A few things I want to point out...

[Bacon Boy]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep

ugh, please don't get me started on that...

On what, redistribution of wealth? I still don't know where I stand on that issue. It may be necessary (increase taxes on the rich, lower them for the poor), or there may be better solutions... I dunno...

but who are they to determine who's rich and who's poor. We might consider someone who has maybe about 10 grand rich, but the might consider someone who has 1mil rich. We might consider someone who has nothing to be poor, or someone who doesn't have a very big house, or an apartment, and they might consider someone with $100 rich. It's all perspective. Raising taxes is not what we need. We need to lower them, so people who CAN'T afford a decent home, can, or so someone who can't supply a regular amount of food for his children, can.

Ah ha! Well despite Mccain constantly saying that Obama will rise taxes it just is not true for most people. In fact most people will save more money than under Mccain. Wealthier individuals will have to pay more taxes sure, but they can afford it, unlike Mccain Obama actual gave a figure for who he considers wealthy and that was $250,000 a year and honestly if you think you need more when making that you are ridiculous and in my opinion greedy. Heck I want to be a video game programmer or designer or whatever and it doesn't look like I can make more than 200,000 on income alone even with 10 years of experience. Is that enough to live on? Most definately and I would gladly pay more taxes to help our countries debt if I was making that kind of money.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.html

yes, but Obama contradicted himself at the DNC. He said he would lower taxes, and give teachers higher pays. Who pays the PUBLIC school teachers? The government. Who pays the government? We do. It all cycles back in the end.

US->GOVERNMENT->TEACHERS->GOVERNMENT

How's he gonna backtrack that?

And also, I'd like to choose my own doctor instead of having the government choose him/her for me. And the same with schools.

 

[Jman]

I'm back for moar.

For the taxes issue-
Let more poor people buy these houses that they can't even pay off? Isn't that where we are now? (not exactly, but the same idea)

You do realize that we're there because of the higher taxes...

There's more than one view of it. These loans are ridiculous, no matter what direction you are coming from. Also- can anyone confirm this? I've been hearing that for every $1 the US has, we have $40 in debt. True or false? My guess was true, but I dunno.

 

[Sporge27]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

I can find youtube videos of Mccain contradicting himself, and just plain telling lies!

honestly you could probably look around youtube and find an equal number of embarrassing videos for both candidates taking things out of context, lying, and just plain making them look ridiculous. They have a video showing Mccain supposedly checkng out his vp.

and if the question you are referring to is about abortion, it isn't necessarily a yes or no answer. There are a ton of ethical questions about it, and I do not believe either side is completely correct. There are conditions where I feel abortions are appropriate and some that are not, it is an extremely touchy subject, and I still feel it is better to allow the mother to search herself for her own answer. Can you not trust other people to make the right decisions? I do think Great Britain got the law right, they have it legal for all the reasons that I think it would be right, but not on request. It cannot be completely banned though.

Okay, abortion is wrong no matter which way you toss it, whether it's noitroba or abortion, it's still wrong.

According to whom? You're going to get a different answer depending on who you ask. It's not a black and white issue... there's tons of grey in the middle. Hence why I don't think abortion should be completely banned and/or regulated by the government.

Yep like in rape cases, or health issues (mental and physical), or I even would go as far as saying if there is no means to support the child.

Put them up as adoptions. But abortion is just as bad as killing. You're destroying what could be a life.

If that is the case, every time a woman has a period, and chooses not to have a child she is destroying what could be life. It gets even worse for guys, do you know how many sperm die a day? A LOT. So I suppose the best thing to do is try to have babies continuously. Oh wait that would kill the entire planet in a matter of years due to overpopulation. Why are the lives of animals not equal to ours? If you eat meat you kill plenty of animals through supply and demand. Many of those animal have more thought in them than an embryo.

Am I saying killing is right, NO, but it is a delicate balance between life and death. Just because something could become a living human does not mean that it is best that it does. A baby should be a gift from thorough thought, consideration, and love. Not a punishment for allowing yourself to get raped by a guy just cause he can overpower you.

