Jump to content


Photo

Pro-Choice


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Thrash

Thrash

    not as gay

  • Former Member
  • 9559 posts
  • Location:Poconos, PA
  • Ruler Name:Thrash
  • Nation Name:Machas
  • IRC Nick:Thrash[Invicta]
  • Nation Link

Posted 07 June 2010 - 04:59 PM

If this story isn't a reason for pro-choice to remain, I don't know what is:

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.d ... /100609870

and yes, I'm still a Conservative.



Member Awards ()

#2 linkkjm

linkkjm

    Nascar is Daddy

  • Former Member
  • 739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Flagstaff
  • Ruler Name:linkkjm
  • Nation Name:Daft Republic
  • IRC Nick:linkkjm|Invicta
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link

Posted 07 June 2010 - 05:20 PM

Seriously this is the reason why they should just let people get abortions, at any age.

#3 ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

    The Invictan Formerly Known as Jorost

  • Lord Protector
  • 16192 posts
  • Gender:Household pet that walked across the keyboard - male
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Ruler Name:Jorost
  • Nation Name:Invicta Crownlands
  • IRC Nick:Jorost
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link






Posted 07 June 2010 - 08:00 PM

Frankly I think we should be able to abort them up to about age 30. B)

And Thrash, the more I learn about your actual positions on things the more I realize that you are not really a conservative! I think you just think you are! You are pro-choice and pro-legalization of marijuana, positions diametrically opposed to two of the most fundamental cornerstones of the conservative movement. Every time you vote for one of those people you are voting against your own interests! B)

Member Awards ()

#4 Invicta

Invicta

    Invicta Systems Administrator and Security Specialist

  • [Redacted]
  • 25144 posts
  • Gender:Sentient artificial intelligence - identifies as female
  • Ruler Name:Invicta
  • Nation Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link












Posted 07 June 2010 - 08:53 PM

Ironically, I am a pro-life anti-marijuana leftist socialist, but then, I can cleanly argue that my views are completely consistent and that it's predominant American political parties that are totally screwed up and internally inconsistent.

Also, that article in NO WAY implies to me that the pro-choice perspective is the right one, far from it. But like religion, abortion is not a topic I like to take up on the web. The last time I did (NPO) I stopped the topic dead by suggesting (logically, I think) that mother's who have abortions should be tried as a first-degree murderers, and that doctors/nurses involved along with a husband/father (if his involvement can be proven) should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. I'll just let that one sit.

To be clearer, I am very much against the death penalty and think that the mother should simply get life-imprisonment with the option of parole if convicted. However, a doctor who has performed multiple abortions, as a repeat offender/serial killer would get life without parole.

#5 Thrash

Thrash

    not as gay

  • Former Member
  • 9559 posts
  • Location:Poconos, PA
  • Ruler Name:Thrash
  • Nation Name:Machas
  • IRC Nick:Thrash[Invicta]
  • Nation Link

Posted 07 June 2010 - 09:30 PM

I'm just gonna give that a:

:P

So, do you honestly thing things like this article won't majorly increase should abortions be banned?

Member Awards ()

#6 Invicta

Invicta

    Invicta Systems Administrator and Security Specialist

  • [Redacted]
  • 25144 posts
  • Gender:Sentient artificial intelligence - identifies as female
  • Ruler Name:Invicta
  • Nation Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link












Posted 07 June 2010 - 10:08 PM

Honestly that's completely beside the point in my opinion, though "banning abortion" is really just dealing with (or even failing to deal with) the effects of what I consider to be a more fundamental issue; moral decline. Again, probably not something we should get into here. :P

To give you an idea of the complete difference in our worldviews, I consider rights-language, individualism, and fundamentally political freedom to be inherently immoral. I am a true authoritarian to the core of my being, completely dogmatic and absolute in my moral perspectives. I actually considered writing a treatise on the philosophy of ethics called, "In Defense of Doctrine", but I haven't actually gotten there. The odds of finding a publisher for such a book, regardless of how well written it was (and I doubt my ability to do a very good job of it) are pretty slim.

#7 ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

    The Invictan Formerly Known as Jorost

  • Lord Protector
  • 16192 posts
  • Gender:Household pet that walked across the keyboard - male
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Ruler Name:Jorost
  • Nation Name:Invicta Crownlands
  • IRC Nick:Jorost
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link






Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:44 AM

I don't know about that, Glen. Lots of books on an amazingly wide range of subjects get published. I bet there would be plenty of publishers willing to take on something like that. Heck, on my bookshelf at home (well, OK, technically packed away in a box) is a book called In Defense of Elitism. Heh.

