I was having a conversation the other night about the blogs out there and the discussions that take place on them. We were discussing the differences between the “democrat” arguments and the “republican” arguments. We came up with a few thoughts I figured I would share. While not universal, obviously, the traits discussed do seem to dominate the blogs. And they are a bit disappointing. What disappoints even more is the “one-issue voter” syndrome that is either vehemently denied or loyally embraced by so many people. That just makes zero sense.
So here is what we came up with:
REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES: These folks tend to put too much religion into the argument, even in places where it doesn’t belong. You can’t use god or faith as an argument to even prove that belief in god or faith is the right move. With that as a given, what makes you think that god or faith is going to win an argument about taxes, abortion, gay rights, gun owners, public education, or ANYTHING ELSE for that matter. Religion has absolutely zero place in political debate and discussion. The one issue voters on the conservative side almost always fall into the abortion or gay rights arguments.
DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS: These folks are arguing on emotion. More than any one thing I can find in liberal rants it is that the arguments are often based on emotion rather than logic. Want to prove global warming? Bullshit pictures of polar bears on tiny ice floats are emotional ploys, not facts. The biggest thing that I can say to really describe the liberal emotional tactic is the word labels. The liberals are experts at using labels that will appeal to an emotional part of the brain. They try to win arguments by making you fear being labeled; Racist, Homophobic, Baby Killers, Elitist, Bible Beaters, Neo-Cons. Even Capitalist has become a negative label from the liberals. They are so concerned with labels they even changed their label from pro-abortion to pro-life. People got the point without the change, for the record.
ANARCHISTS: Oh yes I am going to include those folks here too because they have started making a surge in the rhetoric. It seems their argument is based on the fact that they believe that they just understand things at a macro level while those who disagree see it only at a micro level. They tend to argue in the land of make believe, arguing hypothetical positions that can’t be disproved because they can never come to pass. This makes them feel invincible, although when presented with logic they tend to circle back around and twist their opponents words to mean something different than what was said. They also like labels. Their favorite is “Statist”, and they throw it out there at every person who in any way doesn’t agree that government should be abolished.
LIBERTARIANS: Believe it or not, these are the most logical of the political debaters. Their argument is usually focused on constitutional wording and an unfortunate failure to get past the literal wording of what the 250+ year old document says. The tough part for Libertarians is that while their arguments are usually at least logic based, they can’t seem to agree and consequently spend too much time arguing with each other rather than focusing on showing the big two parties where they are screwed up. How many different factions of the Libertarian party are there?
ONE ISSUE VOTERS: I don’t even put these folks into a party or affiliation because the bottom line is that they don’t know themselves where they belong even though they have usually chosen a side. And the side they choose usually doesn’t make sense. Do you know how many fiscally conservative liberals I know? TONS. The same goes for Socially progressive Conservatives. I don’t question these folks having the right to believe whatever parts of each platform they choose. What baffles me is their party loyalty based on one issue. A couple of examples.
THE ABORTION ISSUE: I know tons of people who will only vote for a Republican because they are anti-abortion and vice versa. And many of the folks I talk to about this disagree with their party on EVERY other issue. But this one is big enough to sway their vote. Anti abortion folks, let me ask you this: What makes you think that this issue is going to change anytime in the near future? Do you really think that there is going to be a law passed in the US that will outlaw abortion? If you do you are fooling yourself. So why is this the defining issue for you? The true anti-abortion folks will vote for a candidate that promises to increase income taxes to 75%, start wars in three countries a year, stop newspapers from printing, and make all guns illegal. So long as he is the only candidate in the race who goes on record saying he is against abortion.
Wake up abortion people on both sides. It is a dead issue (pardon the pun). NOTHING IS EVER GOING TO CHANGE. So why would a candidate’s stance on an issue that he or she has absolutely zero ability to impact be the defining factor in getting your vote while you ignore things that DO affect you like taxes and national defense?
