Abortion
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:28:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Abortion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28
Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 59827 times)
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: January 03, 2004, 12:54:05 PM »

A charactor in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, which was a radio comedy by Douglas Adams(who later wrote it down as a "trilogy in 5 part's")
He has two heads, three arms and an ego larger than the universe.
Okay then..
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: January 03, 2004, 01:25:06 PM »

I love the Hitchhiker's Guide! Realpolitik, have you ever played the computer game?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: January 03, 2004, 01:26:56 PM »

I love the Hitchhiker's Guide! Realpolitik, have you ever played the computer game?
I feel like I'm missing something here.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: January 03, 2004, 01:31:03 PM »

http://www.douglasadams.com/creations/hhgg.html
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: January 03, 2004, 05:29:22 PM »

I love the Hitchhiker's Guide! Realpolitik, have you ever played the computer game?

So do I! I haven't played the game though... Sad

That is a book everyone should read, if just for sheer pleasure! One of the comic masterpieces together with, among others, Catch-22.
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: January 03, 2004, 06:16:25 PM »

Aborts this conversation to return it to Abortion. Smiley
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: January 03, 2004, 06:17:58 PM »

Aborts this conversation to return it to Abortion. Smiley
You wish.
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: January 03, 2004, 06:23:37 PM »

Getting a lot of 2 word posts there miami.  Please don't turn into john.  SUBSTANCE


Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: January 03, 2004, 06:47:37 PM »

Two words.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: January 04, 2004, 01:03:49 AM »
« Edited: January 04, 2004, 01:04:42 AM by supersoulty »


All I know is that the answer to everything is "42".
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: January 04, 2004, 01:13:23 AM »


Well, there is a middle way between, say, PD and Migrendel, I hope. A point that many people miss is that a liberal society (in the American sense) cannot exist without high moral standards. As soon as people start using the system to their own advantage it collapses. That is why Scandinavia, the most honest group of countries in the world, have such large welfare states. The problem is that nothing has been done to uphold morality and ethics in these societies, and thus the entire system is now endangered.

I agree completely.  A free and (classically) liberal society depends upon a certain level of moral standards, and the expectation that the vast majority of people will support themselves, and take responsibility for their actions.

As appealing as the welfare state sounds in theory -- nobody in want, nobody in need, all needs met -- in practice it is morally corrosive because needs cannot be met unless somebody is there to meet them.  If everybody decides that they will excercise their entitlement to have their fellow citizens support them, the whole thing will collapse because there will be nobody there to provide the needed support.

The whole "privacy" and "rights" argument behind the abortion movement is a facade in my opinion.  It's really about convenience.  Abortion is a necessary accompaniment to the to casual sex, since pregnancy is often an undesirable by-product of this type of sex.  The philosophy is, do what you feel like, and get rid of the unpleasant consequences.  It's a lot like slavery; all the arguments and justifications and rationalizations in the world can't make it right.

What you are saying is true, though I was actually making another point... Wink Smiley

In a classic liberal laissez-faire society, those who don't take responsibility for their own lives will probably just die, and thus society will work, at least fot the others. In a leftist society, they will be living on other people's money, and thus undnermine the society as a whole. In Sweden the increasing problems with tax evasion, people taking advantage of social services and so on, has raised doubts about whether the current system is possible to maintain. If you increase the social responsibilities of the state while removing moral standards, you're headed for disaster.

That is very true.  I agree that the lack of moral reasponsibility in society is startling and unsettling.  I too see the abortion debate as one of responsibility.  If we cannot be responsible about our behavior, even to defend the most defensless people in our society, what does that say about us?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: January 04, 2004, 03:19:01 AM »

Well, for anyone out there who wants the game or any other info about it, email me. My email address can be found on my profile.
Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: January 04, 2004, 04:29:04 AM »

Getting a lot of 2 word posts there miami.  Please don't turn into john.  SUBSTANCE


GUSTAF, JOHN, AND MIAMIU ARE DOING THE SAME. SUBSTANCE GUYS, SUBSTANCE.
Aborts this conversation to return it to Abortion. Smiley
You wish.
Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: January 04, 2004, 04:30:59 AM »

Well, for anyone out there who wants the game or any other info about it, email me. My email address can be found on my profile.
I WOULD LIKE TO ERIC, SO WOULD WILLIAM, IS IT OK FOR CHILDREN?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: January 04, 2004, 06:25:16 AM »


All I know is that the answer to everything is "42".

