AddisonClark Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 People said that women shouldn't vote for Palin right off the bat because despite being a woman, she was anti-abortion. Well I've never personally heard someone say "I'm voting for [liberal] because I need to keep having my abortions". If you have, then I don't know what to tell you -- that person is beyond help. Is it really that simple? Liberals never tell people how to think or what to do? Despite your attempts to twist this in another direction, yes, it is that simple. There is no response to this argument -- no one out there knows what is best for my wife. No one out there should be allowed control over her body. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meteamo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I don't think telling people what to do or not to do has anything to do with politics as much as human nature. I think to some extent, it's human nature to tell others what to do or what not to do. This, of course varies by what type of person he/she is as well how that person thinks or what that person believes. Some people may limit it to instilling good advice onto others while others may persistantly argue their point until every one else accepts their view. Mostly everyone is in between. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ And aren't the two below statements the same? I think so. > I'm voting for XYZ because they are pro-issue > I'm not voting for XYZ because they are anti-issue And same for these? > I'm voting for XYZ because they are anti-issue > I'm not voting for XYZ because they are pro-issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Despite your attempts to twist this in another direction, yes, it is that simple. There is no response to this argument -- no one out there knows what is best for my wife. No one out there should be allowed control over her body. End of story. Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy both pushed for a bill that forced vaccinations on children in 2005. Did they know what was best for your children's bodies then? It cuts both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonClark Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy both pushed for a bill that forced vaccinations on children in 2005. Did they know what was best for your children's bodies then? It cuts both ways. I'm sorry, but this isn't a political party debate. I didn't say liberals know what's best for my wife. No one knows what's best for my wife. Certain types of vaccinations should be required, that I can understand. They prevent the spread of disease and in no way can be compared to outlawing abortion as they are two completely separate things. Other vaccinations, those that don't specifically apply to spreadable disease, shouldn't be forced on people as other people's bodies are none of my (our) business. It's when other people's bodies are spreading diseases that it becomes a problem that should be solved by governement -- and is. The bottom line here -- you do not know what's best for my wife. I do not know what is best for your wife. No matter how much you try and spin this, abortion is not something that should be voted on or debated. Those that see it differently are buying in to the "God Complex" that was discussed earlier and think it is their God's will to impart their beliefs on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I'm sorry, but this isn't a political party debate. I didn't say liberals know what's best for my wife. No one knows what's best for my wife. Certain types of vaccinations should be required, that I can understand. They prevent the spread of disease and in no way can be compared to outlawing abortion as they are two completely separate things. Other vaccinations, those that don't specifically apply to spreadable disease, shouldn't be forced on people as other people's bodies are none of my (our) business. It's when other people's bodies are spreading diseases that it becomes a problem that should be solved by governement -- and is. The bottom line here -- you do not know what's best for my wife. I do not know what is best for your wife. No matter how much you try and spin this, abortion is not something that should be voted on or debated. Those that see it differently are buying in to the "God Complex" that was discussed earlier and think it is their God's will to impart their beliefs on others. It shouldn't be debated? No one debates what your wife should do with her body. What is debated is what should be done with the body of the baby growing inside her. I personally am pro-abortion rights. But they way you tell it, it is simply a matter of one person telling someone else what they can or can't do with their body. That's not what the debate is about. The debate is about when that child in her womb gets the same rights she does. The forced vaccinations force a person to take medication to prevent harm from others. Banning abortion forces a woman to carry a child to prevent the murder of that child. Do I agree with prohibiting her from doing so? No. But the abortion debate isn't a debate simply about women's rights. It is a debate about what weight a woman's rights hold over the rights of a child, and when that fetus becomes a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonClark Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The debate is about a woman's body and her right to choose what happens to it -- no need for spin here, that's what this all breaks down to. If there's a baby inside of a particular woman, then that's her responsibility and she can decide how to handle it. Like it's not hard enough for them in those situations... just leave the women alone. There's just no way the government and American citizens should decide what's best for other women -- the thought is just ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 It's not spin. You seem to live in this fantasy world where everything is black and white. Watch, let me do what you are doing: "It's as simple as this. You shouldn't kill people. It is just ludicrous to think it is right to kill another person." And furthermore, abortions are already illegal. The government has already declared when a fetus is considered a human life and when a woman can no longer choose to terminate the pregnancy. So, in your black and white world, the woman's rights are already being infringed upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonClark Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 By spin, I am referring to the act of you trying to compare abortion with other things and detracting from the original debate about abortion. In addition to women's rights already being infringed upon, I agree, there are many other rights that we as Americans are losing each year, which in my eyes is a big shame. And yes, it is ludicrous to want to kill another human being. Abortion is also ludicrous. But, it's not our responsibility as Americans to debate about the bodies of our countries women. You're acting as if the fetus inside