pan6467

First, I'll give this disclaimer...... I am a moderate Democrat, probably a Libertarian, truth be told. I believe in social liberalism and governmental fiscal responsibility.

I just thought I'd start a thread on the hypocracies and the powerplays both sides do. It is because of this I truly believe the nation is in the decline it is. If it were not for our military might and the fact we abuse credit our country would be borderline 3rd world right now.

Tell the hypocracies and bitch all you want BUT just for peace of mind, give ways the country can improve and what YOU are doing to improve it and no personal attacks..... remember when you attack someone it just makes you look bad. The more someone talks in an argument the more they either cement thier facts, end up looking foolish or turn themselves around because the facts don't lie and can only be warped so long before the truth comes out.

Here goes:

Hypocrasy = pro-life and no welfare pro capital punishment........... makes no sense. It seems to be very prevelant amongst the Christian Right and since they weild so much power in the GOP the GOP plays Goofy to thier Mickey and says, "heeeeeyuuuuuu heeeeyuuuuu makes sense to me."

Why is this hypocrasy? Because to me it shows that in essence what these people are saying in thier roundabout way is, "we demand you have your child, we will not take care of it and when the social environment and economics of raising him causes you to not be there and for the child to turn to crime. We'll take care of him then in the overcrowded penal systems and hide him from view, hell we may just kill him and not worry about it."

How in God's name can anyone support this insanity? Does it not make sense to just spend more on education and social programs so that the underpriveledged can achieve full potential? And in doing so would that not lead to less crime and safer, cleaner and better cities. Would that not increase tax revenue?

If a lady is to get an abortion is it not her body and conscious that ultimately pays the price? What right does ANYONE have to tell another what they can or cannot do to thier bodies?

I can see the argument, the fetus is alive. But so is the man on deathrow, that you so gallantly said couldn't be aborted.

I handle this by going to pro-choice rallies, by supporting anti-capital punishment groups and by speaking out.

Maybe someday sanity will come back to those so blind as to not see.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

seretogis

No, it is an innocent child that pays the ultimate price.

Someone on deathrow does not just wake up and find themselves there. To be put to death there generally has to be overwhelming evidence of guilt. Note: guilt. As in, guilty of a horrible crime against humanity, not an innocent unborn child that is the result of a mistake by careless parents. Wait, you say, what about methods that a parent can prevent said mistake from happening? That is what contraception (or abstinence, heh) is all about, and RU486 in case "the condom breaks."

There is an incredibly huge difference between the two issues, and it is not hypocritical at all to value the life of an innocent child over that of a convicted serial murderer.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Scipio

Sorry, but I had to:

hypocrisy, n
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

============

You seem to be at least conceding that the hypocrisy in our political system is shared between our parties. You also seem to find that the GOP is especially bad about it.

Fair enough, but I think putting aside the abortion debate might be a good idea.

I'll just touch on one thing, and do so generally.

There are two values we have that tend to oppose one another. They are liberty/freedom and security. In most areas of policy, we can go one way or the other, and you can examine political parties in terms of how they apply these principles.

Republicans tend to favor security when it comes to national security and crime. The patriot act is a good example of this. It might take away a bit of our freedom, but it (supposedly) makes us more secure. They favor liberty rather than security in economics. They tend not to support measures that provide economic security, and would prefer that people who take chances in the economy bear the price if they happen to fail, rather than make everyone else pay for it.

Democrats, on the other hand prefer a crime or domestic security policy that protects our freedoms and liberties. They tend to support policies that emphasize protecting the innocent and rehabilitating rather than punishing the guilty. Economically, they favor measures of security, at the expense of freedom. People who fail in their businesses or careers will be protected from poverty, to some extent, and taxes that everyone pays will subsidize it. It's a form of insurance.

This is a theoretical view of things. Parties might be thought hypocritical when they deviate from these principles.

Republicans often advocate economic protectionism in spite of their support of market solutions. The farm bill and steel tarrifs are good examples of this.

Although they advocate individual liberty in making economic decisions (which they follow in passing tax cuts), they take away our civil liberties through the patriot act.

