Election 2008, United States

[akuchi]

firstly, deck knight is a fucking (BAN ME PLEASE) for posting pictures of a fetus at 7 weeks. it's emotive. why the hell should a little picture make a difference? a woman's right to choose has shit all to do with hollow sentiment. it's a rational decision made by a human being.
it makes no fucking difference to the actual fact of the matter that it is a woman's right to have privacy over her own body.
it does however really upset someone who just had a miscarriage at seven fucking weeks. fuck you, you absolute cunt.

why the hell should the mother have to suffer through a pregnancy she doesn't want because you think it's the right thing to do?

let's, theoretically, remove a mother's right to abort.

babies born to junkies already addicted to smack, babies born in abusive households, babies born to teenage mothers who missed her pill or were idiotic enough not to be on it in the first place, babies born to rape victims [and considering how absolutely, massively, hideously mind, body and soul-destroying rape is you cannot even begin to comprehend what that would do to a person - because you, as a male, don't spend your life in fear of rape], babies born heavily disabled, babies born to the hereditarily ill.. the list goes on.
and you say this is good? this is what you want?

note I am not saying the hereditarily ill, disabled or the like SHOULD be aborted. I'm saying that if a mother feels she can't cope with the child she should have the CHOICE.

take a more 'normal' situation. girl goes out, gets drunk, gets laid, gets pregnant. girl is about to go to university or the like. now girl is stuck with a child she didn't want and has to spend the rest of her life raising - or at least nine months in the physical hell that is pregnancy and childbirth (I'm assuming you don't realise how dangerous they are for a woman?), stigmatised and derided by her peers. Hopefully she'll have a supportive family but some if not most wouldn't be. the father is nowhere to be seen.

She could quite feasibly end up homeless and pregnant with no job in the later stages of gestation.
And how is she going to be looked after? Welfare?

Oh, shit, no, you hate that too.

and you think that's OKAY? that for behaving like that she deserves to have her entire life ruined for a mistake?

I'm sure in your perfect far-right world men and women wouldn't act like that. Hell, you'd probably bring back prohibition. But they do.

And yes, the mother's perspective, the female's perspective which all of you are entirely lacking. Men should not be able to legislate about what women do with their bodies, either contraception, sterilisation or pregnancy wise. None of you can get pregnant. It is not misandrist for me to say you've absolutely no idea about the fear of pregnancy, childbirth, rape or contraception. Yes, you can use condoms. But find me a woman who got pregnant when using them and I'll guarantee she's been asked why she wasn't on the Pill.

Taking religion out of the equasion because let's be fair, the old testament condones rape and stoning people to death for adultery and the new testament is pretty godawful too - if a woman doesn't want to carry a pregnancy that would not be viable (i.e. 24 weeks) then she shouldn't have to. It's her body, it's her womb, and she should have the right to decide what happens to her. Until then it is nothing more than a clump of cells leeching off her organs.

Oh, and seeing as the fertilised egg/fetus is SUCH a wonderful little person in it's own right, why don't we induce the mother and let it live by itself?

 

[Ancien Régime]

why the hell should the mother have to suffer through a pregnancy she doesn't want because you think it's the right thing to do?

How the fuck is "not killing people" a subjective moral principle?

let's, theoretically, remove a mother's right to abort.

babies born to junkies already addicted to smack, babies born in abusive households, babies born to teenage mothers who missed her pill or were idiotic enough not to be on it in the first place, babies born to rape victims [and considering how absolutely, massively, hideously mind, body and soul-destroying rape is you cannot even begin to comprehend what that would do to a person - because you, as a male, don't spend your life in fear of rape], babies born heavily disabled, babies born to the hereditarily ill.. the list goes on.

No it's not good. But is any of that the child's fault? Is it the child's fault that the mother was abused, that she was raped, or even that the mother was an idiot that wasn't on the pill?

Why are you punishing the child for what the rapist did? The baby growing in your womb didn't rape anybody.

and you think that's OKAY? that for behaving like that she deserves to have her entire life ruined for a mistake?

Maybe she doesn't deserve it but nobody forced her to take the risk. Nobody forced her to get drunk and get laid. Does it sound cruel? Fine. You may not take the concept of "morality" and "ethics" seriously but I, and most people do.

it's called personal responsibility (a novel concept for "liberals!"). Stuff has consequences. Deal with it - don't try to cop-out by killing the human life which resulted from your decision.

