Thursday, August 31, 2006

So far...

After reading through the 64 comments so far, I felt it was time to jump in. First, Mr. Teng has a good point about the awkward format of blogger. Remember that my primary goal of post #1 was to make sure ALL of you could access it. From now on, it is your choice to play...or not.

"What you believe" was, to me, one of the more enjoyable discussions I've had in A.P. Gov. Not only did you bring up a number of interesting positions and issues, but you did so in a respectful manner. And while we could certainly see the potential for disagreement and even conflict, it seemed as if you felt safe in expressing what you felt or thought.

What surprised you? What do you wish you would have added or questioned or changed with regards to YOUR positions? What "bombs" were thrown that you would have liked to have challenged?

Enjoy.

199 Comments:

Blogger Sarah A said...

Well, let me start off by saying that I really enjoyed our discussion on Wednesday. Though I'm reluctant to talk about my politics and belief in class (partially out of my wariness of the responses I would get and partially because I had been up since 0 hour and was tiiired), I felt like everyone did a good job of listening and questioning instead of attacking.

By senior year I think people get a pretty good idea of their classmates politics, or at least have a general idea of who agrees with you and who really, really doesn't. However, it was cool to hear the kids who I'd always known to be conservatives open up more about WHY they are conservative, and exactly how far their beliefs go. I definately learned a lot about people who I didn't really expect to.

One thing I would have liked to clarify but didn't get a chance to was Katie's (sorry, I don't know your last name!) comment that Atheism is a religion. Atheism litterally means "without" (A) "God" (theism). As an atheist, I often get the question "So if you don't believe in God, what do you believe in?" I would say that I believe in lots of things: a woman's right to abortion, the separation of church and state, free speech, human rights, and above all I believe in my friends, myself, and people . So, I wouldn't call atheism a religion by any means, but for me it still comes with a set of personal beliefs that I hold strongly to.

Also another thing, I've heard several guys mention lately that they don't think they even have a right to have an opinion on the subject of abortion since it isn't their bodies that it concerns. I would say that the potential child is still half theirs, and though the final decision should be left up to the mother, I think its perfectly fine for a guy to have an opinion on abortion since it does affect their lives too.

Ok I'm finally done.

6:05 PM  
Blogger Sharaya said...

The discussion on wednesday was extremly interesting to me. I was quiet, which I have been ever since I started at Arapahoe. (I think Marci is really starting to notice it!!)

I guess that I am quiet right now becase I am soaking in so much new culture. I am the girl who grew up in a hick town where most people don't talk about their political beliefes, you just are what your parents were and their parents before them.

However I do know where i stand politicaly and it is very different than most people I know.

I don't care to classify myself as a Republican or Democrate, Conservative or Liberal. I simply have my beliefes and often times agree very much with both parties as well as disagree. When it comes to elections I would vote for the party (or individuals) I see working for the good of all people.

My biggest question... I know politics is all a greedy little game, but why cant we just learn to work together and compromise? LIFE WOULD BE BETTER!

Most of my life I have steered clear of politics, it was annoying to me. Recently, however, I have become interested and want to know more, I dont know a whole lot and think that it is time to learn. Even after I discover the secret to "THE GAME" I think I will still be voting for what I believe is the GOOD for all!

Hope this makes sense!

6:33 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

I'd consider atheism a religion, since it does deal with god. If someone really doesn't have religion, I think it would be that they have no idea what god even is, not whether they believe in god or not.

"I would say that the potential child is still half theirs, and though the final decision should be left up to the mother, I think its perfectly fine for a guy to have an opinion on abortion since it does affect their lives too."

I completely agree with that, saying males shouldn't have a say in abortion just because it isn't your child could be the same argument used for raising that child.

"I know politics is all a greedy little game, but why cant we just learn to work together and compromise? LIFE WOULD BE BETTER!"

Because of one thing, everyone knows they are always right.

7:12 PM  
Blogger PatrickK said...

I found the discussion very fascinating especially because despite there being some rather vocal differences among us, the class seemed to have a lot of political beliefs in common. I can’t remember how many times I heard, I’m a fiscal conservative and a social liberal during the class.
Since I didn’t give my two cents in class I’ll give my political beliefs here. I consider myself independent. I am socially quite liberal. I’m for a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage etc… As far as economic issues are concerned I’m probably what is considered conservative. I believe the federal government should be as hands off as possible in the affairs of the citizens. While small government is traditionally considered a republican ideal I fail to see anything small in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that tells people whom they may and may not marry.
Earlier in the topic a brief mention about the nature of atheism as a religion was brought up. This may not be a great place to discuss it, but it is a philosophy I love to think about so I will make y’all listen to me. While I hesitate to call atheism a religion, I feel one must call it a belief. My definition of Atheist is one who does not believe in a god or higher power. I posit that if one comes to the conclusion that there exists no evidence supporting the existence of a higher power; it is not enough to conclude that the higher power does not exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If we consider that there is no evidence proving or disproving the existence of a higher power, to say, definitively, that the higher power does or does not exist is not rational, it is a matter of belief.

8:44 PM  
Blogger IanF said...

I think that Derick hit on the true foundation of all idealistic conflict, "everyone knows they are always right." This may be slightly exaggerated but fundamentally I agree with it. The main thing to keep in mind is that you will never change someone’s mind or even get them to respect your views if you approach theirs with this attitude. As for a man's opinion on abortion, I don’t feel that we can make an objective decision in that situation. If it is a teen pregnancy it is very likely that if the baby is born we would have to give up our education and the possibility for a truly economically successful life. This is obviously going to greatly influence our decision, and we may make a wrong decision when we are only thinking of ourselves. That is only human nature. I don't know what to think about men's role in this issue, but the truth is right now we are the ones making the decisions on it. As for Atheism I completely believe that it is a religious view. Dicrtionary.com defines religion as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. ... usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." I think that definition not only covers Atheism but everyone’s unique personal views as well. On that note I announce the creation of the First Church of Ianism. Sorry I'm not working on a lot of sleep. So those are my responses to the previous posts. I am eager to hear everyone’s thoughts.

8:50 PM  
Blogger marci said...

just to derick- i think you misread what sarah said. atheism believes in no god, their is no "atheistic church" where people worship their godless...thing. therefore, i would have to agree with her and state that atheism is not a true religion.
just for the sake of argument, i looked up religion's definition:
re'li'gion
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe; when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


and yes, sharaya, i have noticed that you are quite the mute in almost all of my classes. i know you may not wish to classify yourself politically, but i'm curious on where you stand on some major issues. abortion, the war in iraq, gay marriage [the big ones].

i too enjoyed our discussion. needless to say, a lot of what was said totally lit me up for an argument--- but i'm sure meyer noticed that and ignored me.
i dont have my notes from the discussion handy, but i do want to mention that someone said that religion had nothing to do with the gay marriage and/or abortion issue, and i just want to point out that a lot of conservatives/republicans/whatever-ins use the bible as a means for backing up their argument as to why two men and two women cannot wed.

9:35 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

I thought the beliefs discusion was a great idea and a great experience. I was very impressed with how respectful everyone was to one another, and it was really interesting to get a feel for where people in my class stood on political issues. I got a chance to speak, but I did have a few more things to say, as I usually do for those who know me well.

I said in class that I'm probably the most liberal person in 5th hour, and although Becca Schwab is in my class, I think that I just might be right. I say this because of how extremely passionate I am about my beliefs. I'm an activist for the oppressed and those suffering injustice, both in the US and around the globe. I believe wholeheartedly in a woman's right to a choice, although I could never personally make the decision to have an abortion because, quite frankly, I think it's a terrible thing that I could never bring myself to do, but it is the principle of the issue that I believe in. In this society, all that a person truly owns is themselves and no one has any right to put a law on someone's body, no matter the situation. Pro-choice doesn't mean anti-life, it means exactly what it says, pro-choice.

I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. God, no matter what religion, has no place in schools and curriculum. I do realize that our country was founded with the church as part of government, but it was the 1700s and religion was everything back then. Society has progressed and moved into the secular, as it should be, which allows people to believe in whatever they chose to believe in. I myself don't attatch myself to any religion, but I don't deny the existence of some higher power, so I still do have a sense of divinity.

I believe that it is the government's job to serve all of its people. The reality is, far too many people in this country are getting the short end of the stick, or even completely left behind by this administration. EVERYONE in the US, the country that calls itself the leader of the free world and western culture, should have health insurance. Do they? No, because pharmacuticals are far too lucrative, and its the all mighty dollar that runs this country and our culture. EVERYONE deserves the right to go to bed with a full stomach. Do they? No, because this administration doesn't care about poor people (remember what happened with Katrina...? oh wait, thats old news, nevermind...).

I believe that writing a ban on gay marriage in the constitution is by far the most rediculous thing I've ever heard of. The GLBT community makes up 10% of the population, thats 30 MILLION Americans! How can anyone justify denying that many people the right to marry, which essentially makes them second class citizens?! It doesn't matter what your religion may say about homosexuality, marriage is an institution between a couple and the state, religious ceremony is separate. Marriage offers over 1000 benefits that GLBT Americans miss out on, over 1000! For those opposed to gay marriage, take a step outside of yourself and your beliefs, and put yourself in thier shoes for a minute. Think about how you would feel being denying a civil right that is so important and that everyone deserves in a free country. I'm not attacking those who disagree with me, I respect what you believe in, but I'm just saying stop and think about it...

I'm completely against the war in Iraq. It was a pre-emptive attack that was justified for completely false reasons. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Sept. 11, and not a single one of the terrorists involved were even from Iraq nor did Al-Quieda have anything to do with Sedam Hussein or his government. It is fortunate that Sedam is out of power now, as he commited numerous crimes against humanity, but let's face it, this country is pretty good at turning a blind eye to human rights crisis'(whatever the plural of that might be, hah). Remember Rwanda in 1994? The US did nothing. Remember Pol Pot in the '70s? The US did nothing. Even during WWII we drug our feet to intervene, even though everyone knew exactly what Hitler and the nazis were up to. It took Japan attacking us on our own soil to bring us out of isolation to stop the slaughter of 10 million people. Right now, there are 3 separate genocides going on in Africa. 3 genocides! The US doesn't care nor recognize it, and even if the government did want to do something to stop them we wouldn't have the resources to do so because all of our miilitary and money is in Iraq. If the US is going to call itself the leader of the free world and the holy bringers of democracy, I think that carries a certain responsibility to use its power to help those in need. Thats the reason the this administration gave for invading Iraq, so why not stick to your guns and carry that philosophy elsewhere?


I could keep going, but those are my major issues. I appologize if anyone is offended with how aggressive I might sound, but its out of passion not hatred in any way. I'm sure that this post will stir up some conversation, which is why I'm choosing not to condense it or leave anything that I think might be controversial out. I enjoy discussing my beliefs with people who both agree and disagree with my opinions. Everyone is entitled to what they think and believe in, and thats what I love about this country the most.

6:34 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

marci-just to derick- i think you misread what sarah said. atheism believes in no god, their is no "atheistic church" where people worship their godless...thing. therefore, i would have to agree with her and state that atheism is not a true religion.
just for the sake of argument, i looked up religion's definition:
when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

one branch of buddhism has no superhuman god, yet that is still considered a religion. i'd consider atheism a religion purely because it deals with creation. - but lets get off religion, just because this isn't the place (plus i can have the last word this way :D)

julie-Marriage offers over 1000 benefits that GLBT Americans miss out on, over 1000!

have a link for that? i'm interested.

10:14 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Derick-

here's a few for ya:

http://www.pflag.org/Rights__Priviledges_and_Benefits_of_Marriage.175.0.html

A full list of all 1,138 rights available here:
http://www.marriageequality.org/meusa/facts.shtml?1049-federal

http://experts.about.com/e/l/li/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States.htm

12:26 AM  
Blogger Becca S said...

Reading through all the comments left so far, I can honestly say that I could write on this blog for hours. There are so many interesting ideas and positions that I would love to discuss. However, for your sanity and mine, I will try to keep this brief.

I would love to argue about all of the problems in the United States that Julie especially touched upon, but I think that as a citizen of humanity, my interests reach further out. I've been thinking lately about groups that people associate themselves with --religiously, politically, etc. and I've pretty much decided that I don't believe in groups that people are born into. I don't think that my being a child of a Unitarian minister and a Catholic-raised father makes me either Unitarian or Catholic. I believe exactly what I believe, and while religious affiliation from birth can definitely influence one's views, I don't think that any religious title can change a person's inherent beliefs in a higher power.

Another institution that I am having trouble with lately is nationality. I know that I was born in Colorado, one out of the 50 states in America making me a United States citizen, but I don't think that where I was born should therefore determine my position in the world for the rest of my life. I think many Americans are just happy to be Americans --they were born here, they deserve the rights they were born to, and that is that -they get through school, earn money, and try and live some kind of happy life. But I like to think about what else could have happened. I could have been born in Darfur, have no idea where my father is, not have anything to eat every 1/3 days, and be scared out of my mind that I might not see tomorrow because of a war that I had absolutely nothing to do with and probably don't believe in.

I think in this day and age, the actions of governments are affecting far too many innocent citizens around the world and I refuse to stand up and believe in any institution that either abuses its power or allows others to abuse its power. I understand that the world is the best it has been throughout the whole of human history and I respect that. I respect that our ancestors were much more ignorant than we are now as to injustice and inhumanity. But I know that humans have come far enough to understand scientifically, that we're all the same thing! We all have a heart that pumps our blood and a brain that controls our thoughts and actions. So why does my being an American-born-citizen enable me to live safely and happily but hypothetical Jeffie being a Sudanese-born-citizen expose him to a world of fear, war, and hunger?

1:16 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

I really enjoyed the beliefs discussion held in class because I believe that it brought into view what is great about America. That everyone is entitled to hold their own opinions and be who they wish to be.

Some are surprised to hear what I actually believe because they think of me as a right-wing nutcase, who only has the mental capacity of a peanut. ( I know, this is not an attack on any of you in class, but I have meet a few former students who have told me this.) Anyway, ( I tend to go off on those type of tangents), I never really explained in-depth my views of specific topics. I kept my remarks to a general basis for my beliefs, which form the foundation for my views of those specific topics.

First of, abortion. Yes, it is murder. Pretty-blunt, huh? Well, the fact of the matter is, if something is growing, then it must be alive. For if it is dead, then it certainly can not grow, and yes, in life things are either dead or alive. There is no translucent stage which allows people to determine the status of someone else’s life for the ease and simplicity of their own. These unborn children have the same rights that everyone else in this country has. By mindlessly murdering them to escape responsibility for one’s actions, their right to life is destroyed and taken away. No one, not a single person has the right to make that decision. Our own right’s end where the next person’s begin, thus we must protect the right to life of all children, born or unborn. For I believe that this is a case of infanticide, yes, I know this is a strong term, but that is what happens when upwards of 486 million children have been murdered since Roe v. Wade, in the United States alone (AP). Yet, those statistics ended in 1996, because no one wants to hear the number now. But, at the same time I believe that abortion can be implemented only if the mother will die because of the birth, rape, or incest. Yet, we must enforce our criminal laws to the point, where this need becomes inexistent. No woman has a right to abortion, for no woman has a right to murder. Then, comes the statement of pro-choice, that I can choose what I want to do with my body. How nice, you are so much more important than that little child, that since its in you, you can have it murdered. That makes so much sense. Hello, no it doesn’t. Your choice ended when you had intercourse, whether you planned on pregnancy or not, now live with the consequences of your actions. ( Some will note that I am using pronouns that may refer to some in the class, I am not, it is simply easier to write using them.)

On a side note, I do not support the death penalty because no one has the right to end someone else’s life. Plain and simple.

On the topic of separation of church and state, I believe that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to create a wall of hostility between government and the idea of religious belief itself. As Alexis de Tocqueville stated “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America. . . . America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.'' Today, there is an attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism “discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our civilization is based” (President Reagan). They say they are freeing us to live our lives, yet they are only superintending us by big government. I support 100% an effort to put prayer back into our schools. Our Supreme Court Justices open with a religious invocation and the Congress opens with a prayer. I believe that our children must be given the same rights that our Supreme Court Justices and Congressmen have.

Above all of this, I believe in small government. For as Ronald Reagan said “ Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” We must return to the era of government as of, by and for the people. I do not believe in bureaucrats in Washington telling Americans how they should live. Some will then say that I am saying on thing and doing another by opposing abortion, yet I am not. I oppose abortion because it is murder, and that is against the law. Government must work for us and not against us. Even now, under Bush’s administration, I believe that government is too big. The deficit must be eliminated as soon as possible, our tax code must be simplified, our laws must be made clear.

These are my main beliefs that shape the image of my political beliefs. I know in this that I have been very blunt, yet it is what I believe. I will never water that down when asked about it. I am not only open to disagreement with my positions, I hope that it comes, for it shows me that America is still alive. I want to hear the opinions of others, so that I may better understand America. If I offended anyone, I do apologize, but it is not of anger or hate. I believe that it is time to abolish hate and discrimination in our hearts and minds, since it has already been done in our laws.

In class, I would have liked to taken the tax discussion further, but hey, we’ll get to later. That’s what I think summed up, yes, I don’t summarize well.
I have further sources for some of this info. I anyone would like that let me know and I will be happy to post it.

1:50 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

Justin said - "But, at the same time I believe that abortion can be implemented only if the mother will die because of the birth, rape, or incest."

isn't this rather hypocritical? yes, a rape or incest may have been bad, but by your views that would be justfying murdering the child, who had no part in either?
the mother dying as a result of the case is something else altogether. my opinion is it is a simple case of what you would prefer. your own life, or the possibility of your child living.

in my eyes, the whole abortion debate stems around one issue: at what point the embryo can be considered "alive."

also, thanks for the links julie, i was too lazy to search it up myself. :)

7:14 PM  
Blogger marci said...

justin- since abortion is murder because the cells are living, would you not consider killing livestock, plants, and stepping on microorganisms murder, too?
do you eat air?

or do you just put animals and plants on a lesser level because they are considered "dumb" because we cannot understand them?
and, if so, can embryos talk?
they are, by definition, a parasite. without the mother allowing it to grow and taking away resources from her body, it wouldn't live anyway.

i'd like to question your loosely assigned words of "mindlessly murdering": what about the african woman who has a husband who uses her for his sexual frustrations and has 8 other children dying from AIDS and she herself is dying from malnutrition. Would she be "mindlessly murdering" the child that would most likely die before it reached 5 anyway?
what about the child that is HIV positive and will live a life infected? we would just be "mindlessly murdering" the kid?
is it not murder to allow the virus to kill the child in question over a course of 30 years?

realize that some women find abortion the only way out--- some women have a conscience [unlike the fathers who run off and do not claim the child as their own] and do not want to raise their child in an environment that they know would not be beneficial. take the nude dancer, for example. she doesnt want her child to grow up around that atmosphere.. but she doesnt have enough money to put her child in school nor to feed the child in an adequate manner.

yes, i know what you're going to say [it's what all of you pro-life people say]: "put them up for adoption!"
oh, wow. simply solution, huh? why dont YOU, the pro-lifers, ever adopt these children? well, because they're bound to be screwed up and you all would hardly want to take responsibility for the crack baby that you adopted. funny.. we dont happen to realize that we should not be adding to the number of parentless children in america. we should NOT be adding to the number of parentless children in the WORLD.

i understand that abortion should not be the solution to loose sex. however, you cannot draw lines in between incest, rape, loose sex etc etc.
you want to outlaw abortion? fine. we'll go to canada and have the procedure done there.

i find it funny, justin, that when i posed the question, "if your daughter was raped by your father and she became pregnant, you'd make her have the child?"
your answer was "yes, it deserves a chance at life".
does that not contradict your statement on here the forbids abortions unless the woman was raped or had an incestuous relationship?

here's the deal, justin: these are OUR bodies. maybe you men should consider controlling your OWN instead of falling back on the excuse "well she was just begging me to do it, so i did". it's a two way street, and a lot of the time men are not willing, especially as young men in high school and college, to take on the responsibility of being a father.
We reserve the right to do what we find is right for OUR OWN BODIES.
since you disagree with that, i'd like to propose a solution to the other half of the unwanted pregnancy problem: we store all of your sperm in large tank that keeps them alive for eternity and then we cut off your gentalia so you can have no sexual "accidents".

what, we're not allowed to do that?

2:31 AM  
Blogger marci said...

i completely agree with what julie said about pro-choice people.
we are not against life, but we reserve the right for the woman to have a choice. we reserve the right for pro-lifers to choose not to have an abortion.

it's a matter of choice, and in no way should the government be allowed to tell a woman that she is required to have a baby.

2:35 AM  
Blogger EmilyR said...

Marci, I'm completely with you on the whole abortion thing. It's not that if I ever got pregnant it would be my choice, it's the idea that the government would step in and determine if I could or couldn't. I don't necessarily agree with abortion but I don't think that would be reason enough for me to condemn those who do take part in it. I dislike how the government thinks that it is their place to take a "moral" stance on issues like this. I agree with what Julie said, it's not that I'm "anti-life" I'm just pro-CHOICE. I know what people are saying about their faith playing a part in this issue as well. I do have faith and I believe in God but I'm still pro-choice. I don't think that my religion should interfere with what our founding fathers deemed our "inalienable" rights. Furthermore, as a Christian I think that it's more important to accept women who do choose abortion than condemn them (not saying that all pro-life people would). The government has more important issues to deal with regarding Iraq and other things than to spend its time making decisions for its people.

6:35 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

Marci-

Thank you for taking the time comment on my beliefs, it reminds me of why I love America. Yet, I will answer every single one of the questions that you posed to me in your comments. ( All words in bold are quotes from Marci in her previous post.)

“Since abortion is murder because the cells are living, would you not consider killing livestock, plants, and stepping on microorganisms murder, too?”

I would tell someone to go up to a person and say that anyone has the right to kill them because they are no more important than a tree? What if someone did that to you? I imagine you would be a might upset. A living human being is being murdered, in a multitude of “pleasant” ways, every time an abortion is carried out. ( Yes, that was sarcastic, the part about pleasant murder techniques, not the rest.) Let me remind everyone that in almost every major culture to exist on this planet, there has been a distinction between humans and other organisms. I believe in human rights, these babies have a right to live. If one so venomously defends saving the trees and the environment, they why wouldn’t one so defend human life? If someone is to take up killing nothing, I’ll let them, but then I won’t have much sympathy for them when they run out of food. At the end of the day, we must be defending the right to life with everything we have. Also, come on, no tree has more value than the soul of human being.

Take for example the story of Gianna Jessen. This is the story of girl who survived an abortion by her mother. This was testimony given before the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996. These are her words: My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died. I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things. Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer. There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future. All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.

Anyone who says that a tree is more important than a human, please tell it this woman first.

“Do you eat air?”

Oh, please. Read previous answer.

“Do you just put animals and plants on a lesser level because they are considered "dumb" because we cannot understand them?”

Animals and plants are on a lesser level with humans, because let’s see why…They just are. Take for example, remember this is just ONE example, Genesis 9:3. It states that “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” To take a secular stance, since when does anyone say a human life is of less value than a tree? Take your pick, a human or a tree?

“Can embryos talk?”

No, they can’t talk. If they did it would be headline news on CNN. Since, when does talking matter? Does that mean a mute person has no rights either? That’s what I thought.

If they are, by definition a parasite, then we are all just big ones. So, does that mean we can do away with anyone who annoys us? No, we must care for and love everyone, giving them the chance to live. Everyone was given that chance, what if they weren’t?

“Would she be "mindlessly murdering" the child that would most likely die before it reached 5 anyway?”

Again, let’s all talk with more respect for human life. That child has a heart, a hope, a future. No matter how bleak, we must give them the chance to live, the same chance that you and I were given.

“What about the child that is HIV positive and will live a life infected?”

He could save the world. We just don’t know his potential. I am not the one to say that he should not live. Is anyone else? Absolutely not.

“We would just be "mindlessly murdering" the kid?”

That seems pretty accurate to me.

“Is it not murder to allow the virus to kill the child in question over a course of 30 years?”

I would love to agree with this statement. I would pass a bill outlawing AIDS if I could, but that is just not possible. So, why must we do the killing? There is no such thing as a mercy killing.

“Why don’t YOU, the pro-lifers, ever adopt these children?”

We don’t!!!???!!! A pro-lifer has never adopted a child? Seriously, if it was up to me, I would take in a child to give him the chance to live. I know a couple from church who have adopted 2 children, who were going to be aborted, but fortunately were given the chance to live, on top of their own children. I have personally know many more, who don’t seem to get noticed. Do not tell me that no one adopts these children. I do take offense to this statement.

“You want to outlaw abortion? fine. we'll go to Canada”

Have a good trip. ( Yes, sarcasm again.)

“O find it funny, Justin, that when I posed the question, "if your daughter was raped by your father and she became pregnant, you'd make her have the child?"
your answer was "yes, it deserves a chance at life".
does that not contradict your statement on here the forbids abortions unless the woman was raped or had an incestuous relationship?”


You know, I stand by what I said to you. Let me clarify me previous comments. Under any condition, I do not condone abortion, yet I do think that the mother has a right to self-defense against the rapist or the incestuous person. I do not think that that can be reasonably banned. I still DO NOT condone or support it.

“These are OUR bodies. maybe you men should consider controlling your OWN instead of falling back on the excuse "well she was just begging me to do it, so I did".”

My position is that sex must wait until marriage. No excuses, no exceptions. I have controlled mine just fine. I completely advocate the idea of sexual purity, so please do not tell me to control my own body, because I already do.

Yet, going to the broader topic of every male, I completely believe that men should be held just as responsible for a pregnancy as a woman. There must be no quick excuse. I believe that they must take on the responsibility of their actions, as a husband or a father.

“We reserve the right to do what we find is right for OUR OWN BODIES.”

Wonderful, it seems as if these unborn are worthless pieces of trash, because people think that they are so great, that they must take no responsibility, so just kill it. It will make everyone’s life simpler. Kill things we don’t like because I want to.

Did anyone know that under federal law, an unborn child has the right to hold property, yet has no right to live. That’s make perfect sense. What happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Murder is not a moral stance. Murder is murder at the end of the day. My dream is for every human to be given a hope, and a future. Abortion only stands in the way.

Again, thanks for responding to my beliefs. This is who I am, who I should have made clearer in class. I can’t wait to discuss with everyone further.

8:36 PM  
Blogger Sarah A said...

Justin-
Regarding abortion, I see you obviously have compassion for the babies, why not have some compassion for the would-be mothers?

I hate to play the gender card here (actually, I kind of like to), but why is it so expected that women should drop their independent lives to take care of an unwanted baby, while many times the father just walks away? I know you're going to say that pro-lifers don't support dead-beat-dads, and I know thats true, but it's not illegal for a guy to shirk the responsibility of a child, why should it be illegal for a woman to do so? Even if I were to agree with you that abortion is morally irresponsible (which I don't), it's discriminatory for the law to explicitly forbid one gender's irresponsibility but not the other.

Another issue I have with abortion is of course the question of killing something which hasn't been born. I suppose it is ending a potential life, but I also think there are plenty of unwanted children in the world starving and dying of disease as it is, and I fail to really see the huge tragedy in lessening the count by 1. Callous maybe, realistic, I think so.

The reality of the matter is that unwanted babies ruin lives. They ruin educations, careers, family ties, relationships, financial security...etc. Being ready to have sex should not equate with being ready to have a baby. Most people are emotionally ready for sex by 20 years old, but how many can financially support a child? Mistakes happen, but they shouldn't have to ruin lives. We shouldn't make second chances illegal. Who are we to judge?

Personally, I can't respect any law telling someone what they can or can't do with their own body. Whether its illegal abortion or illegal drugs, it all seems like the same oppression to me. But maybe thats just a whole nother can of worms.

11:54 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

Sarah-

Thanks for responding. You do make some good points, but I believe there are flaws in the logic. ( I will use personal pronouns simply because it is easier to write in. I am not referring to anyone individually.)

Regarding compassion for would-be mothers, I really try to find compassion for murderers, but I can't seem to find it. I do not have compassion for people found guilty of first-degree murder, so I don't know how I could find compassion for someone who murders a child.

I do believe that it should be illegal for fathers to walk away and ignore the responsibility of a being a father, yet somehow I feel that liberals would be opposed to such a law as oppressive and un-constitutional since it would control the lives of people.

You suppose it ends life? It is either being killed or not. There is no happy, safe medium to make people feel good about themselves for committing murder. By the way, it is not lessening the count by 1, but 1.5 million per year, in the United States, upwards of 520 million since 1967 (AP). That is infanticide, plain and simple.

I love how you are so important. It would ruin your life, how sad. Everyone makes a conscious decision to have sex, period.(I know rape and incest occur, but I already have allowed provision for that.) There are risks and consequences involved for having sex, so why not accept them? Why can't one accept this responsibility? Having a baby is no mistake. Someone's second chance is the courage and honor to stand up and take care of that child, not simply throwing it out with the morning trash.

Remember, it is not your body. That is a living human being. Respect it. Humans rights must reach around the world, yet you won't let it reach an unborn child. You give that child the right to own property, yet not to live. Let's expand human rights to every person, including the unborn, so that callous people may not murder them because they want a get out of jail free card.

Again, thanks for responding and allowing for me to comment in return. I am really starting to like the respect found on this board. It seems to be transferring well from the classroom. Remember, in my use of personal pronouns I am referring to no one specifically, it is simply easier to write that way.

10:51 AM  
Blogger mhayworth said...

First I just wanted to say that I think that it is awesome that we can have an open forum to discuss these important issues. To me this blog seems even more open then the classroom discussion on what we believe.

I'd like to start off and comment on the abortion discussion. As a woman I believe that no one should be able to dictate what I do with my body and to go even further my life. And I would not care if an order came straight from the president or the pope. To me I don't think anyone should have power over another person’s decisions. I think it is my right as a citizen of the "free world" to make my own choices. Abortion is a moral issue and each person's morals are different. It would be much easier for everyone to put the entire nation's beliefs into a black and white mold of right and wrong but the truth is that morality is just a huge gray area. Every person has different beliefs and limits.

My personal opinion on abortion is that I am undecided. I am Christian but by no means do I go to church every week so the religious influence is not huge in my life. But I do have other influences. In my mind I could not make a decision about abortion unless I was in that position. I think with rape, incest, and if the woman is going to die abortion should be allowed. If a woman simply gets pregnant and does not want to keep the baby I don't know. One side of me says that if the woman simply cannot handle raising a child and that child will grow up into an uncomfortable situation then that woman should get an abortion. But after reading all the posts before me I did some research and according to http://www.pregnancycenters.org/pregnant.html "at 7 weeks after conception...the baby's heart has been beating for one month and fingers and toes are developed." To me a beating heart symbolizes life. So my beliefs are still up in the air. Truth is, I don't know what I would choose but I definitely don't think that anyone can make the choice for someone else.

But I would just like to pose a question to anyone who wants to answer it, (If it doesn’t make any sense, disregard it and move on, I was not quite sure how to word it.) If we consider a embryo an child, a living thing that can possess property (going back to one of Justin’s previous posts) what is the difference between terminating the pregnancy or say the woman has the baby and it goes to school and she lets the child walk home alone from school. The child gets hit by a car on the side of the road and is killed. If we originally considered the child, when unborn, a person capable of possessing property isn’t it the woman’s decision to do what she wants with that child just like he decision to let the child walk across a busy street alone on their way home from school? (I know this brings up pretty extenuating circumstances but humor me.)

And I would also like to comment on Sarah's initial comment on atheism. Before that comment I have never really heard explanations of atheism. It really opened my eyes to hear what you believe and why you believe it.

Thanks guys and my post was definitely a bit longer then I initially expected. Hope everyone is enjoying their three day weekend!

3:56 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

Mary-

Thanks for blogging. I completely agree that this forum is much more open than what we saw in class.

To answer your question regarding abortion, I think I understand the point you are trying to make. My response is that both are very, very bad decisions. A small child should not be allowed to walk home alone at that age, but even if they are, most of the time they make it home safely. The danger for that child then occurs when someone else makes a poor decision and becomes a criminal, by either running over the child as you mentioned, or through any other number of means. Yet, this decision is not necessarily the same, based on the fact that if an abortion is chosen, murder takes place, but if a child is left to walk home alone, that can be considered criminal negligence for not properly protecting the welfare of the child, murder does not arbitrarily take place. I hope this response makes some sense.

To clarify my comments regarding how unborn children are allowed to own property, yet are not protected from being murdered. This is a double standard that allows for the murder of babies, while still allowing them to buy a car.

Another interesting point is that in criminal law, it is illegal for another to kill a unborn baby, say by hurting the mother, etc., yet it is legal for the mother to kill it out of her own admonition. It is first-degree murder for another to kill an unborn baby because in that area of the law it recognizes an unborn child as a separate living human, yet it is legal for mothers to commit first-degree murder? Why in some aspects of the law is a unborn child not recognized as a separate living human, yet is recognized in other aspects? There is case law to back up this point. Please ask if you would like it.

Thanks for posting.

5:44 PM  
Blogger EmilyR said...

Justin,
I completely respect your beliefs and agree with them on some level.

I agree that abortion is morally wrong and that if I were to get pregnant, excluding a case of rape, it would be my own fault and I should accept the responsibility and deal with the consequences. I completely understand where you are coming from. Like I said before, I respect you immensely for stating your beliefs so openly, especially with so many other people commenting and critiquing your opinions.

My only difference from you is that I don't think it is the governments place to step in and regulate peoples decisions with such an iron fist. I agree that abortion is essentially murder, and in response to Marci's question about talking Embryos, not only is it incredibly alarming to picture, I don't feel that it has any weight. One year old babies cannot talk, but would you go out and harm an infant because of it? Overall, Justin I agree with your arguments but I just don't condone the government taking part in making our decisions. Do you really think that the government should be making such influential decisions for someone else's life?

6:54 PM  
Blogger EmilyR said...

