Am I an evil conservative hate-monger? ::The other side to Phylbean's post:: :)

Or just a good conservative?

This thread is explores the “other side” of the Phylbean post titled “Am I unpatriotic”.  P.S. Phylbean, the answer is no.

1)      I do support the war in Iraq, the surge, AND the troops.  I wasn’t a fan of the war at the beginning, but we are there now and we are winning.  The number of U.S. combat deaths in September dropped 86 percent from where they were a year ago for September, making it one of the least deadly months since the war began. Violence against Iraqi civilians is also down about 70%. We've turned over more and more provinces to Iraqi control...their infrastructure is being rebuilt and their economy is on the rise. Iraq's oil production is up to around 2.5 million barrels per day and they just posted a budget SURPLUS of $70 billion. In fact, the Surge has worked so well, it now seems that we will start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.  WOOT! 

2)      Flag-burning is our right as Americans, but if I see someone burning a flag, I will send glares your way.  Why?  For me, our flag symbolizes my hopes for our country, our troops, our way of life, and all of those who have fought for it.  If you want to make a statement, fantastic.  Make a sign, organize a march, get involved!!  You can make much more of a difference doing the above then burning a flag. 

3)      I believe taxes are need to a certain extent, but personal responsibility should remain on the forefront of our minds!  I don’t want my money going to some research study concerning cross breeding two types of fish.  I don’t want my money going to someone else’s heath care unless they have a serious life-threatening problem.  I do NOT want it going to someone who by choice dropped out of high school, and surprisingly can’t find a job.  I want to save my money for my retirement and my children’s future. 

4)      I believe that the life begins at conception.  I believe that all abortion should be illegal, except in cases that risk the mother’s health.  People can do whatever they want, have sex with whoever they want, with as many people as they want.  That is their choice.  Once a woman becomes pregnant though, all of that goes out the window.  I think adoption should be focused on more. 

5)       I am not the hugest fan of W., but I don’t think he is evil or stupid, and I certainly don’t hate him. 

6)      I also believe that everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they want to.  I believe in the separation of church and State.  However, I am annoyed when I see the full fledged attack on Christians in our media, schools, and general society.  If half of the things I hear demeaning Christianity were said about the Jewish faith or the Islamic religion, there would be a revolt.  Just saying. 

7)      I like guns.  I go to the fire range every other week to shoot guns.   I don’t mind backround checks, or mental heath checks, but don’t even try to take away my guns!  I’m sorry, but if someone enters my home in the middle of the night and starts up the stairs where my baby girl sleeps, I am using my gun and I aim well.

Cheers. 

Original Post by ignayshus:

Original Post by coffincritter:

Except "choice" means just that -- CHOICE. We'd also respect the choice of someone who wanted to keep their child. We just want it to be a decision they make freely and for themselves, not something that's mandated by the government. We're not trying to force your people to get abortions if you don't want them, but your side is trying to force us to keep fetuses that we don't want.

Or they're trying to protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.

That's the point I've been trying to get across.

If you're pro-choice, you're not pro-abortion, you favor the right to choose.

If you're pro-life, you're not anti-choice, you favor everyone's right to live.

The gray area becomes determining when you are human with inalienable rights.

Iggy, even if all fetuses were humans with all the inalienable rights we grant to everyone else, there is no such right that states that a person can use another person's body against their will, even to survive. This is why we have the right to keep both our kidneys, despite our needing only one of them and that "extra" kidney being almost certain to save the life of someone who will die without it. Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an interesting essay about this.

I do find the forced-pregnancy lobby's use of women indoctrinated into the patriarchal value structures of an archaic repressive fear-based social order to disseminate cheap retorical tricks about 'trowaway babies' particularily disingenious when they know very well that the 10 to 60%  of human pregnancies end in a natural spontaneous abortion. 

 If your all-powerful god was so against abortions, he wouldn't be performing so many of them himself, now would he?

 The forced-pregnancy group is rather disingeious in another way. For the leadership of the movement, predominantly white, male, and rich it's always been a smokescreen for the real issue which is returning control of female sexuality to where they think it belongs, to them. You can see what their real motive is when you tell them that the best way to stop those teen abortions and teen pregnancies they're always on about, end generational poverty and give people a real hand up instead of a handout is to provide both free access to contraception, thorough sex ed not based on the abstinence-only folly, and free higher education to end generational poverty.

