Election Question

[Yorick]

Thanks Larry.

Variol I am very pro-life and that value trumps all the others on the table for me, despite many of my other policies leaning left. Obama's health plan doesn't cut it for me though, as it leaves the insurers in the picture. I believe in a socialised health system that has no insurers, or only insurers for optional surgury or private medicine. The Aussie system is excellent. Saved my life and limb many times.

However, I also felt that McCain has a better resume. He's simply done more, been around longer and didn't seem like he needed the presidency to fulfil his lifelong ambition. I like him, don't agree with everything he said, but thought and still think he's the better man for the job than a 2 year senator no-one really knows much about.

I believe Obama presented a slick marketing campaign and that the American public swallowed it.

If Obama repeals the current prohibition on late term abortions (aborting babies that can survive outside the womb) then I will seriously consider voting with my feet (I cannot vote as I'm not a citizen) and leaving the country. That is how strongly I feel about living in a nation that would abort viable babies because their parents think they are an inconvenient gender.

I hope Obama is a good president, but I think his mantra of change was hollow considering how much of the establishment, from Fanny and Freddy to Colin Powel endorsed him. That feels like the corporate man, playing to the existing system.

McCain I think scared those corps. He had taken on the pharmaceutical companies etc and I think people did not think he could be manipulated.

The biggest change Obama brought was the colour of his skin. Yet wasn't he supposed to transcend race? I feel that some Americans were trying to assuage their guilt and prove they weren't racist by voting for the black guy - who's actually brown (half white) and has no slave blood, so how's the guilt assuaged?

Obama's very articulate, and he ran a great campaign. But was America electing a diplomat/ambassador or president?

What also scares me is Biden in particulars declared intent (in the VP debate) to have the USA back to #1 on the world stage.

What's wrong with being #2? Or #3? Until nations learn it's cool to not be the king kong, the world has problems. Russia longs for it's glory days, and wants "respect", France wants to create a Europe to "compete with America".

So were Americans electing a world leader?

Some non-Americans seemed to think so.

However, as said, the pro-life value affects everything for me, and probably colors my other positions.

If slavery was around today, I would vote against my own economy to free slaves. If Hitler was killing Jews, I would vote against health care and other values to stop one section of society from being declared "less than human" and being terminated.

I cannot in good conscience support a candidate that espouses better education, better health, less war, etc etc etc all values I love - when they are prepared to allow babies to be killed en-masse.

Ireland FTW.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek That's a rather odd thing to ask - or at least a very odd way of asking it. But I guess I would be considered one of the "holy rollers" here, so if you really want to know, my vote was............ Obama/Biden*

Hehe so even you embraced this man's vision. Does Felix know yet?

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Yorick If Obama repeals the current prohibition on late term abortions (aborting babies that can survive outside the womb) then I will seriously consider voting with my feet (I cannot vote as I'm not a citizen) and leaving the country. That is how strongly I feel about living in a nation that would abort viable babies because their parents think they are an inconvenient gender.

You made a good argument there, this point aside. I'm definitely pro-choice. A woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases. And if a rape victim/teenager/single parent decides that this baby will ruin their life, they should not have to have it. I think you'll find that very, very few, if any abortions are carried out on something as retarded as gender. It flaws your argument when you pick out ridiculous points like that, omitting the real issues.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Beaumanoir You made a good argument there, this point aside. I'm definitely pro-choice. A woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases. And if a rape victim/teenager/single parent decides that this baby will ruin their life, they should not have to have it. I think you'll find that very, very few, if any abortions are carried out on something as retarded as gender. It flaws your argument when you pick out ridiculous points like that, omitting the real issues.

Actually a friend of mine is a nurse on Long Island, in Suffolk county, and in her hospital alone there are routine abortions every day because the couple are unhappy with the baby's gender.

I wouldn't be angry about it if it wasn't happening now would I?

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Yorick Actually a friend of mine is a nurse on Long Island, in Suffolk county, and in her hospital alone there are routine abortions every day because the couple are unhappy with the baby's gender. I wouldn't be angry about it if it wasn't happening now would I?

Then I take back what I said about the frequency, but I stand by my points. Abortion should be legal for all the reasons I stated.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Beaumanoir You made a good argument there, this point aside. I'm definitely pro-choice. A woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases. And if a rape victim/teenager/single parent decides that this baby will ruin their life, they should not have to have it. I think you'll find that very, very few, if any abortions are carried out on something as retarded as gender. It flaws your argument when you pick out ridiculous points like that, omitting the real issues.

If the woman doesn't want a baby, then don't have unprotected sex - very simple! THAT is when the woman has the right to make the "choice" about her body.

1% of abortions are due to rape/incest.
6% of abortions are due to medical concerns for the mother.
93% of abortions are due to social reasons - the child is unwanted or inconvenient.

Source: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

I reiterate - if the a child would be considered unwanted or inconvenient, then the woman should make the "choice" to NOT have unprotected sex. That still protects her right to choice and also protects the right of the unborn child who did nothing to deserve death other than being created.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Hehe so even you embraced this man's vision. Does Felix know yet?

He does now. .

And it isn't so much that I "embraced" his vision. I just felt, for the things most important to me, Obama was the better choice this time.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Beaumanoir Then I take back what I said about the frequency, but I stand by my points. Abortion should be legal for all the reasons I stated.

Yes yes, the woman's body is her own, she should be able to do with it what she pleases. But tell me, should she be able to use her body to kill her husband? What if he becomes paralyzed and a drain on her life? What about her father if he becomes an invalid? Why should she have to restrict her body from doing these things?

Aren't all laws restrictions on peoples behaviour? Don't they all restrict peoples freedom to use their body what they want to do?

I sure wish I could drink and drive or punch people in the face if I want. Bugger those annoying laws.

[Luvian]

Originally Posted by Cerek If the woman doesn't want a baby, then don't have unprotected sex - very simple! THAT is when the woman has the right to make the "choice" about her body. 1% of abortions are due to rape/incest. 6% of abortions are due to medical concerns for the mother. 93% of abortions are due to social reasons - the child is unwanted or inconvenient. Source: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html I reiterate - if the a child would be considered unwanted or inconvenient, then the woman should make the "choice" to NOT have unprotected sex. That still protects her right to choice and also protects the right of the unborn child who did nothing to deserve death other than being created.

Birth control isn't infallible. A couple who did use protection could very well ends up with an unwanted pregnancy. A woman who choses "no" with birth control could still ends up pregnant. How can that be a real choice?

As a general rule I don't like abortions. They make me feel uncomfortable. No matter what your stance on the start of life this is still a wasted opportunity.

But would you deny those 7% of women the right to their own life just for a potential new one? And what about those women who have legitimate social/economical reasons to make the choice?

I agree aborting because you don't like the gender of the child is really really wrong, but in my opinion there are legitimate reasons for when abortion could be considered as a valid choice.

[Firestormalpha]

Originally Posted by Luvian But would you deny those 7% of women the right to their own life just for a potential new one? And what about those women who have legitimate social/economical reasons to make the choice?

No I wouldn't, and telling them they can't have an abortion wouldn't deny them their lives. It would change the direction their lives are going. IMO when you choose to have sex, protected or otherwise, you agree to the risk of getting pregnant, planned or not. To end a life, established or potential, just because it interferes with your plans is wrong.

As I've said before, the only time I consent to the idea of an abortion is when the mothers life is endangered. At no other time would I see it as a responsible, or correct option.

You're free to disagree with me, but you won't convince me otherwise.