Category: the Rant Board
Islam and democrats has gotten enough heat from me and I've never too loudly criticized the right. I have a few problems with republicans and the tea party, but I mostly agree, most of this is social issues.
don't take this the wrong way, I am definitely on the right and I believe in capitalism and freedom. but that I believe requires free choice socially too. and, I've been studying this for a long time claimed to be republican for the longest time but I can't find justification in terms of marrying religion with politics. How about separation of church and state? Is that not an important issue?
Why should a republican government by majority vote be able to tell people who to mary? I mean gays. I might not be a fan but I don't believe anyone has the right to tell another who to love what to love and how to love. is it not their choice? If both gays consent how does this hurt you? why should you stop it? The consistent answer I seem to be getting is. god says no! well, sorry but god says? when has the state merged with religion? the president, individual politician, or any individual alone may disapprove on a personal note but why the sudden power to control?
How about the issue with abortions? who are you to say to someone they can't do what they please with there body and there family life? How about there right to life and living it there way? Who is a politician to regulate such things? why must this be? how is this abortion going to effect you and your life? does it harm someone? first we don't know if it's a person, and second, if mom is warned about the complications and wishes to proceed then why should it not b her choice? I've also been answered god! well, god? have we merged states and church again?
there's other issues out there that has proven to be harmless to people and yet the majority of republicans refuse to agree with them much rather sticking to there god, and religion which has invaded politics!
republicans I challenge you to give me a coherent answer, and one that is does not relate to god.
I've been thinking recently about the thing about gay people being able to marry, and although I'm personally not for it (because of my religion), I think there is a difference between a gay person marrying thru a priest/minister and marrying thru a judge. If a religious official refuses to marry a gay couple, then that should be their right to refuse because it involves their religious beliefs/teachings, but being married by a judge is different because that is a legal marriage and in that case I agree that it doesn't make sense if church and state are supposed to be separate things. Apparently, as a future social worker, if I were to work for a state agency, I can't bring religion into conversations with the people I'm working with, but yet we can bring it into whether a gay couple can marry legally. That doesn't make sense to me.
As for abortion, I can't say much on that; I'm actually a Democrat, but I still can't see myself advocating for the right to kill a developing person, but again that's just my personal opinion. If God is mentioned as the reason they don't want to legalize it, then it's probably not fair to make a mandatory law about abortion just based on that. But I can see a law being made about abortion for other reasons or if religion is not mentioned as one of them.
It's good to see that people can think differently. I don't understand, jst because yo are democrat or republican, that you always have to take that party's line on all issues and consider the party's doctraine your own. I think the party politics have harmed the U.S. significantly in the last couple of years and is preventing people from coming together to find sensible solutions. Just because the person whose idea you like comes from the opposite party, does not mean it is rubbish.
Agree on both points here, too much mixing religion and politics, but fundamental Christians make p a huge percentage of the republican party, and they are out looking for swing ovters and supporters, so it is a sizeable population to get behind you. Unfortunately, I have fond that it is near impossible to have a theoretical discussion with many Christians because it inveitably leads to a bible quote or "my pastor says that"... rather than discussing matter in a more factual context. This does not apply to all, and I have had fantastic discussions with open minded and well educated Christians, who can still defend their beliefs and put it in context with the subject matter.
It's good to see that people can think differently. I don't understand, jst because yo are democrat or republican, that you always have to take that party's line on all issues and consider the party's doctraine your own. I think the party politics have harmed the U.S. significantly in the last couple of years and is preventing people from coming together to find sensible solutions. Just because the person whose idea you like comes from the opposite party, does not mean it is rubbish.
Agree on both points here, too much mixing religion and politics, but fundamental Christians make p a huge percentage of the republican party, and they are out looking for swing ovters and supporters, so it is a sizeable population to get behind you. Unfortunately, I have fond that it is near impossible to have a theoretical discussion with many Christians because it inveitably leads to a bible quote or "my pastor says that"... rather than discussing matter in a more factual context. This does not apply to all, and I have had fantastic discussions with open minded and well educated Christians, who can still defend their beliefs and put it in context with the subject matter.
I can give what is commonly given to me as an answer to this issue, which does not include god. This does not mean that I agree with these reasons, just that I have been told them before.
