Ah well.
I'm either abstaining or voting for [Kerry] anywys, depends on what my stomach can take on the 4th. =p
AND (same thread)
Har Marb..
I'm totally undecided atm.
Oct. 15, 2004
And, tbh, you did invite a post from me, since I'm undecided.
Oct. 26, 2004
Quote me once that I said I supported Bush.
Nov. 2, 2004
Bush / WV
Can't vote for someone that is pro-death(choice) with a clear conscience.
So, Mr. "undecided" did you:
1. Just today discover that Kerry was pro-choice
2. Just today come to the moral revelation that abortion is wrong
3. Just lying all this time about being "undecided" in an attempt to lend false credibility to your pro-Bush posts.
Mind you, I am not at all suprised, since you are a bible thumper and are on record in support of the end of the world, but I am currious why you bothered with the pretense for so long.
Are you really that stupid? I am not calling him out for "voting his conscience," moron. I am calling him out for pretending to be undecided all this time when if it is really true that he "[c]an't vote for someone that is pro-death(choice) with a clear conscience" then he was being dishonest this whole time be implying he might vote for Kerry.
I don't agree that it's wrong to question someone's decision. Akaran is free to not respond to this post, so the calling out thing is somewhat moot. The fact that Akaran voted is excellent, and if he voted what he felt was right he should be proud of himself; I cannot fault him at all.
I am somewhat disappointed in Akaran's reasoning. This is not meant as a slam on you Akaran, but more a point of contention: I don't see how killing babies in the US is any different from killing babies in Iraq, but that's just me.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
So he was undecided and was leaning against voting for either until today...and it is wrong for him to vote when his conscience tells him to support someone that is against abortion...which he happens to believe as well?
All I ever see from you is hate towards anyone that has any moral fiber at all. It is the lack of morals that has started this country on a downward spiral...and if they could eliminate asshats like you, the country would be stronger for it.
Aaeamdar wrote:"[c]an't vote for someone that is pro-death(choice) with a clear conscience" then he was being dishonest this whole time be implying he might vote for Kerry.
Did it hurt your feelings that he "lied"
Seriously though, why care who he voted for or his reasons? Obviously we all don't agree with everyone else's reasons which is why we have such wonderful debates on this board...
I just don't understand why you would question him or care.
Actually Dar, I've been giving it serious thought for the last couple months and yes, up to sometime yesterday, I was very undecided and have been leaning towards Kerry.
Then, as luck would have it, I talked to a friend of mine last night durring a halloween celebration at my local mall, a friend who is voting for Kerry soley based on the fact that he is pro abortion. Quote, "Look around at all these kids, you can tell that some of them needed to be aborted." That thought made me think, and more or elss was the deciding factor for my vote. It was, in essence, the feather that tipped the scales. Would I have voted for Kerry if he was pro-life? Yes, I would have. Would I have voted for Bush if he was pro-choice? Absolutely not. Hell, if he hadn't said that I may well still have gone ahead and voted for Kerry based on the fact that I could, MAYBE, find solice in the fact that he would / would not do some of the things that Bush is doing that I find repulsive. Which values more? War, taxes, death, children? How many of type a does it take to counteract type b?
There are no good choices for me in this election. Are you capable of understanding that? NONE. Bush is a fucking fool. Rummer, Ashcroft, Cheny are corrupt beyond all end. Kerry is plans, plans, plans, some of them I'm for and some of them I'm against and some of them I just don't think he has the capacity to pull off.
So, I'm very fucking sorry if you think I've been lieing, because I haven't. You can talk to Thess, you are welcome to talk to my fiancee if you can track her down, and you can bite my pasty white ass. However, because of both your unending hatred towards all things Christian and your personal dislike of me, I know you're not going to be able to accept that fact.
Let me give you an idea of how little this election has meant for me this year: The only reason I voted for ANY candiates was because my marketing professor offered some bonus points if we could prove we voted. I heavily dislike both contenders for the throne, but I am pretty sure I said in an earlier post today that inaction is the same thing as voicing support for what you don't like. I don't like abortion. Period. I don't expect Bush to do anything to stop it, but I'm not going to vote for someone that is already for it.
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
Who the fuck is talking about abortion. He said 'pro-death'. Abortion doesn't mean pro-death, it means terminating a pregnancy for whatever reason.
I love you fucking morally just assholes who've never been in a situation where you had to truly consider abortion passing down your judgement on others. Ironic that most of the people passing that judgement also claim to be Christians.
Feel free to open up the abortion discussion at your own risk.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
I beleive I sent you a PM a few minutes ago about that Lynks.
In abortion, the babies neither have a choice or have done anything to anyone to warrant being executed.