Well, that is really the essence of the book, anyway. Smiley
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: January 04, 2004, 06:26:58 AM »


Well, there is a middle way between, say, PD and Migrendel, I hope. A point that many people miss is that a liberal society (in the American sense) cannot exist without high moral standards. As soon as people start using the system to their own advantage it collapses. That is why Scandinavia, the most honest group of countries in the world, have such large welfare states. The problem is that nothing has been done to uphold morality and ethics in these societies, and thus the entire system is now endangered.

I agree completely.  A free and (classically) liberal society depends upon a certain level of moral standards, and the expectation that the vast majority of people will support themselves, and take responsibility for their actions.

As appealing as the welfare state sounds in theory -- nobody in want, nobody in need, all needs met -- in practice it is morally corrosive because needs cannot be met unless somebody is there to meet them.  If everybody decides that they will excercise their entitlement to have their fellow citizens support them, the whole thing will collapse because there will be nobody there to provide the needed support.

The whole "privacy" and "rights" argument behind the abortion movement is a facade in my opinion.  It's really about convenience.  Abortion is a necessary accompaniment to the to casual sex, since pregnancy is often an undesirable by-product of this type of sex.  The philosophy is, do what you feel like, and get rid of the unpleasant consequences.  It's a lot like slavery; all the arguments and justifications and rationalizations in the world can't make it right.

What you are saying is true, though I was actually making another point... Wink Smiley

In a classic liberal laissez-faire society, those who don't take responsibility for their own lives will probably just die, and thus society will work, at least fot the others. In a leftist society, they will be living on other people's money, and thus undnermine the society as a whole. In Sweden the increasing problems with tax evasion, people taking advantage of social services and so on, has raised doubts about whether the current system is possible to maintain. If you increase the social responsibilities of the state while removing moral standards, you're headed for disaster.

That is very true.  I agree that the lack of moral reasponsibility in society is startling and unsettling.  I too see the abortion debate as one of responsibility.  If we cannot be responsible about our behavior, even to defend the most defensless people in our society, what does that say about us?

Well, the paradox is that a society that relies on moral responsibility, like Sweden, tends to undermine it, whereas a society which could do without it, like the US, have it, at least to a certain degree.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: January 04, 2004, 07:33:48 AM »
« Edited: January 04, 2004, 07:37:21 AM by dazzleman »

The US also needs moral responsibility.  Every society does.  The US is simply not as "advanced" as Sweden, and Europe in general, in snuffing it out.

I think implementing a cradle-to-grave welfare state inevitably snuffs out personal and moral responsibility, and Europe is further along in doing this than the US.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: January 04, 2004, 07:37:45 AM »

The US also needs moral responsibility.  Every society does.  The US is simply not as "advanced" as Sweden, and Europe in general, in snuffing it out.

Well, to a certain extent, obviously. That's what is called "social capital", and has been measured by someone as the number of choirs per capita. Apparently, the more choirs in a society, the better off it is! I was talking more in economic terms, the welfare states of Europe are collpasing due to faltering ethics.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: January 04, 2004, 08:16:28 AM »
« Edited: January 04, 2004, 08:18:04 AM by dazzleman »

The US also needs moral responsibility.  Every society does.  The US is simply not as "advanced" as Sweden, and Europe in general, in snuffing it out.

Well, to a certain extent, obviously. That's what is called "social capital", and has been measured by someone as the number of choirs per capita. Apparently, the more choirs in a society, the better off it is! I was talking more in economic terms, the welfare states of Europe are collpasing due to faltering ethics.

That's an interesting theory about choirs per capita!  I must admit I had never heard of it before.

But seriously, what many people don't appreciate is that the economic and social health of a society are linked.  Lack of personal and moral responsibility will lead to declining social health in a society -- out of wedlock births, high crime, etc. and this ultimately undermines the economic health of a society.  If people look to the government to solve the problems created by the lack of moral responsibility, that saps the wealth of a society.

I think the lessons are:

(1) in the long run, government cannot maintain a society's social health, as many liberals seem to expect.  Only individual people can do that; and
(2) in the long run also, a society can't have good economic health coupled with poor social health.

Many Democrats in the US say they are economically conservative and socially liberal, the reverse of traditional Democrats, who were socially conservative and economically liberal.  Neither combination works in my opinion.  