You act like you have an unquestioned, inalienable right to have sex anytime you want, AND not deal with any consequences of that decision. Rights without reponsibility, huh.

And yes, the mother's perspective, the female's perspective which all of you are entirely lacking. Men should not be able to legislate about what women do with their bodies, either contraception, sterilisation or pregnancy wise.

Well, how about the ethical perspective of which you are entirely lacking. Thou shalt not kill (though that's a misprint - it means thou shalt not murder) isn't just in the Bible you know - it's in just about every ethical theory ever devised by mankind. But that doesn't matter to you right? Ethics doesn't matter when it comes to you having an inconvienient pregnancy.

It's her body, it's her womb, and she should have the right to decide what happens to her. Until then it is nothing more than a clump of cells leeching off her organs.

Oh, and seeing as the fertilised egg/fetus is SUCH a wonderful little person in it's own right, why don't we induce the mother and let it live by itself

Just because it is a "clump of cells" does not change the fact that from conception it is a seperate individual than either the mother or the father. The only difference between an embryo and a newborn is size and development. Oh btw I'm not talking out of my ass here;

Notice that I didn't refer even once to religion; except to say that "not randomly killing people for no reason other than convenience" is a fundamental tenet of most ethical systems. I'm sorry if you cannot deal with that.

Oh btw, the fact that while other parts of the anatomy (heart, liver, etc) are very risky and improbable in regards to being able to survive outside the body that they're in, an embryo continues to grow, whether it's in a different body than the woman who concieved the child, or in a test tube.

 

[akuchi]

right, then put the embryos that aren't wanted in test tubes because I'm sure a heart and liver are but trifling details.

a fetus is not a person. it's a potential person, and it staggers me on a daily basis that people would want to put the rights over something that doesn't exist in a meaningful shape or form over the rights of a woman, who does exist, who thinks and breathes and has a life.

edit: and you wouldn't be punishing the child by aborting it before it existed.
you'd be punishing the child by bringing it into those situations.

 

[Ancien Régime]

right, then put the embryos that aren't wanted in test tubes.

Sure. Better than killing them.

a fetus is not a person. it's a potential person

Biological science more or less disagrees with you.

edit: and you wouldn't be punishing the child by aborting it before it existed.
you'd be punishing the child by bringing it into those situations.

so a bad situation is worse than being dead?

The only truly relevant question is when the moment of conception actually happens (relevant to stuff like the morning after pill, etc) but that's not relevant at all to abortion.

 

[akuchi]

if you've never existed, you're not dead. it is surely preferable to have never existed than to spend an extremely unpleasant childhood knowing you weren't wanted.

I'm not even bringing in the fact the world has more people than it can support already..

not only does your 'biological science' link not work, it's from a website entitled 'case for life'. I'd really you produced something a little more objective.

 

[Ancien Régime]

if you've never existed, you're not dead. it is surely preferable to have never existed than to spend an extremely unpleasant childhood knowing you weren't wanted.

Life is unpredictable. An unpleasant childhood may turn into a decent or better adulthood.

I had a very unpleasant childhood - I do NOT think it would be better not to have existed.

I'm not even bringing in the fact the world has more people than it can support already..

And I won't bring in the fact that the whole "overpopulation" thing is only slightly less bullshit than global warming. Malthus was pretty much 100% wrong.

not only does your 'biological science' link not work, it's from a website entitled 'case for life'. I'd really you produced something a little more objective

fixed the link. But just because a pro-life site puts quotes from scientists on their site, that makes it unobjective?

 

[akuchi]

no, it's unobjective because it's a pro-life site. That's like me linking you to a feminist site.
funny how all the feminists are for pro-choice.

 

[umbarsc]

It seems you added "smogon.com/forums/" before the link, because I get a link that says "Oh no! /forums/(site) does not exist!"

In any case, whether the fetus experiences consciousness is key.

And anyone who denies both overpopulation and global warming is seriously lol. I don't even want to bother arguing with you if you're taking that lazy, content view.

 

[Ancien Régime]

If the feminist site has scientific evidence then no it's not unobjective; it just so happens that the feminist pro-choice site just happens to have their evidence on their site.

For some reason the HTML is adding that into the url. just copy paste the link.

http//www.caseforlife.com/evidence.htm

Well, I'm not sure I deny global warming; I deny that

1: It's entirely caused by humans (CO2 isn't much of a greenhouse gas, compared to water vapor, and the amount we produce is pretty small compared to the overall volume of the atmosphere)

2: that it's all that bad (periods of global warming are usually VERY good for humanity, global cooling is usually very BAD.) I'd rather have the sea level rise than glaciers crushing the northern U.S.

