Election 2004: The 5MV District

[Zeke]

As the start of today's election event, and just for interest's sake, let's pretend the 5MV community is a district in the election. Whom do you vote for? Yes, that means YOU. And YOU. And -- no, not you, you're a convicted felon.

You can post your reasons if you want to, but it's not required. For once, no one will be jumped on for talking politics -- just don't belittle those who disagree with your views, because whatever they are, that will include some forumgoers.

Finally, I hope I don't have to tell you guys not to cheat. Enough of that will be going on in the eTrektion....

(I cast the first vote, and anyone who knows me well enough can guess where it went. I may make a reasons post later.)

[Scooter]

Are there really a lot of Americans here? It's great that 5MV is all over the world, but suddenly I feel lonely... :)

[Gatac]

I'm not pro-Kerry, but anti-Bush.

Gatac

[Zeke]

Are there really a lot of Americans here?

Surprisingly few, you're right. I've often wondered why 5MV seems more popular in places like Canada and Europe than in the States. The surplus of Canadians is particularly interesting since I've never made a big deal on the site about being Canadian myself.

The poll is open to everybody, though. I hope the phrasing makes that clear enough.

[Vedra]

I voted for Kerry in this poll,and I'm about to go vote for him in the real election. (I'm 18 and an American citizen,so nyah-nyah!)

[ijdgaf]

I voted for Kerry absentee several days ago.

So I'm wondering -- if we're a district, what state are we in? Are we more like the District of Columbia then? How many electoral votes do we have? Can we swing the election results one way or another?

:D

[Zeke]

We're in Connecticut. Fifth state to join the Union.

[Derek]

I voted for Bush this morning.

Guess my vote and IJD's cancel out. But we knew Florida was going to be a close state anyway. :)

[Scooter]

The poll is open to everybody, though. I hope the phrasing makes that clear enough.

If you were/are registered as a U. S. voter, who would/did you choose?

Got it. I read it as "If you were" = "If you used to be," but you actually correctly used the subjunctive, = "Supposing that you were." Excellent. So everyone around the world, read it subjunctively and vote for Kerry--I mean, vote for whoever you think ought to be president. :)

[Hotaru]

I voted Kerry, I just don't like Bush. That's not so surprising though, I haven't met many Bush supporters here in Alberta.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

I did my real voting back in June. Nice to finally back a winner (sorry, wrong election).

Indecision 2004: American Flips A Coin (and then sues the crap out of the results of the coin flip).

For those keeping track, I threw my vote away. The GOP may be trying hard to rig the election through various shenanigans, but the Dems aren't exactly a paragon of virtue (see: trying to get Nader kicked off the ballot in Florida). Those interested might Google Tammany Hall.

From a perspective north of the 49th, the US needs more parties and an impartial system. The electoral machinery is in the hands of the Dems and Reps, and both sides spend most of their time ensuring that it never gets out of their hands.

Just my 1.6 cents worth (woo! The loonie went up!)

[Chancellor Valium]

I would vote for Zaphod Beeblebrox...apparently he's running:
http://douglasadams.se/zaphod/[/url]

[Nan]

I'm all for voting according to one's conscience. And voting. For the love of god, VOTE.

Like, say, NOT for that creepy eugenics guy (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127932,00.html).

Good times.

[Celeste]

My friend told me to write him in. :P But I don't like what's happend in America the past four years, mainly the war, and gas prices. Let's see if Kerry can do any better. If he can't, Bush can run again in four more years.

[MaverickZer0]

Let's see...I exercise the right to not vote.

Zeke says:
And -- no, not you, you're a convicted felon.


Nutbunnies. I can't vote anyways. ;)

[ijdgaf]

Wow, this is remarkably apolitical. It's like freeing caged animals. They get scared, and want the cage back :lol:

For me, voting for Kerry was merely a matter of convincing myself that I liked him enough to give the okay. I've spent the last four years or so grumbling about Bush, but when the time came for the Democrats to show an alternative, I wasn't too impressed with Kerry either.

Finally, I decided I'd watch the debates, and if Kerry couldn't convince me that he'd do the job, then I wasn't going to vote.

Now I still don't like Kerry's positions on a few issues (the Iraq War, Gay marriage -- IMO both the candidates suck on these). Kerry's comments on picking supreme court justices during the second debate probably convinced me more than anything.

When one candidate talks about the mark of a good judge being somebody who "by reading their statements, you can't tell whether they're male or female, liberal or conservative, etc.", and the other said more or less that this position didn't make any sense to him, I think the former hits the nail on the head there.

America is way too partisan these days, and it seems to me that Kerry is making the better effort on bringing us back together.

In my opinion of course.

[NAHTMMM]

Voted for Bush because he annoys me less than Kerry. Something like that.

[Chancellor Valium]

Ummm...
-he has some views and isn't an American John Major MP?
-he doesn't pretend that we can pretend that terrorism will go away if we all shut our eyes and put our fingers in our ears and shout "LA LA LA NOT LISTENING!"?
-he doesn't support gay marriage and other crazy stuff and still claim to have morals?
-he at least appears to have some morals?
- he seems to follow his conscience, not vote-winning?
-he's not as annoying?
-he doesn't claim to have the sparkling war record that Kerry tried to make out he had?
-He's not John Kerry?
If this is your ideal candidate, then vote me in!
or try Bush....either works for me.....:D

[stripysox]

I voted for Kerry (in 5MV land). I don't think it will actually make much diffrence who wins but I'd like to show bush that "Its just not good enough, dammit!" IMO if you don't vote you lose the right to complain. Complaining is fun. So I vote for the lesser of two evils.

That made no sence, meh I'm sleepy.

[Draknek]

I don't know enough about American politics to make a decision, so my vote goes straight to the trash compactor.

One thing I have noticed, though, is that a great number of people are just voting against Bush.

And I think that applies even more so outside of the US - I seem to remember that polls in Europe showed that something like 80% of people would vote for Kerry if they could vote.

[Vedra]

That's because people in Europe are so much better at spotting potential dictators...hey,learning from your own history DOES make a difference!

[Sa'ar Chasm]

BC is a good example of bad things that happen when you vote against someone rather than for someone else.

[Asky]

Vote Deep Blue for President! :D

[ijdgaf]

Hey, since people are active around here today, why not move this discussion onto mIRC?

I'm headin' there now.

[Ginga]

Blah. I can't vote yet. I'm sick of hearing about the elections because I can't vote yet. But, since Oregon will self-destruct otherwise, I'm rooting for Kerry. *waves a little flag*

[Katy Jane]

I've noticed a lot of people arn't voteing for either canadate, insted they are voteing AGAINST the other guy... I'm one of those people. Kerry gives me the Uber-creeps. *shudders* and can anyone say flip flop. :p

I support the presidents decision to go to iraq... but i'm going to vote against giveing the soldgers more armor... and i never said i support the presidents decidion to go to Iraq, but I support the presidents decision to go to Iraq :p

[Kira]

I vote for the lesser of two evils.
I think Canadian comedian Rick Mercer put it best in a rant against voter apathy when he pointed out that in this sort of situation, it's very important that the lesser of two evils wins.

[uss applepies]

I'm new to the whole forum thing so i apologize in advance to any stupidity on my part. Sadly, it was politics that finally got me to register.

I voted (in the 5MV district) for Bush, because although I don't trust him I do know how he runs his government. And maybe, just maybe he will get the US out of the place he has gotten them into.

[Vedra]

I think so too,applepies, that's why I've changed not my vote, but my support. Go Bush!

[KillerGodMan]

I picked Kerry, but I'd rather vote for The Allosaurus (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/logos/allosaurus.html)

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Yes! Another Irregular Webcomic fan!

I voted for the Allosaurus in his poll.

[evay]

On behalf of everyone in the blue states, I would like to apologize for what the fanatics in what's left of my country have just visited upon the rest of the world. If we thought we could manage it, the blue states would secede and leave the south and midwest to be the Confederacy which they wanted to be 150 years ago.

Zeke, what are the requirements for becoming a Canadian citizen?

[Chancellor Valium]

Not being rude about HM Queen Elizabeth II, for starters(joking). Also for British citizenship (well, actually you can get in to Britain by carrying explosives, lol...)

[Zeke]

Zeke, what are the requirements for becoming a Canadian citizen?

Why don't we just trade places? I like your government better, you like my government better, and given how much time we spend online, none of our friends and family will ever know the difference!

[evay]

^^You think I'm joking. I am really afraid.

[Zeke]

Well, that makes two of you -- Tim Lynch has been posting at Peter David's blog to the effect that if America willingly re-elected Bush after the past four years, he'd no longer be comfortable raising his new daughter there. It depresses me to hear you guys talk that way, because you're talking about leaving the country you love for a reason I just don't think is worth it. I understand why you're afraid, but in your place I'd be as afraid under Kerry as under Bush, probably more. We're living in scary times.

I don't have any information about getting Canadian citizenship. It's probably not hard to find on Google, though.

[Derek]

Honestly, I was not at all scared about the prospect of living under Kerry, much as I didn't want him as President. You really can't do all that much damage (or good) in 4 years.

But I just read that Kerry has conceded on CNN, so that eventuality isn't going to happen anyway.

[Hotaru]

How to become a Canadian citizen (if from the US):

1. Call the Canadian Board of Immigration.
2. Request citizenship.
3. Write easy test.
4. Enjoy your new life.

At least that what my Social text book from 1982 says.

If you move, don't come to Alberta, we have everything bad, except oil. Oh, avoid BC too, crazy social program cuts. From what I've heard Manitoba and Sasketchewan are pretty boring too. There's always Ontario... but then again, Toronto. Quebec is good, do you know any French? You'll like the maritimes, if you like being refered to as "Have Not". How do you feel about the Yukon?

[Anonymous]

I am from England and I dislike Bush anyway. Kerry should be President over him, hell anyone should be. get those guys out of iraq and start doing things America actually wants! (And didn't your mother ever tell you to not cheat at games.)

[Vedra]

Oh, and I was kidding earlier,if you all didn't catch that. I'm praying for an assassination attempt.

[evay]

It depresses me to hear you guys talk that way, because you're talking about leaving the country you love for a reason I just don't think is worth it. I understand why you're afraid, but in your place I'd be as afraid under Kerry as under Bush, probably more.

I am deeply concerned about the domestic havoc Bush and his cronies have already wreaked. I'm not going to rant; if you want to discuss it privately we can. But this has left me deeply unhappy and disappointed in my fellow Americans.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

This just in: Ottawa offers to annex the Northeast, the Pacific Coast and selected bits of the Great Lakes.

[Vedra]

Aww,don't toy with me like that Sa'ar.

[Celeste]

Well, I do have to admit that it was really hard for me to choose between Bush and Kerry. I don't think either one of them is evil, and horrible to have as president, but I can say that I don't belive in most of the things that Bush belives, and I don't believe that Kerry would of made anything better in Iraq, and may only of made it worse. Of course I don't think Bush will make anything better in iraq, either.

Anyway.. I will keep hope that the mistakes Bush made in his first 4 years were only because he was new to the job, and that these next 4 years will get this country back to its somewhat normalty.

[Gatac]

WARNING: Rant ahead.

Max Herre (German hip hop artist) re the election:

"It's like choosing between cancer and a coronary."

My problem with Bush (and his cronies) is easily summed up: Iraq. Yeah, Saddam was a dictator. Big deal. There's lots of them. But last time I checked, invasion without provocation isn't exactly the premier means of international diplomacy.

What really sickened me was all the spin. It's about the WMDs! It's about Osama! It's about the oil^^^people of Iraq! These people looked into the camera with a straight face and lied. Time after time. Against all facts, being unreasonable all along the way, and only after the fact admitting that *maybe* they were a tiny bit wrong - but really, somebody else messed this up, right?

And what do they have to show for lying, leading the USA into another war, laying waste to another country, violating basic human rights as matter of protocol and all the while eroding civil rights?

They get reelected.

---

It's like seeing some beloved member of your family suddenly go crazy. It hurts even more because *I* can remember a time when we all looked up to the USA, when they could do no wrong. Now the cloak is torn, and what we see is a dark, twisted, Bizarro-world USA that's slowly choking on it's own self-righteousness, celebrating a past they are actively destroying.

And *that* is what really gets under my skin.

Gatac

[admiral sab]

I voted for Bush! it's a little late I know!

[Chancellor Valium]

You didn't give a reason :shock: . Most of the pro-Kerry people here (or "absurdly-gullible-eejits" as I like to call them did.) I just think Bush has been villainised for fairly invalid reasons. Oh, and Saddam was a dictator of horrific cruelty. 'Nuff said. No more argument needed. END. OF. STORY. What really gets me is the way some of the people who go on about the war have no feeling for those fighting it on the ground. Some of these people have given their lives for this war, yet all people can think about are fucking conspiracy theories when there are people DEAD. there are people in that country who are EVIL. and yes, it exists. if it's about Osama, he is EVIL - not just "morally impaired" or what ever other PC crap you want to spout.
sorry. end of rant.

[Vedra]

I have a few words for pro-Bush people, but Zeke would probably ban me from the board if I spoke them.

I'd like to say, though, I'm with the "Anybody But Bush" group, and couldn't care less for Kerry.

There are horrific dictators all over the world, doing terrible things to their people all the time, and it's wrong....but they don't have oil. I'm not asking for you to believe me, go look it up for yourself, research. Iraq has some of the richest deposits of oil around, and about half of Bush's administration is or has been involved in various energy corporations.

Also, people don't understand that people against the war, are for the troops. We DON'T want them to die. What I'm against is the reason they're fighting. I have sympathy for them because they have to do what they're told, so it all goes back to the administration.

[Marill]

Not being rude about HM Queen Elizabeth II, for starters(joking). Also for British citizenship (well, actually you can get in to Britain by carrying explosives, lol...)
Ah, so that's how the familes on my street got into the country. That explains everything

[Zeke]

I have a few words for pro-Bush people, but Zeke would probably ban me from the board if I spoke them.

It takes a lot for me to ban a user. If it didn't, I'd have banned Jedi years ago. :twisted:

If you're talking about swearing, sure, I'd edit it out. But I won't punish you for the sentiment, especially in a thread whose whole purpose is talking politics. (And you can always get away with swearing by doing it 5MV-style. Spluck this, fruck that....)

[Marill]

It takes a lot for me to ban a user. If it didn't, I'd have banned Jedi years ago
And me, don't forget me! *jumps up and down waving arms around* I'm sure I've caused more trouble than everyone else :lol:

Geeze, what do I have to do get noticed around here anyway :? :wink:

[Vedra]

Okay, I'm done with talking about politics. I can't keep myself from getting angry so I won't speak of it again, that's my new mandate. And if you try to talk/discuss/start an argument with me about it,I'll ignore you. It's easier on the both of us.

[admiral sab]

I didn't give a reason because I was late for work as it was! ;)

I have my reasons mainly because I'm a Republican and have been since ermmmm... well a very long time. I remember being in the second grade and wanting Bush to win. In the sixth grade I wanted Bush to win, but Clinton did. (I wasn't happy, so Vedra I can understand your feelings. I probably didn't want Clinton in office as much as you don't want Bush.) I wasn't old enough to vote yet though. I remember wanting the Republican party to beat out Clinton again, but he won 4 more years. And then in 2000 I REALLY didn't want Al Gore to win and I liked George Bush and his values so I voted for him. I'm proud of that decision and I'm proud of it again. I can't change anyone's views that aren't already set, nor can you change mine. At least not overnight. ;) I have very conservative values and morals and John Kerry doesn't represent that to me. Anyways, those are just a few of the reasons. The others, I'll keep to myself because I don't want to insult anyone who really is anti Bush and pro-Kerry. :)

[NAHTMMM]

Right now I can't see Bush going after Iraq because of oil. I think it's more likely he was inclined to do it because he was used to Saddam being The Evil Guy from when Bush Sr. was in office. "Saddam has nukes, does he? So he's up to his old tricks again. Well, this has gone too far already and we aren't going to let it go on any longer..." etc.

