that he ignored foreign threats that led up to 9/11 (since Bush had only been in office for 7 months). He took credit for an economy that in most economist's opinions was the outcome of years of Regan/BushHW policy and slammed it into the ground by the end of his 2nd term. People often view former presidents with rose colored glasses (look at Carter for a great example) but don’t forget that 8 years ago the overwhelming majority of the country did not like Clinton. His approval ratings were lower than any president at the time (in the low 30 percentile. A sad record only surpassed by Bush).

 

Whether or not it's ok to penalize Hillary for any of this I don't know, but since they make no short fact about her active involvement in his presidency I think it's only fair to hold her accountable for some part of what was done or not done during those 8 years.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Hykos

Well, I read all of this thread. :tired:

 

In summation, my view is as follows:

 

Regardless of Hilary's past indiscretions (or involvement with Bill's), I think this election is all but decided. As HV said, I don't think there's any way around the fact that GWBush is by far the least conservative Republican we've had in office in a while. Coupled with all the international issues and our country's involvement in them, I think GWBush's legacy will push many voters to vote Democrat in order to "not vote Republican." I don't think this is a great voting strategy personally, but I think Hilary or Obama have much greater chances of winning the upcoming election through namesake and a desire for change in office vis a vis a different party president than any of the Republicans currently running. Granted all of this is strictly my opinion, but if we were betting horses, I'd call this a hunch.

 

...Although Huckabee does have Chuck Norris' support...maybe Norris will kill the democrats. :gentle prod:

I'm going to throw this out there because I haven't seen anyone say it yet. I don't think Hilary will be elected because she is a woman. I'm not saying that is my view because it isn't, but I think as a whole there will be more people that vote against her because she is female. Hilary seems more like a stunt and I think because of it will not be taken seriously. I haven't seen anyone this year that blows me out of the water that I can get behind which is sad that in the whole country they couldn't come up with one.

 

 

/Vote for Honki in '08

Who plans on voting in primaries? I'm going to try and vote absentee in Georgia, since that's where I'm registered. I can't remember what my party affiliation is since Fulton county never sent me a voter card...

 

If I do vote in the primaries, it will be for Ron Paul. What do you guys think of him?

Who plans on voting in primaries? I'm going to try and vote absentee in Georgia, since that's where I'm registered. I can't remember what my party affiliation is since Fulton county never sent me a voter card...

 

If I do vote in the primaries, it will be for Ron Paul. What do you guys think of him?

 

I will be voting. And Georgia does not have party affiliations. You can ask for either party's ballot.

 

I probably agree with Ron Paul on more issues than any other candidate, but I don't think he is electable in the General Election, nor do I think he would make the best leader out of the bunch. I'm probably going to settle on Bridget, Honki, or McCain. One of the three. Since I don't think you can write in candidates on primaries, it'll most likely be McCain. Since GA's primary doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things, I might just stay home and sulk.

/can't wait for 2010 census so we have more say in elections

Edited January 7, 2008 by Hykos

Yeah I kinda want to vote in the Florida primaries, since it matters more, but I don't think it's possible... we have closed primaries and I don't think I could just show up with my driver's license and vote... if that's not true, please tell me otherwise!

 

I don't know a lot about McCain except that he's pretty brash, can you give me a few arguments as to why I should consider him?

Yeah I kinda want to vote in the Florida primaries, since it matters more, but I don't think it's possible... we have closed primaries and I don't think I could just show up with my driver's license and vote... if that's not true, please tell me otherwise!

If you are registered in Fulton County then you should be unregistered in FL. To register again most states require you do so by 30 days of an election/primary. I think it's too late for FL if that is the case.

 

I don't know a lot about McCain except that he's pretty brash, can you give me a few arguments as to why I should consider him?

-Most experienced Candidate running. 21 years in the Senate and 4 in the House before that.

-Long time opposition to spending and pork barrel and would veto far more than either of the last two presidents.

-In 25 years he has never been one to tow the party line and has worked with the other side of the aisle more than most Republicans.

