|
Posts:
7,478
Registered:
10/6/01
|
|
(31 of 94)
Jun 11, 2003 8:11 PM
|
I think I'm part of the ruling majority? No, I just agree with conservative ideas more than liberal ones.
I think Dubya should be investigated for his justification for the Iraq war. If it is found that he is lying then I won't be voting for him in 2004.
I liked your car analogy. Works for me.
Don't call me Pookie, its what I call my wife and its kinda creepy! 
You won't be afraid if you use your mind and think - Jim Kirk, Star Trek TOS
|
|
|
Posts:
12,357
Registered:
9/13/99
|
|
(32 of 94)
Jun 12, 2003 7:37 AM
|
If you don't believe someone who argues a view should be consistent, I guess you have a point.<<
Apples and oranges yet again. Change is still change. Can you not bear the thought of analyzing the positions that stand under the banner known as modern liberalism? Apparently not.
>>If you want to blow of the WHY's of history, the worst place to show such blindness is on a board for THE HISTORY CHANNEL.<<
Apples and oranges yet again. What you're attempting to do is lay claim to everyone in history you like and tar everyone you don't like via the dishonest argument I've already blown out of the water.
>>I'm laughing on my side of the screen because I am convinced you are putting me on. Do you know absolutely nothing about American history? I can't believe I am having such a discussion with a savant.<<
I can't believe I'm having a discussion with someone who clings to a false theory to make his current political views more palatable to others and apparently himself and, when that false theory is taken to its logical conclusion, laughs. You mentioned being consistent earlier. Why not try some of that right now?
>>Why? Because you can't handle debating real history?<<
You're the one who is showing that he cannot handle real history by making the half-baked argument that a political and religious figure who lived approximately 2,000 years in a backwater part of the Roman Empire is easily comparable with a fad in the late 20th century.
>>Judea. Hence, when we talk about Jesus, you almost have to throw out the Old Testament.<<
Not really since Jesus himself that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.
>>I think comparing Nazi Germany to the Jim Crow South is very fair--entire societies based on apartheid, hate, and in many ways cruelty and death.<<
What you did was say you saw no difference in American conservatives (ie current people known by that title) and Hitler. That is idiotic and insulting for reasons I've already pointed out. When has a person now known as a political conservative advocating an empire or murdering people? Hmmm? Instead of answering that question head on, you again fall back on your discredited theory to tar your current political opponents and make yourself fell better.
>>And how can one talk "intelligently" about Nazi Germany without mentioning the Holocaust?<<
And where was the Holocaust in Jim Crow South? As wretched as conditions were for blacks, the death rate came nowhere NEAR what happened in the Third Reich. Do you know how many people died of lynching in the US after the Civil War to the 20th century? Under 5,000. Out of those, 27% were white and there were actually cases of black mobs lynching black offenders (a case happened in the early 1900's in Wycliffe, Kentucky in which three men murdered an elderly black man and were consequently lynched by an outraged black mob). Do you know how many people were murdered by Hitler's regime? Try on the scale of a about 12 million. Or compare the lynching rate over about 100 years to what happened in less than a year's time in Rwanda in which over 500,000 people died?
>>How can you talk about Hitler and not mention hate on the basis of wanting to return Germany to former glory?<<
The glory he wanted to return Germany to never really existed in that his idiotic theory that the Aryan race (a race that never existed) established culture. In many ways, Hitler and his NSDAP was a sharp break to what Germany had known before then. Hitler was a commoner and not of noble birth yet he took absolute control of Germany. He broke the way German troops took their oaths and made them swear allegiance to him and not Germany. He despised organized Christianity (he even termed it a "Jewish swindle") even though the majority of Germans were Christians.
I don't know what it is you've tried to show me, but it ain't truth.<<
Of course, you'd say that since confronting the truth of how bankrupt your theory is apparently too painful.
>>America was BUILT on expansionism. Where were you?<<
The people known as conservatives today ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE who expanded the US's borders.
>>America's vast empire is no longer based on land, but on money.<<
Whoa, the comparison you made was with Hitler and American conservatives. Hitler wanted a land empire. Your flaccid argument just fell apart.