I too, tend to shy away from discussions of religion and abortion here. Mostly that is because I like the people here and those particular subjects have a way of turning nasty very quickly. But I would like to share one thing that I think bookends nicely with your comment about trying mothers who get abortions as murderers: I once made a similarly inflammatory statement, although in the opposite extreme, by suggesting that technically a fetus is a parasitic organism living within a woman's body, and that she had every right, as such, to expel it. It got a similarly stunned reaction!

Member Awards ()

#8 Invicta

Invicta

    Invicta Systems Administrator and Security Specialist

  • [Redacted]
  • 25144 posts
  • Gender:Sentient artificial intelligence - identifies as female
  • Ruler Name:Invicta
  • Nation Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link












Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:58 AM

Lol. I had a friend who used to ardently defend "post-birth" abortion to get a reaction, it worked. I found it somewhat humerous. But yeah, that's why. Although making shocking statements and then refusing to defend them is fun too.

Also Thrash; I've seen and met other people who argue as you do, and claim to be Conservative, and I'll tell you what I told them. You aren't a Conservative, you are a Libertarian. And yes, there is a significant difference.

#9 linkkjm

linkkjm

    Nascar is Daddy

  • Former Member
  • 739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Flagstaff
  • Ruler Name:linkkjm
  • Nation Name:Daft Republic
  • IRC Nick:linkkjm|Invicta
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link

Posted 08 June 2010 - 08:10 AM

Its not murder Glenn...I personally believe that an abortion is before the "baby" has even developed.

#10 ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

    The Invictan Formerly Known as Jorost

  • Lord Protector
  • 16192 posts
  • Gender:Household pet that walked across the keyboard - male
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Ruler Name:Jorost
  • Nation Name:Invicta Crownlands
  • IRC Nick:Jorost
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link






Posted 08 June 2010 - 11:22 AM

Let's just be very careful here. I'd really prefer to avoid an abortion debate.

However, since we're making outrageous statements, I have been saying for some time now that I am no longer pro-choice. I am now pro-abortion. There are too many damn people already, the last thing we need are more of them! :P

On Conservatism vs. Libertarianism, I have a few thoughts.

First of all, the idea that Conservatives are against "big government" is simply false. They love big government just as much as the most lefty of left-wing Liberals do. The difference is in what parts of government they think should be biggest. Conservatives are only too happy to have big government "intrude on our lives" when it comes to enforcing their social agenda, for example. And they love to give taxpayers' money away to big business in the form of corporate welfare. It's really kind of a beautiful thing -- helping those who already have the means to help themselves. :P

They are also outrageous hypocrites. They rail against the evils of "big government," but they are the first ones to run to the federal government for help when something goes wrong. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is a particularly egregious recent example. He has spent the last two years laying the groundwork to run for the GOP nomination for president in 2012 by being Mr. Anti-Washington, Mr. Anti-government, and then cries and whines that the federal government isn't doing enough in response to the oil spill and isn't giving them money to do anything themselves. Funny how that Conservative gem about "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" goes out the window when they need something, eh? But of course we already knew that. As I pointed out in this thread, the most pro-Conservative states are also the ones that contribute the least to the federal budget, and yet receive the most.

What Conservatives have been VERY good at is the propaganda war, however. They have convinced working-class Americans that they are looking out for them, when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort. And they have effectively distracted people from what they are really doing by keeping the debate on the three G's -- Guns, God and Gays -- issues which elicit strong emotions but which really, in the grand scheme of things, are not particularly important to the day-to-day lives of most people.

Libertarians are tougher to pigeonhole. Wikipedia defines Libertarianism as "a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action and the minimization or even abolition of the state." That sounds great, but in practice it gets tricky. Libertarians have no real unifying platform or agenda. There are socialist Libertarians, there are corporatist Libertarians, there are Christian theocratic Libertarians, there are anarchist Libertarians. And everything in between.

In my experience many people who call themselves "Libertarians" are really just Conservatives who like to think that their ideas are SO unique and SO special that they simply cannot be classified into either of the major parties. Most of the time they don't even know what the word "Libertarian" means. The fact of the matter, however, is that most people's overall views mesh quite nicely with one or the other major parties. In fact, that's probably why the parties evolved that way to begin with. Even in parliamentary democracies, like Canada or the European countries, there are generally only two major parties. Yes, there are often a host of other parties represented, but they are generally either one-issue, specialist parties (i.e. Bloc Quebecois) or extreme variants of the major left- or right-leaning parties (the various Green or Nationalist parties, for example).

I have also met people who consider themselves "Libertarians" simply because they "like the idea of a third party," without really giving any thought to what that third party might stand for. One acquaintance, a left-wing neo-hippie liberal, was an avid supporter of Ron Paul in 2008 for that reason, and because Paul was against the war. But of course Ron Paul is foursquare against most things that liberals support. It just goes to show that ignorance knows no ideology. :P

Member Awards ()

#11 Haflinger

Haflinger

    Flipper

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • 10259 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Ruler Name:Haflinger
  • Nation Name:Llonach
  • IRC Nick:Haflinger
  • Nation Link

Posted 08 June 2010 - 11:28 AM

I'm pro-choice. I don't see it as a moral issue, however, but rather a practical one.