We did sort of cause the ozone hole, and people assume that because we caused that we caused global warming.

Also, Switzerland and New Jersey have a much higher quality of life than China...and a much higher population density. (which is really what matters rather than raw population numbers)

According to this, "In a land area as small as Japan, the entire population of the earth could be housed on lots of 5300 square feet, with 8 people per lot". This ignores roads/schools/etc yes but that still makes the point.

In regards to carrying capacity, the problem is not too many people but underdevelopment of resources.

 

[unceunce]

Guys, do you remember the times when you were a fetus?

I do.

Pro-life ftw.


It's not like fetuses can't think, can't move, or anything. It's like the Terri Shiavo case. Is she alive? Is she not?

I'd actually rather be dead than have to live through an unfortunate childhood, which is why the majority of abortions are done.

2: that it's all that bad (periods of global warming are usually VERY good for humanity, global cooling is usually very BAD.) I'd rather have the sea level rise than glaciers crushing the northern U.S.

What the fuck. So you could care less that Florida is going to hell? What about Venice asshole?

 

[umbarsc]

Even if it has scientific "evidence" for morality, it is still objective because of the bias. It will only show evidence that supports their viewpoint, and not others. A completely neutral site that explained both cases and didn't have any particular subjective opinion would be objective, not a site that does absolutely everything it can to cram its beliefs down others' throats and make them sound so righteous (pro-life, etc.)

On a related note, why do people use pro-life and pro-choice? It does nothing to make their beliefs sound more impressive or correct.

 

[unceunce]

I don't wanna mini mod, but I think we should go back to the original topic.

 

[akuchi]

because I am in favour of choice. I think the term 'anti-woman' is far better than 'pro-life'.

Anyway. yeah. back to the original topic.

 

[DM]

Take it easy everyone. If you can't talk and keep a cool head, don't bother at all.

 

[unceunce]

Ack, infractions.

Sorry about that.

Anyway, if Hillary becomes VP, does anyone see it have a negative effect on Obama?

 

[Misty]

Abortion debates are dumb, the same figures for support, opposition, and measured support for abortion (25%, 25%, and 50%, respectively) haven't changed since 1973 when Roe v. Wade was passed. If you ask me, I would say abortion tends to pit utilitarians (people who feel abortion has enough benefits to outweigh the cost) against deontologists (who believe that abortion itself is wrong regardless of any benefits).

EDIT: Hillary would be a terrible VP for Obama. It's easy to see when you break down Hillary's voters.

1) The anti-Obama vote. Obama could pick Jesus for his VP and he would still lose this vote because these voters will head straight for McCain and drown out the rest of the election. This set includes the racist voters, but also the rural "values" voters (who liked Bill Clinton even if they didn't much like Hillary), ageists (who think Obama hasn't "paid his dues"), and people who simply think Obama is too inexperienced. Some of this vote might be winnable - specifically, the part that has believed the false rumors about Obama being a Muslim or whatever (think the Jewish vote). If they can be disabused of these notions, they may vote for him.

2) The pro-Hillary vote. These are people who are unfamiliar with Obama (Hispanics in particular), believe Hillary has better positions on the issues (universal health care, for instance), or are voting based on positive memories of Bill Clinton's presidency. Given the fact that Obama is much closer to Hillary than McCain, plus Hillary's resounding endorsement, these voters have largely moved in Obama's direction (Obama got a 10-point bounce in the latest Rasmussen polls).

3) The feminist vote. This is the vote that wants to see a woman in the White House.


Notice that only the 3) group may move towards Obama with Hillary as a VP. However, I feel like a lot of them will still hold out because Hillary would not actually *be* president (barring an assassination). Further, he has to balance this group against an energized anti-Hillary vote (part of which is in his coalition and would abandon him if he picked her).

 

[DM]

I absolutely do. Not only do I think that there is way too much vitriol there for them to be able to work together on anything, but I also think many people will see through the act as just trying to get all of Hillary's voters to jump on the Obama train. The Democratic party will feel pandered to, and come election time McCain will be all over it like stink on shit.

EDIT: Also, agreeing with my man Jimbo right above me.

