Jump to content
Moonlight_Graham

About That "gomery Report" Thread

Recommended Posts

Josie:  by the way: thanks for opening that can of worms moonlight graham

 

You shouldn't have responded to my post then! That part of my post was a joke. And the joke worked! There are certainly a lot more posts in this Gomery thread than the other Gomery thread i previously posted.

 

I'd recommend u guys move this debate to another thread.

 

Actually, I think they'd have to pull through with quite a bit of this, like the Air India Inquiry, and what not. And Business, sometimes over estimate, like Nortel did, and Apple did this year. It happens, however, it would be bad for a government who promised balanced budgets to overspend which could happen if they spread themselves to thin.

 

Svend Robinson was already being investigated I believe when he admitted he stole something. However, an expensive ring can lead to millions of dollars too, he's a theif, I can't see how you can make an exception for a party you support after you couldn't for one you cannot. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

Also, the eighties P.C.'s were not so glamourous, they were ousted out of office by the Liberals in 1993. That's why the Liberals have been in power for so long, combined with the Reform being too right wing too of course.

I am not an NDP supporter. I have never voted NDP. But i think them a better alternative to run this country than the Liberals.

 

If Svend Robinson was under investigation before he confessed to his crime then that would change things. Yes he is a thief, and I probably wouldn't vote for him. However there is a still a big difference in what Robinson did and what the Liberals have done. More or less, i see what Robinson did as a solitary immoral act done by one person in the NDP party. 1 bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch (as Donny Osmonde would say). However, if there were several NDP'ers who stole rings in some sort of scheme then that would be similar to what the Liberals had done (but in a much smaller scale), and my trust in the NDP would fall sharply.

 

Svend Robinson and his buddies would have to steal a lot of friggin' rings to equal what the Liberals have stolen and/or wasted.

Edited by Moonlight_Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. the statement about my family's history with rape was not meant to say i'm some authority on the subject, just saying i'm fully aware that women can become pregnant from rape.

 

2. if we could limit abortions to "emergency" situations i would seriously rethink my stance on the subject. the fact is we can't say "the government gets to choose who can and who can't" it's got to be the same for everyone.

 

3. the government regulates daily what we can and can not do to our own bodies. drug use, for example. regardless of your stance on when a baby becomes a human and not a part of another human's body, you have to agree that drug use physically affects only the users body. self abuse, as well. the government can have you locked up if a person in a position of authority feels you are a risk to your own safety. we're not allowed to kill ourselves but we're allowed to have abortions?

 

4. i have to apologize as well. after your statement about the number of abortions, i assumed your whole argument for abortion was "what about rape". apparently it's not. (though, i must say, to argue that 50 million children would've ended up in foster care and then argue that abortion is justified in the case of protecting the mothers health is contradictory.)

 

 

 

moonlight graham

first, i was kidding. second- if we argue in a different thread, one that clearly labels what we're discussing, we're inviting a whole lot of kids to the party and too many less than educated opinions. maybe you should move your thread to something called "abortion: what do YOU think?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josie:  by the way: thanks for opening that can of worms moonlight graham

 

You shouldn't have responded to my post then! That part of my post was a joke. And the joke worked! There are certainly a lot more posts in this Gomery thread than the other Gomery thread i previously posted.

 

I'd recommend u guys move this debate to another thread.

 

Actually, I think they'd have to pull through with quite a bit of this, like the Air India Inquiry, and what not. And Business, sometimes over estimate, like Nortel did, and Apple did this year. It happens, however, it would be bad for a government who promised balanced budgets to overspend which could happen if they spread themselves to thin.

 

Svend Robinson was already being investigated I believe when he admitted he stole something. However, an expensive ring can lead to millions of dollars too, he's a theif, I can't see how you can make an exception for a party you support after you couldn't for one you cannot. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

Also, the eighties P.C.'s were not so glamourous, they were ousted out of office by the Liberals in 1993. That's why the Liberals have been in power for so long, combined with the Reform being too right wing too of course.

I am not an NDP supporter. I have never voted NDP. But i think them a better alternative to run this country than the Liberals.

 

If Svend Robinson was under investigation before he confessed to his crime then that would change things. Yes he is a thief, and I probably wouldn't vote for him. However there is a still a big difference in what Robinson did and what the Liberals have done. More or less, i see what Robinson did as a solitary immoral act done by one person in the NDP party. 1 bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch (as Donny Osmonde would say). However, if there were several NDP'ers who stole rings in some sort of scheme then that would be similar to what the Liberals had done (but in a much smaller scale), and my trust in the NDP would fall sharply.