INCREASING TAXES VERSUS DECREASING TAXES: I know this seems like a big issue and one worth being the deciding factor. I submit to you that this certainly hasn’t ended up being true in any administration. If this is your deciding factor, you will be disappointed with your candidate later. Because every single candidate, regardless of their campaign promises, has increased taxes in some way in order to pay for their programs. BOTH PARTIES ARE EXPANDING GOVERNMENT AND RAISING TAXES IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. So why are you letting this be the deciding factor when there are more important issues like what they are going to spend their tax increases on. Pay attention folks, they will always raise them, so judge them on what they are going to do with your money once they vote to take it from you. This section also applies to “big government versus small government”. They all grow it, judge them on how.
I think you get the point. What I want to see is more people using LOGIC to understand the issues and make decisions based on how their decisions will impact you, the voter. Stop allowing the parties to use their rhetoric to baffle you and make you pick a side based on their arguments. Think for yourself. So here is your homework:
Each of you take out a #2 Pencil and a piece of paper. There is no time limit to this test. I do promise that you will be amazed if you actually do what I am going to ask you to do. Sit down with a list of the platforms from each of the parties that were represented on most national ballots for the office of President (there were three: Dem, Rep, Lib). Have a green highlighter and a yellow highlighter. Highlight green every platform position that you agree with. Highlight yellow each one that you disagree with.
Are you done? Now look at your papers. The one that has the most green is who you should be voting for. After all, you agree with more of their platform than the other two. If you were honest in answering, many of you just got shocked by the results and you aren’t sure what to do about it. That’s because 80% of you just found out the you are Libertarians. SURPRISE! Don’t be embarrassed. There is no reason. Whether or not you support the Libertarian party is irrelevant. You just found out that the other party you are so loyal to doesn’t really have all of your concerns addressed, does it? THAT is the key learning here.
Regardless of which of the above categories you fall into, the bottom line is that the lack of respectful, intelligent, logical, honest, and non-judgmental debate in America is the single largest obstacle to our country getting back to the state that it needs to get to. It keeps us divided and in turn keeps us powerless. Without a united front against the government waste, corruption, control, and theft, the American people have no chance to combat it. The politicians know that and they do their best to create the environment the way it is so we don’t stop arguing with each other long enough to realize that both parties are raping us daily.
Black Flag®
commonman55
d13thecolonel
gman
Just A Citizen
Life of Illusion
Jon Smith
USWeapon
Stand Up For America 
Weps, well thought out and very true. I wish more people would consider using your method for finding the candidate and party that TRULLY represents their views.
Jim Harvey,
Thanks for the comments. That has come to be one of my rallying points for everyone. The first step is finding out where we really stand. The next step is finding a way to embrace those who are not taking the same stance and finding a happy medium.
Sometimes you’re just funny, USWep.
Take out your piece of paper and figure out where government gets the right to use violence against you.
Try hard now.
….
That’s right – government has no rights other than what you grant it.
You can’t grant what you, yourself, do not have.
Suddenly you see that 99% of government actions have no right.
As long as people like yourself continue to grant government legitimacy to act over and above the right of a person, government will only get bigger, meaner, and more evil. It can do nothing else but.
Nice, I like this breakdown, and generally agree. The judgement passed on anarchists is a little harsh, but largely true. Their greatest issue is that they depend on a theoretical outcome for which there is no known evidence. Essentially, anarchist evidence comes in the form of a micro version being functional, but all of the persons in the micro version were on board. The socialist have the same problem. New Haven worked great as long as it was the original founders in charge and voluntary persons involved. As soon as non-idealistic members became part of the mix, the whole thing collapsed.
The emotional stuff with Democrats is right on. Additionally, I would say that there are a lot of socialists or anti-capitalists who are trying to hide within the party and puch their agendas, essentially finding that it is the easiest group to use to manipulate people. The rank and file that are manipulated definately have little driving them beyond feelings.
The Republicans are divided into the religious groups that you mentioned and the groups that are lying to themselves and think that the Republican leadership still believes what they say and they try to blame the dismal actions on the other party, rather than accepting the awful truth.
The Libertarians are indeed to fragmented the initial purpose of my blog was to help with this issue. Once it is reborn, which will be soon, I will restart that process with new fervor. The other key for us Libertarians is the let go of enough of our idealism to embrace the baby steps that we need to engage in right now. We need an electable platform.