[Katy Jane]

1. Why when things arn't going perfuctly in this country does everyone blame one single person? Think about it people he's the President NOT GOD! There are much greater factors at work here than just the president. On September 11 when I thought ahead to what was going to happen to our country, I envisioned us a whole lot worse off than we are now.

2. So, maybe Bush's real reason's for going to Iraq wern't the greatest, But it is still something that needed to be done. I've spent the last ten years wondering why we didn't stick it out and do it the first time! My Cousin was in Iraq (he's home now) and every were they went people ran in to the streets and thanked them for what they have done!

[Sa'ar Chasm]

I've spent the last ten years wondering why we didn't stick it out and do it the first time!

Pick you conspiracy theory (no guarantee on the level of rationality):
1) King George the First figured he'd need a scapegoat to blame ills on later (every President needs a nemesis: Reagan had Khomeini, Kennedy had Krushchev, everyone had Castro)
2) Encouraging the Shi'ites and Kurds to rise up, promising them help and then leaving them high and dry seemed like a good idea
3) Since most of Bush's cronies had helped put Saddam in power in the first place, it seemed like a flip-flop.
4) The Iranians might get uppity again, and we needed a client state next door to threaten them with.

The only argument for going into Iraq that would have carried any weight with me would be an admission of responsibility and a promise to try and clean up previous messes.

"We know Saddam has weapons. We kept the receipts."

[Xeroc]

Also, don't let the media fool you - there is actually good news from Iraq (and Afghanistan)

Good News From Iraq (Latest - Part 13) (http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/10/good-news-from-iraq-part-13.html)

Good News From Afghanistan (Latest - Part 5) (http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/10/good-news-from-afghanistan-part-5.html)

You can see the latest sections at those links and on the sidebar of the page they link to, the older articles are lower down on the right sidebar of links. (quite a bit farther down)

Remember, what you see on the news is not the whole story.

[Wowbagger]

I went Bush, because he's anti-abortion. 'Tis easy--if extraordinarily annoying--to be a single issue voter. Let's (alright, I'll) just hope he'll have (has) the chance--and the willpower, and the Senate votes--to retake the Court.

Whew! That's a lot of clauses for two sentences.

Xeroc, you read Taranto, don't you?

[Xeroc]

Xeroc, you read Taranto, don't you?
The city in Southern Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taranto)?

No, really, you mean James Taranto? The editor of OpinionJournal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/) from the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/us)?

Yes, I read him occasionally, why do you ask?

[Vedra]

You voted for him just because he's anti-abortion? That's the stupidest fu-...*reboot* So,anyone up for a rousing game of Parcheesi?

[Gatac]

Bush alone isn't that dangerous, true, and I can see why some people like him. But this is the man whose faith has apparently overcome the need for checks & balances or critical thinking within the White House. Not good.

Then we have Ashcroft and Cheney in the package, and the ridiculous-if-it-wasn't-so-damn-sad things like the USAPATRIOT act, TIPS or passenger screening for air travel, plus the ominously-named Department of Homeland Security. The only way to protect the freedom is to destroy it? Count me out.

And I repeat on the Saddam front: Unprovoked. Aggression. Sometimes it's necessary, but I've yet to see anyone be so cavalier about it. Used to be that you had to declare war before you could fight it, but I guess the last guy who knew that was shipped off to Vietnam and caught some friendly fire.

I don't advocate Kerry. I'd just as soon see the entire US party system demolished and rebuilt from scratch, seeing how the Democrats have stuck with being second-rate Republicans.

It's not just Bush, it's an entire group of wrong people at the wrong positions. Who will be next? What country will fall before the awesome might of Bush's faith-based presidency next? Where do you want the Marines to go today?

(Also, regarding the "Support the troops" thing: How about not, you know, sending them to die without a real damn good reason?)

I'm sorry if this is getting a bit agitated, I just want to make sure everybody understands *why* I say Bush needs to go.

Gatac

[Vedra]

Yay, Gatac understands my troop support thing!

And yes, Bush himself is not THAT dangerous, since no matter what he does, there are still limitations on the power of the presidency (but they're shrinking rapidly.) And Gatac mentioned what I said before, his whole administration is rotten. Also, a faith-based presidency is wrong on oh-so-many levels. Separation of church and state is really important to me and a lot of other people, and Bush is tearing all that apart, and nobody takes notice. I believe he's said before that he thinks he's doing God's work, well, I don't want him to do God's work as the president, I want him to be a president. The ecclesiastical and the secular are not clashing in this man, they're merging. That's frightening to me.

Hmm...what else...Oh,yeah. The military is not a freaking diplomatic tool! Stop using it like that! I don't care if the stupid sanctions didn't work, you didn't have to take over the freaking country, dipstick! *breathes* Oops, lost control a little there. Just...don't be surprised if Iraq becomes the 51st state.

[Gatac]

Later note: If I come off as partisan, please keep in mind that I've argued this issue with people who would literally rather turn the whole Middle East into glass rather than letting it be.

Also, on the issue of faith:

http://www.mrlizard.com/disbelief.html

Gatac

[Vedra]

I liked that essay, Gatac, it was informative without the stuffiness usually found in essay. I give it a 4.5/5!

[Chancellor Valium]

Gatac, by your arguments Woodrow Wilson would be a crazed loon who should be locked up in a padded cell. And yet he is one of the most respected people in history. Also, Vedra, abortion is a-moral. It is the killing of innocents and it cannot under any circumstances be sanctioned. See also my views on euthanasia. I'm sorry, but you cannot condemn someone for confidence in themselves and God to guide them. Churchill did, and was the greatest politician Britain has had in the 20th Century..... :?
On the Saddam front - he was more dangerous because he could sell oil and use it for WMD and he was sitting on a gold pot and knew it. He has been extremely dangerous. And yes, there was something fishy about the whole war on terror but it must be carried out. There is no going back now, because if we turn back now, the terrorists will start treating the West like a doormat. As for reducing the East to rubble, no. How about spending more on alternative fuels, thus weakening the East (not so much need for oil any more if we are using Hydrogen fuel-cells is there?), and reducing the amount of money available. But the US wont do that, just like you refused to sign the conservation and environmental treaties in the 1990s. because most of America would have been against it. Boo. Hoo. Sometimes right has to be done at the expense of giving people a say. It's not nice but tough. Also, maybe you're right. maybe eliminating terrorism in the East is impossible, like trying to empty an ocean. After all, we might argue, how did Islam gain control of the Holy Land? They took it. and killed and maimed there way to it. We might argue that Islam is a religion of hate and violence, might we not, along these lines, and that the reason the West is so kowtowing to it is through fear that oil will be cut off if we aren't. No-one seems to give a damn about insulting the Pope, but insult an ayatollah, and you must be hanged, drawn and quatered and apologies must be given out by the truck-load, we might argue. We might argue. :? . I have taken you're arguments and added a little, I know...but I think you will come to the correct conclusions from this. Everyone here certainly seems to be intelligent. So please, think on this for a moment.

[Vedra]

Oh, where to begin...

First off, I never said I was for abortion. I said voting for someone based on 1 issue is ignorant. Besides, morality is subjective and telling someone something is amoral like it's a fact is forcing your views on others. The pro-choice people aren't forcing you all to go get abortions, but you're taking away their right to choose. It's not your freaking body, don't worry about it. Hell, that philosophy can be extended to nearly anything, like anti-gay laws. And as far as innocents, is the "accidental" murder of civilians during battle just supposed to be considered casualties? How can you possibly make that distinction? Babies are no more alive than an adult is, and the notion of it's innocence is still subjective. You have no objection to killing animals for your food, or burning up the remains of animals in your car, or seeing them prancing about for your entertainment. How is animal life any different from human life? Because it's sentient? Should that really make any difference as far as it's right to live? I don't think so.

As far as terrorism, let's analyze it a little bit. Terrorism is an idea,not an organization. It can't be "destroyed" or "captured". It's a notion that violence and fear is all someone will understand. The terrorists we're after know this, and they have nothing to lose. By fighting fire with fire, so to speak ,we're just perpetuating more and more violence. It will not stop. Why does no one see this? Violence begets violence. It's very simple. It makes sense.

If you'll recall, any slights against the Roman Catholic Church (Pope included) in the past could be punishable by death. We're just living in a time where someone else is considered sacred enough to kill for. Joan of Arc was convicted of witchcraft for talking to a Christian saint. So then is prayer a metaphor? I don't see a point in praying if you actually aren't supposed to get an answer. If you do, you get barbequed. Wow, that's fair.

EDIT: And before I get the "You do it,too!" response, I'll say that yes. I do eat meat, I do drive a car, and I do, on occasion, watch Animal Planet. All I said was I think they're wrong, but I still do them, because that's the society we live in. It's not easy to not eat meat, or drive a car, or anything like that.

[Chancellor Valium]

When did I EVER say that civilians in war could be written off?! I never said, either that or that animals were less than human beings. I never said that babies are more human than casualties and you are stuffing words in my direction which I never used. NEVER do that to me again, Vedra. NEVER. In any case, if we didn't look out for other people we wouldnt be a very nice society. and I know that abortion is meant to be painful and extremely unpleasant for the woman undergoing it. In this country "so call 'Great' Britain" women are actively encouraged, not just given the choice to abort. The notion of terrorism? I thought I just answered that. Yes, I do recall about slights against the Church, and I also think that it was wrong. But the church is, after all, made up of mortal men, and cannot be expected to be infallible about everything all the time. I wasn't saying we should'nt respect other religious beliefs, I was saying that maybe all religious beliefs should be respected equally. So please NEVER stuff words in my mouth and twist my words again. Two can play at that game and you have destroyed any respect I might have had for you for sticking up for your beliefs and thinking. Doing things like that makes me sick.

[Vedra]

You had respect for me? That's news.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, if you bothered to read my post through the blood clouding your eyeballs. I was giving examples of why it shouldn't be okay to kill anything. Period. Babies aren't special, they're equal. Just like everything else should be, ideally.

You said something about terrorism? I must not have found it when I couldn't follow what your post was trying to say any longer. Anyway, it goes back to killing. I see it being hypocritical that everyone is so upset about them killing our people, but then we have no qualms about killing them, or people that barely have any connection (And yes, I am talking about Iraq.) This kind of revenge policy isn't right, didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

Besides, if you won't listen to reason, I'll put it in terms you WILL understand. You put words in my mouth about being for abortion. I put words in your mouth about civilians and animals. That's fair if we follow this "eye for an eye" policy you seem to approve of so much.

[Chancellor Valium]

Yes I know. Turn the other cheek. But there comes a point where you find someone out to kill you who will punch you on the other cheek as well and keep punching you 'till you bleed and die. And I mean on a global and international scale, not person-to-person. I wasn't talking about vengeance, but more that religious beliefs should be equally respected. Yes, we kill their people, but we at least try not to kill civilians who get caught in the fighting. I agree, though that people are hypocritical. I'm sorry, but that's human nature. And yes, I will listen to reason, and I can follow a train of logic. But you must forgive me ( and I don't mean that I'm going to come 'round with some "rough" guys if you don't! :P) if I lose my rag occasionally. I get obsessive with things, and I'm sorry if I got annoyed with you but this is a subject which I have been thinking about for some time. Can we forget about this now, its BOR-RING! :D

[Gatac]

Clarifying a few things.

The essay was not written by me, I merely agree with it.

I certainly didn't mean to insult Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, this is a topic where I'll gladly let someone else argue because I do not know enough about him to have a considered opinion of him. My problem is not with people of faith (indeed, I'm glad to count several Christians among my friends, even though I myself am agnostic), but with people who have lost sight of reality. Listening to Bush for any amount of time gives me the distinct impression that he is no longer quite on our planet, if you get my drift.

Abortion, nonewithstanding moral issues, should be legal, precisely because this is a decision you should be able to make. Like so many things in morality, we do not know where life begins. There is no scientific answer. We do not know if there are souls; we cannot even define what constitutes a person. However, we can have beliefs in either direction, and I tend to fall pro-choice. This applies equally to homosexual marriage (gay rights in general, actually), freedom of speech, censorship and gun control. We are all responsible for what we do and what we say. In the end, no law can dictate all but the most basic morality, and any attempt to do so will lead to a reduction of overall freedom while not solving the original moral dilemma.

As for the "fight back" part, my German citizenship lead me through a nine month period of military service. We were not trained to kill, but we were trained to fight. Combat is always the last option, but when it is chosen, it must be fought quickly and decisively. The goal of any sensible military operation is to destroy your enemy's ability to oppose you while minimizing collateral damage. We turn the other cheek once, then we knock you on your rear and put you in a jointlock. :)

On eating animals...this is a difficult topic, but I believe it is OK to kill animals for food. Blabbering nonewithstanding, I have yet to come across a vegetarian diet that is actually demonstrably as healthy as a balance of "normal" food. I know you're all going "No fair!", but the fact of the matter is that humans are omnivores, hunters and gatherers for a far longer time than we have spent living in mostly one place. I believe the answer to the problem is finding ways to create meat without killing animals; science is making progress here. In the meantime, we should treat the animals we do eat as well as possible.

Lastly, terrorism is the weapon of the disenfranchised. I do not mean to come off sounding superior, but please consider that the Middle East has long been gridlocked in tribal wars and such. Europe and the US didn't become advanced overnight; it took hundreds of years for cultural and technological evolution even after kingdoms and such came into existance. The Middle East becomes a sort of "Prime Directive" problem, only that the damage is already done. And (please kick me if you've heard it before), supporting Israel really isn't the best way to curry favor with the rest of the Middle East. Israel has started aggressive wars against each and every one of their neighbours, violates three times as many UN resolutions as the Iraq did at the time of the invasion, and is the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons. I don't even need to start on anything they're doing right now; these three things alone explain a lot.

There. That ought to feed the flames a bit. :)

Gatac

[Chancellor Valium]

Have to agree with you on Israel. They've got it coming to 'em after what they've pulled. And I don't like Sharon. Besides, he's got a funny name :D

[Sa'ar Chasm]

And I don't like Sharon. Besides, he's got a funny name

You'd be stroppy too if your parents gave you two girl's names.

[Vedra]

I'm not a vegetarian, and I didn't say it was wrong to eat animals, I was using it to make a point that all life is important. I eat meat, and I like eating meat, cuz it's yummy. lol

[Gatac]

Well, suffice to say, after years of argueing on the net, the only people I am genuinely afraid of are the vegetarians. :)

Gatac

[Vedra]

Yeah...that's kinda true. Want some of my Kentucky Firaga Chocobo?

[PointyHairedJedi]

Screw politics, I'm moving to Mars.

[Nan]

I am deeply, deeply, deeply gratified that the election is OVER, because it's been over a freakin' year of partisan drivel and I was starting to get hateful of it all. X(

[Chancellor Valium]

Ha! We've got another in next year! (we watch the US one.....I wonder how many US citizens will watch the British one? interesting thing to watch, methinks.....(thats how many US citizens watch the election, not the election itself)). Perhaps a similar event here could be organised as for the US elections? :D

[Vedra]

Whoa....Valium joined on September 11th. That's kinda...creepy. lol

[Alexia]

Perhaps a similar event here could be organised as for the US elections? :D

Do we have to?

