Oh Please let this guy run the DNC

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Racism.  This isn't Bush per se, though.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1342051,00.html

Do you know how quickly all of these claims have been pretty thoroughly debunked?

-=Mike

How quickly? Where and by whom?

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/11/11/Columns/...t_electio.shtml

http://vote.caltech.edu/Reports/VotingMachines3.pdf

http://yalefreepress.blogspot.com/2004/11/...r-tin-foil.html

-=Mike

Those didn't have anything to do with what I posted there, guy.

[Guest Loss]

That's ridiculous. I could just as easily argue that if life begins at conception, why don't we consider the date of conception the date of birth? 

Because finding the exact date of conception is a bit on the difficult side.

Agreed. Such a notion is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the idea that life starts at conception.

 

Then explain how fetal alcohol syndrome exists. Explain why a mother's drug intake should be able to impact something that is not alive.

 

She's preparing herself to *give* life to a child in the future. Is a tree still a tree when it's just a seed in the ground?

 

If it's not alive, then yes, it shouldn't be impacted.

 

This is the entire basis of the pro-choice argument.

 

I look forward to the day when abortion is viewed as the crime against humanity that it is.

      -=Mike

 

And I look forward to the day when the anti-abortionists understand that you can't kill something unborn.

[2GOLD 0]

Some of the tactics were blatantly illegal. On the eve of the election, for example, a bogus notice arrived purporting to have adjusted the voting timetable. It said that Republicans should vote at the usual time, but instructed Democrats to wait until today — after the election.

 

Oh come the fuck on.

 

If you are stupid enough to have bought that, you were better off not voting anyway. I mean, wow, that is just sad.

 

Either the Republicans are really really stupid with cheating, which I doubt because they are the crafty evil party that made shadow games an artform, or these are some of the stupidest accusations I have ever read.

 

Sorry, the Republicans are too damn evil not to be clever about cheating.

[Guest MikeSC]

That's ridiculous. I could just as easily argue that if life begins at conception, why don't we consider the date of conception the date of birth?

Because finding the exact date of conception is a bit on the difficult side.

Agreed. Such a notion is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the idea that life starts at conception.

So, in your eyes, until the head emerges from the birth canal, the child is not alive? You won't find a scientist or medical professional on Earth who'd agree with that. Not one.

Then explain how fetal alcohol syndrome exists. Explain why a mother's drug intake should be able to impact something that is not alive.

She's preparing herself to *give* life to a child in the future. Is a tree still a tree when it's just a seed in the ground?

A tree lacks rights outright --- so your point is a little irrelevant.

If it's not alive, then yes, it shouldn't be impacted.

This is the entire basis of the pro-choice argument.

And they're certifiably incorrect.

I look forward to the day when abortion is viewed as the crime against humanity that it is.

      -=Mike

And I look forward to the day when the anti-abortionists understand that you can't kill something unborn.

I love the whole "Until the head pops out, it's not alive" mentality.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Some of the tactics were blatantly illegal. On the eve of the election, for example, a bogus notice arrived purporting to have adjusted the voting timetable. It said that Republicans should vote at the usual time, but instructed Democrats to wait until today — after the election.

 

Oh come the fuck on.

 

If you are stupid enough to have bought that, you were better off not voting anyway. I mean, wow, that is just sad.

 

Either the Republicans are really really stupid with cheating, which I doubt because they are the crafty evil party that made shadow games an artform, or these are some of the stupidest accusations I have ever read.

 

Sorry, the Republicans are too damn evil not to be clever about cheating.

And if people are too fucking lazy to call the Election Commission and ASK if that's true, then they shouldn't be voting anyway.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

That's ridiculous. I could just as easily argue that if life begins at conception, why don't we consider the date of conception the date of birth?

Because finding the exact date of conception is a bit on the difficult side.

Agreed. Such a notion is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the idea that life starts at conception.

So, in your eyes, until the head emerges from the birth canal, the child is not alive? You won't find a scientist or medical professional on Earth who'd agree with that. Not one.

It's conventional wisdom. Life begins at birth. That's not a radical concept. At all.

 

A tree lacks rights outright --- so your point is a little irrelevant.

 

Non-living non-humans also don't have rights. My point is totally relevant.

 

I love the whole "Until the head pops out, it's not alive" mentality.

    -=Mike

 

Or in rare cases, the feet. It's logical.