More later…
USWeapon , I am glad you wrote this , so I know you better as far as your thinking . I am thinking there are many more who think like you and cannot understand a believer in Christ , and why they vote as they do on abortion , which May never be overturned in our lifetime ….but there is more than my own lifetime . Also , at issue is doctors forced to perform the abortion and , now, infants born alive after botched abortions .
Why would I put taxes , immigration , and so forth , above life. ? Does it seem like because a just cause is losing , that a person you could respect , would let it go ?
I will watch and see what will happen . I hope you will think about what I am saying R.
Jon,
Freedom is not theoretical.
Socialism doesn’t work because it removes market price calculations out of the hands of consumers and suppliers.
Socialism/Communism DOES work in environments where price calculations do not matter. For example, in your house. My daughter does not pay me for rent/food, etc. Her existence matters more to me than money.
Where emotional bonds do not exist – like between 99.99999% of the rest of humanity – the ability to interact materially requires the free market mechanisms. Socialism/Communism cannot work here.
All governments today are socialist. The consequence of this is global economic turmoil. I predict that the global economies will collapse …. oh, wait – they have… 🙂
As far as being electable, it doesn’t matter who or what party.
“It is the very nature of power that it attracts the very sort of people who should not have it. The United States, as the world’s last superpower, is a prize that attracts men and women willing to do anything to win that power, and hence are willing to do anything with it once they have it. It is racist to assume that tyrants appear only in other nations and that somehow America is immune simply because we’re Americans.”
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
–Leo Tolstoy
As a social democrat who has aligned himself with the liberals for the sake of time being. I find it a little sad that social democrats are not included. Within the rest of the glob, social democracies are extremely popular.
Anyways I would like to commend you on your great summerization of the conservative party. As an atheist, I see many other atheist and securalist who align themselves in the democratic party but distance themselves from the emotional types of arguments. Republican arguments based on god simply fall on deaf ears.
Black Flag:
What do your statements have to do with the discussion? Your participation is nothing but frustrating to the dialogue. Please stop unless you have something to contribute.
Weapon: Thank you taking very gray issues and making them black and white. I think more people need to think about what they believe and vote accordingly.
As a libertarian/anarchist I will respond. I believe that what is good for one person to do is good for everyone to do, and what is bad for one person to do is bad for everyone to do. I make no exceptions for people employed by government. That is basically the foundation of my beliefs.
I also don’t see it as a “land of make-believe” since each and every one of us lives the vast majority of our lives engaged in peaceful anarchy. Interactions based upon rules, but not controlled by Rulers. And it works extremely well. Or maybe that isn’t how you live.
A “statist” is a person who believes “government” to be a legitimate human endeavor. That group does not include me. It is an observation, not a label. It is not an insult unless you take it as one. If it bothers you, perhaps you realize somewhere deep inside that there is no real justification for government. Or perhaps not.
Just because you either do not understand or do not like what I say does not give you the right to attempt to constrain me.
I didn’t ask you to shut-up, did I?
Leo Tolstoy should have taken his own words to heart . Truth ….no one , no one , will ever know it , without God . facts , as someone sees them , are not reliable without wisdom , and there is one source for that .R
Our perspective and vision is limited by our small reach, this is true.
It does not prevent us, though, from discovering the truth.
The universe is perfectly consistent – if we discover what appears to be an inconsistency is can only be that we misunderstood the universe.
Therefore, logic and reasoning reveals truth. But that takes a whole heck of a lot of work – far more work than most people are willing to invest.
So they’d rather follow the 5-word jingoisms – thoughtless and meaningless if ever investigated – but easy, as it takes about a millisecond of emotionalism to take heart.
People would rather someone tell them what is right or wrong – instead of figuring it out for themselves. It doesn’t take much understanding to see that if you’re the one in position telling others what is right and wrong – you can certainly warp the truth.
There is right and wrong . It isn’t personal , all about us . Even children , without mature judgement , have ears to hear God . I actually have alot of my life thought God was a part of it all , but not to be ( loved so much ) that I would pray , and listen to hear what is meant for us to have .. .. Understanding of what would really constitute intelligence and wisdom , and how it applies to real life .