First, the marriage. Marriage has two parts, the first is the religious aspect, which I won't touch upon. The second is the governmental side. As marriage allows a change in taxes, and a change in governmental status, and the congress controls taxes and governmental status under the constitution, it then falls to them to decide who can and cannot marry. Despite popular belief, gays are not the first group to be told they could not marry. Everyone from immigrant-native couples, to black-white couples, have been told the same thing over the course of our history, and not usually by republicans.
Secondly abhortion. Now, one of the most common misconceptions is that all republicans are against all abhortions, this is not true. The abhortion they are against is late term abhortion. Many are in favor of early term abhortion and the morning after pill, which yes, is an abhortion.
Late term abhortion are done when the baby is formed fully, it looks and even moves like a baby. It has a heartbeat, all the bodily systems, and its brain waves can be measured medically. There are very common reports of the fetus grabbing onto the doctor's fingers as he performs the abhortion. Now, even I will agree, with my twisted sense of logic, that if something meets those criteria, and is grabbing onto a doctor's fingers, its alive. Dead things don't have heartbeats, brain waves and finger grabbing ability. This is what many republicans are trying to fight against.
Also, by the logic that everyone has the right to deal as they wish with their own body, and do as they like in their own family, is simply not constitutionally true. You are not, for instance, allowed to shoot your daughter in the head. This is technically within your own home, in your own family, and hurts only your daughter. The only thing that keeps that from being an abhortion is that your sure your daughter is alive. From then on, its only a matter of opinion.
Lastly, keep in mind that the words, conservatist, and republican, are far from the same thing. I am a conservatist, I am not a republican. If you want a conservatist who doesn't look to god for answers and governing regulations, look at liberatarians. Sure, the radical ones want to overthrow the government, but most just want to follow the constitution. Our country was founded with a constitution, and liberitarians simply want to follow it, and only it, nothing else.
If you'd like to know where the separation of church and state is in the constitution, I challenge you to find the words anywhere in it, or in any governing document from when our country was founded. Separation of church and state does not exist, freedom of religion does.
Here is my cockeyed theory on what is going on with republicans:
Financially speaking, republicans have historically had their main supporters among the upper classes. It wasn't until recently that they started gaining leverage among the working class / blue collar.
What caused this? Religion used to gain control of resources, in this case, votes. Pure and simple: you can't win an election with just the top 2 to 5 percent of the population plus a smattering of small business owners and similar folk from the working classes. Now, to achieve a wider range of votes, one of the best things a Republican party, or any party for that matter, can do is simply ally themselves with churches, religious organizations, sentiments (the adult eeewww facter expressed in anti-gay, racial and other feelings sanctioned by factions).
Now, without a lot of substance, (I believe it was GuitarGod mentioned this on another board?), you can win votes by near reflex. It comes down to the nonfalsifiable claims.
The Right can't make nonfalsifiable claims about feeling your pain or solidarity like the left does, so they make nonfalsifiable claims about deities, values, and eeewwws.
This does not mean every republican elected actually believes all this stuff: Sir Gingrich obviously doesn't or he would not be on Wife Number 4, Wife Number 1 having been ousted while sick in the hospital.
However, if they are to win an election, they have to win numbers of votes. The only way they can win a bunch of W2-wage-earning workers is by a combination of religion and eeeww. They can lace it with nonfalsifiable claims as does every political party on the planet: They can tell you a situation in global markets is caused by Obama even though it's been festering for fifty years. They will win, too, because the audience they are reaching for is not an audience likely to research their claims. To the semi-intelligent to smart, they can offer pamphlets and booklets with terms and figures that become difficult to prove or disprove, and the people reading them may come off thinking they're really smart for having read right from the advertising machine.
Which leads to my last point: They are extremely successful in marketing. They know who their target audience is, they know how their target audience thinks, they know how to leverage the right amount of fear and provide the right amount of solace.
They are better marketers than are Democrats generally speaking.
And, all this from one who has even been a Republican at one time, a Libertarian at another, and voted for two local republicans for seats in the legislature in the past election.
To voters now I would say exercise your use of VoteSmart.org and other non-partisan resources where you can get real information on voting records of candidates. And, when it comes to the bills in question, look them up yourself rather than read somebody's laced synopsis.
I certainly have fiscal conservative leanings, like most of the American population does, but I am not impressed with debates or marketing abilities, or people feeling each other's pain.