>>So all that talk about blacks being subhuman in this very country up until 1920 should be thrown out?<<
What should be thrown out is your fetish for comparing people in 2003 America to those who lived in the early part of the 1900's. Yes, racial superiority was the norm among white people (North AND South). In fact, it was dogma for the 19th and a good part of the 20th century. However, even if one still tries to use people back then who clung to such a theory to what I mentioned, it still falls apart in that I said, "Hitler was out to murder people who did not fit into his idea of racial superiority." Can you list some deaths specifically caused by someone wishing to murder another because they are of a supposed "lesser" race?
>>The thousands of lynchings between 1865 and 1964 should be thrown out?<<
Ah, but the discussion was murder over people being of a lesser race. For better or worse, lynchings were done for imagined or real wrongs not merely for skin color alone. Had Jim Crow South (or the North for that matter since lynchings happened there too) been as vicious as Nazi Germany, there wouldn't be any blacks in the US at all.
>>The ultimate in conservativism at its bloody worst, the KKK, should be exonerated?<<
Again, you cannot compare modern political conservatives with a terrorist organization unless modern political conservatives are active in it and espouse its views.
>>The entire subculture in this country that dehumanized the so-called negro, from 1800 to 1970, should be thrown out the window? The apartheid system of Jim crow, and the memories of every African-American over the age of 45 who had to live at least a memorable part of their childhoods in this system should be discarded?<<
Again, you ignore what I said. (What a surprise.)
>>With the exception of putting blacks in traincars and sending them to gas chambers, I think the Jim Crow tendencies of this country, all of which are the legacy of American conservativism, are highly comparable to the Nazis.<<
That's a bloody big exception. That's like saying, "except for the Holocaust, Hitler really didn't kill that many people".
>>Should I repeat the last paragraph, or can you scroll back to it on your own?<<
Why not repeat it since you have a talent for ignoring my arguments?
>>If conservatives had their way, they would abolish the Democratic party and make liberal thought a crime. Listen to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh occasionally.<<
BS. That's as big of a lie as I've ever heard and I DO listen to Hannity and Limbaugh on occasion. Fighting politically isn't the same as wanting a party banned.
>>Other than just saying the opposite of what I say for effect, prove it.<<
This is too easy:
1) Tradition: Barring abuse, parents generally keep their children. Is that enslavement? I think not. Now let's look at a hypothetical change: Take children away from parents at birth and never allow them to go back to their parents. Is that "liberating"? I think not.
2) Tradition: After birth, someone who kills a baby is charged with murder. Is that enslavement? I think not. An actual change proposed by a professor: Allow babies to be killed up to one week after birth. Is that "liberating"? I think not.
As for your theory, I think it foolish and inane. To take the classical definition of liberal (ie someone wanting change) and saying that it is interchangeable with the people known as modern political liberals is foolish since there are things modern political liberals don't want changed. Period. It's that simple. What you've done is taken two misnamed modern political bodies of thought (liberal and conservative) and extrapolated that to include people thoughout history with views that can only be described by the classical definition. One cannot really even compare liberals and conservatives (modern definition) between the US and Europe. People known as conservatives in Europe would be known as liberals in the US.
I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears since you take too much pleasure in having a theory (as inane as it is) that allows you to claim everyone in history you like and tar everyone in history (and today) you don't. Well, that's your problem, not mine.
"It [the song chorus] doesn't mean anything. It's like ramalama ding dong, or give peace a chance." -Homer Simpson
|
|
|
Posts:
284
Registered:
11/29/99
|
|
(33 of 94)
Re: At last, true Lib/Cons clashing!
Jun 12, 2003 8:23 AM
|
> 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.
>
True enough... it is interesting that one can legislate morality when it comes to the issue of abortion, but one cannot do so when it comes to things like racism, sexism, ageism, and the like....
> 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.
I agree... I think abortion should be legal, but not because I think much of women's rights... for me it's simply because I don't think MOST PEOPLE should HAVE CHILDREN. In fact, I think you should have to be LICENSED to reproduce. :D
> 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.
>
Let's see this one....
> 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.
>
Agreed on the liberty part... of course, I always thought that God didn't need to be put in schools. I'll tell you why: God does not need to go to schools, He belongs in homes and hearts. If He is in homes and hearts, God doesn't need to be put in school because He will be in the hearts of those attendant.
Also, He's GOD! There is nothing that any teacher, moralist, conservative, liberal, etc can teach GOD... He already KNOWS IT ALL! :D
> 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.
