Poll: Pollitical Beliefs vs Allignment

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Mon May 14, 2001 7:03 pm

@EMINEM; I can't share your vehemence concerning abortion. I'm too old. I remember the days before Roe v. Wade and the numbers of women who died or were brutally maimed by 'back alley' abortionists. I also will not debate the issue with you, or anyone for that matter. Too 'hot button'. I will state my position though, the act of abortion is between the parties involved and their respective consciences. It is none of my business. Besides debate on the issue will never sway either side from their belief.

@Flagg, do multi-party governments of coalition really work? Or do they always take the road of least resistance because no one can gain a consenses? Margaret Thatcher had a great comment on the multi-party system, unfortunately I can't remember it!!

(Age and a poor memory strike again!

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Mon May 14, 2001 7:20 pm

@Thorin, strange analogy but I think I understand your position. But then again maybe not. I have to state that abortion as a form of birth control seems a bit extreme to me. Especially in this day of Planned Prenthood and the free access to condoms in our schools (although abstinence should be taught at the same time - or instead. Although that doesn't always work either.) Abortion in the case of rape is a different issue.

Gun control. I don't know if I really want to go there but.... The founding Fathers understood many things about government having escaped (although forcably) a repressive government in their own right. They understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely. to balance the issue of the Constitution empowering the government with the ability to 'raise an army in the defense of the Nation' they didn't want the government to have exclusivity and the only access to an armed force. They also understood the expense of maintaining a 'standing' army so they made sure both of these concepts were insured by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. As I've said before 'an armed citizenry is governed, and unarmed one is ruled'. They also wrote other 'rights' into the amendments against unlawful search and seasure, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the idea that one was innocent until proven guilty, etc. all geared to limit the government's ability to abuse its power and abuse it's citizens. That's why it is so important to protect each and every one of the amendments that make up the 'Bill of Rights'. This requires constant vigilence and one other thing that unfortunately not enough Americans do....VOTE.

Damn, I just can't seem to get off my soapbox!!

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Mon May 14, 2001 7:38 pm

@Flagg, found it! "Consensus? Consensus is the negation of leadership!" Lady Thatcher

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon May 14, 2001 7:58 pm

I'll try to reply to each of your points as best as I can, Master Oakenshild:

"M&M, women want abortion because they get abused, and have children that the father won't support the child. What are they supposed to do?"

Adoption is a better solution than murder.

"If everyones equal then why are women forced to carry the burden of bringing up child while the father has run off. M&M if you believe that there is equality in this nation, well there isn't. Read a newspaper. Its obvious that there isn't equality for soe people."

I don't dispute this fact. Of course not everybody is equal. The Constitution says, and I repeat, all men are CREATED equal, or born into this world with the same right to live, determine their fate (circumscribed to a degree by their station in life), and to be happy. Reality, however, inevitably gets in the way of this ideal.

"If everyone has the right to life, then shouldn't we ban guns. Guns kill innocent people ending their lives."

Guns do not kill people. People kill people, either through hatred, jealousy, irresponsibilty, or just for kicks. Unlike Baldur's Gate, there is no such thing as a sentient weapon in our world.

"Abortion kills unborn babies ending their lives too, yet guns are all right but abortioning is not. Guns can be used for protection, but so can abortion. It prevents women from having babies they did not intend on having."

An abortion is performed by a doctor with the consent of the mother. Doctor and mother are human beings with free wills, so you cannot compare them to a gun.

What does abortion protect the mother from? Her own child? What the child will represent to her when it is born - a life of misery and suffering? Is abortion simply a means to an end? A life of comfort bought at the price of an innocent life whose flesh and blood are your own?

Some will reply "Yes," others will reply "No." Whatever your reply, understand that it tells much about the kind of person that you are.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » Mon May 14, 2001 11:54 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:
What does abortion protect the mother from? Her own child? What the child will represent to her when it is born - a life of misery and suffering? Is abortion simply a means to an end? A life of comfort bought at the price of an innocent life whose flesh and blood are your own?

M&M, Have you ever considered the situation where the pregnancy actually threatens the life of the mother? I don't believe that it as black & white a picture as you make it out to be.

Some will reply "Yes," others will reply "No." Whatever your reply, understand that it tells much about the kind of person that you are.

I understand that we have different viewpoints on this subject, and I am glad that we can have a mature discussion about this. I however strenuously disagree with this part of your argument. Well it is not even an argument. I honestly belief that everyone has a right to their own opinion and I am a huge fan of debates and discussions. As these allow me to review my own viewpoints.

This last argument however makes me wonder whether there is really a debate going on or whether you are simply trying to teach the gospel to us. The fact that some of us have different viewpoints really don't make any of us a lesser person.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » Tue May 15, 2001 12:10 am

Originally posted by Anatres:
@Flagg, do multi-party governments of coalition really work? Or do they always take the road of least resistance because no one can gain a consenses? Margaret Thatcher had a great comment on the multi-party system, unfortunately I can't remember it!!

