Bush Or Kerry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MusikFreak00

I used to say bush all the way! now im a little reserved, not because of the debates, but because if things keep going the way they are, I'll be heading for Iraq...I've got my bags packed already just in case I get the call to go. But with Kerry, I'm afraid I'm gonna lose my job, don't know which is worse yet, since my job encompasses fighting in Iraq...I'll probably vote bush, for job security.

---

Trust me, the US isn't going to be pulling out of Iraq anytime soon. That country isn't even close to being stable yet; we've still got a long way to go before we can start pulling troops out of there. Not to mention, Kerry actually wants to add two more divisions of soldiers to what exists already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

Trust me, the US isn't going to be pulling out of Iraq anytime soon. That country isn't even close to being stable yet; we've still got a long way to go before we can start pulling troops out of there. Not to mention, Kerry actually wants to add two more divisions of soldiers to what exists already.

---

He also said he could start withdrawing troops in six months. Don't you think that is a little unrealistic?

i'm planning on voting for kerry. in general, he reflects my opinions pretty well. i would've liked howard dean better, but kerry's OK too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason
Trust me, the US isn't going to be pulling out of Iraq anytime soon. That country isn't even close to being stable yet; we've still got a long way to go before we can start pulling troops out of there. Not to mention, Kerry actually wants to add two more divisions of soldiers to what exists already.

---

We already have 9 out of 11 divisions over there, leaving from there, or on their way to there. So adding 2 more divisions would be extremely ridiculous since you can't have your whole force in one spot. Unless you mean he wants to recruit 2 more divisions worth of soldiers, which is even more ridiculous since the armed forces have failed to reach their quota by a few thousand this year. He can't force people to enlist. The only way he would be able to get that many people in is to reinstate the draft, or pull out of Iraq immediately. Then people might start signing up again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fett aka hmm

If I had to choose Id say Badnarik (the libertarian candidate) but he doesnt stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning, and Bush is the next best.

---

I agree with most of his platform, but I disagree with his stance on Iraq and the War on Terror. If I ever get sick of the GOP, I'll start voting Libertarian.

Quote:

---

Badnarik is hilarious, but I'll endorse him for the same reason that the Bushites endorse Nader.

---

Touche'

Quote:

---

Bush keeps changing his mind ever so frequently, I wonder what he does with all those diapers.

---

http://fuckingclueless.ytmnd.com/

This one's a real doozy..........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Aug9.html

Quote:

---

Someone give me a plane ride to washington and give me a gun so I can shoot the son of a bitch...

---

What was your stance on gun control again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leatherman

He also said he could start withdrawing troops in six months. Don't you think that is a little unrealistic?

---

Not if he gets support from other countries that would start sending their troops there. The only reason that the US has so many troops there in comparison to other countries is because we basically told other countries that we were going in whether they consented or not. So, not surprisingly, they let us go in alone and shoot ourselves in the foot. Extending an olive branch to the countries that we previously ignored would go a long way to make sure the US isn't bearing the entirety of the cost and causalities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MusikFreak00

We already have 9 out of 11 divisions over there, leaving from there, or on their way to there. So adding 2 more divisions would be extremely ridiculous since you can't have your whole force in one spot. Unless you mean he wants to recruit 2 more divisions worth of soldiers, which is even more ridiculous since the armed forces have failed to reach their quota by a few thousand this year. He can't force people to enlist. The only way he would be able to get that many people in is to reinstate the draft, or pull out of Iraq immediately. Then people might start signing up again

---

I did mean recruit 2 more divisions. And you're right, he can't force people to enlist. There's a lot of ways to encourage people to join though, all of which have a cost. However, the third most important priority for Americans at the moment is the whole Iraq issue. So I don't think you'd find a whole lot of opposition to using tax money to recruit more troops for that cause; especially if it would lead to a reduction in the number of causalities or lead to a quicker end to the US occupation of Iraq.

My vote means nothing in my bible-thumping state of Oklahoma, but I'm still going to vote for Kerry just so I can complain in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

Not if he gets support from other countries that would start sending their troops there. The only reason that the US has so many troops there in comparison to other countries is because we basically told other countries that we were going in whether they consented or not. So, not surprisingly, they let us go in alone and shoot ourselves in the foot. Extending an olive branch to the countries that we previously ignored would go a long way to make sure the US isn't bearing the entirety of the cost and causalities.

