What Are Your Political Views?

[KarlaKGB]

ah another example of a classic oath political debate post - a snappy one-liner that has no content.

 

[Alienfish]

(what about the rights of the father?), but I can definetly understand why in pro-choice nations it is arranged like that.


Lastly, all I desire in this subject is that every doctor has a right to decline doing the procedure.

Personally (as a man I must add), I wouldn`t opt for abortion unless maybe a situation of rape or severe healthissues for the baby and mother were at play. Obviously I would in the end respect the wishes of the mother regardless, because in the end, she has the biggest claim to the decision.

- First in most cases the man probably doesn't want to keep it unless it's mutual and even if he did it's probably selfish reasons because he wants to have sex and whoop a baby let's keep it!!! I mean your sperm makes it happen...

- Those doctors are just so wrong. Abortions and such are part of the education and if you want to decline that you work in wrong professions.

- Well considering you are a man you don't need to carry it for 9 months regardless of your health so it's a bit vague to come with that.

 

[oath2order]

ah another example of a classic oath political debate post - a snappy one-liner that has no content.

Watch the video, it's all I need to know about Mitch, specifically his statement about him refusing to work with Obama.

 

[EpicGamer12]

This thread basically went from being all about healthcare to being all about abortion in like... a page.

I'm curious, Gideon (I hope you don't mind me asking this - if so I don't mind if you don't want to answer), what about forseen problems with the baby? If you are told your child may not survive the birth, or will only live for a few years afterwards, time which will probably be spent undergoing many painful surgeries? Or even more controversial, severe mental impairment due to chromosomal or genetic problems?

Is it wrong to want an abortion to save the child from what will be a painful/difficult/probably short life?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what you've said or trying to attack you, I'm just genuinely curious. I just feel that this is another hard decision parents have to make. Especially since in most cases now we are talking later term. And since we have the technology now to determine certain things about a fetus beforehand, do we use this technology to determine whether to terminate a pregnancy or not, or do you see it more as just for preparation (if you do believe the baby should be kept)?

~

As for debating, I find it interesting to hear from both sides of an argument. I feel it only makes me learn more about the issue as a whole. But I'm usually not much of a debater myself because I think it's hard for people to stay civil and I'd rather stay out of it because I tend to avoid conflict.

You're saying a short life is a wasted one? If I were to die today my life wouldn't have been any more worth aborting at birth than someone who we know is going to die young.

 

[ThomasNLD]

- First in most cases the man probably doesn't want to keep it unless it's mutual and even if he did it's probably selfish reasons because he wants to have sex and whoop a baby let's keep it!!! I mean your sperm makes it happen...

"In most cases" doesn`t really cover the fathers-to-be who think differently on the matter. You read my post so obviously in many cases I would be one of them. I don`t understand how it would be selfish?

- Those doctors are just so wrong. Abortions and such are part of the education and if you want to decline that you work in wrong professions.

It can be a very traumatising experience for a doctor. Its always possible that in a certain profession you morally detest certain aspects of the job, even though you thrive at the most part. Like a security agent refusing to torture suspects for example. Not to mention its also in the family having the abortion best interest to have the abortion performed by a doctor who is also mentally able to do just that.

- Well considering you are a man you don't need to carry it for 9 months regardless of your health so it's a bit vague to come with that.

Do you mean that my partner possibly dying while giving birth is of no concern to me as a father? Like I said, I would follow her choice, but ofcourse I would have an opinion on it. What if it posed both risks for mother and child? (I did say mother or/and child) I understand I have no say in it that would hold up in court, but hell, I still would be part of the family. Men are more then spermdonors....

 

[SolarInferno]

I guess this poll is more aimed at the US audience looking at what's being discussed here. British politics is a lot less focused on issues like abortion, and is more often motivated by the class of person that the party focuses on, so it seems to cause a lot less arguments and debates than American politics (unless you happen to openly support BNP). Personally though I'm in favour of Labour since they generally support the working class rather than the rich.

