Meghan McCain on abortion: "Republicans don't like to discuss or deal with things they think are wrong or immoral."

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 1prophet
There is little to no shame or self control anymore.

There was a time when people had a sense of shame in getting pregnant or getting a girl pregnant and so took precautions like birth control and somehow knew where to get it without all this lack of education that somehow is the cause of all these pregnancies in today's Internet age

Today you get pregnant you are some sort of hero to be on the cover of every magazine and do the talk show rounds.

Which is why sex ed isn't really changing much - many kids know the facts, and choose to ignore them, much like smokers, who know what they do causes cancer, and continue to smoke anyway. We'd like to believe we're all rational actors, but we're not.

It would help if sex ed was of uniformly high quality. There are a lot of places that have nothing or abstinence only, which is worse than nothing.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Genx87
I agree with what she is saying about birth control and abstinence only education. It is time the party drops the abstinence only education. They need to be taught in tandom.

Actually, they don't need to be taught at all, at least not in public school. Since this is a highly charged topic, let parents pass on to their children whatever values they consider primary. If you want to teach your kids abstinence-only, you should be free to do so. And if you want to give your teenager a Planned Parenthood gift card for their 13th birthday, you should also be free to do that.

I went to public schools my whole life, from K through 4 different colleges/universities, and (shocking!), I never actually had a course on sex ed. In biology, we got the standard 'sperm enters egg to create zygote' stuff true for all mammals, and in health we got a brief discussion of puberty and menstruation, but almost no actual sex talk. Most teenagers were pretty much able to figure out sex on their own, and this was pre-internet! Schools in some locations are barely accomplishing teaching reading, writing, and math - let them focus on not graduating functional illiterates before they worry about sex ed.

And people wonder why teenage pregnancy has such high rates. Teenagers figuring out sex on their own is not a problem, is figuring out how to not get pregnant or catch an STD from it is the problem. Not every parent is going to teach their children facts about pregnancy or STD's, therefore it is in societies interest that someone does, and more importantly, teach them facts about it, not the garbage that the abstinence only people teach.

You make such a compelling case for govt. re-education camps. :roll:

Forcing YOUR values on MY kids is not your right, anymore than I may do the same to YOUR kids.

It's not about values, it's about education. Public schools have a defined curriculum and sex-ed is just one part. If you choose to send your child there you accept what they are teaching. If you don't believe in evolution or the Holocaust and don't want them taught to your kid you have the option of homeschooling or a private school that teaches what you like/believe.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Mursilis

You really have missed the boat. Teaching people about things like birth control is simply providing them with information that may be useful to them. "Values" really doesn't apply.

The more information a person has, the higher the probability that they will make decisions with good outcomes.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Robor
It's not about values, it's about education.

Except with something like sex, it's hard to separate the two. If a truly fact-based, values-neutral sex ed cirriculum could be designed and implemented, I'd probably have no issue with that.

Public schools have a defined curriculum and sex-ed is just one part. If you choose to send your child there you accept what they are teaching.

I question whether you really believe that. Curricula are frequently fluid, and little prevents individual teachers from deviating therefrom.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Against death penalty but in favor of abortion. Liberals are self-contradictory in the most confusing manner.

Don't even try to pull that card, boy. Republicans are just as hypocritical on the subject of human life, just the opposite stances.

I would hardly consider an unborn child and a convicted killer morally equivalent actors. For the record, I support the killing of neither.

You're wrong, because you're looking at it differently. Both sides view the subject of whether or not human life is 'sacred' and 'needs to be protected' hypocritically. While the Republicans MAY have a more plausible excuse for their hypocriticalness (and that's a big may), they are the bigger hypocrites in the end because they're the ones that hype the issue.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Against death penalty but in favor of abortion. Liberals are self-contradictory in the most confusing manner.

Don't even try to pull that card, boy. Republicans are just as hypocritical on the subject of human life, just the opposite stances.

I would hardly consider an unborn child and a convicted killer morally equivalent actors. For the record, I support the killing of neither.

You're wrong, because you're looking at it differently. Both sides view the subject of whether or not human life is 'sacred' and 'needs to be protected' hypocritically. While the Republicans MAY have a more plausible excuse for their hypocriticalness (and that's a big may), they are the bigger hypocrites in the end because they're the ones that hype the issue.