>
There are significant problems with ALL societies. There are laws against a myriad of things, but I'll name a few: Murder, rape, theft, espionage, arson, assault...
> 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.
>
That, it is... an 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.
>
Historically, yes, and thought publicly a reviled practice, most people tended to wink, nudge, and then go about their business....
Of course, they didn't view life as such a sacred and precious thing as we do now...
> 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.
>
Yes, but even if all the preachers in the world say a woman is going to Hell for having an abortion, God decides that and if she repents, then no amount of human outcry can keep her out of Heaven... read your Bibles, folks...
> 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.
>
As I said before, I SUPPORT abortion simply because I have found that most people should NOT have Children... :D
> 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:
284
Registered:
11/29/99
|
|
(34 of 94)
Jun 12, 2003 10:02 AM
|
Oh my! Could it possibly be? An actual debate in here that only descended into Name-Calling once or twice?
I'm proud of you all, for debating and being reasonable and mature about it all... :D
*looks around*
I see why... no Leppy or Strong Conservative in here...
Good work, guys! :D
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(35 of 94)
Apples and Oranges make for a great fruit salad
Jun 12, 2003 11:46 AM
|
See, a lot of what you were saying makes sense if you take events as completely unrelated to one another.
But seeing as how you refused to comment on my remarks on historical theory, everything you said is disjointed. There is no unifying theme. There is no thesis. There is no analysis.
I won't refute you yet again because I'm a tired old man.
But you refused to address the central point of my last post, that being that if you have no historical theory of your own, all your attempts to tear me down are weak and futile. Unless you have some unifying system that explains history in terms of human behavior, no matter how good of points you make--and you did have some--they have the power of throwing darts at a tank.
Without a theme, you are merely being contrary.
Don't write again on this thread until you address what I've said on historical theory.
|
|
|
Posts:
12,357
Registered:
9/13/99
|
|
(36 of 94)
If the emperor has no clothes...
Jun 12, 2003 12:23 PM
|
...then it isn't necessary for one who points that out to explain why the emperor is naked. Thus your complaint that I've not addressed your historical theory argument with one of my own falls flat. I'm well aware that people make theories to explain history a la Marx, etc.. However, what I wanted to address was you attempting to make the case that those who are labelled liberals now are the same as classical liberals throughout time just as those who are labelled conservatives now are the same as classical conservatives throughout time.
"It [the song chorus] doesn't mean anything. It's like ramalama ding dong, or give peace a chance." -Homer Simpson
|
|
|
Posts:
10,471
From:
Islamabad
Registered:
12/12/02
|
|
(37 of 94)
Jun 12, 2003 12:49 PM
|
You haven't noticed the nicely trimmed hedges with the freshly painted fences? You are on the right side of the tracks here :p
DILLIGAF
|
|
|
Posts:
117
Registered:
6/12/03
|
|
(38 of 94)
Jun 12, 2003 10:22 PM
|
|
I like the way you think. although a little more radical, my views are very similar.
|
|
|
Posts:
190
Registered:
10/23/02
|
|
(39 of 94)
Jun 13, 2003 12:25 PM
|
|
I'm not on the same intellectual level as some of these posters, so I will follow the advice of Will Rogers and not miss this opportunity to keep my mouth shut!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(40 of 94)
OK, I think I finally got it--tell me if I am wrong
Jun 13, 2003 1:08 PM
|
I think you are saying I am making my arguments based on a liberal point of view, circa 2003. I think what you mean is I am defining events in the bast based purely on hindsight and not taking into account the forces in and of themselves that uniquely created an event as it did.
That is what historical theory is--trying to come up with modes of human thought under the premise that that thought is constant. We are where we are in a society at this point because of everything tha came before. Theory tries to explain how.
You're abolutely right, historical theory requires a bias.
However, when you do the theoretical angles as I am trying to do here, you have to first establish definitions. I think I did that. Within the theory I am postulating, using the definitions I put forth, I am trying to explain human history in terms of the motive of change.
Now, if you think my definitions are false, that is where I can make the statement that you have every right to come up with your own definitions. I have tried to form definitions of liberalism and conservatism based on the world around me and on history.
As such, I have every right to call people such things, provided I maintain the theory and definitions.