 Then it's always impossible. They don't actually care about abortions or the children or any of it, they care about making female sexuality risky and socially unacceptable except in forms controllable by them, and thus give them control over reproduction.

 The greatest leap in wealth in the history of your nation came with the generation that went to college and university on the GI bill, bringing education and knowledge to the masses instead of reserving it for the elite few who could afford it.

 If you wanted to really make a difference in the world and end generational poverty, you would make higher education free for the applicants; the system is eminently workable and functioning in several nations already, including all the Scandinavian countries.

 That would be contrary to the interests of the generation that got their education for free, but thereafter decided that education should be a for-profit enterprise and set about making sure that no-one else would be given what they'd taken advantage of.

 Ah, well - the neocons and rethuglicans we have today aren't real conservatives or Republicans anyway.

 And you know what, I miss Republicans.

I <3 Melkor.

I think I have a crush on Melkor

Melkor,  wthin your link of I Miss Republicans is a blogspot from someone else. I loved it too.

 The forced-pregnancy group...predominantly white, male, and rich...

I don't believe this to be true at all.  I am a white female who believes very strongly against abortion unless the mother's life is at risk, rape or incest. Yes, it is a moral stance.  

melkor comes out of the gym to kick some pro-life ass!  i am impressed ;)

I always wonder what the true agenda of the power-brokers behind the antichoice movement is...Melkor, you may have nailed it.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: You earn the title of Pro-Life when you are also a Pacifist, anti-death penalty, and possibly a vegan.  Then I'll call you prolife until I'm blue in the face, but not a single moment sooner. So there.

Regarding the drug use thing: I also think it's a health issue. I would no more make drug treatment (which HELLO doesn't work anyway) a condition of state assistance than I would make maintenance of normal blood sugar a condition of maintenance of medicare for a diabetic.  People aren't perfect, we sort of need to get over that and do the best we can. Are some losers going to mooch the system? Yes. Are some people going to lay around doing drugs all day because they're too lazy and stupid to do anything else? Yes. Are the vast majority of people in reciept of state benefits going to have better lives because of it? I like to think so, and that's why I support public assistance.

Going to your friends and family is great when society hasn't completely fractured, but we don't live in little villages anymore, folks. We can't get our neighbors to help us raise that barn. It's just not that world anymore. My mom lost her job and I'm paying what is supposed to be my retirement savings to pay her stupid health insurance and keep her afloat. Yeah, I'm doing my duty, but how the heck is that good for the nation? FSM forbid I actually had kids, I'd have to decide on their future vs my mom's present, how does that stabilize society?

Upward social mobility is the cornerstone of a stable society. When people have no realistic options, they turn to crime (and in other nations, terror). When your public education sucks so bad you couldn't possibly get into college whether you could afford it or not, despair sets in. Despairing citizens benefit no one.

You personally are not. I have no doubt you're sincere in your beliefs.

 However, your belief formation was hijacked by certain special interests to further their own self-serving ends at your expense, and is causing you to espouse a value system that goes against your own best interest.

 ask yourself: who is the leader in your church? Who is the pastor? what is he? Where is his loyalty placed? By proxy then, where is yours?

 Take a step back and examine who formed your belief, where it comes from, and what basis they had for the premises of the arguments they used to convince you that it's in your best interest to let them control your womb, access to it, and to determine what is and isn't legitimate reproduction.

 Conservatives are primarily motivated by fear and dominance, and act within hierarchical, patriarchal power structures dominated by clearly defined rules. Conservatives fear ambiguity and act to extinguish it wherever they find it. 

Liberals are primarily motivated by hope and empathy and act within  internalised notions of fairness, justice and equality, are not motivated by hierarchy, and do not deal well with binary morality or rules without exceptions.

 Liberals are easily taken advantage of by people who do not subscribe to their notions of justice and fairness, conservatives are by and large likely to deal effectively with people who'd otherwise abuse the social contract - conservatives guarantee stability. 

 However, every single advance throughout the history of the world was made by a liberal with a new idea - if it was up to the conservatives we'd still be hanging by our tails from the trees and discussing this newfangled notion of "walking".

 The problem in this debate between the liberals and conservatives of good conscience - and a stable society has elements of both - is that the conservatives have been hijacked by darker elements who wield your own beliefs against you like a weapon.

 What is conservative about the military adventurism and fiscal irresponsibility of the neo-cons? Is this really who you are? Your government is committing torture in your name - is that a conservative value?