Women are going to get abortions anyway, outlawing the practice does not have a positive effect. All it does is force them underground, where they get unsafe abortions and/or abandon children. Women dying getting abortions and abandoned children are not good for society, so we shouldn't prevent them from getting safe abortions.

Member Awards ()

#12 ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

    The Invictan Formerly Known as Jorost

  • Lord Protector
  • 16192 posts
  • Gender:Household pet that walked across the keyboard - male
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Ruler Name:Jorost
  • Nation Name:Invicta Crownlands
  • IRC Nick:Jorost
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link






Posted 08 June 2010 - 11:47 AM

If we MUST talk abortion just please, please, please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, let's make sure we keep it civil. Not that anyone hasn't been, not at all. It's just that I've seen these things turn very ugly very fast.

Member Awards ()

#13 Invicta

Invicta

    Invicta Systems Administrator and Security Specialist

  • [Redacted]
  • 25144 posts
  • Gender:Sentient artificial intelligence - identifies as female
  • Ruler Name:Invicta
  • Nation Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link












Posted 08 June 2010 - 12:55 PM

I'm officially bowing out of this now, it's a subject I have a very difficult time remaining civil about, particularly online.

#14 ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

    The Invictan Formerly Known as Jorost

  • Lord Protector
  • 16192 posts
  • Gender:Household pet that walked across the keyboard - male
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Ruler Name:Jorost
  • Nation Name:Invicta Crownlands
  • IRC Nick:Jorost
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link






Posted 08 June 2010 - 02:16 PM

Yeah I'm kind of taking the same approach.

But come on, Glen, you've got NOTHING on Conservatives vs. Libertarians?!? :P

Member Awards ()

#15 Invicta

Invicta

    Invicta Systems Administrator and Security Specialist

  • [Redacted]
  • 25144 posts
  • Gender:Sentient artificial intelligence - identifies as female
  • Ruler Name:Invicta
  • Nation Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link












Posted 08 June 2010 - 02:22 PM

Oh I'm sure I would, I just don't trust myself to keep it to that. :P

#16 Thrash

Thrash

    not as gay

  • Former Member
  • 9559 posts
  • Location:Poconos, PA
  • Ruler Name:Thrash
  • Nation Name:Machas
  • IRC Nick:Thrash[Invicta]
  • Nation Link

Posted 08 June 2010 - 03:15 PM

C'mon, Glen, you're hanging in there.

Anyhow, here's an update to that story: It gets worse.

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.d ... WS/6080314

Member Awards ()

#17 linkkjm

linkkjm

    Nascar is Daddy

  • Former Member
  • 739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Flagstaff
  • Ruler Name:linkkjm
  • Nation Name:Daft Republic
  • IRC Nick:linkkjm|Invicta
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link

Posted 08 June 2010 - 04:31 PM

Let's just be very careful here. I'd really prefer to avoid an abortion debate.

However, since we're making outrageous statements, I have been saying for some time now that I am no longer pro-choice. I am now pro-abortion. There are too many damn people already, the last thing we need are more of them! :P

On Conservatism vs. Libertarianism, I have a few thoughts.

First of all, the idea that Conservatives are against "big government" is simply false. They love big government just as much as the most lefty of left-wing Liberals do. The difference is in what parts of government they think should be biggest. Conservatives are only too happy to have big government "intrude on our lives" when it comes to enforcing their social agenda, for example. And they love to give taxpayers' money away to big business in the form of corporate welfare. It's really kind of a beautiful thing -- helping those who already have the means to help themselves. :P

They are also outrageous hypocrites. They rail against the evils of "big government," but they are the first ones to run to the federal government for help when something goes wrong. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is a particularly egregious recent example. He has spent the last two years laying the groundwork to run for the GOP nomination for president in 2012 by being Mr. Anti-Washington, Mr. Anti-government, and then cries and whines that the federal government isn't doing enough in response to the oil spill and isn't giving them money to do anything themselves. Funny how that Conservative gem about "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" goes out the window when they need something, eh? But of course we already knew that. As I pointed out in this thread, the most pro-Conservative states are also the ones that contribute the least to the federal budget, and yet receive the most.

What Conservatives have been VERY good at is the propaganda war, however. They have convinced working-class Americans that they are looking out for them, when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort. And they have effectively distracted people from what they are really doing by keeping the debate on the three G's -- Guns, Haim and Gays -- issues which elicit strong emotions but which really, in the grand scheme of things, are not particularly important to the day-to-day lives of most people.