---

LMAO.........They're not going to send troops if Kerry is President. They remember Kerry's talk about it being the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." They're not going to send their troops to die for a lost cause since he and many of his colleagues already said that it was one. Way to go Kerry! Why don't you alienate some of our allies that are already there while you're at it? Oops, too late..........

[QUOTE=Mason]Not if he gets support from other countries that would start sending their troops there. The only reason that the US has so many troops there in comparison to other countries is because we basically told other countries that we were going in whether they consented or not. So, not surprisingly, they let us go in alone and shoot ourselves in the foot. Extending an olive branch to the countries that we previously ignored would go a long way to make sure the US isn't bearing the entirety of the cost and causalities.[QUOTE]

Well who is going to send troops cause france and germany both said they aren't sending them no matter what. By the way, who do you think the terrorists want to win the election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reagan80

LMAO.........They're not going to send troops if Kerry is President. They remember Kerry's talk about it being the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." They're not going to send their troops to die for a lost cause since he and many of his colleagues already said that it was one. Way to go Kerry! Why don't you alienate some of our allies that are already there while you're at it? Oops, too late..........

---

Yeah, I remember Kerry's talk about that. And you know what? It wasn't Kerry that made the proposal to go to war on Iraq, that was Bush. It's not a lost cause though, nor has Kerry said it is. Other countries can come in now and pick up the pieces and basically claim the victory for the war. I don't think that's something they'd be against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leatherman

Well who is going to send troops cause france and germany both said they aren't sending them no matter what. By the way, who do you think the terrorists want to win the election?

---

Yes, and they said that while Bush was in power. They may be much more willing to change their stance with a change in US administration. As for the terrorists, I'd say it's a wash. I could easily claim they'd rather have Bush in power. Why? He can't seem to decide on any one specific target. He should've stuck with Bin Laden, but he didn't. Instead he just riled a whole hornet's nest of people by going after Hussein. Kerry, at least from what he's said, would be much more likely to set a goal and then do everything to accomplish that goal (i.e. catch Bin Laden).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

Yes, and they said that while Bush was in power. They may be much more willing to change their stance with a change in US administration. As for the terrorists, I'd say it's a wash. I could easily claim they'd rather have Bush in power. Why? He can't seem to decide on any one specific target. He should've stuck with Bin Laden, but he didn't. Instead he just riled a whole hornet's nest of people by going after Hussein. Kerry, at least from what he's said, would be much more likely to set a goal and then do everything to accomplish that goal (i.e. catch Bin Laden).

---

Well they said on the news last night, they didn't care who was in power, they aren't going to iraq. Bin Laden could very well be dead already, and we don't know really. No one has heard from him from a while. And what does this hornets nest consist of....mostly terrorists and insurgents. Sounds like a war on terrorism to me. Also a head Al Queda member is beheading people in Iraq so we know Al Queda is there. And about who terrorists want to be president, yeah we could say Bush, but really deep down do you believe that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

Yeah, I remember Kerry's talk about that. And you know what? It wasn't Kerry that made the proposal to go to war on Iraq, that was Bush. It's not a lost cause though, nor has Kerry said it is. Other countries can come in now and pick up the pieces and basically claim the victory for the war. I don't think that's something they'd be against.

---

First, you don't know whether or not the allies will start pouring into Iraq if Kerry gets elected just so they could give Bush's legacy a black eye. Personally, I doubt it.

Secondly, you think the terrorists or insurgents will stop killing the new "occupiers" that replace us or when Bush is gone?

Quote:

---

Yes, and they said that while Bush was in power. They may be much more willing to change their stance with a change in US administration. As for the terrorists, I'd say it's a wash. I could easily claim they'd rather have Bush in power. Why? He can't seem to decide on any one specific target. He should've stuck with Bin Laden, but he didn't. Instead he just riled a whole hornet's nest of people by going after Hussein. Kerry, at least from what he's said, would be much more likely to set a goal and then do everything to accomplish that goal (i.e. catch Bin Laden).