Based on the theory of "traditional family values", Hitler's reversions qualify him as a conservative. That does not imply anything good or bad. It is what it is. Stalin was a liberal--his changes were not for the sake of returning Russia to former glory, but to create something new, a socialist utopia in his own image. In and of itself I am not saying because Stalin was evil and a liberal, Tom Daschle is also evil because he is a liberal. Daschle is a moron, but noting he has similar political views concerning changing governmental policy does have merit.
As such, Hitler and Rush Limbaugh have the same conservative premise in that there was a better life in the past, and society has degenerated since that magical moment. Provided that I maintain the theory and definitions, placing a label on a person in this manner is completely relevant.
You can make such arguments for any person or event in history. Every noted historian throughout time has attempted to look at history through bias. That is what generates difference of opinion, and provided we respect such opinions, we get a fuller perspective of the past.
Remember, history is an art, not a science. Were it a science, it would be archaeology.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(41 of 94)
Jun 13, 2003 1:36 PM
|
|
<<>>
Didn't know there was someone out there who dislikes children as much as I do.
In a country where most everything we do--drink, drive, vote, work, using our civil rights--requires a license of some sort, based on age or testing, I don't think it completely out of line for people to be licensed to have children. If giving birth is arguable the most important thing in a woman's life, perhaps there should be some kind of qualification for it other than having a vagina.
Then again, people think I am joking when I say a child's genitals should be removed at birth and not given back until (s)he reaches 25 AND passes a strict oral examination.
I like the idea a lot.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(42 of 94)
Read my posts on historical theory
Jun 13, 2003 3:15 PM
|
Hitler was a conservative because his reforms within Germany were to promote a world based on traditional German ethic, not for the necessary betterment of its people. I have defined this over and over. Hence, I am consistent when I call Hitler a conservative.
Stalin was a liberal. There. Are we even?
Go see my posts on historical theory and definitions. If you have a problem with me calling Hitler a conservative, consider the definitions I raised. If your problem is with the definitions, then I encourage you to come up with an alternative definition, and we can debate the merits thereof.
I never said conservatives cannot believe in the ethics of liberals in the past, and vice versa. I was pointing out the differences to help illustrate my definitions. Seeing as how most Americans define themselves as moderate, there is no reason to think a mixing of philosophies is in any way imprudent.
I am trying to maintain consistency in my argument, and I think I am doing an admirable job of it.
But I sincerely do hope that if you want to challenge the theory and definitions I put forth, you will come up with better arguments than to merely chip away at mine. Give us alternatives. Give me a different way to view the liberal/conservative debate.
But please, don't call me flawed because I am sticking to a theory. It may be a bias, but it is also correct history. History is not a science. It is an art. It is debate and argument. Chipping away at my theory because you failed to come up with one on your own is immature at best.
I am hoping you--and others--take this as a dare to think about historical theory. I am hoping I can make you look at history as an united whole instead of a series of unconnected events. And I am hoping someone will give a competing theory and argue me on the basis of that instead of just the feeble attempt to undermine me.
One last thing--America was flawed before the Mayflower landed. The Founding Fathers set in movement the ideal of America as a sort of goal mankind can attain. In 1776 only white male landowners could vote, yet Jefferson had the audacity to write that all men are created equal. Every generation has an obligation to bring America closer to this ideal. We are closer than ever right now. I don't know how you misunderstood that one. Maybe I was being too sophisticated again.
|
|
|
Posts:
17,964
Registered:
5/5/03
|
|
(43 of 94)
Jun 14, 2003 8:15 AM
|
> >>>The most cruel and repressive >societies in history have all been >conservative ones.
>Are you sure about >that? The most >recent ones that come to mind >are "liberal" ones: the >Soviet Union, >Vietnam, North Korea, >China and a few >others. There
> is no squirming around this one, >those nations are left-wing, promising >this and that for the population, etc. >They have obviously failed.
My God; are you truly this ignorant, or is this one of my buddies just trying to jerk my chain under a different name?
To begin with, all of those societies were socialist ones, and it seems that you have adopted the 1950's McCarthyite
belief that liberalism=socialism. Get a grip, Tailgunner; people didn't even believe that back then.
A couple of those nations proclaimed themselves to be "Democratic republics"
did'ja buy into that, too?
Hopefully having dsipensed with the silliness (and if this is you, Buzz, need I remind you that I have never told anyone about finding you on the roof, naked, with two full sets of women's clothing scattered around you...nor will I ever tell the story unless you force me to...:D) or maybe we haven't, if you are not who I think you are.
