Radari G,
You aren't getting the point. I am being unclear, I think. Let me try to lay out my case slowly. I'll stick with abortions, though I could do this for all of the social conservative viewpoints.

POINT ONE
Social Conservatives say that abortion is murder, and that is why it should be illegal. the undeniable consequence of that action is that if an illegal abortion occurs, it will have to be charged as a murder. The woman and anyone who helped her would logically have to be tried for premeditated murder.

Now, I don't want to go too fast for you, here. I understand You personally don't think that is necessary to criminalize abortions. I would say that YOU personally are not socially conservative on the issue.

Do you get the premise? If we make abortions illegal in the manner social conservatives wish, we must then charge illegal abortions as murder cases, right?

I'll await your answer for this first bit, then we'll grow the debate.

Oh, please, talk real slow so I can understands you mister.

Ronson
Therefore, are people who call themselves socially conservatives butting into other people's lives for no reason, or do they have the right to police people's lifestyles?

This was the premise of this thread, am I correct? This is what the three topics you listed were used to illustrate. At this point we're tumbling into an all-out discussion of the actual abortion issue rather than the stated issue of social conservatives pursing an agenda of invading personal privacy.

At any rate, I don't really think it is helpful in any way whatsoever to trade off Orwellian fantasies over what it would be like if one side or the other got their complete will imposed on the nation. Is that really the best argument you have to persuade anyone on the subject?

I don't really think you want to have a logical discussion about abortion as a privacy issue (which is rather astonishing since Roe v. Wade was actually decided on privacy issues); it seems to me that all you want is to have a big fat morality argument. And I really don't want none of that, thanks.

I'm a social conservative. Which means I'm reticent about butting into people's personal lives and controlling what they can do in their own homes or with their own bodies. :)

i think they need to put some restrictions on religion , especially christianity !
in the last 2,000 years , i would venture to guess that the christian faith has been responsible for far more deaths than abortion !
god ; the ultimate weapon of mass destruction !

^_^

Well I'm probably outside this debate, but I've read it all and I find it interesting.

You cant call for acceptance and tolerance, then turn around and say "you religeous people can't say what you want anymore". The only way forward so far as morality goes is to ignore the christians who don't follow the word of their savior and instead rely on the word of his prophets.

Personally speaking, I grew up gay in a conservative christian area of rural england, where the only colour other than pasty white is orange (and comes from a bottle). The way I got around all the hate was just to remind people that tolerance does not mean accepting and loving, tolerance means ignoring and letting be.

Which is true for both sides. I ignore homophobia, and even though I don't completely agree with abortion UNLESS the child is severly disabled, and believe that adoption is preferable, I choose not to get involved with people's lives because honestly it doesnt concern me. Thats the real meaning behind turn the other cheek.

Just live and let live, thats what Jeebus really wanted.

And in response to: lothar.
Yes you are right, but it has been constantly rewritten and mistranslated T_T and there are so many versions now that its stupid.

But at the same time you cant say that they say what they want just because you dont agree with it.

^_^"

Thass my 60penceworth *has one of those eco timers on hish PC* ... 61 pence! >.<"

Azerisii
and even though I don't completely agree with abortion UNLESS the child is severly disabled, and believe that adoption is preferabl

You know, This is something I don't like. I think severely disabled babies are able to be valued, happy human being like the rest of us. But if it's early enough in the term, I make no distinction, it's the woman's right to do with her body what she decides, to keep or terminate that bit of her, weather it's healthy and ordinary or badly disabled, it doesn't matter. No distinction.


----------------------
This is in general and not directed at anyone here:
I have to just say that I feel that it's very cruel forcing a woman into what choices she's allowed to make over her body and her reproductive cycle. Extremely cruel. And decisions about keeping pregnancies or not are hard enough for them without added false guilt trips and threats of violence being laid on top of them to boot. It's really rather horrific how these women are treated and their problems trivialised ( "oh, it's just all about stretchmarks and nothing else" "an easy way to get out of their responsibilities" etc.) and the idea of life that has less awareness than a caterpillar and far less personality and sense of self than a baby lamb which people have no qualms in having for their diner is exaggerated into something ridiculous all so these young vulnerable women can be subjugated.

Those are the real victims.
That might sound like my own "moral judgement", but I wouldn't want to put any of the women I know through that pressure when they're in that situation (if they want to keep the pregnancy if should be their OWN choice). And for the women I know who have faced those pressures, all I can do is feel sorry that they had to go through that.

Well thanks for taking what I said out of context :P

This is the definition of "Severly disabled" from the hospital trust that I grew up in:
Any person who is unable to control their basic bodily functions or even communicate with others, lacks any co-ordination with the physical world and does not register an active or functioning higher brain.

So in other words.

A human vegetable.

