Religion and Homosexuality in United States Politics

Buzzfloyd’s topic on patriotism has inspired a slight rant from me about my own country. I didn’t feel it was completely appropriate in that location, so I’ve place it here. You’ll have to excuse me, but I’m from the USA, so everything I mutter about may not be clear to “foreigners.” I’ll try to be coherent though, if I fail you have my apologies.

One of the most unfortunate qualities about the States is that, because of my sexuality, I’m unable to support some of my beliefs. I think that a small government with little involvement, that people should be given as much freedom as possible while continuing to maintain order and minimal spending is ideal, these ideals are supposed to be represented by the Republican Party. Since the beginning of the Bush administration Republicanism has mutated. It now seems to be based solely upon religious fanaticism.

My personal beliefs are relatively set; I admit the possibility of a creator, but am equally, if not more, open to the idea that never was there one. Even should a maker exist, I do not believe that (s)he/it gives a, for lack of a better word, shit. I do not see how a person can be an analytical thinker and unquestioningly faithful. It seems to me that the majority of United States citizens are religious zealots, who appear incapable of reasonable thought. I have read the Christen Bible, several times, and I do not see how a person can accept that as the literal word of any god.

These religious enthusiasts are now a supplying enough votes to install zealots in office. Many things that are done make little or no sense when you hold up the transparency before the traditional republican values. How do huge subsidies toward that farming industry, almost all of which is run by large corporations, assist the value of minimal spending? Though woman in the States still have the right to protect themselves, our President wishes to ban birth control. The concept of each person’s freedom to make choices for themselves, anther traditional value, does not in anyway resemble they banning of birth control. President Bush is also striving to enlarge the size of the United States Army, as well a install various other governmental departments; I would love to learn how this holds true to the Republican value of small government.

Beyond that I have my own personal vendetta against Mr. Bush. In preparation for his election in 2004 our poor man realized that slaying Arabs and stuttering such words as “America” and “Freedom” were not going to keep him afloat forever, with his bulging budget and in-adept foreign policy. He needed to do something that would bring large numbers of voters to the both. He, or more likely his advisors, realized that many more people were heterosexual then homosexual or bisexual. He decided, correctly, that a highly effective manner in which to distract people from hating him was to find a common target. A rather old saying that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” this is a philosophy that has been utilized over and over again; a wonderful example of this is the alliance of The United States and Britain with Russia against Nazi Germany. Because homosexuality is seen, in some areas, as a unknown, possibly disgusting, and even sinful thing; many, less well informed people, so us as an enemy.

Since gays and lesbians aren’t exactly loved by all, they’re a relatively easy target. By taking a stance as a “anti-homo” leader President Bush effectively distracted many US citizens, and other Presidential candidates, from the real issues of the election. These issues were such things as, why are you spending so much, how do you intend to account for all this spending, since you’ve been giving tremendous tax cuts, and what the HELL is going on in Iraq? The thing that I find most irritating is that George Walker Bush used my existence, and the question of whether or not I should be aloud to marry a person I love, as an excuse to distract people from issues that were actually important.

Most amussing: http://thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf

I don't know think you can say that most people who voted for Bush voted because of his anti-gay attitude. Many people voted because of his attitude toward terrorism/foreign policy. Others because they felt a Republican president is better for the economy. And many people did not vote [i:8be334aad1]for[/i:8be334aad1] Bush, but [i:8be334aad1]against[/i:8be334aad1] his opponent.

[quote:c9fb9551cd="Garner"]I recall a chap I used to know, rather an embarassment to the gay segregationist movement of which he seemed to be a part. (Every time anyone had a problem with him, it was because they were homophobic, not because he was what he ate, if you catch my drift.)

He was a republican because he felt they were the only ones with a sensible economic policy, but didn't agree with their social attitudes (for the usual reasons). I often found his political leanings to be absolutely bizzare. How can the persecution of your sexual orientation be the bedrock upon which your entire life is built, and yet you gladly vote those persecutors into office because you find their reprehensible 'no millionare left behind' policies attractive?[/quote:c9fb9551cd]

One of my main complaints about the Republican Party is that they are dominated by their social attitudes; this really should not be what a government is doing. I believe it’s main purpose it to enforce economic stability, if done effectively this enforced economic stability allows for a reinforcement of social stability. I would not elect a person to office whom I saw as actively persecuting people, which is what George W. Bush appears to be doing.

Marcia Writes
[quote:c9fb9551cd]I don't know think you can say that most people who voted for Bush voted because of his anti-gay attitude. Many people voted because of his attitude toward terrorism/foreign policy. Others because they felt a Republican president is better for the economy. And many people did not vote for Bush, but against his opponent.[/quote:c9fb9551cd]

I think Garner is correct, and that I did let my emotion’s get away with me a bit when righting this. I should have expressed more clearly that what I am complaining about is that fact that what a candidates status toward homosexuality was a factor in the election. I feel that in the long run it doesn’t matter. Gay-Straight Alliances spring up and three a day in US schools, we have tons of little homos running around and they’re making friends. I feel completely confident that many off what we see as issues today shall no longer be within the next thirty years.

I do not see how a reasonable person can justify voting for someone because you dislike his opponent, in that case you should find a candidates from a non major party, like the Greens or the Libertians, that you do agree with and vote for them.