Sorry Rachel I can't agree with you on some points. I do not consider a human life a "choice". I went thru one pregnancy & childbirth and saw the little heartbeat as early as 10 weeks on an ultrasound monitor. Blood is the life of the organism, and dead folks don't bleed. A fetal heartbeat is quite a bit faster than an adult's. The only exceptions I support are 1) possible death of the mother, 2) a birth defect that is not survivable, 3) rape, 4) incest. Approximately 3/4 of abortions are performed because the woman didn't want the changes a baby would bring to her life.
And I'm in the dark about why it is so necessary. Can't anyone practice birth control? I did, and when I took the pill I opted to pay cash as I didn't want to go thru the insurance's mail order pharmacy, and when I couldn't take the pill there's always condoms & foam at CVS. And...warning a bit too much information...one year I was a complete skank and still managed not to become pregnant or contract an STD. I don't understand the "pro choice", which to me is nothing but pro abortion, mindset that pregnancy prevention can't be done. And I call 'em pro abortion because if your choice is going to be different than theirs, like you want to keep your baby in spite of a high risk pregnancy or you want to avoid recommended genetics tests which aren't always reliable, in my experience they don't want you to have that choice. It seems abortion is 'highly recommended' for Downs kids, yet we have Downs teenagers where I live and they don't bother anyone, even do relatively one task jobs. Whose next to abort...a baby who will be deaf because mom had rubella while she was pregnant or one with any number of eye defects or problems who will be born blind?
As for same sex marriage, my state of residence is the first to allow it, and not just religious sorts but insurance companies were fighting the new law tooth and nail. That's more dependents for the insurance companies to have to cover, and it's ridiculous...level of insurance coverage varies by state...anyway it's ridiculous how many conditions must be covered here as it is, that's why it is so expensive to provide folks with group health benefits. Personally I don't like how the Democrats rewrote the definition of family. For example, we didn't think my father in law stood as much chance of a shoulder injury healing, so Mr Squid asked could he be covered as a dependent on our insurance, and there are Americans dissatisfied with Medicare quality of care for elderly parents. Basically you can't cover a parent, an actual blood relation, as a dependent, but now the insurance must cover same sex marriage partners. Makes no sense, although I don't think, as do some on the Christian right, that a gay or lesbian relationship is a sign of the world's end.
Some issues Republicans, or conservatives, typically favor, like the death penalty, I would actually be open to a society without one. There is too much financial waste in the current system, which on average has inmates on the row for 10-15 years before they get, in most states, lethal injection. Did you know states can't execute sick inmates? I used to see, in a now defunct lab, the names of men I knew were condemned having bloodwork at the taxpayers' expense. A death row inmate received a kidney transplant in another state before he was lethally injected. Doesn't that make potential organ donors want to donate...not.
Also, some conservatives will get themselves in a tizzy over Spanish. While "marque numero dos para espanol" can get annoying, I don't think it hurts anyone to at least try to learn a second language. I think it would be pretty cool if Mimi's public school started teaching Spanish in the second grade. I'm going thru a book on medical Spanish, but I won't go as far to say those wanting to reside in the U S shouldn't have to learn English. This should be IMO still a requirement to pass the citizenship test.
I, too, am against late term abortion, but not early term. Personally, unless a medical emergency comes up where the woman will die if the pregnancy is not terminated, I personally think it's just too bad for her if she hasn't decided to abort within the first three months, but I also think she should be able to abort before the second trimester if she so chooses. As far as same sex marriage is concerned, you could argue that some straight couples are only getting married for the tax benefits. If you're personally against same sex couples, well, that's your perogative, but like someone said before, how is it okay for a politician's personal feelings determine the laws? If church and state are not separate, they should be. Technically, you don't have freedom of religion if you're a same sex couple who is denied the right to marriage because....God says it's wrong? Is there honestly another reason for it?
Ok, now I'll give my personal feelings about these issues, cuz, I want to.
Abortion, I agree that first trimester abortions are fine. Once there's a heartbeat though, its a human.
As for marriage, I think the government should allow anyone who wants to get married, to get married. However, I can see several problems with this. First, if you allow gays to marry, what group will come next? Now I realize that that is a cruel thing to say perhaps, but we can't say "ok this group can marry" and say, "but this group of sixty year old men with twelve year old wifes, you can't marry". Where is the line?