This is the basis of trustworthy leadership . Leadership that isn’t easily decieved by popularity , self interest , enemy deception .
If , the ( new conservatives , or what is going on) hope to leave out the strength of the Constitutions roots . This source of rightness that they felt endowed with by their creator ( because they were) ….. it is a mistake . The right foundation , will mean the best results .R.
Does it matter who is what?
The American political system has been soft-core fascist for almost a century. Liberals love to call conservatives fascists.
The problem is, the liberals are right.
Of course, well-informed conservatives like to call liberals fascists, and they are correct, too.
Everyone who believes in the efficiency of the so-called government-business alliance is a fascist.
Most people do not understand the difference between fascism and Communism. Fascism: State-run capitalism.
We are now seeing what hard-core liberals always predicted would happen: the economic convergence of the two systems, USA and USSR. The system of economic convergence is fascism. That was what the liberals always wanted, but called it something else: “economic democracy” or “the government-business alliance.”
Anyone who does not understand the magnitude of what is taking place is an economic ignoramus.
Here is their intellectual problem.
They do not believe in the free market. They cannot conceive of a social institution based on voluntarism that can break the backs of government planners and central bankers. They will believe anything but this. They do not grasp the power of the free market to enforce consumers’ decisions.
The conspiracy of well-placed insiders is now tottering. The whole structure of the national American political system has rested on the solvency of the largest American banks. These banks have all been called into question. They are now gutted.
The American conspirators have lost the one thing that they thought they had: control over the nation and the nation’s finances by means of the fractional reserve banking system. That system is coming unglued, just as the Austrian economists who understand the enormous weakness of the fractional reserve system had said would eventually take place.
I wonder sometimes if there is anything coherent remaining in what is generally called the conservative movement.
Do any of these people have a clue as to what has been taking place? We are seeing the disintegration of the fractional reserve banking system all over the world. It is being held together by bailouts, which are the government equivalent of bailing wire and chewing gum.
The only thing holding the whole structure together is an enormous residual faith in the State and a naïve faith that deficits don’t matter.
This is not the silence of the lambs; this is a silence of unindicted co-conspirators, most of whom teach in tax-supported universities and spend their careers writing unreadable articles in unread academic journals in order to get tenure, so that the taxpayers can never fire them.
These people are apologists for the State.
Most of them have been on a public payroll all of their lives. These are the people who, in the name of conservative free-market principles, are supposed to stand in the gap to warn us that the ship of state is going over the falls.
They didn’t – because their paycheck depended on your ignorance
The fascist State was always an attempt to control private industry by means of inflation, taxation, and regulation.
Fascism was always a system of keeping the big boys alive and happy at the expense of the taxpayers. Of course, the faces changed. The system was always one gigantic system of cartels, regulation, and fiat money. It was, in short, everything that the critics of modern capitalism say is wrong with capitalism. This is why John Maynard Keynes wrote this in his Foreword to the German edition of his General Theory (1936).
The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory.
We are now seeing the unraveling of the entire system, all over the world. Whatever happens from this point on, economic production will be hampered by ever-increasing regulation. The government is now intervening to save the banks, which means that the banks are beholden to the government.
The economists trust bureaucracy. They trust people with Ph.D.’s, just like themselves. But, except at the Federal Reserve, the agencies are run by lawyers and by appointees who hope to get a fat lobbying salary when they leave the government. Why should we think that a bunch of Harvard- and Yale-educated lawyers, who were recruited by New York City banks that were always protected by the Federal Reserve System, would have any idea of how to run an economy? We now know how well they could run the economy. They stripped off million-dollar bonuses for running the system over the falls.
This economy will revive, but it will revive on a new basis. It is no longer possible for someone who understands Austrian School economics to look at this economy as anything remotely resembling a free-market economy.
The Federal Reserve System is soon going to have to bail out the Federal government. The Federal government is bailing out the commercial banks, and if the Federal government cannot bail out the banks, the Federal Reserve has got to do it directly. In either case, the banks are busted. The capital is gone: wasted. The money is still in people’s bank accounts, but the fiat-money-funded projects have turned out to be losers. The skyscrapers are empty. The recovery is going to be a nominal recovery, based on the digits known as dollars. These digits are going to be produced in such massive quantities that prices will shoot up as never before in peacetime America. It is going to be the destruction of the dollar.