I feel that I am not being completely coherent; you’ll have to excuse me. Please point out any flaws in my arguments, I’d love to know them now. Please use this link, http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm, if you’re having trouble finding holes…but I’m sure you shan’t have trouble with that.

[quote:478fa3053a="Deathinapinkboa"]

I do not see how a reasonable person can justify voting for someone because you dislike his opponent, in that case you should find a candidates from a non major party, like the Greens or the Libertians, that you do agree with and vote for them.[/quote:478fa3053a]

I see your point. However, if you really think that a candidate is absolutely awful and that he absolutely should not be elected, if you vote for a non-major party candidate, you might actually be helping the awful candidate get elected, by taking votes away from the major candidate who's not great, but not as bad as the other guy.

Also, what if there is nobody from a minor party that you agree with, either?

Many people don't totally agree with any candidate. They agree with them on some issues and disagree on others. It's a matter of weighing the pros and cons of the different candidates.

To be honest, I think that someone who agrees 100% with any candidate's positions probably isn't doing much thinking for himself.


By the way, cool link.

I'm sure I said this on the old board, but I'll say it again here -what is needed to make democracy really work is an extension of the idea that L. Neill Smith used in his Libertarian-alternate-universe SF books where his equivalent of the USA had for a president for one term "None of the above". If every elected post had that option, with a built-in rule that every post held by that option was an automatic "No" vote to new legislation, but an automatic "Yes" vote to any repeal of existing ligislation, the world would be a better place.

I am sure I posted about this on the old board. This election was the first US election I was witness to, as a resident (and it will probably be the last). So I have no previous history to compare it too, but I was still struck by the underlying Christian motif (correct term?) to the Republican campaign. This is something I would expect in India, but somehow I did not expect this in the United States.

I wasn't the only one, my Democratic friends told me they had the same feeling .. a message that if they voted Democratic, they were being less Christian. And also less patriotic.

That is something I noticed as well; while I admit there is a part of me that likes the feeling that my government can act in accordance with principles I hold dear (being Christian myself) i don't like that there seems to be no other option but a federal power interfering in everything. I feel like there's no where to turn to, because in a country the size of the EU, there are only two political parties who are becoming more and more similar each election.

Its no wonder you felt the christian undertones of the Bush campaign, his election effort was supported by and many of the volunteers for were from the pentacostal religious groups across the US... As in the people knocking door-to-door were often from religious christion organisations as well as being Bush campaigners.

He prides himself on his religious values... i.e. to be American is to have old, time christian values... seeming as how some of those old, time christian American values was drawn from Puritanism (burn the witches and no alcohol for you) the Bush take on all this is kind of scary...

Does being a true American mean being a good christian?

Where do you draw the line between religion and the state, America is not a theocracy...but it may become a psuedotheocracy if the trend continues...

DOn't even get me started on the abortion debate --> where Bush wants to ban it again...Until Bush gets up the duff I don't think he can throw stones.

[quote:4daecae5f0="Some BBC article"]
Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God".
[/quote:4daecae5f0]

Mr. Shaath is a Palestinian official who met GWB.

[quote:79db29acba="spiky"]DOn't even get me started on the abortion debate --> where Bush wants to ban it again...Until Bush gets up the duff I don't think he can throw stones.[/quote:79db29acba]


I agree with this wholeheartedly. It also made me laugh.

[quote:8719e65587="spiky"]
DOn't even get me started on the abortion debate --> where Bush wants to ban it again...Until Bush gets up the duff I don't think he can throw stones.[/quote:8719e65587]

My views on abortion are set, and that is that I have no right to any views on abortion.

[quote:0cd006b6e6="Buzzfloyd"][quote:0cd006b6e6="spiky"]
Does being a true American mean being a good christian?[/quote:0cd006b6e6]
Bush supports fundamentalist Christian values. Fundamentalism is dangerous in all its forms.

Does being a true American mean being a fundamentalist Christian?
[/quote:0cd006b6e6]

Eric Burns said it better than me

[quote:260541385a][b:260541385a]by Buzzfloyd[/b:260541385a]
Does being a true American mean being a fundamentalist Christian?
[/quote:260541385a]

Or, does being a good American perclude one from being a good Christian, and vice versa. Christians are not supposed to be too involved in 'this world', yet good Americans are supposed to be involved in their government.

A lot of this seems to me to stem from the granting or more and more powers to the US Execuative branch of government. The POTUS (President of the United States) used to not have such great range of powers. Heck, the venerated George Washington did not introduce legislation, and hesitated to use his veto power. Only using when he had powerful objections. It was believed that legislation should be up to the legislature... Imagine that. But, over the years, the POTUS has gotten more powers, and the American public has expected more of single leadership from the POTUS. This has made the Presidential run more and more important, made the Federal government more and more important making US elections more a contest of swaying a nation sized mob. BUt hey, I don't even think that we should elect our senators so I suppose that I'm a political dinosaur.

The religious aspect is another way of 'swaying the mob'. George W was able to tap into a resource that has been, in the past, not as active as teh Republicans would hope for. That coupled with the votes that he'd get regardless due to the Republican platforms fiscal policies (from conservative democrats, and some moderates) helped them achieve victory. Incidentally, what state are you from, Boa?

You guys live in a very surreal country.

I wazs thinking about the presidential powers thing yesterday - I'd much prefer if more power was in teh hands of congress; They never agree and would therefore get nothing done- the perfect government.