In a death penalty case, the person still does not have a choice in the matter, but can protest it, and has done something worthy of being served with it (in the eyes of the law).
Even in a rigged court of law, the person found guilty of something deserving the death penalty has more say in it than an unborn child.
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
Akaran_D wrote:I beleive I sent you a PM a few minutes ago about that Lynks.
In abortion, the babies neither have a choice or have done anything to anyone to warrant being executed.
In a death penalty case, the person still does not have a choice in the matter, but can protest it, and has done something worthy of being served with it (in the eyes of the law).
Even in a rigged court of law, the person found guilty of something deserving the death penalty has more say in it than an unborn child.
And I will respond to you here. Its still taking a life away. Granted, you got me on the whole "having a say in it" issue, but the fact still remains that the end result is still the same.
PS. Im pro-choice / pro-death penalty.
Edit: And I'll add that even though I am pro-choice, I have no respect for people that do it for no valid reasons, but its still their choice.
Last edited by Lynks on November 2, 2004, 5:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Akaran_D wrote:
Then, as luck would have it, I talked to a friend of mine last night durring a halloween celebration at my local mall, a friend who is voting for Kerry soley based on the fact that he is pro abortion.
it's pro-choice. noone forces you to have an abortion under the current law.
Akaran_D wrote:I beleive I sent you a PM a few minutes ago about that Lynks.
In abortion, the babies neither have a choice or have done anything to anyone to warrant being executed.
In a death penalty case, the person still does not have a choice in the matter, but can protest it, and has done something worthy of being served with it (in the eyes of the law).
Even in a rigged court of law, the person found guilty of something deserving the death penalty has more say in it than an unborn child.
Since you have raised this issue, I would like you to address a few hypothetical scenarios.
A gifted young woman from a poor neighbourhood is going to graduate from high school in 3 months and has a scholarship to a good university. She is brutally raped by several men and finds herself pregnant. In the absence of legal abortion, what are you proposing that this girl do? What about her future? What burden will that baby bring?
A nice young couple, recently married, is struggling to make a place for themselves in the world. They decide to have children and get themselves pregnant. A few months in to the pregnancy they discover that the baby is horribly deformed and will not survive more than a few month after birth if it is born alive. The several hundred thousand dollars in medical expenses are beyond what they could possibly bear. What should that couple do in your world?
I can understand that you would not want to have an abortion (read: you wouldn't want your significant other to have one), but why do you believe that your personal feelings should be forced upon women you don't know who have circumstances that you couldn't possibly understand?
I wasn't aware that the majority of abortions were because someone was raped or will give birth to a deformed and/or terminally ill child.
Abortion is used as a convenience for people not responsible enough to NOT get pregnant. If it were used solely for the reasons you stated, IMO then, more people would be for it.
I'm pro-life solely for the fact that too many women use it as "birth control". The circumstances you stated I believe should allow a woman to choose.
Mawafu wrote:I wasn't aware that the majority of abortions were because someone was raped or will give birth to a deformed and/or terminally ill child.
Abortion is used as a convenience for people not responsible enough to NOT get pregnant. If it were used solely for the reasons you stated, IMO then, more people would be for it.
I'm pro-life solely for the fact that too many women use it as "birth control". The circumstances you stated I believe should allow a woman to choose.
Look, shit happens. Condoms break, birth control pills don't work for whatever reason. This is a moral issue, and not a legislative one. If you don't agree with abortion, fine, I respect that. But if you want to impinge on freedom because of that I can not.
-=Lohrno
Last edited by Lohrno on November 2, 2004, 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mawafu wrote:I wasn't aware that the majority of abortions were because someone was raped or will give birth to a deformed and/or terminally ill child.
Abortion is used as a convenience for people not responsible enough to NOT get pregnant. If it were used solely for the reasons you stated, IMO then, more people would be for it.
I'm pro-life solely for the fact that too many women use it as "birth control". The circumstances you stated I believe should allow a woman to choose.
So you are willing to ban it even though the minority that truely do need it for justified reasons will not be able to have it anymore.
Just another example of people imposing their beliefs on others.
Mawafu wrote:I wasn't aware that the majority of abortions were because someone was raped or will give birth to a deformed and/or terminally ill child.
Abortion is used as a convenience for people not responsible enough to NOT get pregnant. If it were used solely for the reasons you stated, IMO then, more people would be for it.
I'm pro-life solely for the fact that too many women use it as "birth control". The circumstances you stated I believe should allow a woman to choose.
Im definitely for abortion, but i agree with you that it should NOT be used a a birth control method.
The problem in that more lies in the sex education and information than anything else. You got loads of religious groups lobbying for dropping sex education totally, and the sex ed you actually get are quite horrible, looked at with danish eyes.