[Guest Loss]

I should also specify that I don't know that abortion is morally right. It's not my decision to make, even if I don't believe the unborn are alive. It's possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Women who are faced with motherhood should have the right to make the decision for themselves. That's what I'm advocating. The woman's right to choose what she does with her body.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Some of the tactics were blatantly illegal. On the eve of the election, for example, a bogus notice arrived purporting to have adjusted the voting timetable. It said that Republicans should vote at the usual time, but instructed Democrats to wait until today — after the election.

 

Oh come the fuck on.

 

If you are stupid enough to have bought that, you were better off not voting anyway. I mean, wow, that is just sad.

 

Either the Republicans are really really stupid with cheating, which I doubt because they are the crafty evil party that made shadow games an artform, or these are some of the stupidest accusations I have ever read.

 

Sorry, the Republicans are too damn evil not to be clever about cheating.

That doesn't make it okay.

[2GOLD 0]

Some of the tactics were blatantly illegal. On the eve of the election, for example, a bogus notice arrived purporting to have adjusted the voting timetable. It said that Republicans should vote at the usual time, but instructed Democrats to wait until today — after the election.

 

Oh come the fuck on.

 

If you are stupid enough to have bought that, you were better off not voting anyway. I mean, wow, that is just sad.

 

Either the Republicans are really really stupid with cheating, which I doubt because they are the crafty evil party that made shadow games an artform, or these are some of the stupidest accusations I have ever read.

 

Sorry, the Republicans are too damn evil not to be clever about cheating.

That doesn't make it okay.

 

I'm saying I don't believe it. At all.

It sounds more like someone playing a college prank than trying to rig an election. Cause no one with a working brain would truly believe they were supposed to vote AFTER election day. No one.

 

You could head into the hills of West Virginia and Georiga, find the dumbest redneck family in the woods and even they wouldn't believe that.

 

Is it possible the Republicans cheated? Course, anything is possible. Course it is also possible the Democrats cheated considering the climate we were faced with. Until I see actual hard evidence, and I mean hard evidence and not some bs about a notice claiming Democrats should "vote tomorrow" then I won't believe a word of it.

 

Personally, I think both sides committed election fraud but I can't prove it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What about not having enough machines in minority precincts?

[2GOLD 0]

What about not having enough machines in minority precincts?

 

Then this is the fault of the state and not some grand scheme to rig an election. Lack of voting machines is not a sign of a rigged election, it's a sign of a shortage somewhere. Now if the Republicans invented the machine and were in complete control of disturbuting all machines, then I'd raise an eyebrow since I'd be wondering why the Democrats would have given them so much control.

 

I've never understood why voting machines aren't in place for inspection by both parties days before an election anyway I will never know.

 

Plus, iirc, there were some voting machine shortages in other states in heavy Republican counties but I'm not hearing a big fuss being raised about that.

 

This is more a disturbution problem, not a rigged election problem.

[Guest Shoes Head]

It's conventional wisdom. Life begins at birth. That's not a radical concept. At all.

Even the most aggressive amongst the pro-choice people would disagree with you here. You're making yourself look worse and worse with this.

[The Czech Republic 0]

The fetus is a living thing well before birth. Come on.

 

I feel that abortion is an awful thing, but because we can't get rid of it, it's necessary to legalize it in the best interests of the woman's safety. If for whatever reason, the pregnancy has to be terminated, it's preferable to have a licensed physician perform the procedure than to forbid it outright, and end up with somebody poking around there with a coat hanger.

 

That being said, I think partial-birth abortion is a disgusting practice, and especially wrong. If we're to have abortions, it should be limited to the first trimester only, or before the first movement of the fetus (16-18 weeks). And from there, abortion should be limited to cases in which it's necessary (rape, incest, health). Women have the right to choose, but they have to make their choice before conception.

[Guest Loss]

Women have the right to choose, but they have to make their choice before conception.

This. THIS is the reason it's a women's rights issue. Women do not choose to be raped. Also, if a man and woman are sexually active and the woman gets pregnant, the man can choose to tuck tail and run at anytime and abandon his responsibilities. A woman does not have the right to do that. THIS is why it's a women's rights issue.

 

I still don't believe life starts at conception, but this will at least allow us to steer back to my original point, which is that abortion is a women's rights issue.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Women have the right to choose, but they have to make their choice before conception.

This. THIS is the reason it's a women's rights issue. Women do not choose to be raped. Also, if a man and woman are sexually active and the woman gets pregnant, the man can choose to tuck tail and run at anytime and abandon his responsibilities. A woman does not have the right to do that. THIS is why it's a women's rights issue.

You raise good points there. I had a loophole there for allowing abortion for rape cases. What I was referring to were women who just decide five months in "I don't want a kid any more." Also, I have no respect for guys who get girls pregnant and bail. That's fucking low.

