Thread Options 
|
#255281 - 10/12/04 04:23 PM
Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The deciding moment of clarity in evaluating and determining the candidates' positions on issues came during the second debate -- the Town Hall forum held at Washington University in St. Louis on October 8, 2004 -- when a young woman asked Senator Kerry whether taxpayer funds would be used to fund abortion if he is elected.
Senator Kerry took the entire 90 seconds to explain that he respected the woman's question; that he, Senator Kerry had been raised a Catholic (presumably implying that abortion is forbidden by the Catholic Church) and that he had been an alter boy; then at the close of a difficult-to- discern 90-second response he stated that he could "not deny" the right of abortion on the basis of affordability -- meaning the answer was "yes", he would use public funds to fund abortions.
President Bush, in his rebuttal, took 11 seconds to reply, "I had a hard time trying to decipher his answer". Then the president said categorically, "I will not use public funds to pay for abortions".
It was at that point that I realized that the issue was not the candidates' position on abortion; the issue was how succinctly, honestly and directly would each leader answer the question. Would the candidate state a sometimes-waffling position and hard-to-comprehend answer in a 90-second reply; or would the candidate provide an unmistakeable answer taking 11 seconds.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255283 - 10/12/04 05:10 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,275
Quadrupletville, Texas
|
Go Bush-Cheney '04
_________________________
"I don''t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." - - Will Rogers (still relevant today)
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255284 - 10/12/04 05:13 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,857
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
Senator Kerry had been raised a Catholic (presumably implying that abortion is forbidden by the Catholic Church) and that he had been an alter boy
wow, he was a cathoilc altar boy in Boston...hhhmmm, isn't that where most of the church scandal took place? Maybe now we know what is behind his inability to stay with an issue...
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255286 - 10/12/04 05:40 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,857
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again'...
I think I saw him on Benny Hinn the other night...
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255290 - 10/12/04 06:49 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,608
Near the Land of Enchantment
|
I had the opportunity (and privilege!) to go to a Bush rally and hear the President speak yesterday. He's from this area, as you know, so he was speaking to a lot of long time friends and supporters. You'd expect some differences in the message to this group of people wouldn't you?
Not Mr. Bush. His message was the same. He tells you his position on an issue, what he's done to effect change or improvement on that issue in the past (that list is substantial and impressive), and what else he'd like to do for further improvement or change. The message and stance doesn't change with the tides, or winds, or interests of the audience, or the media.
I heard several people, who had come to the rally to see a real live President in their tiny hometown, say that he had convinced them to vote for him. One comment, from a lifelong Democrat, was that if that's what the Republican party and President Bush was about, then he (the commenter) must be a Republican.
_________________________
Opinions my own.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255291 - 10/12/04 07:15 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,164
|
Quote:
If he expects to win, he'd better!  
I sincerely hope that there is some truth to that. The choice seems so clear this time around. I'll even say that the demo's deserve a fair shot, normally, as a lot of Americans truely believe in the party, but this time is very different, this time there is Kerry and Edwards, this time the demos are not offering up candidates that even the demos are comfortable with.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255292 - 10/12/04 08:39 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
100 Club
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 193
Wisconsin
|
I really appreciated the passion Bush showed in the last debate. The look on his face to the answers Kerry gave were priceless! If Kerry even half understood what the President has dealt with the past 4 years. Of course a lot of issues didn't get the monies and attention they originally were going to have, but that's because the terrorists attacked us and we had to prioritize! I appreciate the effort, thought, planning, devotion, guts, and prayers the President has given to America. Now if I can just hold my breath for the next three weeks without passing out, I'll be happy to spend the next 4 years under his leadership.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255295 - 10/12/04 09:11 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
I really appreciated the passion Bush showed in the last debate. The look on his face to the answers Kerry gave were priceless! If Kerry even half understood what the President has dealt with the past 4 years. Of course a lot of issues didn't get the monies and attention they originally were going to have, but that's because the terrorists attacked us and we had to prioritize! I appreciate the effort, thought, planning, devotion, guts, and prayers the President has given to America. Now if I can just hold my breath for the next three weeks without passing out, I'll be happy to spend the next 4 years under his leadership.
I agree 110%. I know in my heart that just as Ronald Reagan is remembered as one of our most beloved and effective presidents, so will George W. Bush. Lets not forget how shocked many people were, and how afraid of retribution they were when Reagan first demanded that Gorbie tear down the wall and referred to the USSR as an evil empire. Not everyone believed it was the RIGHT thing to do, but in retrospect it was.
I like the fact that right or wrong, George Bush makes decisions, he doesn't hem and haw or waiver, he says what he believes and follows through.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255297 - 10/12/04 10:37 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,044
The banana bin
|
That's interesting...I knew exactly what Kerry was saying. In fact, he said exactly what I felt.
I did have to laugh out loud that Bush couldn't decipher it. (It was a laugh of derision by the way).
_________________________
My opinions are definately my own. I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255298 - 10/13/04 02:28 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Gold Star
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 274
New England
|
If he said what you felt, why didn't the senator just state it succinctly, bravely, and with conviction -- instead of rambling and meandering? Why not just say, "Yes, I support taxpayer-funded abortions". That would seem to be the courageous approach.
Liberals, for some reason, have an underlying need to obfuscate and almost misrepresent their true positions, instead of just bravely, confidently stating what they stand for.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255299 - 10/13/04 02:34 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
the issue was how succinctly, honestly and directly would each leader answer the question. Would the candidate state a sometimes-waffling position and hard-to-comprehend answer in a 90-second reply; or would the candidate provide an unmistakeable answer taking 11 seconds.
Like Bush did when asked about the mistakes he has made..
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255300 - 10/13/04 03:04 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
That's interesting...I knew exactly what Kerry was saying. In fact, he said exactly what I felt.
I did have to laugh out loud that Bush couldn't decipher it. (It was a laugh of derision by the way).
Only someone who is so entrenched in their support for Kerry that they could not be moved with a tractor could possibly say with a straight face that they knew exactly what he was saying. Your derision for Bush was there and has continued to be there since well before the 2000 election--am I correct? Derision?? Derission??? Bush answered the question. KERRY, IN TRUE WASHINGTON DC INSIDER FASHION DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!!
Here is what he said:
DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.
First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.
But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.
But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.
Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.
That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.
You'll help prevent AIDS.
You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.
You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.
GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.
BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.
My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.
This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.
I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.
I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them.
I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.
These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.
I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion.
And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.
Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society.
Thank you.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255301 - 10/13/04 03:12 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
the issue was how succinctly, honestly and directly would each leader answer the question. Would the candidate state a sometimes-waffling position and hard-to-comprehend answer in a 90-second reply; or would the candidate provide an unmistakeable answer taking 11 seconds.
Like Bush did when asked about the mistakes he has made..
Kerry won't even tell us what he has been doing since 1968, much less if he made any mistakes while doing it. WHAT A JOKE!!! When has Kerry ever admitted a mistake?
I HAVE SOME DEBATE QUESTIONS FOR MR. KERRY INVOLVING MISTAKES:
Was it a mistake to shoot a young fleeing Vietnamese soldier in the back?
Was it a mistake to say that torture, rape and murder were the norm in Vietnam while our troops were in harm's way and fellow soldiers were being held captive?
Was it a mistake to say that Saddam was a threat and must be removed for our country's safety?
Was it a mistake to be an opportunist while in Vietnam?
Was it a mistake to ask to leave Vietnam after 3 minor playground injuries?
Was it a mistake to choose for a vice president a man who has made his fortune by suing doctors using junk science that has been disproved?
Was it a mistake to join an organization that discussed the assassination of world leaders?
Was it a mistake to throw someone else's medals on the White House lawn?
Were your consistent votes against our military just mistakes?
Is your 20 year record as one of the most liberal politicians in the US a mistake?
IN FACT, MR. KERRY, HAVE YOU EVER MADE A MISTAKE IN YOUR LIFE???
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255302 - 10/13/04 09:53 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,044
The banana bin
|
Quote:
Only someone who is so entrenched in their support for Kerry that they could not be moved with a tractor could possibly say with a straight face that they knew exactly what he was saying. Your derision for Bush was there and has continued to be there since well before the 2000 election--am I correct? Derision?? Derission???
Whoa, Nelly. You act like I've been on these boards for years spouting off at the mouth.
Nope. First day (yesterday) giving my opinions.
That being said, let me correct you on something. I supported Bush at the start of the war. I believed him wholeheartedly. I defended him when I discussed him during friendly debates with my friends.
To clarify: this is not entrenched. There also, certainly, was no derision.
To further explain, Kerry said exactly what I believe. It's about more than abortion at hand. He feels, as I do, that my personal moral convictions should never impugne on yours. So while abortion is a very heavily emotional, moral, and ethical debate, personal morals should not be brought into it. Instead (as Kerry alluded to further) the Constitution should be interpreted free of personal convictions and interpreted legally.
So, while Bush and his entrenched followers claim they couldn't understand it (whether it be because of ADD or their entrenched idealogies blocking the comprehension), others could plainly see what his message was.
_________________________
My opinions are definately my own. I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255303 - 10/13/04 10:16 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
To further explain, Kerry said exactly what I believe. It's about more than abortion at hand. He feels, as I do, that my personal moral convictions should never impugne on yours. So while abortion is a very heavily emotional, moral, and ethical debate, personal morals should not be brought into it. Instead (as Kerry alluded to further) the Constitution should be interpreted free of personal convictions and interpreted legally.
If this is indeed the case, the murder of someone who spits on your lawn should not be illegal, as it is a clear interpretation of a moral value. The unborn children being murdered by abortionists deserve just as much protection as the ugly man tying his shoe in front of your home. The only difference is that the ugly man tying his shoe has more ability to protect himself without the aid of government than the child.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255305 - 10/13/04 10:27 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
To further explain, Kerry said exactly what I believe. It's about more than abortion at hand. He feels, as I do, that my personal moral convictions should never impugne on yours. So while abortion is a very heavily emotional, moral, and ethical debate, personal morals should not be brought into it. Instead (as Kerry alluded to further) the Constitution should be interpreted free of personal convictions and interpreted legally.
Anon is right, Kerry did not answer the question and your explanation makes that clear. The person asking the question just wanted to know about federal dollars being spent for abortions and Kerry goes on and on about being a Catholic...praying while in the war...etc, etc, etc. You may have understood the answer, but he apparently did not understand the question. Or am I wrong? If so, tell me what Kerry said about federal dollars funding abortions. 
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255306 - 10/13/04 10:30 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Alert! Alert! Abortion Debate! Abortion Debate, dead ahead!!! ::Running after Z:: Time to sign off 
No, no, no, not an abortion debate. The question to Kerry was not about whether he is pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pre-abortion, or ante-abortion. The question was about federal funding and I don't think Kerry even mentioned it must less answered the question. If this turns into an abortion debate, I will follow Dawnie out the door. If you want to know my opinion, I can refer you to a website or two that succinctly state what I believe.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255307 - 10/13/04 11:22 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Only someone who is so entrenched in their support for Kerry that they could not be moved with a tractor could possibly say with a straight face that they knew exactly what he was saying. Your derision for Bush was there and has continued to be there since well before the 2000 election--am I correct? Derision?? Derission???
Whoa, Nelly. You act like I've been on these boards for years spouting off at the mouth.
Nope. First day (yesterday) giving my opinions.
That being said, let me correct you on something. I supported Bush at the start of the war. I believed him wholeheartedly. I defended him when I discussed him during friendly debates with my friends.
To clarify: this is not entrenched. There also, certainly, was no derision.
To further explain, Kerry said exactly what I believe. It's about more than abortion at hand. He feels, as I do, that my personal moral convictions should never impugne on yours. So while abortion is a very heavily emotional, moral, and ethical debate, personal morals should not be brought into it. Instead (as Kerry alluded to further) the Constitution should be interpreted free of personal convictions and interpreted legally.
So, while Bush and his entrenched followers claim they couldn't understand it (whether it be because of ADD or their entrenched idealogies blocking the comprehension), others could plainly see what his message was.
Amy, you, as well as some others, might find this link interesting: Study Finds Abortion Rising Under Bush
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255308 - 10/14/04 03:14 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Interesting. The first post made a point of saying: "President Bush, in his rebuttal, took 11 seconds to reply"." Now someone posts the actual quote: "BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that. My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion. This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America. I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban. I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them. I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that. These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life. I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion. And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done. Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society. Thank you. " He said ALL THAT in eleven seconds??????
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255309 - 10/14/04 03:53 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.
My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.
Here is his answer; was he supposed to give the remaining time back to Kerry. Have you noticed how Kerry and Edwards have used time to answer previous questions when they have not liked the question at hand?
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255310 - 10/14/04 01:24 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
He said ALL THAT in eleven seconds??????
Please go back and re-read the original post. The original posting is quite clear in meaning that it took an 11-second response for the president to state the two sentences which constituted the president's answer to the moderator's question.
