Wednesday, January 28, 2009
I'm David, and your stuck with me
Hello, I'm David. This would be a good time to leave if you don't enjoy the battle of words for dominace of an idea that is known as debate. I do enjoy a good, friendly argument, so every now and then I may switch sides completely, just to mix things up (hehehe). So... If you want to show this little punk to respect his elders, and knock him of his high horse, a word of warning. I'm not going down easily. Please, post your views, and I shall procede to fight for the right to say I'm right. Who knows, I might even lose, but then again, good luck with that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok David, how do you feel about the new move Obama did, send our taxes to pay for abortion in other countries?
ReplyDeleteOh, the fun I shall have with this blog...actually, I'm going in a similar vein as Claudia. What are your views on abortion? (And please give me the head's up if they're your actual views or if you're just playing devil's advocate.)
ReplyDeleteyes please!
ReplyDeletehehehe
ReplyDeletepersonally,(and this is really me) i think that (answering Claudia here) in third world countries, abortion should not be instantly judged with disdain. Hypothetically speaking, lets say a corrupt soldier runs into class and rapes Claudia. Let us also say that this soldier has AIDS. Even with this knoweledge Claudia maintains her devout Baptist beliefs and decides to still have the baby. A few months in, she finds out that her coconut sized baby is too big for her teen sized (oh no's, he's gonna say it) vagina. The baby might not fit, and the blood loss would leave Claudia physically devestated. If Claudia even knows about a c. section (i don' know how to speel, ucay gi's)she wants one. however, there is no doctor in Claudia's small village to perform one. With a job paying 80 cents a day, she could not afford one if she travels. 2 options, barely survive childbirth and die of starvation a few years later while the child get by in an orphanage. Grows up to be a corrupt soldier and gives a girl the AIDS he doesn't know he has, right before dying. Or... Claudia gets an abortion, and dies 3 years later from AIDS. The Choice is Claudia's. However, those who get an abortion because they don't want to have to deal with a child are not fit to be mulched into the soil in which Claudia was buried. Hypothetically, of course.
ReplyDeletefirst of all, watch it, second of all I think all US soliders at least should be tested for aids and other sexually transmitted diseases. The instead of or money going to kill that child our money should be going towards c sections and other things that may save a child. So it sounds like ur mind is perfectly fine with murder of an innocent child! Second of all david I would like to send another thought toward you. Abortion does not only hurt children, it HURTS WOMEN. It could damage her so she could not have a child when she is ready. It can even kill a woman. So I think the real question is David. Would it be diffrent in my village if YOUR and MY taxes were paying for soilders to shoot innocent children in the streets. Would it bother you then. Now I know u are going to go all anti bush again but david. Any children that have been killed in wars by our soilders was because they were trained to come up and kill our children. Now lets go back to the americas, if some crazy guy walked into a kendergarden and started shooting how would that be any diffrent. BOTH are alive BOTH are innocent. Plus, I dont plan on going to some third world country and get raped anytime soon. So lets say you get a girl pregnant. Would you be ok if an innocent child and even the girl was killed because of YOUR stupid mistake? And plus, how would said soilder get into class and why would he rape me? And it is not because Im baptist. Girls at my church are pro death I mean pro choice... It is my personal views. So think before U judge.
ReplyDeleteclaudia i didn't mean you personally were going to get raped. I was trying to get you to put your mind beyond that of a cushy american and think about a girl who doesn't know Christianity and doesn't have a preacher telling how these things are wrongs and how there is an almighty god. All that girl knows is fear of black magic, respect for voodoo, and the need to survive. She does not have the luxury to debate whether her actions are good or evil, she is struggling to survive. My sister went to Zambia on her own and volunteered in an AIDS orphanage. I did not mention Bush one time, and do not bring up our petty differences in this blog. We are both Americans, we are both blessed, and we only had a 1/3 chance of being born in a country where our survival was not a priviledge, it was a right. Now when my sister worked at that orphanage, there were masses of baby infants that would not survive for the year. Tell me, did they deserve that torture, to starve slowly, before dying of diarreha. You also make it sound like you support the girl who ditches her baby in a dumpster because she's too embarrased to put it up for adoption, over the girl who gets an abortion so she can stay in school. If you value the creation of life so much you would rather see it dwindle away than never have it develop, then every period you ever had was an opportunity for life that YOU THREW AWAY! Come back to me when you've had every child in your ovaries! ON A side note... I am not trying to support abortion, I am trying to dissuade the fanatically blind faith afforded only by the wealthy (i'm talking about America as a whole) that lets you feel at ease to say that there is NO situation that is exempt. My turn, do you believe that you have to accept Jesus as your savior to go to heaven? In other words, to you have to be a Christian in order to recieve the rewards of the Kingdom Of Heaven?