I have issues with describing Dubya as a 'fundamental' christian; i think we need a new word for that, because people who are fundamentally christian would be totally anti- war, like Amish or Society of Friends (I don't call them Quakers cause I think its mean, don't know if any of them care though).

I know; it amuses me that that's the word we choose for it, as it was defined for me as 'people who seek to live according to the most basic tenets of their religion'.

I concur heartily.

What's up with your avatar? I only see a little red 'x'.

:shock:

[quote:0ed51a9bab="roisindubh211"]I know; it amuses me that that's the word we choose for it, as it was defined for me as 'people who seek to live according to the most basic tenets of their religion'.[/quote:0ed51a9bab]

That definition only needs three words added to define those who are now referred to as fundamentalists - "'people who seek to [i:0ed51a9bab]make everybody else[/i:0ed51a9bab] live according to the most basic tenets of their religion"

I remember reading in an SF novel (time travel/modern man in ancient Rome - but I can't remember the title or the author) where one character claimed that he was suffering from religious persecution because he was being forced to tolerate other religions - this sounds like a pretty good definition of some of the modern-day "fundamentalists"!

Edited to add the quotes on the last word of the last paragraph.

Need I say anymore...

[quote:0cf276d50e]"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 [/quote:0cf276d50e]

President Bush never ceases to absolutely floor me. I think I have been in denial for the last five years and I may have to remain there the rest of my life just to keep what's left of my sanity. I was aware early on that the man would get the presidency, I just don't know how they managed to keep their faces straight. :roll:

[quote:50c74355e0="Buzzfloyd"]The word 'fundamental' is not the only one to be hijacked by these people. How about the word 'Christian'? It pisses me off no end that the kind of people who will blow up doctors who carry out abortions have hijacked the name of our faith, insisting that it applies only to their interpretation. What pisses me off even more is when non-Christians believe them.
So don't confuse the fundamentalist interpretation of a faith with the entire body of the faith. It is important to use the qualifier 'fundamentalist' when talking about the moral agenda that Bush is inflicting on his country. To simply call it Christianity is an insult to the rest of us.[/quote:50c74355e0]

I know, we absolutely need something to call it; its scary that many non- Christians seem to think we all think the same things.

The blowing up clinics...I don't think I'll ever understand that. I myself am opposed to abortion, on the basis that it is the [i:50c74355e0]taking of a life[/i:50c74355e0]. If it's immoral for a mother or doctor to end a pregnancy, how can you justify killing someone who is quite undeniably a human being? What gives you any more right to kill than they have?

edited for grammar

[quote:10fe9cd5a1="roisindubh211"].......The blowing up clinics...I don't think I'll ever understand that. I myself am opposed to abortion, on the basis that it is the [i:10fe9cd5a1]taking of a life[/i:10fe9cd5a1]. If it's immoral for a mother or doctor to end a pregnancy, how can you justify killing someone who is quite undeniably a human being? What gives you any more right to kill than they have?......[/quote:10fe9cd5a1]

There are two issues here. I am also opposed to abortion, for the same reason. However, on a law and order basis I am opposed to anyone being punished/killed for doing something that is actually legal where and when they did it.

That being said, to answer roisindubh211's question - I think that in law, women who have abortions and people (medical or otherwise) who carry them out should be executed - after all, they have already shown what value they place on a human life - why should their values not be applied to them as well?

Pixel, haven't I told you off on the subject in the old board already? If not, please remind me to explain some facts of life some time I am not as swamped.

Exactly my opinion Hsing.

I agree with Hsing and Trollmother. These are my feelings on the subject, although i realise i would never be able to completely understand the curcumstances of such a situation, seeing as i am male and all. I also realise that i really have no opinion on this matter, for the same reason.

EDIT: Horrible spelling.

When I was a girl in highschool I was adamantly opposed to abortion, but then I actually thought about it and learned about it and my opinion changed.

Would I get an abortion myself? Probably only under the most dire circumstances, even if my husband asked me to abort a fetus that we knew was going to have some problem, I wouldn't, even if there was a chance I would be endangered I would still try to carry my child to term.

Of course I am quite safe in holding these opinions, I have almost no chance of conceiving and that is not just because my husband is gone most of the time. I wouldn't presume to tell any woman to carry any child to term. Until society truly welcomes every child I see no reason to criticize a woman who can not bring herself to give birth under duress.

In times past women were expected to expose babies that were born before their older child was fully weaned, or if they were triplets, or if the area was in a state of famine. It isn't a happy thought but sometimes the least of us have had to pay the ultimate price so the rest of us could have the lives we have. None of us are in any position to condemn anyone for the choices they make.

Hsing, I take my hat off to you. This is what I would like to say (though not nearly as eloquently) to everyone who thinks that a pregnancy and rearing a child is what is shown like in the TV ads.

Making abortions illegal will just be a step back to the "coathanger" era, when rape victims got mutilated or even died, women were dumping their babies in Asyla and said children were raised to believe they are the products of sin.

In a book with school essays of South Italy children concerning family, a child had put it best of all; man begets the child and woman is burdened with it.

So Pixel, you want to lessen the number of abortions? Have a sex ed in schools worth a damn, not BS like "half the homosexual adolescents have HIV".

You might want to check out the Waxman Report at this point

OK, so I'm a hard-liner in terms of punishment - if we can clear that top level of the debate
by substituting "punished" for "executed", that might help to cool the air a bit.

