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 laura42

I don't put the baby ahead of the woman's rights.  I don't want to take away anyone's rights.  After all is said and done, the women can still go and get the abortion. But I want to be able to discuss all the implications, the other life affected.  I want it socially acceptable to discuss the other life.  I want it to be OK to consider that life too.  And hopefully, after we do that, as a society, we would move away from taking lives, and move toward preventing the whole thing.  Naive of me, maybe, but that is my hope.

Where exactly is it "socially unnacceptable" to discuss a fetus's life? I hear people talk about it all the time. There were two hugely successful movies last year revolving around characters who decide to carry unplanned pregnancy to term.

Also, the pro-choicers I know all seem very much in favor of teaching methods for "preventing the whole thing." We're not really into all this don't-talk-about-it-everybody-just-be-abstine nt stuff that seems to not be working.

Regarding the stuff about making abortion less "socially acceptable" like smoking: a)People continue to smoke. They congregate outside of bars and clubs and clog up the sidewalks in order to do it. b)The NY Times recently ran an article about Dominican women in my neighborhood (Washington Heights) who secretly induce abortion with a combination of overdosing themselves on pills meant to rdlive stomach problems and drinking malta (not sure what that would do, but it was mentioned.) They turn to this dangerous method for financial reasons (Many of these people are below poverty level and Medicaid does not cover abortion in New York) and it's being "socially unnacceptable" in there culture which is heavily Catholic--I live across the street from one of the many Catholic churchs and people will cross themselves simply when they walk past it, not even going inside! So I guess they'd rather do it in secret than possibly be seen entering or leaving a Planned Parenthood building. Needless to say this method of inducing an abortion is extremely risky.But social and economic pressure don't stop them from aborting altogether, just from getting it done safely.

Original Post by laura42:

Pro choice - choose not to get pregnant!

Sometimes people get pregnant even when using protection. And even women who decide to practice abstinence may end up getting raped, sadly. Life isn't always cut-and-dry.

I'm completely in favor of teaching prevention, but part of that is acknowledging that science has not yet developed a compltely foolproof prevention technique yet. We can reduce unplanned pregnancy by teaching people to use contraceptives, but we can't as of now eliminate it entirely.

For those on either side of the issue who are curious, I was able to find the Times article I talked about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/nyregion/05 abortion.html?pagewanted=all

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

However, I think that having fewer unplanned pregnancies would be a benefit to society (and to individual women).  And so, more emphasis on preventing unplanned pregnancies - including peer pressure on the male to be more responsible regarding this issue would be a very helpful thing.

yeah, of course.  my concern is that the conversations laura wants to have (emphasis on the beating heart and all) are barriers to choice - and not just the choice to abort or not, but the choice to access services and to even request birth control.

even the be-more-careful-from-now-on talk you get from conscientious medical professionals when you need emergency contraception seems like judgment when you already know you've made a mistake (and i'm not going to play the rape card, because i hate that some people think that's where we should draw the line).

i also object to the assumption that unplanned pregnancies only happen to women who don't know any better or are otherwise disadvantaged.  i don't care how much edication, how much money, and how easy access is, we're entitled to make our own choices (and to do so without a lecture about the poor fetus's beating heart).

obviously, education could be better (especially in the US).  but it has to be delivered in the right way, by the right people, and it's far from the whole answer.

OMFG... abortion again?

we've done this how many times?

cut/pasting some of my earlier posts:

Personally I think we need to define when life begins for legal purposes and allow that to guide the debate.

Right now a doctor can be sued for the accidental death of an unborn child, a murderer can be convicted for the death of the mother AND that of her unborn child, yet somehow late term abortion (let alone any kind of abortion) is not illegal.

That's totally at odds with each other. 

Whatever it is, conception, first, second, third trimester, birth, whatever... the legal point at which life begins should dictate who's rights trump.

If as a society we decide legal life begins at the third trimester, then doctors can be sued and murderers convicted for killing an infant after that point, but at that point the child's right to life also trumps the woman's right to choose.

I personally don't care when society considers life to begin, but we need to sort it out.

which leads to:

Anyway, it just strikes me as odd that anyone could take a strong pro-life or a strong pro-choice stance. It just doesn't jive with common sense.

We start out in a biological petri dish, a few cells reproducing at a crazy rate, eventually forming a sentient life, with distinguishable brain activity, continuing to grow until we're birthed. We start out as fetus and we're birthed, but somewhere in the middle we become a person...

and finally:

As for myself, I can agree to life at around 25 weeks, because that's when it's most likely for a child to develop a distinguishable and unique brainwave pattern (think finger print for your mind).

I can justify that uniqueness as being evidence of being alive.

Since I value life and think everyone has a right to their life (I am against capital punishment) I cannot justify allowing that child's right to life being taken from them by anyone.

and for **** and giggles:

@ "my body, my choice, end of story"

I believe the CDC has something to say about that.

Actually I think the most level headed debate we had came from this thread which is probably why that debate only lasted four pages

laura started it :/

lol ilu

Original Post by pgeorgian:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

However, I think that having fewer unplanned pregnancies would be a benefit to society (and to individual women).  And so, more emphasis on preventing unplanned pregnancies - including peer pressure on the male to be more responsible regarding this issue would be a very helpful thing.

yeah, of course.  my concern is that the conversations laura wants to have (emphasis on the beating heart and all) are barriers to choice - and not just the choice to abort or not, but the choice to access services and to even request birth control.

even the be-more-careful-from-now-on talk you get from conscientious medical professionals when you need emergency contraception seems like judgment when you already know you've made a mistake (and i'm not going to play the rape card, because i hate that some people think that's where we should draw the line).

i also object to the assumption that unplanned pregnancies only happen to women who don't know any better or are otherwise disadvantaged.  i don't care how much edication, how much money, and how easy access is, we're entitled to make our own choices (and to do so without a lecture about the poor fetus's beating heart).

obviously, education could be better (especially in the US).  but it has to be delivered in the right way, by the right people, and it's far from the whole answer.

 right, pg - i wasn't agreeing with laura about the need for more emotional conversations (??? i will stick with my rationality, thanks) 

my advice to her is to focus more on helping low income women as a start to improving the overall situation, for women who would choose to have a baby if they could afford it

for women who would not choose to have a baby even if they could afford it, i'm saying, respect their reasons and trust that they will have the appropriate conversations about it with the appropriate people in their lives, whether it's their husband, their girlfriend, their minister, whoever - trust women

Original Post by ignayshus:

lol ilu

i love her more. 

hahaha

are you two gonna fight over me?  'cause that would be wicked cool.

i should go take bets...

Original Post by pgeorgian:

are you two gonna fight over me?  'cause that would be wicked cool.

i should go take bets...

^^^^
High maintenance!

Original Post by pgeorgian:

are you two gonna fight over me?  'cause that would be wicked cool.

i should go take bets...

no

::pops bubble::

but I have soft spot in my heart for tree-huggin hippy liberals :)

Original Post by ignayshus:

no

::pops bubble::

but I have soft spot in my heart for tree-huggin hippy liberals :)

you forgot pinko.  i'm a tree-huggin' hippy pinko liberal.

I apologize for the omission, it was in no way meant to diminish your lefty cred.