Bamboozled

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gunwounds, how many economic destruction/deaths abroad and in USA would in your opinion be worth these judges? The war in Iraq in one example bringing deaths both abroad and in USA, and it has serious effects on USA's credibility abroad.

And aren't such judges something of a theoric win, over a practical loss? Patriotic Act and the like also have an effect on Americans' rights, while judges arbitrate within their boundaries. So if you are against the act and your president's rule, doesn't it end up being "win judges for the future, and lose actual rights on which they'll judge"?

Actually Supreme Court Judges can declare acts, laws, lower court rulings, and even amendments "unconstitutional".

[GUNWOUNDS]

I can see where you're coming from, but don't you think the cost of getting those conservative Supreme Court Justices was too great? Most of the conservative social policies that got Bush re-elected are utterly irrelevant compared to the conservative economic policies that will hurt America's working class, slash whatever is left of the welfare state and cut funding for health care and education while making the rich richer than ever. What are the Supreme Court Justices going to do that is so important? Fight abortion? No they won't. The moment the fight against abortion is won, the Christian Right is going to lose steam and dissolve as a political force. Republicans don't want that to happen. They will not make any serious attack on abortion, because they care about their rich corporate buddies, not about any babies (born or unborn). They want to keep their Christian Right voter base politically active by using the bogeyman of abortion for as long as possible.

They WILL make a serious attack on partial birth abortions (aka infanticide) which liberals support.

And abortion is not the only issue.... and i know its not the only issue they will keep in perpetual debate.... however its not the actual issues themselves but rather the extreme views that spawn from these issues.

[nampigai]

what I don't like about this is that why should people with a certain belief decide what should be law and what shouldn't be law?

Should moslems then also have the right to demand that women should wear a Bhurka?

besides abortions will occour wether legal or unlegal - why not keep it in a clean clinic?

 

[Dude_Doc]

I have to agree with nampigai. Abortion may be a troublesome situation, but I don't think any woman out there would like to carry a rapist's child. Of course, it may be hard to determine who was raped and who was not, but in a free society, these choices need to be made. It's the woman's body, she is the one to decide what it is to become of - just like everyone here has his or her own right over his/her body.

Besides, are not Christians supposed to be friendly towards nature? Well, we surely don't have any problems slaughtering millions of chickens, cows, pigs, using their eggs and milk - even though we have the means of creating artificial food. We surely don't mind being rich, anti-community, weapons-maniacs and egoists. We sure as hell don't mind what's happening in Africa or Asia. 

[Anathema]

Otherman: on abortion, don't you think that women have a responsibility not to get pregnant if they have no intention of raising a baby? Rape is the exception here off course because the woman had no say, but I don't think that women who get pregnant because of carlessness deserve to get abortions. Conscious or not, fetuses are still human beings and though maybe not equal to those who are already born, they shouldn't be treated like garbage that can be thrown away when you go around having unprotected sex and are unwilling to deal with the consequenses.

(to be fair though, I don't think that there are many women out there with such little regard for human life, but the point stands)

Gunwounds: aren't there democrats who oppose abortion and the like? I heard of republicans who are pro, so I expect the opposite is also true.

[gunner154]

If you are willing to have sex, you are automatically signing a natural pact of responsibility. You are taking a gamble, and if things go awry, naturally you should be responsible for the baby.

Let me tell you when we should have abortions (list can continue):

1.) Rape (clarified by Anathema already)

2.) Life-endangering scenarios

Therefore, it seems that the ideal stand is to take the middle road. Do everything on a case-by-case basis. It's not like you have 30 life-endangering scenarios everyday in every city, and if it's rape it's not difficult to justify it. There is little propensity for abuse. All else, if you choose to have sex, regardless whether it's protected or not, if you have a baby, you keep it.

It's that simple. Purists would disagree with the first point on rape (perhaps, I don't know), but I don't see why abortion cannot be allowed for women in the second case. Heck, if one of them is likely to die, why not take a chance to preserve the mother?

[exatreide]

How would you fellow's feel if this was a female messegeboard about men and a debate about castration, well you probebly wouldn't be happy since they are all females talking about how they want to castrate you, and completly ignoring what you say and want. Same issue with abortion, it's a women issue, not your place to decide.

[gunner154]

That's a faulty analogy. I'm tying my arguments with the responsibility of one's actions. This argument can be made by anyone, male or female. Just because you are not of a particular group, you are in no place to argue.

