Top Rated New Comments
comment listing type:
Top New Military Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
Top Rated New Comments comment listing type: Top New Military Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
Homer Simpson tries to vote for Obama
Rigged elections boo hoo! Waaaaah free market! Republicans ruined my life! BOOHOO America sucks amd my party has nothing to do with it WAAAAAAAH!
Wow. THAT was irrelevant.
A Gentlemen's Duel - an animated short
gorillaman
In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
>> ^spoco2:
How, exactly, is he wrong sir gm?
He's wrong because words spell concepts, not just sounds. Etymology is at least as important to meaning as pronunciation.
We Are VERY Tiny
Obama at a Town Hall Meeting
Indie Santa Cruz Band PWNS notes and harmonies and rhythms
Play by Play: What Caused the Current Economic Crisis
Upvoting this because I agree that this is the primary cause for the subprime crisis.
It is ironic that people are proposing more regulation to correct this.
It seems to me, however, that this video tries to place blame in a very skewed way, especially given this comment from the CRA wikipedia article:
"In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [10] This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury."
Isn't this exactly what the bill is going to achieve, along with a ton of other affected lenders?
The 2003 act didn't pass because there was no crisis then, so where does that leave us? Is it possible that the Bush administration knew what was going on from the outset, or did they have other intentions? Why would a pro "free market" republican administration want to regulate mortgage lenders in the first place?
I think I see what you're saying. The Bush-proposed agency was just more regulation of the economy? Well, that's true, but what they were attempting to do is regulate the regulations. They wanted to make sure Fannie and Freddie were maintaining some kind of integrity, which they obviously weren't. What they ought to have done is allowed the All-Powerful All-Knowing Free Market to do its thing.
What really chaps my hide is that in the VP debate Biden blamed McCain's deregulation policies for the crisis, and Palin didn't say A WORD to the contrary. Probably because she has no idea how the economy functions.
Why couldn't we have nominated some decent candidates? Does anyone want to hop into my time-machine with me?
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
>> ^thepinky: this is not the child's fault.
So now you're calling a 50-cell blastocyst a "child"? Whaaaaat?
>> ^thepinky:
Abortion only adds to an already heinous situation.
Says someone who's never been raped and then carried the fetus through full term.
And to think that we can just "counsel" people and everything will be awesome, is fucking hysterical.
Do you know how many orphans there are in this country? Do you know how many orphans never get adopted, grow up with zero parents and go on to lead utterly shit lives?.
You don't know anything about my life, and we're all being hypothetical/philosophical here, so leave my life out of it unless you really want to know why I am probably about 3572.84 times more qualified to talk about sexual crime and foster care and adoption and pregnancy and abortion than you are. M'kay, pumpkin?
You are taking a pragmatic view of a moral issue, which is just crazy weird to me. Legalized murder would totally reduce the population and most murder would probably occur among the poorer classes, greatly reducing poverty. But it's still murder.
Just how many orphans grow up to lead "utterly [poop] lives?" Do you know? How many of them lead good lives? How many kids with two parents lead bad lives? This argument has nothing to do with whether or not those children will have good lives or not. You cannot deal out judgment upon the value of anyone's life. Life is life is life and it should be protected whether it's crappy or not.
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
Yes, I do believe that abortion in the case of rape or incest is wrong and I would counsel a woman in that situation to go through with the pregnancy. It is, of course, a great sacrifice for her both emotionally and physically, and that is why I believe that it ought to be her choice. Her agency was taken from her by the man who impregnated her, and if she believe that her "life" (lifestyle) would be irreparably destroyed by the pregnancy, than she should be free to decide whether her life or the embryo's life is more human.
The answer to reducing abortions in general is not to make all abortions legal. There are steps that we must take in order to reduce abortion rates including providing healthcare and adoption programs for unwanted pregnancies, better and earlier sex education (with full consent of the parents), and free access to contraception. Abortion should be illegal for pregnancies more advanced than 24 weeks because when higher brain functioning and pain receptors are developed, there can be almost no doubt that the child ought to have human rights.
But pragmatics should never be a reason for a moral decision. That is why we ought NEVER to torture prisoners. Sure, we might save some American lives by torturing terrorists for information, but torture is something we do not (or should not) do as a matter of principle.
>> ^SDGundamX:
Two years ago, if you had asked me my position on abortion I would have told you I was pro-choice all the way. Then I saw an actual abortion performed and had everything I believed turned upside down. Seeing the doctor wash little dismembered body-parts--arms, legs, parts of a skull--and count everything up to make sure he got it all... that pretty much convinced me I needed to re-examine my beliefs. I have tried since that time to be open to all positions on the matter and to form my own opinion based on reason and logic. The conclusion I came to is very similar to swampgirl's--abortion is morally wrong but is also a necessary evil.
