How Bush Won

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 3, 2004, 9:07 pm

Please don't assume that I'm blindly championing some christain mantra.

All I'm doing is looking at the situation. What is the foundation to build from?

You speak of liberty, good stuff.

Personally I haven't thought about that aspect as much as I should.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » November 3, 2004, 9:50 pm

You guys can bitch all you want, but the fact is that the hard core christian right, the Jesus Crispies, came out in force and nullified the abnormally large moderate-liberal turn out. Exit polls (from CNN's live coverage last evening) showed 42% of people citing moral issues as their main concern as well as a dramatic turnout of christians in general, especially southern baptists and the like. Bush may have swiped the last election, but he won this one outright and fairly thanks to Crispie power, Dem incompetance, and (sadest of all) the general ignorance of the american electorate.

Unless I somehow missed a report of Kerry being an immoral sheep fucker someplace, the only moral issues discussed this election cycle were gay marriage and Roe Vs Wade. Fox News itself said last night that the whole move to put anti-gay legislation on the ballots in key states was to get their "base" out to vote and it worked brilliantly. The GOP was organized and prepared, having spent months stoking the fires at churches all over the nation. Just seeing the crap that was handed out at services in Cali, the supposed hotbed of liberalism, was astounding. The Dems lack the will and/or skill to outfight the GOP at that level and lost their asses all over the country to the fear of the man ass.

The end result is that we have the most radically right religious government in the nation's history and deffinitely in the western world. Look at the platforms some of these new senators ran on before you think I am overdoing it with that statement. The part that is personally depressing for me is that the free thinking people of this nation are so disorganized that a radical religious element in our society has taken complete control over it, a situation not unlike Iran's.

My predictions: Roe vs Wade will be overturned before Bush leaves office. Full scale assault and leveling of Falluja within six months, resulting in tons of civilian casualties, in an effort to simply stamp out resistance in Iraq. Federal Gay Marriage AND civil union ban by 2007. A trippling of our existing federal defficit before the end of Bush's term. Iran completing their nuclear weapons program while we are stuck in Iraq. Israel glassing the entire fucking region to prevent a large scale nuclear program in Iran. Complete errosion of the middle class by 2010. Mass sanctions by the EU and asian powers that cripple our already greatly weakened economy, effectively ending our superpower status for good by the end of the decade.

ps- The christians who are offended by the term crispie are either themselves crispies or seem to have forgotten the part in their little book about turning the other cheek.

pps- How you guys (the local neocons) can have sand in your vagina is beyond me. You won the election fairly (for once) and managed to make Liberal a dirty word. Playing the martyr card for having your extremists stances mocked and just generally acting like an asshole doesn't work, but if celebrating in the general stupidity of the common american is what floats your boat go for it. Just don't mistake the real fear of losing personal liberties to the Ashcroft hate machine with whining.

ppps- I am all for abortion. The day christians agree to adopt every baby from an unplanned pregnancy/unwed mother and raise it, even if its not a good aryan child, then they can make abortion illegal. Until then, keep your noses out of other women's vaginas; your only alowed procreative sexual activity anyhow.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 3, 2004, 9:52 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Yes, I suppose it does reflect my beliefs that I search for a consistant foundation for a moral stance.

Of course I frame the question. How else do you approach the problem but to define it, or break it down into manageable elements? The problem is not my framing the question. The problem is my efforts approach upon something that is purposely left vague. Abortion is easier if you don't try to define it.

But you know what? Dodging the problem doesn't make the formation of law that we all can live with any easier. It is worthwhile for us to pursue consensus.

Dar covered it mostly, but if you *aren't* out to frame the question in order to bias the result, ask it in terms of the actual issue you're trying to resolve:

What is the latest you believe an abortion should be allowed to take place:

- Never
- 1 month
.
.
.
- 6 months
.
.
- Partial birth abortions
- No limit in the case of criminals

This of course doesn't cover any extenuating circumstances, and it's not meant to, but it's a more relevant poll of community standards than "when is a feotus life?"

Ok, see.. even I couldn't resist queering the poll by adding in the capital punishment option

Let's leave that out.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 3, 2004, 10:08 pm

I would say roughly 3 months or so...

-=Lohrno

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » November 3, 2004, 10:15 pm

Damn is it too late to abort some of you?

On a good note, id have loved Dean to have been running. The man had balls, and didnt lie about 90% of the time, nor distort truth.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » November 3, 2004, 10:23 pm

The life at that moment is akin to cancerous tumors, mold and fungii, worms, etc. It doesn't know what's happening to it, and thus is not quite our equal yet.

That sounds like most of you here on VV.

I am one of those hypocritical people that do not think abortion should be legal unless it were under extreme circumstances that I will not even get into.

Why am I hypocritical? Because I think retroactive abortion would be good thing. Most of you morally bankrupt, ego stroking children should have your asses Sarah Connored.....

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » November 3, 2004, 10:36 pm

So what you are saying is once they identify the gay gene, those babies can be aborted?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 3, 2004, 10:39 pm

Moonwynd wrote: That sounds like most of you here on VV.