*Runs kicking and screaming from the thought of another election, especially one I will be voting in for real*

[Zeke]

Maybe a forum event, but not an on-site event. I don't know enough about British politics.

[Chancellor Valium]

You don't need to: What I don't know others should be able to fill you in on...here's a rough guide (and by rough I mean really, really rough):
Blair and the Labour Party: Ban fox hunting, join Europe, suck up to Bush and Chirac, let the world and his wife build hi-rise building all over our countryside, destroy our parliamentary democracy and the Monarchy, create regional assemblies, turn the UK into the United States of Great Britain ( :evil: :x :evil: :x :evil: :x :evil: ). If you don't know about Blair WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN?!
Howard and the Tory Party: Do everything opposite to New Labour, and get health and education going (but he was in Thatcher and Major's governments and is suspected of vampirism and no-one trusts him)
Charles Kennedy and the Lib Dems: Sit on the fence about everything, and also do things pretty much the same as Blair. Kennedy supposedly Roman Catholic (might well be skin deep, like other politicians we know in the US and *ACK* Ow! Hey, Vedra, stop it! STOP it! :D), also boozer.
UKIP and Robert Kilroy-Silk: pull out of Europe, stop overpopulating the country ridiculously, recreate the United Kingdom as was. (RKS was TV presenter, sacked for some random reason, etc etc.)

[Wade, The Sane Commodore]

Ha! I voted for Bush! Bush is the man! If he had one fault, it would be being too moderate!

Seriously though, we in the United States care very little about what Europe thinks about us. In fact, we care so little we defected into our own little country. It was around 1776, it was in all the papers. And that was one of sKerry's major mistakes. Americans pander to no-one, sKerry pandered to everyone, especially to Europe. That and he was a socialist. Americans are not socialists. We do not want socialist programs and we do not want wealth redistribution. Despite what Hollyweird protrays us as, Americans are tough, rugged people that will steamroll anyone that stands in our way. We want to invade Iraq? Fogettaboutit. We want to invade North Korea? We're going to do it. Iran? Its just one letter off from Iraq. We are at war and we will not stop until the world is safe for us. Those that stand against the United States will feel our wrath. It is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'.

[Nan]

Ah. I see my view that the forum of a parody site is not the ideal place to spew partisan rhetoric is not much shared.

[Vedra]

.....You're supposed to be a SANE commodore?

[NAHTMMM]

^So he says. ;)

[Wade, The Sane Commodore]

What? I'm sane, [twitch] just ask anyone. [twitch]

[Chancellor Valium]

:shock: Ookay....even I'm disturbed by that post *backs away slowly then runs to tower of DOOMMWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*

[PointyHairedJedi]

^ You mean your bedroom, right?

[Chancellor Valium]

No. the loft extension, if you must know... :roll: :roll:

[Zeke]

There's nothing insane about Wade's post -- it's no more extreme than half of what the left says, it's just not heard as often online.

(Nan, I made it clear right in the first post that this thread was for talking politics. That includes "spewing partisan rhetoric.")

[Chancellor Valium]

Hmmm...no kicking the democrats though....you've got to show mercy....how about locking them all in a luxurious room while playing This (ronnee.com/Pchbl_-_Cnon.wma) at them forever :twisted: :?

[Wade, The Sane Commodore]

Thank you Zeke, its nice to know that not all non-Americans think that we are blood-thirsty zealots waging a holy war. But, as our forefathers so aptly put: DON'T TREAD ON ME. If you [terrorists] pick a fight with the United States you will feel the wrath of a people moved.[/i]

[PointyHairedJedi]

So.... anyone want to move to Mars with me?

[Nan]

I meant in general, Zeke. :?

[Hotaru]

Nan, I think it's safe to say that if you throw out any political idea that people will jump on it, no matter where it is. It's just human. Now certain people, like you and I, seem to avoid it. However, there's nothing we can do. It's sad, but nowhere is safe from politics.

[Nan]

It just makes me mad. Political flame wars ruin perfectly good forums. DC just about came apart at the seams until it was agreed to just not talk about certain things there.

I'll take you up on your offer, there, Pointy.

[MaverickZer0]

Mars? Too close. I'll be on Arcadia.

You can find me on Beach Street in Electopia....

Providing the transdimensional Greyhound gets here on time, that is.

[Vedra]

I'll be living in a mock-up of the United States, the way it should be: at least marginal respect for people's rights and freedoms, and chomping at the bit to kick the rest of the world's ass is not what drives our foreign policy.

[Wowbagger]

Ah. Missed a few days in there. Much to respond to. Let's take it from the simplest and go from there, shall we? Not that you have a say in this.

1) Xeroc, I mentioned Best of the Web by James Taranto because that is how I found Good News Watch, which, I believe, was only entitled Good News Watch on that page. Arthur Chrenkoff, I thought, called it something else on his blog.

2) I think if we keep the partisan hacking to this one thread, we should be okay. Of course, that's more an argument for the webmasters about what they want these forums (this forum?) to be.

3) Single issue voting/abortion: I agree, babies are no "more" human than anyone else. The evil in abortion is in the sheer volume of them. 6 million died in the Holocaust, and less than a million Americans have died in all of its wars combined. There have been a little more than 900 executions since 1976 in the U.S. There have been 45 million abortions since 1973 (3,948 a day), in just the United States!

Now, of course, I have not established the personhood of the fetus, so I will: It grows, it uses energy, it develops, and it has the potential to produce fertile offspring with other members of homo sapiens. To wit, it shares every major trait of a newborn or a pre-lingual two-year-old. Therefore, it is protected by our 14th Amendment (except in cases in which the mother who wants an abortion goes to court and her fetus receives a fair and speedy trial by jury, faces his accuser, and is spared cruel and unusual punishment).

We could go further into ensoulment, but do we really want the law to do that? The last time the Supreme Court ruled on personhood, it stated that black people were 3/5 of a person. Women, for many of the same reasons, couldn't vote until the '20s, and many of the same issues apply today in gay marriage.

No, I support the separation of church and state. For this reason, I believe abortion is the most egregious violation of our laws in the history of our country, and that is the single greatest crime against humanity in history. It ought to be immediately and flatly made illegal, and I think that our country has the best chance of doing that under the leadership of George W. Bush.

4) The only way we can watch the British election is over C-Span, the government access cable channel, which is why I'll probably be the only person in the city to do so. I must say, I'm envious of Britland's current ruler's ability to speak correctly. It would seem that England's children is learning, in addition to putting food on their families.

5) Nice political board, always in search of new members from all parties: s3.invisionfree.com/therandomroom/index.php . Low-key, small, and populated by a bunch of people with very strange senses of humor.

[Gatac]

Now, of course, I have not established the personhood of the fetus, so I will: It grows, it uses energy, it develops, and it has the potential to produce fertile offspring with other members of homo sapiens. To wit, it shares every major trait of a newborn or a pre-lingual two-year-old.

If I were a soulless devil's advocate, I would now throw in that except for the last thing (which is Potential to Complexity), there isn't much of a difference between an early fetus and any other cluster of cells. Sure, it lives, but so does the mold in my petri dish.

This is an old philosophical problem. At what point does the child cease to be simply a part of the mother and become an indepedant life in it's own right? It is a hard question, but the morality of this, I leave up to the mother. I don't know if anyone should be getting an abortion for this or that reason, but I feel they should have the right to do so. The laws are (or should be) a set of rules that deals with the individuals place within a society. Does society at large have a say over whether or not someone should have a child, moreso than that person herself? I see this as far more morally reprehensive.

We could go further into ensoulment, but do we really want the law to do that? The last time the Supreme Court ruled on personhood, it stated that black people were 3/5 of a person. Women, for many of the same reasons, couldn't vote until the '20s, and many of the same issues apply today in gay marriage.

I agree that this is a difficult topic and laws pertaining to it are bound to be unsatisfactory, but does this mean we have to err on the side of the greatest possible restriction? Surely, a lot of abortions are made for medical reasons; do you want to condemn all these people to die or suffer lifelong complications from a miscarriage? Granted, not all cases are so clear cut; indeed, the majority is not. But outlawing abortion, you're opening up a whole new area of criminal behaviour. People who want abortions will get them, but I'd rather they go to a clean hospital and have it done by a professional than having to look for a less than legal alternative. (Compare to drugs...I don't personally use any, but look how much the core problem is amplified by driving everything underground.)

Also, I don't mind a good political debate as long as it's within this dedicated thread. When you have namecalling all over the board, then the problem starts.

Gatac

[Rayinne]

I was for Kerry. Simple reason, actually. Four years ago I didn't think Bush had what it took to be a good President. And in the past four years, he has confirmed that suspicion.

OK, the US gets attacked by Al Qaeda, and Bush sends troops to kick their asses. All well and good, until he decides "While we're at it, let's invade some place that has absolutely nothing to do with our current terror problem." Sure, (faulty) intelligence suggested he might have WMDs, but if Saddam tried anything at that point, it would be like holding up a sign to the world saying "NUKE ME." He was contained, and a threat to no other nation. Yes, he was an evil man, but war and armed occupation should always be a last resort. In the meanwhile, domestic policy, which should be the most important thing to the leader of a nation, has effectively been run by various hyper-conservative members of his staff. Don't think I'm bashing the right wing here, I'd bitch just as much if a Democrat in office left all his policy decisions to hyper-liberal staffers. Said hyper-conservatives then proceeded to help push such things as the Patriot Act through Congress while holding up Bush's education initiative, which is one of the few things I find good about him. What's Bush's repsonse to this? Absolutely nothing, just goes on playing Napoleon.

And that's the short version.

[Chancellor Valium]

An interesting thought I had was: if 9/11 had happened two months later, do you not think people would be far, far more incesned worldwide?

[marplanauta]

As most of the rest of the world, i voted for John Kerry. I believe honesty is crucial for a politician, and Bush was not honest at all, especially in the iraq issue. I don´t like the way he treates us (i mean, all the non U.S. world) I know that the United States is the world leader nowadays, but we deserve a little more respect. The U.N. has been insulted once and again by this administration...

Well, now Bush has won, so all I can say is...GO BUSH! :( :cry: :?

[Wowbagger]

Gatac, you soulless devil's advocate, you!

I want to start out by voiceing [sic?] my support for laws that allow abortions in cases in which the mother's life has a high chance of being, well, ended, by the act of birth. It's not something I'm completely comfortable with, but makes for a decent compromise. It would still wipe out more than 98% of abortions here in the states (that's according to the Allan Guttmacher Institute, I believe), so I'll take it. Unfortunately, pro-abortion politicians refuse to bend even that far. (Side note: I refer to the two sides as pro and anti abortion, not pro-life and pro-choice. Both are misnomers; choicers because they are supporting a very specific choice, not gun choice or school choice, lifers because most of them support the death penalty)

Bloody... my cookies are done, then bed. Must finish this off tommorrow.

[Gatac]

I'm only a soulless devil's advocate when I argue the moral dimension of this; else, I'm purely being practical. :)

Not to pounce on it too heavily, but making drugs illegal has driven the whole community underground. People die daily because there is no medical oversight, because the dealers are criminals, and because nobody makes sure that the wares are actually good. Not to mention that it's a massive black hole for money to actively prosecute each and every one.

My proposition is thus to cancel the war on drugs and use the cash to take over the legal distribution. Think about what a government-run (or atleast supervised) drug distribution system could do: Collect taxes, guarantee the purity (and thus, relative safety), and probably still have much lower prices than the criminal dealers. Heck, you could pretty much drive an entire sort of criminals out of the country. On the other hand, medical supervision (and, I dunno? Ration cards?) could help to keep the massively deletrous effects of drugs somewhat in check. This doesn't even have to apply to the really hardcore stuff: think about how many people you'd bring away from the underground just by making the (controlled) sale of marijuana legal. After all, the real scoundrels are the dealers, and what could be more effective than driving them out of business?

What does this have to do with abortion? Well, in a sense, outlawing it would do to abortion what it has already done to drugs - drive them underground. If you ban abortions, lots of women will still want them, but they'll obtain them from less reputable sources. This is a massive health risk, and if you think abortion kills a lot of innocent lives now, consider how many more potential mothers it will take when it's outlawed.

One of the fundamental problems is that you cannot destroy the *idea* of abortion, same as you cannot destroy the *idea* of drugs. The cat's out of the bag and has been for some time. We can either try to whack it and see it jump over the fence, never to return, or we can invite it into our home and make sure it behaves.

(Damn, that was a weird analogy.)

Gatac

[Chancellor Valium]

I have to say that if 9/11 had happened in november (on the same date) it would have caused a more worldwide outrage....btw, what is 5MV doing for Thursday? (11/11/04)

[marplanauta]

Here in Argentina, abortion is illegal and every day lots of girls die becuase thet get their abortions in unsafe conditions. I am pro abortion if it is performed in the firsts trimester of pregnancy, when it is not "alive". As I see it, is not different from other pregnancy controls such as the "day after" pill. ANd in that way, you prevent many girls from dying.

Of course, it would be better if there was enough education to make everyone conscious about contraceptives and the consecuences of unsafe sex, but that´s another issue.

[Zeke]

Don't take this as an attack post -- I'm just answering some of the points you made.

I am pro abortion if it is performed in the firsts trimester of pregnancy, when it is not "alive".

In what sense are you using the word "alive"? Biologically, no one questions that a fetus is alive by that point. For example, its heart is beating within the first three weeks, let alone months. There's a good timeline on this page (http://members.tripod.com/~peacepigeon/fetal.html).

As I see it, is not different from other pregnancy controls such as the "day after" pill.

The morning after pill acts within the very, very brief interval where there is some question whether the fetus is alive, so that's a more complicated case. Nonetheless, a lot of pro-lifers do consider it morally equivalent to abortion. (On a pickier note, I think "pregnancy controls" is a very misleading term for either abortion or the morning after pill. They don't control pregnancy, they end it; one might as well be honest about that.)

And in that way, you prevent many girls from dying.

This is one of the pro-choice arguments that's hardest to dispute -- if you do, it sounds like you're saying what happened to these women is okay. Obviously I don't feel that way, but I also don't think it's sufficient justification. If you try to rob a bank, you may be shot in the attempt. That doesn't mean robbing banks should be legal.

I guess it's obvious from this post that unlike some people who posted earlier in the thread, I do think abortion is an important enough issue to determine who you vote for....

[Zeke]

I have to say that if 9/11 had happened in november (on the same date) it would have caused a more worldwide outrage....btw, what is 5MV doing for Thursday? (11/11/04)

I hadn't thought about it. What do we usually do?

2003: A few words on the subject, link to Monkee's site
2002: No Nov. 11 update
2001: Two new fivers, no comment on the date
2000: New fiver, no comment on the date

Hmm. Maybe this is something I should work on.

Btw, I'm not sure I can picture more worldwide outrage than we had on 9/11.

[Gatac]

In what sense are you using the word "alive"? Biologically, no one questions that a fetus is alive by that point. For example, its heart is beating within the first three weeks, let alone months

Warning: We are approaching the border of the (very) long and tedious sentience/sapience/consciousness discussion. I will follow and argue even that point, I just want to point out that I tend to leave this fuzzy for a good reason.

The morning after pill acts within the very, very brief interval where there is some question whether the fetus is alive, so that's a more complicated case. Nonetheless, a lot of pro-lifers do consider it morally equivalent to abortion.

As do I, actually - let us not mince terms here. Prevention is before conception, abortion is after. The moral value of each of those is up for discussion, though, as are the various methods.

On a pickier note, I think "pregnancy controls" is a very misleading term for either abortion or the morning after pill. They don't control pregnancy, they end it; one might as well be honest about that.