[Guest Loss]

I actually agree with you on the partial birth abortion issue. I don't think an abortion should take place after the first trimester myself. In fact, I don't think abortion should be considered a standard form of birth control, and I don't think it's appropriate in every case. In a utopian world, adoption would be the best option for mothers not prepared to raise children, but the foster system is such a disaster that I don't know how much that would accomplish.

 

I do believe abstinence is the best possible choice. It's the only way to ensure not getting pregnant. That said, those are MY beliefs, not anyone else's. If a woman wants to have an abortion, for whatever reason, I feel obligated to defend her right to do so, even if my personal feelings on the issue differ from hers.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I actually agree with you on the partial birth abortion issue. I don't think an abortion should take place after the first trimester myself. In fact, I don't think abortion should be considered a standard form of birth control, and I don't think it's appropriate in every case. In a utopian world, adoption would be the best option for mothers not prepared to raise children, but the foster system is such a disaster that I don't know how much that would accomplish.

 

I do believe abstinence is the best possible choice. It's the only way to ensure not getting pregnant. That said, those are MY beliefs, not anyone else's. If a woman wants to have an abortion, for whatever reason, I feel obligated to defend her right to do so, even if my personal feelings on the issue differ from hers.

Fair enough. At least we agree that abortion is not a form of birth control. I respect women's rights, and that's why I think abortion should remain legal, albeit in a limited capacity.

[2GOLD 0]

I actually agree with you on the partial birth abortion issue. I don't think an abortion should take place after the first trimester myself. In fact, I don't think abortion should be considered a standard form of birth control, and I don't think it's appropriate in every case. In a utopian world, adoption would be the best option for mothers not prepared to raise children, but the foster system is such a disaster that I don't know how much that would accomplish.

 

I do believe abstinence is the best possible choice. It's the only way to ensure not getting pregnant. That said, those are MY beliefs, not anyone else's. If a woman wants to have an abortion, for whatever reason, I feel obligated to defend her right to do so, even if my personal feelings on the issue differ from hers.

Fair enough. At least we agree that abortion is not a form of birth control. I respect women's rights, and that's why I think abortion should remain legal, albeit in a limited capacity.

 

Agreed.

They really need to set a limit on abortions, unless circumstances arise such as rape, incest, etc. I really dislike the females who get more than two, treating it like a birth control pull. They are the ones who are making the mess.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The fetus is a living thing well before birth. Come on.

 

I feel that abortion is an awful thing, but because we can't get rid of it, it's necessary to legalize it in the best interests of the woman's safety. If for whatever reason, the pregnancy has to be terminated, it's preferable to have a licensed physician perform the procedure than to forbid it outright, and end up with somebody poking around there with a coat hanger.

 

That being said, I think partial-birth abortion is a disgusting practice, and especially wrong. If we're to have abortions, it should be limited to the first trimester only, or before the first movement of the fetus (16-18 weeks). And from there, abortion should be limited to cases in which it's necessary (rape, incest, health). Women have the right to choose, but they have to make their choice before conception.

Totally agree with Czech. Partial-birth is pretty horrible.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Women have the right to choose, but they have to make their choice before conception.

This. THIS is the reason it's a women's rights issue. Women do not choose to be raped.

Loss, Czech had that small pre-requisite in the later part of his post:

 

And from there, abortion should be limited to cases in which it's necessary (rape, incest, health).

 

As far as conception and whether a baby is alive, the whole issue is muddied with religious connotations that really should push the topic out of the scope for pro-choice debate. There's no denying that the fetus is physically alive in the womb, but the argument for infant rights comes down to ideas of sentience and there's no real scientific evidence to quantify the claims of either side (nor will there be).

 

For example, Mike refuted the analogy of a tree in an earlier post, but there are some religions that view a tree as having a soul and, thus, being a living being with its own rights. Should a baby and a tree have the same rights?

 

It's a concept that scientific method can't prove because it's entirely philosophical so, by arguing over whether a baby is 'alive' in the unstated context of sentience, you're basically just pissing into the wind.

 

You made a much more compelling argument for pro-choice later in the post:

 

Also, if a man and woman are sexually active and the woman gets pregnant, the man can choose to tuck tail and run at anytime and abandon his responsibilities. A woman does not have the right to do that. THIS is why it's a women's rights issue.

 

With this, you touch on the underlying impetus for the entire debate - should the United States government concern itself with repercussions of recreational sex (like the risk of pregnancy)?

