Wes Clark's view on abortion
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
Like so many politicians...he's deathly afraid of CLEARLY stating his position.
"the government has no right to influence a mothers decision on whether to have an abortion." This is the so called "choice". Yet a woman loses her baby due to an act of violence and it's called murder?
BTW - Here is a great resource "on every political leader on every issue"
http://www.issues2002.org/default.htm
"the government has no right to influence a mothers decision on whether to have an abortion." This is the so called "choice". Yet a woman loses her baby due to an act of violence and it's called murder?
BTW - Here is a great resource "on every political leader on every issue"
http://www.issues2002.org/default.htm
Don't you just love moral relativist's?(NOT!) A life philosophy that logically contradicts itself...............
I will say the for the "far lefters", I have much more respect for them who know what they believe in and stand by it, than those you live by "what's right for you is right for you, what's right for me is right for me".
I will say the for the "far lefters", I have much more respect for them who know what they believe in and stand by it, than those you live by "what's right for you is right for you, what's right for me is right for me".
Sounds like he just doesnt want to get into a philisophical/religious discussion which is what all Abortion discussions turn into...
Smart move IMHO, fuhk that topic, it means jack chit about our governing a country.
Clark should have said, "how does that affect our government? Next question please."
However the fact that he said... "i dont want to get into a discussion on where life begins" leads me to believe he's pro choice but doesnt want to label himself as such.
Smart move IMHO, fuhk that topic, it means jack chit about our governing a country.
Clark should have said, "how does that affect our government? Next question please."
However the fact that he said... "i dont want to get into a discussion on where life begins" leads me to believe he's pro choice but doesnt want to label himself as such.
It means a great deal to me about governing a country for several reasons:
- I believe that abortion is categoricaly wrong and I will only support a candidate that believes the same. It IS very much a moral issue and if a candidate will defend the right of a woman/doctor to KILL an unborn child, the candidate doesn't have the morals to govern "my country".
- When it comes to answering questions about issues, I find it hard to trust anyone that evades a solid, black and white answer for fear of losing votes...much worse is the candidate that tailors his/her answers according to the audience...a waffler.
I hate the party system too - it's a load of dung. I hate the friggin campaigning, grandstanding and mudslinging too. Would it be so difficult to simply have each candidate answer a list of questions and vote your mind accordingly? Why do they have to flush 100's of millions of dollar down the drain to parade around posturing and mudslinging when all we want to know is HONESTLY how they'll best represent us?
- I believe that abortion is categoricaly wrong and I will only support a candidate that believes the same. It IS very much a moral issue and if a candidate will defend the right of a woman/doctor to KILL an unborn child, the candidate doesn't have the morals to govern "my country".
- When it comes to answering questions about issues, I find it hard to trust anyone that evades a solid, black and white answer for fear of losing votes...much worse is the candidate that tailors his/her answers according to the audience...a waffler.
I hate the party system too - it's a load of dung. I hate the friggin campaigning, grandstanding and mudslinging too. Would it be so difficult to simply have each candidate answer a list of questions and vote your mind accordingly? Why do they have to flush 100's of millions of dollar down the drain to parade around posturing and mudslinging when all we want to know is HONESTLY how they'll best represent us?
If i were you, i would just give up on reading politics then.
There is no US which is where all of this comes from.
As for the rest, there must not be a single VIABLE politician that you trust then.
Fighting... urge... to... respond. Must not... get... dragged into... moral argument....
That's subjective.
must... follow... georgechris'... lead...
Fighting... urge... to... respond. Must not... get... dragged into... argument about... morals....
"Us"...I didnt' mean "us" collectively...simply meant each of us should be able to decide based a much simpler, much less expensive and much more honest set of criteria.
Yes - the abortion thing is a sucking hole that we can spin around for years...Your restraint is admirable!
The vast majority of the problem is that we've lost our moral absolutes as a whole. Society falls apart without morals.
Yes - the abortion thing is a sucking hole that we can spin around for years...Your restraint is admirable!
The vast majority of the problem is that we've lost our moral absolutes as a whole. Society falls apart without morals.
There are some moral absolutes that seem to cut across most societies.
Prohibitions against murder and theft seem to be the most common.
Narrowing our focus of morals? Explain.
A nation of "white men"??? Explain that one too...my point of view has nothing to do with race or color.
People each have their own perspective. As minorities become more of a force in our nation, their views meld into the big picture. Ok, this is a bad example, but the only one that comes to mind... some Mormons believe polygamy is not only ok, but required. Since that is truly subjective, their opinions enter the mainstream. So what I mean by narrowing of morals is that only the universal morals survive as a nation. Some morals that were "B&W" for our nation a couple decades ago are now gray.
So you say that our nation is losing it's moral ground, but I say that the diversity requires us to accept only those morals that we can agree are universal, eg. theft, murder, whatever. And requires us to be more flexible in the gray areas.