But as I origionally said, thats my viewpoint, but I dont force it on others. I even held hands with my best friend when she went into get her abortion. Man I got evils so bad off the women there.

Also:
I agree with you entirely and understand both sides of the argument. It is their body and it is there choice, and its certainly not our place to tell them what to do with it, especially if we happen to posess a penis.

Which is why I dont.

If anyone thinks that I don't think religious people should be able to speak their mind about the issue, that's not true. Speak about it, advertise about it, talk to your friends and family about it. That is free speech - and even paid-for speech, and is completely off limits to any government funded censorship, as all points of view should be.

But that's not the issue. I know the polarized sides and the shades of grey in between. Hell, this conversation has been going on for decades now. Anyone who doesn't know both sides isn't paying attention.

But, for this discussion:

Tell me why your view trumps others so much that it should be law, and tell me how you plan on enforcing the law. Because it IS a "morality police" action, and the people who would be affected by this legislation should know not just that you want it illegal, but how the crime would be enforced and punished.

And yes, this is a trap for those for criminalizing abortions. Because if the draconian measures that would almost certainly be required were truly discussed, it would turn some people off of the idea.

But if at the very least people who are personally against abortion but unsure about legislation against it stop and think of the repurcussions, I'd be happy.

So far, NONE of you anti-choice folks have addressed the legal framework you would like to see to prevent abortions. You only talk about why you want it illegal. Let me make this clear: I DON'T CARE WHY YOU WANT IT ILLEGAL. I want to know what you'd like to see your government do to criminalize it.

After that, I'd like to expand the discussion with the reason we need legislation against gay marriage and also for the hard-line leftists that want to ban all guns. What sort of government intrusion are you looking for?

Because to me these are unneccessary government intrusions. Societies and groups can have their own rules without involving the government. I've seen the Catholic church mentioned, they have their rules and they are welcome to them. Same with all faiths and social clubs. If a member breaks a rule, these organizations can take whatever actions they wish (so long as it doesn't break existing laws. No more stoning, okay?)

Why does the government need to get involved, and have you really thought about the repurcussions of this involvement?

rufus_edge, I found that link of yours which discusses abortion to be highly suspect.

I've read all of the bible versions, the original version from which the king James were translated, etc. I've gone over them millions of times in my quest to study religion in general. and you know what I've discovered?

apparently it's just so EASY for people to mistranslates verses, etc, or completely take it out of context.

for example, in the original version they had certain words to describe people. For example, there was a Jewish word (forgot how to spell it) which had plenty of double meanings. it meant Young woman, unwed woman, untainted woman etc. this was the word which they used to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus. But then the Greek interpreted it as young woman who was untainted, which they took it to mean Virgin. So they translated as that. And then the king James took from the Greek version, believing it to be the 100% correct version.

so as an result you got people believing that Jesus' mother was literally an virgin mother, when the original texts were just simply describing her as an young woman who wasn't still married when she became pregnant. It's very possible that she wasn't an virgin when she gave birth to Jesus... she did get married before she gave birth, after all. :p

and that's just one of the MANY, MANY examples. I could go on and on about the Gay mistranslations issue, etc.

And you know something? Abortion is just exactly one of those things that has clearly been mistranslated or taken out of context. Ronson is correct... the original texts clearly states that only things that has already been born counts as an life.

Ronson
Why does the government need to get involved, and have you really thought about the repurcussions of this involvement?

Have you really thought of the repercussions of letting the government decide that some lives are worth more or less than others? Take this precedent outside of abortion; how else can you see it being applied?

You're obviously an intelligent guy, but I again question your ability to see both sides of this issue. If you cannot, there is absolutely no point in debating this with you.

You think I've strayed from the original point? My post:

...Regardless of your stance on these issues, homosexuality will not go away and neither will abortions. (Like the war on drugs, another issue you could add to this list, these things will occur and cannot be legislated away). There is plenty of proof that these things have existed longer than recorded time, and equal proof that criminalizing it will just make it go underground and leave people in much more vulnerable positions.

This has not been addressed by anyone on the side of legislation. No one on the anti-choice side will come forward with a legal framework at all ... not even a simple one that we could discuss and build from.

Therefore, are people who call themselves socially conservatives butting into other people's lives for no reason, or do they have the right to police people's lifestyles?

This has been unanimously answered that they have every right ... though how this would actually be done has not. Which is why I've switched to the "how" and away from the "should".

My original plea:

RESTRICTIONS OF THIS DEBATE(which will be broken in about five seconds, I think)

- If you disagree with the above, explain to me why your moral authority trumps others.

- If you agree with the above, explain to me if you seek to have your moral authority trump others.

- If you don't believe anyone's moral authority trumps anyone else's, tell me how anyone can have a society that dispenses truth, honor and justice.

- Debate about whether there is a new way to look at these issues, which have been tearing this country (the US) apart for so many years.

