Topic: 2012 Presidential Election Part 2

[shemps#1]

Of course a baby cannot wash, cloth, feed itself. That is not what I meant by "independently life sustaining" and I think you know that. At least I hope you do, or else you have a very low opinion of my intelligence if you think I thought babies came out of the womb ready for Kindergarten. The one thing a baby can do that a zygote cannot do is breathe on its own. That is a major step in life, when life first begins. If life ends when you stop breathing then the logical conclusion is that life begins when you start taking breaths.

As for "premature" births, there really isn't a set time when all babies come out. Sure most come out after 9-10 months of gestation, but some more and some less. Naturally shortened gestation periods have adverse effects on most babies (low birth weight, etc) but once that baby is born and breathes on its own it is  "independently life sustaining" no matter how long it was gestating. By your logic any woman who has had a still born is guilty of murder or at least involuntary manslaughter.

Rights are tricky thing; the human mind tends to be very self-centered in regards to them. There are many rights that I do not use for one reason or another. For instance I have never owned a gun (outside of the military) and have no interest in becoming a gun owner. If Congress were to repeal the Second Amendment, many people who are of like mind would shrug their shoulders and go about their day because the loss of that right doesn't directly effect them. I, on the other hand would be right up there with the NRA dorks taking up arms and revolting. I don't want the Government taking any of my rights away from me. Telling a woman that she must carry this dependent organism until it is alive just because you don't like it for whatever reason (usually religious but not always) is taking away her right to control her own body. You don't own anyone's uteris, neither do I nor the US Government nor even a zygote.

Besides, just because something is outlawed doesn't mean it stops. Pot is illegal, in my state even for medicinal purposes, but I know where to buy it and it's easy to do so. Harder than it would be if I could go to my local 7-Eleven and pick up an eighth of Blueberry Yum Yum, and riskier because one usually deals with folks who are not of the best character, but I can still get it. If Roe v. Wade were somehow overturned all you would see is more women dying from "back alley" abortions. Oh yeah, and those precious zygotes that everyone is worried about would be gone too.

[metaldams]

As for "premature" births, there really isn't a set time when all babies come out. Sure most come out after 9-10 months of gestation, but some more and some less. Naturally shortened gestation periods have adverse effects on most babies (low birth weight, etc) but once that baby is born and breathes on its own it is  "independently life sustaining" no matter how long it was gestating. By your logic any woman who has had a still born is guilty of murder or at least involuntary manslaughter.

Rights are tricky thing; the human mind tends to be very self-centered in regards to them. There are many rights that I do not use for one reason or another. For instance I have never owned a gun (outside of the military) and have no interest in becoming a gun owner. If Congress were to repeal the Second Amendment, many people who are of like mind would shrug their shoulders and go about their day because the loss of that right doesn't directly effect them. I, on the other hand would be right up there with the NRA dorks taking up arms and revolting. I don't want the Government taking any of my rights away from me. Telling a woman that she must carry this dependent organism until it is alive just because you don't like it for whatever reason (usually religious but not always) is taking away her right to control her own body. You don't own anyone's uteris, neither do I nor the US Government nor even a zygote.

Besides, just because something is outlawed doesn't mean it stops. Pot is illegal, in my state even for medicinal purposes, but I know where to buy it and it's easy to do so. Harder than it would be if I could go to my local 7-Eleven and pick up an eighth of Blueberry Yum Yum, and riskier because one usually deals with folks who are not of the best character, but I can still get it. If Roe v. Wade were somehow overturned all you would see is more women dying from "back alley" abortions. Oh yeah, and those precious zygotes that everyone is worried about would be gone too.

Abortion is, to my definition, and the definition of several others, murder.  Plain and simple.  There's a being, a zygote, a fetus, whatever, that is being fed, that is growing, and that is a human being.  A doctor takes care of the fetus and the mother, not just the mother, so to my definition, there's a life in the womb.

However, I understand you and several others also do not consider an unborn child a life, as much as I may disagree with that.  You are also right in saying that making abortion illegal will not stop people from having back-alley abortions, though the drug analogy does not work in this case.  I find heroin abuse deplorable, but I think it should be legal because a heroin abuser is only abusing oneself, it's that person's choice.  An abortion, if defined as murder of a life, is a mother murdering her unborn child, who has no choice.

The problem is there is a large portion of society who considers abortion murder and a large portion of society who does not.  So which is it in a legal sense?  I am comfortable, on a personal level, with my definition of abortion, but you are also right in saying making abortion illegal will not stop abortions and increase back alley abortions just like the drug wars do not stop drug use and promotes violent drug gangs. 