-Has said he would sign off on FairTax if it passed the houses, but also that it isn't what he wants. Kinda unclear, but is in favor of major tax reform.

-Supports personal plans in Social Security.

-Supports stem cell research

-Opposes gun control

-Opposes ban on gay marriage. Prefers States decide for themselves.

-Opposes government run health care

-Supports Guest Worker programs and paths to legal citizenship for existing aliens yet also securing our border more.

-Supports Charter, Voucher, and home-schooling programs. Prefers states to decide how to spend Education monies.

-Pro NAFTA

-Pro-Nuclear plant expansion and fast tracked oil-independence

-Supports stricter measures on air quality but opposes Kyoto act

 

-Opposed how the war was handled, proposed troup surge to end violence which has since worked, for now at least.

-Against pork spending in defense budgets.

-Supports Taiwanese independence

-Supports Israel

-Spent 22 years in the Navy.

-Has a father and a grandfather that were Admirals and he could have had any cushy desk job he wanted in the Navy yet chose to serve in combat during Vietnam. To me that says something about his character. The opposite can be said for Bush.

-Against torture of any kind. The only candidate with first hand experience on this.

 

Only things I disagree with him on are his views on abortion and his election reform plan that he passed a few years ago. Oh and ANWR drilling.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Hykos

Abortion - I don't believe in abortion, plain and simple. The only exceptions may are in the case where an unexpected pregnancy may threaten the life of the mother. I agree with Soma that it is a byproduct of larger problems, namely education and personal responsibilty. There are other viable options if a child is unwanted, like adoption.

 

Civil Rights - People nowadays seem to be all too willing to give up our rights for more 'security'. It kills me to hear people with that mindset, it makes me believe that we're losing what the USA has always been about.

 

Corporations - (no citations for this one, sorry. This info came from one of my classes and some former research for the class) Corporations currently pay less than 1/3 of the taxes they used to, and it accounts for less than 1/10th of the federal budget now. If they were to pay the same percentage they did used to, it could completely wipe the federal deficit clean. Might prices go higher for the consumer? Yes, that's possible. As it stands though, our tax dollars already partially subsidize corporate expenses so we lose either way. I am discouraged to see CEOs making billions and their companies are receiving tax breaks while the blue collar worker and those impoverished struggle and pay out of what little they make.

 

Death Penalty - Tough issue for me. I am religious, and as such I believe in forgiveness, to a point, and that all killing is immoral. However, if a violent crime were to happen to a member of my family, I know I wouldn't be able to say "yea, let him live." At the same time, people serving life in prison with no possibility of parole have nothing to lose by harming guards and other inmates.

 

Somewhat of a tangent: One thing people tend to forget regarding violence and treatments of inmates is that most will return to society at some point. So even while people are saying "good, they deserve it" when you hear of a prisoner being abused, keep in mind that that treatment will affect them, and subsequently those who they encounter again when they're released.

 

Drugs - Keep them illegal.

 

Education - Very tough issue. Teaching for the test sucks, and I truly hate the No Child Left Behind Act. Under what logic does giving less funding to the schools that do poorly, who therefore need more help, work at all?

 

Sex Education - Stop teaching abstinence only! It doesn't work, and we know that based on cold, hard, facts. To give funding for those schools that teach abstinence only is ridiculous.

 

Oil and the Environment - Oil is a limited resource. It will run out. Let's become less dependent, mmkay? I'm not sure who does believe in global warming and who doesn't, but I do. Is it exaggerated? Maybe, but what we do does effect the environment, and we need to keep in check.

 

Families & Children - This is where I disagree with Soma. The world's population is growing fastest in the poorest countries, the USA doesn't really have a problem in this area, or at least so it seems to me. Personally, I intend on having a big family, it's what's important to me.

 

Foreign Policy - Al Qaeda didn't attack America because our women wear bikinis and freedom of worship; they attacked because we have troops in Saudi Arabia, our unwavering support of Israel, and generally meddling in Middle Eastern affairs (such as, say, the Iraq War). Our foreign military operations should be much more invested in humanitarian affairs (the Sudan, Rwanda, etc.) then geopolitical and religious disputes.