My cousin lived a few years in St. Louis and went to some college and a year of university there. And what shes been telling me form there are horrible.
You got a university with added child care center (which are a great idea), when when half the mothers got the kids due to them knowing next to nothing about human sexuality and pragnancies, its horrible.
Im not saying that everyone should go fuck their brains out with random partners every weekend, but for gods sake, TEACH the kids the consequenses of unprotected sex, not just for unwanted pregnancies, but also for STDs, and you will have a hell of a smaller problem with the "birth control" abortions.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich"
I applaud you voting, don't agree with the choice but glad you voted.
I would point out though that with a little research you would have found out that abortions actually went up during the last 4 years while Bush has been in office after a decrease each year while Clinton (who was pro-choice) was in office. Why? Because we can't legislate morality, we have to give people choices. By moving the focus from planned parenthood to only "abstanence" and because of the economy and loss of jobs more people have choosen to abort their babies. Which is why Theresa H-K has donated so much money to educating young women about choices other than abortion. They can't get funding now if they talk at all about birth control. We all know that for those people whose parents don't stand behind (and even some that do) the abstance idea, it won't work.
So in all reality all these people voting for Bush because he is against abortion are really casting a vote for the opposite due to Bush's unrelenting fanitical ways.
My wife and I both feel very strongly against abortion for many reasons, many of them deeply personal. However we feel that no one is ever going to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and probably shouldn't. Thus the best thing that we as citizens can do is to help people understanding their choices and support ways in which people choose not to abort and still have a normal life. Our Church here in Conway, AR has a program in which we provide free daycare for young mothers who want to continue going to High School. They must keep a decent grade average and stay out of trouble but as we are close to the school it gives them a chance continue their education while promoting life without legislating it.
All that being said, I do understand you reasoning as it pulls at my heart as well and when it all boils down to it, we have to do what we can best live with based upon the information we have at the time.
Marb: I actually did know that abortions have gone up over the last 4 years.
It is a VERY sad time because of that.
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
Marbus wrote:By moving the focus from planned parenthood to only "abstanence" and because of the economy and loss of jobs more people have choosen to abort their babies. Which is why Theresa H-K has donated so much money to educating young women about choices other than abortion. They can't get funding now if they talk at all about birth control. We all know that for those people whose parents don't stand behind (and even some that do) the abstance idea, it won't work.
Damn, do sex ed education centers get cut off from funding if they talk about birth control? Oh well, disregard my earlier post about the poor quality of the US sex ed teachings, and welcome you all to the joys of Thatchers homosexual info prohibitions ni the 80'es.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich"
As far as a "note from the rapist", I was under the assumption if you were raped you report it to the authorities, so there's your "note". But rethinking it I see the flaw in this because not all women would report it for one reason or another (I would assume mainly shame).
My main point was, I don't believe in abortion because it's used mainly (IMO) more as birth control than any other "righteous" reasons.
Well Akaran my opinion is this, when you raise 3 children on minimum wage as a single parent at the age of 22 who had to drop out of highschool at 16 to raise a child, you can tell me how hard it is, and whether or not abortion should be around. When you actually experience the hardship and bringing kids into poverty and depression. Possibly bringing them into an environment that creates drug dealers because of the mother's lack of education and shes forced to live in bad neighborhoods, despite desperate tries of keeping your kids moral and good, the pressures of gangs and violence in an area are very possible.
Mawafu wrote:Shit does happen, so let's kill the kid...
As far as a "note from the rapist", I was under the assumption if you were raped you report it to the authorities, so there's your "note". But rethinking it I see the flaw in this because not all women would report it for one reason or another (I would assume mainly shame).
My main point was, I don't believe in abortion because it's used mainly (IMO) more as birth control than any other "righteous" reasons.
Abortions increased for the first time in 20 years under Bush.
when there are health care issues and economic issues facing the population abortions go up.
so he may be "pro life" but his policies do not accomplish his stated goals. For instance he never introduced legislation attempting to ban or regulate abortion even though he had a Republican House and Congress.
the reason in my opinion is because it is simply the Republicans use abortion to get votes and have no intention of doing anything about it because then they would lose votes.
My original post was a something in the middle kind of thought. But like I said, after rethinking it it would be hard to maintain/control something like that in the cases of rape. Endangerment to the mother's/kid's life would be something easier to watch over since it would be found out in the doctor's office and they would be given the choices then and there what to do.
With that said I would have to think long and hard about banning or just letting it be. I'm torn between the killing of innocent children and having a woman choose for her well being.
I am Pro Choice to the extent that a woman has the choice of whether or not to sleep with a guy and the guy has the same choice along with all the responsibilities of an accidental pregnancy.
