This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Deepthought
. Imo it shows how europe and most other modern nations in the world are in love with the far left in this country (ie obama).
Hahahaha, you think Obama is anything but right-wing to 90% of 1st world nations.
Post by
TheMediator
. Imo it shows how europe and most other modern nations in the world are in love with the far left in this country (ie obama).
Hahahaha, you think Obama is anything but right-wing to 90% of 1st world nations.
QFT. Most other real nations would consider America's Republican Party to be extremists. They're so ass backwards and yet the party is still around because they keep pushing the religion button. Sadly, separation of Church and State doesn't apply to the actual people, and too many of them vote Republican for bull#$%^ reasons. No one who voted for Bush is going to take credit for the %^&* up that he was though. They're just going to keep on voting Republican. Ughh...
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Deepthought
Obama is a centrist, you could tell he would be if you listened to him during the campaign.
To America, he is a slightly left leaning centerist.
To 90% of other first world nations, he is as I said; a right-winger.
Post by
TheMediator
Most everyone I know votes along one or two key issues, like abortion or gun rights.
That's what I mean. Abortion and gun rights are bull&*!@ reasons to vote for a president. More voters need to look at the whole god damn political platform before voting, and understand how certain issues are more important than some other trivial things.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Most everyone I know votes along one or two key issues, like abortion or gun rights.
That's what I mean. Abortion and gun rights are bull&*!@ reasons to vote for a president. More voters need to look at the whole god damn political platform before voting, and understand
how certain issues are more important than some other trivial things.
If you thought 3700 human being were being killed
every day
and the government wasn't doing anything to stop it, wouldn't that be a rather important issue?
...
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Thousands are injured, and hundreds die, every day in car accidents in the united states. Obviously I should vote for the candidate who is more opposed to the auto-industry right? etc. etc. for every other preventable cause of death. That's assuming you consider aborted embryos/fetuses human beings, and that you somehow believe illegalizing abortion would stop all abortions. Imagine if we went into a depression, how many lives might be lost then as well.
There are so many other factors that determine how many people die every day that voting because you oppose abortion is stupid. Your sort of logic is why there are terrorists who blow themselves up to oppose what they believe is bad for the world.
The best course of action to take if we want to prevent death is to nuke ourselves into oblivion, because if everyone is dead, then there will be no one left to die later, right?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Note I'm not here to debate abortion. I'm denying the premise that abortion, as TheMediator says, is a trivial issue.
Deaths per day in the US (not including abortion) = ~6000
Abortions per day in the US = ~3500
So if you do consider unborn babies as humans, then abortion is the cause of
~39%
of all deaths in the US. That number is staggering considering your car deaths (~2% of those 6k deaths) would be
~1.2%
. Even the biggest cause of death after abortion, Major Cardiovasular Diseases, would only be
~25%
.
So, instead of going around looking at other people's beliefs through your own narrow outlook on life, look at the issues from their perspective--you might learn something.
Post by
TheMediator
Alright, let's say we count those as deaths. What if all those abortions didn't occur? About twice as many people are born in the US every day than die. That's going to be quite a spike in population if the birth rate is increased by that 3500 per day. That's going to lower the standard of living for everyone else and its also going to cause more deaths just due to the fact that there are more people and the fact that those people are going to be more densely populated. Those who aren't aborted are still going to die if they're born anyways, the only difference is that without population control, they're going to make things worse for those who are already living. You aren't saving anyone.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The only issue with your argument is that an unborn baby is not seen as alive by most biologists, so your "shocking" statistics are not really valid. Furthermore, abortions are dropping rapidly in the world because of contraceptives such as birth control. Finally, banning abortions is a dangerous game, because one of the main reasons that abortion was approved in Roe vs Wade was the fact that people got them anyways. The fact of the matter is that it is dangerous because you have no idea how skilled that doctor is in the back alley. To say that banning abortions would save so many lives is silly because if the mother is killed in a first or second term abortion then the unborn baby would "die" as well.
Just a fun fact, in the 1100s the Catholic Church supported a nun named Hildegard Von Bingen who wrote music, had visions, preached to princes and in her spare time, compiled an encyclopedia of medical herbs. However, not one soul complained that she had birth- control potions and she was even allowed to be an abbess in a major nunnery.
You're completely missing the issue...
I'm not debating the legitimacy of abortion
. I made that plenty clear.
IF
you believe that the unborn baby is a person then it
IS
one of, if not
the
most important issues in this Country. So for someone to say that voting based on the abortion issue is "bull%^&*," means he doesn't understand the issue.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So in other words, because I expanded your point of view, its wrong because you said so?
No, it's off-topic because I said so.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
So in other words, because I expanded your point of view, its wrong because you said so?
No, he's saying that if you take into account such and such assumptions, then abortion is an important issue. I'm willing to argue that point, even if I think that such assumptions are ridiculous. Its like arguing about whether superman or batman is more of a bad ass, even though they don't exist. Its just to argue the point - even if abortion was 40% of the causes of death, voting based solely on a candidate position on abortion is stupid.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Its just to argue the point - even if abortion was 40% of the causes of death, voting based solely on a candidate position on abortion is stupid.
Why? We're talking about a cause of death that is 99% preventable (I'm willing to make allowances for rape and incest for the purposes of this discussion).
Its like arguing about whether superman or batman is more of a bad ass, even though they don't exist..
That's stupid because we know they don't exist. What we're doing here isn't because we
don't know
.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.