Rinso - yes, if the father is forcing the mother to have an abortion, then any punishment
should apply to him as well.

Hsing's first point - of course I don't consider the fertilized ova that never settle but simply
pass right through to be a problem - in my opinion - OK, it's purely an opinion but one has to have
some basis for any argument - the point that the potential child starts to have an existence
and therefore the right to be considered as a human being is when the fertilized ovum attaches
itself to the womb lining and is thus in the natural cycle of things a viable life in the
environment it needs at the time. Given this, then methods of contraception which block this
attachment are acceptable - basically they are just "fudging the odds". "Barrier" methods such as
condoms, dutch caps - one could even call vasectomy a barrier method - it just happens a bit
earlier up the line - are also clearly acceptable.

Hsing's second point - soldiers coming back from a war - that is totally irrelevant to this
discussion - just an attempt to confuse the issue.

Hsing's third point - the cop who shoots an innocent person - this has come up recently in the UK
with the Brazilian who was shot on the London Underground because he was showing all the indications
of being a suicide bomber - just around the time when public transport was being targetted
- OK, mistakes are made - but the police were just doing their job and had to make a snap
decision at the time, bearing in mind that there was a carriage full of passengers who
were in potential danger - this is actually another irrelevant issue, but I have treated it
more fully because it shows the difference between something happening and needing a decision
in "real-time", and a pre-meditated killing.

Hsing's fourth point - the mother's life being at stake - then obviously the mother's life comes
first - but rather than simply aborting, should there not be an attempt to save [i:b71cbc3c98]both[/i:b71cbc3c98] lives?
Presumably in most cases (and I'm sure Saccharissa will correct me if I'm wrong) it is the
birth itself which is the main danger - an early Ceasarian could be the answer.

Hsing's fifth point - the 13 year old rape victim (and here I would just add that I will definitely
[i:b71cbc3c98]not[/i:b71cbc3c98] accept substitution of "punished" for "executed" for rapists - there are some people
who are just too sick to live!) - I think I remember this case - was she Irish and faced court
injunctions preventing her from going abroad? OK, within the bounds of the paragraph above
- a 13 year old could have serious problems bringing a baby to term - there is a certain point
to the argument - but there was still a child there that people wanted to destroy purely
for the sin of its father. Maybe this is also the point to add in the thought that, as a man I
would only know this second-hand, but would [i:b71cbc3c98]any[/i:b71cbc3c98] woman who has had an abortion
under [i:b71cbc3c98]any[/i:b71cbc3c98] circumstances not wonder later in life "What if I hadn't.....?" - that child
might have turned out to be a benefactor to humanity - or maybe a support to that 13 year old in
her old age - or possibly, of course, a latter-day Jack the Ripper - you never can tell, but
everyone should have their chance.

Saccharissa - sex education - I totally agree with you - it should start from the basis that we
human beings are sexual creatures, we are sexually active (given half a chance!) for most of our
lives, but need to control the possible results. I have only had a chance to read part of the
Waxman report, but have printed it out for later reading - long reports on the screen are not
good for my aging eyes - but just reading the first few pages and the conclusion horrifies me -
there is a point where [i:b71cbc3c98]teaching[/i:b71cbc3c98] becomes [i:b71cbc3c98]preaching[/i:b71cbc3c98] and this is way past it. There
is logic behind the curriculum - if you are putting abstinence forward as the only option,
then why even mention contraception? - but that should not be something taught in schools -
schools should teach [i:b71cbc3c98]everything[/i:b71cbc3c98] about a subject, not just a few peoples' narrow opinions.

On children being raised to believe they were "products of sin" - in my own family, there was a
case (the secret of which I did not learn until I was 40!) where an illegitimate child of
the eldest sister of a family was brought up as the youngest sister, so for the first part
of her life she thought her grandmother was her mother and her mother was her sister. She finally
learned the truth, but when she was proposed to by her future husband, she had to be persuaded
by him that it did not matter that she was illegitimate before she accepted (given that this was
in the very early 1900s, he was either ahead of his time or very much in love!) - but they
got married, they had a son - Kenneth - who served with the R.A.F. in World War II - and after
a successful mission over Germany, brought his Lancaster bomber back to England, badly damaged,
but still got his crew home safely. Then, having dropped off his crew, flying the aircraft
across country to a repair facility, it finally gave up on him, ploughed in, and he died.
This may seem to be an irrelevant ramble, but it does have its point - my second given name
is Kenneth in honour of him, and I bear it with pride. My brother has been sorting our late
mother's papers and has found that the birth certificate for Kenneth's mother is a different
form from all the others, with no place to specify "Father" - clearly, at that time, if you were
registering a bastard, then it was going to be made clear in all future documentation.
Kenneth was also a very good artist - he did a very good line in drawings of church architecture.

So, if Kenneth's grandmother had been able to get an abortion instead of having a family who
rallied round, what lives would never have happened?

I've spent abount three hours working on this post - I knew as soon as I hit "Submit" on the original
post that I was in for a long bit of typing - so I will finish this one with the basic premise
to my argument - Hsing gave a figure of ten weeks after which she would not abort, so I will
use that (with a bit of rounding) and be very conservative on my main question, which is:

Presumably nobody considers it acceptable for a mother (or anyone else) to kill a 7 month old
baby for their own convenience - therefore why should it be acceptable if the baby
is [i:b71cbc3c98]minus[/i:b71cbc3c98] 7 months old?

