codeorama Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Art, It seems that the tone of your post is to "make me become a Republican". (I don't mean it literally). On the abortion issue... You are exactly right how the Rep and Dem stand for polar opposites... I gave you my honest feeling, however, if I had to choose one side or the other, I would choose the Dem side on that issue. I would rather have too much freedom of choice rather than not enough. On the prayer... I just don't think it has a place in the school system, I see everyday so many people of different religions and opinion... Now if you say that we are going to have a moment of silence, I have no problem with that, but I do not want a teacher or other person leading my child in a prayer. I am in charge of transportation within a school system. I'm no longer a teacher. My dad is, my mom's a school secretary... In terms of taxes... I am not of the opinion that I or anyone is entitled to money... I know that I pay a lot of taxes, and mine should be lower, not the owner of Walmart or Donald Trump because they give money to the Republicans or Democrats campaigns. I just get the impression that you either think I'm a Democrat or think that nothing a Democrat stands for could possibly be tangible... I just look at the issues and how they effect me. I have voted for candidates of both parties at times. I do not go in and just "check the party line". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Code, another reply within. "Like I said, whether I would have an abortion or not is not the question... Art brings up that in his opinion it's ok in cases of rape or incest etc... that makes sense.... "I'm against killing a living thing, unless this living thing was forced upon the woman...." I don't really get it.. you either think it's murder or you don't." You see, Code, I really do believe in a woman's right to choose. In all cases I believe in it. A woman has an absolute, unquestioned, unassailable right to keep her legs shut, and to choose her lovers. A woman can not be forced to carry a child brought upon her without her choice. Without her concent. Born from a crime conducted against her person. Abortion, though, shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. People should have to be expected to take responsibility for their choices. Choices have consequence. The consequence of getting pregnant is to have a baby. It's really that simple. From a religious right stance, it's wrong even to abort the child in cases of rape or incest. But, as a humanist, as I am, I believe it's a greater crime to sentence a woman to nine months, or 18 years, of being a parent when she wasn't taking part in that decision. I don't believe abortion is murder until it is KNOWN, without question, that a fetus is viable outside the womb. At that point, it's murder. Once the child can exist outside the mother, it's murder to kill it because it is a life then. We all can debate when life really begins. I'll just settle on the scientific definition of viable life outside the mother and go from there . I just don't believe abortion in the early months should be used as a form of birth control. "What about aborting a fetus that has a defect? Or serious illness?" You bring up an interesting point. Here you are talking about the consequence of your actions and how it affects another. In this case a baby. You get pregnant. This is your choice. You've opened your legs and taken a man inside you, risking this consequence. You now must be expected to give birth. However, in a case of defect or illness, you are then making a choice for your child. Is it best for my child to be born into a world where he'll always have problems, or require support. It's a hard answer. I know in my case I would abort a child with a serious birth defect because, in my view, it wouldn't be fair to the kid. But, that's me. "I will say that it does annoy me how many use abortion as birth control... but just as you said, they will face that in time... I'm not the jury or judge. I also think it's funny how the right wing nuts fight the "murder" of these fetuses by killing people....hmmm, that makes sense... I say to protesters of all kinds.. get a life." To many on the extreme right there's a difference between killing a complete innocent, and killing a person who is guilty. This is why the religious right is generally for the death penalty. Just so you know. "I guess in general, I see it this way: I don't really have a problem if "we" don't see eye to eye, but don't try to impose "your" morals or judgements or opinions on "me"." Isn't that what you're doing though Code? You're saying abortion should be absolutely protected and a right. You're imposing your morals and judgements on me. You're forcing me to accept that. Of course, in a democratic republic where you vote on things, this happens all the time. So, I'm not sure what your point is, other than it seems to be if you want something, others should be forced to live by it, but if THEY want something, don't dare think I should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 How do we determine a defect? Is partial blindness a defect or only total blindness? Is a cleft pallette a defect? Or only downs? Sounds to me like someone wants to create a superior race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 