QFT Soma.

 

Free Trade - The "invisible hand of the free market" will sometimes give a big ole middle finger. We have a right to protect ourselves with tariffs and the like just as any other nation does. Maybe some protectionism against cheap slave labor goods will make consumers more fiscally and environmentally responsible, while keeping manufacturing jobs local to the US.

 

Again, QFT Soma. Also, down with NAFTA, too much power is being given to corporations. There have been cases where companies have sued the governments of the USA, Canada, and Mexico for placing restrictions on the sale of gasoline with harmful additives, as it hindered their business. Under the trade agreement, they had a legitimate claim, yet people can potentially suffer for it.

 

Political Process - We are straying far from the ideals of democracy. The 2 party system is seriously flawed, and I think that's pretty much a given for most people reading this. It's sad when you can't vote for the people you really want because it would be 'like throwing your vote away'. Instead, you get to strategically plan to vote for others so you can simply reduce the chance to win for those you dislike!

 

 

Gun Control - Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And if a person wants to kill someone, they can get a gun one way or the other. The rampant violence in America is no due to gun control or lack thereof, it's due to our culture.

 

QFT

 

Health Care - Socialized healthcare can be done. France has one of the best national healthcare systems in the world, but can we pull it off? I'm not so sure, but I'd like to give it a try. There are flaws with any healthcare system, including those run by the governments of various nations, but at the moment there are a lot more people needing help than getting it, and we can't allow that.

 

National Security - Let's become a bit more isolationist. Not to some crazy extent, but let's focus on the homeland.

 

Illegal Immigration - A huge problem. The economic impacts can be devastating. As Soma said, target those hiring undocumented workers. Note: Building a wall is not the answer, and is quite possibly one of the dumbest ideas I've heard. Slow people down? Maybe, but it's not an impenetrable barrier, and will be shorter than the length of the border.

 

Stem Cells Research - Not embryonic stem cells. Any other kind that doesn't result from the destruction of a potential fetus, go for it.

 

Social Security - Fix it, don't privatize it.

 

 

" Abortion - I don't believe in abortion, plain and simple. The only exceptions may are in the case where an unexpected pregnancy may threaten the life of the mother. I agree with Soma that it is a byproduct of larger problems, namely education and personal responsibilty. There are other viable options if a child is unwanted, like adoption."

 

Abortion (and gay rights) are two issues that really blow me away. I normally do not talk politics because it disgusts me and makes me exceptionally angry.

 

Personally, I am against abortion. I don't necessarily consider it murder, but I do not really think it is something that should be done. BUT. . . and there is a big BUT, I do NOT believe in taking away the rights of others. It NOT my place to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. People here are saying abortion is an issue of education and a bunch of other sh@t. I say that is just someone trying to push their views on someone else. If you don't believe in abortion, then great! But don't take away the rights of someone else to choose what they want to choose. You believe that all life is sacred, blah blah blah, good for you. But you should not be able to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their own body. Not everyone believes the same things you believe, and they should not be FORCED to believe what you believe.

 

It is the same thing with the right-wing Christians. They believe that gays are evil and sinners. Well good for them. They don't believe that men should marry other men and women should marry other women. That's wonderful. But why should their views be pushed on me? Why should I have to suffer because of something they believe? If they don't believe gay marraige, then how about they not marry someone who's gay. Pretty simple.

 

They use the asinine excuse that the Bible says God hates gays. Welll that is all and good, except not everyone believes that. Some people do not believe that God hates gays and some do not believe in God at all. But the right-wing Republicans want to force everyone to believe what they believe--or at least they want to take away rights of from others, so they cannot have their own rights.

 

A TRUE Christian, like the right-wing Repubs claim to be, would treat others how they wanted to be treated, after all, that's what Jesus said to do. But instead, they judge and condemn, and want to take away the rights of others, by banning anything they see and "unclean" or "sin". I have no problem with people not believing what I believe, but I DO have a problem with people taking away my right to choose--and that IS a right. It is a RIGHT for me to persue happiness. If I want to marry a man, I should be able to. If I want to marry a woman I should be able to. This is the land of the FREE and home of the brave, not the land of the free and home of the brave--unless you're gay.

