The relationship between Iraq and say....abortion.
 

the simplest answer - party line. Why we went to Iraq, what's been done there, etc, etc has been debated to death. Why we're for abortion (perhaps not the best example), tax cuts, welfare reform, affirmative action. Most it seems to me are rooted in a fundamental difference in opinion of what role the govermant should play in our lives (among other things). If you know one's political philosophy, it seems you can guess with damn near 100% certainty right off the bat their stance on at least 5 or 6 different issues.

It surprises me that Iraq is one of these. In fact, the most divisive of these. I don't think anyone would argue, however this pans out, it's result will have the most significant impact in all of our lives.

There just doesn't seem to me to be a clear cut reason why your take on the situation in Iraq is defined by your politcal beliefs. There's arguments for and against what we have done and what we should do, but they don't seem to be defined by whether or not your liberal or conservative. Is it so devisive because it's an election year? Is there a connection i'm missing?

I hope this doesn't evolve into a debate about what we've all already talked about. Simple question: what's the relationship between being liberal / against the war, and conservative / for the war (with the exception of lieberman of course).

Liberals tree hugging peaceniks gogo UN I <3 little Bunnies???

Conservatives oil money gogo Haliburton kill the little babies???

Oh you didn't want generalizations?

Precisely why I dislike labels.

.....apparently i didn't articulate my thoughts the way i intended (not the first time that's happened). Labels, it seems, are quite telling on this issue. I'm just wondering why.

Note: I'm sure many people might get completely offended by what I'm about to say, but I'm just theorizing, not trying to push anyone's buttons. :)

Anti Abortion = A woman's body is not her own. We know what is good for her, and how she should live her life and conduct herself.

Pro Iraq = The Iraqi people can't work things out themselves. We know what is good for them, and how they should live their lives and conduct their government.

Now, I know these are really broad generalizations, but those are the correlations I see. Both anti-abortion and pro-Iraq sentiments come from a philosophy of control, not freedom.

On the other hand, I don't agree with your initial premise. The latest poll:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968705899037

says that 47 percent of Americans think that Iraq was the right thing to do. Probably about the same amount are pro or anti abortion. I'm not convinced that there is a really strong overlap. I'll have to do some digging.

Pro-Life= its not up to the woman or her body, its a humans' right to life

Iraq= Saddam was a murderous asshat with many many strikes against him, the world is a better place with him gone.

But the initial thoughts are right, it comes down to party lines.

Thanks for posting the party lines and for proving it all...

Luckily this is why we live in a free society where everyone can take an issue, see it from two different points, and hold it true

I'm pro-choice. I'm also very religious.

I'm vehemently anti-bush (and generally very anti-republican). I'm VERY pro-gun, the bigger the better.

I want the legalization of marijuana. I'm against high taxes.

I dislike labels as well.

I would argue exactly that. The consequences of our actions in Iraq will be enormous. First of all, it's a foreign relations nightmare. We have alienated practically every ally we have, and we have fostered even more hatred towards us in the middle east. If you don't think that's going to cause us problems in the future, you're kidding yourself.

Our national debt is at a record high, largely due to the costs of the war. Unfortunately we and our children will have to pay the interest on this unprecedented debt, probably for decades to come.

Supposing we actually succeeded in bringing stability to Iraq, we would have almost exclusive access to one of the world's richest oil reserves (admittedly this could possibly cancel out the previous point).

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of troops who have been deployed half way around the world. I think it's safe to say that the war is having a significant impact on these people and their families.

Sums it up.

you sound alittle confused. I have never met anyone who considered themselves religious and was pro-choice. seems like a conflict of interests.

With that said, I think that the entire reason for going to war has been misrepresented. It is not about us knowing what is better for the iraqis. It was about disarming Saddam and any terrorists he was harboring. Unfortunatly that info was incorrect (or we got there to late) and now we have to try and put Iraq back together. And believe me if we left it up the the iraqis to put together a government they will be much worse off than they are now.

Just like abortion those that are opposed to the pro-life want to make it seems as if the pro-lifers are trying to control their bodies. which is not true. only wanting to protect the life they are carrying.

It is just how one group of people preceive things, compaired to another. But seruously I doubt very much that very many liberals even care about what is going on in Iraq they just want to make bush look bad to get him out of office because he is a man of God and that scares people. The american people are not used to someone who does what he says he will do.

Personally, I too am religious, and I think abortion is wrong. But do I think the government has a mandate over a woman? No I do not. Therefore I am pro-choice. (not sure if this is the way analog feels about it as well...)

