# Robin Williams' Plan for the USA



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

Robin Williams' Plan for the USA

Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan.

What we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up 
and repeat this message:

Robin William's plan... (It's hard to argue with this logic!)

I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace.**So, here's one plan.

1.) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega,Milosevic and the rest of those 'good ole boys. 
We will never "interfere" again.

2.) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. 
They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.

3.) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave -  We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. 

France would welcome them.

4.) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need anymore cab drivers or 7-11
cashiers. 

5.) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6.) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

*7.) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. 
(About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)*

8.) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds,rain, cement or whatever they need.**  Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

*9.) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place.We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.*

10.) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. 
The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan.

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.'**She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'"


----------



## scruffy (Nov 1, 2004)

Hard to argue with it, but I wouldn't call it logic.  It's hard to argue with because it's hard to find a place to apply logic.

You can't argue with a rant - that's the point of a rant.


----------



## Darkshadow (Nov 1, 2004)

Well, you can argue with it, but that only helps it make its point better.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 1, 2004)

Is it that Robin Williams from the movies such as Insomnia...? If so, is there anything else to add?


----------



## symphonix (Nov 1, 2004)

Nah, if it was the same Robin Williams from the movies and so on, it would read more like...

"Point one ... ohhhh, one is the loneliessst number ... allrighty! The US will apologise for interfering in the worlds affairs. Oh my god, how'd the US find out I'm having an affair?! Its those damn spy sattelites, I'll bet. I can see the CIA briefing room now. 'OK, Karadufaji is still getting more suppporters for his people's revolution, Al Qaeda are trying to setup a school and hospital in southern Afghanistan, no doubt to try and cover up how evil they are, and Robin Williams was sighted last week making passes at a russian female cosmonaut while drinking tequila and wearing his trousers on his head...How-doss-you-doooin Dar-link? Point two is coming! Be ready! You ever drunk too much tequila? You're just begging to be spotted by a spy sattelite. There'd be some guy at Langley pointing at his screen and saying Hey, check out THIS guy! Point two is nigh! Oh, the humanity! .... "


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 2, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE



Christ, the country would be deserted!!!


Is that for real, I mean, I never liked Mr Williams much anyway, but I didn't realise he was a narrow minded bigoted elitist racist!


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 2, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> Christ, the country would be deserted!!!
> 
> 
> Is that for real, I mean, I never liked Mr Williams much anyway, but I didn't realise he was a narrow minded bigoted elitist racist!



Are you for real? There is nothing in robin williams "plan" that indicates bigotry, racism, or an elitest attitude - and as for being narrow-minded, i think you more than fit that category with your attitude towards the subject - you do not live in the US and therefore cannot fully understand what williams is talking about. 

You seem not to have picked up on the fact that robin williams is a comedian and his "plan" is most probably a comedic rant.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 2, 2004)

I find it humorous, entertaining, and on some issues I even agree...


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 2, 2004)

"The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE"
Isn't that racist? Maybe the understanding for the word "racism" differs between european countries and the US. As a german, and we are known to have a lot of racism, this line is definitely racist!


----------



## ora (Nov 2, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> Robin Williams' Plan for the USA
> 1.) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega,Milosevic and the rest of those 'good ole boys.
> We will never "interfere" again.



So many counter examples, for now I'll just say Vietnam and leave it at that.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 2, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> Are you for real? There is nothing in robin williams "plan" that indicates bigotry, racism, or an elitest attitude - and as for being narrow-minded



Well, the whole thing is _clearly_ narrow minded, so that one's easy to cover off (yes, it _may_ be for 'comedy' value, but if so it is using a narrow minded view to provide the comedy).

There's the standard American elitest (and narrow-minded) 'we saved your butts so many times', 'the world would be screwed without our help' type views.

The whole thing also has a vile and racist and anti-immigration stance.  Many racist comments aimed at immigrants, for example "We don't need anymore cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers" - implying that is all they have to offer.  There are also comments I'd consider racist towards the French (although, it is actually complimentary to say that France would welcome immigrants), Germans and non-Engllish speakers, amongst other things.

Bigoted - umm, well yes, can you _really_ not see that??!  Maybe this will help:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot


Oh, and clearly add 'Isolationist', to that list of negatives.  And yes, dear American Republicans, being isolationist _is_ a bad thing, a very bad thing.


Although, I guess if you did go ahead with that plan, then it would lead to peace, as it would give all the terrorists a nice easy target to bomb without the fear of killing any innocents (I assume all liberals would leave the country - I guess children would still be innocent, but it would save them being indoctrinated by their parents and losing their innocence).


I may have missed the comedy I guess; you're right, he could just be making fun of people who think that way, it is pretty hillarious to think that anyone could really have view like that.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 2, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> "The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE"
> Isn't that racist? Maybe the understanding for the word "racism" differs between european countries and the US. As a german, and we are known to have a lot of racism, this line is definitely racist!



Not racist.  Racism deals with color.  Language doesn't necessarily imply color.  Think former East Germans who only knew Russian and no English.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 2, 2004)

ora said:
			
		

> So many counter examples, for now I'll just say Vietnam and leave it at that.



Also, it's not "interference", when your help is asked for, or when popular international opinion is on your side.

Do you (g/re/p) really believe there is no difference between the world wars, or Bosnia, or even the first Gulf War, and the Iraq war?  Do you really think that because America has helped countries in the past the international community should go along, or at least turn a blind eye, to whatever else it does?


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 2, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> Not racist.  Racism deals with color.  Language doesn't necessarily imply color.



    


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race


Colour is an aspect of race, but it isn't the start and finish.  A British person attacking a French person (verbally, physically or otherwise) _because_ they are French is an example of racism, even though both are the same colour.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 2, 2004)

Yes, but being racism in that definition is not referring to the definition of race in this context listed by the definition of race - "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race. "

It is the genetic version.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 2, 2004)

what???!


----------



## diablojota (Nov 2, 2004)

Basically, I don't believe it is racist to think that in a country where the national language is English to want the people who live there to all speak English.
I live in Germany, and I learned German.  Yes many of the people here speak English, but if I am going to live and work in this country I better be able to get around.
If you want to study at the universities in the US and are from a non-english speaking country, you have to take the Toefl to prove you can understand and speak English.
I think this same level of standards can and should be applied for those seeking permanent residence in the US, and that is not being racist.  That statement is not being directed at any one particular group of people.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 2, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> I think this same level of standards can and should be applied for those seeking permanent residence in the US, and that is not being racist.  That statement is not being directed at any one particular group of people.



No it's being applied to all groups of people who don't speak English, most of these I suspect would not be American (assuming by English you mean American-English, as otherwise it would include ALL Americans too )

Something doesn't have to be aimed at any one particular group to be racist, and in some ways, the more people it discriminates against then the more racist it becomes.

Also, language and race are closely tied, almost as closely in some respects as race and colour are.  Colour is just a more obvious difference.