This is a really difficult issue for me in a legal sense, if not a moral one.  It's funny, because Libertarians generally agree on most issues, but the one issue where I see dissent amongst Libertarians is abortion.  Right now I lean on the side of abortion is murder, murder is wrong because it's force on another and therefore should not be permitted in society, but at the same time, I'm admittedly more shakeable in a legal sense on this issue than I am most others.  It's something to think about, it's something I wrestle with.

[shemps#1]

In a strictly legal sense it has already been decided that abortion is not murder or else it would be illegal. That question was answered by the Supreme Court in its ruling on Roe v. Wade (which is unfortunately the only Supreme Court case most people can identify nowadays). The official Libertarian stance is the government doesn't have the right to rule either way (less government is a more important issue than abortion and personal opinions be damned).

You start off by defining abortion as "murder, simple as that". By doing that you are over-simplifying a complicated issue and doing a great dis-service to your stance. It's quite obvious that it is not "simple as that". The main issue of contention between both sides is when life begins. You believe it occurs the moment a spermatozoon joins an ovum and I believe it is when the baby is born. At least we can discuss it like civil adults and not like a half-cocked loon blowing up clinics or murdering doctors. If you define life as beginning before birth and enact a law that prohibits abortion calling it murder where does it stop? Is a man who jerks off orchestrating mass murder? If so then someone needs to send me right to The Chair because I've orchestrated countless genocides in my time.

Zygotes and fetuses are not babies, they are not entitled to individual rights because they aren't individuals. They are organisms that "leech" (for lack of a better word at almost 3 am) off of the woman in order to survive. Is curing cancer murder? After all, cancer does "live". It feeds off the person who has it and it grows. Man I gotta try to get to bed, perhaps I'll orchestrate another Holocaust beforehand, it usually helps when I can't sleep. 

[metaldams]

In a strictly legal sense it has already been decided that abortion is not murder or else it would be illegal. That question was answered by the Supreme Court in its ruling on Roe v. Wade (which is unfortunately the only Supreme Court case most people can identify nowadays). The official Libertarian stance is the government doesn't have the right to rule either way (less government is a more important issue than abortion and personal opinions be damned).

You start off by defining abortion as "murder, simple as that". By doing that you are over-simplifying a complicated issue and doing a great dis-service to your stance. It's quite obvious that it is not "simple as that". The main issue of contention between both sides is when life begins. You believe it occurs the moment a spermatozoon joins an ovum and I believe it is when the baby is born. At least we can discuss it like civil adults and not like a half-cocked loon blowing up clinics or murdering doctors. If you define life as beginning before birth and enact a law that prohibits abortion calling it murder where does it stop? Is a man who jerks off orchestrating mass murder? If so then someone needs to send me right to The Chair because I've orchestrated countless genocides in my time.

Zygotes and fetuses are not babies, they are not entitled to individual rights because they aren't individuals. They are organisms that "leech" (for lack of a better word at almost 3 am) off of the woman in order to survive. Is curing cancer murder? After all, cancer does "live". It feeds off the person who has it and it grows. Man I gotta try to get to bed, perhaps I'll orchestrate another Holocaust beforehand, it usually helps when I can't sleep. 

A sperm and egg become life when they meet upon conception.  At that point, they become growing human cells that require nourishment in order to survive.  Doctor's treat both mother and unborn child, they are two patients.  An individual sperm and egg are not life, so the jerking off analogy does not work for me.

Neither does the cancer analogy.  Cancer is something that if not treated, will kill a person and never leave the body naturally until death.  An unborn child will naturally leave the body after a nine month period.  No woman will be chronically stuck with pregnancy like she could be with cancer.  Now, like I've stated before, in a situation where having the child can be a detriment to the mother's health, I feel differently about abortion.

[Lefty]

My three comments on abortion:

1.  If conception is truly the beginning, then I should be allowed to file an amended tax return for my parents for the year before I was born, and get all those decades of interest paid to me.

2.  If you're against abortion, YOU pay for the unwanted children from birth through college.

3.  Abortion should be mandatory and retroactive for all politicians, religious fanatics, and sports officials.

[ILMM]

A sperm and egg become life when they meet upon conception.  At that point, they become growing human cells that require nourishment in order to survive.  Doctor's treat both mother and unborn child, they are two patients.  An individual sperm and egg are not life, so the jerking off analogy does not work for me.

Neither does the cancer analogy.  Cancer is something that if not treated, will kill a person and never leave the body naturally until death.  An unborn child will naturally leave the body after a nine month period.  No woman will be chronically stuck with pregnancy like she could be with cancer.  Now, like I've stated before, in a situation where having the child can be a detriment to the mother's health, I feel differently about abortion.