I am one of those hypocritical people that do not think abortion should be legal unless it were under extreme circumstances that I will not even get into.

Why am I hypocritical? Because I think retroactive abortion would be good thing. Most of you morally bankrupt, ego stroking children should have your asses Sarah Connored.....

Excellent. You have not made a point. Moreover, you have called those that disagree with you morally bankrupt, and believe that they should be killed. You're sure to win the 5th grate debate team nomination now!

-=Lohrno

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » November 3, 2004, 11:53 pm

This thread makes me want to kick pregnant women in the stomach. I mean, I already do, but this time it would be out of spite, and not just for population control.

Incidently, it's amazing how being a Christian in the States is a LOT different than being one anywhere else in the world. The differences in values are absolutely baffling. It's like they never made the jump past buring witches with the rest of the Christian world.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 4, 2004, 1:19 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:So then "life" (e.g. a soul) begins at conception. How does that help at all? I'll tell you how it helps you (e.g. your position as anti-abortion). By framing the question to be about life, you then get to procede with the rather natural, and unarguable for most people, possition that life is good, it is worth protecting. No one is going to disagree with that. Then, since life begins at conception, we need laws that protect that life before it is capable of protecting itself.

Nice, but imo, all irrelevant to the real question. Abortion is not about life, it is about liberty. By making the question about life, you get to ignore the effect that life is having on another living being. LIfe has nothing to do with it, however.

Here is a good exmaple. No one, I would hope, would disagree that a 19 y.o. female human is "life." Nor would anyone disagree that that life is worth protecting. But, if "life" is all we are concerned with, it makes perfectly good sense that if that 19 y.o. female human is dying and the only thing that can save her is one of my Kidneys (and we accept that I only need one of my two to live), then our laws should insist that I surrender one of my kidneys. They don't. Nor should they. Nor do our laws require a lesser surrender of my body - such as blood. If a 19 y.o. female human is going to die without a transfusion from my blood, I am completely free under our laws to refuse to provide that transfusion. Our laws do not even require that if I see that 19 y.o. female human in mortal peril - say dangling by one hand off a bridge - that I do anything to prevent her death. This even extends to me after I die! If my organs from my dead corpse are what is needed to prevent another human from dying - I can refuse to help even though I am dead.

Why? Because "its life" has nothing to do with it. My liberty to not surrender my person or to act in a particular manner trumps all your notions of "life" and its value under the laws, customs and social norms of our society. You Christains are not out there on a crusade to reguire organ donation upon death - something that would clearly save lives AND effect no other living being. You Christians are not out there trying to pass "good samaratin (sp?)" laws (well actually some of you are, but it does not generate the universal Christian Right fervour that abortion does). You Christains are not out there trying to pass laws that would mandate participation of the general populace in life saving medical procedures.

Yet you are all out there trying to significantly curtail the liberty of women on the basis that a fetus/embryo is "life."

ROFL using your example about the 19 year old female:
I would ask the following.

Did you do something to create her health issues?
Is she able to put her name on a transplant waiting list and get dialysis?

How the hell your example is remotely related to a woman making a choice to get laid, get pregnant then terminate the life because of a mistake she made.

How about this under your guidelines of "freedom" a woman has a child and raises that child till the age of 5. Realizes she made a mistake as the child is a drain on her resources and her social life. Her freedom has been curtailed because of a choice she made and now she wants out. SO WHAT THE HELL LETS ABORT at 5 years of age.

Dar you are smarter than this example illustrates.

Cheers

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 4, 2004, 1:50 pm

what's the difference between the 5 year old and a late term kid in the womb? Why does one get humanity applied the other does not?

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » November 4, 2004, 2:03 pm

Because, as humans tend to do, we disagree. There is a huge disparity on this issue regarding when human life begins...common ground is very hard to find

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 4, 2004, 2:54 pm

As I see it:

People who don't want kids shouldn't have sex.
But they do cos theyre people.
Those people should use reliable contraception.
And most do, some don't and from time to time accidents happen either way.
So there are unwanted pregnancies.
All the moral outrage in the world and blood and thunder about forcing these women to have and raise the children against their will is just air (which i personally find offensive especially when the vast majority of it comes from male lungs, but that's beside the point).
Anyway, women unfortunate enough to end up with an unwanted pregnancy WILL find a way to end it.
So let them do it safely.
The End.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 4, 2004, 3:36 pm

I would like to see a law passed allowing 1st trimester abortions. After that it should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or the mothers safety.

Just my two cents.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 4, 2004, 4:29 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:what's the difference between the 5 year old and a late term kid in the womb? Why does one get humanity applied the other does not?

A 5 year old clearly demonstrates self-counsciousness, awareness, etc. A fetus does not.

-=Lohrno

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 4, 2004, 5:22 pm

A 5 year old clearly demonstrates self-counsciousness, awareness, etc. A fetus does not.

As to a late term fetus, that really is not true. They show very obvious signs of consciousness and self -awarness. They show brain wave activity as early as 5ish months. People under hypnosis have been shown capable of recalling memories of the womb. I am not sure exactly when it happens but it is very clear scientifically that at some point well before birth the fetus is self-aware.