And besides, the argument that I'm citing involves males as well. Males play a part in causing the birth, and whether it's with 2 consenting parties or just one will determine how the natural contract should work. It's quite simply a matter of principle.

And heck, why should women give a damn about what we post here if we don't give a damn about what they post? This is a forum. And if somebody does give a damn, well have that person debate in the same thread then. Issue resolved.

[Anathema]

Let me tell you when we should have abortions (list can continue):

1.) Rape (clarified by Anathema already)

2.) Life-endangering scenarios

Yeah #2 is an acceptable reason as well. I didn't mention it because I've been in threads like this before and it sort of goes without saying, there isn't a good reason to be against abortion in life threatening cases. Like I said, fetuses are important as human beings, but not equal to those who already live in this world. About case-by-case deciding wether it's justified, I agree.

[Andrew]

Seems that the Rebuplicans may have gotten votes from glitched voting machines.

I'm sure they are paying the corporations big $ for those machines as well.

Diebold insider claims their ballot machines are flawed that have produced weird results which favored Republicans

Why doesn't USA do what Canada does and have paper only ballots? This leaves a paper trail and no computer glitches to worry about.

How hard is it to put an X next to the person you support?

And it doesn't take long to count up the votes. Only 6-8 hours.

[Gobalopper]

Because in the American system you vote on way more then just one issue. In Canada we are just picking one person from a list of about 5 choices.

[Andrew]

Could they be given several ballots then, one for each issue (or one big ballot that gets split up when handed in)?

I remember the gay marriage issue was on the vote and maybe another.

I don't see a good US election website like Elections Canada, so I can't get any good info. The FEC is just about financing. Although looking at google images, the ballots are confusing.

[Dude_Doc]

Sorry for the extreme late reply, but here we go:

Otherman: on abortion, don't you think that women have a responsibility not to get pregnant if they have no intention of raising a baby? Rape is the exception here off course because the woman had no say, but I don't think that women who get pregnant because of carlessness deserve to get abortions.

I still stand on my opinion. We're debating about a woman's choice, and I'm not a woman (I suspect that you are neither). It is easy for us to say what should be legalized and what shouldn't, because we can't get pregnant. We don't bear any responsibility for life. The "only" thing we "fear", on an average, is AIDS and some other sexual deceases.

The women, on the other hand, has much more responsibility for bearing a life. They must eat right, musn't smoke (well, not that it is a good thing, but compare this to men) - they also risk (or have a much higher risk) dying while giving birth to the child.

And then, of course, we have the problem with inequality, as well as the problem with abortion. How can you tell a woman who has been raped from one who's faking? 

Conscious or not, fetuses are still human beings and though maybe not equal to those who are already born, they shouldn't be treated like garbage that can be thrown away when you go around having unprotected sex and are unwilling to deal with the consequenses.

Yes and no. Fetuses are to-be human beings. Their fate is not set. They could die in an accident, never experiencing anything of life. Life is to be respected, even if it's not developed, I agree on that. But the fetus is not independent. It depends on the host, the woman, to feed it and keep it warm. The fetus does not need the father, because he can't do anything for it, thus it is up the the woman to protect it until birth. The woman has control over it, and no one else can have that control - thus she must make the decisions.

But since we live in a pretty hard world with an unpredictable future, there are outside problems. Is it better to live in misery for an entire lifetime than to not live? Can things change? It all depends. If the question was pointed through a theological point of view, well, then I must ask: If God knows everything, then He must also know about the abortion to be made. If there is something God didn't like, He could surely stop it.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes and no. Fetuses are to-be human beings. Their fate is not set. They could die in an accident, never experiencing anything of life. Life is to be respected, even if it's not developed, I agree on that. But the fetus is not independent. It depends on the host, the woman, to feed it and keep it warm. The fetus does not need the father, because he can't do anything for it, thus it is up the the woman to protect it until birth. The woman has control over it, and no one else can have that control - thus she must make the decisions.

A newborn isnt independant either.... a newborn could die in an accident, a newborn's fate is not set, a newborn is dependant upon the woman to feed it and keep it warm, a newborn doesnt need the father if the mother takes sole care of it....

Notice how i can put "newborn" in every place that you put "fetus" .... that makes your whole arguement fall apart.  Think about it.  If you support abortion why can you not support infanticide?