Thank you, you stated my feelings exactly. To shemps#1, of course I know you know
that, I was just pointing out how dependant a baby is. And is breathing or not breathing really
the test of when life begins or ends? There are people unable to breath on their own but are still
alive because of machines, are they in reality dead? Even calling someone who has lost all brain
function "dead" is controversial because of modern medicine. An unborn baby has a heartbeat,
brainwave, and the ability to feel pain, after a certain state of development. Nobody is accusing
a mother of any wrongdoing if a stillbirth happens by accident or by circumstances beyond her
control. Also, one of the strongest evidence for the fetus being it's own person and not a part of
the mothers body, is the fact that the fetus has unique DNA, and thus is a seperate being from the
mother.

[shemps#1]

A sperm and egg become life when they meet upon conception.  At that point, they become growing human cells that require nourishment in order to survive.  Doctor's treat both mother and unborn child, they are two patients.  An individual sperm and egg are not life, so the jerking off analogy does not work for me.

Neither does the cancer analogy.  Cancer is something that if not treated, will kill a person and never leave the body naturally until death.  An unborn child will naturally leave the body after a nine month period.  No woman will be chronically stuck with pregnancy like she could be with cancer.  Now, like I've stated before, in a situation where having the child can be a detriment to the mother's health, I feel differently about abortion.

You actually don't take umbrage with my cancer analogy; that was the whole point of it. Some folks actually believe that in cases where having the child reach birth would most likely kill the mother that there should be no abortion mother be damned. In other words valuing the life that hasn't started over the life that is actually here. I am playing Devil's Advocate a bit here because abortion really isn't an important issue politically to me other than the Libertarian Party line of less government is better. The odds of Roe v. Wade being overturned are astronomically against it happening and even if I were Pro Life I wouldn't let the issue effect me when looking for a candidate to vote for. I would say "there are pressing issues I agree with this candidate on so the fact that Candidate X is Pro Life can be overlooked". I don't want the government everywhere at once, over-extending itself like it currently does. Nothing gets done. If Candidate X were Pro Life but anti Zionist and Candidate Y were Pro Choice and Pro Zionist I would go with Candidate X because my stance that we shouldn't be giving Israel free money so they can fight the religious war many in the US want to fight but can't is more important to me than my Pro Choice stance (in addition the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned are microscopic).

As for the jerking off analogy, that was a rhetorical question. I wasn't implying that you believe jerking off is akin to genocide, but there are people who do. By granting the government the power to say "life begins here" eventually they will try to keep pushing that date back until you get adultery laws, laws against contraception, laws against masturbation, laws against pulling out and finally abstinence before marriage laws. Like I've said countless times before the Feds need to have their powers cut drastically and contained.

[metaldams]

The odds of Roe v. Wade being overturned are astronomically against it happening and even if I were Pro Life I wouldn't let the issue effect me when looking for a candidate to vote for. I would say "there are pressing issues I agree with this candidate on so the fact that Candidate X is Pro Life can be overlooked". I don't want the government everywhere at once, over-extending itself like it currently does. Nothing gets done. If Candidate X were Pro Life but anti Zionist and Candidate Y were Pro Choice and Pro Zionist I would go with Candidate X because my stance that we shouldn't be giving Israel free money so they can fight the religious war many in the US want to fight but can't is more important to me than my Pro Choice stance (in addition the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned are microscopic).

This I agree with.  While you and I may disagree on abortion, and I even disagree with Gary Johnson on abortion (again, one of the few things I disagree with him on), I agree it is, in my opinion, FAR from one of the more pressing problems of our time and would not effect how I vote.  Abortion would effect how I vote if the two main candidates were Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, but since we're unfortunately not living in that world, I can easily overlook the abortion issue for now.

The defecit, the foreign wars and nation building, foreign aid in general, and our monetary policy are the most important issues in my opinion, and a candidate who has similar views with me on these issues gets my vote no matter what their stance on abortion is.  Once these problems get taken care of, if they ever do, then I'll make abortion a more central issue in how I vote.

[Giff me dat fill-em!]

What a waste of time ... go vote, I'm sure your country will improve immediately. I take the Carlin-esque approach,
this country was bought and paid for years ago, the shit they shuffle every four years is meaningless.

[xraffle]

Honestly, abortion being illegal is one thing, but the one thing that really bugs me is Obama trying to force all doctors perform abortion. Now that goes beyond "pro-choice" and I think that's wrong.