[quote:13d1a719f8="spiky"]Its no wonder you felt the christian undertones of the Bush campaign, his election effort was supported by and many of the volunteers for were from the pentacostal religious groups across the US... As in the people knocking door-to-door were often from religious christion organisations as well as being Bush campaigners.[/quote:13d1a719f8]

I'm not positive about this, and this is purely semantics, but most pentacostals in my area of the southeast don't go door to door here. They're more of the tent revival, snake handling, run up and down the aisle type of denomination. Not to mention that there are at least three differing branches of the Pentacostal church here in America, ranging from civilized to completely ludicrous. And the pentacostal church is part of the charasmatic movement in America as well. They have been steadily moving towards the God/buddy idealogy. There are countless other denominations in the charismatic movement, some being very rigid and some being not so.

It's wrong, in my opinion, to say that all fundamentalist christians are bunk and haters. Following the true definition of fundamentalists means that they are just firm followers of the fundamental teachings of Christ. My parents would fall into that category. They may disapprove of different ideas and lifestyles, but they don't hate the people who follow them. They just think they're wrong, much in the same way that you might think they are.

I just think there is a little bit of a double standard on both sides of this issue. The puritanical/protestant followers are wrong in classifying all homosexuals as being a child rapist waiting to happen in much the same way that the more liberal side of coin would say that are puritanical/protestant people are just haters and want to see all the sinners dead.

I realise that there are many people finding the happy medium between the issues, no matter which side they lean towards. Just because there are some screwballs on both sides doesn't mean that one has to hate the opposing view. I can see some issues from both sides of the spectrum. I was raised in a very religious, very protestant, borderline puritan home. My first 19 years were in following with this belief system. Now that I don't necessarily adhere to it anymore, I can also see where some of the leaders in that area are too far off base. But, I can also see where the opposition is off base as well. I'm not claiming to be the perfect analytical mind, but just that there are some issues that I can understand both sides.

Then there are issues that I can't, but I don't believe that this is the place to discuss that.

Edit: Brad, according to many scriptures, Christians, and followers of the Bible, are to be caretakers of the earth. This includes from being environmentally conscious to participating in politics. If one neglects politics then one is also neglecting to take care of the earth. That's the way that I always viewed a Christian's perspective on those issues.

Edit II: There has been increasing washing over of all three branches of US government. The judiciary seems to want to get in on the legislative side, the executive wants to dabble in the other two, and gods help the legislators.

Edit III: Two things on the abortion bit. One, why is it, if you're a minor, that you can't even get a throat culture in the US without having parental notification, but many people want to make it legal for a girl to have an abortion without telling any of her gaurdians about it?

Secondly, it is against the law to disect a living newborn, but perfectly fine to suck its brains just a few hours before delivery could take place. Can someone explain the logic behind that to me?

One other thing very quickly, the references in Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Matthew 5:21, and Romans 13:9 are quoted from the King James Version. The "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" lists the first two as the word
ratsach: prop. to dash to pieces, i.e. kill (a human being0, especially to murderut to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).
The second two are listed as phoneuo: to be a murderer (of):-- kill, do murder, slay. This is taken from phoneus: a muderer (always criminal [or at least intentional] homicide.

From these two definitions there is a large difference between killing and murder. That's the reason why a soldier can still be charged with the murder of an individual after he has just come back from the front lines killing numerous others. If the state executioner just goes around killing people then he will also be charged with murder. They are very similar, but still not the same. You cannot murder someone without killing them, but you can kill someone without murdering them.

[quote:e9b806ff1a="Hsing"]Second:
I believe especially when you live in a country where determining wether you are pregnant, and which means of support are at hand, you shouldn't be able to carry the decision witrhin a few months before birth. There should be a limit. There is a change - due to the problems I had during pregnancy, I had douzens of scans and prints, and while at week ten, what I saw was a mere jelly bear, what I saw at week 14 resembled a tiny human being.[/quote:e9b806ff1a]

One thing I've seen is that proponents of both sides agree that there should be a limit to how far along an abortion should be able to be carried out, but neither one will attempt to agree with the other and at least pass something. Instead they argue about whether it's week ten, week eleven, week nine, whatever and don't at least put a cap on the third trimester.

Grace, what about personal responsibility? Do most people know that contraceptives do not work all the time? Is it important enough to have sex with someone that one is willing to take another life if their equipment messes up? Why does all the blame get shifted to after the conception, or to the doctor? Why not put off a little personal pleasure if things are so bad? Has anyone [i:237403943f]ever[/i:237403943f] heard anyone say that they were fiscally ready for a child?

These are just a few questions that popped in my head.

[quote:a08c2eb401="Buzzfloyd"]Just a quick point.

There are plenty of mothers who have abortions because they see no possible way that they can bring up a child. Somebody I know took every precaution with contraceptives, but still managed to get pregnant - contraceptives never provide 100% protection, even if you use a pill and a barrier method together. She did not have her own home, was between jobs and did not see that she could support a child and give it a fair chance at life. She had an abortion (which is an unpleasant and traumatic operation, by the way) for the sake of the child.

Had she chosen to have the baby and live off the government, people who share Pixel's views would probably dub her a scrounger, and decry her for her irresponsibility. But how can you have it both ways?