Anyway, my argument was that racism isn't just about colour, not whether or not it was racist to throw people out of your country because they speak a different language.

It is debateable whether throwing people out of your country because they don't speak your language is racist, but I personally stand firmly on the side of the fence that says it is.


----------



## Jeffo (Nov 2, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> "The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE"
> Isn't that racist? Maybe the understanding for the word "racism" differs between european countries and the US. As a german, and we are known to have a lot of racism, this line is definitely racist!



absolutely NOT!  you can know 50 different languages and i think that is great but you better know the national language of the country that you live in.  I don't care what country either.  if you live in germany, you must know german.  If you live in france, you must know french.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 2, 2004)

Jeffo said:
			
		

> absolutely NOT!  you can know 50 different languages and i think that is great but you better know the national language of the country that you live in.  I don't care what country either.  if you live in germany, you must know german.  If you live in france, you must know french.



Why?

Sorry, I just don't understand why you had "better know the national language" of the country you live in.  The person you're most disadvantaging if you don't is yourself, why "must" you know the language?

I think you _should_ learn the language, it would be a massive benefit to yourself to learn the language, but I think there is no reason at all why you "must", and certainly not that you get thrown out the country if you don't learn it.

What about people with learning difficulties? should they be thrown out if they _can't_ learn the language.

What if you move to India, do you have to learn all 15 official languages?


Did you also know that the United States has no official language, and that the Spanish language is co-official in several states?  _Must_ you learn Spanish if you want to live in New Mexico?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 2, 2004)

True, the real meaning of racism has not much to do with the spoken language. But the intolerance in the statement: "The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE" is very typicall for racists. You could rephrase it as: "Fit to the system or get out of it". Doesn't make a big difference if you fit by the race or by the language.
It's a huge difference in saying: "you need to know a language to live more comfortable" and "you have to learn a language to fit to the system".


----------



## scruffy (Nov 2, 2004)

Anyway, English isn't the official language of the US.  Canada has two official languages, the US has exactly none.  If you're in a neighbourhood where people don't speak English, and this bothers you - you're the one that should flark off, not the people whose neighbourhood it is.


----------



## mdnky (Nov 2, 2004)

scruffy said:
			
		

> Anyway, English isn't the official language of the US.  Canada has two official languages, the US has exactly none..



Where did you get that idea from?  English is the official language of the US, that's very evident.  Look at the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, every law on the book, the money used in this country (all English words), etc., etc..  Or maybe the fact that every school in the country requires a unit of English every year (out of 12 years).  Most colleges require a few English units for just about any major.  Common sense kind of dictates what that means, doesn't it?

Having had to deal with quite a few non-English (specifically Spanish) speaking people while on the FD, I can assure you it's becoming a large issue here.  I see it as a safety issue first and foremost.  It's really hard to work on a patient in the back of an Ambulance when they can't speak a lick of English.  Even worse when you have to have their 11 year old daughter sit in back with them to translate.

While that's a big problem in southwestern border states, it's not one to expect where I live.  

If they come here to work or live, they better learn the language.  It's that simple.  Why should every American have to learn their language so they can live and work in our country, which is by a VAST majority an English speaking nation?


----------



## Pengu (Nov 2, 2004)

right. maybe we need to introduce Susan to this conversation again? She doesn't speak english but I promise she's willing to learn. and she can drive a taxi AND operate a convenience store.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 2, 2004)

lol!


----------



## Pengu (Nov 3, 2004)

Oh yes. and her skin is patches of every colour available in the crayola set of markers for "skin tones" or whatever they call it.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 3, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> Where did you get that idea from?  English is the official language of the US, that's very evident.  Look at the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, every law on the book, the money used in this country (all English words), etc., etc..  Or maybe the fact that every school in the country requires a unit of English every year (out of 12 years).  Most colleges require a few English units for just about any major.  Common sense kind of dictates what that means, doesn't it?



Yes, common sense dictates that English is the generally adopted language of the United States of America; However, that does not make it the _official_ language.  The USA _officially_ has no _official_ language.  That's where it gets that from, he gets it from the _fact_ that it is a fact.

Several states do however have official state languages, and in most cases this official state language _is_ English, but in some cases Spanish is also an official state language.


Common usage does not make something "Official" I'm afraid.


----------



## Decado (Nov 3, 2004)

"Or maybe the fact that every school in the country requires a unit of English every year (out of 12 years). Most colleges require a few English units for just about any major. Common sense kind of dictates what that means, doesn't it?"

In sweden we have an equal amount of tuition in english as we have in swedish from the fourth year and up (out of 12 years). Eight years of english studies does not make english the official language. What it does is that it benefits us in our contact with other nations, and gives us the means to find opinions about the world originated from other sources than our own cultural context.

i dont want to generelize the americans since i know that about half the nation is quite sane, but i do think many americans are underinformed about the world and other views than the ones they've been taught through tradition. 
When republicans speak about this election being a fight between good and evil and say stuff like "we must stand behind our commander and chief. We must let Bush finish what he has started", it just makes them sound really unintelligent and ignorant. join the modern world and read more than your local papers!


----------



## diablojota (Nov 3, 2004)

Yes, read what the liberal media writes, and get your information with that skewed leftist slant.  Right...
Research all aspects.  There are more reasons to support someone than simply the war.
Pro-life, pro-choice - big issues for many people.
I am not going to list any more examples.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 3, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> the liberal media


----------



## Pengu (Nov 3, 2004)

I see not even the calming affect of susan can put this fire out..


----------



## diablojota (Nov 3, 2004)

Decado said:
			
		

> i dont want to generelize the americans since i know that about half the nation is quite sane, but i do think many americans are underinformed about the world and other views than the ones they've been taught through tradition.



Now, it is not necessarily true that the American's are not informed.  My parents know how it is with me living here and what people think (plus my mom reads the German news, the american news, etc), but there are other issues on the table than just Iraq and foreign policy.
There are some other issues that deeply divide the way people think in the US, so therefore they will vote left or right based on their beliefs.  Don't kid yourself into thinking that these people made these decisions just because you in Sweden don't like Bush. 
We also have our own issues in our country.  The president's job is to appease the people of the United States, while at the same time preserving a relationship with the other countries in the world.  Bush may not have the best relationship to the other countries based on the war alone, but we still export and import many products and quite freely at that.  On an economic standpoint things are not as bad as with the war.


