|
|
|
|
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/20/2009 2:29:42 PM |
"Nationalize" our banking system
"Socialize" our health care system
"Nationalist, socialist , where oh where have i heard these words before??
somewhere in germany i think!?
And the silly part is you actually have to make a concerted effort NOT to be insured the way things currently are. Only 45 million are not covered. That's only 15% and Canadians are often coming here for help. And we want to 'fix' this..?
Between medicare, medicaid, Va coverage, employer plans and the various child care plans offered by the states you'd have to actually make an effort to somehow AVOID one or more of these coverages.. Many of those 15% are just too lazy to investigate their options and are elligable and don't even know or care.. | |
|
| |
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/20/2009 2:38:15 PM | Re: Posts 125, 126, and 127
Could we please get back to the actual topic? The health care system in the U.S. vs Canada, doesn't have anything to do with whether a pro lifer and pro choicer can work together in a relationship. | |
|
| |
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/20/2009 8:17:40 PM | | I'm a small biz owner . I could hire people if they'd get out of the way. But they've been meddleing since i've become profitable. So, I have to look out for me and my bottom line....George W. Bush was the best president I've know in my life time. .. Obama will not see another term. As someone said in another blog... Jimmy Carter..now available in black... | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/20/2009 11:42:05 PM | Youngsnowbird....
Obama will not see another term. Not usually given to paranoia, But with Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afganistan, North Korea, Mexico, China buying 3 quarters of a trillion dollars of our debt, Japan with over a half trillion. And us apologizing to Hugo Chavez (Who recently told fiedel castro, he feared Obama was to left of both of them)...... I really wonder if any of us are going to see another term | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 12:48:52 AM |
I'm a small biz owner . I could hire people if they'd get out of the way. But they've been meddleing since i've become profitable. So, I have to look out for me and my bottom line....George W. Bush was the best president I've know in my life time. .. Obama will not see another term. As someone said in another blog... Jimmy Carter..now available in black...
1. What part of this is relevant to the topic?
2. I don't even recall Obama being brought up prior to you, so referencing him now is completely incongruous, albeit your attitude alone shows that you are the type of person who is desperate to be heard not understood.
3. Do you even know how a bill gets passed?
4. I'll bite. How in the hell does it make sense for GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS who get FREE HEALTHCARE, for themselves and their families, paid for BY MY TAX DOLLARS, to have the AUDACITY to say the same money can't pay for a little sick girls ASHTMA INHALER?!?!?!?
Not usually given to paranoia, But with Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afganistan, North Korea, Mexico, China buying 3 quarters of a trillion dollars of our debt, Japan with over a half trillion. And us apologizing to Hugo Chavez (Who recently told fiedel castro, he feared Obama was to left of both of them)...... I really wonder if any of us are going to see another term
What debt?!?!? Ricky, I normally agree with you, but seeing as the federal reserve controlls the rate of inflation...I am sure you know where I am going with this, | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 5:13:43 AM | | Yawn, yet again some yo-yo has to go totally off topic, and destroy what could have been a useful thread by turning it into a left/right political debate about Bush vs. Obama, healthcare, and 100 other unrelated topics they feel like pushing on people. Please people, lets get this thread back on topic before the mod's delete it or purge it for getting entirely off-topic. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 6:15:00 AM |
Yawn, yet again some yo-yo has to go totally off topic, and destroy what could have been a useful thread by turning it into a left/right political debate about Bush vs. Obama,
As people vent their spleen with a lot of "in your face" comments about off topic political concepts, no minds are being changed, nor is there any enlightenment. In a way, it illustrates a point relevant to the topic.
If two people are in a relationship, and disagree on a public policy issue, they can have a disagreement that "builds" their understanding and respect for one another, if they do so in a calm and respectful way. On the other hand, if the "argument" descends into a "win at any cost" to prove oneself "right" in his/her own eyes, then the relationship is doomed.
Ways to ruin a relationship over politics include belittling the other's pov, engaging in hyperbole that substitutes stereotypes of the most extreme proponents of the other's "side", bringing in unrelated issues so as to overwhelm the other with too many issues to address, such as health care, the war, etc.
