OT: Dear Protesters

[shrink]

Maybe someone can explain to me how one can be pro-life and pro-war at the same time. War, by definition, equals death and destruction so it would seem the two would be incompatable.

I'm not religious, but I think the difference is free will.

[C.lupus]

Pro-life is just a spin term for anti-abortion, don't put too much emphasis on it. War and abortion are two separate issues. The same way being pro-choice doesn't mean you're an anarchist or libertarian.

I get that but the reason behind the anti-abortion stance for most (at least from what I’ve heard) is that, as rev said, “Life is sacred”. So, if life is sacred (and I think it is) then it should be sacred for all, right?

It's kind of like being pro-choice and anti-war. Liberals want to end death and destruction, just as long the people they want to protect is outside of the womb. To me, there's no difference. If it has a heartbeat, it's alive.

Both of the major political parties have contradictions, just like many of the religions of the world.

This is a good point and I don’t argue that both parties are full of contradictions. I will counter with this, though (at the risk of over-generalizing). Most anti-war liberals are peaceniks. That is, they are more pro-peace than pro-life. From that perspective, it isn’t as contradictory to be pro-choice and anti-war.

I'm not religious, but I think the difference is free will.

Care to expand or expound?

[Worm Guts]

I'm not religious, but I think the difference is free will.

Care to expand or expound?

I think the idea is that war is between two willing participants, each side normally feeling as if they've been wronged in some manner. I think it's a much different issue than abortion.

[mayorhoiberg]

This separation is critical to our form of government because in the end, democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This might be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics involves compromise, the art of the possible. But religion does not allow for compromise. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on them would be dangerous.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... bama_x.htm

[Devilzsidewalk]

I don't understand why you think this? As far as I know, Obama has done virtually nothing to show he can have any effect on social reform at all. In fact, McCain, if we just look at the Gang of 14, has probably done more for Democratic principles than Obama has!

Jimmy Carter talked a good game as well, but its what you have done, not what you have said, that matters to me. Maybe Obama will show in the future he can get legitimate stuff done, and perhaps he'll be a good candidate down the road. Right now, to me, he's a pleasant sounding empty suit.

maybe my use of the phrase "social reform" is mucking things up, its been overused and means a lot of things

I don't really consider myself throughly anti-John McCain or pro-Obama, but I've read both of their platforms - I like that McCain is pushing nuclear energy a lot, I like that he's pushing FFVs and alcohol fuels a lot. But he doesn't seem to get the big picture on moving education as a whole into the 21st century. Reading his "ideas" on education reform is absurd. There's literally nothing of substance there. Online tutors and the opportunity to switch schools? Come on. As for expanding the US' technology, I don't think he knows quantum mechanics from quantum leap.

I guess if you're really pissed about those damn Mexicans sneaking across the border and stealing your job while you sleep, terrorists hiding under your bed, and the CIA busting down your door to steal your precious cache of firearms while tearing the Bill of Rights to pieces while you sob uncontrollably, then I guess McCain is the man for the job.

Me, I want president who has some vague idea of the importance of science and technology and is ready to make a dent.

And like I've mentioned, I'm not some pro-Obama homer; he has major flaws that I don't like - I think he's ill-informed on alcohol fuels (most are) and his space program agenda is non-existent, but when I compare and contrast the pros and cons of the two, McCains flaws are more dangerous, and Obama's pros seem poised to have a more long-lasting positive effect. I think his priorities are more realistic and more important. To be honest, I don't care about abortions and gay marriages and immigration and gun control. I know many disagree, but if a candidate didn't mention those things at all, I'd be just fine.

I think not starting wars and picking fights with other countries is important (Obama), I think major major increases in technology and science funding is important (Obama), I think bringing the education system into the 21st century is important (Obama), I think getting away from oil dependency is important (McCain), I think reducing pollution and becoming more eco-friendly is important - 137 countries ratify the Kyoto Protocol - every developed nation except the US, nice (Obama)

Obama wins 4 - 1. People say he's vague and has no plans, but you don't make big changes with micro-management, you make big changes with big visions. The UN is a big vision, good job FDR.
The No Child Left Behind Act is small potatoes and didn't accomplish anything.

but either way, I'll be ok. Vote McCain, Vote Obama, Vote Nader, Vote Nobody, I don't think the world is at stake. But I'd like to see something positive happen for once. US society is getting stupider and more violent by the minute, some educational reform and toning down of military excursions would be a welcome change for me.