 Whose values are really being expressed in the way american power is being used now? Is this really something you condone? Is this what you mean by christian values?

 No?

Then why are you voting for someone who doesn't exemplify the values you say you have? "By their fruits ye shall know them" - who are you placing your trust in, when you look at the fruits of their labours?

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by ignayshus:

Original Post by coffincritter:

Except "choice" means just that -- CHOICE. We'd also respect the choice of someone who wanted to keep their child. We just want it to be a decision they make freely and for themselves, not something that's mandated by the government. We're not trying to force your people to get abortions if you don't want them, but your side is trying to force us to keep fetuses that we don't want.

Or they're trying to protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.

That's the point I've been trying to get across.

If you're pro-choice, you're not pro-abortion, you favor the right to choose.

If you're pro-life, you're not anti-choice, you favor everyone's right to live.

The gray area becomes determining when you are human with inalienable rights.

Iggy, even if all fetuses were humans with all the inalienable rights we grant to everyone else, there is no such right that states that a person can use another person's body against their will, even to survive. This is why we have the right to keep both our kidneys, despite our needing only one of them and that "extra" kidney being almost certain to save the life of someone who will die without it. Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an interesting essay about this.

You're just placing the rights of the mother above the life of the child, except that end result is fatal to the child which is not true of the mother.

I place the right of the mother over the fetus, until the point at which the fetus becomes human, then I place the right of the child over that of the mother considering the end result for one is death and the other an inconvenience.

Iggy, I must say I really like the way you've figured things out for yourself. It makes so much sense and it takes several competing views into consideration. It involves the science end of it too.

Iggy.  At what point do you believe the fetus becomes human?  Is it around 6-7 months when it has a chance to live outside of the mother?

even if all fetuses were humans with all the inalienable rights we grant to everyone else, there is no such right that states that a person can use another person's body against their will, even to survive. This is why we have the right to keep both our kidneys, despite our needing only one of them and that "extra" kidney being almost certain to save the life of someone who will die without it. Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an interesting essay about this.

Here's the difference.  getting pregnant is a direct result of the the person's actions.  Using the kidney example is like comparing apples to oranges, because the random person doesn't need a kidney because of anything the donor would have directly done.

Now.  If I got drunk and chose to drive my car and hit someone who needed a kidney transplant because of the accident I caused, then I could see your example being valid.

huh.  i think a fetus is "human" all along.  but it's a human fetus.  the word "human" is just an adjective.  should my human toenail clippings have rights?

Original Post by peaches0405:

even if all fetuses were humans with all the inalienable rights we grant to everyone else, there is no such right that states that a person can use another person's body against their will, even to survive. This is why we have the right to keep both our kidneys, despite our needing only one of them and that "extra" kidney being almost certain to save the life of someone who will die without it. Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an interesting essay about this.

Here's the difference.  getting pregnant is a direct result of the the person's actions.  Using the kidney example is like comparing apples to oranges, because the random person doesn't need a kidney because of anything the donor would have directly done.

 Unless, of course, the woman (or girl) was raped or sexually abused.  In which case, the kidney analogy is pretty darn perfect.

Original Post by peaches0405:

Iggy.  At what point do you believe the fetus becomes human?  Is it around 6-7 months when it has a chance to live outside of the mother?

 Iggy has previously said it is the time when brain waves can first be detected -around 6 months - which actually seems like the best test to me.

Melkor. Extraordinarily well said. It's always the quiet ones.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: You earn the title of Pro-Life when you are also a Pacifist, anti-death penalty, and possibly a vegan.  Then I'll call you prolife until I'm blue in the face, but not a single moment sooner. So there.

As far as being a pacifist, I am not.  I believe war is a last resort to protect our rights against those trying to destroy our freedoms, life etc.  it does not, in any way, mean that I am not pro life, it is just the opposite.  I am also not anti-death penalty. If someone commits a crime so haneous that the death penalty is an option, I am all for it, you made your bed, lie or die, in it .  I am not a vegan, certain animals were put on this earth to be used for food, that's just the way it is. The circle of life and all that...

Thank you, Kathy.  I don't think I saw that one.

The circle of life and all that...

This can easily be used for abortion as well. It's just the circle of life.

Well it would appear crazi, at least from the general consensus of this thread and the hostility/attitude displayed towards most conservatives, that we are indeed evil hate mongering people whose mission in life is to hold people down and take away peoples choices, and have no ability to think or reason on our own. 

Interesting, at least its good to know how some people feel about us.