This is one of my favourite bones to pick with what is commonly labelled as "liberal", the doublespeak. I hate political correctness with a passion, and getting the PC-minded furious through rigorous usage of non-PC terms is my favourite pasttime. :)

This is one of the pro-choice arguments that's hardest to dispute -- if you do, it sounds like you're saying what happened to these women is okay. Obviously I don't feel that way, but I also don't think it's sufficient justification. If you try to rob a bank, you may be shot in the attempt. That doesn't mean robbing banks should be legal.

This is one of those false dilemma logic fallacies I (occasionally) also submit to: it's always either "ban all abortion!" or "allow all abortion!". True, it's easier to argue each way, and the law is not known for being overly flexible and useful when it has to nail down details, but there's shades of grey.

Gatac

[Wade, The Sane Commodore]

IMO, I would like to see putting 5MNG's "The Wounded" on the front page. I think it best sums up the Cold War veteran's feelings. Its also my favorite episode. There are other 'veteran' shows, but "The Wounded" is the best.

[Xeroc]

In what sense are you using the word "alive"? Biologically, no one questions that a fetus is alive by that point. For example, its heart is beating within the first three weeks, let alone months

Warning: We are approaching the border of the (very) long and tedious sentience/sapience/consciousness discussion. I will follow and argue even that point, I just want to point out that I tend to leave this fuzzy for a good reason.
The whole "when life begins" debate, IMHO, really determines the morality of abortion.

I've heard a few dominant philosophies on the subject:

<p align="center">When does Human Life* Begin?</p>At Conception:
By this definition, all abortion would be immoral, and so would some morning-after pills when it prevents a fertilized zygote from developing.
At Birth:
By this definition, all abortion would be legal, (and so would pills) as human life begins at birth, not before.
Sometime Between Conception and Birth:
By this definition, abortion would be legal or illegal based on the developmental stage of the fetus.
Gradually begins throughout, no particular breaking point between alive and not:
Abortion in this case would still be debateable, as the fetus is not "entirely" human, but can be more or less so depending on the development, this would likely also be where abortion would be legal or illegal based on the developmental stage of the fetus.

*Note: Biologically, the cell is alive even before it is fertilized, but so are the millions of bacteria floating around in our air.

Usually, which category one falls in to is determined largely (or entirely) on one's religious beliefs.

Click Here for a Table of Abortion Law around the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Law#Current_Status)

1) Xeroc, I mentioned Best of the Web by James Taranto because that is how I found Good News Watch, which, I believe, was only entitled Good News Watch on that page. Arthur Chrenkoff, I thought, called it something else on his blog.
Oh, I actually found it elsewhere, but I see what you mean.

[Wowbagger]

Actually, this second part of my response is not going to take as long as I thought, now that Zeke's stolen my thunder on the philosophy of law point.

I prefer to have the law legislate scientific questions based purely based on science. The fetus is an independant human life from conception on. Thus, as a human being, it is protected by our 14th amendment. I don't know what country you hail from, Gatac, so the same may or may not apply to you, but that's as far as the argument needs to go in the States.

Now, for women's deaths. I'll be generous and give the number floated by Ellen Goodman and the National Abortion Rights Action League (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America), which was 10,000 pregnant women dying each year from back-alley abortions. (This number is arguably refuted at http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040528.html) Frankly, that's a huge drop from 1,500,000 fetal deaths plus a few hundred women's deaths from "safe, legal, and rare" abortions. Once it is illegal, of course, and now that awareness of the abortion issue is so high, it is likely that massive abortion prevention programs would snap into place around the country. Planned Parenthood may even be forced to hire counselors who counsel!

That ends my first response. Next:

As I've said, I won't insist on banning all abortions. Just the 99.3% of them, the abortions of convenience. Don't forget the 250,000-strong community of people on the adoption waiting list.

As for the morning-after pill, anti-abortion advocates generally ignore the field, not least because its an area on which society is even more touchy than abortion. But you're right; illegalizing the vast majority of abortions would also illegalize the morning-after pill (though not condoms or spermicides or what-have-you).

One thing I've never understood, and maybe Vedra can shed some light on this for me: why birth? I mean, if it has the features of a human, isn't it human, whether or not it's attached to someone else by a cord? Why not call it a human at 1 or 8 or 12 years old? I am honestly confused by this.

Now I'm starting to feel guilty about ignoring the other sub-topic here. I'll post something about terrorism or tax cuts or something by month's end.

We have people on fiveminute from Argentina? Go team!

Also, last point (I promise!): Anyone know any good left-wing blogs? I'm looking for something to complement my daily OpinionJournal intake of +5000 words. My theory in life is that all news is biased and the only way to make a good decision is to read the most biased stuff you can find and balance out the extremes, so this is somewhat important.

[Vedra]

One thing I've never understood, and maybe Vedra can shed some light on this for me: why birth?

I'll try not to take that as a cheap shot against me. Anyway, my point earlier in the thread was that, instead of fetuses not being human yet, or always, whatever, that arguement is pointless, of course it's human. My point was that fetuses are not special. Or at least, they shouldn't be. They're is no reason they should be. My argument for allowing abortion is based on sentience. Nobody questions euthanizing a dog, apparently because they're non-sentient (or semi-sentient, I guess it depends on your dog-philosophy.) So, if fetus's are not sentient, at least up to a stage of development, it should be okay. But another argument, which I agree with more, is that very early abortion is okay simply because the fetus isn't even fetus yet, it's just a clump of cells. An abortion would be like removing your tonsils. That comes out a lot more heartless than I meant it to be...oh well.

[Zeke]

We have people on fiveminute from Argentina? Go team!

We've had Argentinian fans for years now -- who do you think got us that www.sci-fivers.com.ar domain name? (Hi Leandro!)

Also, last point (I promise!): Anyone know any good left-wing blogs? I'm looking for something to complement my daily OpinionJournal intake of +5000 words. My theory in life is that all news is biased and the only way to make a good decision is to read the most biased stuff you can find and balance out the extremes, so this is somewhat important.

YouAreDumb (http://www.YouAreDumb.net) is a fun one with a clever concept. And of course Michael "Someone PLEASE shut me up" Moore has a blog....

Interesting posts, guys. As you've probably guessed, I subscribe to the "human life begins at conception" view, and my reasoning is simple: where else do you draw the line? A human doesn't come together like a jigsaw puzzle, where at a certain point you can say this is a complete puzzle, and one piece ago it wasn't. To use a metaphor from my field (math), the development of a human life is a continuous function; there's no jump or break where the fetus suddenly becomes a baby. The only place we can put the marker is at conception, because right there a single, unique organism is formed that didn't exist before.

[Nan]

Leandro rules!

That is all.

(Leandro rules!)

[Alexia]

Oh damn now I feel I need to contribute. my plan to avoid controversy has failed...

Zeke, I totally agree, "human life begins at conception" is my philosophy too, however the reason people have abortions are not always because they just "want to get rid of it." Financially they may just not be able to care for the baby, or they may be health reasons not to give birth. In the end, it's up to the individual woman who is pregnant. It's HER body that is under discussion and that is a HUGE responsibility.

And even more controversially, however a man feels on the subject of abortion, no man can EVER really know what that woman is going through. I know people who have had abortions for totally valid reasons and whether I agreed with them or not I respected that is was THEIR choice, and no one else's.

That is my view. Sorry if anyone disagrees.

[Alexia]

I should point out though that I also agree with a huge chunk of what wowbagger said, and that prevention is "better than cure" so to speak...

[Chancellor Valium]

perhaps (as marplanauta said) a better policy would be better sex education....?
Also, November the 11th isn't just about Vietnam. Perhaps we could have a lack of posting for a while on the forum? (at 11:00 GMT, perhaps?)....just a suggestion
Also, maybe 5MV should have some suitable poem or fragment on the front page...personally, I do not believe it is a time for mirth at all. And I agree with Zeke.

[Gatac]

Xeroc: If we are going with the scientific definition of life, we can not refute that the fetus is alive right after conception. It is, after all, a cell with the same genetic code as the fully-grown human, and meets all criteria. It lives. To me, asking where life begins is nonsense; the question (as portrayed by Zeke) is: where can we speak of a meaningful correlation between this infant life and the finished baby? Heartbeat? Neural activity? Recognisable presence of all essential organs? That is, in my humble opinion, the great question.

Though a bit unscientific, if we portray the development of the child as a sort of evolution from one-celled organism to primate on a smaller scale, at which level of complexity do we recognise that this is humanoid life?

Wowbagger: Define independant. Is it being geneticall different from it's host organism? Then it's conception, yeah. Is it having an own circulatory system? Early pregnancy. Recogniseably human? Late pregnancy. Physically disconnected from the mother? Birth. Able to care for itself? Eh...I think we're looking at a few *years* after birth with progressing silliness of the argument.

I'll admit that my knowledge of the legal situation in Germany is not the best, so I'll get back to that after a bit of research.

I'm not saying that we'll have so-and-so many dead women when abortion becomes illegal. My point is that sure, outlawing it will deter many, but also drive a lot to backalley abortions. Whether they all die from them is arguably not important; the point is that you're going to have abortions either way, so why waste money and effort on making them *less* safe?

How do you seperate an abortion of convenience from all the others?

Valium: Better sex ed? Definately. I'm all for reasonable, educated people taking responsibility for their own actions. I apply the same reasoning to firearms: If you want to have them, YOU are responsible for them. No loaded revolver under the pillow. Get a safe, take courses, teach your children how to safely handle firearms.

Gatac

[Chancellor Valium]

On firearms: I personally like the British system...at least in theory.....it goes like this....People must have gun licenses to own guns, be registered with the NRA (National Rifle Association - at least I think you do for rifles...), etc etc....in Newfoundland they have no armed police and almost no gun crime.

[marplanauta]

Sentience, as i believe, is the key. That´s what i refered to when i said "alive". And thats the endless debate, because it is very difficult to determine even scientifically when a fetus has sentience. But if you could, it wouldn´t be a murder to practice abortion. That fetus would only potencially be a baby. Sorry if it sounds rude, but saying that abortion in that stage is murder would be like saying that masturbation is a genocide.

As men, it is difficult for most of us to picture what it is like to get pregnant and to hav an abortion. As someone said before me, you should think a little from the "mother"´s perspective, maybe you can understand how so many abortions are performed. Better sex education would be great to prevent many of these, but here we start debating about religion and wether or not sex education should be mandatory at schools. That´s been a debate for years in my country, and when the church is always fighting against sex education...it´s a pity.

ps1: what´s with nov. 11?

ps2: i´m from argentina, but i´m not leandro. Nice argentinian url! You can read my fivers translations to spanish too if you like!

[Chancellor Valium]

Masturbation, no. At that point nothing has happened. At conception, however, the foetus (and this is the correct spelling, damn it :P) has been started. Of the seven scientific requirements for a being to be deemed alive, at least one is being fulfilled:growth. If you don't agree on these grounds, think of it like this: Think how many great minds could have been destroyed by now by abortion. We could have had people who proved Einstein wrong, or any number of geniuses, but we've killed them off. Just a thinking point there.

1) November the 11th is the date of Armistice day - it marks the end of the First World War. There are two minutes of silence (certainly in Britain) to remember the dead. On the nearest Sunday there is a mass and ceremony at the local memorial, and at the cenotaph in London, to remember those who died both in World War I and in all conflicts which have happened since. therefore it is a very important date to be revered and kept, even if you aren't of a religious persuasion.

no. 2 I cant comment on - I don't speak spanish :(

[marplanauta]

Masturbation, no. At that point nothing has happened. At conception, however, the foetus (and this is the correct spelling, damn it :P) has been started. Of the seven scientific requirements for a being to be deemed alive, at least one is being fulfilled:growth. If you don't agree on these grounds, think of it like this: Think how many great minds could have been destroyed by now by abortion. We could have had people who proved Einstein wrong, or any number of geniuses, but we've killed them off. Just a thinking point there.

What i mean is, if you take your argument to the extreme, is the same with masturbation. Is sound silly, but extremes sound silly. And I believe that banning all abortions is an extreme. (sorry for not spelling right foetus)

1) November the 11th is the date of Armistice day - it marks the end of the First World War. There are two minutes of silence (certainly in Britain) to remember the dead. On the nearest Sunday there is a mass and ceremony at the local memorial, and at the cenotaph in London, to remember those who died both in World War I and in all conflicts which have happened since. therefore it is a very important date to be revered and kept, even if you aren't of a religious persuasion.


Oh I respect that. So, tomorrow i will keep two minutes of silence for all those who have died in WWI, WWII, and especially for all the british and argentinian who have died in the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas conflict.

[Chancellor Valium]

Thank you. It is traditionally held at 11:00 - the hour at which the Armistice was signed.
I didn't quite catch on that you were taking the extreme side of that argument...sorry....still, if we go that far, surely breathing is depriving others of air.....and then we go on to is it right to kill yourself, and the whole thing goes round again. :wink:

[Zeke]

Is sound silly, but extremes sound silly. And I believe that banning all abortions is an extreme.

Yes, it's an extreme -- banning ALL of something is an extreme by definition. If we ban ALL car bombing, EVER, that's an extreme. But there are some things that just aren't ever okay to do. That's what we have laws for.

(I don't take an absolute extreme position on abortion, but I'm as close as anyone generally gets: I feel it should be illegal unless the mother's life is in danger. Obviously in that case abortion isn't just okay but the right thing to do; one death is tragic but it's better than two.)

[Xeroc]

Xeroc: If we are going with the scientific definition of life, we can not refute that the fetus is alive right after conception. It is, after all, a cell with the same genetic code as the fully-grown human, and meets all criteria. It lives. To me, asking where life begins is nonsense; the question (as portrayed by Zeke) is: where can we speak of a meaningful correlation between this infant life and the finished baby? Heartbeat? Neural activity? Recognisable presence of all essential organs? That is, in my humble opinion, the great question.

Though a bit unscientific, if we portray the development of the child as a sort of evolution from one-celled organism to primate on a smaller scale, at which level of complexity do we recognise that this is humanoid life?
I don't think you understood my post. Especially the astericked part:*Note: Biologically, the cell is alive even before it is fertilized, but so are the millions of bacteria floating around in our air. I was not talking scientifically, I was talking about when It's considered "immoral" to destroy. As we obviously don't care about the millions of bacteria in our air, but they're just as alive and unique as the fertilized egg. They're not human, however.

the foetus (and this is the correct spelling, damn it )(sorry for not spelling right foetus)
Actually, Valium, foetus (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foetus) is primarily used in Britian. The most popular (and still correct!) spelling is fetus (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fetus), while both are valid.

[Gatac]

Xeroc: The cell is alive before fertilization, but does not have it's "final" DNA yet. I don't think we need to argue this far backwards.

And complexity is an issue. If it's wrong to kill something just because it has human DNA, then we don't need to discuss abortion. The big question is not whether the fetus has human DNA - it does, from the beginning.

Morality must have some founding in facts. I can't argue that I only support abortion until third month because three is a nice number (though it is) - I can argue this based on the development of the fetus constituting recognisable humanoid life. That's the crux of the matter to me.

Valium: Or maybe we've killed dozens of potential Stalins. We don't know either way.

Gatac

[Alexia]

(I don't take an absolute extreme position on abortion, but I'm as close as anyone generally gets: I feel it should be illegal unless the mother's life is in danger.

I wonder if you would feel the same if you could actually get pregnant...and don't say you would because you have no idea if you would or not. You would want your view to be the same, but I suspect if the situation ever came up, and you were pregnant and REALLY didn't want to be, you would feel somewhat different.