[shrink]

Me, I want president who has some vague idea of the importance of science and technology and is ready to make a dent.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but McCain has served on the Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for ten years. Obama's expertise in science comes from .. what .. he says so?

Anyway, I was thinking about my post, and I think it says more about me than about either candidate. I'm older than most of the posters here, and I am disillusioned since virtually every politician I can think of has said one thing, and done another. Heck, even Wellstone, one of the most idealistic politician I can remember, promised that if elected, he'd never run for a second term. I have perhaps tuned out almost everything politicians say, so if an honest politician ever showed up, I wouldn't know.

When I tune out all they say, I am left with what they do. For McCain and Obama, I can compare what McCain has done, vs what Obama says. If a voter doesn't like what McCain has done over the last 18 years, they shouldn't vote for him. In fact, there are plenty of conservatives that won't vote for McCain because of his actions, and that's the way it should be -- responsibility for what you do. If voters like what McCain has done, then they should vote for him.

For me, I just get sick of politics, sick of the lies, and sick of the spin. If people want to take that leap of faith that Obama is legit, then they have every right.

[Klomp]

Klomp,
The key issue is the difference between Catholic Christianity and modern day protestantism. In Catholicism we have a moral system/teaching that we are bound to. In modern day protestantism people can justify almost anything and often they do. 30 years ago protestantism was against birth control, but that changed. Same with abortion and any other moral issue that is uncomfortable. It is the sad situation that is happening in modern day protestantism.

OK, that makes sense. However, as you know, I am most certainly not Catholic. Thats what I was trying to get at with his point.

[deeney0]

I don't know if you are aware of this, but McCain has served on the Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for ten years. Obama's expertise in science comes from .. what .. he says so?

John McCain doesn't use a computer. I don't see very many people taking the argument that John McCain is the science/technology candidate seriously.

When I tune out all they say, I am left with what they do. For McCain and Obama, I can compare what McCain has done, vs what Obama says. If a voter doesn't like what McCain has done over the last 18 years, they shouldn't vote for him. In fact, there are plenty of conservatives that won't vote for McCain because of his actions, and that's the way it should be -- responsibility for what you do. If voters like what McCain has done, then they should vote for him.

That helps me understand where you're coming from quite a bit, but I have trouble understanding how you reconcile the discrepancy between where John McCain was and where he is now on several of the key issues you seem to care about.

[casey]

I get that but the reason behind the anti-abortion stance for most (at least from what I’ve heard) is that, as rev said, “Life is sacred”. So, if life is sacred (and I think it is) then it should be sacred for all, right?

Abortion is a matter of convenience. Killing because you did something stupid and don't want to accept your responsibilities (I have no problems with abortion in the case of rape). War is a matter of life or death, kill or be killed. And the point is to make the world a better place, to stop immoral activity that is going on. The goal of war is really life, not death.

[shrink]

I don't know if you are aware of this, but McCain has served on the Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for ten years. Obama's expertise in science comes from .. what .. he says so?

John McCain doesn't use a computer. I don't see very many people taking the argument that John McCain is the science/technology candidate seriously.

Hey, I use a computer too! Can I be the science and technology presidential candidate? As far as I know, that alone matches me with Obama! Heck, my young daughter is pretty capable on a computer as well. Is there some accomplishment Obama has done to distinguish himself as the science and technology candidate over her?

I don't know if many of the younger posters are aware of this, but not using a computer is often associated more with age than any lack of science knowledge. When I've worked with attorneys, you can almost draw a distinct line based on age of who doesn't use a computer, and those who find a computer indispensible. Both can be effective, both bill for big bucks.

Senators choose the committees they want to serve on. I imagine he's been hearing from the BEST scientists and tech-heads in America, allocating funding and working on that corner of the budget with the committee, and done so for a number of years. Me, my daughter and Obama haven't had access to those people -- but since we use a computer, WE get the nod?