Conversely, it took the entire 90-second period for the senator to respond, but even to the last word the senator does not reply "yes" or "no" as to his position on taxpayer-funded abortions -- which, after all, was the original question of the moderator.
I know you don't like the distinction about clarity in the candidates' responses being raised, but the facts are the facts.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255311 - 10/14/04 01:39 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.
My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.
Here is his answer; was he supposed to give the remaining time back to Kerry. Have you noticed how Kerry and Edwards have used time to answer previous questions when they have not liked the question at hand?
Kerry annoyed me so much last night when he'd ignore the question at hand on his rebuttal and go back to the prior question in order to not answer the question.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255312 - 10/14/04 01:50 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Amy, you, as well as some others, might find this link interesting: Study Finds Abortion Rising Under Bush
Chickenon would prefer this headline:
ASHCROFT BEGINS CLOSING OF ABORTION CLINICS
proves liberals correct that he will use
personal religous beliefs instead of legal precedent
Abortionists Jailed, Denied Phone Calls
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255313 - 10/14/04 02:19 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Amy, you, as well as some others, might find this link interesting: Study Finds Abortion Rising Under Bush
When did they start performing abortions under shrubberies?
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255314 - 10/14/04 02:55 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
Quote:
He feels, as I do, that my personal moral convictions should never impugne on yours. So while abortion is a very heavily emotional, moral, and ethical debate, personal morals should not be brought into it. Instead (as Kerry alluded to further) the Constitution should be interpreted free of personal convictions and interpreted legally.
Amy, this is the fallacy in Kerry's argument. Laws are a collection of rules that represent the morals that society agrees should govern conduct. Here are two definitions of law that find particulary insttuctive:
The system of rules providing a basis for society to function harmoniously and efficiently.
and
a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society.
Laws are no more than an expression of the collective will of society that certain rules will govern our conduct with and among each other. As such, they are an expression of the governed, based on the morals, faith, and beliefs of society.
Therefore, EVERY LAW is an imposition of the morals of a majority of society upon the entire society.
Senator Kerry's statement that he cannot impose his beliefs on society as a whole is disingenuous in the extreme. Every time he votes for (or against, for that matter) a bill in the Senate, he imposes his belief that the law under consideration is necessary/desirable, whether that law authorizes the use of force in Iraq, expands healthcare to uninsured citizens, or limits abortions. THAT IS HIS JOB AS A LEGISLATOR. If he doesn't like it, he should find another line of work.
When the Senator says that he believes abortion is wrong, but he will not act to impose this belief by legislating it, he is saying one of two things, both equally disturbing. Either he is actually lying about belief that abortion is wrong, and is trying to placate pro-life members of his constituency, or he will sublimate his principals to get what he wants (which is elected).
Frankly, I don't care which it is, I can't vote for him, even though I agree with his assessment of the incumbent President, even though I agree with his plans to roll back some of the tax cuts passed in the past four years, even though I agree that the war in Iraq was not immediately necessary, etc. etc.
A man (or woman) not willing to stand up for and run on his deeply held principles and beliefs is not trustworthy. And certainly not worthy of my vote.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255315 - 10/14/04 03:08 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
When the Senator says that he believes abortion is wrong, but he will not act to impose this belief by legislating it, he is saying one of two things, both equally disturbing. Either he is actually lying about belief that abortion is wrong, and is trying to placate pro-life members of his constituency, or he will sublimate his principals to get what he wants (which is elected).
What are laws against murder, theft, speeding, pollution etc... if not impositions of what legislators believe?
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255317 - 10/14/04 03:51 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255318 - 10/14/04 06:01 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
In answer to the statement Quote:
my personal moral convictions should never impugne on yours
you say Quote:
EVERY LAW is an imposition of the morals of a majority of society upon the entire society.
First of all, many laws have nothing to do with morals - whether a government agency is organized a certain way, the members of a legislative group, when and how to file tax forms and many banking laws.
Second, though, is that "personal moral convictions" should not NECESSARILY be made into law. The clearest example of this is the Ten Commandments. Yes, killing and stealing have a moral basis and are properly laws. But coveting, "having no other gods", not taking the Lord's name in vain etc. are examples of "personal" morality. They affect only the individual, not others, and should not be laws. One example of when this country tried to impose personal morality was Prohibition, because some thought it was immoral to drink alcohol.
Just because SOME laws have a moral basis, doesn't mean that all moral bases should be laws.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255319 - 10/14/04 06:07 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Bush could have talked baby talk and drooled all over his shirt last night, and I still wouldn't vote for that disingenuous creep Kerry.
His Senate record of putting the screws to the us is crystal clear. Almost everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie or contradiction. Go Bushy.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255320 - 10/14/04 06:13 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Quote:
When the Senator says that he believes abortion is wrong, but he will not act to impose this belief by legislating it, he is saying one of two things, both equally disturbing. Either he is actually lying about belief that abortion is wrong, and is trying to placate pro-life members of his constituency, or he will sublimate his principals to get what he wants (which is elected).
Wait a second Z...let me question that if you will? Is it not possible to have a personal belief, but also to know that while it's your belief, you can't impose your morality on others who may not hold that belief?
I think organized religion is a complete waste of time. Too many powers over the times have made the "Church" a bit of a joke (in my opinion). The Catholic Church for instance is a great example of organized religion gone wrong (again my belief).
That being said, I do not believe that the church doors should be closed to worshipers. I would in fact stand up in court and fight for your right to go to church, despite the fact that I think the "church" is not the best representation of God for people to follow. So, while I believe that organized religion is a sham and in many ways wrong, I'm also know many others do not feel this way and I can't force them to believe what I do.
I think that's the right way for a politician to act. While he has his personal views, he also represents his constituency who may not uphold those particular views. His job, the reason he was elected, is to uphold the views of his constituency, country, etc., and not to make his personal crusade theirs. I don't admire Kerry for much, but in this regard, I have to give him kudo's for stating his belief, but knowing he doesn't have the right to force his belief on me.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255321 - 10/14/04 07:54 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
Quote:
Wait a second Z...let me question that if you will? Is it not possible to have a personal belief, but also to know that while it's your belief, you can't impose your morality on others who may not hold that belief?
Dawn, that is exactly what legislators do every day. They make value judgments regarding what laws are necessary and desirable for our society. As I noted in my earlier post, that's their job.
If a candidate for any office is not going to guided by their principles and beliefs in making those judgments, then they have an obligation to be honest with the public about what will guide those judgments.
For Senator Kerry to say that it one of his heart-felt principles is that life begins at conception and abortion is wrong, but he will not try to legislate that into law, is intellectually dishonest. It either is not a heart-felt principle, or he believes it is more important to be elected than it is to stand up for his principles.
While there are things to admire about the man, I don't think that is one of them.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255322 - 10/14/04 08:23 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Wait a second Z...let me question that if you will? Is it not possible to have a personal belief, but also to know that while it's your belief, you can't impose your morality on others who may not hold that belief?
I think organized religion is a complete waste of time. Too many powers over the times have made the "Church" a bit of a joke (in my opinion). The Catholic Church for instance is a great example of organized religion gone wrong (again my belief).
That being said, I do not believe that the church doors should be closed to worshipers. I would in fact stand up in court and fight for your right to go to church, despite the fact that I think the "church" is not the best representation of God for people to follow. So, while I believe that organized religion is a sham and in many ways wrong, I'm also know many others do not feel this way and I can't force them to believe what I do.
I think that's the right way for a politician to act. While he has his personal views, he also represents his constituency who may not uphold those particular views. His job, the reason he was elected, is to uphold the views of his constituency, country, etc., and not to make his personal crusade theirs. I don't admire Kerry for much, but in this regard, I have to give him kudo's for stating his belief, but knowing he doesn't have the right to force his belief on me.
Wow, this is amazing. Dawnie's explanation is even similar to something that Senator Kerry would say. Liberal minds think alike!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255323 - 10/14/04 08:24 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
When the Senator says that he believes abortion is wrong, but he will not act to impose this belief by legislating it, he is saying one of two things, both equally disturbing. Either he is actually lying about belief that abortion is wrong, and is trying to placate pro-life members of his constituency, or he will sublimate his principals to get what he wants (which is elected).
Dawnie--I did not say this, it was an uncredited quote of another BOL member. But I do agree with it. Carry on.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255325 - 10/14/04 08:29 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
I think organized religion is a complete waste of time. Too many powers over the times have made the "Church" a bit of a joke (in my opinion).
You've visited my church? You must have! Surely you would not have reached such a conclusion without doing so. Why didn't you come by and say hello? OK, end of sarcasm.
You reached a conclusion about all "organized religion" based on your bad experiences. You are like one of the seven blind men who describe an elephant based on their personal experiences.
I am truly disappointed.
Last edited by -Z-; 10/14/04 08:37 PM.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255326 - 10/14/04 08:31 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think organized religion is a complete waste of time. Too many powers over the times have made the "Church" a bit of a joke (in my opinion).
You've visited my church? You must have! Surely you would not have reached such a conclusion without doing so. Why didn't you come by and say hello? OK, end of sarcasm.
You reached a conclusion about all "organized religion" based on your bad experiences. You are like one of the seven blind men who describe what an elephant is based on their personal experience.
I am truly disappointed.
Amen to that. I felt the same way when I left the Catholic Church long ago because of the things that were happening. But I don't hold that against Christianity and organized religion as a whole.
By the way, atheism and agnosticism are just as organized...
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255327 - 10/14/04 09:04 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,044
The banana bin
|
Quote:
By the way, atheism and agnosticism are just as organized...
Yeah, I missed my atheist meeting the other day and it's wrecked my week!
By the way, let me clarify some statements. I believe that a person should be able to seperate their views based upon their religion and that of what the constitution states.
It's fairly basic. Everyone has morals but like a snowflake, no two people are exactly alike.
Currently, whether you like it or not, hate it or don't hate it abortion is legal under our constitution. A legislators job is to enact and support laws that are within the Constitution, not circumvent it because it's not how you feel or what your religion suggests.
Kerry brought up an excellent point regarding a Supreme Court justice...when reading the decision you should not be able to tell if that person is white or black, atheist or Catholic, man or women. The decision is purely based upon the Constitution.
Again, just because I feel a certain way personally should not be what you feel. To force my views upon you is not right. Period. Unfortunately, there are people who still feel it's necessary to do so.
Thank you and Good Night.
_________________________
My opinions are definately my own. I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255328 - 10/14/04 09:10 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Kerry brought up an excellent point regarding a Supreme Court justice...when reading the decision you should not be able to tell if that person is white or black, atheist or Catholic, man or women. The decision is purely based upon the Constitution.
That was not an original thought. However, whether they are black, white, Catholic, man woman should not be evident. I think both parties can agree. However, don't tell me that neither party has a litmus test as to certain matters important to them.
You seem to think that once someone's moral judgment is made an amendment to the constitution, voted into law by our legislative bodies, or ruled on by our courts, that it somehow loses its character as a moral judgment. That is naive. Our courts, our legislators, and our voters use their moral judgments every time they make law. "Snowflakes" or not, they better use their morals and their religion in making these decisions or we are doomed.
Do you have another guiding force in mind?
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255330 - 10/14/04 09:20 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The world is going to hell in a handbasket and the trip mirrors the decline of moral values and the importance of church and faith in our society. There is absolutely no denying that fact. Be athiest or agnostic if that's what floats your boat, but you simply cannot deny that Chritianity (true Christianity....as opposed to "organized religion") has only good to offer. Unfortunately, there are bad seeds in every walk of life. Christianity is not immune. Christians are not perfect. They are just forgiven.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255331 - 10/14/04 09:58 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,164
|
The world is going to hell in a handbasket and the trip mirrors the decline of moral values and the importance of church and faith in our society. There is absolutely no denying that fact. Be athiest or agnostic if that's what floats your boat, but you simply cannot deny that Chritianity (true Christianity....as opposed to "organized religion") has only good to offer. Unfortunately, there are bad seeds in every walk of life. Christianity is not immune. Christians are not perfect. They are just forgiven.
WOW, well said. One needs to think about where we would be, worldwide, without religion. It would be chaos. Where there is no religion or subverted religious beliefs, there is chaos and the mass killing of human beings is always a factor and result. Now, being religious to me doesn’t necessarily involve attending church, but that experience is important in early life and a choice later in life.
It’s all about not being a barbarian. HS was a barbarian and probably still is. The Hitler youth sang a song in which they basically celebrated barbarianism. Religion has saved the planet, so far.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255332 - 10/14/04 10:17 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Quote:
You've visited my church? You must have! Surely you would not have reached such a conclusion without doing so. Why didn't you come by and say hello? OK, end of sarcasm.
Z, I'm sorry if you took my example as a personal attack on your church. I certainly didn't mean it that way. What I was trying to say is that while I don't care for Organized religion for many reasons, I strongly believe in your right to exercise your choice to be involved in your church. Were I in a position to legislate, I would do anything I could to uphold that right for you, because my PERSONAL beliefs are of no more or less value than yours. It would be wrong for me to force my beliefs on you.