I got a smile out of that one. You'd better be careful or someone might label you as a Canadian.

Ok I as a christian respect life, so unless you are of another religion that does not respect life, like say.....(ok I won't say it but you know what I am thinking)

Ilive in OK where it is illegal to get a tattoo. A far cry from an abortion, yet they are able to make it a law, now there are no lives at risk tattooing, like there is abortion.

You, my friend, are the one who is confused. In fact, I would go so far as to say you are ignorant, if not bigoted. Being "religous" is like being Republican or being American. It doesn't mean you think a certain way. You may tend toward certain beliefs, but your own opinion should never be subject to will of the masses. To do so is to abdicate your free will. And to think that Islam is a religion that does not respect life just shows how misinformed you are. Fundamentalists give every religion a bad name. Don't be an example.

I consider myself deeply religious and I am also pro choice. I have no conflict of intrest at all for being a christian and being pro choice.

Count a third for "deeply religious" and "pro-choice".

Sounds like a good thread subject ;)

Mark me down as agnostic and pro-life.

It's insulting for you to say I must not respect life.



How so? It's very presumptuous of you to say that I should or should not believe a particular way, based only on my being religious.

It's also funny, because most anti-abortion people whine, "it's not about our relgion, it's about protecting life". So exactly which is it, then? Are you all tied to religion or not? Oh, that's right, I forgot we can all make our own choices in life. I think you know mine.

To even argue whether religion is applicable to this is to TOTALLY IGNORE one of the key elements at the very heart of the abortion debate- when, exactly, life begins. I believe it begins after all existing laws now allow abortions to take place- therefore, I do not believe it is a viable life yet, and does not matter. Why I believe that, and the specifics thereof, are for another thread, and not this one.

Quote:

Just like abortion those that are opposed to the pro-life want to make it seems as if the pro-lifers are trying to control their bodies. which is not true. only wanting to protect the life they are carrying.

Yeah, and pro-choice people are made out to look like they want to slaughter babies for a living, when all they want is the choice to do with their own bodies what they wish. I've seen pamphlets from you people that say pro-choice is slaughtering innocent babies, and don't kid yourselves, that's fucked up.

Quote:

But seruously I doubt very much that very many liberals even care about what is going on in Iraq they just want to make bush look bad to get him out of office because he is a man of God and that scares people. The american people are not used to someone who does what he says he will do.

Are you serious? Are you joking with me now? Is that not the biggest bunch of generalizing, stereotyping, flame-baiting nonsense I've ever seen?

Bravo, Kadath.

Abortion is wrong. However, people are going to do it wheter it's legal or not (ie: coathangers!) -- why not have a safe, legal way to do it? I think the same thing about drugs (although I don't think that drug use is wrong when done correctly).

Iraq, on the other hand, is just wrong. We should not be there. I won't elaborate on this any more since we've all heard the arguement a thousand times.

I personally disagree with abortion however dont feel the government has the right to restrict it.

And im for the war in Iraq. So where does that put me? Labels are stupid the fact is the majority of the citizens dont have an ideology, dont ffit into a label and overlap on most issues.

The people who are religious and pro-choice sparked my curiosity on a couple of things. To ask about them here would be to go off topic, so I created a new thread here:

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53998">When the soul?</a>

Great responses all - its proof that people don't have to live by party lines or believe the masses. People can be deeply religious and be pro-choice for whatever reason just as people can be unreligious and can be pro-life.

Its when you have others think for you that the trouble begins

this is pretty much exactly how i feel i don't think the government has any juristriction over abortion and i think it is fine that women want them but if i were ever to be responsable for a child i would do everything in my legal power to make sure that the woman had the baby even if she didn't want to. if she didn't want it i would make sure that i got full custody as well then it will never have to burden her

also i am not very religious but am around a lot of people who are espescially at my school where my belief is put down by many other students and teachers

Christ people, this is insane, abortion is murder and there is no way around it, there is no grey area it is black and white. PERIOD If you want to argue that it is a womans right to choose wether or not the child lives, thats fine. But you cannot get around the fact that you are ending a life.

I am pro-choice. I believe that the decision to either have or not have an abortion is between the mother, the father, and God.

I am reluctantly pro-Iraq war. We aimed for a goal that was right and a cause that was ethically good, but went about it in a very poor way.

I am very liberal, but disgusted at the antics of both parties and their agendas that place their own good above that of the general public. I suppose you could call me a Libertarian, but I don't quite fit under that label.

http://www.starfish.govt.nz/shared-g...d/trolling.jpg

Also, A+ for being religious and blaspheming.