 

Why people have to take away right to choose from others is beyond me.

 

 

 

From what I understand, which is very little, the general Christian view on homosexuality is that it is considered "unclean". The passage allegedly regarding it uses the term "abomination" which in the context can be taken as unclean - an act that furthers one from God. The general opinion is not that God or a good Christian hates gays, but more so that a good Christian would not engage in that act if they want to be close to God.

 

That being said, the passages regarding homosexuality are open to serious misinterpretation by people who perhaps already had the mindset that homosexuality is bad. Obviously throughout history the bible has been reinterpreted and translated a thousand times over, sometimes altering the text to please certain persons or to reflect the translator's own opinion. It is very easy to imagine the true meaning having been altered along the way.

 

There also is some inconsistency in the usage of Greek terminology, especially as shown in I Corinthians 6:9:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

 

Now.. the Greek word that Paul used here for effeminate is "malakos" which translates to "soft". It is not a word that Greek writers or speakers would associate with "homosexual". There are, however, MANY Greek terms which refer to homosexual behavior as it was very common and tolerated in those days, such as "paederastes" which was the standard Greek term for male homosexual behavior. The word he uses for "abusers of themselves with mankind" is "arsenokoitai" which seems to have been a word that Paul made up as it is not found in any other Greek text. It is made up of two words, "man" and "bed". To sum up the possible accurate translations of this word, Paul may have meant male prostitutes, pimps, masturbators, or anyone who exploits sex in a similar fashion. So, if Paul had meant homosexuality with both of these terms [which is how they are both translated by later english versions of the bible], why wouldn't he have made it clear by using the precise term for it?

 

Haha I suppose thats a little off-topic..... so back to politics! The majority of Christians are not comfortable with homosexuality because the widely used translations of the bible regard it as being a sin. Therefore any Christian politicians are not going to want to promote homosexual activity by supporting gay marriage. As Sanctity said, there are obviously a lot of other people who do not share that religious opinion. So if it is a religious issue, why should it be outlawed by the government? Should we start yelling "separation of church and state"?

 

In my very humble personal opinion, I think a good number of politicians and voting Americans [specifically older white males] are not comfortable with the idea of homosexuality for two reasons:

1. it is a newer issue that is gaining much awareness especially among young people and is an alternative method to a long-standing tradition and belief

2. old white men are not comfortable with their own sexuality! Come on, whats with all the Republican gay scandals lately?? Is there not a trend there?? If a Republican realizes "maybe I am gay after all" he is going to hide it because otherwise it becomes a major scandal! Especially if he has voted AGAINST gay marriage in the past [hello Mr. Craig].

 

I think that about covers all I have to say~! Whew

Edited January 8, 2008 by Klaudia

I think Sanc/Klakla hit on something allot of people (not just in this thread) miss: The U.S. was founded on a SEPARATION of church and state.

 

That means we are all entitled to believe what we want to believe without persecution.

 

...It also means government is not supposed to interfere with our views or lifestyles so long as those views and lifestyles do not directly effect other people.

 

In this sense abortion is a tricky one as some would argue it represents 'views and lifestyles that directly effect others', in this case, the fetus.

 

Still at the end of the day guys (and I mean GUYS, as in males) our opinion on this matter should not be counted. Ever.

 

As for the 'gay issue', based on the separation of church and state, it should be a non-issue.

 

Homosexuality represents a lifestyle choice that does not impact an individual's ability to function in society nor does it threaten the freedoms of others.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Feanore

Two quick things, although they are intertwined.

 

States Rights: I agree that powers not enumerated in the constitution should go back to the states, but that there are some civil rights enumerated or implied (as rendered through Supreme Court judgments) in the constitution. For example, I believe abortion is a civil right that should be federally mandated by the right to privacy (which Roe V Wade was decided on, I think). Gay marriage by the equal protection clause. Gun control through the second amendment. States rights, to me, is being used as a battle cry for groups that have conceded that they can't change federal laws, so would rather win state by state.