ReplyDeleteSasha, im waaaaaaiiiiiiiiittttttttttiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnngg. You have to come to Claudia's aid, she's starting run out of material other than her no-choice propaganda
ReplyDeleteOkay, you and Claudia have gotten into quite a debate, so I'll have to tackle this one point at a time. In regard to your first comment, where you talk about how a teenage girl might not be physically strong enough to give birth, I'd like to point out the majority of pro-life people (myself included) believe that an abortion is acceptable if the mother's life is at stake. There is absolutely no point in having the mother die in childbirth, leaving her baby motherless, IF it survives the complications that corrupted its birth at all. So, yes, I agree with you that especially in a third world country, where safe medical treatment is not necessarily available, that an abortion might be the better choice.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. There are different rules in third world countries, where overpopulation and poor medical treatment are a problem. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the fact that 93% of abortions take place because the child is unwanted. Not because of rape, incest, or potentially unsafe birth. 93% of abortions are based on nothing but selfish behavior. Now, imagine a teenage girl gets pregnant. I understand that if she's 16 years old, she doesn't want to keep the baby. She SHOULDN’T keep the baby. She’s a child herself; she’d be a terrible mother. However, if the birth is going to go safely, there is absolutely NO reason for her to abort the child. True, she'll be humiliated, branded a skank, and possibly ostracized by her peers. However, aborting the child is the same as saying that the life of another human being isn't worth her stupid reputation. The reputation SHE destroyed through her own selfish behavior. Aborting the child to save her reputation is purely selfish. Her right to have sex before marriage does NOT come before the right of her child to a life of its own! That is what it comes down to. If she's going to insist of doing it before she's married, she has to pay the price when things go wrong. This is 100% HER mistake. Her child should not have to pay for that.
Now, moving on to the exceptions. Say a girl is raped and gets pregnant. I, personally, still don't think it's excusable to abort. Wouldn't you love the child no matter who the father was? However, I obviously have no concept for how traumatic an experience rape would be, so I suppose I would have to read some psychological study over the emotional health of the mother who aborts, versus the one who gives birth to the child and either raises it or gives it up for adoption. So, what I'm saying is, I'm really in no place to judge a woman who is impregnated after some sort of abuse.
However, I personally don't believe that this makes abortion right. In my personal opinion, a woman who is raped should still be required to keep the baby. However, I'm not saying we cast her to the streets. This is where the government steps in. I believe that she should receive government compensation for the money she is losing while on maternity leave, to pay for medical bills, and also, money to pay for therapy, to make sure she remains emotionally healthy. Should she decide to keep the child, she should also receive welfare to help raise it. I also believe our government should clean up the adoption system so that, should the mother feel the need to give up her child, she can feel that it is going into a safe, caring system. (The difference between this scenario and the one discussed above is that the first girl got pregnant through her own careless fault. A girl who is raped is done so through no fault of her own, and definitely deserves the support of the community to help her along.)
However, all the opinions I’ve just listed above are pretty much moot, because they are my own personal values. In actuality, there is no way in this world that abortion should be outlawed because mankind is not that sympathetic. Abortion rates would go down SOME if it were deemed unconstitutional, sure, but there would be other problems. There would always be the mothers that attempt to abort their children in unsafe ways, potentially failing, and harming themselves in the process.
So, though I personally remain pro-life, I don't think abortion should be outlawed. I do support stricter government regulations on abortions, however (I'll discuss this later) and believe that public schools should have programs promoting adoption and safe sex.
More later, but tell me what you think.