Do I see this as the end of freedom? No, I see it is the end of the fascist State. The monstrosity came close to going belly-up last October. It is on its last, tottering legs. It has lost respect of the public.
The politicians are even convinced the banks were run by a bunch of corrupt, self-serving men, which was in fact the case. What government-protected industry isn’t?
But that was not why the bankers lost money. They were lured by Alan Greenspan’s policies of easy money and low interest rates into believing that the boom was real, and that they could leverage themselves 30 to one or 40 to one and get paid for their wisdom. They were high-paid suckers. The Austrian School economists warned all through the period that this was going to happen. We were all dismissed as cranks.
As the Internet grows in its influence, alternative views can get to a minority of educated people. tHIS indicates that the foundations of the modern fascist economy are being undermined where it counts, which is in the minds of bright people who are no longer buying into the system.
In the long run, Keynes was right: the economic policies of politicians today are based on the writings of some obscure economist in the past.
Those two economists were Irving Fisher and John Maynard Keynes. Their world is now toppling. Through their disciples, they are like a pair of drunks staggering along, holding up each other. Keynes wanted deficit spending. Fisher wanted a banking system that would cover these deficits.
The money from the central banking system funds the Treasury, and the Treasury in turn bails out the big commercial banks – no longer nearly so big. Everything is based on a daisy chain of digits. Meanwhile, unemployment is rising, production is falling, fear is spreading, loss of faith is spreading, and tens of thousands of formerly highly paid specialists in finance are looking for jobs. This is not a matter of a conspiracy; this is a matter of the free market finally voting no against the conspirators.
There are conservatives who think that all is lost because of the conspiracy. These are people who never did anything anyway. They do not see that we are at the end of an era. We are seeing the culmination of a 500-year era. Jacques Barzun titled his great history of this era, From Dawn to Decadence. We are seeing what Martin Van Creveld called the fall of the state, meaning the nation-state.
These scholars agree: we are seeing the bankruptcy of every Western government that has made too many big promises to too many voters regarding free healthcare and guaranteed retirement. All of it will collapse. The tatters of the promises will point to the tatters of those who made the promises – politicians – and the tatters of the system that supposedly was going to guarantee delivery of the promises.
The academics still believe in the healing power of the State. The voters still believe this, too. But voters are catching on more rapidly than the academics that the State is running out of wiggle room. Millions of voters have figured out that they are going to get stiffed. They don’t know what to do about it, but at least they understand that they really are going to get stiffed.
The academics say “no.” They keep telling all of us that everything is okay, that a few more trillion-dollar deficits will solve the problem. The doubling of the monetary base in 2009 will have no more disruptive effects than the doubling of the monetary base did in the second half of 2008. They tell us all this, but the public is either oblivious, or else is growing suspicious.
We will have another round or two of centralized government, and probably more than one or two rounds of increased monetary expansion. But what we will not have is a restoration of anything resembling the financial world that existed prior to September 2008. That world is gone. The insiders will not get it back. They may get an imitation of it, based on fiat money that does not buy very much, but they will not see the world of 2007 restored. The power base of the modern fascist State is unraveling rapidly.
This is why it is important for you to preserve your assets by not believing the official assurances. Put your money where the experts tell you that you should not put your money. You should take your money out of those segments of the economy into which the experts say you should put your money, and will soon boom. They have ignored the fact that the stock market has been a losing case since March of 2000. They would not admit it then; they will not admit it now. Anybody who bought and held a portfolio of indexed American stocks in March of 2000 has lost well over half of his money. Investors will learn, even though academic economists will not.
Black Flag,
Do you understand that you are posting to hear yourself write? After people read a couple of your comments they simply scroll past as they are just annoying.. start your own Blog!