Same thing as in a forum thread, on a more important and personal level. Reasonable people can have reasonable discussions, but those who just want to be "right" at any cost end up ruining the whole discussion. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 8:28:26 AM | I'm reminded of the afterword to Orson Scott Card's novel, "Empire", RM (I paraphrased it a bit to shorten it):
Geography aside, however, we have never been so evenly divided with such hateful rhetoric since the years leading up to the Civil War of the 1860s. Because the national media elite are so uniformly progressive, we keep hearing (in the elite media) about the rhetorical excesses of the "extreme right." To hear the same media, there is no "extreme left," just the occasional progressive who says things he or she shouldn't.
But any rational observer has to see that the Left and Right in America are screaming the most vile accusations at each other all the time. We are fully polarized -- if you accept one idea that sounds like it belongs to either the blue or the red, you are assumed -- nay, required -- to espouse the entire rest of the package, even though there is no reason why supporting the war against terrorism should imply you're in favor of banning all abortions and against restricting the availability of firearms; no reason why being in favor of keeping government-imposed limits on the free market should imply you also are in favor of giving legal status to homosexual couples and against building nuclear reactors. These issues are not remotely related, and yet if you hold any of one group's views, you are hated by the other group as if you believed them all; and if you hold most of one group's views, but not all, you are treated as if you were a traitor for deviating even slightly from the party line.
It goes deeper than this, however. A good working definition of fanaticism is that you are so convinced of your views and policies that you are sure anyone who opposes them must either be stupid and deceived or have some ulterior motive. We are today a nation where almost everyone in the public eye displays fanaticism with every utterance.
It is part of human nature to regard as sane those people who share the worldview of the majority of society. Somehow, though, we have managed to divide ourselves into two different, mutually exclusive sanities. The people in each society reinforce each other in madness, believing unsubstantiated ideas that are often contradicted not only by each other but also by whatever objective evidence exists on the subject. Instead of having an ever-adapting civilization-wide consensus reality, we have became a nation of insane people able to see the madness only in the other side.
Such an effort is, of course, a confession of madness. Suppression of other people's beliefs by force only comes about when you are deeply afraid that your own beliefs are wrong and you are desperate to keep anyone from challenging them. Oh, you may come up with rhetoric about how you are suppressing them for their own good or for the good of others, but people who are confident of their beliefs are content merely to offer and teach, not compel.
So virulent are these responses -- again, from both the Left and the Right -- that I believe it is only a short step to the attempt to use the power of the state to enforce one's views. On the right we have attempts to use the government to punish flag burners and to enforce state-sponsored praying. On the left, we have a ban on free speech and peaceable public assembly in front of abortion clinics and the attempt to use the power of the state to force the acceptance of homosexual relationships as equal to marriages. Each side feels absolutely justified in compelling others to accept their views.
It is puritanism, not in its separatist form, desiring to live by themselves by their own rules, but in its Cromwellian form, using the power of the state to enforce the dicta of one group throughout the wider society, by force rather than persuasion.
This despite the historical fact that the civilization that has created more prosperity and freedom for more people than ever before is one based on tolerance and pluralism, and that attempts to force one religion (theistic or atheistic) on the rest of a nation or the world inevitably lead to misery, poverty, and, usually, conflict.
Yet we seem only able to see the negative effects of coercion caused by the other team. Progressives see the danger of allowing fanatical religions (which, by some definitions, means "all of them") to have control of government -- they need only point to Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, or, in a more general and milder sense, the entire Muslim world, which is oppressed precisely to the degree that Islam is enforced as the state religion.
Conservatives, on the other hand, see the danger of allowing fanatical atheistic religions to have control of government, pointing to Nazi Germany and all Communist nations as obvious examples of political utopianism run amok.
Yet neither side can see any connection between their own fanaticism and the historical examples that might apply to them. People insisting on a Christian America simply cannot comprehend that others view them as the Taliban-in-waiting; those who insist on progressive exclusivism in America are outraged at any comparison between them and Communist totalitarianism. Even as they shun or fire or deny tenure to those who disagree with them, everybody thinks it's the other guy who would be the oppressor, while our side would simply "set things to rights."
-- Food for thought (the entire thing is here: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/articles/empire_afterword.shtml - the novel is about a new "civil war" in the US, left vs. right).