I haven't been to your church, but I have been to many and was educated in a Catholic School. I believe that God is something that you keep deep in your heart and should not be distorted by the views of mankind and religious powers (as has been done over the years). I believe that God takes many forms to reach the people he does, much like Buddah, Alah, etc. I don't care for organized religion in many ways because it produces the Michaels of this world far too often. God has been used by mankind incorrectly so many times over history it's not even funny.
I'm sorry again if you took that personally because I only meant to give an example of someone not forcing their beliefs on someone else, even if the conviction that their way of life is better might cause temptation to over ride what's right.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255333 - 10/14/04 10:22 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
I didn't take it personally, I was just, once again, in my own eloquent way, putting you in your place. 
P.S. I am just playing with Dawnie--no offense was taken by either of us.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255334 - 10/15/04 12:44 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
For Senator Kerry to say that it one of his heart-felt principles is that life begins at conception and abortion is wrong, but he will not try to legislate that into law, is intellectually dishonest.
No it isn't. If you believe that premarital sex is wrong, do you have an obligation to try to make it illegal? If you believe smoking is wrong do you have an obligation to try to make it illegal? There is something in between "I approve of this" and "I want it to be outlawed". You may disagree with something, but still think it's not your place to make the decision for others. People have freedom in this country to make their own decisions without the government dictating how they should live their personal lives.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255335 - 10/15/04 02:21 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Quote:
For Senator Kerry to say that it one of his heart-felt principles is that life begins at conception and abortion is wrong, but he will not try to legislate that into law, is intellectually dishonest.
No it isn't. If you believe that premarital sex is wrong, do you have an obligation to try to make it illegal? If you believe smoking is wrong do you have an obligation to try to make it illegal? There is something in between "I approve of this" and "I want it to be outlawed". You may disagree with something, but still think it's not your place to make the decision for others. People have freedom in this country to make their own decisions without the government dictating how they should live their personal lives.
Let's follow this down a logical path. Because you are speaking hypothetically, I'll follow your hypotheticals. Let's say that Kerry's religion believes, smoking, premarital sex, and were unforgiveable sins. That is, Kerry's religion tells him that those who participate in these activities are headed to eternal damnation. And let's say that he believes what his religion says is true.
If this were the case, I do not think that Kerry should necessarily legislate against these activities in an attempt to save souls. The souls that smokers and persons having premarital sex are losing are their own, right? They should have a right to self-determination, right? They should be able to choose to go to an eternal damnation for an activity that does not hurt anyone else without Kerry trying to legislate against it, right?
This same logic does not track with abortion. The Catholic Church thinks it is wrong because the baby in the womb is a human life. They don't just believe it is wrong for some obtuse reason; they believe it is the taking of a human life. Now, if Kerry believes the baby in the room is a human life, wouldn't it be more than just intellectually dishonest for him to support the right of someone to take that innocent human life? I think so, in fact, I think it would be pretty darned close to evil for him to trade this belief for a public office.
Now, maybe he thinks abortion is wrong for a reason other than the fact that the baby is a human life, but I am not sure what other reason there would be to say abortion is wrong. [The only other reason I could think of: If he were a Christian Scientist who did not beleive life began at conception he might not believe in surgical procedures including abortion. (I have no idea what Christian Scientist think about abortion.)]
Maybe Kerry has made contradictory statements to the statement below, but here is what I found on the web that he believes:
"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception ."
With that belief, it just seems kind of evil to not try to legislate to save human life.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255336 - 10/15/04 02:55 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The logic DOES track. Kerry holds to the Catholic belief that life begins at conception but that philosophy is not shared by others. He might not approve of abortion, but by what authority does he force other people to agree with his religious belief about when life begins? They might be committing a sin but as you said, that's not a reason to legislate.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255338 - 10/15/04 03:38 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
The logic DOES track. Kerry holds to the Catholic belief that life begins at conception but that philosophy is not shared by others. He might not approve of abortion, but by what authority does he force other people to agree with his religious belief about when life begins? They might be committing a sin but as you said, that's not a reason to legislate.
You missed it totally and, no offense intended, but your logic does not flow--it is faulty.
Regardless of why you think that an act is killing--whether it is a gut feeling, religion, your mother told you, your rubber tree plant told you, or you've seen killing and it looked like something that was wrong--as a legislator, you would have an obligation to try to legislate against it. So, if you think that abortion is killing, as a legislator you'd have an obligation to legislate against it regardless of why you think that way. I don't expect you to agree that abortion is killing or that it must be legislated against, but you can't escape the conclusion that someone who thinks an act is killing, but would not do anything to stop it is wrong.
Let's take a hypothetical atheist US Senator. He does not believe in God. He does not have a religion. But he has come to the conclusion through his life experiences (or whatever) that abortion is killing. He decides that if given the chance, he would legislate against it.
Now, lets go back to your assertion that Kerry's logic DOES track. Taking the atheist Senator example--Like Kerry's, his philosophy is not shared by everyone. Does that make it illogical for him to try to legislate against it. You know, not everyone agrees on every law, but that does not make it logically wrong to pass the law. There are Muslim extremist American citizens who do not think it is killing to slit the throat of a non-Muslim. However, I don't think the fact that the Muslim extremist disagrees with a Senator's philosophy or religious belief that slitting a throat is murder should prevent him from legislating against it. Your logic is flawed. With your logic, there would be no laws prohibiting pray in school because not everyone agrees with it. There could be no laws protecting the ozone against global warming because not everyone believes global warming is a problem.
You ask what authority Kerry would have to force others to agree with his religious belief about when life begins. Your logic is faulty--If Kerry legislated against abortion, he would not be "forcing" anyone to agree with him. You'd still be free to disagree, it would just be against the law to actually follow through by having an abortion. By the way, a Sentor's authority to pass the law would be his office. Unless the President vetoed the law, the Supreme Court overturned the law, or the people amended the Constitution to protect abortion, he would have such authority.
Back to our atheist legislator--He does not have a religious belief of when life begins--so he does not have a religious belief to force on anyone. So, what's your complaint if he passes a law against abortion. He may have also passed a law against murder based on his belief that the victim of murder is a human life. Your logic would demand that he not do that either.
Your last sentence makes me think you did not read or did not understand what I wrote. If the sin harms a human life other than yourself, then legislation is a must. If Kerry thinks the baby in the womb is a human life, then an abortion would hurt that human life, correct? Therefore, he has a compulsion as a human and as a person in a position of power to prevent one human from harming another.
Look, I do not know how you can logically argue with these scenarios. If Kerry believes it is a human life and he is iin a position to stop the killing of that human life, then he must do it. I assume that you do not agree that it is a human life in the womb--if that is true, then you'd be free logically to abort at any time without a ethical delimma. Kerry, based on his own statements, is not free to do this without an ethical problem.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255339 - 10/15/04 04:06 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Quote:
The logic DOES track. Kerry holds to the Catholic belief that life begins at conception but that philosophy is not shared by others. He might not approve of abortion, but by what authority does he force other people to agree with his religious belief about when life begins? They might be committing a sin but as you said, that's not a reason to legislate.
But the protection of the life of one person from the actions of another person is one of the fundamental roles of government.
GreatBlue--You are so right. When you start with Kerry's belief that human life begins at conception, his Senate abortion stand makes absolutely no logical sense. Someone may agree with his stand on keeping abortion legal, but it still cannot be reconciled with his belief that the subject of an abortion is a human life.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255340 - 10/15/04 02:41 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Let's get this straight. Democrats are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice.  The point is, even if abortion were illegal federally, each state could still decide and the people seeking abortion would simply cross state lines.  If states made it illegal, then the women seeking abortion (for whatever reason) would find some way to get one (from quack doctors to coat hangers) or dispose of the child after it was born (dumpsters, abuse, landfills).  Just as no one can make these abortion-seeking women love Jesus, no one can make them NOT get an abortion if that’s what they have decided to do.
Democrats are not FOR gay marriages, they simply think everyone should have some basic rights, like insurance coverage, but that it can be accomplished without using the word marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman. Democrat is a party who believe in taking care of people first instead of putting big business and the elite wealthy first.  Jesus commanded us to take care of the sick, widowed, etc. which is what Democratic representation does.
Don’t be fooled by the wolves clothing the Republican candidates wear.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255341 - 10/15/04 02:48 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Let's get this straight. Democrats are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. The point is, even if abortion were illegal federally, each state could still decide and the people seeking abortion would simply cross state lines. If states made it illegal, then the women seeking abortion (for whatever reason) would find some way to get one (from quack doctors to coat hangers) or dispose of the child after it was born (dumpsters, abuse, landfills). Just as no one can make these abortion-seeking women love Jesus, no one can make them NOT get an abortion if that’s what they have decided to do.
For the sake of this discussion, let's say you are right. That still doesn't make Kerry's reasoning make any sense.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255342 - 10/15/04 02:55 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,857
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
Democrat is a party who believe in taking care of people first instead
laughable
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255343 - 10/15/04 02:57 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I'm one of those "idiots" who votes for the party.....for the reasons given by the previous anonymous above. I'm not wealthy, the health care system is failing, my brother who is completely disabled with MS has to live on $506 per month. My mother-in-law, who worked hard all of her life as a waitress lives on $495 per month. Yet, my mother who is wealthy and could exist with NO social security receives $1,600 month......and spent most of her life as a housewife. Go figure. The average Joe, like me, has to file a straight return.....no exemptions, benefits, cuts can be claimed. For instance, my medical expenses which eat me alive aren't considered enough to claim! The only med I have to take was jerked off my health insurance "preferred drug list" so that someone could line their pocket with green. And now I have to either suffer or pay through the nose for it. Something is wrong and someone needs to fix it.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255344 - 10/15/04 02:59 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Democrat is a party who believe in taking care of people first instead
laughable
The Republican party caters to the wealthy....always have, always will. I'm not wealthy. I am a Democrat.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255345 - 10/15/04 03:01 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Democrat is a party who believe in taking care of people first instead
laughable
The Republican party caters to the wealthy....always have, always will. I'm not wealthy. I am a Democrat.
They both pander to their wealthy special interests. The Dems politicians; however, also throw crumbs to the people they would never invite to their mansions so they they can keep their votes.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255346 - 10/15/04 03:04 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
I'm one of those "idiots" who votes for the party.....for the reasons given by the previous anonymous above. I'm not wealthy, the health care system is failing, my brother who is completely disabled with MS has to live on $506 per month. My mother-in-law, who worked hard all of her life as a waitress lives on $495 per month. Yet, my mother who is wealthy and could exist with NO social security receives $1,600 month......and spent most of her life as a housewife. Go figure. The average Joe, like me, has to file a straight return.....no exemptions, benefits, cuts can be claimed. For instance, my medical expenses which eat me alive aren't considered enough to claim! The only med I have to take was jerked off my health insurance "preferred drug list" so that someone could line their pocket with green. And now I have to either suffer or pay through the nose for it. Something is wrong and someone needs to fix it.
Kerry doesn't think we have to change social security, which is your complaint regarding the income of your relatives. Kerry doesn't think there should be tort reform, which would reduce the costs of prescriptions and health insurance. He does, however, think you should be able to have government run medical coverage, which would mean that bureaucrats would still be denying you your medications.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255347 - 10/15/04 03:06 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,857
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
I'm one of those "idiots" who votes for the party.....for the reasons given by the previous anonymous above. I'm not wealthy, the health care system is failing, my brother who is completely disabled with MS has to live on $506 per month. My mother-in-law, who worked hard all of her life as a waitress lives on $495 per month. Yet, my mother who is wealthy and could exist with NO social security receives $1,600 month......and spent most of her life as a housewife. Go figure. The average Joe, like me, has to file a straight return.....no exemptions, benefits, cuts can be claimed. For instance, my medical expenses which eat me alive aren't considered enough to claim! The only med I have to take was jerked off my health insurance "preferred drug list" so that someone could line their pocket with green. And now I have to either suffer or pay through the nose for it. Something is wrong and someone needs to fix it
And all of this occurred in the past 3 years? Wan't there a democrat in for 8 years before Bush? Social security has not changed under Bush. The president cannot and does not control HMOs or medical insurance. Sorry, but social security is paid based on what you (or in your mothers case) your spouse earned while working. naturally, someone who made more is entitled to more. Or are you advocating socialism, where everyone gets the same, regardless of who put in what?
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255348 - 10/15/04 03:07 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Jesus commanded us to take care of the sick, widowed, etc. which is what Democratic representation does.
Yes, I recall in Matthew 42:10 that Jesus said, "And I say unto thee, yea, verily I say unto thee, that thou shalt take care of the poor and feed the sick. But failing this, I say unto thee, in the alternative, that thou shalt vote for big government programs which shall attempt to do this on your behalf, and with other people's money. Yea. Verily."
