Abortion and Handguns

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's not a easy balancing act.

I just said that.

Yes, it's hard to balance between the interests of various factions. (Madison figured if we had enough factions they would end up creating a balance...I wish I had the Federalist Papers with me, I'd find a quote.) I know I have my priorities (yes, i think the Spotted Owl is more important than logging jobs) and beliefs concerning various issues, and I know many people disagree with me. But the one thing I simply fail to understand is how we can go ahead and use up all sorts of non-renewable (at least non-renewable for all practical purposes) resources (like fossil fuels) when it's obvious that's going to run out eventually. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

SUVs and trucks are often used by people who don't need them. Completely useless waste of gas.
I know making a law prohibiting the manufacturing of such gas-guzzling monstrosities would infringe on people's rights, but wouldn't raising taxes on gas be doing essentially the same thing, just indirectly? So why then do you object to that, JD?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Thanks JD and Mirahzi. We have something similar over here which guzzles up the diesel, but I dont' think it's a terribly huge problem as of yet.

Well according to my atlas - which is copyrighted 2000 - New Zealand has 5,000,000 less people than the state of New Jersey. New Jersey is only 7,468 sq miles. New Zealand (south and north islands) is - 102,570 sq miles.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
I just said that.

Yes, it's hard to balance between the interests of various factions. (Madison figured if we had enough factions they would end up creating a balance...I wish I had the Federalist Papers with me, I'd find a quote.) I know I have my priorities (yes, i think the Spotted Owl is more important than logging jobs) and beliefs concerning various issues, and I know many people disagree with me. But the one thing I simply fail to understand is how we can go ahead and use up all sorts of non-renewable (at least non-renewable for all practical purposes) resources (like fossil fuels) when it's obvious that's going to run out eventually. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Well because we live in a free society and people have chosen to buy and drive those cars. You and I may not agree with it - but that is their business. Just like me having a sports car is my business. If gas prices go up - then they have to live with that too.

I have my electricty supplied to me by Green Mountain thanks to New Jersey's Energy Choice program. But I have chosen to pay about 10 dollars extra a month to have my electricity supplied by renewable energy sources. The government didn't force me.

What I worry about more - is what I do. I will give my friends a hard time if they consider buying an SUV or own one. And I'll tell people about Green Mountain Energy.

I do not litter and I recycle. I will complain if I see a friend litter and I will give them a hard time if they don't recycle. It doesn't require government to make people do things.

Why do you think the spotted owl is more important than logging jobs that put food on people's tables? I think the spotted owl is a nice bird - but it's not going to make me stop a logging operation. Some logging is required.

SUVs and trucks are often used by people who don't need them. Completely useless waste of gas.
I know making a law prohibiting the manufacturing of such gas-guzzling monstrosities would infringe on people's rights, but wouldn't raising taxes on gas be doing essentially the same thing, just indirectly? So why then do you object to that, JD?

Because I think it would be better if the government gave incentives to people to buy more fuel efficient cars and to give more benefits to companies that build fuel efficient cars.

Why is the answer always to tax or to punish? People that work hard and make a good living - are punished. We have a graduated income tax. Why? Why should I pay a larger percentage of my pay check in taxes when I went to college and worked to get the job I have? What was the deal with the 10% luxury tax - was that to punish people for working hard and accomplishing their dreams? This may seem off topic - but it's all the same. Liberals always look at solving the problems by punishing people - namely through taxes. I think government should stay out of people's lives.

AND - I was agreeing with you when I said "It's not a easy balancing act." (as hard as that might be to believe).

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I think it would be nice if the government would stay out of our lives entirely, but this is clearly not possible. First, there is the obvious bit--the advantages to having government in the first place. But then there is the problem of how we as a whole are not particuarly responsible in many ways. I'll use the SUV example again. Driving these gas-guzzling car-trucks is an unreasonable use of non-renewable resources. We don't need them. If they had never been made I'm sure people wouldn't think about how they needed bigger vehicles without very much more space inside them that are quite dangerous. But obviously people like them and buy them. This is where I think someone needs to step in and point out that they are ridiculous. Like the government. So maybe higher gas prices would be a better way of doing that, but then I want to see that happen, eh? I'm not saying people need to be punished, I'm saying that it needs to be pointed out how ridiculous things like SUVs are. I don't think the luxury tax is to punish people for acheiving their dreams--it's a way of raising taxes that's not going to affect hard-working people that don't have as much money. (another point...it's almost impossible to get by on low-income jobs now)

That's great that you have your electricity provided by Green Mountain. But maybe everyone should do that, instead of just the few who realize that it's better, right? It would be far more effective.

