|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(1 of 94)
Jun 9, 2003 4:03 PM
|
So many good and decent threads on this board have been ruined because I push my views as seemingly the only liberal willing to stand up and be counted. I absolutely do not mind the abuse. However, with so many threads touching this issue, I felt it pertinent to just stop the dancing around and come out with it.
I define myself as a liberal because the very definition of liberalism is change. Conservativism is primarily based on a mythic invention of tradition in this country. It starts from the premise that America is essentially good, the government should generally be believed because they know more than the rest of us, and whatever problems we have are not large enough for dissent. I like the optimism of this, but not the naivete--the thought that we should trust the government is contrary to the very foundation of this country.
I do try to see history for what it is, and in general the IDEA of America is far better than the REALITY of it, and every generation has a responsibility to change that reality for the better. For the most part, America is a selfish nation and has the history to prove it. It is just like every other country in this regard. However, I believe the United States is the only country ever created with a thesis statement--we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. THAT is the point of America, and THAT is what every generation has to promote and improve upon.
I don't think it at all unAmerican to point out our dismal record on this. The bar was set high. I highly disagree with the conservative premise that things could be worse and that we should thank our lucky stars we don't live in places like Iraq. I disagree with this because though America is indeed a quality nation, it is not where it ought to be. We all know what the final goal is--it was written at the start. The achievement of that goal is the ONLY purpose of America, and it is what separates America from the rest of the world.
Hence, I will always question the morality of America and ignore the tenet that compares her with the rest of the world. It is neither here nor there.
If this were a race, it would be foolish to stop when we are ahead. And that is exactly what conservatives suggest.
The concept of political party affiliation is dead at this point. I will not get into it. There is only left and right. Republicans are evil and Democrats are stupid, and I tend to leave it at that. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.
I've been known to promote socialism on this board. I have written many longwinded posts on this, but the gist without repeating myself is socialism in America is alive and well and completely necessary as a balance to capitalism. Capitalism causes problems, socialism mops them up. There is no civilized country in this world with a successful economy that is not both free market and socialist. Calling the fall of the Soviet Union as the failure of socialism is erroneous at best, but largely it implies that if the USSR has a free-market system, it would still be alive and well and bent on world domination. I can make the same assumption, that capitalism was proven a failure because of the Great Depression. In a society which truly cares about the progress of its people, you cannot have one without the other. Neither system is perfect--in fact, both have fatal flaws. But the combination of the two has allowed Western Europe and the US to flourish, and I think it is blind to not acknowledge this.
Liberalism is the prime source of change in this country by its very definition. There was a post that Republicans have had a better record concerning race relations--need I remind you that in 1856 the Republican Party was wholeheartedly liberal? The abolitionist movement was as liberal as it gets. Lincoln was liberal and ran on the abolitionist platform. It was the hardline Southerners at the time, most notably John Calhoun, that comprised the conservative tone concerning slavery, touting how civilization was always reliant on slave labor, and that it was irresponsible to tinker with traditional human nature. In the years between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, conservatives consistently tried to keep minorites at bay, constructing the Jim Crow ethic as a means to keep the traditional Southern lifestyle alive. Plessy v. Ferguson perpetuated the separate-but-equal notion, even though it was an impossibility and hence a lie. It was a conservative culture that allowed Emmitt Till to be lynched in 1955, his murderers to get off scott free, and they wrote a book on the subject where they ADMITTED it!. THAT is the America such liberals as Martin Luther King and John and Bobby Kennedy fought against, and THAT is the America that assassinated them.
I am by no means saying liberals are perfect. I am appalled by the general weakness of contemporary liberal leadership. Liberals will lose even more political ground in 2004, not because of anything conservatives have done, but because of the lack of focus in the liberal platform. Playing the blame game that conservatives crafted so well over the years is counter-productive, and the only way to not play the game is to be above it. Unfortunately, seeing as how the blame game is the only game in town, Washington liberals are trying too hard to prick holes in Bush's facade when all they really have to do is show the general economic decay of this country over just the last three years.
I think Bush did a wonderful job in the aftermath of 9/11, and I realize circumstances determined his path for him. But presidents in the past all had to deal with crises, and all were subject to criticism. There was a post on this board criticizing FDR for promoting socialism--heaven forbid he should show the same respect conservatives claim we all should show Bush for handling 9/11. In many ways, Pearl Harbor was just as devastating and more so than 9/11, but this has never stopped conservatives from attacking FDR's record. Is this hypocrisy? Of course it is. But the usual conservative spin doctors will create some wild responses to this, and I look forward to them.