Consider what a computer does, and tell me what function it serves that John McCain isn't having done. Write speeches? The ones he writes, he's been writing with pen and ink, or perhaps with a steno/secretary/dictaphone. Computers give you access to information? McCain has people to do that too, and probably (?) with a lot more reliability than the info posted on the internet. The computer as McCain's scheduling tool? Please.

The computer is a tool to do the mundane jobs that can be handled just as well with manpower. However, you'll never get anyone under 30 to agree with that!

[shrink]

When I tune out all they say, I am left with what they do. For McCain and Obama, I can compare what McCain has done, vs what Obama says. If a voter doesn't like what McCain has done over the last 18 years, they shouldn't vote for him. In fact, there are plenty of conservatives that won't vote for McCain because of his actions, and that's the way it should be -- responsibility for what you do. If voters like what McCain has done, then they should vote for him.

That helps me understand where you're coming from quite a bit, but I have trouble understanding how you reconcile the discrepancy between where John McCain was and where he is now on several of the key issues you seem to care about.

Do you honestly believe he is the first guy that wants his party's nomination for president who has voted closer to party lines the year before the election. Heck, Obama sure did it!

Second, why do you think that these votes represent "where he is now" moreso than the other 16 years of voting?

[deeney0]

Do you honestly believe he is the first guy that wants his party's nomination for president who has voted closer to party lines the year before the election. Heck, Obama sure did it!

No, but for someone who has said they prioritize honesty and character in a candidate you seem to be blatantly ignoring what McCain has been doing while holding Obama to a different standard.

Hey, I use a computer too! Can I be the science and technology presidential candidate?

You're more qualified than John McCain to be labeled as such, yes.

Some Media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBTpZ650l4w
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40

Meanwhile, John McCain's running mate supports teaching creationism in schools. You really are going to contend he's the pro science candidate?

[deeney0]

The fact of the matter is that life is sacred and we should not kill someone to avoid the outcome of someone's free choice.

I agree that a rape is horrible. It is life changing. The problem we have is an abortion does not get rid of that event.

So which is it? It’s not O.K. to kill someone to avoid the outcome of a free choice, or not O.K. to kill someone at all? If it’s the former, then abortion should be allowed in the case of rape. If it’s the latter, then it has nothing to do with free choice. You can’t have it both ways.

It does not fix it. It does not make the woman feel better. If anything, from an emotional and a physiological standpoint it would make the woman worst.

You seem awful confident telling other people what they will (should) feel.

You argue that having a baby with a birth defect is wrong also. Is that not the logic Hitler used? Even if the child has a defect it is still a life. All lives deserve a chance to be. We do not have the authority to decide who lives and who dies. I think this is a very easy moral answer. If a child is born with a defect then at least they have the chance to live rather than dying. The simply life, a life less luxurious than your life is still better than never having a chance to live.

There are degrees of birth defects. We’re not talking about Down Syndrome here. Tay-Sachs is an unbelievably cruel disease. Fatty acids accumulate in the nerve cells, causing excruciating pain and cell death. The child becomes blind and deaf and loses all muscle control. Survival beyond the age of 4 is rare. This is prenatal euthanasia we’re talking about. Another example, less than 10% of children born with trisomy 18 live past their first year. Again, their short time on earth is constant agony.

The U.S. has such a high teen prego rate because of our view of sex being beyond perverted. We understand sex as a drug that gets satisfied from any woman willing to do it. We allow this to be the mentality of high school kids as well. The issue should be dealt with in how parents teach what sex is. There has to be responsibility. Not just in the kids, but in other aspects as well. Free birth control in schools is an endorsement of the problem. It does not stop the solution. It would be as if parents are worried that the weed the kids smoke is laced so they hand out pure stuff in school. Rather than keeping the kids of the drugs.

You would rather ignore the problem. People shouldn’t speed on the interstate, so why have safety features in cars? You seem to think you have the right to tell other people how they should think and feel about sex. That’s not a philosophy I subscribe to. Many European countries have what you would describe as an even more perverted outlook on sex than the US does, but without abstinence-only sex education they have lower incidents of teen pregnancy.