every pregnant woman is a sort of communal fetus, like we all get to chip and decide what is done with it. So if that's true, can we vote and decide on only one acceptable form of birth? Where does it end? At point does the public relinquish control of that child back to the mother and father? Or is the American public always responsible for that child? Seems to me, it is much more simpler to just leave any child/fetus decisions to the mother first and foremost, then the father. It's their problem, not ours. I don't really see any valid arguments against this. It's no one's business except theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Now who is spinning it. If that child were allowed to be born, come out of the womb and the mother/father decided they didn't want it anymore, couldn't care for it at this time, etc and killed it, they would go to jail. This isn't an argument about control over the child. It's about life and death, and what you consider a living being and what you don't consider a living being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonClark Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Now who is spinning it. If that child were allowed to be born, come out of the womb and the mother/father decided they didn't want it anymore, couldn't care for it at this time, etc and killed it, they would go to jail. This isn't an argument about control over the child. It's about life and death, and what you consider a living being and what you don't consider a living being. I'm not quite sure what you think I've spinned, but I feel I can't say this any better way -- none of this is any of our business. We're not women. We're not women who are pregnant. We're not in their situation. We should have no control or say over what happens to women and their pregnancies. It's none of our business. I'm not sure how clearer I can make my point. We shouldn't even really be talking about this, it's just none of our business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesmvp04 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 This is why I've said I won't debate in this issue. Because it's always going to come down to people's moral and rights views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonClark Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 This is why I've said I won't debate in this issue. Because it's always going to come down to people's moral and rights views. So then you're saying you don't respect women's rights or trust them to make their own morals? You must impose your own views on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayxero Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Just change the damn subject. Jeez. Whos looking forward to this weeks debate =D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonClark Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Just change the **** subject. Jeez. Whos looking forward to this weeks debate =D It's not easy when you have to think about the personal side of issues, is it? Most of politics is pretty depressing if you think about it realistically enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesmvp04 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 So then you're saying you don't respect women's rights or trust them to make their own morals? You must impose your own views on them? I said I'm not debating that. New subject: I was checking out the polls today, and I found it very interesting that the Reuters/Zogby poll placed Obama with a 47.9%-43.6% lead over McCain. Meanwhile, the Gallup poll has Obama leading 51%-41%. What a huge gap between the two polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonClark Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I said I'm not debating that. So, no, you don't respect women's rights and yes you must impose your own views onto them. That's awesome. Alright, moving on, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I said I'm not debating that. New subject: I was checking out the polls today, and I found it very interesting that the Reuters/Zogby poll placed Obama with a 47.9%-43.6% lead over McCain. Meanwhile, the Gallup poll has Obama leading 51%-41%. What a huge gap between the two polls. The Gallup poll, when talking about likely voters is a 7% gap, closer to the margin of the other polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgbaseball Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 So basically it's dead even. Big shocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonClark Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The Gallup poll, when talking about likely voters is a 7% gap, closer to the margin of the other polls. Speaking of polls, has anyone here read this website? http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ As baseball fans, I think we could all find this pretty interesting. The guy who invented the PECOTA is now doing polling stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgbaseball Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Yeah, he was on Colbert a few days ago. Interesting stuff for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayxero Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I don't buy into polls. Where do they do these anyways. I wanna be in a poll =D btw dig the new avy kg =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I've been following 538 since April. It's a great site. Sometimes the commentary by Nate delves to far away from the numbers and more into the punditry but the model is solid. Polls are what they are, snapshots of the electorate at that given time. McCain is dealing with a floundering economy and an unpopular President. The fact that it is a 7 point margin this late in the game is a small miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_jefe061 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Polls are what they are, snapshots of the electorate at that given time. McCain is dealing with a floundering economy and an unpopular President. The fact that it is a 7 point margin this late in the game is a small miracle. The 7 point lead isn't the worrisome part for McCain. It's the polls that have Obama ahead in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado. That's the beauty of 538, it projects on a state by state basis, and currently has a huge lead in the electoral category with 360 electoral votes. 538 pretty much takes all of the hard polling information and makes it easy for the rest of us. Where would we be without PECOTA? The article the other day about the effect of Osama Bin Laden's video release in 2004 was golden. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Right, but even Nate weights against National numbers towards the state polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kccitystar Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 The article the other day about the effect of Osama Bin Laden's video release in 2004 was golden. Good stuff. Do you have a link to this article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.