|
Post by lazyshrew on Mar 21, 2005 15:03:16 GMT 1
My thoughts: I beleive that George Bush is not a politician, he is simply a man with a lot of money. He used his cash from texan oil companies to get into power. He does not make his own decisions he is just being BADLY advised. A very confused man with cash if you ask me. Like they say anybody with money can become presdent of USA, you do not need qualifications or political knowledge (he pays people to do the thinking!)
Just thought id put my point through. Non of it can be proven of course its just the way my negatively thinking mind works.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 21, 2005 15:10:36 GMT 1
My thoughts: , he is simply a man !) I wouldnt call him a man, more of a goat in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by lazyshrew on Mar 21, 2005 15:12:07 GMT 1
|
|
McKie
Midland League Division One
Pretend this text is something clever.
Posts: 389
|
Post by McKie on Mar 21, 2005 15:44:43 GMT 1
Whilst i agree with some of what you say, I think this is an area that needs some new thinking. I dont see any reason why the decision should be the womans. In every other section of life women are seeking an equal footing to men, therefore i see no reason why a man is not allowed an equal input into these decisions. Womens Lib Look at the way girls are treated who get pregnant at a young age. Single mother is hardly a term of endearment. Until society deals with what happens with the fathers of all these unwanted babies, it IS the woman's decision. They are the ones who are left, for want of a better expression, holding the baby. I am sure that when it is a couple considering an abortion, the man does have input.
|
|
|
Post by lazyshrew on Mar 21, 2005 15:48:18 GMT 1
Does anyone not think that preventing abortions would just make the girls/women try and kill the child like they did 100 years ago. By putting an unwound coat hanger dow their throat etc. This will only encourage more dangerous methods of getting rid of unwanted/unborn lives.
|
|
|
Post by wiganshrew2 on Mar 21, 2005 16:57:06 GMT 1
John Major's "Back to Basics" campaign about marriage and the family while he was having an affair with Edwina Curry was a case in point we seem to want to "pick and mix" with issues of morality, and it always ends up looking hypocritical unless we find some basis for morality that we can develop a framework from Just got this in my e-mail - it seems appropriate! "We all have a little voice within. It's called conscience. It can get very annoying at times, too. Sometimes we "pull its wires", to silence it. One danger, when we ignore the voice of our conscience and don't live according to our convictions, is that our mind experiences what counsellors call cognitive dissonance. That is, mental disharmony. Because this is too uncomfortable to live with, we switch off our conscience. When we do this often enough, our mind not only switches off the voice of conscience but turns up the volume on the voice of rationalization and justification. The sad fact is that if we don't live the life we believe, we end up unhappily believing the life we live. The Bible calls this having a seared conscience, a dangerous and self-destructive path to follow." Strangely- I once read, in a right wing newspaper, (which I don't like! but I like to read what they say, so I can rant about it!!)- that hypocrisy was a GOOD thing, that people were hypocritical in Victorian times, but there was more social order in those days!!! Well- the same paper backed up the "Back to Basics" campaign- they would, wouldn't they?
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 21, 2005 17:08:08 GMT 1
Look at the way girls are treated who get pregnant at a young age. Single mother is hardly a term of endearment. Until society deals with what happens with the fathers of all these unwanted babies, it IS the woman's decision. They are the ones who are left, for want of a better expression, holding the baby. I am sure that when it is a couple considering an abortion, the man does have input. But single "mum" is no longer a term of stigma either. As i think i made clear in my original post, i see a vast difference between abortion on concrete medical grounds, and abortion as a form of contraception. Unwanted babies? Its ironic isnt it that on a gynae ward, you can have a woman undergoing termination, in a bed next to a woman who the state have forked out thousands of pounds on fertility treatment. At present, whilst the father of a couple has an input, ultimately, it is the mum who decides on abortion. Fair is fair i say. Yes all fathers must accept responcibilty, but then the father must be given equals rights in law to. As with a lot of issues in life, a strive towards equality has given all the power to one group or another.
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Mar 21, 2005 19:39:36 GMT 1
What a monday morning thread! I believe abortion needs to be legal. I do not believe that it is the role of gvt to determine who qualifies, under what circumstances, at what fetal stage of development abortions become illegal. Therefore, I believe that abortion is a legal safe procudure and should remain so, and that changing morals and ethics can influence a decision. What is acceptable for one person might not be acceptable for another. Legally, I would advocate for no restrictions, personally, I would encourage any and all alternatives. Bush, as Gov of Texas, refused to overturn courts death penalties, because the courts get it right. The Florida case has been reviewed by 19 courts, but the've got it wrong and he wants to step in. Oh...and don't be too harsh on all Americans, there's a good number who would want Bush impeached.
|
|