Fahrenheit 9/11
- Thread starter it290
- Start date
Yipe, I didn't really mean to start all this. I don't really want to get too in depth since I could go on ad nauseum about this stuff.
But there's a joke about this kind of thing and Republicans/Anti-Abortionists/The Religious Right. That is, they'll fight for your life until you're born, then you're on your own. Note, this doesn't mean that's what *I* believe, but here's my point: you have to remember the mother. The mother's life is also important.
I *never* would suggest anyone use abortion as a form of birth control. That's absurd. But, as for the cases I mentioned before, it needs to be an option. If for no other reason than because people will do it anyway, whether it's clean and regulated or not. I'm not talking about some 16 year old girl that gets knocked up by her boyfriend because he didn't wear a condom. I'm talking about the 28 year old that got raped, or the 15 year old that was sexually assulted by her father, or the 34 year old woman that wanted a child, is close to doing so, but might die if she gives birth. There are situations where doctors can tell that the unborn child, if born, will be severly crippled and have a slim chance of survival, and that the mother might not survive the birthing process.
I was asked "what if the cells were me"? Well, what if that's your wife that might die because there's something wrong? Or your sister that was raped and is now pregnant? Again I state that abortions are *never* something people WANT to do. They HAVE to do it. It's a medical procedure, not a form of birth control. Don't take that right away from people who NEED it.
As for adoptions being an alternative. Yes, maybe for the 16 year old that got knocked up by her boyfriend. But why should a rape/incest victim bear the responsibility of paying for everything, taking the time, and going through the danger and pain of birth when it's not their child. I don't know about you, but I would never want to force that on someone that just got raped.
But there's a joke about this kind of thing and Republicans/Anti-Abortionists/The Religious Right. That is, they'll fight for your life until you're born, then you're on your own. Note, this doesn't mean that's what *I* believe, but here's my point: you have to remember the mother. The mother's life is also important.
I *never* would suggest anyone use abortion as a form of birth control. That's absurd. But, as for the cases I mentioned before, it needs to be an option. If for no other reason than because people will do it anyway, whether it's clean and regulated or not. I'm not talking about some 16 year old girl that gets knocked up by her boyfriend because he didn't wear a condom. I'm talking about the 28 year old that got raped, or the 15 year old that was sexually assulted by her father, or the 34 year old woman that wanted a child, is close to doing so, but might die if she gives birth. There are situations where doctors can tell that the unborn child, if born, will be severly crippled and have a slim chance of survival, and that the mother might not survive the birthing process.
I was asked "what if the cells were me"? Well, what if that's your wife that might die because there's something wrong? Or your sister that was raped and is now pregnant? Again I state that abortions are *never* something people WANT to do. They HAVE to do it. It's a medical procedure, not a form of birth control. Don't take that right away from people who NEED it.
As for adoptions being an alternative. Yes, maybe for the 16 year old that got knocked up by her boyfriend. But why should a rape/incest victim bear the responsibility of paying for everything, taking the time, and going through the danger and pain of birth when it's not their child. I don't know about you, but I would never want to force that on someone that just got raped.
As for the rape and similiar situation, abortion isn't the only option. I would feel bad for a rape victim, but having to go through the pain of childbirth isn't a good excuse for taking a life.
As for the life-endangering thing -- that is significantly better reason, but what percentage of abortions nowadays are because of this.
I'm not necessarily saying that abortion should be 100% illegal, but there should be more restrictions then there are now and there should be more public promotion for alternative. Growing up in public school, we were basically fed the fact that abortion was basically fine for "inconvenient" births.
And maybe we should spend more government money to help fund adoptions instead of spending it on welfare for people who don't NEED it. (another political thing of interest to me)
I agree. As long as people who need it can have access to it, then I have no problem. It's people who do want to make it 100% illegal that scare me. I'm also very surprised to hear you say that about your school. That's insane. I don't agree with that, and never will. Is it possible some people will use it for that? Yes. But people also abuse legal drugs, and kill people with legal guns as acts of aggression. People also huff fumes from cans of pledge, burn houses down with lighter fluid and matches they bought at the store, run people over with cars, etc etc etc. Everything can be abused. Don't take away legitimate uses for things because some might abuse them.
