Gay rights and abortion rights should not affect your vote!

Ok, so basically what you're saying is that we shouldn't vote for the candidate that most closely represents our own stance on the issues? And that we should all go ahead and vote for Kerry because he's not Bush?

Hey, I don't like Bush. I think he's a.... CORRECTION.... I KNOW he's a liar and that he's going on a mad spending spree. But I don't like Kerry, either.

Once again, the general election has come around and I find myself wanting to move because we only have idiots to choose from for our leadership.

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
I am very much a liberal...

...I detest abortion and homosexuals being married.

And I don't understand this. If you detest abortion and same-sex marriage, how could you consider yourself very much of a liberal?

DeltaChaos

In a way, I wonder how it happened that we need to have this discussion at all.
How did it happen that the federal government became our brother's keepers? Why is the government in the business of legislating morality? How did this happen? When did state's issues become federal issues?

I like it not all that the government is in my bedroom. I like it not that the government tells me I must pay for others abortions or gastric by-pass operations.

We need to have this discussion for a few reasons.

1) to keep this on the front burner
2) things need to change
3) to educate those who don't know a lot about it

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
If you and your partner are so set against the idea of having children, what about vascetomies and tubal ligations???? If you truly don't want children, there are procedures available.
To me, under those circumstances, you are using abortion for birth control.

Ummm...those kinda cost money. You know, that thing most people who are aborting don't have.

Alright, everyone here who is anti-choice, are you against euthanasia. Also, which type are you in support of...active or passive or both. I just need to know...and yes there is a point to this.

I'm against it. I will not approve that sort of death.

Even passive? Passive is where you let the person off of life control and let them die by suffocation, dehydration....

That is the way my grandmother died, although she was not on any machines. Rather she choose to die rather than live not being able to speak, move, write, etc.

I don't even think it's possible to say someone can't deny medical attention when they are in their right mind.

Hence a living will.

I don't have too strong an opinion on that because it is such a sketchy issue.

Personaly, I favor abortion. A woman's body is her own damn business and no one elses. I also favor Gay and Lesbian marriages. A few of my close friends are lesbians whom are set to be wed this year. I have known them for a very long time, and I am quite happy for them. You say it's demoralizing our scociety. I say B.S. Just because to homosexuals decide to wed isn't immoral in the least. If they are already commited to one another and plan on being with each other for the rest of their lives, who are we to deny them a peice of paper saying they are now a married couple? With or without that paper, your not going to stop it. So I say let them be happy and wed.

As far as abortion, I am not getting into that arguement. Like I said earlier, a woman's body is her own damn business and NO ONE has any right to tell her what to do with it no matter what. Period.

- JLL

Originally posted by intelgurl
I for one am against abortion except for when the mother's life is in peril... which probably accounts for 1% of the abortions that take place. Yes if I got raped and impregnated, I would have the child.

Since you added the hypothetical "if" to this....

If you were raped and impregnated what would you do "if" you also contracted HIV/AIDS? Chances are the fetus would also be born with the disease. Still going to keep it? Think you might put it up for adoption? Make it societies problem? Let's say the child is born in perfect health....you going to tell it how it was conceived or lie to it?

I really do respect everyones opinion on this....I just don't think the opinion of a few should effect every woman on this planet.....it's a womans right to choose...let us decide what is right for ourselves.

Que?

So you do think it is right to unplug someone or let them die if they are a vegetable, in a coma, or otherwise incapacitated?

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
It is the parents responcibility no matter what kind of child is born.

Should we eliminate retarded people? No.

So where do we draw the line? How mangled is too mangled?

This arguement is fallacious because there is no adequite place to draw a line between heathy and damaged.

You either are for killing babies because they aren't what you ordered, or you are against it.

As to the "forcing" everyone is talking about. There is no forcing. The parents chose to have a baby and are resticted from killing it.

No one forced them to get pregnant. The government is only "forcing" people to do what are supposed to do. Take care of their kids.

well there is that one lady who was going to have twins and the doctor told her to have a c section or one would die. but she didnt want the c section and one of the babies died cause she didnt want a scar. what do you do in that situation?

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by KrazyIvan]

I think that "the view of a few" is very misleading.

There is a great percentage of women who think the opposite of you, and that goes for men too (but they don't count right?)

We could argue all day about what people have the right to do.