Except for insisting abortion is murder (a claim that has only been presented as opinion because honestly there is no scientific or legal stance on this), none of these have been addressed.

Now onto radarig:

radarig

Ronson
Why does the government need to get involved, and have you really thought about the repurcussions of this involvement?

Have you really thought of the repercussions of letting the government decide that some lives are worth more or less than others? Take this precedent outside of abortion; how else can you see it being applied?

Right now, the decision isn't with the government. The decision is with the individual. This precedent can't be outside abortion, because abortion is a unique circumstance, where one organism is completely dependent upon the choices of another.

{Here's another hypothetical: If you are a huge anti-choice person, are you also for criminalizing women who don't properly take care of themselves while pregnant, so that their actions can hurt the fetus? That is, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, doing jumping jacks -- all can cause a miscarriage or damage to the fetus. Should they also be criminally liable for their actions? If not, you just provided a legal abortion method to those that wish to have an abortion in a country where it's illegal.}

You could theoretically say that the only other similar circumstance is euthanasia, where someone in a permanent vegetative state could be taken off of the machines that keep them alive by their loved ones.

But I am certain no anti-abortion person would at the same time be able to justify euthanasia ... or even the death penalty for that matter.

You're obviously an intelligent guy, but I again question your ability to see both sides of this issue. If you cannot, there is absolutely no point in debating this with you.

For the sake of this argument, I don't care about both sides! That's my point! I am speaking directly to those I disagree with who think the government should force women to carry a pregnancy to it's end. I want to know how they see our legal system handle it.

You think I don't understand that some people think that a fertilized egg is a viable life that should have full Constitutional rights? I understand it, and I disagree. But even if my point of view was to be overridden, as it often is, and it becomes a crime ... how does it work?

But I am certain no anti-abortion person would at the same time be able to justify euthanasia ... or even the death penalty for that matter.

And yet, ironically, so many do. At least with the death penalty.

isukun

But I am certain no anti-abortion person would at the same time be able to justify euthanasia ... or even the death penalty for that matter.

And yet, ironically, so many do. At least with the death penalty.

Ixnay on the ointingpay outay ethay ypocracyhay. Wait for them to fall for it.

There are various works on the Framers of the Declaration and Constitution and their ethical and moral beliefs and what they meant when they wrote what they wrote. That should define the definitions of what those rights mean and how they should be legislated. The work of Susan Jacoby is one place to start.

- If you disagree with the above, explain to me why your moral authority trumps others.

It is public consensus based upon the social compact that is at the heart of representative government. This comes from the inherant natual rights of man; Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (& property)

- If you agree with the above, explain to me if you seek to have your moral authority trump others.

Society agrees on certain behaviors that are good and others that are bad. They usually all break down into the Treat others as you would like to treated and the Natural Rights of Man.

- If you don't believe anyone's moral authority trumps anyone else's, tell me how anyone can have a society that dispenses truth, honor and justice.

Since the system is based on the natural rights of the governed a definition of those rights ( like personhood, We secular humanists and Medical Ethicist types are into using this for accessing Euthanasia and Abortion.) is necessary for the system to work. So far on the whole the US has done a good job. Not fair to everyone, not truth and justice to everyone; but it is based on the Natual rights of man based on a consensus of what those rights are, their obligations and definitions. That's how and why laws exist and stuff.

- Debate about whether there is a new way to look at these issues, which have been tearing this country (the US) apart for so many years.

The old system still works well enough. It's not perfect. Society shifts and the consensus can shift. Contraception and abortion (including post-birth exposure) were once totally accepted, than totally banned (but still widely practiced as Common Law was not always applied to it, it was a sin against God, not necessarily a law), now conditionally allowed. Heck, once upon a time homosexuality was very socially acceptable, then came Holy Mother Church. (See Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox among other works)

In many ways the world of 18th Century America was much different morally. Certain things were more readibly accepted as natural whereas now the US has Cloud cuckoo land Victorian idealized versions of Puritanism to deal with. (legislating morality shifted dramatically in the late 19th Century.) But it still goes back to the basic inalienable rights and how they are to be defined by the consensus of the governed. In the end the governed are the government in the USA or have we forgotten that? What are the first words of the Constitution? E pleb neesta Sorry star trek flashback. We the People...

About arms: One court ruling defined the Second Amendment "arms" as the typical firearm borne by a contemporary foot soldier. The "milita" was defined by its 18th Century meaning: every able bodied adult. Read US militia laws and that's what they said, so the Second Amendment is reinforcing the traditional milita laws going back almost 400 years in the USA. There is a huge body of work on this regarding the philosphy and policy of military matters in the US.

Ronson

isukun

But I am certain no anti-abortion person would at the same time be able to justify euthanasia ... or even the death penalty for that matter.

