Race for the presidency political discussion thread

[InfinityMax]

Snotwalker, I think the thing to understand is the difference between believing something and forcing that belief on others. Most pro-choice candidates are opposed to the concept of abortion as birth control, but are even more opposed to limiting the freedoms of the women involved to the point that they are not allowed to choose (thus the term 'pro-choice'). It's sort of like a Baptist saying he's opposed to drinking on Sunday, but he doesn't think there ought to be a law saying I can't have a shot of whiskey with my breakfast.

Me, I disagree, though I would be willing to accept (to start off) a cut-off point of 11 weeks. I'll be right up front about having a give-me-an-inch-so-I-can-get-a-mile - I would rather see like a two-week cut-off, and as soon as I get 11 weeks, I'll start fighting for six.

[SuperflyTNT]

Originally Posted by Raudulfr Shieldcrusher

Many unwanted abortions could be avoided by good sex education. But that is blocked as well. Has anyone noticed that the rate of teen pregnancies has been on the rise since 2000? Has anyone noticed that Bush has expanded abstinence only programs since 2000?

First, let's try not to be disingenuous here. The rate rose 3% for ONE YEAR, between 2005-2006. Period. The rate DECLINED EVERY YEAR between 1991 and 2005, starting at 61.8 per 1000 in 1991 and trending downward EVERY YEAR through 2005, where it was 40.5 per 1000. It bumped up to 41.9 JUST in 2005-2006. Let's get the FACTS before we start Bush Bashing...http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/07.../teenbirth.htm

Last time I checked it's up to PARENTS to PARENT. That's the biggest problem - parents are not doing what they need to do. We could argue that Bush is pushing Abstinence Only (which indeed does work and HAS worked for the preceding 6 years...) but the fact is that schools only does 10% of the work - the parents need to get involved, and it's in their best interest to do so.

[Roland]

Superfly, being out of highschool not yet 3 years, i can tell you from the bottom of my heart that if abstinence only was taught in my school the pregnancy rate would have skyrocketed, many parents do not know when there kids become sexually active, and do no think that the talk needs to be had at 13 or 14. We were taught abstinence was the only absolute, but if we were to have sex then to use protection, they even recommended various forms used at the same time to significantly reduce the risk. (i.e. condom, pill) Sadly, abortion was taught as a contraceptive as well if the above did not work, which is wrong, but it is how things were at that particular school.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Nicely stated, IMAX. But here's a thought on what you wrote about beliefs and forcing those beliefs on others. The example you gave on Sunday alcohol laws is a great example of where a belief should NOT turn into a law encroaching on the freedom of others. But I see abortion as being in a completely different category... Not one centering on beliefs of "morally acceptable behavior", but one centering on the very issue of life and death.

We all agree that a woman should have NO RIGHT to kill her 1 minute-old baby.... I assume none of us would consider that to be a belief being "forced" onto someone else, correct? It's simply a law against murder. We don't give the woman the right to choose murder...

Laws, by definition, restrict choice. So why is a woman's "right to choose" so sacrosanct in this particular issue and able to trump all other considerations? (and if it's soley because some argue it's "her body"... I'd like to point out that it's illegal for me to kill myself, even though it's 100% my body... I have no choice over my body in that regard.)

Anyway, again, a very good post, IMAX. I hear you and agree more than disagree with your thoughts. But this issue just isn't about beliefs as much as it is about discerning the facts and truth about whether or not a human life is being killed, and if ANYONE should ever have that choice.

SW8K -- enjoying the dialogue.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

Last time I checked it's up to PARENTS to PARENT. That's the biggest problem - parents are not doing what they need to do. We could argue that Bush is pushing Abstinence Only (which indeed does work and HAS worked for the preceding 6 years...) but the fact is that schools only does 10% of the work - the parents need to get involved, and it's in their best interest to do so.

Where is the evidence that Abstinence Only programs work?

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy (2007):

The report also notes that, at present, there is no strong evidence that programs that stress abstinence as the only acceptable behavior for unmarried teens delay the initiation of sex, hasten the return to abstinence, or reduce the number of sexual partners.