Murder is the death of a human being at the hands of another. Until it is understood that a group of several to a couple thousand cells, with no brain, heart, spinal cord or any other defining characteristic of a human is a human, you are in my opinion, incorrect.
The brain waves of a fetus do not begin to resemble those of a human until between seven and eight months of gestation, thus the third trimester cutoff.

I am also a spiritual being, and pro-choice. I hesitate to use the term religious simply because it tends to affiliate me with people like yourself.

Yes, you are correct in that it is the end of a life. So is that burger you had for lunch, or the salad. The level of cognative activity is far greater in the cow, than in the fetus.

As far as Iraq, we are screwed and the world knows it. But, I guess it was inevitable.

I think people go along with party lines due to intellectual laziness.

Politicians realize that most of us are intellecutally lazy and prey upon this to further their agendas. It's easy to believe someone with whom we already agree. It takes effort to research a topic and make an informed decision based not upon party dogma but upon sound evidence.

For example, I am a public school teacher who was adamantly against school choice (read: vouchers)...that is, until I researched it and spent some time thinking about it. My opinion has since changed.

Either way, I often see what are nothing more than talking points and sound bites used in place of actual dialogue when discussing political issues. We become rigid in our defense of these talking points because we make them our own, regardless of how little thought-out they are. When these are attacked, we feel it personally.

Now, granted, this is not true of everyone, but it is true of enough of us that politicians use it to their advantage to great success.

Feel free to start a topic on it.

You could also do a search and read the paper I wrote on this very topic and posted in a former thread.

But in brief, your statement only holds if the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, which is something no one can definitively say.

Hindsights 20/20 - but i had no intentions of starting an abortion debate. I knew i should have used another example.

Re: The relationship between Iraq and say....abortion.
 

Really, is that so?

Lets give that one a try shall we? Take me for instance. I am a social liberal, fiscal conservative, international realist, and an agnostic to boot. Now, lets pick 6 topics say; War in Iraq, Abortion, Capital Punishment, U.N., Environment (tree huggers), and Taxes. Ok, so there you go people, I can’t wait to see the results on this one (actually I think this will be very interesting and quit fun too)

War in Iraq: was for it
Abortion: 100% against it
Capital punishment: undecided. Nothing pisses me off more than someone getting out of jail, and going on to kill more innocent people (I have a feeling this occurs with far greater frequency than innocent people being put to death) If it can be proven it's a deterrent. Probably applied unfairly currently.
UN: a joke
Environment: I love my Full size pickup
taxes: Government waste. Tighten the noose. Cut taxes. Rich people pay enough.

Okay, I'll bite....

War in Iraq: I'm against it for all the typical reasons.

Abortion: Pro choice.

Capital Punishment: For it. (I don't understand being pro-life and for the death penalty or pro choice and against the death penalty.)

U.N.: Good idea ruined by ego.

Environment: I take a "smoke 'em if you got 'em" approach. What else are we gonna do with coal and oil and natural gas? However, it's time to start finding viable alternatives for when the fossil fuels are all gone.

Taxes: Get rid of all payroll taxes and implement a national sales tax.

ok, lets get one thing straight, I am not "religious" I believe in God and that Jesus died for my sins, as for cursing drinking sex and that whole vice thing, well I am not against that in moderation. Sadly since I feel strong about abortion I get lumped into the wacko religious right which I am not, I am conservative politically but thats about it. As for not knowing wether life starts at conseption is certainly debateable but not proveable, so yeah its probably a waste of time. Personally I believe that once there is a spirit or soul then it is a human. That is what seperates us from the cow that I eat at lunch. Abortion IMO is just a way out for women who don't want to deal with their resposibilties of having sex.

The only group I lump you into is the illiterate group.

Hmmm looks like I wasn't exactly clear in my last post (not the first time that has happened, prolly wont be the last). What I was challenging you to do is state how you think I believed about the issue, hence why I provided the different forms of politic philosophy with which I most closely agree.

I'm just gonna throw this out there, but if you believe in God and think that Jesus died for your sins, I'm pretty sure you are religious. At least as far as I can tell...

That pretty well sums up a religious person to me..;)

Re: Re: The relationship between Iraq and say....abortion.
 

Let's see, I think you might be:

War in Iraq: willing to support our endeavor to the extent that we are already there

Abortion: unsupportive of government deciding medical issues

Capital Punishment: not supportive

U.N.: I don't know what you think about it. I remember that your work places you in close contact with organization. If the things I read concerning it are true, you would witness the extent of legitimacy it holds for a substantial part of the world. You might believe that some of our actions and rhetoric undercut its legitimacy and effectiveness.