I always respect other people's opinions. That is a prime tenet of liberalism. Conservatism has a particular self-created mythological image of America being perfect once upon a time, and we should harken back to that day. That is the essence of conservativism--tradition and want of a return of the ideals of yesteryear. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong in that.
But calling me UnAmerican because I believe the best days of America are yet to come is short-sighted. There are still serious problems in this country that need to be ferreted out. I believe they can be. But I don't think using the same tired old methods are applicable. Fresh thinking is required. By the very definition, conservativism is incapable of this. By the same token, liberalism is.
One last note--please tell me when this will finally be the Bush presidency and no longer the post-Clinton presidency. For the last 20 years conservatives (nix the party crap) have controlled the House, Senate, Presidency, and most of the governorships in this country. Yet it seems all the problems in the world are either Clinton's fault or some nameless liberal from way back when. When will conservatives stop blaming everyone else for their own impotence to make the changes they call for? When will conservative radio stop blaming Clinton for every little thing and start calling Bush on his own record? He has been our president for 2 1/2 years now. Whenever conservatives want to hold him responsible for his own actions is fine by me.
The 2004 elections will be overwhelmingly won by conservatives unless they simply refuse to own up to their own responsibilities of power. I understand this is the time of conservativism. I get that. I know I am in a minority here. But I also know the pendulum will soon swing the other way. I say, let the conservatives show their stuff! There is a reason why liberals reigned in this country for most of its existence--because liberalism works and is absolutely necessary to get America to where it is destined to go. So let the conservative powers that be strut their stuff. Let them prove their own impotence, the very constraints they impose on themselves. Let them try the old ways so they can prove once and for all that they don't work. I'm all for it. I have nothing to lose. If by some minor miracle conservatives can stop blaming the poor and the French and liberals and everyone else and actually run a government well, we all benefit from an America headed in the right direction. If they fail, we'll vote you all out. Plain as that. But time is running out. It's only 17 months until the next general election, and conservatives have done nothing except run the economy into the ground, ignore unemployment, and install the largest governmental overhaul and growth since the Civil War.
Every great American who affected real change in this country was a liberal. I'm sure you can name one or two conservatives to save face. But in the end the liberal list will be many times longer. All the Founding Fathers were by definition liberal.
Jesus was a liberal, trying to change Judaism.
Hitler was a conservative, wanting to return Germany to her former glory.
The point? STOP CALLING LIBERALS EVIL, AND STOP BLAMING THEM FOR THINGS YOU CAN CHANGE.
Let the dogpile commence.
|
|
|
Posts:
11,379
Registered:
10/26/02
|
|
(2 of 94)
Jun 9, 2003 4:31 PM
|
I actually read it all. 
Well-written, I won't deny that. Several points I disagree with, as usual, but I'll just "deal with it" by ignoring it.
"The world is not enough
But it is such a perfect place to start my love
And if you're strong enough
Together we can take the world apart my love."
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(3 of 94)
Jun 9, 2003 4:34 PM
|
|
It's probably for the best. I think if your hands are half as tired as mine are from the constant bickering, you're pretty pooped too.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,478
Registered:
10/6/01
|
|
(4 of 94)
Jun 9, 2003 5:19 PM
|
Don't disagree with most of your statements. What bothered me was your strident America bashing when you first arrived on the board. You seem to have toned down few notches lately.
I would point out also that capitalism cleans up just as many messes from Socialism as vice versa.
I have seen the top of the mountain, and it is good- Butthead
|
|
|
Posts:
17,941
Registered:
5/5/03
|
|
(5 of 94)
Jun 9, 2003 6:04 PM
|
Don't worry, Russebby; I got yer back.
Remember that Conervatives MUST attack en masse because to do otherwise might possibly lead to them having to THINK.
Scratch a Conservative, and you're likely to find someone who doesn't want [insert your favorite group here] to become his or her equal. Compound this with the problem of evangelical christians as seeing the Republican party as their ticket to establishing a national religion in violation of the first ammendment, and you have a breeding ground for crazies of all sorts.