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255349 - 10/15/04 03:09 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Sorry, but social security is paid based on what you (or in your mothers case) your spouse earned while working. naturally, someone who made more is entitled to more. Or are you advocating socialism, where everyone gets the same, regardless of who put in what?
No, I do not advocate socialism. YOU go try to live on $500 per month. It ain't possible.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255350 - 10/15/04 03:10 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Democrat is a party who believe in taking care of people first instead
laughable
The Republican party caters to the wealthy....always have, always will. I'm not wealthy. I am a Democrat.
The Republican party believes in smaller government allowing EVERYONE to work to better themselves.
The Democratic party believes Government is responsible for all of us, and that NOONE should be able to work to better themselves.
The Republican Party believes that if Government backs away, doing less and lowers taxes, people will buy more homes, start more businesses, and the economy will prevail.
The Democratic Party believes that if you attain the "American Dream" of home ownership, owning a business and making money, and living well, you should be taxed down and people who aren't working.
The Republican Party believes that those who are having a hard time should be given a hand up, and a chance to improve themselves.
The Democratic Party believes that those who are having a hard time should be given a hand out, perpetuating their poverty.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255351 - 10/15/04 03:13 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Again, I say, something's wrong. Someone needs to fix it. Bush or Kerry, Democrats or Republicans....no one knows the answer and regardless of who is elected, the President does not run the country and cannot pass law on his own. We are headed towards being a country made up of the very very rich and those below the poverty line....hopefully not in my life time, but we'll get there.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255352 - 10/15/04 03:15 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
I'm not wealthy,
Not my fault.
Quote:
the health care system is failing
So let's give it to the federal government, where it can be as fiscally sound as the Social "Security" "Trust" "Fund".
Quote:
my brother who is completely disabled with MS has to live on $506 per month
How much of other people's money would you like to give him?
Quote:
My mother-in-law, who worked hard all of her life as a waitress lives on $495 per month. Yet, my mother who is wealthy and could exist with NO social security receives $1,600 month......and spent most of her life as a housewife. Go figure.
These are based on contributions to Social Security. As noted above, you would apparently prefer that the program be turned from an insurance fund to a welfare giveout. I don't want to be on welfare, and I bet a majority of Americans agree with me.
Quote:
The average Joe, like me, has to file a straight return.....no exemptions, benefits, cuts can be claimed.
AH! Finally we agree - everyone should pay taxes based on a flat tax rate! Horizontal tax equity! Sweet!
Quote:
The only med I have to take was jerked off my health insurance "preferred drug list" so that someone could line their pocket with green. And now I have to either suffer or pay through the nose for it.
Obviously, this is a little more complicated than simply being an issue of someone wanting to line their pockets (obviously, you have an interest in your pockets, too). For example, what would the effect on premiums be if every medication was on the preferred list?
Quote:
Something is wrong and someone needs to fix it.
How 'bout...you?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255353 - 10/15/04 03:16 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,857
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
YOU go try to live on $500 per month
well, then I pray that Kerry wins, because when he is elected, people like Chris Reeve will be able to walk again. I'm sure your brother will be included in this marching, and then he can go get a job and be a productive memeber of society. And all will be well.
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255354 - 10/15/04 03:16 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Again, I say, something's wrong. Someone needs to fix it. Bush or Kerry, Democrats or Republicans....no one knows the answer and regardless of who is elected, the President does not run the country and cannot pass law on his own. We are headed towards being a country made up of the very very rich and those below the poverty line....hopefully not in my life time, but we'll get there.
Under current leadership, we drove through the worst recession in the history of the nation, yet continued to enfranchise people by dramatically increasing home ownership, small business growth, and are going to continue to do so BY REDUCING taxes.
Under Kerry's plan, taxes would go up and you would have less money in your pocket to spend.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255355 - 10/15/04 03:17 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I'm not in a position to fix it. You're heartless and uncaring.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255356 - 10/15/04 03:22 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
I'm not in a position to fix it. You're heartless and uncaring.
You are in a position to take responsibility for yourself.
You don't know anything about me, other than that I resent your willingness to use the federal government to take from me for your (or your family's) benefit.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255358 - 10/15/04 03:30 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
I'm not in a position to fix it. You're heartless and uncaring.
If YOU won't do something to help your family out and to better YOURSELF, why is it heartless for someone to say they don't think government should punish others by giving you handout after handout?
I'm sorry you have a relative with MS, but he didn't get it from government, so you shouldn't be blaming government for his problems. The fact that he gets ANYTHING from government should be seen as a blessing. Imagine what he would be like if they didn't give him what little they do.
You aren't in a position to do anything about it? Have you considered helping him to find a way of making money for himself and helping him do it? Are you aware of, and have you put him in touch with selective placement officers with the federal government who find jobs for the disabled? Have you considered helping him start a small business in which someone else might do the work but he can get profits from it? Are you aware that the government has grants to help the disabled and minorities start small businesses?
Other than cry for him, what have you DONE to help him get past being unable to earn an income? Less than the government I assume.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255359 - 10/15/04 03:48 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception ."
With that belief, it just seems kind of evil to not try to legislate to save human life.
I may be spitting in the wind here, but I thought maybe, just maybe, the liberals would be able to concede this point...
Imagine in 1860, Stephen Douglas said, "I oppose slavery, personally. I believe that it is immoral for a person to own another human being. I believe that a black person is an equally-created human being. HOWEVER, it would be wrong to take that belief, and force it on others through legislation. Therefore, I support a white man's right to choose whether or not to own slaves."
That's what it comes down to. I can understand how a person could be pro-choice if they just didn't believe that a fetus was a human life. Just like I could understand how a person could be pro-choice on slavery if they didn't believe a black person was an equally-created human being. But I DON'T understand how a person can believe that one person should be able to choose to end the life of an innocent.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255360 - 10/15/04 03:52 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
And I don't understand how pro-lifers can be pro-capital punishment.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255361 - 10/15/04 04:06 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
And I don't understand how pro-lifers can be pro-capital punishment.
Many of us are not. However, there are some that believe that the only way to protect people from David Berkowitz (who found God in prison and chose not to seek parole for the good of the families of his victims), the Paul Bernardos and the Karla Homolkas, from the Ted Bundys, the Pat Browns, the Jeffrey Dahmers, and the John Wayne Gacys of the world is to put these sick individuals to death.
The salvation and change in the Son of Sam alone shows that there is hope even for those that appear to be completely lost.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255362 - 10/15/04 04:11 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
And I don't understand how pro-lifers can be pro-capital punishment.
The difference is that one is an innocent life. The other is not.
People of good will can differ on whether capital punishment is ever justified. But there is no inconsistency in supporting capital punishment and being pro-life.
(In my case, I support capital punishment in situations where the crime is an afront to the dignity of human life - the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas, for example. In cases like these, I believe that the criminal must forfeit their own life.)
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255363 - 10/15/04 04:12 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
And I don't understand how pro-lifers can be pro-capital punishment.
Since biblical times, the death penalty has been deemed as a just punishment for capital offenses. "He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed," (Gen.9:6). Notice that the scripture tells us that this is a duty delegated to mankind, not exclusively reserved for God. Specifically the state is delegated the duty of bearing the sword against the evil doer (Romans chapter13), as a derivative sovereign, until the final just judgement of God. There is no vigilantism or vengeance motive in the equation.
The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", has been a source of great confusion. Most modern translations of the Bible have corrected the Hebrew translation to English rendering, "Thou shalt commit no murder."
The term "an eye for an eye" in the scriptures, is not a directive for authority to seek vigilante vengeance, nor necessarily a mandate to recompense a literal eye-for-eye. This statement represents the biblical principle of Lex Talionis, that is, the crime must be proportional with the punishment. Often times in biblical law, the victim had rights in determining the precise punishment, up to a limit.
As you can see, there is a great difference between due process being served on someone who has committed a capital crime and a procedure that ends the life of a baby in its mother's womb. I know pro-life people who are anti-death penalty and pro-abortion people who are for the death penalty. I do not think the two are at all related.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255364 - 10/15/04 04:13 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
Quote:
Let's get this straight. Democrats are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice.
If one of the choices is abortion, how is being pro-choice being different from being pro-abortion?
Your statement regarding the states being able to make laws contrary to federal law is not universally true. In fact, almost the reverse is true. Many federal laws preempt state statutes. If you want anexample you can relate to, think FCRA. But I digress.
The issue here is not whether the unborn should have the right to life from conception (although I will discuss that if you wish), it is whether it is intellectually honest to say that one believes that as a guiding principle of their lives, but is not willing to take action to make that belief law.
It is not possible to argue that the state does not have an abiding interest regarding whether the lives of individuals are protected. The laws on the books regarding murder give lie to that. Society clearly has an interest in protecting the the lives of human beings. Therefore, the question of abortion, which terminates the life of a human being, is not merely a religious issue, or an issue of faith, as the Senator claims. It is a question of public policy.
As I have stated in earlier posts, laws are value judgments made by the majority of society defining the rules of human conduct. Lawmakers make value judgments every day - that is what they do. Presumably, they are guided in the making or unmaking of laws by their own beliefs and principles. We should elect lawmakers whose principles, beliefs, and values we believe will lead them to make proper and just laws.
Senator Kerry's stance with regard to abortion (My principles say its wrong, but I won't act on that) is intellectually disingenuous and dishonest. Human life is a public policy issue, not just a religious one. If the Senator will not legistlate based on his beliefs, what is his framework for decision-making? Whatever gets him votes? Whatever raises campaign dollars? Whatever makes him palatable to history? How can we trust that he will do anything he says he will do? His principles and support are evidently for sale.
And, by the way, the argument that women will seek abortions anyway is irrelevant to the issue of whether such procedures should be legally available. By that logic, it should be legal to ingest dangerous narcotics without physician supervision, kill anyone who gets in our way, drink alcohol and operate a motor vehicle, or any one of a thousand things we have made illegal. The factthat people will do it anyway does not mean we should not legislate based on the will of society.
Quote:
And I don't understand how pro-lifers can be pro-capital punishment.
As Michael P noted, many of us are not. I am one of those. Michael and several other posters indicate why they think the two positions are compatible. Those arguments, although I do not agree with them any more, are logically sound.
What is less logical is this: if I go home this afternoon, insert a needle into my cat's brain and inject him with formaldehyde or concentrated saline, then cut him up and throw him in the trash, that's against the law. But if I do those same things to an 8-month unborn human being, it's a choice. And that's exactly what happens in a 3rd-trimester, partial dilation and extraction abortion.
Last edited by pbrinker; 10/15/04 04:27 PM.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255365 - 10/15/04 04:54 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Gold Star
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 447
New England
|
"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception ."
Kerry also said that his mother's last words to him were, "integrity, integrity, integrity".
Dictionary definition of integrity (I'm paraphrasing) is to make your words and actions consistant with your principles and beliefs.
My opinion, both Bush and Kerry have a lot of strengths and weaknesses. When I vote, I have always taken into consideration the candidates personal values and beliefs, not just the politics. That means that I also want to know that those values and beliefs will guide their actions. I know that the president (any president) does not have the power to enforce those values, that's why the government is set up the way it is, but I still think it is an important consideration.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255366 - 10/15/04 07:35 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 10,124
Way, way south.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Democrat is a party who believe in taking care of people first instead
laughable
The Republican party caters to the wealthy....always have, always will. I'm not wealthy. I am a Democrat.
In a nutshell:
Republican Philosophy - Teach each man to fish and feed his family.
Democrat Philosophy - Let a few ambitious people fish and they will take his catch and dole it out as they see fit, because they know better than he does on what to do with it for the better good of everyone, even those who sit home and do nothing.
_________________________
Giddy up.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255367 - 10/21/04 08:29 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, atheism and agnosticism are just as organized...
Yeah, I missed my atheist meeting the other day and it's wrecked my week!
By the way, let me clarify some statements. I believe that a person should be able to seperate their views based upon their religion and that of what the constitution states.
It's fairly basic. Everyone has morals but like a snowflake, no two people are exactly alike.
Currently, whether you like it or not, hate it or don't hate it abortion is legal under our constitution. A legislators job is to enact and support laws that are within the Constitution, not circumvent it because it's not how you feel or what your religion suggests.
Kerry brought up an excellent point regarding a Supreme Court justice...when reading the decision you should not be able to tell if that person is white or black, atheist or Catholic, man or women. The decision is purely based upon the Constitution.
Again, just because I feel a certain way personally should not be what you feel. To force my views upon you is not right. Period. Unfortunately, there are people who still feel it's necessary to do so.
Thank you and Good Night.
Well said.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255368 - 10/21/04 08:37 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
For Senator Kerry to say that it one of his heart-felt principles is that life begins at conception and abortion is wrong, but he will not try to legislate that into law, is intellectually dishonest.
No it isn't. If you believe that premarital sex is wrong, do you have an obligation to try to make it illegal? If you believe smoking is wrong do you have an obligation to try to make it illegal? There is something in between "I approve of this" and "I want it to be outlawed". You may disagree with something, but still think it's not your place to make the decision for others. People have freedom in this country to make their own decisions without the government dictating how they should live their personal lives.