----------



## Decado (Nov 3, 2004)

i realise that it is mre complex then the foreign policy. i was just trying to avoid bringing up religion and morality. those are subjects that should not be discussed in a civilized forum 

it seem to me that the system with just two major candidates is not good enough when they are so evenly supported. there should be a third way that incorporates good parts from both wings.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 3, 2004)

Language Legislation in the U.S.A.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/langleg.htm


----------



## bbloke (Nov 3, 2004)

Also, with regards to language:

"For more than 200 years, Americans have gotten by without declaring English our official language."
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/question.htm


Official language:
None.
English de facto nationwide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

"No Official Language 
English has never been legally made the official language of the United States. Hundreds of world languages (in fact evey language on the face of the globe) are spoken in America among immigrant communities. Native American tribes, especially the larger tribes such as the Navajo in the southwest, maintain their own vital languages."
http://www.lifeintheusa.com/landhistory/official.htm


"The United States does not have an official language; nevertheless, English is the language used for legislation, regulations, executive orders, treaties, federal court rulings, and all other official pronouncements. In some states, English, Hawaiian and Spanish are official. In 2000, the census bureau printed the standard census questionnaires in six languages: English, Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog. The English-Only movement seeks to establish English as the only official language of the nation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_in_the_United_States


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

Decado said:
			
		

> i realise that it is mre complex then the foreign policy. i was just trying to avoid bringing up religion and morality. those are subjects that should not be discussed in a civilized forum
> 
> it seem to me that the system with just two major candidates is not good enough when they are so evenly supported. there should be a third way that incorporates good parts from both wings.



Well, unfortunately you can not ignore these facts as the Americans select their canidate for the next president.
And they were apparently not so evenly supported.  3.5 million more people voted for Bush, which is actually quite a large number based on elections of late.  Also the GOP managed to increase their numbers in both the House and Senate.  The Southern Democrat is also dead.  The South has voted for more Republicans than Democrats.  
I didn't want to bring up religion and morality,but rather state that these were definite issues as well.  Also beneficial to Bush was the fact that he is consistent.  He never wavered and changed his mind as often as Kerry did.

And let's not even bring up the Health care issue.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 4, 2004)

I find it very amusing, and very worrying, that a seemingly quite large number of people in America are more concerned about stopping two people from getting married, or about stopping women having freedom of choice, than they are in, having a job, or progressing peace and stability in the middle east, or being able to afford to be treated in hospital.

I'm not going to get into a debate on the rights or wrongs of gay marriage, or abortion, or stem-cell research.  I just find it crazy that people rated these "moral issues", which basically affect their lives in no way at all, as more important than than the economy, or national security, or the welfare of American citizens, or a stable and peaceful world.  It's madness.


----------



## fryke (Nov 4, 2004)

I pity the American people. They'll have a lot of work to do after four more years of bushisms. The administration doesn't even seem to _get_ how much they're hurting the image of the USA in the world. Four more years, and I'm pretty sure - if they go on walking the Earth like an elephant in porcelaine - we'll see more and more reasons for terrorism, and thus more terrorism. America has become a liability to the world. Something must be done...


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 4, 2004)

well said, Fryke!


----------



## bbloke (Nov 4, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> The administration doesn't even seem to _get_ how much they're hurting the image of the USA in the world. Four more years, and I'm pretty sure - if they go on walking the Earth like an elephant in porcelaine - we'll see more and more reasons for terrorism, and thus more terrorism. America has become a liability to the world



Agreed, well said, fryke.  Alas.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> I pity the American people. They'll have a lot of work to do after four more years of bushisms. The administration doesn't even seem to _get_ how much they're hurting the image of the USA in the world. Four more years, and I'm pretty sure - if they go on walking the Earth like an elephant in porcelaine - we'll see more and more reasons for terrorism, and thus more terrorism. America has become a liability to the world. Something must be done...



What Hogwash - for someone who does not even live in the US, you sure presume a lot - you also exaggerate to the point
of pontification. You also display a total lack of understanding
on the subject of terrorism and its causes.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 4, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> What Hogwash - for someone who does not even live in the US, you sure presume a lot - you also exaggerate to the point of pontification. You also display a total lack of understanding on the subject of terrorism and its causes.



No he doesn't (and that applies to all your accusations in that quote)


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> No he doesn't (and that applies to all your accusations in that quote)



The comments you are refering to easily describe many 
of your opinions as well. Do some actual research before 
you make such illogical and unsupported statements.


----------



## bbloke (Nov 4, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> What Hogwash - for someone who does not even live in the US, you sure presume a lot - you also exaggerate to the point
> of pontification. You also display a total lack of understanding
> on the subject of terrorism and its causes.



Unfortunately, I think fryke is right on the money.  He is indeed displaying a good understanding of what is happening world wide, and it often concerns people outside the US that *some* (not all, I don't want to generalize) within the US do not see how Bush's actions are having a detrimental effect on international relations and world stability.

Just as a quick aside, I have spent half my life living in the US and half in the UK, so I feel in a reasonable position to comment on the relative pros and cons of the different countries' ways of doing things.  I assure you my posts are not meant to offend anyone or to attack a country that I have a lot of affection for, but there are some serious issues involved surrounding recent US foreign policy (I can back this up with further references if this thread widens).

Again, I just want to assure you that there is nothing personal in all of this and that I'm certainly not anti-American (if anything, I get accused over here of supporting the US too much!).


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

Well, i do still strongly disagree with what many of you have 
to say, but i guess i should take a step back and calm down 
a bit.

We all have opinions and some of us are always going to disagree with each other, but i grow tired of some of these "tongue-in-cheek" posts by non-US citizens that appear - to me - to be badmouthing the US - i see many generalizations and much criticism with no corresponding solutions suggested.

As a side note, i really should have known better than to argue politics on a computer forum - it was mistake, and i assure you that i will no longer participate in such discussions.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 4, 2004)

You don't "need" to live in the US to see what's going on outside of it..


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> You don't "need" to live in the US to see what's going on outside of it..



point taken


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 4, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> You don't "need" to live in the US to see what's going on outside of it..



Indeed, and sometimes it helps if you don't.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm attacking the US.  I'm not, I merely attacking the Bush administration, and the people who believe they are doing a good job (both in America and abroad), and who share their views on certain issues.

Oh, and grep, I suggest that maybe _you_ do some research, before shouting us down just because we don't agree with you and live outside of the US.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

Yet again, the "foreign policy" that the Bush administration has pushed on the rest of the world (Iraq War, War on Terror) has divided the countries in terms of who supports them and who does not, however, the relationship between the countries are not bad.  We had a spat.  However, in terms of economics, relationships are quite sound.  When governments are trying to keep their distance, you only hear about the Iraq issue, not that they want to stop trade with the US.  Why?  Because the US imports and exports so much to many of these countries.  The US also contributes billions of dollars into many countries to provide aid, such as Egypt.
Okay, so everyone disagrees with Bush's war in Iraq.  Even I don't agree.  However, the governments had the choice to assist or not, they chose not to, and that was that.  They still choose to buy products and sell products to the US and do business with US companies.
No system is perfect, but obviously the American People spoke, and the said "we want Bush for 4 more years".  
Yet again, don't just look to the US and complain about us.  Look at Germany.  The people in former East Germany showed some surprising support for the PDS (near communists) and for the NPD (sort of a reborn nazi party).  I think these results are potentially far more dangerous in the long run, especially if support continues to grow for these parties.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> ...Oh, and grep, I suggest that maybe _you_ do some research, before shouting us down just because we don't agree with you and live outside of the US.