I realize no one dies, but isn't that why people around here are pissed about the DMCA? Aren't there legitimate uses for many of these devices that are now illegal?
at my school the don't come out and say it JUST like that, but you get that impression. They water it down as not to offend anyone. So girls come out thinking, "well I guess an abortion isn't that big a deal". In fact I used to think that to a certain extent after I got out of high school until I started thinking for myself.
And my wife's cousin -- a 16-year old girl -- who goes to public schools here in CA is basically getting the same kind of brainwashing. We have to make an effort to point out the other point of views to her.
No, but there are enough "conservatives" in Washington who want to outlaw it that I'm worried.
Sounds like projection on the part of those particular liberals, and I won't say that I've never seen this happen. I have nothing against people who are genuinely conservative; what I have a problem with are people who are unwilling to think about their beliefs or admit their ignorance, a trait that the current Republican leadership seems to encourage and cherish.
Yeah, people (in general, not just Christians) tend to be fantastic at forgetting principle when it's inconvenient. I wonder how many Christians think the Pledge of Allegiance is great even though Jesus pretty much says oaths are the work of Satan (Matthew 5:33-37)...
I think your what you bring up in this first statement is just a discouraging to me as the actions they are acting out against. It makes Christianity look bad.
As for your pledge statement, here's the verse you referred to:
" Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.'
But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God's throne;" nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No.' Anything more is from the evil one."
Not sure how the pledge falls into that as I'm not sure it's a false oath.
It's basically talking about making promises.
One should not have to make promises, but if you are a person in good standing people should trust you without making promises.
It depends. I more believe that education should speak for itself. If you're worried about abortion being used as a birth control method, then maybe we should look into teaching about the real forms of birth control instead. Abstinence is not the answer, it just doesn't work. People are going to have sex and you can't stop them. What you can do is make sure they're informed about their options to prevent pregnancy/STDs. Of course you also have to stress that none of them are 100% effective.
On the same token, people should also be sure to know what the abortion process is all about. Approach it not as a moral issue, but from an objective, biological way. Let them know the process and what it really involves, or at least tell them where they can find that information. Let people make their OWN decisions. I know my school did a fine job with sex education. I learned everything I needed to make healthy decisions about sex. Yes, abstinence is also an option they taught. In fact, it was stressed that it's the only 100% effective method in preventing pregnancy (but not 100% the only method.)
At this point I would rather see more gun control regulation in place than abortion regulation.
The "false oath" part just introduces the subject by referring to a previous ethical rule.
Show me a dictionary that doesn't define "pledge" in terms of "promise".
I'm not sure how you mean this, but I'm largely against gun control too, for the same reason that I'm against outlawing abortion - it's once again an attempt to solve a problem by attacking the effect instead of the cause.
note sure what you mean by that first statement.
About pledge to the flag == promise -- I'm not sure if that's in the same context. I suppose that's up for debate, but nothing to go crazy over. Besides, most Christians aren't as concerned about the pledge itself as they are with God being taken out of everything.
It may not be, but I see nothing in the statement itself to suggest that it isn't. It sounded pretty general in the several translations I saw of it online.
How does the state have the right to tell schoolchildren that God exists any more than the state has the right to tell schoolchildren that abortion is an acceptable birth control method?
1) Well there are a number of modern concepts that the Bible doesn't cover, so it's kind of up to the reader's discretion to determine what they believe -- just like smoking etc.
2) The pledge doesn't necessarily teach much about God -- and it definately doesn't teach a certain religion (I realize you didn't say that). Honestly I can see where people might have a problem with it. But since I don't, I'm just hoping it doesn't change
On another note, since people are so uptight about "under God" being in the pledge, why don't more textbooks stop preaching evolution as gospel? If anything, they need to all put evolution and creation down as equal theories and list the actual arguements for both.