(Bolding is mine, for emphasis on that one line - Fanaticism, by that definition, is pretty much a bar to any open, reasonable, and useful discussion).
While somewhat off topic - I think for myself, about this topic, I would not want to date someone who is a 'fanatic' about their view, and not open to rational discussion and compromise - even if just accepting we have different views and that's ok. As you said, RM, when its "win at any/all cost" there is no communication, and any relationship based on such would be doomed. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 8:30:31 AM | weeeelll even though it IS off topic, I was rotf when I read msg. #131..personally speaking..Clinton has been the best I have seen yet..I WILL give Obama time to fix what Bush has done to us.. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 9:30:52 AM | Re: Post #137
weeeelll even though it IS off topic
Yeah, it was, and it says something about you, that you would post that off topic, intellectually lightweight comment, following the thought provoking, on topic, post #136.
This is what happens, when the OP stops participating in his own thread. It seems that the dingbats, who just can't seem to stay on topic, are insistent on ruining the thread. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 9:59:36 AM |
A good working definition of fanaticism is that you are so convinced of your views and policies that you are sure anyone who opposes them must either be stupid and deceived or have some ulterior motive.
One of the best books he has written.
You know they are making in into a movie?
The part that flipped me out, was that I said from the start that I didnt like that 4 eyed dork! | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 9:59:52 AM | I have always been pro-choice, and will stay pro-choice. Since it is the woman who has to carry the baby, it should be her decision on what to do with a pregnancy if she doesn't want it. It is her body.
However, I don't think anyone "likes" abortion, no matter which side you're on. So, I can respect the others' side opinion on this, even though I don't agree with it.
I have dated men who were pro-life, and it wasn't that big a deal to me. I didn't expect them to agree with me, and I wasn't going to try and change their mind about abortion, because once we pick a side, we usually stick with it.
I don't have a problem with differences in opinion, as long as we can respect each other's differences, and we don't try to shove our views down each other's throats. If I met someone who was obnoxious about it, then I couldn't date them. For example, I would never date someone who believed it was ok to murder an abortion doctor, or bomb their clinics. That, I'd have a big problem with.
I can handle differences in opinion, if the other person doesn't take it to the extreme. But if someone is radically different then me on certain things, then I probably would not date them. Relationships are hard enough without adding additional things to argue about. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 10:06:13 AM | The most important part of that afterward:
We live in a time when people like me, who do not wish to choose either camp's ridiculous, inconsistent, unrelated ideology, are being forced to choose -- and to take one whole absurd package or the other.
We live in a time when moderates are treated worse than extremists, being punished as if they were more fanatical than the actual fanatics.
We live in a time when lies are preferred to the truth and truths are called lies, when opponents are assumed to have the worst conceivable motives and treated accordingly, and when we reach immediately for coercion without even bothering to find out what those who disagree with us are actually saying.
In short, we are creating for ourselves a new dark age -- the darkness of blinders we voluntarily wear, and which, if we do not take them off and see each other as human beings with legitimate, virtuous concerns, will lead us to tragedies whose cost we will bear for generations.
Or, maybe, we can just calm down and stop thinking that our own ideas are so precious that we must never give an inch to accommodate the heartfelt beliefs of others.
(I would argue that without the last part I bolded, you will never have a healthy relationship - I don't care if its pro-choice/life, political views, or anything else).
ps: For those who want to spout about politicians I would note that every president since Regan has used the Social Security "trust fund" to "balance" the budget, we're broke now, not because of the Dem's or Rep's, but because *both* have done it. There is no "trust fund", its a bunch of IOU's at this point, we have not had a true "balanced budget" since the 1970's, just smoke and mirrors from both parties. We trust our financial health to the "Federal Reserve" - which is about as "Federal" as Federal Express is (its a private bank owned by such names as Rockefeller, Rothschild, Lehman, etc). Both sides have "sold out" to big business and bankers. And the *real* fault here, folks, lies with *us*, "We the people", who have let them get away with it, in our apathy, for the past 40 years. Put the blame where it really lies, when you point the finger at someone else, 3 others point back to *you*.(/political rant) (sorry for that RM, it'll feed the trolls, I know). | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 10:40:03 AM | Re Post #141
stop thinking that our own ideas are so precious that we must never give an inch to accommodate the heartfelt beliefs of others.