[shemps#1]

He is not trying to force doctors to perform abortions. I'm not a fan of his but c'mon, attack him in an honest manner. Stop following retards like Limbaugh and Beck and really don't take anything those worthless fucks have to say seriously.

[xraffle]

He is not trying to force doctors to perform abortions. I'm not a fan of his but c'mon, attack him in an honest manner. Stop following retards like Limbaugh and Beck and really don't take anything those worthless fucks have to say seriously.

That is interesting to hear. My church is making a big thing about how Obama is forcing all doctors to perform abortions and how many Catholic hospitals will be forced to close down because of it. Very strange how there's a bunch of false rumors going around.

[Lefty]

An interview with Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120904_Interview_with_Gov__Gary_Johnson__Libertarian_for_president.html?viewAll=y

[metaldams]

That is interesting to hear. My church is making a big thing about how Obama is forcing all doctors to perform abortions and how many Catholic hospitals will be forced to close down because of it. Very strange how there's a bunch of false rumors going around.

X, I would suggest researching the issue online more, but what I have heard most Catholics complain about is that with mandated health care, they are being forced to pay into programs liked Planned Parenthood and paying for other people's contraception when contraception is against their belief system.  So with my understanding, you have it half right in the sense there's a mandate going on that offends Catholics, but again, I would suggest researching it yourself, it's admittedly not my number one issue.

[metaldams]

An interview with Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120904_Interview_with_Gov__Gary_Johnson__Libertarian_for_president.html?viewAll=y

Thanks for posting that.  It sickens me how the about how the Romney campaign has tried to get Johnson off a few swing state ballots.  Virgil Goode has made a few similar complaints, as have a good portion of the Maine delegates at the RNC about Ron Paul (that, along with rule changes, is a story in itsef).

By the way, Ron Paul on Leno tonight.

[shemps#1]

The Holy See knows all about birth control; you can't knock up an altar boy.

[xraffle]

I admit, I do need to do more research. But the problem is, I'm not motivated at all because my vote does not make a difference. I could do a lot of research on Gary Johnson and vote for him, but watch, Obama is going to win again. Sometimes, I find voting a waste of my time. There's too many people out there that worship and idolize Obama. So, we can all ban together and vote for Gary Johnson, but Obama will win and be the president for another term.

I may not be the smartest person when it comes to politics, but I do know that the economy is A LOT worse than it was 3 years ago. At least when I graduated, I found a job and so did my friends that graduated the same year I did. We don't have the greatest jobs, but we found "a" job and we're thankful for that. But a lot of people I know that have graduated recently are completely jobless. They look around like crazy and can't get anything. This economy is really bad and Obama didn't give us the change he promised. And that is what disappoints me the most. Like I said, all I really want is a president that will create jobs. Even if he's pro-choice, as long as he will help stimulate the economy, then I'm all for voting for him.

[metaldams]

I admit, I do need to do more research. But the problem is, I'm not motivated at all because my vote does not make a difference. I could do a lot of research on Gary Johnson and vote for him, but watch, Obama is going to win again. Sometimes, I find voting a waste of my time. There's too many people out there that worship and idolize Obama. So, we can all ban together and vote for Gary Johnson, but Obama will win and be the president for another term.

I may not be the smartest person when it comes to politics, but I do know that the economy is A LOT worse than it was 3 years ago. At least when I graduated, I found a job and so did my friends that graduated the same year I did. We don't have the greatest jobs, but we found "a" job and we're thankful for that. But a lot of people I know that have graduated recently are completely jobless. They look around like crazy and can't get anything. This economy is really bad and Obama didn't give us the change he promised. And that is what disappoints me the most. Like I said, all I really want is a president that will create jobs. Even if he's pro-choice, as long as he will help stimulate the economy, then I'm all for voting for him.

Look, I'm not going to tell you how to think or who to vote for or even if voting in itself is worthwhile, however, I will tell you that being unmotivated with politics is unhealthy.  I was that way for the first 33 years of my life, but after losing my 2nd job in five years due to bank mergers and government regulations that resulted in 90% layoffs, I was finally motivated to do research until I found a point of view that made sense to me.  I'm ashamed to say that's what it took to motivate me, I wish I researched this stuff sooner.  Educate yourself and once you do, educate those who are willing to listen.  Watch TV (though not too much), do Internet searches, and go to the library.  Learn about the Constitution.  The more self educated people we have in this society, the better off we'll be, and by the way, you have to think much deeper into the future than the elections in November. 