---

Oh, so the Europeans didn't want to help our troops in Iraq just because the "cowboy" hurt their feelings. They wanted to leave our troops to die just to embarass Bush and help Kerry politically. **cliche' alert** With friends like these, who needs enemies?

That's interesting. UBL prefers a Bush re-election? I thought they would have preferred Kerry myself. Afterall, the North Koreans like him, Castro wuvs him, the Chinese do too, but terrorists don't? Are you sure? What do the terrorists think about Kerry's plan to outsource our national security to the corrupt and anti-American UN? What do the terrorists think about Kerry's potential plans to withdraw our forces out of Iraq prematurely? What do the terrorists think about Kerry's potential to repeal the Patriot Act? I can just look at his Senate record to find many reasons why terrorists would adore him such as the time when he voted against a bill that would have authorized the death penalty for terrorists.

Anyway, I'm going to leave a couple of ytmnd links to amuse my fellow Reich-Wingers out there...........http://kerry1.ytmnd.com/

http://kerry2.ytmnd.com/........See? Bush isn't the only one that can have fucked-up soundbites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leatherman

Well they said on the news last night, they didn't care who was in power, they aren't going to iraq. Bin Laden could very well be dead already, and we don't know really. No one has heard from him from a while. And what does this hornets nest consist of....mostly terrorists and insurgents. Sounds like a war on terrorism to me. Also a head Al Queda member is beheading people in Iraq so we know Al Queda is there. And about who terrorists want to be president, yeah we could say Bush, but really deep down do you believe that?

---

*shrug* Politicians say a lot of things, then they change their minds and say something else. You're right, they might not ever go to Iraq. It can't help to have an attitude of "we don't need your help" though, when we actually do need their help.

There's been pretty recent confirmed audio tapes/videos of Bin Laden preaching against the sins of the US, so he's likely still alive. Still, the US really dropped the ball in trying to track him down.

And that hornet's nest is full of regular people. Imagine if some country invaded the US and attempted to oust the government because the US didn't abide by the rules of the UN. Do you think people in the US would be very happy with that? Probably not, even if they don't agree with Bush. No one likes having their country invaded.

And just because there's Al Queda operatives working in Iraq doesn't mean there's any connection. Guess what, there's Al Queda operatives here in the US too. That doesn't mean we're aiding them or that we want them here in the least; quite obviously we don't. Same goes for Iraq.

Lastly, I don't really know which they'd prefer. Bush is kind of fanatical about taking down terrorism, but Kerry would likely try to get some kind of global force together on the matter. The latter would likely be more effective, but the former is probably more scary right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

*shrug* Politicians say a lot of things, then they change their minds and say something else. You're right, they might not ever go to Iraq. It can't help to have an attitude of "we don't need your help" though, when we actually do need their help.

There's been pretty recent confirmed audio tapes/videos of Bin Laden preaching against the sins of the US, so he's likely still alive. Still, the US really dropped the ball in trying to track him down.

And that hornet's nest is full of regular people. Imagine if some country invaded the US and attempted to oust the government because the US didn't abide by the rules of the UN. Do you think people in the US would be very happy with that? Probably not, even if they don't agree with Bush. No one likes having their country invaded.

And just because there's Al Queda operatives working in Iraq doesn't mean there's any connection. Guess what, there's Al Queda operatives here in the US too. That doesn't mean we're aiding them or that we want them here in the least; quite obviously we don't. Same goes for Iraq.

Lastly, I don't really know which they'd prefer. Bush is kind of fanatical about taking down terrorism, but Kerry would likely try to get some kind of global force together on the matter. The latter would likely be more effective, but the former is probably more scary right now.