And free birth control isn’t an endorsement of the problem anymore than seat belts are an endorsement of reckless driving or safe-walk and safe-ride programs are an endorsement of binge drinking.

[TheFranchise21]

The rape analogy is an overused and unproductive situation. I agree that a rape is horrible. It is life changing. The problem we have is an abortion does not get rid of that event. It does not fix it. It does not make the woman feel better. If anything, from an emotional and a physiological standpoint it would make the woman worst. Our instinct is to understand the abortion as making the situation better. To undo the wrong, but the truth is that nothing will and killing a baby would just create more damage. Have the child and give it up to an abortion. Let there be good that comes out of the horrible event.

Tf21,
Pro-life all the time. Simple as that. It is a mentality to treat life as sacred. The "gray areas" are tough moral choices, but I dealt with two of them above. The only situation I can think of that would be a gray area is a situation where the child or mother could die. The church says that it is the choice of the Mother in that regard. I know 2 mothers that have risked their lives in a situation where the child was born. They ended up being fine. (one of the children is engaged to my sister) The only situation I would say an abortion is ok would be mirror syndrome. Only because the end result of that horrible disease is the death of the child and the mother. If my wife and I get prego and there is something wrong with the situation. Something that will possibly kill my wife then I will choose her over the child. It will be the hardest choice I ever make and it will hurt. Similar to if you had your child and your wife falling off a cliff and you could only help one.

I feel that a large part of religion is interpretation. How you interpret teachings and scriptures depends on each individual. I have formed my own belief that abortion is tolerable only in the most extreme cases. I cannot fathom how anyone could force a woman to go through the long and painful process of pregnancy, and then not only that, but also raise the child of a person who physically, emotionally, and psychologically abused/harassed them. I am not any less Catholic than you are and you are no more Catholic than me if I believe abortion is OK in extreme cases.

I personally know Catholic priests who allow homosexuals to receive communion without reconciliation. There's just too much uncertainty in the Catholic faith that I do not feel any wrong by believing my own set of rules for abortion. Until the entire Catholic faith can come to a standard law/rule/way of thinking, I am free to believe that abortion in the case of rape is OK, and that my idea isn't any better than yours, and vice versa.

Klomp,
The key issue is the difference between Catholic Christianity and modern day protestantism. In Catholicism we have a moral system/teaching that we are bound to. In modern day protestantism people can justify almost anything and often they do. 30 years ago protestantism was against birth control, but that changed. Same with abortion and any other moral issue that is uncomfortable. It is the sad situation that is happening in modern day protestantism.

I know Catholics are very slow to change but please don't make it seem like we haven't changed because that is completely untrue. I'm too lazy right now to look up articles but I know that Vatican has changed what they consider to be a deadly sin.

[deeney0]

Equal recognition of gay marriage is certainly not the Catholic viewpoint, but I believe it is the Christian viewpoint and most certainly the moral viewpoint. This is the civil rights issue of our era, it's going to happen. You don't have to be comfortable with it, but that's not a good enough reason to oppose it. Why many Republicans want to be George Wallace about it boggles my mind.

Since when?

Somewhere between "Love thy neighbor" and "Do unto others".

[C.lupus]

Abortion is a matter of convenience. Killing because you did something stupid and don't want to accept your responsibilities (I have no problems with abortion in the case of rape). War is a matter of life or death, kill or be killed. And the point is to make the world a better place, to stop immoral activity that is going on. The goal of war is really life, not death.

The goals of wars are almost always advancement of political agendas or boundaries. Those countries that are being invaded or that are coming to the aid of an invaded country can certainly claim a moral stance. The countries that start the conflict cannot. Some wars are inevitable and likely necessary and some are just down right immoral. Going after Al Qaeda (remember them?) is morally justified. Going after Iraq because it has strategic oil reserves and because of some unfinished family business is not. For the current President to claim to be pro-life and send thousands of Americans and Iraqis to their deaths in order to line the pockets of himself and his friends is the height of hypocrisy.