I'm on cold medicine so that might not have made sense
I was wondering why you were making sense all of a sudden :devil:Originally posted by LordOpie
I'm on cold medicine so that might not have made sense
Good explanation - I see your view clearly despite your case of "medicine head!" So - the great American "melting pot" is in effect blurring our combined moral focus?
This country, back to its roots, has never ever had a "combined moral focus."
Unless you're going to flesh that out a bit, it's a pretty meaningless statement.
Unless you're going to flesh that out a bit, it's a pretty meaningless statement.
ooooo you beat me to it.
there has never been a combined moral focus. it's just that up until recently, the DOMINANT moral focus was that of the WASP. just because its dominant doesnt mean that its universally shared.
dont lie, you dont have friends.
I disagree. This country has had (still has) a combined moral focus. There are certain things that 99% of Americans will class has moral or immoral. Opie and Silver listed some of them. That list has expanded overtime to include items not orginially there, slavery is bad for instance. Children working in sweat shops is bad. Society has a whole (for the most part) has excepted these into our combined moral focus.
Somethings have not been included into our collective moral focus, abortion is an excellent example. I suspect that in the past their have been other issues similar to this that have failed to make that collective morality. Who knows why this happens? Typically they probably end up having to do with individual choice and the effect they have on other citizens. Capital punishment would probably be another example.
As for the dominant moral focus Laura so worries about being the WASP point of view, maybe but for a long time that morality was pretty good and for the most part most of that still stands the test of time. I also doubt that most folks would have argued with it. Killing, thieving, and running around on your spouse can't much argue those away. Just because the WASPs of the nation espoused it doesn't mean it was wrong. So if you were knee jerking, stop it, it doesn't become you.
Well, I disagree with your disagreement. Murder and theft are pretty much universal no-no's, so I feel safe in throwing those out. The US in modern times is a country that is split apart by differences of opinion about what is moral, all the way from slavery to racism to feminism to abortion to homosexuality and everything in between. I don't think you can call prohibitions against (nearly) universal wrongs the "moral focus" that bikeCOLORADO is getting at.
Too much cold medicine for you.
for a long time that morallity was pretty good for white anglo saxon protestant males who owned property. along with not killing, stealing and cheating on you wife(i have to mention that a male that cheated was far far less likely to be persecuted than a female), lets add, women should be subordinate. races should not mix in marriage. homosexuallity is wrong.
these are only a few but as you can see, they dont benefit everyone in society. and they are subjective.
and please, i do not need you giving me tips on how to be becoming
(jeez, it almost proves my point) , i am doing just fine on my own.
Why not? If those things can't be defined as morality what can? Just because the majority agree, you toss it? That makes no sense unless you are only interested in spouting the differences.
So that (EDIT: add SOME of that) morality was not good for everyone else. Slaves didn't hold those some of those same values?Originally posted by laura
for a long time that morallity was pretty good for white anglo saxon protestant males who owned property. along with not killing, stealing and cheating on you wife(i have to mention that a male that cheated was far far less likely to be persecuted than a female), lets add, women should be subordinate. races should not mix in marriage. homosexuallity is wrong.
these are only a few but as you can see, they dont benefit everyone in society. and they are subjective.
and please, i do not need you giving me tips on how to be becoming
I suspect that if you were to bring 18th century african slaves around and ask them about races mixing, a woman's place and homosexuality I can pretty much promise you what they would say. No I can definately tell you what they would say. Of course their views on slavery and racism would have been more in line with those views most hold today.
I never said that the morality is static. If anything I indicated that over time it does shift but that there a number of basics that don't change, haven't changed over time. Again the basics hold true over time. The rest changes. The source of that morality or those that believe in it doesn't make it bad or good for that matter.
Lastly, hanging a specific morality on a group based on their color or sex is pretty short sighted.
i would have to disagree on what a slave would say about a woman's place, considering, women slaves worked just as hard as males and had to deal with things like rape as well. besides that fact that in most agricultural societies (from which most slaves came) women held high positions in trade, govenrment, and the household. women being subserviant is a protestant moral.
as well, in some african villages, men take on small boys as wives to prepare the boy to be a man. they have sex and the boy acts as a wife. in some societies there are 3 genders. the third is a man who isnt niether a man or a woman. he dressed up and stays around helping the women. he doesnt hunt.
homosexuallity as a bad thing is a protestant moral.
lastly, what i said was that those things were "the combined moral focus" of the wasps. and they dont serve the combined moral focus of everyone. that was the original argument.
not recognizing the power of a group of people because of the color of their skin and their sex is pretty short sited if you ask me.
(i can find you sources on the aformentioned tribes and villages if you wish.)
No, I'm tossing it out because they are for all intents and purposes universal morals.
Unless you think that the fact that Saudi Arabia and Japan both prohibit murder and theft equates to a unified moral vision.
Not aimed at her alone.
i thought i was being paranoid.
I thought you were too BUT apparently it was me not being clear enough.
I was actually attempting to be condescending to everyone.
