mmboost

iTrader: (2)

Democrats all want to be LBJ, right? We want to create a better society for everyone, living by the credo that society was created to benefit all, not just the rich as a mechanism to get wealthier on the backs of the poor right?

Well then why can't Democrats act like it? What if, just think for a moment, what if the Democratic Party gave up the pro-choice agenda to win an election? What if Democrat policy for social justice could be put into place by giving up the right to snuff a fetus? How bad would it be if men and women really tried hard not to **** like bunnies, used contraception consistently and stopped clubbing so much that you can't remember who you mated with the night before... so that abortion wouldn't appear to be such a grave necessity.

Isn't that what being a Democrat is about anyhow? I give up a little (or a lot) so that others might live better lives? Democrats complain more than anyone except perhaps Greens that Americans abuse the worlds resources and keep other countries down because of it. Well start at home. How bad would it be to give up one right for the benefit to the lives of others by making it easier to get out LBJ-ish policies into place?

(fyi - I am registered Democrat, and I am against abortion)

jason

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Good topic.

I think moderation is the key to a success

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Horrible post. Horrible. 1) Not all Democrats want to be LBJ. 2) Why don't the Democrats give up pro-choice? Why didn't Republicans give up defence-spending when Clinton was running for his second term...stupid stupid argument. 3) Your argument about abortion seems to be this: solve the reasons people need abortions so they don't need to have them. Great idea. While you're at it, make it so noone commits crimes (so we don't need jails) and noone does drugs or drinks (so we don't need AA and clinics etc...). Being too idealistic doesn't help anyone. 4) Being a Democrat is all about whatever the f*** you like about the party.

FYI I'm a registered independant...if you have a problem with your party (the democrats), and you're all about 'starting at home', then you go first. What have you done to help democrats in general...other than being a conservative democrat so the republicans won't hate you.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

"...living by the credo that society was created to benefit all, not just the rich as a mechanism to get wealthier on the backs of the poor right?

Well then why can't Democrats act like it? What if, just think for a moment, what if the Democratic Party gave up the pro-choice agenda to win an election..."

This is a perfect contridiction. You seem to say that altruism is the way to go (which I agree with completely). But then you say the Dems should give up an ideal that, in their's and many other's opinion, is altruistic and benefits society greatly. So which is it? Do you want the Democrats to be altruistic or to be an election-winning machine? Or maybe you just want to justify your own conservativism but are afraid of calling yourself a republican...hmm....

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

This proves what? that everyone should be a selfish *******? like you? That's what your "argument" *cough* advocates if you actually read what you write.

I don't suppose it has ever occured to you that people and parties change their politics because society changes and strategies change. You are basically lambasting me because I brought up an idea that you appearantly can only refute by saying "No one else is willing to change, why should I?". How purile and obnoxious. You haven't contributed but to actually echo what I've said: Everyone is selfish. I'm merely advocating not being selfish, and...

I did "start at home". I was celibate until I got married because I thought it would be unfair for all parties involved if I had a baby I didn't want and wasn't prepared for. I doubt you have such selfcontrol - you obviously can't keep from shooting your mouth off.

Try discussing.

jason

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

I don't believe in altrusim.

You keep missing the crux of the argument. You have to weigh one good over another? Are impoverished bellies made full by idealism? No. Will impoverished bellies be made full by Republican agendas? Hardly. Will impoverished bellies be made full by Democrats who keep demanding to have the right to abort fetuses? No.

In some opinions abortion keeps impoverished bellies from being born... but what about those that are already here? Screw the poor now so you that you can have your rights based upon a weak idea that there will be more poor? Those who are poor now and will elect to have children that will be poor will never be helped by pro-choice laws.

btw - thank you for discussing, instead of whatever it was you did the first time.

also - I am not a "conservative democrat". I am whatever I am, and what I want to accomplish is mostly covered by democrat agendas. I am against abortion, I have been all my life... it only has to do with one thing: I dunno when life really starts, but I don't believe in risking murder because I want to make my life easier. I believe that life is a gift that we hardly understand and in no way do I want to make the mistake of taking it for granted by possibly treating it casually

jason

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Wait a minute...you don't believe in altruism? Hmmm...I don't understand what you're arguing then.
I'm not selfish. In fact, I see being pro-life selfish. Explain to me how giving women a RIGHT to choose is somehow selfish for ME. It isn't...telling people they can't do something because it offends your religious views is selfish.

"I don't suppose it has ever occured to you that people and parties change their politics because society changes and strategies change. You are basically lambasting me because I brought up an idea that you appearantly can only refute by saying "No one else is willing to change, why should I?". How purile and obnoxious. You haven't contributed but to actually echo what I've said: Everyone is selfish. I'm merely advocating not being selfish, and..."

I'm lambasting you because you're attacking the pro-choice ideal without any evidence other than the speculation that having dems be pro-life would be a good tactic for winning elections. You try to mention that abortions don't help with poverty...show me. I'm pretty damn sure that abortions have helped more than a couple families out of what would other wise be an impossible situation.
You say that you're advocating not being selfish...by adopting selfish ideals and stances. You want the democrats to win, and to be pro-life. Both stances that you hold. So you want the whole party to lean over for you. That isn't selfish?

Sorry if I'm 'shooting my mouth off'. It just pisses me off that anyone would tell a woman what she can and can't do (especially the government). Which brings me to a good ending question...why do republicans, who supposidly want a smaller government, also want to regulate and control aspects of individuals lives? Oh wait...nevermind I know the answer...they are so selfish and arogant that they think their own religion is the only way to a good life.

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

Being pro-life (in this regard anyhow) is not in and of itself selfish. The problem is that it has caused a rift in American society which had a large part in Democratic candidates losing the last election, not just for the presidency, mind you. This changes the policy making in regards to issues which effect the poor in America. Had the Democratic Party given up the demand for its right to abort fetuses, they might have won, and policy making in regards to the poor could very well have be different for the next 2, 4, or 6 years.

But... demanding abortion rights has inadvertantly hurt the rights of others. Giving up the right of abortion might enable Democrats to do more good for those who truly are less able to effect change for themselves. This isn't a matter of "Don't tell women what to do". I am making the case of not hurting the chances of another by putting your own rights first. (It sounds like it, but my motives are not altruistic).

And "no", I am not trying to get the Democratic Part to be pro-life because of my personal position. It will never happen. It would be a stupid battle. I do not believe in legislating morality. I am however try to separate two issues that are unfortunately bound together. I find that someone who's back is used as a stepping stool of the rich has less choice about about his or her situation than that of an idealistic woman who wants to preserve her right to abort a fetus.

jason

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

"I am making the case of not hurting the chances of another by putting your own rights first."

I agree. That's why I don't affiliate with any party. But your argument is still funny to me: give up fighting for something you believe in order to fulfill something else you beleive. Sounds like a concession for the sake of election wins. Both parties already do this, that's why they're both almost the same except at election time. Think about this: if there was 4 parties...democrat, republican, one that was pro-life but liberal (when it comes to economics), and one that was pro-choice but conservative (when it comes to economics)...would any one of those parties have an advantage in winning? Would any of them be morally better than the others?

FW Motorsports