---

I don't know if Kerry would be more effective, but these "hornets", well do you know how many insurgents there are? Most aren't regular people, most are foreign fighters. well if you remember that article titled "the connection" said Al Queda was there, is that just a coincidince, possibly, but i wouldn't bet on it. i don't have a go it alone attitude, but if the French don't want to help us thats fine, but i would say don't expect any help from us, unless we are directly involved. In Iraq a couple hundred thugs are controlling entire cities, and no longer will that be the case. sammara has fallen to Iraqi and US forces and other cities will do the same. These terrorists are cowards and they will keep the kidnapping and beheading until someone does something about it. This is the chance to stop it, every choice you make there is a risk involved, why not take the chance to put terrorists to justice?

you summed up what i was gonna say leatherman, except we have 135,000 people there now. That's more than enough to get the job done. Problem is terrorists can still get in and out of the country fairly easy. That needs to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leatherman

I don't know if Kerry would be more effective, but these "hornets", well do you know how many insurgents there are? Most aren't regular people, most are foreign fighters.

---

Wow you know where all the Insurgents live and what % come from outside Iraq... Impressive where did you find that sort of data..? :hypo: I love it when people use evidence that is impossible to know to secure their view of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GundamGuy

Wow you know where all the Insurgents live and what % come from outside Iraq... Impressive where did you find that sort of data..? :hypo: I love it when people use evidence that is impossible to know to secure their view of things.

---

I love how he keeps insinuating that the Kerry-supporters didn't want to remove Saddam Hussein from power at all.

hmmm 2 young 2 vote... only 15 though I would vote bush, I think it would be a terrible idea to change presidents when were right in the middle of the terroist activity . Though u have 2 give osama credit for playing the best damn game of hide and go seek that the world has ever seen (-_-).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziegfried

I love how he keeps insinuating that the Kerry-supporters didn't want to remove Saddam Hussein from power at all.

---

Ha, that's a good one. Kerry didn't even want to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait in '91. What makes you think he would ever use force to remove Saddam in Baghdad? Kerry's plan to topple Hussein would have involved the UN and sanctions and Saddam's mortality. What an effective plan.......

Yeah, Saddam would have croaked of natural causes and Uday or Qusay would have continued their father's work if Kerry had it his way. Kerry-supporters might have wanted Saddam's removal, but the only person that effectively did that was the shrub........

Oh, and don't tell me Kerry would have used the CIA to overthrow his regime. This is the same Kerry with a Senate voting record of trying to emasculate the intelligence services with massive budget cuts. Kerry once tried to pass an intelligence spending bill with billions of dollars in budget cuts that it was so reckless that even these guys didn't vote for it...........

"Kerry's amendment failed 75 to 20 -- opposed by his Massachusetts colleague, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy; a future Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida; and the Appropriations Committee chairman, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia."

Yes indeed, Kerry's buddy, Ted fuckin' Kennedy, didn't even vote for the bill........

And you people wonder why we had shitty intel going into Iraq............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GundamGuy

Wow you know where all the Insurgents live and what % come from outside Iraq... Impressive where did you find that sort of data..? :hypo: I love it when people use evidence that is impossible to know to secure their view of things.

---

Just telling you there are a lot of foreign fighters from Iran and Syria, as what i hear and read. A few people don't want this new Iraq to become a democracy, not the majority. But you are right, there is no way to tell how many are foriegn and how many are from Iraq. WHy is John Kerry running on his four months in the service rather than his 19 years in the senate?

On a related note, I read something in the newspaper the other day about Bush saying that he believed God wanted him to be president... Confirm/deny? In any case, I think the president of a powerful country saying anything like that is a clear warning sign...

Anyone who declares a war is not encouraged by god at all, and for him to be stupid enough to say that... Terry is likely to win now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziegfried

On a related note, I read something in the newspaper the other day about Bush saying that he believed God wanted him to be president... Confirm/deny? In any case, I think the president of a powerful country saying anything like that is a clear warning sign...

---

That is idiocy to a new level. I can neither confirm nor deny this, but if he really did say that... I am glad my vote is not going to him or the penguin... I mean... Dick Cheney. He scares me. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gantrithor

That is idiocy to a new level. I can neither confirm nor deny this, but if he really did say that... I am glad my vote is not going to him or the penguin... I mean... Dick Cheney. He scares me. :eek:

---

I wouldn't doubt it...Bush is a religious fanatic....

I'm glad someone else sees the resemblence between Cheney and the penguin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WildChild

Anyone who declares a war is not encouraged by god at all, and for him to be stupid enough to say that... Terry is likely to win now...