I realize that this question was directed at Claudia, but I'd like to respond to it as well. You said this: "My turn, do you believe that you have to accept Jesus as your savior to go to heaven? In other words, to you have to be a Christian in order to receive the rewards of the Kingdom Of Heaven?"
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with this statement. I'm not the world's most devout Christian, but I DO look to my faith for guidance and do my best to follow God. But to be completely honest, I don't know that I want to follow a God that would eternally damn the people He created to hell because of their beliefs. I think that God sends people to heaven based on whether or not they are a good person. Religion is a matter that is very complicated. For instance, a child who is raised an atheist may never question the beliefs that were instilled in him as a child. Does that make him a bad person for not converting to Christianity? No, of course not. On the other hand, a man who goes to Church every Sunday and teaches Sunday School etc., but who beats his wife, is NOT going to heaven.
I don't know much about God, but I believe that He is sympathetic. And I know some people (Protestants, I'm not sure which denomination specifically) who believe that since I'm a Catholic, I'm not going to heaven. We’re both Christians, but because I worship in a different way to them, I’m not worthy to worship God! I think that is pathetic and ridiculous. So Mother Theresa, one of the greatest humanitarians the world has ever known, is damned to burn in hell because she was a CATHOLIC? What about Mahatma Ghandi? He was a Hindu. He freed an entire nation of people; what's more, he did it in a peaceful manner. Is he not going to heaven because he was a Hindu?
People who believe that only a certain group of people are going to heaven suffer from a serious insecurity. They are merely guilty because of their own sins and need to adopt a Holier-than-thou attitude to make themselves feel like, yes, they are worthy of getting to heaven.
In fact, I would venture to say that it's BLASPHEMOUS to say that our God is so cruel to deny someone access to heaven based purely on the beliefs with which they were raised.
This is one topic that just boils my blood. Men were created equal. It says so in the Bible. ANYONE willing to deny this, even in the name of religion, is a pure bigot.
In my comment about abortion I mentioned that I thought the government should restrict abortions in certain circumstances. I'm mainly referring to the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA.) I'm sure you're familiar with this document. It is a federal act that my Church is protesting that basically is trying to make an abortion available at any time, for anyone, with no restrictions whatsoever. Now, hear me out -- FOCA IS NOT SIMPLY TRYING TO LEGALIZE ABORTION. MY CHURCH AND I ARE NOT TRYING TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL. This document says that you can abort at any time during the pregnancy, and without parental permission. It also legalizes partial birth abortion, which was outlawed about three years ago. Partial-birth abortion is a particularly gruesome form of late-term abortion that I really, really, don't want to describe to you, but it is disgusting. So here is my theory. I believe that the government should create these boundaries involving abortion (Except in the case of rape. That may or may not involve its own set of restrictions that I am in no position to judge.):
ReplyDelete1) Parental permission is necessary to go through with an abortion. (Someone mentioned what would happen if the parents were abusive; i.e. if they found out that their daughter was pregnant they would harm her or the child. In this case, they're clearly unsuitable parents, so the daughter would have to be transferred to more competent caretakers.)
2) Partial-birth abortion is illegal.
3) Abortion is illegal after a certain stage in the pregnancy. (I'd have to do some research to determine the exact time, but it could be when the child reaches a stage of development where brain activity is detectable, a certain amount of their bone structure is present, or when you can determine the gender.)
4) Both the father and the mother have to agree to abort. (Once again, if the father is abusive, this will require the interference of law enforcement.)
These four simple guidelines are, in my mind, not a whole lot to ask of the government. They are pretty basic morals. FOCA does not support these ideals. I'm not saying abortion should be outlawed, but FOCA is nothing short of horrific.