How do they 'hype' it anymore than Dems?

 

[Deeko]

Democrats don't spout the "pro life" line, Democrats don't say human life is sacred, etc.

 

[n yusef]

Republicans are stronger supporters of war, and less into social programs at home. Both of those are anti-life stances.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Against death penalty but in favor of abortion. Liberals are self-contradictory in the most confusing manner.

FWIW, I'm not against the death penalty.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: n yusef
Republicans are stronger supporters of war, and less into social programs at home. Both of those are anti-life stances.

Most republicans that I am aware of oppose social programs at home because they believe they are ineffective. You are not anti-life if you don't support putting leeches on sick people. Therefore, if you accept their premise that social programs don't work, they are not hurting people by ending the program. Their is a similar rational for the pro-war stance, but honestly that one is a hell of a lot less intelectually honest.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Robor
It's not about values, it's about education.

Except with something like sex, it's hard to separate the two. If a truly fact-based, values-neutral sex ed cirriculum could be designed and implemented, I'd probably have no issue with that.

Public schools have a defined curriculum and sex-ed is just one part. If you choose to send your child there you accept what they are teaching.

I question whether you really believe that. Curricula are frequently fluid, and little prevents individual teachers from deviating therefrom.

I can't see where the harm is in teaching kids about safe sex and birth control, etc. It's not as though teaching them about sex will cause them to have sex.

If a parent is concerned about what's being taught they should go to the principle to discuss their concerns.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef
Republicans are stronger supporters of war, and less into social programs at home. Both of those are anti-life stances.

Most republicans that I am aware of oppose social programs at home because they believe they are ineffective. You are not anti-life if you don't support putting leeches on sick people. Therefore, if you accept their premise that social programs don't work, they are not hurting people by ending the program. Their is a similar rational for the pro-war stance, but honestly that one is a hell of a lot less intelectually honest.

Social programs can and do work. I volunteer at a shelter for homeless LGBT teens, paid for by the city of Boston. This shelter greatly reduces their chances of being victims of violence and sexual assault. It gives the kids opportunities for education and legitimate work, instead of prostitution. I doubt this would exist under Republican rule, and this is a pro-life program.

The government may not always be efficient, but sometimes it does work.

 

[Dragula22]

Parents shouldn't expect the school to give their kid an education curriculum they deem perfect since there's no such thing. The value of each subject being taught is subjective, and any "optimum curriculum" shifts year by year in today's world. The best thing a school can do is to provide students with as many perspectives as possible, in the hopes that such a curriculum would best prepare the kids to make the best choices for themselves.

Better yet, parents should accept some responsibility in their kid's education and actually teach them about sex ed themselves. That'll give the kid at least two perspectives (parent and school).

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Against death penalty but in favor of abortion. Liberals are self-contradictory in the most confusing manner.

:musicumb-ass:music:

I'm pro death-penalty and pro-abortion. Not that it's relevant in any way, because abortion doesn't actually kill a sentient being, but you social dinosaurs can't seem to grasp that concept.

 

[senseamp]

A Republican with common sense = RINO.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Democrats don't spout the "pro life" line, Democrats don't say human life is sacred, etc.

You're clearly unfamiliar with many anti-capital punishments advocates then. Being against the death penalty is one of the many things which cost Dukakis in '88.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Deeko
Democrats don't spout the "pro life" line, Democrats don't say human life is sacred, etc.

You're clearly unfamiliar with many anti-capital punishments advocates then. Being against the death penalty is one of the many things which cost Dukakis in '88.

This distinction is pretty easy to make. Just as there is a big difference between a serial murderer and an innocent baby, there's a big difference between a small pile of cells and a full grown person. It's quite easy to be for the death of one, but not the other.

I for one am against the death penalty not so much from a 'life is sacred' standpoint, but because we appear unable to employ it accurately and effectively.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Deeko
Democrats don't spout the "pro life" line, Democrats don't say human life is sacred, etc.

You're clearly unfamiliar with many anti-capital punishments advocates then. Being against the death penalty is one of the many things which cost Dukakis in '88.