Personally I don't think men should have the right to decide anything about abortion. That is unbelievable controversial I know, but to me thats like letting someone from, say France, who knows f*** all about America, be president.

[MaverickZer0]

Uh-huh, as opposed to who's in office now?

In my opinion, this boils down to the whole opinion thing. I believe there should be the right for anyone to choose. It isn't technically murder if the brain is undeveloped (and, if you're into New Age, before the soul is introduced).

On the other side of the fence, it could constitute murder if done too late.

There is no right or wrong answer. Ultimately the choice should probably be in the hands of the mother.

[Alexia]

Uh-huh, as opposed to who's in office now?
Wow, I missed a really obvious Bush joke there :wink:

I agree, there is no right or wrong answer, and it has to be up to the individual mother. No one has the right to tell you what to do with your own body.

[Gatac]

I concur.

Gatac

[MmeBlueberry]

(I don't take an absolute extreme position on abortion, but I'm as close as anyone generally gets: I feel it should be illegal unless the mother's life is in danger.

I wonder if you would feel the same if you could actually get pregnant...and don't say you would because you have no idea if you would or not. You would want your view to be the same, but I suspect if the situation ever came up, and you were pregnant and REALLY didn't want to be, you would feel somewhat different.

Personally I don't think men should have the right to decide anything about abortion. That is unbelievable controversial I know, but to me thats like letting someone from, say France, who knows f*** all about America, be president.

Arguments don't have gender; people do. The fact that Zeke is a man has nothing to do with the arguments he puts forth. In fact, wouldn't it make sense to assume that Zeke's argument is actually more objective since he's not as personally close to the issue? Also, a man is required to make a pregnancy happen. And men pay tax dollars that fund abortions, and men are responsible for rearing children they've fathered that aren't aborted. Basically, it doesn't make sense to say that you won't listen to an opinion just because of who it comes from. No, we wouldn't let a Frenchman be President of the US, but that doesn't mean the Frenchman's opinion on who should be President is inherently wrong, does it?

If you still think he shouldn't have a say, then I'll say I agree with him, and I have a uterus to go along with my opinion.

[Alexia]

No, and I didn't mean to imply that at all. No one's opinion is wrong but I think it's easier for men to make a decision considering it physically isn't their body that is affected.

But that's just my opinion :wink:

[marplanauta]

well, that´s my opinion too, i said it before. It´s easier for us as men to take the moral road, but if you see things from the "mother"´s point of view it´s not so easy

[ijdgaf]

I'm going to warn you: once I get started talking about abortion, it's not something I'm likely to let go ;)

Basically, my position is this: abortion is an irrelevant issue -- at least in terms of the way politicians talk about it. Both liberals and conservatives are to blame for this. It's an easy political tool to manipulate. You mention abortion, and people have instinctual, gut-reaction answers to the question. It's an incredibly easy issue to politicize. And people fall for it because almost everyone has an opinion on it.

What people need to do is stop having such a narrow focus on simply abortion, and look at the bigger picture. Yes, a nation with a high rate of abortions has a problem. But this problem is just a symptom of an even bigger problem that liberals and conservatives simply fail to address.

The reason the abortion rate in the United States is so high is because The United States has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the developed world. Here's a pretty good source (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_teens.html) on that, if you need one. Yes, the U.S. has a high teen abortion rate. But it's also got a high teen birth rate. You can't just look at abortions, because that's a very narrow focus on a very widespread problem. Teens have abortions because teens get pregnant. If we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies in a country, we effectively reduce the abortion rate AND the teen birth rate -- a problem very few politicians seem to care anything about (because we all know an epidemic of teens having babies would be much better than an epidemic of teens having abortions :roll:)

Simply making abortion illegal, though a high minded endeavour, wouldn't accomplish squat in terms of reducing the teen birth rate. Okay, abortions aren't a good thing. But are teens with babies a good thing? I'm not going to say which is a better thing because we shouldn't have to. It's presumptious of us to simply combat teen birth with making abortions more widely available, or combating abortions so that more teens have kids. It's a pointless judgement call between two not-good answers, and unfortunately they're the only two arguments politicians ever make.

What we need is to reduce teen pregnancies. Fighting simply one or the other is pointless. Fight both by reducing the source of the problem in the first place. The reason countries like Belgium have a teen pregnancy rate of about 17 per 1000 (I know that's not in that link, but it's in a book I'm holding -- you'll have to trust me) compared to the U.S.'s 84 or so is because of education and availability of contraception. Contraception is stigmatized in the U.S. Sex education exists, but it's mostly about anatomy and lessons about abstinance (which, though affective among teens who follow it, is completely irrelevant to the many, many who won't). Teenagers need to be taught about condoms, birth control, etc. and have these things available. All this talk lately about pharmacists who refuse to dispense the pill -- Does anyone really see that as a step in the right direction? The United States has a very severe problem on its hands in the form of teen pregnancy, and it's not recognized. People merely attack abortion because it's a much more clear-cut, right-or-wrong type of issue.

I don't like abortion either, but the way politicians, religious leaders, and organizations like planned parenthood talk about it, the issue is absolutely irrelevent. You can't just focus on abortion. It's not that simple. And ultimately, it's probably the worst way to fight it.

[Nan]

Well said, IJD.

[Vedra]

Hmm....and I bought into all the hype,ijdgaf.

I'm such a tool.






You're all tools too, though, so don't think you all are getting off the hook!

[Vedra]

But really, I do agree with that. I see no problem with teenagers being sexually active, because they're designed that way, what with the hormones raging and all, but them being careful is the issue. Not to bash on anyone that's religious, but a lot of the bad press for contraception comes from religion. I live in Oklahoma, and we have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation (Apparently there's nothing else to do around here, lol), but it's also one of the most religious. I have a lot of religious friends, that are sexually active, but don't usually use protection, sometimes because of what they've been taught in their church. Churches need to realize that we all can't be chaste monks, using our pent up tension to put out an obscene amount of vaguely erotic illuminated manuscripts....Holy crap,I think I just figured out the Middle Ages.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Bush's current strategy of "stick your fingers in your ears and think about grandma" is *not* *working*. It's reasons like this that I distrust people that campaign on their morality: too much morality is self-destructive.

Brief digression to reduce the antagonism somewhat:
During Grade 11 or 12 Sex Ed, a friend and I elected to refrain from taking the course (mostly 'cause we'd heard it all before and we're interested in another lecture). Normally that option is taken by kids with overly-prudish parents who are afraid to let their precious innocents learn the differences between boys and girls, but that's not really relevent.

We were sitting in the multipurpose room when the teacher who taught the class that had been appropriated for Sex Ed (Social Studies 11, I think), came out of the staff room. Someone else pointed to us and said "Hey Mr. Davy! Shouldn't they be in Sex Ed?" and he said "Why? They're never going to need it."

I didn't like him so much after that.

[Zeke]

To change the subject a bit, I've made 5MV's Remembrance Day update, taking some advice from Valium earlier in the thread.

To change the subject back a bit, contraception is one of the few serious issues where I disagree with my church's stand on the subject. Maybe birth control is a sin -- that's a tough call to make, and I haven't made it myself yet. But trying to keep everyone from having access to birth control is a horrifically bad idea. The US is a predominantly Christian nation with laws that spring from Judeo/Christian morality, but not everyone in it is Christian, and freedom of religion is one of the nation's founding principles. That's not the real problem, though.

The problem is that we have to do something to stem the tide. STDs are rampant. AIDS hasn't been a "gay problem" for at least ten years. IJD has the stats on accidental pregnancies. And the problems we have with unprotected sex in the West are nothing compared to the situation in Africa. And yet the Church is busy discouraging condom use, not just for its followers but for everyone. It's like enforcing the speed limit out of town in the middle of a nuclear reactor meltdown.

Yes, it would be a lot better if sex had never been trivialized -- if people treated it with the respect and significance it deserves. But we don't, and there's no realistic way to fix that any time soon. Right now what's needed is, if not a cure, a control. Something to lessen the damage. To slow the spread of disease, to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. Condoms aren't a solution. In the long run, maybe they're not even a good thing. But they are by FAR the lesser of two evils.

By the way, one reason my stand on this is different from my stand on abortion is that the religious argument is the only one against contraception. There's a strong secular case against gay marriage. There's an overwhelming secular case against abortion. But there is NO secular case against birth control. That makes a big difference in a country with freedom of religion.

[Vedra]

Nobody laughed at my Middle Ages thing....I thought it was funny. lol

[Alexia]

Too much above me I agree with to quote, so I won't bother. IJD, well said. That's why I think England is starting to get the idea with Family Planning Clinics. Any person, no matter what age, can go in and get advice and birth control for free. Basically, we are realising that this is happening and instead of ignoring it we're taking steps to reduce teenage pregnancy.

It's interesting that a group of young adults and teens can have a discussion and, no matter what their views or religious beliefs, basically agree on good and bad solutions to important problems, when politicians and older members of this Earth can't...

[Chancellor Valium]

If I may draw up our conclusions:
- Abortion is a Bad Thing
- Contraception may well be a Bad Thing
- But in the long run, Contraception is less of a Bad Thing than Abortion.
- Far improved sex ed and other attempts to stem the tide of abortions would be a Good Thing
- Abortion should perhaps only be used when a mother's life is in danger
- Edmund Mortimer was Warwick the Kingmaker (or vice versa) - sorry, obscure reference, that.
If I could just say, abortion is meant to be both physically and mentally harrowing for the mother, and that the foetus is thrown away like common garbage. Also, in Britain, the Daily Telegraph recently uncovered that a "charity" which was actively supported by our NHS was encouraging women to go out to Spain, to a clinic where they could have children terminated after the twenty-four week limit. This is illegal in Spain as well. Also, I believe that the twenty-six week limit on children who perhaps have something like downs syndrome is wrong, because just because they are less able than others doesnt mean they're less people. Also, if you carryon down this path, you get to genetic perfection and correcting peoples DNA and stuff like that which it is VERY tricky to claim is right.
oh, and Xeroc, I think you meant o-e spelling on foetus - it's from a greek word (I think) which is why it has the dipthong. The reason I don't accept american spellings is that the British spellings show the roots of the words. American spellings do not as they are, if you will excuse me saying this, "mis-spelt" - they do not show the origins of themselves. :wink:

[Gatac]

Word, IJD. Well put.

Gatac

[marplanauta]

Even though i am not a religious person, i have to agree with zeke in what he says, and i really liked what IJD said, because it gave me a different perspective.

[Zeke]

- Edmund Mortimer was Warwick the Kingmaker (or vice versa) - sorry, obscure reference, that.

Oo, is the obscure reference to 1066 And All That?

[anothertrekprof]

Hey, y'all, newbie/lurker here.

Finally have something I want to say, which I haven't heard anyone say yet, so here goes...

I speak from a conflicted position: I'm a religious conservative, social liberal mother of three, biology professor (hence the name; also, hence the boring name--too busy writing/grading tests for poor folks like Zeke to think of better name) that is pro-life, also pro-choice.

I can speak to some of the ideas tossed out on this forum. I am one of those women who know what it's like to be find themselves pregnant and really, really, not want to have a child (but love her so much now anyway). It gets my goat (dating myself here!) to hear people talk about a woman's right to choose, since it's *her* body. How can scientists (or any reasonably informed person) not acknowledge (as did one earlier poster:Thank you!) that the genetic code of the life form from conception onwards is unique (unless later twinned) and thus what we are talking about is not her body, it's another person's (nascent) body completely dependent on hers? Argue if you like about the right of a woman to terminate that life. Although I do not like to see abortions occur, I actually think that she may have the right to have one, but I don't propose that it's her body when it's a genetically different individual. I wish pro-abortion folks would just admit that it is, at some point during pregnancy, a human life that they think a woman should be able to terminate. Then I could have more respect for their arguments.

(And don't call this "flip-flopping". It's called thinking and taking a careful, reasoned approach to a complicated topic. As opposed, to, say, adopting a dogmatic stance based on *lack* of thinking and remaining inflexible in light of development of evidence to the contrary of one's opinion...)

Although I intellectually can sympathize with our appointed president's stance on abortion, there is unfortunately ample evidence that his programs to have sex ed & abstinence programs are NOT working. Actually, there have been more abortions since he took office. I wish there weren't. I wish that people would listen & take responsibility for their actions. But don't take my word for it; see this article by a *pro-lifer*: http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/11/oped-stassen1011-5709.html.
(Yes, although I made my web page, I can't be bothered to figure out how to link this. Apologies, but that ain't gonna get me tenure. sigh.)

Bottom line of the article: Bush has screwed up the economy, etc. so much, that the culture we are living in makes it harder for women to feel like they can support another child. So his administration has indirectly, at least, caused more abortions to happen by their actions.

A point I don't think I've seen someone make here: one cannot separate lofty moral values (of which I am very dubious about Dubya's, based on his many other actions) from the pragmatics of a country's economic and cultural landscape.
That's (just one reason) why I don't vote for Bush although I have pro-life sympathies.


Hey, Enterprise is on!
Rant off :)
Bye[/url]

[Anonymous]

[Edited to add Wowbagger's name at left. - Z]

Vedra, sorry if I sounded cross with my direct question to you. I figured you were most fit to answer that question, as the only person who had struck me as endorsing the legality of most abortions. Not trying to flame you (is that the correct use of the verb?).

Valium, I respect your right to choose to say "foetus," but I would never choose to do so myself. After all, I speak, like, American, you know, whatev?

Oh, so much to say, so little time to waste online doing so.

1) Zeke, perfectly said. I would not use contraception. My religion opposes it, and I happen to agree with the religious argument against it. However, there is no secular argument against it that I can find.

2) Abortion, a red herring? I must disagree. Yes, a reduction in teen pregnancy rate would be great for a lot of reasons in addition to the reduction of the abortion rate. However, the teen abortion rate is about half that of the abortion rate among woman 20-24, and equal to that of the 25-29 bracket. As the Allan Guttmacher Institute's handy Tablemaker tool shows, abortion is not just a teen problem.

3) When we begin to talk about Gatac's "meaningful correlation" or maraplanauta's "sentience," we have crossed a very fine line from science and the legal realm into philosophy and religion. Who was it who recently said that we could draw the line at viability, or birth, or being able to care for itself, or the development of language, or puberty, "with progressing silliness of the argument?"

(EDIT: Found that quote, by Gatac:

Wowbagger: Define independant. Is it being geneticall different from it's host organism? Then it's conception, yeah. Is it having an own circulatory system? Early pregnancy. Recogniseably human? Late pregnancy. Physically disconnected from the mother? Birth. Able to care for itself? Eh...I think we're looking at a few *years* after birth with progressing silliness of the argument. )

Why is this silly? Seriously. Why is one member of homo sapiens as important as another? Is this a question for the courts, or for any man, to answer? I should say not. However, this thread has slipped to the philisophical, so I shall follow the discussion into the fever swamps of politics.

The points I am about to make are based closely enough on a single article to merit a citation. This it is (Yoda!):

Joyce, Robert E. "The Human Zygote is a Person," The New Scholasticism, 52, 1 (Winter 1978), pp. 97-109.

A person is a being with the natural potential to know, love, desire, and relate to self and others in a self-reflective way. There are a lot of different ways to say that, but one of the keys in that definition is natural potential, as distinguished from functional capacity. If, as some argue, one must have the functional capacity to be do those things, then the comatose, senile, retarded—even sleeping—humans would no longer be persons. This, as Mr. Joyce points out, seems out of step with our consciences (though, with the advent of euthanasia in the Switzerland-Norway-Netherlands area and China's Draconian one-child policies, perhaps it won't be for long).

