Let's talk POLITICS ( NO FIGHTS)

[lovempls]

But there are more children to be adopted than parents to adopt... and adoption can get so complicated and expensive.

 

You're right. If something's complicated, then it's not worth doing.

[Lollipop Leftie]

I'm not saying that, but I mean its a years-long process and most people only want babies, so a lot of kids don't get adopted, and a lot of people can't afford it, and some don't know how to go about doing it...

[lollipop_monkey]

But there are more children to be adopted than parents to adopt.

 

Not in my province. In the entire province of Alberta (with about 4 million people), there were less than TEN healthy newborns placed for adoption in 2005.

 

I would think that's likely the case throughout North America and likely parts of Europe.

 

The children bouncing around foster homes are generally older, are sibling groups who don't want to be separated, or have physical or mental issues.

 

Believe me, there's absolutely no shortage of families lining up to adopt healthy newborns.

[Lollipop Leftie]

But what about the older ones?

Don't they deserve a family, too?

[lollipop_monkey]

But what about the older ones?

Don't they deserve a family, too?

 

Of course they do. But in many cases, it's not even the same issue.

 

A child placed for adoption as a newborn was likely conceived under circumstances whereby the biological parents knew early on they'd not be able to raise the child.

 

A child placed for adoption at the age of seven very well may have been conceived under and born into completely different circumstances than those that led, years later, to the child being placed for adoption.

 

My only point, in this case, was that arguing that there are more babies up for adoption than parents interested in adopting absolutely doesn't hold water.

[JackViolet]

aha people, I want to tell my opinion...

I must admit that Deb's position kinda shocked me, that I think differently. I'm against abortions, because I really aprreciate other ones's life and perhaps 'cause I've seen those dead fetus with my own eyes...

12 years old is too early for me to have sex. Not only for the pshychological aspect that Mika defends so well regarding to his sister (I think he's right). but because, indeed, they couldn't raise a baby. Here in the third world, it always happens, so we're used to see that, but it's ignorant people. If you have the education to know, you're aware that could happen and it's your entire responsibility.

 

Note: that's why mental handicap can be exception to the law, even if abortion it's not the nicest thing...

 

But how does this make sense? Why do you appreciate the life of the fetus when the mother is 20 years old but not when she's 12, or has a mental handicap? The fetus is no different in those cases, and its life is thrown out just the same.

 

Or are you in fact saying that abortion is ok when the mother "doesn't know better" but should not be allowed when she seems like she'd be old enough to know she could get pregnant? In this case what you are saying does seem like "punish the girl for knowingly having sex."

 

--Jack

[kk448]

Ahh, since this abortion thing is still being discussed, I'll give my final say on it. While I am against abortion, I think someone made a good point in saying that if it's not legal, then there will always be unsafe, illegal ones being performed, which I would just rather it be legal for the safety of the women getting them done. Also, a thought occurred to me that I am surprised no one brought up and am surprised at myself for not thinking about it - stem cell research. I figure that if abortion is legal (and I don't really see it ever being illegal), then we might as well use those "murdered fetuses" to find cures for different diseases/cancers. After reading all of this thread, I think I'm a little bit of both - I agree with some of the pro-choice thoughts and the pro-life ones. I'm against abortions, but not because I think it's murder like the other pro-life people think. I guess I just really can't explain why I'm against them, but I am, and I don't think it's going to change. Then on the other hand, while I frown upon them, I can understand why women would want/need to get them. It is a tough decision and is hard on whoever is involved. However, I do know a particular woman who has had multiple abortions and doesn't think much of them. I know it really doesn't affect her. That attitude bothers me, which is probably why I stated my opinion about them the way I did. After thinking about it, especially with the stem cell research, I thinking I may be a little bit more pro-choice, but only if it's absolutely necessary, which is the way I think most women who have abortions take them. I guess I was too busy thinking about that one woman, and it blurred my thoughts a little. I don't know, it's a little bit odd for me. I'm against them and don't agree with them but for the sake of the women getting them, they may as well stay safe and legal. Also, if there are going to be abortions then we may as well do research on them so if, as people say, abortions are murder, then at least we are trying to save other, living (fully developed) people.

 

Seriously, though, I'm not sure if I explained myself very well. Like I said, I'm personally against abortions, but would really not want to see women going out and getting illegal ones, you know?