---

Actually, the paper also said statements like that give him a lot of support among right-wing religious people in the US, which will help him win the election, since they're apparently quite a big group... Wow, the US sucks so much more now. I don't know if it's just my perspective changing, but it seems to have deteriorated in mostly all areas recently... Eh. Anyway.

"Thou shalt not kill" comes to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziegfried

On a related note, I read something in the newspaper the other day about Bush saying that he believed God wanted him to be president... Confirm/deny? In any case, I think the president of a powerful country saying anything like that is a clear warning sign...

---

Would it have been any better if he had said god wanted him to toss Cheney's salad with oil? Another point I want to make is......Why can't political figures talk about their spiritual side or religious feelings publicly? It's not like boosh is trying to send a squad of Bible-thumpers to whip out a can of Spanish Inquisition on the non-believers among us. I thought the Left was the ideology of TOLERANCE of people that are different. I've noticed a lot of disdain for Christians around here.

Quote:

---

Anyone who declares a war is not encouraged by god at all, and for him to be stupid enough to say that... Terry is likely to win now...

---

True, God is always against war, but his creation has a dirty habit of going against Him.

Terry?

Quote:

---

That is idiocy to a new level. I can neither confirm nor deny this, but if he really did say that... I am glad my vote is not going to him or the penguin... I mean... Dick Cheney. He scares me.

---

Indeed, talking about your personal relationship with God in public is as TABOO and SCARY as skull-fucking your own kids before you stick them in a woodchipper and make milkshakes with their semin-infested remains............

Quote:

---

I wouldn't doubt it...Bush is a religious fanatic....

---

Is Bush the fanatic, or is it really you?

Ever heard of projection in psychology? No? ........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reagan80

Would it have been any better if he had said god wanted him to toss Cheney's salad with oil? Another point I want to make is......Why can't political figures talk about their spiritual side or religious feelings publicly? It's not like boosh is trying to send a squad of Bible-thumpers to whip out a can of Spanish Inquisition on the non-believers among us. I thought the Left was the ideology of TOLERANCE of people that are different. I've noticed a lot of disdain for Christians around here.

---

Tell me, where were your ancestors when the whole separation of church and state thing caught on in the world? Unless you think of, say, the 16th century as the peak of human development, you shouldn't really be a big fan of any politician being openly religious, much less flaunting their beliefs to win an election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reagan80

Is Bush the fanatic, or is it really you?

Ever heard of projection in psychology? No? ........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

---

[Pointless talk about how making rude suggestions about other forumers isn't cool]









Holy shit, I nailed this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziegfried

[Pointless talk about how making rude suggestions about other forumers isn't cool]

---

As much as I disagree with reagan80's opinions and ideals, name calling isn't cool in any situation. You should be above that, Skinner. Knock it off or stop posting in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

As much as I disagree with reagan80's opinions and ideals, name calling isn't cool in any situation. You should be above that, Skinner. Knock it off or stop posting in this thread.

---

Pay attention, silly. reagan80 was calling Xaenn a religious fanatic, and I sarcastically responded with that. I'm far above doing so seriously, you should know that.

Regardless, don't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

Regardless, don't do it.

---

Post respectfully edited. Hope you weren't too offended, reagan80..

Yes, I do see the resemblance between Cheney and the Penguin. :wacko:

Second of all... God is getting way too big of a part in this. Do I think it is wrong for Bush to have a religious viewpoint on such matters? Of course not - he can believe what he wants - just one of the many freedoms that he's fighting to "protect". But should he go and publicly state that he thinks that God wants him to win? Hell no. Religion had its place in government... during the 12th and 13th centuries. And, of course, nothing bad came out of those years. Oh, except for things like, you know... the crusades, where religion and politics were one and the same concept, and it left thousands of people dead, in God's name.

Now I'm not going to sit here and argue that Bush wants to kill all Muslims - I would have to be incredibly stupid to argue such a point. But I just don't think that calling the war a "crusade" and saying that God "wants you to win" is the best idea.

Damn, i missed Skinner's response...ah well.

Let's see, there's a decent deal to reply to. I would've prefered to stay out of the debate, but it appears that it is calling my name.

