Rune
Junior Member
Posts: 186
|
Post by Rune on Feb 3, 2005 18:14:28 GMT -5
OK, you want a better argument. That's fine. That was for Whitakker, anyways Now I'm sure you won't agree with this, but I offer this only as my opinion or, rather, my belief. An issue came up about John Kerry not living what he preached, so-to-speak. Something about saving the environment, but at the same time, killing it in his own household. And the resulting conclusion was that his personal life was his own business, and it should not be mixed with politics. This is solely untrue. Any person, no matter the lofty positions they have managed to attain or the squalor of their lives as described by the general populace, should still be judged by their personal life, and not by what they say. They should be judged by their morals. I know this sounds 'preachy and peachy', but it is wholely true. Because the fact is, if someone is so duplicit as to not live by their own words, then they will fail to lead a country to live by those words. GW does what he believes to be right based on the morals that our culture has taught him... and, to all known knowledge, he also lives by those morals. The fact is, even if he makes mistakes, and even if some of his decisions are not the best, the result of everything he does will ultimately be for the best because he truly believes in what he does. That is what separated him from John Kerry. Still, I await the day when someone runs who classifies themselves neither Republic, Democrat, or anything else. An Independent that won't result to talking about how bad the other opponent is, or to planning their speeches to allow room for people to clap and make the politician feel good about himself. Of course, this may be only wishful thinking...
|
|
Kimato
Full Member
the greatest thing you will ever learn is just to love and be loved in return
Posts: 276
|
Post by Kimato on Feb 5, 2005 18:38:30 GMT -5
I am pro-life, for many reasons that range from the religious, moral, and emotional to the statistical and factual. I do not believe in slaughtering innocent children for the sake of your reputation, figure, or because you are "just not ready." Those are selfish reasons to commit a despicable act of legalized murder, and those are the reasons for roughly 98% of abortions worldwide (In fact, it is probably closer to 99%, but just to be safe I brought it down one).
I do not believe that men should be able to marry men, or that women should be able to marry women. There are several very simple reasons for this...one that's rather perverse in nature, one that's religious, and one that's logical
The newly-coined term "Gay Marriage" is not a term at all, but an oxymoron. Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. Therefor, it is impossible to see how one man and one man can fit under that definition. (For the perverse and religious reasons, PM me).
I support the war in Iraq. While I may not agree with it wholly, I don't look at it as "our president's mistakes". I look at it with the eyes of a girl who has a close personal friend who is in the marines, and could be called to Iraq at any time, without warning. From that point of view, I really feel it is more important to show love and support for the soldiers in Iraq who are risking their lives for a cause they may or may not believe in, and for their families and the families of many they do not know and will never meet, than to argue incessantly over the issues of the war and whether or not the president made the right choice. The bottom line is that he made a choice, and the more support the American people give, mayhap the sooner we will get our people home.
I am all for stem-cell research, my only stipulation being that I don't see why scientists cannot use the umbilical cord of newborns in their research. Umbilical cords are thrown away, and if there is a use for them, by all means, use them! It is possible to further scientific research without killing innocent human beings.
Although most of my views are conservative, I prefer not to classify myself. I would cynically describe myself as a "liberal conservative", because I'm all about making peaceful compromises in areas where it is beneficial, expedient, and ethical to do so.
|
|
Rune
Junior Member
Posts: 186
|
Post by Rune on Feb 7, 2005 20:41:00 GMT -5
I want to clarify one of my beliefs on this page, and this is entirely an opinion, so it's not up for argument.
When it comes to topics such as abortion and stem cell research, I am always against anything that will take one life, for one reason. I don't look at the numbers, either. I believe entirely that one life should never be taken to save many, unless that life is freely given. It has to be a choice. That is because life is the only thing that is not tangible. You cannot show life to me on a silver platter, and you can't prod it or touch it or manipulate it. You can take it (though that can be argued), and you can make it, but you can't give it. It is something that we do not understand, and that we will never understand.
We have no right to take something that we do not understand from someone who does not willingly give it.
Of course, that's just my belief.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Feb 9, 2005 20:10:42 GMT -5
This response will be purely devoted to the discussion of stem cell research, appealing as it might be to dive into the wide and expansive ocean of truly turbulent issues. I absolutely support umbilical stem cell research, and if it were possible, would gladly outlaw embryotic stem cell harvesting if adult stem cells provided the same function. Unfortunately, they do not. When I have attempted to argue this issue before, my opponents have often times questioned the legitimacy of my information. To be fair, I have taken the below article from a site that, to my knowledge, is completely unbiased: (taken from www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm) As is clear, adult stem cells do possess possible implications, yet compared to near limitless application of stem cells harvested from embryos, are not at all of equal value to the millions afflicted with diseases that can be cured with a miniscule number of fresh stem cell lines. Rune makes a very valid point, one which I can agree with. Life should remain sacred. This is why I have such problems with the issue of abortion, simply because in many respects it seems to be cold-blooded murder. As is evidenced by the excerpt on stem cell research I have presented, however, there is quite a lot to be considered. The embryos put to use are those that have already been forsaken, and have little if any chance of survival. On top of that, the very state of life at such an early point in development has been continually argued back and forth for ages. And finally, numbers speak for themselves: the amount of embryos that would be utilized is truly miniscule, especially when compared to the number of people that would be saved. When viewed in such light, the logic of the situation becomes painfully clear.
|
|
|
Post by Whitakker on Feb 17, 2005 17:37:38 GMT -5
Logic or not, I think it depends on where your morals lie. If you're the kind of person who always thinks with his/her head, then yes, this makes perfect sense. But if your a person who trusts your heart, then naturally you will think it's just murder. It's a personal decision, no one else can decide what you believe. And no one can change that decision except you.
|
|