Well, terrorism is one of the things i read about extensively.
It is a very complicated subject, and its cause(s) have developed slowly but surely over several years.

Yes, i do strongly agree that some of the utterly ignorant
BS the bush administration has perpetrated over the last 
four years has done much to feed the fire - but there is 
much more to terrorism than meets the eye ,and it cannot 
be explained away by simply blaming the US and the goatf**k known as "the war in iraq"


----------



## fryke (Nov 4, 2004)

This post is intended to get on better terms with g/re/p, so I urge you to keep this in mind when you read the following... 

I really hate (harsh word, I know) how quite often right wing people take on very simplistic views on many problems. As an example: I hate how Bush fights a "war on terrorism" by basically "bombing their a**es" on "the axis of evil". I have thus started to say what _I_ want to say in a pretty similar way. And _of course_ now people accuse me of 'not backing up my statements' etc. I believe you, grep, that you know your stuff about terrorism. And I perfectly support your very last sentence that there's much more to terrorism than meets the eye. The difference between us is how we understand these things and how we hope terrorism is dealt with.

But talking to right wing (republican) Americans, saying how I think a democrat president would be better for the world and how I think the USA should be more social and more aware of 'left' ideas, I'm marked "communist" very, very quickly. Yet, if I were to react in the same way, every right wing (republican) American would be a Nazi, and that would seem about as right to me as me being a communist - which I most certainly am not.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> But talking to right wing (republican) Americans, saying how I think a democrat president would be better for the world and how I think the USA should be more social and more aware of 'left' ideas, I'm marked "communist" very, very quickly. Yet, if I were to react in the same way, every right wing (republican) American would be a Nazi, and that would seem about as right to me as me being a communist - which I most certainly am not.



Well, I never accused you of being communist, nor do I think Liberals are communists.  Yes, there are the extremes, but most people are within the bounds of "normal" political views.  I have nothing against the liberals.  However, I do disagree with their ideas on social programs.
I think this may have also been a reason why Bush won over the Democratic canidate.  I believe people in the US are getting tired of everything being so focused in on building our relationships abroad during a Democratic presidency, and would finally like someone to focus in on the interests back home.  Also, I think many Americans are fed up with people outside of the US trying to tell them how to run their country and who they should choose for president.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

believe it or not - i actually consider myself a conservative
(but i an NOT a neo-con, lol) with radical leanings - but i do 
not lean to the left OR the right and i also share many of
the same ideas as the libertarians.

In my veiw of things, politics (and polititians) are responsible for almost every single thing that is wrong in the world today
- especially in the US.

Somewhere along the way, "by the people for the people" became
"ok, time to bend over take it" when no one was looking.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> I find it very amusing, and very worrying, that a seemingly quite large number of people in America are more concerned about stopping two people from getting married, or about stopping women having freedom of choice, than they are in, having a job, or progressing peace and stability in the middle east, or being able to afford to be treated in hospital.
> 
> I'm not going to get into a debate on the rights or wrongs of gay marriage, or abortion, or stem-cell research.  I just find it crazy that people rated these "moral issues", which basically affect their lives in no way at all, as more important than than the economy, or national security, or the welfare of American citizens, or a stable and peaceful world.  It's madness.



Now, be careful here.  Those were issues for certain State elections, not federal. These are issues that are affecting the people who live in those States.  These are issues that people think are pertinent to their lives in their local states, that affect them locally.  These are topics for the state governments to decide on.  These were not on the Federal ballots.  I do support gay marriage, however an overwhelming majority do not.  I also think we should support stem-cell research.  There are potentially many cures for diseases that can be derived from this.  
People are worried about National security and the economy.  However these are not issues on the State ballots.  Those are issues of the Federal government.  These issues are for those who are elected into the Senate and House and on up to the President.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 4, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> Also, I think many Americans are fed up with people outside of the US trying to tell them how to run their country and who they should choose for president.



Ha ha, how do you think the rest of the world feels.  At least we don't bomb you if we don't like your president. 

Yet.


----------



## Decado (Nov 4, 2004)

it's funny. in sweden, the liberal party is considered right-wing.
in north europe (at least) religion and politics seldom/never mix.

maybe that is why the republic party seem so strange and weird.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> This post is intended to get on better terms with g/re/p, so I urge you to keep this in mind when you read the following...



hey, no worrries - am glad i did not 
alienate you with my unfriendly rants.
 ::evil::


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 4, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> Now, be careful here.  Those were issues for certain State elections, not federal.



Sorry, I'm just going by repots I've read (from many sources).

From what I've read, people were asked when leaving the polls as to what the most important factor was when choosing who they were going to vote for in the presidential election.  The choices given were: moral values, terrorism, iraq, the economy.  More people gave 'moral values' as their answer than any of the other issues, and most people who gave that answer said the had voted for Bush.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3973197.stm

What amuses/amazes/worries me is that people seem to be more interested in electing a president who will help stop abortions and gay marriages (things that don't actually have any impact on their own lives - except for getting them all worked up about it) than they are in electing one who will help rebuild the economy, or help build peace in the middle east, for example.


----------



## fryke (Nov 4, 2004)

That's where we Europeans are wrong Inoelstorr. They _did_ choose Bush because he 'helps build peace in the middle east'. Just what they mean by that is obviously not compatible with how the world looks at these matters.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm just going by repots I've read (from many sources).
> 
> From what I've read, people were asked when leaving the polls as to what the most important factor was when choosing who they were going to vote for in the presidential election.  The choices given were: moral values, terrorism, iraq, the economy.  More people gave 'moral values' as their answer than any of the other issues, and most people who gave that answer said the had voted for Bush.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3973197.stm
> 
> What amuses/amazes/worries me is that people seem to be more interested in electing a president who will help stop abortions and gay marriages (things that don't actually have any impact on their own lives - except for getting them all worked up about it) than they are in electing one who will help rebuild the economy, or help build peace in the middle east, for example.



i agree that abortion should be a womans choice, and that 
it is none of the governments damn business - but i personally think it is morally wrong to abort a viable fetus.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm just going by repots I've read (from many sources).
> 
> From what I've read, people were asked when leaving the polls as to what the most important factor was when choosing who they were going to vote for in the presidential election.  The choices given were: moral values, terrorism, iraq, the economy.  More people gave 'moral values' as their answer than any of the other issues, and most people who gave that answer said the had voted for Bush.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3973197.stm
> 
> What amuses/amazes/worries me is that people seem to be more interested in electing a president who will help stop abortions and gay marriages (things that don't actually have any impact on their own lives - except for getting them all worked up about it) than they are in electing one who will help rebuild the economy, or help build peace in the middle east, for example.