The obvious counter to that, as any developmentalist will argue, is that we should rule that anyone who has, in the past, fulfilled that functionality should receive the protection of society. This seemed to be the position of the American Supreme Court, until it ruled in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey that anyone can kill anybody else in its infamous "Heart of Liberty" clause.

I would say, however, that a person is not merely an individual with a developed capacity for reasoning, loving, etc., but is any individual with the potential for those things. Individuals may never attain or may one day lose that functional capacity to fulfill their human nature, but this inability does not destroy the nature itself, although it is then harder for us to appreciate.

Neither a human or a rabbit embryo can functionally reason or love. Neither will write a treatise such as this, nor be as long-winded. But the radical difference between the two is that the human embryo has, within itself, the (some would say God-given) natural capacity to do so. To directly quote, "For all its concerns about potentialities, the developmentalist fails to see the actuality upon which these potentialities are based."

Every potentiality is in itself an actuality. The potential of a black "3/5 of a person" man to cross the street is an actuality that the tree next to him does not have. A woman can give birth, which is an actual potential a man simply does not posess. The potential of a human conceptus to think and talk is an actuality. This actual potential (don't you love how I put the important terms in italics, like in high school textbooks?)—not just logical potential—is a much more reasonable ground for affirming personhood than some subjective standard of sentience.

Whoa. I think that covers most of my philisophical underpinnings. Sorry about the length; my friends often complain that my opinions get too long, especially on abortion, and they're probably right.

A couple of clarifications:

4) An extreme view would not have masturbation or wet dreams or menstruation as mass murder. Sperm (Spermatozoae? or is it 2nd decl. neuter? or is this irrelevant?) and ova are not potential persons, they are potential causes of persons. You could leave an ovum in a womb for a millenium and that would still be all you had (actually, you'd probably have a dead ovum). If you combine a sperm and an ovum and leave them there, the two will destroy each other and form something new, which will change into an adult, reproducing human in 9-18 years, depending on gender and genetics.

5) As I've said, I don't believe that any of this discussion of personhood is necessary. The law really ought to avoid endorsing any single philosophy (as it does with religion), and give the fetus/foetus the legal "benefit of the doubt," so to speak.

6) I have said that allowing abortions in cases of extreme jeopardy to the mother's physical health would be acceptable. I repeat that here.

7) Finally, and startrekprof makes an excellent lead-in to this, I speak on abortion not as a woman, but as a former fetus. I was one of those high-risk fetuses. When Mom got the shingles or what-have-you (dating myself here!), and the tests started coming back badly, "they" started predicting that I had a sizable chance of being born blind or, more likely, dead. "Others" advised abortion. As you might guess, Mom did not follow such advice. My little sister, now a wonderful ten-year-old, had about 9 chances in 10 of being born with Downs. Again, Mom chose life. The point of this is that there are personal stories from both the mother and fetus's points of view.

startrekprof, why bother ending the rant when ENT comes on? I've just been saving and quitting on MS Word on-and-off for about 36 hours now, as necessary.

Guns: I live in Minnesota. 'Nuff said, except for this thought for you political junkies out there: "How do you ask a goose to be the last goose to die for a campaign stunt? How do you ask a goose to die for a photo op?

This isn't well-edited, cause I just finished, don't want to work on it any more, and need to go right now and watch DS9 with my other sister.

Really, I am going to comment on the War on Terror and on "Iraqistan."

Soon.

[Vedra]

I wasn't saying I was in support of abortion, but I'm not going to deny it to someone. I don't see it as right to push your beliefs on anyone, religiously or morally or lawfully. That's why I'm against the gay marriage ban and against banning abortion, but I do support controlling abortion. Anyway, back to not pushing beliefs. That's why I don't let religious people in when they knock on my door; if I wanted to hear about it, I'd go to their church. (which I would never do, since I see the only difference between "religion" and "cult" to be your tax-exempt status.)

Oh, and unless this is just something your preacher told you, please give me a quote or other supporting evidence from the Bible that contraception is wrong or goes against God...or whatever. There are more reasons to use contraception, like condoms, than just preventing pregnancy. I would never deny myself protection just because someone told me that the world's ultimate imaginary friend said I shouldn't. That's foolish. And yes, that was also a really bitchy thing to say,but, I mean, look at my avatar. I'm one pissed off cat.

Oh,and I just read anothertrekprof's post. Ya know, I suppose I hadn't totally considered that. It's DNA is unique. But until a certain point, it's still just a clump of cells, correct? Without it's mother, it would die, there's no argument on that. And in that way, rather than being a separate organism, it's simply a foreign growth. I'd call it a parasite, if that word didn't have negative connotations. So, anyway, in a sense, it still is her body.

[Gatac]

The "progressing silliness" of tha argument is that which leads us to declare that until you've left your parent's home, make your own living and have a child yourself, you do not count as "independant". It's merely me stating that the argument about "indepedantly alive" can quickly be lead ad absurdum through defining "indepedency". Heck, we could go so far as to say that "independantly alive" is an oxymoron, seeing how you depend on air, food, water...THAT is the silliness.

Something I feel the need to clear up (once more): I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. All I'm saying is that it's a difficult topic. If you think it's wrong to have an abortion, don't get one, but also don't get in the way of those who feel differently.

The "potential" of a cell (because we all start from one cell) to develop into a full-grown human being is not independant of it's environment. If you remove a freshly fertilized ovus from the womb, it will probably die unless steps are taken to conserve it. Even then, it can not develop further outside of a womb. As such, it is a combination of human DNA, the flexibility of stem cells AND the life-supporting environment which enables the fetus to actualize it's potential. If I get cut and bleed, do my blood cells have potential to eventually grow into another me? Is a fetus in cold storage going to grow up to be a human? No to both. The fetus is intimately connected to the mother. They can not be seperated until quite late in pregnancy. Unless somebody invents an artificial womb, that factor will continue to play a role.

I can understand opposition to abortion if you owe your life to a mother who didn't do it. However, that is largely irrelevant to the discussion. By the same token, you could be radically anti-firearms because somebody you knew was shot - that is understandable, but doesn't make your case more compelling than it already is. (Unless it leads you to research the facts and come to the logical conclusion that private possession of firearms is bad, but that's why we're arguing, not just nodding to the words of the first person who makes an emotional plea.)

Everybody has potential, but nobody knows how and if it will be realised. If I say that my hypothetical newly-born child has the potential to be a genius, I'm probably right, but that doesn't say anything about whether it *will* be a genius.

Gatac

[ijdgaf]

While the percentage of teenagers partaking in abortions may not be as large as that of other groups (I'd like to see a link on this, if you have one), I still think the best way to solve the abortion problem is by educating teens.

Especially when one considers that America's rate of teen abortions to teen births is actually relatively low. Yeah, we've got a lot of abortions going on. But that's only half of the picture.

Also, by educating teenagers we are effectively educating the whole nation. Okay, perhaps plenty abortions are performed for older women. But older women were teenagers once. It's the same solution as increasing the literacy rate. You work on increasing standards of education in the youth.

Ultimately, I think of abortion as a necessary evil. It happens too much in this country, and the U.S. (and indeed, the whole world) needs to work on reducing how many abortions are "required" of women. But if a country can get these rates as low as possible, then I think having medically available abortions is a necessity. It's far better than the alternative. As soon as abortion is made illegal, then it changes from a clinical, relatively safe procedure into an almost unfathomable act relegated to barbaric means. I don't want to see it become this. Think of how much worse it could be as a black market affair.

As long as the rates are as low as possible, then I think it's a necessary evil. And if it's against a person's morals, then nobody's forcing it upon anyone.

All that said, I still think the teen pregnancy question is ultimately more important than the abortion one.

I'm really damn tired right now, and probably incoherent. If I just lost all resemblance to intelligence, then perhaps I'll make up for it later. Or not.

[Chancellor Valium]

You say you wouldn't press your beliefs on someone, Vedra, but your arguments are worryingly one-sided and biased IMO...Leaving the subject of abortion for JUST a moment - as regards your sig, Vedra, the whole POINT of the message of Christ was that we AREN'T all obsessivly chaste monks, that we DO make mistakes, and that you should ask forgiveness and try to be better, and if you fail, ask forgiveness and try again. Oh, and forcing your opinions, calling someone's point of belief "the world's biggest imaginary friend" comes pretty close, and in any case is damned offensive.
If we take your argument to it's extremes (as the well-known atheist Douglas Adams did - indeed, I quote his example...), we get the Adamsian example "I believe that the moon is made of rock, but I must equally respect your belief that it is cheese." While we can't debate this on the subject of God (its very hard to prove or disprove the existence of God, so please don't try and force your opinion on others), if we take another example: Is murder right? Answer by the sane population of the world: Of course not!
So why is it allowable to kill someone just because they are in their mother's womb. If a woman killed her child she would be in deep horseshit, but at 24 weeks, a foetus is fully damn formed! And yet they can be killed! Indeed, in the US, a child can be killed when half out of the womb, at which point it will have started to breathe!
Also, children with as little as a cleft pallette can be terminated just because of that up until when they are about to be born! If the mother's life is in danger, fine - I have no problem with that. But many terminations are just laziness on people's part. Oh, and abortion is apparently very harrowing both mentally and physically for a mother.
Better sex ed - that is what we need.
Oh, and I am not at all against contraception.

[MmeBlueberry]

And if it's against a person's morals, then nobody's forcing it upon anyone.

(ijd isn't the only one to have made this particular point, but his was a concise quote so I picked it.)

It seems to me that a person can have 3 possible moral stances on abortion:

1. It's morally right for anyone and everyone.
2. It's not morally right for me, but it's morally right for anyone who thinks it is.
3. It's not morally right for anyone.

The problem with the quote above is that it assumes people who are morally opposed to abortion fall into the second category. That isn't the case. People who fall in that category, in my experience, are generally pro-choice - they consider the main issue in the debate to be over whether a woman should have the right to choose an abortion, and they say yes, she should.

People who are pro-life, again in my experience, are generally in the third category. If I think abortion is the termination of a human life, and I don't think it's right for individuals to terminate human lives, then I'm not just opposed to personally having an abortion; I'm opposed to anyone having an abortion.

Put the child on the other side of the womb and let's suppose that infanticide were an issue (yes, I know it isn't, but work with me here). Let's suppose that some people think an infant, who's dependent on others for basically everything, isn't really a human being, so they have no problem with infanticide. Others think that dependence isn't the issue, since the baby has human DNA and is a living human person; they think infanticide is tantamount to killing. Would you tell the anti-infanticide people, "Well, just don't terminate your own babies, then. No one's forcing you to do that. But it's intolerant to keep others from terminating their babies if they don't believe they're human."? Of course not. If the issue is truly about life, then it's not just about protecting your own offspring; it's about protecting all the innocent lives. That is why pro-life people are not content simply to refrain from having abortions themselves while having no problem with the rest of the world having abortions.

[Gatac]

Which brings us back to the question whether killing a freshly-born baby is morally equivalent to killing a just conceived fetus...

Fascinatingly complex topic, hm?

Gatac

[Chancellor Valium]

Horrendously so...

[Gatac]

Religion is perhaps an even worse topic to get any sort of productive agreement from - that's why I'm agnostic.

Most everybody will agree that murder is wrong, but that is a question of culture, not of sanity. (Depending on the situation, purposedly killing somebody might be the most rational solution; the fact that we will probably not end up in such a situation over the course of our lives does not mean this point can be glossed over.) Now, if we could get people to agree that abortion is murder, the problem would be rather resoundingly proved, right? Unfortunately, there is no agreement on this point.

"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

Gatac

[Chancellor Valium]

Perhaps you're right. I can't think of any circumstances where killing someone would be the logical solution, barring Saddam Hussein and the First Gulf War, that is. But I thought we had come to some sort of conclusion on this - as I drew up on the last page....sigh... :(
EDIT: just read last page. I'm in total agreement with Wowbagger and anothertrekprof. Oh, and yes, Zeke, that was a 1066 reference, and so is this (concerning the end of the first world war):
"PEACE TO END PEACE
Though there were several battles in the War, none were so terrible as the Peace which was signed in the ever-memorable Chamber of Horrors at Versailles, and which was caused by the only memorable American statesman, President Wilson and Col. White House, who insisted on a lot of points, including
1. that England should be allowed to pay for the War: this was a Good Thing because it strengthened British (and even American) credit;
2. that the world should be made safe for democracy, i.e. anyone except pillion-riders, pedestrians, foreigners, Jews, riffs, R.A.F.S., gun-men, policemen, peasants, pheasants, Chinese, etc.;
3. that there should be a great many more countries: this was a Bad Thing as it was the cause of increased geography;
4. teh Freedom of the Seas: this was a Good Thing as it did not apply to Britain or America (or Switzerland);
5. that the Kaiser should be hanged: this was a Good Thing as it was abandoned, together with Mr. Lloyd George, the Irish Question, etc.

CHAPTER LXII
A BAD THING
AMERICA was thus clearly top nation, and history came to a ."

Note: This book was written in 1930, and was designed as a satirical look at history through the eyes of a slightly tipsy and stupid english ex-public-schoolboy - totally biased, and often completely wrong, but amusing, nonetheless. It is a complete farce, and definitely should be bought repeatedly by anyone looking for christmas presents. Try second-hand bookshops. by W.C. Sellar and R.J. Yeatman.

[Gatac]

Of course, it is inconceivable to resort to murder under any circumstances where there are laws to be followed; throw that out of the window, and survival quickly becomes "Me vs. Everyone else". Sad and wrong when seen from any civilised perspective, true, but unimaginable? Not so.

As for Hussein - please, let's not open that can of worms. For the sake of your sanity...

Gatac

[Chancellor Valium]

As you like it. I was only asking the simple question - why? Why stop when you could have gotten rid of him. Then this war wouldn't have happened....who knows what could have been avoided....maybe even 9/11...but perhaps we shouldn't think about might-have-beens, and instead think about what-is's....

[Gatac]

Don't look at me - in my humble opinion, the fairest form of warfare would have been locking Saddam and Bush Sr. into a room and declaring the one who walks out winner...

The question is whether there should have been a war in the first place, though it's admittedly a bit less controversial than the sequel.

Gatac

[ijdgaf]

1. It's morally right for anyone and everyone.
2. It's not morally right for me, but it's morally right for anyone who thinks it is.
3. It's not morally right for anyone.

The problem with the quote above is that it assumes people who are morally opposed to abortion fall into the second category. That isn't the case. People who fall in that category, in my experience, are generally pro-choice - they consider the main issue in the debate to be over whether a woman should have the right to choose an abortion, and they say yes, she should.

People who are pro-life, again in my experience, are generally in the third category. If I think abortion is the termination of a human life, and I don't think it's right for individuals to terminate human lives, then I'm not just opposed to personally having an abortion; I'm opposed to anyone having an abortion.

Put the child on the other side of the womb and let's suppose that infanticide were an issue (yes, I know it isn't, but work with me here). Let's suppose that some people think an infant, who's dependent on others for basically everything, isn't really a human being, so they have no problem with infanticide. Others think that dependence isn't the issue, since the baby has human DNA and is a living human person; they think infanticide is tantamount to killing. Would you tell the anti-infanticide people, "Well, just don't terminate your own babies, then. No one's forcing you to do that. But it's intolerant to keep others from terminating their babies if they don't believe they're human."? Of course not. If the issue is truly about life, then it's not just about protecting your own offspring; it's about protecting all the innocent lives. That is why pro-life people are not content simply to refrain from having abortions themselves while having no problem with the rest of the world having abortions.

While I understand the notion behind this (believe me, I spent a long time debating which camp I fell into before I settled on my current stance), the simple fact that half the people out there simply don't agree with those who think it is morally wrong for everyone kind of throws a wrench in that notion.