And yet, ironically, so many do. At least with the death penalty.

Ixnay on the ointingpay outay ethay ypocracyhay. Wait for them to fall for it.

Ther is no hypocrisy there. It is very easy to be anti-abortion but pro death penalty.

Some people have just forfeited their right to live in society. They are too dangerous to be let loose.

Infants have committed no such crime, they are not dangerous, etc.

Comparing the two is completely silly.

Yes, life is important. I am the first to admit that all life is sacred. But if someone forfeits that right, they need to be removed.


-------------------

As for the legislation. I am a scientist, not a law-maker or a lawyer. I have not studied legal history, etc. So I can't possibly come up with fool-proof plans.

I would rather people decided by themselves not to have aortions, but if we are to protect the innocent, legislation of some kind is necessary.

Yeah, yeah, no solutions from me so far, but I'm thinking about it.

As for the legislation. I am a scientist, not a law-maker or a lawyer.

Doesn't sound like it to me from the first half of that post. You do realize, of course, that everything you said in the first half of your post does not necessitate the death of the perpetrator. People are removed from society all the time without being killed. Likewise, most dangerous criminals are not simply "let loose" on an unsuspecting public.

Another little conflict there is that the death penalty in the US is not about protecting people, but about retribution. What makes it worse is that death is an irreversible act and we readily admit that our legal system is not always right and fair. If someone is wrongfully imprisoned on false charges, they can be let go and they can even seek monetary compensation from those who put them there. Once you're dead, though, there's no taking that back.

bravo1102
The "militia" was defined by its 18th Century meaning: every able bodied adult.

Ahha, lol! I think that's more of an "interpretation" that 's more favourable to the pro gun case than how they defined the term "militia". Since it's so obviously wide off the mark ;)
"A well-regulated Militia". So while your prospective Militia might ideally contain all the able bodied men, that's not what it is. It's a "militia"; army; body of fighting mean who receive some form of instruction, are able to act as a group and with a common purpose. To try and claim otherwise is to behave extremely disingenuously.

ozoneocean
Ahha, lol! I think that's more of an "interpretation" that 's more favourable to the pro gun case than how they defined the term "militia". Since it's so obviously wide off the mark ;)

Wait wait wait, so we can't just interpret it however we want?



Curse you ozone!

I find the whole concept of being "anti abortion" or not odd.
I would like to think everyone is "anti abortion", the same way all sane people are "anti war" and "anti leg amputation".
These are all bad things that no one should be in favour of.
Of course, that is not to say they may not be necessary, but they are at best necessary evils.
Sometimes we need to fight wars, but war is still bad.
If my leg is gangrenous it needs to be removed, but chopping my leg off is still bad!

On a related note I find the idea that abortion is not killing a child a bit hollow.
Babies in the womb are alive, and left alone will develope into a life.
Now someone can argue that it may be necessary to end that life, but to argue it is not a life is a flawed place to start from.
Thats like saying cows aren't alive so I dont have to feel guilty when I eat beef!
The idea that something has to be "born" to be alive is a very odd arguement I have never heard before. So if a baby "dies" in the womb, it did not die, as it was not alive. Then what did it just stop doing? Seems to me it stopped living, it must have been alive.

I am very much anti abortion. I think abortion is horrible. It kills the unborn child, is traumatic for the mother and in an ideal world there would be no abortions.
But we dont live in an ideal world, and unfortunately abortions are going to happen. If we criminalise abortion, then we are locking up lots of women and driving it under ground, forcing people to go abroad etc etc, a well as the inevitable problems of mothers abandoning babies they dont want or raising them very poorly.
When societies try to ban abortion it never works well, and is not a realistic solution.
If we want less abortions (and surely everyone does?) educating people about safe sex etc seems a far better way to achieve this.
Unfortunately, most social conservatives are anti birth control and sex education as well! Darn!

But thats just my two cents....

Look... the foetus at the stage of development at which it is aborted is not really a baby. It's a developing potential human. It really is wishful thinking to call them babies. Very few abortions involve late term pregnancies, and even then it's not a thing in itself, it's a part of the mother's body, unable to survive outside of it, like her heart or lungs pretty much.

Now for really late pregnancies, that's when abortion is tricky. Then things are more developed and it can survive outside, just. As long as you have specialists and intensive care. Very few people agree with abortion at that stage; pro abortionists don't, no matter what stupid propaganda people spread about them. Only if the mother's life is in intimidate danger.
-The mother's life should always take priority, unless of course she will die anyway... Because what you have is a potential human VS an actual one with life, experiences, many people who know and love her and with the potential to have MORE children (if she wants and if things don't go wrong).

---------------------------------

One thing occurs to me though about this "morals" debate...
A lot of what conservative governments support tends to be actively against common moral principals:
War, imprisoning more people for lessor offences, not helping the poor and disadvantaged as much, favouring the wealthy, being tougher on immigration even for refugees.