Sorry, one more thing

Justin, I was just reading your last comment about the law, and I agree that it doesn't all add up, but when has the law ever made perfect sense? There are so many aspects of the law that are skewed and so many innocent people are accused for completely insignificant things--At the mock trial in Meyer's law class last year, one of the juries found the defendent guilty of first degree murder and the other found her not guilty on all accounts. Both juries had substantial reasons for their verdict so I have a hard time looking to the legal system for any hard evidence.

6:59 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

It's nice to see so many people participating on here!

I'm still firmly set on my abortion position. I know its a brutal act, but it's still a woman's choice. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Justin - "I believe that it is time to abolish hate and discrimination in our hearts and minds, since it has already been done in our laws."

I find it really interesting that you say this when I know that you're against gay marriage. Regardless of what your religion may dictate, that's discrimination. Like I said before, that's 30 million americans who are second-class citizens in the 'land of the free.'

Just something to think about.

7:13 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

Emily-

Thanks for posting and commenting on my opinions. Here is my response: ( All words in bold are Emily’s). Remember, I will use personal pronouns, but I am not referring to anyone, it is just easier to write in that fashion.

“Do you really think that the government should be making such influential decisions for someone else's life?”

I think that government should stay out of people’s personal lives as much as possible, yet it is the government’s duty to protect and ensure each citizen a right to live, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Not happiness, just its pursuit. For example, our federal government can tell me that it is a felony to have a toilet over 1.4 gallons, yet it can not stop murder because that is government intrusion. Come on. If it can ban working toilets then it certainly can ban the infanticide of abortion that is occurring right now. Government intrusion is when it tells you to how and when to cut your hair, government intrusion does not exist when it is protecting an innocent human life from being stabbed to death, or killed in any other number of barbaric and sickening ways.

Liberals, ( I know this is a generalization, but fairly accurate) love to regulate our economy, our lives, our waste, that includes our toilets, our cars, our houses, our food, our jobs, our education, and just about anything else that you can think of, yet to stop murder, now that crosses the line. Government should protect its people, including the unborn.

That is not over government regulation. So, then should this government allow murder? Of course not, so then why do we allow the brutal murder of our unborn children.

“When has the law ever made perfect sense?”

I agree the law almost never makes sense. Yet, there are instances when the absurdities become so outrageous, that something can be done to fix that. This is one of those instances.

Again, thanks for commenting on my beliefs. I have no problem allowing others to critique them, I enjoy it actually.

7:42 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

I meant the words in quotes are Emily's. My mistake, I apologize.

7:43 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

Julie-

Thanks for commenting on a quote in my response that I thought no one would notice. That is really cool.

Anyway, remember I will use personal pronouns, but I am referring to no one specifically, I only do that because it is simply easier to write in such a manner.

I had said that it is time to abolish discrimination in our hearts and minds, since it is already abolished in our laws. I stand by that statement. Let me explain why, in your context of gay marriage.

I believe in small, limited government. I do not believe that it is the government’s right to even determine if gay marriage should be allowed. It is not this government’s problem. If I were asked to vote on a law that would outlaw gay marriage, I would vote against it because that is not this government’s job. If I were asked to vote on a law that would allow gay marriage, I would vote against it because, again, that is not this government’s job.

Per my religion, I believe that the actions they take are mistakes. No worse than my mistake or anyone else’s mistake to say, for example, to lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc. They made simple mistakes, that can have simple solutions. I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic, I believe that it is learned from a lack of love. Everyone wants to be loved, some may think that that is a way to find love. I think there actions are wrong, but I believe that I have no power to stop them, that is undue governmental influence, since their actions have no affect on the lives of other Americans.

I think of them with just as much love as anyone else. It is hard to love someone who disagrees with you, yet I try to do that. This is the land of free. They are allowed to make those mistakes. I will not stop them, I will only try to show them love, and its true origins. But, I will not do that through protesting or law, but through actions of compassion and love. That is my stance. That is why I said we must abolish discrimination in our hearts and minds.

7:59 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Will Hea
Meyer-5

1. Atheism is a religion, a choice not to believe at all requires the same level of belief and investment in one's convictions as religion. To be without religion is to have a religion. In the same sense to have no political affiliation is still to have a political affiliation, your affiliation is just disagreeing with everyone else.
2. To answer Sharaya's question people cannot work together because there are to many different opinions. How do we work together? Who do we follow? Who does what? What should our main concerns be? What is right and wrong? No two people will EXACTLY agree on all of these questions, therefore, there must be debate and clash in order to determine which way is best in order to gain majority.
3. I am very interested in JULIE S's statements. You believe that the government should avoid threatening the sovereignty of other nations but you also advocate U.S. intervention in Africa, an intervention that, if wanted to be successful, would require the use of the United States military. In your opinion Julie, what would justify United States intervention in another country? If pre-war Iraq was looked at solely from your perspective of what requires intervention, whould not the Iraq War be justified?
4. This question is for BECCA S. You are against United States actions that affect other countries. What decisions should the United States Government be allowed to make? Won't even the smallest decisions affect other nations?
5. ON TO ABORTION! Abortion is one of my favorite issues to debate because it offers me a fantastic opportunity to be a smartass (lighten up guys). So here is what I believe:
1. Although I am a fundamentalist Lutheran Christian, (that means I am conservative even for conservatives). I believe that in a political forum it is alright to advocate religious beliefs as long as they are backed up by nonreligious reasoning.
2. I believe that almost all women have a right to choice. THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE SEX. Although many people say some abortions are from rape, this is relatively insignificant and most abortions come from consentual sex. An innocent child should not have to suffer death for a parent's bad decision.
3. I believe that children should be had and adopted if their mothers were raped. However, I can find no political justification for this, so I am willing to compromise the children of raped women for the good of the majority of aborted children.
4. Although I don't believe in abortion I do advocate stem cell research. This is based on life potential. Some cells in a test tube do not have the potential for life other than through artificial means. However, I do recognize that many and probably most stem cells come from fetuses. I would prefer that all stem cells come from artificially inseminated eggs in test tubes.
GAY RIGHTS:
1. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GAYS, OR ANY MINORITY, SHOULD EVER, EVER, HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THE MAJORITY.
2. I BELIEVE THAT GAYS DO ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX, THIS RIGHT IS UNIVERSAL AND EQUAL.
3. I BELIEVE THAT GRANTING GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE IS BIASED TOWARDS GAYS AN UNSENSIBLE. I do not view homosexuality as a choice but rather a mental disorder. However, people of a mental disorder such as dyslexia are asked by society to get over it and abide by societal principles. Gays should be expected to do the same.

I would just like to say that I do not believe that privilege should ever be considered when in lawmaking, any side of a privilege argument can too easily be marked as racist (ask me, its funny) and a government should work according to meritocracy regardless of someone's birth status. Some people will just have to work harder than others to achieve the same goal.

Lastly, any one who believes there are two-sides to every issue is one-sided.

9:06 PM  
Blogger Sarah A said...

Will-
"To be without religion is to have a religion"

I get that this is supposed to be a cryptic paradox, but it just isn't true.
If Atheists don't believe in God, don't attend church (or even have Atheistic Churches for that matter), don't support any minister, and don't recognize Atheism as a religion, why do you still insist that it is one?

What part of that says "religion" to you?

I would say that Atheism can be called a set of values or maybe even a (lack of) belief system, but not a religion. It's a small difference, but an important one.

10:06 PM  
Blogger IanF said...

Justin-
I admire your sense of acceptance; it is something that not everyone has. However, I am puzzled as to how you can maintain that Homosexuality is not genetic. A multitude of studies from this country's and this world's greatest institutes of education and research have shown that it is genetic. For example I reference this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/26/ugay.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/26/ixnews.html , when I say that recently it has been shown that being gay isn’t a choice. Ask any homosexual and he will tell you that he has, does, and will always know he is gay. So I ask you if any child has a chance of being gay, and they can not influence that, then why should they be punished for it? Why should Tom and Steve (not real people) not be allowed to have the same rights as Nick and Jane (again). That is discrimination and it is wrong to its core. If you want there are many other studies that show the same thing. I thank you for your response.

10:20 PM  
Blogger marci said...

Justin- [your quotations are in bold

I would tell someone to go up to a person and say that anyone has the right to kill them because they are no more important than a tree? What if someone did that to you? I imagine you would be a might upset. A living human being is being murdered, in a multitude of “pleasant” ways, every time an abortion is carried out. ( Yes, that was sarcastic, the part about pleasant murder techniques, not the rest.)
You misunderstood what I was asking. I’m asking about your definition of murder, because apparently it only applies when killing humans; not anything else living.
Let me remind everyone that in almost every major culture to exist on this planet, there has been a distinction between humans and other organisms.
Why, because they are dumb? Because we cannot understand them? Because we view ourselves more important? Why are we more important? Because we are more advanced? Because we require more shelter and nurturing than other animals or plants? What exactly is the distinction, Justin? [Mind you, I would set myself out in front of a semi to save a child, not an animal. But I want to know the answers to the previously mentioned questions if you’re going to use that as an excuse as to why abortion should not be legal.]
I believe in human rights, these babies have a right to live.
What about the woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion?
If one so venomously defends saving the trees and the environment, they why wouldn’t one so defend human life? If someone is to take up killing nothing, I’ll let them, but then I won’t have much sympathy for them when they run out of food. At the end of the day, we must be defending the right to life with everything we have.
You are failing to answer my initial question: is it NOT murder to kill something living? Is that not a portion of your argument?
Also, come on, no tree has more value than the soul of human being.
No, really? You’re calling it murder, so I’m simply questioning why killing other living organisms isn’t considered murder.

Take for example the story of Gianna Jessen. This is the story of girl who survived an abortion by her mother. This was testimony given before the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996. These are her words: My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died. I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things. Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer. There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future. All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.
Do realize, darling, that is a case study. Just because one girl is happy she wasn’t aborted does not mean that is the case with every child. What about the children who were not aborted but lived in foster homes for the initial 18 years of their lives and moved on to be drug dealers and crack addicts? Sure, there will be some people who regret having an abortion and those happy they survived it, however, there are just as many on the other side of the spectrum [well, the mothers at least… we don’t know how the baby felt about being aborted. However, since it is not consciously thinking about being aborted and what “life” it could have had, you cannot tell me it was screaming from within the womb not to be aborted]

Anyone who says that a tree is more important than a human, please tell it this woman first.
Back to your misunderstanding of what I was trying to point out…

Oh, please. Read previous answer.
I hope you’re happy murdering other living, breathing things in order for you to survive.

Animals and plants are on a lesser level with humans, because let’s see why…They just are.
Why? Because you cannot understand them? I bet you cannot understand Japanese-speaking people, but I wouldn’t put them on a lesser level than myself… and I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t either.
Take for example, remember this is just ONE example, Genesis 9:3. It states that “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” To take a secular stance, since when does anyone say a human life is of less value than a tree? Take your pick, a human or a tree?
Remember that not all of us are tied to the bible, Justin. Just because YOUR GOD said that everything that lives and moves will be food for you [I’m assuming that includes fetuses and babies] doesn’t mean everyone else believes what your God put in your bible. That’s a rather weak argument. I’ll let you know, my god, in his version of the bible, said that we’re allowed to have abortions. Well, okay, then. So who’s right? My god, or your god? Or Buddha? Or.. the non-existent god that I ‘believe’ in?

No, they can’t talk. If they did it would be headline news on CNN. Since, when does talking matter? Does that mean a mute person has no rights either? That’s what I thought. that statement was merely a means to counter your “animals cannot talk” argument. Apparently, you didn’t used it, so void my comment about mute embryos.

If they are, by definition a parasite, then we are all just big ones. So, does that mean we can do away with anyone who annoys us?
Do we not do that anyway? Maybe we should consider gun control to curb unnecessary murders. [sorry, the human may pull the trigger, but it’s the gun, more importantly, the bullet itself, that kills the person. Hand to hand combat? Fairer fight. Gun to hand combat? Indians vs. colonists, anyone? I believe we all know who won that one.]
No, we must care for and love everyone, giving them the chance to live.
That’s YOUR belief. Not everyone’s. Those are your morals, not everyone else’s, necessarily
Everyone was given that chance, what if they weren’t?
So, you’re saying that our armed forces are being given the chance to live by being sent over to Iraq to fight a war that we’ve lost? Face it, Iraq is Islamic for Vietnam. We won’t win the fight if the people we’re fighting for are fighting against us. Back to the question: My brother, who’s in the Air Force, is really given a chance to live when being sent into an area exploding with guns and bombs?


Again, let’s all talk with more respect for human life. That child has a heart, a hope, a future. No matter how bleak, we must give them the chance to live, the same chance that you and I were given.
How do you KNOW it has a future? What if the nurse injects a poison instead of an antibiotic and kills it? How do you KNOW it has hope for a future?
You don’t. Invalid point.


He could save the world. We just don’t know his potential. I am not the one to say that he should not live. Is anyone else? Absolutely not.
He could also be the one who murders you.
You never know, do you?

There is no such thing as a mercy killing.
I must beg to differ. I know if I were on 20 tubes, completely paralyzed, and in pain 24 hours a day, I’d tell people to pull the plug. Better, if I weren’t paralyzed, I’d pull it myself. There is such a thing as a mercy killing. Take a look at war, when your buddy’s chest cavity has been ripped open and you’re in the middle of nowhere. I sure as hell wouldn’t let him suffer, and I find it rather heartless of you to allow him to watch his own blood spurt from his chest while he dies.



We don’t!!!???!!! A pro-lifer has never adopted a child?
I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to say that NONE of you do. Bad wording on my part.
Seriously, if it was up to me, I would take in a child to give him the chance to live.
You’re one out of a million.
..With two million orphans sitting around.
I know a couple from church who have adopted 2 children, who were going to be aborted, but fortunately were given the chance to live, on top of their own children. I have personally know many more, who don’t seem to get noticed. Do not tell me that no one adopts these children. I do take offense to this statement.
Not enough, though. Too many children are not being adopted, not at the fault of pro-lifers or pro-choicers--- we just have too many accidents for children. Yes, they are accidents. The condom broke, she was on the pill as well and that didn’t work, emergency contraceptive didn’t work, and she still was pregnant. Accident? Yes.



Have a good trip. ( Yes, sarcasm again.)
We will. And we’ll gloat about getting rid of a child as we do it.


You know, I stand by what I said to you. Let me clarify me previous comments. Under any condition, I do not condone abortion, yet I do think that the mother has a right to self-defense against the rapist or the incestuous person. I do not think that that can be reasonably banned. I still DO NOT condone or support it.
So, we give you the right to not support abortion nor to ever HAVE to have one..
…But we reserve the right to have one if we see a need to.


My position is that sex must wait until marriage. No excuses, no exceptions. I have controlled mine just fine. I completely advocate the idea of sexual purity, so please do not tell me to control my own body, because I already do.
Does everyone else? Does every other man and woman share your beliefs as well? Realize that sex is a natural instinct, all animals do it [jack rabbits..ahaha], along with humans because it is a natural instinct to reproduce. HOWEVER, we need a way to curb it if need be. The world isn’t expanding, you know. But we are. If there’s a child that will not be loved by its birth parents, I think the parents reserve the right to get the child aborted.

Yet, going to the broader topic of every male, I completely believe that men should be held just as responsible for a pregnancy as a woman. There must be no quick excuse. I believe that they must take on the responsibility of their actions, as a husband or a father.
You cannot ensure that happens. Therefore, my statement stands.



wonderful, it seems as if these unborn are worthless pieces of trash, because people think that they are so great, that they must take no responsibility, so just kill it.
Honestly, if I grew up hopping foster homes knowing my parents didn’t want me… I’m not sure I’d be too happy living any way. It’s not an issue of taking responsibility necessarily [assuming all precautions were taken] accidents happen, and if the 15 year old mother isn’t ready emotionally to handle a baby, are you the one to force her to have it and ruin her life?
It will make everyone’s life simpler. Kill things we don’t like because I want to.
A lot of people do that. Black cats. Coyotes. Foxes. Raccoons. Deer. Mosquitoes. Bugs. Spiders.

Murder is not a moral stance. Murder is murder at the end of the day.
You’re right. But not everyone actually considers abortion ‘murder’.
My dream is for every human to be given a hope, and a future. Abortion only stands in the way.
What about war, where you’re KILLING people? I seem to remember you supporting the war in Iraq… war KILLS. That’s not really giving the opposition a right to a future. What about the huge gap between the rich and the poor? For the poor kid born on the streets, they don’t really have much hope.


Anyway, I’m not sure if this argument has a direction or not. It’s clear that both of us have different values: yours for unborn things, mine for the conscious woman who doesn’t feel like she could give her child a good life.
I agree, however, that abortion should not be a means for birth control. If I had it my way, a woman would be allowed 3 abortions on the grounds of: the baby would be born with a poor chance of living, the woman in question was raped, or if the woman used all precautions possible but the pregnancy still occurred. However, since there’s no way to PROVE that any or all of the above happened, I would say that I would leave the opportunity there for the woman to decide what she feels best for herself and for the unborn child.
As a side note, my mother has had 5 children and lost 2 more because of complications during pregnancy. [she’s an independent, just so you don’t make any conclusions about her political stance and how it affects abortion]. I was talking with her one day about my youngest sibling, Anthony. Doctors had told her that he had a 12% chance of having a rare disease that would kill him within the first week of his life. They then asked it he did indeed have it, if she would want an abortion. Her answer was ‘yes’, merely because she couldn’t/wouldn’t be able to stand watching her baby die. Yes, I know… very selfish of her to not watch her baby die instead of just “murdering” it. She had to go through two other children dying within her womb; so hey, let’s make her suffer more by sitting and watching the kid live 7 days of pain and agony and die anyway. Brilliant. Good news, he didn’t have it. But while the thought of having to abort a baby brought tears to my mother’s eyes, she still would have done it for the sake of her child, not for her own. And she said she’d be damned if she was going to tell another woman what to do with their baby. I wouldn’t want to give birth to my baby and have it die in my arms 10 minutes later. Call me heartless, but I would prefer to save myself and the baby a lot of pain and grieving by simply aborting it.

10:47 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Will -

Well, I think that you just ended the tradition of respect on this blog, good job there. I think that quite frankly your statement refering to homosexuality as a mental disorder was completely out of line and blatently hateful. That's all I really have to say about that, considering I'm a bit in shock that anyone would even post that, even if they truly believed it.

Also, you very much so misinterpreted what I said about US involvement in foreign affairs.

10:48 PM  
Blogger Matt W said...

Julie -

Let's not get too hasty with statements like "I think that you just ended the tradition of respect on this blog, good job there." So far, just reading all of the posts here has made me realize that we actually can discuss things in a calm and mature manner. I'm not saying you obscenely over-reacted, I'm just making the general observation that if we can all take a few hits here and there without noting and retaliating for every last one, we'll be much better off and we can actually get some exchange of ideas going here. But I would ask that everyone be considerate in your posts. There are ways of communicating your ideas without purposefully offending anyone. For example, the current set of issues being debated by Justin and Marci is being handled very well. Both of you have continued to defend your stances without attacking or openly offending the other. It's very cool to see, so I hope you guys keep it up.

As for responding to the question originally posed by Mr. Meyer: To lay it on the line clear-cut, I'm a republican (Yes, I am in Republican Warriors). I side conservatively both socially and economically. To give a small background, I'm a Christian, and my religion plays a very large role in my political thoughts. I'm not even your average Christian...I'm a Baptist (Don't be afraid, I won't bite). However, I was raised democratic, and Catholic. My mom even worked in Bill Clinton's campaign locally. Since then, our family has converted from Catholic/Democrat, to Protestant/Republican. So what does that mean for my political views? I am pro-life (Not moderate pro-life, I mean in ALL situations). I support Bush and all that he has done. I support the War on Terror (Afghanistan, Iraq, ALL of it). In fact, I'm actually planning on attending the U.S. Naval Academy and making a career out of the Navy. I support this nation, and any action in defense of it. I support our involvement in supporting Israel. I am anti Gay Marriage (Note: That means I disagree that they should have that right. They, as all human beings, are entitled to many rights, but marriage isn't one of them. If you'd really like to know where I stand on this, feel free to have a conversation with me sometime, but remember that my political views are based in my religion, so you might not agree with my sources.). I am very excited to be able to vote (finally!) in the 2008 election.

That about sums it up for the major issues in today's world. I really want to hear your thoughts on any of these topics, including my initial statement. See you all on Wednesday in class, and I hope you enjoyed your long weekend. I know I did.

11:50 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Will Hea

I am sorry if you feel that calling homosexuality a mental disorder is wrong,it probably is too harsh, but I don't see how I could otherwise have phrased it. How would you have defined it, even though you disagree with this argument?

I do thank you JULIE S for your response. I sometimes forget to be politically correct and it is good to have a reminder that my language may offend some people.

Ian is right, science does point to the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, it has even been shown to occur in animals. Check out this article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

I know abortion is a hot topic. ONE ISSUE WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED IS: SHOULD ABORTIONS BE ALLOWED IF BIRTH OR A C-SECTION WOULD THREATEN THE MOTHER'S LIFE? Just asking (by the way I'm not yelling I just can't BOLD like you guys)

Hey MARCI good line-by-line responses, join the debate team you would be good at it.

3:31 PM  
Blogger EmilyR said...

Okay, So I feel like I personally have to back track a little. Going back to the whole abortion thing...

After thinking a whole lot about it, I still believe that women should retain their right to choice. However, I think that there is a flaw with the way our system is now. It is entirely too easy for a woman to get an abortion. I think that the government should make it more difficult. If I had any control over this, beyond just my opinions, I would propose that any woman considering an abortion should be required to attend some form of therapy or counseling beforehand. If there was someone making sure that all women were aware of the ramifications of their actions as well as their other options, it would go a long way to decreasing the number of abortions. Also, I think that it should be mandatory that if the girl is under 18, her parents should be aware of the situation. Furthermore, I think it would add a lot to instate some way of letting the father know. I realize that this would be difficult to prove if guy really is the father but anything to make getting an abortion more involved. Now, perhaps some of these ideas are already in effect, I don't know. But I think these ideas would help to appease everyone.

Matt,
Why are you so opposed to Gay marriage? I am fundamentally against the idea as well, however, it seems like it is a petty issue that, if allowed, would not harm anyone and would significantly increase the unity amongst cultures. Also, I am curious why your religion plays such a dominant role in your political values? Where do you stand on the separation of Church and State? Thanks for Posting. New ideas and comments are always appreciated. And I'm sure that Justin could use some more reinforcement!

4:02 PM  
Blogger Megan M said...

Hey everyone, before I start I just have a quick question - up to now I haven't been able to get to this blog from my house; I just tried going to it from Netscape and that worked, but if I try using Firefox I end up with last year's posts. Can anyone explain that to me?

Now. Justin, way earlier you said "I support 100% an effort to put prayer back into our schools. Our Supreme Court Justices open with a religious invocation and the Congress opens with a prayer. I believe that our children must be given the same rights that they have". This was along with some abortion comments, which really caught on but I wanted to address this one issue. What makes it justifiable to force children to pray as a part of their MANDATORY education? I guarantee you there is no school, public or private, where everyone has the same beliefs. Setting aside private schools, as they are not mandatory and are often based on religion, how can you justify worship in public schools? What about the children raised Buddhist, or Shinto, or Hindu, or anything else that does not worship the Christian God? What about those children (keep in mind this is up to age 16 legally, 18 usually) who are questioning their beliefs? Is that not their own private affair, not something to be questioned or disputed in front of their teachers and classmates? God is not a part of everyone's life. It is not the government's nor the school's right to set aside time for religion for children, whether or not you define atheism as a religion. For the argument that not everyone has to pray, they can just sit quietly or refuse to participate, just like during the Pledge: doesn't that automatically set them aside from their classmates and sometimes their educators? I can't tell you how many times I've been treated like a stranger by friends who suddenly found out I was an athiest. No one should be forced to take part in or be present for religious rituals that do not apply to them. In regards to children having the same rights as Supreme Court Justices and Congeressmen - yes, let them have the right to pray! Everyone should be able to pursue their beliefs, so let anyone pray or worship or do whatever during school, Court or Congress, but don't make it an organized activity. Congress and the Supreme Court should not open anything with an organized prayer either, for the same reasons, but if they want to pray on their own time, or even instead of doind their job, that is entirely within their rights.

I hope I've made it clear that I am not bashing religion, nor am I suggesting limiting anyone's rights to pursure their religion; I just don't think everyone else should be required to pursue their religion along with them.

5:15 PM  
Blogger Sarah A said...

Reading through all these comments (yes I read them all) has been very interesting...and time consuming!

Going waaaaay back to Becca's comment about nationalism:

I'm also confused by it. I know that being patriotic is a "good" thing, and being unpatriotic is a "bad" thing, but no one has ever explained to me WHY. Why should I be proud of the piece of land which I happened to be conceived and born on? I had no choice, I did nothing to "earn" my American citizenship, I was just born. I feel like I should be proud of my accomplishments (I can play the piano, good for me) but I'm not proud of something I had no part in controlling (i.e. my nationality). To me, being "Proud to be an American" is like being proud to be a brunette, or proud to be white or black--can you really be proud of something you had no control over?

Going one step further, right now I can honestly say that I am NOT proud to be an American. I don't agree with America's role in the War on Terror, I don't agree with many of America's laws, I feel embarrassed by President Bush and the impression that he has given the rest of the world of America, and I really just cannot wait for Bush's administration to be over so that America can reclaim some of its dignity and principles.

I guess that "Lucky to be an American" would be a much more accurate phrase. I don't think I'll ever see the logic in being "proud" to be an American, but I can still acknowledge that there are much worse places I could have been born than America.

Sorry that this wasn't related to abortion or gay marriage. I've made my beliefs clear and I think thats all I feel like saying on the subject, I could rant for hours about it, but I'd rather not!

Anyway, this dialogue is really interesting...keep it up.

5:19 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Emily -

I like your ideas regarding abortion. I think that it is definitely a reasonable middle ground, way to take a different angle on that! I think the idea of some sort of therapy program is a good idea, considering the sheer magnitude of making a decision like that. As far as the whole notifying parents thing... I'm a bit opposed to that, but I see why you think it's a good idea. Like I said, way to bring something new to the argument.


Will -

I'm sorry if my response was a bit harsh too, but I was just so taken aback by your comment. Of all issues that I'm an activist for, gay rights is something that I am very passionate about. I just thought it was a bit inapropriate to catagorize it in such a way. Regardless of personal opinion, it's not some kind of birth defect or even a disorder. It's just different, and like both you and Ian said that it is backed by science. It's simply something that just occurs in nature.

Because homosexuality isn't a concious choice, regardless of what religion may dictate, it's very much so unfair to say that granting gay people the right to marry someone of the same sex would be a "special right." It's not a "special right" because although gay americans are technically allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex, it goes against their sexual orientation, genetic make up, and natural instincts to do so. Granting gay americans the right to marry who they are naturally attracted to and love doesn't give them some sort of leg up or helping hand in society at all, it just gives them the same rights that straight americans have - the right to marry who they love and are naturally attracted to. An official ban on gay marriage in the constitution would be the same as if suddenly heterosexual marriage was outlawed. Technically straight americans would still have the right to marry, but it goes against their natural instinct and genetic make up to marry someone of their same gender.


Matt -
"I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GAYS, OR ANY MINORITY, SHOULD EVER, EVER, HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THE MAJORITY."

I find this statement a bit callous. America is considered the "melting pot" of cultures. What this says to me is, as long as the majority is happy, everyone else doesn't matter. That goes against, in my opinion, everything that this country stands for. This is the land of the FREE, and that is why so, so many different kinds of people live here! In all reality, simply based on population, minorities (meaning everyone that is not white and some form of christian) probably out number what is considered the majority! That's something that america, in my opinion, stands for! EVERYONE, whether they be part of the majority or a member of a minority, deserves the same rights!!! I'm not saying limit rights of the majority in any way at all either, but I am saying that what is considered the majority is not some superior class of people.

5:21 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Will Hea

Hey Julie, both of the last two quotes were mine, I don't think Matt wants the last one to be attributed to him.
Anyways, to give all people the right to marry someone of the same sex doesn't make sense. Two straight same-sex people could marry for the same non-love reasons two gay people would marry (taxes, etc.). Therefore, this should be considered a new and different right. Also, although some people in the majority could use this law, the law would be directed towards gays. Any law directed to solely protect and benefit a minority. A would not include Civil Rights Amendments in this because the right to vote and free speech, etc. are included in certain unalienable rights as outlined in the founding documents. For instance, in Texas after the particularly brutal murder of a homosexual man, laws were passed mandating that a judge enforce the death penalty upon anyone found guilty of the intentional murder of a homosexual. This law essentially says that it is better to kill a straight man than a gay man.

A law benefitting a minority is unethical and nondemocratic. The majority of a country should mandate all of the country's policies while minorities have the protection of certain unalienable rights as outlined in the Constitution.

I am not saying that the majority should be able to abuse the minority, but steps should not be taken to make the power of the two more equal.

To ask America to be accommodating of homosexuality is reasonable. To ask Americans to openly support homosexuality through the passage of a gay marriage amendment is not. Especially when the VAST majority of Americans belong to one of the three largest religions in the world, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, that are against homosexuality. America is a land of tolerance, not of acceptance.

If the majority of Americans support gay marriage, let it be so, but this can be the only way.

An effective compromise between aye's and nay's would be civil unions with the same rights entailed as marriage. This amendment could help everyone including gays. It avoids the term marriage, something socially unacceptable for the big three religions while supplying the same benefits for marriage. This also allows any two people who do not want to be officially married but would like the tax benefits to unionize (two roommates). In some cases this process takes seven years of living together before filing for a union.

By the way, a HUGE oil reserve was just tapped into in the Gulf Coat. HOOORAY!!!!!!!!!

5:59 PM  
Blogger marci said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:39 PM  
Blogger marci said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:55 PM  
Blogger marci said...

As Justin has not responded to my post, i would like to address a few other things stated in this blog:

First, whomever called homosexual people mentally disabled need a serious reality check. My cousin is [gasp] gay, and he is running his own business, earning around 125 grand a year, and never once failed a class. I don't know what everyone else considers "mentally disabled", but I don't really think my cousin is, even though he IS gay.
Mind you, while it would not be my choice to be gay [indeed, its almost a proven fact that truely homosexual people don't CHOOSE to be that way], I, just like on the topic of abortion, do not think I have the right to tell someone what would make them happy. If a woman wants to get have an abortion for a good reason, fine. If two men want to get married, fine.
Note that you rarely view gay PDA; indeed, for most of us, we would be grossed out/uncomfortable with the sight. Notice how IN OUR OWN HALLWAYS we have STRAIGHT couples groping eachother and shoving their tongues down eachother's throats. Sorry, but I'd rather be in a room filled with gay couples than to watch even ONE more straight couple at arapahoe make out in the hallways.
Anyway, again, I dont feel like we should be able to tell two people that they cannot get married. Sure, this may open a door to marrying a cow or a cat... but really, is that really going to hurt you? are you going to die from it? just because your religion says that marriage is between a man and a woman doesnt mean everyone else's religion agrees. So seriously, GET OVER IT. No one is forcing you to be gay nor to watch gay people do their thing.

A law benefitting a minority is unethical and nondemocratic. The majority of a country should mandate all of the country's policies while minorities have the protection of certain unalienable rights as outlined in the Constitution.
A mere question to your... interesting statement: are we all not, at some point in our lives, a minority? On some ISSUE, are we not the minority?
So much for our melting pot if our government adopts that outlook on what the laws should be in america.

By the way, a HUGE oil reserve was just tapped into in the Gulf Coat. HOOORAY!!!!!!!!!

Oh, so now we can get out of Iraq, right?

oh crap.. I forgot that we weren't done fighting our futile war whose reason for its start has gone from nuclear weapons to oil to freeing an oppressed people [note that iraq isn't the only country with oppressed people. take a look at africa; about 90% of the countries oppress their people] to spreading our own flawed system of democracy. lovely.

I hope our world becomes depleted from all natural resources. I'm no tree hugger, but we need to find alternatives NOW instead of waiting until we drill up all our oil and are left sitting and wondering "well ya'll, what the heck happened?"

I ♥ GEEDUBBYA. Let's focus on the NOW, and leave the future for someone else.

Does anyone else realize that our generation will be paying for the Iraqi war because of the tax cuts?

Oh, nevermind, i suppose freedom comes with a cost; and it's coming out of our 17 year old wallets.

and yes, whomever told me to join the debate team: i'm considering it. However, volleyball comes first. We'll see if I have time.

6:58 PM  
Blogger marci said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:02 PM  
Blogger marci said...

and I suppose I'll pose just one more question:

Am i unpatriotic for not supporting a war that I do not think we should be in?
Am I allowed to support our troops but not support our war?
I know I support all three of my uncles, my two cousins, my dad and my brother for being in the military.. but I sure as hell don't want them to die for a cause that isn't, in my opinion, worthy of their lives.

I supported the war in afghanistan [oh, yea... we were looking for that one dude... um, what was his name? yuseffa? obama?
...oh, osama.
who cares? we got hussein instead.] but i dont support the war in iraq.

am i unpatriotic?

7:03 PM  
Blogger mhayworth said...

Hey guys, first I would like to commend Will, Matt and Sarah for their humor in their posts. It was fun to laugh amongst the heated debates.

For the gay marriage debate I agree more with the beliefs of Will. To me marriage is more of a religious term that I associate more with the union between a man and a woman but I totally support the idea of civil unions. And Julie, You are such a proponent of rights for all I wonder what you think of the idea of civil unions?

That is all I have to say about gay marriage and I focused on abortion in my last post (thanks for the response Justin) and now I just wanted to point out something I saw in one of Will's previous posts.

He said "I sometimes forget to be politically correct and it is good to have a reminder that my language may offend some people." Please understand, I am not focusing on why this line was brought up I am just commenting on the issue of political correctness. In my mind the idea of political correctness has gotten out of control. In America we have the right to free speech but suddenly we cannot say certain things because it may reflect badly or hurt a group of people's feelings. To me every person should be able to reference anything as long as it is not a personal and slanderous attack on another individual. Suddenly the entire nation has been subjected to Valentine’s Day in elementary school. Where everyone had to bring a Valentine’s Day card for everyone else because if Timmy didn’t get one his feelings would be SO hurt?