I share Hsing's views on this. How can you judge someone else's decision made in such difficult circumstances? It's easy to make moralistic proclamations about what other people should do when you've never, ever stood in their shoes, and will never, ever have to.[/quote:a08c2eb401]

Despite my right-wing views, I would rather see someone "scrounging off the state" than have them kill a baby.

Edited to make it more grammatical

[quote:0ef891959c="redneck"]Grace, what about personal responsibility? Do most people know that contraceptives do not work all the time?[/quote:0ef891959c]

Probably not, because conservatives don't want young people to have sex education, including how to use contraceptives properly, because it will supposedly encourage them to have sex.

I think my problem with the abortion debate is that it's become an issue of other people inflicting their views on the rest of the world. I have my own opinion (stated much more clearly and succinctly by the previous posters), which is that although I probably would never have one, I see no reason that option shouldn't be available. I also have no problem with people who don't believe in abortion. If someone really believes that it's murder, fine, they can do whatever they want, but they have absolutely no right to tell other people, who believe differently, what to do with their body.

And I think the example of a soldier is relevant here. If abortion is murder, even if it would improve the life of the mother, then any killing is murder. We live in a practical world, where it's ok to kill people for "valid" reasons, and sometimes those reasons are even less justifiable than a woman deciding she is incapable of raising a child at a certain point in time. If someone really wants to follow the "thou shalt not kill" rule, then they had better be a complete pacifist, violently (no pun intended) opposed to war, and be ready to let someone shoot them rather than harm that person in any way. And then they have no right to harm me for my choices.

Obviously I feel strongly about this, but I hope I haven't offended anyone too badly.

Warning!! This post may contain views on abortion. As it has been written by a male it may be of no value!



Damn, it's been a few days since I popped back on here.

Redneck, for me, one of the most powerful scriptures is 'Render unto Ceasar...' I find it very gratifying that JC recognized that a seperation of church and state was not a horrible thing.

As for this abortion hullaballoo... It's a topic that tends to inflame emotion on both sides very easily. And when people are angry and passionate it's easy to dishonor our opponents arguments by viewing them through a black/white filter. I figured this to be mostly an Americanism, but am saddened to see that it happens with our civilizational relatives accross the pond as well.

Forgive me if this post is disjointed, but I'm reviewing as I write. A few people have wondered how a death penalty proponent can be pro-life (or anti-choice, if you prefer) saying "How can you not value an adult if you value that which is not even yet human?". Firstly, that pro-lifer has an idea of when a potential human (potential child provokes much better imagery, but I'm trying to maintain my calm right now). Stating your opinions on when something becomes a child will do no good, much as they telling you their opinion will most likely not change yours. And secondly, the person that they are in favor of killing has been convicted of a crime that warrants the death penalty. Yes, I can see how killing an innocent and killing someone guilty oh a heinous crime are the same thing (I've studied Quakerism). Can others see the opposite viewpoint? Maybe if the black/white glasses were removed?

Hsing, you asked about anti-choicers not caring about the potentially aborted after birth. There's a saying here "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it" (or, in my mom's case, 'burn that bridge'). Some people might think of fighting what they consider the larger fight first. Saving life. Some victims of intense natural disasters will be forever destitute, but I doubt that that will be in the minds of the rescue workers. It's a rough analogy, but one that is hopefully good enough. And perhaps it is not to hard to see how a law against murder and laws governing business practices, or their lack thereof might be different.

Saccharissa, is Pixel opposed to teaching 'proper' sex ed? I honestly don't know, I miss too many conversations. If he hasn't said that he is opposed then what is the point of your statement?
Party1 "Murder is wrong! It should be illegal!"
Party2 "Instead of that, why not teach people how to resolve their differences without killing?"

Once again, a poor analogy. But it would be pretty easy to see a "Party 3" stepping in and saying "Why not both?" I'm sure that "Party 1" would have no problem with that.

The reason that I'm writing this (and it's much longer winded than usual) is that it maddens me to see highly intelligent people treat this topic this way. It's even hard for me to put into words. It just doesn't make sense. I also have to wonder if it is Roisindubh's lack of conformity to the anti choice image that some pro choicers may have that resulted in the large lack of comment (not attack, just comment), with the exception of Pixel on her post.

Two immediate points (I will need to spend a bit of time on Hsing's post to make a response):

Doors - I see no irony in my views - I support the death penalty for the sort of people who will go and kill (or otherwise damage) another individual purely for their own personal gain, or to satisfy their own hate, or to satisfy their own sick cravings - these are people who have shown their contempt for other people - "treating people as things" - does that phrase ring a bell? - this view is perfectly in line with wanting to protect the unborn who are totally innocent ("Original Sin" is a totally different argument, and if anyone wants to bring it up, please start a different thread!) and if they are allowed to be killed for convenience, then the poor little things never get a chance to be [i:09a48c70b2]anything[/i:09a48c70b2]!

Brad asks about my views on sex education - I believe that this should be as full and accurate as possible - not tainted by religious/political opinions (what little sex education there was when I was at school 40-plus years ago was treated as part of the "Religious Education" curriculum - now, how unbiased is that going to be?).