In my mind, a middle class tax payer loses more value than they get back from a tax cut. They may get another $50 a month, but they will ultimately lose government services they might someday depend on, as well as services they do depend on daily.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

Scipio

Abortion is on the list of things I don't debate, and it's right up there with Israel. It wastes my time.

However, I think it's necessary to get some of the anti-death penalty arguments on the table.

1. Our system is not infallible; it's possible for an innocent man to be executed.
2. It's likely that a few innocent people have been executed.
3. I believe that #2 is enough to get rid of the death penalty, however, it might be a price you're willing to pay.
4. It has been shown that application of the death penalty, our ulitmate punishment, is uneven. Humans can make mistakes, but more over, they can be inconsistent. There are places where if you shoot someone on the west side of a road, you're way more likely to get the death penalty than if you would have been had you crossed the street first(and entered another jurisdiction).
5. The death penalty has been applied unevenly to people of different races.
6. The death penalty doesn't deter crime. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...cid=12&did=167 States that reenact capital punishment see no decrease in crime. When canada abolished the death penalty, the murder rate actually dropped.

But don't listen to me. This website has a better summary than I could ever write.

http://archive.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

pan6467

Good points from both of you. Abortion may have been a bad starting point..... in that it is too controversial, but ......

1St who is to say abortion is the ultimate sin? A religion? The government? Who? And if in saying God says it is, then is it not God to pass judgement and not a government.

2nd the point I was trying to make is in prohibiting abortion (there has been, is now, and always will be unwanted pregnancies and premarital teen sex and abortion no matter what government does), and forcing people who cannot mentally or financially handle a child then turning your back on them by cutting social services and treating kids from this environment as tho they are to blame raises crime, which in turn raises taxes in the end anyway.

I am not saying to abort all unwanted pregnancy, I am simply saying if society prohibits abortion, then it is society that must provide the oppurtunities for that child to advance in life.

Scipio, very good points.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Strange Famous

The whole question of abortion really turns on one question

At what point to you determine that a fetus is a human life?

It could be possible to claim not until the child is born, or the moment it is conceived, or somewhere between.

Personally, my experience is formed a lot from my mothers experience. She was pregnant and was told by doctors that if she went through with the birth the child may or may not live, and there was a better than 50% chance she would die.

She was very anti abortion, and it was a very hard thing for her to do, to have an abortion, despite this information.

I think one thing that all people should consider in this debate, is that people are going through this situation every day, and it is an exceptionally hard time for anyone facing this - and yes there can be debate, or course there must always be debate in a free society, but when you see pro life people photographing and publishing pictures of women having abortions, or pro choice people claiming this terribly awful decision is some kind of life style choice... this is wrong, we have to - in my opinion - keep the sensitivity of the issue at the forefront of the mind.

To me, abortion and the death penalty are very different things, althought the originator may judge me just as much a hypocrit as the Republicians he wants to attack, when I sawy I do support the right to abortion under certain time constraints, and I do not support the death penalty - although I do understand the emotive desire for it to be used against the worst examples of child killers and child rapists.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

pan6467

Just a side note, I was NOT attacking the GOP, simply stating that a vast majority of the pro-life-pro capital punishment crowd is religious right, who happen to be a big GOP support group.

I attack both sides equally just depends on the topic of debate.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Scipio

In my mind, the religious right is a fringe group in much the same way that Nader voters (or Michael Moore disciples) are a fringe group for the democrats.

And you're pro-choice, anti-death penalty. Might as well pick on the religious right, eh?

Thing is, people act like life w/o parole just doesn't cut it. It deters just as much, they're gone forever, and we have a clean conscience.

And, I'm still not touching abortion. Suffice it to say that I'm generally pro-choice, with limitations, as opposed to absolute pro-choice.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

Strange Famous

if the last 3rd para was aimed at me, it is slightly unfair, insofar as I am religious after a fashion myself, and I oppose the right, the centre, and the left of centre.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

pan6467

Now that will just enough of that.................. believe it or not I hate Micheal Moore but I voted for Nader neither corporate invader Bush or Gore

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Scipio

My comment wasn't directed at you. I suspect you're construing it like this: We would have the clean conscience of someone who chose not to act on their rage.