Today in our nation we have all these different groups and names: Asian Americans, African Americans and so many others I just can't think of right now. According to this standard why can't I call myself an English German Irish American. But the thing is, I would never do that. What happened to just being an American? A citizen of the free world.

Is it me or does the whole issue of political correctness not only take away some personal freedoms but it limits each citizen’s pride in their nation Why can’t we just focus on the fact that we have potential and how lucky we are to have the opportunities we do? Why do we have to put labels on our heritage, on who are ancestors were, and limit ourselves to the standard of their lives?

7:12 PM  
Blogger IanF said...

Ok first off I need to give two shout outs to Megan and M. Hayworth (sorry I don’t know your first name) they hit upon two of my most favorite topics to discuss. I think I have made it very clear in my period that I do not under any circumstances believe any part of religion should be part of a public institution. I don't think there should be any part of the day that should be set aside for prayer. Now if little Timmy want to give thanks before eating his lunch more power to him, I will even defend his right to do that. However, the second he turns to his friend and says "Davy you should pray with me too" he has over stepped his boundaries. That is impressing your beliefs on another and that shouldn't happen in school or in my opinion ever. Now on to the issue of PC. There is no term in the modern English language that inspires more anger in me. To me it is just another part of the huge movement to make sure no one feels any emotions except that warm and fuzzy feeling. Because that is what real life is like, right? If Timmy doesn’t get a as many Valentine cards as Jessie guess what? That is a teachable moment. Maybe Timmy doesn’t like to share. Well now he will because he wants a card from that hottie Jess. On the race issue it is hard for me to contain my feelings in a short written format. If you want more come see me and I will talk up a storm. I ask you, what race am I? Like most of you I am, Caucasian? Most of us can’t even spell that let alone call ourselves that. Guess what I'm white!!! As a sheet of paper!! I hope that didn’t offend any hard core Caucasian out there, but that is what we are. This is the real kicker; other people (non Caucasians) call us white too! Well I don’t know about you guys but I think that type of vulgar language should be reserved for rap songs and such, how unbelievably rude of them! Ok that is enough of the race thing, but as I said I have lots more. On to the "Fair" thing. For those of you who don’t know I live in Highlands Ranch and attended schools there until freshman year when I open-enrolled here. HR is the capitol of the idea of "fairness." In middle school the principal refused to have an honor roll because it might make some kids feel bad about themselves. Finally in 8th grade she conceded and we received a white sheet of typing paper that said good job, in the middle of august (just a little late don’t you think.) I say it is good that we teach kids to feel bad about their failing grades. If we don’t we teach them that one: learning isn’t important, two: it is ok to not try your hardest, and three: that you will always succeed. Another part of this whole PC is the destruction and perversion of the media world. I don’t know about you but I grew up with Toys, actual physical toys, it’s amazing I know. And what is even more amazing is I rarely watched TV, if I did it was shows like Sesame Street, and as I grew older it was Discovery channel, or science channel (yes I am a nerd you don’t need to remind me.) Today’s youth is growing up with the BoohBass which was either created by an acid addict or a very disturbed individual, maybe both. The point is that this is what we are “educating" our youth with. When they grow older do we begin to expose them to the realities of the outside world, of course not. We can’t let them watch the news because it shows people dying; of course it is fine if junior sits down with his seventh soda of the day and watches the latest 24 or Alias. Timmy and Suzy need, NEED, to understand that there are people out in the world who will kill, rape, attack, take advantage of, steal from, and do many other things to them and feel no remorse about it. It is a scary world and if you don’t know what to look for you won’t make it. I hope this is understandable but if not I would be more than happy to go into further detail later. Oh, you should ask me how the white, sorry Caucasian male is the most oppressed social group, it is fun you can almost see my veins explode.

8:27 PM  
Blogger Sarah A said...

A funny anecdote on political correctness:

I really couldn't cite my sources on this, but I heard a story a while ago about George Bush addressing some media in Great Britain and referring to one of the black reporters as an "African American".

I just think its funny that in his effort to be politically correct he pretty much made a fool of himself, and probably insulted the guy a little too.

My view of political correctness is that everyone has the right to say whatever they want, in as derogatory a way as they want. We all have the right to slander and offend and insult and be downright mean, yes, that is our observed right as American citizens! However, my hope is that most of us at least have enough sensitivity to realize that its possible to exercise our freedom of speech civilly, without using terms directly intended to hurt and offend.

I guess that response was more geared toward racial political correctness. On the subject of raising kids who have no idea what the real world looks or feels like, I agree that eventually there has to be some reality instilled in these kids, but I also have faith that they will figure it out for themselves over time. I mean, we all seem to have disillusioned and jaded ourselves pretty effectively, I'm sure they'll do the same one day.

(sarcasm?)

9:02 PM  
Blogger EmilyR said...

Wow, Ian That is pretty much amazing. I think I might like to see your veins almost explode. I am so with you about the whole Sesame Street, Discovery Channel thing. When I was little I adored Ernie and now, I guess I'm a nerd too, I love MythBusters... What intelligent folks...

I don't understand why Timmy simply asking Davy to pray with him is such a horrible thing. Davy has every right to say no, thanks, Timmy I'm Buddhist. It would only start to get out of hand if Timmy responded with "BUDDHIST!!! We Are SOOOO Over...Go Tell it to your Monks and you can all coast into Hell together." THAT would be bad. Hopefully, though Timmy is an upstanding enough kid that he has retained some aspect of the sesame street values and still shares his cookies without being an Oscar The Grouch. About the PC-ness of it all... I think it has definately gotten out of hand. We're white and we know it, if you don't, suck it up and deal with it...and no considering yourself an "inside-out oreo" doesn't cut it.

You bring up some good points and there's so much passion in your writing, What would it be like in Real life (not that the internet isn't reality...oh wait...it isn't.) But I think that there is a very solid line regarding religion in schools but if it doesn't get in the way, what's the problem? At AHS we have the "Warriors of the Word" and, if I'm not mistaken, we take part in "See You At The Pole" where a bunch of the kids meet at the flag pole and pray... Are you so opposed to that? I don't think that is pressuring you, but then again, I am a little Biased. I just think that so long as it doesn't interfere with the educational aspect of school, it's fine. I would be opposed to Booth (or Mr. Booth, to be PC) beginning each day with... "good morning warriors, please bow your heads..." but he doesn't and isn't the whole "moment of silence" thing a way around prayer in schools while still being the dreaded politically correct way of welcoming religion of all kinds into the classroom?

9:02 PM  
Blogger marci said...

oh mary- political correctness. what a great topic!

what if it offends me if you use african american or asian american?
[i'm not attacking you, i'm posing the question for someone who supports pc]
I think the ideals of pc have gon etoo far.. teachers have to stop and stutter and search for a word that will be considered "acceptable" and "non-offensive" to anyone in the class.
I don't understand why people are so sensitive-- of course, i'm a caucasian [or a white person, a ghost, a member of the "supreme" race, etc, etc.]
**DISCLAIMER**
i do not find white people to be the "supreme" race- i was using it as an example because some white supremicists may take offense to my other descriptions of myself.

Anyway, does anyone know the answer to the question about minorities and how black people can call themselves n----s but when a "Wigger" calls his black friend a n----, a fight erupts?
mexicans call eachother beaners but anyone outside their race calls them one and a dispute follows... does anyone know why this is?

honestly, i [for lack of a better, more "pc" statement] think that people need to get some balls and deal with it.
I've been labelled a "dumb blonde" before [hey, maybe i really am dumb]. I've been called a cracker.. and honestly, it doesn't bug me very much.

maybe that's due to the fact that i dont really care much about what people think about me, but really-- why the heck are people so sensitive about the smallest things?

9:44 PM  
Blogger marci said...

just to humor ian- is it really the white caucasian male that is the most oppressed?

even when a white woman when walking down the street alone has to cross the street in fear of a man walking towards her? do men ever cross the street or not turn down a dark alley in fear of a woman?

I'm not saying that women are the most oppressed, but i'd like to see what fact you have to back up your statement about caucasian men.

9:46 PM  
Blogger marci said...

aha, sorry emily- i failed to see your comment about my post:
I agree that abortion is essentially murder, and in response to Marci's question about talking Embryos, not only is it incredibly alarming to picture, I don't feel that it has any weight.
apparently you only read that sentence, because if you read the meat around it, you'd understand what i was trying to point out. I was asking why it was ok to murder animals, and if the reason was because they were dumb [mute, i suppose], why killing an embryo was ok because it cannot talk either. justin did not directly answer that question; he, like you, chose to ignore the surrounding information and ju mped straight to a "well you cant murder soeone just because they are mute". again, i would appreciate if you all would read what i say instead of picking and choosing and taking out of context what i have to say about this matter.
it doesn't help the intellectual level of this blog when we take things out of their original form.
it also skews other peoples' views about a post when you take it apart and say that "babies cannot talk and we dont kill them" when that's not what i was trying to point out to begin with.

this is not a personal attack on you, i was just frustrated to see that not only one, but quite a few of you neglected to understand the point as a whole and rather just to pick out what seemed completely stupid and irrelevant just to make a point on this blog.
I do respect all of your opinions, and i do my best to take your idea as a whole and leave in as much meat around it when i address it on this blog.
I would hope the rest of you would do the same.

carry on

9:59 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Hey Ian want to say grace with me, Kenneth, Jeff, and Rob on Thursday?

Don't you think that an attempt to include friends in prayer is a good thing.
If you look at it realistically, when they don't ask you to pray with them and "respect your beliefs", they are actually preferring to stay comfortable with themselves instead of trying to save you. Think about it. Christians and any other religion aren't trying to offend you when they talk about their religion, they see themselves as saving you, so don't take it too personally.

I was hoping someone would get to political correctness. In America we focus too little on what people say but how they say it.

This is my excellent patented theory on political correctness:

By repressing what you have to say for fear of offending others you not only deny the world what could be a great idea, but also deny the world any chance to acknowledge and attempt to change the misunderstandings and prejudices in your speech.

By repressing what you have to say, you also allow common societal principles to go unchallenged, comparable to a sin. Everything in society should be challenged at some point. If a principle isn's enough to stand up to ridicule, why should it be kept?

We must ask: Why is it wrong to steal? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to impose beliefs on others? Are we not imposing our beliefs on others when we tell them not to impose their beliefs on others?

To withold yourself is a crime against humanity. In short, people are too afraid of what other people think.

By the way, the reason the white male is oppressed is because every other race and sex has good reason to hate the white male.

10:00 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Ian -
I thouroughly enjoyed your post. A+ to you for bringing some humor on here.


M. Hayworth & Will -
I love the idea of civil unions because they are a STEP towards true equality of marriage. Reforming civil unions to have the same rights as marriage is a great idea... but why not just let it be marriage then? That's what it would be and it's a bit insulting to see that you seem not to think that gay people deserve that same title.

Straight people in this country can marry someone of the opposite sex for tax benefits too! Oh my gosh! No matter what marriage is defined as, anyone and everyone is able to take advantage of it! The reality is though, people get married because they love someone and want to merge their lives together, and marriage's benefits protect that merger. Gay people deserve those benefits too, and they deserve to share them with the person they love, which happens to be someone of their same gender.

Allowing same-sex marriage, although it's geared towards homosexuals, isn't a special right. EVERYONE in this country is a minority in some way.

10:01 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Will Hea
I know everyone likes this tax benifit thing, my fault for bringing it up, but it is often more expensive to file taxes jointly than separate (this happened to my parents).

10:08 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:39 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Will -
Good point, but there are 1149 benefits that marriage provides that gay americans miss out on. I know that technically they are capable of receiving those benefits if they were to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that goes against their natural instinct and orientation.

10:42 PM  
Blogger Kell-EH said...

On abortion:

Is making abortion illegal really practical? Just because women are not allowed to have an abortion by law doesn't mean they won't turn to more dangerous and cruel meathods.
Consider: Brazil made abortion illegal.

"A World Health Organization Annual Report lists Brazil as having a higher abortion rate than any other country in the world: The report claims that 3 to 5 million Brazilian women per year choose to abort a pregnancy, and abortion in Brazil comprises one tenth of the abortions in the world (cited in Isis, 1989). A number of sources have asserted that the abortion rate in Brazil is higher than the birth rate (do Valle Silva, 1990; WHO in Isis, 1989). " (http://www.ucis.unc.edu/resources/pubs/carolina/Family/Family2.html)

illegalizing abortion is not only ineffective, it is costly to the government and illegal abortions become a high cause of death rate among the female population. the same website as above also states:

"Abortion significantly increases the demands on already constrained public resources in Brazil. Considerable public funds are expended treating the sequelae of botched abortions. Approximately half of the Brazilian health system's obstetrics budget is directed toward treating complications from induced abortion, although such cases comprise only 12 percent of obstetric admissions (Jacobson, 1990 cited in Paxman et al., 1993). "

it also says,

"The health risks associated with illegal abortion are severe. Complications from illegal abortion are considered the principal cause of death among women ages 15-39 in Latin America (Paxman et al., 1993). The most common abortion-related complications include infection, uterine perforation, hemorrhage and remaining tissue. Complications arising from induced abortions are one of the most significant contributors to maternal mortality in Brazil (Pinotti and Faundes, 1989). "

Is it really more "moral" to pass a law that will ultimately lead to the death of not only the unborn, but the mothers as well? (Note that abortions in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother are legal in Brazil.) Isn't this kind of like pro-life radicals that murder the doctors at clinics that preform abortions?

I do not beleive that making abortion illegal is practical in today's society. Our government is supposed to be "for the people." I therefore do not even think that the debate on the morality of abortion is relevant when making a law that will be so detremental to society as a whole.

10:44 PM  
Blogger mhayworth said...

So I had a slight idea that throwing the idea of political correctness out in the wind would be excellent. Thanks for the comments everybody. Just a little shout out to my discovery channel folks, Ian and Emily- The Deadliest Catch marathon anyone? And for all who don't know me, my display name is mhayworth but my first name is Mary. Okay on to the topics that matter.

Marci,
If someone asked me, "what if it offends me if you use african american or asian american?" (and if I'm not mistaken I think you meant "what if it offends me if you DON'T use african american or asian american?")my response for them would be asking them three questions 1) Are you an United States citizen?... 2)Are you happy to be living in America?...3)And just how long has your family been in America? To me if someone is a United States citizen they should call themselves an American, simply, just an American. And if they said they are happy to be in America (here comes the question again), then why can't you just call yourself an American? And finally if an African American(I have just reverted back to being a PC robot so lets call this person a black citizen) tells me they can link their heritage back to the slave trade I would answer... Sure you can link your heritage back to the slave trade but your family has been here for many generations why can't you simply call yourself an American? I can link my family back to being potato farmers in Germany but that does not force me, by any means, to refer to myself as a Euro American.

In response to Ian's comments on the news media and television being dangerous I entirely agree. (And I definitely think that we should call all the little children we refer to in this blog Timmy, Davy, and Suzy!) To me when I watch most news channels I have learned to question every single thing I hear. There is always some sort of spin that the viewer doesn't know about. And in relation to all the other programs on television, I think that we are indeed educating our youth in a very wrong way. I must admit that I watched The O.C. during its first season and for anyone out there who watched The O.C. they know that during the first season the main character went to Tijuana overdosed and surprisingly survived. For alot of kids they believe that if they overdose or do something stupid then they will miraculously survive, like Marissa on The O.C. But that is untrue, they might not survive. But I think most teens and kids have this idea that they are invincible and Hollywood wants them to believe this because, guess what, it makes dollars for them. And as far as younger kids I think the same is true. When I was little I was another one who watched Discovery Channel and Sesame Street. But most importantly I would always talk with my family and I learned how to communicate at a very young age. I think kids right now are just too enamored with television and technology to really know how to communicate with others.

Emily,
In response to your ideas about religion...I believe that this country was based on religion and religion is what forced the founding fathers to create this free world. And I think that schools should always teach this to their students. And I don't see why Timmy asking Davy to pray is so bad. And if Davy says no, that's all fine and good. But it is the nature of kids to push and push until they get what they want. I don't know that we should allow religion as much in lower schools because I don't know that kids who are less outgoing and introverted could say no to Timmy when he asked them to pray.

Thanks again for the comments everybody and Ian I would really enjoy seeing that vein burst, we should talk.

10:47 PM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

Whew! I wish I knew this was going on earlier, I've been missing out on all of your great conversations/debates! they're very impressive. haha ok.

Well here goes:

I, having been to China and India, two countries far different than my own, have grown to FULLY appreciate all of the freedoms in America. Simple ones, like not having your hotel room bugged, are of enormous value to me now. It seems to me that the fullest extent of our freedoms come in the form of small government. This means more power delegated to the states, and less government restrictions overall. In this sense I see nothing constitutionally ethical in imposing a ban on gay marriage act. This is certainly not for federal courts to decide. In fact, it is an issue that does not warrant any governmental notice at all. However abortion is a completely different case. Abortion is synomous with murder of a fetus and should not be allowed. At this point in American culture I recognize that it is not going anywhere, but much more severe restrictions must be enforced. It is too common and too easy to get. I believe that abortion is ONLY understandable for extremely rare circumstances, such as rape, or as in Marci's scenario a rare and fatal fetus disease. It should NEVER be used as birth control and harsh regulations must stop this rather common occurance.
Now the war on terror. As Voltaire is famously misquoted, I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. This concept of free speech holds true with me. I support our troops, our country, and our war. However I respect the individual choice everyone has made for themself and while I would love to debate you, I will never degrade you.

So, I am scared for our future because I believe people have lost their fear of what terrorists want to do to America and other democracies and free countries around the world. I appreciate the fact that not all Muslims want to blow up the Western world. However a growing radical regime of Islam does not simply wish us out of their land, they do indeed want America off the map. This is frightening to me. The word jihad in Arabic means Holy War. They are certainly at war with us, in fact they provoked us into war through terrorism. Certain groups of Islam are at war with the Western culture. Now I may not be proud of some of the people representing Western ideas, but I realize that I am part of the Western culture that some people want to kill. The politically correct pandemic that has swept the nation is mentioned above; I will take it a step further and say that it has immensely weakened our nation. Some American's are caught in the habit of thinking that everybody else against the US in the world are good, peace loving people who despise the imperialistic America. This is a huge misconception. This has never been the case. Not that America isn't necessarily, but who did the Crusades involve? Christians and Muslims. Now, we learn that the Christians entered their land and provoked war, but the wars were bad on both fronts. Now the fighting forces are more broad, a Western culture still fighting Muslims. Of course it is a long battle, in a sense it started before President Bush declared war on terrorism. Islamic terrorists were trying to destroy America long before Sept 11, 2001, that date is simply the freshest in our minds and the most impactful. While catching Hussein may not have been as rewarding as catching Ossama will be, he was by no standard a good man. He conducted genocide against the Kurds and truly was an evil dictator. When I was in India, we visited a mosque. Inside the walls, we 1) obviously had the whole place staring at us, awkward! 2) began talking with a young boy, probably about 8 or 9 years old. He approached us and said America? We nodded our heads and smiled. He said Bush? We once more nodded and smiled. He then said Bad, took Saddam. We questioned him, said You liked Hussein? He smiled and said yes. Now I loved, loved India. I loved entering a mosque and I fully appreciated the value that it holds. And I still gave the boy a US quarter like we did to anybody and everybody we met. He likewise gave me a rare paper 1 rupee. But, the point must be made that in Middle Eastern countries, even in some places in India, the news media is strictly controlled. They do not have the luxury of front line reporters who make at least attempts at the truth. They are read government statements.
While we are not at war with the religion of Islam, many people there are willing to sacrafice their lives in the name of killing us. Becuase the story they are told is 100% different than the one we know to be true.

So, I realize this is lengthy and I definitely rambled much to long. But I am passionate about this topic because I feel it directly impacts me. Like Marci mentioned, family is involved. I think war is ugly and terrible, but because humanity can be also, war is occasionaly a necessary evil.

11:07 PM  
Blogger Kell-EH said...

Mary and Julie,
I was interested in your conversation about the word marriage. I agree with Julie that gay couples should get the same rights as strait couples. However, I also see Mary's point that "Holy Matrimony" sanctioned by the church should not be available to same sex couples if the faith does not approve. HOWEVER, I also do not believe that "Holy Matrimony" and thus "Marriage" should be available to heterosexual couples married by the state rather than the church(ie, a couple weds at a courthouse).
I also believe that it would be more appropriate if the government only recognized "Civil Unions" between all variations of human couples rather than "Marriages" for puposes of seperation of church and state. "Marriages" should be something attained/applied for from the church after Civil Union. "Marriages" should be strictly religious and should not be affected or benefitted by the government.

11:36 PM  
Blogger Kell-EH said...

I have one major gripe with this blog: it is dangerous. It is now approaching 11:40 and I have yet to start my homework because I have spent the entire night reading other people's enteries. Y'all should be less interesting: you're abetting my insomnia!

11:47 PM  
Blogger Emily N said...

Well, today was my first chance to actually read all of these comments, and I have to say, it was pretty much fascinating to me. I read about half before I went to work, and when I got back, there were twice as many to read! Props to all of you with the incredible debate skills, mine are not so amazing, but I will do my best to say what I believe.

Since I didn't get a chance in class, let me just start by saying basically my views. I base my political views almost entirely on social issues, solely for the reason that I just don't know that much about the other stuff (foreign affairs, economy, etc.) As far as my views on social issues, I am EXTREMELY conservative. After reading all of Justin's posts, I would say that he and I are on the same page (Note to Justin: I was deeply impressed by your ability to defend everything you said, you put it so much better than I could in all the times I have ever tried. *Applauds*) We'll start with that because I can't explain as elaborately as he can. Yes I oppose abortion fervently. Yes I am against gay marraige. (I think now would be a good time to clarify that I do not hate or degrade or despise PEOPLE who believe differently than I do. I respect and accept anyone who is willing accept and respect me. I have many friends who believe radically differently than I do, and I really think that's great, because perspective is important, and because I really do love them regardless of differences. No, it is not people I oppose, merely some of their positions and occasional decisions. There is a HUGE difference.) The reasons for my beliefs are based almost completely on my religion. I am a Christian (I prefer not to define myself as a particular denomination, but Christianity has and always will be my faith), and because of that much of my stance comes from the Bible. As a result, it is sometimes difficult for people to understand my beliefs if they do not have that background, but I try my best to defend them in every aspect possible, beyond religious, although that is the center of my argument (I'm sensing that I'm getting a little repetitive here. Sorry. Hope you get the idea)

Well, I know that the posts haven't touched on this in a little while, but it's the issue brought up thus far that I most want to take part in discussing. I noticed that there were not really any girls who took a strong stance against abortion, and that most of the posts seemed to take the stance of "you're a guy, it's not your body, you can't make this call. the woman should have the choice over her body" (Just generalizing a little here for the sake of time) Well let me just say that as a WOMAN I am violently opposed to abortion. I think it is one of the most terrible decisions a woman can make in her life. Here's the thing. It's not just YOUR body. If it was, you would absolutely have the right to do what you want. But you are messing with someone else's life. You are taking the life of someone who has no control over it yet, and choosing whether they will live or die. This unborn baby can do nothing to stop you, which is partly why I believe that we have to do everything to stop you. Who knows what kind a life you're preventing? Who gave you the right to snatch someone's potential away from them? There is more than one body at stake here, and no woman can argue that it's her choice and her body, because that simply isn't true. It shouldn't be her choice, because that other body being toyed with is alive, and it has a heart and a soul just as much as anyone sitting here reading this, and deserves as much of a chance as every one of us was given. This baby was not the one who made a bad decision about sex (i know there are also cases of rape and incest, but I'm not including those in this particular part of my argument. They have their own category) or let an "accident" happen. No unborn child has ever done anything to deserve the death penalty. They should not suffer the consequences of things they were not responsible for. Ever.

I would love to continue talking, but I think my train of thought might lose a few people, and I may get repetitive, and it's almost tomorrow already, so I will draw this to a close. I hope no one picked up an angry tone or anything like that from anything I said, because I'm not yelling at anyone. I'm actually not yelling at all. I'm just saying here's what I believe and here's why. Looking forward to any responses and questions, I'll do my best to answer

11:52 PM  
Blogger Becca S said...

Alright, I kind of forgot about this blog and missed out on a lot of interesting things to comment on...but as I read further I realized that most of my CRAZY LIBERAL ideas were pretty well represented, so thanks for that. Anyways there's one thing about abortion that I would still like to comment on.

Justin,
You said:
"My position is that sex must wait until marriage. No excuses, no exceptions. I have controlled mine just fine. I completely advocate the idea of sexual purity, so please do not tell me to control my own body, because I already do."

I have utmost respect for your sexual purity (especially surrounded by the "impure" that you undoubtedly encounter at high school amongst other 17-year-old males)but you need to realize that, while it would be nice if everyone could control themselves as you do, everyone does not control themselves --girls definitely included. The reality with abortion is that it breaks down to people's fundamental beliefs --religiously, morally, and in most situations a combo of the two. However, just because it questions the moral/religious unity of America; there's still a problem: unwanted children, teen pregnancy, single 17-year-old moms, victims of rape etc.

By outlawing abortion, a government would heighten and create many more problems than it would solve. Yes, it would be nice to have a permiscuous-free youth and a completely murder-intolerant legal system, but that is a utopia. There is no substantial population that you can convince not to have sex until marriage (especially when marriage is not even a guaranteed societal goal anymore)--it's illogical. So we might as well deal with reality and have our laws mirror what is best for the most people.

Here are the people whom legalized abortions benefit:
-All women who've been in an uncontrollable situation (rape etc.)
-All women and men who've made a mistake that they do not want to control THE REST of their future (definitely for the woman, possibly the male depending on if he kindly decided to stick around)
-All people in society who like to reduce crime rate, poverty, drug usage, and capitalistic negligence (not all aborted fetuses would fall into these categories, but many abortions are in the best interest of the child --meaning that if born, the environment in which the child would be raised in would promote it's falling into one of these categories)
-All people who still respect the ideal of family (if whatever number of abortions become unwanted children, what will become of the typical American family --that reveres children and makes it a purpose that those children be raised with dignity and purpose?)

Here are the people whom making abortions illegal would benefit:
-unborn fetuses
-religious idealists

Please still like me --I'm pretty nice.

12:14 AM  
Blogger Kell-EH said...

Last thing tonight, I swear--Megan,
it sounds as if you have too optimistic a view on the objectivity and reliability of the American media.
I happened to be in Toronto, Ontario(Canada) when the large terrorist orginazation and plot was busted in Mississauga, right outside of Toronto(Like we are to denver) in June. They had been planning to blow up the metro with obscene amounts of explosives which they had on the premises. (Derrr, I can't spell). I immediately recieved worried e-mails and phone calls from America, because apparently, Toronto almost exploded. The American media took the opportunity to say, "See, it happens in Canada, too," and "The world almost had a lot less beer, don't ya know"(the main molsen's plant is in Toronto).
The media FAILED TO MENTION that the Canadian version of the FBI had already infultrated the terrorist group and had been survailling them for the past two years. Also, all those reported kilos of amonium nitride or whatever it was, I have forgotten at the moment, was acctually fake and supplied by the Canadian task force to ensure that, even if the terrorists attempted to explode the subway system before the officials could bust them with enough charges to insure a guilty verdict, IT WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED. Canada did not almost explode as our media made it seem. The closest danger that occured was the Toronto metro almost had nothing happen to it.

I think it is important for you to realize that our media messes with our perspective considerably. It is not as tainted as the middle east, obviously, but it is far from objective.

12:15 AM  
Blogger julie s said...

I'm with Kelley's response to Meghan's comment. The media, no matter what network, is definitely more than capable of messing with perspectives. Everything on the news is life or death, everything! Because that is what keeps people watching and ratings up.

The US government's war on terror certainly has a noble idea behind it (I mean, I don't like terrorism and I'm sure that most americans don't either, hah), but what is it really? Because they've declared war on this noun it gives them a window of opportunity to get away with unjust and brutal tactics in foreign policy and war. Why? Because people aren't going to question them as much because the government has scared the living daylights out of tons of americans. Anyone remember what happened at Abu Ghraib? Anyone have any idea about the crimes against humanity being commited in Iraq that we don't even know about?

Not every muslim is against the US, in fact we have a pretty big population of muslims in this country. But, islam at its most extreme justifies the killing of the "infidel," which in this day and age is western culture and society, and the US is the center of that.

20 or so individuals from a terrorist organization attacked the US on sept. 11, 2001. THEY HAD NO CONNECTION TO IRAQ AT ALL! NO CONNECTION! So what is the 'war on terror' diong in Iraq?

7:52 AM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

Thank you for responding!
First, I would be the first to agree that the media is badly one sided. I think even more than spinning everything liberally, they are a beast hunger for a story. They go crazy for drama. That is why they were so hyped up during the Candadian terror plot, the London terror plots, etc. It is certainly hard to trust anything they say, but I will make the point that at least they say it. I don't think anyone can argue that they report what our government wants them to. They are fellow americans with the same rights as you and me, and for now the only option we really have.

Julie, you bring up the atrocities done by our soldiers in Iraq. I know that there are things occurring that are not right. However, I once again bring up the media. I think that it was a bad situation that got transformed into a story. The beast loves drama and a good story. I know the war isn't perfect, but it's a war.
We are in Iraq because the President thought there were WMD's. It appears his intelligence was wrong, but for all we know there were and they are now buried under sand somewhere out there. I remind you though that this information was shared with congress and they overwhelmingly voted to enter into war as well. Now that we are there even though popular opinion no longer wants us there, we cannot up and leave.

ok ive gotta go now.

8:16 AM  
Blogger mhayworth said...

Hey guys!! I am so happy that so many new people have joined our discussion.

First I want to say that I agree with most of what Meaghan said. And although I don't like our soldiers dying, I think that the War on Terror is an ESSENTIAL fight. I think that one of the biggest problems people have with the war on terror is that we are facing an enemy that we can't quite put a finger on. Our enemy is one who knows no borders, no boundaries, and will do anything for their cause. And for most people the hardest thing to comprehend is that this enemy is not afraid to die. They want to die because they think it is benefiting their so called "holy war." Their motives and the way they live their lives are very dangerous not just to Americans but to everyone in the world. And the world cannot totally know these extremists because they don't have a name and a known cause like Hitler or Stalin.

Julie,
Clearly you are a staunch advocate for the rights of oppressed and vulnerable people all over the world so I have a story for you. (A true story.) My father is in the oil industry and he was formerly employed by a Middle Eastern Company. His boss (who is a very good friend of my family) is Iraqi. He was a very high up minister in Sadaam's government and he had known the man personally. He has three children who are grown now but when they were children he and his wife made the decision to leave Iraq. They made this decision out of fear for their lives and the lives of their children. So one day they packed their bags, like they were simply going off to vacation in London. Since then they have never returned to Baghdad (Yet, their house in the city still remains under their name, uninhabited). About a year and a half ago my father's friend was asked to return to Iraq and help form the new government, he refused.

I tell you this story not to sound like a children's story (and they all lived happily ever after... no, no just kidding) but to ask you to reflect on it being such an advocate of rights and respect for all people. Weapons of Mass Destruction may not have been found in Iraq but is it not a positive contribution to the world to have a evil horrible man who had the power to put TERROR in the hearts and minds of his citizens be thrown out of office and persecuted. Shouldn't it be every person's right to live in their nation and not fear for the freedom and lives of their loved ones? Could this be what the War on Terror is really about?

11:15 AM  
Blogger mhayworth said...

Sorry Meghan, I misspelled your name.

11:16 AM  
Blogger julie s said...

Mary -
I already stated that I think it's a good thing that Sedam is gone, but I was merely bringing up the principle behind the war in Iraq. BUSH LIED to the american people, so we declared war under false pretenses. If this administration decided to attack Iraq SOLELY based on Sedam's brutality, I'd probably be a lot more supportive of the war. BUT, the fact remains that what started this war was not the good intentions that are used to mask the original reasons.


Meghan -
I realize that the media played up the Abu Ghraib scandle a lot, but did you see those pictures? Those were pretty terrible.

I don't think that Bush's false intelligence thing is excusable in any way. He lied to the american people, plain and simple. You phrase it like it just 'made a mistake,' well because of his 'mistake' an estimated 45,000 iraqi civilans have lost their lives! I don't think americans can even deal with that number. Almost 3000 american soldiers have lost their lives because of Bush's little 'mistake.'

Like I've said before, if the US is now the police of the world, the proctectors of humanity, where are we in Africa now? Where were we in cambodia? Where were we in Rwanda?

1:55 PM  
Blogger marci said...

Mary,
(and if I'm not mistaken I think you meant "what if it offends me if you DON'T use african american or asian american?")
Actually, I really did mean it the way I phrased it. I know you’re on my side, but I really want to know the answer to my previously stated question: what if pc offends me?
As I read in an article once, we have the right to be offended, we have the right to offend, and we have the right to leave this country if we don’t like the way it is ran. I think people should consider that.

Meghan,
It should NEVER be used as birth control and harsh regulations must stop this rather common occurance.
I would like some facts to back that up. As far as I know, abortion is not “commonly” used as a contraceptive. From what has been brought to my attention [mind you, I could very well be wrong], women have an abortion if the condom broke, the pill didn’t work, rare disease, etc, etc. I don’t think there are multitudes of women who have an abortion on a monthly or a two-month basis. Please provide information on this; I’m interested to see the count of women who have had loads of abortions.

While catching Hussein may not have been as rewarding as catching Ossama will be, he was by no standard a good man. He conducted genocide against the Kurds and truly was an evil dictator. When I was in India, we visited a mosque.
What makes Hussein a better candidate for taking down than any other leader that is conducting genocides/oppressing their people? What about Cuba, that is about 50 miles off the coast of Florida? Castro is oppressing those people; why aren’t we taking care of him?

war is occasionaly a necessary evil.
Can we apply this to abortion as well?