I definitely see your point. However, what's wrong with saying two consenting adults over the legal age of consent can marry? it's clearly laid out, and doesn't discriminate against any particular belief system or preference. You could argue it's discriminant on the basis of age, but unlike a particular preference, both people in question will eventually be old enough.
Yes, but people will still complain. Someone always dislikes a law.
You definitely have very valid points here. to be fair, I'll at least accept any reason that doesn't involve god. But honestly, unless you went to the government and specifically asked for a reason for this law that didn't involve God, do you think they would give you one? it's so much easier to just say, well, god says it's wrong. the day the government truly gives the same reasons you just gave without being prompted is the day I'll truly accept this law.
Here's a reason that doesn't involve God: gay/lesbian is a tiny minority of the population in the U S, and even a lot of them don't want marriage rights. If you're talking older same sex couples, chances are they fought around the '60's or '70's for the recognition of sexual relationships other than marriage. Now they're being told marriage and even IVF/adoption of children is what is expected of gays and lesbians? Seems a minority within the minority is attempting to mold these folks into the group they fought to distinguish themselves from, heterosexual spouses and parents. Representative democracy is supposed to represent the will of the majority, and it seems liberalism has brought tyranny of the minority on everything from the glbt agenda...although I must admit it doesn't bother me when gays/lesbians want to serve the military if they serve honorably...to health care. Anyone who serves as President of the U S or represents a state should represent the U S or state Constitution, not be trying to create a society based on socialism or something else.
Squid, what do you think the chances are that the neonatal technologies will eclipse the abortion debate once and for all?
After all, you medical people save the lives now of people who in the 1970s would simply have died, pure and simple.
And, it's obvious by developments that you guys are generating technical innovations that save babies born earlier and earlier. My brother gave birth to triplets who were born many months early, I can't remember now but to me it was staggering. They are not only alie but eight-year-old healthy boys.
So where does this lead? Quite logically, an artificial biosphere into which the fetus can be placed and raised. Got a crack addict, a teenager, or someone else who shouldn't be carrying let alone raising an infant? They start in the biosphere, admittedly not ideal probably but to a pro-life person that would serve to prevent their termination.
Ironically, these are the same people who would probably not want to fund such technologies, thereby they will neutralize all their arguments. After all, as a Coast Guardsman, I know you should wear your life jacket, that if you hit cold water without one you only have minutes to live. Rescue is very expensive, thousands of dollars just to get the boat or helicopter and related equipment out.
If I were like many pro-life people, I simply would not wish to assist you, because of my value judgment you should have been wearing a life jacket to begin with.
So, one would imagine, logically speaking, they would take all opportunities to preserve that life. But my betting money stands on they will not.
After all, the current system they defend is just not very stable for Middle and Lower Income Americans, who are most likely to seek abortions. I admittedly do not have the source, but read a statistic of 70% of these are done for financial reasons. Set that with a margin of error of 20% so as to be accomodating my not having the source, you still have half of them strictly done because of a financially unstable environment.
And we and many other first responders assist / save lives where convenient preventitive measures could have prevented the problem in the first place, or at least provided enough delay so as to ensure the security of that life.
So, frankly, by the standards I myself and many other Americans who serve as first responders live by, the pro-lifers have failed, and radically so.
I do agree, the pro-choice movement tends not so much to appreciate the choice someone will make, but themselves have their own agenda. It will be interesting when that biosphere gets here, because whose body it is will be settled.
You in the medical community already have created biospheres; the brother I mentioned is a marine biologist and he said they looked like egg incubators but had some sophisticated regulatory systems whose software I would no doubt find interesting, but it seems we are nearly there.
You are using space age technologies which he says have maintained fish in outer space, so presumably will be able to maintain an unborn fetus. It should be interesting to watch and see how they roll when this gets on the market: in short, we're gonna see just how pro-life they really are. They say no compromise when some of them bomb a clinic, killing unborn and born alike inside. Let us see then, when a variant of this biosphere technology comes to market, just how pro-life or no-compromise they really are. Call me old-school, but I'm like to be saying "Are you a man or a mouse!" If you really are no-compromise, fund this stuff, eclipsing the debate altogether.