 

Second, it is well within a person or group's rights to advocate their beliefs in the formation of laws. But majority doesn't always rule - civil rights are not up for the majority to decide, in my opinion. I don't care if 95% of people abhor homosexual marriage or polygamy (consenting adults is all i care about), it's a civil right to marry who the hell you want to, not something a "moral majority" should control.

Second, it is well within a person or group's rights to advocate their beliefs in the formation of laws. But majority doesn't always rule - civil rights are not up for the majority to decide, in my opinion. I don't care if 95% of people abhor homosexual marriage or polygamy (consenting adults is all i care about), it's a civil right to marry who the hell you want to, not something a "moral majority" should control.

 

My rule of thumb: If it violates someones right to life, liberty, or property it should be illegal. If not, then the government should keep their nose out of it. Even if 90% of the population wants something to be illegal, if it doesn't violate someones right to life liberty or property then it should be legal. Every issue can be decided that way imho, with the exception being abortion since people have different opinions on when a fetus becomes a life.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Hykos

Still at the end of the day guys (and I mean GUYS, as in males) our opinion on this matter should not be counted. Ever.

 

 

I very strongly disagree with this.

 

In every other aspect of having a child, both the mother and father are included in the responsiblities(legally speaking). It takes 2 people to create that child, so why does one party get the decision over life or death?

 

Yes, I understand that the child is in the woman's body, and her body is her right. However, this is where personal responsiblity comes into play. If you don't take precautions against getting pregnant, then that is a potential consequence. You know this going in.

 

If the father is willing to step up and take care of the child, why does his opinion, and even further, his claims to the child, not matter?

I very strongly disagree with this.

 

In every other aspect of having a child, both the mother and father are included in the responsiblities(legally speaking). It takes 2 people to create that child, so why does one party get the decision over life or death?

See, this is why I said 'it's tricky'. Legal responsibility does not take into account physical or emotional factors. Strictly from a business perspective, sure the male is and 'investor' or 'shareholder', but he does not have to deal with many of the physical/tangible effects of his investment. There are many documented (and many more undocumented) incidents where the male partner was all for the pregnancy and ready to commit to a long-term relationship only to 'bail out' in late trimester. The female is still physically bound to this child. The male may face legal repercussions, but that still leaves the woman with a child she may never have wanted.

Yes, I understand that the child is in the woman's body, and her body is her right. However, this is where personal responsiblity comes into play. If you don't take precautions against getting pregnant, then that is a potential consequence. You know this going in.

Barring the obvious example of rape, there are many cases where responsible people suffer from failed contraception and other factors. Should the female not have a (legal) means to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

If the father is willing to step up and take care of the child, why does his opinion, and even further, his claims to the child, not matter?

The father may be willing to step up, but he can't go to term in her place. The physical burden is still left to the woman...With all the related external ramifications (ya know, like missing days at work, hospital visits, etc...)Additionally, as I said a few lines up, he can, quite literally bail out, while the mother is stuck with the child.

 

If a man wants a child so badly and his partner does not, first off, he should probably find another partner. And he has other means available to him, such as adoption.

 

Oh, and lets not forget that the woman faces physical, however remote, that the man never will.

 

Finally, one thing our society seems to fail at utterly is grasping the broader ramifications of our 'ethical views'. Most people tend to dodge the question of unwanted children raised in less than ideal environments and the impact that has on society as a whole.

 

So, in closing, while I think men have a right to their opinions, just as anyone does in a democracy, I don't think they should have a legal right to make that decision.

 

See, this is why I said 'it's tricky'. Legal responsibility does not take into account physical or emotional factors. Strictly from a business perspective, sure the male is and 'investor' or 'shareholder', but he does not have to deal with many of the physical/tangible effects of his investment. There are many documented (and many more undocumented) incidents where the male partner was all for the pregnancy and ready to commit to a long-term relationship only to 'bail out' in late trimester. The female is still physically bound to this child. The male may face legal repercussions, but that still leaves the woman with a child she may never have wanted.