[InfinityMax]

Originally Posted by Snotwalker 8000

Nicely stated, IMAX. But here's a thought on what you wrote about beliefs and forcing those beliefs on others. The example you gave on Sunday alcohol laws is a great example of where a belief should NOT turn into a law encroaching on the freedom of others. But I see abortion as being in a completely different category... Not one centering on beliefs of "morally acceptable behavior", but one centering on the very issue of life and death.

We all agree that a woman should have NO RIGHT to kill her 1 minute-old baby.... I assume none of us would consider that to be a belief being "forced" onto someone else, correct? It's simply a law against murder. We don't give the woman the right to choose murder...

Laws, by definition, restrict choice. So why is a woman's "right to choose" so sacrosanct in this particular issue and able to trump all other considerations? (and if it's soley because some argue it's "her body"... I'd like to point out that it's illegal for me to kill myself, even though it's 100% my body... I have no choice over my body in that regard.)

Anyway, again, a very good post, IMAX. I hear you and agree more than disagree with your thoughts. But this issue just isn't about beliefs as much as it is about discerning the facts and truth about whether or not a human life is being killed, and if ANYONE should ever have that choice.

SW8K -- enjoying the dialogue.

Oh, we're right on the same page on this one, man. I was only relating the position from the other side. I'm not particularly concerned with something like an RU486, but once you know you've got a kid, I say you're stuck with it.

[SuperflyTNT]

Originally Posted by Gulp

Where is the evidence that Abstinence Only programs work?

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy (2007):

The report also notes that, at present, there is no strong evidence that programs that stress abstinence as the only acceptable behavior for unmarried teens delay the initiation of sex, hasten the return to abstinence, or reduce the number of sexual partners.

The fact that as RS pointed out - Bush pushed AO from 2000 and the rates continued to drop until one year, which bumped up 3%. This bump can be contributed to a number of things other than the 1 education factor...I mean let's be realistic - people let their kids watch MTV, The Hills, The OC, Gossip Girl, and other inane masturbational fantasies and then expect them NOT to toss one in their girl/boyfriend???? How stupid is that??? The oversexing of the culture is, IMO, the root of the problem.

I'm not advocating AO, in fact I think it's COMPLETELY retarded. It's like teaching kids how to drive, but only using the emergency brake to stop. I'm simply pointing out that RS was overstating things by going right off the bat at Bush (a trend, I might add, which is the only reason I pointed it out) and stating things that were not factually accurate, which is OK and understandable, just that it was wrong. I just want the record to be clear that this is NOT a trend, just a single year data point, and it is only 3%. I would also point out that the abortion rate has ALSO declined not only in teens, but all across the board (15-44), from about 26 per 1000 in 1991 down to 19.4 per 1000 in 2006. That seems like pretty convincing FACTUAL evidence that although AO training is not the whole answer, it has been effective to a good degree.

I will even go so far as to say that they need to show kids as young as 12 how to use a condom, WHY to use one, and need to show videos of abortions as a deterrent (hey, Red Ashphalt worked) and show up-close-and-personal pictures of genital herpes, anal warts, genital warts, and other STDs to illustrate how absolutely vital it is that people protect themselves. I also believe that during parent-teacher conferences the teacher should hand a brochure to 12-13 year old's parents that talks about HOW/WHY to talk to your kids about sex, and have statistics about the ill effects of sex on teens.

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by Snotwalker 8000

It's interesting that you'd use capital punishment in your equation.

Anyway, just for clarification's sake, (as I always prefer clarity over agreement), why are you against abortion as a form of birth control? And by the way, I'd say you did a nice job in presenting your thoughts in that post. But this particular question is still a little unclear, unless your use of cap. punishment means that you also believe that a human life is killed during abortions, and THAT's why you are against them as birth control?...

And in what tough situations do you approve of abortions? (I assume the obvious cases of rape and if the life of the mother is at risk?)

Thanks Bannister!

SW8K

Originally Posted by Snotwalker 8000

Nicely stated, IMAX. But here's a thought on what you wrote about beliefs and forcing those beliefs on others. The example you gave on Sunday alcohol laws is a great example of where a belief should NOT turn into a law encroaching on the freedom of others. But I see abortion as being in a completely different category... Not one centering on beliefs of "morally acceptable behavior", but one centering on the very issue of life and death.