Instead, it's the clean conscience of someone who doesn't need to worry that he might execute an innocent man.

edit-I can't construct sentences properly.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

shakran

Either you think abortion is the killing of people or it isn't.

If it isn't, then you're not anti-abortion because abortion isn't killing anything. It'd be like being against removing warts.

If you believe it is killing people, and you're against that, then you're "pro life" which means you think killing people is wrong.

So if you then turn around and say it's OK to kill people as long as they've already been born, you're hypocritical.

I'm not saying which side of the abortion debate is right - i'm just saying that if you're pro life, then it's not logical to be pro-death at the same time.

Mojo_PeiPei

Black people aren't humans, Dread Scott told me so. Before that it was Virginia 3/5ths. And for the record Jews and Fags and Cripples aren't human either, they don't have blond hair or blue eyes.

It's alot easier to kill when you dehumanize what you are killing.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Sun Tzu

The title of the thread sounded as though it was going to cover a greater spectrum; because such actions travel further than the area of what you've honed in on here. Its widespread, out of control, and theres little that can be done to stop it reguardless of who's in office.

To comment on the specific area that being discussed here; its worth stopping by this thread that was in the general a few months ago, not to mention I dont feel like stating the same things over because my view is the same.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...n&pagenumber=2

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

seretogis

How on earth can you make a comparison between convicted killers and an unborn child or "blacks, jews, cripples, and fags" is completely beyond me. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in right and wrong, and removing from society those who seek to destroy it. Giving a serial murderer food, clothing, shelter, and cable television for the rest of his life sure as hell doesn't sound like an effective means of punishment to me.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

onetime2

Wow, lots of things flooding my head right now after reading your post pan6467.

First, it probably would have been better if you gave hypocritical examples from both sides since you started the thread with the notion that both sides are hypocrites at times.

That aside, the "real" religious right are also against the death penalty so there's one contention point. The second point would be that an unborn baby does not pose a threat to others (unless there is a risk to the mother) nor committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, so there's another point where the "hypocrisy" test would fail for some who oppose abortion yet favor the death penalty.

Third, not believing in welfare in addition to being pro-life and pro-death penalty does not constitute hypocrisy because there are other options (such as adoption, ward of the state, etc) where the child will be taken care of without the biological parents being responsible for its care. Additionally, if you look at most of the "religious right" do they not also run soup kitchens, provide for the homeless, run clinics, care for the elderly and infirmed, offer financial assitance for their parishioners in need, etc? Of course they do. Just because they don't believe in government sponsored programs it doesn't mean they don't offer resources to help those who need it. Perhaps they believe this "giving" should come from ones own decisions rather than the government mandating it.

In summary, there are many points of view that your example doesn't take into consideration.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Mojo_PeiPei

I agree. My comment was directed at the crowd that say "it's only a fetus".

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Sparhawk

I think abortion is wrong. Do I think government should be able to stop a woman from doing what she wants with her body? Well, it's a very hard argument for me to justify (especially being a man), but I'm tempted to say yes.

Am I against the death penalty? Or, framed another way, do I think government should be in the business of killing its citizens? No, I don't.

Oh yes, and here's the hypocracy:
Republicans:
Abortion: Pro-Life
Death Penalty: Pro-Death

Democrats:
Abortion: Pro-Death
Death Penalty: Pro-Life

If you want an un-hypocritical view, you need only look as far as the Catholics:
Abortion: Pro-Life
Death Penalty: Pro-Life

or Clinton:
Abortion: Pro-Death
Death Penalty: Pro-Death

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Strange Famous

Is taking birth control pills "killing"

Is taking a "morning after" birth control pill "killing"

Is using a condom, or abstaining from regular sex while you are still capable of breeding somehow a crime, preventing possible life from forming?

I think we cannot judge a fetus to be alive before the point at which it could survive outside of the mother's womb - at that point it can be judged an independant life, before that point it does not have life - in my opinion.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Lebell

I have no problem if someone here chooses to label me a hypocrite, because frankly, they don't know me, nor my reasoning.