[lovempls]

Also, a thought occurred to me that I am surprised no one brought up and am surprised at myself for not thinking about it - stem cell research. I figure that if abortion is legal (and I don't really see it ever being illegal), then we might as well use those "murdered fetuses" to find cures for different diseases/cancers.

 

In Wisconsin (whoo! my neighbor! ) recently, at the U of Madison I think, they discovered a way to change specialized cells - I think epithelial cells? but I could be wrong, don't quote me - back to stem cells. They haven't been able to convert those stem cells back into differentiated cells yet, however, this is a HUGE breakthrough. If we can use our own differentiated cells as stem cells, we can replace neurons (which is impossible for our body to do on its own) and things like that. Also, it replaces our need for embryonic stem cells. Just throwing it out there.

[kk448]

For real, Sarie. I'd say people have sex outside of marriage more than they stay a virgin until marriage. I find it quite humorous that we're seen as prudes, honestly.

 

Yeah, I know...most of the people I am friends with have already had sex...quite a few of them were having sex at around 14 or 15. I know of about 5 or 6 girls in my school who are pregnant...3 of them are 14. It's all right for them, but it's just not for me.

 

Ha, I learned about this in a class I took.

 

America was founded by Puritans. Those morals helped to shape the ideology we have here. It's why talking about sex in public is like taboo and nudity isn't allowed on broadcast TV and stuff like that. Americans and American culture IN GENERAL, not always, is more uptight about nudity and sex. Yay for the Puritans.

 

I saw nudity today on TV. It was only a guy's butt, but still...and they didn't bleep out the middle finger on a movie when they normally do as well. Also, they ran the South Park Movie unedited, f-word and all...

I don't really think we're like the Puritans anymore at all. The Puritans were severely, severely strict. We're hardly even strict anymore.

 

It's not wrong! It's your opinion. I don't agree with you personally, but that doesn't make it wrong. You said that tongue in cheek, right?

 

No, not really.

 

Well, I didn't mean to imply that you were "wrong." Sorry if it came

off that way. I just was saying that

didn't agree with you. What you said was this:

 

 

 

Yes, girls SHOULD be responsible -- there are plenty of ways to

prevent pregnancy. But sometimes accidents happen. And then...?

 

What I was trying to say, maybe I said it badly, is that just because you're

old enough to have sex, doesn't mean that you're old enough to

raise a child. And saying that if you "made" the child then you should

take responsibility and raise the child, sounds good on paper, and in

theory I agree with you. You *should* be accountable for your actions.

But if you're 12 or 13 or 14 and you get pregnant, you should not be

forced to raise the child. I don't condone abortion as a means of birth

control, but I do think that for some individuals and situations

it might be the right

choice, and I would rather that the option remain a legal one.

 

I know what I said. I don't just haphazardly post things. But yes, like I said in my last post, I only know one woman who has gotten an abortion (more than one), and they were/are used as birth control, which bothers me. In my opinion (and the way I was raised), is that you don't have sex until you're willing to take the risk of getting pregnant, which is why I wasn't having sex at 12 or 13. I guess I should have clarified that it's the case for me.

 

Yes, and I agree that it may as well be legal seeing as those abortions would happen anyway, legal or not. I'm just personally against them.

[dcdeb]

*pokes head in*

 

Are we all OK here? It looks like we're still going 'round and 'round

on the abortion issue...

and I'm wondering if maybe it's time to move on a bit...

Maybe?

 

Because, really, if discussing politics is what the intent of this thread was,

the subject covers more than just this one issue... the game of politics

involves a lot more, as people try to win our votes and legislate us.

And I think the MFC'ers from countries outside of the US have some

interesting political viewpoints... for example, even though I'm not

an avid follower of politics, I'd be interested to hear what elections

are like in other countries that have them... and what it's like to be

in a country that doesn't have them at all...

 

dcdeb

[lovempls]

I saw nudity today on TV. It was only a guy's butt, but still...and they didn't bleep out the middle finger on a movie when they normally do as well. Also, they ran the South Park Movie unedited, f-word and all...

I don't really think we're like the Puritans anymore at all. The Puritans were severely, severely strict. We're hardly even strict anymore.

 

I understand we're not as strict as the Puritans. But believe me, I study this sort of thing. We're much less tolerant of public nudity in America. You don't see any on TV (or really anywhere in public) besides people's backsides. Our American ideology comes partly from the Puritans, among other things.

