Who Would You Vote For?

KUCINICH is the best, i dont like Ron Paul because he is anti-gay and pro-gun

 

John Edwards is my second choice after Kucinich.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pro-life+libertarians

 

Abortion is not all black and white.

Let’s get down to basics.

Abortion is not a contraceptive. A contraceptive just by the nature of the word means prevention of conception. For an abortion to take place conception has already taken place. Also the morning after pill is an abortive device not a contraceptive.

Then, what is conception? Both the egg and sperm by themselves only have half of the information to make a child and given perfect circumstances for growth they will not grow and produce a child. But when the two are joined and given perfect circumstances for growth, they will grow and produce a child. At the very moment they are joined it has already been determined what color eyes and hair the child will have, how tall, even some personality traits. So, yes at conception it is already a child.

That’s why I say that; I’m pro-choice but think the choice should be made before conception not after. Thus if two people are going to be having consensual sex, they should before hand, decide do we want this to make a child and act accordingly. Yes, sex is fun, pleasurable and sometimes we like it to be spontaneous but we need to realize that it can also have consequences and act responsibly. Acting irresponsibly and saying if anything happens we can just destroy the child is just not acceptable.

That having been said, what about rape, incest, child abuse or cases where the mother’s life is in danger? Again I’m pro-choice but in a different way than I stated before. In these cases I believe that the only one that can make the decision is the woman herself and should have all options open to her. In fact the morning after pill could be of good use in some of these cases such as rape.

Now for sex education in schools, one must realize that schools are pretty much one size fits all. If my child comes out with reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic I’d be happy. But parents must realize that a child’s education is their responsibly and should never abdicate that responsibly to the schools. NO matter what the school or anyone else for that matter, teaches their children, the child’s education should start and be finished in the home!

 

Let me quote a statement that someone that I know has made:

"It's a human from the moment of conception, it's inarguable. If you don't think it's a human, then please, tell me what genus and species it is, because I'm interested to know. The biological information is same as any other person walking around.

Given that it is without question, a human, the difference between pro-abortion, and anti-abortion stance is that one group thinks that only humans who meet certain criteria have the right to life. Apparently, young human offspring doesn't meet the criteria in their whacked out minds, and thus can be murdered for convenience, no questions asked. At what point do you say "ok, this baby is now 'human enough' to deserve the right to life?" Maybe we should determine the value of other lives in a similar manner, a checklist, if you will. Handicapped people don't have all the traits that I have, thus they must be less-human, and their lives are not worth as much. Maybe I should only get 10 years in prison if I killed one, instead of life in prison.

It's also completely deranged to say that it's ok to murder the baby, as long as it isn't viable outside the womb. I suppose it would be ok to murder someone in a coma who was on life support, even though it was determined they would come out of the coma and be completely normal in 9 months."

 

Hi def zeppelin,
I can see that you’re very passionate about the topic of abortion and so I was wondering what's your solution to the problems of pregnancy from rape, incest, child abuse or cases where the mother’s life is in danger? Or what about a pregnancy from child abuse that also threatens the life of the child mother? Do you feel that the only solution is to carry the fetus to full term? Even if as in the last case it would kill the child mother who was pregnant though no fault of her own?

 

Kucinch, with Ron Paul a second, though Ron Paul's stance on abortion troubles me.

I'd vote for Dodd, but we need him here at home.

 

Kucinich is my first choice, Ron Paul my second (and the only republican I would even consider voting for- registering Republican to vote for him is even enough to make my nauseated). These are the only two candidates whose integrity I am certain of. Also, they both want an immediate end to this ridiculous war. Obama is my next choice, and I will vote Clinton to keep a Republican out of office. I am not a huge fan of hers (mostly because of the war issue), but I would love to see a woman become president. I will probably vote for Ron Paul, as I do not think Kucinich stands a chance, unfortunately.

As a Libertarian I like much of what Ron Paul has to say, save for the issue of abortion and gay rights. I realize he wants it to go to the state level, a very libertarian stance, but I am an adamant supporter of pro-choice and a firm believer in Roe vs. Wade. I also think that it is time GLBTs enjoyed the same rights and privledges as non-GLBTs. Marriage, civil union, it is just a matter of semantics.

 

Abortion and gay rights are huge issues, and have been for some time. Do we really want another four years of repression on these points?

 

Hi OlderWaterBrother,
I understand your concerns, and with that in mind, allow me to explain my solution, as it were.

You bring up rape, incest, child abuse (rape again), and the case where giving birth can endanger the life of the mother. All of these points are very good points, but all of which delve into a completely different layer of the issue of abortion.