I personally feel that it has its own advantages and disadvantages. Something that you will normally see, is that a party will try to establish a government with as broad a support as possible. This somewhat reduces the risk of having 50+1% telling the rest how to live.

Yes you will end up living with compromises the entire time, but is that really such a bad thing? It might also not be the most innovative system, but it seems to be working just fine. But I belief that you have to see everything in its own context.

Take for example the Netherlands and the USA. One of the differences is basically the two party system vs. a multi-party system. There are however numerous other differences. For example, religion plays, I belief, a much larger role in American politics than it does in Dutch politics. This is just to name another difference.

We currently have a government that is made up of three parties: a moderate right wing party, a moderate left wing party, and a centralist party (??). The problems that I have with our current government and the political environment don't really have to do with the fact that we have a multi-party system, but rather with the fact that most politicians don't seem to be able to take responsibility for their own failure in politics. Something that coincides with this, is when politicians only seem to be able to vote along party lines. These things are most aggrevating at times.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Tue May 15, 2001 6:47 am

@Flagg, I haven't found too many politicians that have the ability to really understand the American concept of 'for the people by the people' either! Our 'system' of two party politics can lead to stalemate also. Probably much more often than a multi-party system since it does only take 50%+1 to win a vote (in most cases). The real horror of our system is that there are too many times when the vocal minority affects general policy and then you get 10% telling the other 90% how to live. Once again I must use California as the prime example of this. When that goes on for too long then people start looking to the Federal (central) government to bail them out rather than taking responsibility for their own mess and finding workable solutions to their crises. This concept of 'government as the last resort' has it's own inherent pitfalls. It tends to cost too much for all of us (taxes go up to pay for these bail-outs) and a certain segment of the population start 'expecting' the government to solve all their problems. Which in turn leads to a 'welfare state' (or socialism) which is bad for the general economy and national growth as it takes too much capital out of the economy that could be used to 'grow' the economy. (Did I point out that the 'economy' is my focus here?

)

White Rabbit · Post by **White Rabbit** » Tue May 15, 2001 12:23 pm

What's wrong with you guys? I leave for a few days, come back, and a serious discussion has broken out. Anyways get you're ideas accross quickly because sooner or later buck will notice this little topic and BAM! It's dust.

On the topic of abortion:
I don't like it myself, but being a guy I have no idea what its like to carry a child. I think men have no right to tell a woman that she HAS to have a baby. I meen come on, would you listen to a woman who told you that getting hit in the balls didn't really hurt? No, of course not. So if there are any wemon that read this forum, and have had kids, I would like your opinions on the matter.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » Tue May 15, 2001 12:43 pm

In response to what White Rabbit posted... Having kids is a serious responsibility... However it is unfair that the choice is entirely to the female. Well it is, but there are consequences in my opinion...

Is the female the only one that can argue for an abortion? What if the guy wants an abortion, and she decides to keep the baby. Should the guy then be responsible for that baby?

(Notice: I hope to get a discussion going. These questions do not reflect my personal viewpoints.)

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Tue May 15, 2001 1:38 pm

I think EMINEM hit the nail on the head when he said abortion is choosing personal comfort over human life. In America there are more people wanting to adopt then there are children without homes. Many of them adopt from foreign countries. I can see abortion being ethical in the rare cases when the mother’s life is threatened (as Flagg brought up), but other then that I feel it’s a selfish decision. Someone once asked Mother Teresa why a caring God would allow diseases like AIDS to run rampant. Her reply: “The person with the cure was aborted.”

Banning guns is like prohibition. Did any of us learn something from that? I live in Alaska where many people hunt and fish (not to mention subsistence hunt). I can see why people living in more urban areas would be unaccustomed to firearms as anything but a tool for criminals, but here it has practical (as well as recreational) uses.

@Anatres: On oil drilling, most people I know here in Alaska don’t have a problem with it. Strange how outside lobbyers are more ‘concerned’ about our state’s wildlife then its citizens.

@Flagg, As per your question: I think a more provocative question is what if the father wants to keep the child and the mother wants to abort. Hypothetically speaking, if I got a woman pregnant I would want the child, even if she didn’t. I’d be damned pissed if she killed my unborn son/daughter just to convenience herself.

P.S. On an unrelated note, topics like these also serve to demonstrate how each poster’s nation and upbringing affect their opinions. Some countries have more liberal outlooks while others are very conservative. With a multinational board like Game Banshee we’re bound to bump heads on political issues (but that doesn’t mean I don’t love you guys any less

)

“Democracy may be only a step removed from anarchy, but at least it’s not as loud.”

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » Tue May 15, 2001 2:27 pm

@Kayles, That would indeed be more difficult situation. As long as men are not able to bear children, we are dependent on women to do this for us. If the woman wanted an abortion, I don't think that you could legally stop it (although this has probably been tried, especially in the US.... A lot gets settled in court in America).