First Kilmer17, no I'm not Hitler.... I try to look at it this way, would I want to have MD? Would I want to have a serious illness from day one that I have to live with forever? I would not, but I can't answer that question for everone else. I don't want my morals or judgements to become the laws that others are forced to live by. Art, Here's where you are wrong... I am not imposing my will on anyone else. If I agree that women should have a right to choose wether or not they are allowed to have abortions, I have not taken the right not to have an abortion from someone else... each person is left to their own choice in the matter. What the Pro Life people want is the right to take away someone else's right to have an abortion. I want someone to have the right to make the decision to have or NOT have an abortion on their own. That is their moral dilemma, not mine. I have not infringed upon them personally. If I say, I feel that abortion is wrong, therefore, no one should be allowed to have one.... that is imposing my will or morals on others. Again, I would rather have too many freedoms than too few. What next, someone telling me what shows I can watch, what car I have to buy? I agree with you in principal that the fetus is not a true life until it can live on it's own outside the womb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I never claimed you were and wouldnt do so. But trying to justify an abortion because of a defect is a slippery slope that none of us want (or should want) to travel down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Code, another reply within . "Art, It seems that the tone of your post is to "make me become a Republican". (I don't mean it literally)." I hear you, and know you said it not as a literal thing, but, what I'm more trying to figure out is in what way a person can possibly think he is checking the party at the door. It is, largely, impossible to hold particular views of both parties. If you actually believe in specific ideals of a particular party, it's impossible to have views in earnest that the other party holds dear. What I was trying to do is not turn you into a Republican, but to identify which portion of your views don't jibe with reality. From your post, it appears you hold certain views that could be Republican in nature, and it appears that your views self-described as Democratic in nature may not actually be associated with the Democratic party. "On the abortion issue... You are exactly right how the Rep and Dem stand for polar opposites... I gave you my honest feeling, however, if I had to choose one side or the other, I would choose the Dem side on that issue. I would rather have too much freedom of choice rather than not enough." The Dem side of the issue is that a crowning baby can be aborted. The Republican side of the issue is that no pregnancy can be aborted. If EITHER party would move to a reasonable middle held by the majority of the nation, they'd win many elections on that alone. For example, I have no problem with the "abortion" drug, or the day after pill. That makes great sense to me, just as wearing a condom does. I could not embrace the portion of the Republican party platform that states no abortions are allowed because I don't believe that. It's not shades of grey here. You either believe it or you don't. It's not you kind of lean one way or the other. You lean an entirely different way at present and certainly, your own words have indicated you aren't even close with the Dems. You have put an arbitrary three month limit on abortions. You're much closer to the right than the left. I'd go so far as to say a five month limit, as a five month old fetus can survive outside the mother. I'm more closely associated with the left than the right. But, it's not a Democratic or Republican view either of us are speaking to. "On the prayer... I just don't think it has a place in the school system, I see everyday so many people of different religions and opinion..." You just explained precisely why prayer has a terrific place in school. You've just explained why we should encourage people to express those views so everyone can understand them better and learn from views they hold that are different. Your sentence is an embrace of diversity encouraged by prayer and freedom of expression and religion held true to the U.S. Constitution. "Now if you say that we are going to have a moment of silence, I have no problem with that, but I do not want a teacher or other person leading my child in a prayer." No one has ever suggested your child be led in a prayer. It's always been maintained that you have a perfect right not to participate in such practices. No one can, or should, make mandatory your child being forced to pray. Likewise, no one can, or should, make mandatory that another child be forced NOT to pray. But, again, this is an example where you wish to impose your views on others, which is a practice you say you don't want imposed upon you. I recommend you consider the thought that, we should encourage people to be freely able to express their views, whether they are religious or not. "I am in charge of transportation within a school system. I'm no longer a teacher." Ok, then, I'd label you part of the problem. You may not be directly part of it, but, there are too many admins