Sasha, I missed you: ) By the way, if you haven't noticed, I already agreed about pretty much everything you've said. It would appear that your on my side. Look more carefully and you might have seen some of this "I am not trying to support abortion,However, those who get an abortion because they don't want to have to deal with a child are not fit to be mulched into the soil in which Claudia was buried. Hypothetically, of course." I agree that abortion is a horrible thing, all i was trying to say was that there are real life and common instances in which abortion is acceptable. In short terms, I am neither pro-choice, which holds little value for the creation of life, nor am I strictly no-choice/Pro-life, which holds little value for the living of that life. All in all, I believe abortion is a horrible thing, but it CAN BE a neccesary one. Also, about the question of religion and Heaven, I merely meant it as a subject for debate, and I do not support the fact. I've no quarrel with you, in fact, I agree with you. You problem is with Rebekah Anderson, who I asked directly if she thought hitler was in heaven, and Ghandi was burning in hell. She replied that because hitler committed suicide, he was in hell, however, she said that SO WAS GHANDI! I couldn't believe it. However, you and I combined (mainly you)might even turn it into law, I have to play d.a. P.s. That was for Claudia, I wanted to see what she thought. However, even if she disagreed with us, she wouldn't say so now you've arrived.
ReplyDelete( ( ) )
ReplyDelete' '
;
___
(devil)
Actually Sasha, in the Bible, i-ahhh s@*t, too hard, I can't do it. Oh well, you talk to Rebecca, this subject is over on the blog, I can't go so strongly against my beliefs.
P.S. "My turn, do you believe that you have to accept Jesus as your savior to go to heaven? In other words, to you have to be a Christian in order to receive the rewards of the Kingdom Of Heaven?" is not a statement.
ReplyDeleteYes, I caught what you said about not liking abortion personally. And that made me pretty darn happy.
ReplyDeleteAnd I also realize that you were in no way advocating the belief that non-Christians are not going to heaven. I don't plan on bringing it up with Rebekah Anderson, however. If she chooses to confront me about this, she can, but I have no interest in arguing with her if it isn't necessary. I think she's really nice, so, don't give her the impression that I think anything otherwise, in spite of our religious differences.
I'm sensing some resentment toward Claudia on your part, btw. Why else would you direct that question toward her? She's not a bigot. Give her more credit. You seem to be making generalizations about her simply because she's a Baptist, and proud to be a Southerner. Cut her a break.
first of all shephard, I do not agree with Every thing Sasha states! Second of all dont insult rebekah's beliefs just u may not agree with but u should not post bad things about her online. She is a nice person, just because u may not agree with her does not mean u should attack her! Also dont automatically asssume somethin about me. U think southern baptist republican and automatically assume things. I am not southern baptist, Im coorpertive Im more loose. But dont judge a book by its cover, I will continue more when my fiery redheaded self is not about scream. Hope that u are not near me rite now for I have on 4 inch stalettos and a pink bb gun and I am pmsing! So back off!
ReplyDeletePS You're right, that isn't a statement. It's a question. Thanks for the condescending comment.
ReplyDeleteAnd I saw Claudia's comment -- she's right. She doesn't agree with everything I say. Believe me. We have debates of our own, thank you very much. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe my friends happen to agree with me so much because what I saw actually makes sense?
ReplyDeleteNow, I think it's your turn. Come up with something to debate about. :)
I am caught in crossfire, and I'm sure you are both enjoying it. First, I don't care about what branch of Christianity you are it's all the same 2 me. Second, I wasn't saying Claudia thought the answer was yes to my question, I just wanted to see what she though. I personally though she would say "of course not, look at Ghandi" all on her own. I just wanted debate something. CHILL OUT. Neither did I insult Rebekah, even once. I merely said I didn't agree with her statement. I didn't mean to imply that Claudia would just turn merely for the fact you disagreed with her. I was Freaken trying to compliment you, saying your opening argument was so good it would be immpossible to come up with a counter argument. So get of my back if youre just coming down here to blow fire at me and take everything personally. I actually hold you in higher regard than I do myself. It's not that I worship you, its that I have self-esteem issues that only my closest friends know about. So I was not trying to be deruagatory, i was just trying to state that I didn't nessecarily agree with my question. I harbor no resentment towards claudia. Claudia I built this blog for you, basically. I do count you among my friends, even if it is not returned. I assume nothing, I've known you for 3 years, and i have come to respect you. the pik bb gun sounds awesome. I know you two don't always agree, i've seen you debating. New question, and i'm not trying to stir up controvesy, seeing as you guys then team up to throw insults my way. What new outfit for spring fashion do you want in your closet. Well I'm sorry. Happy?