What about the teenagers? They would be hit very hard by the lack of availability. Would all teenagers be morally obligated to carry their child to term? I would argue, teenagers are simply not equipped to deal with a child, or the decision whether to keep a child or give it up for adoption (or to have an abortion for that matter). Is a widespread teen birth rate more desirable than any abortions occuring at all? What about all those teens who wouldn't accept no for an answer, and would resort to crude methods of aborting their child? It's a horrible implication, and one I think shouldn't be overshadowed by the idea that abortions are WRONG FOR EVERYONE.

Abortion as an issue needs to go on the wayside, while our country (and others, no doubt -- Canada's teen pregnancy rate is 50something per thousand) needs to focus on teen pregnancy. You can't attack abortion, or the birth rate goes up. You can't work on destigmatizing abortion or the abortion rate goes up. Neither of these is a good option. One has to attack the whole of the issue, not just the part one finds most morally wrong.

One last thing, I'd like to add that laws aren't made based on morals. Or at least, they shouldn't be. Laws are practical tools to ensure order. Murder is illegal because it disrupts people's right to live. Abortion is a much grayer issue. When does life start? We'll never know. The minute legislation becomes about morality is the minute democracy turns into theocracy. Where does it stop? Is mandatory baptizing of all citizens moral, thus legal? It sounds crazy, but once the church's teachings turn into legal ones, will it stop with abortion? What about gay marriage -- an entire class of people are denied the right to marriage by the government why? Because people consider gays as second class citizens? Because religion teaches homosexuality is wrong? What happens when these laws are passed. What next? There's always something. Will it end there? Somehow, I doubt it.

[Gatac]

One last thing, I'd like to add that laws aren't made based on morals. Or at least, they shouldn't be. Laws are practical tools to ensure order.

Amen.

The problem with laws is that they have this suboptimal tendency to stick around far longer than they should. Remember, this IS the government that put one of it's senators on a no-fly list and had immense trouble getting him off it again because nobody could quite figure out how to do it.

Gatac

[Wowbagger]

Wow, I love doing this. And I don't know why. Ah, well. You only live once...

1) Forcing of beliefs: I agree about religion, but not legal or for a large portion of morality. Religious beliefs should not be forced upon the populace. However, some other beliefs, such as the inalienable rights to life, liberty, ownership of property, and the pursuit as happiness, must be preserved. Rather than try to back that up with an actual argument, I'm going to treat that as a premise. If someone wants to argue those, then we're into first principles of philosophy, and that would last for years.

2) Contraception: I'm Catholic. This means that our faith is not based solely on Scripture, but what God has revealed through Divine Revelation to His Church. We believe (and, I should say, are right) that, in a nutshell, that sexuality is meant as an act of complete self-gift, and that contraceptives prevent that self-gift. I've written a few pages on this, but, frankly, it doesn't much matter to this political argument, and I see no reason to go to a place from which we can never really return. If you're really curious, here's a link to another forum where we had a dedicated topic for this, where I appear as TheDM: <http://s3.invisionfree.com/TheRandomRoom/index.php?showtopic=118>. My feeling is that most people here would get bored in about 10 seconds. I would have.

3) Now, why am I not logged in? Dang it, my last post got posted as a guest. Thanks, whoever fixed that.

4) Unfortunately, IJD, due to the construction of the Allan Guttmacher tablemaker, a direct link is not possible. However, you can toy around however you like from here: <http://www.agi-usa.org/tablemaker/page1.mhtml>.

5) IJD, you have some good points about sex ed. I see no reason not to massively improve our system. However, the high teen birth rate is no reason not to make 99% of abortions illegal. I see your argument as similar to what I term the "Prudential" argument for keeping slavery legal: "We can just educate people all how black people are human, and the slavery rate will go down. Also, imagine how horrific slavery would be if it were a black market operation." The argument was probably right, too. But it wouldn't change the horrible injustice done to the few remaining slaves, nor was slavery much better when operated legally. Your fifth-to-last sentence reminds me of one of my mother's favorite sayings on seeing the bumper sticker, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." She always growls, "Don't like wife beating? Don't beat yours."

6) Now I'm reading your next post, IJD, while I'm on the topic of you, which you seem to have posted while I've been typing. Curses. Yes, all teens should be required to carry their children (I find it intriguing) that you use that word) to term. I don't think that aborting a child is any more difficult of a choice to make than whether or not to give him up for adoption. I suppose, with abortion, you know exactly where your baby is: in the grave. Except that fetuses don't get graves.

7) As page 6 of this topic has progressed, I have seen the argument slowly reach its furthest possible point without changing into something completely new. This is the point which has turned Blue against Red, Coasts against Heartland, Europe against America, and Brother against Brother. Most of the time, morality and the maintenance of order go hand-in-hand, and the law follows. However, on abortion, and, as America discorvered last week, a host of other issues have found the ultimate mediums. These issues are not even gray: to those who believe that morality is the foundation of law, it is a black-and-white issue. To those who believe law is about order, it is a white-and-black issue. Those first principles I stated at the beginning of this post? We've now found grounds on which some of them can no longer be said to be given.

I'm not talking about gay marriage, mind you. That is a whole different monkey. The arguments against it are sound, but, unfortunately, the vast majority of those who passed the 11 state constitutional amendments last week have no idea what they are, instead basing their vote on strictly religious grounds.

What I suppose it really comes down to is this: Is there a right and a wrong? Or is life merely a series of power relationships, with each individual trying to get the upper hand? Murder, I fear, is only the first issue. There will soon be challenges like this on every front, and the world (now I'm just getting cynical) will be plunged into war before anyone realizes what has happened to society.

Maybe I've just degenerated into ranting and fear-mongering. On the other hand, the way in which this debate seems to be stalled only assures me that I am onto something.

Gatac: Fascinatingly complex topic, hm?
Valium: Horrendously so...

Commence the rebuttals!

--Wowbagger
Insulting this Forum in Alphabetical Order: Admiral Sab, you are a nitwit, likely unable to tie your own shoe. If a football were to be thrown at you, you would likely trip over your laces.

[Gatac]

You only live twice, Wowbagger! Has James Bond taught you nothing? :)

1) I just realized that yes, I could probably dispute this, but somehow, I don't feel like going over THAT, too. Maybe later.

5) I know I'll probably receive massive negative Karma for bringing this up, but it's easy to say slavery is wrong when you're looking back at it from our perspective. However *draws deep breath*, there were economic reasons back in the days that meant slavery was viable. People made money off it, commerce flourished from it, and I have my doubts that the US could have gotten to a leading position that fast without slavery or the semi-slavery of "corporate towns" and such. Now, I firmly believe slavery is morally wrong, but at the time, that wasn't exactly a very popular opinion. People *believed* it was, if not right, then at least justified. Lincoln made a hell of an effort *not* to come out and say that he thought slavery should be made illegal.

The morale of the story? Somebody will come along in the future and wonder why we ever argued. ;)

6) So as an added "screw you" to the part of the populace that's least likely to have thought through getting pregnant, you're also forcing them to carry it through? Sure, an abortion will probably be regretted later, but giving the emotionally needy a peptalk on responsibility won't help. (By the same token, forcing an abortion would be equally bad, if not much worse.) So the teenagers - financially dependant and busy with getting their education and building their own existence - get saddled with kids. So it's either being supremely stressed in the period where their life will not cope with just missing a year or two to care for children or giving the child away. Maybe the grandparents will take care of it during the day, if you're lucky.

I know, the situation is already bad, but this doesn't sound like an improvement. Education remains the favored weapon for me.

7) Of course, laws were first derived from moral codes. But is that still viable today? When we have laws for an entire nation, whose moral code do we use?

What precisely would you say are arguments against gay marriage, on secular grounds? I mean, I can see the religious point of view, but ignoring perceived morality, my question is: why not? What's so fundamentally wrong and harmful to society at large about it?

In my opinion, there is no absolute right or wrong. There are things I, here, in this moment, agree with, and things I disagree with. At large, there are a few basic things most of us can agree with, and that is what the majority will define as "right" or "legal", but that does not mean it is *right* independantly of those people.

Life *is* a network of power relationships. It generally works, and like many other animals, humans are obsessed with hierarchies, order and structures. There is a strong feeling of cause and effect that pervades everything we do. Show up in the office in the morning, do work, get paid, buy food, eat, survive. Our actions are based on reasons and driven by the result we wish to archieve. The primary goals of any lifeform are survival and reproduction. "Gaining the upper hand" does not mean becoming Supreme Overlord of All Mankind. It means surviving, staying on top of the game. And yes, there's lots of people who fail. That's regrettable, but it's been that way for as long as life has existed, and is unlikely to change in the near future.

Wars generally suck for all involved, but they too have been part of the pattern for a long time. Unless fundamental changes in the economic reality happen (and I'm talking replicator post-scarcity economics here), war will continue. We won't be plunged into war; we've been involved in one for as long as mankind's collective memory serves.

Yeah, I know, it's a sobering thought.

Gatac

[Vedra]

I was stating my feelings. Forcing my beliefs on you would be if I firebombed your church, just like those people that firebomb abortion clinics.

I tend to post on here with a gut reaction mentality...if I see someone saying something that pisses me off, I'll respond to it in my own creatively offensive way,so you shouldn't take about....37% of what I say seriously or personally.And that includes the earlier part of this message. lol

[Chancellor Valium]

Laws are based on a set of moral - and yes, they will work today - you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not commit adultery - at least trying to follow these rules makes some sense - and should make life a little easier - for one thing, you're not making up crap to the wife about how you didn't steal that sack of gold, and how you've never seen the girl in the bathroom before in your life, lol.

but Gatac: HOW IN THE SEVEN HELLS can you claim that just because it was economically sound it was morally right to enslave people? Explain this one to me, because I have a hard time seeing it. IT IS WRONG. No two ways around it. And as for people who were behind it, I can give you one single reason: greed. Perhaps people did believe it was justified - but perhaps they believed the moon was made of cheese. Any way, I thought that the majority had no place in matters of conscience?

Personally, I do believe in absolute right and wrong, but sometimes there are moderating influences, and you have to add those in.

[Gatac]

But morality follows from the basic rules on how people should live together. Nobody sat down and said "Hey, wouldn't it be swell if we didn't kill each other on sight?"; this basic rule follows from the age-old revelation that when you've got more time to eat when you're not constantly watching your back.

Reread my post, Valium. Nowhere do I say that it was morally right. I do not agree with slavery. There, I'll say it again. Slavery is wrong to me. My point was, back in the days, it was still wrong, but it made economic sense. Corporate towns existed beyond actual slavery before the workers flat out refused to do anything, and today, we're headed in a similar direction again. It's a simple economic truth that when you already have a market to sell to, your best bet is cheap - very cheap - labor. The rise of wages throughout came from the realisation that the workers were the new market. (There's currently an uproar over working conditions at Electronic Arts - they have their staff work 7 days a week with barely enough time off to sleep, and then have the guts to claim that the creative guys are not entitled to overtime pay. Tell me how this is not alarmlingly similar to slavery.)

Of course there was greed behind it. Greed drives many human endavours, both positive and negative.

This actually illuminates the quote quite well - the majority believed it was right, but we know now that it wasn't and still isn't. History does not record many cases where the majority was right.

If there are moderating influences, then it's not absolute, or? I'm sorry, but this sounds like a logical contradiction. So there's a few things that are always wrong or always right, and then there's a big gray smudge between them for everything else?

I know I'm dragging up a lot of bad things, but those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Gatac

[ijdgaf]

I really don't like the idea of abortion.

Any time I ever discuss abortion with people who are pro-life, it inevitably becomes an emotional conversation on their side of the fence. It's not a pretty practice, and it's not something I like to think about. And ultimately, I would disagree with it on moral grounds if I was the father in a potential case of it.

Fetuses don't get graves. That was said for emotional effect, and I do sympathize. It's important for all you pro-lifers to remember that the people you're debating with aren't necessarily agreeing with this practice. Call it a case of the bystander effect if you will, but I for one, am not pulling any triggers.

Let me phrase my argument a little differently, and perhaps it will become more effective.

With such a high abortion rate, we have no business simply outlawing the practice right here and now.

Think of abortion as a huge bonfire. Do you stamp it out with your foot? No, that's a surefire way to get engulfed in flames. Instead, you wait for the fire to die out some. Then you can stamp it out with minimal damage to your shoe.

We have a high abortion rate. And I don't think making it illegal today is a great idea. Let's say tomorrow, laws are passed which illegalize abortion. What happens? A swell in the birthrate. Women all over the place with the unexpected duty of preparing to be a mother. Since the rate is so high at present, we'd have a messy situation on our hands for a while.

Wouldn't it be smarter to make this move more gradually? Do our best to reduce the abortion rate across all age ranges. Get these rates as low as possible. Then we can debate about whether or not abortion is right -- when the consequences of our making such a judgement won't be as severe as they would be right now.

What I'm saying is, our argument about abortion presently is premature. We should stop worrying about whether it's right or wrong, and start worrying about reducing it. Politicians bicker so much about preserving it or eliminating it, and the rate continues to grow. Abortion is not a problem we need to solve today. I think we can all agree that the rate at present is way too high. So let's take measures to reduce it.

And here, we get back to the contraception solution. Educate teenagers about contraception. These teenagers will feel better about it as adults. The more people use contraception, the less people will even have to think about abortion: yay or nay. We need to stamp this fire gradually, not all at once.

To those with a pro-life stance: once the abortion rate has been significantly reduced, I might very well be on your side. But until then, while I think your intentions are pure, your methods would be a mistake.

[Zeke]

IJD, I think you said "pro-choice" when you meant "pro-life" a couple of times there. Could be wrong, but it seems to make more sense that way. [ED: He's fixed it now. - Z]

As for your point, it's well taken. It would be a lot safer, not to mention more realistic, to try and phase out abortion by bringing the pregnancy rate down rather than banning it outright. And if we were talking about something like smoking, I'd agree.

But abortion is unique in its sheer severity. Every day abortion is legal in the States, nearly 4000 are performed. (The worldwide figure is around 125 000.) For anyone who believes abortion is murder, this is a horrific, unconscionable situation. And unless it's proven that more people will die if abortion is made illegal, we can't talk about phasing it out. It has to stop. Every extra day that takes us is another 4000 deaths.

To use your metaphor, no, you don't try to stamp a bonfire out with your foot. But you don't wait for it to die down either -- because who knows if it will? You have to douse it with water, and the sooner you start, the less chance the blaze will get even worse.

(I guess I've proven your point about pro-lifers inevitably getting "emotional." Unfortunately, this is an inherently emotional issue. It can't be reduced to numbers any more than slavery or ethnic cleansing can.)

[Chancellor Valium]

Another point is euthanasia is generally considered wrong. But how much difference is there between the elderly and the unborn?

Oh, and Vedra: If you are going to talk about my religion, then read the New Testament, read up on what my religion interprets it to mean, and the history of my religion and the lives of the people who made my religion, THEN tell me about what it thinks, not before. :wink:

[Gatac]

Euthanasia is a similar issue, also with pro-life and pro-choice arguments. In a way, this tends to get even more absurd - after all, people have been convicted for murdering people who have expressedly stated (and put down in writing) that they wish to end their lives.

Does that mean it's morally wrong to not apply life-supporting measures after brain death if the patient asks for it?

Taken to it's logical extreme - do humans have a right to suicide?

Gatac

[Chancellor Valium]

As attempting suicide is (I think) illegal in Britain, I would say Ooh, err, umm,ahh, uh, no probably not, in my personal opinion but it's not a subject I have looked into greatly. Also, the main worry with euthanasia is that it will become compulsory and that is a very dark lookout for the future...