Also remember that yes, Republicans once had moderate, and even liberal members--but no longer. Conservatives range now from evangelicals to plutocrats, and right now the plutocrats are winning.
Don't worry, though; I'll stick around so that you're not a "lone voice in the wilderness." :D
|
|
|
Posts:
7,478
Registered:
10/6/01
|
|
(6 of 94)
Jun 9, 2003 7:20 PM
|
Your generalizations mark you as much a bogot as those you decry.
I have seen the top of the mountain, and it is good- Butthead
|
|
|
Posts:
7,478
Registered:
10/6/01
|
|
(7 of 94)
Jun 9, 2003 7:20 PM
|
Your generalizations mark you as much a bigot as those you decry.
I have seen the top of the mountain, and it is good- Butthead
|
|
|
Posts:
12,357
Registered:
9/13/99
|
|
(8 of 94)
Wrong perception right off the bat...
Jun 10, 2003 4:43 AM
|
I define myself as a liberal because the very definition of liberalism is change. Conservativism is primarily based on a mythic invention of tradition in this country.<<
If one were discussing classical definitions of liberal and conservative, that would hold water. However, the classical definition of those terms is not interchangable with the modern political definitions. There are some things that liberals in the modern sense want to stay the same while there are some things that conservatives in the modern sense want to change. Abortion is one example of this. Thus it is disingenious at best to conclude Hitler and Jesus are interchangable with modern conservatives and liberals in 2003 America.
"It [the song chorus] doesn't mean anything. It's like ramalama ding dong, or give peace a chance." -Homer Simpson
|
|
|
Posts:
2,104
From:
Oklahoma City
Registered:
4/9/03
|
|
(9 of 94)
Jun 10, 2003 9:05 AM
|
|
The only thing I know for sure that John and Bobby Kennedy fought against was Virginity.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,104
From:
Oklahoma City
Registered:
4/9/03
|
|
(10 of 94)
Jun 10, 2003 9:39 AM
|
I really liked the comparison. You should check your notes, I think the current party line is to compare Conservatives with Fascist.
And you guys wonder why we think liberal gibberish reminds us of the Hen Chorus in Janacek's opera The Cunning Little Vixen.
|
|
|
Posts:
12,357
Registered:
9/13/99
|
|
(11 of 94)
Jun 10, 2003 10:14 AM
|
That was a good one.
"It [the song chorus] doesn't mean anything. It's like ramalama ding dong, or give peace a chance." -Homer Simpson
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(12 of 94)
Abortion, reversion, the Beaver, and Jesus
Jun 10, 2003 7:22 PM
|
There are some things that liberals in
> the modern sense want to stay the same while there
> are some things that conservatives in the modern
> sense want to change. Abortion is one example of
> this.
This is correct only if you think the "traditional family values" Quayle was referring to was in 1973.
Abortion has always been a liberal issue because it changes the dynamic of a woman in society. Instead of being a brrodmare to the state and tied to religious and moral obligations specific to motherhood, abortion is a liberation from those society-imposed boundaries. I don't think I need to remind you of this.
The huge flaw in your argument is your believe in relativism, your misguided view that only the last 15 years or so is "modern". You must be pretty young.
The "traditional family values" American conservatives pine away for is the mythical world of Leave It To Beaver and Father Knows Best--the father works, the mother is the homemaker, there are 2.5 kids, they live in a nice home, and all is well. Dad has a sherry chaser when he comes home, Mom has dinner ready promptly at 6pm, and the kids have their homework done and are willing to talk to their parents. Any deviation from this makes the general conservative cringe. Economics no longer allow this to continue, but if there is a perfect world, a conservative utopia, it is white America circa 1953.
Hence, abortion is a change from this concept.
This, I don't need to tell you.
But your relativism comments lead me to think that you see the status quo, and you can only see change from the status quo 2003. This is highly erroneous on your part, and I seriously advise you to really think this through. After all, this is the History Channel, so a better historical background is indeed in order to discuss such matters.
Concerning abortion, conservatives don't want to change, they want to revert. They want to go back to the days where no one talked about abortion, where it is swept under the rug, where doctors would not perform it, and where in many cases the alternative was to go to Mexico to have it done, or the ever-pleasant wire hanger. THIS was abortion 1953.
Now, of course you are seeing my bias, but that is what conservatives are suggesting. What conservatives really want is abstinence before marriage.