Some years ago, there was a lot of fuss in Britain about the possible repeal of a law which forbade the inclusion of homosexuality in sex education. Homosexuality is an option, for some people the only option they are going to be able to live happily with - why should it not be taught - but taught [i:09a48c70b2]fully[/i:09a48c70b2] including all the risks? Of course, the same applies to heterosexuality and bisexuality - the important thing is that the information is given without putting moral bias on it - that sort of thing can be left to the churches/families etc. - just as long as it is established that all the activities should be consensual - everyone involved should be a willing partner.
Unlike a lot of other subjects, however, I don't think that it would be possible to add [i:09a48c70b2]practical[/i:09a48c70b2] lessons to the sex education curriculum!

Edited to correct a spelling mistake, but also to add:

Based on some emails I am getting sent by an ex-lover who seems to want to become a current lover again (and which I would be delighted to have happen) - she is sending me links to a sex advice site - I thought I had done well enough before but apparently not - maybe a main point on any sex education curriculum should be "The clitoris - how to find it and what to do when you get there" - I've always worked on the basis of tongue, lips and fingers, since the penis is not a prehensile organ - am I doing something wrong?

[quote:298f397a6b="Buzzfloyd"]

[quote:298f397a6b]Do most people know that contraceptives do not work all the time?[/quote:298f397a6b]
I doubt many people know that contraceptives don't work all the time (except for the obvious, like a condom tearing, for example). A spermicide-treated condom is supposed to be 98% reliable as a barrier. Did you know that?[/quote:298f397a6b]

Or that taking antibiotics makes birth control pills ineffective?
Or that a minipill becomes ineffective if you take it [i:298f397a6b]three hours[/i:298f397a6b] late?

[quote:298f397a6b][quote:298f397a6b]Is it important enough to have sex with someone that one is willing to take another life if their equipment messes up?[/quote:298f397a6b]
For some people, yes, it [i:298f397a6b]is[/i:298f397a6b] important enough to have sex with someone that they are willing to 'take another life'. Sex is a natural part of life, and is a way of biologically cementing a relationship to encourage fidelity; that's part of why sex is enjoyable as well as functional. For those maintaining a monogamous relationship, who don't intend to marry (for whatever reason), it would be very odd for them not to have sex. [/quote:298f397a6b]


What about couples who [i:298f397a6b]are[/i:298f397a6b] married, but choose not to have children, or who choose to wait until their situation is better before having children? Should people who love each other not be allowed to marry unless they start trying to make babies as soon as the honeymoon commences? Or should such people marry, but remain celibate?

[quote:0428bc207b="Marcia"][quote:0428bc207b="redneck"]Grace, what about personal responsibility? Do most people know that contraceptives do not work all the time?[/quote:0428bc207b]

Probably not, because conservatives don't want young people to have sex education, including how to use contraceptives properly, because it will supposedly encourage them to have sex.[/quote:0428bc207b]

'sigh' Now, being a conservative fellow, allow me to explain those strange and bizzare views.

What sex education seems to forget about more often than not, is the responsibility. So, we teach hormone-filled teens about sex. Joy. We teach them about contraceptives. Double joy.

What else do we teach them? Do we teach them responsibility? Do we teach them that actions have consequences, and that their guiltless pleasure may not be all that guiltless?

Contraceptives are viewed as a sort of magical solution, a 'get free of responsibility' card. It's okay to have all the sex you may want, and not worry about the consequences, because they are not important anymore. We took care of them, right? Nothing to worry about. No little kiddies are going to appear. No one is going to get pregnant, or 'knocked up' if you wish to use that particular degrading term.

So, you tell the teenage boys and girls that contraceptives take care of that little problem. That's one barrier down. One less reason to say 'no'. Sex education may teach those teens how to use a condom properly, but it certainly doesn't teach them to think about whether you should have sex or not. Sex, in my opinion, is far more than just recreation. In my opinion, or current-day society encourages the exact opposite opinion.

I don't like it. So, we can't tell kiddies that sex is only for married folks, because that would be enforcing an opinion, and a specific religious one for that matter. What about the other way round? Is it okay to enforce the exact opposite opinion?

So, how do you go about making sex education that will give all the relevant information, and I do mean all of it, without encouraging one view or another? Dunnno. No idea whatsoever in this man's head.

Thank you for answering my questions, Grace. I'll try to comment later.

[quote:f37dfd57f5="Roman_K"][quote:f37dfd57f5="Marcia"][quote:f37dfd57f5="redneck"]Grace, what about personal responsibility? Do most people know that contraceptives do not work all the time?[/quote:f37dfd57f5]

Probably not, because conservatives don't want young people to have sex education, including how to use contraceptives properly, because it will supposedly encourage them to have sex.[/quote:f37dfd57f5]

'sigh' Now, being a conservative fellow, allow me to explain those strange and bizzare views.

What sex education seems to forget about more often than not, is the responsibility. So, we teach hormone-filled teens about sex. Joy. We teach them about contraceptives. Double joy.

What else do we teach them? Do we teach them responsibility? Do we teach them that actions have consequences, and that their guiltless pleasure may not be all that guiltless?.[/quote:f37dfd57f5]

What about those lifelike dolls they give young people, that are supposed to cry and need attention like real babies, (and set off some kind of alarm if the cries are ignored for too long) to give them an idea of what it is like to have to care for a newborn 24 hours a day?