My betting money is on mouse: Mice are shrill, skittish, scatterbrained just like a lot of slogan-spewing party-backing banner types. Mouse, it is, I'm afraid.
I think the problem with you stupid liberals is any oppinion you don't agree with you see as a problem and people who don't think like you are viewed as stupid.
"If you really are no-compromise, fund this stuff, eclipsing the debate altogether." I'm not no compromise, just not in favor of abortion on demand, no questions asked. Now I don't know where you got your statistics, but I had one trainee who worked for Planned Parenthood, and she told me, "Squid, had I known what this job involved, I never would have accepted it. I don't have an opinion totally pro or against the procedure, but I dealt with women who had it, and you ask 'em 'So what kind of birth control information do you want'? and the answer was always NONE. That's right, most of these clinics are in black/Latino majority neighborhoods where condoms are considered unmanly, and the young women heard the pill would make 'em fat, so they just weren't interested in discussing any safer sex. I had a Canadian poster on another board who sat with a friend while waiting for the friend's teenage daughter to have an abortion. Sherry thought most seeking the procedure were in their teens, but there was a coffee table book there to 'express one's feelings', and she was shocked when she read it. In the first place, it was just their teenager who was there, the other patients waiting to be seen were adults. Most of the thoughts that went into that book were from adult, married mothers seeking abortions and some were on a second or third procedure. Huh? I thought all of this contraceptive ed was supposed to prevent that.
I don't know about technology eclipsing the debate, but there is one category of human being that may be eclipsed by the technology, and that is human beings with Downs Syndrome. There is now a test available in the first trimester to screen for the probability of this chromosome defect in order to abort should the mother choose. Parents of a Downs son interviewed express concern that possibly this little boy wouldn't make friends like himself with more mothers aborting, and while these human beings are prone to certain health problems the general population isn't, we had one up here who managed to graduate high school and use her talent to go to chef's school, and there was a performer on a tv series with it some years back. It just makes me wonder, OK, what other life is considered non functional? There's a young woman on this board blind from ROP from a heroin addicted "mother", and she may be not working right now but so what? She's had interesting experiences and ideas to contribute.
As far as biospheres were feti of crack addicts and what have you being germinated in a biosphere, that's a bit much. I'm not even a supporter of stuff like egg transfer or using a surrogate or even unlimited IVF cycles. I think this is exploitive technology that considers actual parenting less than it does the life of the baby, and I'm sure not in favor of clinic bombings. But I am more in favor of teaching responsible use of birth control in order to prevent abortion in the first place, and I don't understand why so many "pro choice" don't focus more on this aspect of unwanted pregnancy.
to the poster before squid's last one, I fail to see how calling liberals stupid makes you any better.
I completely agree. You just made a point and disproved it, all in one post. Liberals are stupid because they think people who don't think like them are stupid? Um, right. Please do us and yourself a favour and learn how to present your point in a way that actually makes sense.
People who vote for Democrats and Republicans are more stupid than people who reject all political parties and vote independents in who will represent us - not a party or a company.
The problem in America is that people only look at the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans are now the Tea Party. You can't be a Republican and oppose the Tea Party and expect to get far.
And what is the Tea Party? It may have been simply about smaller government originally, but it seems that it incorporates all Republican extremists.
This two-party prism through which people see everything in America means it is inevitable that both parties are inclusive of extremists. People won't look beyond the two parties. They will reward the greed and lust for power of both sides with their votes. A vote for Republicans or Democrats is an endorsement of the billions of dollars each party spends to fight elections, billions that could be spent helping poorer people in America or the world.
Here in the UK, 90% of people voted for the three major parties last year despite politicians from all of them using public money to fund their private lives. I wasn't one of them. I couldn't endorse what happened. I voted for my local independent. I don't see anything through some kind of ideological prism. I'm not so restricted as to be left-wing or right-wing. I am not a follower.
Senior you express more Americans' view than you perhaps know.
To the poster before Squid, who is the lib you're referring to? And what is actually your claim?
Squid, your post left me shaking my head: not because of your post, but simply I admit my exposure is largely white and Asian: I am on the Left Coast so go figure. I was left shaking my head, because it's even more obvious than it already was, I come up short being informed on this topic, obviously.