 

[Sporge27]

yes, but Obama contradicted himself at the DNC. He said he would lower taxes, and give teachers higher pays. Who pays the PUBLIC school teachers? The government. Who pays the government? We do. It all cycles back in the end.

US->GOVERNMENT->TEACHERS->GOVERNMENT

How's he gonna backtrack that?

And also, I'd like to choose my own doctor instead of having the government choose him/her for me. And the same with schools.

Hmmm may be he could cut back on military spending.... or prevent things like a $700,000,000,000 bailout.

This video put taxes into perspective pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNyNv_UfFUo&feature=related

 

[Bacon Boy]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deephttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

According to whom? You're going to get a different answer depending on who you ask. It's not a black and white issue... there's tons of grey in the middle. Hence why I don't think abortion should be completely banned and/or regulated by the government.

Yep like in rape cases, or health issues (mental and physical), or I even would go as far as saying if there is no means to support the child.

Put them up as adoptions. But abortion is just as bad as killing. You're destroying what could be a life.

If that is the case, every time a woman has a period, and chooses not to have a child she is destroying what could be life. It gets even worse for guys, do you know how many sperm die a day? A LOT. So I suppose the best thing to do is try to have babies continuously. Oh wait that would kill the entire planet in a matter of years due to overpopulation. Why are the lives of animals not equal to ours? If you eat meat you kill plenty of animals through supply and demand. Many of those animal have more thought in them than an embryo.

Am I saying killing is right, NO, but it is a delicate balance between life and death. Just because something could become a living human does not mean that it is best that it does. A baby should be a gift from thorough thought, consideration, and love. Not a punishment for allowing yourself to get raped by a guy just cause he can overpower you.

I admit you have a poitn, but there a certain times when it is not write. Like in the case of premature sex. It will happen unless you are responsible and a) either take birth control or b) Be smart and don't have it! But in other cases, there are times when it is okay, like yea, rape cases, but mainly, when married couples don't want to have children, uh, you know...

 

[Sporge27]

I admit you have a poitn, but there a certain times when it is not write. Like in the case of premature sex. It will happen unless you are responsible and a) either take birth control or b) Be smart and don't have it! But in other cases, there are times when it is okay, like yea, rape cases, but mainly, when married couples don't want to have children, uh, you know...

I do agree that when someone gets an abortion just cause they don't feel like having a kid I think it is wrong and selfish to get an abortion, why I said I liked Great Britain, where you need a reason to get an abortion, not just cause.

 

[JJH]

Time for some JJ opinion.

Abortion-

Heh, last year in English our class did a debate on this. My side (Pro-life) won. Now, I am mostly pro-life, but I agree there are some cases. Namely, if it puts the mother's health in jeopardy. Not that the baby isn't important, but if giving birth puts the mother's life/health at risk, it should be allowed. As for rape, the mother can easily put the baby up for adoption, so I don't think thats an excuse.

Taxes-

I agree with Sporge. The wealthy should be paying, even if just slightly, higher taxes, and Obama seems to have a good idea of that where the line that divides "wealthy" and "normal" is.

 

[Bacon Boy]

Time for some JJ opinion.

Abortion-

Heh, last year in English our class did a debate on this. My side (Pro-life) won. Now, I am mostly pro-life, but I agree there are some cases. Namely, if it puts the mother's health in jeopardy. Not that the baby isn't important, but if giving birth puts the mother's life/health at risk, it should be allowed. As for rape, the mother can easily put the baby up for adoption, so I don't think thats an excuse.

Taxes-

I agree with Sporge. The wealthy should be paying, even if just slightly, higher taxes, and Obama seems to have a good idea of that where the line that divides "wealthy" and "normal" is.

you mean a somewhat good idea. What if he charges you because you get in a high rate check, for a couple months, then it drops again. But he decides to go tax happy on "rich people", you're in trouble...

 

[JJH]

Time for some JJ opinion.

Abortion-

Heh, last year in English our class did a debate on this. My side (Pro-life) won. Now, I am mostly pro-life, but I agree there are some cases. Namely, if it puts the mother's health in jeopardy. Not that the baby isn't important, but if giving birth puts the mother's life/health at risk, it should be allowed. As for rape, the mother can easily put the baby up for adoption, so I don't think thats an excuse.

