*DAMN R6 Forum

For the 2nd year in a row, George Bush declared today "National Sanctity of Life Day" on the anniversary of Roe v Wade. Here are some direct quotes from him:


This is the biggest bunch of shit I have ever heard. In the midst of launching a war on Iraq, Bush is talking about the sanctity and importance of human life. He says he wants to "work together to protect the weak," but apparently the weakest people in the world (those that do not live in Western modernized states) don't deserve protection. And apparently, "ensuring a brighter future for all" can be paraphrased as "ensuring a brighter future for us," us being immoral politicians with "Christian" agendas.

these links were on Tom Tommorow's site and I think they do an excellent job of showing the hypocrisy by themselves:

UN Sees 500,000 Iraqi Casualties at Start of War (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030107/wl_nm/iraq_un_casualties_dc_2)

Rich Nations Failing to do their part to stop AIDS, UN official says (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030109/ap_wo_en_po/un_gen_un_aids_africa_1)

I see this move as a slap in the face to anyone pro-choice or against the war on Iraq, both of which include me. Does anyone else think this is just... wrong?

It's not hypocicy for one reason Tasty.  Bush said and repeated Americans.  Right or wrong, that is his platform.  Not global, but national.  His attitude is geard towards making America a safer, better place, regardless of the rest of the world.  

I'm not defending him in the least.  Just pointing out that he's not really a hypocrite.  The people that say he is aren't seeing it from his limited percpective and shortsightedness.  

I'm gonna agree with Bucc here. At no point in the quote (and at no point is his presidency so far either) has Bush mentioned anything about fundamental human rights or even the value of human life itself except when it comes to "protecting" the rights of Americans. So he's not a hypocrite, just a bad world citizen (some would say a poor excuse for a member of the human race, but I'm not willing to go quite that far yet ;)).

bush is a great president, most americans DO like him, except for the pure thickheaded democrats. i hate those people who vote always one party, regardless of what the candidate is doing, they always look at the small bad things instead of the big good things.

it isn't hipocracy, and i say that from a independant point of view, and while i'm at it, i'm also pro-life, because if any of you study human biology, a human is made as soon as fertilization occurs, so killing it is murder, AND i have morals, which some of you don't: just go out and have sex as much as you can, who cares about the consequences?

a purely subjectivist point of view  ;)
btw, i just mentioned that, don't go into articles of that again tasty =D

     Infants of under about three months of age, and perhaps somewhat older, do not have functioning brains as that is generally meant. Yes, they are alive. Are they human? Hardly. This argument for the lack of humanity is far more applicable to a bundle of ten or twenty undifferentiated cells. Calling that bundle "human" and according it all the rights and privileges thereof is stupid at best. Yet, it is for those same bundles of cells (albeit with a higher number of cells in them) that so-called "pro-life" advocates are willing to murder full humans (I refer to the staff of abortion clinics).

     However, the main thrust of the "pro-choice" argument is just that--choice. This premise strikes a lot of people as strange, but it turns out that adults can usually be trusted to act like adults. Part of acting like an adult is the ability to make choices based on available data, and then to take the consequences of those choices. In other words, we don't need the big jolly government saying, "Tut, tut, you're not allowed to do that--you might hurt yourself." I'm not a real big fan of abortion either, but I support the right to have abortions because people must be allowed to make their own decisions.

Clarification for tasty - this is directed to 3az, based on the quote:
[/color]

A rather generalist point of view as well.

Not everyone who disagrees with Bush is a democrat, or one who votes only straight ticket.  However, I agree that those people are to be shunned.  And it is possible to have morals that are different from your own.  If you, and President Bush, would recognize that instead of accepting only your own elitist viewpoint, it would far advance human tolerance and understanding.

And I ask you, is it worse to "kill" one unborn American than 10 fully grown Iraqis?

---

And tasty, I agree with you.  American or not, it seems arrogant, if not technically hypocritical, to tout the sancitity of American lives as we prepare to destroy thousands of foreigners.

Furthermore, I think it's inappropriate of any president to make any declaration such as this one.  It's essentially a political manuever, which isn't really the president's job.  Why did he announce it on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade?  Why isn't life sacred on every day of the year?  Frankly it just seems tasteless to me.

Quite frankly, I don't care who Bush is referring to. I find it hypocritical to even consider the sanctity of unborn human lives to the sanctity of the lives of grown humans, regardless of their location. So my post didn't fit your technical definition of hypocrisy. I don't really want to argue about that. Perhaps I would have been better to use a less technical word like "ironic". At least loudnotes got my point (at the end of his post)? that Bush considers the lives of unborn Americans to be vastly more important than the lives of living beings.

And no, I did not want this to turn into an argument about the legitimacy of abortion, although I fear that it is where this topic is going. I just wanted to say that I found it silly for him to declare such a day considering the circumstances... not that I didn't consider the move silly anyway since its essentially just playing politics and has no real meaning.

Also loudnotes & 3az (whoever that is)

No, that was geared toward 3az.  I was responding to his point, not to yours.  I agreed with you throughout.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.    -ln

Is this geared toward me? If it is, I'm not entirely sure where its coming from since I am a registered independent and do not vote straight-ticket. I recognize that it is possible to have morals different from my own... after all, nearly everybody does. I recognize that Bush's morals are different from mine and excepting one cheap shot I may have taken at him, that really wasn't the focus of my post. I just wanted to point out how useless I thought his action was. That's it. Fin. If anyone else wants to discuss the other side-issues that accompany this, start a new thread and I'd be happy to contribute.

sorry for the confusion LN - tasty ;D -

Loth, saying that "Calling that bundle 'human' and according it all the rights and privileges thereof is stupid at best." is a load of horseshit I wouldn't expect to come from your mouth. While you don't have to agree that an embryo should be extended the rights of person, I would expect you to at least see how some people would and in fact do see those bundles of cells as human. I for one believe that abortion is taking a life, but that is my opinion. If you want to believe that murdering^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Haborting embryos should be the choice of the parent, that is fine. Also, please don't lump the psychos who murder abortion clinic staffers in with the rest of the pro-life crowds. There are crazies in any group that you find; they very rarely define the group to which they belong.

Also, one thing to ask you, if the embryo is half the man's after all, don't you think he should have just a little say in the abortion.

Well, Bush is Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty which is enough hypocrisy to call him a hypocrite.

Anyways, to what you said Loth...if we take a look at what our fellow primates do, killing a baby that is disformed or that won't be properly cared for is normal behavior for chimps.  Should teen mothers be punished for not wanting a child and thus abandoning it.  From a biological stand point no.

Looking past biology as a reason for pro-choice, there is a very real population crisis in this world.  Abortions are very very safe and easy and cheap in their simplest form.  With some care, investment, and people getting over their religious hang-ups that threaten to doom the world, smart child planning and care could be established (and with the side effect of reducing STD spread).  What the pro-life group does is put beliefs over reality and thus make the real world worse.  Surely having a healthy child is preferable in the close-up view to aborting it, but to spread that policy to the country as a whole many times when it isn't the case is just insanity.

bondo, it isn't hipocracy at all

embyros haven't killed other human unjustfully.

also Mr Loth, i find it sickening that you don't concider a baby "human". what would you call it? also, if you want a choice, MAKE A CHOICE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE SEX


a correction on my first post, i meant the few ppl who don't like bush are the straight democrat voters, AND ppl who's morals conflict with bush's thanks for catchin that  ;)

It doesn't matter, the pro-life argument is that killing a human is immoral because a human has a natural right to life, there are no exceptions that can be made without it being hypocritical.  If they bend to say that it depends on various things then they have no strength to their stance.  Because there is no question that a criminal while potentially having done something egregious is human.  On the other hand it is iffy if and when a fetus or baby is human.  I happen to in theory accept the death-penalty, although not in practice due to cost and problems with the legal system.  But since I'm pro-choice there is no conflict of interest.

Well, I am not going to argue Abortion, because I have a hypocritical view on it. I want abortion to be banned in my home country of Russia, because 150 million people (and shrinking) is not enough people to adequatly defend such a large area, yet in China there are too many people. There are places in the world (such as Russia) that need more people and places that need less (such as India and China). Yet I am discussing Global Abortion, not national abortion. I have no clear thought on Abortion. I will take the purely Libritarian stand point and say, why take away the freedom. I consider this issue to be a minor one. However what I condsider a major issue is what Bush has done to the domestic side. Bush ran on the rightest ticket to set up a smaller government. He has done the exact opposite, he has set up a whole new agency with all of its beuraucrats and paper pushers. Not even in WWII (a much dire situation for the republic than today) we had no need for such a department. The FBI and CIA took care of the intelligence to protect the country. The Homeland Security Agency is unneeded. I for one beleive in a larger government, but in domestic issues. I beleive in Socialized Medicine, and expansion of Social Security (a looming crisis in this all important agency is in the making). Bush has diverted funding from it. We are soon to have millions of senile baby boomers, and the whole agency will have to be rebuilt so our generation can be able to get the benifits when we are old and moldy. I beleive this is in no way "the government living for you" I beleive it is the government's responsiblity to help the weak and disinfrancised, wich the severly ill and elderly are clear examples. Bush is also allowing corporations to check themselves for enviormental issues and relaxing pollution laws. Tell me my right winged comrades, do you trust these corporations to check themselves truthfully? I also think taxes on corporations should be increased while we relax taxes on small buisnesses. The American economy is based off of small buisness. Bush seems to ingnore this through his economic actions. Also, my conservative comrades, the government surplus under Clinton has dissapeared (even before WTC).  A little money and tax relaction on the populous is a good thing, but his tax cut is way to big, and will put the American Government in Debt. Spending is ok, but debt is not, it will only dig america's economic hole deeper as we prepare to fight a war on two front (Afghanistan and Iraq) and other minor front all along the world. A government in economic troubles, being magnified by a multiple front war is definently not at all good for the American people or sociotey. Inflation will rise and the political pendulem of America will swing to the left again. Bush needs to patch things up domesticaly, and think twice about attacking Iraq (for not only moral reasons, but more importantly economic reasons).
As for aid to Africa, and the developed countries responsiblity? What responsibility does the United States have to Third World Countries? Its not our country, and its our money. Britain and France do have a responsiblity with their former colonies, because they have signed economic agreements with them. The Commonwealth is an example. All former British Colonies (with the exception of India) are part of it. Everyone from Australia to Rhodesia.
I am too lazy to correct grammatical and spelling mistakes because that would require 5 minutes that could be used to scratch my ass.

I'd say the man has some say in the matter, but no overriding rule.  If the two disagree, it's the woman's body, so she's going to have final say.  

Cossack, I agree with you, but please put line breaks in every now and then  :o

Baz, I don't vote democratic all the time, but I neither agree with Bush's morals nor support him.

And as for whether an embryo is a human or not, I don't see how it matters.  Being a man, I feel a little outside of the whole issue, but I would see from a woman's perspective - If you've got a growth inside of you, it doesn't matter whether it might be born or not. . .if it's inside of you it's yours.  Until its born, it belongs to your body, and you should be able to do with it as you please.  At least, the government of all entities certainly shouldn't have any say over it.

On a side note, does anyone else find it extremely embarassing that the United States has the highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation?

I did do paragraphs and whatnot, it just doesnt show up. BB edit pisses me off. How you make new paragraphs?

     I agree with Loud: the man should have a say, of course, but it's the woman who's going to carry the baby to term, with all of the complications that that entails, and who will likely end up caring for the child. It's primarily her choice.


     Very young babies, such as those under about three months of age, do not have human brains. They have brains that will become human. Nothing more, nothing less. A friend of mine and his wife have a 6 month-old baby girl. I've been around that kid since shortly after she was born. It's only in the last two or three months that she's shown any ability to process information in any meaningful way. Before that, everything just kind of washed over her, leaving no mark. Yes, babies are cute. We are genetically programmed to find them cute and defenseless and to feel protectiveness swell in our breast so that we don't kill them for being so fantastically annoying so much of the time. No, I am not advocating the postpartum "abortion" of babies. I am simply stating a fact: very young children are not human in the way that that word is usually meant.


     I agree, Tasty. Add one more to the tally of Bush's self-serving and calculated appeals to emotion to enhance his political status.

Ha? loudnotes has stepped upon another little nugget fans of private healthcare don't commonly disclose. In fact, when it comes to the factors that industrialized nations are commonly judged by (UN measurements or otherwise) the US falls flat on it's face. And no, Gross National Product is NOT the predominant factor on which industrialized nations are judged. Factors like infant mortality, life expectancy, and median wage are the most important indicators of a nation's success, and of the 25-30 countries that are considered industrialized, the US falls between 15 and 30 in all of them.

Yes, I find this embarassing. And its not difficult to predict the countries that annually lead in these indicators: Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, etc. The quasi-socialist Western European states. But could our government learn any lessons from these countries at all? They refuse. Opponents of socially-oriented programs say that the free enterprise system is the American way, and to change things like health care would be anti-American and threaten freedom. But in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," "life" comes first. And if you die as an infant... well, you get my point.

My third and last section will be devoted to you, baz. The first glaringly incorrect thing you've said:
I think we can safely say thats wrong, since I strongly dislike him and I split my votes about evenly among three parties last time I voted.

Another generalization, easily defensible because the best thing for any country to do is improve, and improvement comes only from constant self-examination. but besides that, I'm curious to see what you consider the "big good things" that Bush has done.


You need to consider your audience with this one... people spending their time arguing about politics on a gaming forum aren't usually who I think of when the words "wanton sex fiend" come up. I'd say we're a pretty moral bunch (to generalize)... at the very least, any immoral people I can think of that post here are probably nerds that only fantasize about committing immoral acts.

     You're both making the mistake of using the semantically-null word "morality" as though it actually means anything. You can't usefully define morality for any but the most homogenous groups or in the broadest possible terms. But that's a whole 'nother ball of wax, and if anybody wants to argue the point, please start a new thread. We don't need THREE lines of discussion going in one thread.  :D

Abortion is up to the woman alone, sure it's good if the man agrees or is able to give support but in the end it's only up to the woman. A fetus that is aborted does not have a soul what so ever because it doesn't have an active brain.

Furthermore, yes America should be ashamed of those bad statistics.

"Cossack (or real name), you are not allowed to bitch about america, you are an immigrant you communist bastard!"
This is what I get much of the time. I never lived in Sweden, but economicaly we are alot better. A fucking baked potatoe costs $70. Look at the bigger scene, they have rampant inflation. Also to those who say socialism is unamerican! It is perhaps the most American thing that exists. We came up with social security, before anyone, even the Soviets. We were the ones who first let women vote, we were the one who were first to implement social welfare. We were one of the first nations if not the first nation that set up public schools! Actually I think Hessen (a former german feifdom) did that first. Those people on the right have vehemently put down any programs or institutions that would make life better for all. I am saying for all, not only the poor. Put down socialized medicine, withdraw from social security, thats what the conservatives want.

Just nitpicking on Cossack (Dan Quayle) here, but it is spelled potato. Also, we followed the lead of the British in granting Women sufferage.

I am too lazy to read through this thread, but an issue such as Nationalized Health Care probably came up. All I can say is that it is a horrible plan that has more ill effects than good effects.

Bah, I didnt mean to type that "e" I swear! I think my finger has a mind of its own, watch it flick you off! I have no control over that!

Anyhow, as explained in the Social Democracy thread before the pussy bondo locked it. Its true sin, that the main argument over nationalized medicine is that technology will digress. Germany is second in medicinal research. They have such pharmasutical companies as phizer and Bayer e.t.c. As Bucc noted in the Social democracy thread, being second can be a world behind first. Not so in this case. We will see how you feel Sin when you get in to a car wreck (that was not your fault) and it costs you 150,000 dollars to live a life a non cripple. I ask you this, where is your 150,000 dollars Sin? Of coarse unlike many people here I beleive in limited Socialized Medicine. This means that the government pays only for the big crucial surgeries such as your hypothetical car wreck surgery sin. Prescirptions, cosmetic surgery, time in the hospital bed for being very sick, all that should be payed by the patient.

Now that Sin has been repaired from his car wreck surgery, he can go around and bash all the little socialists's heads in. Look how happy he is.

The main argument isn't technology decline, it is quality of care decline. I would rather pay the 150,000USD and get a good damn operation here at the UCLA Medical Center (Best Hospital West of Mississippi) instead of waiting for hours in line behind people with cuts, bruises, flu, and burns while I am dying on a stretcher.

I would also rather use the money that would go to such a horrible system and purchase good insurance for myself. We already have health insurance programs for the poor - medicare, meidcaid, etc...there is no need to waste everyone's time, money, and health care quality.

I don't think you should insult me for locking the thread...it was caused by the rules not being followed...

Anyways, yes, that is the primary and most important thing about socialized medicine.  You don't become homeless just because of a major medical problem.

Assassin, on the note of spelling corrections, it's ?suffrage?.

I think the Swedish system with socialized medicine is great, one of the best things about socialism imo. Everyone should have the right to free health care, rich or poor.

The thing is, with the Cossack plan, you will not be in front of people with those minor injuries. They are not covered. Of coarse I am sure the Doctor has priorities. Remeber his first job is to save your life, thats above all the other politics inside the medical world. The problem with insurance sin, is that they pay often for the cheapest surgery. Sometimes they wont even pay for a surgery that will keep you alive, just slightly extend the time that you are alive. I think we all can agree on one main thing, Hospital bills here in the states are way too expensive! It is so hard to pay for these accidents. Much of the services for living are way too expenisve. It costs $500/month for a damn daycare! Thats almost the same amount for going to UT!!! This is the reason why people are yelling out, "NATIONALIZE MEDICINE!" Sooner or later you people will understand, nationalize medicine or lower your damn prices so people dont have to cut off an arm and a leg in order for you to sew their arms and legs back on.

     Off topic (and I apologize): Bondo, Bucc was indeed attacking your points. He was arguing (in the debate sense of the word) with you. Your requests for behavior were indeed being followed. I have to assume that your locking of the thread on the basis of "not following the rules" was simply because you were encountering stiff opposition and were unable to respond. You are quite the pitiful debater.

Well, I have a little story for you people about my parents. Both of them are artists, both of them are Russians. That means we do not have much money. My parents could not afford my broken arm and my dad's accident when he had part of his thumb cut off while doing his work (custom furniture maker). Now he works hard, both of them have college degrees, yet they had to declare bankrupcy over those two accidents ($5000 each) Imagine what happens when a poor person has to go through? I know many of you arent poor and coulnt imagine what would happen. Bucc might since he claims his parents were not that well off. Bucc, what do you think would have happened if your folks got in the same situation?

As we all know, the American tax system is highly inefficent. Tax allocation is inefficent. Alot of money is kept from the Treasury's coffer via tax loop holes wich consequently leave the government underfunded. In countries such as Germany you are taxed about 60% of your yearly income, about the same over here. Of coarse we have a much larger military to keep up, but it goes to show you where are money is going. To guns instead of medicine. Also we should decrease funding to other countries ie Israel. You know Israel gets around 40 billion dollars a year of our money? THATS 40 BILLION DOLLARS!!! What the government does, is they loan it out to Israel, but the money after it has been issued is turned into a grant. Israel has not paid us back one penny for all the aid we have given them. You wonder why the American funding system is so inefficent? That is why. I am going to start an Israel bashing thread now.

     Honestly, $40 billion is a drop in the bucket. The American budget is upwards of $2 trillion. Yeah, it's kind of annoying, but there are so many other things to get irked at, $40 billion to Israel is not worth the time.

$40 could be given to the hospitals instead, I'm sure it would do miracles.

     Probably, but we're talking about politicians here. If the money was taken away from Israel, it would go to pork-belly projects to ensure that senators got re-elected, or it would go to kill Iraquis. Goodness knows, improving your own country in real ways is last on the list.

You know Tasty Im glad you brought that up because if I remember correctly Roe v Wade is the abortion case that says its the womens choices in the first two trimesters of pregnency and I just want to say that Bush and his administration cares so much about that baby being born but doesnt give a damn about that baby when it pops out. Especially the young black ones. What has bush done for welfare? nothing! cheaper medicare? NOTHING so he supports thier birth for what so they can be poor, starving, turn to a life of crime (not that all do but lots do) and wheres BUsh for them now. We pay the women 80 cents to the dollar and its THIERR CHOICE on this one if not anything else.


On The $40m thing it is a drop in the bucket but who would get the drop? It could save some people and Germany has large taxzes bec aause they pay m=edicare, payed pregnency leave, another 3 weeks of payed vacation so thier system is better.

The real point is that for the United States to properly care for its own people, it wouldn't even have to have any higher taxes than those already levied.

In a nation where $1 billion is spent every single day for the upkeep of a military that fights almost exclusively in unjustifed wars of aggression, money isn't tight.  We could have decent and cheap healthcare, etc, very easily.