 

I would personally argue "yes", given the dangers of STDs. I personally feel you leave the option of abortion open to the public, but make the process extensive and long and use Czech's prerequisites as a criteria for prioritization. Think of it as though special cases (such as rape) get hotshotted to the front of the line with high priority. If you make the paperwork long and trying, you potentially get two positive effects:

 

1. Women who irresponsibly fuck everything that walks will be less inclined to do so.

2. Women will be more encouraged to report rape cases (with the idea of rape cases getting a bypass through the system for abortion).

[Guest MikeSC]

Women have the right to choose, but they have to make their choice before conception.

This. THIS is the reason it's a women's rights issue. Women do not choose to be raped.

 

Which, according to every poll I've ever seen, occurs in far less than 10% of the situations where abortions are performed.

Also, if a man and woman are sexually active and the woman gets pregnant, the man can choose to tuck tail and run at anytime and abandon his responsibilities. A woman does not have the right to do that. THIS is why it's a women's rights issue.

Then, to be truly equal, men should not be liable for child support. If a woman can absolve herself of responsibilities, then men should be permitted to do the same.

 

Would that be a good system? Absolutely not. But, hey, equality isn't always pretty.

I still don't believe life starts at conception, but this will at least allow us to steer back to my original point, which is that abortion is a women's rights issue.

Sorry, but abortion is not a woman's rights issue any more than slavery was a property owner's rights issue

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

It's conventional wisdom. Life begins at birth. That's not a radical concept. At all.

It's just a fact, 27-33 is prime, then you decline. Uh, woops, wrong thread...

 

Abortions should not be made illegal in case of emergencies, but there better be a damn good reason to get one, and it better be done early. That's my only opinion on the matter.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Sorry, but abortion is not a woman's rights issue any more than slavery was a property owner's rights issue

-=Mike

That's the main point right there I think. The woman is making a choice for what to do with not ONLY her body, but the body developing inside of her. Since the body inside of her can't even make a choice, then no choice should be made. When you think it's okay for a woman to terminate the life of the unborn, you get into a whole argument over how we define life, not to mention the lack of respect for life that is shown by people who might have an abortion.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It's conventional wisdom. Life begins at birth. That's not a radical concept. At all.

It's just a fact, 27-33 is prime, then you decline. Uh, woops, wrong thread...

Die...

[Guest Loss]

That's the main point right there I think. The woman is making a choice for what to do with not ONLY her body, but the body developing inside of her. Since the body inside of her can't even make a choice, then no choice should be made. When you think it's okay for a woman to terminate the life of the unborn, you get into a whole argument over how we define life, not to mention the lack of respect for life that is shown by people who might have an abortion.

I am not defending abortion. I am defending the woman's right to choose to have an abortion. My personal feelings on the matter are just that, my personal feelings. I am not a woman, so I'm even hesitant to say those feelings publicly, because I could never fully understand the predicament. But for you to make this sweeping generalization when there are cases when abortion is the best alternative really concerns me.

 

I have a friend that once worked at Planned Parenthood. She has told me stories that have made me cringe of one woman getting 89 abortions! She would get in a fight with her boyfriend, then come in and get an abortion, then they'd make up and she'd get pregnant again, and she'd come back in and get another abortion. Part of me is disgusted and sees her taking the life of 89 people, practically making her a terrorist. Another part of me is just eternally grateful that someone that mentally unstable isn't a mother.

 

As is the case in just about every cause I support, I'm supporting the exception, not the rule. The majority is largely capable of taking care of themselves and making the right decision; it's the minority that deserves help. Like Mike said, less than 10% of all abortions are because of rape, but that less than 10% should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy because they are raped. Some have criticized the law that doesn't require parental consent, but if a teenage girl is getting raped by her father, she shouldn't have to get permission. Yes, that's going to be rare. But it IS going to happen. And if all you're concerned about is the majority, what do you say to the girl that can't get the abortion? Sorry? Deal with it? In our growing quest to create a theocracy, you're one of the casualties, but get over it?

 

Like anything else, abortion can be abused. It's there with the right idea in mind. Bill Clinton said it best when he said abortion should be safe, rare and legal. If you recall, prior to abortions being legalized, you had women in back alleys using coat hangers. Do we really want to revert to that?

 

The "life begins at birth" argument was ill-informed and wrong. I retract that. But in the first trimester, the heart is not beating. The reason men have nipples is that babies are genderless until the eighth month of the pregnancy. A baby is being created during this period, and birth gives life. That's what I was trying to say before, and I chose the wrong words.