[quote:75f9d35a4d="redneck"][quote:75f9d35a4d="spiky"]Its no wonder you felt the christian undertones of the Bush campaign, his election effort was supported by and many of the volunteers for were from the pentacostal religious groups across the US... As in the people knocking door-to-door were often from religious christion organisations as well as being Bush campaigners.[/quote:75f9d35a4d]

I'm not positive about this, and this is purely semantics, but most pentacostals in my area of the southeast don't go door to door here. They're more of the tent revival, snake handling, run up and down the aisle type of denomination. Not to mention that there are at least three differing branches of the Pentacostal church here in America, ranging from civilized to completely ludicrous. And the pentacostal church is part of the charasmatic movement in America as well. They have been steadily moving towards the God/buddy idealogy. There are countless other denominations in the charismatic movement, some being very rigid and some being not so.
[/quote:75f9d35a4d]

I didn't mean that the pentacostals go door-to-door for religious reasons, I meant that one of the main thrusts of the Bush campaign was a localised door-to-door approach using pentacostals religious groups as the main volunteers... I was also using the term pentacostals to cover a lot of the charismatic and conservative religious leanings that George W. espouses rather than as an exact definition of the religion itself...

The point is that someone was saying that they thought there was more religion in American politics and I was agreeing and using the example of how George W. has used it as a [i:75f9d35a4d]marketing[/i:75f9d35a4d] tool, which you can debate the ethics of until the cows or the Mormons come home...

On the abortion debate that seems to have sprung out from my fly-away comment but I see it this way: there are arguments for and there are arguments against abortion. There is no [i:75f9d35a4d]right[/i:75f9d35a4d] answer so how can you ban it based on who can yell the loudest with their opinion at a point in time....

Let me just underline the point: [u:75f9d35a4d]the females on this board seem to prefer to have the choice, not matter what the conservative males on the board think.[/u:75f9d35a4d]

Call us murderers but until you have been up the duff, alone, broke or an emotional basket case incapable of figuring out what to eat for breakfast, you can't turn around and say that we were wrong or evil. It has been the mothers role forever to decide on the life and death of children, it has been a survival trait forever, in terms of trauma, famine or danger mothers have abondoned and killed children... Abortion is merely the killing of the child before it is born. It is a choice, and one that has no good or right alternative.

This is a side issue, but this is probably the best thread to hang it on - has everybody noticed that we are able to hold civilized debates on highly emotionaly-charged subjects such as have been covered in this thread without anyone resorting to personal abuse or obscene suggestions - even though most if not all of the Harper Collins board "bullies" are actually here on the new board - but Dragonbiddy, Juggicide, Applestrudel - to name but a few - are not - or at least if they are here they are not identifying themselves. Makes you wonder who was [i:262cfb2fa9]really[/i:262cfb2fa9] causing the problems, doesn't it!

I've been reading this thread with interest. I have strong personal views about abortion, though I have to agree that this is not a black or white issue. I do have just one quick question for the group. There seems to be a belief that an abortion is performed in the first trimester of the pregnancy, when the baby is indeed much less formed. (Keep in mind that by the end of the first trimester the baby will have developed a functional nervous system.) Or perhaps that there is some cap or time limit.

Are you all aware of the partial-birth abortion procedure? This is performed into the third trimester. What are the feelings of the group about this?

Morally, how do you feel about mothers who have been sent to prison for killing their babies at birth, when a few hours earlier it would have been hypothetically legal for a doctor to abort their child? Our family has had some intense discussions about this, so I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

By the way, I originally gave a clinical description of a partial-birth abortion. I deleted it, in case it seemed too graphic.

[quote:dc0f113bf6="Roman_K"]
'sigh' Now, being a conservative fellow, allow me to explain those strange and bizzare views.

What sex education seems to forget about more often than not, is the responsibility. So, we teach hormone-filled teens about sex. Joy. We teach them about contraceptives. Double joy.

What else do we teach them? Do we teach them responsibility? Do we teach them that actions have consequences, and that their guiltless pleasure may not be all that guiltless?[/quote:dc0f113bf6]

Er... actually that's wrong. I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but here in Australia we are given rather more information than we would like. We hardly get taught to go out an shag anyone we like, as long as we use contraceptives. I think we spent more than half the year learning about STDs and getting told that the only way to prevent them completely was abstinence. Sure, we get taught contraceptives but have it drilled into us early that they are not a sure-fire method of protecting ones self.
Edit: Just a thought, would you rather kids learnt about sex from a government approved curriculum or MTV?

As Doors said, sex education does work. My main personal problem with the conservative abstinence only curriculum is the way that we are supposed to know nothing about sex before we get married then suddenly know everything afterwards. Married people use contraceptives too, like Marcia said.

If you really want to end abortions, end unwanted pregnancies. Otherwise we will just go back as a society to the days of back alley abortions with coathangers. That way we possibly lose two lives rather than one. The basic fact is that not everyone who gets pregnant will be able to keep the baby, for physical, emotional or financial reasons. Its not the ideal situation, but thats the way it is.

I realise I'm a bit late here, but I dislike Pixel's argument that a child should not be aborted in case they turn out to be a good human, and do heroic things as an adult. Using that logic, wouldn't it have been better to abort Hitler as a baby to prevent the deaths of millions later on? But that would be considered wrong, as he might have grown up to do great things. The point is that there is no way of telling so there is no point speculating.

My uneducated, hormone-filled teenager two cents.