Yes, Moral Values have always been an issue with the American people.  There are many problems at home with regards to family values.  Single parent households and the like.  Abortions (I am pro-choice) are a big topic as many people view this stance as murder.  I understand their point of view, and this is important.  Bush is also an image of good family values.  His story of how he and his wife met and fell in love is very good.  He doesn't have these "affairs" popping up all over the place.  He also does not have a record of divorce and marrying wealthy women...
Now, these polls are also a bunch of bunk anyway.  Check how and where the stats were collected as the can vary greatly based on the geographic location.  Many church going americans believe that strong moral values are required in our nation and they should be upheld by our president, and so far he's been much more clear on his stand than Kerry.  These people do feel that these issues do affect their lives, greatly.  As stated, many people feel that having an abortion is similar to murder.  
As for the economy, it isn't that bad.  I know many people who are getting jobs (more so than back in 2001).  The stock market is holding well.  I feel much better with the stock market being as stable as it is versus the dramatic increases of the late 90s.  That is dangerous.  But I don't see any indications that Bush and the rest of the government isn't trying to rebuild the economy.  
People are also extremely in favor of Tort reform which was a huge issue on the republican platform.
The Middle East is a difficult topic.  Not one that I am really all that interested in getting involved in discussing.  There is definitely a fissure in people's views (i.e. Treatment of women, democracy, etc.).


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 4, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> That's where we Europeans are wrong lnoelstorr. They _did_ choose Bush because he 'helps build peace in the middle east'.



Well, from surveys I've seen recently, including that one, it seemed people in America thought Kerry would do a better job than Bush in Iraq.

I guess in terms of wider middle east peace then it's not so clear as to who Americans think would be better at the job.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> Well, from surveys I've seen recently, including that one, it seemed people in America thought Kerry would do a better job than Bush in Iraq.
> 
> I guess in terms of wider middle east peace then it's not so clear as to who Americans think would be better at the job.



Yet again, don't trust surveys.  Make sure you find out whom they asked, where the asked, and how many people they asked.  If you ask this question in the New England states only, you will find that these people favor Kerry more any way, and would respond in this manner.

Surveys are bunk.  I only really pay close attention to them if they produce their target groups...


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

There is a passage in the bible (Jeremiah 1:4-5) where god speaks to jeremiah: "Jeremiah, before I formed you in your mother's womb, I knew you.Before you were even born, I set you apart and ordained you to be a prophet to the nations"

Many people site this verse as thier reason for objecting to abortion, and i tend to agree with them (no, i am not a bible thumper) BUT, the bible also teaches that god gave us all 
free will, so it still remains a personal choice as far as i am concerned - no one else should be able to make the 
decision for you.


----------



## Decado (Nov 4, 2004)

And the very same people that follows every word in the bible, neglect to see that fundamentalists and people they call "terrorists" just follows every word in their religious texts. they should get together instead and have some fun. they have a lot in common.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

And yes Decado, this is a problem.  Those who believe too literally in their religious texts.  I think it is important for people to have something that guides them, and defines right and wrong (i.e. Bible, etc.), but it is another thing to take what these mean absolutely literally.  
However, what you don't see from the people who literally believe in the text of the Bible vs. those who believe in every word from the Koran (or similar book) blowing up people in the streets, suicide bombings, and the like.


----------



## bbloke (Nov 4, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> However, what you don't see from the people who literally believe in the text of the Bible vs. those who believe in every word from the Koran (or similar book) blowing up people in the streets, suicide bombings, and the like.



Oooh, I think we have to be careful there.  Christian fundamentalists have been implicated in violent attacks on abortion clinics, for instance.  There are also terror groups in Europe which are allegedly Christian and yet carry out indiscriminate attacks.  And, worldwide, we get these sorts of stories:


"Christians massacre hundreds of Muslims
~~article_author~~ Reuters
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
YELWA, Nigeria Hundreds of Muslims were killed by Christian militiamen in the latest outbreak of ethnic fighting, a senior police officer said Tuesday. Mutilated and charred bodies still remained in the main street of Yelwa, a remote market town in central Nigeria."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1129665/posts



"Muslims in Ambon have also come under attack during Ramadan. The Ambon branch of the Gema Khadijah Muslim women's organization reported on December 27 (Ramadan 19) that refugees in the Al-Fatah mosque had been attacked by a Christian mob. The previous day, the report said, a boy had had died after a mob had skinned him alive. Several mosques have been burnt."

"Indonesia's Republika newspaper, one of the few in the country to report Muslim affairs accurately, said on January 4 that "the worst and most heartbreaking tragedy has occurred in North Maluku on December 28, 1999. No less than 800 Muslim men in three villages in the district of Tobelo, Halmahera, were massacred in a single night, while the women were raped in the streets.""

"He also told the Independent, of London, that he had seen "Christians dragging decapitated Muslim bodies through the streets outside his office"."
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/sea00/maluku.htm



I really don't want to go down the road of singling out Islam, as many Muslims I have met have been amongst the most peaceful people I know, and Islam, despite the way it is portrayed in the West, is not actually a violent religion.  Terrorism is not an Islamic phenomenon, and we have had to live with a fair amount of it, from non-Islamic groups, in Europe over the years.  I think the links with terrorism in the Middle East are often more about the utter desperation people feel, where hope seems very lacking in abundance.  The causes of that desperation are another matter.


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 4, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> i agree that abortion should be a womans choice, and that
> it is none of the governments damn business - but i personally think it is morally wrong to abort a viable fetus.


And this would be John Kerry's position.

I think the problem with this statement is that the individual quoting it is trying to appear as a moral person and at the same time not wanting to offend anybody's 'rights'.  I think that personal moral values are meaningless until they make a difference.

John Kerry voted 6 times to keep partial-birth abortion legal, and yet he still believes it is wrong to get a partial-birth abortion.  Some might say that Kerry can successfully separate personal 'religous beliefs' from politics.  I say that his moral position is meaningless until he can back it up with action.

If an unmarried couple makes a choice in the bedroom and it happens to produce a baby, well, I guess we should just kill the baby to avoid an inconvenient situation.

Arrghh... I just can't understand the thinking of pro-choice people on this one.  The choice in most cases was made in the bedroom.  Choices have consequences.  The baby has a right to be born.  End of story.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

Okay, I should've been a bit more careful in my statement. 
I should clarify my response a bit.  I was speaking more on behalf of things inside the US...


----------



## bbloke (Nov 4, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> Okay, I should've been a bit more careful in my statement.
> I should clarify my response a bit.  I was speaking more on behalf of things inside the US...



OK, I understand.  But, just to be clear, I'd still say that these things do go on inside the US too, just on a different scale and for different reasons.


"Violent protests, in the form of arson, firebombing, and vandalism started in the early 1970's in the U.S. Then, as now, most of the violence appears to be the acts of religiously-motivated criminals acting alone. However, recent cases involving the assassination and attempted murder of abortion providers in both the U.S. and Canada have shown that perpetrators appear to be sheltered by a network of sympathizers."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm



"Abortion clinics, providers and workers often live in fear of Christian activists. Only recently captured, Eric Rudolph has been charged with a deadly bombing at the Olympics and with two other blasts in Atlanta at abortion clinics. Although the choice of the Olympics as a target may sound strange, it must be remembered that many far-right Christians regard anything which smacks of internationalism - the UN, the IMF, and the Olympics - as tools of Satan. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regards the other recent attempted bombings and attempted arson attacks at Alabama abortion clinics to represent a heightened threat to life and property."