sucking up too much money now as compared to years ago. Offer to terminate a handful of people and let that money go to hiring teachers . "My dad is, my mom's a school secretary... In terms of taxes... I am not of the opinion that I or anyone is entitled to money... I know that I pay a lot of taxes, and mine should be lower, not the owner of Walmart or Donald Trump because they give money to the Republicans or Democrats campaigns." You are of the opinion that you or anyone is entitled to money, but you know you pay a lot and your taxes should be lower, but someone else's should not be? Do you know how contradictory and hypocritical that is? The Waltons and the Trumps and the Gates and the Forbes and whoever are taxed far more greatly than you are. When Cheney became the Vice President he had to sell his stock holdings and he had to pay $36 million in taxes in one year. This is more than you and your entire family and my entire family and all of our friends will likely pay combined in our entire lives. Without employers you can't have employees. Without creating incentives to people who can pay workers, you can't have workers. Here's another example of how the "rich" me and my wife, are unable to offer assistance in this world. Once our income rose above $150,000 a year, we were unable to write off any benefits of owning rental property. This means people like my wife and I, and others like us, can't buy rental property and provide low income buildings for people to live in. That has to fall to the government, who then taxes my wife and I more. That's not what this country is based on. Everyone should be entitled to keep their dollars. Yeah, your taxes should be lower. So should everyone elses. So, quit with the class envy because it makes your position here very weak. "I just get the impression that you either think I'm a Democrat or think that nothing a Democrat stands for could possibly be tangible..." I think it is impossible to seriously maintain a Democratic viewpoint if you actually have Republican view points. And you can switch that around. What we've discovered here is you are very able to capture what you believe in that may be Republican in nature, but your views on what may be Democratic in nature aren't really so. It's not that a Democrat can't have a tangible view, no matter how greedy and intrusive it is to me. They do have tangible beliefs. It's the reality of those beliefs that make it impossible to hold Republican beliefs. And vice versa. Not believing in a straight party line doesn't mean you do believe in the opposite party line. It just means you don't vote by a platform. I'm not, strictly speaking, Republican. I'm conservative, and I am a card carrying member of the Republican party, but, I hold many views the party doesn't endorse. That doesn't mean I hold any Democratic views, though many Democrats may agree. Who you are as a person is fundamental just as the beliefs of the party are. In order to believe you must have a system in place that makes sense to you. You can't be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, for example. You can't be X and 0. You just don't have to be completely either . "I just look at the issues and how they effect me. I have voted for candidates of both parties at times. I do not go in and just "check the party line"." Then you may well be "Independent." But, you haven't described a person to me who has beliefs of both parties. You just don't have all the beliefs of any one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Code, If you say you feel women have a right to choose whether they want to have an abortion or not, then that is imposing your will on others. Your will is that women do have a right. Another person's will is that they do not. It's not all that hard. You are imposing your view that taking an innocent child's life is ok. You are saying it is protected and anyone who thinks it's not must be brought over to YOUR view. It is, precisely, imposing your view to support the Pro Choice side. Just as it is imposing your view to support the other. What the Pro Life people want is the right of the baby to be protected, as it is in our court system if someone else kills a pregnant woman. A child is legally protected by LAW if someone else kills the child by kicking a pregnant woman in the belly. But, the women herself can define the child as something else? Do you not realize that EVERY single thing you support is an imposition of one view over another. Even the way you phrased what Pro Lifers believe is imposing your view of their beliefs on them. You are saying all a Pro Life believer wants to do is prevent women from having abortions. I'm not a Pro Life believer. Yet, I know enough to know what Pro Life stands for is the protection of an innocent life. We could say is Pro Choice people want the right to take away the life of another living being. That would characterize Pro Choice as you've characterized Pro Life. You believe in imposing the will of someone to kill someone else. You and I are actually far closer on the issue of abortion than a Pro Choice advocate and a Pro Life advocate would be. But, when you write, "I want someone to have the right to make the decision to have or NOT have an abortion on their own," you are making a fatal flaw. It is impossible to have an abortion on their/your