As for the Spotted Owl, there are logging practices that would be far better for the ecology and for the bird itself, which is not just a 'nice bird' but an important species in that ecosystem. I don't think that our species necessarily has priority on using natural resources. I know why we do, but I disagree with our mentality that the earth is ours to do what we want with and we don't have to worry about a few species going extinct because our needs are far more important.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
AND - I was agreeing with you when I said "It's not a easy balancing act." (as hard as that might be to believe).

Ah. Thank you. Like I said--I get offended far too easily and can be quite paranoid. I apologize for that. . .

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
I think it would be nice if the government would stay out of our lives entirely, but this is clearly not possible. First, there is the obvious bit--the advantages to having government in the first place. But then there is the problem of how we as a whole are not particuarly responsible in many ways. I'll use the SUV example again. Driving these gas-guzzling car-trucks is an unreasonable use of non-renewable resources. We don't need them. If they had never been made I'm sure people wouldn't think about how they needed bigger vehicles without very much more space inside them that are quite dangerous. But obviously people like them and buy them. This is where I think someone needs to step in and point out that they are ridiculous. Like the government. So maybe higher gas prices would be a better way of doing that, but then I want to see that happen, eh? I'm not saying people need to be punished, I'm saying that it needs to be pointed out how ridiculous things like SUVs are. I don't think the luxury tax is to punish people for acheiving their dreams--it's a way of raising taxes that's not going to affect hard-working people that don't have as much money. (another point...it's almost impossible to get by on low-income jobs now)

That's great that you have your electricity provided by Green Mountain. But maybe everyone should do that, instead of just the few who realize that it's better, right? It would be far more effective.

As for the Spotted Owl, there are logging practices that would be far better for the ecology and for the bird itself, which is not just a 'nice bird' but an important species in that ecosystem. I don't think that our species necessarily has priority on using natural resources. I know why we do, but I disagree with our mentality that the earth is ours to do what we want with and we don't have to worry about a few species going extinct because our needs are far more important.

Everything that you pointed out in this post shows that you feel that govenment controlling people's lives (as long as it's controlling it the way you want it) it the answer.

I don't think it's the government's job to tell people what to drive. I also don't support taxes to enforce a change in people's behaviour. The sole purpose of taxes should be to raise revenues - not as a stick to beat people over the head with.

For your information - the 10% luxury tax had to be repealed. Why? Becuase it was affecting the workers (the low paid workers) that built those luxury items. They were losing their jobs because people stopped buying the yatchs and big ticket items. So taxing the rich, having minimum wage, etc - does nothing to put money into poorer people's pockets. All it does is raise the cost of living - which causes the poor to be right back where they started. When McDonalds has to raise the minimum it pays it's employees because of minimum wage rate they have a choice - either lay off people - or pass the cost onto the consumer. Either people lose their jobs or the cost of a Big Mac (where more "poorer" people eat than wealthy people) is going up.

Welfare is great - too bad it has never solved poverty or even reduced it.

Oh - and low paying jobs NEVER was enough to live on. They were never meant to be enough to live on. The reason they're low paying - is because basically anyone can do them. Anyone can sweep a floor - very few people in contrast can program a computer.

[cassiopeia]

BoP: We call SUV's four wheel drives (4WD). I hate 4WD's with a passion. It's OK to own one if you are travelling around the outback or something, but if you are just driving around the city, why do you need one? Actually I have been in one and it's fun to be so high off the road, so I suppose that is appealing to people. Apprently they are harder to steer as well.