Robin,
I understand your plight; here is where my question for you lies… Please understand, I believe in God and have more true faith than most of the people that I know. If God gave us the wisdom and the right of free will, who would you presume to be to try and take it away, and at what cost? Personally I do not believe in, nor could I ever have an abortion. I do not believe that I have the right to take someone else’s free will to live their life as they see fit, and that is the right bestowed upon them by the creator that you have put your faith in. Would we not be better served to concentrate our efforts on leading a great moral society than to control a society by forcing our will upon them? WWJD? Choice is an inalienable right, no?
Revolution , my truest understanding is this . The child ( growing yes) inside the mother is …is not the mother , but a separate being . This being , while at the mercy of her mother by law , dreams , has emotions and responds to emotions and has a personality .
So , I cannot with certainty say this unborn infant has no rights , or because we do not see the moment of life ending , in the womb , that well , you get the picture . So with this in mind …how could I not at the very least , vote as I understand this .
Also ..now as all things go . The issue is pushed further . Infants born ( Alive ) from botched abortions … doctors who believe along the lines I do ….ordered to do these abortions …? even if I wanted to comprimise at early term abortions , done more humanely , the pro choice voters , have not shown any agreement .
We force our will on others all the time . If we didn’t have to , we would need no law at all . Thanks for your post , ask me anything …R.
Robin,
I don’t know that I agree on when emotions and personality appear. One statement that you made that I want to explore. You said:
doctors who believe along the lines I do ….ordered to do these abortions …?
I don’t know this to be true. I can’t recall hearing of doctors being forced to perform abortions against their will. There is no law that requires a doctor to do such a thing and no place that I have ever seen would support the firing of a doctor for refusing to violate their personal belief on this matter. Do you have any evidence to support such a claim?
And we force our will on others all the time. That doesn’t make it right to do so. The government has no right to legislate morality or social norms. Beginning to believe that there is a right to do so means that you are sanctioning the future right of them to continue to dictate every decision that you make.
A fertilized egg has no dreams, emotions, or personality. A newborn baby does. The transition from clump of cells to person occurs somewhere in between, and is likely a gradual transition; not like a lightbulb suddenly coming on. Killing a clump of cells is not wrong; killing a person is. A mother’s wishes are more important than the continued existence of a clump of cells, but not more important than the life of a baby. So far science has not been able to discover to my satisfaction where the line is crossed. All arguments to the contrary are religious in nature and assume souls and grand plans. It is dangerous to use religion as a guide for law. That is why I am opposed to laws forbidding early-term abortion, but would personally consider a late-term abortion to be murder.
I also think that medical technology will make this point moot in the future as artificial wombs come into use. Have an unwanted embryo? Abort the pregnancy without killing the fetus and let it come to term in the incubator for someone who wants it.
I see this as another area that government meddling causes needless suffering and disagreement. Allow the technology to be explored and developed. Of course, the state feeds on conflict.
Kent,
I am with you 100% on this. I don’t think that life begins at conception but I am unsure of where that line gets crossed. I know that so long as that line hasn’t been crossed, I refuse to think we have the right to take the mother’s right’s away from her. I think that this is where government is way over the line these days. The ability to legislate on such a personal religious matter does not belong to them. Using religion as a guide for law is not just dangerous, but unconstitutional.
usweapon ; I will look for the information you asked for on the doctors’ rights and post when I find it . Also will seek the information on brain waves , sleep , and response to mothers love . and post it also .
The point is . mothers body / uniquely separate living soul .? You and I cannot know for certain who is correct . Some decide to ( guess ) on the side that it is not life . Others cannot join you and if we must choose , we choose not to make such a ( what word is secriptive enough) mistake.
Since you and I are not God . Why not limit abortion to the earliest development , Instead of declaring something a clump ?
As for forcing . Force was the word I used in answer to ( Revolutions ) comment . But that’s what all laws do . And. If I , and others are right . This at the very least,would be a time to protect , with force?
I ask for readers , to consider this . Why not limit these proceedures to the earliest development . Surely , that is reasonable . R
Robin I think most people on the pro-choice side are reasonable about this. Most don’t want abortion after the first trimester ends. Certainly not after the second. There are a few exceptions. The real question is why you would let this issue sway your vote when the candidate that you choose based on it will have absolutely no chance of changing the laws. It is an issue that the two parties only debate to keep people polarized.