"When Muslim extremists place a bomb at a bus station in Israel, it is justifiably regarded as an act committed by "Muslim Terrorists." When are we going to wake up and recognize that similar acts here are being committed by "Christian Terrorists?""
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_abortion.htm



"During the heyday of the far right, in the early and mid '80s, the racialist underground often attacked abortion. Bob Mathews, leader of the terror gang known as The Order, saw abortion as the suicide of the white race. Jim Wickstrom, the Christian Identity leader of another underground terror group called the Posse Comitatus, ranted against Jewish doctors and nurses who engaged in abortion. Posse screeds claimed the space program was part of a plot to get rid of aborted fetuses by blasting them into space.

More recently, the federal government's storming of the Branch Davidians at their Waco compound brought the two groups together. Waco convinced the racialist right and fundamentalist Christians to temporarily set aside their differences, and join together in an attack on the federal government. Abortion was one area on which most groups could agree.

Last year the Buchanan campaign temporarily united a wide range of prolife, militia, and other far-right activists behind the conservative journalist's quest for the Republican nomination. Abortion was one of the principal issues that helped bring together the disparate Buchanan followers. Larry Pratt, a top official in the Buchanan campaign and well known in Washington as a right wing operative, was forced to resign when he was revealed to have addressed far-right racialist gatherings. Pratt is sometimes credited with helping to found the militia movement."
http://www.buildingequality.us/ifas/fw/9703/bombs.html


(Note: I'm not taking a stance on abortion here, just citing it as a context for Christian-based violence, nor am I attacking Christians, being a believer myself!  I just wanted to point out my concerns, whatever the circumstances and regardless of which "groups" or nations are involved.)


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

Okay, you are correct.  I stand corrected.  I will now modify my statement slightly.
The Christian nut-jobs don't blow up things/themselves so frequently as those following other religious beliefs.  I will not say they don't do it, but there are much fewer extreme christians who go blow themselves up than the others.  You don't hear about christian militants using car bombs or suicide bombers in near as much frequency.  (And I do mean before the Iraq war as well).


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> And this would be John Kerry's position.
> 
> I think the problem with this statement is that the individual quoting it is trying to appear as a moral person and at the same time not wanting to offend anybody's 'rights'.  I think that personal moral values are meaningless until they make a difference.
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree to an extent.  However, I would rather have a fetus in the first tri-mester be aborted rather than being born in a world where it isn't wanted.  These children typically grow up in an unloved family, have either difficulty in relationships, become drug users, or even turn to crime.  
There are most certainly valid arguments to both sides of this issue.  However, if you can decide whether to take your child off of a ventilator (after a serious accident, or something similar) and have them die, I also think a woman should be able to choose whether to abort a fetus if she does not have the means to provide for it, or even wants the baby.  I think bringing the child into the world when it isn't wanted is far worse than aborting it.  You see so many kids are still in adoption agencies or in Foster homes...


----------



## Jeffo (Nov 4, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> I pity the American people. They'll have a lot of work to do after four more years of bushisms. The administration doesn't even seem to _get_ how much they're hurting the image of the USA in the world. Four more years, and I'm pretty sure - if they go on walking the Earth like an elephant in porcelaine - we'll see more and more reasons for terrorism, and thus more terrorism. America has become a liability to the world. Something must be done...



yeah because the image of the USA would have been so much better with kerry

</sarcasm>

Edit:
I thought i would put in a bit more here before people bashed me.

I am not saying that everything bush is doing/has done is the best thing that could have been done.  I just think that kerry would have made an even bigger mockery out of the US than clinton did.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 4, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> Surveys are bunk.  I only really pay close attention to them if they produce their target groups...



Well, why do you not look up the sources then to check their target groups?

If you did you'd find they were carried out by Edison Media Research, as part of the exit polls they carried out across all 50 states and DC.

Full results are here:

http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2004/11/view_election_2.html


They're quite interesting.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 4, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Arrghh... I just can't understand the thinking of pro-choice people on this one.  The choice in most cases was made in the bedroom.  Choices have consequences.  The baby has a right to be born.  End of story.


One could also say: masturbation is now forbidden by law. Every sperm has the right to fertilize an egg!
A living body truly deserves to live. But is a non-breathing baby already one? Is a sperm or an egg already one? 
Shouldn't we allow the mother to decide whether she wants to go over the 9 months of pregancy, 1 year baby-break and possibly end up in a financial fiasco and loose her job? We gotta face it, the state does not support couples with children that well. So, how can we dare to force a mother and a father to go through it?
And another fact: pregnancy does NOT mostly come by decisions in bedrooms. At least not such that turn to the wish of abortions. And no one can forbid a couple to not have sex if they don't want to have a Baby. Beside the case of negligence, no obviation is 100% trustful.
This truely is pure intolerance to my eyes.


----------



## diablojota (Nov 4, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> Well, why do you not look up the sources then to check their target groups?
> 
> If you did you'd find they were carried out by Edison Media Research, as part of the exit polls they carried out across all 50 states and DC.
> 
> ...



Hmmm.... Let's see.  13,660 respondants.  That is hardly what I call a good cross section of the 100 million + people who voted.  Especially since people get to choose whether or not to partake in the exit polls.
Plus it gives no geographical breakdown of where they got the number of responses and so on...
Sorry still doesn't convince me.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 4, 2004)

I think it's much better to have an abortion, than for a mother to carry a child she doesn't want and have it born to a family that doesn't want it.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 4, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... Let's see.  13,660 respondants.  That is hardly what I call a good cross section of the 100 million + people who voted.  Especially since people get to choose whether or not to partake in the exit polls.
> Plus it gives no geographical breakdown of where they got the number of responses and so on...
> Sorry still doesn't convince me.



You can click on each state to see the figures for each one.

Also, each one includes a statistic of how many people questioned lived in big cities, small cities, semi-rural, rural, etc...


I'm not sure what it doesn't convince you off.  It's supposed to show trends, not exact statistics.  It certainly convinces me that there are a worrying number of people across the US who think "moral issues" are the most important factor in picking a president.


----------



## Viro (Nov 4, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> I think it's much better to have an abortion, than for a mother to carry a child she doesn't want and have it born to a family that doesn't want it.



I think it's better that people learn to be responsible in the first place and realise that sex does have consequences. People should realise that a baby is quite different from an unwanted pet or something expendable. Even with an unwanted pet, you don't just decide to put it down when you're tired of it, you normally give it away. 

Adoption would be preferable to abortion since even in the UK, there are many couples who want to have children but aren't able to for various reasons. These couples would be more than happy to adopt any child that is considered 'unwanted'.