Emily,
You are taking the life of someone who has no control over it yet, and choosing whether they will live or die.
So what gives the government to take control of our life?
This unborn baby can do nothing to stop you, which is partly why I believe that we have to do everything to stop you.
So you’d rather have the government make it so we can do nothing to stop them from controlling our lives? What places the unborn baby’s rights above our right to run our lives?
it's her choice and her body, because that simply isn't true. It shouldn't be her choice, because that other body being toyed with is alive,
Again, whose choice is it then? Someone who has no concern with us/the mother in question?

I think I’ll leave it at that, because I want you to clarify why it’s ok for the government to dictate our lives and our futures, but we cannot dictate the potential life and future of our own children.

2:03 PM  
Blogger Kurt W. said...

Alright I'll join the melee. I'll cease my lurching (for the unaware: lurch (v.) to read posts religiously without commenting on them). Since I don't know how aware you all are on my beliefs, I'll let you all know.

War on Terror: Great idea. Necessary. Terrorism has been a background problem for a century. It came to light in 2001, and must be dealt with.
War in Iraq (yes, they are different things): Saddam needed to be displaced, but I don't think we did this for the right reasons or at the right time. Mainly the only reason I feel this way is because we have truly never been told why our troops are in Iraq. The war is not for oil. Have you seen gas prices lately? 'Nuff said. However, I think that there is a bigger reason, that the American public is unaware of, that U.S. troops are in Iraq. I think that info has not been released to the population yet. Will it ever be released? Not for me to decide.
Abortion: Both sides are wrong. Pro-life(rs) and pro-choice(rs) believe in blanket ideas. Either it is wrong or it is right. Here are the problems. If the government was to outlaw abortion, then abortion would not end. In fact, we would have women giving themselves abortions, or an abortion black market. If it is completely allowed, then it will become more available as a birth control method. It is nor heavily relied upon at the current moment, but it could be. Which is a horrible thought. A blanket law will never work for this issue.
Gay Marriage: This issue is really not about marriage. It is about a minority feeling that they are not being allowed to have the rights they want. Allowing gay marriage should not be the solution. Granting a different type of system (along the lines of common-law) should be adopted.
Tax: Barbara said pretty much everything I believe on the topic in class.

Anything else? I can't think of anything. Alright, tear my opinions apart. End sarcasm

3:28 PM  
Blogger Katie G said...

Wow, I can't believe what I've been missing out on. I must say that after reading many of the posts I am relieved that Centennial Colorado isn't as conservative as I had always believed.

Because I have not posted before and many of you may not know me, I will lay out my beliefs briefly on the "hot" topics of this blog.

Abortion- PRO-CHOICE all the way. I agree with everything Marci has said in class and has posted. It is technically a parasite and has absolutely no ability to live independently and therefore citizen's rights do not apply. This does not mean however that I don't advocate very strongly for taking responsibility for one's actions. I liked Emily's idea of possibly screening or offering therapy for potential abortioners.

Gay Marriage - the government has absolutely no place in preventing the union of two loving people.

Separation of Church and State - I am a HUGE advocate for this. Religion has no place in any government institution, be it schools, courthouses etc. Morality and religion are completely separate in my book. I am a completely moral person but I am not religious. I know many who are in the reverse state.

War in Iraq - Like Marci I have a brother in the military (USMA) and I support him and the troops. However, the war is unwinable, like Vietnam, we had no place there before and certainly don't now, and it is not worth his life.

4:04 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:38 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Will Hea

POINT OF CLARIFICATION

JULIE S
BUSH DID NOT LIE ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ, HE MERELY WAS TOLD BY THE WORLD'S SECOND GREATEST INTELLIGENCE (the first was the KGB) AND THE PENTAGON THAT SADAM HUSSEIN HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THAT THESE ESTIMATES WERE ACCURATE, they actually did turn out to be wrong, but he didn't know, he was given bad information that was presented as true.

Bush did lie about wire-tapping though, but, although I am against it, his lie is justifiable because telling the truth could and did compromise the secrecy of the wiretaps.

By the way, could I have a link to those 1149 marriage benefits?

I would lastly like point out that pre-war Iraq would have fit your humanitarian qualifications for oppression and genocide that you justify the possible interventions in Rwanda and Sudan with. Even if the original reasons for the war in Iraq cannot be justified, isn't the war justified for humanitarian reasons?

Lastly, if Bush had not acted on the information he was given he would have looked just as bad as he does right now with Iran openly attempting to start a nuclear weapons program.

4:38 PM

4:40 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

First of all…WOW! I didn’t even know this blog was going on, nor what I was missing out on. I applaud all of you. This is a very interesting and unique forum.

I’m going to briefly touch on many of the subjects at hand and would like anyone to ask me about something that doesn’t make sense or you think is misrepresented or misguided…I know you will.

4:54 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

Atheism: To start I believe in an omnipotent, personal God and His son Jesus Christ. Wow that was a loaded first sentence. I have done a decent amount of research on this topic and its opponents and am firm that its foundation cannot be shaken. I think atheism is a religion in the sense that they have made their unbelief their god. For example, Harvard has a Humanist Chaplain, Gregory H. Epstein. Does that word not have a religious connotation? As far as the proof for the existence of God…science is the key. Atheists believe that the natural world is the only world, so I will use that for evidence of a supernatural being. Scientific research, in its most recent stages, has struggled to explain the beginning of the universe with all natural causes. Here is an easy way to remember the primary scientific areas that natural laws fail to explain the causation of the universe- SURGE. S -second law of thermodynamics. The natural world naturally goes to disorder (entropy) and the universe will eventually run out of usable energy. This means that the universe cannot be eternal. If this is true, it must have a beginning point, where time, space and matter came together at a single instant. U- universe is expanding. R- Radiation from the big bang. The other two letters of the acronym also prove the universe had a beginning. So what? Please attempt to refute these arguments. Nothing can come from nothing. Aristotle once said “Nothing is what rocks dream about.” Due to the natural Law of Causality (the basis for empirical science) something must have caused the universe. Sorry if this is a lot, but I get pumped.

4:54 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

Homosexuality: To use the web page Ian presented the doctor talked about in the article, Dr Bogaert, “did not conclude what biological factors influence the sexuality of homosexuals with elder male siblings, but previous research has shown that genetics and the womb environment can have a major impact on sexual preferences in both men and women.” There is not enough evidence to prove a genetic or biological connection to homosexuality. There is definitely proof of increased atypical sexual orientation in certain social contexts, but nothing concrete genetically. No one has found a gay gene! People need to be careful of the facts they hear, because we have a tendency as humans to see patterns where they don’t exist and make loose correlations. As far as marriage is concerned, it holds a function as much as it may be about love. This function is procreation and a safe environment for kids to develop in. Obviously this is impossible for homosexual couples.

4:55 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Will Hea

Although homosexuality is not conclusively choice or natural, it is plausible to say that genetics and experience does render some more likely to be homosexual, yes, there are homosexual animals. I do not believe it is enough to call homosexuality merely different. It must be first understood to determine if gay marriage is correct. If all gays choose to be gay then there is no sense in granting gay marriage because they chose their lifestyle. However, if it is genetic or unconcious, this would justify at least making an argument for gay marriage, wrong or not. Although this may offend some people calling sexuality a mental difference is probably not that far off. For instance, homosexuality could be caused inadverdently by experience to lean the mind towards a specific mindset like depression, something that can become more likely because of genetics or brought on through experience (I'd have a happy condition but I can't think of one).
I really don't think that all homosexuals chose to be that way although some may have.

5:08 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

Abortion: Just a heads up I’ll be referencing to Marci a lot. I am against abortion and believe that every child, whether an accident or not, has a chance at life. Marci you said that the baby may one day end up killing you. OK…let’s reverse that argument, it may also save you. But, I guess we’ll never know because his or her chance to make a difference was ripped away, or sucked away…just like its brain…because it was inconvenient. Pretty freaking disgusting and appalling what we can do! I’m glad that the argument has stayed away from the status of a fetus, because like we never fully develop (at least not until we’re dead) the fetus is just a form of an undeveloped human being unable to voice whether he wants to join us in this world or not. My question to those who support abortion: who are you to decide if that child wants a shot at what you have been blessed with and are practicing every moment you breath- the gift of Life. I don’t believe any can do that for him or her. As a side note, less than 1% of abortions are due to rape and incest. It’s not the real issue at hand, but a convenient way to stall the real issue at hand. Here’s a good website…I haven’t reviewed it all because I don’t have time, but hope it’s good. http://www.abortiontv.com/Lies%20&%20Myths/AnswersToProChoice.htm

5:19 PM  
Blogger Kyle G said...

Wow, I want to read all of the comments made, but I don't think I have the time.

I will tell you my beliefs, because I didn't say a word when we got in a circle and told everybody how we think. Here it goes: I consider myself a Republican, however if you talk to me about politics, you will find that I am pretty moderate. In fact the only reason I consider myself Republican is because I tend to agree more with them on foreign policy issues than Democrats. I know more about foreign policy and what's going on around the world than anything else, in fact rather than become president, my dream is to become the Secretary of State. Now, that said, let me defend myself before anyone chastises me on Iraq. Yes we should have gone over there, Saddam was a horrible person and his sons were as bad, if not worse. And, yes huge mistakes were made, ones that have resulted in the situation we're stuck in over there now. I DO NOT AT ALL like Donald Rumsfeld, I don't think he should be the Sec. of Defense, and should be replaced ASAP (Stormin Norman would be my choice, but that's just me). I think that Bush overestimated the U.S. military might and did not send as many troops as initially should have been sent, and ignoring intelligence on probable insurgencies (yes... there was) have resulted in that cesspool we call Iraq. Other than that I basically agree with Republicans on foreign issues.

Like I said, I am more focused on foreign issues because I know more about them, and have a better idea on how to deal with them. As far as domestic issues go I either:

Don't care: Gay marriage (not that I don't care about gay people, just I think there are bigger problems)

Don't know anything about them: Taxation and economy

Or am right in the middle of the issue: Abortion, limited to first term only (or at least before the heart starts beating) and preferably a minimum of 3 times per woman.

So that is my position in the world, have fun.

5:20 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

god, you guys talk too much >.>
Here are my opinions:

Abortion: I don't feel it's right under any circumstance, but would have to agree with what people are saying that making it illegal would only cause a larger problem of illegal abortions continuing. Really though, abortion seems to simply be an issue of when an embryo becomes a living thing. To take it to extremes, you could say that everytime a woman doesn't have sex and loses an egg they're killing a baby, since that egg had the potential to become a child. (someone will kill me for this)

Gay Marriage: I do think they should have a right to marry each other. Will states that allowing them to marry would be granting them an extra right, but really it isn't. Heterosexuals, if such a law passes, would then be able to marry people of the same sex :). Ok sure, no one's really going to do that, so that's not giving them an extra right. But that applies vice-versa as well, only allowing heterosexual marriages to happen denies the right of the homosexuals to marry the person they love. And one more thing - even though it's a bit harsh to say it is a mental disorder, wasn't it proved some time ago that it was a chemical imbalance in the brain or something? I'm not really too sure and am too lazy to go find proof, but just thought I'd throw this out there.

Iraq War: I know nothing, will probably continue to know nothing and live in happy ignorance. (someone's going to kill me for this too)

5:44 PM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

whew those are some big words Josh!
haha

ok Marci an incredibly inclusive website you asked for about abortion can be found at
http://www.abortionfacts.com/
they have tons of statistics, really everything you could want to know about abortion. I have to say you kind of did the thing you didn't like people doing to you. I didn't mean that instead of using condoms people get abortions. I think that for most people an abortion is an agonizing decision. However, at least in my opinion, one abortion is too many. Getting pregnant from rape is actually pretty rare, certainly not the most common reason for abortion. If a condom breaks during sex, that's too bad. If you are adult enough to do the deed, then you assume the responsiblities to be adult enough to care for your offspring. No execuses.
so moving on,

Derrick, yes I'll bait on this. you said: "To take it to extremes, you could say that everytime a woman doesn't have sex and loses an egg they're killing a baby, since that egg had the potential to become a child. "

No, you really couldn't say that. A baby is formed when the sperm and egg meet.

next:
I believe homosexuality to be wrong. There, I said it. However it is an issue that has been present for centuries, it is not a "disease" that suddenly popped up. It is a sin, just as everybody, daily, lives in sin. However I do not see the role that government has in defining marriage. Marriage is traditionally a type of pact between your partner, yourself, and God. Then specific rights were given between couples and government became involved.
Marriage is not an act for homosexuals. That is why there are civil unions available, with the same rights granted.

now tear it apart!

5:57 PM  
Blogger Emily N said...

Marci: Thank you for bringing to light something that I really did address or make clear in my abortion argument. You brought up the government in most of your responses to my statements. For not just you, but everyone reading this, I must remind you that I did not directly address the role of government in banning or allowing abortion. Let me clarify/explain a little bit.

I am 100% morally opposed to abortion. My entire post about it was focused on the ethical reasons why I believe this. I did not bring up government partly because I have not come up with the perfect solution to this problem/question. No one has, and it's likely no one ever will. I agree that a complete government ban on abortion will not stop it from happening, and will in all probability lead to even more inhumane methods, as sad as this is.
On the other hand, I believe that under no circumstances should abortion be made freely legal. There is no right answer in the govt. aspect. I have thought about this so many times, because people are often asking me "If you hate it so much, what are you gonna do about it?" I'm still working on it. Sorry if this isn't as great a response as you may have hoped, and sorry if it didn't answer a lot of questions, but I just don't have those answers. Yet.

One little snippet in response to your response:
I said: "You are taking the life of someone who has no control over it yet, and choosing whether they will live or die."
You said: "So what gives the government to take control of our life?"
BIG DIFFERENCE. A person choosing whether a child lives or dies is not the same as the government taking control of your life. That's not what I meant. The govt. is not deciding between life and death for you, which is what you are doing in the life of this child. I'm not advocating government control of daily life in this by any means, I just wanted to clarify a little bit that you seem to be equating two very different things and misreading my statement. Also, you questioned whose choice it should be if not the mother's. It shouldn't be a choice. More than one life is being played with when considering an abortion. That's not any human's right.

Still working on the government issue, if I come up with any possible solutions I'll post them, because I would love to hear any input. Any more questions, I'll do my best! Love what everyone has been saying on here, keep it up!

5:57 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

"No, you really couldn't say that. A baby is formed when the sperm and egg meet. "

How do you know that the baby isn't formed when the heart develops? Or when the brain develops? Or when it starts moving? At what point can we really consider the embryo to be "alive"?

6:07 PM  
Blogger Kyle G said...

Well, in that case what makes US alive, if we can't determine when an embryo is a living creature, how can we determine that we are living. At the end of the birth they have all the same parts we do, sure they aren't as intelligent as we are, by they learn quickly. Just thought I'd play devil's advocate with derick's statement. Personally I believe that life starts when the heart begins to beat, that's why I said no abortions after which. Also, people keep asking for solutions, well I will repeat myself again, first we limit abortions to the first semester (or before the heart starts beating) and we impose a (pardon the term, but I like to use it) "3 strikes your out" rule. Mostly because if your stupid enough to make the same mistake more than 3 times than you deserve to live with it. However, I could accept a 4th abortion only if a full pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or would result in the mother's or the fetus' death.

This seems like a moderate solution to me, but maybe others feel differently, let me know.

6:52 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Will -

How many times have I said that it is a good thing that Sedam is out of power? I agree with you 100% that Iraq's conditions justified US intervention, BUT the war was started because of WMDs that didn't exist. I realize Bush was given badn intelligence, but he is commander and cheif so the fault does fall on him. He should have spent a bit more time making sure the claims were true.

Here are the links you asked for:

http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/benefits.htm

http://www.pflag.org/Rights__Priviledges_and_Benefits_of_Marriage.175.0.html



Meghan -

Civil unions don't much hold a candle to legal marriage, because they only provide around 300 state level benefits. Legal marriage provides federal procection that doesn't disolve once you cross a state line.


Kyle -

I agree with you 100% about Rumsfeld.

________________________________________________________


Also, homosexuality is just different from the heterosexual norm. Whether you see it as a sin or not, it's just different. Homosexuals are just people who are different. They don't have some kind of disorder or even a chemical imbalance, they're just different. There isn't a specific gay gene, nor is there a specific heterosexual gene either. Homosexuality is a reality that has existed since the dawn of time in humanity and nature alike. It's just different, and it's not some terrible sin or abomination comparable to murder or theft or anything else like that, regardless of what your religion might say.

Do you honestly think that anyone would make the concious choice to become a member of one of the most oppressed minority groups in the country (and even the world for that matter)? No, of course not! Do you think anyone would consiously make the choice to become a second class citizen without the right to marry the person they love? No, of course not!


As far as the whole abortion issue is concerned, I'm still firm in my beliefs. It's a terrible thing that I could never personally bring myself to do, but it's still a woman's choice, even if it is a terrible one. An embryo is a mass of cells that has the potential of life, but not a concious life yet. It is sad that that potential for life is taken away if it is aborted, but still it's a woman's body and in this society that is all that she truly owns, as everyone else does to.

7:12 PM  
Blogger Sarah A said...

Derick-
How do you know that the baby isn't formed when the heart develops? Or when the brain develops? Or when it starts moving? At what point can we really consider the embryo to be "alive"?

Good question. My answer:

When it's born.

The way I see it, we don't count birthdays from the day of conception, or the day the heart starts beating, or the day the fetus starts kicking--we count birthdays from the day of birth. If a person hasn't been born, then they aren't alive, and can't be killed.

God I love my logic.

8:02 PM  
Blogger marci said...

Josh-
As a side note, less than 1% of abortions are due to rape and incest. It’s not the real issue at hand, but a convenient way to stall the real issue at hand.
Very one sided statement.
Realize that not all women run up and say OH CRAP I WAS RAPED! The same holds true with women who are abused by their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers. Not everyone openly talks about being raped; so while that statistic may hold true for the number who supposedly report it, realize that it is definitely not a fact, which you presented it as in your statement.
who are you to decide if that child wants a shot at what you have been blessed with
Who is the government to decide to not give us a shot at not having a child at 17 years of age?
Believe it or not, having a child is a lifetime commitment, and if a woman isn’t ready for that, it’s not fair to make her have the child and/or give it up for adoption and have the child grow up knowing that either [a] it’s birth parents didn’t want me or [b] my parents did the deed too young and I was an accident.

Not fair to either of the two parties. I’m not sure whether or not I’d have an abortion if I were to become pregnant… but I know for sure that no government would stop me if I wanted to. Hell, I’ll drink excessively and do drugs to kill the baby if abortions were illegal and I was too young to be a caring, nurturing mother. [ha, ha. Cue everyone saying “marci, nurturing, ever?” yes, I can be sensitive contrary to popular belief.”
But back to the question, josh: we are in no place to determine a baby’s future, but somehow the government is?

Kyle,
Yes we should have gone over there, Saddam was a horrible person
Fidel Castro is bad. The rebels in Sudan are bad. Why Iraq?

first we limit abortions to the first semester (or before the heart starts beating) and we impose a (pardon the term, but I like to use it) "3 strikes your out" rule.
Um, it’s a trimester* and it already is limited to that. [of course, illegal ones are performed after the first trimester, but technically the law you mentioned is already in place]. I agree with the “three strikes you’re out” rule; but, again, there’s no solid way to prove what you mentioned, so we have to allow it to remain legal. I do not condone abortion being used as a contraceptive, but again, you cannot take away an individual’s rights.

Meghan,
If a condom breaks during sex, that's too bad. If you are adult enough to do the deed, then you assume the responsiblities to be adult enough to care for your offspring
What if the woman was on the pill too? She intentionally did everything she could to not get pregnant because she knew she was not ready to have a child. So it’s her fault if freak accidents happen? I beg to differ.
I apologize for “supposedly” doing what I hated other people doing to me; I wasn’t aware of it, but I apologize nonetheless. And, like I said to Josh- just because a few people come forward and say they were raped doesn’t mean that EVERYONE who gets raped comes out and says it. It’s an embarrassing thing, and honestly, I have had some stuff happen to me [not as serious as rape, but pretty close] and I refuse to go in to details about it with almost anyone. There’s a lot more rape-related pregnancies than you think. Statistics will never be right on that issue.

it is not a "disease" that suddenly popped up. It is a sin, just as everybody, daily, lives in sin.
Um, I’m sorry… but this was an absolutely ridiculous statement. I’ll condemn myself to hell right now, I suppose. You crossed the line by STATING that everyone sins. What’s the definition of a sin? Who are YOU to be telling me that I’m sinning? I think you’re a sinner for sitting in class. Boy, I bet you find that fair.
I can tell you right now that my cousin is not a sinner because he was born gay—realize that he was raised in such a bible thumping family that they took a permanent marker and marked out anything sexual, demon- provoking, or that concerned “magic” in any books that they had in their house. I’m shaking right now because of how absolutely closed-minded that statement was. There are many researchers finding that gay men happen to have neurons similar to women—meaning that they are not as large as the straight male’s neurons.
That was an extremely ignorant statement that crossed the line on many levels… and I hope you plan to revise it quickly.

Emily,
BIG DIFFERENCE. A person choosing whether a child lives or dies is not the same as the government taking control of your life. That's not what I meant. The govt. is not deciding between life and death for you, which is what you are doing in the life of this child.
Who are you to say it’s a big difference? What if giving birth to the child ends up killing you [assuming that no one could foresee that the death of the mother would happen]? Wouldn’t that be the same as the government deciding whether or not you live or die?
I understand that you’re not advocating government control; but you fail to realize that government will be the one to make the law, and, therefore, they WILL control it. If this isn’t true, please tell me who would be making the decision in opposition to our government.

Julie,
There isn't a specific gay gene, nor is there a specific heterosexual gene either.
There may not be a gene, but there is significant evidence about the neurons in a gay male are similar to women’s neurons than the larger straight male neuron.

8:13 PM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

Kyle, just so you know- the heartbeat of a fetus begins between the 18th and 25th days following conception. Electrical brain waves are transmited in about forty days. The first trimester includes the first three months (90 days) of the pregnancy. There is a huge disparity between these two time periods.
Currently, an abortion is legal all the way through a pregnancy, even until the third trimester when the baby is actually able to survive outside the womb in intensive care. People can get partial birth abortions instead of having the child. They literally, unarguably choose between life and death for this child. That should not be acceptable.
The fetus begins growing at conception, and deveolps with a heart, brain, and fingers. The timeline can be argued till the end of time, but the underlying point is that a baby forms very rapidly in the womb and it is not just a mess of tissue, at least after only 18 days there is a living, heartbeating baby in the womb.

Marci, I apoligize I really did not make myself clear. When I said
"it is not a "disease" that suddenly popped up. It is a sin, just as everybody, daily, lives in sin."
I was referencing/disagreeing with another post made earlier that called homosexuality a disease.
I also took it as a given that everybody sins and thought that notion had already been established earlier on with some of Justin's comments that I agree with. I was not intentionally pointing you out, rather humanity in general. I stand by my belief that no human is perfect because inevitably one mininscule thing will be done wrong. It means something different to you than it does to me, and I am fine with that. I don't take offense to arguments made by you and viewed this as a forum free of pc manipulation. I have researched and thought through all of my political opinions, even if they differ from yours. I grew close to someone last year who was gay and was able to have mature, level headed conversations with him. I respect him as a person and he is a great friend, however I can still have my own values different from his.


Julie, I really do know that

"Homosexuals are just people who are different"

Everybody is different in different ways, but my faith does affect the way I consider different arguements.
I have looked at your sites and they are very thorough, but I would like to add that all states do treat civil unions differently. I like this method because I don't think it should be a federal issue, but I also know it is confusing and frustrating having different rights in different places. In Vermont, for instance, civil unions do hold the same rights as a marriage. In many states, including CO, the issue is still being decided.

ok, so attack away.

8:34 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

"God I love my logic."
I love that statement :o

Just for that I'm not even going to argue back =)

8:34 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Marci -
I know, I've read some reasearch on that. I was just stating that it wasn't centered in a specific gene because someone had brought that up.

8:36 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Meghan -

I hope you don't feel that I'm attacking you. You seem to be pretty passionate about your beliefs, just as I am. I hope I'm not offending you, I'm just arguing in a friendly manner. :) I understand completely that your faith affects your views, and I don't think that is wrong. I'm actually quite enjoying our little exchange, I like learning about your perspective as I am not a religious or conservative person.

I do think that marriage, or even civil unions if that is what is has to be at first (gay americans deserve the right to have their unions called marriage too, but thats kind of a more in-depth issue), should be something that is protected federally for the reason that you just mentioned - unions are treated differently in every state. People should be able to live where they chose, not be forced to settle somewhere that has legalized gay marriage/unions. Not every gay citizen wants to live in Massachusets(if that's spelled right...), Vermont, or Connecticut. A gay couple living in Colorado, Texas, Montana, or where ever else should be able to stay in the state they have chosen to live in and have their union legally recognized and protected by the government.

Remember, marriage in a legal sense is a union between a couple and the government. Religious ceremonies are separate, so religious views should not shape the decision of legal marriage.


(Also, I like how 3 of us definitely posted at the same exact time, haha. Shouldn't we be doing homework? I know I should be, hahaha)

8:46 PM  
Blogger Kyle G said...

Sorry Marci, I meant trimester, but obviously you knew that. Also, I didn't know that it was already illegal after the first trimester, like I said, don't know much about domestic issues. Meghan, one thing I do know is that partial-birth abortion is now illegal, thank god!

As far as Iraq goes, why not Iraq, why Cuba or Sudan. Yes both commit major human rights violations, as do many others (North Korea is a huge one), honestly I don't know why Iraq. Let me ask you this, lets say that we didn't overthrow Saddam, so which dictator would you have decided to get rid of?

There are a lot, far too many to take care of all at once. And what's to say that we wouldn't be in the same situation in any one of those countries that we are in Iraq right now. Maybe Bush did have some personal reasons for going to Iraq (finishing his father's job in the early 90's), or maybe he did just go over for oil, but Saddam still needed to be removed in a bad way.

8:56 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

multitasking is fun :D

/offtopic

(If any of you understood the /offtopic, i feel sorry for you)

8:57 PM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

oh man i could stay here all night long, sad!
Julie thank you for your comment, I really do enjoy this too! I am so interested in politics and digging into issues to understand all sides of it. and yes, I badly need to start my homework too!!

I agree with your stance that there needs to be a standard across America for civil rights, which as I already stated conflicts with my opinion that it should be a state issue. I need to do some more thinking :)

Kyle, my main interest in politics is International Relations, but I am no expert so it is hard for me to predict different reasons for taking down different dictators. I think Iraq was a strategic move because of our position now. If it had been other, more powerful countries, the repucusions could have been much more drastic. I think I mispelled repucusions, but sound it out. We cannot invade every country that needs help. Sudan refuses outside aid from any European country and they are close to kicking out African aid groups. I also think that it is not prudent nor safe for the government to reveal all of the intelligence that they have on certain subjects. If we can see it, so can terrorists, and thus there is information that civilians probably could not handle. Before people say this is too much govt control, this is very normal. Information is released more than 50 years after a President leaves office. We can wait and see.

9:12 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Julie,
You keep saying that gays are just different, and that they don't choose to be gay. Your viewpoint is too flexible and needs to be pinned down in order for this debate to be more educational. What, exactly, is it that makes homosexuals different? Is it choice, genetics, or something else? There IS a reason why they are different and this is the point that is trying to be made, what makes them different is up to debate and could be crucial to whether or not gay marriage should be allowed.

No, Bush should not be held accountable for the false information given to him by the CIA. A president should be able to make a well-educated decision. Bush made one, but he was misinformed. This is not his fault, the president should not be blamed for the incompetence of the Central Intelligence Agency.

9:17 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Oh, this question has been bugging me for a while.

Does anyone else think that it is a mistake to build New New Orleans where Old New Orleans was, under sea level and at the same dangers as before? I thought it was going to be relocated but the decisions wer made so fast to rebuild it never had a chance.

Should it even be rebuilt?

Opinions?

9:20 PM  
Blogger Chaser said...

Wow, where to begin? Well, let me just start by saying I tend to look at things from a global perspective, in other words, not just my interests. It looks like gay marriage is the subject of popular debate, so I'll go with that.

Will, this follows up your convictions, but also is a gauge of my own views. First of all, I would like to point out that calling homosexuality a mental defect is simply immature. No one needs to argue about it, because all it is is an ignorant assumption. I've been raised fiercely with Mormonism and Catholicism competing for my faith, two extremes of the conservative, doctrine-based Christian religions. I know all about knowing things as TRUTH. I could easily say you have a mental defect because you've been "brainwashed" by judgmental religious traditions. But I'm not going to. Why? One, being part of 2 religions that insist they're always right brings up the fact that at least one of them would then have to be wrong, even though both KNOW they're riht. Religion, under all circumstances, is influenced by MAN. I understand you think homosexuality is wrong. (Remember I come from TWO places where it's wrong) To you, it's a belief, and I'll even assume you know it as a TRUTH, and I understand that. You just haven't gotten to a point where you realize that you are not the only person in this world, that no matter how strongly you feel, and how much you KNOW, someone will always KNOW too, and their idea will be completely opposite. Sometime you have to let your pride down long enough to admit that, even if only to yourself. And only YOU will be able to do that, and when you do, you will find that you grow and learn so much more without sacrificing your beliefs. They are yours, cherish them, but don't let them disillusion you. Homosexuality is not a mental defect, in the exact same way IGNORANCE is not a mental defect, though many people do suffer from it. And there, people don't suffer from homosexuality. Do you "suffer" from heterosexuality? Gay people aren't "different". What is different? What is normal? No one has to tell another person to mature physically and start becoming attracted to people. It happens, naturally. Don't sacrifice your own beliefs, but learn to accept others. It amazes me in my own life my family can get along perfectly, then, one issue we disagree on, religious-based, can throw the family into contention. To me, it is such an irony. They are at ends with each other about Christ. Who taught, by the way, love, acceptance, tolerance, respect, and indeed accountability. You are not going to be held accountable for other people's actions, so why don't you focus on things that relate to you, like your judgements. This is not about reading articles and arguing about it you all. They are all taking a stand. Why don't you look inside yourself and make your own stand? Stop relying on other people to tell you how to think. Let your guard down, even if you just do it alone, long enough to discover who you are long enough to know how YOU, not some professor or reverend. Maturity and humility will teach you that once you are truly secure with your beliefs, you will not need to argue about them, impose them on other people to confirm them more for yourself, nor be so judgmental. And if you're Christian, keep in mind the constant references to Chirst's humility. We can sit here and argue as long as we want, no one is going to change their mind, but I seriously challenge all of you who have not gotten to a point where you can acknowledge, I don't say you have to accept it, that you are you, no one can take that away, but that everyone is an individual, and eventually you will need to be able to rely on yourself, not leaning against a foundation of justifications and excuses and proofs. Because you are always going to be stronger on your own two feet planted firmly in your own maturity. I dare you to find the truth in your own life. And Will, what makes gay people different? Well, I could ask you the very same question about yourself.

9:21 PM  
Blogger Chaser said...

The people of New Orleans are entitled to do with their property whatever they wish. They deserve the right to choose. They know the risks, and have experienced the outcomes. Insurance companies will not be near as generous next time around because they are going to be very careful with their policies. If you disagree and think it's stupid to rebuild, I have an awesome suggestion: never live there! :)

9:23 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:38 PM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

Chaser, thank you for your comment. It is insightful and applicable, and very well said. I would certainly like think the way you do, but add that no one is threatening other peoples individuality. This is supposed to be a place to push buttons in hopes of a more enlightening conversation. And due to these blogs my views are being challenged and adjusted based on new arguments brought up. :)

9:38 PM  
Blogger Kyle G said...

Meghan, I am glad that someone else is as interested in international relations as I am. I actually did not know Sudan denied help from the rest of the world, I am ashamed to say that I do not know very much about African issues. I think it is because it is hard to find information about it, media rarely reports on it, in fact any infromation source either has little or no information about Sudan, and other African problems, which is very unfortunate. I'll have to learn more about them.

I agree that Iraq WAS (notice I emphasize the word "was") a strategic place, more for location though than their power, they did have the fourth largest army in the world after all, they weren't neccessarily very weak. I think the fact that it is right in the middle of the Middle East, would have allowed a "ripple effect" in the region. If we gave Iraq democracy than all the surrounding countries would have seen the success of that democracy and changed as well. In fact this did happen to a small degree, several countries took some democratic ideas. Saudi Arabia actually allowed a vote to pass a law (I think, well they voted on something). Granted they didn't allow women to vote, but it's a start. Anyway, I stressed the word "was" because this would have had a much bigger impact had we not made such huge mistakes during and after the invasion. Now all the rest of the Middle East sees is a country crumbling, quickly, in a flawed and weak system of democracy.

9:45 PM  
Blogger Katie G said...

First Josh- I don't think anyone in the world, and certainly no one in our class is capable of proving or disproving the existence of a "supreme being." The creation of the universe in my mind is still beyond our comprehension and is open to speculation on all fronts. I believe that the separation of church and state does not necessarily condone an atheist view of the world. It merely presents SCIENTIFIC facts and lets one come to their own conclusion. Also I think most atheists are driven away from religion because of how christians like to impose their beliefs on others. So if you really want to promote "faith" you should allow people to decide for themselves rather than shoving the gospel down their throats.

To answer the most recent question posted:

I think it is incredibly arrogant and shortsighted to rebuild New Orleans in the same location. Man can try to tame nature but he'll never win. Learn from your mistakes people and move on.

9:46 PM  
Blogger marci said...

Meghan,
"it is not a "disease" that suddenly popped up. It is a sin, just as everybody, daily, lives in sin."
I was referencing/disagreeing with another post made earlier that called homosexuality a disease.