Kentmcmanigal; of course in a fertilized egg , at that point , there is no sleep , or dreams, or brainwaves . At some point , there is . any mother will tell you , and if there is a doctor reading ….
It is not like a light bulb I agree . With sudden mental ability to feel pain . Somewhere before birth it happens though .
For many years I thought it was a womans’ rights issue , now I think it only could be thought of that, as being considered that,very early in the pregnancy .
usweapon , I am not very computer savy , but I went to google , and wrote ( doctors forced to do abortions?) and found alot there . One was from M.D.Daily on repeal Bush abortion laws . anyway it is an issue now before some of our doctors . R.
“now I think it only could be thought of that, as being considered that,very early in the pregnancy”
Yes, but since we don’t know exactly when “it” happens, some want to err on the side of the baby and some want to err on the side of the mother. I think it must remain a personal decision, not subject to my wishes, beliefs, or preferences. And certainly not subject to regulation by that entity least likely to find or know the truth: the state.
Kent,
I think you hit the nail on the head. I understand why people feel the way they do about abortions. And I don’t wish to change their thinking on the issue itself. Only on the idea of letting it sway your vote so heavily when other things are more meaningful. But regardless of how anyone feels, each of us is given the free will to make our own decisions. If god exists, he gave us that. What I don’t understand from the Christian right is why they feel they have the right to make the decision for someone else.
Up to this point , the issue didn’t have to sway my vote , since it would be the repubs that would appoint conservative judges for the most pressing of my concerns . Only Sarah Palin , brought up Pesident to be Obamas’ vote in Illinois , on the infant born alive bill.
The last sentence to Kent . Is the point of misunderstanding . If I believe there is a point where the unborn person is living , is human in everyway . . That would be why a law of protection would be sought when the development is this far along. No other reason could there be . We have laws for everyones protection , even our pets have laws of protection to go into liberal territory ….which I support by the way . thanks for the discussion , all .R
I have this problem:
If abortion was illegal and considered immoral for thousands of years, why, 35 years ago was it suddenly no longer illegal and the morality deemed irrelevant?
If the concept of gay marriage was laughable that same 35 years ago, why is it now a serious issue? To add a different but related adjunct to this question, How can state judges use the excuse that their constitutions do not specifically prohibit gay marriage as an reason to find in favor of it when again the very concept was so preposterous and therefore never even considered when those constitutions were written?
The concept of religion pre-dates government. Governments arose from it and were sanctioned by it. For any government to abandon, not a particular sect, but the entire concept of religion and religion based morality is both foolish and self destructive. Both the Nazi’s and Communists tried it, succeeded to a point and created the greatest butcher shops in history. Do we really want to go down that route?
I have a big problem with “anything goes” libertarianism. I have always leaned libertarian but, perhaps because of my religion, have questioned the all too often “Every man for himself” attitude on the part of the more extreme. I like enlightened self interest best.
My husband and I often debate the bible. It interests him only because he does not understand it. I can’t say that I understand all of it either but I have something that he doesn’t and that something is faith. I don’t KNOW that every story written in the bible is true but what I do know is that it isn’t the stories themselves but what they teach that we should be paying attention to. I think that the republicans that put religion into everything are wrong because one of the reasons this country was created was for freedom of religion. Seperation of church and state, that says it all. The morals that are taught in the bible have a place in everyones lives but it all comes down to personal responsibility and what we do in our lives. I don’t believe in abortion for myself but neither do I believe that I have the right to tell another woman what she can and can not do with her body. The consequences of her choice are hers not mine. I have a responsibility to my beliefs and I have to deal with the consequences of those beliefs and the choices those beliefs lead me to make. It is the same for every man, woman and child in the world.
I feel you are wrong in stating nothing is going to change concerning abortion laws. Planned Parenthood was a big Obama supporter and is pressing for a new law that includes a child’s RIGHT to obtain an abortion without parental consent or notification. The law would FORBID contacting parents or a guardian.
I am a father of two boys and have four nieces. If the government tells me that I have NO right to know about a medical procedure being performed on my children, then they will have a problem.