In cases of rape, I totally agree with a woman having the choice.
In cases of birth defects, it should be on a case by case basis.
As far as Akran taking his time to decide, weighing all the issues and coming to a conclusion on the day of the election I say kudos to you for voting and for voting with your beliefs.
Atokal
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Republicans use abortion to get votes and have no intention of doing anything about it because then they would lose votes.
I am actually confused by this statement. Republicans are, in fact, trying to do something about abortion. To a certain extent they have been successful. There is no doubt in my mind that if Bush is elected Roe v. Wade will be under its greatest threat ever. Right now it survives only on a 5-4 margin. With O'Connor and Ginsberg very likely in their last term (as well a Rhenquist), it seems very clear to me that a Bush administration coupled with a Republican Senate would replace those Justices with 3 anti-abortion Justices and Roe v Wade would fall 5-4.
Republicans do not merely give abortion lip service, they in fact legislate - successfully - abortion limitations and an abortion case comes before the Supreme Court at least once every other term (if not more frequently).
I agree with your analysis that a successful overturnning of Roe v. Wade would ultimately result in lost votes, but I do not agree this is some sort of Republican handwaving. For the Religious Right, abortion is the #1 issue driving their votes. They do not settle for handwaving on this issue. They demand, and get, action.
I agree 100% with Voronwe. Should Bush win this election I plan on writing a book titled "The Great Deception: How Republicans stole the Heart of Christianity"
On that subject, it's my personal opinion that prior to the fetus being able to think for itself, it's not a life. I've read in the past that brain activity hasn't been observed from a fetus until after the first trimester.
Some other people state that if the fetus is not able to survive outside of the womb, it's not alive.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
Dar how can you say that the Religious right demands and gets action on Abortion legislation when not ONE, as in the number between zero and two, not ONE piece of legislation banning it has been pushed in Congress when the Senate, the House and the Executive Branch, and perhaps the Supreme Court all are balanced in the direction of the GOP?
We get lots of hype over gay marriage amendments. That constitutional amendment makes the floor of Congress, but nothing about banning abortion.
If not now, when?
what are they waiting for? Jesus himself to descend to earth to pen the bill?
1. Gag rule - goes into effect with every Republican President.
2. Parial Birth Abortion Act - vetoed by Clinton (three times, IIRC) - signed by Bush almost one year ago. This in spite of teh fact that a similar State Legislation in Nebraska was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 2000 (Stenberg v. someone). Subsequently the PBAA has been declared unconstitutional by Federal courts in NY, CA and Nebraska at a minimum (off top of head - I am sure by now probably other courts have wieghed in on it). This will reach the Supreme Court at some point in teh next 2-4 terms and a Bush appointed court will sustain its legality and I suspect use the opportunity to officially overturn RvW.
3. Child Custody Protection Act - signed by Bush in 2003? - makes it a Federal crime for anyone other than a parent to assist [transport across State lines in this case - since it is a Federal law - though Republican's in many states have made it illegal on State law to assist at all] a minor in obtaining an abortion.
These are three quick examples off the top of my head. I am completely certain with research I could provide more.
1. Gag rule - goes into effect with every Republican President.
2. Parial Birth Abortion Act - vetoed by Clinton (three times, IIRC) - signed by Bush almost one year ago. This in spite of teh fact that a similar State Legislation in Nebraska was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 2000 (Stenberg v. someone). Subsequently the PBAA has been declared unconstitutional by Federal courts in NY, CA and Nebraska at a minimum (off top of head - I am sure by now probably other courts have wieghed in on it). This will reach the Supreme Court at some point in teh next 2-4 terms and a Bush appointed court will sustain its legality and I suspect use the opportunity to officially overturn RvW.
3. Child Custody Protection Act - signed by Bush in 2003? - makes it a Federal crime for anyone other than a parent to assist [transport across State lines in this case - since it is a Federal law - though Republican's in many states have made it illegal on State law to assist at all] a minor in obtaining an abortion.
These are three quick examples off the top of my head. I am completely certain with research I could provide more.[/quote]
Bush Voted for Partial Birth Abortions? Oh really? Please tell me where you got that information? It's my understanding that Bush signed an Act in 2003 to ban it.*
I have not been posting much, but I hate it when people throw information around and claim they are facts. Bush has NEVER voted for PB Abortion. On the Flip side, every time Kerry had a chance, he voted for it.**
Back to the point of this post though... Isn't it ironic how when Kerry does his little dance around the issues of IRAQ and his many other flip-flops, people label that as advanced thinking. That he is able to do adult thinking and change his mind... However when a fellow board member states and does the same thing it apparently has to be called out and ridiculed? Just think about it...