Quote:

---

Would it have been any better if he had said god wanted him to toss Cheney's salad with oil? Another point I want to make is......Why can't political figures talk about their spiritual side or religious feelings publicly? It's not like boosh is trying to send a squad of Bible-thumpers to whip out a can of Spanish Inquisition on the non-believers among us. I thought the Left was the ideology of TOLERANCE of people that are different. I've noticed a lot of disdain for Christians around here.

---

The state isn't meant to be run on by fundamentalist Christian ideology. As Skinner said, separation of church and state. The reasoning behind it is quite simple and logical actually, perhaps you should read up on your history.

Anti-gay, Anti-abortion...those values are those of Christian Fundamentalists...and he's trying to whip em out on us.

All that said, I AM A CHRISTIAN! Did you get that? We're not saying we hate Christians, but we hate Bush trying to run a country off of his fundamentalist ideologies.

Quote:

---

Is Bush the fanatic, or is it really you?

Ever heard of projection in psychology? No? ........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

---

The implications of that are really uncalled for. And you're really just pulling them out of your ass. I have no more to say about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaenn

Damn, i missed Skinner's response...ah well.

Let's see, there's a decent deal to reply to. I would've prefered to stay out of the debate, but it appears that it is calling my name.



The state isn't meant to be run on by fundamentalist Christian ideology. As Skinner said, separation of church and state. The reasoning behind it is quite simple and logical actually, perhaps you should read up on your history.

Anti-gay, Anti-abortion...those values are those of Christian Fundamentalists...and he's trying to whip em out on us.

All that said, I AM A CHRISTIAN! Did you get that? We're not saying we hate Christians, but we hate Bush trying to run a country off of his fundamentalist ideologies.



The implications of that are really uncalled for. And you're really just pulling them out of your ass. I have no more to say about that.

---

Hey his beliefs might be part of the reason people voted for him. The people elected him and he should not censor himself or his beliefs just to appease the ones who don't agree with him.

Any good leader would be able to put aside his/her religious convictions in order to lead a country...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaenn

Any good leader would be able to put aside his/her religious convictions in order to lead a country...

---

My point is that is how he leads. He leads with his religious beliefs to do what is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leatherman

My point is that is how he leads. He leads with his religious beliefs to do what is right.

---

That right there is the argument - many, many people think he's using his religious convictions to do what is not right. At least, that's how I feel... no gay marriage, illegal abortions, all of it - I disagree with him. It doesn't make sense to me why the government should have a say in what a woman wants to do with her child - it's her choice. It doesn't make sense to me either, why the government should have any right at all to tell a gay couple that they can't marry or even have a relationship that is recognized legally. I don't believe these to be the right ways to lead, and I know a great many people who believe the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gantrithor

That right there is the argument - many, many people think he's using his religious convictions to do what is not right. At least, that's how I feel... no gay marriage, illegal abortions, all of it - I disagree with him. It doesn't make sense to me why the government should have a say in what a woman wants to do with her child - it's her choice. It doesn't make sense to me either, why the government should have any right at all to tell a gay couple that they can't marry or even have a relationship that is recognized legally. I don't believe these to be the right ways to lead, and I know a great many people who believe the same.

---

i know many that don't believe like you though. So if your mother wants to kill you that is her choice? Is that what you are trying to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leatherman

i know many that don't believe like you though. So if your mother wants to kill you that is her choice? Is that what you are trying to say?

---

The whole abortion issue could go on and on and on for the rest of eternity, and still no one would ever agree on whether or not it should be legal. The way I really feel about it - abortion should be legal for rape victims, cases of incest, or when the mother's life is at significant risk. It should not be used simply as a form of birth control. Forcing rape victims to have the child that was forced on them is, in my opinion, simply not right, for a lack of better terms. The same applies with incest. Abortion should not simply be available because a woman didn't want to use birth control, and now doesn't want the child - that's they're mistake, let them deal with it.

EDIT: Granted, this sort of case-by-case definition of legality will never happen, but it's still how I feel.

No, I'm not saying that if your mother decides to kill you, she can. Someone deciding to get an abortion, and someone just waking up one day and thinking to themselves "You know what, today I feel like murdering my child." are two completely different scenarios.