Just so you know, I did not, I suppose… view this as a “personal” attack at me saying I was a sinner, but I did take offense to this seemingly “everyone is a sinner, obviously” type of statement. I understand you have your religious beliefs, but for clarity issues, I would suggest placing “I believe everyone sins and are sinners” rather than just stating it like it’s a known fact.
Back to what I quoted, I know you were saying it’s not just some disease that popped up, and if you read your bible, it says that being gay is not a sin, but engaging in homosexual relationships is. Jesus is also found stating to “let the sinless man be the first to throw a stone” [this was a quote from a devout Christian; pardon my lack of ability to find the actual phrase in your guys’ bible] Basically, unless you’re sinless, you don’t have a right to call out other people on their sins.
Anyway, it may just be an issue of clarity as far as your saying that being homosexual is not a disease, rather a sin. Maybe you meant something different, but it is being interpreted as what I stated in the prior sentence.
I’m not exactly sure where you got a feeling that I thought you were a moron for having different views than myself, so don’t feel a need to justify by saying you’ve researched your views thoroughly. I’m merely arguing with you because we have different views, and it’s rather fun to pose a question or a statement that one or the other cannot answer.

Kyle,
I figured you knew the difference between trimester and semester. But I mentioned it just in case 
As far as Iraq goes, why not Iraq, why Cuba or Sudan.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves: answering a question with a question. First answer my question, then pose your own. Anyway, why Cuba or Sudan? Neither. Honestly, Iraq, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, etc are not threatening our security as of right now.
I never supported the war in Iraq [no, this is not hindsight bias playing a part on my stance] for two reasons:
1. even if Iraq had WMD, they did not have the resources to launch them, or vice versa. We would probably notice nukes being driven over to Lebanon to be launched at us. Just a hunch.
2. We [oh, crap, we still haven’t caught osama? Oops… we forgot.] had not finished our war in Afghanistan, which is where Al Quaeda [oh, right.. the people behind the 9/11 attacks] held its hub. There were no terrorists that originated in Iraq, the majority were from Saudi Arabia and good ol’ Afghanistan.

Yes both commit major human rights violations, as do many others (North Korea is a huge one), honestly I don't know why Iraq.
You said you supported the war. I’m simply asking why.
Let me ask you this, lets say that we didn't overthrow Saddam, so which dictator would you have decided to get rid of?
None, because none are immediately threatening our state of being.
Yes, I know, selfish. I believe in war when war is needed, but the war in iraq is not necessary.

My theory is this: until countries have separation of church and state, there is no way our “democracy” will exist. Iraq, Israel, Palestine: it’s pointless to fight a war with them because
[a] half of them are fighting against us anyway [Vietnam…?]
And
[b] they are so deeply rooted in religion that it IS their law; our war in iraq is futile to say the least. They believe in their religion, not an “awesome” government that we supposedly have.
The other part of my theory is that if we continue to “spread” democracy like this and spend decades in each country, we will be comparable to the British empire at the close of the 19th century and leading into the 20th: eventually, we will collapse upon ourselves, or some Asians or Canadians will come in and take over us because.. well, all of our military personnel are off spreading our government. Brilliant.

Will,
No, Bush should not be held accountable for the false information given to him by the CIA. A president should be able to make a well-educated decision. Bush made one, but he was misinformed. This is not his fault, the president should not be blamed for the incompetence of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Whether or not he was given false information, the man should have realized that even if there were WMD, iraq had no resources to launch them.
Or is that just too obvious for our simple president?

Boy oh boy, I never realized how many issues I can relate to in my own life: my uncle works for the CIA.

I find it hilarious that you call our central intelligence agency incompetent when our president is probably the epitome of incompetency [I know that’s not a word; I cannot think of the correct one] as far as world leaders are concerned.

Let’s fight closed-mindedness with closed-mindedness.

Does anyone else think that it is a mistake to build New New Orleans where Old New Orleans was, under sea level and at the same dangers as before? I thought it was going to be relocated but the decisions wer made so fast to rebuild it never had a chance.
Is that really a pressing issue? I wasn’t aware of it. Who cares? Of course they should rebuild… it’s a place where people call “home”.
Apply that to rebuilding the WTC. I think we should have, just to prove that terrorists could knock down our towers and that we would just build them again.

9:51 PM  
Blogger marci said...

an edit to my new orleans comment:
it's probably not the smartest decision, but, we as americans are not exactly bright. with the way we are expanding, we will end up building there sooner or later. might as well, and let a hurricane wipe them out again. florida is in just as much danger, along with all coastal cities. what about the _____ fault in california? LA is gonna go float and chill with australia. no one's rushing to evacuate LA, we won't really learn from our mistakes, so we're doomed to repeat them.

9:58 PM  
Blogger Kurt W. said...

The other part of my theory is that if we continue to “spread” democracy like this and spend decades in each country, we will be comparable to the British empire at the close of the 19th century and leading into the 20th: eventually, we will collapse upon ourselves, or some Asians or Canadians will come in and take over us because.. well, all of our military personnel are off spreading our government. Brilliant.

Britain never self collapsed or had another nation take it over. It was simply assimliated into an advancing world that it could no longer control.

Besides, thier wars of the 18th through 20th centuries were based on imperialism. They wanted colonies and all the goodies that come with them (See today's A.P. U.S. Class). The United States doesn't have Imperialist ambitions. If we did, then you would see our nation bringing tons of oil over here and I would not be paying 3 bucks a gallon for gas. Puerto Rico wouldn't be a territory anymore. Cuba wouldn't be an independant country anymore. The two nations really aren't that comparable.

9:58 PM  
Blogger Kristen said...

Wow this has been fascinating. I'm kind of bummed that I haven't been in on the action till now. The arguments have been amazing and well thought out on both sides (for the most part haha). I'm not going to list the names of everyone I admire, but the logic from all around has been pretty incredible. I also probably won't get any sleep tonight because I've been reading this for quite a while.

I really hate to bring up my own opinions on the topics because it will seem horrendously repetitive, however, as a bio nerd, I do have something to say. In the first part of a pregnancy, those cells are just dividing. Endlessly dividing, and creating more indentical cells. I don't remember how long this lasts, but ask me, and I'll look it up. This same process is going on simultaneously in ALL living things, whether it be in the root tip of a plant, or organ tissue of an animal. Eventually hormones and chemicals are released that stimulate the cells to specialize and become different body structures. Whats wrong with getting rid of a bunch of dividing cells? I agree with Marci, Julie, Sarah, Katie, etc and all of their arguments. Why should the government be able to infringe on the rights of a woman but she cant infringe on the rights of the mass of dividing cells inside of her?

Gay Marriage - I agree with Julie and everyone else that wants homosexuals to have the same rights. My teacher in 6th grade taught us never to call anyone "weird". just different. If you think gay people are that way by choice, fine, don't become gay! But for the homosexuals that have no control over their sexual preferences, as science is fighting to prove completely, let them live their lives. For some religions, yes it may be a "sin". but not all religions. Another 6th grade lesson: dont worry about so-and-so, worry about yourself.

The war in Iraq. I'm going to have to agree with Derick. I am somewhat happily ignorant with it. I'll admit...I don't really have the slightest clue whats TRULY going on over there, or why we TRULY went over there in the first place! I'm living a nice sugar-coated life in suburbia colorado. I don't like war in general, and like Marci and Katie, I support the troops, but not the war that might take their lives. I plan to become more educated about all of it, but at the same time, ignorance IS bliss.

And just 'cause we've mangled most of those topics... I thought we could start with some other ones, assuming this post will continue. I enjoy hearing what you guys believe. What do you guys think about immigration policies? No child left behind? and any others?

10:07 PM  
Blogger marci said...

Britain never self collapsed or had another nation take it over. It was simply assimliated into an advancing world that it could no longer control.


I beg to differ. Why did it go from being the most powerful country in the world to second or third just because its colonies broke away from it? wouldn't it just keep its status after its colonies broke away?

I think that subconciously, America is imperialistic.
imperialism:
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

I understand that this can be argued both ways, but in a way, we are "extending" democracy and will be controlling their government until WE feel that they have a firm grip on it and can do it by themselves. god knows how long THAT will take to be achieved in Iraq.

10:11 PM  
Blogger Kyle G said...

You know Marci, I do have to agree with you, I do think that we should have focused on the War on Terrorism and finding Osama before invading Iraq. If I was in the same place as Bush, I probably would not have gone after Saddam. I also believe that we should only go after countries that pose, at least somewhat of a threat, and no I don't think that Iraq did (I think that North Korea is probably the biggest threat, if not they will be soon). In other words we shouldn't wait for someone to attack us to declare war on them, if they are seen as a threat to or there is even a slight possibility that they will attack the U.S. than there should be no hesitation to act. But I still like the idea of overthrowing Saddam, I mean this guy used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds because they were a thorn in his side for wanting separation from Iraq, they weren't planning a coup. And before anybody points it out I will, yes the U.S. helped Saddam obtain those weapons, a HUGE, HUGE mistake on our part (I never said America was perfect), but that doesn't give him the right to use them on his own people.

Also, it is the San Andreas fault that you are thinking of.

10:14 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

Hey!

This discussion seems to be going really well. There are a lot of discussions that I want to be in on. Anyway, I will be responding to most of them soon, (over the weekend), but I have not found the time to discuss on here during the week.

One of the reasons I have not blogged recently is that I had just passed a tobacco possession ban in the City of Centennial, that I am planning to take to the State Legislature. I need the youth's opinion of this topic and I thought here would be a good place to get it. Any positive or negative comments on it are welcome. Thanks.

10:26 PM  
Blogger marci said...

Kyle,
I’m glad you agree. Sometimes that’s all I need to shut up for once.
I do think that we should have focused on the War on Terrorism and finding Osama before invading Iraq.
We did focus on it; but with the President’s attention span, he lost interest and went for something else.
Ok, that was closed minded. Basically, we did focus, but we never finished. Huge flaw. [oh, crap. I just set myself up for the argument about “finishing” in iraq.]

I also believe that we should only go after countries that pose, at least somewhat of a threat, and no I don't think that Iraq did
Well, apparently WMD were the reason we went in.. and, yes, that is a sufficient reason to go in if it INCLUDES the fact that the possessors have the devices to set them off. What good is a nuke if it’s chilling on a sand castle? Exactly. No threat.

(I think that North Korea is probably the biggest threat, if not they will be soon).
Or, if you consider sheer numbers, China could whoop us on our butts if they really wanted to.

In other words we shouldn't wait for someone to attack us to declare war on them, if they are seen as a threat to or there is even a slight possibility that they will attack the U.S. than there should be no hesitation to act.
Back to the lack of WMD in Iraq comment… we need to be 99% positive that the perpetrator will be capable of attacking us. This includes the materials AND the means. Again, china can arm every single person with a machine gun, but if they have no boats or planes to fly us over, they are not much of a threat.

But I still like the idea of overthrowing Saddam, I mean this guy used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds because they were a thorn in his side for wanting separation from Iraq, they weren't planning a coup.
Oh, no, I agree that Saddam is an awful person, but there are loads of those types of people. A major problem with the WII [war in iraq] is that our reason has changed, and bush need to formally acknowledge that we did NOT come in to overthrow saddam. We did NOT come in to free the Iraqi people. He’s saying that now to try to save face with Americans because no WMD were found.

And before anybody points it out I will, yes the U.S. helped Saddam obtain those weapons, a HUGE, HUGE mistake on our part
At the time, it was necessary. We cannot see in to the future… but really, Iraq is/was/will be a failing country; they do not have the resources to blow up the united states of America
(I never said America was perfect), but that doesn't give him the right to use them on his own people.
Of course not. But we need to value the lives of the people in our military before valuing the lives of people in other countries. Yes, I know, how selfish. Consider this: if your mom is held at gunpoint, and a 16 year old African infected with AIDS is held at gunpoint right next to her, who would you choose?
Yea, you’re selfish for choosing your mom.
Back to my point: we should not be wasting lives of our military personnel for a war that we do not need to be in. The primary job of our military is to protect our country; not to spread democracy. I value my brother’s life over 200 Iraqis. I value it over 1,000 Palestinians. Sorry, I just do.

10:26 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

Justin-"One of the reasons I have not blogged recently is that I had just passed a tobacco possession ban in the City of Centennial, that I am planning to take to the State Legislature. I need the youth's opinion of this topic and I thought here would be a good place to get it. Any positive or negative comments on it are welcome. Thanks."

Is this a complete ban of all tobacco possession in Centennial? Details please :)

10:31 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Hey Justin

The bill is a good idea in theory but its political suicide for any one who attempts to support it.

Reasons
1. Tobacco taxes acount for an incredibly large amount of revenue.
2. Colorado's cities have already banned smoking in public places and I think it just became a statewide ban too, not sure.
3. Because of the ban already i place, there really isn't a reason to take people's cigarrettes away if they can only smoke them privately.
4. This bill will be attacked by the standard "poor/rich people smoke and this bill is intended to hurt poor/rich people" that always arises with every cigarrette bill.

Even though I would love to see the complete erasure of tobacco off the face of the Earth, the United States, Colorado included is too invested in cigarrrettes and whoever pushes the bill is going to lose political capital.

Suggest the bill to your favorite democrat.

10:36 PM  
Blogger Sarah A said...

Justin-
From what I've heard (yes, we liberals have our sources!) your ban is geared toward kids under 18, making it illegal for them to so much as posess cigarettes instead of it only being illegal to purchase them, right?

(I just want to clarify that this is actually right before I go on to tell you why I don't agree with it, haha)

10:38 PM  
Blogger Kristen said...

Justin,

First of all, I am very impressed with how ambitious/involved you are. Not many 17 year olds have such an intense drive. I may disagree with almost all of your views, but nonetheless I really respect what you're doing.

Hikingout... you have a great argument. I'm all for a tobacco ban, simply because I dont like tobacco, but because of the lovely political "game", I doubt anyone will risk pushing the bill.

I change my mind from my previous post. I want to know what everyone thinks about intelligent design and stem cell research. Both of those topics fascinate me, however I'm going to withhold my opinions for now.

10:45 PM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

Wow! Marci and Kyle, I understand and agree with your posts about the war! to a certain extent, of course.
I agree that N Korea is an immense threat, and so does President Bush. The axis of evil, anyone? That leads me to Iran. I would claim that Iran is an even bigger threat than N Korea.
I could end up being flat wrong about this, but N Korea has a history of pushing buttons but never following through.
It is Iran that right now has the UN Security council plus Germany in six party talks, trying desperately to stop Iran from developing nukes.
Severe sanctions are threatening Iran, but these sanctions will not necessarily affect the elite who are running Iran, more the people under the harsh rule. It is all a very interesting "game."

by the way, if anybody logged on could tell me where I will find AP US essay questions, I'd appreciate it. I can't find them online for tomorrow. haha ok.

10:50 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

I don't believe in intelligent design.
I don't support abortion.
I support stem cell research.

Sounds contradictory I know, but let me explain >.>

Well I don't really want to get into religion, so I'll skip this part.
I don't like abortion, as most of you can see from my previous posts on this blog.

I'm assuming here you mean embryonic stem cell research. It may be contradictory to be against abortion but not against embryonic stem cell research, but my reasoning is that if the baby has been killed anyway, you might as well put it to good use.

10:53 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Wow, I stop to do my homework(finally, haha) and there are so many new posts! And it's great to see new names on here! A+ for getting involved!

Kristen -

Yay for bringing up new topics! I'm gonna run with immigration for now, because it's an issue that I don't really have a solid stance on, mainly because it's an issue that is still developing and changing right now. I do see it from a human angle though. Every illegal immigrant in this country is a person, and someone looking for opportunity that doesn't exist in their country, which is overwhelmingly Mexico. I think that the guest worker permit has a good idea behind it, but in a recent news broadcast (MSNBC I think...) I listened to, I learned that whatever agency is in charge of the program is really messing up. Turns out they have no idea how many permits have been issued already, so they have no idea hoe many they're allowed to issue now. Oops... The idea behind it is nice, but clearly it's not going well.

I'm totally opposed to Sen. Tancredo's ideas about immigration (whenever this topic comes up, I usually think about him, hah). The whole 'build a wall and sick the national guard on them' mentality is, in my opnion, wayyyy too extreme. I think the government needs to refine the process of legal immigration and possibly even work with the Mexican government to promote legal immigration. I think that the US working with Mexico on improving their economy would also be a good idea, because, in theory/my opinion/whatever, if the economy in Mexico was better and jobs were actually available, people immigrating solely for work opportunities wouldn't have to come to the US so a lot of the problem would be eliminated.

As far as the belief that illegal immigrants are 'stealing jobs from Americans' goes, I disagree. The jobs that illegal immigrants tend to fill are jobs that are already available. Jobs are be 'taken away' on a small extent because some companies to opt to hire immigrants over American workers because they are willing to work for less than minimum wage, but that is an issue that the government needs to be more aggressive about prosecuting. That isn't fair both the American workers and the immigrants.

My views are still a bit undecided about this issue though. This is a really tough issue. I hope that people will take this issue and expand more, not that I hate the continuing debate on gay marriage.

11:01 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

Hey katie...I'm sorry if you felt I was forceful and shoving gospel down your throat. Not my intention whatsoever and for the record I never even mentioned the gospel or anything of the sort. With my atheism comment, I was simply laying down scientific evidence that was presented to me and helped me reach my conclusion on this topic. The first words of my blog was just to make it clear where I was coming from so people could respond more pointedly. If you talked to me in person I guarantee I wouldn't ever shove anything down your throat, it's not part of my nature.

As far as the facts go, I was using them only to point out the shortcomings of natural laws in explaining the world we live. If the natural fails to explain everything, we must look beyond it to the supernatural. You may not reach the same conclusion that I did, but I would argue that it's the most founded.

11:03 PM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

wow I'm really just kidding about my last post. I found the essays, it's late and I have link tomorrow. 7 hours from now.

and I wanted to add and see other point of views about:
I see N Korea's threat more to it's people than to anyone else even though they have WMD's and can launch them, although maybe not all the way to mainland America.
However, Iran is much more likely to actually use WMD's, in my humble opinion. Iran has specific reasons, whether it be the existence of Israel or the wild Western culture. I in no way mean to diminish the threat of N Korea, but think that they are more of a Cold War kind of country, not a country with specific intent on destroying other cultures.


This is me getting carried away by international relations in a gov class.

11:07 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Kristen -

Fine then, just go changing your questions! Hahaha

I'm in total support of stem cell research. It's a sensitive issue, obviously, because it goes hand-in-hand with the whole abortion issue because most of the research is based on embryonic stem cells. Despite whatever relgious veiws oppose the research, it's wayyy to valuable of a resource to not research. I mean, people who have never walked in their life could be able to walk! People who are dying of chronic disease could be cured! A cure for cancer or even AIDS could come of it! The possibilities of stem cell research are just too immensely important to stop research.

11:07 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

Thanks for responding so quickly.

In writing my previous post so quickly, I forgot to mention that this is a tobacco possession ban for minors. The law will not allow any minor to possess tobacco at any place, at any time. I am still working on a punishment for a violation of such a ban, but with the help I am receiving, I am estimating somewhere between $100 and $300.

The definition of tobacco that I have created takes into account every type, variety, what not of tobacco that has ever been thought of. It is extremely long. This is to ensure that there are no loop-holes in the law.

Will-
I agree with you in theory if the ban was complete, for everyone. Since, it is only for minors the rules change, and the leg. already seems "fairly" open to.

Sarah-
That is correct. This is for minors, a complete ban on the possession. The ban on its sale does not work. Over 65% of youth buy their tobacco directly from a store. This is why a ban is needed. A ban on possession of tobacco decrease the use by around 20-30%.

Kristen-
Thanks so much! I hope to gain your support for this ban over time. Thanks.

Overall, thanks for all of your responses. This will help direct my plan of action, as I begin to approach legislators.

11:08 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Justin
You got me all riled up for nothing?

11:24 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

Justin - I think it's awesome what you're doing and how you are getting involved in current issues. That's it, that's all I really have to say. I still haven't done my homework yet and don't think I'll ever be able to read about everyone's beliefs and opinions, but it's really interesting and I'm learning a ton. Thanks to all

11:26 PM  
Blogger Kyle G said...

I just want to say to Meghan, I personally don't think Iran will use their nuclear weapons. Instead I think will sell them to some wacko like Osama, or another terrorist organization, maybe even give them away, which is really scary. N Korea, however, seems to like attention, and taking resposibility, they are beginning to launch missiles, and it is believed they will eventually develop one that can reach Seattle, or somewhere on the west coast. I also think they may make some deal with China, I don't think China likes N Korea, but they are more willing to work with them than the U.S. or our allies. So I guess I would say that Iran and N Korea are equal threats, but like I said, I think Iran is more likely to give them to terrorists, and N Korea is more likely to use their own.

As far as stem cell research, I do support it actually, to me it seems a little more useful than abortion, the fetus is dying and going to research a terrible disease, whereas abortion they just kill the fetus, but do nothing useful with it.

11:31 PM  
Blogger Emily M said...

Hello! So I'm just now reading this blog-- I didn't even know all this existed until Meyer brought it up today! So (for sake of time) I only read about the last 15 blogs or so. I have 2 questions:

Justin- How will the law be enforced? I see the tobacco ban very positive in theory (and I support it fully-drugs are nasty), but honestly, are cops really going to stop their cars if they see a teenager smoking? I think that catching a drunk driver or a child molester is more crucial in the public's interest. What do you all think?

and well, I'm always known for asking the dumb questions so here goes-

Kristen (ps, is this krik, or someone else?), what is intelligent design? I've never even heard of it! Tell me! k peace

11:31 PM  
Blogger Becca S said...

Justin...
I would like to hear your justification for this ban...because I do not understand why you care who smokes. It's banned in public, no one's shoving a Marlboro down your throat, why do you care if someone else your age smokes a cigarrette? What moral flaw are you trying to pin on teen smokers? What harm does it do to anyone but the person smoking? (I know there's the issue of second hand smoke but I think the public ban should pacify you if you honestly felt harmed by the situation) Let people destroy their lungs...those are THEIRS to destroy...

Anyways...I obviously disagree with the ban. I don't think it is anyone's business what substances other people breathe...harmful or beneficial.

And if I believed in politics...I would fight you every step of the way. :)

2:08 AM  
Blogger julie s said...

Justin -

While I think it's kind of cool that you're so involved in politics at such a young age, and I'm impressed that you're actually writing policy, but c'mon man. I'm in agreement with Becca on this, why do you care so much about minors who smoke? They know what they're doing, and they know exactly the dangers of what they're doing too. How many times have you been taught the dangers of smoking in school? I know I can't even count them!

If they wanna smoke, let them smoke. The stores where they are buying the cigarettes are the ones who should be suffering the consequences. What they're doing is truly illegal. If a minor wants to smoke, let them. It's their own fault if they get lung cancer later in life.

What's next? Is junk food and soda going to be outlawed to minors because it leads to obeseity?

7:55 AM  
Blogger Sarah A said...

Justin-
Alas, I too disagree with the smoking ban. Like Becca and Julie I don't see why it bothers you that a 16 or 17 year old kid smokes. You can't ban everything that's unhealthy! They already can't smoke inside, or even within 15 ft. of a building entrance (pshhhh...ridiculous), so I find it unlikely that its directly bothering or affecting you.
And hey, if it is...move upwind. The smoking restrictions in Colorado have gone far enough, this is just ridiculous.

9:26 AM  
Blogger Derick said...

Emily- "what is intelligent design? I've never even heard of it! Tell me! k peace"

Intelligent design would be some kind of all powerful being creating the human race, as opposed to evolution. Just a new term for creationism :)

11:05 AM  
Blogger Katie G said...

Josh - sorry if I came off kind of strong in the anti-religion thing. It wasn't you specifically I was railing against, just people like that and I'm sorry I lumped you in with that group. When you said that you have to look to the supernatural to explain what the laws of the natural world can't, I ask you, why do you have to know all the answers?

Justin- I love the idea of a ban on possession of tobacco by minors. I hate cigarettes, and if it were harder to get them during your teens, a lot fewer people would get addicted and continue the smoking "culture".

11:10 AM  
Blogger Kyle G said...

Derick, no intelligent design is not a fancy way of saying creationism. It is saying that God, or some divine being, created something that then evolved into humans. I have actually believed in intelligent design, before they ever had a name for it.

12:53 PM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

Kyle, thank you for clarifying my point for me. I agree with this statement, "Iran is more likely to give them to terrorists, and N Korea is more likely to use their own."
However I would argue that the idea of Iran giving WMD's to terrorists does pose a greater threat. I know that N Korea has conducted tests and are working up to reaching America, but I still think they are just looking to seem powerful, they do not YET have a reason for using them. Also you mentioned China and N Korea, I think we have a powerful ally in Japan when it comes to dealing with N Korea. Japan see's N Korea as an even bigger threat than the US because of their proximity to each other. I think N Korea is looking for incentives, while the incentives do not work in Iran.
Also, a threat of military force to stop the development of WMD's in Iran is not a popular idea to any, I think that stopping N Korea would have more support because it is clear what the motive would be. This is all hypothetical of course.

Again, NK seems to be a continuation Cold War (communist, build up of weapons) type of battle whereas Iran is definitely appears more politically charged.

2:44 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

kyle-"no intelligent design is not a fancy way of saying creationism. It is saying that God, or some divine being, created something that then evolved into humans. I have actually believed in intelligent design, before they ever had a name for it."

Ah, I didn't know, thanks. You can probably tell which side i'm on in that debate >.>

3:49 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Will Hea
Meyer-5

Justin
You wrote this bill? I am incredibly jealous.

Julie,
actually a sort of ban is already being implemented to take soda and fatty foods out of schools, it is being implemented in phases and was spearheaded by Bill Clinton a former fat kid.

Whoever brought up intelligent design is goint to regret it. I could literally keep posting this blog for days on why intelligent design is correct, but I will attempt to condense it.

I encourage all of you to read, Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and his other books, Privileged Planet, a book and DVD, as well as the other intelligent design books. Some are better than others and Privileged Planet is the best I have seen.

Before I begin I must include definitions of the following technical terms because people throw them around loosely and incorrectly. A FACT is something that is proven and has no exceptions. A THEORY is a testable hypothesis with factual support. A BELIEF is something that is not testable. EVOLUTION IS A THEORY NOT A FACT, INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A BELIEF NOT A THEORY. There is a lot of evidence refuting evolution. The point of this is that INTELLIGENT DESIGN CANNOT AND WILL NOT EVER BE PROVEN, its truth comes from the refutation of evolution and the lack of probability that macroevolution would ever occur. THERE IS NO WAY TO TEST GOD.

Macro vs. micro evolution. Macroevolution is species to species evolution. Microevolution is genetic adaptation within a species.

First, creationism is a specific form of intelligent design. Creationism is intelligent design, intelligent design is not creationism. It is interesting to point out though that the points of intelligent design do fall into the creation as outlined in Genesis.

There are two general proofs of Intelligent Design. The complexity of life and the complexity of Earth. First I will touch the complexity of life and then that of Earth.

Most arguments about intelligent design are based on complexity.

Organisms, even bacteria, are incredibly complex. A bacteria, the simplest living organism is still incredibly complex. The main argument for evolution is natural selection, bacteria with desirable traits will beat bacteria without them and this process will continue forever. The counter-argument is IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY, the theory that some biological processes could not have come about through natural selection because they have a number of parts that are necessary to function. Allow me to bring your attention to the bacterial flagellum (tail). The flagellum has about as many parts as an outboard motor, all of them necessary for function. If one part is missing the tail doesn't work. The reason this disproves natural selection is that a flagellum could never have evolved, but it has. According to natural selection bacteria over many generations would gain the parts necessary to have a flagellum. The reason this doesn't work is because none of the parts without all of the others is advantageous by itself and would probably hinder the bacteria. Therefore the only way a flagellum could have gotten on a bacteria is if the bacteria was created with the flagellum.
This principle also applies to ribosomes, and the other organelles of animal and plant cells that would not have come about through intelligent design. PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS AND READ THE BOOKS BECAUSE THE EXPERTS EXPLAIN THIS BETTER THAN I DO.

Second, the complexity of space and life. The favorite buzz words to describe the laws of physics are "FINE-TUNED". All of the laws of physics are simple enough to be written on one sheet of paper. They are finely-tuned to provide life on Earth. Gravity is just strong enough to keep the Earth in an orbit at a range from the sun to support life, if gravity were slightly, and I mean minisculely greater (see Privileged Planet), complex life on Earth would not exist. This also applies to the other rules of physics which are very conveniently calibrated for life on Earth. Intelligent Design supports the Big Bang Theory which coincides with the book of Genesis by the way. I will only touch on the rare properties that allow the Earth to support COMPLEX LIFE, yes there could be some bacteria somewhere, not likely for the reasons above, but possible. THERE IS AN INCREDIBLY MINISCULE CHANCE THAT LIFE WOULD HAVE EVER FORMED ON EARTH. In order to support life a planet can neither be too close nor too far from the sun in a very small area of possible life. The planet must surround a G5 (my G# could be wrong) dwarf yellow star, like our sun or else too much radiation will occur, the planet must have an oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide atmosphere, the planet must be a terrestrial planet covered with water, the planet must have a large moon in order to stabilize its rotations, the planet must rotate ( I forgot the factor that determines rotation) or an extreme of temperatures will occur killing all life, the planet must have a molten core to regulate heat, the planet must have tectonic plate movement (all of these are explained in Privileged Planet), the planet must be surrounded by gaseous giant planets like Jupiter and an asteroid belt to shield the planet from asteroid impacts. There are also many other factors including galaxy type and placement withing the galaxy, totaling to about 20 (this is a conservative number). If each factor is assigned a one in ten probability of occurring, again a conservative number, THERE IS A ONE IN TEN TO THE TWENTIETH CHANCE, THAT LIFE COULD OCCUR IN THIS UNIVERSE. This obviously points to some kind of divine interaction. Even if you believe there are a billion universes, there is still a miniscule chance that life would occur in any of these universes. There are a lot of other arguments but I will not touch on them.

Lastly, I would like to attack evolution's favorite arguments, what were the ape-men then? and the Earth is 4 billion years old. First, the methods through which many of the evolutionary ape-men created were less-than concrete, one step in the evolutionary chain was made from a single jawbone and nothing else (please read the books and watch the tapes). Second, carbon-dating and other methods of dating are inaccurate. These datings use half-lifes to determine the age of rocks and artifacts but are not accurate. If different elements are used, the estimates of age can be thousands of years apart. Helium, a favorite argument for Intelligent Designists is used against carbon-dating. When rocks are formed helium gas is trapped in rocks, after a set number of years, the helium eventually escapes, however rocks that are dated well beyond the helium escape time have still been found to contain helium. Science, for some reason or other, rejects the notion of religion and is going to great lengths, even avoiding some information to distance itself. Science and God can coexist, after all who would have made the laws of science?

Intelligent Design only disagrees with Macroevolution, microevolution has been proven and should be considered factual. Man did not evolve. If science supports the creation of the universe as outlined in Genesis, it does, then the rest of Genesis should be assumed to hold merit. Man was created in present form by God about 6,000 years ago.

To conclude, life is too complex to have been created by chance. Period. Even those who bank on the miniscule chance that life occurred from nothing need to know the universe follows entropy the descent into chaos. THINGS WITH A LOW PROBABILITY WILL NOT HAPPEN. The only exception to this rule is life, the only system that grows more specific with time. Intelligent Design a belief is correct. Now the question is which god? (please read Case For Christ, by Lee Strobel).

Not all people who agree with Intelligent Design agree with everything, and it is still being manufactured into its final form. The information above is genuine though.

I am now very tired from blogging. If any of you have questions I encourage you to meet with me in person.

3:59 PM  
Blogger mhayworth said...

Hey so last night I was working so I didn't get a chance to read the blog and it took me 30 minutes to catch up. And it is so great to have more opinions now.

I am not going to respond to the comments about abortion, or gay marriage or intelligent design (because I really don't know much about this, although I did learn alot from Will's essay above). Rather I want to focus on immigration (which thank you, thank you julie for bringing it up). I think that immigration is one of the most important issues we as the future (I am not trying to be corny, I am just stating the truth) need to focus on. After watching Mr. Fisch's "Did you Know" powerpoint one of the most surprising things to me was that China was becoming the most English speaking nation in the world. To me the English language symbolizes more the Western world and it is a shame that the United States is not as united as it has been previously.

Way back in elementary and middle school everyone was told that the one thing that makes America so great is that it is a melting pot of opinions, of nationalities, of people. The loss of English symbolizes to me that America is becoming more of a salad bowl (sorry for the somewhat tacky food analogies). Suddenly America is not a mix of people assimilating but a group of assimilated people being threatened by Mexicans who illegally cross our borders. I have nothing against people who are struggling to find a better life for their families but I don't agree with them seeking this illegally. Illegal immigrants take jobs, (and I understand and somewhat agree with the argument that Americans will not take these jobs) and use our hospitals and schools without paying taxes. And I will not forget the fact that our open borders are a huge risk to our safety.

I think immigration should be reformed. But by no means do I agree with the shipping all the immigrants out on buses idea. And I also don't think I agree with the building a wall idea, it just seems a little too Eastern-Western Germany, Berlin Wall for me.

I am not by any means discounting the importance of the gay marriage or abortion debates but to me the most important issues are being overlooked. I believe that it is our job as the next generation to deal with immigration and the other issues that we will face in our future. Like how we will provide for energy sources, how to deal with China and how to make sure that America is producing the kind of students that will go out into the world and make a difference(no child left behind just isn't working). It is these issues that ensure our freedom, the ability for ourselves and our children to grow up in a country where they can debate other important issues and have a decision in how they will lead their lives.

6:42 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

Hey Katie G - it's me again. I don't pretend to have all of the answers and to reply to your question "why do you have to know all the answers?" I realize that I can't have all of the answers, but I'm going to do what I can with the information available. Also why wouldn't you want to explore the possibilities of a supernatural being and understand as much as you can about this topic. I'd encourage you to explore it, if you haven't before. Start by reading Will Hea's arguement for Intelligent Design.

To Kyle G - you were close on your definition of ID, but the scientist involved with this movement refute the idea that macroevolution (even with the false idea of punctuated equilibrium) could ever produce human life.

To Will Hea
Excellent job of supporting and summing up the Intelligent Design theory

8:00 PM  
Blogger Kristen said...