Libertarians are tougher to pigeonhole. Wikipedia defines Libertarianism as "a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action and the minimization or even abolition of the state." That sounds great, but in practice it gets tricky. Libertarians have no real unifying platform or agenda. There are socialist Libertarians, there are corporatist Libertarians, there are Christian theocratic Libertarians, there are anarchist Libertarians. And everything in between.

In my experience many people who call themselves "Libertarians" are really just Conservatives who like to think that their ideas are SO unique and SO special that they simply cannot be classified into either of the major parties. Most of the time they don't even know what the word "Libertarian" means. The fact of the matter, however, is that most people's overall views mesh quite nicely with one or the other major parties. In fact, that's probably why the parties evolved that way to begin with. Even in parliamentary democracies, like Canada or the European countries, there are generally only two major parties. Yes, there are often a host of other parties represented, but they are generally either one-issue, specialist parties (i.e. Bloc Quebecois) or extreme variants of the major left- or right-leaning parties (the various Green or Nationalist parties, for example).

I have also met people who consider themselves "Libertarians" simply because they "like the idea of a third party," without really giving any thought to what that third party might stand for. One acquaintance, a left-wing neo-hippie liberal, was an avid supporter of Ron Paul in 2008 for that reason, and because Paul was against the war. But of course Ron Paul is foursquare against most things that liberals support. It just goes to show that ignorance knows no ideology. :P


Ok Now that you've talked shit on Conservatives...Please Liberals can't be perfect..No can they?

#18 ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

    The Invictan Formerly Known as Jorost

  • Lord Protector
  • 16192 posts
  • Gender:Household pet that walked across the keyboard - male
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Ruler Name:Jorost
  • Nation Name:Invicta Crownlands
  • IRC Nick:Jorost
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link






Posted 08 June 2010 - 06:52 PM

No, they certainly are not. They are starry-eyed, unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky idealists who are woefully out of touch with the realities of life for ordinary people. They seriously think that things like "diversity in the workplace" are important issues. They focus far too much on perceived social injustices based on race, when what they should be focusing on are inequalities of class. They are obsessed with gay marriage, which, while I am certainly not opposed to it, is an issue of limited importance to the vast majority of people. (I tend to tow the Bill Maher line on gay marriage: If straight people want to own the word "marriage," then let them. As long as civil unions have all the same legal rights and privileges as marriage what the hell difference does it make what you call it? Call it "zingdiddliation" for all I care.)

Like Conservatives, Liberals tend to be ruled by emotion. But where Conservatives seem to be guided by selfishness and greed, Liberals are led by guilt and naiveté. The difference, in my opinion, is that at least Liberals mean well, they're just not very good at actually getting it done. I don't think that can be said for modern Conservatives, who are really just out for themselves and to hell with everyone else. Liberals have also done a piss-poor job of waging the PR war. Hell, they've let "liberal" be turned into a bad word! They have allowed the Conservatives to frame the argument again and again, and as a result they always seem to be playing defense. And they consistently manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

So basically our choice is between evil or incompetent. Nice, huh? :P

Member Awards ()

#19 Thrash

Thrash

    not as gay

  • Former Member
  • 9559 posts
  • Location:Poconos, PA
  • Ruler Name:Thrash
  • Nation Name:Machas
  • IRC Nick:Thrash[Invicta]
  • Nation Link

Posted 08 June 2010 - 06:57 PM

The difference, in my opinion, is that at least Liberals mean well, they're just not very good at actually getting it done. I don't think that can be said for modern Conservatives, who are really just out for themselves and to hell with everyone else.


I don't really know how you can you say that. I mean seriously, think about it. Liberals pander to minority groups to keep them in power, yet, minority groups are no fans of Conservatives, and they haven't changed their ways to appease people to get their vote.

Member Awards ()

#20 ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

    The Invictan Formerly Known as Jorost

  • Lord Protector
  • 16192 posts
  • Gender:Household pet that walked across the keyboard - male
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Ruler Name:Jorost
  • Nation Name:Invicta Crownlands
  • IRC Nick:Jorost
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link






Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:08 PM

Look, I never said they were perfect. In fact I think I just did a pretty good job of excoriating Liberals. But I would rather have them pander to minority groups than to big corporate interests. If nothing else, at least minority groups wield their influence based on the power of the vote, rather than the power of the dollar. And big corporate interests have far more power to negatively impact your life and mine than minority groups do.

Like I said, we should be focusing on class, not race. If you put social policies in place based on class, you will by default be helping minorities, who because of the realities of wealth distribution in the United States tend to be lower socioeconomic class. But you will also be helping whites. If it were up to me race would be entirely out of the equation.

Member Awards ()


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users