[Lefty]

Something else needs to be done, and definitely should have been done before the Y2K disaster.  To use an Archie Bunker-ism, "Get ridda da Electrical College dere."  What may have worked 200+ years ago doesn't always work now.  Why should a vote count more in one state than another?  I don't want to hear the excuse, "Well, the candidates won't come to our state if every vote counts the same."  In that case, spruce up your state a bit then.

The only bigger disaster (or at least even with it) would be electing governors by counties that way.   Granted, "electoral votes" in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties would probably take up 66.6666667% of Penciltucky, and that could be a good thing (especially with the KRAP in Harrisburg now), but the whole concept still reeks of non-awesomeness.

[shemps#1]

The biggest problem with the Electoral College is it is not indicative of the popular vote and once it comes into play anyone who voted for a candidate who did not win their state gets their vote null and void. The Presidency is supposed to be a national election, not a state or local one. Your vote does count on a state level no matter who you vote for, but with the EC and most states giving all of their electoral votes to the winner of the state means that in the big picture your vote does not count unless you voted for the guy who won your state.

[shemps#1]

Look, I'm not going to tell you how to think or who to vote for or even if voting in itself is worthwhile, however, I will tell you that being unmotivated with politics is unhealthy.  I was that way for the first 33 years of my life, but after losing my 2nd job in five years due to bank mergers and government regulations that resulted in 90% layoffs, I was finally motivated to do research until I found a point of view that made sense to me.  I'm ashamed to say that's what it took to motivate me, I wish I researched this stuff sooner.  Educate yourself and once you do, educate those who are willing to listen.  Watch TV (though not too much), do Internet searches, and go to the library.  Learn about the Constitution.  The more self educated people we have in this society, the better off we'll be, and by the way, you have to think much deeper into the future than the elections in November. 

If this were Facebook I'd give you a thumbs up. If I could add a caveat I would say make sure you know the source of your news and what agenda that source has (if any), especially in regards to television news outlets. Avoid cable news channels like the Plague and political talking heads in general. They have an agenda (in some cases a very strong one) and the news they give you and the way they present it is all tied in to their agenda. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow...while they may or may not be entertaining to some folks and may parrot some viewers political opinions they are not reliable news sources. The most reliable news sources are the likes of BBC, NPR, PBS and (believe it or not) Daily Show and Colbert Report. It's a sad commentary when Comedy Central has the "legit" news outlets beat when it comes to unbiased news.

[metaldams]

If this were Facebook I'd give you a thumbs up. If I could add a caveat I would say make sure you know the source of your news and what agenda that source has (if any), especially in regards to television news outlets. Avoid cable news channels like the Plague and political talking heads in general. They have an agenda (in some cases a very strong one) and the news they give you and the way they present it is all tied in to their agenda. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow...while they may or may not be entertaining to some folks and may parrot some viewers political opinions they are not reliable news sources. The most reliable news sources are the likes of BBC, NPR, PBS and (believe it or not) Daily Show and Colbert Report. It's a sad commentary when Comedy Central has the "legit" news outlets beat when it comes to unbiased news.

I do watch Fox News about twice a week when I visit my parents because that's what my Dad has on.  I watch it and am even entertained by it in some strange way, but I can also see it for what it is and not view it as the gospel, unlike my Dad.  I would agree to be weary of the sources you mentioned, or at the very least, accept them as a single point of view and not the only point of view.

Personally, when getting news on my own, I just do Google searches and read several different online sources on topics that interest me.  I also check out you tube and use my library card to get books.  For Libertarian stuff, I go www.lewrockwell.com.

[metaldams]

By the way, interesting how Romney is overtaking Obama in this thread.

[shemps#1]

That is interesting to hear. My church is making a big thing about how Obama is forcing all doctors to perform abortions and how many Catholic hospitals will be forced to close down because of it. Very strange how there's a bunch of false rumors going around.

I just thought about this again and your church shouldn't be saying anything politically. You see there is this principle we have in this country called the Separation of Church and State. The State doesn't tax the Church and the Church can't endorse a candidate or anything like that. I think your church should lose its Church status and be audited.

[xraffle]

I just thought about this again and your church shouldn't be saying anything politically. You see there is this principle we have in this country called the Separation of Church and State. The State doesn't tax the Church and the Church can't endorse a candidate or anything like that. I think your church should lose its Church status and be audited.

Oh yeah, they do like to talk politics. When Obama was running for president, the pastor at my church actually told people to vote for McCain because he claimed that Obama lacks moral values due to his support for abortion and gay marriage. He even went as far as telling people it's a sin to vote improperly and I'm sure he was indirectly telling us that those who voted for Obama committed a sin.