 

[Jarrad]

I really didn't want to get involved in debating, but after reading some of these comments I'm going to toss my hat into this thread again.

I am absolutely against abortion in cases that are not of necessity. There is a thing called responsibility (this word carries over into a lot of different things.) It is one thing to seek an abortion in the case of a threat to the mother's life, or in cases of rape, and related issues. With the improvements to healthcare, the risk to mother's life is very rare, and the amount of abortions performed for women with these special cases, rather than out of convenience is very large (if you do not believe me you can search it yourself, but I assure you this is an honest fact). Abortion IS murder, one may claim "it's just a bundle of cells" if they wish, but it's still what is to become a human being. As such, if one kills the "bundle of cells," then the abortionist as destroyed the life of a human being. Abortion is NOT the right a woman, if you are convinced this is true, then you are sorely mistaken. Just because a yet to be born child is inside the woman's body, does not make the child her own body, an unborn child relies on the mother to survive, yes; however, they are genetically different beings in a basic explanation. It amazes me how people are so willing to state that it cannot be helped if someone is homosexual, nor can they help their skin color, appearance, etc. but willingly ignore that an unborn human being cannot help that they must develop inside their mother before being born (and to a mother willing to kill her own offspring to boot). Part of this is responsibility, as I said before. Unfortunately things just don't work out as ideally as people seem to try and theorize. This responsibility lies on both the man and the woman, if you don't want to get pregnant, use preventative measures. Some men are guilty of causing greater hardships on women because they leave them to be single mothers, and to deal with the problems. Should a woman feel unable to carry out the responsibilities of motherhood, then they should seek assistance (and it's out there, plenty of it), or in other cases put the child up for adoption (which is far more humane than killing a child just because the mother doesn't desire responsibility, at the very least this gives the child a fairer chance at life.) This leads to the massive issue that people don't like to face, like it or not, everyone has responsibility. For actions, there are consequences, everyone wants to do whatever they want, but nobody wants to face the problems that arise from their activities (even if it affects other people). These are very selfish times we life in, which is my opinion, but whatever.

There are plenty of forms of welfare/aid for those who are in need in the United States, the problem is those who chose to abuse it. The very problem with social welfare systems is that there are a noticeable amount of people out there who do harm to it. This puts a strain on the government, and on the people who actually need the welfare. There are people who are able, but do not work, and rely on welfare money to support living expenses. The people who actually need the welfare money, and the taxpayers who fund it suffer from this. Efforts need to be made to close these loopholes, successfully preventing sheer laziness from harming others. I am all for aiding those who need it, I am not for just tossing away money that could go to greater use, simply because someone wants to manipulate the system to do what they want, and have no responsibility.