ReplyDeleteI have no intention of throwing insults your way, David. In spite of the fact that I don't speak a whole lot, I'm a pretty emotional person when I DO. This is just the way I talk. You're one of the smartest people I know (and I'm not just saying that -- you and Audra are probably two of the smartest people I've ever met) and I really do enjoy talking to you. I consider you my friend and I HOPE that you consider me one, too. I like reading your arguments because, well, I like debating, and I like debating with INTELLIGENT people.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to team up against you; you should hear me on the phone with Claudia remarking that the things you said to her weren't really that bad. I don't think you were attacking Rebekah, you were just making an innocent comment.
We're not teaming up against you, but we both have a bit of a soft spot when you talk about her joining my side just because we're friends. I guess because people have accused us of that before. If you're saying you DON'T believe that, than fine. I apologize for getting defensive. 100% my mistake. And please, please, PLEASE don't say you hold me in higher regard than you do yourself. You don't need to. I'm not any smarter than you.
You can see where I'd think you resent Claudia though -- you've gotten annoyed about her Southern accent, you accuse us of being Mr. Weldon's pets (as though we don't get good grades in that class because we make intelligent comments, but because he for some impossible reason hates you and likes us -- and I pretty much had a heart attack when you said you consider her a friend. So understand what position I'm coming from.
However, I'm GLAD you don't resent her, or me; I guess you're pretty much like me -- one of those people who is cursed with others thinking they mean things they only said in emotion. My friends accuse me of getting into "fights" all the time when it's nothing but pure debate. So I can relate.
I hope that clears things up. I hope you can see where I'm coming from, but I'm GLAD I was wrong. If you're still interested in debating, I'd like to continue. I think this is fun and I didn't mean to make this personal.
Where should the US Army be deployed? Afgahnistan, Iraq, Iran, Darfur, Uganda, Zimbamwe, Canada?
ReplyDeleteOk. Thanks. David u have no clue how hard this is to say for me but...
ReplyDeleteIm sry....
I have a real ill temper and Hey not only am I a redneck but Im a fiery redhead. And to top things off Im a drama queen! So Im sorry if my emotions got in the way, but I do hope to carry on chatting. It really is gentetic. My Grandmother cant say a word without yelling getting emotional and using the term, "My god". Which always is replied to my dad replying in "hes my god too mama" so ya...
As for the deployment I vote that we need to finish up what we are doing in Iraq befroe we quit cold turkey for 2 simple reasons.
1) When we entered Iraq we promised them that we would not do what we did to Vietnam.
2) How many attcks have happened to the US since we invaded, (And I am only counting 911 attacks) ?? NONE!
I think that as much as all of the countries above need help,( except canda all they have is a few problem with drunken mounties peeing in Niagra Falls (:) We should finish up Iraq then split half of our troops to Afghanistan and then let the United Nations not the United States try to figure out a solution before we lay our mens lives down for them. I do believe that Iraq has tought us all something. I do think that we should have gone into Iraq but I also believe that we are eventually going to leave but I pray not too early.
As for the fashion bit, I dont care as long as it is pink.
For now, we should not embark on any new military endeavors. Our troops should be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan until a stable government has been established and terrorism is minimized to a point where their own governments can handle it.
ReplyDeleteI'll talk about the other locations in a minute -- I have to do some research, to be honest. However, I have no doubt in my mind that we should NOT leave Iraq or Afghanistan until they are both completely stable. Until we achieve this, we should not send our military anywhere else. I don't believe in doing things half way.
Okay, first of all, I see absolutely no reason to invade Canada. Unless I'm missing something, that just seems pointless. (Though my Dad might disagree. We were once at a dinner party with like a dozen Canadians and he decided to tell them all of his proposition that Canada should be made the 51st state. THAT went well.)
ReplyDeleteAs for Iran, I would imagine how direct a risk they pose to us. If it is not a direct risk, I would stay away from Iran because attacking the Middle East is no longer the same as simply attacking another country. Because it has to do with terrorism, the repercussions could be enormous -- there's a chain reaction. If we're going to tackle terrorism, we need to do it with the full support of the United Nations and with some powerful allies. Terrorism is too wide-spread for one nation to battle on its own. So, in my opinion, Iran can wait until we're prepared to wage a full-out war on the entire terrorist community. This WILL be World War 3, and it WILL get ugly, and it will NOT work unless we have absolutely not disagreement on the part of the rest of the world.