I'm an atheist, so I don't oppose abortion on any religious grounds. No, like swampgirl said earlier, I just think we should stop beating around the bush. We're taking human lives here. Granted, we're doing it as mercifully as we can (i.e. before the nervous and pain response systems are fully developed) and for ostensibly good reasons. But I think too many people try to gloss over the fact that a human life is ended in the process. I think people are uncomfortable with the idea and that's why we quibble over when a human is an officially recognized "person" or when certain rights should be ascribed.
However, although I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I do not agree with making abortions illegal. That probably seems paradoxical to most people, but it stems from the fact that I am pragmatic. There are serious problems with making abortion illegal: backroom abortions and their associated risks; a suddenly skyrocketing number of babies that need adoption placement in a system that is already burgeoning under the weight of unwanted or neglected children; massive population expansion at a time when resources such as clean water are becoming scarce; and so on. In an ideal world, we could make abortions illegal and provide superior care and support for all women who must carry unwanted babies and place all of those unwanted babies with caring, loving, families. But I've seen enough of the world to know that it is anything but ideal.
And so I believe that as horrible as it is, legal abortions are necessary in the world. It kind of depresses me a little bit that I can find something immoral and yet still condone it. I think maybe it's a sign that I'm getting old that I'm willing to compromise my morals for pragmatic concerns.
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
thepinky said:
The mental pain and trauma of carrying and delivering an unwanted or forced baby can be very severe, indeed, but our emotional well-being is never more important than a human life.
I'm annoyed by people who pretend to know something about the choice to have an abortion. I know three women who believed that an abortion would make them happy when they had it done. All three of them still regret their choice.
--
I disagree that emotional well-being is never more important than a human life. What's the point of living if it will be in constant pain, depression, etc.? I realize there is the potential to "get over" the trauma, but I think you should reconsider what makes living worthwhile, and should allow a person to make that decision for themselves.
Also, I know a woman who had an abortion and she does not regret her choice. She's living a great life now, one that she probably would not have been able to live had she not had the abortion.
Well, you do have a very good point there. However, Gundam is right that there is a difference between life and lifestyle, and I would venture to say that almost never does a pregnancy damage a life so much that it is not worth living. But let me say this: It may weaken my argument to mention it, but I actually do believe that women ought not to be FORCED to carry a child in the case of rape, incest, or threat to life, but I agree with Palin that she should be counciled to have the baby and that we ought to make it as easy as possible for her to do that. And the reason I believe this is because of what I mention earlier, that "ALMOST NEVER does a pregnancy damage a life..." I agree with you that sometimes (very seldomly) a pregnancy could in essence destroy the life of the mother. This is why it ought to remain a choice in those cases, because, yes, the LIFE and not the lifestyle of the mother is potentially more valuable than the life of the baby. But abortion as it stands today is advertized as some kind of instant fix. We make no effort to impress upon people the magnitude of the decision they are making. Like Deedub pointed out, abortion can be a cause for suffering in and of itself.
And abortion is still wrong.
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
Grrr. So basically you people believe that it is ok to let a person suffer for the rest of their lives because they are not allowed to make a choice concerning their own body and mental welfare. We have enough children in care waiting for the love of a family as it is. Those children were chosen to be born and look at them now. So it's better to potentially let not only the mother of this crime suffer the potential guilt, fear, hatred, future relationships and children, but also bring a child into the world who is unwanted and unloved because of the act. Take your blinkers off and stop whitewashing the issue, for fucks sake
I don't understand what you're saying. Does an abortion instantly fix all of the suffering that was caused by the rape or incest?
Unwanted, unloved children have just as much right to life as you do. All of these fluffy arguments don't change the fact that this argument is a matter of principle, not individual situation.
For example, my stance against the death penalty is a matter of principle. It is a fact that the death of a murderer often gives the family and friends of the victim closure and a feeling of justice. To deny the death penalty is to cause many people to suffer for the rest of their lives. But the death penalty is wrong because if even one innocent person is executed, it is too many. Monsters may be living semi-comfortable lives on our taxpayer dollars, families may be constantly harrowed up by the thought that their loved-one's murderer is still living, but the death penalty is still WRONG. I carry the same logic into the topic of abortion. Many children may be born unwanted and unloved and have to live off of taxpayer money, women may have to suffer even more pain by carrying a child and then knowing that it is living, but abortion is STILL WRONG.
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
I was wondering what everyone thinks about miscarriages? Are they God's little abortions or...?
I was wondering what everyone thinks about infant death? Are they God's little infanticides or...?
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
I didn't hear her say "force" or imply that she would force anyone to do anything. She would "council" women to have their babies rather than abort them. According to data referring to the mental health of women after abortions, this is sound advice.
Deedub is absolutely right.
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
SDGundamX
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
>> ^jwray:
Life doesn't start at conception, it's a continuous process that started 3 billion years ago. Only sentient life forms have the moral status of persons. A fertilized egg is not sentient.
This is by far the best argument I've heard for the moral grounds for abortion (and also extends to stem cell research).