As far as minimum wage goes, that is exactly what it is, MINIMUM wage. Minimum wage is that for a reason, it is the minimum one can receive for working. If you do not want to be paid that low, then search for jobs that pay better (or create your own job i.e. self-employment). And before anyone tries to jump on me about that, yes I realize some people cannot simply find a better job with ease. Minimum wage jobs are jobs, not careers, they are not meant to be a lifetime way of earning money. They are short term ways to make money, careers are what we need to have people striving for. The people who succeed are the people willing to put forth the effort and time to do so. As mentioned before, there is help out there to those who seek it, just because you do not come from wealth does not mean you cannot find your own (in fact many, many success stories are by those who are poor and become wealthy through their efforts). Let's take an example, say that there are three people of 18 years of age who are setting out on the world. One decides he doesn't like school, so he "doesn't wanna go to college," and finds employment at a retail store for minimum wage. The second does not seek to attend school for long, but seeks to follow his interests, and heads to vocational school to become a welder after a couple years of training, he does and finds himself in a stable career with pay that can support himself and his family. The final seeks to become a fully educated person, and eventually receives a doctoral/professional degree after years of dedicated hard work educating himself, he has solid career that supports himself and his family, and then some. For this, we will assume all of these people were from working class families, with equal availability to all benefits. We live in a land of opportunity, some people have it easier than others, but there are still ways that society has essentially balanced the weights. There are all sorts of ways that people can achieve greater things for themselves, but they have to actually put forth the hardships to achieve it. We are very fortunate to have the opportunities that we do (at least in the U.S.), that other people do not have access to, even on a minimal level. If you do not want to receive the minimum, then you shouldn't put forth the minimum in the first place. In addition, in order to balance the cost of raising minimum wage to much higher amounts, businesses will be required to either raise prices, reduce employees, or both. I don't think some people realize that the technology to replace employees is here already, self-checkout machines exist already, but they are not completely replacing as many employees as they could. If push comes to shove, larger companies are going to simply cut costs by eliminating jobs such as cashier that could be handled by a machine, replacing them with a more cost-effective solution. At the present these companies do not see a need to do so, and likely don't intend to outright toss employees out the door, unless they become economically problematic. Small businesses will not be so fortunate, as the cost to pay employees more affects them in a much greater way than it would a huge corporation. Profit margins would go downward assuredly, which may lead to further unemployment increase, and the elimination of smaller businesses (which are also a sort of competition, less businesses competition is a problem).

In the long run, things can better be handled to suit the needs of people at the state level, rather than the local level. Nationalized programs and such are much more difficult to manage, many time more expensive, flawed, and they assume that the needs of certain states are the same as others. What Alaska may deem necessary may not match Florida's needs. I could go on and on, there's simply too much to discuss.

how do you have the energy to do this

- - - Post Merge - - -

You're saying a short life is a wasted one? If I were to die today my life wouldn't have been any more worth aborting at birth than someone who we know is going to die young.

Yes. A huge waste.
The world is crumbling, can't you see? There are too many humans on this planet, our resources are under immense pressure and it's only going to get worse. I'm against wasting precious resources to bring a being into this world whose life will not span for very long. Those resources wasted could have been used for the greater good of the future.

Not to mention the emotional pressure that this being's loved ones will feel once he/she departs from this world.

*I'm sure I come across as very mean and inhumane for saying this, but I don't care what anybody has to think. When it comes to making decisions, I always look at what will benefit us, not burden us.*

 

[Brackets]

You're saying a short life is a wasted one? If I were to die today my life wouldn't have been any more worth aborting at birth than someone who we know is going to die young.

but a short life of suffering? what about babies that are born just to be on ventilators and can't see, feel, hear anything, and only live a few weeks

 

[Jarrad]

but a short life of suffering? what about babies that are born just to be on ventilators and can't see, feel, hear anything, and only live a few weeks

this

people that cling onto their damaged young with hopes that they'll live, when the reality is that they're beyond terminal is incredibly selfish.

pain is a feeling that conquers love

 

[Eldin]

You're saying a short life is a wasted one? If I were to die today my life wouldn't have been any more worth aborting at birth than someone who we know is going to die young.

No, I'm saying a short and painful life is a wasted one. It's cruel. Everybody talks about choice. The child has no choice in that situation.

 

[Yuki Nagato]

UKIP definitely, so conservative/independent.

 

[EpicGamer12]

how do you have the energy to do this

- - - Post Merge - - -



Yes. A huge waste.
The world is crumbling, can't you see? There are too many humans on this planet, our resources are under immense pressure and it's only going to get worse. I'm against wasting precious resources to bring a being into this world whose life will not span for very long. Those resources wasted could have been used for the greater good of the future.

Not to mention the emotional pressure that this being's loved ones will feel once he/she departs from this world.