I am firmly anti-death penalty, and firmly pro-choice.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Strange Famous

Me too!

However, I do find the death penalty difficult. I am against it in principle, but I have a (online) friend from Arizona who's sister was murdered (and raped) by an ex-boyfriend - my friend was, apart from being destroyed by it, very keen on the death penalty for the killer. I found it impossible, when I talked about it with her, to express my opinions and argue against it - of course it would be insensitive to, but more so I felt I just didnt have the right to - what are my moral judgements next to the pain of someone who's sister is torn from their lives?

Of course, I do believe, we cannot make laws out of pain and rage, and we must make them from sober consideration... so I am in principle against the death penalty.

However, for the worst killers, the man who murdered the two little girls in Soham for example - Ian Huntley - there is an emotional pull one feels for him to be destroyed. I have no desire for even the most awful criminals to be tortured or torn apart or anything like this, and society should not act out of rage, but sometimes simply to cold heartedly destroy those who have shown themselves unfit to live through actions such as raping and killing two children... (or in fact, the evidence prolly suggests Huntley raped one of the girls, and killed them both so they couldnt talk)... sometims it is hard, because all the intellectual reasoning against the death penalty says it is wrong and doesnt work, and yet you feel the world be better for Ian Huntley to cease to exist.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

onetime2

Good post Sparhawk. I, for the most part, agree.

I guess I have an ideal and real view on the subjects at hand.

Idealistically, I am against abortion (rape & life of the mother are exceptions). People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. If you're going to gamble and have sex, improve your odds by using birth control. Don't hold the fetus accountable for your lack of planning or bad luck.

Realistically I don't believe it should be outlawed. Making it illegal will not prevent it from occuring. There will just be unregulated back alley abortion clinics that will kill or maim unborn babies and perhaps their mothers as well. If that isn't enough, people will be driving/flying out of the country to have them performed.

As for the death penalty, I was a staunch advocate of it for most of my life. The vast majority of those sentenced to death are horrendous people who, even in jail, are threats to others (fellow inmates and guards and the public should they escape or have friends on the outside who will do their bidding).

Realistically, there are far too many people being cleared of convictions who were sentenced to death. Either new procedures or standards need to be put in place so innocents do not receive the death penalty or we need to minimize the threats to those who come in contact with the most dangerous criminals. Perhaps banishment to a remote island or something akin to "Escape from NY" is in order (that's not being realistic but it's a thought).

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

shakran

That doesn't quite work out for the democrats. See, pro-lifers claim that the fetus is a living human, or is at least a potential living human. I'll break those two down later, but let's just call it a living human.

Pro-choicers say it is NOT a living human. Therefore aborting it is not murder.

No one argues that a convicted felon is a live, or that the felon is human.

That means that:

"democrats" (this is a stereotype btw, some are against, some are for abortion)

abortion: pro-CHOICE
death penalty: pro-death.


As for the pro-lifers' argument that's often used that the fetus is a POTENTIAL human being and is therefore entitled to the rights of a human being, that's just a dumbassed argument.

Let's take another example. Your kid is 20 years old, and has a birthday coming up in a month. By the pro-lifer's argument, he should be allowed to go to a bar and drink because he is a POTENTIAL 21 year old and is therefore entitled to the rights of a 21 year old. The logic kinda breaks down there doesn't it

onetime2

No, since many pro-lifers use the point of conception to define life "Potential" doesn't enter into it.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Lebell

I feel somewhat qualified to address this, having spent about 10 years escorting and working with an advocacy group.
-------------

This is not quite right.

Pro-choicers may or may not argue that the fetus is a human being, but I've never ever ever met a pro-lifer that has argued anything less.

The term "Potential Human" is a philosophical one that is usually found in the pro-choice camp.

Also, if you had to pigeon hole someone who was "pro-choice, pro-death penalty", I would tend towards libertarian. Democrats are more likely to be anti-death penality (no absolutes, of course.)

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Sun Tzu

I may miss a few, but heres what I see as points both sides (prolife/choice) agree on:




An ovum is not a human person.


Similarly a spermatozoa is a form of life, but its not a person either.