----------



## Viro (Nov 4, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> One could also say: masturbation is now forbidden by law. Every sperm has the right to fertilize an egg!



That's taking it a bit too far, Zammy. If that were the case, menstrual cycles would be deemed illegal, since all those unfertilized eggs are wasted each month.


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 4, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> One could also say: masturbation is now forbidden by law. Every sperm has the right to fertilize an egg!
> A living body truly deserves to live. But is a non-breathing baby already one? Is a sperm or an egg already one?


Human life begins at conception.  Yes, a non-breathing baby is a life that deserves to live.  A sperm or egg are not.


			
				Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> And another fact: pregnancy does NOT mostly come by decisions in bedrooms. At least not such that turn to the wish of abortions.


I refuse to believe that.


----------



## Decado (Nov 4, 2004)

What if the girl is raped? 
Do you think she should carry that child?

i'm a big fan of Descartes, cogito ergo sum. life is not life until it is realising it and is thus created by its experience and analysis of its surroundings.

therefore an unborn featus got no perception of life and is therefor not deprived of anything were the pregnancy to be stoped.

But i realise that not everybody likes descartes and that a religious person could argue that the child is deprived of its future, a concept that does not exist outside religion.

peace.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> And this would be John Kerry's position.
> I think the problem with this statement is that the individual quoting it is trying to appear as a moral person and at the same time not wanting to offend anybody's 'rights'.  I think that personal moral values are meaningless until they make a difference.



Personal moral values are just that - personal.
They only become meaningless if they are not followed when put to the test. I believe it is morally wrong to abort a viable fetus and would never agree to my wife doing so - this is not
a meaningless value. 

The fact that i respect other people's right to choose is based on my belief that god gives us all the choice of freewill - 
it most certainly does not conflict with my objections to abortion.

Moral values are not always necessarily based on religious beliefs, but in this case mine are.


----------



## Viro (Nov 5, 2004)

Decado said:
			
		

> What if the girl is raped?
> Do you think she should carry that child?



That's a different case. How many babies are aborted because they belong to victims of rape cases? How many are just aborted because of lack of care when frolicking in the bed?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 5, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Human life begins at conception.  Yes, a non-breathing baby is a life that deserves to live.  A sperm or egg are not.
> I refuse to believe that.


Does someone has the right to force you (if you were a woman) to go through 9months of pregnancy eventhough you don't want this? I would call this intentional physical injury. Does someone has the right to force you not to work for almost 2 years and endanger your current work or educational status?
You were talking about consequences of decisions. If it was a decision, I'd agree with you. Decisions have consequences! Since it mostly isn't such, I think no one has the right to judge on this but the ppl who are affected by it. 
I don't understand there is so much - forgive my honesty - blind morality in such cases and in other cases none at all. Why don't we care about african babies dying of hunger and the mothers who DO WANT them. No, we concentrate on sexual accidents. I really don't get this..

PS.: The example with the sperm was not very suitable. I was trying to express the complexity of the definition of life. I don'T think a fetus meets those criteria.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 5, 2004)

Maybe the root of this discusion lies on the point either couples did decide to get a baby and then refuse to bring it to life or if that pregnancy was a sexual accident. I believe it's the last point and would be very surprised if someone could prove me wrong.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 5, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> I think it's better that people learn to be responsible in the first place and realise that sex does have consequences.



Indeed, and another problem with the Bush administration is that they are in favour of abstinence only sex education, rather than teaching teenagers about the benefits of contraception for when their desires really do get the better of them. 




> People should realise that a baby is quite different from an unwanted pet or something expendable.



People do realise that, that is why they opt for abortion in an unwanted pregnancy,  They realise that a baby _is_ a big issue, and _isn't_ something expendable, so they decide not to have a baby.




> Adoption would be preferable to abortion since even in the UK, there are many couples who want to have children but aren't able to for various reasons. These couples would be more than happy to adopt any child that is considered 'unwanted'.



So a mother should go through 9 months of carrying a baby, that is then going to be given up for adoption, and suffer everything that means for her, whilst at the same time probably having a negative impact on the developing baby as it is suspected that a mother's emotional state can affect a developing baby, and also because she may not necessarily take the usual precautions a mother should?

Oh, and dammit, I said I wasn't going to get into a debate on these issues!!


----------



## Tetano (Nov 5, 2004)

well, as a biotechnologist, and without fear of being wrong, either a sperm could be consider a life... have you ever seen it in a microscope? damn, it runs like hell!!! and abortion is not only a way to get rid of an error done in the bedroom, consider that there are malformations and genetic pathologies that doesn't kill the baby, but result in a huge cost therapy for all the duration of life... is it fair for a woman to risk her life, because the born of a child isn't a 100% secure practice, for a child who would suffer for the rest of his life and would suck like a vampire all the money that she has?
also about adoption, not every couple wants to have an adopted child, in some cases they want _their_ child...


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 5, 2004)

Planned Parenthood:


> Why do women have abortions?
> 
> Women who report having abortions generally give three reasons for doing so: three-quarters say that having a child would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities. About two-thirds report that they cannot afford to have a child. Half do not want to be a single parent or are experiencing relationship problems with their husband or partner. And each year, about 14,000 women have abortions because they become pregnant as a result of rape or incest.



This website has this to say:


> Studies conducted by Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute indicate that two consenting and fertile adults have only a 3 percent chance of pregnancy from an act of intercourse. They also indicate there are factors involved in a rape which further reduce these chances for rape victims. The Guttmacher Institute says 14,000 abortions per year are due to rape or incest, which amounts to just over 1 percent of all abortions. Other studies show that pregnancies due to rape are much rarer than is generally thought, perhaps as few as one in a thousand cases. Furthermore, since conception doesn't occur immediately after intercourse, pregnancy can be prevented in the great majority of rape cases by medical treatment that removes the semen before an ovum can be fertilized.



Conclusion:
MOST ABORTING WOMEN ARE NOT RAPED.


----------



## Tetano (Nov 5, 2004)

well, without shouting, don't know about you, but i'm 25 like you, and the money I get in a month at work is just enough for me to survive, so I don't think it's a good idea to have a child and making him live in hunger...
and i intend rape also for a 14 years old girl forced to get drunk and then -oh, I guess how?- find herself pregnant the day after.....


----------



## Decado (Nov 5, 2004)

big letters.
wow. 14 thousand. and if only one percent lead to pregnancy, that means that about 1.400 000 girls are raped every year in the US.
that is sick.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 5, 2004)

MDLarson, do you think law should be allowed to force a woman to go through the pregancy considering all the riscs she has to go through?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 5, 2004)

Decado said:
			
		

> big letters.
> wow. 14 thousand. and if only one percent lead to pregnancy, that means that about 1.400 000 girls are raped every year in the US.
> that is sick.


----------



## lurk (Nov 5, 2004)

Come now lets everyone sing Monty Python's classic Hymn, "Every Sperm is Sacred".