 

I also just watched another documentary today about the Religious Right in the US. It's the biggest voting block in our country - which is kinda scary to me. I do not want Creationism taught in our schools

 

Trust me, we are conservative in the USA compared to other countries.

 

---And I said broadcast TV. Cable is another story.

[kk448]

In Wisconsin (whoo! my neighbor! ) recently, at the U of Madison I think, they discovered a way to change specialized cells - I think epithelial cells? but I could be wrong, don't quote me - back to stem cells. They haven't been able to convert those stem cells back into differentiated cells yet, however, this is a HUGE breakthrough. If we can use our own differentiated cells as stem cells, we can replace neurons (which is impossible for our body to do on its own) and things like that. Also, it replaces our need for embryonic stem cells. Just throwing it out there.

 

Yeah, I heard about that...

 

Isn't crazy that all of our cells in our body start the same, but by turning off/on a few genes, they become completely different.

 

I've also heard that while it is a huge breakthrough...it may take awhile before they figured it all out, which is why I figured we may as well use the embryos.

 

Also...about the neurons. I've heard that it's not completely impossible for our body to replace them, it's just very, very rare. I think our teacher said it's called adult neurogenesis or something like that. Most people didn't think it's possible, but through testing they've found it could potentially happen.

[lovempls]

Also...about the neurons. I've heard that it's not completely impossible for our body to replace them, it's just very, very rare. I think our teacher said it's called adult neurogenesis or something like that. Most people didn't think it's possible, but through testing they've found it could potentially happen.

 

That's cool, I didn't know that!

[kk448]

I understand we're not as strict as the Puritans. But believe me, I study this sort of thing. We're much less tolerant of public nudity in America. You don't see any on TV (or really anywhere in public) besides people's backsides. Our American ideology comes partly from the Puritans, among other things.

 

I also just watched another documentary today about the Religious Right in the US. It's the biggest voting block in our country - which is kinda scary to me. I do not want Creationism taught in our schools

 

Trust me, we are conservative in the USA compared to other countries.

 

---And I said broadcast TV. Cable is another story.

 

Well, I don't study this stuff, but I know what I see. Of course, we are more censored as far as nudity goes, but I don't think that's Puritan, though I don't agree with it.

 

Yes, I know we are conservative compared to other countries. Just imagine how all of the teenage boys on my trip to Europe felt when they turned on the TV and found naked women...

 

However, the middle finger incident was on broadcast TV. I've also noticed a lot more things are becoming more acceptable, such as certain curse words, violence, and even sex. Prime time TV has come a long way, and that's broadcast TV, isn't it?

 

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching Creationism. If you can teach evolution, then you can teach Creationism.

 

Religion is a big part of a lot of people's lives. It's not really something that can be completely taken out of the picture, no matter how much people don't like it. It's just the way it is. Also, people who are really focused (not obsessed) on their faith, don't stop believing when it's convenient, so their views stay the same. Besides, there are people (as this thread has shown, I guess) who believe and view things based on their religion, which won't change either.

 

Another thought is that I'm surprised that some people are saying America wasn't formed around Christianity, yet some say that our ideology comes from the Puritans. Personally, I think our country is based off of the religious thoughts and morals of groups like the Puritans. I mean, "One Nation Under God", "In God We Trust". We, at one point in the early/mid 1800's, even had something called the Manifest Destiny, where a lot of people thought that it was God's will for America to take over the world. (I still think some people think that today, hah). It was even used as part of a political standpoint, (which is why I said I didn't agree that the government and religion have always been separated. I know what the Constitution says, but some people even thought that a black man suing for his freedom was unconstitutional.) Anyway, I'd like to think we are straying more and more from the Puritan beliefs...little by little. I think (and hope) we'll eventually get there.

[heineken22]

wow, abortion seems to be a very strong topic.

 

in fact, the ads on the page are for Yaz Birth Control Pill and looking into adoption.

[kk448]

wow, abortion seems to be a very strong topic.

 

in fact, the ads on the page are for Yaz Birth Control Pill and looking into adoption.

 

Haha, yeah, I always look at the ads at the bottom to see what they're about. I like how they change to fit what we're talking about. Sometimes, it's funny what comes up....

[mandilambi]

Well, I don't study this stuff, but I know what I see. Of course, we are more censored as far as nudity goes, but I don't think that's Puritan, though I don't agree with it.

 

Yes, I know we are conservative compared to other countries. Just imagine how all of the teenage boys on my trip to Europe felt when they turned on the TV and found naked women...