 

Svend Robinson and his buddies would have to steal a lot of friggin' rings to equal what the Liberals have stolen and/or wasted.

Man, stealing is stealing. And actually I'd say that it was only a few bad apples in the Liberal party who committed the scandal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. the statement about my family's history with rape was not meant to say i'm some authority on the subject, just saying i'm fully aware that women can become pregnant from rape.

 

2. if we could limit abortions to "emergency" situations i would seriously rethink my stance on the subject. the fact is we can't say "the government gets to choose who can and who can't" it's got to be the same for everyone.

 

3. the government regulates daily what we can and can not do to our own bodies. drug use, for example. regardless of your stance on when a baby becomes a human and not a part of another human's body, you have to agree that drug use physically affects only the users body. self abuse, as well. the government can have you locked up if a person in a position of authority feels you are a risk to your own safety. we're not allowed to kill ourselves but we're allowed to have abortions?

 

4. i have to apologize as well. after your statement about the number of abortions, i assumed your whole argument for abortion was "what about rape". apparently it's not. (though, i must say, to argue that 50 million children would've ended up in foster care and then argue that abortion is justified in the case of protecting the mothers health is contradictory.)

 

 

 

moonlight graham

first, i was kidding. second- if we argue in a different thread, one that clearly labels what we're discussing, we're inviting a whole lot of kids to the party and too many less than educated opinions. maybe you should move your thread to something called "abortion: what do YOU think?"

1. the statement about my family's history with rape was not meant to say i'm some authority on the subject, just saying i'm fully aware that women can become pregnant from rape.

 

Well, I was aware that women could become pregnant from rape anyways. It's a moot point.

 

2. if we could limit abortions to "emergency" situations i would seriously rethink my stance on the subject. the fact is we can't say "the government gets to choose who can and who can't" it's got to be the same for everyone.

 

Actually, the government can do that. It did so back in the 50's, when abortions were legalized for situations where the mother's health was in danger. In the United States, a teenager can get a judge's permission to have an abortion where state laws require she get parental approval for the abortion.

 

So, I guess this really only leaves the conclusion that you think that raped women, sexually abused girls and people in risk of dying from giving birth should be forced to carry the baby to term?

 

3. the government regulates daily what we can and can not do to our own bodies. drug use, for example. regardless of your stance on when a baby becomes a human and not a part of another human's body, you have to agree that drug use physically affects only the users body. self abuse, as well. the government can have you locked up if a person in a position of authority feels you are a risk to your own safety. we're not allowed to kill ourselves but we're allowed to have abortions?

 

In the big picture, the government doesn't regulate all that much about what we can do to our bodies (and you'll never guess what my opinion is about that, either). The fact is, if the government is allowed to regulate the behaviour of a pregnant woman... that's fascism, no two ways about it.

 

And the comparison between suicide and abortion is a complete non sequitur. Realistically speaking, we are allowed to kill ourselves, we're just not allowed to get caught. And really, who gets caught trying to kill themselves? Darwin Award rejects, that's who. I think the laws against suicide are a mere formality.

 

So, how exactly does abortion fit into that picture? The government doesn't exactly have a legitimate interest regulating what we can do with our lives (so long as it doesn't interfere with another person's right to do what they want with theirs). Should there be a law regulating what we eat 10-12 servings of fruits and vegetables every day? Should women be mass-tested every month to see if they're pregnant, and from that point put into large camps to ensure optimum health for the fetus? A bit of an extreme example, I'll admit, but where exactly do you draw the line?

 

4. i have to apologize as well. after your statement about the number of abortions, i assumed your whole argument for abortion was "what about rape". apparently it's not. (though, i must say, to argue that 50 million children would've ended up in foster care and then argue that abortion is justified in the case of protecting the mothers health is contradictory.)

 

There's nothing contradictory about that. There's more than one reason to support abortion. Cases of rape / danger to the mother's health are just examples where abortions being illegal would be extremely cruel. As for the number of abortions, that's simply to show the extreme problem that would be facing the foster care system if abortions were legal. Now, not all of the children would end up in foster care, but I'd be willing to bet a considerable majority would. You know, in Venice, the Catholic Church set up these convents during the Renaissance for women to drop their unwanted children off anonymously, because otherwise the would just throw the babies into the canals after they were born. Funny how that works out, don't you think? If you make abortion illegal, it'll only bring back the day of performing abortions in the garage with wire coat hangers.