Barring the obvious example of rape, there are many cases where responsible people suffer from failed contraception and other factors. Should the female not have a (legal) means to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

 

The father may be willing to step up, but he can't go to term in her place. The physical burden is still left to the woman...With all the related external ramifications (ya know, like missing days at work, hospital visits, etc...)Additionally, as I said a few lines up, he can, quite literally bail out, while the mother is stuck with the child.

 

If a man wants a child so badly and his partner does not, first off, he should probably find another partner. And he has other means available to him, such as adoption.

 

Oh, and lets not forget that the woman faces physical, however remote, that the man never will.

 

Finally, one thing our society seems to fail at utterly is grasping the broader ramifications of our 'ethical views'. Most people tend to dodge the question of unwanted children raised in less than ideal environments and the impact that has on society as a whole.

 

So, in closing, while I think men have a right to their opinions, just as anyone does in a democracy, I don't think they should have a legal right to make that decision.

 

 

I don't think that men should have the right to make the decision, I think men and women together should.

 

Obviously exception cases such as rape are incredibly devastating and hard calls for anyone to make, but even so I would advocate adoption over abortion.

 

For failed contraception, no, I still wouldn't advocate abortion. If you use a condom and she is on the pill, the chances of pregnancy are very very small. Even so, when you have sex, regardless of the protection used, a child is a potential consequence and people should have to deal with it.

 

My perspective derives from this: a fetus is a life, and as such, the termination of a pregnancy should always be the very last option.

 

 

 

I hope it doesn't seem I am touting beliefs in some inappropriate manner. I just enjoy a good debate/discussion and wanted to clarify my position.

What I tell the kids at work:

 

Me: "Don't have sex if you aren't ready to raise a kid."

 

Them: "It's cool, she's on the pill." (she isn't)

 

Me: "Don't have sex if you aren't ready to raise a kid."

 

Them: "I wear a condom every time!" (they don't)

 

Me: "Don't have sex if you aren't ready to raise a kid."

 

Them: "I am ready."

 

Me: /facepalm

lol, soma, you tell them =D as for me i'll keep having sex and i'm not ready to have a kid.

lol, soma, you tell them =D as for me i'll keep having sex and i'm not ready to have a kid.

 

ok not fair

lol, soma, you tell them =D as for me i'll keep having sex and i'm not ready to have a kid.

OMG HomoHax! NERF PLZ!

Edited January 9, 2008 by Feanore

OMG HomoHax! NERF PLZ!

you could just reroll gay

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

For those interested. NH results:

 

Clinton - 39.2%

Obama - 36.4%

Edwards - 16.9%

Richardson - 4.6%

Kucinich - 1.4%

Others - 1.1%

Biden - 0.2%

Gravel - 0.1%

Dodd - 0.1%

 

McCain - 37.2%

Romney - 31.6%

Huckabee - 11.2%

Giuliani - 8.6%

Paul - 7.6%

Others - 2.0%

Thompson - 1.2%

Hunter - 0.5%

----------------------------------------------------

 

Upcoming primaries/caucuses

 

1/15 - MI (R only)

1/19 - NV, SC (R only)

1/22 - LA (R only)

1/25 - HI (R only)

1/26 - SC (D only)

1/29 - FL

2/1 - ME (R only)

2/5 - CA, NY, FL, IL, GA, NJ, MA, TN, AZ, MN, CO, AL, CT, OK, AR, UT, DE, ND, AK

Dem Only: NM, KS, ID; Repub Only: WV, MT

2/9 - WA, LA (D only), NB (D only)

2/10 - ME (D only)

2/12 - DC, MD, VA

2/19 - WI, WA (R only), HI (D only)

3/4 - OH, RI, TX, VT

Edited January 9, 2008 by Hykos

I very strongly disagree with this.

 

i very strongly disagree with you disagreeing with him.

 

team feanore~

i very strongly disagree with you disagreeing with him.

 

team feanore~

 

damn! well played.

Some watchdog group is saying Obama should have won NH in light of the Diebold machines sucking arse. Given Diebold's history, I wouldn't be terribly surprised.