Economic liberalism, if not very carefully applied, eventually undermines personal responsibility to the point that social liberalism becomes seen as a "solution" to all the problems that people are creating.  Welfare programs, which led to an explosion of out-of-wedlock births, are a perfect example of this.  Now of course, these kids don't have the right guidance, can't be educated properly, etc. and more government programs are "needed" to "fix" these problems.

On the other hand, it is not tenable to have a system which allows and encourages the type of behavior that leads to dependency, and then say we're going to have low taxes and limited government programs.

Europe has been both socially and economically liberal for quite some time now, but that combination falls apart eventually too, because it become too expensive to keep adding "programs" to "fix" the problems created by social irresponsibility.  The problem with the entitlement mentalities that are bred by this combination of policies is that somebody has to provide the money, but the more people fall into an entitlement mentality, the fewer people there are to provide the money, which eventually causes the whole thing to collapse.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: January 04, 2004, 08:53:41 AM »

The US also needs moral responsibility.  Every society does.  The US is simply not as "advanced" as Sweden, and Europe in general, in snuffing it out.

Well, to a certain extent, obviously. That's what is called "social capital", and has been measured by someone as the number of choirs per capita. Apparently, the more choirs in a society, the better off it is! I was talking more in economic terms, the welfare states of Europe are collpasing due to faltering ethics.

That's an interesting theory about choirs per capita!  I must admit I had never heard of it before.

But seriously, what many people don't appreciate is that the economic and social health of a society are linked.  Lack of personal and moral responsibility will lead to declining social health in a society -- out of wedlock births, high crime, etc. and this ultimately undermines the economic health of a society.  If people look to the government to solve the problems created by the lack of moral responsibility, that saps the wealth of a society.

I think the lessons are:

(1) in the long run, government cannot maintain a society's social health, as many liberals seem to expect.  Only individual people can do that; and
(2) in the long run also, a society can't have good economic health coupled with poor social health.

Many Democrats in the US say they are economically conservative and socially liberal, the reverse of traditional Democrats, who were socially conservative and economically liberal.  Neither combination works in my opinion.  

Economic liberalism, if not very carefully applied, eventually undermines personal responsibility to the point that social liberalism becomes seen as a "solution" to all the problems that people are creating.  Welfare programs, which led to an explosion of out-of-wedlock births, are a perfect example of this.  Now of course, these kids don't have the right guidance, can't be educated properly, etc. and more government programs are "needed" to "fix" these problems.

On the other hand, it is not tenable to have a system which allows and encourages the type of behavior that leads to dependency, and then say we're going to have low taxes and limited government programs.

Europe has been both socially and economically liberal for quite some time now, but that combination falls apart eventually too, because it become too expensive to keep adding "programs" to "fix" the problems created by social irresponsibility.  The problem with the entitlement mentalities that are bred by this combination of policies is that somebody has to provide the money, but the more people fall into an entitlement mentality, the fewer people there are to provide the money, which eventually causes the whole thing to collapse.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. The lat part is exactly my point. Economic liberalism and social liberalism tend to go together, which is problematic.

What you have to keep in mind is that Sweden was originally really a socially conservative country, with strong notions of personal responsibility and ethics, combined with a firm belief in  a strong goverment. This led to what you would call economic liberalism, and the creation of a large welfare state. The early stages of this period is usually viewed as a golden age in Sweden, the early 50s. People were honest, hard-working and responsible, living standards were higher than ever, people were generally very potimistic about the future. However, the mentality that the state should take responsibility for people's lives and the notion of the expression of self as vastly important, that one should put one-self before others, started to undermine society.

As people become irresponsible and egoistic they don't pay their taxes. They claim benefits that they shouldn't rightly have. They go on sick leave despite being fit for work, and then take a job in the black market instead, and so on. That quickly drains the system of money, and then taxe have to be raised on those who still pay them. The constant message going out is that society rewards those who don't take responsibility and punishes those who do.

I am a liberal, or liberal-conservative, in the European sense, which means that I distrust the goverment and supports the rights of individuals in all fields. I am no extremist though, and see the need to uphold morals. I would like this to be done without government interference, however. The day we need the government to tell us what is right and what is wrong, it will all be over anyway, I figure. A society is built from its citizens and upwards, not from the government and downwards. But running a soicety is not an easy task, it isn't black and white, and there are seldom easy solutions to a country's problems. Therefore I am generally open to compromise.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: January 04, 2004, 09:08:11 AM »

The paradox is that government cannot create higher moral standards; only individuals can do that.