(I would argue that without the last part I bolded, you will never have a healthy relationship - I don't care if its pro-choice/life, political views, or anything else).
I'd add to that, if you are so stuck in your own viewpoint, that you view any disagreement as being a "character defect" that entitles you to go into a rage, then honest communication becomes impossible. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 10:56:30 AM | | My politics aside from the original issue at hand, I am Pro-Choice and am apt to always support that side of the issue. I agree with the young lady who posted earlier that solely affects the woman's body (unless you count that tranny in Thailand or some such). Nevertheless, I believe in and support Pro-Choice and honestly don't believe a man has the right to dictate to a woman what she does with her body. I'm just sayin.... | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 11:00:15 AM | | being a pro choicer i think that is up to the individual. i could date a pro lifer if they did not want to force their opinions on me. i would not force my opinions on them so i would like the same consideration. abortion is an issue people have lost their lives over. medically speaking, life of the human embreyo does not begin for 14 weeks after conception. the fetus does not have a brain until this time. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 11:47:10 AM | Of course, you can't discuss abortion without politics coming into it.
And quite frankly, I could not care less what a woman does with her body.
(It's the life inside her, that is half mine that I'm concerned with)
I'm not a conservative nor a lib (There isn't 10 cents worth of difference)
It would be wise to see history repeating itself, which it is, and in that aspect, I fear for my sons life, because i know where were headed.
would i date a "Pro-choice " woman?
At 45 million and counting, I'd better be willing to, or, I won't be able to date at all | |
|
| |
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 11:55:56 AM | | Where you stand on this issue all depends on where you sit!!! A man and/or a woman (if they've never been in a certain situation) can claim they understand......... but that is IMPOSSIBLE. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 12:34:30 PM | My personal views/opinions on abortion are a paradox (at best) and because I wish to keep it simple (and short - yeah riiiight;), here's how I would answer the following questions:
Are you pro life or pro choice?
I'm both and neither.
Do you believe in abortion?
It has nothing to do with my beliefs or what I personally believe in. Abortions are a reality and will continue to be whether I believe in them or not and whether they are legalised or not.
Are your views influenced by your sex, religion, upbringing, socio/econo class or any other factor?
Well, yes and no. We all like to think we are free of the noise, both present and past, real or perceived. I'm no different. I like to think that I've tried to clear as much noise and static as I can possibly can and that I can look at a situation objectively, logically, critically and without prejudice, although I'm sure my humanity gets in the way:). But knowing and being aware of those things helps me keep an open mind and I try (I really do) to look at ALL sides (not just just one or both sides) of an argument or any given situation before I render "judgement".
Would you /have you had an abortion? Would you/have you supported someone who has had an abortion?
I've (thankfully) never had to make the decision to have an abortion or not - both through my inaction (ie: luck) and through my action (ie: taking birth control seriously = tubal ligation after my second child) so I can't take full credit for never having been in that position - luck also played a part in it.
And yes, I have supported someone very close to me through an abortion - it was (to me) a very emotional time and to be honest, it's not something I feel comfortable discussing here. All I can say is that it would be wrong to assume that abortion is taken lightly (by most people), even by those who like me, believe that they have no choice but to support having a choice. It's just that for many people (like me), the alternative is worse. Which brings me back to the paradox of being forced to make a "forced" choice, or having to choose the lesser of two evil if you will.
It's interesting to note that my brother (who's now deceased) spent the last twenty years of his life actively marching and demonstrating on Parliament Hill against abortion.
My brother was an intelligent, well read, well educated (seminar studies and practicing dermatologist) family man who devoted his entire life to both his family and to his "cause" - he was well known in the Editorial pages of our newspaper and every time he posted (or wrote I should say), the following hate (and supporting) mail would be abundant...he was banned many many times and he was, depending on your perspective, either devoted or fanatical.
Yet, I had a LOT of respect for my brother, even though we didn't see eye to eye on this (and other) issue - he didn't insult or bash the opposition - he tried to educate and have HIS views listened to - there is a difference.