*I'm sure I come across as very mean and inhumane for saying this, but I don't care what anybody has to think. When it comes to making decisions, I always look at what will benefit us, not burden us.*

Hello, I'd like a source for the world crumbling any more than it already has been. Not to mention the world's population is going to continue going up anyway. If we're running out of resources then why does it matter who gets to use them? You're looking at the world as if you're some magical demigod trying to control the outflow of resources. From your attitude towards this I'm assuming you're the average American. I thought you left the forum anyway. Why are you here?

 

[MisterEnigma]

All of these "what if's" scenarios are absurd points of discussion, you could literally supply any reason to do or not to do something, and sadly, that does not for a political discussion make. WHAT IF THIS, WHAT IF THAT. Yeah, what if the sun explodes? Then none of these debates will have actually mattered in the long-run.

 

[Brackets]

All of these "what if's" scenarios are absurd points of discussion, you could literally supply any reason to do or not to do something, and sadly, that does not for a political discussion make. WHAT IF THIS, WHAT IF THAT. Yeah, what if the sun explodes? Then none of these debates will have actually mattered in the long-run.

exploring 'what ifs' in politics is perfectly reasonable as long as they are vaguely likely situations. You HAVE to think about what would happen in different scenarios, and plan ahead

 

[MisterEnigma]

exploring 'what ifs' in politics is perfectly reasonable as long as they are vaguely likely situations. You HAVE to think about what would happen in different scenarios, and plan ahead

They're pointless to discuss, there will never be an end to any discussion this way, it's a constant battle of scenarios, which is a waste of time, effort, and conversation. It's the same thing for every abortion issue I've seen- A states a stance, B states their stance, A comes back with different scenarios, B comes back with different reasons for each scenario. Neither of them see eye to eye or educate each other in any way, it's all based on situation and opinion. Who cares? Does it change anyone's life? No. It's the same recycled garbage in every debate, arguing about what other people should do with their lives and choices.

 

[ThomasNLD]

Thanks to what if`s, we probably learned that the sun could explode.
Questions give answers and answers give more questions. Hello progress anyone?

 

[MisterEnigma]

Thanks to what if`s, we probably learned that the sun could explode.
Questions give answers and answers give more questions. Hello progress anyone?

Hello endless loops of pointless pandering in an Animal Crossing forum. We have risen to pinnacles no other forum could ever hope to copy or achieve with such progressive debate that I've never before seen.

 

[Jarrad]

Hello, I'd like a source for the world crumbling any more than it already has been. Not to mention the world's population is going to continue going up anyway. If we're running out of resources then why does it matter who gets to use them? You're looking at the world as if you're some magical demigod trying to control the outflow of resources. From your attitude towards this I'm assuming you're the average American. I thought you left the forum anyway. Why are you here?

Did my comment touch a nerve? What you've said in your comment is enough to prove my point. The world's population is going up, regardless of what will happen. That's why there needs to be something in place that will monitor it, which may be in the form of not providing treatment for these beings that are going to have short painful lives. I am a demigod, didn't you know? In all seriousness, I'm just giving you my personal opinion. I strongly believe that we're a generation of beings that are incredibly greedy and relentless when it comes to the preservation of the human race. We take, we do not give.

Your assumption is hideously incorrect. I'm British, as previously stated. You know of me? I'm flattered. Why are you here, Trundle?

 

[Shirohibiki]

is this really still going

 

[EpicGamer12]

Did my comment touch a nerve? What you've said in your comment is enough to prove my point. The world's population is going up, regardless of what will happen. That's why there needs to be something in place that will monitor it, which may be in the form of not providing treatment for these beings that are going to have short painful lives. I am a demigod, didn't you know? In all seriousness, I'm just giving you my personal opinion. I strongly believe that we're a generation of beings that are incredibly greedy and relentless when it comes to the preservation of the human race. We take, we do not give.

Your assumption is hideously incorrect. I'm British, as previously stated. You know of me? I'm flattered. Why are you here, Trundle?

So getting rid of the small percentage of short lives that will waste resources is going to solve all our resource problems? "Monitoring" it isn't going to prevent us from running out.