As to the biosphere: well, to an average person, what you all are doing keeping not one but three, all alive in one container the size of a shoebox, is amazing. I say this as somebody who has worked on a lot of cool stuff in my time as a software developer.
I agree on the education front. Again, we do extensive public education about preventable water accidents: almost 100% of water accidents today are entirely preventable. But because of our dedication to saving lives, the Coast guard goes out and rescues countless who didn't even need to end up in disaster in the first place. That is all in tandem with public education: it is definitely not an either or.
So, by my saying a biosphere of some kind to keep an embryo or fetus alive should be a good thing to a strong pro-lifer, I am only holding them to the same standards as us, no more, no less.
So holding the pro-life people to the same standards as us: go ahead an do the public education, for sure. But research the biosphere which is rapidly becoming more and more a technological possibility, as the unborn was not the irresponsible party.
That is all many of the rest of us do.
To the poster before Squid, this cannot be seen as liberal: liberals rarely if ever truly innovate things.
The innovation of a self-sustaining biosphere would be more of an independent move.
Squid as to the Down problem: I take your point, and have heard of many near our mutual age range who have been pressured that way and they also said the genetics tests were unreliable. I do not know how a genetics test would be unreliable unless there is code we do not understand. I don't know the biology behind it, but saw a graph with DNA after the human genome project was finished, and it looks like a set of digital bits done in 4s if I remember right: not our normal 8, 16, 32 or 64-bit digital systems, but a system nonetheless. So if the results are unreliable that would be because a bit in a given position would be used to manage multiple instructions. so a sequence snippet 0x0101 interpreted with the final 1 being the on bit for the disease (I'm sure it must be more complex than that), that same ON bit especially in a 4-bit system, could be used to mean something else in the context of another snippet elsewhere, not that difficult programmatically but we don't yet have the full source code to ourselves.
Ethically I think it's a bad idea to eliminate on the basis of a condtion like Downs: sounds like the early Eugenics movements of the 1920s America or the Nazi Germany of the 1930s / 1940s.
"I do not know how a genetics test would be unreliable unless there is a code we do not understand." It isn't amnioscentesis that isn't unreliable. This is the only reliable confirmation for something like a 3rd chromosome. The blood test that gets pushed up here any lab form will say "This is just a screening. Only amnioscentisis can confirm abnormal results." Certain data that gets entered on the blood test is unreliable in and of itself, for example who gives birth on the exact delivery day estimate? Relatively few, and if some entry level person like a data entry operator makes a typo, throwing off the date, that makes an inaccuracy in the calculation. Some women have high levels of a protein associated with birth defects, to go for the more invasive, painful amnio and find they have a healthy child. Also, other data, like mom's date of birth, if entered even one digit off by a data entry operator can throw off the calculation. It's like gambling, "You Mrs. X have a one in two hundred chance of having a child with downs or an open spine or strictly a brain stem", and IMO probability and statistics has little place in medicine if any. And I'm really unclear about the magical number 35. It's not as if the risk for such a child is zero then the day you hit 35 that changes. Statistically the odds go up each year the woman gets older, but how do you explain a woman I know in her early 30s who had a downs boy, then, when she was two years older, a perfectly healthy girl? People seem to forget California Eugenics, which forced sterilization on the "mentally infirm". Eventually some sterilizations involved people who simply needed a strong prescription for eyeglasses or had traits deemed inferior, like shyness.
Senior, are you thoroughly familiar with the Tea Party movement? I can't vouch for other states, but here in MA refer to it as TEA=Taxed Enough Already. We pay high rents because of 12 years of rent control, we pay taxes they either don't in other states or they pay 'em but actually have something to show for 'em, the governor was even nice enough to slap a 7% tax on all restaurant meals and hotel stays. *SLAP ACCROSS WRIST* How dare you be able to afford a meal out with your SO or your friend, *SLAP* How dare any tourists who maybe want to see historical sites here & pump some money into the state's economy be able to afford a hotel stay. Working people feel penalized enough as it is, and are tired of being asked to fork over more money to see a place with an infrastructure on a level of some third world nations. I have heard nothing about absolutely having to support the Tea partiers to vote conservative. I've actually meant to go to some tea parties, but two got rained out and one I wound up looking for a lost item when I should have been waiting for the bus to go, and my friend got stuck in traffic, so neither of us made it.