It's like a war on morality.

First off, yes if the mother life/ health is in danger or she was raped, then abortion would be entirely acceptable (still regretable though, becuase the feotus still had to be destroyed, which is always a bad thing.)
I would also accept that a feotus in the very early stages of pregnancy is not a child, even though it has the potential to be so.
Otherwise a sperm and egg could be called potential human, which is getting silly.
But my cut off point would be pretty early, earlier then when the baby was able to survive on its own.

My reasoning is thus-
1)the foetus cannot survive outside of the mother, so we should be allowed to remove it from the mother and let it die.

2)Once a baby is born, it cannot survive without people caring for it.
So I should be allowed to choose to not care for a baby and leave it to die so it does not infringe on my rights.

So I would reccomend making the morning after pill very widely availiable, as the pregnancy should be stopped as early on as possible to avoid moral complications, because drawing a cut off point of what makes it a person becomes more and more hazy.
collection of cells- sure, clearly not a baby
Full formed baby- yes, clearly a baby
Anything inbetween- ummm, getting tricky now!

I tend to think that if it looks like a person, then it probably is a person.
It's a simple rule but I think it is a good one for keeping in the moral clear.

Ozone you raise a good point about people trying to paint the othersides view incorrectly, the other classic complaint is the idea that girls are out having abortions all the time as a form of late term contriception.
"Oooh, I think I'll nip out shopping, then maybe go and have an abortion"
This is of course utter ridiculous and offensive to people who actually have to make this difficult decision, but it is a widely held belief by those who are against abortion.
I despise this sort of false belief, because if people are going to believe something, they need to believe it based on facts and reason rather then moronic scare mongering.
It is hard to criticise abortion sometimes, because most of the people who hold anti abortion views are right wing whacko's who support war and guns to eliminate as many of those who already have been born as possible.
I think it should be possible to criticise or question from aspects of abortion without being immediately lumped in with the whackos and anne coulters of the world.

The whole liberal and conservative divide in America is ridiculous. Why because someone supports gay marriage do they have to be against lower taxes for business? The issues are utterly unconnected, but people seem afraid to actually pick and choose the ones they agree with.

My view point on abortion is that it is bad, and if we could have less of them that would be a good thing, but that is not to say I want to criminalise it or condemn those that find it necessary. I dont think the issue has a clear cut, obvious or completely whiter then white solution.
Anyone claiming that it is does hasn't thought about it hard enough.

On other topics-
Gun ownership- No, I would prefer that everyone didn't have access to fire arms! This makes people safer the same way filling your house with dynamite and giving everyone matches is the best way to make sure your house does not explode.

Gay marriage- Let em get maried! Marriage is important but less and less people are doing it and mroe and more marraiges fail. And yet we are telling a whole group of people NOT to get married? Marriage needs all the help it can get! Besides, gay people only want what the rest of us enjoy, to marry those they love. I can see no reason to oppose that and many to support it.

Death penalty- Until yoda becomes a judge and can jedi mind trick to find out who is guilty for certain, then no. I would not risk killing one innocent person to kill ten guilty ones. Besides, death row in america takes years and is incredibly expensive, with all the legal appeals. It is not some quick elimination, where they say guilty then take them round the back to shoot. Also it certainly does not reduce crime or deter people, as there is simply no evidence that it does. As another person posted on here, it is all about revenge, which is a crappy basis for a justice system.

I find that with abortion, the argument almost always falls back on spiritual belief and not scientific backing. There is no clear cut line when a person ceases to be a clump of cells and becomes human and there are no scientific ways to judge anything pre-birth to be the equivalent of a conscious adult human being. Babies do not develop that level of consciousness and the complexity of though processes until well after birth. This leaves the argument entirely up to opinion and spiritual belief on when life begins and those should not be determining factors in our government.

Religious groups can forbid whatever actions they please and excommunicate those who don't follow their rules, but it isn't up to the US government to make everyone abide by their sense of morality. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state. If we cannot find a socially or scientifically beneficial reason for outlawing a particular action, we probably shouldn't be outlawing it. As far as I can see, forcing people to keep unwanted pregnancies does not help us as a species or as a society. We already have too many people in this country and more unwanted children than we have parents willing to adopt.

As a species we are already expanding beyond our means, leading to "natural disasters" that cost many lives, like land slides, wild fires, and other problems with the environment caused by our actions. It is actually easier for us to survive as a species if we leave a smaller footprint on our environment. Food is more abundant, we can find more natural resources to build the daily necessities of life, etc. As a society, we value the moral high ground of a ban on abortion, but at the same time, we have no desire to take the responsibility for those children that are brought into the world. For this reason, we have our faulty foster care system where children often end up abused and once they have grown up, many end up homeless or on welfare.