Environment: maybe you think some issues are taken too far by radical activists. you recognize the need for conservation, but you may weigh that with the understanding that regulations can have a negative effect on working class jobs.

Taxes: in favor of a progressive tax. The meaning may vary, but you might think this means ensuring the rich pay their fair share.

So.... exactly how not religious does believing in God and that Jesus died for your sins make you? I guess you're not religious because you also blaspheme regularly. *shrug*

Quote:

Personally I believe that once there is a spirit or soul then it is a human. That is what seperates us from the cow that I eat at lunch. Abortion IMO is just a way out for women who don't want to deal with their resposibilties of having sex.

Well, first of all, you're saying that once there is a spirit or soul, it is a person, correct? The problem with that is, once again, it is impossible to prove when that happens, and therefore infinitely debatable.

There are some who believe it is conception, some who believe it is when the first heartbeart occurs or brainwave activity starts, or the first motion is recorded, and still others believe that the soul is introduced at the moment of birth. Who is correct? No one knows, and we never will, so that argument is as pointless as it is tiresome.

As for abortions being for women who, "don't want to deal with their resposibilties of having sex", that is a very bold, rude statement. You should consider framing your opinions a little more constructively.

Say that to a rape victim.

This will be my last post about this, but being "religious" is a term that is overused. religious is defined as devout, or concerned with religion(which is defined as a specific system of beliefs) So if you use the word to discribe anyone who is not an athiest then yes I am "religious." But I am not legalistic, which is what I think of when I hear religious. The no sex no drugs no long hair or shorts all sorts of weird things. I try to live by one rule and that is love one another. and yes I have been passionate about what I believe and yes I may have been carried away.



Sure

There are always special circumstances, but they do have morning after pills that are good up untill 5 days after so they can get that. Also the women who's lives are at risk or danger should also be able to abort.

Yeah I have already talked about that earlier, and it is something that cannot be proven, so it is really a waste of time trying to argue.

Actually, that was my fault. I was only partly paying attention when I read it. When I go back and look at what you originally posted, I realize that I had a stupid moment.

Rape and Incest cases are exceptable for abortion, only problem that is no leg to stand on when trying to justify the entire practice seeing as to 1) conception rarely takes place during rape and 2) as a whole rape and incest only about for a FRACTION of a PERCENTAGE of all total rapes. How do you justify the other 99.95% of all other abortions?

REMOVED

Be nice.

I was just told that many of you wouldn't understand the warning I just gave for what it was. I think you all get it. However, just to make sure we are all on the same page here, let me be a bit more obtuse.

Stop it.

Questions?

REMOVED

I think the point that he was trying to make was that this is rapidly degrading into petty bickering instead of real discussion.

REMOVED

If we went by this mentality, no one would ever be allowed to discuss abortion or other subjects that could possibly degenerate into flaming and petty bickering.

We leave these threads here and open because, each time, we want to give you YET ANOTHER chance to prove that mentality wrong and prove that you CAN discuss these subjects without the thread collapsing into crap. Sometimes it's successful, other times it's not. But saying "what did you expect?" when we point out that the discussion has left the realm of acceptability is *hardly* reasonable. I suppose we should just not moderate TFP at all, after all, what do we expect on an internet forum? Of course there will be childish behavior.

Everyone: lay off the snide remarks and petty bickering and get back to mature discussion of the subject (preferably the original subject), or this thread won't stay open much longer.

Here's what i don't understand(among other things). Why, if "murdering" unborn fetuses (feti?) is such a travesty, do many make the distinction between a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest and one resulting from consensual sex? If being anti-abortion is really about everyone having a chance to be born, why should the circumstances of conception even come into play?

I see it as more of a compromise, plus due to the very nature of rape and incest its very hard to justify. Having all abortion removed would be ideal for me, as all life as value. But like I said cases of rape and incest are extremely rare, I could conceivably allow it if I could eliminate the other 99+% of one of the most inhumane and barbaric practices to ever come about.

Can you link or tell of the source of you statisics?

Here's one site that puts it at 1%.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/bi...s/a0027730.cfm

I know Mods like us posting the content, but the text of the site has some weird dimensions.

At any rate it was hard finding an accurate way to word for the search on google. Most of the sites that came up were all pro-life sites, which I'm sure most of you would consider biased. But the fact is it is accurate.

The original subject was lost by the second post, but no matter - i pretty psyched to have started a thread that evolved into 2 pages, even though half of it is petty bickering.