own. You can't abort yourself. You can only abort someone/something else. You are never doing it on your own. You're doing it to someone/something else. So, you are for imposing YOUR will on someone else because an abortion is the termination of someone else. A fetus becomes a baby. It never becomes a basketball. It becomes a person. So, when you continue to want to err on the side of "choice" why not ask yourself why you can't see fit to give a "choice" to the voiceless. Again, I'm a humanist, so, I'm all about the definition of viable life and all that jazz. But, I'm not so lost in my thinking that I don't recognize there is a possibility out there that my selfishness allows for the taking of a life. Whether viable outside the mother or not. No one disputes it's a life. And, though I find the Pro Life position a bit insane -- since they refuse to allow a mother the right to terminate pregnancy when she's been raped or had incest commited against her or she's in danger of dying herself -- the fact is, they are a lot closer to not imposing a view on the unwilling than Pro Choice people are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I agree that I do not have all the views of either party.... I pretty much agree with most of your abortion opinion.. I see it this way, I would teach my daughter, If I had one that an abortion is not birth control, I would teach her to abstain from sex and that there are consequences... but if she were 16 and pregnant, I would probably recommend an abortion... you can say that's hypocritical, fine, it probably is.. but at least I'm honest enough to admit it. I know for a fact that realatives of mine were extreme right wing anti abortion protesters... until their daughter got pregnant. I would do everything I could to instill my beliefs in my child, but as we all know, it doesn't always go that way. I think our prayer differences are more of a difference in explanation rather than opinion.. I don't want a child led or forced to pray, if they want to on their own,, I have no problem with that. If a child needs to pray on their own everyhour, as long as it doesn't interfere with the other children, I have no problem with that. I just don't want my child put into a position where a teacher leads them in prayer. My job is equal to a school principal. It sounds like in your opinion that there should only be teachers and no administrators. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. My job has one huge responsibility.. getting the children to school. In my middle class upbringing, I never rode the bus, I never realized how important busing is to some people. While I admire your anti admin sentiment, it's just not realistic.. teachers would have no guidance, no direction... What about the cafeteria workers... so I guess you don't think there should be lunches in school either... (In Art's world:... there are many teachers, but very few children because most can't get there and for those few that are there, no food... and the school is very dirty because there is no custodian to clean up....) The actual sad truth is that school is becoming daycare. That is the truth. I see it every day. The parents don't want their kids home. When school is closed, we get complaints that the buses are not picking the kids up.... Year round schools are becoming more popular because again, the parents don't want the kids home... On the money issue.... I already said that If I were rich, my opinion would be different.. again, I admit to being a hypocrite about somethings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by Art Code, We could say is Pro Choice people want the right to take away the life of another living being. That would characterize Pro Choice as you've characterized Pro Life. You believe in imposing the will of someone to kill someone else. You and I are actually far closer on the issue of abortion than a Pro Choice advocate and a Pro Life advocate would be. But, when you write, "I want someone to have the right to make the decision to have or NOT have an abortion on their own," you are making a fatal flaw. It is impossible to have an abortion on their/your own. You can't abort yourself. You can only abort someone/something else. You are never doing it on your own. You're doing it to someone/something else. So, you are for imposing YOUR will on someone else because an abortion is the termination of someone else. A fetus becomes a baby. It never becomes a basketball. It becomes a person. So, when you continue to want to err on the side of "choice" why not ask yourself why you can't see fit to give a "choice" to the voiceless. Again, I'm a humanist, so, I'm all about the definition of viable life and all that jazz. But, I'm not so lost in my thinking that I don't recognize there is a possibility out there that my selfishness allows for the taking of a life. Whether viable outside the mother or not. No one disputes it's a life. And, though I find the Pro Life position a bit insane -- since they refuse to allow a mother the right to terminate pregnancy when she's been raped or had incest commited against her or she's in danger of dying herself -- the fact is, they are a lot closer to not imposing a view on the unwilling than Pro Choice people are. The fetus needs to speak up if it needs to be heard..... Because the woman was