Aspies For Freedom

Who would you have voted for?

Just out of curiosity why did you choose bush?

I would have voted for Kerry, I think.  I didn't adopt a _very_ strong interest in the presidential election bobbins.  But I saw this humourous TV program the other day about the US elections and stuff.

hehe, lol.

Bush created the Iraq situation, and as for his moral integrity - you make reference to abortions.  He aims to outlaw abortion (therefore taking away women's rights to their own body) and this is good?

Perhaps the time at which abortions can be performed should be lowered (since once the child has developed some form of conciousness it would be immoral to perform an abortion) but abortion should NOT be totally outlawed.I'd rather not get into a full abortion debate here (but if someone is interested in hearing my views PM me) but what i will say i think on this issue and that is: everyone has a right to their body. This right must come before protecting a potential life.

I agree with you on abortion Uschi, many women have been traumatised by abortion. In the UK it is often said that it is just "a cluster of cells" when aborted. In truth five weeks after conception the embryo has a beating heart,  brain, sex organs, can move independently and it is later than this stage that most abortions occur.
Most abortions are of perfectly healthy foetuses, on women in their twenties and thirties who live with their partner. Those are the statisitics.

The question is not whether it is human or not but whether it is a concious entity. You cannot give special status to a lump of organic matter simply because it has human DNA.

Let me explain - is your life special because you have human DNA or because you have thoughts and feelings? Personally, i consider human life to be "sacred" only because of the human mind - what some would call the soul. The fact that it has all the genetic material for development does not matter. What matters is the point at which it is concious. After this stage of development, abortion is indeed murder. But before that, the unborn child does not have a mind, does not have a "soul".

Your argument against abortion in cases of rape has a major flaw: we are not punishing the unborn child. We are preventing it from existing in the first place.

Of course, there can be massive pyschological damage to some women who have an abortion if they do so without considering it fully. This is why abortion should never be done without being fully considered. Abortion should also not be used in practicing eugenics - this kind of mentality of "if we fail to produce a perfect child first time try again" just leads to negative elitism and genocide.

The question is not whether it is human or not but whether it is a concious entity. You cannot give special status to a lump of organic matter simply because it has human DNA.

Wrong , wrong, and wrong! The law does give status to human matter even after it is dead! There are very strict laws regarding samples of tissue taken from humans, regarding human remains of the deceased, and even regarding the "organic matter" of aborted foetuses which they use commonly in experiments.
Cells of a fertilized zygote are protected under law, any procedures are strictly monitored and governed, as is the rules of abortion, this all tells us that special status is given to organic matter that has human DNA.
Who has more vailidity to life, an aged person in a coma, that has no conciousness, and is being kept alive by a ventilator, yet it would be illegal in some countries to turn of the machine without the permission of relatives, or a nine months gestation baby that is perfectly healthy and could easily survive birth, yet if the mother wished it could be killed, there is no legal limit for abortion in this country.
Some people erroneously believe that there is a 5 or 6 month limit. That is wrong. Over a million babies have been aborted in Britian since it was legalised. I would advise anyone to study the subject before jumping to conclusions on it.

In the past it was said that over crowding was a reason to have less children and that no-one would care for unwanted kids, yet there are so many people who want to adopt babies in western society and so few are available, I have heard women say that to give up a baby for adoption would be upsetting so they have an abortion instead. Killing their own baby isnt upsetting? At least with adoption it would have a chance at life.
Infertility rates are at an all time high, so are abortion rates. The most shocking examples of abortion and infanticide are in China. Women are forced to have abortions to follow the one child only rule, and baby girls are often abandoned and left to die as a boy is more commonly wanted as the "one child".

Good point TheAsMan. A very sad legal case was brought in the UK ealier in the year, two women had fertilized eggs stored, they had no other chance to conceive due to illness except with those eggs. They had split up with their partners and their partners wanted the embryos to be destroyed. They had the right to do that as the embryos were stored under that agreement. However it leads to a terrible moral dilemma.
Concerning the future for autism once pre natal screening is brought out, considering how many women now abort healthy children, when they are informed that the child has "something wrong with it" what will they choose to do.
:cry:

I never said that a child capable of feeling pain should be aborted. as for the "magic concious moment" - since we do not fully understand the nature of conciousness we cannot yet place a specific date on it but we do know that the brain is the "engine" of conciousness. no brain - no conciousness.

your argument that abortion will "open the door" is flawed for one major reason. once the brain has developed it is murder - pure and simple.