We all agree that a woman should have NO RIGHT to kill her 1 minute-old baby.... I assume none of us would consider that to be a belief being "forced" onto someone else, correct? It's simply a law against murder. We don't give the woman the right to choose murder...

Laws, by definition, restrict choice. So why is a woman's "right to choose" so sacrosanct in this particular issue and able to trump all other considerations? (and if it's soley because some argue it's "her body"... I'd like to point out that it's illegal for me to kill myself, even though it's 100% my body... I have no choice over my body in that regard.)

Anyway, again, a very good post, IMAX. I hear you and agree more than disagree with your thoughts. But this issue just isn't about beliefs as much as it is about discerning the facts and truth about whether or not a human life is being killed, and if ANYONE should ever have that choice.

SW8K -- enjoying the dialogue.

1. Why did I use the death penalty as my analogy? Because of your sentence in blue and it's corresponding paragraph. If I used any analogy outside of the ending of another life you would have dismissed it as apples and oranges.

2. Yeah rape, incest, mother's health, etc, for sure. I would never presume to tell those women that they aren't allowed an abortion. In those instances I believe that without question, they should have the option to abort the pregnancies.

3. To me, outside of the reasons listed above, the question is when does life begin? I have no reason to take issue with things like, the morning after pill. Or possible the creation of a 1-2 week after pill. I think that the heart of the issue resides there, at what point do we call it life.

Bannister

[Gulp]

We agree on most of those points. I agree they need to show the pics of STDs. The abortion pics... I'm not sure I agree that that would have the intended affect. Instead they could show pics of people in their 70s who, while they love their 55yo children, still wish that they could have experienced their youth instead of dropping out of school and working. We can get over graphic images, but the image of a 'wasted' life seems to me to be a stronger motivating factor.

I can see the possibility that our culture, which I've already stated that I have problems with, might lead kids to have more sex, but I would need to see some data instead of going on a gut feeling. I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever to see that you are correct, but there could just as likely be 50 other equally contributing factors.

[Fezzikthedoor]

I've never really understood the distinction made for abortions where the child is a result of rape or insest. If your objection to abortion is a religious or moral one--which is to say that you believe that it is the murder of a person and not collection of viable cells--how does the circumstance of the child's creation make its life less valuable than one that was simply conceived on accident? Certainly, such a pregnancy would be more emotionally damaging for the woman carrying the child, but if you are being honest in your commitment to the protection of an "innocent life" what difference does rape or incest make?

Just looking for a bit of clarity from anyone who is anti-abortion except in those cases. Thoughts?

[InfinityMax]

Fezzik, while your argument certainly highlights issues in consistency, I know I couldn't be the one to tell a woman that she had to carry to term the child she was about to have with a rapist.

I think a big part of the difference, and the reason most people just assume that rape and incest require a different set of rules, is that usually, the woman chose to engage in activities likely to result in fertilization. Otherwise, she's a victim, and making her have the baby continues to make her a victim. Another reason is entirely practical - in the case of a woman who has a child due to irresponsibility, she is a lot less likely to take matters into her own hands if denied a legal recourse. I would have trouble blaming a woman for a coat-hanger abortion if the kid was started by rape.

Happily, these particular distinctions can be put to one side thanks to the fact that they make up such a small percentage of abortions. I think every opponent of abortion can agree that stopping abortion as after-the-fact birth control would be one hell of a win, and even those people who could honestly tell a rape victim that she had to have her attacker's illegitimate son would be willing to sign off on an exception if it meant stopping the much bigger problem.

[SuperflyTNT]

I'd sign off on it any day of the week - ban abortions in all cases except that of the mother's physical health, incest, or rape.

I still say that it's not the kid's fault dad was a Perv-of-the-highest-order, but that being said I'm with IMAX...that's a tough thing to do to someone, especially an athiest or agnostic who has no faith, tell them, "Sorry you got raped, but you have to carry the kid to term and then hand it off to someone and hope for the best...and, oh, if you get a C-section you'll always have a scar to remind you about the little encounter".

Not me, dude, I'm faithful as they come but I'd pass the buck to the priest or a constable on that one...