I'll let it be known that such situations that have been ascertained require another approach entirely, and part of this approach is the possibility of counseling alongside the ability to decide if abortion is desired. These matters are very delicate matters and they require an open enough mind to say that these situations may require abortion. These delicate matters should give one the ability to make the choice, no matter how difficult that choice may be, to allow the mother to decide. With this in mind, I'll make it clear that I am strongly against the making of abortion illegal. Because when abortion becomes illegal, the illegality of it makes it impossible to take into account the multi-layered reality of the abortion issue and all unique situations that are associated.

As we move on, we can see how the illegality of abortion could restrain our ability to take into account the special situations that may require the mother the decision, because not lending this ability would be, in essence, too extreme, and all extremes are dangerous approaches to all issues. But what about the issue of the blastocyst being a person, shouldn't there be at least some protection? The short answer to this should be: Yes, we should lend protection, just not in the form of a law, instead, of prevention programs.

Prevention programs can be the only realistic way to slow down the number of abortions that are performed each year; and let it be known that the complete annihilation of such procedures will never become a reality, because it is within human nature to find ways to do what one feels that he/she must do if he/she has enough will to do it. The only realistic approach to this issue is through prevention programs.

Now that it is known that prevention programs are the only realistic approach, we can then discuss how exactly we will go about these programs and what exactly would they try to prevent. And for that, requires the discussion of the micromanagement of prevention programs. I consider myself a macromanager, and I'll leave micromanagement to the micromanagers. But I will let it be known as to what these preventions programs entails, or rather, focuses on. Prevention programs will focus on the prevention of pregnancy, as well as prevention after one becomes pregnant. What does prevention after pregnancy mean, exactly? Prevention after pregnancy would include such measures, but not limited to: open discussion sessions with counselors, and discussions on the morality of abortion itself; but is any of this propaganda? It could be, if done without an open mind. But ideally, these discussions should take place to the point where the mother can make the moral decision of whether or not she should go through with abortion, ultimately, on her own; without force. With this taken into account, then we can enable the mother to make a more informed decision on the matter, rather than to simply go through with her decision without at least some exploration of her feelings, because without doing so would limit a more honest decision in the end and without doing so may bring more heart-ache, after the decision has been made.

In the end, choice is ultimately given to the mother, but without first exploring the depths of the mothers emotional state, including the acknowledgement of a sense of responsibility. Prevention will come from the exploration of the matter to the point where the best possible choice, while considering both morality and responsibility, is made clear.

 

Thanx def zeppelin,
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I find that sometimes when people get too passionate on a subject everything becomes black or white and they stop thinking about real problems and their solutions. It was nice to hear from you about these things.

Now back to topic do you see any candidates that have similar views?

 

Thanks, I enjoyed writing it.

"Now back to topic do you see any candidates that have similar views?"

Mike Gravel does.

He is grossly overlooked - He isn't even a choice on this threads poll.

I wrote an article about him if you are interested:
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271193

or you can just check the list of his views here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Gravel.htm

http://www.gravel2008.us/

He pretty much believes in social evolution, and is currently backing the National Initiative (www.ni4d.us/) - Gravel makes more sense than any other politician that I have ever known of.

Mike Gravel has worked with Dennis Kucinich and has taught him much.

 

Maybe we should give pregnant women very steep and hefty fines for smoking, being around a smoker, consuming alcohol, eating sushi and doing strenuous activities. Heaven forbid we don't protect the human life inside of her.

There is protection for the fetus, but it's after a certain stage of pregnancy.

 

What stage should that be? At what point do you say that it is human enough?

No fines, because those ideas are a little out there and aren't very realistic. The best thing that you can hope for is that they make the right decision about the health of their child (no matter what stage they are in); and you do this by prevention programs and simply being a loving person... talk to them... let them know that they have a responsibility. After that, you really can't do anything else other than hope that they do what is right.

Force never works.


Force ultimately only causes conflicts and may actually cause people to be more irresponsible just to be rebellious and/or spiteful.

 

Indeed, force is never the answer. Ultimately, the choice must be decided by the mother. Rather than analysing the circumstances of every pregnancy and creating endless legislature and paperwork, it is far easier, and more logical, to simply allow the mother and the doctor to decide the issue. There really is no other way to do it save for to bring force to the table.

 

If the elections were held today, who would you vote for for president of these here United States?

 

Ron Paul.

 

William H. Harrison.

 

I was almost positive I was gonna vote for Obama. Then I saw a lot of you guys posted that you were voting for Kucinich. I thought to myself: who is this guy? Since I didn't know a lot about him, I googled him.