Taxes-

I agree with Sporge. The wealthy should be paying, even if just slightly, higher taxes, and Obama seems to have a good idea of that where the line that divides "wealthy" and "normal" is.

you mean a somewhat good idea. What if he charges you because you get in a high rate check, for a couple months, then it drops again. But he decides to go tax happy on "rich people", you're in trouble...

Exactly. No matter what happens, it will always be a very delicate situation, and at least a few people can, and most likely will, get screwed over. I don't think there is a "perfect", or even close to, way to do taxes, but with this way, those who need help can get it, and those who have a lot to give, will give a little.

 

[Bacon Boy]

Time for some JJ opinion.

Abortion-

Heh, last year in English our class did a debate on this. My side (Pro-life) won. Now, I am mostly pro-life, but I agree there are some cases. Namely, if it puts the mother's health in jeopardy. Not that the baby isn't important, but if giving birth puts the mother's life/health at risk, it should be allowed. As for rape, the mother can easily put the baby up for adoption, so I don't think thats an excuse.

Taxes-

I agree with Sporge. The wealthy should be paying, even if just slightly, higher taxes, and Obama seems to have a good idea of that where the line that divides "wealthy" and "normal" is.

you mean a somewhat good idea. What if he charges you because you get in a high rate check, for a couple months, then it drops again. But he decides to go tax happy on "rich people", you're in trouble...

Exactly. No matter what happens, it will always be a very delicate situation, and at least a few people can, and most likely will, get screwed over. I don't think there is a "perfect", or even close to, way to do taxes, but with this way, those who need help can get it, and those who have a lot to give, will give a little.

they should be giving some to the poor anyways... They shouldn't have to be forced.

 

[Melee201]

Time for some JJ opinion.

Abortion-

Heh, last year in English our class did a debate on this. My side (Pro-life) won. Now, I am mostly pro-life, but I agree there are some cases. Namely, if it puts the mother's health in jeopardy. Not that the baby isn't important, but if giving birth puts the mother's life/health at risk, it should be allowed. As for rape, the mother can easily put the baby up for adoption, so I don't think thats an excuse.

I agree with everything you said except for the mother commiting abortion when her health is at risk. That's wrong. Saving the baby's life should be the priority. Under no circumstances can abortion be justified.

 

[Bacon Boy]

Time for some JJ opinion.

Abortion-

Heh, last year in English our class did a debate on this. My side (Pro-life) won. Now, I am mostly pro-life, but I agree there are some cases. Namely, if it puts the mother's health in jeopardy. Not that the baby isn't important, but if giving birth puts the mother's life/health at risk, it should be allowed. As for rape, the mother can easily put the baby up for adoption, so I don't think thats an excuse.

I agree with everything you said except for the mother commiting abortion when her health is at risk. That's wrong. Saving the baby's life should be the priority. Under no circumstances can abortion be justified.

that's somewhat true, and somewhat not true. In EXTREME cases, it MAY be acceptable. Again, in rape cases, it would be just as easy to put up for adoption.

 

[JJH]

Time for some JJ opinion.

Abortion-

Heh, last year in English our class did a debate on this. My side (Pro-life) won. Now, I am mostly pro-life, but I agree there are some cases. Namely, if it puts the mother's health in jeopardy. Not that the baby isn't important, but if giving birth puts the mother's life/health at risk, it should be allowed. As for rape, the mother can easily put the baby up for adoption, so I don't think thats an excuse.

I agree with everything you said except for the mother commiting abortion when her health is at risk. That's wrong. Saving the baby's life should be the priority. Under no circumstances can abortion be justified.

Er... As pro-life as I am, I'd have to disagree here.

Think. Not that the baby isn't important, but, consider this; the baby has no memories, know knowledge, in some cases no feelings or thoughts at all. Not that saving it's life isn't important but...

This is the mother's third child. She has two young children at home, and her husband is working his rear off to support the family. They know there's no way they can support another family member; they decide to go with adoption. But then the mother learns that, should she give birth to this baby, due a problem with her immune system, both her and the baby could die when she goes into labor. If she goes with abortion, however, there's a 95% chance she'll come out of it just fine. But if she risks giving birth she has about a 50/50 chance of dying, and the baby with her. If she dies, her children will be alone while their father's at work, barely able to care for them and earn enough to support the three of them.