 

However, the middle finger incident was on broadcast TV. I've also noticed a lot more things are becoming more acceptable, such as certain curse words, violence, and even sex. Prime time TV has come a long way, and that's broadcast TV, isn't it?

 

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching Creationism. If you can teach evolution, then you can teach Creationism.

 

Religion is a big part of a lot of people's lives. It's not really something that can be completely taken out of the picture, no matter how much people don't like it. It's just the way it is. Also, people who are really focused (not obsessed) on their faith, don't stop believing when it's convenient, so their views stay the same. Besides, there are people (as this thread has shown, I guess) who believe and view things based on their religion, which won't change either.

 

Another thought is that I'm surprised that some people are saying America wasn't formed around Christianity, yet some say that our ideology comes from the Puritans. Personally, I think our country is based off of the religious thoughts and morals of groups like the Puritans. I mean, "One Nation Under God", "In God We Trust". We, at one point in the early/mid 1800's, even had something called the Manifest Destiny, where a lot of people thought that it was God's will for America to take over the world. (I still think some people think that today, hah). It was even used as part of a political standpoint, (which is why I said I didn't agree that the government and religion have always been separated. I know what the Constitution says, but some people even thought that a black man suing for his freedom was unconstitutional.) Anyway, I'd like to think we are straying more and more from the Puritan beliefs...little by little. I think (and hope) we'll eventually get there.

 

You beat me to it.

[JackViolet]

The problem with Creationism is that it's not a scientifically accepted theory, nor one that is constructed or arrived at through a scientific process.

 

You can teach it, sure, but you should not do so in a science class. It would be best in a theology or philosophy class, or social sciences, something like that.

 

Especially since if you decide to teach it in a science class because it is "what's some people believe," you would have to teach the various other non-scientific beliefs other cultures have about creation as well, so as not to discriminate. (We did do this in my social studies class in 7th grade.)

 

--Jack

[lovempls]

Well, I don't study this stuff, but I know what I see. Of course, we are more censored as far as nudity goes, but I don't think that's Puritan, though I don't agree with it.

 

No offense but how can you see that it doesn't have anything to do with the Puritans?

 

I'm a huge American History buff. Our Puritan heritage has a lot more influence than you think.

 

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching Creationism. If you can teach evolution, then you can teach Creationism.

 

IMO it's unfair to teach Creationism in schools because it's just one religion's view on creation. If we teach Creationism, then to be fair, we should be teaching the Muslim creation story and the Native American creation story and so on. Evolution is scientific and has been agreed upon by the majority of people and scientists for years and years around the world.

 

 

Religion is a big part of a lot of people's lives. It's not really something that can be completely taken out of the picture, no matter how much people don't like it. It's just the way it is. Also, people who are really focused (not obsessed) on their faith, don't stop believing when it's convenient, so their views stay the same. Besides, there are people (as this thread has shown, I guess) who believe and view things based on their religion, which won't change either.

 

I hope you didn't get the impression that I'm anti-religion. I'm not.

 

 

Another thought is that I'm surprised that some people are saying America wasn't formed around Christianity, yet some say that our ideology comes from the Puritans. Personally, I think our country is based off of the religious thoughts and morals of groups like the Puritans. I mean, "One Nation Under God", "In God We Trust".

 

We were founded by Puritans and Christian morals are part of the general American ideology, yes. But what makes America wonderful is that the religion isn't forced onto people by the government. That's what the first amendment says. The government doesn't endorse a certain religion and we can worship whatever we want (Flying Spaghetti Monster ). A big contrast to, say, the period I just studied in English history where the monarchy forced everyone to be a certain religion. And then a different King would take over and force everyone to be a different religion. And then a different Queen would take over and force everyone to be a different religion. We've never had that, obviously.

 

We, at one point in the early/mid 1800's, even had something called the Manifest Destiny, where a lot of people thought that it was God's will for America to take over the world. (I still think some people think that today, hah). It was even used as part of a political standpoint.

 

Ah, Manifest Destiny. The belief, which came from our religious background, that we had not only the right but the duty to take over and "civilize" cultures like the Native Americans. As Americans, we were destined by God to spread freedom and democracy. This was first used in Western Expansion. Hmmm... spreading freedom and democracy? Sounds like it's still a huge part of our ideology today

Also, on The Simpsons, when Springfield becomes "Libertyville" and everyone turns super patriotic, Apu renames his kids Freedom, Lincoln, Condoleeza, Coke, Pepsi, Apple Pie, Superman, and Manifest Destiny.

