My Liberal Views

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Crono

I'm for abortion, but sometimes I think things like "let the stupid slut who got laid put up with that damned child to be, no matter what it does to her life, it's the bitch's responsiblity now".

And if she is raped?

[Crono]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

And if she is raped?

Well, that's her problem...

Well in that case I wouldn't care, but like I said I was for abortion, the second part was just a joke.

Let the babies die, either abort them or feed them to DarkMaster, he eats babies.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by bouncer

You wouldn't mind it if your government forced you to go to church on Sunday? How about requiring you to pay tithe to a church?

Explain to me why you think church(religion) should have any purposeful integration with government please.

Im against the church and state thing. I meant just because we dont have that problem here, i dont care.

I in no way want church to be manditory.

Sorry, i shoulda written it better. oops.

[Dylflon]

No time to read what everyone else has to say, but Strangler, I agree with everything you say in your post.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Im for abortion, ( I know the way i said that makes me sound evil) But its the womans choice.

And i dont think the fetus is considered a "child" until its born.

So by this definition, if a child is one week away for its due date, it could still be aborted and thats perfectly fine?

Or could a mother give birth but only let the head out, then smash it with a hammer, and that would be fine to, seeing as its not officially "born" yet?

This is a very slippery slope you walk down.

So if after 3 months a fetus is considered a child, are they counted in the census reports? Do they get a passport yet? Birth Certificate? Christmas Presents? No, because they aren't technically people yet.

So your definition of humanity breaks down to government certification and Christmas presents? I find that depressing.

If a house is being built, 3 months into the construction you dont consider it a full-blow house yet, its a house in construction.

You just compared a living thing to a house.

It takes 9 months to develop a baby, not 3, or else the baby would be out in three months if "mother nature" deemed it sufficient enough time.

So I'll ask you again, by you're definition you are fine with an abortion being ok in 8 3/4 months as long as the child is still in the mother?

[Jonbo298]

I don't have a problem with Abortion. It's the Woman's choice. It's her body. Not the governments body. Althought after about the 3-4 month mark, the abortion process shouldn't happen and after the mother has the child, let someone adopt it.

[Typhoid]

Strangler, who would decide to abort the child when its being born, and who the f*** in their right mind would smash a baby's head with a hammer? You are f***ed up to even think of that as a valid argument.

If the woman decides to abort the baby, she will abort it, her decision, whenever that may be. But nobody would let the decision linger for 8 3/4 months, they would decisde in a couple.


And the baby would be born if the head is out, because well, the head is out.

I honestly cant get over what you said about hitting a baby on the head with a hammer, your sick and f***ing demented man, seriously, what kind of person would say something like that, or even think it to be a good argument point?

And yes, i compared an un-born fetus to a house, at least im not saying things about hitting babies on the heads with hammers.

[TheGame]

All I have to say is... where will we draw the line of what moral and what's immoral? Seems to me that many people want the constitution to say:

"Do whatever the hell you want as long as it in no way shape or form physicaly or financialy hurts other people."

I'm against Gay Marriage because I think it's immoral, just like I think doing drugs is immoral, and just like I think a 28 year old man having sex with a 12 year old girl (who wants it just as bad as him) is immoral. None of these in any way shape or form affect how I live, but I still frown upon them.

If there was a law to legalize any of them, based off of my personal beliefs and morality there is no way on earth I would vote for them.

But maybe my mind is trapped in a hole, I'm like the white men in america who thought seeing a White girl with a black man was immoral. Maybe future generations will look at me and say I'm ignorant, maybe you all are saying it right now. But these are my beliefs, and I'm sticking to it.

[Dylflon]

I don't understand why so many people are against gay marriage. Gays are people too. They deserve the same rights that everyone else enjoys. What's so scary about letting them get married?

People need to start judging others on whether or not they're good people. Not who they have intercourse with.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by TheGame

But maybe my mind is trapped in a hole, I'm like the white men in america who thought seeing a White girl with a black man was immoral. Maybe future generations will look at me and say I'm ignorant, maybe you all are saying it right now.

So you mean you're a Republican then?

I have no problem with gay marrage, they have just as much right as we ( straight people) do. Why should they be excluded, obviously they are willing to do it, it doesnt harm anyone else, and in-fact we have gay marrages here, and it doesnt bother me one bit.

And a White girl with a black guy bothers you? Really? You sound like all those people that grew up in the 50's....um.....what are they called......um....racists.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Strangler, who would decide to abort the child when its being born, and who the f*** in their right mind would smash a baby's head with a hammer? You are f***ed up to even think of that as a valid argument.

I was using hyperbole to make a point. My point is that lines need to be drawn as to what is considered a viable baby and what is considered a potential life. You even go on to say:

If the woman decides to abort the baby, she will abort it, her decision, whenever that may be. But nobody would let the decision linger for 8 3/4 months, they would decisde in a couple.

If you let someone do it, they will, and its going on NOW. Its called partial birth abortion where a child is delivered partially (meaning part of the child is still in the womb) and is then killed. This is currently LEGAL because the child has not been technically "delivered to completion" and is therefore not considered a human life. See what I'm saying now with the baby and the hammer?

Also, if people would decide after the first, say, three months on whether they'll keep the baby.... why not make it a law to protect the now essentially developed child?

And the baby would be born if the head is out, because well, the head is out.