But the fact is, is that there is no justification strong enough to allow elective abortion. Self defense is one thing, inconvinience is quite another.

Then, by your logic, there is no reason to allow someone to die by passive euthanasia...

You know that there is a fundamental difference between the two, so don't try to make a link.

I told you what my opinion was on that and there really isn't anything more to talk about.

Quite beating around the bush on it and come out and tell me why you keep bringing it up. You seem poised to say something but keep waiting.

No, because there is a link. A vegetable or person in a coma is worth, morally speaking, about as much as a fetus...probably even more. After all, they could get better and become a self aware humans again. Also, it comes to a point of inconvenience when it comes to euthanasia. Medical bills, seeing no hope, whatever your choice...it is an inconvenience when you chose to let someone die.

Don't deny there is a link between the two. The only reason why euthanasia is somewhat acceptable because you are killing a person...not a "baby" or whatever emotional language you chose to call a fetus. People can dispose of people...but a "baby"...no...we cannot. It is a double standard to only support one.

I don't only support one. I support both.

But again, it get's sketchy along with the "risk of the mother's health" issue. Science is not always right and it takes more careful consideration in these things.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Ok, so basically what you're saying is that we shouldn't vote for the candidate that most closely represents our own stance on the issues? And that we should all go ahead and vote for Kerry because he's not Bush?

Hey, I don't like Bush. I think he's a.... CORRECTION.... I KNOW he's a liar and that he's going on a mad spending spree. But I don't like Kerry, either.

Once again, the general election has come around and I find myself wanting to move because we only have idiots to choose from for our leadership.

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
I am very much a liberal...

...I detest abortion and homosexuals being married.

And I don't understand this. If you detest abortion and same-sex marriage, how could you consider yourself very much of a liberal?

DeltaChaos

You obviously didn't read anything but the first post. I said I am liberal on issues concering the running of our government. I am concervative concerning social issues. There is a big difference between the two. There is a such thing as a conservative democrat in case you didn't know.

Again as I have already stated how I feel that the house and the senate are the ones that have the power concerning social issues. Sure the president can veto but would he if the public didn't want him too? Probably not. He's to interested in votes and his parties votes.

People will always want to do as they please. They want to do what makes them feel good. Is that always right. No. Lets let everyone do what they want. Why not?

Ever see a riot on the news. Ordinary citizens in the breakdown of law go crazy and do things they ordinarily wouldn't do. Rob stores burn them down and beat innocent people. Why is the government involved in morality? Because to enforce what is right. We all know the differnce between right and wrong. Whether we do so or not.

My biggest issue with homosexuals is that they argue they want to be like everyone else so then why don't they just go on with their lives. I don't run around all day telling everyone I am hetrosexual. Dance half naked in hetrosexual pride parades and flaunt indignity to innocents going about their day to day lives. The people who want gay marriage is a minority. The public majority doens't.

Concerning abortion and Euthanasia. Check this out.

www.histclo.hispeed.com...

This was a forced sterilization program started in the U.S. This is partly what inspired hilter to genocide. This was a u.s. attempt to eradicate unfit people from the human race. Hitler also killed people with disease and birth defects to purify the human race.

You all know there is a justification point to everthing. Abortion could be justified in certain circumstances, just as euthanasia and eugenics could also. We know when those cicumstances would be appropriate. You could argue you didn't but that would more or less be a lie.

Killing is wrong we all know it. I follow the bible and my heart on my moral decisions. It has never failed me yet. Some grown intelligent adults could act like they don't know the difference between inappropriate behaviour and appropriate behaviour. They only try to justify wrongdoing to suit their own needs and desires.

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

Hoppinmad.

The problem is, is that you can't legislate situations. You can only go on the whole. There is injustice in any law in any country, but the general preservation of life is the best we can hope for.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I think that "the view of a few" is very misleading.
There is a great percentage of women who think the opposite of you, and that goes for men too (but they don't count right?).

Right.......but here are some FACTS:

Abortion should never be legal 9%

Abortion should be legal only when the life of the mother is in danger 13%

Abortion should be legal only when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape and incest 21%

Abortion should be legal only when the life or physical health of the mother is in danger, or in cases of rape, incest, or fetal deformity 25%

Abortion should be legal for any reason during the first three months of pregnancy 21%

Abortion should be legal for any reason during the first six months of pregnancy 2%

Abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy 8%

Don't know or refused to answer 1%