 My thoughts, exactly. Just because a person thinks something is wrong (when applied to themselves), who are they to decide that it is wrong in every case.
What happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255369 - 10/21/04 08:47 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For Senator Kerry to say that it one of his heart-felt principles is that life begins at conception and abortion is wrong, but he will not try to legislate that into law, is intellectually dishonest.
No it isn't. If you believe that premarital sex is wrong, do you have an obligation to try to make it illegal? If you believe smoking is wrong do you have an obligation to try to make it illegal? There is something in between "I approve of this" and "I want it to be outlawed". You may disagree with something, but still think it's not your place to make the decision for others. People have freedom in this country to make their own decisions without the government dictating how they should live their personal lives.
My thoughts, exactly. Just because a person thinks something is wrong (when applied to themselves), who are they to decide that it is wrong in every case.
What happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ?
There is a HUGE difference between these two suggestions.
Having the idea that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion kills a living being, who has no way to defend itself, and saying that this is a GUIDING PRINCIPLE, while allowing abortion to go unchecked and going so far as to vote that it should be legal to kill a viable child who could live outside the womb with a partial birth abortion. This is MURDER. The only way in which such things can be considered to NOT be murder is to reject the assumption that life begins prior to birth, which John Kerry says he does not. This is killing an innocent child who cannot protect itself. The government has a duty to protect it's citizens, including the unborn if you accept that life begins at conception.
On the other hand, smoking and premarital sex are issues in which the participants are making decisions that effect ONLY themselves. Many states are passing no smoking in public laws, and no smoking in stadiums/restaurants/workplaces is the norm now, protecting others from second hand smoke. Due to this, the ONLY person who is getting hurt is the person making the decision to smoke or have premarital sex.
HUGE difference.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255370 - 10/21/04 08:57 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For Senator Kerry to say that it one of his heart-felt principles is that life begins at conception and abortion is wrong, but he will not try to legislate that into law, is intellectually dishonest.
No it isn't. If you believe that premarital sex is wrong, do you have an obligation to try to make it illegal? If you believe smoking is wrong do you have an obligation to try to make it illegal? There is something in between "I approve of this" and "I want it to be outlawed". You may disagree with something, but still think it's not your place to make the decision for others. People have freedom in this country to make their own decisions without the government dictating how they should live their personal lives.
My thoughts, exactly. Just because a person thinks something is wrong (when applied to themselves), who are they to decide that it is wrong in every case.
What happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ?
Once again:
Let's follow this down a logical path. Because you are speaking hypothetically, I'll follow your hypotheticals. Let's say that Kerry's religion believes, smoking, premarital sex, and were unforgiveable sins. That is, Kerry's religion tells him that those who participate in these activities are headed to eternal damnation. And let's say that he believes what his religion says is true.
If this were the case, I do not think that Kerry should necessarily legislate against these activities in an attempt to save souls. If Kerry's hypothetical beliefs are true, the souls of the smokers and persons having premarital sex are their own to lose, right? They should have a right to self-determination, right? They should be able to choose to go to an eternal damnation for an activity that does not hurt anyone else without Kerry trying to legislate against it, right?
This same logic does not track with abortion. The Catholic Church thinks it is wrong because the baby in the womb is a human life. They don't just believe it is wrong for some obtuse reason; they believe it is the taking of a human life. Now, if Kerry believes the baby in the room is a human life, wouldn't it be more than just intellectually dishonest for him to support the right of someone to take that innocent human life? I think so, in fact, I think it would be pretty darned close to evil for him to trade this belief for a public office.
Now, maybe he thinks abortion is wrong for a reason other than the fact that the baby is a human life, but I am not sure what other reason there would be to say abortion is wrong. [The only other reason I could think of: If he were a Christian Scientist who did not beleive life began at conception he might not believe in surgical procedures including abortion. (I have no idea what Christian Scientists think about abortion.)]
Maybe Kerry has made contradictory statements to the statement below, but here is what I found on the web that he believes:
"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception ."
With that belief, it just seems kind of evil to not try to legislate to outlaw abortion and save human life.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255371 - 10/22/04 05:57 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Let's get this straight. Democrats are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice.  The point is, even if abortion were illegal federally, each state could still decide and the people seeking abortion would simply cross state lines.  If states made it illegal, then the women seeking abortion (for whatever reason) would find some way to get one (from quack doctors to coat hangers) or dispose of the child after it was born (dumpsters, abuse, landfills).  Just as no one can make these abortion-seeking women love Jesus, no one can make them NOT get an abortion if that’s what they have decided to do.
Democrats are not FOR gay marriages, they simply think everyone should have some basic rights, like insurance coverage, but that it can be accomplished without using the word marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman. Democrat is a party who believe in taking care of people first instead of putting big business and the elite wealthy first.  Jesus commanded us to take care of the sick, widowed, etc. which is what Democratic representation does.
Don’t be fooled by the wolves clothing the Republican candidates wear.
You definitely are not informed. Let me guess you probably only get your news from Al Franken and the liberal blogs out there on the internet? The Democratic party is and was a great party, but the liberals have taken control of it. Liberals are power hungry and want people to suffer so that they can remain in power. The liberals like John Kerry and Jesse Jackson want to keep African Americans weak so that they will always have a voting constiuency to keep them in power. They want to make sure that people are ignorant. That is why the "mainstream" press reports certain stories and not on everything. Liberals don't want to do anything about social security because they know the republicans are right. They could potentially lose the elderly constiuency down the road if it comes to pass. Bush doesn't want to do away with social security at all. The elderly and the entire baby boom generation would get their benefits. Bush just wants to allow people to put their own money in safe government backed accounts that draw more interest than the money going into social security. The Republicans are also against the murder of innocent life. Once again the liberals lie about abortion. Kerry and many other liberals want to have their cake and eat it too. Kerry and his wife's wealth is more than the President and Vice President combined. The Kerry's get their money from a company who has outsourced more jobs than almost any other company in the nation. Also, all of these tax loopholes that Kerry is against has sure served he and his wife well. The Democratic party is not what it used to be. It has been hijacked. Woodrow Wilson and FDR would be republicans if they were alive today. The Democratic party is controled by the intellectual elite. They are controled by billionaires such as George Soros, and Teresa Heinz Kerry. Would it surprise you to know that the majority of the company owners, who are nearly billionaires , in silicon valley are democrats? The republicans want people to be able to fend for themselves and be successful. The liberal democrats want people to be dependant on government. They want people to think that the best they can do is welfare. The reason the liberal democrats want this is to maintain power through ignorance so that they can advance their agenda at all times.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255372 - 10/22/04 06:13 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
100 Club
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 159
|
Quote:
Let's get this straight. Democrats are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. The point is, even if abortion were illegal federally, each state could still decide and the people seeking abortion would simply cross state lines. If states made it illegal, then the women seeking abortion (for whatever reason) would find some way to get one (from quack doctors to coat hangers) or dispose of the child after it was born (dumpsters, abuse, landfills). Just as no one can make these abortion-seeking women love Jesus, no one can make them NOT get an abortion if that’s what they have decided to do.
Democrats are not FOR gay marriages, they simply think everyone should have some basic rights, like insurance coverage, but that it can be accomplished without using the word marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman. Democrat is a party who believe in taking care of people first instead of putting big business and the elite wealthy first. Jesus commanded us to take care of the sick, widowed, etc. which is what Democratic representation does.
Don’t be fooled by the wolves clothing the Republican candidates wear.
Main Entry: pro-choice
Pronunciation: (")prO-'chois
Function: adjective
: favoring the legalization of abortion
Can't have it both ways...can't say you are for a womans right to choose and in the next breath say that you are not "pro" abortion.
Your argument about the democratic view of Gay marriage..not really "for" it but rather Dems. simply think everyone should have some basic rights, like insurance coverage. Of course you do, you want Govt. run program. Great, do that and Gays won't have to marry!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255373 - 10/22/04 06:34 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Let's get this straight. Democrats are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice.  Democrats are not FOR gay marriages. Don’t be fooled.
Nobody is fooled. The lack of courage of abortionists and same-sex marriage proponents in even defining and stating a clear position, coupled with the need to so finely split hairs, is why the Democrats have drifted so far from the John F. Kennedy Democrats. It is no longer a party with a core belief; it is a party of eclectic misfits and special interests all looking to ride the wagon while others pull the wagon.
The mainstream media does not like to use the term "pro-life", because this would mean assigning the moniker of "anti-life" to the opposite view. If "pro-choice" is assigned, then the media and liberals reason that the opposite moniker would be "anti-choice". Consistency, however, must be assigned to the noun described by the adjective: i.e., if you are "pro-choice", the opposite is not "anti-abortion", as the media would ascribe, but "anti-choice".
I follow what more than one-half of the nation follows: You would be pro-abortion; I would be pro-life. Or, you would be anti-life and I would be anti-abortion.
The politics of marketing is not lost on the NARAL crowd and this is why they will fight tooth and nail to keep the word "life" out of the debate.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255374 - 10/22/04 10:53 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
can't say you are for a womans right to choose and in the next breath say that you are not "pro" abortion
The difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion is not that hard to show:
If a woman has a legal choice but decides to continue the pregnancy, someone that is pro-abortion would be disappointed because she didn't have an abortion, but someone that is pro-choice would be satisfied that she made her own choice.
If someone were to suggest that a woman should be required to have an abortion, someone that is pro-abortion would approve but someone that is pro-choice would be outraged that she was being denied her right to make the decision.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255375 - 10/22/04 11:02 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
100 Club
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 234
Almost Heaven
|
[quote
The Democratic party is and was a great party, but the liberals have taken control of it. Liberals are power hungry and want people to suffer so that they can remain in power. The liberals like John Kerry and Jesse Jackson want to keep African Americans weak so that they will always have a voting constiuency to keep them in power. they want to make sure that people are ignorant . That is why the "mainstream" press reports certain stories and not on everything. Liberals don't want to do anything about social security because they know the republicans are right. They could potentially lose the elderly constiuency down the road if it comes to pass. Bush doesn't want to do away with social security at all. The elderly and the entire baby boom generation would get their benefits. Bush just wants to allow people to put their own money in safe government backed accounts that draw more interest than the money going into social security. The Republicans are also against the murder of innocent life. Once again the liberals lie about abortion. Kerry and many other liberals want to have their cake and eat it too. Kerry and his wife's wealth is more than the President and Vice President combined. The Kerry's get their money from a company who has outsourced more jobs than almost any other company in the nation. Also, all of these tax loopholes that Kerry is against has sure served he and his wife well. The Democratic party is not what it used to be. It has been hijacked. Woodrow Wilson and FDR would be republicans if they were alive today. The Democratic party is controled by the intellectual elite. They are controled by billionaires such as George Soros, and Teresa Heinz Kerry. Would it surprise you to know that the majority of the company owners, who are nearly billionaires , in silicon valley are democrats? The republicans want people to be able to fend for themselves and be successful. The liberal democrats want people to be dependant on government. They want people to think that the best they can do is welfare. The reason the liberal democrats want this is to maintain power through ignorance so that they can advance their agenda at all times.
just look at west virginia on this one. democratic rule for the past 70 years and ranked 50th in almost everything. and people still vote the same candidates in election after election.
<><
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#255376 - 10/22/04 11:10 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
100 Club
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 159
|
wow...look at this. The same meaning for both prochoice (listed above) and proabortion: Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: "prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion - pro-abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun Both...favoring the legalization of abortion Now look at the definition of antiabortion Main Entry: an·ti·abor·tion Pronunciation: "an-tE-&-'bor-sh&n, "an-"tI- Function: adjective : opposed to abortion <antiabortion lobbyists> - an·ti·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun See, it is that simple...if you are pro-choice you favor the legalization of abortion which in other words (literally), you are pro-abortion. Pro-life means you do not favor the legalization of abortion so in other words, you are anti-abortion. You can't flip flop, you are either one or the other. Oh, I guess maybe you can flip flop if you are a democrat! 
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255377 - 10/22/04 11:18 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
can't say you are for a womans right to choose and in the next breath say that you are not "pro" abortion
The difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion is not that hard to show:
If a woman has a legal choice but decides to continue the pregnancy, someone that is pro-abortion would be disappointed because she didn't have an abortion, but someone that is pro-choice would be satisfied that she made her own choice.
If someone were to suggest that a woman should be required to have an abortion, someone that is pro-abortion would approve but someone that is pro-choice would be outraged that she was being denied her right to make the decision.
Thank you! That is so very logical one would think it would give all pause.
HOWEVER, prepare for the upcoming spin that will be put on your words. And if they can't spin it, it will be moralized again. And around and around we go...getting further away from the real crux of the issue and arguing about semantics.