But what you think about the issue makes no difference to governments, once something is legal then they wont stop at a certain point.
They will continue with things, such as euthanasia etc, it comes down to human rights ultimately, not just conciousness, the same as someone who is on a coma and its not known if someone will recover.

I'm glad Bush won too. I don't care if I get flack for that, you have to fight for what you believe in, sometimes that does make you unpopular. Bush has a clear set of priorities and values, Kerry was able to score a few points in a few areas. Ultimately he was seen as indecisive. It's especially not a good time to have and indecisive leader at a time of war. If Kerry had won, it would show the terrorists have won too. I'm a conservative, but I see Kerry's position as a bit like Michael Howard, too much attacking the moment, and no clear path in their beliefs. I'm no Blair fan, but he's ulitmately got the upper hand on Howard at this time, as he want's to finish this war, full stop. It is weird though how a Labour leader has tighter links to a Republican one, and a Democratic candidate is in a similar position to the Tory one. Such is the nature of modern politics :~

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3985113.stm

Uschi, brace yourself for an onslaught of Kerry-supporting immigrants!

On the other hand...
Ten reasons not to move to Canada
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1103-28.htm

Notes: I didn't read Uschi's entire rant. I also didn't read the second page. Do I intend to? Probably not.


I support abortion. Why? Let me ask you this: Who the hell are you to get involved in someone's decisions on their fetus if you're not their parent or a very close person to them? It's their choice to abort the baby, they can live with the consequences. Quote a friend of mine: "If you cut off my reproductive rights, can I cut off yours?"

No, I do not feel that people should be able to abort a baby whenever they want to. That would be abuse of their rights. If they get an unwanted baby(as in they never intended to have the child), they have the rights to abort it. Don't like that fact? Tough. Life sucks, and I've hardened my heart enough to deal with it. I don't like the fact that Satanism is being used to describe Witchcraft(the two are VERY different. I don't believe in harming living, born people, and I believe in a higher deity. Ask Gareth about Satanism, as he would know more than me on the subject), and that devil-worship is used to describe Satanism. I could go on with this, but I'll let it rest for now and maybe finish it up in the Ranting Thread.

I wouldn't of minded Kerry winning, as he's more open minded than Bush. At the same time, I don't want a hypocrite ruling the country. I don't want a Conservative Christian(no offense to the Christian members of the forum) who can't read the Constitution ruling the country either. But, I can't do anything about it, so I've learned to live with it and I do support one thing that Saddam said: The US is becoming the real terrorist here.



My .02.



Here's another post I wrote up this morning at the Digital Riot Clan forums(http://www.digitalriotclan.com). Because it has a bit of language, I'm going to put it down low so you don't have to read it if you don't want to.

[Sorry! I hadn't noticed page two.]

I'm with Gareth on this one, but can't stand the way so many get abortion as their prefered means of birth control (what a strange expression).

I'm inclined to the view that it's a good thing that Bush won, as Iraq will now bankrupt America, which will make the world a better safer place.

Uschi, I read both European and US publications, and there is no shadow of doubt that the US ones are the most biased. This isn't just my opinion, most returning soldiers now prefer the BBC world service to Fox news as they know Fox is just a republican mouthpiece.

So Iraq was an awful place under Saddam? But so are several dozen other regions, so as an excuse for a pre-emptive strike, that's pretty weak. If they wanted to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, don't you think they'd have taught their troops something about the languages and customs, so misunderstandings could be resolved by some means other than shooting the locals? They'd also have put guards on those explosives dumps too.

Looked at rationally there are only really two possibilities; those that wanted this war are either criminally incompetent, or they are deliberately provoking terrorism for profit. These are not of course mutually exclusive.