Change is not relative. It is continuous. Case in point, African-American civil rights. I said before that liberals like Lincoln were the basis of the abolitionist movement in the 1850's. If conservatives of the time, who did not want change, had their way, blacks would have never got out of slavery. But by 1865 the Civil War was won, the liberal North won, and African Americans were emancipated. You cannot, at that point, suddenly say in 1865 the cause is over. Conservatives, wanting to revert the the good old days, who never wanted the change in the first place, soon began the Jim Crow society in the attempt to slow the use of these newfound rights. Conservatives hated the change, and drug their heels every step of the way. As a result, from then until the 1960's, conservatives were able to keep the black man in his place, as it were. They slowed the progress of this change as long as they could. If they couldn't stop it or revert, they would sabotage it every change they got.
You cannot just set a date concerning this. You just can't. The status quo up until 1973 was that abortion was murder and illegal. That was the way it had been throughout "traditional" America, and religion bears this out. Ever since, conservatives have VEHEMENTLY tries to revert back to tradition and slow the progression of abortion rights at every step. If they had their druthers, Roe v. Wade would never have come to the Supreme Court in the first place. They have dug their heels in on this case and want to go back to a time before this all happened. Hence, they are mentally stuck in 1972, when abortion rights did not exist, and they want to hold us in that stasis. THAT, my friend, is not change. It is de-evolution.
Tradition takes more than one generation to create. It takes several generations of universal acceptance for tradition to form. Seeing as how barely one generation has passed since the civil rights movement and abortion came into play, I think it incredible thoughtless to look only a decade or so back, retune our processes to fit our narrow hindsight, and suddenly turn the tables to fit an argument.
Liberals do not seek change for the sake of reversion. They know the idyll of Father Knows Best is a farce, that there was never such a thing as "traditional family values", and hence those that are disenfranchised by the WASP-esque dream became the platform of the liberals for decades. Everything you didn't see in a typical Leave It To Beaver re-run became a liberal cause--rights for African Americans, help for unwed mothers, sex education, bilingualism, holistic public education, better working conditions for women, gay issues--in short, the Cleaver family is the conservative's wet dream. Everything you see in real life that was not in Leave It To Beaver is a liberal cause.
Liberalism is the ultimate idealism. Liberalism looks to the future. Conservatives want to remember the good old days. Liberalism wants change for the sake of universal liberty--conservativism wants change for the sake of morality and tradition.
Within this, there is PLENTY about liberalism for you to rag on. Go right ahead.
Thus it is disingenious at best to conclude
> Hitler and Jesus are interchangable with modern
> conservatives and liberals in 2003 America.
You know, throughout the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I didn't see a single conservative flash his WWJD bracelet, and I didn't hear a single conservative ask What would Jesus do? That's because the teaching of Jesus contradict everything these wars stood for. If you REALLY want to get into liberalism on a religious level, try me. Organized religion is by nature conservative because it is like every other tyrant, trying to consolidate power, trying to conform its people to an ideal long since past, and trying to restrain liberties for the sake of its own survival. Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, they were all bold-face liberals because their teachings in and of themselves shook up the worlds they lived in. The religions that formed after their deaths all fail to convey the messages of the true fathers because they are more interested in membership and control rather than teaching and enlightenment.
If Jesus were alive today, He would have been a hippie, not a yuppie. He would have been working class, not bourgeois. He would most likely be a socialist because He was far more into feeding the poor than praising the capitalists. And He would be liberal and appalled at the conservative churches that bear His name.
I believe Jesus said (and I'm sure someone can tell me the correct verse) it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven. And yet we live in a country where the motto has long been THE ONE WITH THE MOST TOYS WINS.
Hence, Jerry Falwell, the father of the Moral Majority, is a staunch conservative, as are virtually all televangelists. Jesus was a liberal who tried to change Judaism--Falwell is a conservative who is trying to force the people of this country to a morality of his choosing.
Hence, the paradox.
And what about Jesus? Well, 2000 years ago there was a conservative attitude in its politics. Save for their Roman overlords, the Pharisees and King Herod, both seen as traditional Judaism, were aften squelching the liberal concept of the Messiah for several reasons--because such talk infuriated the Romans, but also because it would mean a complete overhaul of the system they had fostered every since they returned from Babylon 600 years prior. Along comes Jesus, who is seen as a cult leader and a blasphemer, and executed as such. He sought to change Judaism from within, and for his troubles he was crucified. He fought the system, and the system won. He fought the good fight. He was a champion of liberal thinking.