I can tell you what infuriates me is to see monies promised to developing nations and free clinic here at home just because the doctor wants to be able to DISCUSS the option of abortion with a pregnant female patient. Thus, denying much needed medical care for a host of other services and illnesses. That is, in my opinion, just wrong.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255378 - 10/22/04 11:57 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
wow...look at this. The same meaning for both prochoice (listed above) and proabortion:
Main Entry: pro·abor·tion
Pronunciation: "prO-&-'bor-sh&n
Function: adjective
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro-abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun
Both...favoring the legalization of abortion
Now look at the definition of antiabortion
Main Entry: an·ti·abor·tion
Pronunciation: "an-tE-&-'bor-sh&n, "an-"tI-
Function: adjective
: opposed to abortion <antiabortion lobbyists>
- an·ti·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun
See, it is that simple...if you are pro-choice you favor the legalization of abortion which in other words (literally), you are pro-abortion. Pro-life means you do not favor the legalization of abortion so in other words, you are anti-abortion.
You can't flip flop, you are either one or the other. Oh, I guess maybe you can flip flop if you are a democrat!
Are you serious? You think it's an actual argument to type out some "definition" that agrees with you?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255379 - 10/23/04 03:27 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
The difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion is not that hard to show: a woman has a legal choice but decides to continue the pregnancy, someone that is pro-abortion would be disappointed because she didn't have an abortion, but someone that is pro-choice would be satisfied that she made her own choice.
If someone were to suggest that a woman should be required to have an abortion, someone that is pro-abortion would approve but someone that is pro-choice would be outraged that she was being denied her right to make the decision.
This is excellent. It is an absolutely perfect example of the policy-wonk, John Kerry-like back-and-forth justification that forces women to adhere to the feminist anti-life, anti-child platform.
Note that nowhere in the writing are the words "life", "fetus" or "unborn" even used.
This is the radical socialist-feminist method of convincing unknowing women that there is no life unless there is an actual birth. The underlying goal is to encourage the thinking of pregnancy as a ho-hum leave-it-or-take-it process.
The nice thing about liberals and socialist-feminists, though, is that if one is fortunate to have been born -- to get through the feminist gateway -- then liberals will fight tooth and nail to make sure you never face capital punishment. And they will at least use fetus embryo instead of disposing it to make sure that there is exhaustive stem-cell research to keep the already-born alive.
If you are alive, be glad that you penetrated the gateway.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255380 - 10/23/04 07:48 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
justification that forces women to adhere
What kind of double talk is this? Leaving the choice entirely up to women "forces them to adhere"? That's like saying "up is down" or "Black is white".
Quote:
Note that nowhere in the writing are the words "life", "fetus" or "unborn" even used.
That's because the argument is about the difference between "choice" and "abortion", so I used those words. I can't help but notice that you have no response to the substance of the argument. If you have some argument that "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" mean the same thing, let's see it.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255381 - 10/24/04 01:07 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
... the argument is about the difference between "choice" and "abortion" ...
Once again, an excellent post by this Anon. This time Anon has hit a home run and has vividly made my earlier point.
Anon discusses the "substance of the argument" and basically says that "the argument is about the difference between choice and abortion".
Anon is unable to understand, or does not want to concede, that the "argument" is actually about whether or not there is viable life -- an unborn fetus. Anon is able to mask the discussion of life by casually reducing the issue of fetus viability to be one of whether a pregnancy poses an inconvenience or not; and is able to mechanically dismiss the issue to be as simple as deciding whether a particular fetus should be expunged, or permitted to go through the gateway.
The good thing, however, is that Anon is out there fighting for embryo stem-cell research for those who are alive, and is fighting hard against dispositions of capital punishment for those egregious felons.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255382 - 10/25/04 04:31 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
... the argument is about the difference between "choice" and "abortion" ...
Once again, an excellent post by this Anon. This time Anon has hit a home run and has vividly made my earlier point.
Anon discusses the "substance of the argument" and basically says that "the argument is about the difference between choice and abortion".
Anon is unable to understand, or does not want to concede, that the "argument" is actually about whether or not there is viable life -- an unborn fetus. Anon is able to mask the discussion of life by casually reducing the issue of fetus viability to be one of whether a pregnancy poses an inconvenience or not; and is able to mechanically dismiss the issue to be as simple as deciding whether a particular fetus should be expunged, or permitted to go through the gateway.
The good thing, however, is that Anon is out there fighting for embryo stem-cell research for those who are alive, and is fighting hard against dispositions of capital punishment for those egregious felons.
Ahhh yes, embrionic stem-cell research, the next thing to save lives and make the paralyzed get out of their wheel chairs and walk. Guess what folks, there has been NO hope found from embrionic stem cells. How much life must be destroyed before we find a "cure" for anything? Meanwhile, adult stem cells have provided hope and a far more likely cure.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255383 - 10/25/04 02:14 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Ahhh yes, embrionic stem-cell research, the next thing to save lives and make the paralyzed get out of their wheel chairs and walk. Guess what folks, there has been NO hope found from embrionic stem cells. How much life must be destroyed before we find a "cure" for anything? Meanwhile, adult stem cells have provided hope and a far more likely cure .
Please cite your references then. That is the exact opposite from what I have read in the medical journals.
What I have been reading is that embryonic cells are the only ones (with perhaps the exception of cells from the placenta) that can be coaxed into virtually ANY type of cell. From liver, to heart to nerve. That adult stem cells to do not seem to have this capability. But this research is still in the VERY early stages. There are no guarantees in life, but who knew that a life saving antibiotic would come from mold?
I just think it is unconscionable for these all these frozen embryos in these fertility clinics that are going to be destroyed anyway to not be used. It is irresponsible.
Now, we could get into an argument whether they should be there is the first place...but that is a different argument. The fact is that they are there, they are being destroyed, and if there is the slimmest chance stem cell research could provide a medical breakthrough in even one of the many diseases it shows promise in, we would be irresponsible not to pursue it.
Yes, there is also some hope from adult stem cells, that is true. But to say MORE hope at this point is neither true or false because WE DON'T KNOW. What we do know already is that embryonic stem cells are able to do things that adult stem cells can, so far, not.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255384 - 10/25/04 04:43 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
What we do know already is that embryonic stem cells are able to do things that adult stem cells can not.
This is good to know. Hopefully there will be more and more abortions providing more and more embryonic research and more and more embryonic cells to be frozen which might one day result in helping someone to walk again.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255385 - 10/25/04 04:53 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Gold Star
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 372
|
If you are pro choice, you are basically stating that you believe that having an abortion is ok. So is it fair to say you are pro abortion? I think it is. If you are pro life, is it fair to say you are anti-abortion? Yup! All this blah blah blah about the right to choose, we are forgetting what we are choosing, the right for a person to live or die. Abortion is not a form of birth control. We are talking about a person, not a fetus. And is this just my opinion, you bet it is, but as a women who lost a 'baby' at 12 weeks, who saw a heart beat at 5 weeks, I did not loose a fetus, I lost my son or daughter. Am I pro life? I'll let you guess.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255386 - 10/25/04 05:00 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Please cite your references then. That is the exact opposite from what I have read in the medical journals.
What I have been reading is that embryonic cells are the only ones (with perhaps the exception of cells from the placenta) that can be coaxed into virtually ANY type of cell. From liver, to heart to nerve. That adult stem cells to do not seem to have this capability. But this research is still in the VERY early stages. There are no guarantees in life, but who knew that a life saving antibiotic would come from mold?
If there is the slimmest chance stem cell research could provide a medical breakthrough in even one of the many diseases it shows promise in, we would be irresponsible not to pursue it.
Yes, there is also some hope from adult stem cells, that is true. But to say MORE hope at this point is neither true or false because WE DON'T KNOW. What we do know already is that embryonic stem cells are able to do things that adult stem cells can, so far, not.
First of all, if you go back to the Boston Globe in 2002, I do not have the date any more, it was found that adult stem cells COULD be coaxed into transforming into muscle, bone, cartilage, bone, liver, and different types of neurons for the brain. The New York Times wrote a similar article and buried it on page A14, while the Washington Post buried the same information on page A8. Why didn't they get front page coverage? Because these liberal papers would much rather promote embrionic stem cell research.
On July 19, 2001, the Harvard University Gazette reported that mice with type 1 diabetes were completely cured using adult stem cells by destroying the cells responsible for the diabetes and replacing them with adult stem cells.
On June 15, 2001 the Globe and Mail reported that Israeli doctors had injected a paraplegic 18 year old girl whos paralysis was caused by a spinal cord injury in an auto accident and after she was injected with her own white blood cells, she regained the ability to move her toes and control her bladder.
In December of 2001, Tissue Engineering, a professional journal reported that researchers were able to rebuild bone using stem cells found in adult fat. This appears to be the beginning of a treatment that could completely cure osteoporosis and other bone degeneration diseases.
Not a single study has proved nearly as successful in using embrionic stem cells to cure ANYTHING. In fact, studies are showing that an adult's stem cells are far less likely to be rejected by the body, AND are successful.
So, tell me, where are YOUR sources for successes in using murdered babies to save someone else? I think it is unconscionable for embryos to be used when there is BARELY a slim chance that they can save anyone. It is unconscionable for all these frozen embryos to exist in the first place. Why should we encourage it to continue by seeking "cures" from them? Even if we DO find a cure using embrionic stem cells, and it could have helped Superman to get up and FLY, or to leap tall buildings in a single bound, run faster than a freight train, it is unconscionable for us to seek a cure that requires us to murder children before they are even born so that one man can walk again. Would you say a 40 year old man should be able to kill his own teenage son if his heart fails and he needs a compatible heart?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255387 - 10/25/04 05:13 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 10,124
Way, way south.
|
Quote:
Quote:
What we do know already is that embryonic stem cells are able to do things that adult stem cells can not.
This is good to know. Hopefully there will be more and more abortions providing more and more embryonic research and more and more embryonic cells to be frozen which might one day result in helping someone to walk again.
With that attitude, it's a shame your mom didn't choose that option.
_________________________
Giddy up.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255388 - 10/25/04 06:11 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
If you are pro choice, you are basically stating that you believe that having an abortion is ok. So is it fair to say you are pro abortion? I think it is. If you are pro life, is it fair to say you are anti-abortion? Yup! All this blah blah blah about the right to choose, we are forgetting what we are choosing, the right for a person to live or die. Abortion is not a form of birth control. We are talking about a person, not a fetus. And is this just my opinion, you bet it is, but as a women who lost a 'baby' at 12 weeks, who saw a heart beat at 5 weeks, I did not loose a fetus, I lost my son or daughter. Am I pro life? I'll let you guess.
This is ultimately why George W. Bush will win re-election on November 2. The vast majority of women are not out there clamoring for the "right" to "choose" to expunge life.
So many of the socialist-feminists think that a huge majority of women are out there wanting to "choose". The fact is that most of the women fighting for "choice" are never going to have children, are not involved with a male and are involved in a relationship with another female, or are just anti-family, anti-children and anti-man.
If a woman needed an abortion to save her life or because of an extenuating medical condition, nobody is going to ever fault her for that. But to think that everyone is clamoring over making sure that women have the "right" to "choose" whether to permit a life to go forward is nonsense.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255389 - 10/25/04 06:19 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What we do know already is that embryonic stem cells are able to do things that adult stem cells can not.
This is good to know. Hopefully there will be more and more abortions providing more and more embryonic research and more and more embryonic cells to be frozen which might one day result in helping someone to walk again.
With that attitude, it's a shame your mom didn't choose that option.
Mark,
This was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Obviously I wasn't seriously thinking that an equal tradeoff is to destroy an unborn life.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255390 - 10/25/04 06:26 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 10,124
Way, way south.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What we do know already is that embryonic stem cells are able to do things that adult stem cells can not.
This is good to know. Hopefully there will be more and more abortions providing more and more embryonic research and more and more embryonic cells to be frozen which might one day result in helping someone to walk again.
With that attitude, it's a shame your mom didn't choose that option.
Mark,
This was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Obviously I wasn't seriously thinking that an equal tradeoff is to destroy an unborn life.
Whew, OK, I was wondering how someone could be that callous. Didn't get the joke. Cheers.
_________________________
Giddy up.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255391 - 10/25/04 06:31 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What we do know already is that embryonic stem cells are able to do things that adult stem cells can not.
This is good to know. Hopefully there will be more and more abortions providing more and more embryonic research and more and more embryonic cells to be frozen which might one day result in helping someone to walk again.
*****************************************************************************************
Mark,
This was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Obviously I wasn't seriously thinking that an equal tradeoff is to destroy an unborn life.
This is why Anon is not the way to go...you can't edit. This is something I'd want to apologize for and edit if I'd said it. You might contact the moderator and ask him/her to edit for you. Gotta go.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255392 - 10/25/04 07:04 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
So many of the socialist-feminists think that a huge majority of women are out there wanting to "choose". The fact is that most of the women fighting for "choice" are never going to have children, are not involved with a male and are involved in a relationship with another female, or are just anti-family, anti-children and anti-man.