Maybe because evolution and creationism aren't equal theories? Evolution is the central dogma of biology; it's ridiculous to teach anything further in the subject without that basis on which to stand. Evolution has a lot of scientific proof backing it up. Creationism has... nothing. There are no valid scientific arguments for creationism, I'm afraid.
Aside from that, evolution (unlike creationism) is not taught 'as gospel'. It is taught as a theory, just like everything else in science. If a student is unable to perceive it as such, it's either their fault for not being critical enough, or their teacher's fault for not instructing the student in a sound manner.
Additionally, I am fed up with all the Christian reactionism towards the anti-'under god' and 'in god we trust' movements. I don't care how firm your faith is, you should be able to realize that religion does not mix with a secular government. It doesn't matter that the statements 'don't teach a certain religion'.. the god that is referred to is clearly the Christian one. Although the founding fathers didn't realize it, those things clearly violate the principle of freedom of religion (because the freedom of religion they were concerned about had to do with Dissenters and Catholics, not other religions).
...
As for Dennis Kucinich, I agree that he's a great candidate, and I agree with his views moreso than any other candidate, but unfortunately a man like him has nearly no chance of winning a national election.
Re: abortion, I know I'll get flak for this, but I have no problem with abortion. The social consequences of teenage pregnancy and overpopulation are so great that I believe they override any moral qualms about abortion. And, as someone else stated, there is the whole slippery slope argument WRT animals, etc... I guess it all goes back to religion.... I am not a vegitarian, but I think it's ludicrous to proclaim universally that humans have some kind of 'soul' that animals do not.
Aside from that, evolution (unlike creationism) is not taught 'as gospel'. It is taught as a theory, just like everything else in science. If a student is unable to perceive it as such, it's either their fault for not being critical enough, or their teacher's fault for not instructing the student in a sound manner.
Additionally, I am fed up with all the Christian reactionism towards the anti-'under god' and 'in god we trust' movements. I don't care how firm your faith is, you should be able to realize that religion does not mix with a secular government. It doesn't matter that the statements 'don't teach a certain religion'.. the god that is referred to is clearly the Christian one. Although the founding fathers didn't realize it, those things clearly violate the principle of freedom of religion (because the freedom of religion they were concerned about had to do with Dissenters and Catholics, not other religions).
...
As for Dennis Kucinich, I agree that he's a great candidate, and I agree with his views moreso than any other candidate, but unfortunately a man like him has nearly no chance of winning a national election.
Re: abortion, I know I'll get flak for this, but I have no problem with abortion. The social consequences of teenage pregnancy and overpopulation are so great that I believe they override any moral qualms about abortion. And, as someone else stated, there is the whole slippery slope argument WRT animals, etc... I guess it all goes back to religion.... I am not a vegitarian, but I think it's ludicrous to proclaim universally that humans have some kind of 'soul' that animals do not.
There's a thing call the Bible, but whether you count that as evidence is another matter.
And evolution might as well be considered gospel when it's the only thing mentioned in the book. Maybe things have changed a bit in the last few year, but when I was in high school science class, that's all we were taught.
The pledge was originally written without 'under god'. It was put into the pledge in 1954 by Eisenhower, who specifically stated that he wanted recognition of the 'Almighty'. I don't have the quote, but you can look it up.
Finally, the other famous 'God' reference was by George Washington when he was sworn in. He added it, mostly because he didn't not want to be the first president (he had retired to estate and was pretty happy there, but was voted unanimously by those founding fathers, and he took it). So it be construed as taking the name 'in vain'.
That's a very naive way of looking at it. But I your view is founded ultimately on the religious, that life begins at conception. I don't, because among other things, life would connote ability to live, which a 2nd trimester fetus can't (as much as you'd wish it would).
Instead of 'excuting' them, how about donating some money to your local adoption agency, or actually adopting a child?
I'm a fairly hardcore conservative, but we've just run into the topics where I'm a little more lenient, mostly because I'm not religious in the least.