Oh Will. It is definitely a bad idea to get someone like me involved in an intelligent design debate. Whether or not you're going to respond, I'm posting this. AP biology has completely and thoroughly convinced me that evolution is the way to go. Now I'm not saying that I don't believe in a higher power. I just don’t think that intelligent design should be taught in school. You said yourself that intelligent design is based on faith, evolution is based on theory. THEORIES have evidence! And in the case of evolution, a LOT of evidence.

Its clear that species change over time (microevolution), one species can give rise to one or more additional species (speciation), and then individual species have different traits that influence natural selection, (macroevolution). Here are some of the different categories that we have evidence from: molecular evolution, biochemical similarities, comparing embryos, comparing anatomy, convergent evolution, vestigular structures, and fossil records. You mentioned something about flagella… now I don't know much about flagella, but I do know about other organelles. No higher power just created cells right away in the complex stage that they are in. For example, mitochondria was once a free floating type of bacteria. However, through something called endosymbiosis, mitochondria was enveloped by another cell and continued to exist within that cell. Want more? Alright. The evolution of an eye. Surely only God could create such a complex structure! Otherwise, how could it come to be? Light sensitivity existed in the most basic photosynthetic bacteria billions of years ago. I don't know all the exact facts but basically small mutations occurred in different species that increased the capabilities of an eye. Eventually the light sensitivity became eye spots, such as in primitive worms. Other random mutations could cause the eye spot to further mutate into something that could detect specific images. Mutations could arise to cause skin to grow over the eye. Over a number of years, lens would be perfected, along with other characteristics. The fish eye = forerunner of amphibian eye = forerunner of reptilian eye = forerunner of mammalian eye. Eyes, after all, are homologous structures despite appearances. Lizard eyes, even fly eyes can be compared to human eyes, or cat eyes. If you want more evidence, let me know.

Sorry about the biology rant. But I have read about and seen endless pieces of evidence that lend me to believe in evolution. I don't know what started life necessarily, but I know how life continued. If the Bible story of intelligent design was taught in a science class, then the Native American's ideas of how life began should be taught, along with the Chinese idea. But in my opinion, religion should stay out of a science class. Some parts of science may only be theories, but I'd prefer to learn from evidence and theories, rather than from ideas and faith.

8:25 PM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

Kristen, you said:
"I have read about and seen endless pieces of evidence that lend me to believe in evolution."

I could say that same thing about Creationism.
I by no means think that humans were put on the Earth exactly as it is with all of the animals that currently inhabit the land. I know life has grown since the beginnings of time. And please bear with me as I concede that I do not know all of the biological terms, I have studied micro and macro evolution in a Bible study, but I am truly an AP Chem person.
Anyway, evolution takes believing. It is not fact it is theory, though there are facts to support it, just as there are facts that support the belief in Intelligent Design and Creationism.
It bothered me freshmen year to have evolution presented as the only argument. I did pay attention because it was my first introduction into evolution from a non-Creationist teacher. I appreciated learning what other people view as true because it made me more firm in my beliefs. And no, all other beginnings of life ideas do not need to be taught simply because two are. Several could be mentioned in one day, including Creationism in that day, simply because the science on evolution is not without discrepencies. Because it is not concrete fact, evolution should not be taught as the only form on human life beginnings in public school.

8:52 PM  
Blogger Emily M said...

Meghan--

"Because it is not concrete fact, evolution should not be taught as the only form on human life beginnings in public school."
This is what you just wrote. I have a question: What should be taught in public school? Just Creationism, Intelligent Design and Evolution?

I am a Christian, Catholic to be precise. But in your last post, you opened a huge can of worms, don't you think? Religion is about faith--you discover God not by being in school, but by living life. Therefore, it doesn't matter what we study in biology for a few weeks, your beliefs won't change. This is good, but your classmates don't need to have this relgious idelogy forced upon them as well.

9:35 PM  
Blogger marci said...

meghan,
It is not fact it is theory, though there are facts to support it, just as there are facts that support the belief in Intelligent Design and Creationism.


I want to hear these FACTS. all you have is the bible, which you may consider as a fact-filled book, but, while they think there was some sort of 'jesus' around year 0, there is no FACTUAL evidence to back up the fact that animals were just plopped on to the earth.

10:01 PM  
Blogger justin l said...

Top political correspondents agree that the republican party has mastered the use of language to turn public opinion and accomplish there goals. Hence the term flip-flopper in the 2004 election. Intelligent design is one such example. You would be able to argue that intelligent design was NOT religious if and only if everyone/ every religion held the same belief that the world was "created" or "designed" by a superior being. Alas, this is not the case. Damn those Atheists, Agnostics, and Pagans. Therefore, Intelligent design falls under the category of "religion" and seperation of church and state dictates that it stay out of the public education.

Wow, I just bashed my own party. Oh my god. I need to calm myself down. I think ill go read an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue.

10:03 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

That flagellum theory interests me. Just thought I'd let you all know.

10:12 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

William Hea
Meyer-5

To Everyone

Consider the following paradox. If intelligent design is true, wouldn't it be unwise to have a separation of church and state? If a higher power can be proven to exist, then why would a government that rejects that higher power be desirable? The fact that the founding fathers said church and state separation is good does not make it so. Other civilizations have survived and thrived with a single-religioned government. Our entire system is based on the fact that God may or may not exist, but if science points towards a creator, the system should be changed, not the Truth denied.

To believe that science and religion are incompatable is moot. If intelligent design is true then to describe phenomenon to be caused by god would be true. Science has taken the place of the old Catholic church. The great "SCIENCE" dictates what can be true and cannot be. There is a sense of distrust between science and religion, but truth is truth. God and science are linked.

Kristen

You comleteley misunderstood what I was saying about theories. A BELIEF IS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE DEFINITIVELY PROVEN TRUE OR FALSE, GOD CANNOT BE TESTED, BUT GOD CAN BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. People cannot call upon God to say whether God exists or not, that is why Intelligent Design must be a belief. EVOLUTION IS A THEORY BECAUSE IT CAN BE DEFINITELY PROVEN OR DISPROVEN. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS PROVEN WITH A FAIR CERTAINTY BY THE DISPROVING OF EVOLUTION.

Because you like to use the eye analogy, I will too. THE THEORY OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY, YES THEORY, IS THAT EVERY ORGANELLE AND BODY PART FOR THAT MATTER HAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARTS TO WORK. The eye must have sensors, a way to communicate to the rest of the cell, special proteins, etc., even for the simplest eye. THE POINT OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY IS THAT THE EYE COULD NOT HAVE OCCURED SPONTANEOUSLY. You base your arguments on natural selection but according to natural selection an eye would never form, ever. An eye requires all of the above listed components and will not serve any use without all of the above components. Not only will this make the eye trait undesirable, but also detrimental to the cell. The cell will be slower and larger because of the useless parts. There is no way that a bacteria would get one part of the eye, breed, then its offspring get another part and so forth. THE EYE IS USELESS WITHOUT ALL PARTS AND THE FORMATION OF AN EYE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY NATURAL SELECTION. Therefore we must ask, how did the eye form? The eye must have occurred in the bacteria as a whole form or else there would be no eyes. This leaves only one possible explanation, eyes wer given to bacteria. Now as you find more complex organisms, the ability to form new appendages and organs becomes easier because to make an eye because there are already eyes. However, the first eye did not occur from evolution. Get it? Talk to me if you don't, I love to explain this.

Next, if the theory of evolution is moot, where does this leave us? The Big Bang Theory, a theory without any contradicting evidence so far points to a "Let there be light," scenario. The books of the Bible are as equally historical as they are religious. Modern day researchers followed Moses' trek through the desert for forty years and could still find the landmarks listed in the Bible and other documents. If evolution did not occur and science and history suggest that the Bible is correct, then it is entirely plausible that everything happened as the Bible said it did. Intelligent Design, could advocate any religion though, but the Bible supplies the most detailed description of how the Earth was formed.

Note, the Earth was created in six days, not the universe, God said "let there be light", but the days don't start until the Earth's creation.

10:30 PM  
Blogger Katie G said...

Thank you Emily for your post. I agree whole heartedly with your view on the role of religion in the classroom. And I would like to clarify for all of you once more about what a scientific theory is, for there still appears to be some confusion. A theory is a hypothesis based on observation, evidence and reasoning. Evolution qualifies, intelligent design does not. Some other commonly accepted theories that have less evidence of their validity would include the germ theory, atomic theory and quantum theory, just to name a few. Kristen I applaud you for your bio-rant, if that isn't concrete evidence to support an arguement I don't know what is.

Will, I have some questions for you...

If carbon dating is so "inaccurate" how can you put so much faith in the accuracy of a compilation of stories written by dozens of different people, thousands of years ago, speculating about when they believed the world "came to be." I don't think an accurate calendar was in use that long ago, and if it was in use, I'm sure the civilization weren't sharing. I'm not denying that there could be a higher power that initially created the energy and matter that then created the universe, but its difficult to deny the substantial scientific evidence that supports evolution on all levels.

10:31 PM  
Blogger Katie G said...

Will--
Just because you say something can't occur doesn't mean it can't. The eye did evolve and o my gosh, there is life on earth, (how did that happen?) without any proven supernatural intervention.

10:37 PM  
Blogger justin l said...

Will

You can't prove that a higher being exists. Thats why it's called faith. And Intelligent Design relies on the faith that a higher being believes. Hence, seperation of church and state.

10:39 PM  
Blogger justin l said...

This country is fonded on the ideal of personal liberties and by forcing one religion on all the people, we destroy the whole doctrine found in the Declaration of Independence

10:42 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

Everyone-

Thanks for all of your comments. This will definitely help when the time comes to present this to legislators. Let me now answer some specific questions that some of you had regarding this.

Will-

Sorry, I got you all riled up. That was my fault that I did not originally mention minors. I do apologize. Thanks.

Josh-

Thanks for responding regarding this tobacco ordinance.

Emily-

This ordinance will be enforced by the law enforcement agent of the City of Centennial. That agent is the Arapahoe County's Sheriff's Office. This ordinance is meant to only be a tool that the officers can use to protect our citizens, our youth from the deadly dangers of tobacco use. This is not meant to be an ordinance that the sheriff's office spends hours on each day, for that the purpose is to provide a wake-up call to those teenagers to illegally smoke, blatantly in public.

At the end of the day, this is to protect our youth. If an officer feels that it is necessary to ticket a minor for the possession of tobacco, then they are now allowed to do that, but they will never endanger the public to enforce this ordinance. Now, a minor can be stopped for just possessing tobacco. This is not a secondary offense.

I agree that police must enforce all areas of the law, including more pressing cases first. This ordinance is only a tool that officers can use.

Becca-

Everyday, over 4,100 minors become daily users of a tobacco product. That is on top of 5,600 minors who try tobacco for the first time, every day. That means by the time 2040 rolls around, over 6.5 million adults, who are minors now, we be dying from smoking related illnesses. That means 433.33% more people will die from smoking related illnesses in 2040 in the US, than will die of AIDS in 2040. Smoking among our youth has reached epidemic proportions. Our government has a responsibility of action to care for and protect each one of its citizens. That responsibility does not stop where, so called "choice" may begin. For if that was the case, why does this government prevent certain chemicals from being placed into food, or certain medications from being taken? The government takes these actions because this government must be a government that if FOR the people, not just by and of the people. That means we must protect them, when they are minors. This law does not affect adults users of tobacco in any way.

There is no moral flaw that I am pointing out. All this ordinance does is provide an outlet for government to protect the health and safety of its citizens, especially when an epidemic of tobacco use is present in this country.

Thanks for responding, Becca.

Julie-

Again, the reason for this ordinance is that government has a responsibility of action to protect its citizens from the dangers of a health epidemic. Everyone is entitled to a hope and a future, ideals that are stifled by tobacco use. Too many of our great citizens are dying from a deadly drug, this must be halted as soon as possible. That is the job of our government.

This ordinance will not shove the dangers of tobacco down minor's throats, but what it will show them is how it will impact their lives, socially and financially. They already know the dangers, our goal is to give them an opportunity and a purpose to stop.

Junk food is a bad example because last year, both houses of the State Legislature, who are controlled by the Democrats, passed a law that banned junk food in vending machines in schools. I think it was 50% of the food had to be fresh and healthy. Fortunately, Governor Owens vetoed the bill.

Thanks, Julie, for voicing your thoughts on this ordinance.

Sarah A.-

The point of this ordinance is also to close the loop-holes that are already found within tobacco law. The law states that minors can not purchase tobacco, yet they can possess it. That makes a lot of sense(Sarcasm). Over 65% of minors directly purchase their tobacco from a store without ever been stopped or questioned. Tobacco use is an epidemic. This loop-hole was a major cause, now hopefully it will be less of a problem.

Thanks so much.

Katie-

Thanks.

Our goal is to give the minors a hope that is found elsewhere, i.e. not in addiction. Every human deserves that chance, the chance that someone will help them find their hopes and dreams. That is our purpose.

Will-

Thanks again. It was awesome writing it.

Everyone-

I would definitely appreciate any other comments or help. Thanks.

10:48 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

Oh Marci...I could spend a lot of time defending my views, but I think that you need to go do some research. Start with Will's piece and work from there. No offense but your "plopping" comment shows your ignorance in this area.

Kristen- I am going to attempt to systematically depose some of your arguments for evolution. You said, "Mutations could arise to cause skin to grow over the eye." My question doesn't have to deal with the before and after, but with the intermediate stages. The little flab of skin, that is only partially developed and serves no real purpose to the organism, would be eradicated because of natural selection. It has no real purpose and is therefore eliminated.
Comparing embryos - the lined up pictures you see in your textbook. Yes, they are cute, but not viable evidence. They are not that similar and I can use your argument for the ID theory...there was one creator and he made things simpler by using similar systems to create life. In other words, they are similar, because one intelligent being designed them all.
Fossil records - The fossil records are pathetic evidence for evolution. There are millions of fossils that have been found. Nearly all of the major animal groups appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. Also, biologist Dr. Michael Benton discovered that “99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil.”
Besides all of that, the largest argument against evolution is the creation of the most basic life form. Scientists (intelligent beings) have been unable to create any for of life…they have failed to produce even a simple protein (which is not so simple when you really look at it). A single cell contains 1,000 complete sets of Encyclopedia’s (Britannica style) filled only with the A, T, C, G code. If you assume that the saying “Drink water” was written by an intelligent being, then how can you not assert the same thing about 1,000 encyclopedia’s chalk-full of information. The only explanation I see for this is as Dr. Denton describes, “Darwinism is based on a prior commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses.”

Let’s go to the leaders of the Darwinist agenda (I use that word for a reason that I won’t state, but some of you will know what I’m talking about). Richard Dawkins defined Biology as “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Francis Crick, co discoverer of DNA said, “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” It appears to me that the most brilliant minds and supporters of your theory are practicing bad science. They are using their biases that a creator God cannot exist and applying it to their field, when they candidly admit that the appearance of design is undeniable. I also believe that evolution is bad science, because it is a forensic. These scientists depend on veering back into the hazy past for guidance and direction for our future.

The truth of the matter is that I don’t have enough faith to be a Darwinist or an Atheist.

11:18 PM  
Blogger Kristen said...

No...actually Will, I think I completely understood what you were saying about theories. You said God can be supported by evidence. Well Will, it would be much appreciated if you could describe this evidence that supports God. I'm not saying He doesn't exist. In fact, I believe in the watchmaker idea...I believe God started that spark of life, and sat back to watch it all happen. I realize that is my own personal belief and that many people will disagree with it. However, from what I've learned in science, this idea makes the most sense for me.

And as for the eye, I don't think you fully understand the point I was making. I didn’t go into much detail but I can if you would like. Eyes did not just appear on bacteria, like POOF! That would look ridiculous for one thing. One of the earliest forms of bacteria was photosynthetic; it used light sensitive cells to help itself create food. Eventually these cells became slightly larger as organisms such as flatworms and other platyhelminthes developed eye spots. As the animal hierarchy gets higher, the complexity of the eye increases. Squid, which are a little higher up on the food chain, have well developed lens. The eye was a gradual process that evolved throughout species. Do I get it? I'd say I do. How about I bring Mr. Wallace and other biology teachers into this discussion and maybe you can try to explain it to them, to enlighten ALL of us. And I agree with Katie, if you can so easily discard a huge amount of scientific, provable facts, why is it so easy for you to believe a document that has been changed and tampered with over thousands of years? Clearly you learned nothing from the Scopes trial in 1925 from William Jennings Bryan's embarrassment: the Bible cannot be taken literally, especially in science classrooms. I don't mean to be offensive in any way to anybody's religion, however something like the bible cannot be brought into schools in any way, sort or form.

And to continue with theories. A lot of the science they teach us in school is based on theories. When you think about it, no scientific fact would ever be proven if people hadn't been educated on theories first. The proposed idea that the Earth revolves around the sun remained a theory until Galileo helped to prove it through observations through his telescope. Right now, WE are part of the generation that might be proving the theory of evolution, which is already WELL ON ITS WAY to being a fact. WE are being educated on these theories so that maybe one day, we will make that step.

Faith will probably never be proven, so why should we learn about it in school? And if we were to learn about the Bible's idea of creation, it would only be fair to also introduce ALL of the other ideas of how we came to be… from pagans, to Buddhists, to Muslims, to all the Native American tribes, and hundreds of other ideas. They may have just as much "evidence" as the Bible does.

However, I don't even think we should do that. As Emily said, if you want to learn about religion, go to church. You can learn about your own faith's idea of creation at your own place of worship. Leave it to the school to teach us about science.

11:28 PM  
Blogger Kristen said...

I'm going to have to argue with you a little Josh.

In 1953, Stanley Miller stimulated what were thought to be the enveronmental conditions on the lifeless primordial Earth. He used electrical discharges to trigger reactions in this primitive "atmosphere". The result was a variety of organic compounds INCLUDING amino acids that play key roles in living cells, which may have set the stage for the origin of life. I'm not saying this is how it started...but hey, someone in the 50's was able to create amino acids out of the gases of Earth's primary atmosphere.

And that flap of skin of an eye? It may have slowly developed over years as a structure that would retain some sort of liquid which would help the organism to focus and/or see definite objects. The organism then, would actually have a better chance in natural selection. Eventually it might develope into a primitive form of lens. I know that sounds confusing, but I will definitely look it up if you really want to know.

I really don't understand what is so "pathetic" about fossil evidence. We see the imprints of different creatures never mentioned in the Bible, and clearly older than the Bible itself. And as to the cute little embryos, when all these vertebrates look the same, with a tail located posterior to the anus, and pharyngeal pouches, descent from a common ancestor can explain these similarities.

11:45 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

First of all as for the validity of the Bible, you don't know what you are talking about. It hasn't been changed and if your idea of tampering is translating, then yes you are correct. You are also right when you say that the complexity of the eye increases with the complexity of the organism...makes sense doesn't it? Something not very complex doesn't need a complex part. But, how did it get from one stage to the other. That is the hole in the macroevolution arguement. You can show me "A" and you can show me "B," but you fail to show me a valid way to get from A to B. If you can't find a natural cause to get from A to B, then something had to get you from one to the other. To make the blanket statement you did, "theory of evolution, which is already WELL ON ITS WAY to being a fact" means that you haven't been listening to anyone proposing another, more logical explanation. About the teaching of other religion's creation stories issue...the fact is that no matter what version is taught, all will be teaching a beginning where a Creator started the world and life. This is why Intelligent Design can be supported by various religions and not just Christianity, Islam and Judaism (two of the largest and another big one). You can chose which God you feel is the right one to follow, but the fact is that science points to a supernatural, intelligent designer and creator

11:46 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

That's all very speculative about the eye thing...and a liquid to help it see better. Please tell me you have something better to offer.
Stanley Miller did create amino acids, but it takes 100 something of those and and 20 something types of amino acids to make a protein. Then you need various proteins to make DNA. But for the DNA to be an actual, valuable code...there has to be a strand of RNA. Can Miller produce all of that...NO. Also, let's not forget that Miller is an intelligent being and he set up the lab experiment so it would be most likely to create life. An ideal situation if you will. The earth's environment was harsh prior to life, anything but ideal, and frankly, uncapable of supporting it.
If you are speaking of dinosaurs not being mentioned in the Bible, then you are wrong. It's somewhere in the book of Job, it actually mentions a brachiosaurus.

11:55 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

Sorry I forget to mention that the embryo's could also point to an intelligent designer. Look at our computers, they are all different and vary in complexity, but the have the same basic function and some similarities in design. The reason this is the case is they were all designed. Sounds like I can use that one too

11:58 PM  
Blogger barbarab88 said...

justin-
why don't we stop making little laws such as underage smoking and focus on bigger issues, such as why do kids turn to smoking in the first place. what are their reasons? why do they find it necessary? if its such a danger to our youth today then why make it illegal instead of finding out why? most people turn to smoking as a stress relief. look at the kids of today. if you are thinking of college and getting into a good school then you most likely spend your life "looking good". you do sports every day, are in ap classes gallore, and you do more community service projects and are in more clubs than you can count. most kids are so stressed they don't know what to do with themselves. i agree with mr. meyer. its no wonder all these kids are turning to quick relief such as drinking and smoking. and really what does making it illegal do? delay the process? and won't more kids want to rebel against the law then just because it's rebelling? i think the thinking here is a little backwards. isn't that just delaying the process? most kids just because they couldn't smoke when they were 17 will suddenly change their mind at 18 and say "hmm, maybe smoking wasn't a good idea. now that i can do it, i don't think i will". no, most of them will say heck yes now i can do this in public instead of having to sneak behind the shed in my backyard to smoke.

josh-
i agree that there is not enough evidence to support evolution. (if anyone questions this please read "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. it explains this lack very well and in a rather non-biased way) however, what evidence is there to support creationism? please don't say the bible because that lacks even more credit than evolution. (sorry josh i love you to death but i really disagree here. please don't hate me) give me supporting evidence of creationism and i will reconsider. however, to date i have seen no evidence at all. at least there is some credible evidence of evolution. however, i do agree that scientists are very biased and a lot don't agree in god at all so immediately bias their conclusions. i also agree that organisms with soft anatomy, which are said to be the link, are impossible to fossilize. however, there was a site somewhere in canada i think (i tried to find it in the before mentioned book but i soon became bored and gave up) that a rock slide covered some of the first known organisms, almost all of them having soft anatomy. so it is possible and there are fossil sites, we just haven't found them. i also agree that it is pretty amazing how proteins and amino acids and even the cell was created. its a biological wonder. however, does that prove creationism? i think that some simply amazing things happen in nature that yes, god could have caused. but is it evidence, no, not really. you can't have evidence based on the lack of evidence. i just find it interesting that you criticise these scientists on looking to the "hazy past" for evidence yet you derive your evidence from a book.

again josh i love you so please don't take this offensively. i just have very different views. i swear im not trying to offend you or your religion.

i also think its interesting that everything has the same basic premise. however, have you ever heard of the book "just six numbers"? same concept, just basing everything on numbers. there are so many different theories on this phenominon, its ridiculous to say that this is evidence.

lastly, have you ever considered the bible as allegorical, not literal? think of beowolf.

12:18 AM  
Blogger Matt W said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:26 AM  
Blogger Matt W said...

Marci - I'm sorry, the insane number of posts in here took forever to read, so I know I'm a day late on responding to this, but hopefully you can forgive me. Your quotes are in Bold and Italicized.

Believe it or not, having a child is a lifetime commitment, and if a woman isn’t ready for that, it’s not fair to make her have the child and/or give it up for adoption and have the child grow up knowing that either [a] it’s birth parents didn’t want me or [b] my parents did the deed too young and I was an accident.

Yes, having a child is a lifetime commitment. But to say that it isn’t fair to make a young mother have the child is completely avoiding consequences. In this world, every action has a consequence. So you say it isn’t “fair” to make her have the child? Is it fair that the child must die? You’re telling me that a young mother would be so selfish as to kill her child, just so she can save herself embarrassment? Since when has human life cost so little? Secondly, when the baby is healthy, I have yet to hear a sound argument as to why the baby cannot be birthed and put up for adoption. It comes back to the fact that the mother’s embarrassment outweighs a human life. When the baby is healthy, there’s no reason why a young mother cannot have the baby, other than she’s afraid of what people might think. You cannot say “she’s not ready for that responsibility”. With adoption, she already waives most of her responsibility as a parent. I’m not sure how you all feel, but I’d sure as heck rather live thinking “my parents did the deed too young and I was an accident.” than not have the chance to live at all. I’m sure my older brother/sister who I never got the chance to know would have said the same thing…

Hell, I’ll drink excessively and do drugs to kill the baby if abortions were illegal and I was too young to be a caring, nurturing mother.

You would intentionally harm yourself to purposely kill the baby? It’s no longer “disposing” of a “fetus”, but in your own words “Killing” the “Baby”? I for one am glad you are not my mother.

I do not condone abortion being used as a contraceptive, but again, you cannot take away an individual’s rights.

If you’re so worried about protecting people’s rights, why don’t we protect the rights of the individual developing in a woman’s womb? Did anyone ever ask the individual what they thought about the idea of abortion? It may sound funny, but consider with me this hypothetical situation. Consider that your mother was considering an abortion when she became pregnant with you. The doctors asked if she was sure about her decision, and she said she was sure. However, someone brought up the idea to ask you (the developing baby in the womb) what you thought about the idea. So, to follow through on that idea, your mother had you and allowed you to grow to the ripe old age of 17 (give or take a few years). At this point in time, the doctors ask you “Is it alright if we kill you”? Now I’m asking you to honestly answer… what would you tell them? Now that you’ve experienced 17 years of life, are you glad for that opportunity? Would you take it away from anyone else around you? Would you be ok if half of your friends you know right now suddenly disappeared because 17 years earlier their mothers decided that their embarrassment was a bigger issue than the lives of their children? Answer honestly.

What if the woman was on the pill too? She intentionally did everything she could to not get pregnant because she knew she was not ready to have a child. So it’s her fault if freak accidents happen? I beg to differ.

No, I beg to differ. She did NOT intentionally do everything she could to not get pregnant. If so, WHAT WAS SHE DOING HAVING SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE. Sex makes babies. If you’re not ready to drive, then don’t get on E-470.

And, like I said to Josh- just because a few people come forward and say they were raped doesn’t mean that EVERYONE who gets raped comes out and says it. It’s an embarrassing thing, and honestly, I have had some stuff happen to me [not as serious as rape, but pretty close] and I refuse to go in to details about it with almost anyone. There’s a lot more rape-related pregnancies than you think. Statistics will never be right on that issue.

I wholeheartedly agree. Rape is never OK and is an incredibly painful (mentally, physically, emotionally) experience. Before I say anything else on this topic, let’s make sure we’re clear on what I believe. It’s NEVER a woman’s fault if she is raped. There are things that a woman can do to increase the chances (like walking downtown in a bikini at 3 a.m.), but EVEN THEN, it will NEVER be the woman’s fault in any way. Now that we’ve made that clear, let’s get on to my point. Let’s say that rape, or even incest occurs and the woman becomes pregnant. Relating to everything I’ve said above, what would the baby think about it? The occurrence of rape is so emotionally taxing that I can understand why any woman would want to just set everything relating to the event aside and move on in her life. Unfortunately, life’s consequences come to us whether we deserve them or not. In this case, they aren’t deserved, but that doesn’t change the fact that they still exist. In what way is it the child’s fault that the woman was raped and became pregnant? The baby didn’t have any say in entering existence. How is it “fair” that the consequence of a woman being raped is death? Not of herself, or even the offender, but that of the child who is just as innocent in the situation as the mother, if not more-so. The wages of rape is death of an innocent child? It seems to me that enough damage is done when the act occurs. Why do more damage? The same stands for cases of incest. It’s not the child’s fault.

Bottom Line: I believe abortion in today’s world is unfortunately used as one more way that we escape the consequences of our actions. We think we’re responsible enough to have sex, but not responsible enough to have a child (double standard). We can brush away the significance of a human life by saying “it can’t talk, or breathe, or any of the other cool things I can do”. We pay for a night with our BF/GF with the life of a child. Do we realize the value of the “currency” we’ve spent on nights of fun? If we did, I seriously doubt abortion would even be a major debate. Barring situations involving medical complications with pregnancy or birth, most reasons for abortion focus on the rights of the woman, but never on the rights of the child. Most of these reasons all dwindle down to “I don’t want to pay the price for what I bought.” People don’t just sit around and suddenly become spontaneously pregnant. As I said before, sex makes babies. So what did you expect when you had sex? When I step in front of a Semi on I-25, I will face consequences. I would have no right to be embarrassed or surprised when that decision results in my immediate death. Now if I said “I didn’t know that decision had such difficult consequences”, should my ignorance justify my not having to pay the penalty (death in this case)? Even If someone doesn’t know that Sex=babies, should they just be exempt from all consequences? Excuse me, police officer, I didn’t know that robbing a bank would result in my arrest, so am I free to go? No. Ignorant or not, you still pay the consequences.

Um, I’m sorry… but this was an absolutely ridiculous statement. I’ll condemn myself to hell right now, I suppose. You crossed the line by STATING that everyone sins. What’s the definition of a sin? Who are YOU to be telling me that I’m sinning? I think you’re a sinner for sitting in class. Boy, I bet you find that fair.

I won’t even go into religion on this one, since that’s not the way to debate in this particular case. So here goes…When you have a set of laws that includes a law saying “He who sits in class has committed a sin”, and that set of laws has been around for roughly a few millennia and beyond and has been the basis of Nations and Empires, then I will give your statement a very good look. Until then your definition of sin will have to take a backseat.

Now I have to go to bed. This post took an obscene amount of time to write, but I hope it continues the discussion. Also, now that you've read this, remember my background: Republican, Conservative, and Southern Baptist. Hopefully that'll help explain my post. Feel free to tear away wherever you see fault. Just about everything is fair game.

Edit: I just realized that bold/italicized in MS Word doesn't carry over when you Copy/Paste.

12:32 AM  
Blogger barbarab88 said...

Matt-
I can see your views on abortion and why you would disagree with abortion. I agree that everyone should have a chance at life. However, you are not a woman. You cannot say anything on the subject because it is not your body that your decision affects. I believe it is wrong to terminate the pregnancy after the first term, but before that should be legal. I agree that if a woman is not ready for the consequences then she should not have sex. However, that should apply to men as well. Face it. It's never the mens responsibility. Even if you got a woman pregnant and you might take care of it with her, most men wouldn't. Should a woman have to live like that? If you do terminate abortions and make all woman practice abstinance, what would the men say then? They would have no one to have sex with and with how most men think, that would be a problem. Even if they did find women, most of them would find some alley and a sketchy doctor to perform the abortion. Making it illegal is not going to stop it, but rather make a larger problem all together. Now if you don't like it, then don't support it. Even if it is legal, that doesn't mean that you have to agree with it. Just because alcohol and now weed is legal, that doesn't mean that you agree with it. It just means you don't do it. So, give the decision over to the people it will actually affect, the woman. Let them decide whether or not abortion is what they believe. Other than that, please don't say anything. It's not your body.

I have a question also. Do you believe in the morning after pill as well? Or is that killing life as well?

8:29 AM  
Blogger Matt W said...

It may not be my body, but that doesn't mean I cannot say anything. Last I checked, it takes both a man and a woman to make a child. Don't be so naive to think that abortion doesn't affect the man as well. Once again you've left the decision solely up to the woman, when you completely forget that both the man and the child have a say in the situation as well. Abortion is selfish. There's no way around that. I will not force my beliefs on anyone. But asking me to simply abstain, and stand idly by watching others commit what I believe to be wrong is too much to ask. What good is believing anything if you're not willing to DO something about it. That's like saying "Sept.11th was terrible. Whoever is responsible should pay.", and then doing nothing about it. If you believe in something, you have to stand up for it and fight for it. Simply standing on the sidelines sharing your beliefs with only yourself is a waste of time. I don't like to waste time.

Bottom Line: I'll say what I will about the topic. You've only furthered my belief that "Woman's Choice" is selfish and self-centered. You cannot base what is right or wrong on what "most men" in today's society would do in this situation. Most people speed on the highway...does that make it right? No. You need to reevaluate the man's part in the decision. Abortion doesn't affect just the woman. It affects at the very least three people (Mother, Father, Child). As for the "Morning after pill", it's just one more way our society tries to live without consequences. You once again pay for your "one night of fun" with a child's life. The "morning after pill" is for people who lack the maturity to face their responsibilities. You cannot say "I'm responsible enough to put myself in a situation where I'll wake up tomorrow morning in some guy's bedroom, but I'm not responsible for the consequences." That's immature and incorrect.

9:57 AM  
Blogger Kyle G said...

I'm against abortion too, but unless it is used purely for birth control I don't see it as selfish. Some women don't want give birth to a child that would have a terrible life, and I doubt many fathers would want to either. They may not want to give birth to a child that would die a few minutes after being born, or worse, a few days, they don't want them to suffer. I will also say that, at least at our age, the father of the child is probably going to be more willing to abort the baby than the mother. Not to mention that most fathers that mistakenly impregnate a woman will abandon both the mother and the baby. So, as much as I am against abortion, I would not necessarily say that it is a selfish decision, at least not if it isn't a birth control method, which is why I'm for limiting it to no more than three times. It depends on the situation of the mother and the life that the baby would be born into.

As far as the morning after pill goes, I can support it as long as, like abortion, it is limited to a certain number per woman. Again, I don't think it should be birth control, women who do nothing to prevent pregnancy and then use the morning after pill MULTIPLE times, deserve to live with their mistakes. That being said, I would rather see women use the morning after pill than get an abortion. The reason for this is because I think (but I'm not clear about it, so if I'm wrong somebody please correct me) that it is taken before the egg attaches to the uteran (doubt I spelled that right) wall, therefore, rather than killing the fetus, it is more like preventing it from ever living.

3:15 PM  
Blogger Sarah E. said...

Matt-
I think it is only fair of me to start by identifying my own personal beliefs on the subject of abortion and the woman's right to choose, I am pro-choice but NOT by any means pro-abortion. And I understand that you touched earlier on the subject of rape and abortion. I agree that abortion has been abused in many cases, however I REFUSE to ignore the facts, the Rape, Abuse, and Incest Network reports that

"One in six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape."