At or shortly after conception, a fertilized ovum is a form of human life.


An embryo is a form of human life.


A fetus is a form of human life.


A newborn baby is a form of human life.


A newborn baby is a human person.


Somewhere during the nine months between the ovum-spermatozoa stage and the newborn baby that breathes on its own is when human personhood begins.



The only real difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers involves the question when does human personhood begins.

Life and personhood are two very different matters. The human ovum (egg) is already clearly alive when it enters the fallopian tubes, many hours or days before it has the opportunity to be fertilized. Women release one about each month between puberty and menopause - a few hundred in a lifetime. Almost all of these are destined to die and be ejected from the body. Unless a couple is having difficulty conceiving, very little thought is given to these hundreds of deaths. Although the ovum is a form of life, there is a consensus that it is not a human person. They are not even considered by scientists to be human organisms.

Hundreds of millions of male sperm are liberated during a typical sexual encounter. A few week's worth of ejaculations from a single male would theoretically provide sufficient sperm to double the earth's human population, if each were used to fertilize a separate ovum. Sperm are also clearly alive. Viewing them under a microscope reveals them to be energetic swimmers. Essentially all of these will die within days. Again, unless infertility is a problem, little attention is given to these deaths. An average man produces thousands of sperm a second. At most, a very few during his lifetime will contribute to the formation of a baby. The rest will die. Few men are consciously aware of the loss. Although sperm are very much alive and kicking, there is a consensus that they are not human persons; they are not human organisms.


Something to consider:
A skin scraping of a child or adult contains a very large number of living, single cells; each has the same unique human DNA code as does the human from which it came. Scottish scientists have been able to start with a cell removed from the mammary tissue of a sheep, inject it into a sheep ovum whose DNA has been removed, and produce "Dolly," a new sheep who is genetically identical to her "parent." This same procedure has been replicated for many other mammals. It is likely that the same procedure can be used to clone a human. DNA from skin scraping, or a swab of the inside of the mouth, or a hair follicle could be used to produce exact twins of the donor human. Wired Magazine for 2001-JAN predicted that human cloning would happen during the year 2001, even though it violates the medical ethic regulations of many countries. Since a just-fertilized egg contains human DNA information as does a hair follicle, they presumably should both be given the same status. We don't consider hair follicles, skin scrapings or swabs from mouths to be a human person. Skeptics might argue that we should not look upon fertilized ova as persons either.

So where does personhood begin? On the mating? THe subconscious thought of the male and female parents? WHere in the cycle of pregnancy:




About 12 days from conception when pregnancy begins. i.e. when the fertilized ovum has developed to the blastocyst stage and has attached itself to the lining of the uterus.


About two weeks from conception when a yellow streak develops in the embryo. This will later become the neural tube which will be protected by the backbone. Once this develops, it is impossible for the embryo to split into a pair of identical twins. The concept of personhood implies a single entity; twins would be two persons. Before this stage of development, the embryo may still split and become two persons.


3 weeks from conception when the embryo is about 2 mm long and has started to develop visible external body parts.


4 weeks when its heart starts to beat.


6 weeks from conception, when brain waves can be first sensed.


2 months, when the fetus has lost its neck structures which
resemble gill slits, and its tail. Its face resembles that of a primate.


3 months the fetus begins to "look like" a baby. The recent development of high resolution 3-D ultrasound equipment provides incredibly detailed pictures of the fetus at this stage. These photographs are convincing many people that the fetus is a human person at this stage because it looks like one. 9


4 months when the fetus' face has developed to the point where one can tell one fetus from another.


About 24 weeks, when the fetus becomes viable, (i.e. able to live outside the womb)


6 months or later, when the fetal brain's higher functions become operational. Scientists have: " measured brain-wave patterns like those during dreaming at 8 months gestation."


As far as felons sentenced to death- the concern I have is if any are innocent. . .yikes

The ones that are guilty have been sentenced because of taking someone elses life- so I say they should pay the price. I think the only other way to get a death sentence is to be convicted of aiding the enemy- I could be wrong. All this IMO ofcourse.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking