Looks like people are more intelligent in South Wales than they are in South London.....
Well, obviously
It isn't close. I don't know why everyone is saying it is. Obama will win comfortably.
Off-topic: Obama or Romney?
- Thread starter SaintJabie
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Well, obviously
It isn't close. I don't know why everyone is saying it is. Obama will win comfortably.
Anyone who votes Romney has some serious, serious issues, and should consider applying for their local McDonalds.
It says a lot about Americans that many of them have/will vote for Romney, a man who has changed his policies so frequently and backtracks on literally every comment he makes. I don't see how anyone can vote for him on policy as he is so indecisive I don't think even he knows what he's going to do if he gets in office. God help America and the world if he wins, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets embroiled in a nuclear war with North Korea or Pakistan.
Why is being against abortion backward? (I'm backing obama btw just wondering why you made that statement)
Because there's no rational reason for it and all anti-abortion arguments are based on misunderstandings or deliberate falsehoods (incidentally if you have one that isn't I'd like to hear it).
Don't get me wrong, you can personally feel it is a bad thing, but that doesn't give you the right to ban it and take away that right from other people.
The way I see it is as such. Abortion is destroying an embryo now the crucial matter here is how we regard this embryo just a mass of meaningless cells or a human life? I haven't ever seen a reason as to why it isn't a human life. It may not look like you or I but what is the fundemental status changing difference between that and a baby. Now if it isn't a human life there must come a point in development where it becomes a human life right? Most people would regard killing a baby 1 day before its due date disgusting and so regard it as a human life. What is special about the 24 week period (sorry not sure what the exact legal date is) which changes the being from a meaningless bunch of chemicals to a precious human life worth protecting.
If someone could answer those questions then I'd be pro choice but untill then I'd rather not take the risk of killing inocent human life.
Another point is that wouldn't the easiest way to look at the human life as starting at conception? Until there egg and sperm are just parental cells, when they fuse a new completly unique genome is created which will then go on to create a new human being. To say that that isn't a human being or isn't alive but after 24 weeks/birth it all of a sudden is seems illogical. You can argue on the grounds that the embryo needs the mother to protect/help its development but then the same could be said of babies, they aren't independent. Neither are many people but that isn't grounds for ending their lives.
Do you know that the vast majority of embryos will naturally fail to develop into a viable pregnancy? So if life begins at conception far, far more lives have been lost this way than through voluntary abortion.
24 weeks is when the majority of foetuses will survive outside the womb (with medical intervention). I would consider killing a baby disgusting but it is not practicably a 'baby' before 24 weeks.
So they don't survive that doesn't prove their not a human life, yes lots of lives get lost at that point that doesn't mean there not lives does it? So for you the point at which human life begins is when they surive outside of the womb? That seems odd when babies need pratically constant care and attnetion to surive whats the difference between requiring a womb for survival and requiring care/food shelter?
Well how far back do you want to go? Technically sperms are alive but you wouldn't advocate saving every one would you?
I think you overestimate the ease with which women have abortions. It's not something people decide upon on a whim, you can bet a lot of thought has gone into it, and if a particular woman has decided it's the right choice for her, then I respect that decision. That, to me, is more valuable than having these babies be born into families that don't want them.
It's not lives being ended, it's potential lives being prevented from starting. There's no brain activity whatsoever until about 2 months into the pregnancy, and even after that you're talking about something with no memories and the intelligence equivalent to a small mammal like a shrew. It's far better than bringing an unwanted baby into the world, where its parents don't want it and possibly can't afford to raise it properly. You're killing it before it has anything to lose.
I'm sorry, but abortion should not be used as a form of contraception. Although I'm not against abortion per say, I do think that's wrong. Can't afford a baby? Use a bloody condom.
On both coasts, and in a most of the major urban centres, the USA is a progressive democracy populated by an enlightened and educated people. That still leaves a large hinterland full of "guns n Jesus" nutters who seem to have successfully dodged the evolution they don't believe in anyway.
That's not really a solution is it? If you're already pregnant then there's no use saying "should have used a condom". Also condoms don't work 100% of the time.
You're normally a pretty sensible guy but there's quite a lot wrong with this.
I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that, but it has no bearing on the argument of whether abortion should be legal, or the limit should be reduced from 24 weeks.
It's not a solution but it is a prevention. I'm sure some people have unprotected sex because they know if they get pregnant then they can just get an abortion and oh well, no harm done. Like I said, that's wrong. Of course, everyone makes mistakes and if the condom doesn't work then obviously abortion would be acceptable, I feel.
Anyhow, I'm not saying it should be outright banned in the event of accidental pregnancy I think it should still be available, but I'm just saying it shouldn't just be encouraged and just accepted as the way it is. If a woman has 20 abortions due to have unprotected sex, is that right?
I know girls who have had abortions, and they never thought of it like that. It's a pretty distressing thing to have to go through, and certainly not worth the slightly better sex.
- Status