They use different terminology generally.

Face the facts - both sides are hypocrites regarding human life. There is NO way to argue that or avoid it.

 

[Kadarin]

Personally, I would like to see the Republican party marginalized, to make room for a socially progressive yet fiscally conservative third party. I do NOT want the Bible-thumping retards having a major say in American politics.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
This distinction is pretty easy to make. Just as there is a big difference between a serial murderer and an innocent baby, there's a big difference between a small pile of cells and a full grown person.

The difference being number of cells, apparently. How is that relevant to rights?

I for one am against the death penalty not so much from a 'life is sacred' standpoint, but because we appear unable to employ it accurately and effectively.

That's not being against the death penalty, that's being against the methodology with which it is applied. I bet you're probably against against the inaccurate and ineffective use of prisons as well, but not actually against prisons themselves. If we KNOW someone is guilty of first-degree murder, should we still kill 'em? If yes, you're not really against the death penalty; if no, you are.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Deeko
Democrats don't spout the "pro life" line, Democrats don't say human life is sacred, etc.

You're clearly unfamiliar with many anti-capital punishments advocates then. Being against the death penalty is one of the many things which cost Dukakis in '88.

They use different terminology generally.

Face the facts - both sides are hypocrites regarding human life. There is NO way to argue that or avoid it.

I never argued otherwise; like I said already, I'm not part of either camp on those issues. I merely argued whether it was as hypocritical to protect a fetus and not a murderer, and vice versa. I don't see them as morally equivocal at all.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Personally, I would like to see the Republican party marginalized, to make room for a socially progressive yet fiscally conservative third party. I do NOT want the Bible-thumping retards having a major say in American politics.

:thumbsup:

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
She makes sense here. Too bad if she were running for office as an R, she would probably get booted out of the party. There seems to be no more room for moderates in the party anymore...

Didn't the de facto head of the party, El Rushbo, demand that she, her father and Colin Powell leave the Party?

I don't know for sure, but it sounds like something he would say. Since he is a sort of defacto head of the party, I can see the dems one day starting a rumor campaign to convince repubs to 'draft Limbaugh'....and hilarity would ensue.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
This distinction is pretty easy to make. Just as there is a big difference between a serial murderer and an innocent baby, there's a big difference between a small pile of cells and a full grown person.

The difference being number of cells, apparently. How is that relevant to rights?

I for one am against the death penalty not so much from a 'life is sacred' standpoint, but because we appear unable to employ it accurately and effectively.

That's not being against the death penalty, that's being against the methodology with which it is applied. I bet you're probably against against the inaccurate and ineffective use of prisons as well, but not actually against prisons themselves. If we KNOW someone is guilty of first-degree murder, should we still kill 'em? If yes, you're not really against the death penalty; if no, you are.

The number of cells matter because it is a completely reasonable view to think that a pile of cells the size of a pinhead is not the human rights equivalent of a fully functioning member of society.

No, I'm really against the death penalty, trust me. I do not believe we will ever be able to employ it accurately enough to make it a legitimate punishment. If you screw up using prisons you can always let the person out. The day we can de-lethal inject someone, I'll be okay with the death penalty too.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
This distinction is pretty easy to make. Just as there is a big difference between a serial murderer and an innocent baby, there's a big difference between a small pile of cells and a full grown person.

The difference being number of cells, apparently. How is that relevant to rights?

I for one am against the death penalty not so much from a 'life is sacred' standpoint, but because we appear unable to employ it accurately and effectively.

That's not being against the death penalty, that's being against the methodology with which it is applied. I bet you're probably against against the inaccurate and ineffective use of prisons as well, but not actually against prisons themselves. If we KNOW someone is guilty of first-degree murder, should we still kill 'em? If yes, you're not really against the death penalty; if no, you are.

I am against the death penalty as official policy because evidence has shown it is not applied fairly when race and class of the criminal and victim are accounted for; cases involving white victims are much more likely to be Capital cases, yet most murders victims are people of color. Those who cannot afford a private attorney get screwed because of the incompetence and caseload of their public defender.

I cannot support Capital Punishment if it is a discriminatory system.