I should clarify also that I was thinking more of the leaders that start wars, not the soldiers doing the dirty work. I have nothing but respect for our soldiers who have and are doing their duty.

As for abortion, it is a convenience act for most. More investment into healthcare and education for women goes a LONG way towards reducing unwanted pregnancies. In a perfect world we wouldn't need abortions.

[shrink]

Do you honestly believe he is the first guy that wants his party's nomination for president who has voted closer to party lines the year before the election. Heck, Obama sure did it!

No, but for someone who has said they prioritize honesty and character in a candidate you seem to be blatantly ignoring what McCain has been doing while holding Obama to a different standard.

Different standard? I'm holding them to exactly the same standard.

Obama says he wants change, and he wants to end partisanship, yet has voted along with his party over 96% of the time. That's what he's DONE, not what he's said.

McCain likes his label of a maverick, and he says he wants change too. McCain has voted with his party 88% of the time in the last two year term. That's far less than Obama to start with, and McCain has a history of being even more independent. That's what he's DONE, not what he's said.

I'm cynical and I don't like either. I also don't like spin. If Obama wants to claim to end partisanship, he has to show it in his votes. He needs to get off their high horse complaining about McCain not voting against his party "enough" when Obama has been far worse.

[shrink]

You're more qualified than John McCain to be labeled as such, yes.

Some Media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBTpZ650l4w
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40

Meanwhile, John McCain's running mate supports teaching creationism in schools. You really are going to contend he's the pro science candidate?

First, I never said that. I pointed to REAL EVENTS (McCain choosing the Science committee, where the best scientists in the world discuss leading edge science issues), that may allay a little of your fears.

Second, you didn't address my conflicting evidence, and you posted two links where ONLY OBAMA SAYS what his position is.

If you believe in science, can you justify that response?

Third, I think your logic is faulty. The computer is a tool -- people use it for a function. Extrapolating that since McCain isn't using it, he doesn't know science is like argueing that since birds don't use airplanes, they can't fly.

[shrink]

Incidentally, While Palin supports creationism, I looked for a politically neutral website to see if McCain does too. The closest I could find was a wensite done by athiests (if that non-partisan enough?) which wrote:

John McCain on Science & Evolution
Unlike other Republican candidates, John McCain's views on evolution and creationism are somewhat reasonable. He's actually said publicly that he accepts the findings of evolutionary science whereas the other Republican candidates had openly denied science in favor or believing the Bible.

Also, remember that politicians pick Veeps to balance the ticket in the areas they are weakest. Obama picked Biden because he has a resume' and experience. McCain picked Palin because he's acted so NON-conservatively, that he alienated many in the conservative base, who have said they won't show up and vote for him. It was no surprise McCain was going to pick someone who was extremely conservative to cover his past -- the specific person was a surprise though.

And just like picking Biden doesn't mean that Obama has experience, picking Palin doesn't make McCain a creationist.

[deeney0]

I'm cynical and I don't like either. I also don't like spin. If Obama wants to claim to end partisanship, he has to show it in his votes. He needs to get off their high horse complaining about McCain not voting against his party "enough" when Obama has been far worse.

Again, where would you have wanted Obama to vote with the GOP? Which of their ridiculous policies over the last 8 years?

Incidentally, While Palin supports creationism, I looked for a politically neutral website to see if McCain does too. The closest I could find was a wensite done by athiests (if that non-partisan enough?) which wrote:

Also, remember that politicians pick Veeps to balance the ticket in the areas they are weakest. Obama picked Biden because he has a resume' and experience. McCain picked Palin because he's acted so NON-conservatively, that he alienated many in the conservative base, who have said they won't show up and vote for him. It was no surprise McCain was going to pick someone who was extremely conservative to cover his past -- the specific person was a surprise though.

And just like picking Biden doesn't mean that Obama has experience, picking Palin doesn't make McCain a creationist.

I just think if you're going to support the oldest guy to run for his first term, a guy who has survived malignant melanoma four times, you ought to take a look at his Veep's views too, rather than politely ignore them as "what he had to do to get elected."