This is what I found, and this is why I'm probably going to vote for him:
"DENNIS KUCINICH MAKES SENSE ON BOTH HEMP AND MARIJUANA POLICY December 17, 2006 1:09 PM

Kucinich on Marijuana Decriminalization

With the enactment of the Volstead Act in 1919, America embarked on a social experiment known as Prohibition. Prohibitionists rejected the idea that people could be trusted to drink in moderation, arguing that alcohol use inevitably led to moral corruption and undesirable behavior. Accepting these premises led Congress to conclude that a federal ban on the production and sale of alcohol would go a long way toward reducing crime and addressing a variety of other social problems. Within a decade, however, Americans discovered that the criminally enforced prohibition of alcohol produced harmful side effects. The rise of black markets empowered organized crime to an unprecedented degree. In some of America's largest cities, local governments had been heavily corrupted by the influence of organized crime. The black market provided minors with easy access to bootlegged alcohol, which was frequently of poor quality and unsafe to drink. Faced with the disastrous consequences of Prohibition, Congress decided in 1933 to repeal the Volstead Act. Since that time, the government has implemented the much more successful policy of focusing law enforcement efforts on irresponsible alcohol users who endanger the rights of others.

Unfortunately, current drug policy fails to take into account the lessons of Prohibition. The law regards all users as abusers, and the result has been the creation of an unnecessary class of lawbreakers. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, more than 734,000 individuals were arrested on marijuana charges in 2000. This number far exceeds the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Eighty-eight percent of those arrested were charged with possession only. Convicted marijuana offenders are denied federal financial student aid, welfare, and food stamps, and may be removed from public housing. In many cases, those convicted are automatically stripped of their driving privileges, even if the offense is not driving related. In several states, marijuana offenders may receive maximum sentences of life in prison. The cost to the taxpayer of enforcing marijuana prohibition is staggering -- over $10 billion annually.

The harsh nature of punishments for marijuana offenses is even more disturbing if one considers the racial bias of the war on drugs. According to data collected by the National Household Survey, on an annual basis the overall difference between drug use by blacks and whites is quite narrow. However, a recent national study found that African Americans are arrested for marijuana offenses at higher rates than whites in 90% of 700 U.S. counties investigated. In 64% of these counties, the African American arrest rate for marijuana violations was more than twice the arrest rate for whites. Questions of racial bias affect the integrity of investigations, arrests, and prosecutorial discretion. If we truly aspire to the ideal of "Justice for All," then these unjust racial disparities are unacceptable outcomes for the American justice system.

The rationale for continuing this draconian policy of marijuana prohibition is unclear. Statistical evidence shows that marijuana use follows a pattern very similar to that of alcohol. Most marijuana users do so responsibly, in a safe, recreational context. These people lead normal, productive lives -- pursuing careers, raising families, and participating in civic life. In addition, marijuana has proven benefits in the treatment of numerous diseases, such as providing a valuable means of pain management for terminally ill patients. In either of these contexts, there is no rational justification for criminally enforced prohibitions. These unnecessary arrests and incarcerations serve only to crowd prisons, backlog the judicial system, and distract law enforcement officials from pursuing terrorists and other violent criminals.

New Mexico's 2001 state-commissioned Drug Policy Advisory Group determined that marijuana decriminalization "will result in greater availability of resources to respond to more serious crimes without any increased risks to public safety." This finding is backed by the successful implementation of such policies in twelve states. The state governments of Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon approved these measures after the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended that Congress adopt a national policy of marijuana decriminalization. A recent CNN/Time magazine poll indicates overwhelming public support for this approach, with 72% of Americans favoring fines as a maximum penalty for minor marijuana offenses, and 80% approving of marijuana used for medical purposes.

As a nation, we must work to implement a drug policy that removes responsible recreational users and medical users of marijuana from the criminal justice system, in order to redirect resources toward the following goals:

Enforce penalties for those who provide marijuana to minors.
Enforce penalties for those who endanger the rights of others through irresponsible use, such as driving under the influence.
Develop drug treatment programs focused on rehabilitation, rather than incarceration.
Support the efforts of state governments in developing innovative approaches to drug policy.
Improve drug education by emphasizing science over scare tactics.
Implement a Department of Justice program that would review the records of, and consider for sentence reduction or release, inmates convicted for nonviolent marijuana offenses."

He's also for better health care policies, reclaiming our environment, and supports ending the war in Iraq.

My only problem with him is that his views on abortion are sketchy. Apparently he used to be pro-life, but since he started running for president, he's now pro-abortion. Which is it? And has he really changed his mind?

If you want to know how he stands on the issues, click here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

 

Ron Paul.