Not according to current US abortion law

I honestly cant get over what you said about hitting a baby on the head with a hammer, your sick and f***ing demented man, seriously, what kind of person would say something like that, or even think it to be a good argument point?

I believe I just explained myself sufficiently.

As for it being a woman's body and its her right to choose, thats all well and good but at some point during a pregnancy that woman's body is caring for another human being who we as a society need to protect. We have to be able to set definite ground rules of when this takes place.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

And a White girl with a black guy bothers you? Really? You sound like all those people that grew up in the 50's....um.....what are they called......um....racists.

Interracial relationships destroys years of natural selection (say if it was a European-based male and a black female), that's why some people are against it, ie. White Nationalists (Nationalists... not Supremicists).

Promoting diversity destroys the very diversity that already exists.

But in case you haven't noticed, white people are already the minority in this world and are quickly being overrun in the richer Western nations with major waves of immgration from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

My point? Saying that you don't want to see your race mixed with other races (whether you are white or not, it doesn't matter) isn't racism. But of course, if you're white your not allowed to be proud.

[playa_playa]

What I find somewhat amusing is the fact that terms "liberal" and "conservative" (synonymous to what we identify as being "left" or "right") are being predicated on political stances on certain controversial issues only. To a degree, I think it's disheartening. Becuase it is a certain indication that even in the vernacular, the original vocabulary of what truly denotes liberalism and conservatism is long gone; the efforts of the likes of Dewey and Socrates have been replaced by the vocabulary of the likes of Michael Moore and William Kristol.

To truly be "liberal," and of the "left," is to be embrace reform and progress. It is to be independent from the chains of traditionalism and orthodoxy. In other words, it is a language of social reform and moral progress.

Conversely, to truly be "conservative" and of the "right" is to appreciate tradition insofar as changing it would undermine the existence of society. To be on the right is to be temperate and resistant to transient political issues that may alter the original intentions of the society.

Being opposed to abortion, same-sex marriages, the draft, and what have you does not necessarily entail liberalism or conservatism. The question is, do those issues ultimately lead the society to fundametally change? Stances on these issues may paint a roadmap; but they are not an end-all-be-all sign of either liberalism or conservatism.

To give an example, Congress did not act in a conservative manner when it passed the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act veers away from the original intentions of the framers and enacts fundamental changes to the society. And some would call the issues which forms the basis of this act transient, since terrorism has not always been in our lexicon. On the other hand, it - a blatant attack on civil liberties as it is - did not act in a liberal manner either since it is an ocean's distance away from moral progress purported by the principles of classic liberalism. Yet, it is interesting to note that Congress is Republican-controlled, and some have inferred that this is conservatism at work.

Some would defend this sort of change in connotation as a simple evolution of language. I think it's a mockery of the fervent effort of classic political theorists who contemplated and through their contemplation, hoped to achieve, a society of blessed happiness.

So I hope that when a person is searching for true liberal ideals in today's world, I pray that they consult the likes of Richard Rorty, who laments the loss of the true left in his work, Achieving Our Country; and ignore the brash, purported liberals like Michael Moore. On the other hand, I hope that a person looking for true conservative ideals in today's world find the columns of George F. Will - who reflects the temperance of Socrates as a true characteristic of being a conservative; and dismiss the assertions of the likes of The Project for the New American Century, William Kristol and Rush Limbaugh as not being representatives of what conservatism really is.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

And a White girl with a black guy bothers you? Really? You sound like all those people that grew up in the 50's....um.....what are they called......um....racists.

What in the blue hell?

I never SAID that is what I believe. I was using that as an example.

It's funny you say that though, seeing that I'm a black man who went out with a white girl for 3 years of my HS life. Yes... we went through our issues.

But anyway, I was making a reference to an example. Everything in that paragraph are things people used to believe that I don't agree with. I'm saying that one day (maybe today) people may look down upon me for my views how I look down upon them for their views.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by TheGame

What in the blue hell?

I never SAID that is what I believe. I was using that as an example.

It's funny you say that though, seeing that I'm a black man who went out with a white girl for 3 years of my HS life. Yes... we went through our issues.

But anyway, I was making a reference to an example. Everything in that paragraph are things people used to believe that I don't agree with. I'm saying that one day (maybe today) people may look down upon me for my views how I look down upon them for their views.

You've got Jungle Fever.. Jungle Fever...

ER anyhow, let's see, I don't like to get into political talks too much.

But, I don't think drugs should be legalized, but people will use it anyhow might as well get paid for it. And it is true, you hear of less damage done by people who smoke then who drink.

I'm not against gay marriages, I am however against other gay matters. Do they really need their own school?

Abortion is a pretty iffy subject, there is no clear cut answer. If a girl is what I guess you can call .. *Thinks of a PG term*.. revolving door.. and she gets pregnant, I say she gets forced to have that kid.. like the old expression goes.. do the crime, pay the time...

But if it's like on accident, maybe her first time with her boyfriend or the condom "rips" or she is raped. Then if she doesn't think she is emotionally, financially and physically ready to support a child, then maybe she should think of it..

To me, I've always just figured people should have the kid and put up for adoption, but not everyone would get adopted, it's just so weird.

And yes, we really need to invest more money into school. I don't know, first the school system is so loopsided, some schools will have tons of stuff, while others would have nothing. Some would have excellent teachers who care for their students, while others have teacher who care for the paycheck at the end of the week.

It just works out that way sometimes.