Now, is the baby, which essentially, is still mostly an idea, a plan, really worth that? Of course, the baby is extremely important, even if it's going straight to adoption, but, maybe the mother may be more important.

 

[Sporge27]

I would like to say that even if someone isn't prolife, it doesn't mean they don't have a heart. Just because an embryo is aborted doesn't mean its soul is, no something like a soul cannot be killed, I have thought about it and really believe that a soul isn't present at conception though. Even if it was assuming there is a benevolent being watching over us leads me to firm belief that the soul will still get a chance to live somewhere.

The fact that the brain doesn't start acting like a human brain for so long is my scientific thought behind it. Yes neurons start forming early on and there is a distinguishable brain too, but it functions like a primitive creatures only upholding basic functions like heart beat for a long time.

This is why I think it is fine in some cases so the child isn't orphaned at birth, or raised by parents not yet ready, or just thrown into a horrible life in general. This is not to say you shouldn't be prolife, but if you are you should be ready to help the children you save. I know there are groups who try to help with child care. Heck I volunteered at a crisis nursery my freshmen year, those kids can be a handful.

But if you are going to act all high and mighty and say things like "they should have known better" and not do anything but preach without helping the children and mothers then you are not helping the problem at all. I am not saying this is any of you guys but f it is please think of helping those worse off. If there were more groups and people volunteering to help with unplanned and unwanted children, that is what will bring the number of abortions down. Not a law, a law will simply create a black market situation for the desperate. In that situation everyone loses because abortions still happen and they will often be unsafe, you can see it in countries where it is illegal.

 

[JJH]

After thinking it over, I'm kind of stuck in the middle here. I think that, until a certain point, abortion is acceptable, but after the first few stages of development, the only reason is if it put the mother's health at risk.

For example, say a mother finds out she's one month pregnant. Her husband and her just got married and are living in a small apartment, happy with their lives, but not ready for a child. At such an early stage, I think it could be acceptable.

But, say she's due in about a month and a half; she's already felt the baby kicking, all that fun stuff, and decides she just doesn't want it, and doesn't want to put it up for adoption. To bad. Unless her health is in jeopardy, she should definetly have to go through with it.

So, for the first few stages, I'm kind of for abortion, but after the brain has begun to develop as an actual human brain, I'm definetly pro-life.

 

[Melee201]

"Think. Not that the baby isn't important, but, consider this; the baby has no memories, know knowledge, in some cases no feelings or thoughts at all. Not that saving it's life isn't important but..."

The baby may not have memories, thoughts, or knowledge. However, the baby does have a soul. That's what makes abortion murder. Life starts at conception.

"This is the mother's third child. She has two young children at home, and her husband is working his rear off to support the family. They know there's no way they can support another family member; they decide to go with adoption. But then the mother learns that, should she give birth to this baby, due a problem with her immune system, both her and the baby could die when she goes into labor. If she goes with abortion, however, there's a 95% chance she'll come out of it just fine. But if she risks giving birth she has about a 50/50 chance of dying, and the baby with her. If she dies, her children will be alone while their father's at work, barely able to care for them and earn enough to support the three of them."

Despite this, abortion is still not the answer. If the mother chose abortion, it's the same thing as saying, "I give up". No matter how bad her chances of living are, she should never go through with it. Besides, in the situation you posted, if the mother murders her child, she also murders the 50% chance that her child has to survive the birth. The thing is, it's better to suffer to try to keep the child alive than kill the child for peoples' own various purposes.


"Now, is the baby, which essentially, is still mostly an idea, a plan, really worth that? Of course, the baby is extremely important, even if it's going straight to adoption, but, maybe the mother may be more important."

At the moment of conception, the baby is no longer an "idea". The baby is a human life, and has a God given right to live until natural death. We have no right to take that away.