[heineken22]

Haha, yeah, I always look at the ads at the bottom to see what they're about. I like how they change to fit what we're talking about. Sometimes, it's funny what comes up....

hehe, i've seen some pretty funny ones before.

especially in the Mika-Gasmic thread.

 

 

ugh, creationism vs. evolution.

 

this gets argued about a lot at my school.

the majority of the kids at my school are mormon, (including myself), and every year, a couple of parents end up talking to the administration, because they don't want their children being exposed to that.

 

i honestly don't know what the big deal is.

people need to stop getting their pantie's in a bunch, and just relax.

they are going to teach it, but, you don't have to believe it.

[JackViolet]

hehe, i've seen some pretty funny ones before.

especially in the Mika-Gasmic thread.

 

 

ugh, creationism vs. evolution.

 

this gets argued about a lot at my school.

the majority of the kids at my school are mormon, (including myself), and every year, a couple of parents end up talking to the administration, because they don't want their children being exposed to that.

 

i honestly don't know what the big deal is.

people need to stop getting their pantie's in a bunch, and just relax.

they are going to teach it, but, you don't have to believe it.

 

If you mean evolution, then I very much agree. They really should teach it in science class since it IS accepted mainstream theory subscribed to by most scientists. However, they should teach it--not force you to take it as, well, gospel. I do subscribe to the evolution theory, but I know that when it was taught to us, we were taught the controversies and current shortcomings of it as well. Besides, the point of theories is that you are supposed to question, test, and challenge them so as to perfect them.

 

--Jack

[kk448]

No offense but how can you see that it doesn't have anything to do with the Puritans?

 

I'm a huge American History buff. Our Puritan heritage has a lot more influence than you think.

 

IMO it's unfair to teach Creationism in schools because it's just one religion's view on creation. If we teach Creationism, then to be fair, we should be teaching the Muslim creation story and the Native American creation story and so on. Evolution is scientific and has been agreed upon by the majority of people and scientists for years and years around the world.

 

We were founded by Puritans and Christian morals are part of the general American ideology, yes. But what makes America wonderful is that the religion isn't forced onto people by the government. That's what the first amendment says. The government doesn't endorse a certain religion and we can worship whatever we want (Flying Spaghetti Monster ). A big contrast to, say, the period I just studied in English history where the monarchy forced everyone to be a certain religion. And then a different King would take over and force everyone to be a different religion. And then a different Queen would take over and force everyone to be a different religion. We've never had that, obviously.

 

Sorry that I said see, I guess I meant I know what I "see" on TV, and I "believe" that it's not Puritan. I didn't know my words were being that closely analyzed...

 

Okay...mostly what I have been taught about the Puritans was relatively negative so maybe that's why I think we're not so much like them. Also, based on what I know, they seemed like religious fanatics. Then again, I haven't extensively researched them or anything so maybe I just don't know. I just really don't feel like getting into all that right now.

 

And I should have clarified about the Creationism thing. I should have said that I don't think they should necessarily teach it in a science class. Of course, evolution will be taught in there, and I always thought that the teachers did a good job of telling everyone that that's the scientific point of view, and that there are various religious points of view. However, I did take a class where Creationism and evolution was taught as well as other creation stories, which wasn't a science class. Guess I should have mentioned that the first time.

[kk448]

hehe, i've seen some pretty funny ones before.

especially in the Mika-Gasmic thread.

 

Yep...that's when they get funny...

[heineken22]

If you mean evolution, then I very much agree. They really should teach it in science class since it IS accepted mainstream theory subscribed to by most scientists. However, they should teach it--not force you to take it as, well, gospel. I do subscribe to the evolution theory, but I know that when it was taught to us, we were taught the controversies and current shortcomings of it as well. Besides, the point of theories is that you are supposed to question, test, and challenge them so as to perfect them.

 

--Jack

yeah, i meant evolution.

should've clarified that.

 

i personally prefer creationism, but when we did learn about evolution, i wasn't the kid who was thinking it was complete blasphemy, i actually thought about it and questioned it.

 

that's why i hate living in a small town.

no one thinks outside of the box, or are willing to accept new ideas.

[lovempls]

Yep...that's when they get funny...

 

The one now says "10 rules losing belly fat"