Do you beleive that those nations were "democracies" or that they were in any way "democratic"? No? Thank you. Why then, would you be dumb enough to believe that they were "liberal" just because they were left-wing? (Another chestnut from the McCarthy era. In truth, go far enough right or left, and they look pretty much like one another.)
> Society is more akin to a jetliner >than a car. Fly as far and fast as you >want (liberalism), but eventually
> you will have to use the landing gear
> (conservatism).
Poor analogy. I purposely selected a car to limit the directional forces applied for purposes of argument. With your airliner, are pitch, roll, and yaw considered liberal or conservative forces? (Don't try and teach your grandfather how to suck eggs, Hammer)
> And should we also talk about how >liberalism has failed this country in recent years as well? It's
> quite simple really.
Yes, of course; it always is for those of you stuck in the '50's, who have lost the status quo, isn't it? The fact that we haven't had a viable liberal movement in this country since 1972 is something that escapes you...but then, the Republicans will continue to run next year's campaigns against Bill Clinton, won't they? Always just a leetle behind the times...
|
|
|
Posts:
17,964
Registered:
5/5/03
|
|
(44 of 94)
Jun 14, 2003 8:32 AM
|
> I think I'm part of the ruling >majority? No, I just agree with >conservative ideas more than liberal >ones.
Okay; I can live with that. It's just that I'm so used to talking with conservatives who are so totally unable to think outside the party line that I despair any rational conservative input
(i.e., MODERATE conservatism) into national debate.
> I think Dubya should be investigated >for his justification for the Iraq >war. If it is found that he is lying >then I won't be voting for him in 2004.
All I can say is, "Remember Watergate and Iran-Contra". Republicans are a helluva lot better at covering things up than are the Democrats. It's what happens when a party is co-opted by ideologues, rather than people of good character who tend to have LEANINGS is either direction.
> I liked your car analogy. Works for >me.
Thanks. The important thing is that this country MUST be balanced by two opposing forces. This country will never become too liberal, owing to the principles of mass psychology, in which everyone tries to maintain his or her "share of the pie". However, it CAN become too conservative. We can become (as we are already starting to) isolationist, and worse yet, a self-directed bully (given that the war in Iraq was fought to secure oil fields in the case that our relations with the Saudis turn sour, as looks to be the case more and more).
I'm sure that you and i share a vision of this country--we're the GOOD guys, for God's sake! We stick up for the little guy! John Wayne would've understood Afghanistan, but what would he say about Iraq? (For that matter, what would he have said about Bush I stopping Desert Storm when he did???)
> Don't call me Pookie, its what I call >my wife and its kinda creepy!
Sorry; that came about as a slightly insulting term I used toward another poster on another board. (No offense meant to your wife.)
> You won't be afraid if you use your mind and think -
> Jim Kirk, Star Trek TOS
"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a computer"
Bones McCoy, Star Trek TOS
|
|
|
Posts:
17,964
Registered:
5/5/03
|
|
(45 of 94)
Re: CRWIHFB re: your commentary
Jun 14, 2003 8:47 AM
|
> Point 1: These statements may be true >of the majority on conservatives, but >they are not true of me.
> Point 2: I agree with you.
> Point 3: No doubt the future would >have a dim view of the society you >describe. That is not America.
> How would I describe "medical >reasons"? Anything that would >negatively effect the woman's health >would be a valid reason for abortion. >Mental health could be a factor if the >issue is serious mental illness such as
> post-partum depression, then it >should be a factor in deciding on >abortion.
HOT DAMN! We agree for the most part. Is this possible in today's America?
Funny thing is, where I would be less likely to agree with you (or shall we say, more hesitant) is in the most liberal aspect of your agreement.
As a health care professional, I have (and have had for years) a problem with the catch-all "post-partum depression".
Yes, every woman goes through a period of hormonal change after birth, and yes, in some women it is severe. However, I feel that PPD must be used as judiciously as a "temporary insanity" defense is. Most states now have statutes barring said defense except under rigorously detailed proof.
Also, PPD should never be allowed as a
defense for murder (of children, spouse, or anyone else.)
To further surprise you, I abhor partial-birth abortions, and would limit free exercise of abortion rights up till the 21st week of pregnancy only.
After that point, a fetus is capable of extrauterine life, and must be considered, rather than merely considering the mother's wishes.
|
|
|
|
|