Now, Darfur, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. (I know you haven't brought up Bush, but I'd just like to point out to anyone who'd care to listen that Bush has given more money to Africa than any of our previous Presidents, in spite of what the left might assume.)
Now, in my opinion, Zimbabwe is the worst civil right atrocity out of the three. However, it's even more unstable than Iraq. I don't know that our budget and military can handle another massive take-over -- we would have to overthrow there government. As Iraq taught us, this is NEVER simple. So, as much as I think we need to intervene in Zimbabwe, it would probably be more prudent to involve ourselves in the affairs of Uganda or Darfur.
The choice would depend on circumstances.
Darfur is too great a tragedy to be neglected, but, like Zimbabwe, would require an overthrow of the entire government. We could only stabilize Darfur with the help of the United Nations and several very powerful allies (Russia, China, India and Germany are shown to be the most powerful in terms of numbers, in terms of their access to nuclear weapons, the most powerful are Russia, China, France and India.)
Were we not able to get our act together and agree on a detailed, well-thought-out plan of attack and reform for Darfur, as well as gather up the funds to pay for it, it would be the logical choice to interfere in Uganda.
While, once again, we would certainly need allies, the situation in Uganda is slightly more manageable than in Darfur or Zimbabwe.
Keep in mind that I made up these opinions after reading a brief history of each nation's warfare on wikipedia. So I'm prone to changing my mind easily.
Ahh... finally I take the time to join this blog. I can't wait to debate with intelligent people. That is something I've been waiting on for awhile. Ok.. while I may regret this, David give me your best questions to answer. And while your at it, check out my blog too.
ReplyDeleteOkay, first of all, I see absolutely no reason to invade Canada. Unless I'm missing something, that just seems pointless. (Though my Dad might disagree. We were once at a dinner party with like a dozen Canadians and he decided to tell them all of his proposition that Canada should be made the 51st state. THAT went well.)
ReplyDeleteDid I mention how much I like ur dad!
As for the allies that we mite need sasha, lets look at how many of them like us...
Russia, China, India and Germany are shown to be the most powerful in terms of numbers, in terms of their access to nuclear weapons, the most powerful are Russia, China, France and India.)
Our relationships with russia and china are to bipolar! I personally have no clue how India Germany and us are. And Im pretty sure that France "Hates our stupid american guts. I spit on you filthy american!" (That statement would have been said in a bad french accent if I was able to, but since Im home sick and bareley able to talk let alone sing, its not happening.) So when WW3 happens, (if it most likely will) we NEED to make more allies So lets pray that the prez and the UN get our acts together man!
David, loved the fact that you said you loved the beatles. why'd your interest have to be girls?? oh well, i'm in the process of setting up a blog and i hope u check it out. any tips on how to start one??????
ReplyDeletehow do you guys know so much about polotics?
ReplyDeleteDear Lauren, would you prefere my interests be guys????
ReplyDeleteIt's 11:25 i'm off to bed, i respond 2 everything in morning
ReplyDeletewell david, to answer the question you directed at lauren:
ReplyDeleteno, we would not prefer ur interest to be guys, however, we would be less surprised.
;) you know im kidding. now get typing. im getting bored waiting for u to respond. im out of ppl to argue with.
David?? can you start a new comment section? this one's getting kind of full....just sayin...
ReplyDeleteno david i'm not prefering you to have an interest in guys... i'd be a bit scared. anyways, what's your take on our new president?? he hasn't done much yet, (well, it is only a month into his term) but he looks promising. hmmm, anyone?
ReplyDeleteby the way, stepmother, (haha u know who i'm talking about) i guess u can say i answered your post. we can argue about obama!
ReplyDeleteI agree we should finish up our current deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, but can't we get some treadstone assaination thing on Mugabe. However, 9-11 happened after we entered the Middle East, look up Bush senior and clintons presidencies.
ReplyDelete