[Gatac]

Compulsory Euthanasia? Sounds like Logan's Run to me.

But then, Compulsory (Anything) is pretty scary unless one enjoys being disenfranchised.

Gatac

[MaverickZer0]

We won't be plunged into war; we've been involved in one for as long as mankind's collective memory serves.

Yeah, I know, it's a sobering thought.

Gatac


I can't believe I'm getting back into this argument, but here goes.

First off, I agree with Gatac on that point. Society has been basically a development of finding new and better ways to kill people. That doesn't make it right, it makes it a fact. If you look at every show set in the future, even (and I can't believe I'm saying this) anime all that has really been accomplished in the development of human nature is that often people are less reluctant to kill. A disapraging fact, but a fact nonetheless.

Is this part of it? I honestly don't think any one person has the right to choose for everyone else. I am not going to go into a lengthy discussion pointing out examples of my point of view, the only simple thing for me to state is that I am in support of the individual's right to choose.

It is not a black-and-white matter, nor a white-and-black one. As soon as people realize it is pointless to debate a gray area and give it over to individual choice, the more open-minded we as a race will become.

Now, onto the next controversial issue, at least the next one I will tackle. (A couple issues hit very close to home, and you can't say the abortion one doesn't, because I have a sister with a boyfriend that I am very worried about. She is only two years older than me, they are living together, (yes, he moved in with my family) and, to be honest, I respect her privacy too much to ask if they are using birth control but I have a feeling they aren't. So it could very soon become a hot issue for me.)

The next issue is another grey area I feel it important to address.
Is murder right?
Usually, no. But i depends extremely on the circumstances. It isn't part of that old good vs. evil argument, it is simply fact is: you can't draw the line for murder anywhere.

Using a metaphoric analogy, if you had a large chalkboard with all the species of animals, including us, listed on it as sentience and you asked everyone in the world to draw a chalk line between what they considered murder and what is a lesser life form, you would get as many different answers as there are species.

Murder, formally definded in the law, is the act of killing another human. And yet we live in eternal war, one way or another.

It's a sick, bitter, twisted irony we have created in our society, isn't it?

[ijdgaf]

IJD, I think you said "pro-choice" when you meant "pro-life" a couple of times there. Could be wrong, but it seems to make more sense that way.

You're right. I've edited to fix my mistake (which is the result of posting at 5:30 in the morning).

Perhaps we're right in thinking that abortion is an inherently emotional subject. I'd say, this is probably one of the biggest reasons society needs to focus on the bigger picture. People get pretty worked up about abortion, whatever side of the issue they're on. It's hard to have a rational, reasoned argument this way. Hopefully in this thread we can try to overcome that.

You say unless it's proven that more people will die if abortion were outlawed right now, then you still think that's the best option. Well I never made any mention of more people dying (though some will). Simply, outlawing abortion outright would have consequences which I for one am not willing to face. Here's a few off the top of my head.

1) Abortion is made illegal, and pregnant teenagers will now have to carry their child to term. What we'd have on our hands is a swell in the teenage birthrate. Pro-lifers I've talked with in the past have mentioned (though it hasn't been brought up here as far as I've seen) that the lack of availability of abortions would act as a deterrent toward teenage sex, and over time cause a decline in the teenage birth rate. Well first, I'm not entirely comfortable with this conclusion. I think teenagers are going to have sex no matter what our legislative process allows. Look how well our war on drugs is going, as an example of this. But even if this conclusion were true, is this terribly desirable? Sacrificing thousands and thousands of teenaged girls who will no longer be able to follow their educational goals and perhaps career desires simply because they're mothers now? Even if they give their children up for adoption, that's a choice that they'll probably ruminate over for the remainder of their lives. Are we going to cause these children we've failed through our enormous stigma on contraception even more drama and perhaps suffering just so we can teach the future generations of teenagers a lesson? This is simply unacceptable if you ask me. I picture people saying "Heheh, that'll learn 'em", and I wonder how such people can buy into this and the whole sanctity of life argument. This isn't an accusation toward anyone in particular here, but I have encountered people like this.

2) Outlawing abortion at present would create a swell in the newfound practice of "black market abortions". Here's where your deaths will come from (unless of course outlawing abortions means outlawing all abortions, even when the life of the mother and/or child is at risk, killing mothers and children all over the place -- since more or less everyone here is against that, I won't discuss it at present). If you outlaw abortions, that will effectively eliminate some -- perhaps most. But what about those mothers who simply won't accept no for an answer? Outlawing legal abortions effectively creates a new market for illegal ones. While some of these practices may be just as safe as the ones at present, I very much doubt that most will conform to the rigorous level of control without any regulations in place. How many mothers will be killed as a result of these people doing a shoddy job? How many will be permenantly damaged? How many mothers won't even bother to find someone else to do it, and will do what many mothers in 3rd world nations are forced to do -- bend a clotheshanger and sit in the bathtub. This is infinitely more horrible than anything that actually goes on in our abortion clinics at present. By eliminating the regulated, you open a pandora's box I doubt you'd like very much.

It's interesting you say that my argument would be valid for smokers, but not for mothers wanting abortions. Especially with our present discussion of Euthanasia. Is not smoking a more gradual form of Euthanasia?

Something to think about, anyway.

[Vedra]

The only thing I said about your religion, Valium, is that you go to a "church", if that was incorrect, I apologize. I didn't connect you with people that firebomb abortion clinics, nor did I make any assumptions about your religion. If you're going to get on my case just for the hell of it, try a little harder next time to make sense.

[Chancellor Valium]

Well, you did kind of lump your Jehovah's Witnesses in with the less looney part of Christendom....that was really all....Christianity is about as unified as the Anglican Union.....which is falling to pieces atm.....

[PointyHairedJedi]

Just catching up with this, and I must say it's a fascinating debate.

Still very definitely moving to Mars though.

[Gatac]

The Total Recall Mars, or Ben Bova's Mars?

Gatac

[PointyHairedJedi]

Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars, actually.

[Gatac]

Hm.

Think I read that trilogy.

Gatac

[Zeke]

Just catching up with this, and I must say it's a fascinating debate.

Still very definitely moving to Mars though.

Spoken like someone who hasn't read The Martian Chronicles.

[Gatac]

There's only so much near-future non-Cyberpunk sci-fi I can take.

Gatac

[Zeke]

Sorry, that was actually addressed to Jedi, not you -- I didn't quote him because I didn't notice there was a new page of posts. (Fixed now.)

[PointyHairedJedi]

Spoken like someone who hasn't read The Martian Chronicles.
As it happens, no. I've vaugely heard of it though. Must be a nicer place than Wells' Mars though.

[ijdgaf]

Not by much.

(wow, Mars discussion? Wasn't expecting that... ;))

[marplanauta]

wow this topic has changed!

[Vedra]

I bet Mars has oil....so we should go there to...appropriate resources and free the Martian people from their dictator...and maybe look for weapons of mass destruction,too. But then again maybe we'll just blow it up.

Has anyone considered that maybe blowing up a planet might get some alien attention? We should consider it.

[Chancellor Valium]

Hmm....I say we pipe methane from Uranus, and take valuable minerals from pluto. After all, it's least likely to affect our orbit, being so far away. Which brings me onto: if we blew up a planet, wouldn't it be seriously bad for our orbit? Mightn't it make the planet uninhabitable (this one, not the one we blow up....)?

[Sa'ar Chasm]

I say we pipe methane from Uranus...

Must...resist...childish...joke...

if we blew up a planet, wouldn't it be seriously bad for our orbit?

Like, gravitationally? Or are you concerned about getting hit with chunks of ex-planet.

The gravity we'd notice about the same time we saw the explosion, but the chunks would take considerably longer.

I seriously doubt rearranging the mass distribution three orbits out would send us into an ice age. The inverse-square law has a way of ameliorating things.

Any other questions for Mr. Science?

[Zeke]

Like, gravitationally? Or are you concerned about getting hit with chunks of ex-planet.

I don't know what planet my exes are on, but I sure would be concerned about getting hit with chunks of it.

Any other questions for Mr. Science?

I have some. Direct me to him.

[Nan]

Zing.

[Chancellor Valium]

I meant that we might disturb the equlibrium of the solar system and throw ourselves out of our current orbit, or possibly into the sun. Oh and chunks would be bad, yes. Oh and odd fact no. 43345: the Daleks wanted to take out the core of the planet with a bomb and pilot the planet as a massive spaceship....funny they didn't realise just how stupid they were being, but then again, they ARE the Daleks....

[Zeke]

Yeah, Daleks are dumb. How many Daleks does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

What? I don't know. Why would I ask you if I knew?

[Nan]

What happened to the member titles?

[Chancellor Valium]

GAH! they've melted! THEY'VE MELLLL-TEEED!
the alternative response by me goes like this: Egad! She's right! What shall we do?

[Zeke]

SHIZNIT. I had to upgrade to phpBB v2.0.11 because of a security leak, and I didn't think it would interfere with the mods I've made. Apparently it did.

I'll fix it as soon as I can. But pie, as always, comes first.

[PointyHairedJedi]

the alternative response by me goes like this: Egad! She's right! What shall we do?
Egad? But why would this be any kind of shock to you? Though, you're new-ish, so you'll be let off the hook this time. But anyway, for future reference, Nan is always right. She's sort of like the pope, only less holy and more cranky.

Also, on the subject of blowing up planets, I doubt it would make any major difference to us directly, though if it were Jupiter and to a lesser extent Saturn we might have problems, because they catch (Jupiter mostly) a lot of the comets and bits of junk that fly into the Solar System, and we'd have to be slightly more worried about Deep Impact (I'm absolutely not going to mention Arma-- ha, nearly got me there, didn't you) becoming a reality. Losing the Moon would have much more of a direct effect on us than any of the other planets.

[Zeke]

Losing the Moon would have much more of a direct effect on us than any of the other planets.

That puts a bit of a snag in Frank J's plan (http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm)...

(Alternative quip: Somebody tell Piccolo.)

[Nan]

But anyway, for future reference, Nan is always right. She's sort of like the pope, only less holy and more cranky.

A Jedi after my own heart. Only not.

Bucking for a position of authority in the new world order, Pointy? ;)

[Alexia]

But anyway, for future reference, Nan is always right. She's sort of like the pope, only less holy and more cranky.

I second that. I've fallen into a "Right 50% of the time" slot, and I'm comfortable with that :wink:

[PointyHairedJedi]

Bucking for a position of authority in the new world order, Pointy? ;)
Well, if my own plans go awry, it never hurts to have a fallback... :D

That puts a bit of a snag in Frank J's plan (http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm)...
But we like the moon! (http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/)

[Chancellor Valium]

that song is good, but not as good as bananaphone and badgerbadgerbader.....

[Anonymous]

Wow, long week. I finally understand what Zeke means when he says he couldn't update. Doesn't mean I'll stop complaining, though. :wink:

It seems this topic has been dragged hopelessly off course. On the other hand, it's remarkable it lasted as long as it did. I'll just save my half-page for some point in the future when it is needed. Heh heh heh.

Nan is always right, and this earns her the punishment of repeated pokings. *pokes Nan*

My bet is that if we destroyed Mars, the surviving space-borne entities would welcome us as liberators to the black hunks they would then call their homes, even if an evil dictator (Marvin the Martian) escaped to Syr--Jupiter--with his Weapons of Earth Destruction. And then Bill O'Reilly would laugh at the stupid Martians. Then Christ would return, take the worthy up into Heaven, and the Democrats would retake the House and Senate.

And now, back to having a life. Or not. Translating the intricate tale of Publius and Furianus in Athens isn't exactly "having a life" in every sense of the word, but it is an approximation. Yes.

[Wowbagger]

Bloody... who keeps deleting my cookies?

Oh, yeah. Me. :oops: Sorry; that above "guest" post is, for the second time in a week, mine.

[Nan]

Wowbagger, I've asked politely before for you not to do that. Stop it. It's not funny. :x

[Sa'ar Chasm]

You don't want an angry Nan. Trust me.

[Chancellor Valium]

No indeed - mine once threa- oh, you mean Nan the forumgoer etc. Right probably not no.

[NAHTMMM]

Which brings me onto: if we blew up a planet, wouldn't it be seriously bad for our orbit? Mightn't it make the planet uninhabitable (this one, not the one we blow up....)?
A good question. However it would seem that the Sun has about 99% of the mass in the entire Solar System, so the addition or removal of even a Jupiter-sized planet in any non-Earthish orbit is quite unlikely to affect our orbit more than a teeeny-tiny smidgen ;)

[MaverickZer0]

If someone targeted the sun, however, this also means we're in for big trouble.

[Nan]

Target the sun? With what? It's the sun! ;)

[PointyHairedJedi]

I dunno - there are plenty of sci-fi weapons that would do the trick. Myself, I'd just use a really really huge bucket of water.

[richardson]

Blasted kerries. *Pulls out his humongo-deathray of doom.* Support the evil dictator party and ZEKE! Oh, wait, the election is over.

[Nan]

I suppose one could introduce an unstable heavy element to screw with the fusion reaction... any fusion experts around to comment?

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Neutron flood to speed up the reaction.

It would take a whole lotta neutrons, though. The sun is *big*.

Oh, and before anyone suggests it, dumping nuclear waste in the sun won't make it explode.

[Nan]

Would it cause it belch? 'Cos that could be bad too. Especially if you live on Mercury.

Although, if you live on Mercury your life probably sucks anyway.

[PointyHairedJedi]

Maybe if you got a really really really HUGE magnet, that might do something interesting...

Or how about simultaneuously disrupting the links between every single atom?

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Would it cause it belch? 'Cos that could be bad too. Especially if you live on Mercury.

I dunno. I've never dumped nuclear waste in the sun. Given that nuclear waste is the stuff left over after fission, probably not. You'ld just get radioactive heavy plasma.

Maybe if you got a really really really HUGE magnet, that might do something interesting...

It's already a really really really HUGE magnet. :P

Or how about simultaneuously disrupting the links between every single atom?

It's a roiling ball of plasma. We did that already. :P

Digression: the artificial sun in Spider Man 2 sucking everything metal into it is accurate. The fact that it got bigger everytime it absorbed something isn't.

What have we learned today? Science trumps partisan hackery, if only because everyone gets bored and leaves <g>

[PointyHairedJedi]

You're a smart alec, you know that? :P

[Sa'ar Chasm]

I can't possibly be a smart alec.

My name isn't Alec.

[Xeroc]

I can't possibly be a smart alec.

My name isn't Alec.
Might be a sma'art chasm, however! ;)

[PointyHairedJedi]

I think you scared my brain.

[Chancellor Valium]

Brain? What brain? You have no brain, pointy. :roll:

[Mj]

Not even 1 brain cell to rub together?

[Chancellor Valium]

Nope. You need credit in order to hire stuff from brain-cell hire places......trust me, my 41st cousin twelve times removed had to have his brother give the credit.

[PointyHairedJedi]

Brain? What brain? You have no brain, pointy. :roll:
Me am insulated by that remark!

[Chancellor Valium]

Quiet, you Scots Jedi-type nit, you!

[Zeke]

Okay, it's time to wrap up this thread. It hasn't been on topic for a while anyway. (Not that any thread around here ever is... why mess with what works?)

Those of you who participated, I hope you enjoyed the debate. I did. But remember, as I made clear in the first post, this thread was only a rare exception. If you can't talk politics on Election Day, I don't know when you can, but as a steady diet it's not good for a forum. I've probably let the thread go on too long as it is.

Thread closed. See you when Paul Martin finally gets impeached.