For me, these arguments really boil down to, if you want to impose a moral standard on people, you need to be prepared to also take responsibility for any natural or social backlash. Right now, we are not prepared to take that responsibility in the case of abortion.

I tend to take the same approach with gay marriage and the death penalty. You can make the argument that marriage is our most sacred or cherished institution, but why, if that is the case, is it alright to dishonor and degrade that most sacred institution with a divorce? For something so important, shouldn't people be required to go through mandatory counselling before a marriage as well as before a divorce? Shouldn't people be forced to take the decision seriously, even if they are straight? To the government, all marriage is is a financial contract. Maybe rather than offering something "separate but equal" for gays (which, let's face it people, didn't work in the past and won't work here), we should remove marriage from our government entirely. Call it all "civil unions" and reserve marriage for the church. That way religious organizations can regulate marriage however they please, but if you want the financial benefits, it doesn't matter whether you are gay or heterosexual, you still have to register with the government for a civil union.

Isukun, I dont entirely agree with your conclusions on abortion, but I think your arguement is very well reasoned.

I found the part that really spoke to me is the bit about how we want the moral high ground but wont take responsibility for the consequences. This is very very true! Just look at how the groups who are anti abortion are usually religious types who also oppose sex ed and birth control. This is a clear contradiction to me, doing nothing to stop girls getting pregnant then bossing them around when they do!
Be against abortion, fine, its a controversial issue etc but if you aren't also going to support measure that will actually prevent the pregnancy in the first place then you are just kidding yourself.

I'm a conservative libertarian (at least thats what some political test score said about my political beliefs).

- I am anti-abortion. Unless in extreme cases like rape or when the health of the mother or the child is in danger. I'm against the idea of abortion with no questions asked because that only devalues human life. If you can kill millions of babies in a year, then its easier to kill people. No wonder you have people killing a wal-mart worker so that they can have access to slave-made Chinese goods. No wonder you got people shooting each other over stupid toys in Toys R Us. Because human life has been de-valued. Regardless if you believe in God or not. Do you believe in the value of human life? Do you believe in the value of YOUR life? Or maybe not. Or maybe YOU consider YOURSELF to be just an expendable statistic.

- I am pro-gun. Because an armed population is what gets in the way of a tyrannical government. Because armaments are the ultimate balance of power. If you look at history's dictators, they want a DISARMED population whom they can CONTROL and OPPRESS.

- I am for minimizing the size of government and separation of powers. Because history shows that the bigger a government gets, the more oppressive and corrupt it gets. The more the average person would enjoy less freedom. Thats why I am against communism. A bigger government only creates the need for more bureaucracy and militarization of police and HIGHER TAXES. Therefore increasing the chances of corruption. The role of the state IS ONLY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL THREATS. Laws regarding marijuana, seatbelts, and other victimless crimes should be ABOLISHED.


I am pro-freedom.

harkovast
I found the part that really spoke to me is the bit about how we want the moral high ground but wont take responsibility for the consequences. This is very very true! Just look at how the groups who are anti abortion are usually religious types who also oppose sex ed and birth control. This is a clear contradiction to me, doing nothing to stop girls getting pregnant then bossing them around when they do!
Be against abortion, fine, its a controversial issue etc but if you aren't also going to support measure that will actually prevent the pregnancy in the first place then you are just kidding yourself.

Yeah, I would have to agree on this part as well. They also apparently don't want to have to take care of all the children that the biological parents are unable to take care of.

The foster system is completely evil, and the adoption system is shoddy the way it is too. It's just too... mismanaged! there's like a million homeless/parent-less kids in America now, and not many people adopting like they should. Good foster and adoption parents are literally chased off the scene because of all the negativity in the system, leaving only the horrible, abusive foster parents. And worse, some of the social workers will look the other way when some of the foster abuse occurs just simply because there's not ENOUGH foster parents.

Look up some foster/adoption horror stories, and you'll see how flawed the system truly is.

All the people saying: "Abortion is pure evil!! you should just put it up for adoption if you don't want it that badly!" is basically really saying this:
"I stand on my moral high ground, telling you that you're scum for aborting a bunch of cells in your body. But oh, I don't want to take responsibility for your baby. So just dump it on a bunch of strangers and a poorly run system that might just end up abusing your baby until it grows up to be an drug-addicted adult who has emotional and physiological problems. THAT'S so much better than putting it out of it's misery!"

I know that last part was a little bit exemtete. But in some ways it's true. It seems that a large chunk of foster kids end up running away from foster homes, doing drugs, etc. They also have emotional and mental issues regarding the 'abandonment' issue where they feel unwanted by everyone. This occurs especially with teenagers or younger kids that became too "old" for adoption.
Apparently everyone wants to adopt babies only, and not those kids who's been in Que a long time ever since they were babies. as Babies go, they don't stay babies forever while they're waiting to be adopted.. so thus lies the problem.
When you give up an baby for adoption, how do you know that it'll be adopted quickly, instead of being put into Que until it grows up into an kid that's past the "adoptable age"?