Humor me and think about that for a while, and I mean REALLY think about it...that means that you see these women, victims of abuse and rape, EVERDAY. Even in the hallways of Arapahoe. I know I speak for more than just myself in saying that as a young woman, I have been subjected to this kind of abuse also. I reveal this information not because I want you to feel guilty for your beliefs or sorry for me, I say this because TOO MANY PEOPLE see rape as a horrible "thing" rather than a reality. It is here, it is everywhere, closer than you think. In fact,

"About 44% of rape victims are under age 18, and 80% are under age 30"

Please explain to me this statistic. Can you honestly say that these women, or even the girl that may sit next to you in AP Government should be forced to have an illegitimate child, born from hatred, brutality, and deceit? Simply because (and I quote you) "life’s consequences come to us whether we deserve them or not". I mean no disrespect in saying this but how can you say that with a straight face? You need to understand the reality of rape, it is a violation of a woman’s PERSONAL RIGHTS an attack on humanity...NOT just an unfortunate circumstance.

Now I am sure your next thought is… “But how is it possible to regulate abortions from rape? How can you prove rape?” And that thought is one that I toy with very often as well, the answer? You can’t. Which is EXACTLY why abortion should be a woman’s choice. My body is my right.

Also, I currently speak with my grandmother (a Planned Parenthood volunteer for about 40 years) and she pointed out a very interesting truth to me. In all of her years at Planned Parenthood, she watched countless church /interest groups protests outside her facility, holding pictures of babies in jars and screaming “ABORTION IS MURDER” over and over. But what she told me was one of the most enlightening things I have ever heard in the case of abortion, she said, “Of those people doing everything in their power to end abortion or are unable to conceive, I have never, in my experience, seen one of them ask about contacting a mother to inquire about an adoption of an illegitimate child. That to me is wrong.” Now, it of course is not fair to COMPLETELY generalize and suggest that there has never been an anti-abortion couple adopt a baby that would otherwise have been aborted; however,

“Since the end of the 20th century, infertile couples and single people have increasingly turned to international adoptions as well as new medical techniques for treating infertility and providing alternative methods of reproduction. Meanwhile, the number of older special-needs children awaiting adoption has skyrocketed. These children often come from backgrounds of abuse and neglect, and finding appropriate placements for them is one of the most pressing concerns in child welfare today.”

The reality, children are adopted from other countries, not from the poverty stricken areas where young women are unable to care for another life. As the statistic I pointed out earlier states, 44% of rape victims are under the age of 18 and 80% under the age of 30. Are you ready to care for a child? What about if this child was born from the most devastating experience of your life? I am guessing no.

Finally, on the subject of birth control and the morning after pill. I am sure you can already guess my stance on the morning after pill in particular. But here is some food for though,

“Sperm can live in the vagina, cervix, uterus and fallopian tubes for up to five days. Only a few hundred of the 250 million healthy sperm reach the egg…If no egg is available to fertilize, the sperm swim around patiently waiting to bump into one. Because there is no chemical or physical attraction of the sperm for the egg, the sperm literally must bump into the egg.”

In other words, at the point in which the morning after pill or PlanB is taken, the sperm may not have even penetrated the egg…so how can you say that life has occurred? Scientifically and biologically it HAS NOT. And with regards to birth control, let me start off by asking you if you are against medications that are proven to prevent the risk of cancer? What about ovarian cancer or endometriosis?

“Protection against uterine (endometrial) cancer and ovarian cancer is probably one of the most important health benefits of oral contraceptives. Using the pill for 1 year or more considerably reduces the risk of developing endometrial cancer. The risk of developing ovarian cancer is reduced with only 3 to 6 months of OC use. Protection against these cancers increases with continued pill use and is thought to continue for at least 15 years after the pill use is stopped.”

“The pill is also useful in treating endometriosis, a condition in which the tissue resembling the uterine lining occurs abnormally in various locations in the pelvic cavity…The risk of developing ovarian cysts is greatly reduced for OC users because the pill helps prevent ovulation.”

I will let the facts speak for themselves in this case; however, my point being that I am not trying to change your beliefs, it is your choice, I am simply proving why you should let me make my own choice as well.

4:07 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Kristen:

1. Fossil evidence is moot because half-life dating is innaccurate, please see the paragraph I wrote about it in the long blog.
2. The Scopes trial doesn't mean anything, what a court said 1925 before intelligent design was even constructed also does not mean anything. Law changes with the times, the age of the Scopes trial demands that evolution education be reexamined.
3.You want evidence that proves that God exists, there is none. HOWEVER, BECAUSE SCIENCE DOES SUPPORT A BIBLICAL CREATION AND THE BIBLE IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE, IT SHOULD HOLD WEIGHT. After thousand of years to prove the Bible wrong, science supports the Big Bang Theory ("Let There Be Light") and a universe that relies on a creator for its existence.
4. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FAR, FAR, FAR AWAY FROM BECOMING FACT, IT IS DOUBTFUL MACROEVOLUTION WILL EVER BECOME FACT.
5. EVEN IF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS ALL THE EVIDENCE ATTACKING EVOLUTION SHOULD BE. The fact that students, as proved in the previous blogs, hold so much weight in a theory with a significant amount of evidence against it is frightening. Evolution is TAUGHT AS A FACT and even if people think it is right, there needs to be some kind of contradictory evidence presented, especially since there is so much available.
6. Look, you keep saying that the eye evolved over time, this is not refuted, although a bacterian eye probably never transferred over to an animal eye, but you still never say where the eye came from in the first place. Bacterial endosymbiosis does not account for eyespots. Sure, I could buy chloroplast endosymbiosis but you don't explain how a chloroplast becomes optical, no eye is made from chloroplasts, or where the photosynthetic bacteria came from in the first place.

4:45 PM  
Blogger Matt W said...

Sarah – I appreciate your response. Your quotes are in bold and italicized.

I say this because TOO MANY PEOPLE see rape as a horrible "thing" rather than a reality. It is here, it is everywhere, closer than you think.

I am very aware of the reality of rape. It’s not just a horrible thing, and I don’t regard it as such. I take the issue very seriously, and made sure everyone understood my stance on it in my previous post. If I belittled the seriousness of this topic in any way, please let me know. Remember that while rape is a very real and common occurrence, becoming pregnant from rape is rare at best. So as you read my post, remember the difference between the two.

Can you honestly say that these women, or even the girl that may sit next to you in AP Government should be forced to have an illegitimate child, born from hatred, brutality, and deceit?...You need to understand the reality of rape, it is a violation of a woman’s PERSONAL RIGHTS an attack on humanity...NOT just an unfortunate circumstance.

Once again, what did the child do wrong in this situation? Is the child the object of hate, brutality, and deceit? We too easily think that no life at all is better than life born from hatred, brutality, and deceit. I beg to differ. Can that child still grow up and lead a normal life? Is the child any less capable than any of us simply because of their origins? Once again, I see abortion in the case of rape as the child taking the punishment for the offender. The reality of rape is that damage is done, rights are violated, and it is an attack on humanity. Now tell me how aborting a child is not any of those things? I would think that in the case of rape, we would feel incredibly sorry for the child. But are we supposed to feel so sorry for the child that we in our infinite wisdom believe we are saving the child from a life of hardship by not allowing life at all? Who are we to decide the child’s right to existence? Who are we to think we know so much that we are actually doing the “right thing” by killing the child? In the debate of a painful life vs. no life, I whole heartedly believe that any life whatsoever is better than no life at all. But since we cannot ask the aborted baby if we did the right thing or not, I guess we’ll never really know…

Which is EXACTLY why abortion should be a woman’s choice. My body is my right.

Once again, why is it the woman’s choice? Why should she hold something as powerful as the choice to give or take away life? Who placed her in such a position? If in the human race, the male took the role of carrying the baby while they developed, would you agree that the decision to abort would lay solely with the man? I wouldn’t. The simple fact that the female is the gender that is given the RESPONSIBILITY to carry and birth our offspring, does not give them supreme power in deciding life vs. death.

In all of her years at Planned Parenthood, she watched countless church /interest groups protests outside her facility, holding pictures of babies in jars and screaming “ABORTION IS MURDER” over and over.

I will get criticized heavily for this statement, but I must say it nonetheless. Abortion IS murder. And the idea that we can sit down in a doctor’s office (Planned Parenthood) and determine how we want our lives to play out is so incredibly selfish that I can’t talk on it anymore.

But what she told me was one of the most enlightening things I have ever heard in the case of abortion, she said, “Of those people doing everything in their power to end abortion or are unable to conceive, I have never, in my experience, seen one of them ask about contacting a mother to inquire about an adoption of an illegitimate child. That to me is wrong.”

Why do we always hear about the groups who protest abortion, but offer no alternatives? Why don’t we ever hear about those that do offer alternatives? Unfortunately, many more people know the name of “Planned Parenthood”, than those who know the name of “Alternatives Pregnancy Center”. Alternatives PC is just one of multitudes of clinics dedicated to taking in young mothers, or even rape/incest victims. Their services include incredible amounts of aid. They help a woman through all stages of pregnancy. They provide free ultrasounds and sonograms during pregnancy. They find host families to help come alongside the mother and provide care and aid. Once the baby is born, if the mother decides to raise the child, they provide free food, clothes, and supplies. They also have several adoption agencies that will take care of every detail concerning the child’s adoption process. Now when agencies exist such as this one, why are they lesser known that large organizations such as “Planned Parenthood”? They do exist. To those who want to know more about “Alternatives PC”, visit their website at http://www.apcdenver.org and see for yourself.

“Since the end of the 20th century, infertile couples and single people have increasingly turned to international adoptions as well as new medical techniques for treating infertility and providing alternative methods of reproduction. Meanwhile, the number of older special-needs children awaiting adoption has skyrocketed. These children often come from backgrounds of abuse and neglect, and finding appropriate placements for them is one of the most pressing concerns in child welfare today.”

Nowhere in that quote do I see that it’s not happening. It simply says that it is “one of the most pressing concerns in child welfare today.” That doesn’t say “The children are NOT being adopted at all.”

The reality, children are adopted from other countries, not from the poverty stricken areas where young women are unable to care for another life.

Children are being adopted from other countries. One of the most popular places to adopt from is China. Large numbers of American couples decide to adopt young Chinese girls every year, but why specifically Chinese girls? In China, their population limit has caused them to institute laws restricting the number of children each family can have. Under these laws, after a couple has several children they must do everything in their power to avoid becoming pregnant again. But as we’ve seen, it still occurs, even with the use of contraceptives. If the child is a male, they are more likely to go ahead with the birth due to the fact that he would be another member of the family that could provide income. If the child is female however, the couples have only a few decisions. They can either have an abortion, birth the child and risk paying large government imposed fines, or they place the child up for adoption. The reason we adopt Chinese girls is that they would otherwise (in most situations) be aborted.

Are you ready to care for a child? What about if this child was born from the most devastating experience of your life? I am guessing no.

You may guess no, and I guess we will never know what I would really do seeing as it is physically impossible for that to ever happen. But once again, is the child responsible for the devastating experience? Anyone who has become pregnant due to rape has been given an opportunity to create something beautiful out of the black and dark pit of rape. By simply aborting the baby, the devastating and damaging nature of rape is made complete.

In other words, at the point in which the morning after pill or PlanB is taken, the sperm may not have even penetrated the egg…so how can you say that life has occurred? Scientifically and biologically it HAS NOT.

If the baby hasn’t been created or “started” yet, why take the pill. What would you be afraid of? It’s not like the known result of sex can be pregnancy. Oh wait, it is. Are you taking the “Just to be sure” stance?

And with regards to birth control, let me start off by asking you if you are against medications that are proven to prevent the risk of cancer? What about ovarian cancer or endometriosis?

I’m not against medications that prevent the risk of cancer. I am, however, against medications that are taken for the sole purpose of removing consequences from the equation of having sex, and just so happen to have a side-benefit of preventing cancer.

Bottom Line: If we in this world see pregnancy as one of the avoidable side-effects of sex, then have we not lumped children into the same basket as STD’s? Contraceptives such as condoms are sold as protection against STD’s and pregnancy. If in your mind, a child is a Sexually Transmitted DISEASE, then I must ask you to reevaluate your idea of what a child, or pregnancy for that matter is.

5:36 PM  
Blogger Kristen said...

You're right, I don't know where photosynthetic bacteria came from in the first place. But I'm also only a 17 year old girl who has only touched on the subject of evolution for about a month in a biology class. I haven't researched at all, so obviously I can't go into detail about what I've learned.

The reason I brought up the Scopes trial is because I don't believe that the bible should be taken literally. We have rocks that we KNOW are older than 6000 years, and we have fossils that despite "innaccurate" half life dating, are much older than 6000 years. The Bible is not necessarily historically correct. I'm not saying that there isn't any truth to it, but a document that has been translated several times is not as accurate as a textbook, IN MY OPINION. Obviously I'm not very knowledgeable about the Bible, so I know I shouldn't even try to argue. I am only against it being taught it class because it is only a part of ONE religion, and it wouldn't be fair to only bring ONE religion into the classroom to explain a mystery.

I'm curious, (only because I don't know much about your side of the debate), what is the evidence against evolution? I realize that the theory of evolution may have some holes in it, but that doesn't mean we should just fill God into the blanks. Maybe we just haven't discovered everything yet. I still think evolution SHOULD be taught as a fact, because as of right now, it has the most evidnce WORLDWIDE that supports its theory. And if I did the research, I'm sure I could argue that macroevolution has a lot of supporting evidence, but as I said, I have a limited amount of knowledge from only one year of biology.

If anything, when evolution is taught in school, the "holes" of the theory should definitely be presented. But guess what? They already are. It is up to the individual to fill in the spaces until a proper amount of research and proof is discovered. You can learn your beliefs from church and fill in those blanks with God, or you can be content with the theory the way it is, and have faith that in the near future, the answers will be found.

5:53 PM  
Blogger Kyle G said...

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." - Albert Einstein

Just thought I'd throw this quote in there, it fits in with the most recent debate.

6:25 PM  
Blogger Kristen said...

This has been brought up countless times, yet not one person on the opposing side has argued much for it. What about the man? If a woman is raped, or even if a woman simply gets pregnant, I WANT THAT MAN TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE!

I want any guys, actually just anybody READING this, to think about the girl who sits next to you in gov. Now imagine she was raped, and became pregnant. What if there was a law against abortions? Do you know what happens to this girl? She disappears. You no longer see her in the halls at Arapahoe. No. This girl is sent away (we can't have our image destroyed by a pregnant girl. Ever wonder why you NEVER see a pregnant girl walking the halls of our school, yet according to statistics and LOGIC we should be seeing several?). This girl clearly had a future. She was intelligent, she had scholarships to a college, she was planning on playing a sport. But what now? Her dreams are RUINED.

This girl, because of circumstances BEYOND HER CONTROL, has just had her life completely turned upside down by a man. And as for the "baby" inside of her? Its a bunch of identical cells dividing. Cells that havent even BEGUN to specialize. This is not destroying a life anymore than cutting off the root of a plant, which by the way, is also a mass of cells dividing.

The rapist? Oh he just continues to wander around, raping other girls and getting away with it for as long as possible. But say the girl wasn't even raped. She just had sex with her boyfriend, who consequently is one of the boys sitting next to you in gov class. What happens to him? Nothing. He continues to go to school, he may not support the child or mother whatsoever (except for welfare), AND, to top it all off, this teenager gets to live out his dreams. HE gets to go to college.

Most teenagers go to parties, and often drink alcohol. I realize this is not ALL teenagers, but it is quite a large portion of them. Even if you have not gotten drunk yourself, you may have seen two people of the opposite sex go into a bedroom to have drunken sex. Whenever this happens, its rape. And once again, the male is RARELY held responsible.

So now this girl that sits next to you in gov class is forced to raise a child. Her life and her dreams are gone. You claim that it is selfish for her to live out her own life. If it was even POSSIBLE for men to get pregnant, (God forbid… we know that THEY can't handle the pain of childbirth), men would probably choose their own life over the baby as well.

Now let's go back to the rapist. Have you ever heard of a girl rapist? It's pretty rare. Go figure. Women are CONSTANTLY victimized. WE are the ones who are subject to rape, and are forced to live our lives in constant caution of wicked, creepy, horny, and/or power-hungry men. WE are the ones that face embarrassment and shame if we do get pregnant. WE are the ones who carry the child for 9 excruciating months, only to spend HOURS in labor (aka the most horrible pain imaginable). Now we are finally starting to take control of our own lives. We aren't trying to play "God". We are trying to get rid of the ball of cells growing inside of us (occasionally completely against our will) so that we can live out our lives. I know that sounds awful, and a lot of people will hate me for saying it, but that is exactly what I believe. If abortion was illegal, desperate women would resort to a coat-hanger process. And yes, that is EXACTLY as crude as it sounds.

I'm not saying that I myself would ever get an abortion, I just want the choice. I don't want a bunch of crusty old men in congress deciding the fate of my body.

6:51 PM  
Blogger Mark C said...

Kristen,
You have brought up many interesting ideas and scenarios. I will tell you now I am pro-life and I believe abortion is murder.

Now you basically went through two situations for me…
1. The girl sitting next to me in AP Gov got pregnant by rape
2. The girl sitting next to me in AP Gov got pregnant with her boyfriend

The first hypothetical situation is meant to prove that pregnancy through rape ruins the young woman and destroys her life. Not only is her future shattered, it was not her fault at all. Your reasoning then leads to abortion being justified because “is not destroying a life anymore than cutting off the root of a plant, which by the way, is also a mass of cells dividing.”

First of all, I would be careful comparing a plant to a human. A human life has much more than a plant will ever achieve. A human is capable of making decisions and accomplishing purpose. A human life has a soul. Now, even if you do not believe the latter, you must agree a human life is much more important than that of a plant.

In regarding to the pregnancy by rape, you must understand how uncommon this really is. I know it does happen; in fact I researched a bit and found a couple of places saying that less than 1% of abortion cases are pregnancy by rape. Less than 1% is a low number, so the odds of it happening to the girl sitting next to me in government is not high either. I do realize it does happen and I am sorry it does. Rape is a horrible crime and I think we all agree on that.

I agree with Matt on this subject, however. Abortion should not be legal even in this case. Life is not fair. I know this sounds very cruel, but I think the pregnant teen should still have the baby even in a pregnancy through rape. Why? I think she still has a future and that so does the baby. Adoption is one option that is available, but why must you end the life? It isn’t fair because it isn’t the woman’s fault, but, just as Matt said, it isn’t the baby’s fault either. Why hurt it? I agree with you Kristen, the guilt should lie on the rapist, he should suffer in this situation and hopefully he would be punished. The man in this case should be held responsible as we all agree.

Your second situation, correct me if I am wrong, helped to prove nothing about abortion, but that the boyfriend should have just as much responsibility and it isn’t fair he lives out his dreams because he can’t become pregnant.

If this is what you are arguing, I completely agree. I believe the boyfriend and girlfriend should be practicing abstinence in the first place. I know it is unrealistic to assume teenagers are not having sex, but what can you do to hold accountable the man in this situation? I am curious, what is your plan?

9:46 PM  
Blogger barbarab88 said...

isn't it interesting that only boys are pro-life?

consider it.

10:48 PM  
Blogger Sarah A said...

I know plenty of girls who are pro-life...though I will never understand how.

11:45 PM  
Blogger Kristen said...

I came up with those scenarios in hopes that you would be able to relate to them more. The girlfriend/boyfriend one is probably the most realistic, and I know you think they should be practicing abstinence in the first place. I completely agree. Abstinence is the way to go. I know that quite a few people are saving themselves till marriage, or college, or till they're ready or whatever, but it's NOT EVERYBODY. And I don't know if you've just turned your head in the other way, but a large number of teenagers are quite intimate with their partner (s). What makes me angry is how many guys get away with getting a girl pregnant, and have few, if any consequences of their own. What can I do to hold a guy accountable? Well, I like Marci's idea from earlier in the blog: " i'd like to propose a solution to the other half of the unwanted pregnancy problem: we store all of your sperm in large tank that keeps them alive for eternity and then we cut off your gentalia so you can have no sexual "accidents". How does that sound?

My second example was not about proving that the boyfriend should have responsibility, nor was it only pointing out that he lives out his dreams while the girl he knocked up has a crappy life. I was merely pointing out something that boys haven't thought of. Put your place in our shoes. Imagine giving up all of your dreams while someone else just as responsible as you had no consequences.
I'm not sure that I completely believe your statistic…. I looked it up on google too, and the very first one to pop up was the one with your statistic. But other websites had pretty interesting statistics. One study found that 5 %, or 1 in 20 rapes resulted in a pregnancy. Another said that each year, more than 330,000 rapes and sexual assaults are reported by women in the United States. An estimated 25,000 of these rapes result in pregnancy. Here is another statistic:…Only 16% of ALL RAPES in the US are reported. So imagine…. If 25,000 were the result of only about 16% of rapes… Imagine how many more just aren't even calculated because the woman is ashamed? Your statistic claims that only 1 % actually got the abortion performed, but what does that tell you? Clearly, even women that are raped may not want to get an abortion. The key idea is that they at least had a CHOICE. That’s all we want. A choice.
One last thing… countless mothers of aborted babies have claimed that it was the toughest decision they had EVER made in their life. These women aren't just trying to be cruel. They are making the most excruciating decision of their entire lives. Should they let their baby live? Or abort the pregnancy? The challenge of this decision is so intense, many women are unable to do it. But they had the choice. And THAT is what matters.

11:52 PM  
Blogger Matt W said...

Kristen - Your quotes are in bold and italicized.

"I'd like to propose a solution to the other half of the unwanted pregnancy problem: we store all of your sperm in large tank that keeps them alive for eternity and then we cut off your gentalia so you can have no sexual "accidents". How does that sound?

Your logic completely eludes me. You cannot propose a situation like "Let's make all men useless" and follow it up with a question like "How does that sound?". Unless this is some incredibly deep statement, and I cannot see past the base level (Feminist anti-male "insult" or some sort) then I'd suggest revising any future attempts at such "humor".

Put your place in our shoes. Imagine giving up all of your dreams while someone else just as responsible as you had no consequences.

You are telling me that because guys have their "ace up-the-sleeve" (No responsibility), women are entitled to their "ace up-the-sleeve" (Killing a child)? Because I am seriously hoping that's not what you're suggesting. I have never condoned the action of the man in ANY of the previously discussed situations. Unfortunately you see them as getting off "scot-free". While this may happen in some cases, this is rarely the truth. When a man's partner becomes pregnant, if he is proven to be the father he cannot simply live in some dream world where it never happened. He is required to take care of the child, or at the very least pay child support. In these situations many teen fathers have to give up dreams to get a job and start supporting the child. When a man rapes a woman, he may get away with it, but with today's technology it would be very difficult. Last I checked, men who are convicted of rape serve long jail terms (You can't live out your dreams in jail). Once finished with their term they are labeled for life as a "Sex Offender" and wherever they go and whatever they do, that title will follow them the rest of their lives. That's not quite the "They rape someone and then prance around making millions in their dream job while laughing at their victim and their ruined life" story that you told. Let's be realistic, men do not get off "scot-free". Your claim that men face no consequences is completely off-base.

I'm not sure what your views on men are, but we're not all secret rapists lusting after every woman we see. We don't just sit around plotting how we can rape someone and get away with it. Just as we do not understand the female emotional aspect to abortion, you do not understand the male emotional aspect. Contrary to popular belief, we actually care if our partner decides to kill our child. Many men suffer from Post-Abortion Syndrome in some form or another. If you don't know what it is, look it up.

So imagine…. If 25,000 were the result of only about 16% of rapes… Imagine how many more just aren't even calculated because the woman is ashamed?

Believe me, I'm trying to imagine. Unfortunately common sense tells me otherwise. Let's look at how a woman becomes pregnant. Once sperm travels up the fallopian tubes and to the ovaries where an egg waits for fertilization, the two join and begin to divide and multiply. However, getting pregnant isn't just that easy. When a couple is attempting to get pregnant, they have to time intercourse just right to coincide with the woman's ovulation cycle. Some couples cannot get pregnant even in this way, and have to visit fertility clinics that help the job along. Now when a couple who are having contraceptive-free sex and are purposefully trying to become pregnant must still work at it and don't always succeed, I have to wonder how a single case of rape just happens to be at the right time as to cause the victim to become pregnant. I know statistically it can happen and am acknowledging that it does. But to believe that nearly one fifth of all women raped are raped at just the right time as to become pregnant is a little bit of a stretch. However, I'll be honest and say that I don't know in-depth facts or statistics on this particular area, so if anyone has some good facts or stats, I'd love to hear some more of them.

They are making the most excruciating decision of their entire lives.

Let me correct that statement for you. They are making a decision that is not theirs to make: the biggest decision of their CHILD's life. Sadly in the end, they chose wrong.

But they had the choice. And THAT is what matters.

So while you don't personally believe you would have an abortion, you just want the choice to be there as some kind of "Security blanket"?

Barbara -

Isn't it interesting that only boys are pro-life? Consider it.

I have been sitting here considering it, and all that comes to mind is how wrong that statement is. I see no evidence in today's society to back up that claim whatsoever. Both genders take both sides of the issue. What point are you trying to make here? Is this supposed to be some big “Anti-Men Fest” that I’m not aware of? How does this statement add to the discussion? Once again, the logic of this statement eludes me.

Sarah -

I know plenty of girls who are pro-life...though I will never understand how.

Indeed, I also know many girls who are pro-life. Why is it so hard to believe that girls want to honor the rights and privileges granted to their offspring? In my opinion, girls who do such even in situations where they will face embarrassment and pain, are as mature and responsible a parent as any that I know. They accept that they messed up and are living with the consequences. My heart goes out to anyone in that position.

Bottom Line: From the comments in this blog, I cannot help but draw several conclusions. 1. Abortion is Murder. Regardless of what you call the "ball of cells", it is a child and has the potential to be as developed as we are now. 2. Abortion is Selfish. Everything posted about "woman's choice" is all about the woman. All that is focused on is what does the woman want. The woman's decision is right. "My body is my right". Well unfortunately, your own body is your right, but when you choose abortion you are taking control of the rights of your child's body. And that is a right no one should have. 3. Woman's Choice is very feminist. All of you draw a terribly flawed and bleak depiction of men in all of the above cases. According to the above comments from pro-choice'ers, men are emotionless sperm-sacs waiting around to ruin all the poor innocent women's lives. I don't know what started those views, but I cannot just let them go on un-challenged. As defined by the comments on this blog, woman's choice is the following: A club where women need to stick together to protect their supreme rights as women which far outweigh anyone else's rights. They don't need men (at the very most, they just need a big tank of our sperm). They aren't willing to be responsible, or live with consequences, and most of all they are only interesting in looking out for themselves and their own interests, no matter what the effect is on anyone else.

While it sounds incredibly extreme, that's the vibe I'm getting from the Woman's choice comments. It's frightening, and I truly believe that way of thinking to be wrong. I would also very much appreciate no more comments such as "How about if we remove your testicles? What then?". Comments as such don't benefit the conversation in any way.

2:36 AM  
Blogger Derick said...

Kristen - Your statistic claims that only 1 % actually got the abortion performed, but what does that tell you? Clearly, even women that are raped may not want to get an abortion.

One minor thing. He stated that 1% of all abortions came from rape, not that 1% of all rapes resulted in abortion.

12:02 PM  
Blogger Meghan L said...

There seems to be some confusion about the parties involved in abortion.

Barbara:
"isn't it interesting that only boys are pro-life?"

whaaat!?!
First of all, here I am, a real, live, pro-life girl!!
We do exist.

Sarah:
"I know plenty of girls who are pro-life...though I will never understand how. "

Thank you for the opportunity to explain how I have reached my pro-life stance, as a girl.
Esepecially in the pop culture today, sex has been made a non-chalant act that is done with a multitude of different people all the time. I suppose this is where I am first separated from the pack. Personal, religious, and moral views aside, sex has huge consequences. Numersous, life-changing diseases are a growing risk for people who have sex, as well as concieving a child. Regardless of the child factor, I don't understand how two people are willing to risk their futures for people who they aren't positive are trustworthy, and will stay with them if they do both get an STD or concieve a child.
The argument that the man won't stay around and help raise the child is valid, IF THE TWO PEOPLE DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER AND ARE NOT IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP. This problem that the women then finds herself in? I would say that is as much the women's fault as the man. As a woman I can say, it's not the man's fault that you consented to have sex with him even when you didn't know what kind of father he would make, or even what kind of diseases he may have. I know that this is completely different in rape scenarios, I am not addressing that right now.

Anybody having sex knows that a child is made that way. Why think it will be different in your case? Yes, condoms and the pill keep the rate of children in these situations down, but on any box that birth control comes in, a disclaimer informs the user that it is not foolproof. People know it can happen, and today people know they have a way out through abortion.

I know if abortion were completely taken away the amount of self-attempted abortion would be dangerously high, but that is not the point. Abortion is not a way out of a messy situation.

I disagree that a baby is just a mass of dividing cells. Granted, I'm not a bio person, but I hold my ground. A baby is dividing cells, WITH A HEARTBEAT AFTER 18 DAYS. This is before some people even know that they are pregnant. Once again I say, abortion is murder. It is killing the life that a woman and a man created.

Also Barbara,

"So, give the decision over to the people it will actually affect, the woman. Let them decide whether or not abortion is what they believe. Other than that, please don't say anything. It's not your body."

Again, whaat?
I take comfort in the fact that men do take a stance on abortion, it shows that they do care. And while it is not their body that the baby grows in, there is nothing they or we can do about that. But it is their child as well as yours and men have every right to have a stance on the issue.

That comment was comparable to what men said about women before the 19th ammendment.

Would you say that about a pro-choice man?

12:48 PM  
Blogger Justin L said...

Barbara-

Only boys are pro-life? What world are you living in? What about all of the women that I know whom work for pro-life causes, what about the female legislators whom I know are pro-life? Do those people's opinion not count because you think they are wrong. I am sorry, but men are not the only pro-life people out there.

As a matter of fact, I am proud that men are pro-life. I know that one will say that they run of and refuse to take responsibilty. For some that is true, but not for all. Do not clump all men together as behaving in one fashion, for I certainly know that they do not.

Everyone on here knows my position on abortion, and I believe that anyone, including females, has the right and the responsibilty to take a stance for life.

Thanks for sharing this idea, though. Far too many people think that this is the case, when clearly it is not.

7:27 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Will Hea
Meyer-5

Kristen-

Your age is not an excuse for not knowing a lot about Evolutionary Theory, something you obviously believe in. If age mattered, wouldn't a seventeen-year-old be able to convince a sixteen-year old that Evolution is true? People should always be ready and willing to support their beliefs, despite their age, with conviction and evidence, which is the exact reason the arguments against evolution must be taught in schools. WE ARE NOT TAUGHT THE THEORY OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OR THE INNACURACY OF HALF-LIFE DATING, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS TAUGHT AS TRUTH, THIS IS BOTH BIASED AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE IS NOT BROUGHT UP SPECIFICLY, BUT RATHER EXPLAINED IN ONE PARAGRAPH CALLED "CREATIONISM" IN AN ENTIRE CHAPTER ABOUT EVOLUTION. PEOPLE MUST KNOW THAT EVOLUTION IS CONCRETE OR ELSE IT WILL BECOME TRUE NOT BECAUSE IT IS PROVEN, BUT RATHER BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN PROVEN. You even proved this yourself when you said that evolution is truth, this completely frightens me. Education must be changed and changed quickly or else public opinion will control science, not evidence.

As to your rocks argument, you still are holding on to unproved science. Carbon-dating doesn't work on rocks, the half-life is too short. Different elements with different half-lifes give a large range of ages for rocks. Helium, another way to test rock age that supports a young Earth, has been found in rocks "KNOWN" to be extremely old. An accurate way to determine age must be found and the fact that people put so much faith in half-life dating gives urgency to educational change. WE AS STUDENTS HAVE BEEN MISLED AND MORE NEEDS TO BE DEMANDED FROM SCHOOLS AND SCIENCE. THE LACK OF ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY AND HALF-LIFE DATING EVIDENCE IS INSULTING TO OUR INTELLIGENCE AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

I did not always believe in what I do now and I believed that the Theory of Evolution was fact for the same reasons you argued above. To me the Theory of Evolution was true and a fact. I used to believe in a creator who 4 billion years ago created the Earth through 7- "God" days and created man through macroevolution in his image. Only because of outside research supported by the church and my father was I, and I alone, able to weigh the facts between the conflicting ideas and come to a conclusion. The government denies this to the average student. Creationism adn Intelligent Design are portrayed as outside religious theories that have no scientific support and it outrages me that I, and all other American students, have been misled through public education.

Were any of you taught about irreducible complexity in your REQUIRED biology classes? I know that I was not.

To Everyone:
I discourage all of you from attacking Barbara and her colleagues for their sexist comments, and when I say sexist I don't mean it in a derogatory way, only that they show a bias towards a particular sex. First off, it must be established why it is wrong to discriminate sexually because, I doubt many of you know this, but there is a difference in brain mass between men and women, men have a higher percentage of white matter and women a higher percentage of grey, giving women an edge over men in potential brain activity. So again, IS IT WRONG TO BE SEXIST? (both ways, not just men hating women) Please see this website: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1543820

7:44 PM  
Blogger haley said...

Hey everyone! This is Haley and I took AP Gov last year. I was talking to Meyer about this blog and I started reading it a couple days ago. This is probably one of the coolest things I have ever seen. I love how you guys can argue your beliefs and back them up. You are all so passionate, and I love being able to hear many different opinions and sides of issues. What we did last year didn't even come close to what you all are doing right now. I have a few comments, so here goes . . .

Barbara-
Your "only boys are pro-life" comment made me laugh. I am pro-life, becuase I believe that abortion is murder. I don't see any difference between abortion, killing a baby after it's been born, or killing any human being in general. To me, it's all the same. It's all wrong.

