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.
"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.
posted by Meyer at 10:22 AM
76 Comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I meant the words in quotes are Emily's. My mistake, I apologize.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!!!!!!!!!
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Justin
You got me all riled up for nothing?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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 . . .
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?
The Blog, she dies. Woi.
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?.
Post a Comment
<< Home