Conversely, the status quo in Germany 1933 was hyperinflation and the utter failure of capitalism by the Great Depression. The Treaty of Versailles kept Germany from re-arming, hence making it impotent and second-rate. Adolf Hitler, who hated Germany for surrendering in 1918 and wants her to return to a glorious past that included art, music, philosophy, and military might, comes to power and sets things in motion in the hopes of creating his own conservative wet dream, his own Aryan Leave It To Beaver. But the Jews and Gypsies and Catholics and Witnesses don't fit into his scheme of things, so they are sent away or killed. Of course, Hitler was also a genocidal madman, and psychoses is not solely a conservative trait. But because he sought to fit Europe into his particular view of correctness instead of creating systems for people to find their own prosperity, because he sought to keep everyone in like as opposed to liberating them, I honestly don't think he is a whole lot different than the typical American conservative.
If that ticks you off, good. Let's talk intelligently about it.
In closing, if you consider yourself a conservative, I strongly urge you to educate yourself on what you think you are. If you honestly believe the world began in 1985, you need to compare your views with the core of staunch conservatives and see just how far apart you really are.
And in this "change" topic, you really need to ask yourself WHY such a change is called for. You have to analyze everything to its bloody death. If conservatives want change in abortion legislation, you need to ask why. Is it out of enlightenment, or to revert to "tradition"? Is it to liberate someone, or to return them to their shackles?
There are plenty of things about liberalism that are unpopular, and I still invite all to call me on them. I love criticism. But please, don't look for technicalities to snag me on, or loopholes in my arguments, like this young man tried to do, because you're wasting your time. You can call me on all the nasty things liberalism is painted to be, and I would love to discuss them, provided you've thought the subject through.
But saying the fall of the USSR proves socialism is a failure is not thinking things through--it fell because they couldn't keep up with the US, and in trying to do so the economy imploded. It would have happened even if they had a free market system--aggressive tryanny, not socialism, killed the USSR. THINK.
And trying to find holes in my arguments won't work either.
Liberalism has plenty of things working against it, and you know what they are. Let's discuss!
|
|
|
Posts:
7,478
Registered:
10/6/01
|
|
(13 of 94)
Re: Abortion, reversion, the Beaver, and Jesus
Jun 10, 2003 8:56 PM
|
I'm just gonna jump on the abortion issue for a moment. Conseravtives expect people to be responsible with their sexuality, not to be virgins till they're 35. Is there something wrong with expecting a couple to practice safer sex? Is there something wrong with expecting them to deal with the consequences of their actions?
Abortion should be legal and available to anyone who needs it for medical reasons. I truly believe that the abortion fetish of America in this era will be looked opon by future generations with the same revulsion that we have for societies that practiced infantacide. Killing human beings just because you can't control your own urges is wrong.
Women want to control their own bodies. Then CONTROL them!
I have seen the top of the mountain, and it is good- Butthead
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(14 of 94)
At last, true Lib/Cons clashing!
Jun 10, 2003 10:18 PM
|
I was hoping we'd get to this point.
Our friend AmericanPride was saying you cannot legislate morality. And yet that is exactly what conservatives are trying to do. By criminalizing an option, they are pressing their morality on the whole.
Now, entering this conversation, I do say I am pro-choice. But because I am a man, I do think I have no right at all to tell a woman what she can do with her body. I do think most forms of abortion are murder, but that is between a woman and her God to sort out. In essence, a fetus that cannot live on its own, outside its mother, is, dare I say, a parasite. I hate to say that about a human embryo, but I do think a woman has more rights in this country than a parasite.
That probably will send me to Hell for saying, but I do believe in the Aristotlean premise that the actual must supercede the potential, that the people living and breatheing should get the benefit over the potential, hence the not yet here.
Having shown myself as a complete thug, I will now try to talk about this as a liberal.
Morality should be taught by parents, not in classrooms. Christian ethics should be presented in church, not the Supreme Court. This country needs to be about the expansion of liberty, not the taking away of it.
The bottom line is, if morality has to be legislated, then we failed as a society. We failed as parents, as teachers, as clergy, and as role models. If you need laws to prevent certain actions, as deterrents, there is a significant problem with that society.