[Dante]

Someone else (i.e. other than me) might argue that there is a definite difference between a newborn and a foetus. Absence of umbilical cord for example. This would indicate that the law should apply to them differently. But that leads to the 'when does life start?' debate, which is just a mess. When does a foetus become a living being? At the moment of conception? When the heart starts beating? When it begins to resemble a human, or breathe? When the cord is cut? Personally, I find all of these questions tiring and unnecessary. You want rid of the damned thing then be rid of it, I don't care how. Abortion or adoption, it's all the same to me. Thus whether there is a difference between abortion and killing children becomes irrelevent (for the record, I do believe there is a difference. I just don't know or care what it is). In the words of the above post, I don't 'support' infanticide, but I don't particularly condemn it either.

At the same time, I believe that the ultimate choice should belong to the mother. If she's going to die if she has the baby and still refuses abortion, that's her choice. If she's perfectly healthy but doesn't want a kid and chooses abortion, that's fine too. If the child is sufficiently developed so that abortion would be more problematic than birth though, then effort should be made to persuade her to go for adoption instead.

Meh, I phrased that whole thing poorly.

[Dude_Doc]

A newborn isnt independant either.... a newborn could die in an accident, a newborn's fate is not set, a newborn is dependant upon the woman to feed it and keep it warm, a newborn doesnt need the father if the mother takes sole care of it....

Notice how i can put "newborn" in every place that you put "fetus" .... that makes your whole arguement fall apart.  Think about it.  If you support abortion why can you not support infanticide?

Yes, you're right in a way. But fetuses are dependant in such a way that if it's host dies, then so does the fetus. A newborn could still survive, and is not forced to stay with it's "original" mother. A newborn is, contrary to a fetus, not dependant on a host, and could have a completely different one. In this case, whoever that takes the baby is responsible.

Trust me, if there was another way I'd support that instead. But once again, it is another person who is pregnant, therefore that person has responsibility over her body - as well as anything inside it. If the woman has another belief, or simply doesn't want anything to do with abortion, then she is free to do so too. I can not see any problem with such a society.

If the child is sufficiently developed so that abortion would be more problematic than birth though, then effort should be made to persuade her to go for adoption instead.

Agreed.

[Andrew]

Do you feel bamboozled when the US Government is selling US ports to United Arab Emirate?

That's pretty sad. And it shows that the US is in deep $ trouble.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/21/uae-port-deal060221.html

"The stupidity involved in this is mind-boggling," the CNN business commentator said.

So true.

[Andrew]

Rumsfeld reveals that he was not consulted about the decision to transfer operations of six key U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates. Too bad he is a member of Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States which unanimously approved the sale on February 13.

I mean wtf? There better be riots if this is confirmed.

"And, more importantly, we've stopped a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein. Nobody denies that he was supporting al-Qaida." says Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

I thought that the 9/11 reports stated that Saddam had no ties to al-Qaida?

[Andrew]

Documents Reveal Secret White House Deal on Ports

Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

WTF?

1. Let foreign company (from a terrorist region) take over ports

2. Company is not responsible under US Law

3. ???

4. Profit!

EDIT

CNN News alert (us edition):

Referring to debate over foreign operations of U.S. ports, President Bush says "people don't need to worry about security."

???

Why is he still in office?

For 5 years he goes on about US security and terrorism, but then brushes off about people not needing to worry about security?

"The more people learn about the transaction," Bush said, "the more they'll be comforted that the ports will be secure." He spoke to reporters at the end of a Cabinet meeting.

Yah, that's why it was kept secret to everyone until after the deal was made. So they could come up with excuses as to why it's safe after the deal is made.

[nemafakei]

"Referring to debate over foreign operations of U.S. ports, President Bush says "people don't need to worry about security.""

Context - I'm guessing he meant "...that's our job". I don't expect he's being so candid as to point out how unlikely it is that the US is going to be invaded.

[Dude_Doc]

Why is everybody surprised? This is how they make profit every damn day. Oh, not resposible under US law? Hah! When are companies responsible when they buy all water in a country? Or when they open sweatshops in Asia, where unions are forbidden by law? They will never acknowledge a "mistake" or "wrongdoing" unless someone they don't trust knows about it.

About security, however, the US will always know what is going on in those ports. Remember that they have interveened in other countries' democratic elections, they 'own' the Echelon survelliance system, so I don't think there will be any problem with security here. The UAE basically has no say - because they haven't the power to do anything against the US.