(It is quite good ;-))


----------



## Cat (Nov 5, 2004)

Indeed, LOL!


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 5, 2004)

Decado said:
			
		

> big letters.
> wow. 14 thousand. and if only one percent lead to pregnancy, that means that about 1.400 000 girls are raped every year in the US.
> that is sick.


If somebody still believes that most abortions are performed on rape victims, let me know and I'll make it bold.  I've already tried to make is as big as possible. 

And where do you get *your* 1% statistic?  I found some myths that rape CAN'T produce pregnancy, and also that "one-offs" (like rape) are _more likely_ to produce pregnancy.



			
				Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> MDLarson, do you think law should be allowed to force a woman to go through the pregancy considering all the riscs she has to go through?


Which women and what risks?  I find your terminology interesting.  "Force a woman to go through the pregnancy", as if it's torture or something.  Most mothers are very excited at the prospect.


----------



## Decado (Nov 6, 2004)

"And where do you get your 1% statistic? I found some myths that rape CAN'T produce pregnancy, and also that "one-offs" (like rape) are more likely to produce pregnancy."

I got it from the text Viro was quoting. kind of. it said that "fertile adults have only a 3 percent chance of pregnancy from an act of intercourse. They also indicate there are factors involved in a rape which further reduce these chances for rape victims."

i know i could just as easily have said 2%.

and it isnt the point if most unwanted pregnancies have their origin in rape. even if it was only one in a billion there still should not be a law that forces the women to carry it.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 6, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Which women and what risks?  I find your terminology interesting.  "Force a woman to go through the pregnancy", as if it's torture or something.  Most mothers are very excited at the prospect.


Oh come on! Where are you living? Any woman, even those that are hardly waiting for their Baby, is scared of going through it but looks at the end of the road: holding their Baby - their own flesh and blood - in their arms. And now imagine a woman that is not even happy with the end.. In the process of 9 months pregancy there is a lot of pain involved. You are very reduced in things you were used to do. For a bunch of woman out there, this is a heavy limitation. And now let's even take a look at the things after: A friend of mine told me, that since he and his wife got their Baby, they are spending approximately 300Euro more every months and he is not buying her any fancy stuff even. No state will cover these expenses! They have very less sleep for 1 year after the pregancy, they had to reduce their working time to care for the Baby since they can't afford a nany and they don't have any one like the grandma who is hardly waiting for taking care for it..
Now, do you still think the state should have the right to force couples to go through it? 
I understand your point that there should be no turning back once you decide on something. But in this case, no matter if decided or not, this is not right and slightly even hurts the womans rights, how I find. Women are no Baby-machines that have to give birth.


----------



## fryke (Nov 6, 2004)

Of _course_ a woman should have the right to abort. And _of course_ she should be aware of the consequences that might have - as well as of the consequences to have a child might have.

I don't understand how people can be for freedom and at the same time want to force people _not_ to have free choice and free will. I mean: Come on! Even Christian belief should let the others do what they want. They don't go to heaven in your belief? So what! They're allowed to have their own beliefs - even according to the constitution of the USA. And if they believe that they're still going to heaven, and even if they're wrong at it, they should be allowed to walk down the wrong path. Because you've ALWAYS gotta remember that it's the wrong path only in YOUR belief and not theirs...

Allowing women to have an abortion does not mean in any way that you or your wife does HAVE to have an abortion.

And believe me, there ARE enough reasons for abortions. And quite surely, each and every case should be carefully handled. I'm not for abortions in cases where women just were careless in bed. I'm for education in those cases, even psychological help if needed. But in those cases where it's important _not_ to have that child (rape was mentioned, financial situations were mentioned...), a woman should have the right to get an abortion. If you're against the freedom of choice of the individual, and you're for bringing 'freedom to Iraq', your understanding of freedom is severely flawed. I'd say you're elitary in a very, very wrong way.


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 6, 2004)

OK, I am a guy.  I don't understand what a woman goes through in pregnancy.  But when you folks talk about child-birth being a burden FORCED on by the LAW... man... we are in 2 completely different worlds here.

The only issue I care about is whether or not abortion is MURDER.  I believe it is, therefore the only area I am willing to give ground on is in rape cases or cases were the mother's life is in danger.  ALL other pregnancies (including poor financial circumstances) should be carried to full term.

What we are talking about is a HUMAN LIFE.  Not just a "cluster of cells" or some dehumanizing equivalent.  I am going to keep hammering that away, because I believe that is irrefutable, and that is what drives me.

If I am "elitary" for wanting to protect the innocent unborn, you'll just have to tolerate me.

Tolerate THIS.


----------



## chevy (Nov 6, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> [...] If you're against the freedom of choice of the individual, and you're for bringing 'freedom to Iraq', your understanding of freedom is severely flawed. I'd say you're elitary in a very, very wrong way.



I agree.

This "freedom" is similar to the "democracy" of the former Eastern Germany. Just a word whose signification has been modified for political reasons.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 6, 2004)

Till up to 3 months after fertilization the "Baby" is called embryo and this is the limit for abortions. A missed cycle is mostly a good sign for an unexpected pregnancy and after the second month, women tend to check at doc and then consider an abortion. At this time the embryo has 3cm in length, no gender, no brain activity and 10g of weight. It is not yet understood as a living autonomous creature as less as a sperm or ovum is. If killing an embryo is - by your understanding - murdering, than everytime you mastrubated you murdered as well. Sorry for taking back this example, but I think there is a huge difference in killing an embryo than a breathing, smiling, feeling, moving and farting child.
I love children and I am very much looking forward to have one. But I think ppl should be more responsible when they claim that abortions should be forbidden. Not only because of my previously mentioned arguments on hurting the womans right but also in another case: in the moment when parents don't want the child, their parental competence is already critical. How responsible are we then if we still insist on the child to grow up in that family and possible end up as a social case? That's what I really call careless..

EDIT: Doesn't your country allow embryo-experiments? I am not sure about it, but if that is true, that would be quite strange. On the one hand claiming abortions are homicides but then doing research on human embryos...


----------



## Decado (Nov 6, 2004)

isnt the bible against masturbation 
"9. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10.	And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also."
(Genesis, chapter 38, paragraph 9-10)


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 6, 2004)

Abortion is murder.  I have nothing more to say.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 6, 2004)

remains to me like blind morality.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 6, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> The only issue I care about is whether or not abortion is MURDER.  I believe it is, therefore the only area I am willing to give ground on is in rape cases or cases were the mother's life is in danger.  ALL other pregnancies (including poor financial circumstances) should be carried to full term.



If you truly believe that abortion is murder, you should object just as strongly to abortion in cases of rape.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 6, 2004)

Decado said:
			
		

> isnt the bible against masturbation
> "9. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
> 10.	And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also."
> (Genesis, chapter 38, paragraph 9-10)



yes, you are correct - but god stopped slaying people for sinning after he sent jesus here to die for our sins.


----------



## Decado (Nov 7, 2004)

that was nice of him.


----------