 

However, I should apologize as well. The real figure is actually 40 million abortions in the States, not fifty. Don't know how I ended up typing in 50 million, but whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's how i feel. Abortions are ok if the mother's health is in danger. I'm also not against abortions for rape victims.

 

However, i feel that if you have sex & you become pregnant, its not moral to have an abortion. Therefore i'm pro-life in most instances.

 

Why? Because if you choose to have sex you should take responsibility for your actions. If you are too stupid to not use birth control and a condom etc., then you should take responsibility. If you used proper birth control but still got pregnant, then that is still the risk of having sex. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET PREGNANT, DON'T HAVE SEX.

 

Abortions are the easy way out. I think its a bit selfish to kill an unborn baby just because said woman doesn't want to be uncomfortable for 9 months, or she fears her parents, or the thoughts of her peers. Just take responsibility, and if you don't want to keep the child then give it up for adoption. There are many people wanting babies for adoption, and a lot of Canadians have to go overseas to places like China to adopt a baby.

 

I know its a very very hard decision for women when they get abortions, but i'm sure they don't feel nearly as bad as the fetus/embyro/whatever that never gets to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Moonlight, I agree with you for the most part. But ultimately, who are any of us to dicate what is or isn't "moral" into law, and force other people to live by those standards? (this doesn't apply to murder or rape or theft, so let's not go down that road...)

 

However, the fetus' brain isn't quite developed enough to feel bad about not living. Its nervous system, yes, but not its conscience.

 

But I think there are cases where abortions are justified, even when not in a life-or-death situation. I remember on one discussion board I used to frequent, one of the members terminated her pregnancy during a divorce from an abusive husband. She was going to be a single mother at 25, and already had two kids to take care of. I think her having an abortion was more than justified in such a case. Can you imagine trying to make a living for yourself and three kids after a divorce without a university degree? And what if she were to keep the baby and give it up for adoption? How would one earn a living whilst pregnant and with two kids to take care of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's how i feel.  Abortions are ok if the mother's health is in danger.  I'm also not against abortions for rape victims.

 

However, i feel that if you have sex & you become pregnant, its not moral to have an abortion.  Therefore i'm pro-life in most instances.

 

Why?  Because if you choose to have sex you should take responsibility for your actions.  If you are too stupid to not use birth control and a condom etc., then you should take responsibility.  If you used proper birth control but still got pregnant, then that is still the risk of having sex.  IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET PREGNANT, DON'T HAVE SEX.

 

Abortions are the easy way out.  I think its a bit selfish to kill an unborn baby just because said woman doesn't want to be uncomfortable for 9 months, or she fears her parents, or the thoughts of her peers.  Just take responsibility, and if you don't want to keep the child then give it up for adoption.  There are many people wanting babies for adoption, and a lot of Canadians have to go overseas to places like China to adopt a baby.

 

I know its a very very hard decision for women when they get abortions, but i'm sure they don't feel nearly as bad as the fetus/embyro/whatever that never gets to live.

That is EXACTLY how i feel about it.

 

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET PREGNANT, DON'T HAVE SEX.

 

It's so easy! It's all a matter of personal responsibility. Which is why i am not against abortions in case of rape. But if you got pregnant from having consensual sex, then it's your own goddamn fault and you should deal with the consequences. And 'dealing with it' does not mean killing a fetus everytime you shirk your personal responsibility.

 

 

That said, i find the majority of both the 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' activist groups (not usually individuals who hold this position, mind you) are just despicable. Both groups have poor arguments, and rely on stupid catchy phrases. And the pro-life crew also LOVES to use graphic pictures and genocide references, which disgusts me. Equating abortions to the Holocaust or the Cambodian killing fields is just abominable. (I have seen this take place)

 

This is why, being more on the pro-life side of the issue (for totally different reasons), i hate having to be associated with these assholes. On the other hand, at the UofC last week, a pro-life display was ransacked and several members assaulted by some pro-choice folks. Essentially, the vocal activist groups for BOTH sides of this issue are assholes and i hate them. (Again, i dont hate individual people holding either opinion, but the groups they form are dangerous, malicious, and annoying).

People assume that anyone holding a pro-life stance is deeply religious and is trying to impose their own morality onto other people. I am 100% atheist, and have been my entire life. My views are not the result of church doctrine. I just feel that the women wanting abortions probably should have considered the consequences when they had sex. To repeat my own little catchphrase, "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, DAMMIT!!!!!".