 

[SL92]

In modern times, abortion is a sensitive topic. It remains a moral, social, and political issue. Everyone can relate to, and has an opinion on, abortion. Since the concept was created, hundreds of points for, points against, arguments for, arguments against, pros, coons, and Powerpoint presentations have been tossed at others to illustrate individual's opinions.

Abortion is largely regarded as destroying human life. What if the child is born into an uncaring family? What if it is abandoned in the street? What if it is left to grow up without parents? That would be destroying human life.

The point is, it's been established that there's a gray area surrounding the issue. And I'll get back to you when I finish this essay for English.

 

[Melee201]

"I would like to say that even if someone isn't prolife, it doesn't mean they don't have a heart. Just because an embryo is aborted doesn't mean its soul is, no something like a soul cannot be killed, I have thought about it and really believe that a soul isn't present at conception though. Even if it was assuming there is a benevolent being watching over us leads me to firm belief that the soul will still get a chance to live somewhere."

If the embryo is aborted, then a human life is murdered. Souls cannot die, but humans have a right to live outside of their mother's wombs. I don't know if you believe in God, but God is the only One who has the right to take away anyone's life. Humans have no right to decide in that manner. Also, conception is when a life starts. At conception, a soul is created. The child may be just a small speck, but the child is still a human being with a soul.



"he fact that the brain doesn't start acting like a human brain for so long is my scientific thought behind it. Yes neurons start forming early on and there is a distinguishable brain too, but it functions like a primitive creatures only upholding basic functions like heart beat for a long time. "

But still, we're talking about a living being with a soul. It doesn't matter how "primitive" the baby may be. Life begins at conception.


This is why I think it is fine in some cases so the child isn't orphaned at birth, or raised by parents not yet ready, or just thrown into a horrible life in general. This is not to say you shouldn't be prolife, but if you are you should be ready to help the children you save. I know there are groups who try to help with child care. Heck I volunteered at a crisis nursery my freshmen year, those kids can be a handful."

In no case can abortion be morally acceptable.
Being murdered is worse than being an orphan. People may be born into difficult situations, but if they never get a chance to live outside their mother's wombs, then they will never get a chance to make the best of their lives. Even in the hardest scenarios in life, there is always hope.


But if you are going to act all high and mighty and say things like "they should have known better" and not do anything but preach without helping the children and mothers then you are not helping the problem at all. I am not saying this is any of you guys but f it is please think of helping those worse off. If there were more groups and people volunteering to help with unplanned and unwanted children, that is what will bring the number of abortions down. Not a law, a law will simply create a black market situation for the desperate. In that situation everyone loses because abortions still happen and they will often be unsafe, you can see it in countries where it is illegal."



The reason why I'm aginst abortion is because God is. "Thou shalt not kill" is God's fifth commandment to us. And abortion is murder, so go figure. And I'm not arguing with you or anyone to cause a huge flame war, but I have to be firm on what's right and wrong. And I feel that if I didn't post here, I would just be condoning abortion. Now, as for helping unwanted children, I agree that people who are Pro-Life should help the orphaned children. They may be unwanted at first, but generous people can help their lives be better. Life is worth living at every stage.

 

[Sporge27]

Well can't win them all.

I would like to say that this debate always goes right back to religion. When a controversial issue has to start getting the backing of religion I think shows exactly why it shouldn't be a law. It becomes a belief, not fact, and religion is not supposed to be in our government. You can choose not to have an abortion yourself, you can try to convince people not to get one, but you can't force beliefs on people.

 

[Melee201]

Well can't win them all.

I would like to say that this debate always goes right back to religion. When a controversial issue has to start getting the backing of religion I think shows exactly why it shouldn't be a law. It becomes a belief, not fact, and religion is not supposed to be in our government. You can choose not to have an abortion yourself, you can try to convince people not to get one, but you can't force beliefs on people.

It's almost impossible for me not to use religion in my argument against abortion. If it wasn't for God's law, then I probably wouldn't be posting here. The reason I use religion is because it is a valid argument against abortion, and my religion is fact. I am a Roman Catholic, and saying that my religion is fact probably won't go well with you and others. And like you said, I can't force people to stop believing that abortion can be justified, nor can I make them believe in my faith. However, I can try to convince them to believe in my faith and that abortion is wrong.