 

[Minwu]

a sidenote:

He's just defending muslim beliefs from the tyrannous Allah-haters.

lol I hope you know that Allah is just Arabic for the same God Christians believe in


Anyways, if the economy is doing the same or worse than it is doing now come November then a Democrat gets the office.

 

[moot]

I'll be voting democrat.

I don't like either candidate's ideas about the Iraq war, but fiscally and socially I'm a pretty liberal guy so I'm a bit more in-line with the democrats' policies. I actually would like a raise in taxes, which I know is unlikely with either party, but the chance of Obama doing it is significantly higher than that of McCain.

And what can I say. Obama's a charismatic guy. It's a refreshing change of pace after eight years of Bush.

This entire *post sums up how I feel about this election. And the taxes thing makes sense too, our national debt is terrible.

I wish I was back in france. ;/

 

[Great Sage]

manipulation of human sentiments blahblahblah

A fetus is, for all intents and purposes, a parasite while in utero. It takes nutrients from the mother's body and gives back no benefits. No reasonable person would object to removing another parasite, such as ringworm or fleas, should one be afflicted by such things. However, it is one's choice whether or not to remove those parasites. Similarly, it is a mother's choice whether or not to keep the fetus, and it should be so at any time before the fetus is born.

 

[Cathy]

Ted Kennedy just had a brain tumor. Although he would probably be treated immediately because he'd be a member of "the elite" in any socialist system, Ted Kennedy as a regular shmoe with a glioblastioma would be dead long before he got his problem addressed under a European or Canadian system.

Perhaps you should brush up on what the "Canadian system" actually is. Basically, the federal government will pay the provinces to do what it takes to run health care, so long as certain standards are met. This doesn't entail some sort of socialism-style centralisation.

Private health care isn't illegal in Canada. In fact, a few years ago, Quebec tried to outlaw it, and the Supreme Court held that private health care could not be outlawed. There are plenty of private health care establishments across Canada. Unlike, say, the UK, health care is not centralised in Canada and you are free to start your own private health care establishment.

Of course, talking about a "European system" is pretty laughable because the differences in health care between various European states can't just be glossed over.

 

[Misty]

Raising taxes won't make the country solvent - Carter tried it to save Social Security and it failed hard. It'd be even worse today, because tax evasion is much easier (at least until the EU invades Liechtenstein).

The only way to get our finances in order is to make some pretty wrenching decisions about entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security). This is why the health care debate is fairly important; if costs don't come down, Medicare and Medicaid are unsalvageable. Hopefully the Republicans get over their "OH NOES SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, BURN IT" crap and we have a reasonable discussion about what needs to be done.

The Social Security problem is more difficult, but also less pressing (SS is expected to collapse in 2041 by average estimates). Of course, most of the post-Boomer generations have pretty much accepted that they'll see a pink elephant before they see a Social Security check, so this may be irrelevant anyway.

 

[Tracker]

I'm betting on McCain. I think that the Iraq War should continue, even if it was a bad decision. If you're in a war, you should be in it to win. Not providing any commitment in the mission shows what kind of leadership the country really has.

Note: I'd support Obama if he picked Al Gore as running mate.

 

[unceunce]

I'm betting on McCain. I think that the Iraq War should continue, even if it was a bad decision. If you're in a war, you should be in it to win. Not providing any commitment in the mission shows what kind of leadership the country really has.

Note: I'd support Obama if he picked Al Gore as running mate.

The war is just impacting the U.S. too much economically.

I'd rather we forget about our stupid pride for a second and do the right thing for *our* country. At the moment, we're trying to act macho for all the other countries to see.

 

[Misty]

I think it would be a grave mistake for us to leave Iraq carelessly as Obama suggests. On the other hand, McCain's "100 years" comment shows a different kind of carelessness - we need to leave that country 100% or we will be perceived as an "occupier" (this is why the Bush administration is emphasizing "no permanent bases"; but then, I don't trust them in the slightest).

We need an exit strategy that thinks in the long term, instead of short-term security gains. If it were up to me, I would move quickly to get Syria on our side or at least relatively neutral (think Nixon goes to China), which would put us in a much better position to trust Iraq's neighbors to keep the country afloat. (And if you think this is an idiotic idea - it was just what the Iraq Study Group recommended, and by all indications Syria would love to cozy up to us if it will give Assad a way to hold on to power.)

The good news in all this is that I think Obama and McCain are both simply using campaign bluster to appeal to their bases - in reality their policies would move toward their center to take into account facts on the ground.