Sarah-
I understand your argument that the pill can help reduce the risk of certain cancers and has other health benefits, however I think the pill has become an "excuse" to have sex. Because of the pill, millions of people are having sex all the time. And because of this, millions of people are unwantedly getting pregnant. The pill doesn't always work, and neither do other forms of contraceptives. This leads me to abortion. If a woman is having casual sex, and forgets to take just one of her pills, she can become pregnant. Now, if she was using birth control to prevent herself from becoming pregnant, and does, then my guess is she would probably want an abortion (I know I'm generalizing, but just go with it). So she gets the abortion, continues taking the pill, and continues having sex. This is absolutely ridiculous. As I said before, the pill, and, additionally, abortion, are excuses to have sex. If you don't want a baby, then don't have sex. It's that simple. If you don't want an STD, then don't have sex. Why put yourself at risk for something you don't want, when you know perfectly well how to completely avoid it. It's the same thing with being overweight. If you don't want to put on the pounds, then all you have to do is eat healthy and exercise. Also, I feel like the costs of taking the pill outweigh the benefits. Cost #1-money. Cost #2-if you forget to take just one pill, you can get pregnant. Cost #3-if you continue taking the pill, there's a chance that once you are off it, you may never be able to become pregnant. Cost #4-you have to go to the doctor to get your prescription about once a month. Cost #5-you can gain weight. Cost #6-you aren't protected from STDs. Cost #8-even when you're on the pill, you can still get pregnant. Cost #9-it just seems like such a pain in the butt to have to do all these things I already mentioned. The only benefit I see is that you can potentially have as much sex as you want and not get pregnant. If there are any other benefits relating to sex (not health, cancer, etc.), please let me know, but it's the only one I can think of.

Now onto abortion. I'm just going to make this general and I'm not directing it toward any one person, I'm just going to state my beliefs about the issue. To be blatant, I think it's one of the worst crimes a single person could ever commit. Abortion is murder. How does the mother know if that child wants to live or not? It is not up to the mother to decide if that child gets the chance to experience all the world has to offer or not. How hateful is that? Just because the mother is older than her child does not give her the right to tell that baby that she is more important and can end his/her life like the flip of a switch. She is not superior in any way, shape, or form to her child. If a woman is dumb enough to have sex when she knows she doesn't want a child, then why the heck is she doing it? If abortion is going to be a way out of commitment and consequences, then I feel sorry for that her. She obviously isn't a strong enough person to handle what she ultimately put on herself. As a knowledgeable person, living in our day and age, it is no excuse for a woman not to know what happens when you have sex. I'm not talking about rape, I'm talking about consensual sex, just to clarify.

Abortion leads me to the death penalty, which no one has really addressed. I also think that the death penalty is wrong. As human beings, I believe we have the duty to enforce laws to better respect each other. I believe we are all equal, and therefore, no one has the right to decide if someone else should live or die. I know some arguments will say "Well, the 9/11 terrorists killed thousands of people, don't you think the world would be safer if they were dead?" My answer to them would be something like "Aren't you engaging in the same act they were, just on a lesser scale?" Killing is killing. There is no way around it. I believe a life in prison is much better. There, they would be forced to reflect on their actions, and whether the end up truly feeling sorry for what they did, I cannot say. However, I feel this is the better option. Also, in the case of terrorists, killing them would be giving them the pleasure of knowing they died for their ultimate cause. They would be proud of death, and why would we want to give them that satisfaction. I just used terrorists as an example, but I feel the same way about jail and the death penalty in all cases.

Now onto the theory of creationism. I believe in both creationism and evolution. I believe God guided evolution, yet there would be nothing without God. God is the reason the world started, and God is the reason why it is continually changing and evolving. There are a lot of facts supporting evolution in research and text books, but there is also a lot of evidence and facts in the Bible about creationism. Someone mentioned that they think creationism should be taught in schools, and I agree. Teachers are always telling you to find different points of view and explore different ideas. Isn't that the whole reason for experiments and hypotheses, to try to find answers, connections, etc? I find it a little hypocritical if this is what they preach, yet fail to fully explore creationism on the same level as evolution. As students, I know most of us usually except what our textbooks and teachers say, but doesn't that go against everything science stands for? I mean, how would Darwin and have come up with survival of the fittest if he hadn't gone out into the world, researched, observed, and made conclusions? I believe that the only way people can truly reach their own beliefs is if both sides of the story are represented. I think it's sad that creationism takes up only a paragraph of a ten page evolution chapter in our bio books. If school boards and text book writers are afraid of offending people, then I tell them to get over it. That's why we live in America. People have to right to say whatever they want (generally speaking), and education should not be biased or one sided. Same goes for every other subject. If we aren't getting the full story, then what's the point of learning in the first place. I know Barbara made the comment about the Bible not being literal, and I agree is some respects. However, if the Bible was not true, then why has it been accepted and adored by millions of people for thousands of years? Also, most people make assumptions about the Bible and say things about the Bible when they haven't even read anything out of it. If you are going to make comments about the Bible, I hope you have read atleast a little of it. Barbara, that wasn't directed at you. Yet, even if there are some allegorical things written in the Bible, this doesn't discredit it. Parables, imagery, numbers, symbols, etc. in the Bible are all written to teach lessons. It's the same with reading a novel for english. All these things are used to portray a theme the author deems necessary to write about, in hopes of changing and influencing his audience. Same with the Bible. If you haven't read it, studied it, and thought about what it has to say, then don't talk about it. You should have nothing to say about it.

I'm done for now. I'm tired of typing. Also, my comments weren't directed at anyone, I was just stating my beliefs and commenting on others. If I was rude please let me know. Sarah and Barbara - I'm friends with both of you girls, and what I say is nothing against you. I hope you don't take it personally.

4:26 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:27 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Will H
Meyer 5

I apologize, I made a mistake about the biology textbooks. Using my old username and password (can you believe they still work?) I checked the book's chapters about evolution, here is what I found, it is contradictory to what I stated before about the two paragraphs on creationism:

There are four chapters, an entire unit, devoted to evolution.
There is one chapter per kingdom and each of these has a section devoted to the evolution of that kingdom.
Creationism, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, or any other non-evolutionary theory or evidence was NOT mentioned in these chapters.
The tone with which the writers wrote about evolution implied that evolution was the only theory of its kind and that all evidence pointed to it.
One page of the evolution chapters was blurred because of its content, I could make out that the page was an excerpt from or about the book "The Flamingo's Smile", focusing on the section "Opus 100" by Stephen Gould, the only reason I could think of for the blotting of this page is that Gould is a hard-core evolutionist and that he probably had some views on the page that parents didn't like.

To sum up my research: there was NO mention of any anti-evolution evidence in the ONLY biology textbook that every student is required to read.

If any of you don't still have your passwords talk to me and I will give you mine, if I posted it the school would probably throw a fit, the website is my.hrw.com.

5:44 PM  
Blogger julie s said...

Wow, I take a few days off from this blog and it takes me 30mins to catch up, haha. I'm so glad people are keeping this thing up though, I love it!


Sarah E-

I'm glad that you went on a tangent about rape and the severity of it. No one had previously discussed the true importance of keeping abortion legal in situations of rape. Rape is by far one of the most atrocious crimes commited against women, in the US and around the world. It's especially atrocious because 61% of rape/sexual assualt cases GO UPREPORTED! (According to the 2003 National Crime Victimization Study). That means that over half of the sexual predators that commit these crimes go without punishment, able to continue their abuse. These cases go unreported because of the nature of the crime, meaning psychological damage occurs to the point that victims are affraid to report what happened, even though appoximately 70% of victims KNOW THEIR ATTACKER! The saddest reason that these crims go unreported, however, is the fact that rape is EXTREMELY hard to prove so victims don't see a point in reporting sometimes, as it is most likely that their time and money will be wasted prosecuting their attacker. The government needs to work towards really refining the justice system in sexual assualt cases. Too many women in this country, the land of the free where all should be safe, are violated every year.

I also liked your comment about couples adopting outside of the US. You make a good point. I wonder, what is your opinion, or anyone else's for that matter, about same-sex couples adopting children?


Will-

It's cool to see that you are so passionate about your belief in creationism, but (and no offense is meant by this in any way) I still don't buy it. I don't believe that humans just showed up. The evidence supporting evolution is just TOO strong to refute it.


______________________________

Also, I know it's not just men who are pro-life, but at our age it seems like it's overwhelmingly guys that are outspoken about it, at least that has been what I've run into. I don't think that men shouldn't have some say in abortion issues, as it does take both a man and a woman to concieve a child (as Matt said), BUT I don't think that they should have the final say. When it comes down to it, it is the WOMAN who has to give her body and energy to the child for 10 months (almost a year of her life). I just don't think it's totally right that it's old men in congress that have the final say in abortion issues in the US.

6:41 PM  
Blogger Derick said...

"It's cool to see that you are so passionate about your belief in creationism, but (and no offense is meant by this in any way) I still don't buy it. I don't believe that humans just showed up. The evidence supporting evolution is just TOO strong to refute it."

To clarify: I think Will said he believes god created something which eventually evolved in humans.

7:21 PM  
Blogger Matt W said...

Julie -

Rape is by far one of the most atrocious crimes commited against women, in the US and around the world. It's especially atrocious because 61% of rape/sexual assualt cases GO UPREPORTED! (According to the 2003 National Crime Victimization Study). That means that over half of the sexual predators that commit these crimes go without punishment, able to continue their abuse. These cases go unreported because of the nature of the crime, meaning psychological damage occurs to the point that victims are affraid to report what happened, even though appoximately 70% of victims KNOW THEIR ATTACKER! The saddest reason that these crims go unreported, however, is the fact that rape is EXTREMELY hard to prove so victims don't see a point in reporting sometimes, as it is most likely that their time and money will be wasted prosecuting their attacker. The government needs to work towards really refining the justice system in sexual assualt cases. Too many women in this country, the land of the free where all should be safe, are violated every year.

I totally agree. Prosecution for rape and sexual assault cases should carry a heavy punishment. It is incredibly shocking when you look at the stats regarding sexual assaults. But all I ask you, and everyone on the blog to remember, is the difference between rape, and rape resulting in pregancy. Unless we're talking about rape resulting in pregancy, then the right to abortion won't do any good for rape cases. So Julie, your statement regarding "the true importance of keeping abortion legal in situations of rape." doesn't necessarily apply to the stats that you provided.

7:58 PM  
Blogger barbarab88 said...

i know a lot of you are mad about my comment about the bible. i would like to clarify. i have not read ALL of it, but i have read the first testiment. a lot of you might be suprised but i was extremely christian when i was in middle school. church every sunday, youth group, the whole shebang. i believed that cussing was wrong and that you should never even thing about touching a guy until you were married. i read the bible every night for a year (i didn't get really far). now i don't even remember half of the stories but i do remember my reaction. i remembered thinking that god is powerful and beyond anything earthly. i was amazed and awed. i have never said that i do not believe in god because i do. a lot actually. i just take a very different approach to things. i do not think that the bible is literal and never have. i have learned the history behind religion and christianity which i will not get into right now. i do believe in god and a creator, however i think people (escpecially in the time of the old testiment, i won't use any other examples because i don't know them but i know the book of genisis well) needed questions answered, such as how the earth was formed. so a story was formed, teaching a moral value (sin and the apple tree) along with answering a serious question that people have been asking. this gave a reason to trust the church. i am not attacking your religion at all, i am simply taking a different view. i find the bible extremely comforting and i will go to it for comfort and guidance in the form of an email that my grandma sends me in hard times. i just do not believe it to be literal. i do hold the approach to creationism that god created the earth. however, not in 7 days or "let there be light". i believe that is the allegory. i believe evolution and creationism fit together. the big bang had to have something trigger it and had to have something start it and thats where i think god comes in. again, im not bashing your religion in any way. i just take another view of it. i have no problem reading the bible at all and probably should read more of it just to know.
(im really sorry if this is random and doesn't really make sense im writing this in spurts)

now abortion. this is such a hard issue. i agree that if you are not ready to have a child you should not have sex. however, not all woman think this. actually most don't. there's a whole magazine dedicated to the non-belief. (cosmo boys-i think you've heard of it) are these women in the wrong? to you, yes. but to them? to the men they sleep with? no. its all perspective. Now if they conceive? most couples choose to keep it. now there are the people who don't. there are many different reasons. what they are are up to them. i don't agree with abortion as a birth control method, but if a woman took all precaution ie. condoms, birth control everything, and the man told her he would not support her AND she has no money to support the baby or parental support, then just having the option of abortion is there for her. was it right for her to have sex in the first place. i don't know. to destroy a life, is that right? no. but think of the baby if she couldn't have an abortion. either she would get rid of it some other way because she knew she couldn't give it a life or she would have it and give it up for adoption. this would give the baby more psychological problems than you can believe. just watch the real world or whatever and there is a girl named "tonya" i think (its been a long time since she was on it but she might still be around) and she had more psychological problems than you can count. so, are you really saving the babies life? there is a possibility for redemption yes, but the likelihood is improbable. i also want to know, would any of you saying that you are against abortion ever adopt?

obviously, the moral values of our society are low. but lets not further them. we need to stop this continuing cycle by stopping the chain. a messed up woman has a child, can't get an abortion so puts it up for adoption then that kid grows up just as screwed up as she is and furthers the cycle.

i agree with haley on the death pentalty. thats all im going to say because she's said everything i can say.


ok i think im done. im sorry i haven't done a really thourough job of saying everything i have needed to say but this was written over a span of 4 hours so i appologize if it doesn't flow at all. i am also not saying anything bad about religion. im just stating my perspective. also, i just want people to carry abortion outside of themselves. i would not get an abortion myself and i don't agree with it either. however, i know there are some women who need abortions for reasons i don't know but need them none the less. are there women who abuse it? yes. but people abuse alcohol. we keep it legal because of the people who don't.

9:42 PM  
Blogger barbarab88 said...

i know a lot of you are mad about my comment about the bible. i would like to clarify. i have not read ALL of it, but i have read the first testiment. a lot of you might be suprised but i was extremely christian when i was in middle school. church every sunday, youth group, the whole shebang. i believed that cussing was wrong and that you should never even thing about touching a guy until you were married. i read the bible every night for a year (i didn't get really far). now i don't even remember half of the stories but i do remember my reaction. i remembered thinking that god is powerful and beyond anything earthly. i was amazed and awed. i have never said that i do not believe in god because i do. a lot actually. i just take a very different approach to things. i do not think that the bible is literal and never have. i have learned the history behind religion and christianity which i will not get into right now. i do believe in god and a creator, however i think people (escpecially in the time of the old testiment, i won't use any other examples because i don't know them but i know the book of genisis well) needed questions answered, such as how the earth was formed. so a story was formed, teaching a moral value (sin and the apple tree) along with answering a serious question that people have been asking. this gave a reason to trust the church. i am not attacking your religion at all, i am simply taking a different view. i find the bible extremely comforting and i will go to it for comfort and guidance in the form of an email that my grandma sends me in hard times. i just do not believe it to be literal. i do hold the approach to creationism that god created the earth. however, not in 7 days or "let there be light". i believe that is the allegory. i believe evolution and creationism fit together. the big bang had to have something trigger it and had to have something start it and thats where i think god comes in. again, im not bashing your religion in any way. i just take another view of it. i have no problem reading the bible at all and probably should read more of it just to know.
(im really sorry if this is random and doesn't really make sense im writing this in spurts)

now abortion. this is such a hard issue. i agree that if you are not ready to have a child you should not have sex. however, not all woman think this. actually most don't. there's a whole magazine dedicated to the non-belief. (cosmo boys-i think you've heard of it) are these women in the wrong? to you, yes. but to them? to the men they sleep with? no. its all perspective. Now if they conceive? most couples choose to keep it. now there are the people who don't. there are many different reasons. what they are are up to them. i don't agree with abortion as a birth control method, but if a woman took all precaution ie. condoms, birth control everything, and the man told her he would not support her AND she has no money to support the baby or parental support, then just having the option of abortion is there for her. was it right for her to have sex in the first place. i don't know. to destroy a life, is that right? no. but think of the baby if she couldn't have an abortion. either she would get rid of it some other way because she knew she couldn't give it a life or she would have it and give it up for adoption. this would give the baby more psychological problems than you can believe. just watch the real world or whatever and there is a girl named "tonya" i think (its been a long time since she was on it but she might still be around) and she had more psychological problems than you can count. so, are you really saving the babies life? there is a possibility for redemption yes, but the likelihood is improbable. i also want to know, would any of you saying that you are against abortion ever adopt?

obviously, the moral values of our society are low. but lets not further them. we need to stop this continuing cycle by stopping the chain. a messed up woman has a child, can't get an abortion so puts it up for adoption then that kid grows up just as screwed up as she is and furthers the cycle.

i agree with haley on the death pentalty. thats all im going to say because she's said everything i can say.


ok i think im done. im sorry i haven't done a really thourough job of saying everything i have needed to say but this was written over a span of 4 hours so i appologize if it doesn't flow at all. i am also not saying anything bad about religion. im just stating my perspective. also, i just want people to carry abortion outside of themselves. i would not get an abortion myself and i don't agree with it either. however, i know there are some women who need abortions for reasons i don't know but need them none the less. are there women who abuse it? yes. but people abuse alcohol. we keep it legal because of the people who don't.

9:43 PM  
Blogger marci said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:46 PM  
Blogger marci said...

Seeing as how, in my opinion, this blog has gotten out of hand to the point where i cannot even read it without asking "what type of moron wrote this?" i'm going to make my exit from these blogs.
I'm sorry, matt, but you have a disgusting double standard. you should re-evaluate your beliefs, because if you take a close look at them, they contradict themselves non-stop.

It's not only the conservatives in here, but the liberals as well. You all need to consider what you're writing, because a lot of it is SO closed minded and clearly irrelevant that this blog doesn't even make for good discussion any more.

I did start to reply to some of the ridiculous posts being made, so i will post it after this one, however, you all have fun with this blog. It's out of hand to the point where it's just mindless babble with people not considering the points that others are making.

Sorry, but religion does not have a basis in fact. If it does, then everything from islam to jewish to christian to cathlolic to buddhist to ancient greece to remote indian tribe deominations have basis in fact. Sorry, but athena didn't come chill with odysseus. Fact.

Separate the two if you all want to have an intelligent discussion. Try to avoid things like "only women are pro-choice" or "women are selfish for wanting to control their bodies"-- matt, most men don't even CONTROL their bodies. at least we're semi-responsible.

Yes, i just singled people out. but josh baileys statement that i'm ignorant in the case of abortion just because he lacked a response that was good enough to prove mine wrong doesn't make me ignorant. it means i made points that he could not counter, and therefore dismissed with a "well you're stupid" comment in order to make himself feel better.

yes, this comment will probably get deleted. I hope the Deleter manages to delete all of the other comments that single out people and make horribly stupid statements on here.

[keep in mind, i've posted some stupid crap on here. i reserve the right to say that]

anyway, you all have fun. my final response will follow this post.

9:47 PM  
Blogger marci said...

Josh-
Oh Marci...I could spend a lot of time defending my views, but I think that you need to go do some research. Start with Will's piece and work from there. No offense but your "plopping" comment shows your ignorance in this area.
Identify my plopping comment. I’m not sure which one you’re alluding to.
The one about the majority of rape victims not reporting that they were raped?

First of all as for the validity of the Bible, you don't know what you are talking about. It hasn't been changed and if your idea of tampering is translating,
What proof do you have that it was not tampered with? What proof do you have that someone didn’t just park it and decide to write a story as an excuse for the emotionally weak to blame a higher being for what they screw up on?
I want proof, Josh. Not just your religious beliefs.

Matt W-
So you say it isn’t “fair” to make her have the child?
It depends on the scenario, obviously. If she was on the pill, had her partner wear a condom, and some freak accident occurs and she gets pregnant, she was being responsible in avoiding pregnancy because she knew she wasn’t ready to support a child and I would say it isn’t fair to make her have it. Now, if she’s reckless, loose, and uses no protection… yes, she should have to have it.. but what justice would that do for the child? “my mom was a slut, and here I am” –or- “my mom was a slut, didn’t care about me, so now I’m in a foster home”. I wouldn’t really call that fair to the child.
Is it fair that the child must die?
Of course not, but I place the more developed being first: women, I’m sorry to say, nurture and have a higher level of compassion for children. [most do; that’s why women are rarely seen starting huge wars. We don’t like to shoot other women’s children; nor do we want other women’s children shooting our own] If a woman does not feel that she can give her child the best chance at life, I think she reserves the right to abort it.
You’re telling me that a young mother would be so selfish as to kill her child, just so she can save herself embarrassment?
It’s not just an issue of embarrassment. Don’t tell me you’re that narrow-minded. Of course, embarrassment does play a role. What about the parents kicking her out and she can no longer afford/acquire an education? What about the neglectful father who runs off and never is heard of again? What about the life-long commitment of food, water, love, clothes, housing, education, etc that she is responsible for? I don’t think a 15 year old girl is ready for that. Would you agree?
Since when has human life cost so little?
I hope you support Gun control. If you don’t, you’re contradicting yourself. Why, you may ask? Mainly because guns kill people, and if you appreciate human life, you would support gun control. Yes, I know you may argue that people kill people, but look at England whose POLICE OFFICERS don’t even carry guns. Look at the gun-death rate. Then look at ours. England has people, but they’re obviously not killing people. We have guns, and, um… yes, there are a lot of people dead from that.
I’d sure as heck rather live thinking “my parents did the deed too young and I was an accident.”
Good god. Talk to these four children that were adopted that I know. One’s in jail, the other in a mental hospital, one shipped off to NC, and the last a bulimic and big drug user.
Yes, I know that’s not EVERY adopted child, but these kids are f’d up. Plain and simple. I think it’s the woman’s choice to decide- giving up a child for adoption is not easy emotionally for a woman. [for most, at least]. You have a severe flaw in your argument merely stating that it’s only because she’d be embarrassed.

You would intentionally harm yourself to purposely kill the baby? It’s no longer “disposing” of a “fetus”, but in your own words “Killing” the “Baby”?
I said killing the baby because if I didn’t some conservative wacko would be sure to correct me : )
I for one am glad you are not my mother.
Good god, I concur. How embarrassing would that be for me?

f you’re so worried about protecting people’s rights, why don’t we protect the rights of the individual developing in a woman’s womb?
The question turned back around: why do you care for the rights of the unborn clump of cells but not the rights of the woman?

[I cut this down a bit] At this point in time, the doctors ask you “Is it alright if we kill you”?
What is the relevance of that? Abortion happens before conscious thinking occurs… not after.
Now I’m asking you to honestly answer… what would you tell them? Now that you’ve experienced 17 years of life, are you glad for that opportunity?
Ahahahahahah. You’re asking the wrong person. I don’t like my life, mostly because about 99.8% of people are complete morons and just don’t realize it. I honestly wouldn’t care if I died or got killed right now. It may suck for people who know/care about me [haha, right… people caring about marci? Good one.] I don’t fear my own death/murder. I would honestly prefer to die before my parents, friends, and relatives. Find a better person to pose that asinine question to next time.

[again with the cutting out of your writing for length’s sake] She did NOT intentionally do everything she could to not get pregnant
Bar sex. You cannot stop people from having sex. It’s a NATURAL INSTINCT TO REPRODUCE. Sure, maybe people in high school shouldn’t be sleeping around, but that’s not your business, and maybe they don’t believe in being pure until marriage.
In what way is it the child’s fault that the woman was raped and became pregnant? The baby didn’t have any say in entering existence. How is it “fair” that the consequence of a woman being raped is death
Oh my god. So if your grandfather raped your mother and she had you, you’re saying you’d grow up perfectly normal knowing that grandpa is dad… um, dad-pa? You seem to have more compassion for the child than the would-be mother. I have been molested, and honestly, I would NEVER have a child whose father is a rapist. That would emotionally tax me. You, being a man [sorry about the gender card] have no IDEA what it’s like to be molested. Or to be raped and become pregnant. You don’t have to carry it around for nine months. My body, not yours.

When you have a set of laws that includes a law saying “He who sits in class has committed a sin”, and that set of laws has been around for roughly a few millennia and beyond and has been the basis of Nations and Empires, then I will give your statement a very good look.
Whose law is it? It’s a religious law that you’re referring to [as far as defined “sins” are concerned] and therefore has no basis for what you just told me. Your guys’ “laws” do not apply to me, and I’m just going to tell you that my law about sitting in class is a sin has been around for quite a few millennia. You’re a sinner.
How fair is that, really?


Just for puking’s sake, imagine this: you are completely wasted; it’s dark, you have… sexual inclinations, and against all of your morals etc, you have sex with a girl and she becomes pregnant. Say that girl is me. You would still make me have the child and you would raise it with me?

Ew. I need a toilet, aha.

Furthering this question: the woman is responsible for the child, but why aren’t men ever held accountable for not keeping their genetalia in their pants? Why is it always the woman who is the “slut” and the man in the role of Adam and saying that he couldn’t resist? Just because YOU PERSONALLY may not take that role in the play of abortion, consider that a lot of men do.

9:49 PM  
Blogger marci said...

ahah. i seriously cannot get over this.

i lied, this WILL BE my final post in this blog.
but thank you, josh, for proving that my stereotype for conservatives seems to run true about 99% of the time.

josh in blod, i'm in italics.
As a side note, less than 1% of abortions are due to rape and incest. It’s not the real issue at hand, but a convenient way to stall the real issue at hand.
Very one sided statement.
Realize that not all women run up and say OH CRAP I WAS RAPED! The same holds true with women who are abused by their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers. Not everyone openly talks about being raped; so while that statistic may hold true for the number who supposedly report it, realize that it is definitely not a fact, which you presented it as in your statement.

who are you to decide if that child wants a shot at what you have been blessed with

Who is the government to decide to not give us a shot at not having a child at 17 years of age?
Believe it or not, having a child is a lifetime commitment, and if a woman isn’t ready for that, it’s not fair to make her have the child and/or give it up for adoption and have the child grow up knowing that either [a] it’s birth parents didn’t want me or [b] my parents did the deed too young and I was an accident.

Not fair to either of the two parties. I’m not sure whether or not I’d have an abortion if I were to become pregnant… but I know for sure that no government would stop me if I wanted to. Hell, I’ll drink excessively and do drugs to kill the baby if abortions were illegal and I was too young to be a caring, nurturing mother. [ha, ha. Cue everyone saying “marci, nurturing, ever?” yes, I can be sensitive contrary to popular belief.”
But back to the question, josh: we are in no place to determine a baby’s future, but somehow the government is?


how does this display my "obvious" ignorance in this subject?
merely questioning why the government can control our lives but we cannot control the potential baby's life?

very ignorant. hahahah. of course.
conservative proverb:
when in doubt, call the opponent stupid and declare victory over him or her.


and with that, i bid this blog adieu.

10:13 PM  
Blogger Matt W said...

I'm sorry you feel that you can't stay on the blog. I'm not going to make a big ol' post, but rather I will leave what you have said up, and give you the last word. Hopefully you will choose to return at some future point in time.

7:28 AM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Wow.
First, I never said I believe in macroevolution, I used to.
Second, I admit to having skipped the abortion comments, but I can't believe Marci's quotes from the other blogs are legitimate, let's tone this down a little bit y'all, some of those things that were said were fairly abusive. Let's try to focus on ideas and not the individuals presenting them.
Third, Marci is right about the double-standards. We can't demand evidence for something that we don't supply evidence for in the first place.
Try to remember that the Arapahoe Blogging Policy governs us and that we can be held accountable (suspended) by the school for what is posted on this blog. This is not about who is right and who is wrong but rather exposing people to arguments that they may not have seen before and a way to look at an issue from multiple sides.
I think now that abortion and intelligent design have been officially milked. Intelligent Design has reached an effective stalemate and I have achieved my purpose for argueing it (making people think about it) and I think everyone is just repeating themselves on abortion, let's move on. How about economic policy?

4:11 PM  
Blogger Emily M said...

I'd like to add one more thing about abortion, and then we can move on!

Simply from a medical standpoint, for the health and wellbeing of females, abortions NEED to be legal. If we went back to not allowing abortions, they would still occur. Ever seen The Cider House Rules? Abortions would be unregulated and unsanitary, which in my opinion is much worse than the 'bloodbath' arguments that have occured over this subject.

Now economic policy? I got nothing!

6:18 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

Will Hea

Nobody likes economic policy huh?
Okay, how about these issues:

Should the United States keep Social Security?

Should the drinking age be lowered?

Should the voting age be lowered?

Should more identification be required to vote?

I am going to step back from the blogs for a while (hopefully I can make it a week or more), but I really want to hear how the rest of you feel about these issues.

4:12 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

Marci- your "plopping" comment was referring to the one you made about the debate over evolution. You said no one has proven creationism to you, as far as you know God just plopped everything onto the earth. That's what I was referring to with your ignorance...it was regarding what the Bible says and what science there is to support it. I understand that, like most of us, you don't have time to research extra subjects, but I would still encourage you to if possible. I suggested really reading the blogs concerning this issue. Next time, please read the context surrounding my blog. Thank you.
I still argue that at least you have had those 17 years, that human being will never get the chance. At that point, in general (I understand rape is an exception), you must understand that the reality is you made a mistake and there are consequences for your poor judgment call.
As for the validity of the Bible-there are sources outside of the Bible that support the occurrences surrounding Jesus' death (not to mention the 500 something or other witnesses that saw him after his death). I mentioned this in my note to Barbara as well, but look to the field of archeology. Nothing it has found has discredited the historical information surrounding the times and lives of the people in the Bible. In addition, why in the world would someone want to willingly sacrifice their life for a story that they made up, i.e. the gospel? Sounds like they, along with the thousands butchered by Nero and other emperors, must have been convinced that there was a cause greater than themselves worth dieing for. Another interesting fact supporting its validity is the fact that all 66 books in the Bible, written at different times (hundreds of years apart) by different authors, align to form an intricately weaved account that lacks a single self-contradiction. 66 books, various authors and no self-refuting or argumentative statements. Doesn't sound like coincidence or contrived fiction to me.

Hey B Squared
Sounds like you practiced a very legalistic form of Christianity to me. I have a hard time with that since I believe that most people follow the rules (not that I don't agree with them), simply to be accepted by their parents or whatever the external influence may be. Those are not the right motives and not very convincing. Yes, some of the Bible isn't literal, but symbolic (look at Revelations). Also, Genesis was never meant to have the final say on the issue of creationism. The whole point is for science to defend what the Bible has generalized in its single chapter on the immense subject of the formation of the universe. The majority of the fathers of the scientific age were Christians, God doesn’t want us to be ignorant, he wants us to explore our world. I believe that its overwhelming complexity is the most profound statement of his power. The more we learn, the more I am amazed. As for its historical value, nothing has been determined as false. In fact, all archeological finds support it.

8:48 PM  
Blogger joshb said...

I would be interested to see if anyone has some undeniable evidence proving that Christianity is a flop. I want to be open-minded regarding the topic of my faith and so I am very willing to discuss it.

8:53 PM  
Blogger Crosby said...

It is interesting to read your comments, particularly because I had so many of you in class a few years ago. I hope that Meyer keeps this blog available in years to come so that you can look back on your comments. The experiences that you have after you leave AHS might affect your views in ways that you never imagined. It's a big world out there . . .

10:59 PM  
Blogger Katie G said...

I'm not saying that there is nothing good in the bible or that christianity doesn't serve a purpose to certain individuals. The point is however that it is a collection of allegorical perhaps even FICTIONAL stories. It was an attempt to explain the natural world because at that point science had not developed to the degree it has today. The truth is: the bible is not fact.

9:28 AM  
Blogger Matt W said...

That's a very big statement relating to a question I've been wanting to pose to the blog for quite some time. What is your background? As in, I'd like to know where your thoughts and opinions originated. Parents, Experience, neither of the above? I find it very fascinating to learn where we all get our individual opinions and thought. What initiated our current set of beliefs? For me, it is the fact that I have been raised religiously (Catholic, and now Protestant) since birth. I base most of my views and opinions in my religion (I'm a conservative, what do you expect?) and am proud of it. What about all of the rest of you? Where did your ideas/opinions/views/beliefs come from?

10:58 PM  
Blogger Rebecca S said...

Katie, you say that the bible "is a collection of allegorical perhaps even FICTIONAL stories." I, like Matt, am really interested in why you believe this. And if you have any evidence to disclaim the Bible, I would be really interested and maybe we talk about it sometime. Or Josh also sounds really open to discussion on this and I would encourage you to talk to him as well.

10:00 PM  
Blogger Hikingout said...

The Blog, she dies. Woi.

4:43 PM  
Blogger ldowns said...

I'm not in this class and I'm not familiar with anyone blogging but I'm intrigued by the discussions. The ground I can cover in my opinions is quite vast, however I'd like to discuss the views on the bible and abortion.

Katie G (Hello, I do not know you but 'Hello' none-the-less):
Have you read the bible? If so, please give an example or a passage that you do not agree with. I'd like to see your view upon a specific, like the creation of the world. To say the bible is perphaps fictitious and not fact is quite bold and I appreciate your opionion, but if your statement is correct then why is the bible the number one selling book in the world and has lasted over many thousands of years and printed in thousands of languages?

Abortion: I would say a fetus is life at the moment of conception. The fertilized egg forms. Something lifeless does not form. Our bodies are made up of cells, they carry oxygen and 'feed', things that 'feed' are alive. Lifeforms need energy to continue existence. I would say the mother has the right to determine her own life. The issue is when another life is at her hands as well either due to incest, rape, pregnancy issues (disease will kill mom, baby, or both), or unplanned pregnancy. I believe all life is sacred and a baby, even at the moment of conception, is alive and human. If a baby is developing in a human it will be human and thus it is human. Personally, I am a baby born from an unplanned pregnancy and adopted. Adoption, I believe, is a better option than abortion. My adoptive parents were blessed with me as their baby. Two of their children previously died, one from holes in the heart and downsyndrome and one from Korea who died before reaching American soil. Their is potential and purpose in every life, why kill it?.

5:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home