But government can effectively undermine moral standards, by rewarding irresponsible behavior, and sending out the message, as you said, that those who behave responsibly will be punished, while those who behave irresponsibly will be rewarded.

In both the US and in Europe, this is the main problem with left-party politics -- the reward of irresponsible behavior, and the resulting decline in moral and personal responsibility.  It is a very slippery downward slope, and very hard to climb back up.

The problem is that left-wing policies produce immediate benefits, but the problems they create take a lot longer to become obvious.  And even when they do, liberals deny any connection between their policies and the problems they have created.

The world constantly changes, and the reason for that is that yesterday's solution becomes today's problem.  Welfare was originally conceived as a solution to the problem of poverty, and eventually welfare itself became the problem.  Public education, as presently constituted, is also going through a crisis for a number of reasons, including the view of it as a cash cow by teacher's unions, and the belief, in many quarters, that the existence of public education relieves parents of their responsibility as their child's primary educator.  Large government entitlement programs throughout the western world are in grave danger as they have grown so big that more and more people are collecting on them, while fewer are paying.

To keep the world in good working order, people must always be a step ahead, working to solve today's problems and anticipate tomorrow's problems, rather than focused on yesterday's problems.  I think that today, the left is focused on yesterday's issues, and their thinking is outdated.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: January 04, 2004, 09:10:37 AM »

The paradox is that government cannot create higher moral standards; only individuals can do that.

But government can effectively undermine moral standards, by rewarding irresponsible behavior, and sending out the message, as you said, that those who behave responsibly will be punished, while those who behave irresponsibly will be rewarded.

In both the US and in Europe, this is the main problem with left-party politics -- the reward of irresponsible behavior, and the resulting decline in moral and personal responsibility.  It is a very slippery downward slope, and very hard to climb back up.

The problem is that left-wing policies produce immediate benefits, but the problems they create take a lot longer to become obvious.  And even when they do, liberals deny any connection between their policies and the problems they have created.

The world constantly changes, and the reason for that is that yesterday's solution becomes today's problem.  Welfare was originally conceived as a solution to the problem of poverty, and eventually welfare itself became the problem.  Public education, as presently constituted, is also going through a crisis for a number of reasons, including the view of it as a cash cow by teacher's unions, and the belief, in many quarters, that the existence of public education relieves parents of their responsibility as their child's primary educator.  Large government entitlement programs throughout the western world are in grave danger as they have grown so big that more and more people are collecting on them, while fewer are paying.

To keep the world in good working order, people must always be a step ahead, working to solve today's problems and anticipate tomorrow's problems, rather than focused on yesterday's problems.  I think that today, the left is focused on yesterday's issues, and their thinking is outdated.

Yes, I agree. In Sweden we have vouches schools, why don't you try that to solve the problems of oublic education?

Btw, I am feeling less and less Democratic by the post... Sad
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: January 04, 2004, 09:14:08 AM »



Yes, I agree. In Sweden we have vouches schools, why don't you try that to solve the problems of oublic education?

Btw, I am feeling less and less Democratic by the post... Sad

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: January 04, 2004, 09:15:01 AM »



Yes, I agree. In Sweden we have vouches schools, why don't you try that to solve the problems of oublic education?

Btw, I am feeling less and less Democratic by the post... Sad

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

I thought you were in charge? Smiley
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: January 04, 2004, 09:24:07 AM »



The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

I thought you were in charge? Smiley
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not that simple.  Republican majorities are slim in both the Senate and House, and committed Democratic opposition makes it very difficult to pass it.  Not every Republican supports it, but Democratic opposition is vehement.

The one thing that would make it pass is if black voters, who disproportionately suffer from failing schools, made it clear to the Democrats that they would vote against them unless they end their opposition to vouchers.  Black voters favor vouchers, but once again place ethnic identification ahead of actual issues in determining their votes.  Black "leaders" are vociferiously opposed to vouchers, largely because they have money and have already chosen to put their own kids into private schools.  So the failing public schools are only for poor blacks, not those who are better off.

The US has much less of a party-based system than the typical European country, in any case.  Legislatures are elected independent of the executive branch, unlike the parliamentary system, and each legislative body has its own set of procedures for passing laws that can effectively prevent a small majority from having absolute control.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 11 queries.