Abortion is evil, but I will conceed that in some cases, it may be a necessary evil. In cases where there are relative concerns of safety for the mother and/or fetus, I can condone the choice to kill. Rape, incest, or simply an older mother...
What irks me are 17 year olds who made a mistake, and decide to murder an innocent being for it. We're currently observing that babies mature a lot faster than once believed. The old third trimester rule is no longer applicable. The study was on BBC a few days ago... I'll try to find the link later.
Anyway, back to my point. Using abortion as birth control is no different from murder. It's a selfish act to alleviate the problems one may encounter, resulting in the death of somebody who definately did nothing wrong, and cannot defend itself.If you kill your two year old because your baby's daddy leaves you, loses his job, or it becomes inconvenient for you to care for him for any reason, you'd go straight to jail. Same thing if I killed my parents when it was time to put them in the retirement home. I just don't see how killing them earlier somehow makes it better, when it's all about convenience anyways.
As for that silly 'under-god' argument... I really couldn't care less. Eisenhower added it in during his presidency to remind children of the christian heritage and try to keep them from turning red. I honestly don't think it made a huge difference though, inspiring patriotism or anything of the sort. And to be honest, it bothered me to say it in class. So I simply refused to say that part of the pledge. It wasn't so hard for me, so I don't see why it should be so hard for anybody else...
Abortion is evil, but I will conceed that in some cases, it may be a necessary evil. In cases where there are relative concerns of safety for the mother and/or fetus, I can condone the choice to kill. Rape, incest, or simply an older mother...
What irks me are 17 year olds who made a mistake, and decide to murder an innocent being for it. We're currently observing that babies mature a lot faster than once believed. The old third trimester rule is no longer applicable. The study was on BBC a few days ago... I'll try to find the link later.
Anyway, back to my point. Using abortion as birth control is no different from murder. It's a selfish act to alleviate the problems one may encounter, resulting in the death of somebody who definately did nothing wrong, and cannot defend itself.If you kill your two year old because your baby's daddy leaves you, loses his job, or it becomes inconvenient for you to care for him for any reason, you'd go straight to jail. Same thing if I killed my parents when it was time to put them in the retirement home. I just don't see how killing them earlier somehow makes it better, when it's all about convenience anyways.
As for that silly 'under-god' argument... I really couldn't care less. Eisenhower added it in during his presidency to remind children of the christian heritage and try to keep them from turning red. I honestly don't think it made a huge difference though, inspiring patriotism or anything of the sort. And to be honest, it bothered me to say it in class. So I simply refused to say that part of the pledge. It wasn't so hard for me, so I don't see why it should be so hard for anybody else...
I don't think Christianity is the predominant factor that is behind the backlash. Part of it is that it was grossly misreported by major media outlets, part of it is that the guy bringing the pledge case is not what you'd call an unimpeachable character, and part of it is simple nationalism from people who don't know the history of the pledge.
The media widely reported the Ninth Circuit decision as "Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional", which is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. What the Ninth Circuit decided is that the Federal legislative codification of the "Under God" version of the pledge - as well as California's requirement that time be set aside specifically for recital of that pledge - embodied an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheistic religions. They did not outlaw saying the pledge. They did not outlaw saying "under God". What they ruled was that the official endorsement of the "under God" version of the pledge by the Federal government and the government of California was unconstitutional. However, sloppy reporting made it sound as though the pledge as a whole had been outlawed.
The person who brought the case, Michael Newdow, is, for lack of a better term, an eccentric. He started his own religion based on a mix of atheism, universalism, and science. He is a non-practicing lawyer. At the time, he did not have custody of his daughter. Regardless of how genuine his motivations were, he was far too easy a target for ridicule for the public to see the case entirely on its merits
Finally, lots of people just don't like change, particularly when it has to do with their national or religious identity and the attached traditions. Even though this particular incarnation of this tradition was only 50 years old, that's still older than most of the people in this country, so it didn't seem to make much difference.
Similar threads