 

The end of my rant. Don't hate me.

Edited by Ravenous Yam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't she realise there are laws that force the ex-husband to support the children?

Don't you realize that's beside the friggin point?

 

P.S. If sex is a matter of personal responsibility (which I will wholeheartedly agree with), why can't abortion be one as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Moonlight, I agree with you for the most part. But ultimately, who are any of us to dicate what is or isn't "moral" into law, and force other people to live by those standards?

well thats the whole problem, isn't it? Both sides of the discussion have strong opinions and its a very touchy issue. My opinion is just 1 opinion of course. I don't think 1 person (aka Prime Minister or a judge) should be able to decide this issue one way or the other. Maybe something this controversial should go to a referendum for all Canadians (or whichever country u live in) to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think ravenous yam makes some good points. and that's all that i've been trying to say all along, pregnancy from consentual sex is your responsibilty for having sex. sex makes babies. if you don't want babies, or can't handle the responsibility of having one (whether that be raising it or carrying it to term and giving it up for adoption) don't have sex. how is the murder of unborn children justifiable in these cases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't we treat grownups like grownups and let people make their own decisions?

 

Society shouldn't be a collective babysitter, tellling people what they can and can't do with their lives. If someone wants to have promiscuous sex, and as long as that doesn't affect me somehow, then they should be allowed to. And if they get pregnant and want an abortion, and as long as that doesn't affect me somehow, then they should be allowed to.

 

Simple as that. Whatever happened to letting people live their own lives? Seems these days, everyone wants everyone else to live up to their standards, and only their standards, lest they all be condemned to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is getting a little bigger than abortion now, but it DOES affect you somehow. when the collective conscience is continually numbed it affects everyone. when people have no expectations put on them to BE responsible human beings, they won't. they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is where you're wrong. Someone else having sex with whom they please and having an abortion (or not having an abortion, for that matter) doesn't affect me at all.

 

Now, someone having promiscuous sex, knowingly having an STD and knowingly passing it along to their partners - there's something wrong with that. There have been cases of people who knew they were HIV positive and went out and had sex with people without telling them they were HIV positive being charged with crimes - especially rapists who went about trying to infect as many people as possible. Stuff like that merits laws being put in place, because intentionally and maliciously spreading AIDS or another vicious STD around does affect me, in the same way that unemployment and poverty in my city affects me.

 

Now, the suggestion that people who have abortions are irresponsible is a funny one. I think responsibility has less to do with living up to your own self-defined standards and more to do with living up to a collective set of defined standards. Just to name an example, it would be irresponsible of a parent to go out clubbing every night after work. Why? Because they have a responsibility to be home and raise their kids - you know, cook dinner, help with homework, read to them, whatever. It is irresponsible of an employee to, say, forget a business presentation at home, because of their responsibility to bring it into work. That's responsibility - when other people are depending on you to do something.

 

I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible of someone to get pregnant from having sex. Should it come as a surprise? No. And that's one of the risks people accept, willingly or not, when they have sex - that either they will get pregnant themselves, or their partner will get pregnant. The same thing goes for sex between a comitted couple. What happens if the girl gets pregnant, and the couple just really doesn't want children, or they can't afford it? Is it "irresponsible" of them to have an abortion and live a lifestyle that they choose, or to not go bankrupt trying to raise a child? You probably find that objectionable, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not irresponsible.

 

And on top of that, I'd even say that in the case of a poor couple who can't afford it, it would be responsible of them to have an abortion. Why? Because if they know that they will be incapable of raising the prospective child in an atmosphere that they know is substandard, they are arguably doing the right thing by not bringing the child into a world that won't afford it all the opportunities it deserves. And I don't think that giving it up for adoption would afford it a particularly great qality of life either.

 

gotta run...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't we treat grownups like grownups and let people make their own decisions?

 

Society shouldn't be a collective babysitter, tellling people what they can and can't do with their lives. If someone wants to have promiscuous sex, and as long as that doesn't affect me somehow, then they should be allowed to. And if they get pregnant and want an abortion, and as long as that doesn't affect me somehow, then they should be allowed to.

 

Simple as that. Whatever happened to letting people live their own lives? Seems these days, everyone wants everyone else to live up to their standards, and only their standards, lest they all be condemned to hell.

People are dying in Africa from hunger and genocide. That doesn't really affect you, so should we just let it continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.