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

im am for abortion
while sometimes pregnacny can be accidental, what if a person was raped? Can we expect a person to want to go through labor, birth and want to raise a child that they dont know who the father is, or the cotraception was not in their controll?
Also. should teenagers be forced to ruin their life for a baby that they couldnt even take care of?
Plus, if we outlaw aboritons, girls will be forced to either do illegal ones in unsanitary condition, or bend hangers and do it them selves (i know its gross..but hey it happens)

[Elven Archer]

studies show that most people who are raped don't get pregnant. some do though and they can have the baby and give it a loving home or give it up for adoption so someone else can. when people adopt kids the kids grow up not knowing who their biological family is but they accept the family they do have. No teenagers shouldn't be forced to ruin their lives and they aren't. they made the choice to have sex so they're ruining their own lives.but i don't see how a precious little baby is gonna ruin your life. if you can't take care of it and can't get help to then you can give it up for adoption so somebody else can.if they were raped then it was forced but like i at the beginning. i'm a Christian so i believe abortion is wrong. i also believe when you have an abortion you're killing a baby.
people argue that it's not a human yet,so it's legal. that was the same argument people used to legalize slavery. they said they weren't human so it's legal.

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

there is nothing proving that people who get raped dont get pregnant as much as people having unprotected sex, if the man ejaculates into the woman..they have the same chance (ive been listening in health...)

[Elven Archer]

yes there is. there was some study done or something that said like only 4% of women raped get pregnant. it has to do with what's going on in your body at the time that makes you less likely to get pregnant or something like that.

[Arien the Maia]

I am against all forms of abortion unless it is to save the mother's life. I believe that a human is alive from the moment of conception.

[Baby-K]

I am totally against people carrying handguns (had a few bad personal experiences with the things). Any form of weaponry should be limited to exclusive ownership & use by military bodies.

As for abortion - I am totally pro - choice, however I do believe that the choices people make should be well - informed, especially regarding abortion. It is something that affects women greatly as it has placed quite a burden on us - almost giving us the power of gods (having to choose between life & death) - this is a burden that in most cases will definitely become too hard to bear.

I do not agree that women who have been raped can carry a resulting pregnancy to full term without suffering some sort of psychological break down and to then either give the child up for adoption or raise it yourself would only add to the pain. Rape is not something that happens to you & you then just forget about it, the memories of the event stay with the victims for a very long time (if not forever). Raising a child in such circumstance could be a constant reminder of the hurt, anger & humiliation suffered during the ordeal. This is obviously not the best environment to raise a child as it could lead to unfair psychological damage to the child as well.

What I do oppose regarding abortion is the fact that it has become an easy solution / alternative to birth control (or the lack thereof). It is too readily available to teenagers who are 'just not ready' to be parents. If you are ready to have sex you should also be ready to deal with & face any possible consequences, including pregnancy, HIV AIDS or other STD's.

[Finmandos12]

As for guns: I believe people should be able to have handguns, if they have a license. I don't believe that people should be able to own rifles, except for maybe hunters. Elimination of all private gun ownership is against the Constitution.

As for abortion: I am against it, except in cases where the health of the mother is at stake.

I do not agree that women who have been raped can carry a resulting pregnancy to full term without suffering some sort of psychological break down and to then either give the child up for adoption or raise it yourself would only add to the pain.

True. But killing the baby will not make the pain from rape go away. Two wrongs don't make a right. Studies show that many women who have abortions excperience mental pain and guilt later in life. Also, very few abortions are by women who have been raped.

[markedel]

Constitutions are infinitely malleable devices...they're only as good as the people who safeguard them.

[Baby-K]

True. But killing the baby will not make the pain from rape go away. Two wrongs don't make a right. Studies show that many women who have abortions excperience mental pain and guilt later in life. Also, very few abortions are by women who have been raped.

Which is why I said that the choice should be well - informed. I did not mean to imply that abortion is the answer or the only option, however it still remains the choice of the woman. In a case of rape the paternal rights of the offender would not come in to play & so (for the most part) it is a choice that the woman would have to make alone.

I do agree that it could cause mental anguish later in life but, keeping in mind that studies are done using a "general mean population" it can't be concluded that findings are finite or apply to all people at all times.

And yes, most abortions are performed on teenage girls / woman who have fallen pregnant during consentual sexual intercourse - this is why in the last part of my post I said that I am against the availability of abortion as a quick solution to the lack of birth control.

[Wayfarer]

Here's a quirky thought:

Instead of abortion, they ought to remove the embryo and put it into an embryo bank for people who can't get pregnant. Save them the trouble of in vitro fertilization.

I'm not convinced that it would work, but it would certainly end the tragic waste of life.