If a woman needed an abortion to save her life or because of an extenuating medical condition, nobody is going to ever fault her for that. But to think that everyone is clamoring over making sure that women have the "right" to "choose" whether to permit a life to go forward is nonsense.
First of all, could you give me your referances of your information? I looked and couldn't find the web-site that said only gay, anti-social women are pro-choice.
Second, Before you can "choose" when a woman can have an abortion (Ie. health risks or rape), you have to give the woman her right to choose if abortions are ok for them. You can't just say, "It's too bad that your 12 year daughter got raped and she's pregnant. I sure hope that she meets the qualifications to have an abortion."
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255393 - 10/25/04 07:24 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
I looked up this thread to post a story about Kerry that was in the Palm Beach Post today. Kerry was speaking about his faith, and made it clear that his personal regligous beliefs will guide his administration's policy. I guess all the liberals that were horrified about this earlier when it was Bush who was doing this will also now not vote for Kerry. (Because I am sure they're all intellectually honest.) Anyway, here's the upshot: Quote:
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry presented himself Sunday as a man of strong values rooted in a Christian faith that he promised would guide his decision-making in the Oval Office.
.
In a speech to supporters at a concert hall, Kerry espoused "a vision of the common good, where individual rights and freedoms are connected to our responsibility to others," especially those who are denied opportunities or are unable to fend for themselves.
By the way, how would these liberals have reacted if Bush was making repeated campaign speeches at Southern Baptist churches? But the fact that Mr. Kerry is appearing at churches is no big deal...
Finally (indulge me, please), I am so disappointed that none of the liberals on this thread bothered to attempt a response to my post about Stephen Douglas being "pro-choice" on the slavery issue. I guess there just is no reasonable way to defend Mr. Kerry's comment in this light.
My other post that I thought was pretty good also didn't get any response - the made up scripture reference where Christ commands us to vote for "compassionate" big government programs to help the poor. C'mon! That was funny, wasn't it?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255394 - 10/25/04 08:47 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
First of all, could you give me your referances of your information? I looked and couldn't find the web-site that said only gay, anti-social women are pro-choice.
Second, Before you can "choose" when a woman can have an abortion (Ie. health risks or rape), you have to give the woman her right to choose if abortions are ok for them. You can't just say, "It's too bad that your 12 year daughter got raped and she's pregnant. I sure hope that she meets the qualifications to have an abortion."
The vast profile of pro-abortion "activists" are women who are over age 35, and a great number of the women are post-menopausal -- meaning they are not the majority of child-rearing women. The child-rearing women who are pro-abortion are generally college-aged 18-22. After college and up to the age of 35, women during the prime child-rearing years are not fighting for choice.
Parenthetically, nowhere did I use the term "anti-social" to describe any group of women; "anti-social" is your term.
Please share with us your profile and your position. Are you a mother? A hetersexual?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255395 - 10/26/04 12:47 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Quote:
So many of the socialist-feminists think that a huge majority of women are out there wanting to "choose". The fact is that most of the women fighting for "choice" are never going to have children, are not involved with a male and are involved in a relationship with another female, or are just anti-family, anti-children and anti-man.
While this isn't specifically saying "anti-social", it's implied pretty clearly. You're not describing someone I'd like to spend time with.
Quote:
Please share with us your profile and your position. Are you a mother? A hetersexual?
You're anon as well as the person you're agruing with. I'm curious, share your profile with us? Are you a bible thumper? Joan Cleaver? Homophope? Perhaps even...dare I guess correctly...an idiot?
I've been pro-choice my entire life. I didn't choose this when I became 40, or change my mind back and forth from 16 to 35. I am an educated woman who believes that people like you shouldn't decide the outcome of other women's lifes. I also hope never to hear of a poor young woman who bleeds to death or is permanently disfigured by a coat hanger abortion. I believe that it is not a responsible course to use abortion as birth control. I also know that whatever the law, abortions will happen. They happened in the 30's, 40's, 50's etc and would continue now if the laws changed. They'd just go back to the seedy streets where they were before they were legal.
Pro-choice women aren't looking at pregnant women and hoping they abort. The pro-choice women I know are professional mothers, home makers, college educated women. They are not homosexual, ugly old, child hating women.
I love children. I know the joy and the heartbreak of wanting children. I also know that bearing a child isn't right for every woman, and I feel those women need to be given a choice, a fair and safe choice.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255396 - 10/26/04 12:57 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
What we do know already is that embryonic stem cells are able to do things that adult stem cells can not.
This is good to know. Hopefully there will be more and more abortions providing more and more embryonic research and more and more embryonic cells to be frozen which might one day result in helping someone to walk again.
HELLO, were you out the day they had reading 101?
I NEVER said anything about abortions or embryos obtained from abortion. I am only referring to the ones that sit frozen, slated to be destroyed, in fertility clinics around the country.
Obviously you know exactly what I meant and you are being a donkey's backside...which is fine, this IS American. But I would have appreciated a straight answer or response to the issue I brought up (and I tried very carefully not to be crass or to offend...an effort you obviously did not even attempt to make).
Thanks for your thoughts, I'm sure everyone appreciated your sarcasm and sharp wit... 
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255397 - 10/26/04 01:11 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Please cite your references then. That is the exact opposite from what I have read in the medical journals.
What I have been reading is that embryonic cells are the only ones (with perhaps the exception of cells from the placenta) that can be coaxed into virtually ANY type of cell. From liver, to heart to nerve. That adult stem cells to do not seem to have this capability. But this research is still in the VERY early stages. There are no guarantees in life, but who knew that a life saving antibiotic would come from mold?
If there is the slimmest chance stem cell research could provide a medical breakthrough in even one of the many diseases it shows promise in, we would be irresponsible not to pursue it.
Yes, there is also some hope from adult stem cells, that is true. But to say MORE hope at this point is neither true or false because WE DON'T KNOW. What we do know already is that embryonic stem cells are able to do things that adult stem cells can, so far, not.
First of all, if you go back to the Boston Globe in 2002, I do not have the date any more, it was found that adult stem cells COULD be coaxed into transforming into muscle, bone, cartilage, bone, liver, and different types of neurons for the brain. The New York Times wrote a similar article and buried it on page A14, while the Washington Post buried the same information on page A8. Why didn't they get front page coverage? Because these liberal papers would much rather promote embryonic stem cell research.
On July 19, 2001, the Harvard University Gazette reported that mice with type 1 diabetes were completely cured using adult stem cells by destroying the cells responsible for the diabetes and replacing them with adult stem cells.
On June 15, 2001 the Globe and Mail reported that Israeli doctors had injected a paraplegic 18 year old girl who’s paralysis was caused by a spinal cord injury in an auto accident and after she was injected with her own white blood cells, she regained the ability to move her toes and control her bladder.
In December of 2001, Tissue Engineering, a professional journal reported that researchers were able to rebuild bone using stem cells found in adult fat. This appears to be the beginning of a treatment that could completely cure osteoporosis and other bone degeneration diseases.
Not a single study has proved nearly as successful in using embryonic stem cells to cure ANYTHING. In fact, studies are showing that an adult's stem cells are far less likely to be rejected by the body, AND are successful.
So, tell me, where are YOUR sources for successes in using murdered babies to save someone else? I think it is unconscionable for embryos to be used when there is BARELY a slim chance that they can save anyone. It is unconscionable for all these frozen embryos to exist in the first place. Why should we encourage it to continue by seeking "cures" from them? Even if we DO find a cure using embryonic stem cells, and it could have helped Superman to get up and FLY, or to leap tall buildings in a single bound, run faster than a freight train, it is unconscionable for us to seek a cure that requires us to murder children before they are even born so that one man can walk again. Would you say a 40 year old man should be able to kill his own teenage son if his heart fails and he needs a compatible heart?
Michael, I respect your view, I do. But to say "Not a single study has proved nearly as successful in using embryonic stem cells to cure ANYTHING" is not useful to this discussion. Are you sure, have you been looking for anything that would contradict your view? Betcha not nearly as hard as you look for studies that might support it. That's only human. But it is hard to prove a negative. And we surely cannot know what MAY be discovered.
Yes, amazing things are also being discovered using adult stem cells. Yes, if you could grow me a new liver with my own cells, that would be great and there would be almost no chance of rejection.
I read stuff all the time about the possibilities of stem cell research, both adult and embryonic. But I don't study and save and file the stuff in some type of arsenal for future discussion. I also noticed the most recent article you quoted was from 2002. In modern medicine, that's a long time ago....
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255398 - 10/26/04 03:13 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Are you a bible thumper? Joan Cleaver? Homophope? Perhaps even...dare I guess correctly...an idiot?
I think it was clear that the reference to socialist-feminist was related to the extreme very active proponents of "choice", which after all was the essence of the discussion at the earlier part of the thread. Nevertheless, in your case I would make an exception and add you to the profile. Liberal, emotional, prone to attack, and -- though I don't want to get personal -- I'm guessing without children. You are pro-abortion and that's your right. This is the liberal irony: a CRA officer, who is ostensibly concerned for the well-being of low- and moderate-income citizens, does not have the same concern for the well-being for the unborn. You are correct: I am a bible-thumping "homophope".
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255399 - 10/26/04 03:38 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Are you a bible thumper? Joan Cleaver? Homophope? Perhaps even...dare I guess correctly...an idiot?
I think it was clear that the reference to socialist-feminist was related to the extreme very active proponents of "choice", which after all was the essence of the discussion at the earlier part of the thread. Nevertheless, in your case I would make an exception and add you to the profile. Liberal, emotional, prone to attack, and -- though I don't want to get personal -- I'm guessing without children. You are pro-abortion and that's your right. This is the liberal irony: a CRA officer, who is ostensibly concerned for the well-being of low- and moderate-income citizens, does not have the same concern for the well-being for the unborn. You are correct: I am a bible-thumping "homophope".
Yes, CRA is written and interpreted toward community, low-mod geographies and families in particular. By doing your job you are making sure the bank is in compliance with CRA, that the low-mod BORN folks are not discriminated against and are given equal opportunity and access to credit and bank services. Please tell me how this enters into the abortion debate?
I have never had to make a "choice" but I am a responsible person. I do not believe abortion should be used as birth control or as convenience. But I am a realist and abortion will take place, legal or otherwise. I would rather it be in a doctor's office than a back alley.
You want to talk about CRA and low-mod income women? Make abortion illegal and you know what? You are effectively denying it to low-mod income women. Those that can afford it will go elsewhere. Either here or abroad, the wealthy will get the safe procedure they desire, legal or not. It is the poor that will be denied access and treatment.
So, in addition to preaching abstinence in our schools, teach sex ed as well. You tell your child not to play with matches and hope they don't, but do you hide the fire extinguisher? Of course not, you make sure they know where it is and how to use it. Quit thinking 100% of our kids won't have sex if we just keep telling them not to. Open your eyes and promote abstinence, but also educate them about safe, protected sex as well. THAT will cut down on the number of abortions.
You know, I am not sure who's job it is to make all these decisions. I would like to think, as a woman that it is mine. Certainly, the father if he cares should be involved, as well as the doctor and MY God. Yep, I am not sure exactly who should make the final call, but I am 100% sure it should NOT be the government.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255401 - 10/26/04 02:00 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Gold Star
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 372
|
Sorry Dawnie, but I too took offense to the 'bible thumping' comment. Just because I am pro life and a christian I do not consider myself a 'bible thumper'. I don't want to force anything down anyone's throat, just have a civil discussion. We all have the God given right to feel the way we do, express our views, disagree with one another..and I disagree with you and anyone who is pro choice and you have the right to disagree with me. I have several friends who choose abortion over life, for reasons that are to personal to discuss here, I mourned for them, cried with some of them, and prayed for all of them. Do I want the government telling me what to do? Not really, but when abortion is used a birth control, when life is flushed down the 'john' because it is too inconvient, someone needs to step in and say whoa..often times, and here me..not always, but often times the woman has made her decision when she has unprotected sex and ends up saying, oh well, I can always just get an abortion. We need to teach the young folks how to protect themselves, how to use birth controla nd condoms, but also how to abstain. And obviously I am not referring to women only here. I think this is a very touchy subject with strong views on both sides that no amount of arguing is going to change! Just because we are on different sides of the fence here does not mean we cannot remain cyber 'friends'
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255402 - 10/26/04 02:06 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Michael, I respect your view, I do. But to say "Not a single study has proved nearly as successful in using embryonic stem cells to cure ANYTHING" is not useful to this discussion. Are you sure, have you been looking for anything that would contradict your view? Betcha not nearly as hard as you look for studies that might support it. That's only human. But it is hard to prove a negative. And we surely cannot know what MAY be discovered.
Yes, amazing things are also being discovered using adult stem cells. Yes, if you could grow me a new liver with my own cells, that would be great and there would be almost no chance of rejection.