By then you'd be directly responsible for that kid feeling completely unwanted, becoming an drug-addict, or worse. And what will you do, if they come looking for you and ask you what's wrong with them that they couldn't be adopted by anybody at all? And asking you why you gave them away?

I think that the system the way it is right now, is just about as bad as Abortion right now.

so to me it makes compete sense to stress using all forms of birth control, etc... and to even educate all kids on that from a early age as soon as possible... in order to prevent both scenarios.

Ronson
RESTRICTIONS OF THIS DEBATE(which will be broken in about five seconds, I think)

- If you disagree with the above, explain to me why your moral authority trumps others.

- If you agree with the above, explain to me if you seek to have your moral authority trump others.

- If you don't believe anyone's moral authority trumps anyone else's, tell me how anyone can have a society that dispenses truth, honor and justice.

- Debate about whether there is a new way to look at these issues, which have been tearing this country (the US) apart for so many years.

I don't file myself as a social conservative because I don't advocate keeping the status quo. I am a believer in ultimate choice. I know that regardless of law people can and will do as they see fit. It is not my place to force my morality on others. To my mind government should simply exist to promote general safety and prevent behaviors that are detrimental to the rights, and health of others.

I don't seek to have my opinions trump others, nor should theirs trump mine.

In the world there should not be a morality police. People should be free to have self-determination in their lives. The only time one person's decisions should trump another is when they are mutually exclusive. Otherwise you do as you will, I'll do as I will. No need for standing imperatives to control ALL decisions. Our country already operates on the mechanism necessary to operate in this void and resolve conflicts where they arise. Majority rule.

There is no greater power than the power of the Masses. If their masses are bigger than yours then live with it. Try to bring them to understand your views and homogenize if you can. Both sides are simply too busy trying to enforce their preferences on others through force of law. This is wrong. Government is not the place for societal values to be decided. I am tired of people thinking the fed is in charge of what is right and wrong and giving their freedom over to a set of standards set by somebody else. The People are in charge here.

To save space and focus on my main point I've shrunk my responses on the three examples.

I hold the view that abortion IS wrong, and it violates the sanctity of all life. Yet it should be a non-legal issue, neither illegal nor specifically protected. Its a personal choice of the mother, not society in general.

Guns are tools and thus personal property. Just like any property my right to own my weapons should be protected. Legal or illegal if a person has a desire to utilize a weapon against themselves or others they are going to. Even if you could successfully deplete the availability of dangerous items like guns an alternative weapon would be used instead.

Homosexuality is a personal preference I don't partake of but support. Deciding rights or ability based on orientation is just as pointless as deciding on gender. Marriage is a religious item that should have no legal bearing. Giving rights or restrictions based on marriage constitutes religious preference or persecution respectively. If you want to be treated as a single legal entity then get a contract. Civil unions of any kind are fine by me, but you are surrendering your right to be treated as a single person if you enter one.

Kyupol, your ideas regarding gun ownership are a bit fantastical.
The populations of iraq and afghanistan owned Ak-47 machine guns while living under saddam and the taliban, two of the most oppressive regimes in the world. So even though they were actually BETTER armed then americans, they were infinitely less free.
A friend of mine went to saudi arabia and his relatives there owned a freakin rocket launcher! An RPG like you see on the new being carried by militants! But I dont think that anyone would say these heavily armed saudi's are living in a free country!
There is no historical link between countries that had disarmed populations and countries that had tyrannical governments (both types of country can have tyranny), and there is no history of tyrants rushing to take guns off their people.


I think this is a bit of a myth in america because of the american revolution and the British looking for stores of muskets etc. All very romantic images.
Of course, back then a musket was the latest high tech weapon and everyone could get one (meaning a farmer was as well armed, and probably almost as well trained as an actual soldier).
If you believe that owning a handgun or a shot gun is enough to stop a tyrannical government today, I think you need to consider how useful such weapons would be against tanks, soldiers with body armour and machine guns and all the other things a modern army would be able to use. Your personal defence fire arm would do you no good at all if the government of your country truly wished to oppress you through military might.
Unless you are advocating that civilians be allowed tanks, machine guns, missiles and all that other good stuff. (IED's for everyone?)

I come from a country without an armed populace and it has not caused us to be taken over by tyrants so far, and it also means we have a lot less of those drive by shootings. Hooray!

- I am pro-gun. Because an armed population is what gets in the way of a tyrannical government. Because armaments are the ultimate balance of power. If you look at history's dictators, they want a DISARMED population whom they can CONTROL and OPPRESS.