He also put his money (literally) where his mouth was - he wrote, published, marched, researched, educated, and literally gave up what could have have been a lucrative (money/prestige wise) career to close his practice early each day so he could spend his afternoons doing what he believed was his "true" mission in life (and ironically enough, that's how and where he died - marching on Parliament Hill:)
So yes, I like to believe I'm open to hear and can actually empathise with what the "opposition" has to say.... my problem is that I see NO other alternative and like most things in life, this is not a black and white issue for me.
The very idea that women would have to resort to the black market to get an abortion repulses me. And making it illegal won't solve what I believe is the real problem behind the abortion issue, which is education IMO. It's more complex than that (of course) but it's a start.
Anyway, this is my (paradoxical) stand on abortion in a nutshell....I am both and neither pro life or pro choice - what I am is pro education and in doing everything in MY power to try to prevent my daughters (and sons if had any) to ever have to be in a position to have to choose (or have the choice made for them) to begin with.
JMO | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 1:43:31 PM |
I do respect all life and believe life starts at conception....because it does. All that stuff about how the fetus couldn't live outside the womb is silly. Your brain couldn't exist outside your skull, does that mean it isn't alive? Does that mean it has no value? It's nonsense.
While I respect your opinion here, it is just that--an opinion. Scientists have not reached an agreement on this, and the fetus (which isn't even a fetus until further in its development, not at conception) certainly can't live independently at that point. I'm not sure I disagree with you, but I also think it's both a moot point, and completely up for debate.
In my ideal world the father would get a say as well, but that's not going to happen. Men just have to accept the way it works right now and not have sex with women that don't believe in pro-life if they feel that strongly about it.
And that is exactly how men get a say in it. They can be responsible and not have sex or use condoms correctly every time they do, but failing that (and knowing that condoms occasionally fail), that's where their choice ends. Personally, I'd discuss options with the father if I had an accidental pregnancy, but that would also be my choice. Once there's something growing inside my body, it's my decision.
So she sort of instilled this belief in life at conception and that if the girl doesn't want to raise teh child she should have it adopted.
Part of the problem with this idea is that it completely overlooks the psychological impact on birth mothers who give their babies up, which is immense and poorly dealt with, and generally not discussed at all. The psychological impact is typically far greater for a birth mother who gives her baby up for adoption than it is for a woman who chooses abortion. The same pro-life advocates who believe in adoption for unplanned pregnancies also typically fail entirely to address this issue, so the women are left with massive psychological scars that, often, they have no tools to address.
Can you date a pro-life advocate if you are pro-choice, and vice versa? Is there a way to find a happy medium with them? Or are you just better off sticking with partners who believe as you do?
It depends on the person, I think. Personally, despite the fact that I would almost certainly birth a baby if I had an unplanned pregnancy (and might well give it up for adoption, even knowing what I do about the psychological impact of that choice), I don't agree with someone who holds their ideas over the idea that a woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body. I believe very firmly that it is absolutely no one else's business what she chooses in that situation, and attempting to force a woman to a certain decision that involves that level of commitment is completely unjust. I don't respect that idea, and I wouldn't be able to be intimately partnered with someone who advocated it. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 1:56:09 PM |
The psychological impact is typically far greater for a birth mother who gives her baby up for adoption than it is for a woman who chooses abortion.
Is that the consensus among ALL of the acupuncutarial assistants..? or just you..?
I dated someone for a while who had several aboritons in her younger days. She would often say my oldest would be this age this month and my youngest would be..etc ..etc..
And there was much more to it than that. I was with her 2 years. She was not well with it and it got progressivly worse as she got older..
I would thing the psychological consequenses of murdering an innocent baby or babies would be far greater for ANYONE... Not just my ex. | |
|
| Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating *scary music swells*
Posted: 6/21/2009 2:05:31 PM | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The topic here is:
Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice in Dating....Can you date a pro-life advocate if you are pro-choice, and vice versa? Is there a way to find a happy medium with them? Or are you just better off sticking with partners who believe as you do?
Ok youngsnowbird, we get that you have apparently dated someone who is Pro-Choice.
But then you sink to the lowest of lows and bash not only the poster above you, but her vocation as well?
Is that the consensus among ALL of the acupuncutarial assistants..? ..
Why can't you get through your head that there is a thread topic here and you have been repeated requested to not deviate from it?
Honestly, your misogynist attitude tells me that you should get you ass kicked off of these forums for a while to teach you a lesson... | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