I also think that we are influenced in these opinions by heritage, nationality, religious beliefs/upbringing and other similar influences. The Netherlands is probably one of the more liberal countries in the world when it comes to such ethical questions. A by now important example of this, would be the recent legalization of euthanasia in certain cases.

I hope that I am not going to step on anyone's toes with the following. I would like your opinion on the following. The catholic church is against abortion. At the same time, the church preaches that the use of contraceptives is not allowed. (correct me if I am wrong) I find this highly questionable in a world that is suffering from AIDS and other similar diseases.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Tue May 15, 2001 2:51 pm

The legal challenge of a man against an abortion has not, as yet, reached the courts. Let's face it, this argument is actually firmly in the hands (womb) of the woman. She is the final arbitor of whether or not to have an abortion. This has caused court cases where the, unwed, father of the child has been held liable for child support though. This has even been held up where the man was the step-father of a child and then the marriage is disolved through divorice (he still had to pay child support).

@Flagg; I too find the Catholic Church's stand on abortion/birth control to be troubling. Regardless of the AIDs, and other, epidemics just the number of children that are born into poverty when a reasonable approach to birth control could prevent it is appalling (IMO).

@fable; yes, I know that the citizens of Alaska hold a different view than the vocal minority of evironmentalist extremists and politicians down in the lower forty-eight that are against drilling in ANWR. But it is more a 'cause celebe' to the liberals than it is an issue of energy policy.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Tue May 15, 2001 2:58 pm

Originally posted by Anatres:
The legal challenge of a man against an abortion has not, as yet, reached the courts. Let's face it, this argument is actually firmly in the hands (womb) of the woman. She is the final arbitor of whether or not to have an abortion.

@fable; yes, I know that the citizens of Alaska hold a different view than the vocal minority of evironmentalist extremists and politicians down in the lower forty-eight that are against drilling in ANWR. But it is more a 'cause celebe' to the liberals than it is an issue of energy policy.

Sounds like a case for the Practice or Ally McBeal. These are some tough questions, with no definite answers (don’t you just love ambiguity) but perhaps we come to know ourselves better simply in the asking. Anatres, shouldn’t it say Kayless instead of fable? (I’m the one who was talking about it.

) Oh and Flagg, a belated thanks for getting this page fixed.

Q: Did you hear about the "day after" pill for men?
A: It changes their blood type.

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Tue May 15, 2001 7:27 pm

@Kayless; yes it should mea culpa

hermetic · Post by **hermetic** » Wed May 16, 2001 1:18 pm

Ugh. All this talk of abortion is a sign. Feminism is rampant. 'nuff said

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Wed May 16, 2001 1:22 pm

Observation; why is it that only men discuss abortion? The anti-abortion rights advocates seem to always be headed by men also. Why is this?

hermetic · Post by **hermetic** » Wed May 16, 2001 2:34 pm

2 reasons:
1.Only men read the Bible.
2.Only men discuss politics (although all this talk of abortion is a terrible digression. The abortion issue is not the least bit relevant to me. It appears to be feminist claptrap aimed at diverting our attention from the truly important issues like EVOLUTION! There's a feminist conspiracy out there not working towards gender equity but rather towards chaos and the end of the human race. I'm no misogynist! Both men and women are involved in this thing. It's a monster, a leviathan.)

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Wed May 16, 2001 7:51 pm

Actually, there are a few influential pro-life organizations led by woman. FFL (Feminists-For-Life) is one. CWA (Concerned Women of America) is another. Because of the media's bias (FACT: over 80% of journalist are liberal democrats), female pro-life organizations are largely ignored. To them, the thought of women actually protesting AGAINST abortion is a conunundrum better left ignored.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Thu May 17, 2001 8:36 am

@EMINEM; thank you for your information about the other organizations. And, just as a matter of fact, I am fully aware of the bias of the mainstream media/press.

My comment was actually directed toward the many women that post here. I respect their opinions also and was just wondering why they haven't jumped in......

Vivien · Post by **Vivien** » Thu May 17, 2001 8:44 am

Anatres: Well, I feel my opinions on abortion are very personal and sometimes confusing, which is why I haven't posted. It could actually happen to me, which is scary. What if I'm not ready?! Therefore I know WHY scared young women get abortions, and symathize in that direction. But, my political thoughts lean towards very liberal (which includes 'no' to the death penalty and abortion both). Therefore, I am nuetral on this issue in general. I think that it's easy to say 'just get it adopted' to women , but women actually have to LIVE through that pregnancy and birth, and that's not easy, especialy on frail teenage bodies. But again I am very against killing in any way...
So, I haven't added because I see both sides

Make love not war

hermetic: As you seem to have posted to get a rise, I feel the safest thing is to pat you on your head, roll my eyes, and not answer...