I read stuff all the time about the possibilities of stem cell research, both adult and embryonic. But I don't study and save and file the stuff in some type of arsenal for future discussion. I also noticed the most recent article you quoted was from 2002. In modern medicine, that's a long time ago....
Can you find ANY successes since 2002? No. The reason the most recent articles are from 2002 regarding success is because stem cell research isn't even the scientific area that provides the most hope, and it isn't getting studied.
Can't prove a negative? No, but I can prove that said negative IS immoral based on it's assumptions. EVEN IF embryonic stem cells could cure Parkinsons, Lou Gherigs, Muscular Dystrophy, Aids, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Cancer, Psoriasis, Arthritis, Allergies, the Common Cold, and Depression, it would STILL be a path not worth researching because in order to improve one persons life you must SLAY another. Getting embryonic stem cells requires a murder.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255403 - 10/26/04 03:37 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Michael, I respect your view, I do. But to say "Not a single study has proved nearly as successful in using embryonic stem cells to cure ANYTHING" is not useful to this discussion. Are you sure, have you been looking for anything that would contradict your view? Betcha not nearly as hard as you look for studies that might support it. That's only human. But it is hard to prove a negative. And we surely cannot know what MAY be discovered.
Yes, amazing things are also being discovered using adult stem cells. Yes, if you could grow me a new liver with my own cells, that would be great and there would be almost no chance of rejection.
I read stuff all the time about the possibilities of stem cell research, both adult and embryonic. But I don't study and save and file the stuff in some type of arsenal for future discussion. I also noticed the most recent article you quoted was from 2002. In modern medicine, that's a long time ago....
Can you find ANY successes since 2002? No. The reason the most recent articles are from 2002 regarding success is because stem cell research isn't even the scientific area that provides the most hope, and it isn't getting studied.
Can't prove a negative? No, but I can prove that said negative IS immoral based on it's assumptions. EVEN IF embryonic stem cells could cure Parkinsons, Lou Gherigs, Muscular Dystrophy, Aids, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Cancer, Psoriasis, Arthritis, Allergies, the Common Cold, and Depression, it would STILL be a path not worth researching because in order to improve one persons life you must SLAY another. Getting embryonic stem cells requires a murder.
Hmmmm, 2002, that was right after Bush decided not to fund stem cell research on new cell lines with federal funds. I wonder if there is a correlation between the two?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255404 - 10/26/04 04:05 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Michael, I respect your view, I do. But to say "Not a single study has proved nearly as successful in using embryonic stem cells to cure ANYTHING" is not useful to this discussion. Are you sure, have you been looking for anything that would contradict your view? Betcha not nearly as hard as you look for studies that might support it. That's only human. But it is hard to prove a negative. And we surely cannot know what MAY be discovered.
Yes, amazing things are also being discovered using adult stem cells. Yes, if you could grow me a new liver with my own cells, that would be great and there would be almost no chance of rejection.
I read stuff all the time about the possibilities of stem cell research, both adult and embryonic. But I don't study and save and file the stuff in some type of arsenal for future discussion. I also noticed the most recent article you quoted was from 2002. In modern medicine, that's a long time ago....
Can you find ANY successes since 2002? No. The reason the most recent articles are from 2002 regarding success is because stem cell research isn't even the scientific area that provides the most hope, and it isn't getting studied.
Can't prove a negative? No, but I can prove that said negative IS immoral based on it's assumptions. EVEN IF embryonic stem cells could cure Parkinsons, Lou Gherigs, Muscular Dystrophy, Aids, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Cancer, Psoriasis, Arthritis, Allergies, the Common Cold, and Depression, it would STILL be a path not worth researching because in order to improve one persons life you must SLAY another. Getting embryonic stem cells requires a murder.
Hmmmm, 2002, that was right after Bush decided not to fund stem cell research on new cell lines with federal funds. I wonder if there is a correlation between the two?
Why SHOULD he be funding even the lines still open? You know government isn't OBLIGATED to support scientific research that leads to an end that is irresponsible and immoral. Should he fund research to see if using the brains of black latino females we can find a hope for a possible cure for acne?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255406 - 10/27/04 06:07 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Z and Blvs, I was responding to one Anon poster who suggested that any woman who could support a woman's right to chose was a social pariah, old, ugly and most likely gay. A popular statement by the most extreme evangelicals out there. I was not saying that anyone with religious beliefs should be called a bible thumper. I asked around today and the general consensus was that the term "bible thumper" is appropriate for those with extreme views, which they feel the need to force down your throat with the bible. Neither of you would remotely fit into that category, but read up on the Anon making these statements, they easily do. I completely respect your view on abortion, while I do disagree with it. Heck my sister and I have stood on opposite sides of the street either protesting, or supporting a clinic's rights to perform abortions for women in need. My sister is highly religious, but again, she has never attempted to force her views down my throat with her bible. So forgive me please if you took the comment that way? I was speaking of the Anon who'd gone over the top, and not of your beliefs, which are argued with sense, and not ridiculous statements about the women who support choice. Joan is June’s sister Z (ok I got the name wrong) She’s also Mary Ann’s cousin, and Gingers twin. 
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255407 - 10/27/04 06:11 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
OH Crayon Girl Thanks for stepping in on the rediculous CRA comment You covered it marvelously. The poor women of our country will be the women who seek coat hanger abortions if abortion is against the law. Also, the teens of the wealthy who are too scared to tell their parents of their delima will suffer. Do you want your daughters to be unable to bear children because they make a stupid mistake? And how about that baby carried by a crack addict who can't and won't give up the drug? Have you ever held one of these children? They suffer, they suffer greatly, then they die. Do you feel they have a better life being born or not beginning life at all?
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255408 - 10/27/04 06:27 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
OH Crayon Girl Thanks for stepping in on the rediculous CRA comment You covered it marvelously.
The poor women of our country will be the women who seek coat hanger abortions if abortion is against the law. Also, the teens of the wealthy who are too scared to tell their parents of their delima will suffer. Do you want your daughters to be unable to bear children because they make a stupid mistake? And how about that baby carried by a crack addict who can't and won't give up the drug? Have you ever held one of these children? They suffer, they suffer greatly, then they die. Do you feel they have a better life being born or not beginning life at all?
John Kerry has said that they have already begun their life. That is what is at issue in this thread.
If John Kerry follows your logic, the parent of a child aged three years, diagnosed with CF, should be allowed to terminate.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255409 - 10/27/04 06:27 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
The poor women of our country will be the women who seek coat hanger abortions if abortion is against the law.
Oh, so it is better for a poor woman to murder a child than it is to make coat hanger abortions illegal? This is a scare tactic, and is not the truth. There are plenty of other options than a coat hanger abortion for a poor woman who gets pregnant if abortion is illegal. Many wealthy people will actually PAY these poor destitute women you seek to save MONEY to have the child rather than kill it.
Quote:
Also, the teens of the wealthy who are too scared to tell their parents of their delima will suffer. Do you want your daughters to be unable to bear children because they make a stupid mistake?
I see, so children who aren't adult enough to drive, vote, or drink should be considered old enough to kill an unborn child WITHOUT TELLING THEIR PARENTS because they made a mistake? Senseless response. No child should be allowed to make such a life changing decision without advising their parents. How many children who take the easy way out end up regretting it the rest of their lives, having nightmares, and end up emotional basketcases because they were simply afraid to talk to their parents? Taking parents out of the equation is the travesty of morality, not asking a child to discuss life changing decisions with their parents.
Quote:
And how about that baby carried by a crack addict who can't and won't give up the drug? Have you ever held one of these children? They suffer, they suffer greatly, then they die. Do you feel they have a better life being born or not beginning life at all?
That isn't OUR decision. What about the ones who DO survice? I can only assume that you also feel that children with down's syndrome, heart defects, etc. should be killed when they are born too. I'll have you know that the two children I adopted where children of a crack addict. Because she had the children she finally went into a rehab program and is seeking to change her life. Can't or Won't stop? She couldn't and wouldn't stop until the doctor showed her the life growing inside her, and then made the decision to seek professionals who could help her. She COULD and DID stop, as every one of these mothers can do if they seek help.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255410 - 10/27/04 06:42 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Michael I wish I lived in your perfect world. A world where the rich fund a poor woman's abortion, all she has to do is ask. A world where stupid young girls talk to their parents, and the parents of the stupid girl teach morals and guide the girl with ease. Oh and my favorite a world where all drug addicted pregnant women give up the drugs for the life of their child.
Michael, I really do with this were reality, but unfortunately it is not. I've heard of ONE charitable entity that raises money to support pregnant women in their choice to either carry the child or pay for abortion. It is funded by several investors, but reaches only a few dozen women a year. They also pay women NOT to get pregnant until they straighten out their lifes. It's a nice concept, but they help a dozen women a year Michael. The other millions...they find no help.
I know you are a very involved father. You are also very judgemental about those who make mistakes. Are you quite sure that your daughter would come to you Michael, knowing how strongly you feel about mistakes? Did you not once call me a whore and a tramp because I am in a relationship but not married? If you'd call a stranger this, how would you react if you found your daughter was pregnant out of wedlock? She sees or will see as she grows, how strong your beliefs are. She might be afraid to come to you, and might seek out a stupid choice. One hopes this would never happen, but children are afraid of their parents Michael. It's often an unreasonable fear, but we don't like to "fail" in our parents eyes, and because of this we make mistakes.
Then there are the parents who aren't that interested in their childrens lifes. Where do these kids go Michael?
You assume incorrectly if you read that I feel all children with disability should be killed. An unreasonable thought to say the least. I'm very happy that the women who bore your children made good choices Michael, but she is not in the majority. My nephew was born with fetal alcohol symdrom. He's a lovely child, but his life will always be challenged by what his mother did to him. Do I wish he were dead? Of course not. But he has a chance Michael, which many of these babies don't have.
We can't argue this intelligently because you and I have a fundamental issue that won't allow this to be discussed with reason. I do not believe that when a woman becomes pregnant, those cells are instantly a child. It takes months to form a baby from those cells, in my and many scientists opinions. You belive from the moment of conception that this group of cells is a child. I'm not arguing this with you, I'm just saying that a conversation about choice can't happen when you see murder, and I see medical choice.
I hope your world becomes reality some day Michael. I really do, but it's not there yet, and most likely won't be for many years.
My great aunt came from a loving family. She was raped and pregnant at the age of 13. She had a coat hanger abortion WAY WAY back in the days of abortion being illeagle. I know the pain she suffered at nearly dying from the operation, and then never being able to bear a child. Coat Hanger abortions are not a fright tactic Michael. They're real, and not far off if we don't allow choice.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255411 - 10/27/04 09:55 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I was responding to one Anon poster who suggested that any woman who could support a woman's right to chose was a social pariah, old, ugly and most likely gay.
Quote:
extreme evangelicals...bible thumper. I asked around today and the general consensus was that the term "bible thumper" is appropriate...
Quote:
I was speaking of the Anon who'd gone over the top...
Quote:
The poor women of the country will be the women who seek coat hanger abortions. Also, the teens of the wealthy who are too scared to tell their parents of their delima (dilemma) will suffer.
And how about the baby carried by a crack addict who can't and won't give up the drug.
It is embarassing that a moderator continually finds herself having to back-peddle and defending her outbursts. Saying that you "asked around" and determined that the "concensus" was that the use of the term "bible thumper" was appropriate is not believable. The more you talk, the more credibility is washed away.
This is not a single incident; it is a pattern of outbursts followed by inappropriate comments and, in several cases, resulting in entire threads becoming shut down. First, nobody has used the terms "old, pariah, ugly"; those are your words. There are no "evangelicals" here; just people who have a right to express views, but who have never forced those views upon you. Most wealthy teens who are under age 18 would be in states where their parents would be compelled by law to be notified, so the parents would ultimately be in a position to support and work with the teen. And though none of us like crack addicts, particularly those addicts who might get pregnant while being addicted, in America we can't compell the addict to obtain an abortion if she refuses.
The emotional outbursts -- bible thumper, homophope (might that be homophobe?), idiot, extreme evangelicals -- are part of a consistent pattern that clearly demonstrates that the over-the-top behavior you speak of is really being exhibited by you.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255412 - 10/27/04 10:24 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Thank you for your comments Ray. By asked around, since Z and Blvs mentioned they though I was referring to their religious stand, I chatted with a couple of people here in my office to see if they see the term as I would. There was not a large survey done (we're a small group) but I was curious how they would read it.
There are some very evangelical folks that post here in the forum. Most anon. The balance don't have trouble putting their name on their views.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255413 - 10/28/04 01:58 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Thank you for your comments Ray. By asked around, since Z and Blvs mentioned they though I was referring to their religious stand, I chatted with a couple of people here in my office to see if they see the term as I would. There was not a large survey done (we're a small group) but I was curious how they would read it.
There are some very evangelical folks that post here in the forum. Most anon. The balance don't have trouble putting their name on their views.
Dawnie, it's the liberals who post anon most of the time, most of the evangelicals and conservative Christians use their names every time.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index