I can't agree with that on any level. There are many cases in the past and in modern society where disarmament has not led to oppression and has had positive effects on the society. There are many countries with strict gun control which both offer civil freedoms and don't have high crime rates. Our country happens to be one built upon a system of checks and balances. It is not easy or even probable that someone could usurp that level of power in our government. On top of that, if such a thing did happen in our country, an armed population isn't going to stop our far better armed military. This is an argument only used by the paranoid and it doesn't work no matter how you look at it.

Guns are tools and thus personal property. Just like any property my right to own my weapons should be protected. Legal or illegal if a person has a desire to utilize a weapon against themselves or others they are going to. Even if you could successfully deplete the availability of dangerous items like guns an alternative weapon would be used instead.

I also can't agree with this argument. The guns which are of the most issue to me are the ones with a single design and function, TO KILL PEOPLE. By their very design they do not "promote general safety and prevent behaviors that are detrimental to the rights and health of others." Their existance in society puts people at risk.

As for the idea that people will find an alternative if guns aren't around, that's fine. I would rather someone held me up with a knife than a gun. At least I know I have a much better chance of walking away alive from the first scenario. Plus, there are ways people can protect themselves in that situation, while the only advice you ever hear when it comes to what you do when you're at gunpoint, is to do whatever the person with the gun tells you. Taking any sort of counter-action, even pulling out another gun, holds a sever risk upon your life.

I personally don't think a person should be restricted from living their lives however they want unless their decisions restrict the freedom of others. I don't feel free around someone who has a gun. Its only function is to harm or kill other people and people only carry them for two reasons: to shoot people and because of the psychological effect (intimidation) it has on others, both of which are serious restrictions on the freedoms of others.

I do not object to guns used for hunting, in fact, I fully support the idea. We tend to throw things out of balance in the natural world and hunting can help us to keep tabs on rapid population growth. Even sport shooting is fine by me. Some people find it rewarding and others may just get a boost of self confidence from the feel of a firearm going off in their hands. Neither of those require you to carry a gun on the streets, though.

Because history shows that the bigger a government gets, the more oppressive and corrupt it gets.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. The most corrupt and oppressive governments tend to have a well-defined leader. Even in your example of communist regimes, the ones which were the worst tended to have a more powerful central leader. Lenin, Stalin, Castro, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, any of these names ring a bell? The size of the government doesn't matter. Large governments with a greater division of power tend to not have the same problems that those regimes demonstrated.

On top of that, if such a thing did happen in our country, an armed population isn't going to stop our far better armed military.

Err...

Hezbollah vs Israel. Hezbollah only had infantry and small arms. Israel had a modern army with proper weapons. Why did Israel fail?

The Iraqi insurgents. While you may argue that they lose 90% of direct battles with US forces, why aren't they completely controlled yet? They still have a decent fighting chance against an army that is more disciplined, more organized, and has a technological advantage.

And in various parts of the world, you have insurgent forces consisting of ONLY infantry versus government forces that have armor, naval, and air power. And yet still pulling off a decent resistance. In spite of being out-gunned.

An armed population CANNOT BE COMPLETELY CONTROLLED.

A disarmed population CAN BE ENSLAVED much more easily. Simple as that.



See that video. That isn't some crap made up by one of those crazy kooky paranoid "conspiracy theorists". Now who is talking about martial law? How would you protect yourself from a bunch of mercenaries picking up people to be thrown in forced labour camps?

By their very design they do not "promote general safety and prevent behaviors that are detrimental to the rights and health of others." Their existance in society puts people at risk.

Banning guns only benefits the criminals. Both in the government and the small time crooks.

If I'm a crook and I know that that house is disarmed. I'd be more motivated to break and enter it. But if I know that I'd be SHOT DEAD the moment I break in, I'd think twice before doing it.

Criminals aquire guns through ILLEGAL means. Banning them wont do a thing. A criminal would always find a way to get guns.

And by the way, since guns are banned where I live, the only armaments I can aquire legally are a KUBATON and a FOLDING KNIFE. I also got steel-toed boots. Those things are good for kicking. But what can that do against someone with a gun? Anyway at least I'm not disarmed. At least I'd have a fighting chance. Still. I feel safer with a gun.

And at the rate the economy is going, God knows when I'd need to fight. I hope and pray to God it wont ever happen. But nevertheless. I have to be as prepared as I possibly can.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

See the vid I posted in this post. And ask yourself why these things happen despite the opposition of majority of the people against it?

- the banker bailout
- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
- Guantanamo Bay, Abu Gharib, prisoner abuse.
- Increased surveillance and less privacy. More cameras on the street. The Orwellian State is here.
- "Free Speech" zones.
- The militarization of police.
- The continued fluoridation of water.

Who is listened to? The people or the corporate elite?