If abortion is murder, is jerking off manslaughter? I mean, those are literally millions of lives that die a cruel death on my hand towel. I'm right up there with Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge.




*wonders if his attempt at levity mixed in with a real point actually worked... then goes back to jerking off.

Okay....back on topic.

Matthew- tell me where I stand with "pretty much 100% certainty.

I am Democratic:

I am a Republican:

I am Libertarian:

I am Green:


Lets see just how accurate you can be. I am sure we will all be able to guage the level of accuracy for you. Lets just stick to four basic issues.

The Iraq war.
Healthcare.
Economy.
Homeland security.

(note the purposeful lack of abortion debate, as that belongs in religion if people wish to ignore the science)

The thread was about why democrats in general are against the war, and republicans in general are for the war. If you'll look at every thread that's ever been posted in here, this assertion certainly isn't contradicted. But whatever:

The Iraq war: Democrat -against; republican - for
healthcare: Universal - privatized
Economy: need something a little more specific
Homeland security: as it related to the patriot act: against/for

(exactly what scientific data are you referring to?)
abortion: for / against

This wasn't about the green party or libertarians. I'm not even sure where your argument is coming from. Are you suggesting that political affiliation gives no indication as to where in general one stands on a # of issues?

Again the question was, I would think that the Iraq war would transcend party lines, but it apparently doesn't, and was wondering if anyone had any suggestion as to why it doesn't.

You can't passionately defend the right to live of every unborn child on the basis on the inherent value of life and then turn around and argue that children who were concieved through tragedy don't deserve to live. Well, you can, but doing so pokes holes in the idea that you do, indeed, care about the plight of a fetus. In the words of the anti-abortion crowd, allowing any form of abortion means that you advocate the "murder" of innocent fetuses.

Like I said it would be ideal for all abortion to be removed. I don't see that happening ever though. But thing is, the "choice" crowd shrieks and hollers and often tries to justify the practice as a whole on rape and incest. So I would leave the 1% +/- so they will be happy, and we can eliminate the other 99%. Also I know as a whole this would be more favorable to the country.

Fair enough - but I generally try to leave that aspect out of debate for arguments sake (at least in the beginning) because as soon as someone hears that from the right to choose camp you're seen as a "fanatic" and in their mind everything is you have said is discredited. Double edged sword i suppose. I don't believe you can justify the 90 some odd percent of abortions that take place for social reasons, by citing extreme cases.

So it's really all politics?

Isn't everything?

Okay....back on topic, again.

I think what you are actually describing is Ideology in general. If someone is against needless killing of innocent people, they will likely go with a party that is not in support of such. The underlying belief structure of any one person, will send them in one direction or another, in hopes of bringing the rest of the population around to their way of thinking. Also , the level of personal experience and the extent to which any issue effects the world will define the attitudes of many.
Example:

I find killing to be disgusting, and rarely find it justified.
I find corruption in government everywhere I look.
I dislike the current state of healthcare in this country.
I am not a Democrat.

I accept that government must control parts of the population.
I think Gun ownership is acceptable.
I will stand behind my country in war.
I am not a republican

I honestly think it is an erronous generalization to place people in a party because of the way they think, but if it helps to simplify an extremely complicated process, so be it.

By the way.....My post was not an attack on you, merely an attempt to get back on a good topic. But, it seems we would all rather argue over wht is a religious issue at heart. The scientific data pertains to the timing and attributes that define a human being, and the likely level of sentience a fetus can show during gestation. This information is well documented, and is used to back up the roe v. wade descision. Should you require the Data, I will happily research it and post it for you.

Likewise, I didn't take it that way.

but yeah, I'd be very interested in that scientific documentation. it seems that you are already suggesting that to be alive one must be "conscious".

am i correct in interpreting you see that as a trait more given to democrats than republicans?

Unfortunately, as someone who does not really care much for either party, I would have to answer "yes". Observation to date has shown a bias inclined towards violence which is more pronounced in those who claim Republican as a party status. That is not to say Democrats are a non-violent bunch, as that too would be far more generalization than I am comfortable with.
In my opinion there is just more of the Gun/Capital punishment/War mentality in the Republican Party. This can be a strength, or a weakness and is often both.
I have noted attempts at diplomacy are less heartfelt, and far more brief in the current administration than in the past. I can also remember a complete lack of military strength projected by Mr. Carter, and even Ford before him. There is a balance that should be attained, It cannot be easy but must be attempted.

^
|
|

Well said. Good response to a tough question.