raped by someone else, does that make the fetus evil or bad? But it's ok by you to kill that fetus because of who it's father is?? That's pretty odd... it seems like you are riding the fence alot on that one. Just like I have, you have taken what you called a black and white issue and made it gray.. you have your conditions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Code, When I graduated High School in 1988, there was the Principal, an Assistant Principal, two guidance councilors, a complete lunch staff, a complete custodial staff, one librarian, one nurse and kids got to school on the bus. Now, today, there is one Principal. Four Vice Principals. Eight guidance councilors. Four nurses. Four librarians. An entire district office that didn't exist is filled two miles away with people that weren't admins before 1988 and who teach no classes. If you don't see what I'm saying, then you are part of the problem. If you do see what I'm saying, then you know part of the solution. As for, "The fetus needs to speak up if it needs to be heard..... Because the woman was raped by someone else, does that make the fetus evil or bad? But it's ok by you to kill that fetus because of who it's father is?? That's pretty odd... it seems like you are riding the fence alot on that one. Just like I have, you have taken what you called a black and white issue and made it gray.. you have your conditions..." Ok, so then you are for the murder of mute people too. Anyone who can't speak up or stick up for themselves you agree should be freely killed? I know you aren't saying that, but, it's as stupid as saying the fetus should stick up for itself to defend the abortion rights. As for how I'm riding the fence you are probably not wrong on that. But, remember, I'm erring on the side of choice. The choice the child would make is likely to live. It is a great crime to remove that choice from the child. However, it is a greater crime to sentence a women to a lifetime sentence of motherhood when she had no choice in the matter. When the will of another is forced upon her, we should protect HER too. This is why I can never be Pro Life, which fundamentally believes the baby's rights in all cases must supercede the mother's. My mother, for example, even cries when I tell her my wife and I may go to in vitro fertilizaton to have a child because to do this, multiple eggs are fertilized and the ones we don't choose to attempt to carry will have been murdered. To me, that's pretty crazy stuff. But, I understand the view in the purest form. It is a kind, caring, compassionate view designed to speak for those who can't speak for themselves. I just don't happen to agree. But, I'm not against abortion because of the innocence of life. I'm against abortion because people should have the right to choose whether to have sex or not. And, currently, if a couple has sex and the woman gets pregnant, if the FATHER doesn't want the child, but the woman does, the father is legally obligated to help support the child, yet if the father wants the child the woman can still abort it. I'm all for choice. The man has a choice too. And as long as the law is inconsistent, I'm against abortion. If you give the man a say in the choice, then, I may find my view altered some. But, no woman can get pregnant without some assistance from a man. So, having an abortion is not an individual thing to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 First on the school system issue: Ok, I agree with you in principal to some of the issues.... but I can only speak about the system that I work for. Yes, the schools have more vice principals, but the schools are much more overcrowed and have more disclipine problems than when I went (I graduated in 1988). I don't see a problem with too many admins within the schools themselves, I do however see a problem with too many admins downtown. They have too many not doing enough.. so I can agree with you in part there. My comment about the fetus speaking up was sarcastic. I totally agree with your whole father issue... The father should be held accountable and in a perfect world, should have a "vote" in the abortion decision. To be honest, my real opinion is that while I personally don't know if I would have an abortion or not if I were in that situation, the sad part is that (don't take me literally here) the world almost needs mandatory abortions. All of these people who are fighting for the rights of these unborn babies, they should step up to the plate and adopt some of these unwanted children that are in the world. They want to fight for these unborn rights, but do they want to support the welfare and other "govt help" that many will require? I don't think so. Would I want to be an unwanted child? I know that I wouldn't. Like I said, I don't consider myself of either party. If a gun were to my head and I had to choose one, I would probably say Democrat, not because they are more represenative of my opinions (I think as a whole, I agree with more Republican views), but because I don't like the overall "superior" attitude that most portrait. They fight for the rights of the unborn, but don't want welfare to support these unwanted kids, they think that their religion or view is appropriate for everyone here in the land of the free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.