I won't make the trite argument that kids are kids and they're having sex whether we like it or not and that as a result all birth control, including abortion, should be legal. It is a childish argument without merit.
I will say, however, that abortion is as old as civilization. In the ancient and medieval world there are countless accounts of queens and maidens forcing miscarriages through minor surgery and herbs. The female want to control pregnancy, even end it as she needs, is an age old story. It is not at all a phenomenon of the 20th century. But until thirty years ago, it was a subject not brought up in polite company. To think women suddenly woke up and learned they could induce abortion just a few decades ago is ludicrous. Abortion has always been a prevalent part of society.
As a result, women have always taken chance with their health. Need I bring up the wire hanger again?
Legal abortion is the safe way to perform a task women have been doing for centuries. The worst thing we could do is force it back into the closets and back alleys.
This is not about promiscuity and underage sex. This is about control.
And if the argument that abortion is murder was at all consistent, then everything that affected the fetus would be under severe scrutiny. There are no laws to stop a pregnant woman from smoking, just the polite reminders on occasion that smoking affects the unborn. If there was a real conservative concern about this, smoking while pregnant would be seen as potential manslaughter. People who smoke around pregnant women could be sued for negligence and accidental homicide. Another issue that is overlooked is general miscarriage, the accidental death of said fetus. I believe, worldwide, one out of every three pregnancies still end in miscarriage. There is no moral outcry over this--how many millions of human beings thus die in this manner every year, in just this country? If the "pro-life" lobby were at all consistent, there would be a crusade to save miscarried babies and to create the medical miracles to guarantee the end of miscarriage. I have never heard a shred of moral outrage of the accidental death of millions of babies--if such accidents happened in the external world, as in, say, 9/11, there would be wars fought, mountains moved, telethons weekly, and severe legislation to save the children. If a mother who has an abortion is allegedly guilty of murder, then it must follow that a mother who unwittingly has a miscarriage is guilty of accidental manslaughter.
Just looking for consistency in the conservative argument that a fetus is a human being.
But since there is no consistency in morality, all there is left is the control angle. The government of an egalitarian nation is obligated to make all medical options open to its constituents. The last refuge for failed morality is the legislative process. When the parents fail, the priests fail, the role models fail, the laws, enforced by police, are always a last ditch effort to keep people in their place.
And I don't know about you, but I've known a good handful of women who have had abortions. It is a humiliating experience that scars a woman. No girl just wakes up one morning and has one. They are usually scared to death, both because of being scarred and of going to Hell. No woman is ever quite the same.
Personally, I would hope the women of the Western World did not choose abortion. I don't like the idea of abortion any more than the rest of you. However, such moral issues MUST be presented to a woman from day one--she must be taught a certain morality by loving parents, she must have that morality molded by peers and mentors and pastors and bus drivers and Aunt Debby and Uncle Russell and the entirety of the world she is brought up in. If after that, the government has to tell her what she can and cannot do with her own body, then we all failed as a society.
Then again, as a male, I have very little right to tell another human being what he or she cannot do with her body. Hence, as a man, I do not enforce my moral standards on a woman.
And hence, this is not a universal topic.
Men should not be talking about this at all, and yet it is men in Washington that want to reduce women back into the primitive mode of babypump.
When women have a real and vital voice in government, a much truer and less biased and narrow interpretation on this issue may come to pass. But when 50% of this world is female and only 2% or so of the powers that be are female, I fail to see how women have a true congressional say in this.
Then again, if conservatives want women to stay in the kitchen and pump out a baby once a year, having one as President must make them cry themselves to sleep.
|
|
|
Posts:
367
Registered:
4/27/03
|
|
(15 of 94)
Re: Abortion, reversion, the Beaver, and Jesus
Jun 10, 2003 11:03 PM
|
"Women want to control their own bodies. Then CONTROL them!"
What about the man's responsibility?
I am glad that you added the qualifier "Abortion should be legal and available to anyone who needs it for medical reasons."
The main counter point I could come up with is about the abortion fetish. I think many previous generations did the same in the US as they do now; we just have improved records, and, a larger population.
Also, fetish indicates some amount of pleasure. Which, is a risky implication.
Other than that, your post is the most civil pro-life abortion view I've heard in years.
|
|
|
|
|