 

As for adoption as an alternative, that is a possibility in some cases, but in many cases, it's a horrible option. The foster care system is largely a failure in America. I know people who have gone through it who aren't properly educated and who have severe psychological problems. I don't know anyone who has gone through it and become a success story, nor have I ever heard of anyone who has gone through it and become a success story. Getting thrown around from home-to-home is a horrible way to live. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I do think adoption is a viable alternative when a specific couple has decided to have the baby and the couple has already been decided prior to the baby being born. It's also a viable option when another family member is volunteering to take the child and raise it. But putting children into group homes is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

I do agree with many who have said that if a person isn't prepared to be a parent, he or she shouldn't be having sex. But the people saying that are typically men. A man can go from woman-to-woman, city-to-city and start families everywhere. Meanwhile, the woman is left behind to raise the child. She may not be capable. There is a problem with the morality of sex in America, and I'll be the first to admit that. Again, I have my personal beliefs on the issue that are mine only. I don't believe in having sex outside of a committed relationship. I'm not going to force that on everyone else. It's not my place.

 

It's often a no-win situation for women in the above-mentioned scenario. You're going to call her a murderer if she gets an abortion. You're going to call her a leech if she goes on welfare. See why I consider this a women's rights issue?

 

I'm all for counseling. I'm all for limitations. I'm all for requiring that abortions take place in the first trimester. But to completely take away the right makes a few people with good intentions fall through the cracks, and one person getting left behind is one person too many.

[Guest Retro Rob]

The woman is making a choice for what to do with not ONLY her body, but the body developing inside of her. Since the body inside of her can't even make a choice, then no choice should be made.

The way I see it is that you can't force a woman to go through with pregnancy, a process that will wreak hell on their body for 3/4 of a year. That being said, if a woman gets pregnant and does not want to have the baby, who are we to tell her that she should suffer through morning sickness, mood swings, and labor? Could she have been more careful to not get pregnant? Possibly, but every situation is different. After all, there are couples that use birth control and still get pregnant. They were being responsible during intercourse, and they took the proper actions against making a baby, so why should they be forced to carry through the pregnancy?

 

I personally disagree with abortion AS birth control and abortion after the first tri-mester unless the woman's health is at risk, or the baby is going to be born deformed or seriously mentally retarded. Plus, better we have proper facilities for abortion, rather than having woman in backalleys paying some guy on the street a few hunderd bucks for his expertise in using a coat hanger.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I'll reply to all of that later, but the point is you can't say that you're for the choice to have an abortion and then say you're not FOR abortion. You're pro-abortion, admit it. I'm anti-CHOICE, I will admit that, anti- the choice to have an abortion, one I don't think you should have.

 

There's too much there to get right now, I'm eating.

 

Let it be known that I don't harbour any ill will towards anyone who is for the use of abortion, even though I think it's a horrible thing. I just feel they are wrong.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

After all, there are couples that use birth control and still get pregnant. They were being responsible during intercourse, and they took the proper actions again making a baby, so why should they be forced to carry through the pregnancy?

 

If you use birth control pills and a condom, I think there is almost no chance of pregnancy.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

After all, there are couples that use birth control and still get pregnant. They were being responsible during intercourse, and they took the proper actions again making a baby, so why should they be forced to carry through the pregnancy?

 

If you use birth control pills and a condom, I think there is almost no chance of pregnancy.

You'd be close to correct, but it's still definitely not perfect. People who play it safe still may (and do) get pregnant.

 

I think abortion should be legal, even if you believe it evil. As Loss and Rob stated, abortions will happen. They have always happened; they have not always been safe. With abortion legal, the process is the safest it has ever been. Take that away and you'll be back to killing and maiming the mothers along with aborting the fetus.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think abortion should be legal, even if you believe it evil.  As Loss and Rob stated, abortions will happen.  They have always happened; they have not always been safe.  With abortion legal, the process is the safest it has ever been.  Take that away and you'll be back to killing and maiming the mothers along with aborting the fetus.

Basically yes. Abortion laws would affect the lower class and poverty-stricken people. Folks with money would just pay for their daughters to go to Canadian doctors, or across state lines where they could get a safe and sterile abortion. While the poor would rely on mexico and back-alley american doctors. Making abortion illegal is almost like making drugs illegal, noone is stopping the act, however it is just a lot more messy, and the results can be deadly. Abortions in this country have gone up in number since Bush has been in office, I'd like to single out the rise in poverty and his stance on abstinence-only sex education as a big reason, but I haven't done any research, so I am simply speculating.